1960-01-22

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word or two respecting the visit, just concluding, of the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Japan. As hon. members are aware, we have had the pleasure during the last two days of a visit by the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr. Kishi, who is accompanied by his foreign minister, Mr. Fujiyama.
I regret that owing to pressures on his time which hon. members can appreciate since Mr. Kishi must return for the reopening of the Japanese Diet on January 28, the Prime Minister is unable to spend longer with us. I am pleased to report to the house, however, that in the short space of time available I, together with my colleagues the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), have had most satisfactory exchanges of views with our Japanese guests on the international situation, trade relations between Canada and Japan and other subjects of mutual interest. I may say in all sincerity that the cordiality and frankness which characterized these exchanges were a gratifying testimonial to the friendly relations and confidence existing between Canada and Japan.
Our conversations covered such questions as the importance to both our countries of continued co-operation within the United Nations and the prospects afforded by the forthcoming east-west meeting of heads of states for the alleviation of world tensions, particularly for some progress on the all-important questions of controlled disarmament and the cessation of nuclear tests. In this connection I might note that we are both agreed that exchanges of visits between national leaders can make a significant contribution to increasing the area of confidence that must necessarily precede any durable improvement in international relations.
Discussing the mutual concern of Canada and Japan with the problem of aid to underdeveloped countries, we also found ourselves in complete agreement on the importance of the Colombo plan, not only for improving
the conditions of life and future prospects of the recipient countries but also for improving general relations through the exchanges of students and technicians.
The discussions of economic questions were particularly useful. We reviewed trade matters of general interest, including the important developments which have been taking place in western Europe.
Ministers of both countries noted with satisfaction the progress that had been achieved in developing trade in both directions under our trade agreement. We emphasized the importance we attach to the Japanese market for wheat and for a number of other products. Canadian ministers drew attention to problems of particular difficulty for Canadian industry arising out of rapid increases in imports from Japan which have been highly concentrated in certain lines. It was agreed that solutions for these problems should be sought as quickly as possible.
In conclusion I should like to let the house know that Mr. Kishi has invited me to make a return visit to Japan. In expressing my warm appreciation of this invitation I informed the Japanese Prime Minister that I sincerely hoped such a visit would be possible at a time convenient both to Mr. Kishi and myself.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of Ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all hon. members of the house will have heard with pleasure that the very welcome visit to Ottawa which we recognized in the house yesterday, of the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Japan was such a satisfactory one. I am sure it will make a contribution to the development and strengthening of the political and economic co-operation which has existed between the two countries at the United Nations, the Colombo plan meetings and elsewhere.
It was an unhappy coincidence that this visit should have coincided with the tragic death of a Canadian who himself, as the ambassador of Canada to Japan, had done so much in strengthening those ties. I am referring, of course, to Mr. Tommy Davis. This visit has underlined the importance of Japan's political and economic relations to Canada. I think it is true now that Japan is our third largest customer and is of vital importance in our developing markets for Canadian wheat in Asia. It is, of course, important that nothing should be done in

Proposed Legislation
either country to interfere with the healthy and important development of this trade between our two countries.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: As I said earlier, we in this group are very pleased that the premier of Japan was able to visit Canada. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the statement just made by our Prime Minister. I do not think there were any surprises in that statement. It was couched in the very careful diplomatic language that usually follows such a friendly visit from the head of a friendly government, but we hope that in the days ahead concrete advantages from this visit will flow to our country and to the people of Japan. We trust that everything possible will be done to increase trade and good economic relations between our countries.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to indulge in debate, but with the permission of the house I should like to join with the Leader of the Opposition in his reference to Hon. T. C. Davis, whose contribution to those relations in question has been so outstanding and who through many years contributed so much not only to the province of Saskatchewan but also to the country as a whole.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I may crave the indulgence of the house I should like to associate myself in this regard with the words of the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. Since I come from Saskatchewan I, of course, am well acquainted with the distinguished career of Hon. T. C. Davis in my province and the very valuable work he did on behalf of Canada for so many years. It was with great regret that we learned of his passing.



PUBLIC LANDS GRANTS ACT


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-36, to amend the Public Lands Grants Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT ACT


Douglas Mason Fisher: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-37, to amend the Library of Parliament Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Douglas Mason Fisher: This bill is designed to carry out the ideals expressed in this house several years ago by the hon. member for

York-Humber. It will require the librarian of parliament and the associate librarian of parliament to have recognized library training and to have put in some years of experience in library work.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in order to facilitate and expedite the business of the house during this session, he would be in a position to let us know as soon as possible the priority to be given in respect of the timing of some of the major pieces of legislation that will be before the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think that would be a very laudable objective, and I will certainly do what I can at the earliest possible moment, well in advance of the date of introduction within the limitations that are natural and obvious, to indicate the order in which legislation will be introduced.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour; I am sorry I have not been able to send notice. My question arises out of countless protests that new regulations under the Unemployment Insurance Act now defraud unemployed persons of holiday and severance pay by exercising a penalty before insurance benefits are paid. Is any consideration being given to rescinding these unfair regulations?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minisier of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker, no consideration is being given at the moment to rescinding these regulations. As to the remark of the hon. member about defrauding, most certainly there is no intention on the part of the unemployment insurance commission to carry out any fraud with respect to those receiving benefits.


Hazen Robert Argue: Was the advice of the unemployment insurance advisory committee sought before these unfair and vicious regulations were introduced?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows it is not proper in asking questions to make such positive statements of opinion. He is supposed to be seeking information. If he makes a statement of that kind he only invites debate, because obviously such expressions of opinion are not going to be accepted without challenge.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether I might ask a further supplementary question. Was the advice of the unemployment insurance advisory committee sought before these sweeping new regulations were put into effect?


Michael Starr: The unemployment insurance commission requested that these regulations be put into effect. Whether that was done on the advice of the advisory committee I do not know.


Hazen Robert Argue: Has the minister or the department received protests from spokesmen for the trade union movement regarding these regulations?


Michael Starr: There have been a few protests, yes.


Michael Starr: May I, with the consent of the house, in view of the question which was put to me by the hon. member for Assiniboia- and I know this raises a matter which needs clarification in the minds of many hon. members of this house-as well as the charges which the hon. member made with respect to the regulation as it applies to vacation pay-be permitted to make a brief statement on the effects of this regulation at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister the leave of the house to make a more extensive answer regarding these regulations?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: These regulations became effective on September 27 last, prior to which date there prevailed a situation whereby a claimant received unemployment insurance benefit and holiday pay at the same time. The purpose of unemployment insurance is to partially replace lost income and until that loss occurs benefit does not come into play.
Perhaps an explanation of the situation as it was prior to September 27 will help hon. members to understand why a change in the regulations was necessary. This was a common occurrence, and here is an example: a person separated from employment, say in November, was unable to obtain suitable employment and properly made a claim for, and was paid, unemployment insurance benefit. At that time any holiday pay he
Inquiries of the Ministry received was ignored. Subsequently this person obtained employment, but when a plant shut-down for holidays occurred at his new place of employment he had no holiday credits because of his short service. He again applied for, and was paid, unemployment insurance benefit. I feel sure we will all agree that one or at least part of one of these periods during which the man was not working must be recognized as a period of holiday. It is that recognition that the new regulation affords.
I might point out also that in the vast majority of these cases of benefit, it is not paid because of holiday pay. This is not lost entirely to the person, because the payment for the holiday is simply deferred to the end of the period.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that the condition which now prevails under the new regulations applied prior to 1952 and was reversed at that time?


Michael Starr: I am unable to answer that question, Mr. Speaker. I have not that knowledge.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the reason for this new regulation an endeavour to protect a rapidly diminishing unemployment insurance fund?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker. This was to rectify what was considered by the unemployment insurance commission as an anomaly and, in most cases, unfair treatment of the claimant.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the acute position of the unemployment insurance fund, which has been decreased by over 50 per cent in the last two years-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: There has been no question put about the unemployment insurance fund, so the hon. member's question cannot be supplementary. If the hon. member wants to ask a question about the unemployment insurance fund which is urgent I will have to hear it, but I think any question on that point could well go on the order paper.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingafe):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the last question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia had direct reference to the unemployment insurance fund.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, and the question was not properly in order, either. The hon. member for Broome.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, am I to take this as notice of a change in the name of my riding? Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question in regard to holiday pay to which the minister referred. Is that time included in the waiting period as to when benefits can be drawn? In other words, does the waiting period start after the holiday pay period has ended?


Michael Starr: I am uncertain about that, Mr. Speaker, but I would presume that the holiday pay is computed as an earning based on the average per week that the person earned prior to that period, and when that earning is computed then the application for unemployment insurance is made and the waiting period must, of course, follow.


Frank Howard: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall allow one more supplementary question, but this seems to be becoming a general debate on unemployment insurance regulations.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the minister if he would consider allowing an individual to make unemployment insurance contributions from his holiday pay and have that considered as a period of employment as well as the first contribution.


Michael Starr: That is something that would have to be discussed with the unemployment insurance commission which governs the administration of the act.



INQUIRY AS TO MEASURES TO REPLENISH FUND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. As the unemployment insurance fund has decreased by over 50 per cent in the last two years and is now in a very critical position, is it the intention of the government to introduce measures at an early date or during the present session to replenish this fund?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in the last two or three months prior to December 31, 1959, the unemployment insurance fund has increased. We hope that with the new rates of contribution which became effective as of October 1 last the fund will show a definite increase. We must also take cognizance of the fact that action has been taken by the government to stimulate our economy and thus more people are working and will be contributing to the fund.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if his attention has been directed to the statement in today's press attributed to the foreign minister of the so-called Chinese people's republic regarding current discussions on disarmament, and also the statement attributed to the state department of the United States commenting upon the views put forward by that foreign minister with respect to participation in disarmament discussions and the attitude that the government of China would take toward any disarmament treaty. Has the minister any comment which he feels might usefully be made at this time in view of the fact that Canada is a member of the ten power disarmament commission?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have seen two dispatches, one in the Gazette and the other in the Globe and Mail. The heading of the article in the Gazette is, I think, quite misleading. It says "Red China Demands Disarmament Role." Then the first paragraph reads:
Red China today served notice on the world it wants equal say with other big powers in any talks on global disarmament.
Then the next paragraph says this:
This was how many observers here interpreted a statement by Foreign Minister Chen Yi to a session of the standing committee of the national people's congress, China's parliament.
I think that certainly is not the interpretation to be put on the quoted words of the Chinese foreign minister, which appear farther down in the article:
China is ready unhesitatingly to commit itself to international obligations to which it agrees.
However, any international disarmament agreement which is arrived at without formal participation of the Chinese people's republic or the signature of its delegates cannot of course have any binding force on China.
Well, the hon. member will realize that every nation in the world is in that position; it would not be formally bound by any disarmament arrangement until it had agreed to that arrangement.
There is also a report in the Globe and Mail from Washington with a comment from the United States state department but it does not say that China is being asked to participate in the disarmament talks. The statement merely is that at some later stage perhaps there would be consultation. The actual situation is that at the Geneva

meetings last summer the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet union themselves set up this disarmament committee composed of five nations from the west and five nations from the east. Of course Canada is one of the five western nations, and there is no suggestion at all that there should be a change in that ten member disarmament committee.
We have pressed from the start for negotiations to be undertaken promptly because we feel it would be very disadvantageous to have any delay or stalling. As the hon. member knows, during the meetings in Paris in December the foreign ministers of the five western members of this disarmament committee met and invited the five eastern members to commence negotiations on March 15. This invitation was accepted and negotiations will commence on March 15. In addition, the five western nations met on January 18 in Washington to commence their preparations for the main meeting, and there is to be another meeting on January 25 in Washington. There is no suggestion that there should be a change in the plan to have these ten nations deal with negotiations on the question of disarmament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question. Would it be the view of the government that in the event of agreement on disarmament, the government of the Chinese people's republic would be asked to adhere or become obligated to its provisions in order to make disarmament generally effective?


Howard Charles Green: No doubt that would be one of the questions which would be considered in due course. I believe we must take one step at a time in this new approach to disarmament. The immediate problem is to reach some agreement with the five eastern powers which are to be members of the ten power team.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: May I
ask a supplementary question. Will the minister secure all the facts behind this news dispatch and later make a statement to the house as to the government's position with respect to this new development?


Howard Charles Green: I think I have already dealt with the question and made the government's position quite clear. I cannot go any farther, certainly at the present time. If there should be new developments, we will be very glad to take the house into our confidence.
Inquiries of the Ministry


COLOMBO PLAN-REPORTED NON-APPLICATION TO BURMA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Arising out of the minister's reply, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he would comment on a report from Rangoon by the far eastern correspondent of the Toronto Globe and Mail that Canada has informed the Burmese government that Burma can expect nothing now under the Colombo plan except surplus food supplies, and that technical aid has been stopped?


Howard Charles Green: Yes. I saw this dispatch, which had as the heading "Canada Yawns". I think the reporter who wrote that dispatch should yawn and wake up. The fact is that our relations with Burma are exceedingly good. I have here a statement which I was prepared to make yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, I have seen the news report to which my hon. friend has referred -


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In order to keep the record clear, I wonder whether the house would give the minister leave to make a statement at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: I really am not making a statement, Mr. Speaker. I am answering a question and I welcome this opportunity to comment on it. The Leader of the Opposition was just a day late.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You were a day late.


Howard Charles Green: In the first place, the article says that Canada's role in providing aid to Burma has been limited to technical aid programs and the allocation of surplus food. The fact is that since 1957, in addition to substantial quantities of Canadian foodstuffs, Canada has agreed to provide capital and technical equipment worth over $578,000. This has included equipment for agricultural workshops, fisheries and prospecting equipment, a Canadian survey of highways in Burma, the provision of Canadian experts to Burma and the training of Burmese in this country, that is to say in Canada.
In addition, I can assure the house that the current aid program for Burma includes capital and technical assistance in addition to foodstuffs. As with all other Colombo plan countries, the Canadian aid program for Burma is worked out in detailed consultations with the Burmese government which are based on requests submitted by them. The program for Burma for 1959-60 is still

Inquiries of the Ministry being negotiated between Canadian and Burmese officials, and when these negotiations have been completed I will be pleased to inform the house of the details.
With regard to the statement in the article in the Globe and Mail that the Burmese government had been informed that henceforth they might expect to receive nothing but surplus foodstuffs from Canada, in view of what I have just said it will be clear that Canada has never made any such statement to the Burmese government. As a matter of fact, in November the Solicitor General visited Burma during the time he was in the Far East in connection with the Colombo plan meetings. He inspected some of the results of our aid to Burma, including a Cobalt bomb installation, and had a most friendly talk with members of the Burmese government. I had the same experience at the United Nations, where I struck up a firm friendship with the foreign minister of Burma; and our relations with that country, as I said in opening, are particularly good. I regret that a statement should have been published in the Canadian press of the nature of the one to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Will the minister confirm, as stated in today's Globe and Mail, that the cabinet has commuted the death sentence of Stephen Truscott to life imprisonment?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicitor General):: Yes, sir. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to announce that the Truscott sentence has been commuted.


Leon David Crestohl: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the house whether it is the intention to arrange that this 15 year old boy will be placed in a reformatory rather than in a penitentiary?


Léon Balcer: This question is under very serious consideration.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF CORRECTIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is he in a position to indicate to the house when we may expect to have the completed report of the correctional planning committee?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, this report is in the course of final drafting now, and parts of it have already been discussed with the committee. I think I should emphasize that it is in the nature of a report and recommendations to me as Minister of Justice made by officials in the public service now working in my department, and it is not in any sense in the nature of a report from an outside body.



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport relative to the sudden rise of the river at Montreal and the consequent damage from flooding conditions. What is the minister's department doing to alleviate these conditions, and why were icebreakers not put into operation sooner?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I will check up on this matter and report.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidiclison (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would he give information to the house as to any progress that has been made with respect to an offer I believe he made for the disposal of surplus pork so that it might get into the hands of charitable organizations and Indian and Eskimo residential schools, and perhaps into the hands of individuals who are in receipt of public welfare?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Considerable interest has been shown in this offer. I wrote letters to the premiers of all the provinces making it known to them and asking them, if they were interested, to name somebody to deal with the stabilization board in securing supplies of this canned pork. We have now had replies from Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, all of whom have expressed interest in securing supplies. We have also had inquiries from a considerable number of charitable organizations. We have made arrangements to make certain amounts of pork available to some of those organizations-



I960

[Stage Direction]
The majority of them actually will secure their supplies through the pork we make available to the provincial governments.
We have also had a great deal of interest shown in this offer by international organizations. We have now had requests from CARE, the save the children fund, the Unitarian service committee of Canada, UNICEF, the Red Cross, Lutheran world relief, and the Canadian Council of Churches. Their requests up to date are for about 74 million pounds, and they have indicated that they would like to have considerably more than that. The requests in Canada to date total about 34 million pounds.
William Moore Benidickson: I have a supplementary question. Will the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration indicate to what extent she has taken advantage of the offer to assure these supplies for Indian residential schools?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I shall be
obliged to inquire from my department as to what requests have been made, but I shall be glad to do that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think I could indicate that for Indian schools there was an initial request some time ago for 80,000 pounds, with an indication that more would be required; and for northern affairs an initial request for 900,000 pounds, for use particularly as far as Eskimos are concerned.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think perhaps I should add, to what I said previously about pork disposal, that the figures I gave are as of seven or eight days ago and not as of today. The figures for today, therefore, may be considerably greater.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works concerning the proposed causeway for Prince Edward Island. I should like to ask him whether research is continuing on this great project, and whether he is in a position to say when the report on the studies made may be completed.


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question and, in reply, to say that research is continuing on the study of wave height and run-up which affects the cross section, size and shape of armour stone and
Inquiries of the Ministry the crest height. An examination of this is being done by theoretical analysis as well as field correlation. Through the national research council a model study is being set up to check these items. Further investigation is also being conducted in connection with the ice pressures. Final reports will not be available until these are completed, which will probably take several months. An interim report will be available in approximately one month.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question. Could I ask the minister if he has any approximate estimate of cost at present?


David James Walker: There is no approximate estimate of cost. As the hon. gentleman must realize, until this matter has been gone into fully, any estimate of cost would be pure conjecture.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then I ask the minister how he was able to say that figures which had been published were fantastic?


David James Walker: If the hon. member wants an answer to that question I do not mind at all giving it. The original estimate as to the cost of this causeway was $60 million without railway accommodation, or $90 million with such accommodation. That was some time ago. Since then our research and investigation into this project has got under way and we have met with tremendous problems, which of course would greatly increase the cost of such a causeway. Consequently, until these problems are analysed and the final reports made it would be impossible for me to come up with another estimate. Nevertheless I do say that the figure which has been bruited about-that it will be between $480 million and $540 million-is to my mind and to the minds of the engineers of my department a fantastic estimate. It is much too high.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister answer the question I asked him on Tuesday, I think it was, in connection with the dispute between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the radio and television operaters?


Michael Starr: have received the following report on this dispute; that following the resumption of work last March an arbitrator was appointed

Inquiries of the Ministry in accordance with the terms of the settlement to decide certain issues between the parties. These issues were complex, and the arbitration proceedings consequently have been lengthy and time consuming. The parties appeared before the arbitrator on December 23, and I understand that the matter now rests with the arbitrator.
There is reference to a decision of some sort in the Montreal Gazette of this morning, but I have not as yet been advised of the official decision or of the terms of any final settlement.


Lionel Chevrier: Has the arbitrator actually handed down his decision?


Michael Starr: I was only referring to a news report in this morning's Gazette; nothing official.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. The Canadian National and Canadian Pacific telegraph offices in Fort William have recently merged into one office, with a pooling of revenues and expense arrangements. Can the minister inform the house if similar amalgamations of telegraph offices are being contemplated in other parts of Canada?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I have been in touch with the management of the Canadian National Railways and expect to have an answer shortly.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General while he is in Canada. While he was on a trip to Lima, Peru, an important robbery occurred in Ste. Adele involving the sum of $40,000. Is the minister in a position to give us some details about the robbery; and will he also tell the house-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether the hon. member speaks for those who have lost money, but it seems to me that if we dealt with matters of that kind on orders of the day there would be quite a lot of time taken up unnecessarily.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order raised by Your Honour, I should like to remind Your Honour that this was a favourite question on orders of the day by the present Postmaster General over a long period when I was acting postmaster general.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: But
not preceded by snide comments.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And not something weeks old. It was current.


Mr. Speaker:: If in the opinion of the hon. member the matter is urgent I do not wish to suppress his question.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, such a large amount is involved that it is in the interests of the public to have the Postmaster General give us the details about it. I want to know if the post office was as well protected as it should have been, and I believe the hon. gentleman would be in a position to give us some detail.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I cannot see that there is any urgency in a question of that kind and I must rule it out of order.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Postmaster General another question. There was recently another big robbery involving the amount of $108,000, a record in Canada, for which a man was convicted and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. I should like to know what part of this amount has been recovered by the government.


Mr. Churchill:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: We could conduct an auction as to the amount of the robbery. If the Postmaster General can answer perhaps it will save time in the long run.


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I think the conviction arising out of this robbery speaks eloquently for the efficiency of this department in dealing with these matters.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, that was not an answer to the question I asked the minister. I asked him if any portion of the money had been recovered by the government?


Mr. Fleming (Eglinion):: Order paper.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I at least propose to respect your wishes and desires concerning these questions.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question dealing with the same matter. In the light of the two burglaries referred to by my friend the hon. member for



I960

[Stage Direction]
St. Denis, does the Postmaster General think the proper protective measures are being taken by the minister?
William McLean Hamilton: There have been great improvements in the last two and a half years, Mr. Speaker.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister request the appropriate officials of his department to investigate the possibility of drawing up suitable regulations to prevent explosives from being carried or smuggled aboard passengercarrying aircraft?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



STATEMENT AS TO SPEED-UP OF SHIPMENTS THROUGH VANCOUVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Skeena asked me a further question regarding the shipping situation at Vancouver. As of yesterday afternoon there were 34 ships in Vancouver harbour. Of these, 8 were loading grain and 10 were waiting to load grain. Between January 18 and January 21, 7 cargoes of grain totalling 1,975,000 bushels were cleared from the port.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister care to indicate whether there is any truth in the press reports which state that grain farmers in western Canada who are recipients of prairie farm assistance will not be eligible to receive assistance for the crop covered by snow? Would the minister please indicate in his reply whether the decision reached was the responsibility of the provincial or the federal authority?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the offer of the dominion government to share with the provinces any assistance to farmers whose crop is covered by snow was to pay half the
Inquiries of the Ministry cost of the payment up to $3 an acre, for a maximum of 200 acres per farmer, with the proviso that 50 per cent or more of the crop had to be under the snow.
Within those terms each province was free to put into effect the type of scheme which it wished. Each of the provinces in fact did have a different idea as to the type of scheme, and they put into operation different schemes. The responsibility for the exact provisions, apart from the general provision which I have mentioned, is that of the province in each case.
The provincial ministers of agriculture did discuss with me the matter of whether people who were eligible for P.F.A. payments should also receive the assistance payments, and I pointed out to them that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act requires us to make payments to any farmers who qualified under it, and that they would get those payments under the act no matter whether they got the other assistance payments or not. I also pointed out there could, of course, quite frequently be cases under which the determination of eligibility for prairie farm assistance could not be made until spring when the crop now under the snow was threshed, and if the amount of grain salvageable was small those people would qualify for payments.
The dominion government laid down no requirements with regard to prairie farm assistance or anything else disqualifying people for assistance payments.


William Moore Benidickson: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister of Agriculture not think that as a premise to answering the question which he has just answered he should inform the house as to whether in fact there is in existence a binding agreement with the provinces in connection with this matter.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do
not know what the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River means by a binding agreement. I think there is a binding agreement. We made an agreement with each of the provinces that would enter into the scheme, and we agreed to the particular type of scheme which they put up as long as it was within the general terms that were mentioned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement the minister has just made, can he say that the law officers of the crown have advised the ministry that the government of Canada is obligated in law to any commitment made in this particular to the provinces by the Prime Minister?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, in effect the
hon. member for Essex East is asking me

Inquiries of the Ministry to give a legal opinion, which I am not qualified to do and do not propose to do because it is against the rules in any event.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary
question-


Mr. Speaker:: Is this not a matter which
is on the order paper?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Mr. Speaker:: No?


William Moore Benidickson: That is just the grievance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Parliament has never been consulted in this matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of the fact that
the minister has mentioned a binding agreement, would he explain how moneys can be paid under this binding agreement that have not been authorized by the parliament of Canada?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was made quite clear in
discussion when another matter was up a few days ago that an estimate would be introduced to cover those expenditures; that in the consideration of that estimate parliament would have an opportunity for full discussion in connection with this matter, and that this estimate would be brought in just as soon as it was possible to do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That being the
case, may I ask the minister how it can be possible for the provinces to pay out moneys to deserving farmers, thereby committing the government of Canada to the extent of 50 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the position is obvious without cross-examination, or without the questions going into other fields.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last I asked the Minister of National Defence a question in respect of the breaking of the sound barrier in the Rossland-Trail area by planes of the United States air force. He said he would be pleased to have the matter looked into and make an answer in the house. The urgency of the matter is being eroded by the passage of time. Because of the urgency in my constituency, I should like to ask the minister whether he has anything to report at this time; or will he report on this matter?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of Naiional Defence):: The question of the breaking of the sound barrier alleged to have been done by United States planes was taken up with the 5th air division as soon as the hon. member called my attention to the matter. I then wrote to the hon. member and asked him to give me further information as to dates, and so forth, and I am awaiting his reply. I communicated with the hon. member yesterday giving him further information.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I may say that I went to great lengths to try to get the exact times. No one had the exact times. But in view of the minister's answer, and in view of the fact that he instructed the United States authorities to curtail flying activities over the Rossland-Trail area, does he know that Captain Byron Liggett, who is attached to the 4700 air defence wing of the United States air force at Geiger field-


Mr. Speaker:: This may be very interesting information, but the hon. member is supposed to be seeking information, not giving it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am seeking information.


Mr. Speaker:: It is within the knowledge of the minister-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Which is not very high.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does the minister know of these matters?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: To my way of thinking the hon. member is not asking for information. In effect by asking whether the minister knows something he is proceeding to inform the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The answer is obvious.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I ask the minister if he approves of an officer of the United States air force addressing a public meeting in Rossland and telling the audience that sonic booms over Canada are a necessity; that we must accept them and learn to live with them, and that the damage is mostly psychological. Does the minister approve of that?


Mr. Graffley:: Sonic boom nonsense.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am quite certain it is not a proper question to ask whether I approve of a statement which was made or alleged to have been made in Rossland some time ago.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On December 3.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschaielets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a

question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received representations from the Canadian Labour Congress offering to meet with government and employer representatives in an effort to work out a solution to unemployment. If so, what is the decision?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question which relates to unemployment in general, then I think it is not of the urgency that requires consideration on the orders of the day by asking whether the government has received representations on unemployment generally. If he has a more specific and urgent problem and has had communication about it I will hear the question, but not as a general question.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, only a few days ago we received the latest figures on unemployment, and right after that statement was made by the minister there was, according to press statements, an offer made by the Canadian Congress of Labour to this government to have a meeting. I should like to know whether this offer has been made and what is the position of the government following the offer.


Michael Starr: I think the hon. member is quite confused. The item he read pertained, I believe, to the suggestion by the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Jodoin, that the government interest itself in the calling of a labour-management meeting in respect of industrial relations existing at the present time, for the purpose of endeavouring to better those relations.


William Heward Grafftey: He was reading Liberal party literature.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: That is not only my interpretation but also the argument in the paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member wish to ask a further question?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I should like to know if the Minister of Labour has received an offer from the Canadian Labour Congress to arrange a meeting to find a solution for unemployment.


Michael Starr: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister state the position of the government in respect of the request made to him by Mr. Jodoin, which he has just mentioned?


Michael Starr: Mr. Jodoin made this suggestion in a speech he delivered in Toronto.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Martin (Essex Easi):: At a board of trade meeting.


Michael Starr: To my knowledge, at least, no suggestion of that kind has been made to the government recently by Mr. Jodoin.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: May I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio from Newfoundland and ask the hon. gentleman whether he has given permission to or authorized his executive assistant to make political commentary type broadcasts over an Ottawa radio station.


Hon. W. J. Browne (Minister wiihoui Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that that could be regarded as part of his official duties but rather it would be done in his private leisure time.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if the hon. lady can tell the house whether assisted passage loans are still available to unsponsored immigrants coming to Canada seeking work?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



CROP INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether any province has yet agreed to participate in the crop insurance offer made by the government.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The province of Manitoba stated some months ago that they were going to participate. We have had numerous discussions with them in regard to the details of their scheme. We have also now had inquiries from the province of Saskatchewan and in a more informal way from the province of Alberta.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is it not a fact that no province has yet participated in this scheme?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Douglas Scott Harkness: There has been no opportunity for anybody to participate in this scheme, because it could only be in operation for the following year's crop. The hon. member should know that. Crops do not grow in the wintertime. Manitoba has stated that it will definitely have crop insurance in effect as far as the coming year's crop is concerned.


Murdo William Martin: Is it not a fact that the government of Manitoba has said that it would be prepared to participate on a limited basis only?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this matter might be pursued at the proper time.



INQUIRY AS TO ACCURACY OF CLOCKS IN CHAMBER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works which clock is telling the correct time.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, may I accept this as notice?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not surprised at the hon. member's concern about the time. I am myself. I was hoping I might call orders of the day.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice the following question. Has the government, through the combines investigation branch, made any investigation or prepared any report on the meat packing industry, either generally or in relation to hogs, in the past year? If not, is such an investigation being considered?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member should put that question on the order paper.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works arising out of an article in this morning's press, in which it is said that J. Eric Harrington, president of the Canadian Construction Association, has called on the

federal government to convene a federal-provincial conference this year to work out a national highway program. Is the government giving any consideration to such a conference, or any consideration to expanding the present highway program?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, we have this matter under constant consideration and in due course will make an announcement.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, in view of an article in the press this morning stating that there is going to be a clinic for the control of rabies in the Timiskaming district, is the Minister of Agriculture in a position to tell the house how long it will take before this epidemic can be brought under control?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, this is something that no prophet, no matter how good, is in a position to predict.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, January 20, 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. Arthur Maloney (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke in the house on January 20, before this debate was interrupted, I was dealing generally with the question of immigration and had pointed to some of the things that I felt the facts establish about the contribution of the immigrant to the country's economy. I had made reference to some of the speeches that had been given on the subject by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) in the last few months. I had in mind particularly one that she made in the city of Vancouver on September 18 last, and in that part of her address in which she spoke in general terms about the advantages that derive from immigrants and from immigration the minister said this:
When they arrive they broaden the home market and provide new leeway and stimulus for economic development, make possible the improved location of industry, and the more efficient use of resources

spread the burden of overhead costs of government and utilities, and by strengthening the Canadian market reduce our reliance on imports and on export markets. In certain instances they relieve labour shortages, filling vacancies and thus facilitating fuller employment to many groups. In other instances they create entirely new industries and markets and make a major contribution to Canadian productivity. We must continue to attract them in the numbers we need for the orderly development of our country.
Anglo-Saxons are often heard to boast that we come from countries in which some of the most sacred principles of our law were cradled and in which were founded and established some of the ancient safeguards and procedures that we call in aid today in our courts. It is therefore of interest to study the immigrant for the purpose of determining the extent to which he has accommodated himself to the judicial system under which we live. As a lawyer who often had occasion, and often has occasion still, to practise in the criminal courts, I was quick to observe how rarely newcomers appeared before the criminal courts charged with serious breaches of the Criminal Code.
Realizing how, in so many cases, they had been required to so abruptly tear up the roots established in their homelands and had been deprived of so many opportunities-particularly the recent immigrants-in the formative years of their lives which were so sadly disrupted by war and the invasion of their countries; exposed as they were to a new country whose customs, habits and laws were often so different, I think it is some indication of the high calibre of our immigrant population to note how rarely we find them in difficulties with the law. In the year 1952, which is the last year for which I found the available figures, a total of 29,761 persons were found guilty of indictable offences in Canada. This would include the males admitted to penitentiaries and reformatories and would include all other persons convicted as well, regardless of whether they were sentenced to prison or were released on probation. Of that total of almost 30,000, 89.8 per cent were native born Canadians, and only 3 per cent of these crimes were found to have been committed by persons whose countries of origin were located in continental Europe. Indeed, this figure included many who had resided in our country for a long period of time.
These figures, it seems to me, and others I could give if I had the time, all tend to show that our immigrant population has a deep respect for our system of law and for the rules that have been promulgated for the common good of the people of Canada.
Once a policy is decided upon in such a field as immigration, such as the slow-down
The Address-Mr. Maloney policy which was designed to alleviate a growing unemployment problem, it follows that it must be enforced justly. This puts the minister in charge of the department in a very difficult position when exceptional cases arise for consideration. If exceptions are made they are used as precedents in future applications and, in the net result, chaos arises and you end up with almost no policy at all. However, our present policy in respect to immigration, necessitated as it has been by the belief of so many in the inexorable forces of economic circumstances, came for example at a bad time for the Polish people and for many thousands of Ukrainian people who now live within the boundaries of what is regarded as Poland.
In the last two years there has been a perceptible relaxation on the part of the Polish government in the numbers of its citizens and residents to whom it has permitted exit visas. Unfortunately this relaxation coincided with the corresponding restriction in our own country. Many worth-while persons residing in Poland today have a very deep longing to come to Canada and make it their home. They would make excellent citizens, and they have friends and relatives here who are well able to maintain them and ensure that that they would not become a charge on the state. I should like to see early steps taken, if this is feasible, to facilitate the entry into Canada of people who fall into that category.
There are also in Canada today large numbers who entered under the authority of a visitor's visa. Notwithstanding any undertaking they may have given not to apply for permanent landing, there are many of them who none the less are desirous of being given the status of landed immigrants. As I understand it, under present regulations, if they are justly enforced, this must be denied them and they are required to return to their countries of origin and there make application for the status they would like now to be given. Ordinarily many of the checks made in the case of an application for permanent landing are admittedly not made in the case of someone who applies for the status of a non-immigrant, but what I have in mind is some policy comparable to the one the government followed, I think it was in August, 1958, in the case of persons who were here on visitors' visas and to whom the government extended the privilege of permanent landing after an application had been made and a review of that application had been conducted.
From personal observation I would say there are many persons who fall into this category. I cannot help but feel they would make very desirable Canadian citizens. I should like to see some consideration given

The Address-Mr. Maloney to a plan, as I say, that would enable persons who fall into this category to remain here. I share the feeling of concern that is entertained by large numbers of fellow Canadians about our thinly populated country and its large geographical area, so much of it filled with great potential as yet untapped. I feel that the present sparsity of our population could, in the foreseeable future, pose one of our country's very serious problems. I do not think an immediately high birth rate, which of course would be very desirable, would provide anything like the numbers that I feel are required to help Canada accomplish what I conceive to be its full measure of development. I believe we need more people with capital, with energy, with skills; people with the ambitions of our forefathers when they came to make new homes, not alone for themselves but for their children and their children's children.
I picture this country as one that will grow increasingly in prestige and in stature among the nations of the world, populated by millions of freedom loving inhabitants with backgrounds and civilizations that are centuries old. Among other areas of our country capable, it would seem, of supporting a greatly increased population would be our great northwest. What the bolsheviks were able to do in the Arctic with slaves Canada, I think, would be able to do with ambitious pioneers and free men.
For the reasons I have given I should like to see the government take a new look at this whole question of immigration. The facts and figures to which I have referred, which are incontrovertible, tell me a true story; and if that be so, a vigorous policy on immigration started soon cannot, in my opinion, fail. It is bound, in whatever view you take of the matter, to succeed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I join with the speakers who have preceded me in this debate, to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Morissette) and seconder (Mrs. Casselman) of the address. Both spoke with great facility and ease and discharged in excellent fashion the assignment which was given to them by the Prime Minister.
I also want to extend through you, Mr. Speaker, my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) on having been selected as Deputy Speaker of this house.
I am happy to take part in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Notwithstanding the sincerity of my congratulations to the mover of the address I want to assure him at the outset
[Mr. Maloney.)

that I cannot agree with most of the statements advanced by him in the course of his economic review before this house on Friday last. If as he stated on this occasion his task in moving the address was made easier because he merely had to state facts and figures, I want to add that the people of Canada have also the right to know the truth about such facts and figures. The remarks of the hon. member are exactly in line with the speech from the throne, and are nothing but an attempt to divert the attention of the Canadian public from the serious problems facing our country at the present time.
This dull and subdued document, somewhat different from earlier throne speeches by the present government, has completely ignored or perhaps barely mentioned such important and serious matters as national defence, unemployment, trade deficits, tight money, high interest rates and many others which the government must deal with at the opening of this new year. The people are more concerned about these problems than they are interested in minor legislation or minor changes in existing laws.
The Prime Minister himself, who probably expected an all-out attack from the Leader of the Opposition on national defence policy, seemed to have lost some of his usual aggressiveness in his reply. This was more noticeable in the major announcements which he made on Monday last, showing that he was more concerned with newspaper headlines than with parliamentary democracy.


Mr. Palleii:: That is not right.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The facts are there to prove it. These announcements of changes in the British North America Act, the establishment of a royal commission to probe all government services and the establishment of a House of Commons rules committee for the purpose of further streamlining the transaction of the business of parliament, could well have been included in the speech from the throne. The actions of the Prime Minister in this instance are nothing else than disregard for the rights of parliament, a mockery of parliament's rights and privileges.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is quite untrue.
Mr. Pallet!: In how many speeches was it included from 1949 to 1956?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The hon. member can look for himself.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Who wrote this speech?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The hon. member for Saint John-Albert certainly did not.

After reading the speech from the throne I have come to the conclusion that maybe, after two years in power, this government has realized some of its responsibilities, and has come to the conclusion that the ills and problems of the country are not quite so easy to cure as they thought when they were sitting in the opposition-


Thomas Miller Bell: You left an awful mess.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: -and that they themselves realize that they can no longer blame the previous administration for their own extravagance, for the lack of definite policy on many matters and for their own record of accomplishment which, unfortunately, is not one to be so proud of when the facts are known.
I have my doubts, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. member for Rimouski would dare go into his own constituency today and repeat what he said in this house on Friday last, when he stated that the Conservatives have fulfilled all their promises. I wonder what reception he would get from the 4,962 unemployed registered at the unemployment office at Rimouski as at December 31, 1959. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I regret to state at this point that in my own constituency of Gloucester at December 31, 1959 there were 5,948 applicants for unemployment insurance benefits, a figure which represents almost 50 per cent of the labour force in my constituency.


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. member cannot be any good in Gloucester.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I think the hon. member for Saint John-Albert can find out how many applicants there are in his own constituency.


Thomas Miller Bell: Very few.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It is true that they promised to increase social benefits and that they increased them by about $100 million during the session of 1957, but they failed to mention the fact that the following year they increased taxes by more than $350 million. The figures stated by the hon. member for Rimouski comparing the 1956-57 per capita taxes with those of the 1958-59 fiscal year are nothing else than a pure manipulation of facts and figures, an act which is becoming a daily habit of the present administration.
This government reminds me of a Santa Claus who will distribute gifts on Christmas eve, and then the day after New Year's will come to every recipient of those gifts and ask him to pay for them.
The Address-Mr. Robichaud


An hon. Member:: An insult to Santa Claus.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The Canadian electors will remember the Conservative promises with regard to cutting federal expenditures, reducing taxes and assuring employment for all, and this with a balanced budget. The Canadian public is also well aware that federal expenditures have increased for the last three years by close to $1 billion, that tax collections are higher by well over $300 million and that the budgeting deficits of the first three years of Conservative administration will exceed $1J billion. Are those the promises made to the electors of this country in 1957 and in 1958, and supposed to have been kept by the present administration?
I know that in a speech made in Toronto a week or so ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) gave a warning against inflation in this country. He then made it very clear that is was the earnest desire of the government to cut down such undesirable deficits as we have been facing in the last two years and to introduce, if possible, a balanced budget. He did not elaborate, however, as to how he expected to reach this goal. He did not state what policy the government intended to follow to bring the financial standing of this country back to a state of equality with that prevailing in the wise and good old days of Liberal administration.
In the course of his remarks the Minister of Finance did give some indication as to the possibility of the government tightening its belt and reducing expenditures in certain fields. It is unfortunate, however, that the first victims of the unrestrained extravagances of the present government should be the civil servants of this country. The inconsistent and arrogant attitude of the Minister of Finance in rejecting the recommendation of the civil service commission on salary increases is again a clear example of the present government's disregard for mutual understanding between employer and employees, and a complete denial or rejection of the principle of collective bargaining. It has created an unhealthy atmosphere within the civil service, something which will not help to promote efficiency and good morale in the service.
Who are going to be the next victims of this so-called hold the line policy now being advocated by the Minister of Finance? Where next is the axe going to fall in order to satisfy the government's desire to cure the mess into which it is leading this country today? Will the estimates to be tabled shortly in this house show decreased public works expenditures for the fiscal year 1960-61? I have reason to believe that urgent public works projects are being shelved in order to cut down government expenditure during the

The Address-Mr. Robichaud coming year, and maybe to enable them to come closer to a balanced budget. In my own constituency of Gloucester I have knowledge of urgently needed projects whose construction has been approved after careful analysis and study by public works officials but which, I understand, will be shelved or delayed until the financial position of the government improves.


Mr. Montgomery:: I hope they are.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That is a good statement to be made by a supporter of the government; "I hope they are". Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have the opportunity later to express his views and opinions. Are our fishermen of the Atlantic provinces going to be penalized and made victims of this hold the line policy brought about by lack of responsibility and foresight on the part of the present government? Last spring a contract was awarded for major harbour improvements at Caraquet in my constituency. However, work on this project was delayed because the contractor was not allowed to import the steel sheets required for this job. Only after months of delay was the contractor apparently allowed to import steel from Germany. The shipment reached Caraquet only a week or two ago, too late for him to proceed with the work before next spring. As a consequence this item will likely be included in the estimates for 1960-61 as a revote, and will be given as an excuse for delaying other projects such as those at Shippegan, Lower Caraquet and Maisonnette, or others urgently needed by the fishermen of my constituency.
The government may justify delaying the construction of a public building in a certain community, but under no circumstances should it even consider putting off the building of a public wharf, construction of which has been proven economically sound after a complete investigation or survey made by officials of the department.


Thomas Miller Bell: Why did not
the Liberals build these wharves?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The hon. member will get his right to speak in due time. Unless the fishermen of a community are provided with adequate wharfage and docking facilities to carry on effectively their fishing operation it will be impossible for that community to prosper and show any progress. On the contrary, production will suffer, unemployment will follow and the general economy of the area will be adversely affected.
I want to assure the newly appointed Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) that in the course of the present session, and particularly after the tabling of the estimates of


his department, I will come back to this subject. If the government is interested in curtailing unemployment in fishing communities the time has come for it to take a new look at the situation and revise its policy accordingly.
We also have other potential projects in my constituency which should be given priority and receive the best attention and consideration from the government. The government did not hesitate to build a $3 million bridge at Prince Albert under its roads to resources program. But at the same time the residents of Shippegan island in my constituency had to be satisfied with a bridge built by a private corporation, and they are being penalized by a toll of $1 for a private car or $1.50 for a commercial vehicle every time they want to do business on the mainland.
How can the fishing and peat moss industries of Shippegan island progress under such conditions? The same corporation which built the Shippegan bridge is now studying the possibility of building a bridge to link the adjoining island of Miscou. For the sake and benefit of residents of Miscou island I hope the federal government will co-operate with the government of the province of New Brunswick to build this bridge which will link Shippegan and Miscou island under the roads to resources program. If a multi-million dollar bridge could be built under this program at Prince Albert, for resources hundreds of miles away, there is no reason whatsoever why the government of the province of New Brunswick could not co-operate with the federal government and approve without delay the construction of a bridge for the residents of the island of Miscou in my constituency.
The mover of the address, the hon. member for Rimouski stated, and I repeat, that the Conservatives had kept all their promises. Where are those promises made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance when they were speaking for the municipalities and the school boards, who were forced to borrow money at what they called then high rates of interest? Elect the Conservatives, they were saying to the people of Canada, and all will be well. Is everything well today when over 700,000 applicants at unemployment offices throughout this country are seeking benefits?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Practically the same as last year.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The Address-Mr. Robichaud (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, the French-speaking popula-lation of New Brunswick, more particularly in the northeastern part of the province, is entitled to a more adequate and efficient treatment than it has been receiving so far from the C.B.C. station CBAFT which has been operating in Moncton since December 21 last and is providing the French network service of the C.B.C. to a very small part only of the French-speaking population of New Brunswick. The coverage of that station is very limited and its signals are just about inaudible at more than 40 miles from the city of Moncton.
The population of New Brunswick is about 57 per cent English-speaking and 43 per cent French-speaking. In the ridings of Northumberland, Gloucester and Restigouche there are about 100,000 people of French origin and 50,000 of English descent. These people are demanding a type of service at least equal to that given to other areas of the country.
If, as Mr. Alphonse Ouimet said in Toronto, and I quote:
The first principle of the C.B.C. Is to offer a national service, a complete service, applying to all parts of the country.
Why then have we, in northeastern New Brunswick, been neglected and almost completely cut off from television service, especially from the services provided by the French and English networks of the C.B.C.?
Our people are entitled to have an essentially French network to serve the Frenchspeaking 100,000 residents in the counties of Northumberland, Gloucester and Restigouche, as well as about 50,000 people who live along the southern coast of Gaspesia. We also should have an essentially English service for the 55,000 to 60,000 people of English descent who reside in the same area. A bilingual program, like the one now provided by station CHAU-TV at New Carlisle is not practical and does not answer the requirements of the people concerned.
In its decision, which we hope will soon be forthcoming, the board of broadcast governors should bear in mind the statement I have just quoted from the chairman of the C.B.C., and thus enable us to enjoy a complete service, in line with the principles of the C.B.C., and equal to the service given in other parts of the country.
I repeat, we are entitled to a French language station hooked up to the C.B.C. French network, and to an English language station hooked up to the C.B.C. English network. There is no reason why, in 1960, the

people in our area should still have to be satisfied with week-old or ten day-old English or French television programs. In fact, when I left home last January 12, we were still being shown programs which included Christmas greetings.
Unless a favourable decision is taken soon, the board of broadcast governors and the minister responsible for this board, will have to account to the people for their lack of action, because the people are all upset and see no reason for the attitude shown by the authorities in their case.
(Text):


Mr. Creaghan:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
the hon. member would permit a question.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: When I have completed
my remarks.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: It will take just a moment. My question is on the point the hon. member has just been discussing. I wonder if the hon. gentleman is aware of the fact that at the present time a French language microwave is under construction from Rimouski, Quebec, to New Brunswick, to bring live French language television to the east coast of New Brunswick.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I am fully
aware that the French network is now under construction, but unless changes are made in conditions and licensing procedures relating to the television station there it will not improve the reception in northeastern New Brunswick.
The speech from the throne devoted a full paragraph to the subject of northern development and another full paragraph to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, but not a single word to the subject of the Atlantic provinces except for the mention of the repeal of the new fisheries board act relating to Newfoundland, which will be proposed during the present session. There again we have a government placing more emphasis on its northern vision, but forgetting its promises to the Atlantic provinces.
I am not against the development of the northern lands of Canada, but I repeat what I have said before in this house, namely, that before spending large sums of money for northern development consideration should be given to the development of existing resources in areas of Canada already inhabited, and I have particularly in mind the Atlantic provinces. Where is this decentralization of industry promised by the Conservative candidates in the Atlantic provinces before the last election? Where are the new crown corporations promised to be established in the

Atlantic provinces? What about the construction of the Chignecto canal? What progress has been made toward the realization of this particular project of major importance to the people of New Brunswick? What progress has the government made on the construction of the causeway to link Prince Edward Island with New Brunswick? We heard the statement made this morning by the Minister of Public Works which shows that very little progress has been made in this field.
I know that before the Prince Edward Island provincial election last summer this project was by all means the major promise made to the electors of the island. In fact the present government of Prince Edward Island was called the causeway government. But only a few weeks after the election the present Minister of Public Works found out there were many objections in the way, and that it would be rather difficult to proceed with the construction of this causeway on account of tremendous problems. It is amazing to realize that such objections could come into existence only after the provincial election, and still more amazing it is to note the reaction of the present premier of Prince Edward Island who, when asked to comment on the statement by the Minister of Public Works, said, "I am satisfied with the statement". How easy they are to satisfy now that they are in power.
The Atlantic provinces are confronted with most serious basic economic problems which cannot be resolved by ad hoc provisions which we can qualify as first aid measures of political expediency. Such patch-up measures have not brought and will never bring the economy of the Atlantic region in line with other sections of the country.
The time has come for the federal government to initiate measures of such magnitude and such scope as to effectively assist the economy of the Atlantic region, even if it has to be something exceptional, something of a scope this nation has not attempted before. If special tax concessions must be granted by Ottawa to industries established in the Atlantic region, this matter should receive full study and consideration. As transportation difficulties seem to be one of the major handicaps to Atlantic development, this matter should also receive full consideration.
One of the most urgent needs of the Atlantic provinces is a substantial Atlantic provinces special investment fund for the purpose of financing large projects so essential to further economic development of the primary industries in these provinces. In the last decade or so federal projects of major importance have been undertaken in other sections of central Canada, outside of the Atlantic region. I have in mind particularly the St. Lawrence 79951-0-15
The Address-Mr. Pigeon seaway, which has just been completed; the south Saskatchewan dam project, which is now under way; and I could add the hundreds of millions of dollars which are being spent by the federal government right here in the capital city of Ottawa. No need for me to emphasize also the part played by the federal treasury for the prairie provinces, and I could also mention the proposed Columbia river development in British Columbia, which is receiving the attention of the government at the present time.
I repeat that one of the major handicaps in the development of our Atlantic provinces is the transportation problem. It is true that the federal government has been contributing for a number of years to the construction of the trans-Canada highway, but in this case our Atlantic provinces shared in the cost in the same proportion as other provinces of Canada, with the exception of the province of Quebec. The fact that our Atlantic provinces participated in this trans-Canada highway program has placed a heavy debt burden on their population. In fact when we consider that the average mileage of trans-Canada highway in New Brunswick is .76 per 1000 of population as compared with .32 in Ontario, it gives an idea of the share we have to pay for the construction of the trans-Canada highway.
The taxes, both municipal and provincial, imposed on our population are out of line with other sections of the country. In order to relieve our provincial treasurers and benefit the taxpayers accordingly I would suggest that every consideration be given by the federal government to compensating the Atlantic provinces by special assistance or concessions for the construction and maintenance of our highways. This, Mr. Speaker, is not asking too much, and it could be one way for the majority of the Canadian people to give moral and financial support to the economy of the Atlantic region.
This could be a far reaching program, but anyone willing to listen to the plight of the Atlantic provinces will fully realize that more than the ordinary type of federal assistance, something exceptional, should be put forward to restore in the Atlantic provinces an economic climate which will compare favourably with that of the rest of Canada.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
(Translation):
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielfe-L'Assomplion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join with my colleagues in tendering my sincere

The Address-Mr. Pigeon congratulations to the vice chairman of this house (Mr. Flynn). The hon. member for Quebec South was not slow in drawing attention to his abilities. We all rejoice over his well-deserved success.
I would also not forgive myself if I failed to mention the appointment of two new ministers, one to National Defence and the other to Public Works. Both have for a long time enjoyed the esteem and respect of the house. We know they will accomplish their task in the best interests of the country.
The hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Moris-sette), who moved the address, gave us a really comprehensive picture of government policy. This well-known economist deserves to be commended.
The hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman), who seconded the mover of the address in reply, has discharged her task very well. It is the first time in our parliamentary history that this honour has devolved upon a woman.
(Text):
I thought it would be advisable, Mr. Speaker, to choose the textile industry as the subject matter of my remarks, a choice which seems to me highly consistent as the textile industry has indeed a prominent place and therefore plays a vital part in the economy of my district and of my province. I intend to deal with the sad plight of that industry with all the vigour called for in view of its distressing condition. The representatives of the western provinces are rightly known for their persistence when asking for legislation which they deem essential to the advance and welfare of those provinces. A representative of the ancient province of Quebec has, therefore, no reason to feel embarrassed when in his turn he asks for the urgent and necessary remedies which would bring about a fair solution of the complex issues which our textile industry has been facing for many years in all the eastern provinces and more particularly in Quebec. I trust I shall find among the members from the west, when discussing the difficulties in which the textile industry finds itself, the same understanding and comprehension as I give them when they deal with the matter of wheat.
In Quebec nobody is indifferent to the plight of the textile industry, and rightly so. This ancient industry has for a long time been identified with the economy of the province of Quebec. It is a well known fact that capital investments in the Canadian and Quebec textile industries are for the greater part made by Canadian citizens. As a matter of


fact, their capital is owned by Canadians to the extent of 80 per cent in comparison with a proportion of 52 per cent in the other manufacturing and mining industries. This statement may be found in the Gordon report. The textile industry appears, therefore, particularly Canadian and deserves as such, if not favoured treatment, at least the highest measure of equitable consideration. (Translation):
In the last few years and in spite of more or less brilliant prospects, our textile industry did not hesitate confidently to invest new funds in the modernization of its equipment, in the renewal of its machinery and in the restoration of its spinning mills. In the period extending from 1947 to 1958, capital investments in the textile industry reached a total of $305.7 millions. Therefore in our progressive era, that industry cannot be accused of being satisfied with out-dated facilities and obsolete production methods.
It should also be stressed that industrial relations in the textile industry are characterized by a close and fruitful co-operation between management and labour, for they realize that the stability of a company and the security of its staff are interdependent. In that regard an important textile labour union has been twice known to express before the tariff board claims with regard to tariff that were entirely identical to those of the management in the same industry. This means that, in the textile industry, labour and management think that their interests are interdependent rather than opposed and that they behave more as partners than as opponents. In the textile industry, we find a team spirit which might serve as an example to industries throughout this country.
Am I right, Mr. Speaker, when I say that the textile industry is among the first in my province? I hope I shall convince you without difficulty as my contention is easy to illustrate.
The textile industry ranks high in the province of Quebec with regard to level of employment: more than 38,000 workers earn a livelihood. In Joliette, which is the principal industrial centre of the constituency I represent in this house, approximately 700 workers earn their livelihood from the textile industry.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I have the honour of counting among my constituents the premier of the province of Quebec.

Therefore, I may say that in the province of Quebec in general and more particularly in Joliette, the textile industry is an outstanding source of employment. As a result, thousands of families in Quebec depend on the textile industry for their livelihood. That is why any slowdown in that industry results in complete unemployment for thousands of workers; or, which is not much better, reduces the working week to three or four days, which means partial unemployment.
My city of Joliette and other textile centres in Quebec have suffered terribly from total or partial unemployment which was the inevitable result of the stoppage or the slowing down of production in the last few years throughout that industry. But that is not all, Mr. Speaker, the level of employment is undoubtedly an important factor in the textile industry; there is, however, another factor which may be still more significant. I refer to the decentralization which is characteristic of the Canadian textile industry. The spinning mills are distributed all over the province; they are widely spread in various Quebec centres. Not a single other industry is disseminated to such an extent and in so many communities, large, medium or small, in the province. The Gordon report shows that the 745 textile companies of that area are distributed in 218 different communities, emphasizing that the textile industry is a "small town" industry.
One readily realizes the immense social advantage which can be derived from such decentralization of the textile industry.
That industry, as everyone knows, employs mostly young female workers. The young people living in small textile centres can get jobs on the spot, and do not have to go to larger centres to earn their living, with the result that family cohesion is greatly strengthened. Extra farm hands in rural areas, where the small textile centres are located, also find on the spot a steady source of employment. This avoids the social uprooting involved by the shifting of rural labour towards larger urban centres.
A third factor, more important perhaps than the first two I have mentioned, which explains why the textile industry is so closely integrated to the local community, is that numerous textile centres are all that the name implies, in that they often constitute the sole industry in the community.
Allow me to mention as an example, Mr. Speaker, the case of Magog, in the province of Quebec, where 83.4 per cent of the labour 79951-0-15i
The Address-Mr. Pigeon force derive their livelihood from the local textile industry. At St. Gregoire de Montmorency, which has a population of 6,077, 1,651 persons earn their living in the local textile industry. In such cases, the whole economy of the textile community depends exclusively on the textile industry. Any production stoppage or slowing down, in such cases, means total or partial unemployment for the whole active population. And when the textile industry of such communities is in the grips of a permanent production stoppage, the result is an extremely tragic social drama, since whole families, who have always earned their living in the local textile industry, must leave their homes where they have lived for years, give up the only trade they know and expatriate themselves in order to earn a livelihood, in spite of untold difficulties, in a new environment and in a different job.
One must also consider, Mr. Speaker, that, as a rule, the textile industry's most productive period is between November and May, that is during seasonal unemployment brought about by our climate; and that the textile industry, if it produced at full capacity in the winter months, could thus absorb a substantial proportion of workers faced with unemployment during that period of the year.
You will readily understand, Mr. Speaker, after those few remarks, that the textile industry undoubtedly has a unique role to play in the over-all industrial pattern of my city and province, both from the economic and social standpoint.
At first, you will be inclined to say that there is no reason why the production of the textile industry should not remain at the present level or should not increase, since that industry produces articles which are essential to a civilized society. That industry produces things which are necessary for the community. It does not produce items which are merely useful, and still less, superfluous. The textile industry is vital in our modern world. One cannot possibly imagine an organized community without a textile industry.
In fact, consumption of textile products is increasing constantly, due to the increase in population, and the higher standard of living.
Under such circumstances, how is it that the textile industry, far from constantly increasing its production, must frequently interrupt it, slow it down or stop it altogether? That brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the core of the problem which the textile industry has been facing for too long.
228	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pigeon
In the textile industry salaries are an important item of the production cost. Let me explain. Out of every dollar spent in the production of textile, nearly 60 per cent or roughly 60 cents is given in salary to the textile worker, which goes to prove that salaries are a substantial item in the textile industry.
Now, salaries paid to Canadian textile workers are from 100 to 800 per cent higher than those paid to foreign textile workers, except in the United States. What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It means that the Canadian textile industry is paying its labour twice as much as the British textile industry, three or four times more than the European textile industry and nine times more than the Asiatic textile industry. As an example, Japanese textile workers earn 14 cents an hour.
Salaries in the textile industry, averaging as I said, Mr. Speaker, 60 per cent of the production cost, one readily understands that if the Canadian textile industry pays salaries two to nine times higher than those paid by the British, European and Asiatic textile industries, the production cost of the Canadian textile industry is necessarily much higher than the cost of production of the foreign textile industry, with the result that, all things being equal, the Canadian textile industry is unable to compete with the foreign textile industry on the domestic market.
With regard to the United States, it is not the difference in salaries which creates a problem for the Canadian textile industry, although as a result of the removal of American textile plants from the northern to southern United States, it may happen that salaries paid by the Canadian textile industry are higher than those in some American textile plants located in the southern states.
The U.S. textile industry has a production capacity ten times higher than that of the Canadian textile industry; and this is, of course, because the United States have a population ten times larger than ours and because their textile industry has a market ten times greater than ours.
At the end of the operating season, if the U.S. textile industry is left with a production surplus of 2 per cent, which is a very small proportion of its mass production, and if it disposes of it on the Canadian market at a price slightly lower than the U.S. price, it


means that with such a production surplus of 2 per cent the U.S. textile industry secures 20 per cent of the Canadian market at the expense of our own textile industry, which cannot compete with the lower U.S. prices on the Canadian market. Now, in 1957, the United States exported about 218 million yards of cotton goods to Canada. And the volume of employment in the Canadian textile industry decreases as U.S. textile exports increase. We And proof of this, Mr. Speaker, in the fact that over a seven year period only, the number of persons employed in the textile industry has decreased from 46,000 in 1950, to 38,500 in 1957.
I am not asking that a China Wall be built around the Canadian market to protect our textile industry. I know too well that our country has to import if it wants to export. But I think that we should give back to our textile industry the share of the home market that it had a quarter of a century ago. At that time, our textile industry was supplying 75 per cent of the needs of the Canadian market, but today its share has been reduced to 50 per cent. Imports of cotton textiles have increased from 56 million yards in 1932 to 265 million yards in 1957; with the result, as I have just said, that the market for our textile products, in our own country, has substantially decreased because of an unbearable and untenable competition, since our textile industry now supplies only 50 per cent of our domestic needs, instead of 75 per cent, 25 years ago.
I am not suggesting that our textile industry be granted a monopolistic hold on the Canadian market; it is not asking for that either. But what can rightfully be claimed is that our textile industry be granted an equitably and reasonably larger share of the Canadian market. And this can be done without creating any international complications and without spoiling our good neighbour relations with the United States.
I know, sir, that we have to export our metals, our wheat and our oil. But allowing foreign or American textile products such an easy access to our home markets has not, as far as I know, brought about an equally easy access for our own products on foreign or American markets. I do not know that for each yard of textile fabric, foreign or American, imported in Canada, we have succeeded in exporting to the United States or to other countries one pound of metal, one gallon of oil or one bushel of wheat more.

Trade relations are not a one way street. The problems of the textile industry should not be allowed to last nor to worsen under the fallacious pretence that a more adequate tariff policy or more appropriate duties would be detrimental to other industries or to the agriculture of Canada.
It would be unfair if the trade policy of Canada did not take into account in its objectives, the present plight of the textile industry, or failed to realize the distressing condition of the textile industry is the price or the ransom that we have to pay for our other commercial transactions with the United States and the rest of the world.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that stronger protective measures, or rather a greater measure of justice, in favour of the textile industry on the part of the government would not create international complications and, I repeat, would not cause frictions with our American neighbours, whose textile production would be hardly affected while ours would be substantially increased.
I know, sir, that the problems of the textile industry are of little concern to our friends opposite.
In fact, I think I should mention this, Mr. Speaker: on March 9, 1954, the hon. Mr. McCann, then Minister of National Revenue, received a delegation of the union of the textile workers of America. He then said to representatives of the textile workers that the Canadian textile industry was overexpanded.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, no, only afterwards please, because this is only part of my statement.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Could the hon. member quote the page of his reference to hon. Mr. McCann?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, only afterwards please.
That goes to show, Mr. Speaker, how the textile industry was treated in this country.
According to the Gazette and he Droit of August 14, 1958, the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate said that "as far as Liberals were concerned, the textile industry could perish if it could not get itself out of its difficulties''. And the textile industry very nearly perished, as a matter of fact, under the former Liberal government. But the
The Address-Mr. Pigeon Prime Minister of Canada, in the speech he made in Cornwall on February 24, 1958, stated, according to the Toronto Daily Star, that "Canada cannot exist without the textile industry".
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask the government to continue to study the problems of the textile industry, to which it has already begun to find a solution; and I urge it to take every step, to resort to every means, and to bring about every reform that it will find efficient, available and appropriate-by a delicate system and a flexible scale of tariffs, quotas, embargos, etc.-to give our textile industry, for all the reasons I have mentioned, the place it deserves on the domestic market.
The development of a great industry, an important thing, and the prosperity of many workers, a more important consideration are at stake in my district of Joliette, in my province, and in Canada. No doubt, my friends opposite will rise in protest to defend in a sobbing voice, the free trade theory and evoke the scarecrow of protectionism, while pretending to speak for the majority of consumers. But they have already tried many times, unsuccessfully, to have the population believe that such a protective measure, such a legitimate and necessary protective measure as the one I am urging in favour of the textile industry which is in a desperate situation, would result in an unjustified rise in the clothing component of the cost of living.
Well, Mr. Speaker, a rise of 10 per cent of the tariff on cotton fabric used in the production of a $5.00 dress would increase the price of that dress by only 15 cents. Such a step would mean that the textile workers as well as the clothing workers would be able to earn a decent living in the future, as they have a right to do, in the different trades of the textile and clothing industries, rather than experience humiliating unemployment. This would be done without causing any serious decrease in the standard of living of the population who would hardly feel the effects of a better tariff policy for the textile and clothing industries.
I have confidence in the understanding, in the sympathy and in the foresight of the government and its leader. Because of the wisdom, of the firmness and the diplomacy of the present government, I forecast a brighter future and even a promising future for our textile industry.
I hope, in conclusion, that the dark clouds which hang over our textile industry will

The Address-Mr. Badanai quickly disappear and that the dawn of happier days will finally break on this severely tried industry, the success, prosperity and even greatness of which its owners and workers have equally at heart.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Could the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) now tell us on what page of Hansard he has found Mr. McCann's statement to which he has referred, or could he read us the paragraph containing the quotation he was reading?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We find that on page 3053 of the French version of Hansard for March 11, 1954, Mr. Fleming stated-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On March 9, Mr. McCann received a visit from a delegation of textile industry workers and stated that the textile industry was overexpanded.
The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) raised the matter in the House of Commons, and Mr. McCann was unable to deny the fact.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has stated as a fact that, on a given date, Mr. McCann said that Canada's textile industry was overexpanded.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Quite true.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I rose and asked him to give us the reference or the page of Hansard in connection with that alleged statement, and in reply, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm referred to a statement from the Minister of Finance.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is unable to quote the reference for Mr. McCann's statement, he should withdraw the words he ascribed to Mr. McCann.


An hon. Member:: Never.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has explained his statement, and I think there is no point in raising a further point of order.
(Text):


Hubert Badanai: 
and the whole of northwestern Ontario in general, as well as the rest of Canada in various degrees.
Our region derives a great deal of its development and prosperity from the products of its forests. We are a great centre of pulp and paper manufacturing, 95 per cent of which is being exported to the United States, and the same can be said about the rich iron ore of Steep Rock iron mines, which within five years will ship eight to nine million tons of ore annually valued at $100 million to our neighbour to the south.
This, of course, sounds good but the fact that our Canadian dollar sells at a premium of approximately 5 to 6 per cent over the United States dollar makes Canadian pulp and paper, especially, more expensive and we are faced with keen competition from other countries in this market which has always been looked upon as our own preserve. The crux of the question is that we cannot afford the luxury of maintaining the price of the dollar above that of the United States. To have the most valuable dollar in the world may be a source of great Canadian pride, but unfortunately if it is going to remain high it will have the effect of reducing income from sales which are made, and encourage Canadian purchases of products of other countries.
To bring the Canadian dollar to parity with the United States dollar is, I believe, one of the very first objectives of this government. Nearly three quarters of a billion dollars worth of iron ore is being sold annually to the United States and approximately a quarter of a million is sold to other countries.
If we were to consider trade alone, our dollar would be worth 95 cents and not $1.05 in terms of United States dollar value, because of our trade deficit. What keeps our dollar high as every one knows is the inflow of fresh investments and the borrowing of our provincial and municipal governments along with private corporations. According to official figures, United States capital in Canada represents about 52 per cent of total investment in manufacturing, mining, oil and gas. It can be and has been said that we are purchasing our prosperity by giving title to our resources to outsiders.
Why should not the government give active encouragement to the establishment of steel mills in Canada which would make use of our rich iron ore? A steel mill at the lake-head would be the logical location to serve the needs of western Canada and the far north, using the nearby iron ore from Steep Rock iron mines.
In the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur we are particularly fortunate in our

The Address-Mr. Badanai
labour and management relationships. There have never been any serious, protracted strikes. This fortunate situation is mainly due to a reasonable attitude taken by labour and to a sympathetic and understanding management. But we have often felt the strain and consequences of strikes alsewhere in the nation.
I should like to suggest that the federal government while it is engaged in appointing royal commissions on almost every problem affecting our economy should seriously consider the establishment of a management-labour commission which would sit continuously, assessing problems of industry and conditions of labour. This body could also carry on a study of the question of our older workers. In this connection I should like to pay tribute to my good friend, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) who has been trying to encourage employers to eliminate restrictive hiring policies based on broad assumptions which brand workers over 40 as undesirable for employment.
News stories of people reaching and passing the century mark are commonplace. It is a well-established fact that the life span of Canadians has increased greatly and if this prolongation of life continues during the next 50 years, at the pace established during the past 50 years, we will be faced with a whole new set of circumstances and problems, social as well as economic. There is no one who denies that medical science has extended life expectancy to such an extent that the time has come when governments together with labour and industry should make a concerted reappraisal of methods dealing with the placement of older workers. One of the difficulties in placing older workers appears to be just an old prejudice rather than a doubt of an older person being able to perform a job effectively.
I am one of those who believes that a reassessment of our entire retirement policy is due for a revision. With the life span increasing, at the rate estimated by the medical profession, I would say that in the foreseeable future the age of retirement may well be 75 years of age rather than the now generally accepted standard of 65, and at the same time-people in poor health- should qualify for pension at 60 or even 55.
For many months the question of civil service salaries has engaged the attention of all Canadians. No one can deny that it was badly handled from the very beginning. Much of the dissention in the civil service stems from the outmoded theory that no civil servant should have a right to bargain with his employer. I express the hope that the proposed revision of the Civil Service Act will include a clause giving civil servants 79951-0-16
the right to bargain in a similar manner to members of police and fire departments.
To deny these fundamental rights to an important sector of our population is to stamp our federal government policies with the seal of antiquity in dealing with its employees. Surely it can be no source of pride for any hon. member of this house to have to admit that the very men and women who form the great machine whose wheels keep this body functioning smoothly and efficiently are actually second-class citizens, not free to bargain and not free to take even a minor part in an election such as visiting a committee room or writing a letter to the newspapers for fear of being put out of employment as has happened on many occasions through the whim of a member of parliament.
I expect that the policies of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will come up again for review during this session of parliament. Television has become one of the major mediums of entertainment for Canadians, and I can well imagine how difficult it must be to select programs that will please the majority of the people. However, there should be some standards set which would prevent certain programs offensive to good taste from being piped into Canadian homes. By and large the standard of programming is not bad, but occasionally some presentations are on the borderline of being horror pictures which should not be allowed.
On a previous occasion I expressed my disgust at an offensive T.V. program produced by the C.B.C. for which I was criticized by some press reporters, and they may exercise their privilege to criticize me again for what I am about to say about another C.B.C. television program which appeared on Sunday, January 3.
This particular program had originally been intended for the General Motors Presents series, sponsored by General Motors of Canada. Following a screening of the drama, General Motors withdrew its sponsorship. I extend my warmest congratulations to Mr. Larry Gough, head of the public relations department of that company for refusing to accept the play, which, while of literary value for an adult informed audience, was hardly a fit play for general consumption. Mr. Gough described the play as "grim". Even the C.B.C. script chief, Mr. Leslie McFarlane, said that the "Shadow of a Pale Horse" was a pretty grim thing. Then why did the C.B.C. go ahead without sponsorship at the expense of the public treasury and produce the play anyway? It is about time that someone with a greater sense of public responsibility took charge of programming our national television system.

The Address-Mr. Badanai
When the royal commission on freight rates was appointed the people at the lake-head were assured that the commission would hold a hearing at the lakehead to consider the iniquities which are stifling the progress of northwestern Ontario. A few weeks ago, we were informed that the royal commission would meet only in the capital cities of the provinces. Thus we are going to witness the spectacle of a hearing in the city of Toronto which the premier of the province had not even asked for until the lakehead had made the request for a hearing to solve the crucial freight rate problem that plagues northwestern Ontario. It is rather disappointing that the very first action of this commission after the appointment of Mr. MacPherson, Q.C., of Regina, as its chairman, was the rejection of the northwest request for a hearing. May I point out that as the people of Manitoba are penalized somewhat to the same extent as northwestern Ontario, the freight rate problem is of mutual concern to both this region and the prairie provinces.
This section of the province of Ontario has been for a long time in a very precarious competing position with respect to the other sections of the province and will remain in an inferior position so long as the railways continue their freight rates structure on a horizontal basis. Their inequalities were brought to the attention of the House of Commons committee during the last session of parliament. Just to give you an example of what I mean by inequalities, you can ship a carload of lumber from the west coast to Toronto at a cheaper rate than from the lakehead to Toronto.
Officials of Steep Rock iron mines have made the statement that investment capital will not come to northwestern Ontario to help develop iron ore reserves owing to high freight rates. They stated that it costs $2 per ton to ship iron ore from Port Arthur while it costs only $1.63 to ship ore the same distance from Seven Islands to Philadelphia.
When the 17 per cent increase was allowed in November, 1958, and was reduced to 10 per cent effective on August 1, 1959, eight of the provinces protested the 17 per cent increase; Ontario and Quebec remained silent as the sphinx. Now we see Premier Frost climbing on the band wagon for a hearing in Toronto. Toronto is not interested in freight rates, and if they are genuinely interested in helping northwestern Ontario then the premier should have asked that the hearing be held at the lakehead instead of Toronto.
Nothing that has happened in the past, and nothing that can really happen in the near future, will have such a telling effect on the development of northwestern Ontario as freight rates. This is a problem which transcends political party lines and takes precedence over all regional matters because it affects the future of this great area of 200,000 square miles right up to the border of Manitoba.
I submit that the royal commission must see this grain port terminal, this new midcontinental seaport, this fabulous store of natural resources, and hear from the people concerned how equitable freight rates could bring about an era of prosperity for all of Canada.
In the belief that my constituents would expect me to say a word about the lake-head seaway terminal dock which now is actually under construction, with work on the fourth stage contract due to start in the near future, I express the hope that the new Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) will approve in the budget estimates the funds necessary to carry on the project without any delays.
And here, I wish to quote Mr. L. C. Irwin, chairman of the lakehead harbour commission, who also happens to be the district manager of the Searle Grain Elevators. Speaking of the first year of the seaway operation with regard to the lakehead he said this:
Locally, 1959 is bound to go down in history as the year the Lakehead Harbour Commission was formed, and it is extremely important to note that to hold our place on the shipping scenes of the world, we must realize the dire necessity of sending more and more of our grain direct to overseas markets in ocean-going bottoms.
No fewer than 131 ships from overseas called at the ports of Fort William and Port Arthur and of these 75 picked up grain for overseas ports and five took flour; all of the latter headed for west African ports. Combined outgoing grain figures in deep sea bottoms, including overseas and inland, amounted to 31,736,000 bushels.
It can readily be seen that the lakehead harbour will become one of the important ports of the world. However, there is one definite obstacle in the way of keeping this seaport open as long as possible and that is the lack of tug and ice breaking facilities available. Last spring ocean ships were having difficulties at the lakehead harbours due to not having tug assistance. We used to have one a couple of years ago which was named the Whalen. This was transferred to some other port and we were promised that a replacement with the new tug and icebreaker Alexander Henry was to take over.

To this day we do not know the reason why this tug is stationed at some port on the Georgian bay. I submit to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) that the question of tug and icebreaking service is absolutely essential at the lakehead if we are to take every advantage of the new seaway, and this service should be reinstated on a year-round basis.
The Canadian Farm Loan Board Act was originally established for the purpose of helping farmers and would-be farmers to improve their holdings and to establish young men willing to take up farming. Unfortunately, this board did not concern itself too much with the smaller farmers of northwestern Ontario. Now we have the farm credit corporation, successors to the Canadian farm loan board. When the change of name was made it gave some hope that its policy would be more considerate to the needs of the farmers as found in the district of Thunder Bay, but unfortunately I have evidence that such is not the case.
A farmer by the name of Herbert Russell, of the village of Murillo, capable conscientious and as honest as the day is long, applied for a loan to improve his holdings and was turned down. Last October I wrote the board on behalf of the applicant, asking for a reconsideration, and the reply I received was a recommendation that Mr. Russell submit a new application to the new farm credit corporation. I have heard nothing since.
A Mr. Henry Erickson of the village of Nolalu, a farmer who has lived on his land for 35 years, applied for a modest loan of $2,000 on 300 acres. His farm is valued at approximately $5,000 and the loan was turned down.
I cannot fathom the thinking of this new crown corporation which appears to be in business to help the needy but which in reality only wishes to help those whose collateral gives the privilege of borrowing at any bank without the assistance of the corporation.
This government has failed to establish a definite policy of farm assistance for areas such as northwestern Ontario, and practically the same can be said about the lack of enthusiasm shown by the government in assisting small businesses by making loans available to them, notwithstanding repeated statements to the contrary by members of the government. The truth of the matter may be found in the tight money situation which in large measure is the result of the huge deficits of the federal government. The Liberal government of Louis St. Laurent paid its way and had a sizeable surplus available for tax reduction and debt retirement, thus making easy money available for small business and industrial expansion.
79951-0-16i
The Address-Mr. Badanai
The government has entered into competition with the provinces, the municipalities and private borrowers and consequently it has forced interest rates up as investment money has become scarce.


William Moore Benidickson: They have hogged the market.


Hubert Badanai: Under the circumstances, for small business or tourist establishment operators the creation of an agency similar to the industrial development bank which operates in the maritime provinces appears to be essential if we are to avoid additional unemployment.
At the lakehead, Mr. Speaker, we have the Port Arthur Shipbuilding Company which has a fine, long record of building ships of all kinds and sizes but unfortunately very few ships are being built in Canadian shipyards now. When we had a Canadian merchant marine, which disappeared in a very inglorious manner with the sale of the last eight vessels to a Cuban firm a couple of years ago, we had hopes of building a fleet of boats worthy of the fourth trading nation of the world. It would be a wonderful thing for the government to undertake a Canadian merchant marine program and put Canadian ships back on the sea lanes of the world.
A month or two ago the Department of National Revenue eliminated the customs port at Fort William, a port which was established more than 60 years ago. The customs office has been placed under the supervision of the city of Port Arthur's customs office. This is a move which, notwithstanding the statement of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) that it will offer more opportunities for promotion of staff and that it has been done to achieve better administration, is in our opinion definitely a backward step and has nothing to do with efficiency.
Then a few weeks ago I was very much surprised to learn that the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific telegraph services are going to be merged into one office with a pooled revenue and expenditure arrangement. In other words, this will mean the complete elimination of one telegraph office. I now hear rumours to the effect that another such move is being contemplated with respect to the offices of the immigration department in Fort William and Port Arthur.
These moves are not in the best interests of the lakehead. They represent backward trends which remind the people of my constituency of similarly intended moves that a previous Conservative administration attempted in the hard times of the thirties. Where is the optimism with respect to our development as a nation and our industrial

The Address-Mr. Kucherepa expansion so frequently voiced by the Prime Minister and other members of the government? If they believe in what they say there should be little justification-


William Heward Grafftey: Who said igloo to igloo?


Hubert Badanai: -for cutting down services because it can only result in the eventual laying off of more men and thus aggravating the unemployment situation already with us.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: What is wrong with cutting out things that are not necessary?


Mr. J. W. Kucherepa (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to say how happy I am to see you and all the other members of the house apparently in good health and in good spirits. I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) on his recent election to the high office of Deputy Speaker and chairman of committees. I should also like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Morissette) and seconder (Mrs. Casselman) respectively for the way in which they carried out their duties with regard to the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
In recent times I have received a considerable amount of correspondence relative to the efficiency of government. Several weeks ago I learned from the press that the Canadian chamber of commerce had made certain representations to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in this connection and therefore I was very happy when he announced to the house on January 18 that the government intends to establish a royal commission to recommend means of running the government more efficiently and that this commission would be set up along the lines of the United States Hoover commission which recommended methods and procedures for reducing government expenditures to the lowest amount consistent with the efficient functioning of government. I support such an investigation and I especially welcome the interest of various individuals and groups in this regard. They can contribute much in experience and knowledge to assist the royal commission by briefs and the like in obtaining that degree of efficiency which is of paramount importance in the operation of our government.
Every business as a rule has two kinds of financial statements. One of these is called income and disbursements and the other is called assets and liabilities. Both of these might well be used in governmental affairs and especially, I think, both of these should be applied in our evaluation of our natural


resources. I do not think that enough attention has been paid to the latter aspect, that is, our assets and liabilities in the field of our natural resources.
Such a statement of Canada's liabilities would, of course, show an obligation to feed and clothe a rapidly increasing population. On the other hand, our assets would raise a question whether they are sufficiently conserved and renewed to match this need.
We are told today that our timber and pulp resources and production of these resources are decreasing rather than increasing. It was, therefore, a matter of some satisfaction to me that the government announced in the speech from the throne that it would ask parliament to authorize the establishment of a new department to be concerned with affairs relating to the forests and their most effective utilization and conservation, and to assume responsibility for other related resources. I think this is a step that might well have been taken some years ago.
It is startling to learn that only about 3 per cent of Canada is suitable for agriculture and that we are steadily losing even this limited asset. Besides continuing losses due to soil erosion, we are losing some of our very best land in southern Ontario and elsewhere because of unplanned development. We see in expanding urban areas a great many acres of our best land being used for building purposes, land that will be lost forever to us as food producing areas. One wonders whether our development in this field is following a sound course. Perhaps we should be examining the situation as it is found in Europe and elsewhere where every piece of productive land is jealously guarded by society and building takes the form of high-rise apartments rather than individual dwellings occupying considerable acreage of fertile soil.
In some parts of our country we are losing acres and acres of land because it is unsuitable for modern tractor operation and has now resulted in uneconomical farming. These economic and sociological problems pertaining to our agricultural resources should receive as much close attention as our forestry assets and other resources, renewable and otherwise.
The first and possibly the most important step to be taken in solving these problems is a stocktaking of the amount and quality of our present resources, including amongst other things our productive soil assets. This could be reduced to a per capita basis, so we could fully appreciate the real significance of our reducing assets and increasing liabilities in this regard.

Such a statement of our assets would serve governmental policy, while our statement of income and expenditures would serve the cause of efficiency. For example, every businessman reduces his cost of production to a unit basis in an attempt to improve his position. Why should the government not do likewise? Again, every businessman makes certain that the benefits of his operation are greater than his costs because otherwise he would lose money. Our government, then, seeking to develop our national resources and to increase national wealth should make even greater use of cost-benefit studies before expending large sums of tax money on new projects.
I believe the time has come for us to develop a regional survey library which would help us greatly in obtaining a national resources inventory. There is much information available already in various fields obtained by various agencies and various levels of government which should be centralized in such a library so that the cost of future planning would be reduced to a minimum by the elimination of the duplication of work which has already been done. In saying this, I should like also to underline the fact that it is most important that appropriate checks be made on any project which is being contemplated, especially through a cost-benefit study before the project is finally undertaken.
I was very pleased with the action taken by the government to amend the Railway Act to permit certain grants to be made from the railway grade crossing fund for a further period of three years beyond January 31, 1961. I have always considered the problem arising from the dangers inherent in railway-highway crossings to be one which requires the fullest co-operation and consideration of the federal government and of all other responsible parties. It is true that our country is large and that we have many such crossings. However, it seems to me that a vast program for the elimination of level crossings, especially on our trans-Canada highways and other heavily travelled thoroughfares in densely populated areas, might be considered as a practical and fitting way to mark our national progress. The completion of such an undertaking in time for our centennial in 1967 would be especially desirable. This scheme would create a sound public works program which would make many new jobs available across the entire country and in all the heavily urbanized areas.
I was pleased to hear in the speech from the throne that measures will be proposed to amend the Old Age Security Act and the Veterans Allowance Act to establish a basis
The Address-Mr. Kucherepa for the payment of pensions and allowances to Canadians residing outside of Canada. There are now many worthy cases which require this amount of consideration from the standpoint of health and for other personal reasons. In this regard, we would be following the usage which has been adopted in the United Kingdom and in other countries.
I should like to say something on this occasion by way of suggesting to the government that they investigate the possibility of the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter 183, which was passed by parliament in 1938 and which provides for loans to municipalities by the federal government to enable a municipality to undertake certain self-liquidating public works projects. One of the conditions of this act is that its application assists in the relief of unemployment in a given municipality. Under this act, which now requires some up to date revision, low interest rate loans could be made available to hard-pressed municipalities. This could provide a means of attacking the problem of seasonal unemployment. I suggest this plan for the consideration of the government.
Over one quarter of the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, was devoted to matters dealing with international affairs. This is significant of the degree of importance international affairs play in our daily lives. Today, January 22, is a memorable day for many of our fellow Canadians of Ukrainian descent. Forty two years ago in the capital city of the Ukraine, the Ukrainian people proclaimed their independence from Moscow domination. One year later on the same date, January 22, 1919, the western territories of the Ukraine which had been submerged in the Austro-Hungarian empire for many decades were reunited with the Ukraine into one sovereign state under one independent government. This independent Ukrainian republic was the first nation to accept the offer of coexistence with the Russians, and likewise it was the first nation to be subjugated soon thereafter. I know that members of the house will join with me in expressing to the Ukrainian people and to our fellow Canadians of Ukrainian descent our sincere hope that the Ukrainian nation, along with other enslaved nations, will one day again enjoy liberty and freedom in the society of free nations.
In the light of history, it seems that Mr. Khrushchev's coexistence offer means primarily getting along with Soviet Russia as much as possible on Moscow's terms and at her pleasure. This is the main proposal made by Mr. Khrushchev both before and after his recent trip to the United States of

The Address-Mr. Kucherepa America. It is most important that everyone concerned in international affairs be cognizant of this fact. The leaders of the Kremlin might consider this to be a good and tried method of psychological warfare on their part. On the other hand, the leaders of the free world, and in the uncommitted countries, could be eventually oriented to the true facts of the international situation and so evolve a policy on international matters which I shall describe as positive.
Such a policy will not only maintain world peace but will also promote the cause of freedom and the complementary regression of communist growth. What do I mean when I speak of a positive policy? A positive policy is first of all a realistic policy, devoid of wishful thinking, sometimes also called selfdeception; a policy which is dedicated to preserving the highest principles and spiritual values of our free way of life. The failure to develop such an international policy could be, in the long run, disastrous to our freedom.
What are the prerequisites of such a policy? I should like to touch briefly on some. First of all, we must give some thought to our spiritual values. Communism, limited as it is to economic and materialistic objectives, could never defeat such a superior ideology which is our heritage. This should be the keystone of our policy in international affairs even as it should be, and I know it is, in our national affairs. I am sure that such a concept would be acceptable to the great majority of mankind.
Second, we must maintain our military defence at full strength. Disarmament talks mean little if effective proposals for real control are not forthcoming. It is the sincere hope, I know, of every one of us that through patient negotiation we can attain in the near future that degree of disarmament which will make aggression impossible.
We must avoid wishful thinking when we deal with the leaders of the Kremlin. We must come to understand fully their attitudes and mentality, remembering their fundamental indoctrination that an agreement is to be respected only if it is useful to the communist cause. Their record in this connection is only too well known and presents one of the greatest obstacles in resolving the problems which beset the world today. Any agreement made with the Kremlin must be subject to some kind of joint international control. This is the only feasible course to follow until such time as the communist leaders shall have proven by deeds that they will live up to their international commitments and promises.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say something about summit meetings. We should

be fully aware of all the implications of summit meetings. On the one hand, because there appears to be no other effective means of negotiating with Soviet leaders, they might bring about earlier decisions on a given number of questions; on the other hand, we must remember that, if gravely unsuccessful, they could precipitate dangerous situations. Need I mention Munich?
However, if we have a policy based on what I have just said in the last few minutes, and being fully mindful of the communist position, our leaders acting calmly and wisely might eke out certain benefits from such meetings. One of these might well be a fuller understanding and a deeper comprehension of the communist make-up and a fuller appreciation of the degree of sincerity of the communist leaders as well as a better assessment of the possibility of achieving tangible results from further discussions and negotiations. This kind of knowledge could be of great importance in determining certain policy decisions on our part. No politician or businessman, being fully informed, would adopt a course or policy which, although appearing beneficial at the moment, had the earmarks of certain disaster in the near future.
As long as there is no agency capable of acting as mediator or judge above nations however large or small they may be, there can be no absolute ground rules laid down for dealing with international problems. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct ourselves according to the rules as they are formulated and as they exist, and not according to the rules as we should like them to be. I hope that we shall never practise self-deception in this matter.
Every move which the communist camp makes should be matched by a counter-move on our part. We have been strictly on the defensive for too long; the time to draw a line in this regard is long past due. We should be waging our own ideological offensive. Instead, we continually find ourselves on the defensive.
What about the captive nations of eastern Europe? Without a positive solution to their problems there is scant hope that any degree of European security can be achieved, and without that how can we anticipate lasting world peace? We must be frank with ourselves. The basic decisions taken at Yalta after the second world war have not worked out satisfactorily. Let us therefore not be hesitant in utilizing our best efforts in putting these matters straight. We have our responsibilities in this matter. What we need now is the courage to put our case, which is a just one, on the agenda.

Our most difficult years are behind us. I believe we have stemmed the ideological invasion by communism. The time has now come for us to move ahead and to take the ideological initiative in pressing the case for human dignity and liberty which is still the most powerful force motivating mankind. This is now being dramatically demonstrated on the African continent as we see race after race achieve nationhood. We must continue to strive for this goal, as this is the only way in which we can hope to achieve lasting world peace with justice.
There has been much talk about increasing trade with the communists. I believe this talk originated as the result of a trial balloon put forth by Mr. Khrushchev. This is the battleground which the communists have chosen; this is the means which they are using to avoid an ideological struggle which they fear. With their slave labour and exploitation of the masses they would have a tremendous edge in this kind of a struggle. There are a great number of business leaders both here in Canada and in the United States of America who have been enthralled by this bait. Whether these people are thinking of a fast profit or whether they are just naive or whether they sincerely believe in the possibilities contained in these trial balloons, I would rather not say. However, I will say that the integration to any considerable degree of the economy of any free country to that of the communist bloc would in a short time spell disaster for that country.
Speaking in London, England, in the Albert Hall on November 4, 1958, our Prime Minister said this:
The communist world having changed its direction from open to concealed aggression to trade requires counteraction by the free world.
He then went on to say this:
Trade has become a major weapon in the communist world offensive. First it was the U.S.S.R. and now red China has joined in an Asian onslaught, intended to capture markets and with and through them, the minds of men. The communist drive is designed to undermine the economic strength of the free world.
It is obvious then that by tying free nations of the world to the communist economic machine on the one hand, while forcing them out of their present markets on the other hand, the Kremlin is seeking to gain complete economic control of these countries, after which they feel political conquest would be a simple proposition.
Our energies today should be directed mainly in two fields in so far as trade is concerned. First, we should do all we can to assist the underdeveloped countries to get on their feet. Once their economies are put into high gear with all its resultant demands we can anticipate an increasing volume of
The Address-Mr. Regier trade with these people. This would be a policy of enlightened self-interest. We are in this country to a considerable degree now following such a policy. Further, we should do everything possible to expand our trade with the free countries of the world. Let us give the fullest consideration to every aspect of this problem. I believe there is a great place for trade missions, for participation in international trade fairs and all those other methods currently being used with such success by our business leaders right here at home in Canada.
If we pursue with determination these two main courses which are yet available to us, the communist economic offensive would run out of steam while, by the same token, all of our economies would be greatly strengthened to the detriment of communism generally.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: am at this time going to make a number of remarks about the speech from throne. I should like to say a few things about the remedies which the government is applying in its effort to meet its responsibilities. I should like to discuss for a little while the defects of these remedies that are being applied. I should like to outline where in our opinion the real interests of the Canadian people lie, especially in respect of the investment of capital. Then I should like to end my remarks by outlining our attitude towards the role that the federal government ought to play in giving the necessary leadership to the direction and development of a healthy economy.
Before I do this I want to welcome heartily the announcement of the government of its intention to establish a committee of this house to look into the expenditures of the Department of National Defence. On January 12, 1955-that was some five years ago-I had this to say on this matter:
-that a committee of the house be established, or even a royal commission, to investigate all expenditures of the Department of National Defence and the Department of Defence Production since the end of the war. I think the most amazing information would be revealed.
I hope that when this committee is established it will be granted the greatest latitude and authority so that it may do an efficient bit of work. The confidence of the Canadian taxpayer in the defence policy of the government will depend to a large degree on the manner in which this committee will be permitted to do its work and I for one am hoping that the committee will not be merely a rubber stamp for whatever military hierarchy we may have here in Canada.
In reading the speech from the throne it becomes obvious that the government does

The Address-Mr. Regier not intend to introduce into parliament this session anything of major consequence in regard to the over-all economic welfare of the Canadian people. I welcome the items of relatively minor legislation which have thus far been announced. However, we regret very much that there is no indication that the government is giving any consideration to the fundamental social and economic planning which is needed so that whatever prosperity we have in Canada may continue and, what is even more important, that whatever prosperity we have may be enjoyed by a growing number of our people.
When we speak of this prosperity of 1960 -and we read and hear much of it-I think it is our responsibility to consider carefully where this unplanned expansion, this unplanned prosperity, will lead us as a nation. There are already widespread predictions of a major recession such as we have not seen since 1939. These predictions that a major recession will hit us in 1961 or 1962-


An hon. Member:: You hope.


Erhart Regier: -are widespread, and in the light of those predictions by most of the leading economists of Canada-


An hon. Member:: No.


Erhart Regier: -our people have the right to expect that this government will make plans to forestall the occurrence of such a recession. Our group does not believe in the inevitability of a recession. We think these crises are unnecessary and impose unnecessary hardship on the mass of the people. If the government believes that because of our reliance on the United States economy we cannot avoid the impact of what happens south of the border, we submit that at least it could plan some action which would make the recession less severe than it would otherwise be.
We saw years ago during the hungry thirties that wherever labour or democratic socialist governments were in office, then in those countries of the western world action was successfully taken so that people did not have to endure such hardship as they would have had to suffer had their countries been under capitalist regimes. I should point out that even in the United Kingdom there is a Conservative party which assumes responsibility for the economic welfare of the nation as a whole. Here in Canada, however, we unfortunately have two major political parties-[DOT] the Liberals and the Conservatives-who even in this year of 1960 are subscribing to the ideology or to the theory that no guidance on the part of the federal government is necessary in order to maintain the economic welfare of the nation.


William Heward Grafftey: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Erhart Regier: I have only 40 minutes and I have about 15 hours of material. If the hon. member would ask his question at the end I shall be obliged.
It is my contention that the force of economic circumstances in the world is going to cause the demise in the '60's of political parties which refuse to realize the role that a national government ought to play in economic matters in modern times. Here we have a major recession widely predicted even by the advisers of the government. A new session of parliament is opening, and yet the government has indicated that it is contemplating no action whatever to protect the Canadian economy. I am afraid that in this as in so many other matters during the past several years the policy will again be one of locking the stable door after the horse is stolen.
We hear much about the prosperity of 1960. Yet a large number of individual Canadians-I believe there are several million of them-are not enjoying a reflection of this prosperity in their present incomes and amenities. I am sure the miners of Nova Scotia do not notice the presence of this prosperity. Canadian agriculture is certainly not enjoying the presence of our so-called prosperity. Our small businessmen who, as private enterprisers, are being squeezed out of existence are certainly not feeling any of the blessings of this prosperity. Our federal civil servants and many other civil servants are certainly not allowed a fair share in this prosperity. And when organized labour approaches management and asks for equity, asks that it also be allowed to share in this prosperity, we find various levels of government imposing anti-labour legislation. May I mention that not only is organized labour in Canada realizing the urgent need to take direct political action, but organized labour also realizes that it must elect a democratic socialist regime if it wants to obtain equity for all; and, wishful thinking notwithstanding, the new political party now being formed will definitely be a socialist party. Organized labour knows it must elect a government devoted to the interests of all sections of our society, and that is the intention of organized labour. There is no use organized labour electing itself a capitalist government. That would be ridiculous.
When we talk about our prosperity we should realize there is no prosperity for the miners of Nova Scotia; there is no prosperity for the farmers, for the small businessmen or for the civil servants. Certainly there is no prosperity for the unemployed, the old

age pensioners or those in receipt of veterans' benefits. This government, by failing to consider measures to ensure a continuation of prosperity or to provide that this prosperity may be shared by all, is to be severely reprimanded and I think the time is not too far distant when it will feel the reaction of the public to its inaction.
May I refer briefly to the subject of foreign trade. In two elections the Prime Minister promised the people of Canada that action would be taken. For several sessions we in this group have called the attention of the government to what was happening in the formation of trading blocks in various parts of the world and especially in Europe. Great possibilities existed there for Canadian participation yet the government sat back and did nothing until the alarm was sounded in Washington. We were asleep at the switch and did not wake up until we observed the interest of the United States in this question. We then sent a couple of cabinet ministers to Washington and, acting like little page boys, they went along with United States officials to make representations overseas. For what purpose?
I contend that it was done in an effort to protect United States interests.
The government ought to realize that we in Canada have our own interests. When making representations in Europe our interests are not identical to nor identifiable with United States interests. We should make our own representations in Europe. We in this group welcome every move that can be made toward the establishment of an Atlantic economic community. However, once again it is a case of arriving at the scene too late. Once more it is a case of attempting to lock the barn door after the horse has been stolen.
I could speak for hours on the question of public financing, tight money and interest rates because I feel it is in this field that the government has most fully revealed the basic Tory philosophy. It is in this area that the government has most harmed the interests of the Canadian people. The government has continued to adhere to discredited monetary theories and to reveal how deeply enslaved it is to the interests of the money lenders of Canada. There seems to be a blind reliance on the value of the money market place, on the part of the government, for the solution of the nation's needs.
One leading economist told me the other day that we have a Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) who suffers from monomania in this respect. He can see nothing but the value of the money market place and has no confidence in his ability or that of
The Address-Mr. Regier his government to meet the needs of the country in regard to public financing, tight money and interest rates.
The minister will not agree to use the instruments at hand and under his command. He continues to insist that the Bank of Canada does certain things on its own. He wants to forget that the Bank of Canada Act expressly says that the Minister of Finance on behalf of Canada is the major shareholder of the Bank of Canada. The act also says that the Bank of Canada shall be the fiscal agent of the government. It has been brought out time and time again in the banking and commerce committee of this house that if there is a conflict the will of the government and the minister is to prevail regardless of the opinion of the governor of the Bank of Canada who is, after all, an appointee of the government.
The people of Canada own the Bank of Canada and it is responsible to the government of the day. As a result of what has happened in the past 18 months I feel I can make the prediction that in 1960 tight money will be tighter yet and interest rates will be higher still. Even if the minister is successful in bringing down a balanced budget this year I contend that it will not be enough and that money will be tighter still and interest rates higher yet.
I have analysed the Bank of Canada statistical summary for November last and know exactly the situation in which the minister finds himself in the matter of financing the public debt. Our treasury bills outstanding as of December 2 last were $2,077 million. Bonds and sixth victory loans all due in 1960 total $1,320 million. Ordinarily there are outstanding treasury bills of only $1,495 million. Therefore the minister needs to raise a net amount for servicing the public debt of $1,902 million in order to meet the obligations he will have to meet this year.
Even assuming that he will present a balanced budget and that capital expenditures will be the same as last year,-$400 million- his net bond capital needs run to $2,302 million. Last year he was required to raise only $2,200 million and he failed to raise it. He has a carry-over into this year of $600 million and the situation facing him this year will be worse than that which prevailed last year even if he produces a balanced budget, hence my prediction that tight money will be tighter still and interest rates will be higher yet.
I feel that the minister has been so very wrong in so many predictions he has made in this house as to what the effects of his

The Address-Mr. Regier policies would be that the government, unless it obtains the resignation of that minister, is soon going to find itself in an awful mess.
I should like to read what the minister said as reported at page 2362 of Hansard of July 18, 1958 when he protested that the idea that the bond conversion deal would raise the interest rate was a fallacy:
My hon. friend suggests that this conversion loan is raising interest rates. I do want to make it quite clear that this is not the fact at all.
Later he said:
I am happy to be able to report to the house that the response to the loan already has been not simply encouraging but has indeed been almost overwhelming.
What are the true facts of the situation? The Bank of Canada and the chartered banks had to rescue the minister at the time of the bond conversion deal. Personal holdings of government bonds went down by several hundreds of millions of dollars. If it had not been for the action of the chartered banks and the Bank of Canada the minister's bond conversion deal would have been a flop and would have proved impossible of accomplishment.
The minister and the government through that manoeuvre have caused a loss of public confidence in any issues emanating from the government of Canada. The situation became very desperate. I do not know why, but an interesting event occurred only last August and September. For a seven-week period the minister issued treasury bills yielding in excess of the bank interest rate of 6 per cent. It took seven weeks for him to realize what was happening. I am aware of individual Canadians who took advantage of the situation. I have prepared a table indicating the possible return to an individual who may have obtained a loan of $358 million from a chartered bank depositing as security treasury bills offered by the Minister of Finance. I have a table here in which I have compiled all those issues where the return was in excess of 6 per cent.
An individual who did this, who borrowed the money at the bank, paid the bank 6 per cent, and collected more than 6 per cent from the taxpayers of Canada through the minister, would have made a gross profit of $590,208. I should like to know whether any of those who are closely associated with Conservative party ranks in Canada were aware of the situation. I believe the minister owes the house and the country an explanation of who were the people who were able to obtain from his department the sum of $590,208 as profit without having invested necessarily one cent of their own money.


I regret that seven weeks had elapsed before the Minister of Finance realized what was happening, because he on behalf of the government could have gone to the chartered banks and then the taxpayers would have been responsible for paying only 6 per cent.
In addition the minister has had to resort to excessive and improper use of treasury bills in his predicament. He has raised the amount of treasury bills outstanding in the course of eleven months by over $500 million. He said we had to engage in the conversion loan deal because the market was loaded with short term issues, and it was in order to remove the short term issues from the money markets and thereby make it easier for municipalities and other governments to market their securities that the bond conversion deal was necessary. The minister has now denied that by the fact that after the bond conversion deal was completed it was the actions of the minister himself that flooded the market and we now have the situation where our municipalities and our provincial governments are unable to market their own securities because the offerings of the federal government are clogging the market and the market is badly overloaded with these issues.
The minister has made excessive and wrongful use of treasury bills in Canada and he is not solving anything by so doing. He has, however, completely upset the money market in Canada, thereby gravely injuring the needs or the causes of the municipal and provincial governments. He has also not resolved his own difficulty in that he now has this terrific carryover that he has to deal with in 1960. The money lenders certainly have a good friend in the minister. These are people who sow not but how they can reap when there is a Conservative government in office.
The minister resorts to all sorts of remedies to meet the situation. The government is deliberately encouraging higher and higher interest rates in Canada. The government is deliberately imposing, or permitting the existence of, a tight money situation. The government hbpes it can resolve the situation by asking people to hold the line.
The civil servants of Canada had some dealings with the minister not so long ago. The minister has bluntly refused to this House of Commons the information contained in the civil service commission report in regard to civil servants' salaries. I contend that report is the property of the House of Commons. The civil service commission is an institution which belongs to the House of Commons. The civil servants are not servants of a Tory government. The

civil servants are servants of the people of Canada. At a time when a report like this is issued by a commission responsible to parliament, even though through the Secretary of State-


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Have they ever been issued in the past?


Erhart Regier: Yes; your own government issued it only one year ago when the recommendation called for no increase in salary. This year when there is a rumour at least that it calls for increases in salaries the government suddenly decides that it is a confidential document and the public of Canada shall not be told that the civil service needs an increase. Oh, no, this is a secret which has become the property of the Conservative government, and I contend that it is a fundamentally wrong approach to the function of the civil service commission. When it reports on our public service we are entitled to know what is in that report, and it is not only for the Minister of Finance and the government to know what is in that report.
This Tory government, since they have taken over, in their deliberate policy of paying off the moneylenders, of raising interest rates in Canada, have in effect by now raised interest rates-I am speaking of interest rates in Canada as a whole-by at least 3 per cent. Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada will be interested to know that once this becomes applicable to the whole of the debt of the government of Canada it will mean an added tax burden on the federal government of over $500 million, 3 per cent on its public debt of $17 billion. And when you consider all borrowed money in Canada, when all debts are considered, the people of Canada will have to pay over $1 billion more in added interest rates than they would have paid if the lower interest rates had been permitted to prevail in our economic life in Canada.
The minister says he is not responsible for the tight money policy. The minister, through his actions of raising interest rates has made it uneconomical for Canadian corporations to go to the bond market for their funds. The banks admit that corporation financing in 1959 has to a great degree been done through loans from the chartered banks. That is one of the basic reasons why the small businessman has been unable to borrow money from the chartered banks. As an authority I would like to quote from the Canadian committee report of the investment bankers association of america to their 48th annual convention. They say:
The Address-Mr. Regier A considerable portion of financing in 1959 has been done through the chartered banks instead of the investment dealers.
This report has this to say also.
By refunding 1959 maturities on a short term basis a further amount of about $600 million has been added to 1960 maturities. Hence, the pressure from government refunding issues may well be as great next year as it has been in 1959.
Hence, Mr. Speaker, my prediction that tight money will be tighter still and interest rates will be higher yet unless some action is taken.
The old, discredited policies being pursued in monetary and fiscal matters by this government are going to lead to the recession, widely predicted, becoming not only a recession but a major depression in Canada. We had expected that at least at this session of parliament the government would introduce some measures so that we could make some plans for the continued economic health of the Canadian people.
For instance, we had hoped the government might consider the imposition of a capital gains tax. This would have one salutary effect in that it would make all those people in Canada who earn more than their immediate needs share the tax burden in a more equitable manner than they are doing now. It would have the added beneficial effect of lowering the premium on the Canadian dollar thereby aiding Canadian exporters and Canadian manufacturing enterprises.
But apparently no such action is being contemplated. These higher interest rates add to the tremendous tax burden on our citizens and increase the cost of production in Canada. They also make Canada a happy hunting ground for investors from beyond our borders. Tighter money blocks the sale of provincial and municipal bonds and forces small businessmen out of existence. It blocks the establishment of efficiency in agriculture in Canada.
We need a lot of capital in Canada but the real capital needs of the Canadian people are, for instance, in the Atlantic region. We need a lot of capital for the development of public power. Agriculture can use tremendous amounts of investment capital. Small business can use a lot of it. We need capital to keep the wheels of commerce rolling. Our social needs are being starved for lack of investment capital. Ideally, Canada, for the sake of world peace and world stability, ought to be an exporter of capital rather than an importer.
We definitely feel that the economic anarchy we are allowing to exist must end. The federal government must assume the responsibility for orderly development and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The
244	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Rapp only alternative is the rapid development of either the ingredients of a depression or a war or the evolution of the corporation state with political parties and governments and people becoming slaves and eventually the evolution of a fascist regime with all the basic evils that are found in totalitarian countries.
The survival and development of the individual human being is the cornerstone of the group to which I belong. We feel that unless action is taken now his survival and development as an individual human being is very much in jeopardy. We say, let us get together and use the instrument of government, the parliament of Canada, in order to advance the cause and the welfare of the general public as a whole.
Some measures were taken in 1934 and again at a later time, and when parliament established the Bank of Canada it assumed authority for the issuance of currency in Canada. We must now move ahead and parliament must assume the responsibility for the issuance of credit in Canada. The Bank of Canada must be given that responsibility. We recommend that one move that should be taken is the establishment of a national investment board which each year would make a survey of the investment needs of all segments of the Canadian economy. It would then make recommendations as to allocation and interest rates with respect to the investment money that is available. When necessary it would recommend legislation which would compel the implementation of such recommendations. If needed because of circumstances it would issue or guarantee bond sales to the public on its own and it would make capital available at an interest rate of not more than 3 per cent for socially desirable projects such as housing and the developmental needs of our municipalities.
We feel that there is growing support throughout Canada for our proposal. We feel that the government is failing the people of Canada at a crucial time in Canadian history and we urge the government to give the most serious consideration to these, to us, necessary actions that they ought to take.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melfori):: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to you for giving me this opportunity to take part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. My first words will be words of congratulation and good wishes to Your Honour for continued good health so that you may fulfil your duties with the same dignity and devotion that you have displayed during previous sessions. I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) who moved the address in reply


to the speech from the throne. It gave me a great deal of pride and satisfaction that this great honour should be bestowed on him by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). I call the hon. member for Rimouski my good friend. He is not only a master of making good speeches but he is a cheerful neighbour of mine in the chamber. The seconder, the much respected and graceful member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman), made a magnificent speech which I am sure will go down in the annals of the house as one of the best.
What I want to speak about today will be a departure from the usual trend of speeches in this chamber. It appears to me that at times we forget that we are sent to parliament as legislators and not only as politicians. At times the speeches made in the house have no relation to legislation or to constructive criticism. They are mostly political speeches that are meant for home consumption. If we can say this about some of the speeches, how much more does it apply to some of the questions that are put to the treasury benches. This, I must say, I detest.
The remarks I intend to make today involve matters of great concern to myself and the people I represent. I am not going to recite the long list of achievements that the government has accomplished during the two and a half years it has been in power. The record is impressive and speaks for itself. Nor will I take hon. members back through the 22 years that the previous government was in power in Canada. My remarks will be in the form of self-criticism or constructive criticism, if you wish to call it that.
During the time that parliament was adjourned a disaster struck the prairie provinces when an unusually early snowfall buried millions of acres of grain. As a result the crop could not be harvested and lies at the present time in the fields. Many farmers were not able to harvest a kernel of grain. Others were able to harvest some. Still others had their grain baled for feed or had to thresh it in a damp condition. The federal government and the provincial governments came to the assistance of the prairie farmers by paying $3 per acre for the unharvested grain but the method of payment of this assistance appears to be unsatisfactory and practically all farmers are complaining about it.
Many farmers did not receive any payment at ali because they took off more than 50 per cent of their crop. This is considered, in many places, unfair. It is my opinion that, to do justice to all, payments should have been made to the farmers on their unharvested crop still in the fields, up to 200 acres, without any strings whatever

attached. This would have been more satisfactory. In addition, the payments should have been started around November 1, the time of the first snowfall. In my opinion, it is still not too late to change this method which would accrue to the advantage of many farmers who will otherwise receive no payment.
Another situation that needs immediate attention is the one concerning deficiency payments on eggs and hogs. The stabilization bill which came into operation a short time ago was met with great enthusiasm and was a success. It is a good piece of legislation but it has some faults. As a result of overproduction, the government had to change the method from purchase by the government to deficiency payments to the producer. The principle of deficiency payments is all right and was approved by the great majority of the producers in this country. However, the method of calculating deficiency payments seems to be working unsatisfactorily.
Under the present set-up deficiency payments will be made to producers on a national average basis which will mean that some producers will receive less than the basic price under the stabilization measure for this year, while others in different parts of the country, by receiving the same amount, will receive much more than the base price guaranteed under the stabilization bill. This, I think, is wrong. I am afraid that if this method is continued we will find to our sorrow that it will make a mockery of our stabilization measure so far as forward pricing is concerned. It will have no resemblance whatever to forward pricing. I am not suggesting the payments should be made on an individual basis, I mean the deficiency payments, which would be difficult to implement, but on a regional basis which would mean many people would receive deficiency payments and these would come very close to the base prices established under the stabilization bill.
This method would apply also to some of the people in our country, namely the butchers and others who are buying pork from the farmer. It appears that the present policy of deficiency payments for pork will have an adverse effect on the butcher shops and the locker plant owners. In rural areas these businessmen buy practically all their pork directly from the farmer. If the price of pork is below the support price then the farmers would not sell to them but would sell to the large packing plants. The only solution would be to have some system set up whereby pork purchased by these small businesses could be graded.
The Address-Mr. Rapp
Serious as these misgivings appear to be, they are only small when compared to the things that face the grain producer in the west. I might sound very critical, Mr. Speaker, but let me tell you I would be failing in my duty if I did not bring these problems of the grain producer in the west to the attention of this house. I was saying that this government had done a tremendous job in alleviating the plight of the farmer. This has been greatly appreciated. The statistics bear out the fact that the farmer's income is up during the last couple of years. I must also say that the grave danger in these statistics lies in generalizing the income of all farmers and this does not present a true picture. Another sad aspect of these farm statistics is the prominence that is given to them in the press and over the radio, thus creating a false impression. A closer look at these figures reveals that the returns from livestock are high, and continue to increase, while the income from grain is low and is steadily declining. The crux of the grain story lies in the disparity of prices.
The income a farmer receives from the sale of grain and the expense he incurs to produce such grain are all out of balance. The gap is simply too great. Of course, this is not a new story that I am revealing to the hon. members in this house. It is almost as old as farming itself in the west. We know also that many factors are contributing to this inequality of income and expenses, but they are too numerous to list at the present time.
What I am interested in is finding ways and means of remedying these inequalities. The only known method, and one proposed by farmers, farm organizations and authorities on agriculture, is a method that will be fair and just to all and in the best interests of Canada's agricultural economy. I refer to the two-price system. This means that the farmer must get one price for the wheat which is used for human consumption and domestic purposes in Canada, and another price for the wheat which he sells on the commercial market or overseas market. This wheat is sold at the world price, whatever that may be.
A similar method of pricing is followed in other industries in this country and is not new. We see it every day. The manufacturer puts his own price on his goods. Industry calculates the price of the finished product on the basis of what it costs to produce, plus labour costs and return on investment. However, the grain producer must accept the price that is offered to him, namely the commercial price offered by our overseas customers which has no relationship whatever to

The Address-Mr. Rapp parity prices. This is the reason for the great disparity between the farmer's income and expenses. The price he receives for wheat remains the same year after year, while the price of farm implements, taxes and other expenses goes up uninterruptedly year after year. For the good of agriculture and our national economy, this must be stopped and the sooner the better.
Actually all the farmers are requesting now is the right and privileges of every other citizen in this country, namely to set a price on his own products when used domestically. The farmer is not asking for a subsidy or that the government should pay the difference between the domestic and the commercial price. He is only asking for parity prices for his wheat used domestically. Our Canadian wheat board would have no difficulty in administering such a scheme since all purchases and sales of western wheat come under their jurisdiction. At the end of every crop year they would have a record of how much wheat had been sold for domestic use and the money so realized would have to be divided amongst the permit holders on the basis of the amount of their wheat which had been sold for domestic use. If a farmer had not sold any wheat at all, he would not be entitled to any extra payments or if he had not sold as much as he was entitled to sell he would get paid only for the amount he sold at the domestic price.
I must say that this is the only solution for the grave situation with which the western grain farmer is faced. It cannot be delayed any longer nor can it be postponed. It might be too late then. The grain farmers look to this government to give them the two-price system because their livelihood depends on grain raising at a price that is fair and just, a parity price for what is used domestically.
I now come to a subject that is very close to my heart and one on which I have spoken in this house on many occasions, namely rapeseed. I am sure Mr. Speaker expects me to say something on this subject. I had not any intention of doing so at the present time but when I discovered that my resolution dealing with this subject is again well down on the list I felt that it was my duty to deal briefly with this matter. 1 was not able to bring forward my resolution last year and the chances for bringing it forward this year are extremely slim also. It is my intention, however, to speak on behalf of the rapeseed producers during this session much more strongly and loudly than ever before, or at least until justice is done for the rapeseed producers.
I am more convinced than ever that the treatment the rapeseed industry is getting

in this country is similar to the treatment a stepchild sometimes receives. Other oilbearing seeds that belong to the same family such as soybeans, sunflower seeds and others are under the stabilization act and are supported by subsidies or deficiency payments, but that is not the situation with regard to rapeseed. I should like to give a short history of the rapeseed industry.
The growing of rapeseed in Canada on a large scale started in 1943. At that time the Canadian navy required marine oil. The Canadian wheat board purchased the rape-seed at that time at six cents per pound, paid all freight charges and so on. But now, after the war, we find that rapeseed is not classified as grain. In the second place, it could not be brought under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. However, when I looked in the statutes of 1952, volume I, chapter 25 I discovered that rapeseed is classified as a grain under the schedules. Acreage in Canada in 1957 was approximately 629,000 acres. Rapeseed ranks as one of the top oil bearing crops in Canada. In terms of world production, Canada has risen from a token producer of rapeseed to the seventh largest producer in the last few years.
Under its present structure freight rates will definitely restrict the development of the rapeseed industry. By way of comparison, wheat, oats, barley and rye and flax all come under the Crowsnest pass agreement while rapeseed does not come under it. For instance, the freight rate on flax is 231 cents per hundredweight while that on rapeseed is closer to 80 cents. Consequently rapeseed is subjected to further increase in freight rates as they become effective as it does not come under the Crowsnest pass agreement.
Handling, marketing and storage of rape-seed is identical to that with respect to other grains. Rapeseed is accepted and carried by ocean carriers at the same rate for transportation as flax or other grains. The only people who seemingly do not recognize rape-seed as a grain are the Canadian railways. So far as the railroads are concerned, they have the same costs in handling rapeseed as in handling other grains. Canadian railways recognized that rapeseed was identical with flax so far as they are concerned, recognizing for the purpose of transportation there is no difference between flax and rapeseed.
In addition to the question of freight rates, tariffs have also affected the expansion of this industry. Rapeseed, when processed, is manufactured into an edible oil comparable to soybean oil, cottonseed oil, or any of the other oils on the vegetable oil market. A byproduct of processing rapeseed is the meal

which is used in this country in the production of livestock and poultry feeds and concentrates. At the present time our tariff structure allows soybean oil, the largest competitor to rapeseed oil, into Canada from the United States under a 20 per cent tariff. However, soybeans are brought in duty free; processed here and the oil can be sold on the Canadian market. The Canadian processor may also ship the oil back into the United States without tariffs or without duty while Canadian rapeseed taken into the United States must pay one cent per pound import tax.
My interest in this question is precipitated by the following reasons which I list under these five points:
1.	Wheat acreage reduction is essential to reducing our present surplus stock. Diversifying production is essential and rapeseed is a cash crop that can be grown as an alternative to wheat.
2.	Production of soybeans is rapidly expanding in the cornbelt of the United States. The United States government is depressing the world market with cheap flax and soybeans. Faced with this unfair competition in world markets, surely our government can protect our producers by putting our product in a competitive position on our home market.
3.	The vegetable oil market in Canada is expanding. It has been estimated that there would be a ready market for a million acres of rapeseed annually if action is taken on freight rates and tariffs to place it in a competitive position with oil seed products we presently import from the United States.
4.	Rapeseed is the only edible oil seed at present that can be produced in sufficient quantities to meet our Canadian demand for edible oil under normal peacetime conditions, and marine engine oil in the event of war. Growing of other edible oil-bearing seeds is restricted by climatic conditions.
5.	There is room for a gradual expansion of our livestock industry in Canada. Rape-seed meal as a high protein concentrate has proven suitable for preparation of livestock and poultry feeds and concentrates.
With this, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my critical analysis. As I stated at the outset, the government has done a tremendous job with regard to legislation pertaining to agriculture, and I am sure it will continue to do so in the future. Much of the legislation pertaining to agriculture has been new legislation that has never been in operation previously. In other words it has been put into effect on a trial and error basis. It is expected that, as time goes on, changes and amendments will be required. However, the subjects I have listed in my speech are
The Address-Mr. Dupuis unquestionably the most important ones, and require the immediate and considerate attention of our government. The farmers are depending on this, and it has been my duty and pleasure to speak on their behalf. (Translation):


Mr. Yvon Dupuis (Si. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with other hon. members of the house in extending my sincere congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, i.e. the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) and the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman), who both carried out their task very well indeed.
I would be remiss if I did not stress the satisfaction of all the opposition members when they were told that the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn), had been chosen chairman of the committees of the house.
Together with all other hon. members I wish him well, and I am sure he will discharge his responsibility with great distinction.
Mr. Speaker, as I come from a riding which stretches along the banks of the Richelieu, I would like to deal with an issue which affects more particularly that area, I mean the Richelieu water-way project, which is dear to all Canadians, not only in the province of Quebec, but throughout the country.
In May 1958, I attended with other hon. members of this house, a meeting in the railway committee room, here in the parliament buildings, when the mayor of Sorel, Mr. Fiset headed a delegation of mayors and reeves from the Richelieu district, and a request was made to the government to proceed with consideration of the Richelieu waterway project without further delay.
I remember, as you probably will too, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) had promised the delegation that he would visit the river by boat, find out about its significance and see whether it would be desirable to start work on the water-way.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we of the Richelieu valley were all happy to read in the papers, in September 1959, that the Prime Minister had decided to undertake that lovely cruise on the Richelieu.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: In order to safeguard procedure in the future I want to say that the hon. member is speaking on a subject which is the specific subject of a notice of motion, No. 39 on the list. That position, from past experience means that it is not likely to be reached, so I shall not interpose further in
248	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dupuis his discussion of that subject. But if a subject is on the order paper and is likely to be dealt with during the present session, I would think it would not be proper to discuss it in detail during the debate on the address.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I believe that motion on the order paper suggests that a committee be set up to inquire, or more precisely-


An hon. Member:: He allows us to continue.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that we were glad to see the Prime Minister of Canada undertake that cruise on the Richelieu. But, unfortunately, things did not turn out as we expected. On September 22, the Prime Minister of Canada arrived at Sorel, in the late afternoon, and boarded the Argenteuil, in which he was supposed to make that promised cruise.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada got on the Argenteuil, all right as he had promised, as soon as he arrived. But to the great surprise of everyone, he stayed only a few minutes for a little tour of a few yards, after which he got off the boat and into a splendid blue convertible. And here is, Mr. Speaker, what the reporter of La Presse noted after that abbreviated cruise of the Prime Minister on the Richelieu:
Having signed the golden book, in presence of his worship C. Fiset, mayor of Sorel, Mr. Diefen-baker and his wife, both stylishly dressed in blue, got on the Argenteuil to undertake the cruise which was to peter out, because some organizer had seriously figured that it took only an hour to cruise from Sorel to Chambly. Actually, it would have taken the whole afternoon.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it was with regret as I said a moment ago, that we saw the Prime Minister ignore all those fine promises he had made only to become the ready victim of Conservative organizers who got hold of him, took him at once on a tour of the cities, always farther and farther from our beautiful river. So he went, we were told up to the extremity of lower Quebec.
Well, Mr. Speaker, my constituents and I regret this kind of publicity on the part of the Prime Minister who, to show his concern for our problems, came and spent five or six minutes aboard a ship, and then immediately forgot about his promises.
I therefore say, Mr. Speaker, that it is time that this government take steps to give serious consideration to this project.
(Text):
Perhaps I may now say a few words in English for the benefit of my English-speaking friends. The canalization of the Richelieu,


and of the Richelieu river is the logical step consequent on the St. Lawrence seaway achievement which has already proved itself so beneficial both to Canada and to the United States. The people of these two countries are almost unanimously in favour of canalization in the near future. On July 3, 1958 President Eisenhower manifested his interest by passing a law giving United States army engineers the task of studying the possibilities of a navigable waterway between Albany and the St. Lawrence river via lake Champlain. This summer, at Isle La Motte and in Burlington, Governor Stafford of Vermont declared he was in favour of the project.
In Canada, as I stated a few minutes ago in French, much pressure was exerted on the federal government by chambers of commerce, by members of parliament and by several municipalities in favour of the immediate canalization of the lake Champlain-St. Lawrence river waterway.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier) often known as the father of the St. Lawrence seaway, declared last night that the time was right for the canalization of the Richelieu river. Last year, Hon. Paul Beaulieu, the Quebec minister of commerce and industry, declared that his government also was in favour of this project. Everything points to the fact that the time has come to pass from talk to action.


William Heward Grafftey: This guy still thinks he is in the provincial legislature.
(Translation):
Has the hon. member for Brome-Mis-sisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) anything to say?


Azellus Denis: He did grunt something.
(Text):


Mr. Morris:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Yvon Dupuis: With great pleasure.


Edmund Leverett Morris: I dislike interrupting the reading of the hon. member's speech, but what evidence does he have when he says that all Canadians are in favour of this project? Can he give us any evidence of support from the Atlantic provinces for this great undertaking?
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all answer the hon. member who just stated that I was reading my speech. Now, if there is anybody in this house who is not in the habit of reading his speeches, it is the member for St. Jean.
To please my hon. friends opposite, I wanted to say a few words in English and the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Morris),

took pleasure in taunting me to show how much he despises those who want to discharge their duties in this house. I would very much like to hear the hon. member speak in French without notes before undertaking to teach others what to do.
Mr. Speaker, when I said a few moments ago that the majority of Canadians were in favour of the Richelieu project, I wanted to say "the majority of bona fide Canadians." If the hon. member for Halifax is not among them, I am sorry. After considering every aspect of the St. Lawrence project and learned all the benefits it has brought Canada and the United States, it seemed to me consistent to say, together with all those who are experts in the matter, that the next step the federal government should take would be to put the Richelieu project under way, so as to strengthen our ties with our southern neighbours.
Mr. Speaker, I now come to the speech from the throne. Of course, I will not be able to deal with it at much length because it does not contain much.
As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) so rightly said:
The more we read the speech from the throne, the more we realize that it contains nothing.
And the Leader of the Opposition was right in saying that the speech was a real mockery of parliament.
It does not contain a word about the prevailing state of unemployment in this country. Nor does it mention the inflationary conditions we know today. Not a word about the present disastrous condition of Canadian agriculture, nor about the second-rate status being imposed upon our civil servants.
Mr. Speaker, alongside that unsubstantial speech from the throne, we have the Conservative propaganda being thrust upon us through television, through the little blue booklets distributed across the country to jack up the Tory Conservative regime. It would take several hours to expose all the errors and schisms contained in those booklets or televised speeches.
On the matter of unemployment, they say: "We have solved the unemployment problem". On the problem of inflation, they say: "We have rapidly checked inflation". Recession is also referred to as a problem of the past.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the present situation under the Conservative regime is quite different from what the Conservative regime and all their supporters would have us believe.
The Address-Mr. Dupuis
The unemployment problem in this country has now reached alarming proportions. Yet, in order to be elected, someone had promised that no one would suffer.
When I am prime minister, no one is going to be allowed to suffer because of unemployment.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I have re-read very closely the speech made by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette), who proposed the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and I noted, to my great surprise, that he had forgotten to tell us that in his own riding the number of unemployed has now reached a level unprecedented in the history of his constituency. I noted that that same member, who extolled the great achievements of the Conservative government in the last two years, had forgotten to say that, on December 31, 1959, there were 4,962 unemployed in the constituency of Rimouski. This is a shame, Mr. Speaker.
Following the period during which Canada experienced unparalleled prosperity, up to 1957, the Conservative succession has plunged the Rimouski constituency and all other constituencies of the country into an alarming condition.
Mr. Speaker, this week-I believe that it was yesterday-the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) said in answer to a question from the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), that there were close to 700,000 unemployed at December 31, 1959. I wonder if our hon. friends opposite are glad of these statistics and of this situation? Mr. Speaker, I insist that the government has not fulfilled its promises. In fact, the Conservative government had promised to reduce taxes, but it increased them; it had promised to check inflation, but has allowed the cost of living to reach today, at this very moment, its highest level in its history; the Conservative government had promised that "no one would suffer" from unemployment, but it shows us today that there are 700,000 unemployed who are also suffering for having elected a Conservative government in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, last year, I quoted to several of my Conservative colleagues from the province of Quebec certain statistics relating to each of their constituencies. I told them of something of which they seemed unaware, i.e., that the number of unemployed had increased alarmingly in each constituency. I do not intend to impose those statistics
250	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dupuis
to the house and to summon up this year the ghost of unemployment, in each constituency, but I want to say, on behalf of the people of St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, that we are also suffering-though we are not responsible for it, as you can see-from the Conservative government.
In December 1956, there were 1,419 unemployed in my constituency. In December 1957, barely a few months after the election of the Conservative government, that number had reached 2,251, an increase of 832; in December 1958, the figure rose to 2,508, an increase of 1,089; in December 1959, we had to follow the average for the rest of the country, and we reached the deplorable figure of 3,000 unemployed, an increase of close to 2,000 since the Conservatives took office. And at the present time, Mr. Speaker, that is on January 22, in the town of St. Jean, there are 3,442 people unemployed.
So, Mr. Speaker, neither in St. Jean, nor in Bimouski, Joliette or Brome-Missisquoi, next to my constituency, do the people appear proud to be ruled by a Conservative government.


William Heward Grafftey: That is not true.


Yvon Dupuis: Again you can hear my friend from Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) piping up. Obviously, he would rather interject than make speeches. I would suggest to him. Mr. Speaker-and I truly advance this as a friendly suggestion-to rise and tell us how many people were without jobs in Brome-Missisquoi when he was elected, and how many there are today. If the hon. member is agreeable to giving this information to the house, I shall give him the opportunity. If he is a true representative of his constituency, he will feel bound to defend it and to tell us how things are, and so that "no one will suffer", he will have to seek some small improvement from the government.
Apparently, Mr. Speaker, there was nothing there but election talk.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. I wish to tell the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) that I shall be making my own speech soon.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have succeeded in thawing out one more Conservative member, and I shall make it a point to be in the house when my hon. friend makes his speech.
I shall then ask him, and I hope he will be in a position to answer: "What was the unemployment figure when you were elected


to the house?" And a second question: "How many people are out of jobs now?" I hope at that time he will be in a position to give us a satisfactory reply.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that in the pamphlet I was mentioning, which is being widely distributed in Canada to publicize the merits of the Conservative government, it is stated that the party of the present Prime Minister is the party with the greatest accomplishments in the field of social security. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have been doing great deal of searching-and I invite the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi and his colleagues to join me in my search-in an attempt to discover which social measures were passed by our friends opposite, not only since their election to office in 1957, or rather their temporary stay, but also in the years prior to their election.
Mr. Speaker, I say along with the people of this country that we miss the Liberal governments and the happy days under their administration which brought Canada the greatest achievements in its history. Mr. Speaker, I am aware that my friends are not happy when they are reminded of the legislations passed by the Liberals, such as the Old Age Security Act, the Disabled Persons Act, the Blind Persons Act, the Family Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act.
On this matter of unemployment insurance, Mr. Speaker, were it not for the existing Liberal legislation, is it not true that we would have real economic chaos in Canada? If it were not for those allowances available every week to the unemployed through the unemployment insurance office, the situation would be more precarious and more difficult.
Well, Mr. Speaker, along with the people of Canada, I am thankful to the Liberal government for passing measures by which Canadians will be able to survive during the four bad years of Conservative government.
Mr. Speaker, before sitting down, I should like to congratulate the hon. member representing the constituency north of mine, the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny) on his appointment as Associate Minister of National Defence. I know that the hon. member for Longueuil has many great qualities, that he has a brilliant mind, and is a veteran. I wish him the greatest possible success in his new duties.
Mr. Speaker, I should like only to remind the Associate Minister of National Defence that recently the Federation des Societes Saint-Jean-Baptiste of the province of Quebec

submitted to him a brief asking that the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean be now organized to offer a complete educational course to officer-cadets. The Associate Minister of National Defence at that time declared himself in favour of such a project. Well, I ask him now, since he does not live far from the district where the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean is established, to take steps that the present government may fulfil the promise of the previous government to set up at the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean a complete educational course for officer-cadets.
Allow me to point out, Mr. Speaker, that French-speaking cadets of the College de Saint-Jean find themselves handicapped when they have to go to Kingston to complete their studies where only English is spoken. It is not because French people cannot speak English, but when a Frenchspeaking cadet is transferred to exclusively English surroundings, he necessarily leaves behind a very favourable situation at the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean and is thereby out of his element in a college where only English is spoken.
Mr. Speaker, I ask once again and for the third time that French-speaking cadets, as well as English-speaking cadets who may wish to, be given the opportunity to take the complete officers' course at the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean, since we are in a position to enable them to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the house that we are looking forward not only to the speech of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, but also to those of his colleagues.
(Text):


Mr. R. S. MacLellan (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in rising on the address in reply to the speech from the throne my first words must be of congratulations to you that we see you again in the chair in such good health and spirits and certainly, sir, I am glad to see that the recess has not at all dulled your great sense of wit. You come back to this house again as perhaps the wittiest man here, with a wit that is used on occasions where it is more important than at any other time.
I would also like to express my congratulations to the new Deputy Speaker and chairman of committees, and also, again to you, sir, in that your assistant is a man who is so able and so well qualified. I have noted that members everywhere in the house agree that the Deputy Speaker is as good a man as could be appointed to that position from the ranks of the house.
The Address-Mr. MacLellan
Also, I wish to express my congratulations to the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Mor-issette) who made such an excellent speech in moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I listened carefully to his speech, and I read it again in Hansard. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I think nothing illustrates more clearly the work that has been done by this government in fostering the nation, indeed how much more the Canadian citizen generally is now getting for his tax money, than the illustrations of the hon. member for Rimouski in his very excellent speech at the opening of this debate. He pointed out that in the year 1956-1957, the per capita tax paid to the federal government in Canada amounted to $321.14. In the form of social benefits the sum returned to the taxpayer in the same year, the last year of Liberal administration, amounted to $86 per person. Only two years later, 1958-1959, we find that the per capita taxes paid in Canada have decreased to $271.16 per person, while at the same time the social security benefits have increased across the nation to $120 per person per year or, as the hon. member pointed out, an increase of 39.5 per cent in social security payments over the last years of the Liberal administration.
I would also like to express my congratulations to the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) who with such poise and eloquence delivered a very warm speech on that same afternoon. She also illustrated how Canada has been expanding, and what growth we have seen, under the administration of the present government.
I would like to add my felicitations to those of other members to the two new cabinet ministers whom we have seen appointed since the house last sat, and to all of the parliamentary secretaries, in particular to my very good friend, the parliamentary secretary to the Postmaster General. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Morris) is very highly regarded and well liked by all of the members from Nova Scotia, and indeed by all members in this house, and his appointment was widely welcomed and commended by all of the people of Nova Scotia. His appointment is well received everywhere in our province. From my knowledge of the secretary and my acquaintance with his capability for work I am certain that he will make a significant contribution to the progress of Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the things I noticed in the speech of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) today, and it is a comment that is quite familiar in the house in these days, was his reference to the number of people who draw unemployment insurance benefits in his riding. He says there

The Address-Mr. Machellan are some five thousand who at the moment are drawing unemployment insurance in Gloucester and he regards this as a terrible thing, a disgrace. Mr. Speaker, there can be nothing more hypocritical than that. There are many areas in Canada where without question there is going to be seasonal unemployment. In ridings like that of the hon. member for Gloucester, and in my riding, almost 80 per cent of the working force is unable to earn wages in the wintertime simply because the weather prohibits it.
Many of my constituents, like his, are fishermen. They certainly do not fish in the wintertime. Many of our people work on construction projects. They cannot carry on that trade to the same extent in the wintertime despite every effort made by the government to provide special winter work. What it amounts to after all is that these people who have worked in the summertime have qualified for unemployment benefits which they need in the winter. They have always needed unemployment benefits in the winter. If they did not draw them to the same extent before, Mr. Speaker, it was only because there was not the work available in the summertime to allow them to qualify for insurance benefits in the wintertime.
As far as the people of my riding are concerned, the more seasonally employed people there are who draw benefits in the wintertime the better it suits me, and if I congratulate this government on one thing more than anything else it is the fact that the tremendous construction program of the last two years in harbour facilities and public buildings, has meant a substantial increase in employment in the summertime, which has also meant that more people have qualified for benefits in the wintertime. The number of people drawing unemployment insurance benefits in Atlantic coast ridings in the wintertime is the barometer of prosperity in the summer, and the more the better.
While I am on this topic, I notice that perhaps as a result of the effort to conquer the seasonal unemployment problem the government is making quite an attempt to spur the winter works program and tending to put off until winter much of what could be done in the summer. That is all very well but I would urge the government, where there are men looking for work in the summer, to be careful not to postpone to the wintertime work that could be done better in warmer weather. In the case of the construction of wharves, breakwaters and similar works in my constituency, I would prefer that projects not be put off until winter when they could be done better in the summer.

Despite the protestations of the opposition that the number of people drawing unemployment insurance is something to be ashamed of, I would suggest that we are always going to have a certain amount of seasonal unemployment and we have got to accept it. It will always apply to a certain percentage of our working force, and as long as these people are getting unemployment insurance benefits the situation should not be thrown at the government and the people of Canada as something we should be ashamed of. We have to accept that situation. It is a mistake to put off until wintertime work that could be better done in the summer provided there are men seeking work in summer or fall.
Another point in the hon. member's speech that drew my attention was his reference to the deficits of the last two years. Other members in the opposition have made similar references, particularly the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) in his rather astounding speech this afternoon when he cried loud and long about the deficits of the last two years. It seems to me that the people who make the most noise in asking for expenditures are the people who then come along to bewail the fact that taxes have to be raised to pay for these expenditures or that in some situations deficits may be incurred.
In 1957-58 we suffered a recession and there was an urgent need for extraordinary spending on public works. That expenditure meant a lot in my riding and I am sure in the ridings of every other member of the house. The money to pay for it could not come out of the air. If it could not be raised by taxation in that particular year then there had to be a deficit. Nothing is more nonsensical than continual requests for greater public expenditures and at the same time violent protestations about the fact that these projects have to be paid for.
I must say that the same thing applies to interest rates. During the session last year every member in the house was asking the government to encourage housing, to go into the market and borrow money so that it could be made available to people to build badly needed homes. Every member, including members like the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, wanted the government to spend every possible cent it could find to relieve the unemployment situation. No matter what project was suggested, the C.C.F. group called it "peanuts". There always had to be more money. Surely they should be the last to complain about a deficit brought about by the provision of employment for people who badly needed it during the recession, and by the same token they should be the last to
[Mr. MacLellan.l

complain about the interest that must be paid on public borrowings to meet necessary public expenditures to provide employment.
It is so easy to live in a fairyland. It is suggested that the government is responsible for interest rates. I have never seen a situation yet where interest rates were set by the borrower. They are set by the lender. The government is a borrower just the same as any other person or agency in the Dominion of Canada. It borrows as cheaply as it can and the rate is always set by the man in the street whose savings provide the money to purchase the bonds of the nation. There is no other source of money. It is so easy to rise in this house and say that the interest rate on housing loans should be 6 per cent or less, but the simple fact is that unless the interest rate were raised on National Housing Act loans the money that is needed for housing would not be diverted by the people of Canada into housing.
This money does not come from the government but from the people and they will only lend it when they feel they are getting an interest rate that is in line with the interest rate they could get from other investments. If we want money for housing we must be prepared to pay the market interest rate for it. Nobody likes to pay interest. How wonderful it would be if the interest rate could be 2 per cent on every government bond. But when bonds of first class mortgage and other corporations bearing interest of five and a half to six and a half per cent are available in the market, how can any government borrow long term money for housing at a rate of less? The simple fact is that we cannot borrow money unless we make the interest rate attractive to the lender.
At the same time that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam blamed the government for high interest rates he also referred to the conversion loan. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, what the situation would be if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) were going forth into the Canadian money market now to raise money to refinance the war debt. There is no mystery about the conversion loan. During the war we, necessarily, put a mortgage on the country to pay for weapons and to keep men in the field overseas. That debt was coming due in 1959, 1960 and 1961. There were only two things that could be done; we could either refinance or default. The interest rate paid in the conversion loan was not set by the Minister of Finance. It was the best interest rate he could obtain in the market and neither he nor anybody else in this house could do anything about it. We were lucky to get the money at that price.
Having in mind the condition of the money market at that time and the fact that other
The Address-Mr. MacLellan first-class bonds with an interest rate of 5 or 5i per cent were available on the market, I must say that the Minister of Finance certainly pulled a hat trick in refinancing the war loans in the manner that he did. Imagine the situation if instead of asking people to convert the bonds they held into new bonds the old bonds had been allowed to fall due, as some members suggest should have been done, and then we would have to go piecemeal into the market after the money. The Minister of Finance would have had a much poorer chance to get the money at a decent rate than was the case when he moved as he did. One of the greatest steps that has been taken by this government was to refinance our war loans at what we all know to be a reasonable rate of interest in terms of what money cost on the market at the time.
There is another thing that bothered the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam in his fairyland speech. It is the fact that on some occasions the government has had to pay over 6 per cent on treasury bills. Again I say that the government does not set the interest rate on treasury bills. The rate is set by the lenders, it is set by the market, and if the Minister of Finance cannot put out treasury bills at 6 per cent when he needs short term money then he has to raise the interest rate to get the money. What sense is there in saying that he can get the money from the banks? The banks are like any other buyer. They will buy investments in the best market and at the best price they can get.


An hon. Member:: Who got the rake-off?


Robert Simpson MacLellan: The rake-off, if there was any rake-off, went to the people of Canada who provided the money. Where does the money come from? The banks get their money from the man on the street who deposits it with them. They pay interest on his deposit. Otherwise they do not get the money. A mortgage company or other lender does not manufacture money out of the air. It borrows it from the average citizen who has to be paid a certain interest rate or he will not make money available to the mortgage company.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Simpson MacLellan: If the hon. member has no objection, I would prefer to answer his question after I have finished. Someone has suggested, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) I believe, that the answer is for the Bank of Canada to print money. There is no easier answer to the problem of high cost money than to print money.

The Address-Mr. MacLellan The difficulty is that suddenly the people who own bonds and people who receive pensions find that prices go up and they cannot afford to buy the things they need. Nothing could be simpler for rampant inflation.
But the most astounding thing I heard this afternoon, in fact one of the most astonishing things I have heard since entering this house was the proposal by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that a board of investment should be established to make money available to the provinces-he referred to the Atlantic provinces and we thank him for that-and to municipalities at 3 per cent. Where is such a board of investment going to get money to lend at 3 per cent? Money does not grow on trees. It has to be borrowed in the market or raised by taxes. If such a board of investment were to go into the market like the government does where would it be able to raise money at 3 per cent to lend to somebody else? I certainly wonder sometimes how members of the opposition can keep their household accounts straight when they know no better than to think that the money needed by the government of Canada can be borrowed by the waving of a wand. Perhaps they think that suddenly a miracle will occur to allow the government of Canada to borrow money at half the cost the money markets demand for it.
Now, in the present situation, where we have a danger of inflation, it is incumbent upon the government, whether or not it likes it, to make as much money available for the expansion of industry in the nation as possible, and also to aid in providing a cheaper money market by cutting down its own expenditures wherever it can. At the moment, as hon. members have mentioned, there seems to be a definite intention to cut government expenditures wherever possible so that the money thereby saved will be available to other agencies and persons in the nation who require it. While that is being done, I would urge upon the government that it be careful of the priority of expenditure cuts and to ensure that a large percentage of the money the government is spending is spent on productive capacity, to build facilities that must be used to earn income. These should be the last expenditures to be cut.
The difference, for example, can be illustrated by mentioning harbour facilities which are used in my riding by fishermen to provide a product which they can sell, and the building of a post office or a building of that nature which, in itself, does not produce anything. If some expenditures have to be put off at the present time I would urge that, as


much as possible, income producing expenditures be maintained. I might also say that the fishing industry of the province of Nova Scotia, which earns around $50 million a year, is a great earner of foreign exchange. Most of our fish is sold below the border in the United States. Wherever fish is caught and sold it helps to meet the problem of our trade deficit.
Everyone realizes that with the money situation as it is in Canada we need all the foreign capital we can get. It was suggested this afternoon that high interest rates are attracting foreign capital and that that is a disgraceful situation. One of our present financial problems is that foreign capital finds an attractive market at home. American capital particularly is not as ready as formerly to buy Canadian bonds. We are great importers of capital. We have to be to maintain the standard of expansion we want in this country. We can acquire capital in only two ways; one by saving, and the other by borrowing. We have to do both as best we can in the years ahead to meet the problems that we will meet in the monetary field.
Now, speaking particularly of my own riding, and speaking again of income producing expenditures, I should like to compliment the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) for the tremendous boost he has given the tourist industry in my province, during the short time he has been in office. A large section of Cape Breton Highlands national park lies in Inverness county. During the last two years there has been a tremendous construction program going on in the park, the paving of roads, the building of campsites and the laying out of tourist accommodation. I call this an income producing expenditure.
I should like to point out that in visitors to the Cape Breton Highlands national park there was an increase of 34,541 people, or 20 per cent, in 1958. In 1959 there were over 189,000 people who registered at Cape Breton Highlands national park, an increase of 50 per cent over 1957. The great percentage of these people were tourists from the United States and they spent a great deal of money in Nova Scotia. The tourist industry itself in Cape Breton island increased by 17 per cent in 1959 and 39 per cent the year before. This increase results in more expenditure by United States citizens not only in my constituency and province but in Canada. It is a wise Canadian investment, to develop tourist facilities and to invest money to increase our tourist industry. I should like to compliment the minister again upon how well the work is being done in Cape Breton Highlands national park and how fruitful it has

been. Employment has been provided in one section of my riding and this has provided a very prosperous summer. More important, however, is the development of the tourist industry. There is hardly a town or village throughout the province in which there is not a substantial and profitable tourist investment. Probably the biggest single investment in many of our small towns is in tourist motels and hotels.
I urgently suggest that the minister should carry on with the development of our national parks. Within two days' drive of Nova Scotia lies the tremendous population of the northeastern United States. This population is jammed into crowded cities and looks forward to relief from the heat along the seashores of Canada in the summertime. We should welcome these people and do everything we can to develop this industry. Tourism is unlimited and is one of the great present and potential industries not only of Nova Scotia but indeed of Canada. Money spent by the government for national parks to provide better facilities and make tourists welcome is an investment that will pay us well in the years ahead. Very few expenditures by the government actually pay greater dividends in the form of happiness and recreation for our people as well as contributing to actual earnings.
I was also pleased to see announced the agreement between Nova Scotia and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources in regard to the roads to resources program. This will provide some $15 million, in combination with the province, for the building of roads into tourist areas. I am particularly pleased to see that the program provides for the building of a road in my riding from Grand Anse through West Bay and Marble Mountain. This road will open up some of the most beautiful scenery in Nova Scotia and allow tourists in to see these peaceful lands which I am sure were made to provide relief from the problems these people have as a result of living in hot and crowded cities.
I should also like again to draw the attention of the minister to the fortress of Louis-bourg. I may say when I first came to Ottawa I was rather shocked at how little interest there was to be found in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources in the fortress of Louisbourg. After my conversations with the minister and others in his department I am very pleased to see the interest they are taking in the development of this historic fortress. Last summer we had the services of a very prominent and skilled archaeologist who did a lot of
The Address-Mr. MacLellan the planning work necessary for the development of the Louisbourg historic site.
Louisbourg is one of the most important monuments in Canadian history. It was once one of the greatest fortresses in the world. It cost France so much in the days of Louis XIV that every morning he came to the window of his palace to see if he could see the spires of Louisbourg rising in the western sky. Unfortunately, after 1758 the fortress was destroyed at the request of the New England colonies who did not want this stronghold overlooking the gulf of St. Lawrence and the fishing grounds of the north Atlantic.
It should be remembered that the work that has been done there to date has been only a start, and there will be much more money needed to restore this fortress. However, the expenditures made in developing Louisbourg will be an investment, not only in restoring one of Canada's greatest monuments but also one which will pay good dividends in tourism to the people of Nova Scotia.
Interest in Louisbourg fortress is as widespread as in any other historical monument on this continent. It is not only a great Canadian memory but it also contains a chapter of the history of the people of the New England states, many of whose ancestors died in battles outside the walls of the fort. The other day I was talking to a prominent Canadian executive who came originally, I believe, from Massachusetts. When he learned I was a Nova Scotian, the first question he asked me was this: "What is being done about the development of Louisbourg?" He said, "There is great interest in this fortress in my own state and generally in New England and many people there are interested in seeing Louisbourg developed."
From the tourist point of view, the island of Cape Breton has a great attraction in the national park in the north. To round out our tourist economy there should be an important tourist attraction in the southwestern part of the island. The natural attraction would be Louisbourg. Something more should be done to show our visitors from the United States and from the other provinces just what we have in this historic spot. I noticed a great increase in 1958-59 in the attendance at the fortress in Louisbourg. Twenty five per cent more people called at Louisbourg to walk over the fortress grounds and to review there that phase of the history of Canada in 1958-59 than in 1957-58. I would again recommend to the minister that planning and expenditures for the fortress of Louisbourg are important not only as a matter of preserving Canadian history, but also as a boost to the tourist industry in Nova Scotia.

The Address-Mr. MacLellan
I was very pleased to note in the throne speech that a department of forestry will be established in the federal government. More and more Canada's forests are becoming valuable as the demand for paper and other forest products increases. At the moment plans have been laid and construction is soon to begin on a $40 million pulp mill in my riding at Point Tupper to utilize the great timber resources in eastern Nova Scotia. While I say "great timber resources", at the same time we all know that those timber resources are limited and that unless they are used properly and unless there is proper conservation there is a risk that we shall be unable to supply to this mill sufficient raw material across the years ahead. The establishment of a department of forestry at this particular time in Canada is an extremely important step towards marshalling our forest resources and establishing a proper conservation program. I know that the people of my riding are very willing to co-operate with federal and provincial authorities in setting up a conservation program which will assure that Nova Scotia Pulp Limited and its new mill at Point Tupper will have for generations to come the raw material it requires.
I also should like to take a moment to express to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) and the government our satisfaction at, and our thanks for the appointment of a commission to examine into the Nova Scotia coal problem. I suppose no problem in Canada is more beset by inaccuracies, rumours and misunderstandings than is our important coal industry. I am glad to see that a brilliant jurist is to go into the problem with the perspective of a jurist and to come forth with the answers to many questions that people are asking.
Indeed there are many questions that will be put before him. He must decide, for example, whether the selling of natural gas at prices below cost in order to encourage present coal users in the province of Quebec to switch to natural gas is fair competition or is in restraint of trade. He must decide whether natural gas, which after all is a resource of only 25 years' proven potential in Canada should be used for production of industrial energy when coal could be more profitably used in terms of the preservation of natural gas and similar fuels for domestic household use and similar utilizations of energy.
He has many questions to decide but, I think more important than anything else, if he can help to show to the people of Canada that the Nova Scotia coal problem is not simply a social problem, is not simply
a matter of providing employment for miners in Nova Scotia, but is an important Canadian economic problem, he will have done a great favour not only to Nova Scotia but indeed to the people of Canada.
Some Canadians have been caught up with the idea that oil and gas are Canada's great energy resources when as a matter of fact the principal energy resource in Canada is coal. It constitutes 90 per cent of the energy in Canada. Oil and gas combined provide only 10 per cent of the potential energy resources of Canada.
It has been suggested for example that by 1970 the province of Ontario will require to produce electricity the energy that is created by 10 million tons of coal a year, more than twice our present production in Nova Scotia. Canadians must realize that the coal industry must be kept alive in order to provide the energy that will be needed in the future. At the same time they must realize that fuels like oil and gas are actually very limited in extent. Their potential is very small and they must be conserved in order to provide a type of energy, such as that for engines and motors, which cannot be provided by coal.
I have said before that there is probably more confusion about the nature of the problem of the Nova Scotia coal industry than there is about any other problem in Canada.
It seems that everyone who speaks or writes on the subject has a different idea. For example, it is common for writers on the coal industry and for those who would assist coal to suggest that tariffs should be provided in order to shut out United States coal. As a matter of fact, United States coal is not a serious competitor of Nova Scotia coal. We can now sell as cheaply in some cases as can the Americans in the province of Ontario under the present subvention and we can sell much more cheaply in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether this would be a convenient place for the hon. member to interrupt his address?


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Yes, Mr. Speaker.