1961-04-25

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. C. Fairfield (Poriage-Neepawa) presented the second report of the special committee on broadcasting and asked for unanimous consent to move that the report be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to move his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gaie):: Mr. Speaker, while I do not intend to oppose this motion in the circumstances which have arisen as a result of the decision of the house yesterday, I feel it is only right that it should be pointed out that the work of this very important committee is going to be very seriously interfered with by that decision.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house that the co-chairmen of the Geneva conference have now reached agreement on the steps to be taken aimed at bringing about a settlement in Laos. Yesterday, April 24, the governments of the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union issued an appeal for an immediate cease fire and called on all military authorities, parties and organizations in Laos to stop fighting and to enter into negotiations about arrangements for the cease fire.
Simultaneously the co-chairmen sent a message to the Prime Minister of India stating that they had called for a cease fire and proposing that he convene the international supervisory commission for Laos in New Delhi. It was the view of the co-chairmen that the commission will, in the first instance -and I quote from their joint message of April 24-
-discuss the question of the tasks and functions which should be allotted to it after the
cease fire in Laos, and will present an appropriate report to the co-chairmen who will consider the commission's report and give it directions on going to Laos to carry out the work of controlling the cease fire.
The co-chairmen have also agreed that an international conference should meet in Geneva on May 12 to discuss a settlement of the Laotian problem. The countries invited to this conference are those which attended the Geneva conference of 1954; the United Kingdom, the Soviet union, the United States, communist China, France, North Viet Nam, South Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos; in addition, the members of the international supervisory commission, Canada, India and Poland; and two of the neighbouring countries, Thailand and Burma. All fourteen have been invited to send representatives. This membership follows that proposed by the chief of state of Cambodia, Prince Sihanouk, on January 1 of this year.
Yesterday morning I saw the ambassador of the Soviet union and the acting high commissioner for the United Kingdom, as representatives of the co-chairmen, and received from them the text of the invitation to the conference and a copy of the appeal for a cease-fire and of the message from Lord Home and Mr. Gromyko to Mr. Nehru. Last evening I received from Mr. Nehru a message requesting the government of Canada to nominate its representative on the commission and proposing that the first meeting of the commission should be held in New Delhi on Friday next, April 28.
I think the house will agree that the arrangements worked out between the co-chairmen, including the call for an immediate cease-fire to be effective before the international conference begins its work, constitute an important step toward the restoration of peace to Laos.
In response to the proposal that the commission should meet at once in New Delhi, I have named Mr. Leon Mayrand as Canadian member of the commission. Mr. Mayrand, who was our representative on the Laos commission in 1954-55, is at present our ambassador in Rome, and will be en route to New Delhi at the present time; at any rate. Mr. Mayrand will be assisted by Mr. d'Iberville Fortier of the Department of External Affairs, at present our representative on the commission in Cambodia, and by Brigadier P. S. Cooper of the Canadian army as senior military adviser, as well as by various other advisers.

Steps Towards Settlement in Laos
The Canadian government also accepts the invitation to attend the conference on Laos in Geneva. I expect to lead the Canadian delegation in the opening stages of the conference, which of course will follow almost immediately after the ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic council in Oslo which is scheduled to take place from May 8 to May 10 inclusive. The alternate head of the Canadian delegation to the conference will be Mr. C. A. Ronning, the Canadian high commissioner in India, whose long and distinguished service to Canada in Asia will be familiar to members of this house. He will be assisted by Mr. P. A. Bridle, our ambassador in Turkey, who was Canadian commissioner in Laos in 1955-56, and by civilian and military advisers with experience on the commissions.
By leave of the house Mr. Speaker, I should like to have the texts of the three documents, issued yesterday by the co-chairmen, and the text of the message from the prime minister of India, printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister the consent which he requests?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: for text of documents referred to above, see appendix.1


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs is the first intervention in which the minister has been in a position to report progress regarding this regrettable situation in Laos. The proposal of the cochairmen, the foreign ministers of the Soviet union and the United Kingdom, as communicated to Canada and other members of the international truce supervisory commission, is of a threefold character, I would gather from what the minister has said; first of all, there is an agreement on a cease-fire; second, steps taken in Delhi for reactivation of the international supervisory commission; and third, there is to be a conference originally proposed by Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia of the Geneva and other powers.
It will be recalled that Canada, as a member of the commission which was set up by the Geneva accord in 1954, took the position that the commission could not be reactivated in the absence of the consent of the royal government of Laos. The minister did not mention whether that permission has now been extended, but I assume it is now the case that the royal government has consented to having the commission reactivated and assuming responsibilities in Vientiane. The reactivation of the commission is something that has been proposed now for some time, notably


by the country represented by the chairman of the commission, namely India.
The house was happy to be assured by the Secretary of State for External Affairs some months ago that if the commission had not been reactivated, notwithstanding reports to the contrary which emanated from India, the responsibility was not that of Canada. But this is not the place to engage in polemics; perhaps tomorrow further elucidation will be given by the minister as to this particular. The minister mentioned that the commission is going to have a preliminary meeting in New Delhi. I am sure he will agree that the record of achievement of this commission, particularly in Vientiane, more so perhaps than the commission in Viet Nam and Cambodia, has demonstrated its capacity for effectiveness in maintaining the peace.
The proposal for a conference of the Geneva and other powers does not come to the minister as a surprise because I think in January of this year he himself had proposed that this might be one of the ways of providing for a settlement of this very difficult situation in an area that is so vital to the peace of Asia and as a consequence to the peace of the world. The conference itself is now to have more participating nations than the conference of 1954. This time Canada is to be a full member along with Thailand and Burma, countries that certainly have a very direct interest in what evolves in that part of old Indo-China. In 1954 Canada was-


Howard Charles Green: And India and Poland.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -a member of the international supervisory commission, along with India and Poland. Canada was not formally a member of that portion of the Geneva conference in 1954 that dealt with Indo-China, but she was represented there by the present Leader of the Opposition in respect of matters that had particular bearing on Korea. It is of interest to know that Mr. Chester Ronning, our Indian high commissioner in India, who had experience at that conference, will be at this new conference to assist the minister in the very important deliberations that will now affect Canada and other nations vitally and directly. The presence of Mr. Leon Mayrand as our representative on the international supervisory commission likewise would seem to be a wise appointment, in the light of his experience in 1954 on the commission in Laos.
We can only hope, Mr. Speaker, that the agreement between the co-chairmen, now confirmed by the three countries on the supervisory commission, will help to restore peace in an area that affects not only India and the other countries of south and southeast

Asia but all the nations of the world, particularly at this very difficult time when there has set in such a deterioration in international affairs. One can only hope that it is not too late to repair for that country and for the peace of the world, situations that have been allowed to evolve during the course of the last year when the interests of the west and of other nations concerned seemingly have been very seriously affected as a result of the fighting in Laos.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, while on occasions we differ from the minister, we know of his serious concern for those problems which face the world today. We notice that whenever he has an opportunity to announce some good news he does so with relish.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that, in view of recent events and the possibility surrounding them, we in this group were relieved and delighted to hear of the agreement that has been effected between Mr. Harold Macmillan of Great Britain and Mr. Khrushchev representing the U.S.S.R. Regardless of all the dark clouds surrounding us at this time, and the fears that arise on occasion, it does demonstrate what can be done when persons representing the western world in the right frame of mind, the right spirit and with the right purpose do what they can to reach agreement. In the opinion of this group this demonstrates the value of the type of persons in such negotiations who can keep their feet on the ground when everybody else is losing their balance.
We are very pleased to hear that Mr. Chester Ronning, our high commissioner in India, is going to be associated with this conference. His ability, his experience and his record are sufficient to indicate that his assistance and contribution to this conference will be to the credit of Canada and for the welfare of all concerned with restoring peace in this portion of the world.



FINANCE


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the house briefly of the promulgation of an amendment to the gold bullion regulations pursuant to the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act, revising the rate structure charged by the Royal Canadian Mint and the Bank of Canada in respect of gold bullion operations. The new charges are being instituted following a cost and revenue analysis of gold bullion operations. The new rate structure represents the first revision of mint charges in 30 years.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Generally speaking, melting, assaying and refining charges are being increased and handling charges-that is charges for the marketing of the gold outside Canada by the Bank of Canada-packing and storing charges are being reduced. The new rates for assaying and refining are comparable to United States mint charges; the reduced rates for handling, packing and storing more closely represent the actual cost of the service provided. The net effect of the revision will generally represent some saving to gold producers, the exception being suppliers of low grade ores.



EXPERIMENTAL TAPE RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Speaker:: By leave of the house-and I should first inform the house that I have already consulted the party leaders-I should like to ask for the approval of the house to carry out some experiments in reporting the proceedings of the house by using tape recording machines in conjunction with our sound amplification system. The purpose is to determine whether mechanical recording can usefully be used in combination with shorthand reporting, as is being done in some other jurisdictions, and to develop this information for the guidance of the committee on procedure and of the house itself. As I have said, nothing is contemplated other than experimental recordings. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to you by way of clarification or, if it is not possible to direct it to you, may I ask my question of the house leader.
The question is in connection with your announcement, Mr. Speaker, regarding the use of tape recorders in connection with Hansard proceedings. What, if any, steps are being taken to prevent the use of these tape recordings on radio or television, or is it the intention that they be used on these types of broadcasts?


Mr. Speaker:: It is not proper for the Chair to accept questions, but I asked leave of the house to have experimental recordings made, and when I asked that leave I assured the house it would only be experimental and not for use.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question

Inquiries of the Ministry to the Prime Minister. Has a committee of cabinet been established to hear the representations of Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian Pacific Air Lines in connection with domestic and international routes?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman realizes full well, whatever committees have been set up by cabinet are not revealed in the house.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is the cabinet giving consideration to an application of this nature made by either of the two air lines I have mentioned?


John George Diefenbaker: It is not for me to say what matters the cabinet is considering. If the cabinet gives consideration to these matters and arrives at a determination, then an announcement will be made.


Lionel Chevrier: May I then direct a question to the Minister of Transport, and ask him if it is the intention of the government to ask the air transport board to hold public hearings into the merits of these applications by C.P.A. or T.C.A., as the minister indicated in his speech to the air industries transport association in Quebec city in November.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, when the cabinet has reached a decision on this matter that decision will be communicated to the house.



ELDORADO AVIATION LIMITED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Has the Minister of Transport seen the press reports suggesting that the air services operated by Eldorado Aviation Limited may be taken over by Pacific Western Airlines without a public hearing? If so, can the minister advise whether a public hearing will be held in respect of any such change and, if so, where and when?


Léon Balcer: This is strictly a matter for the air transport board. There will be a public hearing, but I am not in a position to say at what date.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs would care to make any comment or give the house any information on the situation in Algeria, and in particular can the

minister inform the house whether Canada has expressed to the government of France our sympathy and support at this difficult time?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the government has viewed and still views with deep concern the military insurrection which is taking place in Algeria against the lawful government of France. I do not try to conceal from the house our anxiety over the gravity of the situation and the serious consequences it may have both in France and in Algeria. There is little doubt that the insurrection was primarily directed against President de Gaulle's liberal policy in Algeria.
I wish to take this opportunity of expressing the Canadian government's unabated support for President de Gaulle himself and for his Algerian policy. I do not think I should go any further at the present time.


CUBA-INQUIRY AS TO REPRESENTATIONS TO U.S.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to the delicate situation in Cuba. My question arises out of many press reports to the effect that President Kennedy has been considering direct action with regard to Cuba. I am wondering whether Canada is prepared to make a statement in this general area, and has Canada made any representations of any kind to the United States?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member can take it for granted that President Kennedy did not have Canada in mind when he made that statement.


Hazen Robert Argue: That answer does not refer at all to my question. My question concerned reports to the effect that President Kennedy might take direct action with regard to further intervention in Cuba; it was not in regard to Canada. I wonder whether the Canadian government has made any statement or representations to President Kennedy with regard to the situation in Cuba.


Howard Charles Green: As I told the hon. member tin other day, we cannot come into the house and explain the various representations we make to the United States or any other countries, although representations are made from time to time to various countries. At the moment I would not care to go any further than that. However, the hon. member can rest assured that when the occasion seems to call for representations by Canada, such representations will be made.


Hazen Robert Argue: But they have not been made-*


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: This is just a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry; I cannot entertain another supplementary question in regard to this matter. The minister has made it clear that he does not propose to answer the question, for the reasons he gave.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thought the minister implied that no representations had been made.


OLYMPIC GAMES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and ask him whether, in view of the decision of the Canadian Olympic Association awarding the location of the winter Olympics to Banff, the government is in a position to endorse the recommendation of the Canadian Olympic association.


Hon. J. W. Monieith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say I see no reason to disagree with the decision of the Canadian Olympic Association, which was made after very careful study of the report presented to them.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: May
I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister in a position to announce any decision with respect to federal financial assistance in the development of the site?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Speaker. NATIONAL DEFENCE


PETAWAWA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address an innocent question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister assure the house that the veterans preference is being observed in connection with the appointment of civilian staff at Camp Petawawa?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Civil Service Act provides for preference for veterans with overseas service in appointment to positions subject to the Civil Service Act. The Department of National Defence civilian personnel regulations extend the same preference to appointments to positions exempt from the Civil Service Act. The department is not 90205-6-251
Inquiries of the Ministry aware of any departure from the relevant regulations in regard to appointments to the civilian staff at Camp Petawawa.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consider that a veteran who had been decorated for bravery qualified for overseas service?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is well aware of what is involved in overseas service, as he has been a member of the veterans affairs committee of this house for the last 15 years whenever that committee has been sitting.
(Translation):


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Tremblay (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Who has authorized the C.B.C. to lauch, these last few days, an intensive anti-American propaganda campaign over the government-owned radio and television network?


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: A supplementary question. Will the inquiries made by the minister about this matter only be a routine check meant to inform us of something that we already suspect, namely that the C.B.C. is in no way to blame?


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Pit Lessard (St. Henry):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works. Le Devoir reports this morning a statement made yesterday by the minister to a delegation of unemployed to the effect that pick and shovel jobs are available for the asking. As there are in my riding thousands of unemployed anxious to work, can the minister tell us to whom they should apply and how many jobs are available?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the article referred to.

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAYS


REPORTED INTENTION TO CANCEL MONTREAL-QUEBEC CITY TRAIN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschaleleis (Maisonneuve-Rose-monl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that the C.P.R. is planning to cancel its night train service between Montreal and Quebec starting May 15? Does the minister intend to approach the board of transport commissioners with a view to having that service maintained?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to refer my hon. friend's request to the C.P.R. management.
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the minister's statement to the house on April 4, 1960 to the effect that appropriate legislation with relation to patents would be introduced at the next session of parliament, is it still the intention of the government to introduce such legislation during the present session?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I must thank the hon. member who was kind enough to give me notice of his question. My answer is this. It is not the intention of the government to introduce a bill to revise the Patent Act at this session. The Ilsley commission's report on inventions was the last of three reports submitted by the commission, and we are still in the process of preparing recommendations for the possible revision of the legislation on copyrights and industrial designs.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the Minister of Public Works how soon he expects to be in a position to make a return of the correspondence with the government of Prince Edward Island regarding the causeway, in view of the fact that he told us 11 days ago he had received the consent of the premier to table this correspondence in this house.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to embarrass my hon. friend, but I think that was filed at the end of last week.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister point out, in that case, why it is that the officials of the house seem to be unaware of the fact that the filing took place, as an inquiry was made just before the opening of the house. At the same time, may I ask the minister if he would seek to expedite this matter as soon as he has ceased giving out pick and shovel jobs.



SOUTH AFRICA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he would care to comment on reports that he has given an assurance to the South African trade mission now in Canada that there will be no alteration in the existing preferential trade arrangements with that country once it leaves the commonwealth.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: That is correct.

The house resumed, from Monday, April 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Chevrier, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Regier.



ALLEGED FAILURE TO PROMOTE SECOND- ARY INDUSTRIES

Mr. Kucherepa:: Alleged Lack of Trade Policy policies. I do not know what the mover of the amendment had in mind when he made that statement, because it is somewhat ambiguous. Canada is a great trading nation; our export trade is most important, and I do not think any minister of trade and commerce has exerted himself more in developing this trade than the minister who now holds that portfolio.
Further on the amendment refers to a vigorous program to promote an expansion of our secondary manufacturing industries, and to encouraging the development of the Atlantic economic community. All I can say is that the mover of this amendment was a member of the former Liberal regime which held office for some 22 years, and I think the people of Canada, on reflection, will well remember the policies pursued by that government with regard to the development of our secondary industries. I do not think I need say any more in that regard.
I have spoken at some length about the development of the Atlantic economic community. This government, as I have said before, has gone a long way in participating in the economic development of the western world. We have now gone as far as any other country in the Atlantic world, by which I mean western Europe and North America. No other country has gone further. Having been associate members of O.E.E.C. we are now full members of O.E.C.D., an organization in which the countries of western Europe and North America are placing great hope. .
Therefore, in view of the arguments I made last night and those I have added today I do not think it is possible for me to support either the amendment moved by the hon. member for Laurier or the subamendment put forward on behalf of the C.C.F. party.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Speaking on this amendment I do not wish, at least at this stage, to go into the arguments raised by the hon. member who has just preceded me, except to say this in regard to his last remarks during which he said the record of the Liberal administration would speak for itself. Well, we are very content to let the record stand, and it will show that during that period secondary industries developed spectacularly in this country under the great industrial leadership of Right Hon. C. D. Howe, and developed without the sacrifice of our export industries, which increased steadily and continually during that period. If the record of the present government were comparable in any respect to that we would not be supporting this amendment today.


This amendment speaks for itself, and the attitude taken toward it by spokesmen on the government side speaks for itself. That attitude, as taken in this debate, makes it quite clear that the government will have nothing to do with the development of what is referred to in this amendment as an Atlantic economic community, which is the hope of the future for the Atlantic countries; an Atlantic economic community with a minimum of obstructions and restrictions and a maximum of exchange among its members.
This is a serious amendment dealing with a very important and serious subject. Unfortunately, for reasons which the minister will appreciate, I was not in the house yesterday to listen to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I might have been in the house Monday of last week to listen to him but he could not have been here then, so we made a mutually agreeable arrangement, or I believe it was mutually agreeable.


Lionel Chevrier: You missed a flamboyant speech.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have had the privilege, although some would consider it a dubious one, of reading the minister's speech. In so far as it seemed to be concerned with a carefully thought out argument and memorandum on certain trade matters it was perhaps not unimpressive, even though we may not have agreed with it; but when the minister got out on his own, out of the field of trade and into polemics he was not very impressive. He indicated that this particular amendment was designed, if it had any purpose at all, to lay down a policy which would provide for jobs, as he put it, in Birmingham, Turin, Toledo and Detroit, at the expense of jobs in Canada. The producers of newsprint, lumber and agricultural products, and of fish and other primary products, know perfectly well, as the minister ought to know, that if there are not jobs in Turin, Birmingham, Detroit and Toledo there will not be jobs in Canada.
Embodied in this amendment is the policy of having jobs both abroad and in Canada; we will have more jobs in Canada because there are jobs and purchasing power abroad. The minister himself, who sometimes speaks from both sides of his mouth on this matter in a manner which I know he will forgive me if I characterize as rather immature and unsophisticated, said in this house as late as April 18, quoting from a speech he made in Toronto on February 7, 1961:
Some people say the government should give greater protection to industry by raising tariffs against imports. Those who make this suggestion should realize that those against whom they would

have us raise tariffs are also our customers for the exports on which we rely so heavily for our economic well-being.
Whether they are in Turin, Birmingham, Toledo or Detroit they are also our customers for exports on which we rely so heavily for our economic well-being. The minister also said in the same speech:
They must also realize that one out of every four Canadians is employed in either producing for, or shipping to, the export market.
One out of every four Canadians, according to the minister, is employed in either producing for or shipping to the export market. The minister said yesterday that the policy of his government is full employment. If that is it, then they have failed to carry out that policy when there are 705,000 or more unemployed. If full employment is the policy of the government it will not be accomplished by rejecting motions for the removal of obstructions to trade and encouragement of the expansion of trade because, as the minister puts it, one out of every four people in this country depends on exports for his livelihood.
Then the minister descended from what I have characterized as immaturity to what I can only characterize, and I know he will understand if I try to find another word to describe that which is even more superficial than immature, as drivel, when he had the following to say, as reported at page 3949 of Hansard for April 24, 1961:
They-
That is the Liberal party.
-want them-
That is the foreigners on whom we are relying for exports.
-to pour cheap goods into Canada to put Canadians out of work and to have mass unemployment, so that they can go to the people at the next election and say "Elect us and we will save you from your doom".
That statement of the purposes and motives of the Liberal party is what I characterize in this particular argument as drivel; which, of course, is what it is.
This particular amendment deals primarily with external trade. I intend to consider certain aspects of the amendment, some of which were discussed by the hon. gentleman who preceded me. I refer to those aspects which concern the possibilities of meeting some of our external trade problems in the world in which we live today by building up, as the only satisfactory solution to these problems, however it may be misunderstood or mischaracterized by hon. gentlemen opposite, an Atlantic trade area with maximum trade and minimum restrictions.
25. 1961
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy
The situation has changed drastically in the world, in our country and on this continent since 1911, the days of reciprocity, to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce seems to relate our policies of today on external trade. That is an indication of how unable or unwilling he has been to grasp and understand what we are putting forward. It would be very wrong, unwise and indeed harmful for us to think in this country of trade problems, trade opportunities and trade circumstances in the light of 1911. Trade barriers, trade obstructions and indeed the whole concept of free trade itself should not be thought of in terms of 50 years ago, when tariffs were about the only thing that really mattered in this field.
The situation is very different now. Since those relatively simple days of external trade there have been growing up over the years government monopolies on trade, government control, government quotas, exchange reductions, exchange regulations, control by administrative regulations, and control by deals within integrated international corporations. All these things, or indeed any one or two of them, could be as important today to trade, if not at times more important, than tariff levels themselves.
Since world war II considerable progress has been made in removing some of those obstructions. As the minister knows, they have been gradually removed as Europe recovered from world war II and was able to stand on its feet and look after itself in the realm of international trade. This removal was pretty steady and satisfactory in Europe over the years so far as it went. As a consequence our trade with Europe has increased.
Let us not forget that this removal was largely due to help received from overseas. In terms of income no country, not even the United States, supplied as great an amount of help for that purpose, for an enlightened self-interest purpose, as Canada itself. Our record is very good in this field, as I would point out to the hon. gentleman who just preceded me. This is true of our record both in regard to trade, in regard to tariff policy itself, and in regard to association with O.E.E.C.
We were criticized a few moments ago because in 1948, when O.E.E.C. was set up, we did not take advantage of the opportunity to join it and it remained for the present government to convert O.E.E.C. into O.E.C.D.; then to become a full member. If my hon. friend who was dealing with this matter had done more research he would have known perfectly well that in 1948 it was quite impossible for Canada to become a member of a strictly European organization and which we desired at that time to remain a European
3970	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy organization. It was only after Europe recovered over the years and got a stronger foundation for its economy that it was possible to convert it into the organization we have today.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: And the United States was not a member.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And, of course, the United States was not a member at that time. We both were observers during those years. If an offer had been made-and certainly suggestions were made during those years-of full membership it would not have been possible to accept it.
There has been progress on this international front but that progress has been, I think, if not slowing down in recent years, replaced by the development in the world of regional organizations. We know all about them. We talk a good deal about them in this house. Of course the most important of those regional developments is one that we sometimes think of only in terms of politics. The most important is the communist ideological and trade region which is centrally controlled and directed from Moscow at this time, with perhaps some assistance or competition from Peking. There is central control of trade within this bloc. This is one of the reasons we should be more interested now than ever in an Atlantic trading community. Control of trade within this communist bloc is exercised for the benefit of the Soviet union. If any member in this house wants some interesting information on this score let him read the history of Yugoslavia during the period when Yugoslavia was trying to break away from the international communist trading bloc.
Control of competition within the bloc is exercised by Moscow as well as control of communist penetration in noncommunist countries. This is done as much for political as for economic reasons. Indeed, this whole question is a sector of the cold war. If the communist regional trading bloc wishes to send MiG's to Cuba they will accept sugar for those aircraft, but only on their own terms; and those terms will be dictated, when it is necessary, by political rather than economic considerations.
Well, this is one trading bloc we have to take into consideration when we consider this subject. Others are the trading blocs growing up in Latin America, especially in the Central American region. These may be more important in the future than they are at the present time. But what we have in our minds, particularly when we talk about trading blocs, is European trading blocs. They have been referred to previously in this debate.


Ten years ago the European common market was considered a quite unrealistic dream. It is now a going concern, a reality, and it is making startling progress to the point where all trade obstructions will soon be removed, every kind of trade obstruction, among the members of this community. This is being done in a very successful way, partly -and this has a very important bearing on our own problem and the problem of the Atlantic trading development-because it is being done gradually stage by stage. European development is facing exactly the same kind of problem that we would be facing in this country and in other countries of the Atlantic area if we were trying to build up an Atlantic economic community. Five or six years ago some of these problems were considered almost insoluble by the members of the European economic community. I am thinking of the preferential arrangements for overseas suppliers, and of the problem of agricultural imports both within the community and between the countries of the community and outside. I am thinking of capital development programs and the necessity for adjusting special situations to the reduction and the removal of tariffs.
The European countries faced those problems. They were certainly problems. Their difficulties were just as great and just as far reaching as the problems we would be facing in the Atlantic community if we had initiated and were successful in bringing about that wider kind of development. The European countries have been successful up to the present. They are taking their time; it is a 10 or 15 year process. In the period that has elapsed since they began this process the trade increases within the boundaries of the countries inside that community have been absolutely spectacular.
We should not forget also that in this development, up to the present at least, consideration has been shown to the interests of countries outside the community. In spite of some statements by ministers about the dangers from this development, it would seem that those dangers have been taken into consideration by the members of the European community themselves. If we do a little less preaching and a little less whining and make an effort to adjust ourselves and associate ourselves with this development, we shall get further in regard to protection of our own trade.
In that regard I am thinking, for instance, of the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in Paris. This was his entry into the international economic lists as Minister of Trade and Commerce. He went to Paris last December and he is reported as having

said, in regard to this development which I have just talked about, namely the European common market:
Unless the European common market substantially reduces its announced tariff schedules affecting imports from Canada at the GATT negotiations in progress in Geneva, Canada will retaliate by increasing its barriers against imports from the six European countries.
Could there have possibly been a more untimely and unwise statement; that unless the European economic community reduced its tariffs against Canadian imports, Canada would retaliate? Well, the European economic community did not fall for that kind of bluff, as we know. But up to the present at least it has taken into consideration the interest of outside countries. Indeed, the first tariff reduction inside the community was extended to all outside countries.
This development of the European economic community which is of such great importance to us that it has been paralleled by the development of the European free trade area. All those other European countries which had not been willing or able to join the common market have formed a free trade area of their own, and in that regional association we have our most important customer next to the United States, namely the United Kingdom. But the United Kingdom in the free trade area has made it quite clear and there is no use of our whining or preaching about it, that it is going to move across the channel and, if it can, make arangements for association with the European common market.
It is very important, of course, for Canada to protect her position to the maximum possible extent in the face of these developments. Naturally we have to do that. Naturally we have to take every step we can to persuade the European countries that this coming together, which is desirable, should be on a basis of expanding trade with the outside world rather than restricting trade. But surely we can do that, as I hope to point out, by adopting a positive rather than that negative kind of attitude which has been adopted more than once by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Lionel Chevrier: Particularly by the Minister of Finance.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The speech of the Minister of Finance at Ste. Adele is the one that is always very much not only in our minds but in the minds of commentators on this continent and in Europe. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the positive approach to this problem is that the closer Europe gets together politically and economically the better it will be for the free world, including Canada. This can be done, Mr. Speaker, and I hope it will be done, by the
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy European countries without disregarding the interests of their friends or their own wider interests. I am thinking, of course, particularly of our commonwealth of nations.
This common market, scoffed at as a Utopian dream 10 years ago, is now, as I said, a growing concern, and the members of the European free trade area are increasingly moving toward integration with it. That trend is now clear, and no words by members of the government inside or outside the house, in Paris or Ste. Adele, are likely to stop that trend.
Mr. Macmillan made this perfectly clear during his recent visit to Ottawa and Washington, just as the United Kingdom lord privy seal, Mr. Heath, made it clear two or three months ago, I believe, in Geneva. The United Kingdom is moving across the channel and seeking a basis for membership in the common market. It now feels, according to its spokesmen, that for this purpose satisfactory solutions can be found for the three important problems standing in the way; and if they can be found for these problems affecting the United Kingdom, solutions can also be found in the wider area of Atlantic trade for the problems affecting the United States and ourselves. These three important problems are commonwealth preferences, agricultural imports and political sovereignty.
Canada, the Canadian government, in fact any Canadian government, should face this fact and face it as an opportunity to be exploited rather than a menace to be prevented or a development to be complained about. Certainly the President of the United States has faced it and has accepted the development. He said on February 16 that he welcomed the move, and I quote from his statement at that time:
We shall support and encourage the movement toward European integration.
Then he added these important words with reference to European integration:
It can contribute greatly to meeting the goals of the broader Atlantic community.
Indeed, our own Prime Minister in earlier days has talked along these lines of the development of the broader Atlantic community. The vice president of the United States, in a very carefully prepared and considered statement in Paris on April 6, had this to say:
If that cohesion and capacity-
Of the Atlantic coalition.
-is to be enhanced, vigorous measures will be required in the political, military and economic fields. Our end goal... should be a true Atlantic community in which common institutions will increasingly be developed to meet common problems.

Alleged Lack of Trade Policy
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in his recent visit confirmed that this is the position of the United Kingdom also, when he said at Boston:
I have no doubt of what our aim should be. We ought to try to work for the largest area of free trade that we can create.
This is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He went on to say:
Free trade for a free world. That may still be a vision. It may be a long time before it can take practical shape ... Yet many new and vital ideas are now being discussed by practical men which a few years ago would have been dismissed as impractical dreams.
Then he went on to say that one "new and vital" idea he had in mind was an Atlantic trading area. He invited Canada, the commonwealth and the United States to assist and encourage, rather than to shy away from and discourage, that development. The lord privy seal in his speech last February was even more specific in a special point which is always brought up by those who are hesitant about or opposed to this development They talk about commonwealth preferences, and we know the importance of commonwealth preferences in our development over the years. But we also know that commonwealth preferences are a very different thing now from what they were 15, 20 or 25 years ago. Certainly that is the way they are now con-considered in the United Kingdom. I know that the Minister of Finance has expressed some very strong views about the retention of commonwealth preferences, but this is what the lord privy seal of the United Kingdom said about them on February 27 last:
Britain would have no objection to a reduction of the preferences that her exports enjoy in commonwealth markets if the Six wanted to start negotiations with the commonwealth to that end.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that Canada should be in the very forefront in starting such negotiations rather than hindering them. We should encourage European economic as well as political integration on a basis of expanded, not restricted, trade, and then we should do everything we can to convert that European economic community into an Atlantic trading area with which, stage by stage, other free countries could be associated.
There are only four courses open to us, Mr. Speaker. I have already put them on the record of the House of Commons, and I hope the house will forgive me if I put them on the record very briefly again today, because they have certainly been pointed up by developments since I last spoke on the subject.
The first of these policies is to work for the maximum of economic self-sufficiency, that is economic nationalism, the kind of economic nationalism we had from 1930 to


1935 under the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. This might have some tempting short run attractions, especially in a time of recession. In spite of the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce it seems to have some tempting short run attractions for him, when he talks about creating jobs for people in Turin and not for people in Canada. Presumably we should take action which would prevent those people obtaining jobs, so there can be more jobs in Canada.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, the lessons of contemporary history and contemporary politics show that you cannot export unemployment in that way. When we have 705,000 men out of work at this time perhaps it is tempting to say, "Let us keep these goods out and we will put all these people to work". But that is running counter to the whole trend and development of contemporary international economic policy. We know now or we ought to know that we cannot export unemployment in this way, and that if we try to do so we will add to unemployment instead of reducing it. That is why we on this side are opposed to that solution. There is no salvation here.
The second possible alternative policy is economic integration with the United States in a continental free trade area. That was well put forward not very long ago in Toronto by a very distinguished American, Mr. McElroy, a man with a great deal of governmental and business experience. It may be, although I hope it will not be, that under certain circumstances we will be forced to consider that solution. If there is, and I hope there will never be, economic disintegration within the commonwealth; or if the European countries come together in a European area which excludes us or from which we on this continent have excluded ourselves, and if the procedures under GATT begin to slow down and eventually break up, then we will be forced to consider continental solutions to our problems.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, that should be a last resort for one reason especially, namely how could we keep our separate political identity in such a situation? When the Minister of Trade and Commerce says, as he said in this house yesterday, that the proposal we are putting forward in this amendment and the proposals we have put forward outside this house-he quoted me in that connection- mean that we are supporting free trade or a commercial union with the United States, he shows he has no understanding whatever of what we mean when we talk about the development of an Atlantic economic community. This has no bearing whatever on 1911 or reciprocity. I suggest the minister

do a little reading and thinking on this subject. Perhaps if he would not spend so much time cheerleading and shouting slogans he might retire for a change, as it has been put, into the lonely recesses of thought.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And contemplation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Contemplation might be a little bit too much to expect.
Now, the third alternative is a policy of continued reliance on GATT as the international agency for broadening the area of freer trade throughout the world. As I have said, since the war GATT has undoubtedly been the major agency for the reduction of obstructions to trade. I think the previous Canadian government and the present Canadian government have done everything possible to continue that process under GATT. I think Canada has played a very good part in GATT. However, we cannot help but ask ourselves whether GATT can do much more in this direction, and whether we should not, at least as something complementary to GATT rather than opposed to GATT, take a hard look at regional development. Perhaps the current discussions which I believe open next week on GATT, in which the European common market will take part, will give us the answer to the question of whether GATT is the agency on which we have to rely for further real progress in this international economic field. In my view a new impetus is now required, and that can be given without contradiction to GATT by the Atlantic countries themselves.
This, Mr. Speaker, brings me to the fourth and best alternative. I refer to the careful, steady, stage by stage building up of an Atlantic economic community. This is not going to be done in a week or a month or a year. It is going to take a long time. During the process of development the same steps will have to be taken to protect industries that are immediately affected by these developments as are being taken successfully in Europe today in respect of industries which have been affected by the European common market. This can be done, and it should be done, over a period of five, 10 or 15 years. This process of adjustment can take place and the government, by its action and by its assistance, can participate in that program so that international economic progress will not be at the expense, in so far as it can be avoided, of individual national industries. This is what I mean, what we mean on this side, when we advocate the development of an Atlantic trading community.
I know all the difficulties in the way. I have mentioned them many times in this
Alleged. Lack of Trade Policy house. But I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is any other solution to our international economic and perhaps our international political difficulties. There is no solution which will be big enough and deep enough other than the one I have just mentioned. The important thing now is to get this process started.
This is a matter of political will more than economic argument. This government had a wonderful opportunity to begin that process in 1957 when the United Kingdom made an offer of free trade between the two countries, about which we used to hear so much and about which there has been a great deal of silence lately. Even as late as 1958 the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said, while in this country, that offer was still on the table. It is not on the table any longer; it has been brushed under the rug.
But that was the time when we in this country could have started this process. We could have said to the United Kingdom that immediate free trade between ourselves is impractical and free trade among the Atlantic countries at the present time is impractical, but the two of us can start at once to discuss the building up of an Atlantic free trade community in association with those regional developments which are now taking place in Europe.
Who knows, Mr. Speaker, what might have happened during the intervening three years if that had been the stand taken by the goverment at that time? It is not too late now, but it may soon be too late if the European common market completes its development, and the introduction into it of the European free trade area is successful. It may be too late to bring about conditions for a wider common market if no action is taken on this side of the Atlantic. We on this side, even at this stage, ask the government of this country to take an initiative in this regard and show some of the vision now about which they talked so much three or four years ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, those who have been in the house this afternoon have listened to a repeat performance of the speech delivered yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition in Toronto. I think we will agree it has not improved with repetition. However, those who sat in the house yesterday to hear the speech of the hon. member for Laurier in introducing his amendment heard a speech which has few equals in the house as a compound of misrepresentation and distortion of the government's position and record.
If the opposition wishes to put forward a policy and wishes to praise the policy it puts

Alleged Lack of Trade Policy forward, no one can take exception to that course, although we will reserve the right to reply to it. Evidently, however, it is necessary, when the hon. member for Laurier puts forward a position on behalf of the official opposition, to take account of the weaknesses and frailties of the case he is putting forward, because he grossly misrepresented and distorted the government's position and its record. He put up straw men yesterday, Mr. Speaker, which bore no resemblance to the government's positions; and he proceeded then, following typical Liberal tactics, to talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time and to utter contradictory statements.
In so far as there is time today I shall endeavour to put the facts concerning the government's record and the government's position before the house in contradistinction to what the hon. member for Laurier put forward yesterday. I shall deal with the subject discussed by the Leader of the Opposition, and I shall measure what these hon. gentlemen have said against the record of the Liberal party in this regard.
The amendment, Mr. Speaker, invites the house to express condemnation of the government because it says the government has not followed a consistent policy. Mr. Speaker, I say to you that the government has followed, in relation to trade and our international financial policies, a vigorous, dynamic, consistent, forward-looking, balanced program of action.
The amendment does violence to the truth. I endeavoured to state the aims of the policy of the government in relation to trade in 1958 in the first budget speech, and I put it in these terms:
First, to achieve expansion, diversification, better balance and greater stability in our trade with all countries.
Second, to extend and strengthen Canada's trade and economic relations with the commonwealth.
Third, to support and promote a regime of law, order and morality in the field of international trade; to respect the spirit and intent of international commitments and to stand ready to defend our rights and interests if they are challenged or ignored.
Fourth, to recognize the legitimate needs of Canadian procedures; and to safeguard them against unfair trading practices.
Fifth, to promote the balanced growth of all sectors of Canadian industry and agriculture.
That was the declared policy of this government in 1958. That is the declared policy of this government today, and it is a policy that the government has consistently followed throughout.
In keeping with this policy we have endeavoured to assist Canadian exporters to extend their markets and win new markets abroad. Gratifying successes have been gained in our efforts to secure the elimina-

tion of discriminatory trade barriers erected against imports from dollar countries after the war, and in promoting the convertibility of sterling and other major world currencies. Within the past two and a half years sterling and other European currencies became convertible and the great majority of discriminatory restrictions against dollar imports have been eliminated. Canadian exporters are now finding readier access to world markets than at any time since the war. To these highly beneficial developments I say that the efforts and the policies of the present government have made an effective and commendable contribution.
Let us think back to 1957 and the situation to which this government fell heir when hon. gentlemen opposite and a good many others left the treasury benches for all time. First, Canada in those days had an adverse balance of trade on commodity account of nearly $1 billion. In 1960 that adverse balance had been reduced to $100 million. Today we have a better balance and a better diversification in our markets throughout the world. These are substantial improvements.
Our trade with the United Kingdom has increased very materially. Our trade with the commonwealth has increased; our trade with Japan has increased. Those restrictions which had been imposed in the war and post-war years by many countries for balance of payments reasons we did our best, by persuasion and in conferences immediately after we came into office, to remove. Substantial progress has been made in that regard and very great consequent advantages to Canadian exporters have been achieved.
The international monetary fund was in existence, but with general support on the part of member countries, including strong support from Canada, the resources of that beneficent institution have been substantially enlarged.
The same is true of the resources of the international bank for reconstruction and development. An international development agency has been born out of the international bank for reconstruction and development, with a capital of $1 billion. This is an institution to which Canada gave important support in the international proceedings which preceded its birth.
As to GATT, this organization has unquestionably been strengthened by the support that has been given to it in the four years since the change of government.
In relation to the customs tariff of this country, studies have continued and adjustments have been made in it following references to the tariff board, in all cases in accordance with the letter as well as the spirit of GATT.

There have been many conferences designed to promote an expansion of trade. There have been conferences within the commonwealth. The first of them was held here in Canada at the end of September, 1957. This was the first time the finance ministers of the commonwealth had met in Canada, and important decisions flowed from that conference.
The monumental commonwealth trade and economic conference held in Montreal in October, 1958, achieved a large measure of agreement among all the commonwealth countries, notwithstanding the diversity of their interests. That, I think, was an eye-opener to the whole world.
It has since been followed by very beneficial results throughout the commonwealth. The system of commonwealth preferences has been upheld and the benefits that Canada enjoys in that regard-for which much is owed to the foresight of the late R. B. Bennett -have been strengthened and Canadian producers have enjoyed those benefits.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we come to more recent events. We have had many conferences with the United States. There have been bilateral conferences at which problems in the trade and economic field have been discussed in a spirit of mutual understanding. Benefits have flowed from those meetings.
Then there is the organization for economic co-operation and development which was born in 1960 out of O.E.E.C. There was no point in the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) in which he did greater violence to the truth, unless it was the speech made yesterday evening by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) which so completely misrepresented the position of this government in relation to O.E.C.D. If there is any government among the 20 member nations of O.E.C.D. that played a strong supporting role in bringing about the transformation of O.E.E.C. into O.E.C.D., it is the present government of Canada.
There were no such things as export credit institutions when we came into office. There are now facilities available to Canadian exporters of capital goods to find credit in Canada to assist in their export operations. Never before in Canada's history had there been an export conference like the one called by my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees), last autumn. This was something new; this was breaking new ground. Evidently it had never occurred to those who today occupy the front opposition benches yonder.
Behind the effort to maintain and extend Canada's markets there has been invested more drive and more vigour under the present
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy government than ever existed previously. Benefits have accrued to all Canadian producers and exporters.
When we came into office the premium on the Canadian dollar in that summer of 1957 rose to six cents, and this placed a very heavy burden upon Canadian exporters. It is a very difficult problem; it is a hard thing to move; but we have done our best and we are not at all displeased that this premium has now been reduced to about one cent, with very great consequent advantage to Canadian exporters.
Hon. members opposite talk about flexibility. Well, they did not show much flexibility except in the way they handled the truth in this debate. We have shown at all times a consistent and dynamic approach to trade questions and a full realization of the importance of maintaining and expanding Canada's markets abroad.
This is not simply a short range policy; this is our continuing, consistent and long range policy. We have pursued it diligently and consistently. We have always shown ourselves ready to talk trade. There have been many bilateral discussions. There have been many missions. These have all had as their objective, and many of them have resulted in, the maintenance and expansion of trade.
We heard something said yesterday about GATT. We heard some very distorted remarks about GATT. I have said in previous debates -and I shall not delay this debate to repeat such remarks today-that this government has given consistent support, not merely to the institution of GATT, not simply to the terms of the GATT agreement, but to the spirit of GATT.
We have observed that at all times it is a great mistake to think that GATT is an inflexible instrument. It is not. GATT could not have survived if it had been utterly inflexible. GATT does make provision for amendment; it does make provision for the fact that circumstances may change in a dynamic world trading community, and it makes provision for changes according to certain procedures. Where such changes have been sought by the Canadian government they have at all times been sought in accordance with the procedures laid down in GATT. Never has there been a departure from the provisions of GATT. As to all the proposals we have submitted to the house in three annual budgets in relation to tariff changes, most of these have been preceded by very thorough investigation and study on references to the tariff board. So let us have an end to this nonsense about casting doubt, as the hon. member for Laurier did yesterday, on the sincerity of members of the government in their support of GATT.
3976	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy
The principle of GATT is the principle of multilateral trade which seems to have lost its interest for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). The Liberal party now is evidently turning its back-it has at least turned its shoulder-against GATT. It has lost interest. Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition that it was the present Canadian government, through its representatives, which insisted at the discussions in Paris, the three conferences which led up to the formation of O.E.C.D., on the preservation of the principle of multilateralism as laid down in GATT. It was due as much to our efforts as to those of any other country that GATT was called in and was represented at those conferences.
We heard yesterday from the hon. member for Laurier some flights in the realm of fiction with regard to the government's position in reference to tariffs. The hon. member talked about high protectionism. Evidently he does not know what high protectionism is, or he prefers to talk in fictional terms. I shall not delay the house by repeating what I have said before, that this charge is baseless. This charge which has been made by the official opposition in the amendment in this regard is false. I hope I have made my meaning clear. Whatever we have done has been done in accordance with GATT and in accordance with suggestions and reports by the tariff board. While I do not say this is the final and only test, it is relevant to point out that out of 392 items changed in the Canadian tariff by the present government in the course of three budgets, formal changes of mixed character number 203, increases number 65 and decreases number 124. I despair of an end ever coming to the misrepresentations of the government's position to which hon. members opposite have turned.
In 1958, I recall-and we were reminded of it yesterday by the hon. member for Laurier-there was a modest tariff change introduced following the report of the tariff board in the customs duty on woollen fabrics. One would have thought, Mr. Speaker, to listen to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) that the end of all creation had come-that we were going to be visited with retaliation by any number of countries. Well, the house has learned long since to realize that the hon. gentleman excels in this kind of matinee performance.
But one expected something more serious of the hon. member for Laurier. Certainly he has gone a long way since he left Cornwall, or since Cornwall left him. Gone is his interest in seeking some measure for a decent chance of survival for the textile industry. Yesterday he returned to the Bonavista-Twil-lingate line of 1958 and talked about the legislation of that year, the amendment to the [Mr. Fleming (Egllnton).l

Customs Act. He misrepresented it yesterday and said the government took power to make arbitrary changes in the tariff rates. The government did not do any such thing. Amendments were introduced to see to it that power was given to prevent the dumping of goods from abroad into this country at prices below the cost of production. This is the kind of unfair competition which hon. members opposite expect Canadian producers and Canadian workmen to face. What do they care?


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall have to ask the hon. member to reserve his question until I have finished. I shall be glad to deal with it then, but time is precious and limited today.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate told us at that time we were going to face retaliation from Italy. What happened? Our exports to Italy rose substantially in the following year. So much for the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. He was so worried about the export of codfish to Italy. He sees a codfish behind every shadow. Well, our export of codfish increased, too, so the hon. gentleman was running true to form. The fact is that this legislation well served its purpose; so well, indeed, that it was not necessary to pass orders in council enabling the minister to make orders under it. Foreign exporters knew very well what they would face if they attempted to dump goods on the Canadian market at less than the cost of production and governed themselves accordingly. That is why it was not necessary to make orders under that legislation. This enactment served a salutary purpose.
The hon. member for Laurier yesterday talked about the government following a policy of timid protectionism. At that time I asked him the simple question whether he thought the 1958 legislation was worthy of support or not. He has not seen fit to answer that question, yet he talks about timidity. He ran, and he has not stopped running yet. He roared yesterday like a mouse.
Let me pass on now to say, in relation to the tariffs and to GATT, that we are engaged in the discussions at Geneva at the present time which were detailed yesterday by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees). Some hon. members opposite still do not know the nature of discussions up to the present time, and these proceedings have been more protracted than was expected. The discussions so far have been concerned largely with working out with the six members of the European economic community an agreement in relation to their common external tariffs. Now, at Geneva, the

countries represented are about to engage in what has become known as the Dillon round of negotiations. These are the negotiations in which an effort is made to negotiate further mutual concessions. This is an entirely different operation. May I say this: what has been said here by the ministers in relation to what has been going on at Geneva has had a salutary effect.
The hon. member for Laurier yesterday asserted that if the Minister of Finance was sincere in saying he was a strong supporter of trade on a multilateral basis, "the Canadian delegates at Geneva must surely have presented concrete and bold proposals for freer trade in the world." He was referring to the Geneva meetings but he evidently does not know that these negotiations have not even begun yet. His timing is away off. But that is not all. His statement totally misrepresents what has been going on at Geneva, and I could add much more to that if there were time.
I am concerned about the Liberal flight from GATT, for they have evidently decided to desert the ship. The hon. member for Laurier took some satisfaction yesterday in quoting the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition in Vancouver in January, 1958, when he said:
In short, it seems that the era of gradual tariff reductions through GATT has come to an end.
Well, things have not come to an end just because he has ceased to be a minister of the crown. Then, in Toronto, last night, in a preview of the speech he made here this afternoon, the hon. gentleman is reported in the Ottawa Citizen as follows:
Mr. Pearson questioned whether GATT could do much more than it has done already.
If the hon. gentleman wants to fold his hands and say "all is up" let him do so. That attitude of resignation, that attitude of inaction, is one that he has inherited typically from the government of which he was a member. That is not the attitude that this government takes. This government proposes to make its loyal contribution to this beneficent international organization in the manner in which it has for the past four years.
Then they quoted the Ste. Adele speech. I feel flattered, but they did not seem to quote enough of it. They picked out bits here and there and then proceeded to put their own fancy interpretation upon them. Let me put a couple of facts straight for their instruction. In the first place that speech I made at Ste. Adele last autumn brought substantial benefit and assistance to our negotiators at Geneva in the negotiations in which they were then engaged.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They had not started yet.
25, 1961
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy


Donald Methuen Fleming: That speech assisted negotiators at Geneva.


Lionel Chevrier: They had not started yet.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, they are all mixed up, the poor fellows. I pointed out that the earlier negotiations were the first round of negotiations at Geneva to work out agreement in respect of the new common external tariff with the European economic community, and that is where it was established.
That is what this Ste. Adele speech was designed to deal with. The hon. gentlemen opposite-perhaps I should not call them poor fellows, but I have a soft heart-did not realize that was the nature of the first round of negotiations last year. I may say that the declaration at Ste. Adele did help to strengthen the hands of the Canadian negotiators at Geneva in the first round of tariff negotiations there with the representatives of the six countries constituting the European community.
I must now pass quickly over some other subjects. First of all, in relation to our trade with the United States, I say that we are achieving a better balance. We were concerned that so much of Canada's trade was in one basket when we rame into office. We have been able to move some distance, not by trying to restrict trade in any direction, but by trying to expand trade. The expansion of trade has shown itself in striking form in our trade with the United Kingdom, the commonwealth, Japan and many other areas in the world. My colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce last night drew attention to the extraordinary increase in our trade with the United Kingdom in the past year, which reached an all-time record for Canadian exports to the United Kingdom. We take a good deal of satisfaction in this and congratulate all those enterprising Canadian exporters who took advantage of the opportunities that were opened up in the market, at least partly as a result of the negotiations carried on by the present Canadian government.
These conferences that I have referred to produced very beneficial results. I shall not deal with that aspect. I think I should, however, say a word on the subject of preferences because the Minister of Finance has a responsibility in relation to Canadian imports and to the Canadian tariff. The policy of this government has been at all times to seek the full enjoyment for Canadian producers, and particularly for Canadian agricultural producers, of all the benefits available to them under commonwealth preferences. These are very important benefits.

Alleged Lack of Trade Policy
So far as our trade with the United Kingdom is concerned, here are some facts that I invite hon. members opposite to ponder. First, about 95 per cent of Canadian exports to the United Kingdom enter that market duty free. Forty per cent of Canadian exports to the United Kingdom enjoy the benefit of preferences. For most of these, but not all, the preferential rate is free. Of our total exports to the United Kingdom in 1959, 39 per cent were primary industrial materials free of duty from all sources. That is to say, there was no preference. Forty one per cent were agricultural products. The largest agricultural item, wheat, does not enjoy preference. Oil seeds, coarse grains and tobacco are the principal agricultural exports which do enjoy preferences.
On 7 per cent of our exports to the United Kingdom the creation of E.F.T.A. will result in the loss of significant preferential advantage over other E.F.T.A. countries competitive with Canada in the products involved.
At the commonwealth trade and economic conference in 1958 this subject was considered by the representatives of all the commonwealth countries. In the report of the conference, article 28:
-reaffirmed the importance of the role that preferences have played and continue to play in commonwealth economic relations. Commonwealth countries have continued to adhere to the preferential system while adjusting their policies to the requirements of changes in the scope and character of world trade.
In article 31:
The United Kingdom government confirmed its intention of maintaining as an important element in the preferential system the free and unrestricted entry of nearly all goods imported from the commonwealth.
We have waited until today to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) indicate in his lighthearted and happy-go-lucky way that it does not matter very much about these commonwealth preferences. He has indicated that these advantages are not going to have very much of a place in his thinking from now on. They still have an important place in the thinking of the Canadian government when we realize the advantages that these preferences have offered to Canadian producers and above all, to the Canadian agricultural producers. Hon. members opposite can forget their duties and responsibilities to the Canadian agricultural producer but as far as the present government is concerned it intends to remain faithful to the interests of the Canadian agriculturalists.
I come now to our trade relations with western Europe. These are of very great importance to Canada. Over the years, 30 per cent of our exports have gone to western Europe, including the United Kingdom. We


do, with the seven countries, now eight, of E.F.T.A., twice as much business as we do with the six countries of the European economic community. Here again the member for Laurier could not present his case without distorting and misrepresenting the position of the government. He said that the government was opposed to the European common market. I am being charitable to that hon. member when I say to him that he does not know what he is talking about.
At the commonwealth finance ministers' conference at Mont Tremblant in 1957, the ministers reported that they "reviewed the progress made toward the ratification of the treaty of Rome, establishing the European economic community, and the effect of this treaty on the interests of the commonwealth. They noted that the treaty would receive further consideration in international organizations.
The United Kingdom ministers reported on the progress made following the United Kingdom initiative for the establishment of a free trade area in Europe. The commonwealth ministers recognized that the establishment of an outward-looking free trade area in Europe would broaden the advantages to be derived from economic integration in Europe, not only by the United Kingdom but by all other participants. This was regarded as important as it could contribute to agreed commonwealth policies of expanding world trade.
It was also agreed that there is need for effective machinery for continuous consultation among commonwealth countries on matters related to the European economic community and the proposed free trade area.
The United Kingdom ministers reaffirmed the undertakings previously given by their government about the safeguarding of commonwealth interests in the United Kingdom market for foodstuffs, drink and tobacco."
That was the position in 1957. The commonwealth countries expressed their concern over any movement at that time of the 14 countries toward the formation of a European free trade area and suggested that care should be taken not to prejudice the interests of the commonwealth countries in relation to their exports of agricultural products to the United Kingdom market.
The United Kingdom ministers gave assurance that they would not prejudice these markets in their negotiations with a view to bringing about that European free trade area. Things went forward on that basis until December, 1958 when efforts to bring about this wider European free trade area came to nought at the meeting in Paris.
It is not for us to apportion responsibility for the failure of that effort. The fact is that the effort to form a European free trade area

was made under the terms upon which it had been discussed at these commonwealth meetings, and had been harmonized with the interests of the commonwealth countries. In the face of those assurances as to the position of the Canadian exporters in the market of the United Kingdom, we had no fear.
What happened in 1959? We saw a widening of the rift between the Six and the Seven in Europe, and we expressed concern, as one of the member nations of NATO, that there should be developing in Europe an economic rift, and this was a matter for deep concern. When the hon. member for Laurier said yesterday that we were opposed to the European common market, Mr. Speaker, he did violence to the truth. Our concern at all times was that in any move in the developing trade pattern of organizations in Europe the interest of the commonwealth, and particularly of our own Canadian producers, for whose interest we are responsible, should not be prejudiced thereby. We saw opportunities there for the development of that organizational pattern in Europe without working prejudice to the opportunities enjoyed by Canadian producers either in the markets of the United Kingdom or in the markets of those European countries, as long as the policies and attitudes of those countries were outward looking and not inward looking. The great concern has been that in the development within the European economic community-perhaps in the other organization as well-outward looking policies may be supplanted by inward looking policies, and while reducing the barriers to trade among themselves, they might at the same time erect higher barriers around the perimeter. This has been our concern and any Canadian government worthy of its trust would, Mr. Speaker, in a situation of this kind, do what the present Canadian government has done. It would be vigilant; it would go to every meeting that was called for this purpose, and it would put the interests of the Canadian producers before the conference and in a spirit of reasonableness at all times, not the spirit of retaliation that hon. members opposite so mistakenly and misleadingly talk about, seek to bring about a harmonization of interest that will do justice to and safeguard the interests of Canadian producers. That is our responsibility and our trust and we will fulfil it.
What about the moves of the United Kingdom in the direction of a common market? Well, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about something that is still very tentative; indeed, in some respects, hypothetical, because it is perfectly clear that the government of the United Kingdom is not prepared to join a European economic community on the basis
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy of the treaty of Rome, and so far the government of France has given no indication that it is prepared to consent to any modification of the terms of the treaty of Rome with a view to providing accommodation of the British in the European economic community or with other countries of the European free trade area. So, when we are talking on this subject let hon. members opposite be frank enough not to talk about this as though it were something assured. Let them be frank enough and informed enough to talk about it as though it were what it is, something very tentative, indeed, and hypothetical in many respects.
In this situation, Mr. Speaker, having regard particularly to the assurances that have been given to us by the government of the United Kingdom, that the commonwealth countries will be consulted at all stages, and while it remains the undoubted responsibility of the British government to make its own decision, we shall, of course, having regard to Canada's interest both in the United Kingdom market and in the markets of those European countries, seek to preserve the benefits that we now enjoy while at the same time recognizing the importance of the expansion of those markets and the benefits that will flow to Canada from them.
We have taken no narrow view here, Mr. Speaker. There has been the grossest kind of misrepresentation on this subject as to the position of the government. We never threatened retaliation in the meeting in London last November; we never threatened retaliation in Paris in 1960. These statements are distortions; they are figments of the imagination.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Read the Ottawa Journal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Read the editorial in the Regina Leader-Post and in similar Liberal organs. That is the source of the information. I am giving them the needed information; I am telling them for their information, but I suppose it will fall on unhearing ears, that their assertions are quite untrue. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I have been at those conferences and never has there been a suggestion of retaliation in my hearing. But we have done our duty in warning those other countries that if a course were taken which had the effect of closing Canadians out of certain markets, then inevitably Canadians, being enterprising people, would be looking for markets elsewhere, and trade being carried on in the world under arrangements which are so often negotiated, undoubtedly large sections of Canadian producers would expect the Canadian government to negotiate favourable terms of entry in other countries, and this is unquestionably

Alleged Lack of Trade Policy the position in which we find ourselves. We have to take action if that is a possibility and that is why we have been so vigilant in this field.
In my concluding remarks let me say first of all that in so far as O.E.C.D. is concerned, the government takes unlimited satisfaction out of the active part that it played in bringing about the O.E.C.D. Far from hon. members opposite adopting this convention as though it were theirs, let me say to them that the present government throughout has conducted those negotiations and it is not going to be any help to deny to the O.E.C.D. now the use and the prestige that this organization needs when the Leader of the Opposition in effect did invite the countries concerned to sidestep the O.E.C.D. and in effect weaken it.
I have said that our concern at all times is for the maintenance and expansion of Canadian markets; but we do not propose to be parties to any narrow approach of the kind that is proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, if he is to be taken as meaning what he has said, what he is in effect proposing to do is to forswear and abandon the principle of multilateral trade for which Canada stands. He is proposing that Canada and the other countries of the North Atlantic area should turn their backs upon trade with countries such as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Africa and other countries and resort to discriminatory arrangements, resort to more restrictions or, in the Nelson tradition, to keep one eye closed. Our view, Mr. Speaker, is that we want in all respects to see outward looking policies pursued, not restrictionist policies. If the kind of policies that the Leader of the Opposition has talked about were followed, if he means what he says-and I cannot persuade myself that he means to go as far as his words have conveyed to his hearers-it would mean that Canada would be held within the closed area of the North Atlantic, and that would not be good for Canada.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, during the time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) was speaking I could not help but recall that during the period 1930 to 1935 I frequently had occasion to sit in a very different part of this chamber. In those days the policy of the then prime minister, the Right Honourable R. B. Bennett, was to blast his way into the markets of the world. Well, today, the policy of the present government has been clearly set out by the Minister of Finance. It is to bluster its way into the markets of Europe.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Bluster, rave and misrepresent.


George James McIlraith: The extent of the misrepresentation of the Minister of Finance can best be illustrated by his reference to the amendments to the Customs Act of 1958, when he said there had been no orders issued under that act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You said it had not been necessary.


George James McIlraith: The minister said it had not been necessary to issue orders. I want to point out that on April 18 his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), as appears on page 3776 of Hansard, had occasion to apologize for the misrepresentation that had been made and pointed out that there had been a great many orders issued. He himself had made the same kind of misrepresentation and he was very quick to correct it as is fitting in keeping with what should be the manners of a minister of the crown. The correction was made in the presence of the Minister of Finance but he persists in the misinformation today.
I could go on correcting the Minister of Finance but I presume I should make my own speech. I should like to point out that the Minister of Finance seemed to be bolstering the achievements of the government by his manner and the loudness and vigour of his voice today. That is his privilege if he wishes to do so, but he kept referring to these achievements as momumental achievements of the government. I would simply point out to him that tombstones are monuments and maybe he is building a tombstone for our trade by means of the wrong policies of the government which he neglects to correct and replace with proper policies.
The minister went on to take credit for some reduction in the exchange rate between Canada and the United States. Some of us read the minister's speeches on occasion, and this is the same Minister of Finance who always disclaimed previously that the government could do anything about exchange rates without the imposition of foreign exchange controls. He took great care to point that out on other occasions but today he takes credit that the exchange rate is down a little. May I remind him that the famous baby budget, which presumably he is claiming is the factor responsible for this reduction, did not seem to bring down the exchange rate because it went up after the delivery of that infamous speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, it did not. It went down.


George James McIlraith: It went up.


Lionel Chevrier: You made a lot of miscalculations in that budget, didn't you?


George James McIlraith: The record will speak for itself. Another inconsistency of the minister in his remarks today had to do with the figures as to the numbers of items with respect to which there had been increases or decreases in the tariff, since the present government took office but he took great care in the figures he gave to omit the dozens of tariff items affected by the legislation finally passed last week. Those items were omitted. They were just not included in the computation.
Perhaps I might point out other inconsistencies on his part today. He talked about the European common market being tentative.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not. I talked about the approaches.


Lionel Chevrier: Did you know what you were talking about?


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I might elaborate by saying that he talked about the approaches to the common market being tentative. I must point out to the minister, however, that however tentatively he views these things they are not tentative but very real in the mind of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, as he made clear in his speech in Boston and many other speeches he made while he was on this continent.
Perhaps I should put the amendment on record again at this point because I fear it has not been fully understood. Certainly the Minister of Finance during the whole course of his speech tended to put an interpretation on it that misrepresented its content and purport completely. The amendment is in these words:
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"This house regrets the protectionist and inconsistent trade policies of the government and its failure to develop a long term foreign economic policy to enable Canada to participate fully in the challenging new opportunities in the field of international trade by implementing a vigorous program to promote the expansion of our secondary manufacturing industries and by encouraging the development of an Atlantic economic community."
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) moved the following subamendment:
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma and by adding thereto the following words:
to prevent a drastic loss of overseas markets for agricultural and other primary products."
I regret that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is not in his seat at the moment because, however true it may be that the failure of the government to develop a long
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy term foreign economic policy to enable Canada to participate in the new opportunities in the field of international trade and its failure to encourage the development of an Atlantic economic community may result in a drastic loss of overseas markets for agricultural and other primary products if we do not succeed in relating ourselves properly to these new developments, there are other consequences as well. While the loss of overseas markets for agricultural and other primary products is of major importance in this whole debate, it is only a part of the total picture. The effect of the subamendment is to limit and restrict the amendment, and I would point out that the effect of this limiting and restrictive addition to the amendment is quite diffierent from the speech of the hon. member moving it.
It seemed to me from his speech that he did not mean to limit his approval of the amendment in any way but the fact is that by the words he has used in the subamendment he has tended to limit the amendment. While I grant at once the extreme importance of the matters he has referred to in the subamendment, the words he has used have a limiting effect and therefore the subamendment is not acceptable so far as we are concerned.
Incidentally, he made an implication with reference to me in his speech which I should like to dispel at once. There should not be read into the amendment any lack of interest by me in any part of it. I am very keen about the whole of the amendment and just as much in support of the reference to secondary industry, as I hope to show later in my remarks, as anyone in the house. He is quite wrong in any deductions he made because of the amendment being proposed by one much abler than I. I assure him that this was done because of the desire and readiness of the Liberal party to work together and to have the amendment moved on this occasion by one of prime ability.


An hon. Member:: Do not be so modest.


George James McIlraith: Unfortunately the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) has vanished, but I should like to make some references to the speech he delivered yesterday which I must admit I found rather interesting because it demonstrated the very thing about which we are complaining. I want to read one excerpt from the minister's speech. In talking about the main motion-I presume he meant the amendment-he said this as reported at page 3945 of Hansard for April 24, 1961:
It purports to speak on the one hand of a free or freer trade area within the Atlantic economic community and in the same breath it expresses
3982	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy
regret because, it says, the government has failed to promote the expansion of secondary manufacturing industries in Canada. These two courses are contradictory and represent opposite ends of the economic pole.
There, sir, you have an expression of the policy of the government, that there is an inconsistency in these two things. Surely, the contrary is the fact and it is important that we do both of the things proposed in the amendment. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, by that negative view, is going to leave us in a position where we would take a retrograde step and we would thereby become purely producers of primary products. Surely, that is not the government's position and yet the Minister of Trade and Commerce has clearly set it out in that way in his speech. I must say, however, that his speech of yesterday was consistent with his other speeches on this precise point.
The purpose of the amendment is to suggest, first, the failure of the government to develop a long term foreign economic policy. It seems to me that in today's world it is not good enough for the Minister of Finance or any other minister of the crown, in answering this amendment, to try to deal with it in terms of days long past. It must be dealt with in today's circumstances, today's world, and it must be dealt with in the context of the cold war which, it seems to me, is being developed more and more on economic terms. In that context, surely it is elementary that the free western countries must be brought to a consideration of the prospects of trade, a subject that ought to be foremost in our minds.
I recognize that certain short run considerations are important from time to time in the consideration of external trade. I quite recognize the day to day vicissitudes of trade and I am not one to minimize their importance. However, this amendment is concerned with long term foreign economic policy. We are concerned with the development of this long term policy over the years ahead so that we will provide the proper trading climate in the years ahead. The Minister of Trade and Commerce completely missed that point yesterday. He talked about certain trade figures, merchandise trade figures for this year and last year, without relating them to this important point.
Then, we have this problem of the government-I am making this as a direct criticism of the government in every area-being hypnotized by this short run, day to day view. The government seems to be unwilling to develop long term policies. Surely, an able government must do both. It must be able to develop long term policies as well


as be able to look at the day to day problems. Our need now, in our external relations, is for a long term foreign economic policy.
I do not want to traverse ground that has been traversed. My leader made an excellent speech on February 28, which appears at page 2499 of Hansard, on the subject of O.E.C.D. I will not repeat any part of that speech now. However, there are aspects to this problem which time does not permit me to develop, which are very beneficial for Canada and for the whole free world. I refer to such matters as the expansion of trade with underdeveloped countries and the reliance of those countries on certain commodities with sharply fluctuating prices, with a resultant adverse effect upon them. I should like to develop that theme on some other occasion, but perhaps I will have to let it go with a mere mention now.
If we should develop an Atlantic trading area on a really sound footing, it would do much to stabilize prices of the basic commodities which come from these other underdeveloped countries. This would be a very good thing as anyone knows who understands the sharp reverses their economies have had.
The Minister of Finance today seemed to go out of his way to deny certain impressions that were created by his remarks, and more particularly by the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I could, perhaps, spend a good deal of time quoting the remarks of the Minister of Finance, especially from his speech at Ste. Adele. I thoroughly read again this morning the speech delivered at Ste. Adele. I was interested to note that the minister did not attribute to that speech the quotations he made from it today. He read a substantial part of it into the record.


Donald Methuen Fleming: One paragraph.


George James McIlraith: No, the minister and I will have to differ on that. I was following the text as he was making his remarks. He read an important part of it and I, in common with many others, found the speech contained an implied threat of retaliation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense.


George James McIlraith: I read it again this morning to see if I had misinterpreted it, since the minister is so quick to challenge my original interpretation. However, my original interpretation still stands. I have a whole sheaf of quotations from the Minister of Finance here, but perhaps I will content myself by reading one from the Toronto Globe and Mail

of November 22, which refers to this Ste. Adele speech. The minister is reported as saying:
Canadian interests will be damaged, perhaps seriously, if the United Kingdom aligns itself with the common market countries in some sort of free trade area. Canada might retaliate by raising its own tariffs.
The article goes on to state:
Certainly under such circumstances the pressure for Canada to embark on closer trade associations with other countries, particularly the United States, would understandably be increased.
Evidently the correspondent for the Globe and Mail interpreted the speech the way the rest of us did.
Then, on November 25, there were some questions asked in the house about this speech at Ste. Adele. The minister persisted, according to Hansard, page 197, in these remarks that we interpret as a threat of retaliation. He will find those remarks recorded at the top of the first column of page 197.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There never was any threat of retaliation.


George James McIlraith: In any event, the remarks are interpreted that way.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is the wrong way.


George James McIlraith: The Minister of Trade and Commerce went to Paris to deal with some foreign trade matters. He is reported as having stated-it depends on which paper you read, but all the reports are of the same nature:
Unless the European common market substantially reduces its announced tariff schedules affecting imports from Canada at the GATT negotiations in progress in Geneva, Canada will retaliate by increasing its barriers against imports from the six European countries.
The warning has been given by trade minister George Hees to European ministers meeting here ...
There it is. Since this government took office the Department of Trade and Commerce has been truncated. Remnants of it are left with the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I hope the jurisdiction he has over that part which is concerned with foreign trade-and it seems to be shared between the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance-will be further reduced, if he is going to persist in making ill-timed statements of that sort.
If the minister has any doubt about the interpretation by others of the speeches of this government, I would refer him to the Financial Post of December 10, 1960. This is quite a long article-it covers a full page- by Clive Baxter. The article is headed:
In Europe, they say that Canada overrates her own importance .. .
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy
I could quote a great deal of this article; I could quote it all if I had the time. In any event, it reports that Mr. DeGrood the head of the North American division in the directorate-general for external relations at E.C.M. headquarters, who is described as a Dutchman and a friend of Canada, said:
"It seems to us", he finally replied, "that Canada overrates its own importance these days. We want to trade with you, but you must understand that if necessary we can get on without you".
Another part of the article, not attributed directly to this spokesman, says:
It is not encouraging to report-but impossible to ignore-that the speech seemed to worry nobody in Brussels. The departments concerned were interested in its contents but apparently far from scared by its warnings.
"You got yourselves into this mess", commented an E.C.M. executive who didn't want his name used for obvious diplomatic reasons. "We are not to blame for what happened. But please explain to Canadians that while we sympathize with your problems, you cannot scare us with the sort of threats Mr. Fleming used.
"If you don't like what we are doing you are of course free to take whatever measures your government sees fit. But I think you should remember this important fact: We are a unit of 170 million people. We have ambitions to build what may some day be an equal of the United States in every respect.
"Much as we like Canada and Canadians, don't ever think that a market of 17 million people can threaten us into changing our basic plans. We will listen to your views and where possible will meet your requirements, but please don't lose your sense of proportion. You are going to have to live with us in the future and to withdraw into an angry protective shell can only mean worse and worse trouble for your economy".


Lionel Chevrier: Then they did make a threat.


George James McIlraith: There is the interpretation put on the speeches of these two hon. ministers. There is a rather apt statement of what would flow from the scared and angry policy of the government that was being expounded in those speeches.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I ask how competent is the individual whose remarks the hon. member just read?


George James McIlraith: I would say, much more competent than any member of the ministry of this government. His whole treatment of the subject points up and ably illustrates his understanding of it.
I am afraid the Minister of Trade and Commerce showed that he had no grasp at all of what was involved, or its significance to this government.


Lionel Chevrier: Any more than he did when he spoke about the Cubans.


George James McIlraith: Exactly. It is just the same kind of inconsistent trade policy illustrated by the minister when he spoke about the Cubans, when he went on with that kind of

Alleged Lack of Trade Policy nonsense and said, "You could not wish to do business with better businessmen anywhere". Those are the kind of irresponsible and careless statements we are getting from the ministry. Those kind of statements have consequence in our international trade relations and ought not to be made in the brash, thoughtless way in which they apparently are being made.
I could digress and list a great many famous boo-boos made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but of course it is not desirable to do so at this time.


Lionel Chevrier: They have made a complete volte-face since then.


George James McIlraith: They would need to make a complete volte-face since then. Not only has the government done nothing appropriate about these long term policies that are required at this time, but their short term policies are regressive. It is quite clear that these policies will cause a good deal of trouble for our secondary industry in the time ahead. They have already caused our secondary industry a good deal of trouble.
In giving the figures yesterday for commodity trade the Minister of Trade and Commerce completely missed the significance of some aspects of this matter. He did not tell us that our imports were down because of the recession in business in this country. He did not tell us that our exports to the United Kingdom have increased-and we all rejoice in the fact that they have increased-because there has been a sharp upturn in the economy of the United Kingdom. He did not tell us that this year there was a very significant feature in our increased exports to the United Kingdom; in that about 5 per cent of it represented wholly manufactured goods.
The minister did not relate the significance of that fact to the possible development in this country of secondary industry, which this government is doing so much to destroy. He did not-


Mr. Graffiey:: That is nonsense.


George James McIlraith: In dealing with the other items, he did not deal with the true significance, in long term effect, on the economy of the country. The minister merely dealt with them as if no long term factors at all were involved. He did not deal with the threat to our agricultural products, which apparently was in the mind of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam if the European common market develops into a protectionist association. The minister did not deal with that matter at all.
He did not tell us the danger we must meet in this regard. When the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner) was speaking last


night, I could not help thinking how little he understood the danger and threat which exists to our wheat exports in certain of these movements that are going on wholly outside Canada and outside direct participation by this country. The hon. member seemed to have missed that point.
It seems to me that the two parts of this amendment are wholly consistent. In addition to developing policies by way of negotiation with these two European trading associations in order that we will be integrated in a proper association with them-as was so ably expounded by my leader this afternoon- we have the other problem. I refer to the problem of our secondary industry and its development.
The present government has made much of the baby budget delivered last fall. It is interesting to see that the President of the United States saw fit to refer to it in his message to congress. Unfortunately, I have only the newspaper reports. I would like to see the text of the president's speech. However, it is quite clear that he may already have started the chain of events which will be damaging to the economy of this country that our Minister of Finance initiated by his angry, little, wrong policies in the baby budget. In any event, the present government has failed to realize the effect of the whole of the taxation policies of the last few years and has failed to realize what they are doing to the economy of this country.
In face of the rapidly changing conditions in the economies of Europe, Japan and other countries in the world the government has failed to understand the necessity for adapting our tax policies in such a way as would provide incentives for our export industries so that they can remain competitive. It has failed to realize the role which a government can play in this field. It has failed to realize the importance of adopting tax policies, whether by tax incentives or otherwise, which would enable our secondary industry to provide itself with the most modern machinery and equipment. That is the direction which our taxation policy should be taking. Instead of that, the government has been following policies which have increased the burden placed on our export industries and lessened their ability to compete successfully in world markets. I refer to its misunderstanding of how to handle the conversion loan with its indirect consequence of an increase in municipal taxes on industry and a higher interest rate on money borrowed. Corporate income taxes have been increased. The sales tax has been increased to 10 per cent. Old age assistance tax has been increased by 50 per cent and the unemployment insurance charges on

industry have been increased by between 25 per cent and 50 per cent depending on which category is involved.
All this has constituted a very heavy burden on our productivity, a direct addition to the cost of production and, indirectly, an added burden on our productivity. What is required now is an adaptation of these tax policies, every one of them, on a broad and massive front, to meet the needs so that we can once again put secondary industry into competitive production. Then we would not have these policies of fear and the retaliation which these two ministers go around talking about outside the country.
We have had in this country an excellent experience of using accelerated depreciation allowances to facilitate the transition of industry from a wartime to a peacetime basis. That policy was used to great advantage and I am at a loss to understand why in the circumstances in which we find ourselves today the government does not use this vast experience which has proved itself so effective in past years, applying it to the changed problems and requirements of today, because the need to help industry develop and increase its productivity is as great today as the need of industry for help to convert to peacetime production was then.
There are many other phases of taxation to which I could refer and upon which I could elaborate but I see I have only four or five minutes left. The corporate taxation field is neither a popular one to speak about nor an easy one, and I do not wish my remarks to be considered as meaning only that we should take the easy step of reducing corporate income taxes. It is a matter of developing all the taxes which affect corporations in a way which will relate particularly to the export problem. That would involve certain adaptations of the sales tax policy and it would also involve the use of depreciation allowances. It would involve an examination of the techniques of releasing earnings from companies for investment in new and up to date equipment. It might also involve an examination of the right of shareholders to withdraw their dividends on a more advantageous tax basis than is presently the case. It will involve some wholly new policies.
It was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition on January 20 of this year during the budget debate as reported at page 1274 that special provision might be made in the field of earnings from increased exports. My hon. friend spoke on this very point in a precise way and made a suggestion of a particular nature:
To encourage domestic manufacturing industries to increase their exports tax incentive should be
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy offered including a reduction in corporation income tax on the profits earned on increased export sales.
There are a great many variations in the forms of tax incentives that could be offered. In any event-


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


George James McIlraith: I should be obliged if the hon. gentleman would bear with me one moment and ask his question at the completion of my time.
These things are not being done by the government. Instead, it is taking retrograde steps each session in this whole field of taxation. The speech made last night by the Minister of Trade and Commerce showed a complete failure to understand the nature of the problem facing this country in the field of foreign trade, both as to its long term implications and as to its short term relationship to unemployment and the difficulties facing our secondary industries. We have sought in this amendment and in our debate to put forward criticisms of the government but to accompany these criticisms by positive and responsible suggestions capable of being carried out and, which, if carried out, would render wholly unnecessary these debates on unemployment which take place so frequently in the house when a Conservative government is in office.
These suggestions, if adopted, would eliminate the need for these parades of unemployed to parliament hill seeking to make representations to members of parliament. All these things would become wholly unnecessary. As I say, in criticizing the government we have sought to accompany our criticism with a program of the kind that should be carried out by any active and responsible government in this field and to demonstrate exactly how these policies would work. However, I am afraid the present government has closed its collective mind to any ideas of a progressive character. Hon. members opposite seem to think in terms of turning back the clock, and it is for that reason I referred at the opening of these remarks to the bluster of the present Minister of Finance and to the blasting into the markets of the world spoken of by the then prime minister of that party some 30 years ago when unemployment was as much of a worry as it is today.
Mr. J. R. Keays (Iles-de-la-Madeleine).
Yesterday we heard the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) move an amendment in this house which demonstrated again his ability to create the paradox of paradoxes. He criticized this government for either the lack of a trade policy or an inconsistent trade policy, while in the same breath he mentioned

Alleged, Lack of Trade Policy that there was an expansion of trade under this government. However, he found ways and means for not giving credit to those Canadians who are imaginative and possess initiative and drive. Rather, he gave credit to the dynamic growth of western Europe. In other words, he again expressed the opinion that Canadians were lazy, lacked imagination, initiative and drive.
It seems to me that in addition to preaching doom and gloom hon. members opposite are trying to destroy confidence in Canadians. In an article appearing today in the Canadian Manufacturers' Association pamphlet there is one sentence which seems to refer to that which I have just mentioned. That article suggests that public confidence in the immediate future should not be undermined or disturbed by playing up the bad and playing down the good in such a way as to distort the over-all economic picture and thus promote fear and doubt where there should be none, which would do Canada and the unemployment situation a great disservice.
As I have mentioned, hon. members opposite do not give any credit to the initiative of the government. However, some people think that the action and policies of this government in so far as trade is concerned are quite satisfactory. In an article appearing in the Citizen of December 14, 1960 under the heading "Golden Decade Has Lost Much of its Glitter" Mr. Ben Dworkin had the following to say:
In the meantime the drive by the Canadian government to secure outside markets is believed to be a factor that will give business generally a boost.
Despite the competition for world markets, trade envoys from all parts of the world that are attending a conference in Ottawa report that Canada stands a good chance to break in, or improve her position as an exporting nation to almost every part of the world.
This drive for business, and the enthusiasm that has been shown by businessmen for the program all reflect optimism that new customers can be found.
There is one person who appreciates the policies of this government in so far as trade is concerned. We heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) yesterday refer to the 9 per cent increase in the volume of our export trade since 1957. This is due to the selling efforts of this government, the initiative of those ministers concerned with the problem, and to the selling ability of the personnel we have stationed all over the world. Again, we can speak about our trade imbalance which has gone from $368 miUion in 1957 to $97 miUion in 1960. I believe that these few facts speak well of the trade policy of this government.

Trade problems are growing and the United States last year voted extra millions of dollars to put more salesmen into world centres. The United Kingdom has taken similar action. This proves that the problem rests not solely in Canada but all over the world.
The objectives of the O.E.C.D. are ideal. Let no one believe that these objectives will be reached simply by the stroke of a pen. Many obstacles will be encountered by those members who form O.E.C.D. in so far as trade policies are concerned. Trade talks and horse trading will still go on not only within that zone but with those exporting nations who are desirous of continuing trade, and by the bloc countries desirous of exporting their surplus products.
The O.E.C.D., made up of 20 nations, does not represent the ultimate in respect of western trade, but its immediate objective was aimed at expanding economic aid by the industralized nations to the underdeveloped nations of the world. Canada along with two other countries-! believe they are Switzerland and Sweden-gained the compromise that after the O.E.C.D. was formed it would review the acts of the old O.E.E.C. in so far as trade was concerned. The O.E.CD. also gave all the signatories the opportunity to air problems in respect of general trade policies with a view to protecting them in relation to the defence of trade practices, when a member nation desired to bring forward a trade problem.
These are the concessions obtained by this government. As the Minister of Finance has so ably said, Canada is always aware of the problems which may arise with other trading nations and must at all times protect herself.
To substantiate my statement about the organization, which included a number of the common market members, I would refer to what Mr. Ludwig Erhard said as reported in the Gazette of January 25, 1961: under the heading "Erhard Fears 'Tragedy' of European Split":
Mr. Erhard's restiveness about the common market is founded on his conviction that it is cementing an economic split between its members and the rest of Europe. He regards this as an economic and political tragedy and considers that it weakens rather than strengthens the free world.-
The weight of Mr. Erhard's declaration lies to a notable degree in the intangibles of the situation. Despite his affirmation of loyalty to the written treaties, it is evident that more than technical observance of the treaties will be needed to maintain the common market momentum in future years.
Although this organization is ideal, there are problems to be surmounted. I am sure this goverment is aware of them and is protecting itself accordingly. Canada does not

wish ideals but rather a commercial relationship with all its trade partners without forgetting the social or political effects of such association.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have criticized the government for failing to take advantage of opportunities for closer collaboration with other members of the North Atlantic community. Some of the hon. gentlemen opposite have chosen to cast doubt on the value of our participation in the organization for economic co-operation and development. To me this reveals a surprising lack of understanding of the significance of this most important step toward co-operation and collaboration among the 18 countries of the western community and the two North American powers.
I think hon. members of the official opposition show extraordinary lack of judgment, consistency and respect in representing O.E.C.D. in an unfavourable light. So short is their memory that they fail to see the contradiction in their taking this stand. Do they not recall the North Atlantic treaty which was signed in 1949? Do they not recall the insistence of the Liberal government, then in power, on the insertion in the text of the treaty of article 2, which reads as follows:
The parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and wellbeing. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
We have frequently heard the Leader of the Opposition speak on this subject and we know the part he played in preparing the report of the committee of three of the North Atlantic council on ways and means to improve and extend NATO co-operation in nonmilitary fields and to develop greater unity within the Atlantic community. Let me ask hon. gentlemen opposite what the Liberal government did between 1949 and 1957 to develop unity within the Atlantic community in non-military fields? We see no evidence of their having made any progress in this connection. We see no evidence that article 2, through the efforts of the Liberal government, was made meaningful. I think this is sufficient proof of the cynicism and hypocrisy of hon. members of the official opposition in suggesting that they do indeed support the idea of an Atlantic economic community.
This government has moved positively in assisting in the formation of an O.E.C.D. comprising the members of this community. Let it not be for the opposition to imply that we have been as negative or as negligent as they were when they held office.
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy
In so far as the subamendment of the C.C.F. party is concerned, I do not think any additional words are required. I think the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner) ably answered the problems brought out by the subamendment.
In so far as trade policy is concerned, has this government not moved forward since 1957, bringing in at each session legislation which enable Canada's trade policies to rank among the best in the world? Has it not under the productivity council made it possible for studies to be undertaken and an examination made of the reasons for unemployment? I am sure that if answers are found by this council they will be brought to the attention of the appropriate minister.
Has this government not extended the Export Credits Insurance Act? Has it not made available through the banks sufficient credit to enable our exporters to continue and improve their businesses? Has it not been the policy of this government to make money available to the exporters? Since this Conservative party believes in free enterprise, the government has left to the banks the responsibility of providing exporters with the money they need. The policies of this government are farsighted, vigorous and energetic. We all remember the smug complacency of the previous government. It failed to recognize the problems which were eventually surmounted.
I should like to refer to a few facts which prove that the policies of this government are an encouragement to Canadians. In this respect I am speaking about our secondary industries, because it is in those industries that we will find the answer for unemployment. They alone can give work to approximately 70 to 75 per cent of the Canadian labour force. Our policies have brought some results, as they have made it possible for Canadian manufacturers to compete in other markets. One company I have in mind is a firm called Hamilton Clamp and Stampings Limited, which is challenging two big United States industries which are exporting automotive parts to Canada. This firm has appointed a distributor in New Zealand and negotiations are under way for distributors in Australia and the United Kingdom. It is branching out in the export business with an extensive line of hose clamps that has become its mainstay.
A Swiss backed metal firm has located in Canada, and there are numerous others which have come here because of our trade policies. The Liberals have encouraged their pet project, free trade, by importing cheap goods to the disadvantage of Canadians and resulting in the closing of factories. They have ignored the change in our economy and are in favour

Alleged Lack of Trade Policy of the traditional trade patterns which were in existence in Canada when they were in office. John Meyer, writing about the Liberal party in the Gazette of Thursday, December, 15, 1960, had this to say:
It is only now showing evidence ol concern about the extent of foreign investment in Canada. Had there been the open-mindedness to recognize the dangers of excessive foreign investment in its contemporary form, instead of assuming it to have been in its traditional form, concern about it would have been expressed in the early fifties instead of after the peak has been reached.
What applies to monetary policy, Mr. Speaker, also applies to Canada's trade policy. In those days when there was no question of unemployment, when Canada developed huge surpluses every year, the Liberal party remained smug and complacent. Those were the days when they should have introduced the legislation which the present government has introduced in the last few sessions. If they had done so, our gross national product would not have stopped growing. The impetus would have been given at that time, which was the proper time, in order to keep our national product growing.
There are some Canadians who think well of the policies of the government. William F. Shelley, president of Canadian General Fund Limited, is one. I have here a newspaper article which reads in part as follows:
William F. Shelley, president of Canadian General Fund Limited and co-chairman of the committee of Canadian investment companies, said government action has already stimulated housing construction by liberalizing loans and placed the Canadian automotive industry in a more favourable position through increased duties on foreign cars. Shelley also told the fund's stockholders that the government has succeeded in increasing domestic production by affording further tariff protection and has provided long term stimuli for Canadian exports through new financing procedures.
I think that these actions by the government are commendable and I cannot see how we can support an amendment such as that moved by the Liberal opposition.
Other people also think well of the trade policies of the government. I should like to refer to a report of a speech by Mr. Roberge, the president of Banque Canadienne Nation-ale, at the last annual meeting of shareholders. The newspaper article reads in part as follows:
Mr. Roberge declared that a compromise between the "sixes and sevens" was likely, and Canada's interests might be hurt. "Our exporters must be in a position to face foreign competition, particularly that of the common market which from now on will share with the United States the twofold advantage of modernized equipment and a vast domestic market," he said. Mr. Roberge described the federal government's budget moves to encourage the development of industry and domestic investment "as a first step in the right direction". When


experience has shown their effects, he said, a more comprehensive economic policy would be needed to aid the formation of capital.
That is exactly what the government has done, Mr. Speaker. It has created the productivity council and it is going to establish a design council. These organizations will help the government to introduce proper legislation so that our trade with all nations will continue to grow for many years to come and not, as suggested by the opposition, for just a few years. Again, I do not see why we should have to import finished products simply so we may sell our raw resources. We need protection for secondary industries and, as I have said before, these are the industries that put Canadians to work. The paradox of the Liberal party seems to be that they say we should import more and sell more and at the same time they forget the development of our secondary industries which are so important to the Canadian economy.
So far as the tariff structure is concerned, the Minister of Finance has certainly made a move in the right direction when we realize that not since 1907 has our tariff structure been overhauled. The government is doing something about it because it wishes to make it adaptable to the present and the future. In the words of the Minister of Finance, this will provide an opportunity for a further reduction in world trade barriers and new opportunities for Canadian exporters.
How can the opposition criticize these objectives of the government, Mr. Speaker? Finally, may I say that I endorse fully the steps which have been taken by the government with respect to our trade policies, increasing our export trade and, more important, developing our domestic trade. We have not forgotten the one or the other but have made them all into one common problem which will be resolved by the government.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, although the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) is comparatively new as head of this department, he looks and acts as though he was born for the job. From the first day of his appointment he has taken his job seriously and initiated some innovations, which we all trust will mean more business for Canada, such as the big conference of trade commissioners from abroad, some 110, I believe. I understand that this effort was worth while. Now we are all waiting for the results and I for one wish to congratulate the minister on his enterprise.
Trade is the life blood of our nation and without it we cannot hope to thrive and prosper. But with all the energy of the minister and however great his zest may be and that of his assistants, we can never hope

to gain foreign markets unless we have a favourable trade climate. This can only be brought about by legislation designed to attract foreign buyers and if we do not have it then all these efforts will have been made in vain.
Recent legislation, notably that granting the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) power to redefine for tariff purposes goods of a class or kind made in Canada or that could be produced in Canada, certainly will not create an incentive for wider trade with foreign nations, especially those which are already good customers and purchase from Canada far more than we purchase from them. This measure, fought by the opposition every step of the way, will not help the minister to realize his aspiration to increase and promote exports.
I do not think this country can afford to provide an increase in tariff protection against a surge of foreign competition for manufacturing industries which supply only a small share of the Canadian market. Unfortunately it seems that the new minister is handicapped by the tariff and monetary policies of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), as was his predecessor, now Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill). The latter was handicapped by the obstinate refusal of the Minister of Finance to introduce measures to lower the value of the Canadian dollar in relation to its counterpart, the United States dollar. As he pointed out this afternoon, however, the dollar has dropped to about 1 per cent above par. Now, we see a repetition of this intrusion with the advent of new protectionism which is nothing more nor less than the old Tory protectionist medicine. I daresay that the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe, when minister of trade and commerce, would never have allowed the minister of finance of the day to introduce legislation that would hurt our chances of selling abroad.
A brilliant member of the press gallery, in an article which appeared in the Port Arthur News-Chronicle some time ago, saw how the wind was blowing and had this to say. I quote:
''Trade or perish" would be an apt and pungent solgan for Canada. It is commonly said that one third of all Canadian workers owe their jobs to our trade with foreign countries. This proportion is infinitely higher than that pertaining within the borders of our greatest supplier and our greatest customer, the neighbouring U.S.A. It is probably higher than in any other country in the Atlantic community.
This reporter then goes on to point out that we are building Canada into a defensively-walled trading citadel isolated on a lovely high priced plateau. Then he proceeds as follows:
90205-6-252
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy
On December 16 Mr. Fleming told the House of Commons that he and the minister of trade, Hon. George Hees, had recently signed, on behalf of Canada, the convention establishing the organization for economic co-operation and development known as O.E.C.D.
The aims of this newly constituted organization, Mr. Fleming told the house, are "to promote policies that are designed:
(a)	to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth in member countries,
(b)	to contribute to sound economic expansion in member and non-member countries, and
(c)	to contribute to the expansion of world trade ..."
Just words, words, words.
O.E.C.D. is a revised version of O.E.E.C., which was just another mantle under which politicians and bureaucrats could "swan" to international debates at the taxpayer's expense despite a consistent record of absolute failure to create even one additional job for Canadian workers.
Two hundred and fifty million citizens of western Europe have decided that small national trading units do not offer an open gateway to mass prosperity and high living standards. So they have agreed to join together in tariff-free economic alliances. These two European groupings, destined one day to amalgamate, are known as the inner six and the European free trade association.
Who are we, eighteen million Canadians, to know better? Yet we have failed to negotiate our entry into either of those prosperous blocs, and we even rejected the offer of a free ride in by Britain. Today, we are not even exploring that golden pasture; we are just signing conventions agreeing to talk, talk, talk.
Now Mr. Speaker, few people would question the soundness of these observations, nor could anyone doubt that the principal cause of the problem is the imbalance of our trade with other nations. Our exports are not sufficient to meet the goods and services which we import and to meet the payments on our foreign debt. There is also a growing body of public opinion, which is substantiated by visible evidence, that Canada is suffering from duplication of production facilities for articles which have only a limited market when divided amongst the numerous participants. This situation leads to lower individual production which, in turn, causes higher prices to meet those costs and those higher costs invite imports, thus bringing new competitors into the production field to divide the small market that exists.
The president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association appearing before the Senate manpower committee had this to say on the subject.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was about to quote the president of the
3S90

Alleged Lack of Trade Policy Canadian Manufacturers' Association who appeared before the Senate manpower committee. Mr. Kinsman had this to say on the subject of trade and competition:
This uneconomic multiplication of firms prevents any one of them from securing the benefits of mass production and leads to increased costs and prices. Apart from preventing exports, these higher costs and prices invite imports and tend to bring new competitors into the production field in Canada to further divide markets which were already too small.
By way of example, Mr. Kinsman said there were nine refrigerator manufacturers in Canada for the domestic market, which situation does not appear to make much sense.
Representatives of the electrical manufacturers were asked by Senator David Croll of Toronto to comment upon this observation. One of the manufacturers of refrigerators, Westinghouse president, Mr. J. D. Campbell, readily agreed that there were too many companies in the business, while acknowledging that it was difficult for him to be objective. He said there was a total market in Canada for 350,000 to 400,000 units a year, while at a conservative estimate the Canadian manufacturers had enough capacity to produce one million units.
Mr. H. D. Style, president of John Inglis Company Limited and English Electric of Canada, said the same situation existed in a number of other domestic industries. He said their production capacity was sufficient to more than supply the total Canadian market, a varying share of which was now going to foreign manufacturers.
Of course, I am not suggesting that we should set up controls and prevent any company from entering any manufacturing field. It is entirely up to them. On the other hand, Canadians should not be asked to pay a higher price for commodities, which would be the result of giving increased tariff protection to inefficient, small producers, who in all probability would soon be back asking for still higher tariffs.
We certainly do not advocate cut-throat competition; nor is it our duty to ask the people, the consumers, to pay the higher prices which higher tariffs would impose.
Contrary to the common belief that high tariffs protect Canadian industries, in reality, in most cases it has the direct tendency of inviting retaliation in kind.
I am fearful that as a result of a shortsighted policy on trade and tariffs, while we may keep out a few thousand television tubes made in Japan, we may jeopardize the sale of millions of bushels of wheat to that country which, incidentally, has a large trade deficit with us. Japan's chief import from this country is wheat, a commodity of which

Canada has a huge surplus. Other commodities which Japan buys from us are the products which directly benefit hard pressed industries such as coal and iron mines.
We should also remind ourselves that we are not the only wheat producers in the world; but in its trade and tariff policies this government acts as if Canada were the only source.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) devoted a considerable portion of his speech to the absurd assumption that the members of the oflicial opposition were against buying Canadian.
I wish to remind hon. members of this house in general and the minister in particular, that on February 11, 1960, as will be found in Hansard at page 952, I urged the government to give consideration to the advisability of sponsoring a "buy Canadian" campaign. I said:
In view of the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent importing into Canada automobiles and consumer goods of a kind already made here, has the Department of Trade and Commerce given any consideration to sponsoring a national campaign to make Canadians "buy Canadian" conscious?
The then minister of trade and commerce, now Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill), replied as follows:
I doubt the urgency of this question, Mr. Speaker. The problem of encouraging Canadians to buy goods made in Canada is one which is of importance, and that type of campaign has been going on under the auspices of business organizations for some considerable time.
I followed up the question by asking whether the Department of Trade and Commerce had given any consideration to a national campaign sponsored by the government, and the minister replied:
There is no consideration being given, at the moment, Mr. Speaker, to a national campaign under the auspices of the Department of Trade and Commerce. The hon. member's suggestion will be taken under advisement.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce is a very genial fellow and is well liked, but he is also a past master at twisting words around to create different meanings. However, he will not be able to read in my statement anything which would indicate other than that we on this side of the house are just as anxious for Canadian people to buy Canadian as any hon. member of the house, including the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce does not approve of giving any consideration to the proposition of creating a free trade area that would include the United States, Britain, Canada and some European nations.
Mr. R. M. Shaw, senior vice president of MacMillan, Bloedel and Powell River Limited

of Vancouver, addressing the western retail lumbermen's association, made the following statement and I quote:
Canada, if given access to United States markets, would undoubtedly be able to build up a secondary wood products industry to manufacture such products as prefabricated garages, summer cottages and patios, casing sets, overlays, sashes for doors and windows and garden and household furniture.
He said all these products were produced in Canada now but in insufficient volume to take advantage of the economics of mass production enjoyed by larger United States manufacturers.
At present Canada has free entry into the United States only for lumber which has been surfaced on four sides, tongued and grooved. Mr. Shaw believes that under free trade Canada would increase its volume of sales to the United States more than the United States would expand its sales to Canada of similar products.
On the broader aspects of free trade, Mr. Shaw said an outdated degree of nationalism was threatening to isolate Canada from free trade areas evolving in Europe. He said Canada should display the leadership in the free world trading community that is expected of us as a major trading nation.
However, we on this side of the house do not advocate a policy of free trade between Canada and the United States alone. Our leader has made it clear that what we favour is an Atlantic free area which would include Canada, the United States, Britain and other European nations.
Last night, the Minister of Trade and Commerce referred to the address of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) delivered to the Empire and Canadian clubs of Toronto on April 24 and I cannot think of a more effective way to bring my remarks to a close than to quote a few paragraphs from it which will indicate the trade policy a Liberal government will establish when the Liberal party is called to form a government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it being 8.15 o'clock it is my duty pursuant to section 4 (d) of standing order 56 as provisionally amended to interrupt these proceedings and put the question on any amendments now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The	question is now on the
amendment to the main motion.	
The house divided	on the amendment (Mr. Chevrier) which was negatived on the following division:	
YEAS	
Messrs:	
Argue	Macnaughton
Badanal	Mcliraith
Batten	McMillan
Boulanger	McWilliam
Bourget	Martin (Essex East)
Bourque	Martin (Timmins)
Caron	Meunier
Carter	Mitchell
Chevrier	Nixon
Clermont	Pearson
Denis	Peters
Deschatelets	Pickersgill
Eudes	Pitman
Fisher	Racine
Garland	Ratelle
Godin	Regier
Granger	Richard (Ottawa East)
Habel	Richard (St. Maurice-
Hellyer	Lafleche)
Howard	Roberge
LaMarsh, Miss	Tardif
Leduc	Tucker
Lessard	Winch-45.
NAYS	
Messrs:	
Aitken, Miss	Brunsden
Allard	Cadieu
Allmark	Campbell
Anderson	(Lambton-Kent)
Balcer	Campbell (Stormont)
Baldwin	Casselman, Mrs.
Barrington	Cathers
Beech	Chambers
Belzile	Charlton
Best	Chown
Brassard (Chicoutimi)	Churchill
Browne (St. John's West) Clancy	
Browne (Vancouver-	Coates
Kingsway) IMir. Speaker.]	Comtois
Cooper	McQuillan
Creaghan	Maloney
Crouse	Mandziuk
Danforth	Martel
Deschambault	Martineau
Diefenbaker	Martini
Dinsdale	Matthews
Doucett	Milligan
Drysdale	Monteith (Perth)
Dubois	Montgomery
Fairclough, Mrs.	More
Fairfield	Morissette
Fane	Morris
Fleming (Eglinton)	Morton
Fleming (Okanagan-	Muir (Cape Breton
Revelstoke)	North and Victoria)
Forbes	Muir (Lisgar)
Frechette	Nesbitt
Fulton	Nielsen
Grafftey	Noble
Green	Nowlan
Grenier	Nugent
Grills	O'Hurley
Gundlock	O'Leary
Hales	Ormiston
Hamilton (Notre Dame	Pallett
de Grace)	Pascoe
Hamilton (York West)	Paul
Hanbidge	Phillips
Harkness	Pigeon
Hees	Pratt
Henderson	Pugh
Hicks	Rapp
Horner (Acadia)	Regnier
Horner (Jasper-Edson)	Ricard
Horner (The Battlefords)	Richard (Kamouraska)
Howe	Rogers
Johnson	Rompre
Jones	Rynard
Jorgenson	Sevigny
Jung	Simpson
Keays	Skoreyko
Kennedy	Slogan
Kindt	Small
Knowles	Smith (Calgary South)
Korchinski	Smith (Lincoln)
Kucherepa	Smith (Simcoe North)
Lafreniere	Smith (Winnipeg North)
Lahaye	Southam
Lambert	Spencer
Legere	Starr
Lennard	Stearns
Macdonnell	Stefanson
Maclnnis	Stewart
MacLean (Queens)	Stinson
MacLean (Winnipeg	Tasse
North Centre)	Thomas
MacLellan	Thompson
Macquarrie	Thrasher
MacRae	Tremblay
McBain	Valade
McCleave	Villeneuve
McDonald	Vivian
(Hamilton South)	Webb
McFarlane	Weichel
McGee	White
McGrath	Winkler
McIntosh	Woolliams
McLennan	Wratten-160.
McPhillips



MOOSONEE RADAR BASE


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a grievance tonight with respect to a matter which was first brought to the attention of the house on March 14 by

the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel). It concerns a report by a Mr. Hegge who I believe is a business agent for the brotherhood of carpenters and joiners of America. The report had to do with working and living conditions at a federal project at the port of Moosonee. At that time the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) said that the matter had just been brought to his attention and that he would investigate it further.
On the basis of information I had been able to acquire I had occasion to discuss the matter further with the minister at that time and he informed me he was sending two officials from his department plus an official from the Department of National Health and Welfare to investigate these very serious charges. After due time a report was made and while the minister did not make the report known to the house he provided me with a copy of it, and my grievance arises out of the complete inadequacy of the report.
To illustrate this point, I think I should list the charges contained in the original news release and say something about their gravity. The news release was made by an officer of the union who professed to have gone to the site and who professed to have gone to the spot. Seldom have I seen a more scathing report than that contained in this release. On examination we find that it contains some 27 specific charges with respect to working conditions, cases of discrimination, false pretences and so on. I think I should list the charges in order to bring hon. members up to date with respect to this matter.
Some of the charges are of a minor nature while others are much graver. However, I think I should list them all because if these charges are true then the minor ones are a part of the over-all picture. The first charge had to do with living conditions and the use of double bunks in a small room, something which was claimed to have been barred from camps of this type for many years. The second charge was that there were no lockers for the men in which they could keep their clothes and personal belongings. Furthermore, there were no doors on the rooms in the bunk-houses and the rooms were open. Only two blankets were issued to each man although we must all realize that at Moosonee the temperature often falls as low as 30, 40, 50 or even 60 degrees below zero.
If I may continue with the complaint, there was inadequate heating, especially in the shower room. There were no shower curtains. There were no laundry or drying facilities. The toilets in this place were broken or there were no seats, and so forth. The basins in the washrooms were not cleaned or sterilized and the floors were never washed. The man who made the complaint said that
25, 1961
Alleged Inadequacy of Labour Report the only time the floor ever saw water was when the sun warmed up enough so that the water formed by melting snow dripped through the leaky roof. There were no safety inspections. There was no first aid equipment in the camp. The men were transported back and forth to work in open dumptrucks when the temperature was 40 or 50 below zero. There was no doctor available to these men, although they were charged medical fees in order to provide the services of a doctor.
There were two charges that might be termed false pretences. It was stated the men were being sent up from the Timmins unemployment insurance office with the promise that they would start at $1.85 per hour with an increase in two weeks. This was not so. Statements were also made that the men would be able to acquire all the overtime they wanted. Again, this was not true. There was a charge that the men were being fined for no given reason. Some of the men, after returning to Timmins, were sent back again and refused employment. These men found themselves without money, and there was no way they could get back to civilization because the trains operated only twice a week. In some cases the men were forced to sell their personal effects or to beg money from the parish priest in order to get back to a larger community.
The men were being fired, as I said, without reason in between trains and their belongings were deposited in the snow. If any hon. member is familar with the number of dogs that prevail in a community like Moosenee he will realize what a hazard it is to have belongings placed out in the snow.
Another charge was that there were no vacation paybooks supplied to these men. This reminds me of a complaint I had last year in connection with this same construction company. The company found a loophole in the regulations and was thereby enabled to flout the intention of the law. It was alleged the company cheated men out of thousands of dollars of vacation pay as a result of this loophole. Evidently a man had to complete a year's work before he became eligible for vacation pay. The weather in this area was such that the men could not work for more than 10 or 11 months, so they never did complete one year of service. Some of these men had had been going back into this area for four or five years, but they never received any vacation pay.
There were charges of discrimination. Carpenters were being paid $1.85 per hour and labourers $1.25 per hour, but both were charged $3 per day for room and board. However, plumbers and steamfitters were being paid $3.47 per hour and they were given free room and board, free transportation and
3994	HOUSE OF
Alleged Inadequacy of Labour Report fare in and out if they stayed six months or were laid off before six months had been completed. The last charge was, irrespective of the fact wages have gone up considerably since 1956, this same company was paying $2.15 per hour for the same type of work back in 1956, with free room and board and transportation. This can be compared with the alleged conditions existing today.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this list constitutes quite a number of serious charges that warrant close investigation. After some three weeks I was supplied with this answer and I think it is only fair to put it on the record in its entirety. I quote:
On being advised by Defence Construction Limited of the complaint concerning certain conditions alleged to exist at the construction camp located at Moosonee, Ontario, the public health engineering division of my department-
That is the Minister of Labour's department.
-contacted one of their engineers who was in the area on departmental business and requested an immediate examination.
This, of course, Mr. Speaker, is contrary to the picture which was given us at the time. We were led to believe the agreement was that Mr. Gordon Cushing, along with another official from the labour department plus one from the health department, would make an investigation of these serious charges. I continue:
With the assistant project engineer of Defence Construction Limited and the project manager of the construction company in attendance, the examination was made on March 15, 1961, with special emphasis being given to complaints brought to our attention. Our public health engineer subsequently reported that no evidence was found to support the complaints.
To be specific, all washrooms were exceptionally clean and free from obnoxious odours. In no instance were there more than two men allocated to a bedroom. Double bunk beds were noted in some bedrooms, but only lower bunks were being used. Considering the traffic involved floors were reasonably clean. At the time of the visit some bedroom floors were being washed by maintenance personnel. The main camp is heated by a central steam system and it was reported that this equipment had not been inoperative during the present winter. Two blankets were issued to each employee, but if desired he may request additional ones.
In general, it was felt that the living conditions in this camp were very good and that the procedures followed to maintain them were satisfactory.
As I stated before, there were some 27 specific charges mentioned in this press release. Out of these 27 charges, two were admitted but it was stated they did not apply. Two charges were evaded. One of these had to do with the heating in the bunkhouse and in the showers. The reply was that the plant had not been inoperative, but that was not the charge at all. The charge was that the heating was inadequate. Two more charges 

were given very suspicious answers. These charges referred to the cleaning ad washing. The reply was that washrooms were exceptionally clean and that the floors were in the process of being washed while the investigation was being made. This statement reminds me of the good old army days when the brigadier came around on inspection. We had at least one week's notice so that we could get everything shipshape before he arrived.
Not one of the other 21 charges was answered or even mentioned. According to this report, the inspection was made but keeping in mind the specific charges that had been made this is either a very poor report of a good inspection or a good report of a very poor inspection. I do not know which. I believe these are serious charges. I do not know whether or not they are true. I think we should know if the charges are true. I feel that the inspection carried out according to the report given to me was certainly inadequate in the face of these serious charges. These charges should be proved or disproved. If these charges are wrong, certainly the man who made them should be condemned for making them. Until such time as the charges are proved false, this situation should be investigated. If these charges are true, some definite action should be taken.


Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker^ this matter is related to work being done in my riding, so I feel it is my duty to say a word about it. On March 14 I received a letter from Mr. Hegge and I submitted the brief which was sent along with the letter to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr). In the afternoon, in reply to a question of mine, he promised to investigate the matter.
I understand that the department has investigated the matter, although perhaps not to the satisfaction of the complainant or the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin), However, I wish to inform this house that I have been a member of the Ontario legislature for 12 years and I would not take a back seat to the hon. member for Timmins when it comes to investigating these matters and seeing that employees work under fair conditions, whether it be in camps or construction companies.
The hon. member for Timmins has risen tonight and taken it upon himself to substantiate all the charges that have been made. This shows that the new socialist party has only one hope, which is to try to impress labour that they are the only ones who can talk on behalf of labour and on the protection of labour.
Mr. Speaker, there is one further point I should like to raise, and it concerns the use of information that cannot be substantiated.

If the hon. member for Timmins feels it is right for him to continue with this grievance tonight, even when he knows very well that there are very grave doubts as to many aspects of the complaints, I feel he is not helping these workers, who I hope are enjoying the privilege of working.
With regard to the wage of $1.85 an hour, the hon. member claimed that wages somewhere else were higher in other years. On the other hand, the people who were hired in this area were told by the employment office at Timmins that the rate was to be $1.85 an hour.
In his reply to me dated April 7, Mr. Hegge admitted in the second part of his letter that the rate of $1.85 an hour is the only rate quoted by the Timmins office of the national employment service. This shows that these workers knew they were going to work for $1.85 an hour. Therefore, it seems to me that a member of parliament should take his responsibility seriously enough to not depend on all kinds of innuendos and insinuations to try and prevent people from obtaining employment.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) wish to speak on the same matter?


Mr. Caron:: Not on the same matter, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) wish to speak on the same matter?


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I did not intend to speak on this grievance, but I think I should, having regard to what the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel) has said.
It may very well be that we in this corner are the only ones who will speak for labour-


Mr. Ricard:: You have another guess coming to you.


William Arnold Peters: -and if these charges are made and are to be substantiated, we will certainly take the responsibility for that.
I have talked to a number of people who work in that area and live in the riding of Timiskaming. Many of these complaints have been repeated to me. Unfortunately, it is a difficult proposition to go to Moosonee alone and investigate these complaints. However, I have read the report that was presented to the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin). I agree that the report is not definite, but complaints have been made to me within the last two weeks concerning some of the conditions dealt with in this report, which report indicates that they do not exist.
Alleged Inadequacy of Labour Report
The area of Moosonee is an exceptionally difficult one to get into. For this reason I am sure the hon. member for Timmins particularly stressed this matter of travel arrangements being made for someone who is going to be fired. Certainly consideration must be given to these people getting in and out of the area, because the train does not run every day; three days elapse between going into the area and getting out again. Therefore some consideration should be given to this aspect of the situation, if only because it is such a remote area.
I have been in the bunkhouses that we are discussing. They were closed for several years, with the exception of one that was kept open for the staff in the area. These bunkhouses are now being used again, and conditions cannot be as good as they should be.
I think any hon. member who receives complaints should do something about them. This is also true of the hon. member for Cochrane. If he is the labour representative that he says he is, or tries to imply, I think he has the obligation to go to Moosonee-not I, and not the hon. member for Timmins- because it is in his riding. The hon. member has an obligation to go into Moosonee and investigate this matter. It is a difficult trip; it is 150 miles up and 150 miles back; but the hon. member for Cochrane has the obligation to do that. If he does not show this interest, I think he has very little right to rise and attack another hon. member for having brought this matter again to the attention of the government.
In my opinion the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) should investigate this problem. He should investigate it by sending officials to the area and the officials should not necessarily see the company and have a planned tour. It is almost impossible to get into Moosonee as it is without the company knowing about it, because unless you fly in you have to go to the railway to make arrangements to go there. You have to notify the information director of the railway and arrange for accommodation in Moosonee, because the railway owns the only lodge in that community. Therefore it is almost impossible to go in on a surprise visit.
I think the minister should give full consideration to these charges. He should send a representative of his department into the area. If the prevailing rates are not in accordance with the rates that are being paid in other instances for this type of job in an isolation posting, and if the job requirements are not being met, I think the government has a right to demand from the contractor that wages and conditions be raised to a suitable level.
3996	HOUSE OF
Alleged Inadequacy of Labour Report


Mr. Regier:: Where is the minister?


William Arnold Peters: I am not responsible for the minister, and I am not particularly responsible for this grievance. However, I have talked to some of the constituents in my area who are working there, who have told me that conditions are not as good as they should be.
We agree that there has to be some leeway in the type of accommodation that is available in that area, but I point out that one of the other companies in the locality has very good bunkhouses.
The bunkhouses under discussion are very old and are in bad shape. They have not been used to any extent for some years. They have outside, steam heating that runs between one building and another, and in temperatures of between 40 to 50 degrees below zero it is quite legitimate that complaints should be registered against these conditions.
I am surprised that we should be asked to accept a report which indicates, not that the heating is not sufficient but that it had never been shut off for a period of a year. In my opinion that does not mean very much. If it is not adequate it might as well be shut off, because it will probably be very uncomfortable living in this type of quarters.
Again I repeat that if workers across the country have to turn to the C.C.F. and the New Party entirely to handle the type of complaints we have received from Moosonee, we will make every effort to see that justice is brought into this matter.


Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, one thing has been made apparent tonight concerning the particular grievance raised first by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) and later by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel). If anything has been demonstrated tonight it has been the failure of the New Party, the C.C.F., or whatever they choose to call themselves, and the Liberal party to take an aggressive interest in their constituencies whether in the case of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel) or his colleagues from the same area. In the face of the unhappy conditions which were described this evening by the hon. member for Timmins it seems to me that any member of parliament in that area who heard about incidents of that kind would have gone into them and examined them. If the people of that area had had the wisdom to elect a Progressive Conservative member this type of thing would have been investigated and rectified.


William Arnold Peters: Is the hon. member for York-Scarborough familiar with the situation in which this problem was raised many months


ago? The government was asked to make an investigation into it and it is only recently that the results of the investigation have indicated the unfortunate situation which now exists.


Hazen Robert Argue: What about the mess at Scarborough?


Frank Charles McGee: To reply to the first question first, I have taken the trouble since this grievance was made to examine Hansard. I listened most carefully, as I always do, to the hon. member for Timmins, and if the New Party has this monopoly of concern for the working man-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member has departed somewhat from the grievance, as have one or two others who have spoken. If the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) has risen on the same matter as the hon. member for York-Scarborough he might as well save his time.


Erhart Regier: I should like to assure the house that any member of this group will always take up any complaint regardless of the constituency in which it might originate. We consider that as members of this house we are responsible to the whole nation and that we are expected to do what we can on behalf of all the people of Canada.
However, I should like to place on record my sincere regret that after the member for Timmins had risen and announced his complaint the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) should have deemed it advisable to leave the house and has not even been represented by his parliamentary secretary. I should like to place it on record that both of them are absent.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I had, of
course, no previous knowledge of the matters which would be raised nor have I any definite knowledge of the circumstances which surround the absence of the two members referred to, but I do know that the Minister of Labour was required to leave the house tonight to go, I am told, on official business to the United States. I take exception to the inference as to the cause of his absence made by an uninformed member of this house.


Erhart Regier: I would have the hon. lady know that I am very adequately informed as to the situation in Moosonee, and I regret that in the absence of the minister it was not deemed advisable to at least have him represented by his parliamentary secretary.



UNEMPLOYMENT


Alexis Pierre Caron: Yesterday around one thousand unemployed marched in Ottawa to meet the cabinet and present a brief to them. I must first of all congratulate the unemployed who came to Ottawa on the orderly manner in which they conducted themselves. They presented a very well prepared brief.
What was the reaction of the members of the cabinet present? First, who were present? There was the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees), the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley), and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mon-teith). Out of the five only one was wise enough not to speak, knowing the government could or would not do much more. He was the Minister of Defence Production. He knew, after the declaration made by the Minister of Labour not very long ago, that very little more would be done and he was wise enough not to say a word during the meeting. His colleague had said, of course, that the government having done everything it could possibly do and the rest was in the hands of labour and management.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Were you there?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I take that from the newspapers that reported the proceedings.


Jay Waldo Monteith: You should have been there and you would have known he did speak.


Mr. Speaker:: One at a time. Perhaps the hon. member would state his grievance so that we might understand it. I am not sure whether his grievance was that the ministers spoke or that one did not speak.


Alexis Pierre Caron: My grievance is that the unemployed came to Ottawa, they met the ministers, and the answers they received were not equal to the present situation being faced by the unemployed in Canada. That is my grievance. What did the Minister of Labour say or promise? First, according to the Montreal Gazette, the minister said-and this is in quotation marks:
As a government, we don't want this problem.
It is not the kind any government would want to perpetuate.
I certainly admit that no government would likp to perpetuate the kind of situation we have presently in Canada. I want to be fair to the minister. I do not want to believe that the government is not doing the best it can in the present situation. But the best the government can do is not enough for us 90205-6-253
Unemployment
nor is it enough for the unemployed of this country. The government refused for three years to admit there was an unemployment problem. For three years it said there was no unemployment, and the Liberals and the other parties were criticized as spreaders of doom and gloom. The government declined to take action until the situation was out of hand and it could do little about it. Second, the government did not act with sufficient energy and daring when finally it did attempt to do something about the situation. The only thing it came out with was the winter works program.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member unnecessarily but the grievance procedure at this stage permits of the expression of definite single items of grievance. It seems to me that the hon. member is allowing his grievance to range over the whole field of unemployment and action taken in that regard. I understood his grievance related to the reception given to a delegation in Ottawa yesterday. If the hon. member would confine himself to that he would be in order.


Alexis Pierre Caron: My intention is to speak about the way these men were received and the little which was given to them by way of promises by the government. I should like to speak about the way in which the government might have dealt with the matter while this delegation was here. This would cover the question of unemployment to a certain extent. These were unemployed men coming here and wanting help from the government -wanting to have the question settled once and for all by the government-and I think the grievance, put in that way, could be accepted by the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to draw the hon. member's attention to the grievance being discussed now, and that is, generally, the measures taken or not taken to meet the unemployment situation. We have had, in the course of the session, several debates which have been concluded and disposed of by the house, notably supply motion No. 2 and a motion under the heading of unemployment. There are four or five discussions listed which have all been concluded. I would think the hon. member would not be free to roam over the whole field of unemployment again. However, having initiated the grievance relating to the delegation of unemployed who were received here yesterday, he should confine his remarks to the reception of that delegation or any complaint he has to make in that respect.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege at this point. I understand that it was said

Unemployment
in this house by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) that I was on my way to Washington on official business. I would like to point out that as a matter of fact I was, but just before I left I was detained and requested to come back to the house because of allegations made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). I should like to make it perfectly clear that I was on my way but was called here urgently as I was leaving.
I have been listening with interest to the allegations now being made by the member for Hull (Mr. Caron).


Frank Charles McGee: Where is the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the brief which was presented to the cabinet covers a lot of ground, I think I should be allowed to refer to this question which was brought to the attention of the minister, and it was my intention to do so this evening. If I touch occasionally on subjects which may have been discussed, it is not my intention to press in that direction. I do so only to reach the main point which has to do with the brief presented to the minister.
What did the Minister of Labour promise? According to a report appearing in the Montreal Gazette of April 25, 1961 he is reported as saying:
Jobs before elections-
In view of the number of promises made and the number which have been carried out to date, God help us if we have to wait until everyone in Canada has a job before we have a general election. I am sure the population of Canada will not wait 25 years before we have a general election.
We have two different statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of Public Works. The Minister of Public Works, as reported by the Toronto Star, said that a massive public works program is not the answer to unemployment because it is the most expensive way of solving the problem.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I draw your attention to the fact that it is up to the member for Hull (Mr. Caron) to decide what speech he is going to make, but in doing so he must obey your ruling. You have called his attention to the fact that he had to stay within the boundaries of the grievance that he has chosen to put before the house, and I would ask that he confine himself to that subject and not wander all over.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood that the hon. member for Hull was now discussing the

answer given to the delegation by the Minister of Public Works. If he confines himself to what was said or done in the course of the reception of that delegation, I think he is in order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, with great respect for what you have said I do think he was discussing unemployment in raising old questions that have been discussed here time and time again. I feel he should confine himself to that subject which he has chosen to present.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Hull has discovered an ingenious way of introducing all of the unemployment issues by referring to speeches that have been made. If he will proceed in the light of what has been said, I am sure there will be no further difficulty.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I am trying very hard to stay within the rules you have mentioned.


An hon. Member:: You are not quite succeeding.


Alexis Pierre Caron: As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works said that a massive public works program is the most expensive way of solving the problem of unemployment. However, on February 18, 1958 the Prime Minister announced that expenditures by government departments and agencies for works projects would total $280 million during the first quarter of 1958 and $1,185 million during the full calendar year. It is evident that the Prime Minister at that time did not think as the Minister of Public Works does now, that it is not a good way to solve the unemployment problem. He did not suggest at that time that it was the most expensive way of solving the problem but that it was one of the ways.
We have always felt that this was only one way of solving the problem. We feel that the problem could be solved through unemployment benefits, through public works projects, through a new system of education providing the unskilled with vocational training. We believe all these methods could be used as well as many more which I will mention later. We have always preached this policy and we intend to do so until we have the opportunity of meeting the Conservative party in a general election. I will say that I hope it will be as soon as possible.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It will be too soon for you.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I hope the hon. member will appreciate that in addition to the 23 measures we have taken so far to alleviate the unemployment situation, some $100 million have been spent on

public works projects this year, but we do not consider that this is the only remedy to the problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. minister will have an opportunity to make his speech.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Even if what the minister has said is completely true the measures taken have not proved sufficient in the face of the present unemployment situation, and I feel that a good deal more should be done.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again but it does seem to me that he is in fact discussing the general issues of unemployment rather than the reception, by the ministers he has named, of that delegation yesterday. Unless there is something specific or peculiar in regard to a grievance arising out of that meeting I suggest he defer his discussion on the unemployment issue to a time when it is relevant.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I can say a word on this point of order which has been raised? As I listened to my friend, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron), it seemed to me that he drew attention to the fact that the Minister of Public Works during the reception of this delegation yesterday said that public works projects represented the most expensive way of dealing with unemployment. My hon. friend was seeking to point out, as a grievance, that this was exactly the opposite to what-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps some of the experts over here will speak to the point of order in their turn. I was saying that the hon. member for Hull was saying, as I understood him, in respect of his grievance, that this was an absolute contradiction of that which was promised to the people of Canada.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) must realize that a point of order is now being discussed, and he will-


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, that is why I was raising the-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member resume his seat. I am hearing the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) on a point of order as to the relevancy of the debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to point out that the position taken by the government in relation to this delegation yesterday-I understand this is what was being pointed out by the hon. member for 90205-6-2534
Unemployment
Hull-was exactly opposite to that position taken by the Prime Minister when he appealed to the people of Canada just before the last general election. Surely that is a specific enough point. Surely that is a grievance that those of us who represent the people of Canada have a perfect right to put forward in this house.


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members seem to have lost their constituencies or their seats tonight. If the hon. member for Hull asserts that his grievance is the disparity between what was said yesterday and the Prime Minister's previous statement, well and good. He might proceed to discuss that as his grievance but he cannot cover the whole field of unemployment by picking out the various ministers who referred to measures for the relief of unemployment and then discussing those measures.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I was carried away by the remarks made by the Minister of Labour. I admit I made a mistake; I apologize for it. I was trying to show that the answers given by the ministers were not the kind of answers which had been given at that time, and the only way I can do it is by proving with facts that they are not really up to standard with respect to the administration of this country at this time.
The Minister of Public Works made a supreme effort to help the marchers by offering two pick-and-shovel jobs, one in Hamilton and the other in Toronto. What a great help from a great heart. As a Frenchman said:
Une jolie fille ne peut donner que ce qu'elle a.
And I am not surprised that it was the only thing that the Minister of Public Works could offer to the delegation in Ottawa. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) was also there. What did he bring forward to help the situation? According to the Toronto Star again, he just accused the delegation of sneering at the productivity council. According to the Toronto Star, a minister of the United Church suggested the Minister of Trade and Commerce had accused the committee of begging for jobs when in fact, said the minister, the government has a responsibility to provide them with jobs. To prove this I will quote what the Prime Minister said in this house not this year but in a past year. I shall locate the quotation in a minute.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member has another 25 minutes to find it.


William Heward Grafftey: Lamontagne broke his stapler.

Unemployment


Alexis Pierre Caron: I may not be in a position to quote exactly what the Prime Minister said, but in 1958, during a debate in this house, the Prime Minister said-


Jay Waldo Monteith: From what page of Hansard is the hon. member quoting?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I will give you the page of Hansard. It is page 2149 of Hansard of 1955. I happen to be able to give this from memory.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It was 1958 before.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Here it is exactly, page 2149 of the French version of Hansard of March 15, 1955. Here is what the Prime Minister said:
(Translation):
Over the past seven or eight years there have been recommendations by the national employment commission, the Sirois commission and others, that the dominion should assume responsibility for necessary relief to the employable unemployed. It has been generally suggested that the dominion should accept this obligation as part of any general settlement with the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, that is how the present Prime Minister, the then leader of the opposition, felt that the government should consider that question of relief in general.


Mr. Paul Mariineau (Pontiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is discussing the question of unemployment in general, as can be ascertained by what he just said: "That is how we dealt with the question in general". A few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, you said that the hon. member should limit his remarks to a specific grievance, that is the welcome extended yesterday to the delegation.
f Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Concerning this point of order- (Text):
On the point of order raised by my hon. friend, I know he repeated exactly word for word what you said, sir, a while ago. I am trying very hard to keep within your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may be trying and I give him credit for that but he certainly is not being very successful. I think I shall have to hear another member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I intend to follow the observations of my hon. friend from Hull very exactly and I do not intend to weary the house by repeating the headlines from the Montreal Gazette that some time before the government dares to have another election it would try to find jobs, although-
[Mr. Grafftey.l


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member is out of order also.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -only a year ago the same Minister of Labour went on television-and this is the grievance which my hon. friend brought up, that the reception given to those people yesterday was the precise opposite of what has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite-on the program "The Nation's Business" one night and said the depression was over and we were going to have another boom year in 1960, a year when unemployment went to the highest level it had been in 30-odd years. Also the Minister of Public Works says that a massive program of public works is the wrong way, the most expensive way, to provide employment. Well, sir, I think we had better see what those people got elected on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, I do not agree with the hon. member's view that the grievance which has been raised entitles hon. members to discuss the range of unemployment problems in the light of the past.
The grievance relates to the reception of a committee here yesterday and if those grievances have been exhausted I suggest we turn to other matters.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, sir, I was pointing out that the reception was quite out of accord with what the unemployed had a right to expect on the basis of the terms on which an appeal was made to the people in the year 1958, which returned hon. gentlemen to the treasury benches. I say, sir, that those people who came here yesterday in this march were entitled to expect that the government would receive them and would say to them that they were going to do the kind of things that the government said before the election it intended to do, and we all remember. "Deficit or no deficit"-these were the words used-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -the work would be
provided.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I see the hon. member for Stormont. I take it he is rising on a point of order.


Grant Campbell: With all deference, might I suggest that the present speaker is just as incoherent and unintelligible as his predecessor and therefore we should hear from another member of the team.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On the same point of order, I respectfully submit that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is trying to do in

an indirect way what Your Honour expressly stated was out of order, and I therefore think he should not proceed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member who has the floor might proceed and we shall bear in mind what has been said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What I was seeking to do was to point out that the reception that was given yesterday to this delegation was completely out of accord with what these people had a right to expect having regard to the undertakings which were given on this precise subject by the leader of the government when he appealed to the people in 1958. I propose to demonstrate that point from the words of the Prime Minister which hon. gentlemen opposite seem anxious not to hear. I propose to put on record, in complete opposition to what was said yesterday, what was said by the Prime Minister at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot, of course, indicate to the hon. member how he should make his speech but I think I would be correct in suggesting to him that he should first indicate the grievance arising out of yesterday's reception. If he wishes then to indicate wherein there is a grievance with respect to that reception, he might be right in proceeding, but my difficulty is that the hon. member seems to me to be reviewing a lot of statements about unemployment without connecting them with what was done yesterday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I referred at least twice, I think, to the statement made by the Minister of Public Works, a statement that a massive program of public works was not the way to deal with unemployment and was most expensive. As I was saying, it seems to me that any unemployed Canadian has a grievance and that we who represent the people and in my case, unfortunately, a very large number of persons who have the misfortune to be unemployed at the present time-


Michael Starr: Have they not been able to fish yet?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not only have they not been able to fish but the commission for which the hon. gentleman is responsible is, as he knows, making it increasingly difficult for those people who cannot fish at this season of the year to take work as carpenters because of a ridiculous bureaucratic interpretation which has been placed on the law made by this parliament, an interpretation which was never placed on it before. The hon. gentleman knows very well to what I am referring. He knows very well why it is being done.
Unemployment


Michael Starr: I know very well it is not true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid I would be departing from the grievance now before the house if I were encouraged by the interruptions of the Minister of Labour to refer to that matter, though it is another grievance on which I would be very happy to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I trust that the hon. member who has the floor will be allowed to proceed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is very difficult to proceed.


Michael Starr: As long as he sticks to the truth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to have devised a new form of closure which makes it very difficult-


Michael Starr: You are a master at closure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -for any member of the opposition to criticize the government-


Michael Starr: You are a past master at closure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -with any freedom of speech.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: What are you doing now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I feel that the hon. member who has the floor has just cause for complaint. It is impossible to proceed if members interrupt, particularly from their seats, and I trust that for the remaining minutes available to the hon. member to make his speech he will be given the appropriate hearing to which every hon. member is entitled.


Mr. Denis:: Mr. Speaker, may I refer-


Some hon. Members:: Closure, closure.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Which one is going to speak?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I just have one point to make and I am sure that what the hon. member for St. Denis has to say will be much more interesting than what I have to say. I should like to be allowed to make my point consecutively if it is at all possible, and I know it is very difficult for hon. gentlemen opposite to listen because nothing one can say in this house hurts them so much as to hear extracts read from the speeches that their own leader made before the 1958 election. I know they find it most distasteful. We can say anything else but the moment we pick up their leader's speeches and start to read them in the house they do their best to prevent them being repeated.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Because you Eire out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I leave it to anyone to guess why. As I have said, the hon. member for Hull has pointed out that the Minister of

Unemployment
Public Works publicly repudiated the notion that public works should be used to relieve unemployment. But what did the Prime Minister say on February 24, 1958, in Cornwall? I draw this to the attention of the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Campbell). He said:
The Conservatives had launched a winter works program and were putting forward a huge public works program to take up some of the slack in unemployment.
That is what they were told before the election but they are told now after the election that public works are not a good means by which to deal with unemployment. But the Prime Minister went even further. With that fine restraint that the Prime Minister shows on the public platform, that moderation, that good sense and good judgment that he always shows in these circumstances, he went on to say:
"We have acted."
The only way they acted, of course, was to dissolve parliament.
"We are meeting unemployment. We have given young Canadians the hope. We have given them the vision."
"We have given them the vision." Unfortunately, sir-


Michael Starr: Don't sneer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -all they got was the vision. That is all they got because the great billion dollar public works program of 1958 which was to end unemployment in this country was never carried out at all, as will be shown by the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) on an appropriate occasion. It was never carried out at all. It was just one of those many promises that were broken.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is all I wish to say at this time.


Mr. O'Hurley:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to set the record straight by telling the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) that I was at the meeting yesterday, that there was one delegate from the province of Quebec who spoke French and that I was courteous enough to reply to him in French at the meeting yesterday morning. I want the hon. member for Hull to know that as I was at the meeting I certainly took part in the meeting in a courteous way and replied to the delegate from Montreal who spoke.


Azellus Denis: On a question of privilege-


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Just a minute.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member state his question of privilege?


Azellus Denis: Yes. I attended the Liberal meeting with the delegation at that time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Liberal meeting?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would both hon. members resume their seats? The minister has the floor and the hon. member for St. Denis raises a question of privilege. If he has a question of privilege he must first state it.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, according to the minister, not a word in French was said in front of the delegation.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is contradicting the other hon. member who has the floor and that does not raise a question of privilege. If he wants to make a speech he will have the opportunity in due course. In the meantime I have recognized the Minister of Defence Production.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: My point was to set the record clear. I was among the ministers who met the delegation yesterday morning. There was one delegate who spoke in French and the hon. member for Hull said that I was at the meeting and did not say anything. I want to say that this delegate spoke in French as he had a right to do and I replied to him in French in the name of the other ministers. I want to set the record clear.


Alexis Pierre Caron: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if I have offended the Minister of Defence Production I want to excuse myself because what I said was that he was the only wise one in that he did not speak. If he spoke, it is all right with me.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, in order to be in order I should like to refer to the pamphlet entitled "Submission to Right Honourable J. Diefenbaker and Cabinet, House of Commons, Ottawa"-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member indicate whether he is rising on the same grievance?


Azellus Denis: Yes, the same grievance.


Mr. Speaker:: That is, with regard to the delegation of yesterday?


Azellus Denis: As a matter of fact, I am referring to the submission made by this delegation, the same delegation which met the minister. I quote from page 2:
"As long as I am in power, no person is going to suffer because of the inaction of the government." Chatham, March, 1958.
This statement was part of the submission and, so far as I am aware, no minister has answered that promise or that commitment

made by the present government. I think an answer should have been given to the delegation.
I should like to refer to page 12 of this submission where a reference is made to the winter works program.


Mr. Creaghan:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Closure.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: For the last half hour or so, we have been hearing a debate on a subject which you, Mr. Speaker, without any question, ruled out of order. I feel my point of order is a proper one. The opposition would be raising a proper grievance if the cabinet announced government policy yesterday to the press or to the organized marchers. My point of order is that government policy must be announced in the house when the house is in session and not to organized marchers. The opposition has no right to criticize the action of the government yesterday in not informing a group of marchers what it intends to do about this very serious problem.


Azellus Denis: I think, Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that as long as we speak about the delegation we are in order. This is the first time I have heard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry I cannot accept what the hon. member for Westmorland raises as a point of order. It might be a matter of privilege if policy were announced, but that is not the subject matter of the grievance as I understand it. Would the hon. member proceed?


Azellus Denis: May I refer to page 12 of this submission where reference is made to the winter works program. There are three suggestions made by this national unemployment lobby committee to which the minister has not replied. I quote:
In the first place, it is another example of government action that falls far short of the need- a mere drop in the bucket. It employs only a small fraction of the workers looking for jobs. The government's own unemployment figures prove this to the hilt.
Second, the program offers only construction jobs. Not all the unemployed are construction workers, by a long shot. Most of them are not fitted for this kind of work, either by experience, skill or in many cases physical capacity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has read at length from the submission, I take it, of the delegation which is the subject matter of this discussion. The grievance, as I understand it, does not relate to the submission but to the conduct of the government; that is their responsibility. What was submitted is not the responsibility of the government and I suggest that if the hon.
Unemployment
member is going to continue he might let the matter rest there and proceed to discuss the grievance itself.


Azellus Denis: I feel that an answer should have been given to the delegation while the ministers were present, but no word has been said about an answer.


Michael Starr: I rise on a question of privilege at this time, Mr. Speaker. I spent a great deal of time going into this municipal winter works program in answer to this brief. I am very sorry indeed that the press did not print my remarks, but if the Liberal party is going to base its argument-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have indicated to the hon. member who has the floor that he is out of order in continuing to read the document. He may take as his grievance the failure to answer the delegation, but he may not read at length from the document.


Azellus Denis: All I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that this submission-
Mr. Pallet!: I wonder if the hon. member would permit one question?


Azellus Denis: Certainly.


John Cameron Pallett: Did the hon. member not hear the leader of the delegation state on television during the news broadcast at 11 o'clock last night that the Minister of Labour received them with sympathy and a genuine understanding of their problem? Is the hon. member aware of that?


Azellus Denis: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order. In my view the hon. member is debating a matter which we have debated several times this session, namely the winter works program. Would he please return to the subject matter initiated by the hon. member for Hull.


Azellus Denis: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it is ten o'clock. It being ten

Business of the House
o'clock, it is my duty pursuant to section 3 (f) of standing order 56, as provisionally amended, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question now before the house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
67. Departmental administration, $9,574,385.

[Stage Direction]
232. Departmental administration, $3,455,378.

[Stage Direction]
402. Departmental administration, $3,395,700.
Proceedings reported.

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business will be for tomorrow and the rest of the week?


Mr. Churchill:: Tomorrow, in accordance with an announcement made last week and by agreement among the parties, we intend to commence a debate on external affairs which will continue through Wednesday and be
concluded Thursday evening. On the order paper tomorrow, under notices of motion, will appear the motion in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as has been the custom in other years, transferring the estimates of that department to the committee on external affairs. This provides the vehicle for the two day debate.
I omitted to put this notice of motion in Votes and Proceedings, but I trust that the house will give consent to the procedure I have outlined for Wednesday and Thursday.
On Friday it is the intention to carry on with the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Speaker:: So there may be no difficulty tomorrow, it will be in order for the house to now give unanimous consent to an order. I suggest it be that the motion be permitted without appearing on the order paper; and furthermore, that it be regarded as relevant to introduce a general debate on external affairs on that motion. Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: And is it agreed that the limit of the debate be two days?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

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

Mr. Argue: What are the rates of pay for the following prevailing rates employees of the Department of
25, 19B1	4005
Question
National Defence in the Toronto area, and when did these rates come into effect:	(a) plumbers
(b) painters (c) motor mechanics (d) labourers?
Answer by: Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):
(a)	$3.14 per hour effective June 1, 1959.
(b)	$2.41 per hour effective May 1, 1959.
(c)	$2.02 per hour effective September 1, 1958.
(d)	$1.74 per hour effective March 1, 1961.



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
April 24, 1961

[Stage Direction]
Message from the Co-Chairmen of the Geneva Conference on Indochina on the Cease Fire in Laos
The co-chairmen of the Geneva conference on Indo-China represented by the governments of the Soviet union and Great Britain are following with great concern the situation which has developed in Laos.
They proceed from the fact that if this situation is not changed the position in Laos may become a serious threat to peace and security in southeast Asia. They note at the same time that real conditions exist for normalising the situation in Laos in accordance with the national interests of the Laotian people on the basis of the Geneva agreements of 1954. The co-chairmen have in view the understanding already reached that an international conference to settle the Laotian problem is to be called in Geneva on the 12th May this year.
The co-chairmen call on all military authorities, parties and organizations in Laos to cease fire before the convening of the international conference on Laos and they call on appropriate representatives to enter into negotiations for concluding an agreement on questions connected with the cease fire.
The co-chairmen call on the people of Laos to co-operate with the international commission for supervision and control in Laos and to render it assistance when it arrives in the country on their instructions in exercising supervision and control over the cease fire.
The Minister for Foreign The Minister for Affairs of Great Britain:	Foreign Affairs of
Home.	the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics:
A. Gromyko
April 24, 1961

[Stage Direction]
Message from the Co-Chairmen of the Geneva
Conference on Indo-China to the Countries Participating in the International Conference for the Settlement of the Laotian Question
The co-chairmen of the Geneva conference on Indo-China, represented by the governments of the Soviet union and Great Britain, have examined the situation which has developed in Laos and taken note that at present there exists real conditions for the normalisation of the situation in that country. They have in view that the governments of Burma, Cambodia, Canada, the Chinese People's Republic, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, France, India, Laos, the Polish People's Republic, the Republic of Vietnam, Thailand, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, have expressed agreement to participate in an international conference which would have the character of the Geneva conference of 1954 with the broader membership proposed by the head of state of Cambodia, Prince Norodom Sihanouk, for the settlement of the Laotian problem.
The co-chairmen have addressed to all military authorities parties and organizations in Laos a call for a cease fire and for the carrying out by appropriate representatives of negotiations for concluding an agreement on questions connected with the cease fire and have also sent to the government of India a message with a request to convene in Delhi the international commission for supervision and control in Laos.
The co-chairmen express the hope that the government of Canada will send its delegation to the international conference on the Laotian question, which will be held in Geneva and will begin its work on the 12th

May this year. They have in view that the participating countries will be represented at the conference by ministers of foreign affairs.
The Minister for Foreign The Minister for Affairs of Great Britain:	Foreign Affairs of
Home	the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics:
A. Gromyko

[Stage Direction]
April 24, 1961
Message From the Co-Chairmen of the Geneva Conference on Indo-China to the Government of India on Convening the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Laos
The co-chairmen of the Geneva conference on Indo-China represented by the governments of the Soviet union and Great Britain are following with great concern the situation which has developed in Laos.
They note that real conditions exist for normalising the situation in Laos in accordance with the national interests of the Laotian people on the basis of the Geneva agreements of 1954. They have in view the understanding already reached that an international conference for settling the Laotian problem is to be called in Geneva on 12th May this year.
The co-chairmen have addressed to all military authorities, parties and organizations in Laos a call for a cease fire and for the carrying out by appropriate representatives of negotiations for concluding an agreement on questions connected with the cease fire.
The co-chairmen propose to the government of India that it should convene in Delhi the international commission for supervision and control in Laos. They have in view that the commission will discuss the question of the tasks and functions which should be allotted to it after the cease fire in Laos and will present an appropriate report to the cochairmen who will consider the commission's report and give it directions on going to Laos to carry out the work of controlling the cease fire.
The co-chairmen in their message on the cease fire in Laos called upon the population of Laos to co-operate with the international commission for supervision and control in Laos when it arrives in the country on their instructions and to render it assistance in exercising supervision and control over the cease fire.
The co-chairmen are sending a copy of this message to the other two members of the international commission for supervision and control in Laos-the governments of the Polish People's Republic and of Canada.
The Minister for Foreign The Minister for Affairs of Great Britain:	Foreign Affairs of
Home.	the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics:
A. Gromyko
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 26, 1961