1955-01-12

DISABLED PERSONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Elmore Philpoti (Vancouver South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware that some persons in British Columbia are complaining that they cannot yet obtain the application forms for disabled persons' pensions from the offices of the government of British Columbia? Has the minister received any word from the government of British Columbia as to when application forms will be issued, and is the situation in British Columbia in this regard different from that prevailing in the rest of the country?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave me notice of his intention to ask pretty much the question which he has now put. On November 13 a draft agreement under the Disabled Persons Act was sent to the province of British Columbia and the agreement has not yet been returned. As soon as it is we will give the matter our immediate attention and the province will be in a position, in accordance with its own law, to carry out the act in such a manner as to provide pensions under this act for the citizens of British Columbia.


Mr. Low:: How many provinces thus far have returned the draft agreement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As of this date only one agreement has been completed, that with the province of New Brunswick. The provinces of Saskatchewan. Nova Scotia and Alberta have signed agreements. These are now being processed at this end, and in a very few days they should be completed. In the case of Prince Edward Island an interim form of agreement has been signed and returned by the provincial minister. The government of Prince Edward Island proposes to pass legislation at the forthcoming session of the legislature to make this agreement effective. In the meantime we have asked for its proposed scheme of administration, which is necessary under the act.
In the case of the provinces of Newfoundland, Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia draft agreements were sent on November 18, as I indicated a moment ago in the case of British Columbia. The replies have not all reached us yet. In the case of the province of Quebec a draft agreement was sent to the provincial government on November 18. We are now awaiting the return of the signed agreement from this province.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: On Monday last the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked whether I could give the assurance that we are at the end of lay-offs by the Canadian National Railways, and if I could say how soon those laid off in recent months would be reinstated. I should like to reply to the hon. member. The management of the railway informs me that reductions in working forces have been a necessary consequence of the general decline in traffic and that the volume of traffic determines in a very large measure how many persons the railway can employ. Because a general increase in traffic depends on such economic factors as industrial production and trade, it is not possible to say when an improvement in traffic conditions will justify the reinstatement of those whom it has been necessary to lay off.



PROPOSED LEASE OF NEW HOTEL IN MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbiif (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister or any of his colleagues received a protest from the hotel association of Canada respecting the proposed lease of the new Canadian National Railways hotel in Montreal?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I shall have to take the hon. gentleman's question as notice because I do not think I have received any, but his question goes farther than that. I shall have to make inquiries.
103	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES



REFERENCE TO REPORTS OF NEAR ACCIDENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, on reading in Hansard the question asked me yesterday by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) I noted that my reply to him might be misunderstood. I thought that he was referring to complaints of the Canadian air pilots association recently mentioned in the press, but I now note that he was referring to reports made by pilots of Trans-Canada Air Lines.
I should like to add that on making further inquiries I have learned that reports from Trans-Canada Air Lines pilots and other pilots, both civil and military, have been received from time to time and in each case have been promptly investigated by the department or agency concerned.
[Later: ]


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a further question with reference to the matters to which he referred just now and that is whether, in the light of what he has said, namely that these incidents have been reported, and in the light of a report of a statement by an official of his own department which appeared in a Canadian Press dispatch yesterday, the minister will make a statement concerning the adequacy of the present regulations to be followed by
R.C.A.F. planes where they are located in proximity to commercial air lines?


George Carlyle Marler: I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be inopportune for me to make such a statement at this time. I had thought that possibly the question might be reviewed more fully and discussed when the estimates of my department came before the house, but I shall be glad to consider the desirability of making an earlier statement on the subject.



WOVEN WOOLLEN GOODS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Acting Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister received the report of the tariff board following its inquiry into woven woollen goods coming under tariff item 554b?


Hon.  W. E. Karris@Minister of Finance: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not received the report. I understand it will be a matter of three or four weeks yet before it is available.



GOVERNMENT ACTION IN CONNECTION WITH DAMAGE IN NEWFOUNDLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Power (SI. John's West):: Will the Minister of Public Works say what steps will be taken to repair the damage caused by a recent severe storm in Newfoundland?
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public
Works): I understand, Mr. Speaker, that most of the damage caused was by the action of the sea in this recent storm. We are in touch with our district engineer, and any damage to federal properties will be repaired as quickly as possible. To the best of my knowledge no detailed reports of damage to private property have been received by the federal government. I would think that they would be considered locally in the first instance. If and when they reach the federal government they will be given every consideration.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: May I first join in congratulating the mover (Mr. Leduc) and seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address. They are both young men of great promise who acquitted themselves well and made a great impression in the house. In time they will, I believe, leave their mark on Canadian public life.
The speech from the throne has in it one paragraph of particular interest to the Canadian people, which should be discussed at some length. I have reference to the following, and I quote:
The National Housing Act. 1954, enacted early in the last session, which authorized lower downpayments and larger loans, and which enabled the chartered banks for the first time to make loans on the security of residential mortgages, has been an important factor in stimulating the construction of a record number of houses in the past year. The prospects are favourable for a high level of house building in 1955.
Originally I had intended to speak of the great achievement of the department, but the full statistics are not yet available. If other members do not exhaust this subject during the course of the debate I intend later to

latch on to the omnibus amendment and review the accomplishments indicated in that particular part of the address.
There is another part of the address which is of immediate concern and will be of benefit to the Canadian people. It reads as follows:
It is proposed to bring into general operation on the first of February the provision of the act under which loans may be made for home improvements. In accordance with an undertaking given at the last session, this section was proclaimed for small holders under the Veterans' Land Act with effect from the first of this year.
The proclamation of the home improvement section of the housing act on the first of February is indeed a commendable step, and particularly welcome at this time when it is more likely to be fruitful by reason of the participation of the banks in making funds available. This section could lead to opportunities for the improvement and modernization of homes all across Canada. I take this first opportunity to emphasize that the Canadian people are initially and vitally concerned with the number of new homes erected rather than with those that have new bathtubs or new garages, important as they certainly are. The emphasis must remain on new homes. We cannot afford to be diverted from our ultimate objective to continue to set housing records year after year. I just indicate to the house that loans under the home improvement section will carry a government insurance guarantee to the banks and other approved lenders, and the borrower will pay a 1 per cent premium.
Today I intend to direct my remarks to what I consider to be an inequality which now exists under the act and which, in my view, should be corrected at a very early date. Those who are intimately acquainted with the National Housing Act will know that it was based on one primary assumption, that it is in the public interest for as many Canadians as possible in the middle and lower income groups to own their own homes. The act is not very much concerned with people who can go out and buy their homes in the open market, make a large down payment and arrange their own financing privately. It is primarily designed to help the 52 per cent of Canadians who, according to the dominion bureau of statistics, earn less than $3,000 a year.
The National Housing Act has encouraged the building and owning of lower cost homes by the following method: Lower interest rates and subsidization; lower down payments and longer amortization periods; standardization of design in order to reduce costs; making mortgage money easily available. As a direct result of the housing legislation passed at the last session of parliament mortgage money
The Address-Mr. Croll has become available at every whistle stop in Canada wherever the banks have outlets, and there are more than 4,000 of them. Indeed, this particular act has made it possible for more Canadians than ever to own their own homes. It has succeeded where private industry has failed. I think it is important that we do not let the act rest on its laurels. It must be continually revised and improved in the light of changing conditions.
One revision which I believe should be seriously considered now is a means whereby the home owner's basic equity, and by that I mean nis down payment, can be protected against personal reverses. Let me elaborate for a moment. Let us consider the position of the average prospective home owner under the National Housing Act. He is a worker who, on the national average, is earning about $3,000 a year. Depending upon where he is living, he may be earning slightly more or slightly less than that amount. In my own province of Ontario he is earning $62.58 a week or just over $3,300, which is just above the minimum requirements under the present act.
In order to buy a home under the National Housing Act this average Canadian must make a down payment of at least $1,500, or one-half of his annual income. I am using the $10,000 home as an example, but there are homes being built in Ontario under the National Housing Act for less than $10,000- and they are being sold for less than that.


Mr. Fleming:: Mostly more than that.


David Arnold Croll: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In most cases the cost is more than that.


David Arnold Croll: If the owner has been lucky he may have been able to save the amount of the down payment out of his earnings. Chances are that he may have to go out and borrow some of the money from his friends in order to make the down payment. In many instances that down payment represents the family savings. In any case it is probably all the money he has in the world, and he is investing in the biggest and most important purchase in all his life.
Let us not underestimate the seriousness of the step that man is taking. We can be sure that he is carefully considering all the probabilities. He will consider that he is investing his life savings in a new home, and he will realize that, later, if some unexpected contingency should arise he will have no reserves with which to meet the occasion. That is something that makes him stop and think. He will consider whether his present and his potential earnings are adequate to carry the mortgage of $8,500 or more, together with
110	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Croll taxes, heating, and all the upkeep of a home, including furnishings. He will give consideration to what might happen if he should become sick or unemployed, or if he should die before the mortgage obligation is fully discharged. Naturally he will want desperatelv to be able to pay off his home, and he expects that he will do so. But at the same time he must consider what is going to happen if he fails to keep up his payments. If he is over 40 he will remember the foreclosures and the tax sales of the thirties, and he will wonder whether it cannot happen again.
These are surely some of the thoughts that will run through his mind as he prepares to invest his hard-earned $1,500 or more in a home. He hopes he will be able to protect his investment. He hopes he will be able to make his payments, and he wonders what will happen if he cannot.
I believe it is the duty of the government, which is encouraging him to invest his all in a national housing home, to offer him a measure of protection. At the present time the government is protecting lending institutions by insuring the amount of the mortgage. With that I am in full accord and agreement. You can believe me that the lending institution, with its funds spread over thousands of investments, and secured in each case by property, is far less in need of protection than the national housing owner, who has all his eggs in one basket.
At the present time, and quite properly, the government protects the national housing mortgagee, and it is my view that it should protect the national housing owner, at least to the extent of his initial down payment. Every owner is far more vulnerable than the lending institution. No matter what happens the lending institution cannot lose. In the event of a foreclosure it will look first to the property, and then to the government for repayment. But the owner may very well be wiped out.
That is the situation that needs a remedy. Under the act the owner should be assured that if he is unable to keep up his payments, his basic equity of $1,500 or more, which is his down payment, will be protected under all circumstances, including the mortgage covenant, subject to certain limitations.
So far as the mechanics are concerned, it is no more difficult to strike a premium rate for the down payment, which I call equity insurance, than it was to strike a premium rate for the mortgage insurance. We had no previous experience when we fixed the 2 per cent premium rate on the mortgage. I am sure the same actuaries who fixed the rate on the guaranteed mortgages could fix the


rate on equity insurance. It should be 2 per cent, the same rate that applies to the mortgage.
I informed the house earlier that the rate was 1 per cent on home improvement loans made without mortgage security. If we used the 2 per cent figure-and it could be somewhat higher, or possibly lower-it would mean that for a premium of $30 on a down payment of $1,500 or $40 on a down payment of $2,000 the owner's equity would be fully insured. Then, in the event of default under the mortgage resulting in a foreclosure, the owner would have his basic equity returned -instead of being frozen out, as would most likely happen in the case of a foreclosure.
Obviously there would have to be safeguards against fraud and bad faith. The purpose of basic equity insurance would be to protect the owner, if he found it impossible to carry on. It would not be intended to let him skin out of a deal the next day simply because he changed his mind.
Government departments have had considerable experience in the insurance field, and I would expect regulations imposing conditions having regard to the element of time, the possibility of the death of the owner, of transferability, as well as a limit of the liability in the early stages. But if an owner meets these conditions and cannot keep up his payments, and foreclosure follows, he would be entitled then to the return of his basic equity, which was his original down payment, for which he has already paid an insurance premium. I strongly urge the government to introduce an amendment to cover such a situation.
It will first and foremost give security to the person who needs it most, namely, the home owner, who has a small equity and a good sized mortgage.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Does the hon. member recall the answer the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) gave to the question I asked along that line last year? He said that he would give sympathetic consideration, but sympathy will not pay the owner.


David Arnold Croll: I am hoping for better luck than the hon. member had.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I hope you get it. You are on the other side of the house; you may get it.


David Arnold Croll: Don't try to get into this act; make your own speech.
As I have said, it seems highly incongruous to protect the lending institutions and not protect the owner. Both are making an investment in the same property at the same

time. If one is insured the other should be insured also. Under the act the owner pays a premium for the mortgage insurance. I see no reason why we should not extend the same protection to the home owner that we are prepared to give, and actually do give as a matter of course, to the lending institution. Both make an investment. One is protected fully, the other is not. I think it is no more than justice that the protection that we give to our lending institutions should be extended in a limited and a substantial form to the Canadians who make purchases under the National Housing Act.
It will not cost the Canadian taxpayers a penny, but it would encourage home ownership and possibly bring about larger down payments. It would remove the hazard to which too many of our people have been vulnerable in the past. I am convinced that such a plan would greatly stimulate national house building and home ownership, and avoid future bitterness.
Mortgage insurance removed the very last reluctance of the lending institutions to advance money on national housing mortgages. Equity insurance would have the same effect on the prospective owner. If both the lending institutions and the owner are to be insured against loss within the limits I have suggested, or within other reasonable limits, then I anticipate an immediate upswing in construction, with attendant benefits throughout our economy, with particular emphasis on employment, and, what is equally important, home ownership.
Equity insurance would put the little home owner on the same footing as the lending institutions, and it would give him protection and security at a price he can afford to pay. It would keep the little man from being seriously hurt in any economic squeeze play. He would know that no matter what happened to him the original stake would be secure. This an economic hurricane could not wash away. He asks the right to share the economic umbrella which he is now providing for the lending institutions.
Let there be no misunderstanding about one thing. I am not suggesting that the government should give anybody a handout. What I am proposing is a proper insurance scheme based on sound actuarial principles, as sound as those applied when they fixed the premium rate of 2 per cent on the mortgage. I am expecting that the owner will pay for his own protection.
By paying a premium into a government fund he could provide that protection, as he does now for the lending institutions, without benefit of government subsidy. His down
The Address-Mr. Croll payment on his home could never be lost through foreclosure. Nor am I anticipating for one moment that we are going to see a spate of foreclosures in the future. I sincerely believe that our economy is basically sound enough to weather whatever may be ahead. But in the lifetime of most of us in this house we have seen thousands of our citizens lose everything they have put into a house. The great depression of the 1930's forced us to realize that ownership of a home had in it an element of gamble; that a man and his family could find themselves on the street without a cent to show for years of saving.
It may be that what I propose and call equity insurance will remain a protection against a danger that may never occur. That is the way we would all want it to be. But we do not know. The storekeeper who protects his plate glass window by insurance does not expect it to be broken. Should it happen, it becomes little more than a temporary inconvenience. I feel it is a wise and prudent thing to insure against the possibility of loss. We would be more than foolish to bury our heads in the sand and leave the future to chance, when we do not need to do so. That is one of the reasons we established an unemployment insurance fund back in 1941. We were not expecting unemployment within the forseeable future. We did feel that in any economy there is always the possibility of some unemployment, and we set out to insure against that.
I want this house to believe that I am not attempting to sell the government a bill of goods. You know, I have not been very good at that. Nor am I enticing them down a blind alley. That would not be wise or politically profitable. I am suggesting that in line with the undertakings in the public interest, which the government has so well assumed and carried out in the past in the field of insurance, they might very well apply their experience and knowledge to this problem.
It would be profitable if I enumerated some of the insurance undertakings of this government. I have already spoken of unemployment insurance. It has been very successful. We have export credit insurance. Some members may know about that. They are doing a land office business. Their purpose is:
The corporation may, for the purpose of facilitating and developing trade between Canada and any other country, enter into a contract of insurance with an exporter to insure him against any risk of loss in connection with the export or an agreement for the export of goods by reason of the failure of the exporter, for any cause not avoidable by the exporter, to recover the selling price of the goods.

The Address-Mr. CroU
Hon. members will recall that at the last session we increased the capitalization of the export credit insurance corporation from $5 million to $15 million. We have the Prairie Farm Assistance Act which, though limited in scope, is insurance against the hazard of drought. Last session we passed the National Housing Act, which provided insurance for mortgages and rental insurance. I am sure the house will be interested to know that the banks have loaned nearly $115 million in less than six months. We have had proclaimed the home improvement section, which also has in it an element of insurance. I am sure no hon. member has forgotten the Public Service Insurance Act with which we grappled last session and which provided for certain death benefits. This act affects thousands of civil servants.
Hon. members may be less aware that we are also in the marine insurance business. The very able and energetic minister did not let grass grow under his feet when he took over the ministry of fisheries. As early as July, 1953, provision was made for the insuring of fishing vessels valued at from $250 to $7,500. A total of 1,200 policies were purchased in Newfoundland, 250 in Quebec and 351 in British Columbia, covering 2,300 boats with a value of over $3,500,000. This is the result of the last eighteen months' operation and it is expected that this total will increase to $10,000,000. The insurance provides full coverage, but what is more interesting is that this insurance provided by the Department of Fisheries costs only 1-6 per cent as against the commercial rate of 5 per cent and up.
I say that in praise of the minister but also to indicate to the house that we are not novices in this sort of thing that I am talking about.	|
All I am proposing is that we deal in the very same way with the problem of equity insurance because it is inevitable that some home owners will fall by the wayside in the foreseeable future and the only sensible thing to do is to spread the loss across the board by an insurance scheme. In that way no one will be hurt by circumstances beyond his control, and home ownership will be encouraged. Mortgage insurance is now compulsory under the act. Equity insurance would have to be compulsory also, since it could not work otherwise.
I do not make this proposal lightly. I realize that there are a great number of administrative difficulties. It may be the course of wisdom at the beginning not to insure the full down payment. In some circumstances that could be interpreted as insuring the
[Mr. Croll.l

owner against his own folly. Serious consideration would have to be given to a time lapse to avoid fraud and bad faith.
There will be other questions that will arise in your minds, but I suggest that it is administratively possible to draw up regulations to meet all conditions. This government has wrestled with far more difficult problems and has solved them to the lasting benefit of the Canadian people. I ask that the government give consideration to this problem and accept in principle what I have suggested. We can wait for improvements and refinements at a later date.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne in my opinion has one great value. It has many others, but it has at least the value that it enables members from different parts of our nation to explain to their fellow members the problems that are worrying the people of their constituencies. This is particularly important for those of us who come from British Columbia because that province is farther away from the centre of Canada than any other. Its resources and economy are different from those of the other provinces.
During the time that we are at home we find it difficult to follow closely what is taking place in the rest of Canada and I believe that the rest of Canada gets a great deal less news about British Columbia than we on the west coast get about what is happening east of the Rocky mountains. I have been pleased to note that already three hon. members from our province have participated in this debate and I hope that all the other members will express their views on the problems that are worrying our people at the present time.
I propose today to place before the cabinet and the house six different problems which in my opinion are of concern to the people on the west coast. The first is the question of unemployment.
We regret, as I am sure hon. members from other parts of Canada also regret, that unemployment has again become a serious problem in this nation. I think the speech from the throne dealt with it rather lightly. The only reference is contained in this one sentence:
Some unemployment of a regional and seasonal nature is being experienced.
I have no idea of the position with regard to unemployment in other parts of Canada, but certainly in British Columbia it is such that it merits far more serious consideration

than is implied by that sentence. In Vancouver private agencies such as the Salvation Army and others, and the various churches, have found the situation such that they have felt it necessary to step in and provide relief for the destitute. That has not been done to any extent in my city for quite a few years.
The city of Vancouver itself is also much concerned. The city council have been worrying about this problem and decided about three weeks ago that they would institute relief payments. The mayor summed up the attitude of the council very well, and I quote:
At the same time, Mayor Hume called for action on a national policy to handle the unemployment problem.
"I hope the Prime Minister and the premier will wake up", he declared.
He was referring to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) and the premier of the province. He went on to say:
There are a lot of people who can't find jobs- personally I don't know of one job In the city today.
About the same time our provincial premier wired the Prime Minister about this problem and made this recommendation:
After due consideration of all factors this government urges strongly that, with respect to unemployed employables, adequate relief be extended, and that the cost thereof be shared to the extent of 40 per cent by the government of Canada, 40 per cent by the government of this province and 20 per cent by the municipalities. Immediate attention to this problem is urged by this government.
To my amazement that suggestion received rather brusque treatment by the Prime Minister of Canada. Two days later the following press report appeared:
In a statement in Ottawa, Prime Minister St. Laurent said he had no evidence that B.C. was unable to bear the financial responsibility of prodding relief for those unemployed who are able to work.
In other words, if the province can pay the relief, then it must do so. The dominion will accept no responsibility. That, Mr. Speaker, is an evasion of responsibility by this government. Furthermore, it is a complete about-face from the stand taken by this very government in the year 1945, when it Drought down what are known as the "green 3ook" proposals.
I turn to these proposals and find this on page 42:
Over the past seven or eight years there have leen recommendations by the national employment lommission, the Sirois commission and others, that he dominion should assume responsibility for lecessary relief to the employable unemployed.
The Address-Mr. Green
That, I would point out, is the group about which Premier Bennett wired:
It has been generally suggested that the dominion should accept this obligation as part of any general settlement with the provinces.
The dominion has come to a settlement with all the provinces with the exception of Quebec, and apparently there is about to be some settlement with that province.
The "green book" proposals went on:
As a part of the general arrangement with the provincial governments, the dominion government now proposes to establish a practicable and comprehensive system of assistance to able-bodied unemployed persons as soon as possible, rather than waiting until the need for it actually arises.
This, remember, was in 1945:
It is thought necessary not to permit the recurrence of the problems of administration being separated from financial responsibility, and to avoid the makeshift arrangements and controversy with provincial governments which otherwise would be almost certain to recur under the old methods of providing relief even though the number of persons involved were small.
I would point out that we are now having this very controversy which the dominion suggested in 1945 should be avoided. The proposals go on:
The dominion is therefore accompanying its proposal for general acceptance of responsibility with a concrete plan for its implementation in the field of assistance for employable unemployed persons.
One further paragraph of significance to be found on page 43 reads as follows:
The plan proposes acceptance of dominion responsibility for unemployed employables, and provincial and local responsibility for unemplov-ables.
This government is today repudiating the stand it took in 1945. This federal government has an obligation with regard to the employable unemployed. In the case of British Columbia most of them come from outside the province. As a result of the refusal of the Prime Minister to accept any responsibility, the premier of British Columbia has stated, "All right, we will pay 80 per cent of the relief. The city can pay the other 20 per cent, but it will be paid only to those recipients who have established residence of one year in the province of British Columbia". All the rest are thrown on the charitable organizations. I suggest the time has come for this government to accept its responsibility in this regard. This trouble will probably arise every year, and this is only the start of it. Sooner or later the problem will have to be faced by the dominion government. Now is the time to take action.
The second question has to do with Columbia river power. There is a reference to that

The Address-Mr. Green in the speech from the throne, although it does not mention the Columbia river. I refer to the paragraph which reads as follows:
Amendments to the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act and a measure to control works which affect the normal flow of rivers which cross the international boundary will be proposed for the purpose of ensuring that .natural resources are developed in the best interests of the Canadian public.
The very last line of that paragraph seems to indicate that the government has now adopted a Canada-first policy. If that were the whole story I would approve, and I am very glad that at last the government seems to be moving in the direction of adopting our Canada-first policy.
Hon. members will recall how in recent years we have had to hammer this government night in and night out, during private members' hour, to prevent it from supporting a proposal to build a natural gas pipe line from southern Alberta down into the United States at the nearest point to serve the great cities of Washington and Oregon, with only a stub line up to Vancouver and possibly one to Trail. As a result of a filibuster staged largely by this party, with the help of the C.C.F., and the former Liberal member for Fraser Valley, George Cruickshank, the government was eventually convinced that a Canada-first policy was advisable. Just a few weeks ago we had an announcement that natural gas is to be piped from the Peace river country down through the centre of the province of British Columbia to serve practically all the cities in that province, with the surplus going into the United States. We also had some trouble with regard to a natural gas pipe line from Alberta to eastern Canada, and it took quite a lot of pressure and argument to convince the government this should be an all-Canadian line. However, it finally adopted that policy.
In so far as the plans of the government with regard to the Columbia river system are concerned, we approve of anything which means the use of Canadian resources by the Canadian people. But I am afraid the story is not quite that simple. I believe this proposal is also designed as a club with which to beat the government of the province of British Columbia. That government, rightly or wrongly, has come to an agreement with the Kaiser interests in the United States under which there is to be a dam constructed across the foot of the Arrow lakes so that water will be stored in the Arrow lakes as a result of which more power will be available for United States plants south of the line.
The dominion government has taken objection to this plan, and we now have the picture

of the two governments through their respective ministers calling each other names. For example, I have here the Vancouver Sun for November 25, 1954, carrying the headline: "Ottawa Dam Stand called 'Cheap Trick'." That is a statement by Premier Bennett. Then we have a statement by his minister of lands on November 30. The report of his speech carries the heading: "Opponents of Dam 'Lack Information'." It adds: "Lands Minister Charges Ottawa Veto would be 'Denial of Rights' of B.C."
Then we have Ottawa moving into the picture. I have here a dispatch dated November 22, 1954, from Warren Baldwin, who we all know is one of the most responsible newspapermen in Canada. The heading reads, "Ottawa Moves to Block B.C.-Kaiser Power Deal" with the subheading "New Statute Being Drafted to Provide Authority."
Finally we have the old master, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), turning all his guns on the government of British Columbia in a statement dated December 30, 1954. It reads: "B.C.'s Kaiser Dam Project 'Cockeyed' says Howe." This is another dispatch from Ottawa by Mr. Baldwin:
Trade Minister C. D. Howe Wednesday described the agreement between the B.C. government and the Kaiser interests in the United States for a storage dam without on-site power on the Arrow lakes as "a cockeyed and improvident deal."
A war in print has been waged in the press between the two governments. The premier of British Columbia is sitting there ready to go to the courts about this issue and Ottawa is prepared to beat him into submission. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that power on the Columbia river system in Canada can only be developed by co-operation between the two governments. The main source of power is to be a dam at Mica creek up above Revelstoke on the Big Bend. That is certainly in British Columbia and the provincial government will certainly be the authority to deal with that dam.
The same British Columbia government has dealt with the huge project at Kitimat. That was not the business of the federal government at all. There must be co-operation between the two governments. I believe that both sides are sincere. The premier of British Columbia believes that he is making a deal which is for the benefit of his province and is doing no harm to the rest of Canada. The ministers here believe that the deal is not a good one and that it should be stopped. Let us admit that there is sincerity on both sides. All I wish to emphasize is that this fighting attitude is helping no one and is only going to make it more difficult to have the Columbia river system properly developed in so far as power is concerned.

Our main responsibility in this House of Commons is to see where parliament fits into the picture. So far we have only had newspaper reports. We have had shots from both sides. With the exception of the St. Lawrence, the Columbia river is the most important river in this country so far as power is concerned. In fact I believe that the two river systems have about the same potential. This is an extremely important problem for the Canadian people and for their parliament. It involves not only the Arrow lakes in West Kootenay but also the Kootenay river in East Kootenay and the Mica creek dam. It involves the whole question of downstream benefits and what is to be paid by the United States interests for storage of water on the system in Canada.
It may also involve the Fraser river. The suggestion has been made by federal ministers that they are going to divert some of the Columbia river water into the Fraser river. That may be a good idea but I point out that just six years ago we had terrible floods on the Fraser, and the people living in the delta of that river are very much concerned about what is going to happen to them if a lot of Columbia river water is diverted into the Fraser.
I suggest that the way for parliament to handle the question is to have it considered by the external affairs committee. In each of the last two sessions that committee has heard evidence on the Columbia river system from General McNaughton, and very interesting and useful evidence it was. If that committee is allowed to deal with the question this year before the proposed legislation becomes law, then General McNaughton can be called to explain the whole story. We can have representatives from the British Columbia government attend. We can crossexamine officials from the different federal government departments who have been studying the Columbia river system, and we might even have representatives from the Kaiser interests who could tell their side of the story.
My point is that this is the kind of problem that should be carefully studied by the private members of the house. It should not be left to one or two ministers to make a decision which will affect Canadians on the west coast for generations to come. If the government does not wish to refer the matter to the standing committee on external affairs, a special committee could be set up or a new committee could be set up to deal with all questions of power.
I was very much interested in an article in the Financial Post of October 23 last by Michael Barkway, another distinguished member of the press gallery, in which he
The Address-Mr. Green advocated a national energy policy for Canada. He advocated that all questions concerning power, whether it be power generated from water, atomic energy or in any other way, be dealt with together. I think his plan was excellent. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) promised that during this session there would be a committee on atomic energy. It might be possible to have a committee of that kind also consider the Columbia river situation.
My third subject has to do with the price of wheat in store at Vancouver. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce announced yesterday, the government adopted a new policy on February 16 of last year under which the Canadian wheat board varied the price of wheat as between Vancouver and Fort William-Port Arthur with the objective of making these centres competitive. That was a departure from the policy that had been followed from 1943, a policy under which prices were the same at the west coast and the lakehead. When changing the policy the minister dropped the price of wheat at Fort William-Port Arthur by 7 cents. One result of this change in policy has been that shipments of wheat out of Vancouver dropped 40 per cent during the last four months of last year compared with the same four months in 1953.
Vigorous protests have been made by a joint committee of the international longshoremen's and warehousemen's union and the grain workers' union in Vancouver. Incidentally, they have given splendid leadership on this matter. They have been supported by groups all over the city, by the city council, by the provincial government and by all of the papers. For example, I have here an editorial from the Vancouver Sun, which is a supporter of the government. The heading is, "Facts for Mr. Howe, All Port Interests Suffer as Grain Trade Declines". The editorial, published on December 22 last, reads:
There is a simple way for trade minister Howe to convince himself that the wheat board grain price juggling in favour of eastern ports is truly damaging Vancouver and citizens' wage packets. From Vancouver merchants exchange, national harbours board, shipping federation, stevedoring firms and waterfront unions, and ship supply, chandlery and repair firms, he will learn that fewer vessels are coming here to take grain. When year end figures are officially prepared they will show a decrease between July 31-end of the crop year-and December, 1954, compared with the same period 1953.
The Vancouver Province of January 7, five days ago, had an editorial headed "An Urgent Job for Vancouver M.P.'s" which reads in part as follows:
Vancouver members of parliament have a job to do at the session opening this week. They should

The Address-Mr. Green
make it their business to speak and work to end the federal discrimination against wheat shipments through this port.
The Vancouver Herald of January 3 this year had an editorial headed, "Let Mr. Howe now heed his own advice 'to keep all ports competitive'
The fact is that the wheat board in changing prices has always been one step behind. Ocean freight rates go up but the price does not drop as fast as these rates go up. The result has been that shipments of wheat through the port have fallen. Even with the removal of this difference in price, Vancouver would have great difficulty in meeting the Atlantic price, I believe. For one reason, it is a far longer voyage; it takes far longer for the wheat to get to the United Kingdom from the west coast. Shipping is not as plentiful as it is on the east coast. We believe that this policy, which the minister announced yesterday is to be permanent, is a wrong policy. It sets off Vancouver against the lakehead. Buyers take advantage of that fact. They wonder why there are two prices. When the price is dropped at Vancouver they wait to see if the price will not drop at Fort William.
This new control imposed by this free enterprise Minister of Trade and Commerce is unwise. I even took from his statement yesterday that he believes the west coast should sell its wheat in Japan and South America, around the Pacific, and not worry about the United Kingdom market. We are just as much concerned about the United Kingdom market as are the centres in other parts of Canada. I believe that in the long run the old policy would be far better, both for Vancouver and for Fort William-Port Arthur. We on the west coast demand that this discrimination be ended without further delay.
This question brings up my fourth point. The drop in shipping coming into Vancouver harbour for grain has meant fewer ships in that port to carry other commodities. We are now in the position where it is a great problem to get ships to carry our pulp. People who must ship these products abroad are finding it increasingly difficult to get bottoms. Canada has no deep sea dry cargo fleet. On the west coast there is not one ship left under Canadian registry. We are dependent on foreign ships to carry our goods. Here we are, the nation which per capita has to ship more of its goods than any other nation, left in a position where, on the west coast-it is almost as bad on the east coast-all these goods have to be carried in foreign vessels.


If there were Canadian ships, we would have some measure of control over the goods that were carried. It would be that much easier to get our own products carried abroad. It would be in the best interests of the nation as a whole. There may come a time, Mr. Speaker, when this government will even have to subsidize foreign vessels to come to our ports to carry Canadian goods abroad.
The figures on the merchant navy have made very sad reading for several years. They are growing steadily worse. I have here the seventh report of the Canadian maritime commission, dated June 24, 1954. We find at page 15 that in the year 1952 Canadian vessels carried only 6 * 4 per cent of Canada's trade; that was down from 20-2 per cent in 1947. United Kingdom vessels were carrying 35-4 per cent in 1952, which was down from 45-2 per cent in 1947. Other ships were carrying 58 * 2 per cent of our trade, whereas in 1947 they only carried 34-6 per cent. For 1953 the figures were worse. Then we only carried 4-3 per cent of our goods; the British carried 34 per cent and other vessels 61-7 per cent. I am sure that the figures for 1954, which have not yet been released, will be very much worse again.
We are down to the position where Canadian vessels are carrying practically none of Canada's products. The deep sea dry cargo fleet under the Canadian flag is practically gone. As I said, there are none left on the west coast. On January 1, 1948, there were 145 dry cargo vessels under Canadian registry. On December 31 of last year, there were only 15, two of them 10,000-tonners built during the war. One of these is Italian owned and operates out of ports in Italy. I believe it has not been in Canada for many years. There were seven 4,700-tonners, of which five belong to Canadian National Steamships and two are in the paper trade out of Newfoundland. Of the six others, three belong to the Canadian National Steamships and three are engaged in the coastal trade out of Newfoundland. Our gross tonnage has dropped from 928,598 tons on January 1, 1948, to 68,936 tons on December 31, 1954, the lowest point in 35 years. There are only about 500 Canadian merchant seamen. Almost every other nation has gone in the opposite direction.
I know there are certain ships under United Kingdom registry which are owned by Canadians but they are under United Kingdom direction and manned by United Kingdom sailors. They mean little to Canada and they are all old. Government policy is such that it prevents them from being modernized. We are told that Canada should rely on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shipping

pool for its shipping; that if there is a war we will be served by that pool. There is no such pool in operation, and I understand that the United States is holding back; she has not agreed to come into the pool. If war were to come, Canada would have to start building all over again. There would be a great delay. There would be time required to train seamen, and a tremendous expenditure. It would probably be too late.
The government has had recommendation after recommendation from its own maritime commission and other officials that there should be a nucleus of approximately 50 modern fast vessels maintained for a Canadian merchant navy. But the policy adopted or the refusal to adopt any policy has resulted in this being one of the most dismal failures of the present government. I believe that even yet a bold policy could save the situation. I regret there is nothing about it in the speech from the throne.
My next subject concerns the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), who is a very good friend of mine and a minister for whom I have great admiration. Last session we asked if the government would help in the construction of the Marpole bridge over the north arm of the Fraser. I have not time to quote the Hansards; they are all here. I will not embarrass the minister by reading them. First he said no. Of course, the plea for help is based on the fact that this bridge is the only means of access to the Vancouver airport, wrach is the airport doing the most business in Canada. We pointed out that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) had said yes a few years ago. Eventually the Minister of Public Works, somewhat reluctantly, agreed that the government would pay $400,000.
That figure was reached on the basis of an estimate made some years ago that the way to repair this bridge was to put in a new span. The 6,000-odd vessels which go through every year would still be going through, and the span would still have to be opened for them. This government favoured improving the span, so he took the estimate of $1,200,000 for that job and said the government would pay one-third because it had been admitted that the dominion should pay one-third. We pointed out that was useless because there had to be a high level bridge. However, the minister would not raise the offer.
Finally on June 25 his parliamentary assistant had this to say in response to a question by myself, as reported on page 6774 of Hansard for that date:


Mr. Bourget:: I think the amount of $400,000 has been offered to the province to build the Marpole bridge, but I am informed that they want to build the bridge at Oak street.
The Address-Mr. Green


Howard Charles Green: That is right.


Maurice Bourget: So far, I do not think-


Howard Charles Green: Does that mean then that unless the provincial government agrees to this ridiculous scheme of simply putting a lift on the old Marpole bridge, the dominion government will not make any contribution at all?


Maurice Bourget: I am told that they will probably make the same offer for the Oak street bridge.


Howard Charles Green: The dominion government will pay $400,000 on a new bridge on Oak street?


Maurice Bourget: That is right, Mr. Chairman.
Subsequently we had the provincial government taking steps to build this high level bridge, and saying quite frankly months ago that if the dominion did not contribute its share tolls would be placed on the traffic over the bridge until its cost had been met.
And now the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) takes this position

and the date is December 11, 1954-as set out in a press dispatch bearing the heading "Withdraw $400,000 Offer":
Ottawa won't pay a cent on new Marpole bridge plan.
Then follows the dispatch by Mr. Warren Baldwin, stating:
The federal government considers itself out of the picture as far as the Marpole bridge is concerned.
. . . "Under some circumstances," said Mr. Winters, "we might still have been ready to contribute the $400,000 to the larger project planned by the province but we obviously can't contribute to a revenue producing project."


William Earl Rowe: Was that before the election?


Howard Charles Green: No, that is after the election. Now, the bridge is not a revenue producing project; it will have to be a toll bridge, simply to pay the cost. I believe this is a case in which there still is an obligation on the dominion. The airport business is growing all the time; more money is to be spent on it by the dominion all the time. And the decision announced the other day -by the minister should be changed.
Finally I had meant to say a word in support of the establishment of the Canada council, but I do not have time to do so.
In closing may I give a friendly warning to the government. The Liberal party has been in office nearly twenty years, in five succeeding parliaments. In four of those parliaments that party has had an overwhelming majority. I am sure everyone here today who served in those five parliaments will agree that the one in which the sides were more evenly balanced was a far stronger parliament than any of the other four.
Watching those five governments, one can clearly see the government steadily growing more arrogant, with less and less reason. Today we have sign after sign that this government places very little importance on parliament, and more and more importance on the

The Address-Mr. Regier government itself. I suggest that we have, right here in this Liberal government-and not only among the cabinet ministers but also the private members-the greatest selfadmiration society in the whole country.


William Earl Rowe: In the whole world.


Howard Charles Green: The manner in which the government has dealt with the questions to which I have referred this afternoon-unemployment, the Columbia river development, the price of wheat at Vancouver, the merchant navy and the Marpole bridge-and the reaction of the ministers when anyone dares to raise these questions, indicates clearly that their attitude is now becoming one of contempt for all contrary opinions.
Mind you, it is only human nature that when one has been in power, has been in command for such a long time, he thinks he is very good indeed. That is a natural human reaction. I can understand why members of the cabinet have that reaction-although I have noticed that while the older ones, who had some justification for it, go to jobs in different parts of the country, or retire, or go to the Senate, the younger ones who have just come up have the same sense of self-satisfaction that was held by men who really had some ground for it. That is one of the unfortunate features of the situation.
In any event, this government has been in power for a very long time. It would be a good thing for the country if there were a change. I merely point out to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that if there is a continuation of the attitude to which I have referred, then in the long run it will defeat the government. And, worse than that, it will result, as I believe it has already resulted, in the people of this country being given leadership which is far less efficient and far less democratic than they deserve.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, from the observations we have heard in the debate it would seem to be customary to hand out a lot of bouquets and congratulations when one rises to speak. However, I must say that I do not consider that in any way as part of my responsibility. I do not go even as far as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) when, in his closing remarks, he said that he wanted to offer some friendly advice to the government. My advice is designed deliberately to help the people of Canada get rid of what I consider has been the most reactionary government Canada has had since 1935. Therefore I have very few, if any, congratulations to offer.

The only congratulation I would extend would be to ask Mr. Deputy Speaker to transmit to Mr. Speaker our appreciation of the manner in which he has fulfilled his heavy responsibilities. Unlike the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), I can say honestly that in the province of British Columbia the man of French-Canadian descent from east of the Ottawa river who is considered most famous is the Speaker of the House of Commons, and not the gentleman who was referred to as "Uncle Louie". I might add that the prestige of the so-called "Uncle Louie" in British Columbia is very low, indeed.
It is often said in the house that this or that is the privilege of the opposition. That is a wrong process of thinking-very wrong. The opposition in the House of Commons has a responsibility, not a privilege. Whether we sit on the government or on the opposition side, we have the same privilege. Government members have one responsibility, that of governing the country according to their lights; and we definitely have the responsibility of seeing to it that, in face of the government majority, the people of Canada get the best possible government.
I am very pleased to speak in support of the amendment to the amendment of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I cannot see at all how the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) draws the conclusion that the leader of the C.C.F. was caught without his swimming trunks when the Progressive Conservative amendment was offered. That amendment follows the pattern of which we, in past years, may have been guilty-that of picking little individual items and castigating the government for not implementing them. Next year we have found they would implement them, and we would have to think of something new.
The time has arrived in the Canadian economic scene when little bits here and little remedies there are no longer sufficient. I agree wholeheartedly with my leader when he maintains that there is plenty of evidence to show that, by deliberate design, this government is turning itself from a genuinely Liberal government into a genuinely Conservative government.
I noticed that also in the address by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe). In years gone by it was the C.C.F. who told the government, "You are doing this and this. These are the things we have been asking for." This winter the C.C.F. are not going to be telling the government that they are doing the things we have been asking for. This winter, as we have already

heard in this house, the Acting Leader of the Opposition is going to be telling the government, "You are now intending to do the things the Conservative party of Canada has been advocating."
If you will look over the legislation that is proposed you will see that the Acting Leader of the Opposition has grounds for making that statement, and for claiming for the Tory party some of the credit. The time has arrived when a challenge is arising to the reactionary Liberal government headed by the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). The times are not too different from the years preceding the hungry 1930's. At that time the Canadian public was well aware that a complete switch in government policy was necessary. The only thing that was open to the Canadian public was to turn to the only alternative, the Conservative party. Now they have, under the guise of the Liberal party, a Conservative government, and this time there is an alternative available. From one end of Canada to the other, from Newfoundland to British Columbia, there is a genuine farmer-labour people's party that will be ready to take on the government of the country when an election again rolls around.
This government, in my opinion-and I think the speech from the throne shows plenty of evidence of that-is concerned only with the welfare of the Liberal party, and it is not doing very well at that. I notice that fewer than 14 per cent of the Canadian people have a Liberal party in office on the provincial level. Only the relatively smaller provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Manitoba have Liberal regimes. Their fortunes are at a low ebb indeed.
When I was elected to this parliament one of the first things I made up my mind about was that I was going to get to know more about the country in which I live. I regret very much that the tour of the members of parliament to the province of British Columbia planned for last fall had to be postponed. I hope it has not been postponed for long, because I feel it is a great thing to be able to see how other people in Canada, thousands of miles away from us, live. I therefore spent a good deal of my summer and fall visiting other parts of Canada.
I should say the oftener I travel in Canada, the prouder I am of Canada. We have a wonderful nation, the most marvellous of all the nations of the world, and we have the most aggressive and progressive population. However, another impression I gathered that you cannot fail to notice is the vast
The Address-Mr. Regier potential, the vast possibilities that are open to the people of Canada. When one contemplates that one gets a certain feeling of humbleness and at times even of shame, when one sees all those natural resources and realizes how aggressive and sturdy the people are who are living here. That is particularly true when you realize we have such things as housing shortages, unemployment, lack of educational facilities, and so forth. The lack of aggressive action on the part of the Liberal government since 1935 in that respect has had a good deal to do with it.
I was in the maritimes, and I should like to congratulate the people there on having finally decided that their hope for help from a federal government that might be interested in the welfare of the whole nation was groundless. To look for help from such a federal government under this Liberal cabinet that we now have is to look in vain indeed; therefore these people have decided that they are going to see what they can do to help themselves. I welcome most heartily their formation of an interprovincial development council. I have not the exact name of it at my fingertips; however, I wish them well, and I hope this federal government may yet see fit to lend a hand, first of all in a reassessment, followed by a rehabilitation of the economic life of the whole of the maritimes.
The need to help themselves has of course long been evident in the province of Nova Scotia, where the people long ago realized that to look to the two old political parties for help in their difficulties was useless. They have led the whole of the maritime region in the formation of co-operatives and credit unions. However, in other parts of the maritimes I find that the people do not even realize what they have missed. They do not even seem to grasp the fact that the people of Canada are no longer living in the hungry thirties. When you see a new house in certain parts of New Brunswick you really lift up your head to look because it is something new, whereas in other parts of Canada new houses are a thing of almost everyday occurrence. If we could only take the people of New Brunswick on a tour from one end of Canada to the other; if they could see what is going on and how the people in Ontario, in Saskatchewan, in Alberta and in British Columbia are living, their high standard of living, I am sure they would decide that they had had enough of both Liberals and Conservatives.


Mr. Gregg:: May I ask my hon. friend when he last visited New Brunswick?
120	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Regier


Erhart Regier: I visited New Brunswick in the summer of 1954.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Personally?


Erhart Regier: I also spent a fair amount of time in the province of Quebec. This province seems to be the sore spot in the matter of Canadian unity. I was raised in the west. For years the late Mackenzie King told us how he was building national unity, and for years most of us believed him. "Yes, that is the man to build national unity." How is it, Mr. Speaker, if the late Mackenzie King was really and truly building national unity that, after such a long premiership, almost the moment he disappears from the scene we have less national unity than we have had in Canada for ages and ages?
One plea that I should like to make to the Prime Minister of Canada is this. I hope this house and the other house also will no longer be plagued with the necessity of sitting in a judicial capacity. We are here to legislate. I feel that a great opportunity may be missed if the present Prime Minister should want to resign, or because of circumstances of age or health have to resign, before this matter is settled. We do not want to handle divorce cases in the parliament of Canada.
At none of my meetings from one end of Canada to the other did I mention the subject of divorce; yet invariably, as soon as I sat down, the first thing I was asked was, "What about this question of divorce?" The people of Canada are getting sick and tired of it. There is one man who can help us out of this situation and that is the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I feel that if he does not do so he will have failed in one of his greater responsibilities.
It may interest my good Liberal friends who are hon. members of this house and who represent ridings in the province of Quebec to learn that when I came quite unannounced into the city of Montreal one day two clergymen of the Catholic faith, who somehow or other or by some unknown route had found out I was in Montreal, phoned me to ask for appointments. That was amazing to me. What did they want appointments for? They wanted to know the story from other than Liberal sources for a change. They wanted to get at the root of the difficulty and the dissatisfaction. Not only that; one of them referred a number of cases to me and pleaded with me to take up the fight on behalf of people whom he felt might be injured. I assured him that I hoped not to have to do that and that a solution would be found to remove this business from parliament.
I have received numerous letters from outside Quebec. I have received letters from


the Riviera and the Scandinavian countries, from former Canadians whose lives had been so messed up by their cases having been handled in the houses of parliament of Canada that they felt obligated to remove themselves from Canada and spend the rest of their lives elsewhere. I think it is a shame that we are not able to end this matter once and for all. At this time I make this plea to the Prime Minister, that he do what he can. If he cannot do anything I doubt whether there is any future Liberal prime minister who will be able to do anything. He would have to be a resident of Ontario, because such a man could not possibly come from western Canada.
Another matter that worries the people of Canada a great deal, and that excites a lot of interest, is this knight in shining armour who was once and for all going to rid the political scene of Canada of a certain man. He was to rid us of him politically speaking; we wish him well personally. I am referring to the premier of Quebec. I am told that assurance was given last winter to the Liberal members of parliament from Quebec somewhat along these lines: "Now, boys, you stay with me in this fight. When it is over and we have won our fight in the house I will put on this armour and go out and do personal battle, and we will end up on top."
The guns were fired, but what happened? I wonder how those Liberal members of parliament who put their faith in the Prime Minister feel about it now. They must be most humiliated indeed, because from all appearances the premier of Quebec seems to have won a complete victory. All he did was this. When he got a slap on one cheek he turned the other cheek, and the Prime Minister of Canada had to humiliate the whole nation by boarding a train to go to meet the master of that other nation in a hotel room in Montreal.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the hon. member know of any declaration made by the head of any government in this country which was more widely approved or more universally commended throughout Canada than the speech made by the Prime Minister of Canada at the Reform club in Quebec?


Erhart Regier: That is exactly what I am saying. All Canada looked forward with great anticipation, the progressive people in the province of Quebec looked forward with great anticipation to the political battle which was shaping up on the Canadian scene. Then there was the utter humiliation and shame that all of us felt when it ended up in a complete turnabout in this hotel room in Montreal.
The people of Quebec are going to wake up. There are enough of them to turn the

tide. My forecast is that when that tide turns in the province of Quebec it is going to turn mighty fast. My greatest concern is that it may turn to the communist party. I contend that there is no part of Canada that is as ripe for advances by the communist party as the province of Quebec. In the city of Montreal the communist party polled about as many votes as the C.C.F.


Mr. Boisvert:: How many days did the hon. member spend in the province of Quebec?


Erhart Regier: I think I am safe in saying that I have spent more days in the province of Quebec than any six members of parliament from Quebec taken together have spent in British Columbia.


Maurice Boisvert: I should like the hon. member to answer that question. How many days did he spend in the province of Quebec when he went there last summer?


Erhart Regier: I have not added them up; I do not know the number of days I was there last summer. The people of Quebec are suffering. They are subjected to double taxation and they are not enjoying the facilities in the field of education which they would like to have, which they ought to have and which they deserve as Canadian citizens. They are not receiving adequate health services to which they are entitled. I was amazed to learn that it was many years after the rest of Canada was enjoying old age pensions before Quebec was granted this privilege. One reason for this was that when the late Mr. Mackenzie King, while leader of the Liberal party, was preaching national unity, on the other side of the Ottawa river he was telling the people of Quebec, "You are something apart; you are something different; you must have special consideration."
I regret to admit that all the political parties of Canada represented in the province of Quebec are of one accord. They are all supporters, consciously or otherwise, of the basic philosophy of the premier of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: Wishful thinking.


Erhart Regier: It is not wishful thinking. I have seen resolutions passed by the Quebec branches of various political parties. I have said to the people of Montreal, and they applauded me when I said it, that unity in Canada cannot be based on anything except the needs of the people. Human beings in Montreal are the same as human beings in Winnipeg or in any other Canadian city. The people of Canada want decent housing and decent food. They want employment. They want health services. We all want these things whether we live in one part of Canada or another. There is your basis of unity for
The Address-Mr. Regier the Canadian people. The C.C.F. is the only party which has arisen out of the needs of the people of Canada and is therefore able to tell the same story in all parts of Canada.
If hon. members do not like what I have been saying about the province of Quebec we will go to the next province, the province of Ontario. In the province of Ontario I found widespread complaints about the administration of the Department of National Revenue. I was told by civil servants that it is the worst administered department of the government of Canada. The customs officers along the line do not seem to know where they are at. One makes one ruling one day and another one comes in the next day and overrules that, making a different regulation. I think it is time for a complete overhaul, and I say this in all kindness to the minister for I believe he should do this before he leaves that department, possibly to take on another. He should order a complete reassessment such as we had with the Criminal Code last year. I believe it is time the regulations of the Department of National Revenue were consolidated and the difficulties ironed out. However, we will have more of that later in the session.
There is a great housing shortage, and in this regard I was interested to hear the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) state that N.H.A. houses are being built for $10,000. The hon. member mentioned a down payment of $1,500, and I earnestly hope homes are available at that figure. However, I would like to be reassured on that point and know for certain that the people of Toronto who are eligible for N.H.A. homes can buy a $10,000 home for a down payment of $1,500.
The people of Ontario are worried about the question of immigration, especially as it relates to unemployment. We fail to understand how so many individual applicants for immigration into Canada can be turned down, yet wherever we go in the major centres of Canada there seem to be hundreds of single immigrants who have come into this country and are now without employment. It has long been suspected that the department of immigration, either deliberately or through lack of planning and direction, is allowing thousands of single workers into Canada, people with no contacts in Canada and possibly only the promise of short-time employment, while keeping out others whom we ought to welcome into our country. I shall not go into detail on that because of lack of time.
In the province of Manitoba the record speaks for itself. I was amazed at the efforts the Liberal party made to win the Selkirk

The Address-Mr. Regier by-election. I understand one cabinet minister was sent in for a repeat performance. If he had been sent in once more the Liberal candidate might actually have lost his deposit. I also understand that 48 hours before the voters went to the polls they were told that the so-called payment on wheat would be 10 cents a bushel, and it would be paid out shortly after the by-election.
I would like to congratulate whoever is in charge of the Liberal party organization in Canada, for under his guidance the party made a tremendous effort to bolster their rapidly sinking prestige in the province of Manitoba. However, Manitoba is a little more progressive than a great many other parts of Canada. To the Liberal party I would say, "Your cause in Manitoba is completely hopeless. In addition, it will require another five to ten years before you begin to grow again in British Columbia, while in Alberta there is no hope for you at all, and even less in Saskatchewan. Your efforts to hold Manitoba will be completely fruitless."
I spent a good deal of time in Saskatchewan, and I found the people there taking this terrible trimming over the crop failure in their usual manner. However, they are bitterly disappointed over the failure of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to come through with the dam. The yarn going around Saskatchewan is that the Minister of Agriculture has made up his mind that before he leaves the political scene he is going to do everything he can to obtain the dam, and thus not go down in history as a political failure. In fact, we are told in Saskatchewan that at every cabinet meeting all the Minister of Agriculture speaks about is the dam, and the other cabinet ministers are getting to the point where they say, "Damn the Minister of Agriculture, damn the dam, and damn all Saskatchewan anyhow".
Then we come to the province of Alberta, and there we find a rather fluid situation in regard to political life. The people there are rapidly becoming disillusioned with their present government, particularly when they see a clergyman, a humble servant of the people, placed in charge of one of the most important government departments and end up, after leaving the political scene, as the head of a company which threatens to become one of the biggest private utility companies in Canada. When they see that they begin to wonder.
The government there promised to do away with all tax on land, but taxes on land have been gradually rising despite the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars of oil revenue

has gone into the provincial coffers. In the light of these facts the people cannot understand why their taxes continue to increase.
We have not a Liberal organization in Alberta worthy of the name. We have some Liberal members in the legislature, but they have no organization behind them. I would point out, though, that the C.C.F. in Alberta has a vital, wide-awake, active organization, and the leader of the Social Credit party might get the shock of his life before six more months have passed. In fact, we might have to rearrange the seating in this house before very long.
Coming now to the province of British Columbia, which might be described as the garden of Eden-I had "paradise" in my notes but I had to change that because of our present government there and because I remembered, Mr. Speaker, that the garden of Eden was not a perfect place; there was an influence there. However, coming back to British Columbia I believe that politically it has made greater advances than any other province in Canada in that we have finally consolidated a two-party system. Hon. members might take a look at today's Hansard and read how the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) made a powerful plea on behalf of the rights of the provincial government in British Columbia. His was nothing more than an attempt to get that government off the hook in its fight over power with the federal government, which it is rapidly losing.
They were elected as the free enterprise party. They told the farmers there that the reason they were not getting more for their milk was because the government was intervening in the milk situation. They told people in the urban areas, "You are paying too much for your milk. Take the government out of the milk business. Government in business is a bad thing. It is Marxian and basically bad." The farmers and the urban dwellers fell for it, but I am still paying 22 cents per quart for my milk. Farmers in the Fraser valley of British Columbia have lost untold hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of this policy, and now they are beginning to worry about it. They have managed to get a commission appointed and the "Socreds" are worrying about how they can save face and again sneak back into the milk business.
I was pleased to note that apparently the leader of the Social Credit party pleaded yesterday for orderly marketing for farm produce. Last year I was also pleased to hear him speak in favour of abolishing tolls on bridges. I hope that he can somehow

exercise some restraint and stop the wild antics of those who are nothing but smart-aleck politicians, who lead a rather reluctant Social Credit group in the house in Victoria.
Then we have the new Conservative party there, and it has a most useful role to play. I have no objection to the Conservative party. I have every admiration for it. It has a necessary part to play in a democracy. It is the party of consolidation, while the C.C.F. party is the party of progress. Let the Conservative party now call itself "Socred" or even "Union Nationale". It is immaterial, and it is all right with me. It has a political function to perform. However, what I do object to is this Liberal party that is neither here nor there, that is not a free enterprise party and is not socialistically inclined. It is based on nothing, I repeat, except the welfare of the Liberal party. That will come to an end when economic circumstances change and the people demand a government that believes in action. They will either elect the right wing or the left wing, and I can forecast a split right down the middle in the membership across the way.
Who the new leader of the right wing will be I do not know. I hear that sparring for the position is going on, and that a number of very aggressive and fairly young individuals are concerned. It is my firm conviction that the Liberal party in British Columbia has disappeared as a political force. The main reason, I am verily beginning to believe, is that the bottom of the Fraser river is paved with the gold and studded with the diamonds of Liberal political patronage. We had a Fraser river gold rush many years ago, and it is said that history has a way of repeating itself. This patronage and pork barrel politics were the main reason for the wiping out of the Liberal government in Saskatchewan, and this also holds true for the province of British Columbia. There is an answer to the situation. The people do not know what is going on and the opposition, apparently, has no place in government. I sometimes wonder if we have any place. I sometimes even wonder why the private Liberal members of parliament sitting around and behind the cabinet ministers are here at all. They have no influence on the government, and I do not know why they are here.
This Canada of ours is definitely ruled by a cabinet that has all the facilities at its command to defend its position, right or wrong. I fully endorse the plea made by the Conservatives some time ago, about which I read in the newspapers, that greater facilities be made available to the opposition members so
The Address-Mr. Regier they can do their work properly. When I referred to the Fraser river you might think that I exaggerated. Maybe I did, but how am I to know? What means are available to me to find out whether or not the half a million dollars for this project and the $2 million for that project are a waste of money?
When the cabinet wants to defend its position with regard to expenditures on certain public works it has all research facilities available. The matter has become so serious that after the last election there were articles in certain newspapers pointing out that Canada was beginning to have a one-party government. To anyone who has sat in the galleries of the house over a period of years I think it must be very obvious that we are rapidly approaching the day, if this situation carries on much longer and opposition members are unable to do too much about it, when not only will we have a bipartisan foreign policy, as we sometimes do, but all our policies will be bipartisan, and that would be a sad day for the cause of democracy.
I should like to endorse what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) with regard to the trans-Canada highway and the assumption of responsibility by the federal government for all major highways in Canada. I think the time is long overdue when municipal and provincial taxpayers should be afforded some measure of relief from the burden of taxation brought about by road construction and maintenance. Money is so urgently needed for municipal development that we cannot longer afford to see so much of the income of the lower levels of government being used for road building.
I should like also to advocate that a committee of the house be established, or even a royal commission, to investigate all expenditures of the Department of National Defence and the Department of Defence Production since the end of the war. I think the most amazing information would be revealed. That is another place where the opposition is handicapped. I would say that even the Liberal members who are not in the cabinet are severely handicapped in fulfilling their function in the house. I know that the Department of National Defence has wasted $300,000 in my riding in the purchase of a swamp, land that is absolutely useless for the purpose for which it was bought. Somebody made a mistake. I am not saying that the government must necessarily be condemned for a mistake, but they spent $300,000 for land on which to build an army supply depot, and the land turned out to have no bottom to it. At least, no bottom has been found so far, and the land is most unsuited for that purpose.
124	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Leboe


Mr. Argue:: No horses on the payroll.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Erhart Regier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Casileden:: They sank the horses in the middle of the swamp.


Hazen Robert Argue: What's a million dollars?


Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, in rising on this occasion to speak on behalf of my constituents I am sure they would want me to convey to you and to the members of the house their best wishes for the coming year. I should also like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I also congratulate the new members of parliament for giving up all those things with which they were occupied previous to coming here and giving of themselves to the nation's business.
Naturally there were some disappointments last year, but as we look back we have reason to believe that there was much for which to be thankful. Many of our disappointments were brought about by things beyond our control. Weather conditions in the part of my riding where I live were very bad so far as the production of logs and lumber is concerned. Across Canada we find that conditions for agriculture were anything but good.
Dealing with British Columbia, and more particularly with the riding of Cariboo in which I am most interested, we find it is expected that tenders will be called for the Dawson Creek federal building early this year. For a good many years we have been looking forward to the construction of this building, and I am certain that the people of that area appreciate a great deal the action that is being taken this year.
Whilst speaking in connection with the Dawson Creek area, I should like to mention that we are pleased to hear that the telephone situation will be cleared up within the next 18 months, and that a dial system will be introduced in Dawson Creek. I should like to recommend at this time, in connection with improvements in the Dawson Creek area, that an unattended automatic set-up for Pouce Coupe be considered, which would give a 24-hour service from that town into the central point of Dawson Creek.
I should like to congratulate the government on the appointment of the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) because I believe that, as well as having great ability, he has many other admirable qualities. We are looking forward to seeing some good results from his department.


The provincial government of British Columbia has contributed a great deal to the welfare of our people. Among the things that interest me most is the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern from Squamish to Vancouver. This extension, as you perhaps know, is well under way. It is expected that the extension from Prince George to Fort St. John will be under way next year. I understand that tenders for the construction of the first 65 miles will be called some time early in February.
As a result of the confidence in the British Columbia government there has been a great deal of private investment throughout the whole province. This sometimes brings with it circumstances which cause the government a bit of concern. Because of the rapid expansion, the educational facilities in the province, as elsewhere in Canada, can hardly keep pace with the growth in population.
In the northern part of my constituency there is an increased interest in gas and oil exploration. The proposed gas line from Fort St. John to Vancouver and to the inland empire of the Pacific northwest in the United States brings a great deal of hope for our people throughout the length and breadth of the Cariboo riding because we expect many new secondary industries will be brought into being.
I noticed that in the Vancouver Sun of January 3, in speaking about this development, Frank Walden, who is a staff writer for the Vancouver Sun had this to say:
The year 1954 was as action-packed from a Social Credit government's point of view, as the violent election years of 1952 and 1953. The shouting was not perhaps as loud, but more, in fact a good deal, was accomplished.
Again on the economic side, I may say that British Columbia bonds sold for the highest price ever in the eastern money markets. Frobisher posted with the government a colossal $2,500,000 bond and prepared to build an immense hydrochemical empire in the northern section of British Columbia. Alcan announced another $45 million expansion program ahead of schedule. There is every reason for the people of British Columbia to be optimistic, and we expect that as time goes on a much greater development will take place within the province.
The point I should like to make at this time is that all these developments are going to add substantially to the federal government's revenues. Under the tax agreements we find that the greater the development, naturally the more money the federal government is going to collect. We feel, therefore, that there are certain responsibilities the federal government must meet in connection

with collecting that additional revenue from British Columbia. We would expect the federal government to take steps to assist the province to continue this rapid development in order that the people of Canada including those of British Columbia may enjoy a higher standard of living and a greater Canada.
The people of British Columbia are active and enterprising, and are much encouraged by the sound policy of the British Columbia government, which is noted for being a government that talks less and does more. That this feeling of optimism is growing there is no doubt. We do feel that there should be no encroachment upon provincial rights by the federal government in anything that is done.
Speaking last session regarding transportation facilities I mentioned the highway problem, as recorded at page 180 of Hansard for November 19, 1953. But before dealing with the problem of highways, I should like to mention one matter of interest not only to the people in that part of British Columbia from which I come but also to all the people of Canada. We find we have a situation in which there are two large Canadian railroads being subsidized by the taxpayers of Canada. These subsidies put the railways in a position where they can set rates without regard to whether or not they lose money. As long as the railways are being subsidized, there is no reason why the railway company could not carry freight for nothing in order to meet competition.
The trucking problem has been brought to my attention, and the position of the trucking company is becoming hopeless. It might be said by some that the trucking business is being subsidized, but I think that is a long way from the truth. The trucking industry pays a tax of 10 cents per gallon on gasoline and licence fees for the use of the highways. These highways are needed for the lighter traffic as well as for heavy loads on the short hauls on which the railways are not able to give service.
I should like to quote some figures which are very revealing in connection with freight rates and agreed charges. I find that according to the Canadian freight classification there is a fourth class rate of $2.98 against an agreed charge of $2.09, which is being charged for first class freight. I see that the first class freight rate is $5.04, according to the Canadian freight classification. These figures speak for themselves. Again referring to the figures we see that from Edmonton to McBride, a distance of 350 miles, the second class freight rate is $2.26. From Vancouver to Dawson Creek, a distance of 1,400 miles, the first class freight rate under agreed charges
The Address-Mr. Leboe is $2.09, or 17 cents less to bring freight 1,400 miles than to take the same freight 350 miles, where there is no trucking competition. I think this situation is grossly unfair and demands the immediate attention of the government.
The whole rate problem must be brought under review. There is no doubt in the world that in a pioneering country especially-and perhaps I need not say "especially"-this is necessary. I am familiar particularly with that part of the trucking industry which serves the constituency of Cariboo. I know that many hundreds of miles of that constituency are served only by trucking. If we have a situation where subsidized railways can cut the rates and take the long hauls away from that trucking industry, it will throw it into a position where it cannot take care of local freight, either. We need the trucking industry, and we must do something to protect it from the ravages of subsidized railways that can cut rates down to nothing, if necessary-because it makes no difference to them, so long as the taxpayer is going to meet the difference, in the final analysis.
I come now to a matter which has been discussed by at least four members so far at this session, and that is the question of federal participation in the construction of arterial highways. I believe that so long as the federal government is collecting the bulk of the taxes from the people in the provinces of Canada, more should be done in connection with the highways. As I said before, this could be linked with the defence program. I believe the time has come when the government should take a close look at the highway situation in Canada, particularly in the light of what is going on in our neighbouring country to the south. We find that United States expenditures planned for the next number of years amount to more than $100 billion. In addition they have planned for $8 billion to be spent on toll roads for the northern and central parts of that country.
In view of the great extension of the roads they already have in that country-and the roads now going to be built are termed as necessary, I understand, under the defence program-we in Canada must surely realize that we are falling far behind in our program of road building. I noticed in an editorial in the Edmonton Journal of November 3, 1954, a heading "Military Loads and Roads." One paragraph in the editorial states:
Last year, provincial highways minister Gordon Taylor requested federal aid in the construction of what would be military traffic arteries in this province. He said that the provinces should not be expected to build highways which would carry heavy military traffic in the event of an attack on
!26	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Leboe this country. Such traffic would require roads of a very high standard of construction to ensure mobility. The federal government rejected this request when it was made in concert by the western provinces. Nevertheless, it has been apprised of the situation in warnings by Colonel J. R. B. Jones, chief engineer of the Canadian army, of the general inadequacy of Canadian highways for military requirements.
Hon. George Prudham is opposed to construction of military highways outward from Edmonton as he does not think they will ever be needed for such use. It would be well for him to seek instruction from experts of the defence department on this vital subject.
I would not feel justified in stressing the need for highways so much were it not for the fact that we realize the development of any country depends upon its highway and transportation facilities. I would urge this government to take another look at the whole highways situation with a view to providing more aid to the provinces in that regard.
In this connection we do not advocate an increase in the national debt to do the job. I believe the Bank of Canada could be made a bank of issue; and the Bank of Canada as a bank of issue could monetize our national liquid assets, part of the difference between national income and national production. By so doing, without increasing the national debt and without necessarily paying any interest on the money issued, it could bring about a situation where surplus consumer goods not being bought today could be put into the hands of the unemployed. Those people could be set to work to build these badly needed highways. In this way there would be no increase in the national debt. We would only be using liquid assets we already have in the form of consumer goods.
This could apply, of course, to many other phases of government. At the moment I think particularly of our senior citizens and all the other recipients of social assistance who are so badly in need of help, which situation we all recognize.
We have heard a good deal about the unemployment situation, and I am not going to say much about it. However, I do go along with those who advocate bringing about a situation in Canada where we do not have to give out supplementary benefits, but who urge rather that we have a situation under which those who want to work would have the opportunity to do so. We know this is a young country and that there is much to do. We know we have the machines to do it; we have the manpower. Therefore there is no reason in the world why, with the manpower and the machines, the work could not be done, since we have the liquid assets in the form of consumer goods that need to be consumed.


The government of British Columbia took action in connection with the unemployment situation in that province, taking the position that if the federal government was not going to give assistance, then the provincial government would not see the people left without the means of livelihood.
One feature that affects my constituency particularly is that contracts for part of the construction on the Pacific Great Eastern Railway have been brought forward three or four months so that by the spring breakup in the lumbering industry in the Prince George area the work will be getting under way, so as to relieve the unemployment situation during the spring lay-off period. These are situations in which the government is active in looking after its people, and I feel very certain that they are going a long way in their policies to bring about better federal and provincial relations.
We must give more autonomy to the provinces rather than putting the autonomy all in the federal government. We must get back to bringing the government closer to the people so the people of this land will have a closer contact with the government, and therefore be able to let their voices be heard much more often than in the past. We must get back to the position where people can get their needs before the government. The further away we get from the municipal and provincial level the harder it is going to be for the people of Canada to get any action on problems that require government attention.
I do not want to speak too long. In closing I wish to say that I was interested to note that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam (Mr. Regier) was attempting to pick to pieces, as it were, the British Columbia government. I should like to remind him that for 17 years or so the C.C.F. were in opposition, but the people of British Columbia turned them down at the polls when the time came to elect a government other than the Liberal government that was in power at that time.


George Hugh Castleden: On the transferable vote.


Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) and to add my welcome to the new members who were elected at the by-elections last fall.
I of course am a member from what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) described as a backward province, namely New Brunswick, in which he said a new house was a rarity. I am sure the places he visited would not be at all

pleased to hear him say that today; and I can assure him, even without visiting his riding, that we have more new houses in Westmorland county than he has in his riding, because last year he rose in his place in this house during a debate on housing and said that many people in his riding were living in tarpaper shacks, to which at the time the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond (Mr. Goode) objected.
I had intended to say something during my speech about the dredging of a harbour down in New Brunswick, Pointe du Chene harbour, which is part of my responsibility. However, the hon. member, who conducted one of the quickest national surveys I have ever heard of, took it upon himself to take an interest in that harbour in Westmorland county, New Brunswick. I should like to read an extract from the Moncton Transcript of June 23, 1954:
Erhart Regier, C.C.F. member of parliament for Burnaby-Coquitlam, British Columbia, in a two-day speaking tour of Westmorland county was critical of the Liberal government and what he calls "their do-nothing" attitude.
Speaking last night at Sackville and the evening before at Petitcodiac Mr. Regier referred to the needed dredging of Point du Chene channel and charged that the government would do nothing until pressed by united action from several directions.
I have pressed for the dredging of that channel from one direction. That is all I can do. I was looking forward at this session to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam pressing for it from several directions; but apparently since leaving Westmorland he has lost interest in the dredging of this channel. The newspaper report of his speech goes on to say:
He said that the people of British Columbia would be pleased to see federal funds spent on the rehabilitation of the maritime economic life as they realize that the prosperity of Canada as a whole depended on the well-being of all parts of the nation.
In that regard he apparently is speaking for the government of British Columbia. Today he was not a bit satisfied with the way the government of British Columbia was running that province. I was startled to hear him pick apart the Social Credit government, particularly after speaking for them. I can also tell him that in New Brunswick the people sometimes do change their minds politically. They did that a year or two ago and elected a Progressive Conservative government. However, since the C.C.F. party was organized in New Brunswick their vote has steadily declined. In Westmorland county the last candidate received about half as many votes as he did four years previously. Socialism in Westmorland county is definitely on its way out.
The Address-Mr. H. J. Murphy


An hon. Member:: As it is everywhere else.


Henry Joseph Murphy: I tell the house that there is no ground at all for the hon. member's remark to the effect that the people of New Brunswick would support a socialist government or a socialist party. My advice to him, to paraphrase an old saying, would be: Stay west, young man, stay west.
I would like to bring greetings to the house from Westmorland county and tell the hon. members that a new star is rising in the east in the person of the newly elected leader of the Liberal party, Mr. Taylor, about whom you will hear more in a few years when he becomes premier of our province.


Mr. Brooks:: A pretty dim star.


Henry Joseph Murphy: At the last session I spoke on the Chignecto canal, or the eastern extension of the St. Lawrence seaway. As has been suggested, it can be properly called the eastern passage. I intend to deal with this matter again today, but before I do so I should like to mention other matters which as the representative of Westmorland county I have been asked to bring to the attention of the house.
Firstly, in the centre of Westmorland county is the largest railway centre east of Montreal. It is the headquarters for the Atlantic division, and it is where the repair shops are located. The economic life of my district reacts quickly to any changes in the Canadian National Railways, that is to say, any increase or decrease in the staff of the Canadian National Railways, Atlantic division. To us in New Brunswick this transportation system is more than a business to be run on a profit and loss basis as private enterprise. Separated as we are from the rest of Canada by the state of Maine, it means that we have to travel through an entire state of a foreign country, or around it, to do business with the rest of the Dominion of Canada.
The Canadian National Railways is a public utility, and therefore cannot be considered in relation to the province of New Brunswick in the same light as a private enterprise. The repair shops in Moncton repair and manufacture parts for the entire system, and for a number of years the entire economy of my constituency has been built around these shops. It is most unfair to reduce the staff because of a change-over from steam locomotives to diesels. These tradesmen have been put out of work, and there is no other industry in that locality to which they can turn for employment.
I have been asked by the union representatives in Moncton to protest the lay-offs in the Atlantic region. This request has been made
128	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. H. J. Murphy also by the Canadian National war veterans' association.	I am more than pleased to
endorse their stand. I suggest that there should be an investigation into the Atlantic region of the Canadian National Railways in an effort to find a means of providing full employment for the railway workers in the maritimes.
Since I spoke last in this house urging the construction of a Chignecto canal or eastern passage, many organizations and citizens have asked that the construction of this canal be started at once. Last summer the maritimes marine workmen's federation, meeting in Sydney, adopted a resolution calling upon the governments of the four Atlantic provinces to demand that the federal government make an immediate start on the construction of a Chignecto canal across the isthmus between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Last summer the New Brunswick federation of labour, meeting in Bathurst, New Brunswick, asked for the immediate construction of this isthmus project. The union of municipalities, representing every city, town and county in the entire province of New Brunswick, unanimously supported by resolution the construction of a Chignecto canal. In addition to the groups I have mentioned there are 80-odd other organizations which have endorsed this project.
In September, 1954, the Maritime Advocate published an article which would seem to be a boiling down of the sentiments of the citizens of the district in relation to the construction of a Chignecto canal. This reads:
It strikes me that it is now or never so far as the Chignecto canal is concerned. The St. Lawrence seaway, which will undoubtedly be detrimental to the Atlantic provinces, is going ahead no matter what happens. It is up to the federal government to construct the Chignecto canal which will do a great deal to allay the fears of maritime people that the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway will prove a big setback for the Atlantic provinces. Now is the time for all the federal members from Atlantic provinces to stand together, irrespective of party politics. It is now or never. If there is not concerted action in favour of the construction of the Chignecto canal now then we in the Atlantic provinces may as well give up the fight and stand with our hands out, praying for a few nickels from the wealthy tables of the central provinces.
In addition I have been sent a copy of a resolution adopted at the 54th annual meeting of the maritime provinces board of trade, reading as follows:
Whereas, during the last session, the Minister of Transport of the federal government expressed his views in the House of Commons that a study should be made into the feasibility of the construction of the Chignecto canal; and
Whereas, it is considered that the construction of the Chignecto canal could be linked with the development of electric power through utilization of bay


of Fundy tides and that this development could produce abundant low cost power which would greatly enhance the opportunity of attracting industries to these maritime provinces,
Therefore, be it resolved: that the maritime provinces board of trade, assembled in session at Halifax, Nova Scotia, this 4th day of October, 1954, urge the government of Canada to investigate at the earliest possible moment the feasibility of the construction of the Chignecto canal, at the same time keeping in mind the possibility of power development as an allied phase of any such construction.
Also in the same month the Atlantic regional employment committee of the unemployment insurance commission is reported in the Saint John Tele graph-Journal of August 29 as having passed a resolution in connection with the Chignecto canal, reading as follows:
The second resolution pointed out that a canal through the isthmus of Chignecto would prove "highly beneficial" to the maritime provinces and greatly expanding national economy.
Benefits of such a canal would be toward greater national defence, faster ocean communication and speedier means of shipping, the resolution continued.
"Creation of a canal piercing the Chignecto isthmus would seem complementary to the St. Lawrence and great lakes development now being undertaken by the federal government", the resolution said.
Points in favour of the canal are, according to the resolution, possibility of a number of starting points for convoys, greater ability on the part of the "western allies" to dispatch convoys from different points on the eastern Canadian coast, and effective deterrent to aggression and inevitable influence to Canadian and American industry by the mineral discoveries of the Ungava peninsula and Bathurst area.
The resolution declared also that advocates in the United States of the Passamaquoddy power development "have definitely maintained for some time that a Chignecto canal would have influence on industrial development in the Atlantic coast section of New England."
Last year I traced the history of the Chignecto canal back over a period of about 300 years. I pointed out that promises had been made by former governments. There had been times in our history when the construction of the Chignecto canal seemed to be very certain, but in the past not too much has been said about the power aspects of the Chignecto canal. It might be likened to the St. Lawrence seaway which is said to be a water route from central Canada to other countries of the world; but the consequent development of power which would be available to the central provinces is most important.
We in New Brunswick need cheap power. I believe a by-product of the construction of a Chignecto canal, if properly planned, would be a block of power which would improve the economic condition of our area. There have been many routes suggested for the canal, all of which are practical, but I am

not concerned so much with the route as with the acceptance of the principle of the construction of a canal to pierce the isthmus.
The construction of this canal would provide a short route in sheltered waters to the trading points in the bay of Fundy and in New England for the products of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. It would increase coastwise shipping between the gulf of St. Lawrence, the bay of Chaleur, Northumberland strait and the bay of Fundy. It would increase regular steamship sailings between the Atlantic provinces and central Canada. A Chignecto canal would make it convenient for vessels plying between Montreal and points on the Atlantic seaboard to call at ports not only in the bay of Fundy but in northern Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and northern New Brunswick, and enable them to load or discharge cargoes and passengers. It would revive native industries which flourished years ago, and it would create a new economy in the Atlantic provinces.
It may surprise many residents of Canada to know that four years after confederation the percentage of population employed in industry in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, was almost equal to the percentage of population similarly employed in Quebec and Ontario. Seventy-five years later, however, a tremendous change took place. Ontario and Quebec had been steadily enriched and their industrial employment average rose. In the Atlantic provinces there had not been an increase but a devastating decline. Incidentally, in that period New Brunswick dropped from first place to fourth among the five provinces.
Prior to confederation the maritime provinces were regarded as the most prosperous in British North America. New Brunswick, on a per capita basis, was the most industrialized of any of the provinces then comprising Canada. The lack of a Chignecto canal is one of the reasons our prosperity and industrial development have lagged far behind Quebec and Ontario. In 1871, of every five Canadian industrial workers, one was employed in the maritimes. In 1946 the ratio had dropped to one out of every 17. Again, in 1871 the industrial wage paid to the worker in New Brunswick was the highest in Canada. In 1946 that province had almost the lowest wage rate in Canada.
Besides the tremendous saving in shipping distances, the building of the canal would mean that many of the present small ports would be developed to carry on both a coastwise and an ocean-going business. The 50433-9
The Address-Mr. H. J. Murphy time then has come, after many attempts over the past 300 years, for the government to fulfil its confederation promise and build the Chignecto canal.
Before closing there is one other matter I would like to bring to the attention of the house, for it is a matter of serious concern to us in New Brunswick. That is the plight of our farmers. It is true that we have many successful farmers outside our larger towns and cities, most of them specializing in daily farm products such as liquid milk for the supply of these centres. But if you drive through Westmorland county and some of the adjoining counties you will see many abandoned farms with windows in the houses boarded up and the place left to rot. That is a terrible situation, and I would like to know of some way in which to remedy it. We have, of course, a Canadian farm loan board, but apparently that was designed more to assist the farmers of western and central Canada, and in my opinion it is not suited to the purpose of assisting the farmers in New Brunswick. To the best of my knowledge there was only one Canadian farm loan board application granted in Westmorland county last year. I may be wrong, but certainly there were not more than three or four.
In this connection I would like to point out, and it should be recognized in the regulations, that there are other types of farming in addition to those known in central and western Canada. In New Brunswick a man could have a farm close to the sea and during a few weeks of the year he could go down to the shore line and fish. This would provide him with a small cash income. In another district a farmer may have a wood lot at the back of his farm from which he cuts a certain amount of wood each year, in fact probably the same amount as his father and grandfather cut in their day. Out of that small supply of wood he makes another small cash income. In addition, part of his farm may be composed of rocky land on which nothing grows very well except small spruce and fir trees. Each year in the fall he thins them out for the Christmas tree trade. In fact in New Brunswick this has become quite an industry, and I am told that last fall nearly 10 million trees were shipped from that province.
The point I wish to make is that a farmer may farm his wood lot, he may farm his spruce and fir trees for the Christmas trade, or he may fish along the edge of his farm, but it appears that this type of farming is not to be recognized under the regulations
130	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Cavers of the Canadian farm loan board. The regulations should be broadened so that greater assistance may be given to the farmers in Westmorland county and all New Brunswick, and so drafted that it will be much easier than it is now for such farmers to obtain loans.
I shall not take up the time of the house to mention the many benefits we have received which have been provided by the Liberal party for the people of New Brunswick, but I do want to mention in closing that we are not as poor or as hard up as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam made out earlier today.


Mr. H. P. Cavers (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, not because it has become a customary practice to do so, but because of the excellent manner in which they acquitted themselves on Friday last.
We have been told that the hon. member for Verdun has an outstanding background as a scholar and a jurist in his native province. Those of us who come from the province of Ontario know the member for Trinity as a prominent athlete, an outstanding scholar and a notable member of the bar of this province. I am sure that both these members will represent the people of their constituencies in a manner that will do credit to themselves and to the provinces from which they come.
The past twelve months have brought many new obligations to Canada in the sphere of international affairs. Canada has assumed the responsibility of endeavouring to work out a satisfactory armistice in Indo-China during the past six months. Our representatives have attended conferences in London and Paris in order to bring about a European alliance and unite the countries of western Europe. We in Canada endeavoured to be a genial host to representatives who came to this country in connection with the Colombo plan conference. In all these projects our delegations have contributed their sincere and faithful efforts to maintain peace among men of good will.
It is traditional that representatives who come here and the people of Canada generally think very much alike as to what our position should be in the matter of international affairs. During the past summer I had the honour of being one of the delegation that attended the commonwealth parliamentary conference in Nairobi. One of the things noticeable there was that our delegates, regardless of their political affiliations
[Air. Alurphy (Westmorland).]

in Canada, all thought alike as far as the fundamentals of freedom, security and humanity were concerned. The Canadian people expect us to show the same united front in opposition to tyranny, oppression and aggression in dealing with international matters in this house. Canada is united at the present time as never before in her history in those things which are most important to the people of this country. This state of union in our country reflects credit on the wisdom, foresight and veracity of our national leaders both past and present.
The present administration has been responsible in the past for many measures of social reform, so it is not surprising to me to see reflected in the speech from the throne certain refinements to many of these social reforms. We must admit that there are certain patches of unemployment throughout the country. These matters require attention, and the people of Canada will be glad to know that amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act are being introduced this session at the earliest possible moment. These amendments will provide a measure of relief for those people who are unemployed. The scale of supplementary payments will be placed on a par with regular payments. Labour organizations throughout the country are looking forward to a general overhaul, as forecast, of the Unemployment Insurance Act itself.
As one of the members of the veterans affairs committee of this house, I was proud to learn that certain amendments were being introduced at this session dealing with the war veterans allowance. Veterans' groups throughout the country will welcome these proposed amendments. With the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan), I attended meetings of veterans' groups in the Niagara peninsula before coming here. I am sure these groups are not asking for the ultimate and that they will be satisfied with the increase in basic rates and the raising of the ceiling on permissible incomes which will be provided in the amendments to be submitted by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe).
I am pleased to note that some amendments will be made to the Blind Persons Act. I cannot think of a greater handicap any person can have than blindness. These blind persons bear their burdens cheerfully and admirably. During the past three months I have had occasion to visit the blind persons of our community. Many of them said to me that they find it most difficult to provide a normal existence for themselves. I should like to congratulate the Canadian National Institute for the Blind on providing some

education for leaders whose duty it is to supervise the activities of blind people and to plan entertainment and recreational facilities for them. Training courses in arts and crafts enable the blind to supplement their small pensions. We provide for them the opportunity to conduct curio booths and newsstands in our public buddings, railway depots and hospital foyers.
If these people have the industry, initiative and courage to develop their talents, and if they have the perseverance and ability to earn small incomes, I believe they should be given some special preferment in the matter of their earnings. Although it may not be provided in the present amendments, I look forward to the day when blind persons may be able to accept pensions without the imposition of a means test at all.
I was happy to note that the administration intends to embark on a satisfactory policy of public works. The people of St. Catharines, whom I have the honour to represent, are gratified that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) has seen fit to provide a federal public building in that city. This accommodation is greatly needed in a community that has shown unusual expansion in the past decade. There is a great need for proper accommodation for federal offices in our community.
We feel that we have another public works project in our area that requires immediate attention. I refer to the clean-up of the old Welland canal. Three canals have been built across the face of the Niagara peninsula by federal governments during the past century. These canals were built to provide a more expeditious route for shipping to avoid the natural barrier at Niagara Falls. The unused Welland canal, which passes through Thorold, Merritton, St. Catharines and Port Dalhousie, has become an unsightly, pestilential cesspool. The municipal governments in the area have come to an agreement as to the method that should be followed in cleaning up this unsightly mess. They have decided to remove the locks, fill in the banks and narrow the channel.
I say the municipalities have come to an agreement. They have agreed on the method of construction. They have not agreed as to the proportion of cost, and it is hoped that the Department of Transport will be generous to these municipalities in its contribution toward the cost of construction. In addition to improving the general contour of the area, the project will provide useful employment for residents of the adjoining municipalities.
50433-9i
The Address-Mr. Cavers
I should like also to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) a difficulty which has arisen near the Welland canal. The present Welland ship canal is crossed by the Queen Elizabeth way in the township of Grantham at Homer. By reason of the fact that the bridge must be raised and lowered many times during the shipping season, frequent interruptions have caused great delay and confusion in the traffic which travels along the Queen Elizabeth way. I hope that engineers of the Department of Transport and the Ontario department of highways may devise some method which will relieve this confusion and avoid the bottleneck that now exists. It is a matter that requires the co-operation of the two levels of government. An early meeting, I hope, will be held when some of the residents of our area will discuss the matter in a more elaborate way with the Minister of Transport.
This is not a problem which concerns only the residents of my constituency, although they are directly affected. It is of indirect concern to the travelling public of many provinces of Canada, and many of our guests who come from several of the states of the union to the south.
During the past six weeks Canadian ministers of the crown have been engaged in endeavouring to get the United States of America and the United Kingdom to agree to certain provisions for the overhaul of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Great efforts have been made by the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who has attended negotiations in London' Washington and Geneva. While the efforts he has made have not met with the success we would like, I am convinced that the situation will clarify itself. Present reports coming from Washington indicate that the President and congress may be more amenable in the future. It was encouraging to hear the minister say that further efforts would be made to see if this agreement could be carried out. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has been quoted as saying that "the collapse of GATT would be the worst possible thing that could happen; it would be a catastrophe to the free world." It is our hope that an agreement may still be reached which will be mutually advantageous to ourselves and to all other member nations.
I should not allow this opportunity to pass without saying something about the proposal to amend the rules of this house. We heard the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) say yesterday that this subject would be handed to a special committee for discussion during this session. I am sure that the amendment of our rules would do much to expedite the
132	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Cavers conduct of business here. The Prime Minister endeavoured to give us some idea of his thinking in the matter when he arranged that the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne would speak on the same day as the address itself was delivered. This would indicate to me a desire on his part that we should make better use of the time at our disposal here.
It is my opinion that the speeches of private members should be limited to 20 minutes. I believe the proposal would be to limit speeches to 30 minutes.


An hon. Member:: You have spoken for 25 minutes now.


Harry Peter Cavers: I believe I have spoken for about 18 minutes. The Prime Minister and members of the cabinet, the leader and certain designated members of the opposition, the leader of the C.C.F. group and the leader of the Social Credit group might be given 40 minutes. It seems to me that the average member in this house could very well clarify his thoughts and present them within a period of 20 minutes. I believe also that a limited time could be allocated for the speech from the throne and the budget debate. This would not deprive any member of the opportunity to speak, but it would improve the quality of debate and shorten the length of the session.
I have addressed groups throughout my constituency on this subject in order to gain some idea of how our constituents feel about the matter. I have talked with others in private conversation. The Canadian people do not wish to lose respect for parliament, but they do feel we should conduct the affairs

of the nation in a businesslike and efficient manner and with reasonable dispatch. They ask us to give them an honest and conscientious administration of affairs. We can do this without long, laboured addresses in this chamber. When these amendments are presented, I feel it will be a step in the right direction, and the measure should receive support from all parts of the house.
I have been reminded that I have spoken for some time. I think I have now completed 20 minutes, so I thank you, gentlemen.


Mr. Hees:: As it is now ten minutes of six, may I move the adjournment of the debate?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreeable to hon. members?


Mr. Harris:: I have no particular objection, Mr. Speaker, but we have been wasting a lot of time adjourning before the hour. I think five minutes ought to be agreeable but when it is ten I think we ought to have the advantage of hearing what the hon. member would like to say.


William Earl Rowe: It is Wednesday night.
On motion of Mr. Hees the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Tomorrow, after orders of the day, we shall take second reading of the bill with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Act, and then revert to this debate.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 5.50 p.m.

Thursday, January 13, 1955