1956-06-26

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, June 26, 1956
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 26th June, at 9.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative).



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the representations which have been made in regard to the air station at Mount Hope, outside Hamilton, will the minister tell us whether there has been any reconsideration of the decision to disband that squadron, one with a well-remembered reputation and one which had been so well supported in that community?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in the decision.


George Alexander Drew: Can the Minister of National Defence indicate in what way the very elaborate and expensive establishment which has been created for the use of that squadron will now be used?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position yet to give any firm answer. I presume we will be discussing the matter with the Department of Transport in the usual way as we always do when we cease to operate a station ourselves.


George Alexander Drew: Has the Minister of National Defence not received a number of representations with regard to the disbandment of this squadron at Mount Hope?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Very few, Mr. Speaker. I may have a couple.
[Later]:
On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: I
should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence supplementary to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Has any provision been made to take care of the extremely important defence role being carried out by the squadron about to be disbanded? If so, what is the nature of the provision?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I clearly understand the hon. member's question. The work carried on by this squadron, as was the case with the work carried on by each of the auxiliary squadrons, was weighed, studied, and considered. The cost of maintaining the squadron and the alternative uses which might be made of the personnel of the squadron were also considered. The decision which was taken was based upon a consideration of all these factors. The existing air force units at Hamilton will benefit by the addition of a goodly number of personnel. The flying carried on by the Hamilton squadron has required the maintenance of a complete airport on the part of national defence at great cost, and because certain improvements had to be made it was decided-and I may say decided with some reluctance-that this squadron would have to be altered in character.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Can the minister state if he has received a telegram from the board of trade of Wawota, Saskatchewan, with respect to mail service and the condition arising out of the curtailment of train service and, if so, can the minister give assurance that satisfactory mail service will be re-established for the villages of Wawota, Windthorst and Kennedy?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, such a telegram has been received and authority has already been given

Inquiries of the Ministry to replace the curtailed train service by a road service so that delivery will continue on the same basis as previously.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport or in his absence to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the terrible and sorrowful accident that happened to the Venezuelan air liner, I wonder whether the Minister of Transport would consider revising the act having to do with civil aeronautics to provide that no dumping of gasoline shall be allowed while aircraft are in flight?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Acting Prime Minister):: In view of the absence of the minister I would suggest that this question be taken as notice.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister say whether the government intends to proceed with the legislation providing for a 20 per cent special excise tax on the gross advertising content of Canadian editions of United States magazines?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, last week I was asked the same question and I made the answer that I would have nothing to say on the subject until I introduced the resolution.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have in my hand an editorial, of which I sent you a copy, wherein, two weeks after a motion was decided by this house, you and with you the institution of parliament are still being attacked. To mention only a few of the terms used, you are referred to as "a crooked Speaker". You are compared to a bank robber. You are labelled "a selfseeking Liberal hack with the hide of a rhinoceros". You are accused of deliberately debasing an office.

To my mind this is an attack on our institution of parliament, and I am appealing to you, Mr. Speaker, to say whether some action cannot be taken to maintain or to restore, if it has been lost, public confidence in this institution.


Mr. Fleming:: Dissolve parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: I am pleased to inform the hon. member that, according to a principle that has already been laid down and expounded in this house by other members who have risen on questions of privilege, an attack against the Speaker is an attack against the whole house. As a matter of fact, an attack against one member of the house is an attack against the whole house. See citation 157, Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition. Hon. members have risen from time to time on a question of privilege affecting the honour of a member of the house and have suggested or indicated that some action should be taken by myself. If the hon. member looks at May, fifteenth edition, he will find that whenever action has been taken it has never been by the Speaker but by members of the house themselves. See May's fifteenth edition, pages 125 and 126, also pages 138 to 142. You can find in May's fifteenth edition only one instance where the Speaker has acted himself, and that was when an officer of the house under his own jurisdiction had been attacked, and he came forward and submitted the matter to the house. In all other cases members have taken action themselves.
I must say that it has been quite some time since members have taken action with respect to these matters. The last instance took place some time ago. See Journals, page 108, 1894, and Journals, page 370, 1906. The proper procedure, which I explained myself on at least two previous occasions in the last month-see Hansard, 1956, pages 3563-6 and pages 4528-31-is that a member who wishes some action to be taken proceeds to indicate what constitutes the question of privilege and concludes with a motion. See Hansard, volume III, 1929, pages 2790-7, and Beauchesne's third edition, citation 273. That motion being privileged it may either be considered immediately or may be considered at a time appointed by the house itself. Once the motion has been agreed upon, if it is in order, then a remedy may be applied. That is entirely in the hands of the house and not in mine.
That remedy may consist of calling the author of the article or the publisher of the newspaper to the bar of the house and asking him for an explanation and apology. That apology or explanation may be accepted by the house. If it is not accepted, then the

house may decide whatever punishment it deems advisable. Then it calls back the author of the article or the publisher of the newspaper to the bar of the house, and it is the duty of the Speaker to communicate to him what decision the house has reached. That decision may be a reprimand; it may be imprisonment. In certain cases it has been advocated that even a fine may be decided upon. That was the case in Australia not very long ago. That is the way in which these matters should be looked upon.


Mr. Donald D. Carrick (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the point of order?
I should like to ask you if the hon. gentleman, before taking the formal action you have indicated, should not consider whether or not the criticisms he has read arise out of the incidents in this house upon which this house has already passed judgment. You will recall, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member just to say that if a question of privilege is raised and it is not supported by a motion, there is nothing before the house and I would advise the hon. member not to pursue the point. He began by asking me a certain question. I would be pleased to tell him immediately that should that situation arise I shall have to deal with it when it comes up.


Donald D. Carrick: I am only asking you, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman should not take that into consideration before he takes the formal action that you have indicated. On a previous occasion you indicated that certain members of this house had used very extreme language with respect to the conduct of the officials of this house. It may be that this article would not go beyond the language that had been used in this house by some hon. members.



WESTERN FEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Garfield Gardiner: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Purdy) asked me two questions. The first one was:
Will the government take under consideration increasing the freight rate assistance on western feed grain to the Atlantic provinces in an amount equal to any freight rate increases?
The answer to that is contained in order in council P.C. 1955-138, paragraph (d) of which reads:
The rates of payment under paragraph (c) shall not be increased while this order is in effect irrespective of any increase in all rail through car lot rail freight rates which would result in the
Inquiries of the Ministry balance of such rate over the Montreal freight rate zone rate being higher than it is at the time this order becomes effective.
Then, in the letter which went out to the trade, there is this:
The administration thinks that dealers will understand that no increase in rates of payment under the freight assistance policy by virtue of the increase in all rail freight rates will be made, but anyone who is in doubt should get in touch with us as soon as possible so that a clear understanding will prevail before the rail freight rates are increased.
I think it has already been indicated what the government's decision is in the matter and there is nothing more I can say on that point.


Mr. Brooks:: May I ask the date of the letter the minister is quoting?


James Garfield Gardiner: The date of the letter is June 18, 1956.
The other question is this:
Having regard to the motion of the Minister of Public Works, who I believe is Acting Minister of Agriculture, will an opportunity be given to general agriculture to present their problems before the committee on agriculture and colonization?
Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is generally understood that any group that desired to make representation to the committee on agriculture and colonization would say so and the representation would be considered by the government and the house. The present position of the government is that we do have a conference every December to which all those who are interested in agriculture, including all the departments of agriculture, are invited. Up to now all matters that would likely be presented to the agriculture committee have been discussed there.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister regarding any possible change in government policy toward the construction of the South Saskatchewan dam. Has the federal government now decided that the building of the South Saskatchewan dam would be in the national interest? Has the government made any offer to Saskatchewan as to the terms on which it would agree to proceed with such construction?


James Garfield Gardiner: As Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, I shall take that as notice and refer it to the Prime Minister on his return.


Hazen Robert Argue: The answer is no.
5380	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform


Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has he recommended any change in the policy of the government in connection with the South Saskatchewan dam?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for me to recommend any change. I am the first person who ever recommended the building of it, and I am still recommending it.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Edward Harris: Yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asked a question with respect to the damage caused the supply ship C. D. Howe in Montreal on Sunday morning. There was damage done to about 15 or 20 tons of general cargo. The fire occurred in No. 2 deck area early Sunday morning, and was quickly brought under control. Loading operations had been completed for the dispatch of the vessel to northern areas when the fire broke out. The delay in sailing is one day, I am informed, and apparently no damage has been done other than to the 15 tons of general cargo. None of the mail has been disturbed and the rest of the cargo is intact, so there will be only a slight delay in the vessel leaving Montreal.

The house resumed, from Monday, June 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, when I rose last evening and attempted to adjourn the debate at five minutes to ten I felt that I was in a position somewhat similar to that of the hon. member for Broadview on Friday, when he attempted to adjourn the debate at ten minutes to six. I, of course, wanted to do some research and gather more material. I suspect the hon. member for Broadview wanted to let the Prime Minister age another couple of hours so he would have something to talk about.


Mr. McGregor:: That is pretty flat.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Perhaps the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) would have filled in, but I was not disposed to accept his kind offer. When the Leader of the Opposition introduced the motion which


we are now debating he used these words, as found on page 5330 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, on a supply motion it is particularly appropriate-
I want you to note the word "appropriate," Mr. Speaker.
-at this time that I should refer to the discussions that have already taken place here and their effect upon our present position in this house. I think it is the correct time to express our belief that this government has lost any moral right to govern this country.
I say at this point that if there has been any immorality in action during this session in this house it has been on the part of the official opposition. The Leader of the Opposition went on to say:
We all know how precedents were broken in this house in a debate which took place not long ago. There was some discussion on Friday last about whether or not the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) had used the words in a television interview, "We violated the rules''.
I am sure if the Minister of Trade and Commerce said anything of that nature what he meant to say was, "We violated no rules"; or he meant to say, and should have said, "We applied the rules". The opposition do not seem to be able to see any difference between applying the rules and violating the rules. The Leader of the Opposition went on for over half a page and discussed proceedings in this house with respect to the rules and sought to indicate that the government, and the government only, had violated the rules. He said further, on page 5331:
I am not going to say more except to repeat that the important thing is not that he did say the words; the important thing is that having said them he denied to this house that he did. It is only in keeping with many of the things that have happened.
All this is an attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to justify the motion he has brought before the house to dissolve the house. So far as his comments are concerned, that was as far as he went. Then he proceeded to attack the other place.
It has been said in the debate on the question to which he referred earlier, namely the debate on the pipe line, that the remarks have not been relevant and have been off the normal course of debate. I do not believe this party can be accused of such a type of debate. The opposition have tried to indicate that we have attacked the rules of the house and that we are undermining the pillars of democracy. From what has taken place so far I know that the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition generally, because they have been unable to force their will upon the majority, have moved on to a smaller group, the officials of the house, and have attempted to destroy

them. That was not possible, and they have now moved on to the Senate and have attempted to destroy the other place. If there are destroyers of parliamentary and democratic systems in this house they are on the benches on the other side of the house.


An hon. Member:: What a joke after your performance.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I wish to prove that the violations of the rules have been entirely on the opposite side and not on this side of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: May I refer for a moment to the discussion of order we had last night. The hon. member will recall that when he indicated that he wanted to refer to proceedings that took place in this house during a debate that has already been concluded I indicated to him, as I indicated to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), that the rules do not provide for such a course to be followed. I had to say if hon. members prior to his taking the floor had themselves referred to previous proceedings already disposed of, it did not give another hon. member the right to do so.
I must repeat what I said last evening and refer the hon. member to the citations in Beauchesne's third edition (see Beauchesne's third edition, citations 244, 245, 246 (a), (k* which I quoted last evening, and ask him to address himself to subjects which have to do with the calling of a general election and as much as possible in line with the subject matter as it was introduced by the mover of the amendment to the motion to go into supply. I understand the difficulties of the situation, and it is only by hon. members co-operating with the Chair that we can achieve the results that should be achieved under the rules.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not wish in any way to encroach upon your good will or the rules of the house, but I submit that when the Leader of the Opposition introduced the motion he said:
... I should refer to the discussions that have already taken place here and their effect upon our present position in this house.
From there on during his entire address he referred to matters that had taken place in this house of recent date; and for me to find anything else to discuss and remain within the rules of the house would be extremely difficult. Last evening Your Honour said:
It appears to me that if we are to follow the subjects that have been introduced so far during the debate, which is supposed to be one on a specific grievance, we can speak about Senate reform, we can speak about proceedings in this house and the proceedings in the Senate on the
Request for Election and Senate Reform
pipe-line bill, we can speak on all the projects which are of interest to the maritime provinces-
And so on. I feel quite sure that when he introduced this motion the Leader of the Opposition was referring to incidents in this house. I simply say that if we are in a position that requires dissolution, and if it is because the rules of the house have been violated, I would like to point out that on May 31 the rules were violated and broken by the opposition seven times and I have material here with which I can prove that.
If I am not allowed to do that I shall bow to your ruling, but I feel that in all justice I should be allowed to say why I feel that the house is not in such a position as to require dissolution, and certainly if it is it is not due to any action on the part of the government supporters.


Mr. Speaker:: I say immediately that I know the difficulty of the position because of certain pronouncements that were made. That does not alter the fact that the rules are exactly as I have stated. We are not supposed to refer to or reflect upon past proceedings.
There were proceedings in a certain debate which has ended. As a matter of fact the legislation that was then under discussion has become the law of the land. There were also proceedings that took place on Thursday, May 31, and Friday, June 1, which, as the hon. member knows, consisted in large part of a motion of censure against myself, which has also been voted by the house on June 8. If the hon. member wishes to deal specifically with either the proceedings in the pipe-line debate or the proceedings which were the subject of censure against myself, he will be not only referring to a previous debate already concluded but also reflecting upon proceedings of the house.
I realize the difficulty, and I do not mind at all, as far as I am concerned, if hon. members generally wish to have the rules dispensed with in respect to this particular debate. In citation 107 of Beauchesne's third edition I find the following:
In all matters of doubt, the Speaker will consider attentively the opinions of members of experience, or sometimes, instead of expressing his opinion on either side, may ask instructions from the house or reserve his decision on the point in discussion, or suggest that the house may, if it think proper, dispense with the rule in a particular case. In doubtful cases, he will be largely guided by circumstances.
If hon. members insist on discussing previous proceedings already disposed of, I am in their hands and they may make their own decision.
5382	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling with great respect and I submit to the Leader of the Opposition that he might follow my example.
The motion before us is one to dissolve the house. The only real argument that has been put up by the official opposition as to why we should dissolve the house is that undoubtedly they could win a general election. Apparently the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) has 99-9 per cent of the vote corralled in the maritimes. Others seem to have the same type of stranglehold, through their distortion of what took place in the house, and feel that is good reason to have a general election. While this distortion of the facts is still widespread, I think we should take the time to let the actual facts be known before calling a general election.
There are important items on the order paper that should commend themselves to the Leader of the Opposition and to the leader of the C.C.F. party. One is what we believe to be an excellent arrangement with the provinces for a tax-rental agreement; another is provision for assistance to unemployed who do not otherwise receive assistance under the Unemployment Insurance Act. There are many pieces of legislation that are of importance to the country.
I think the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. party should take these under consideration, rather than attempt to do something which will be particularly beneficial to their own political parties.
Since I have been unable to show why I believe the opposition parties violated the rules at least seven times in less than that many hours, I shall refer to something that took place in the debate yesterday. The leader of the C.C.F. party, answering an interjection by myself, at the time he was attempting to distort the facts as he has in the past, saying that we were responsible for the breaking of the rules-


Mr. Campbell:: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon.
member for The Battlefords is rising on a point of privilege?


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: On a point of privilege. The hon. member-has just said that the member for Rosetown-Biggar had distorted the facts yesterday as he had done in the past. I think that should be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: I am glad the hon. member rose, because I did not know whether he noticed but I suspected the hon. member for Kootenay East had said some words to that effect. If my recollection is right the


hon. member for Kootenay East said, "The member for Rosetown-Biggar attempted to distort the facts as he has done in the past."


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: I do not think he used the word "attempted".


An hon. Member:: Yes, he did.


Mr. Speaker:: Even if he used that word I do not think the hon. member for Kootenay East should accuse any other hon. member of attempting to distort the facts.


Mr. Trainor:: On a point of order, I think the hon. member only intimated that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was distorting the facts as he saw them. That is not necessarily distorting the facts.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and various members of the house who have assisted me in this matter.


Mr. Nicholson:: Have you withdrawn?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am-


Mr. Speaker:: I am grateful to the hon. member for Winnipeg South for having given his own interpretation of the expression, but I think I shall have to depend on the one I give to it myself. I should like the hon. member for Kootenay East to indicate that he had no intention whatever of accusing the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar of deliberately distorting the facts in this house.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Well, Mr. Speaker, in my
opinion they were not the facts.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: I insist that the hon. member withdraw that statement.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I interjected and said that the opposition had broken the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not difficult to conclude an incident of this kind. It is just as simple as this. An hon. member who has used an expression which may be offensive merely has to say, "If I have offended any hon. member, I withdraw the expression." It is just as simple as that.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the assertion if it is in any way offensive. As a matter of fact I withdraw without qualification. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had this to say, as found at page 5340 of Hansard:
I have no doubt that his remarks stem back to some of his background in the past-
I did not hear him say "party solidarity", but it appears in Hansard and apparently that is what he said. The hon. member went on to say:
My hon. friend knows to what I am referring. It stems from some of his background in the past.

I do not know to what the hon. member refers. I was born of humble parents, and I was born in the United States. That may be a crime in the minds of some of the members of the opposition these days, but it was simply an accident of fate and I take no responsibility for it. But since attaining the age of 16, when I was required to earn my own living, I take responsibility for everything I have done. Previous to reaching the age of 21 I became an adherent of the Liberal party and I have not deviated from that course to this moment. I have belonged to the one church and have had one spouse. I am in complete ignorance as to what the hon. member meant by my background.
Since the hon. member is not here and able to supply me with that information, may I say that there is only one other matter to which he could possibly have reference. I refer to the fact that I belong to and took a very active part in organizing a labour union in the province of British Columbia and, for that matter, throughout Canada. I took an active part in that organization, the mine, mill and smelter workers and, as a matter of fact, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), who is sitting in his place, is an honorary life member of that organization.


Mr. Herridge:: That is right.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: So I find it difficult to see what there is in my background that would preclude me from receiving the confidence of the people of Kootenay East and therefore the right to sit on this side of the house until the Prime Minister decides it is time for another general election.
As a representative of the union I mentioned earlier I did considerable organizing. I am also happy to say that I took a leading part in negotiating agreements in the years from 1945 to 1949, and they were outstanding agreements. This union was the first and only union to break into the tough mining industry with such companies as Consolidated Mining and Smelting and International Nickel. They had been dominated by company unions for years.
When I first joined the union and began organizing I was working seven days a week every week in the month, and with no overtime pay. I mentioned that I have belonged to one church. Occasionally I would get a chance to attend the church of my choice on Sunday morning, but only occasionally when I was on another shift. As I have said, that cannot possibly be a reason for not enjoying the confidence of my people. The union has done excellent work in its fight to improve working conditions, wages
Request for Election and Senate Reform and holidays with pay. As a matter of fact, the men with whom I work in the summer now get one month's holidays with pay. Many others get three weeks with pay and some with very short service two weeks with pay.
The basic pay is $2 an hour for miners, and as the result of efficiency bonuses there are many who make up to $8 or more. I am sure there would be no individual working underground on contract who would not be making in excess of $20 a day, and many $24 or $25 a day. These conditions have been obtained through union activity. I have not always agreed with some members of the union so far as their political outlook on life is concerned, but I have here the official organ of the union in Canada. To whom do they turn when they want political advice? I should like to refer to a section of the editorial to show to whom they turn when they require political advice. The headline is, "Scandalous Facts of the Pipe Line Sellout". The editorial goes on to say:
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines is owned and controlled by five great U.S. oil and gas companies . . .
Then they quote M. J. Coldwell, leader of the C.C.F. party and George Drew, leader of the Progressive Conservative party. I will admit I have never got along with them politically and I do not intend to. No matter which way they stray I shall go down the centre with the good Liberal party which can see both sides of a problem and is prepared to go forward on that basis. I am wondering who the opposition are going to attack next. They have tried the house, the officials, the Senate. I hope His Excellency is not next.


Mr. Castleden:: Wonderful.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How nauseating!


Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resiigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I was taken aback last night by the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture. It is true that he may be a very excellent debater and he may quote good books very much like the devil can quote the Bible, but he gives me the impression that he has no more regard for the truth than a tomcat has for a marriage licence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask the hon. member to retract that statement? May I ask the hon. member to withdraw the expression that the minister has no more regard for the truth than-I do not know what the balance of the comparison was.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Apparently that remark is on Hansard some place else, but I should like to point out-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I told the hon. member for Kootenay East a moment ago when I asked him to withdraw a certain
5384	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Request for Election and Senate Reform
expression, it is very easy. The hon. member Mr. Byrne: I rise on a point of order, Mr. simply says, "I withdraw."	Speaker.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I withdraw.


An hon. Member:: He did not want to insult the tomcat.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Minister of Agriculture mentioned that all was calm and peaceful in the Senate when the pipe-line bill went there. It might be well to point out-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I heard some interjections indicating that the hon. member for Resti-gouche-Madawaska might not have withdrawn as I requested him. The Clerk informs me that he has and it was also my impression that he had.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Senator Donald Cameron, a Liberal senator in the other place, made no bones about the fact and his statement is explicit. He said:
... I want to say this ... I hope that never again for any reason will any bill of this magnitude-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think inadvertently the hon. member is overlooking the rule which says-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I was just following the precedent established last night by the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: I was not in the chair during all the time the minister spoke. As I said earlier, if one hon. member has not observed the rule it does not give another hon. member the right to break the rule as well. At the moment I am looking for the citation which I should like to read to the hon. member. I am referring to citation 243, which reads as follows:
Allusion to debates in the other house are out of order, and there are few orders more important than this for the conduct of debate and for observing courtesy between houses.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is one thing the Minister of Agriculture and I had in common; and that was that we both came from a funeral, namely the funeral of the Liberal party in our respective provinces. In my province the funeral procession had bogged down on the way to the grave. They ran out of pallbearers. No sooner were the Liberal candidate pallbearers chosen than they approached the Liberal corpse and having had one look and one smell at it, ran away in horror. But as soon as they succeeded in getting enough pallbearers to rise and carry the flag the funeral procession kept right on going and ended on June 18.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Kootenay East is rising on a point of order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes.


Mr. Murphy (Lamblon West):: He does not know what a point of order is.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I should like to know how the hon. member can relate what he is saying to the motion which is before the house.


Joseph Warner Murphy: You had
better refer to your own speech.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member looks at the amendment, he will find that it deals with the calling of a general election. As I understand it, the hon. member for Resti-gouche-Madawaska is relating his remarks to the amendment by discussing political conditions in the country and, more specifically, in his own province of New Brunswick at the moment.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, during the 17-year Liberal nightmare in my province which ended in 1952 the Liberal party lost no opportunity to broadcast with fervour that New Brunswick was indeed Canada's unspoiled province by the sea. The Liberal governments with which New Brunswick had been plagued for 17 long, miserable years lifted nary a finger to provide opportunities for our people in that hitherto barren and hard-scrabble land which was New Brunswick. But New Brunswick had become by 1952, as was confirmed by the Prime Minister in two recent statements, the most backward and most depressed area of Canada.
The Prime Minister did not stop to think that these very Atlantic provinces of which New Brunswick is a part, economically speaking and developmentwise, were saddled for the past 20 years-with the exception of New Brunswick alone-not only provincially but federally with Liberal governments. If the maritime provinces are the most backward provinces in Canada we have no one to blame but the Liberal governments that sat in those provinces and in this house during that time.
However, in 1952 New Brunswick changed governments. Hugh John Flemming and his administration have succeeded in reversing the downward economic trend that existed in our province for 50 years and we look forward to a new era, a new day, when progress and prosperity will replace the continuous economic depression with which we were saddled, and the dispersion of our


industry; and the dispersal of our young people, driven from our shores to the long-Conservative province of Ontario in order to make a living.
But while our provincial government in New Brunswick is doing all it can to make New Brunswick the province it was destined to become in the Canadian federation, let us remember that the federal government is not doing its share and has never accepted its responsibilities toward the maritime provinces. Alas, Mr. Speaker, this attitude of the federal Liberal government toward the Atlantic provinces in the past 20 years has been one of neglect, laziness, indifference and downright cowardice.
The federal government has been steadily and actively selling the Atlantic provinces down the river. The federal government has never varied in its stupid and traitorous attitude of passiveness, laziness and indifference toward the stark fact that until we in this economic entity comprising the maritime provinces can adopt, adjust and enforce trade conditions and regulations to meet our needs and not only those of central Canada; until we can decide and determine ourselves how and where we will buy, sell, export and import; until we can regain our natural markets; until we can develop enough hydroelectric power to compete with the rates charged in other areas in Canada; until we can decide and determine ourselves how and where we will buy, sell, export and import; until we can regain the same advantageous trade position we enjoyed at the time of confederation in regard to our choice of buying and selling markets and our method of transportation, which was then mainly by water; and until we can overcome our power, transportation and market barriers, we are doomed to remain a lopsided economic entity, discarded by a federal government which is too blind to see the forest for the trees and which has been-whether or not it has enough brains to realize it-persistently selling the Atlantic provinces down the river.
How I was taken aback the other day by a statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he mentioned that he had become enthusiastic about the pipe-line bill to the apparent extent that he was prepared to sell parliament down the road of dictatorship and sell the liberty of its members in order to bulldoze through this house a loan of $80 million to permit a United States company to have control.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, how about getting enthusiastic about New Brunswick for a change? And
26,	1956	5385
Request for Election and Senate Reform I ask him now, how about getting enthusiastic about the Atlantic provinces?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a point of order-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: One trouble with this government is-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is not only out of order but he is reading his speech.


Robert Henry McGregor: Did you read yours?


Mr. Nesbitt:: It is not a Cockfield Brown speech anyway.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: One trouble with this government is that its Minister of Trade and Commerce will not get off his high horse to examine and recognize the horrible conditions his government has permitted to exist and develop in the maritime provinces. Mr. Speaker, the present Liberal government has no idea of what we need or what we require or what we want. It is blind and cannot see. It is weak and cannot walk. It is deaf and will not hear. It is lazy and will not work. It is indifferent and will not act. It fails to recognize the fundamental principle that indifference leads to death. Pilate was indifferent to the fate of Christ, and Christ ended by dying upon a cross. Indifference leads but to ruin. Indifference is the companion of chaos, and indifference toward the maritime provines is the main characteristic of the present federal Liberal government.
New Brunswick is now embarking upon a tremendous program of hydroelectric development. The first phase of the program is the Beechwood project, which will cost about $45 million. But the over-all program for hydroelectric power development on the Saint John river comprises four projects like Beechwood and will cost over $211 million. Yet in spite of the federal government giving $162 million to the Colombo plan to help develop projects like Beechwood in Pakistan; in spite of the federal government bulldozing through parliament this $80 million loan; in spite of the $4,044,200,000 lent or given away in the past few years to foreign countries- but mostly given away-many of them behind the iron curtain, this federal Liberal government refuses to endorse our note for $45 million to help us build Beechwood.
The answer given by the Prime Minister was that we did not need money; our finances were good. In making this statement the Prime Minister missed the point entirely. We could borrow the money, and we did. Our finances were solid because since 1952 we have had a Conservative government which reestablished them. But, Mr. Speaker, in wishing to get the endorsement of the federal government for this loan we wanted to save

538S
Request for Election and Senate Reform the difference between the high rate of interest we have to pay without the federal government's endorsement and the rate we would have to pay with it. On the $211 million the difference in interest will be costing New Brunswick something like $3 million a year. This $3 million a year is what the government of New Brunswick wanted to save.
Furthermore, by saving this amount per year on the interest rate we would be in a position to offer rates on power coming from the Saint John river projects which would be much lower, and thus New Brunswick would be in a better position to compete with power rates charged in the other provinces of Canada. Those are the reasons this endorsement was requested from the federal government. There was no question that we could not borrow the money. There was no question about our finances. It was merely to give us a chance to save some money without costing the taxpayers of Canada 5 cents. It would not have affected the monetary position of Canada in the least. It would have merely given us the opportunity to develop our electric power cheaply and sell it at a much better rate.
Now let us pass to another example of what I would call a downright traitorous attitude toward the Atlantic provinces. The federal Liberal government has refused to build the Chignecto canal, giving the ill-thought out excuse that there is not sufficient need for that canal to build it now. Let me tell this house that if sufficient need does not now exist it is precisely because the federal Liberal government, by its stupidity, has driven those industries out of the maritimes which hitherto depended upon cheap water transportation to the main markets. The lack of cheap transportation is one of the main reasons why our industries, one after another, have been forced to close their doors, forced to the wall by the stupidity of a federal government which will not recognize our continually mounting transportation charges.
Before confederation our natural buying and selling markets were supplied by water, that is by cheap transportation. Confederation removed those markets but promised to bring about conditions in the Atlantic provinces which would permit us to trade profitably in the confederation-made markets of central Canada. Thus, like trying to change the course of the St. Lawrence river itself, confederation tried to make us change our natural trade routes. First came the tall tariff barriers, which removed our natural buying and selling markets to the east and to the south. Then came the mounting transportation costs which did not take into account

the guaranteed freight rate differential promised by confederation. As a result we were choked and forced to the wall. Today many of our remaining industries, like Enterprise foundries in Sackville to recall only one, stay in the maritimes only because of a spirit of service and loyalty to the people of the maritime provinces. A location nearer to the confederation-made markets of central Canada would be much more profitable for them.
At the time of confederation it was recognized that the maritimes might gain advantages which would overcome the disadvantages resulting from the removal of our natural trade markets. We had that advantage, and could still have it in cheap transportation by water. In this connection the need for the Chignecto canal was recognized and the building of a ship's railway was undertaken but never completed. Now that power is coming to New Brunswick, industries are looking in our province for sites on which to establish themselves. So long as this federal government keeps killing our industries by "nickeling" us to death with ever increasing transportation costs, with staggering freight rates, and by using every possible device to increase those freight rates, industrial growth in New Brunswick will be stilted and our people will not share equally in the wealth which Canada offers.
Transportation is a federal matter. The Chignecto canal and the building of our much needed ports like Dalhousie, Jacquet River and Saint John, would permit the establishment of numerous industries because cheaper water transportation would be provided. Public statements have been made by leading industrialists in New Brunswick that refineries would be built if the Chignecto canal were built. The Chignecto canal would open up cheap routes to coastwise shipping, to all points east and to the markets to be served by the St. Lawrence seaway. No sooner would the canal be built than the once great need for the canal would become apparent and real again, for the new era of industrial development which has been commenced in New Brunswick would be augmented and given new impetus. The federal government is responsible if the present need for the canal has in part been removed, and it is responsible so long as it does not build this canal to restore that need and fulfil a promise made at the time of confederation.
Now let us look at the new increase in freight rates. Even before the commission decided on the merits of another increase, and before the evidence was presented to back up this new demand, an interim increase of 7 per cent was allowed. When

is this government going to stop "nickeling" us to death in the maritimes? This increase is just another example of the contempt for the maritime provinces. But, Mr. Speaker, we know the real reason the government is denying us our right to the Chignecto canal. We know this government is blocking progress in the maritimes in order to keep the Canadian National as the only means of transportation. Does anyone think they can make our people swallow this ridiculous premise and pay the staggering freight rates which are being charged? This government knows that new industries would more than offset the possible but not probable slight, temporary lessening of freight business on the Canadian National if the maritimes were given a chance to prosper and develop by placing at their disposal cheap transportation by water and by rail.
I do not need to explain the guarantees given to the maritimes through the British North America Act, or at the time of confederation, for preferential freight rates to permit us to compete in the confederation-made markets which were forced upon us. Let me say this. This federal Liberal government has not recognized this guarantee and has done nothing to offset the ruinous position in which we are now. On the one hand we are prevented from dealing with our old buying and selling markets because of trade barriers and tariffs. On the other hand we are being denied a competitive trading position because of killing transportation costs to the confederation-made markets of central Canada.
We are blocked no matter which way we turn. We are caught in the vise of federal Liberal indifference. I, for one, am on the verge of crying out, like Premier Smallwood of Newfoundland, "Give us a square deal or count us out". Stop selling us down the river or get out of the way and let us look after our own affairs to our own best interests. Stop killing us, or make road for us to pass. It is a fortunate thing for us that the next elections are not far away, for as soon as this country gets the government it deserves, a Conservative government under the indomitable leadership of our leader, we will have a new deal and justice will be done to the Atlantic provinces for the first time in our history.
What else but laziness, indifference and apathy prevent the federal government from taking steps to bring about the building of that Campbellton-Cross Point bridge about which the Prime Minister encouraged us to talk five years ago? The Minister of Public Works himself has mentioned to me the enthusiastic letters he received from the premier of my province demanding the bridge, 67509-341
26, 1956	5387
Request for Election and Senate Reform which would open up the whole north shore to more and more trade between the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick. It would be a tremendous defence asset, for the only link between Quebec and New Brunswick at the present time is that old, antiquated Matapedia bridge which threatens to collapse every spring and fall. Quebec farmers would find ready markets, and there would be an interchange of commerce which has never existed between our two provinces. The truckers of pulpwood to our mills would be greatly helped, not to mention the great opportunities we would have to use for transportation the new good roads of New Brunswick and Quebec.
The ferry service is most inadequate; it is outdated, a time killer; it is a danger every spring and fall. The bridge would cost hardly more than $1 million, which the Minister of Trade and Commerce says is nothing. The Sugar Loaf mountain, which contains millions of tons of solid rock, could be had for the asking to build the solid stretches of the bridge, and a comparatively small steel span is all that would be needed in the middle.
"What's a million dollars?", says the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Let me tell him that it is more than we ever got from this government, in my riding, until this year. This is, of course, also excepting the $100,000 or so the federal Liberals put into Madawaska county to try to defeat the Conservative candidates in the last election. This was the first sign of federal assistance we ever got in Madawaska, and it is too bad that it came in the form of gin, whisky, nylon stockings and boxes of chocolates. But our people were far too intelligent to sell their right to vote for gin or nylon stockings, and the Liberal candidates got what they deserved, a well earned and well merited defeat.
The position of this government is ridiculous in regard to the maritime provinces. I repeat what I have often said. A few men are running this country, supported by this tremendous Liberal majority. This government gives me the impression that it is running a school for trained seals, and so long as the Liberal members keep on acting like trained seals, bowing subserviently up and down for the herring held before their noses, they can expect to get the famous S.S.S., that great title in Liberal political life, the safe seat somewhere. For this long-sought S.S.S. and more and more election slush funds, they sell their constituents down the river. This has been the characteristic hallmark of Liberal representation by maritime Liberal members in this house. But by their silence and inactive conduct they give the erroneous impression that all is well in the maritimes.
5388	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform
The Prime Minister has on two occasions now, once in his letter of January 14, 1955, and in his statement in Toronto at the convention some months ago, indicated in no uncertain terms the recognition by his government of the plight of the maritime provinces. This federal government, with the Minister of Labour sitting idly by, has on the one hand recognized the need for financial help and with the other hand has kept on slapping the maritimes in the face, as it has been slapping us in the face for the past 20 years.
Our Senate is hardly anything any more. It is just another S. S. S., another safe seat somewhere for Liberal politicians. It is the hallmark of Liberal service. Thus we have a Senate packed by old Liberal stand-bys and money-hungry buccaneers who are often in their dotage when they reach the Senate and merely act as a rubber stamp for whatever measures may be sent to it. It has become a tarnished badge of respectability for the whims of the government big-wigs in their puerile efforts to cover up their sinful inefficiency. We have no room in our democracy for such an expensive rubber stamp.
Certainly if we are to provide Canada with the government it deserves we must make the Senate a legislative body representative of the wishes of the people. This would only be brought about by an elective Senate, or in part an elective Senate. Let the Senators be responsible to the people who would elect them, and not be appointed to anoint with the cloak of respectability such legislation as the infamous pipe-line bill. Had we had a responsible, independent Senate, debate would not have been curtailed, and the Liberal members of the Senate would not have had to make the statements they did.
The need for Senate reform has been recognized by all leaders of all political parties, but so far the government has not shown the courage needed to call a conference of the provinces to deal with this very long-overdue reform. This is just another pitiable example of Liberal neglect.
It is most unfortunate, but there is one bright picture on the horizon as far as my province is concerned. I learned yesterday that the rat-infested station and freight shed at Edmundston will be replaced in 1957 and that the plans have now been completed. I wish to congratulate the Minister of Transport for having answered this request. Nevertheless I wish to say this. The jumping, squirming, flipper-flapping jack in the box, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, could very well hightail back to the squid-jigging grounds of Newfoundland and help some poor fisherman bail out his boat. He would be more useful there than he is in this house.


There is one thing I wish to bring out at this time. I just returned from my riding. Some messenger from the Department of Labour, a Mr. Bosse, got up and made the statement at Edmundston before some Liberal assembly that there never would be a new station at Edmundston. He said, "Regardless of what the government wants to do, I am going to block it." Mr. Speaker, it has got to a sad point in the history of this country when messengers of the minister and his department are going to tell the people of this country what the government is going to do and what parliament is here for.
It is apparent that the federal government refuses to recognize the financial position which has been imposed by confederation upon New Brunswick, either through a refusal to learn the facts or because of a subversive attitude toward the government of the province of New Brunswick. Either reason, or a combination of both reasons, place the choking problem right on the doorstep of New Brunswick's representative in the government, the Minister of Labour. Either he has acquiesced where he should have spoken up and fought for the province, or he acted in unison with men like the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) in their expressed determination to block progress in my province merely because the people of my province had the good sense to throw out that decadent Liberal government in 1952 and replace it with the leadership we now have.
The Minister of Labour knew and was aware of the government policy, as stated in the Prime Minister's letter of January 14, 1955, which reads:
The present government has no intention of abandoning the objective of the tax rental agreements which is to make it financially possible for all the provinces whatever their tax base to perform their constitutional functions themselves and to provide a reasonable Canadian level of provincial services without an abnormal burden of taxation.
We agree with this statement of policy. But here is where the Minister of Labour should have intervened with effectiveness. By the letters of the Prime Minister of January 6, 1956, and January 18, 1956, New Brunswick is being denied the right-and this was confirmed by the Prime Minister at the last interprovincial conference-to provide a reasonable level of provincial services without an abnormal burden of taxation. I have the figures here, with the schedules for all the taxes New Brunswick is forced to impose, and they prove conclusively that the over-all level of the New Brunswick tax rate is substantially higher than in any other province. Our premier, Hon. Hugh John

Flemming, submitted to the last interprovincial conference schedules and tabulations which prove that the burden of taxation in New Brunswick is the most onerous of any province in Canada.
In relation to the personal income of the people of New Brunswick, figures for 1953 show that our people had to pay 41 per cent more in taxes out of personal income than the average Canadian. Again we hold the Minister of Labour responsible for endorsing a federal government which keeps in the vise of federal indifference and antagonism the very province he is appointed to represent. I should like to quote an observation by our premier during the last interprovincial conference, when he said:
It is an essential requirement of any provincial government to so manage its affairs that the credit of the province is maintained on a sound basis. This is particularly true for a province in the position of New Brunswick which at the moment is faced with very substantial, indeed I might say staggering, capital expenditures for the development of electric generating facilities, both hydro and thermal, to meet the needs of the new mining developments, the expansion of the pulp and paper industry and to provide the power required for the increase in service and secondary industries which these developments will normally bring in their train.
This government, with the Minister of Labour acquiescing and sitting idly by, has thus on the one hand recognized the need for financial help and with the other hand has kept on slapping New Brunswick in the face as it has been doing for the past 20 years. This attitude of the federal government is crippling the economic development of New Brunswick. Our expenditures, which must not exceed our revenues from all sources, are so limited that urgent essential services must be denied the people of my province. Thus the province of New Brunswick lies crippled, maimed and limping while Canada goes ahead and the Liberal representation from New Brunswick, headed by the Minister of Labour, keep right on being good little Liberal boys, seen but not heard.
The plight of New Brunswick does not stop with the refusal of federal financial assistance to permit the development of hydroelectric power. The refusal of the federal government to help New Brunswick has resulted in a reduction or postponement of essential services involving real sacrifices for the people of New Brunswick. The premier of New Brunswick told the Prime Minister about this at the last interprovincial conference, and these were his words:
However, the rebuilding of a bridge which is inadequate and unsafe can only be postponed by expensive and temporary repairs, and only for a time: there is a definite limit to overcrowding in schools and the making-do with untrained teachers 67509-3411
26. 1956	5389
Request for Election and Senate Reform and inadequate facilities; to the patching of roads which are too narrow and winding to take modern traffic, and have an inadequate base, and so on. This limit, in New Brunswick, has been reached. For instance, for the coming year, we have to postpone certain road construction which is very greatly needed.
Needless to say the premier of my province has performed a fiscal miracle in doing as much in the past three years as had been done in the previous 17. But quite apart from the crippling consequences to our physical needs, education in New Brunswick is forced to suffer from lack of sufficient federal aid. In 1951 New Brunswick was spending $126-70 per pupil against a national average of $166-31. The needs of education in New Brunswick are apparent for all to see; a visit to most any of our back-country schools will confirm this, but it is also an indisputable fact that on an average New Bruns-wickers are being forced to pay, on a personal income basis, almost twice as much as is paid right across Canada.
In other words we have reached the limit in our ability to be taxed in New Brunswick. Even with the tax burden we bear-sales tax 3 per cent, tobacco tax 10 per cent, gasoline tax 15 cents per gallon, etc.-we cannot ever hope to come even close to providing the services and facilities in New Brunswick which would put our standard of living and opportunities for our children on a par with the national level.
I wish to refer to the synoptic report of the provincial legislature of the province of New Brunswick. This report is prepared by* A. Malcolm McGowan, who has done a-magnificent job in preserving the record of the debates in the provincial house in New Brunswick. In 1953 it very conclusively showed that the per capita income in New Brunswick was $757 compared with $1,465 for the province of Ontario. In other words our per capita income is about half that of Ontario, it is about half that of British, Columbia, and it is about 90 per cent that of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec,
We can do all the wishful thinking we care to, but the conclusion remains the same. Because of the position into which the federal government has forced us, New Brunswick is unable to provide her people with the opportunities and services available to citizens in all other provinces of this country. Confederation guaranteed that we would not be in such an inferior position. Mr. Speaker, there is only one solution under our present set-up, and that is to help us attain the same standards of living and opportunity which are enjoyed in Ontario, for instance. In January, 1955, the federal government recognized this fact and said it was willing to do something
5390	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform about it tor the four Atlantic provinces; but in January, 1956, it changed its mind and refused to grant the assistance needed and to some extent promised only a year ago.
There is only one answer to this attitude of arrogance and indifference. The time has come for the people of Canada to tell the federal government by their votes that if it will not do its duty toward the people of the maritime provinces, then it is time it must be made to stand aside and make way for a better government. Millions of voices across this great country cry for a chance to tell the government that we need a better deal.
Last winter I spent considerable time in the unemployment insurance office in Camp-bellton and Edmundston, and I personally looked into hundreds of cases where the fathers of hungry children had been waiting for weeks on end, in some cases for eight weeks, for the first unemployment insurance cheques. I personally visited homes all the way from Jacquet River to the far stretches of Madawaska county where the wives and children lived in abject poverty while the breadwinner waited patiently for the unemployment insurance cheque which never came until many weeks too late.
In many cases they complied with the very stupid directive forcing them to go to faraway places to cut pulpwood under conditions similar to those existing in Siberia. Some of them went; and quite apart from being forced Ao live under the most miserable conditions, ithey did not earn enough to pay their fares iback home let alone provide for their families. ^Hundreds of men were ordered to go to La Tuque and many of them refused, and even the officials of the unemployment insurance *offices themselves did not blame them in any way-. Those who were smart enough to know Wfeat to answer were able to overcome the delay caused by the regulations and were able to get their unemployment insurance cheques after two or three weeks' delay, but hundreds of people who because of lack of education were not able to answer were cut off indefinitely and their cases originating many months ago are only now being settled. As the Minister of Labour himself answered me in writing, there were 7,102 of those cases which had to be referred to other offices where delays were encountered.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is my duty to inform him that his time has expired.


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker-


Robert Henry McGregor: Let us have a repetition of your 1935 speech.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: What was that?
{Mr. Van Home.]


Robert Henry McGregor: You heard it.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: No, I did not, sir.


Robert Henry McGregor: Give us a repetition of your 1935 speech.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to the same speech that has been delivered in this chamber on every occasion that the hon. member for Restigouche-Mada-waska has visited us since he has been elected.


Mrs. Shipley:: Hear, hear.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I did not interrupt the hon. member, but he brought my name into this question and I want to deal with this matter for a few minutes. I have not interrupted anyone, so I shall just speak about this briefly.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Our problems have not been solved since I came here.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: You are a jumping jack, all right.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, I realize that after sending his speech up to the press gallery last night the hon. member was very disappointed that he did not get an opportunity to speak. I realize it was a terrific disappointment, because he took three weeks at home to carefully prepare the speech; and because it is near payday we expected him to visit us again after spending those three weeks at home preparing the speech.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You know very well that we have more to do than to listen to this dim-witted, foul-mouthed saboteur of New Brunswick. You are a disgrace to this house. Your people will tell you what they think about you in the next election.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I have heard that before.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are a saboteur as far as New Brunswick is concerned; a traitor.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member who has the floor may not be interrupted without his consent.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Ignorance never seems to affect me very much, Mr. Speaker, and there has been a great display of ignorance in the last two or three minutes. We have had similar displays on various occasions since the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska came here.
The hon. member mentioned in his remarks the 17 years of Liberal rule in the province of New Brunswick prior to 1952, but when he is able to advise me that they have been able to keep a Conservative government in that province for 17 years I invite him to

come back to me and talk; because-although it takes a little time-they will be put out. When they do, it will be like 1952, when they had five members out of 52. I notice that the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) last night s'poke about this great victory they had. In New Brunswick in 1952 they were only able to elect five members out of 52, and that time will come again, because I have never yet seen the Tory that, given rope enough, will not hang himself.
The hon. member for Restigouche-Mada-waska has also been very critical of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I shall ask him to go back over the record since 1935, and then go back over the record since the time of confederation, and show me where any person in the political life of this country has ever made a greater contribution in that period of years or any other period of years. I feel that any member who criticizes the Right Hon. C. D. Howe is critizing a man who has done more to build this country of ours into what we have to enjoy today than any other Canadian in the history of this country. You may call it anything you wish; I have my opinion and many other Canadians have their opinions. When this election they are so anxious about takes place, he will be sitting over there with 175 Liberals behind him.


An hon. Member:: But you may not be.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I shall take my chance. I heard the same thing before the last election, that the Conservatives would sweep the country, but when the smokescreen had cleared we came back.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Give us a new speech.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I do not believe I have ever interrupted the hon. member as long as he has been here, but because I say something he does not like he does not want me to go ahead.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Give us a new speech.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am referring to the speeches the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska has given us when he has decided to visit us on a few occasions. Again today it is the same old theme song, bitterly critical of the loans this country has made to the unfortunate countries of the world. We have heard that on half a dozen different occasions since he came here. I am sure that those sitting with him in that group do not sympathize with those ideas. Any contributions we have made towards countries less fortunate than ourselves are, I believe, a step in the right direction. If we ever hope to have peace in this world,
Request for Election and Senate Reform the only way that can come about is by helping your friends and neighours; it can come about in no other way.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We want help in New Brunswick. Give us a square deal.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That is all I have heard from the Tories down there since they took over in 1952. When they took over in 1952 there was more revenue than they knew what to do with. The Liberals were wasting it. Ever since then, they have been going around hat in hand.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They did better than the Liberals.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Just sit down and take it for a minute.


An hon. Member:: Hornblower.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska informs us the financial standing of New Brunswick is very good.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Better than when your people were there.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: You want to talk all the time. If you will listen for a minute, I shall explain what the position is. The position is better today because of the assistance the province is receiving from this government, and for no other reason. The subsidy payments to our province are nearly $7 million greater than in 1952.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Look what you are taking out of it.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: We are taking
nothing out of it. We put $70 million in last year and-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why don't you go to
school?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I did not have the opportunity to go to school like some people, but I can express my opinion as well as you can with all your schooling. In some cases an education is wasted, and I have seen examples of it in this house recently. The improvement financially, of which I speak in our province, is a result of the subsidy payments from this government to our provincial government in New Brunswick. Back in 1952 they wanted to do away completely with the sales tax.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is another falsehood.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: In 1954 they took off 1 per cent of the sales tax.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You can tell more lies in a shorter time. I shall listen to no more.
5392	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am pleased you are leaving your seat.


An hon. Member:: The train is leaving at six o'clock.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: It is train time, I know. The train leaves at 4.25. The hon. member has also been critical of what he calls our normal trading relations, and he mentioned trade barriers. The party with which the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska is associated are very strong believers in higher tariffs and have been since confederation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Don't be silly.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The hon. member for Eglinton says, "Don't be silly." Then I shall give one example. In the election that was called in 1911, what action was taken at that particular time by the Tories in this country?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What action was taken by the people?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am not questioning that at all; they had a perfect right to do as they liked. What did the Tories do? The old flag was waved from Newfoundland to British Columbia, and they said, "No truck or trade with the Yankees." I remember that. Today, in every speech they make they are criticizing something in connection with the dealings between the United States and Canada. My hon. friend from Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) made the same reference. He said:
. . . the American-influenced drawl of the hon. member for Charlotte . . .
Those are the exact words he used; I took them out of Hansard. My drawl may be American influenced, but I can assure this house I am not ashamed of that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is from smuggling cigarettes.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I have smuggled as much as you have but not one bit more. But I am honest about it and you are not.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not smoke.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: There are plenty of other materials you can take out.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the member has just said that another member of the house is not honest. Surely we have not come to the point where that can pass.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I would like to say to the hon. member that the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska spoke for 40 minutes and at no time did I interrupt him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There was a direct allegation that one member was not honest. Of course, that will have to be withdrawn.


Walter Edward Harris: On the same point of order, may I point out that the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska said that the hon. member for Charlotte could tell more lies in one sentence, and I lost the rest of it after that. So I think he ought to withdraw that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I did not hear the remark to which the minister has just referred. If such statements were made, they will, of course, also have to be withdrawn.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I would rather have them on the record.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps we can clear this up one stage at a time. I understand that the hon. member for Charlotte is withdrawing the allegation to which I refer.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I should be pleased to, but I should like to have the other statement left on the record.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska withdrawing his remark also?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, I do not think I shall withdraw it.


Mr. Pickersgill:: How about withdrawing yourself?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member has used the term "lie" or "liar" with respect to another member, he must of course understand that he must withdraw it, and I hope he will co-operate.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member for Charlotte made that remark-


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member has withdrawn?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, I shall let it stand. I am going to make a statement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member used a certain expression which I am sure on reflection he will wish to withdraw. On several occasions this afternoon we have heard the word "falsehood". I think that on one or two occasions I have not objected to that remark, but I think most of us will agree that an allegation that another member is telling lies is not the proper kind of language to be used in this house, and I hope the hon. member will co-operate.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, we cannot stand this saboteur of New Brunswick. It has got to the point in this house that every time

we get up to make a plea for New Brunswick this little pipsqueak gets up and tries to distort everything.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. We had a
previous ruling this afternoon on the word "distortion". I am not going to object to it in the way the hon. member has just used it but I really think that he should withdraw the allegation to which the minister referred after the hon. member for Charlotte so freely withdrew his allegation. It is simply a courtesy between one member and another.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But Mr. Speaker, this man was talking about high tariff barriers and I asked him merely, was that a reason why he should have


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Do I understand that the hon. member is withdrawing the words to which objection was being taken? If so, the hon. member for Charlotte should continue his speech, for after all he has the floor.


An hon. Member:: Yes or no.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, since this little tangle has been unravelled I will start again. The hon. member has said that he did not refer to trade barriers and to tariffs. I may have misunderstood him. However, I will read Hansard tomorrow. I was sure and I still feel quite sure that he referred to trade barriers and tariffs as they affect the province of New Brunswick and the maritime provinces.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is why you said you had to smuggle.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am just suggesting that I thought that was what the hon. member said but I will watch Hansard carefully to see that it is as it was said. Why there is this attitude on the part of the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) and others in his group towards our friends to the south is beyond my comprehension. They fail to realize the fortunate position we in this country are in through having 160 million friendly people of our own kind and creed to the south of us with an undefended border of 3,500 miles, and why they try to criticize and make little of that fact is beyond my understanding. These people are friends of mine. They always have been and I hope they will continue to be for many more years to come.
I will leave that as it is. I want to deal for a few minutes with some statements made last evening by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell). He made reference to my American-influenced drawl. That would prompt me to remind the hon. member that I was not born with a silver spoon in my
26. 1956	5393
Request for Election and Senate Reform mouth. Throughout my lifetime I have depended to a great extent for my bread and butter on those friends of mine to the south, and a great portion of the population of the county from which I come still depends on that same source for their living. That is why I have such a high regard for those people. In my dealings with them I have nothing to say but the best. Perhaps if the hon. member for Saint John-Albert had been obliged to go out and make a living for himself with his two hands in similar circumstances he might have had a different appreciation of those good friends of ours.
I have perhaps as many friends and relatives over the border as I have in my own country. I go back and forth over the border and I visit them. The only thing I can say is that two countries could not be found in any part of the world that are more alike than our two countries, and the closer we are together, the more friendly we are with one another, the better I like it. The more United States capital that comes in here to develop this country the better I like it. There is not a country in the world from which I would rather see capital come than from our neighbours to the south.
I have seen some of the efforts they have made in their own country, and in my opinion we are in the same position today as the United States was 30 or 40 years ago. We have raw materials which they need and we do not have the cash in Canada to develop all these raw materials and all the industries that we need in our country today. That capital must come from somewhere. Why should it not come from the United States, the people who are just across this imaginary line from us?
When the hon. member for Saint John-Albert was speaking last night he also made a few predictions about the result of the next federal election. These forecasts have been made on three different occasions since I have been here. I remember that prior to the 1953 election we were told that we might be able to hold two seats in New Brunswick. Well, we did a little better than that, and I would say without any hesitation in the world that when the ballots are counted after the next federal election we will have as many seats as we have now and I think one or two more.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Where?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Whistling through the cemetery may salve a fellow's conscience, but whistle as you like there is not a Conservative member from New Brunswick today who will get an acclamation. He will have to go out and fight.
Mr. Pallet!: That is an admission by itself.

Request for Election and Senate Reform


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That is an admission by itself, and I can assure you that the maritime provinces will return as many or more members after the next election as there are in the House of Commons today. There is every reason why they should do so.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Talk about the provincial election.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I have talked about that and I will talk about it again. Don't worry. The citizens of the province of New Brunswick do not lose sight of the facts. The hon. member for Saint John-Albert may try to convince them of the lack of attention by the federal government to the maritime provinces, but the maritime provinces are like other parts of Canada. There is no question that there are things that we want and need, but when any member gets up here and says that the federal government has ignored the maritime provinces he is saying something that is not true because, as I stated a few minutes ago, in 1955 the federal government spent over $130 million in the province of New Brunswick. The provincial legislature took from the citizens of our province in taxes about $25 million. Therefore the federal government spent five times the amount in my province that the provincial government took from the taxpayers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What did we give up with respect to Sir James Dunn's succession duties?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: You did not give up anything because that has been paid over and over by the grant you have received. Let me tell my hon. friend that there will be $19 million that will be paid to the province of New Brunswick this year, but if these tax fields were given back to the province of New Brunswick the province could only collect about $6 million from the same source. Therefore the federal government is giving nearly $14 million as a gift. The hon. member cannot tell me what the tax rental agreement means to my province. He had better study it a little. Perhaps he would then be in a better position to discuss it.


Mr. Hodgson:: How much taxes did the federal government take out of your province in the same period?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I have the figures but I cannot quote them from memory. However, I will say that they took out far less than they turned back.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: On a point of order, the hon. member has said something that is absolutely incorrect.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Not at all.
(Mr. Pallett.]


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The fact is that the province of New Brunswick has paid over twice what has been returned to it. I have looked up the figures myself.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that what the hon. member is saying is certainly incorrect because last year nearly double was put back into the province compared with what was taken out.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I got the figures from the bureau of statistics.


Mr. Hardie:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are you going to allow the opposition to put closure on every Liberal speaker who stands up by making interjections?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We are stating the facts.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: They are the ones who are putting on the gag.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: There is one reason the citizens of my province are very much interested in a federal election and I want to explain it. I have spoken of the $19 million which we will receive this year under the federal subvention. Every member in the house knows that the agreements between the provinces and the federal government were opposed in every way they could be opposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). He used every argument he could bring to bear against these agreements. Therefore I take it that if he ever became prime minister he would discard them completely. Where would we be in New Brunswick without that subsidy payment from Ottawa?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Don't talk nonsense.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am going to ask the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) to keep still for a moment and not interrupt. He loves to hand it out with that sanctimonious voice of his. He comes begging, begging and begging, but when the slightest bit of criticism is offered in reply to him he just cannot take it. He has got to sit there and growl, growl, growl all the time. I can assure you that all the people of New Brunswick do not have the opinion that the Tories have, and they will have a full realization of that when the ballots are counted in the next federal election. The people down there are not beggars. It is the provincial government that are the beggars. They have been begging ever since they took office in 1952. It has been a case of beg, beg, beg. I want to suggest right here-so it will be on the record-that if the provincial government in New Brunswick have an idea that all I am doing here is to be a tax collecting agency for provincial legislatures, they have got the

wrong member to deal with. I did not come here to be a tax collecting agent for the provinces.
When people try to tell me-Tories or anyone else-that we are not being treated fairly, I must disagree. I know there are things that we need. I recognize that fact. But let me suggest to the hon member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) and the other Tory members here from New Brunswick that conditions are a great deal different now in New Brunswick than they were during the last five-year period that we had Tory rule, and no one can remember it better than I do. I want to mention one other fact when I speak about citizens in my province. Family allowances are of great benefit to the citizens of New Brunswick. No one knows that better than I do. That is another measure that was bitterly opposed by every means that could be found by the leader of the official opposition. It is on record all over this country. It is on the radio. It is in the press. It is in the records of the legislature in Toronto. It is everywhere. He said he would oppose it as long as he could stand on his feet. There are a great many people in my province who believe that if he ever became prime minister *-and I do not believe he ever will-that is another benefit that we might expect to lose.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is because of the lies you have told down there.


An hon. Member:: Where is the withdrawal?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I have suggested that this statement was made by the leader of the official opposition in connection with family allowances all across this country of ours. At this point let me say that it is not necessary to bring a tape recording into the lobbies in order to find out whether that is correct. It is in print on a good many different occasions, in radio speeches, in speeches in the legislature of Ontario and in other parts of Canada. Hence people down there are suspicious, and well they might be suspicious. I can look back on that period from 1930 to 1935 and what happened then. The hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska speaks about hard times. I can assure him that if he could only look back to those years, those hungry 30's, he would realize what real hard times were. In his remarks today-and he was perhaps out of order because he had been ruled out of order-he made mention of the fact of the money that was lent to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. We realize that has been an issue for the Tories for several weeks back. But I wonder whether he would ever stop to realize during this period I have mentioned-those hungry 30's-the loan that was 67509-342
26, 1956	5395
Request for Election and Senate Reform given to the C.P.R. by the prime minister of this country at that time, that was made by order in council. It was not tabled until the next session of parliament but it constituted 20 per cent of the total revenue of this country, and as I stated in the house here a few days ago, the C.P.R. at that time was owned over 80 per cent outside of Canada. I never heard any criticism of that, but that is what transpired in 1933. It was not even of sufficient importance to call parliament together. The loan was made by order in council and, as I say, it constituted one-fifth or 20 per cent of our total revenue in that particular year.


An hon. Member:: It was not the same thing.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: No; it was not the
same thing because a Tory did it. That is exactly the point.


An hon. Member:: They can do no wrong.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, I have taken more time than I had intended.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have heard all that so often. For 15 years I have heard the same speech.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I will suggest again to the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska, since he has been so sarcastic, that I did not have a written speech that I had sent up to the press gallery before hand and then had to call it back because I did not get a chance to speak. I did not have to write a speech.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You make the one speech.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That is all I am
obliged to make to reply to the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska or the hon. member for Royal because they make the same speeches every time they get to their feet. All I ever hear from either of them is, in what is called plain language, bellyaching. I picked up a little note in the Citizen last night. It says that any fool can criticize an'1 condemn and most fools do. That does not apply to my hon. friends, Mr. Speaker; but to me there is a great deal of food for thought in that statement.
Before I leave Ottawa this session I should like to hear one Tory member from New Brunswick get to his feet and make one single constructive speech before this parliament adjourns. I should like to hear one constructive speech instead of just criticism, bellyaching and begging all the time.


An hon. Member:: What do you call it?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That is all I listen to. I am obliged to get up after listening to some of the things that have been put on
5396	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform the record by the hon. member for Resti-gouche-Madawaska which it should not be necessary that he put on the record because he has plenty of time at his disposal. He has plenty of time in which to prepare a speech. As to the one he made today, there was plenty of preparation put on it, but it is the same material he used on six or seven different occasions. He spoke about the money that was being spent down there at some particular spot in his constituency. May I tell him before I resume my seat that during this last provincial election campaign which just finished a week ago in the section from which I come the Tories put on lobster dinners and they put on turkey dinners. They put on any kind of dinner that they wanted. I was at Grand Manan island and I looked in the auditorium of the school and found they had prepared for 150 lobster dinners paid for by the Tories. There were free moving pictures. There was everything provided for free dances.
The hon. member for Restigouche-Mada-waska tells about the great need of assistance down in the section from which he comes. I can assure him that if one-tenth of what they spent there on the election campaign had been used to alleviate that sort of situation, conditions in his own county might be a great deal better. I do not want him to tell me about where the Liberals wasted money because I was down there for a few days and in those few days I saw money being spent in an election campaign as it never has been spent before in the province of New Brunswick since it has been established. So do not tell me about what they cannot do, that they cannot find money for this or that they cannot find money for that. There is plenty to use in an election campaign. But after it is over, it is the same thing. They went down there and told us in New Brunswick that everything was well; that we did not have a worry in the world; everything was going well; we could finance the whole situation ourselves, we did not have to depend on anyone else. But the very minute the ballots were counted what do they do? They wait a few days, then prepare a speech, come back here, with the hat again to pass around among the federal Liberals here in order to get a little more assistance for our province.
In closing I just want to say again that I realize that we need assistance with respect to different things down there but I believe that those who are sincerely seeking that assistance might go about it in a different way. They cannot continually condemn, day after day and week after week. I have never heard one of them speak a kind word


in connection with anything the federal government has ever done, not one single kind word. The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) who is sitting there now has an enormous army camp down there where well over $100 million has been spent. But I have yet to hear him make a kind remark in connection with it, and it is in his own constituency. A great deal of the prosperity that is enjoyed in that area is based on the fact that we have that army camp there.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And I suppose you did not want it in your constituency?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Who did not?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You did not.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I certainly did
want it. I fought as hard as I could for it, and I only wish it were in my constituency today. This is the thanks we get.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Ah-h.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: You heard that remark, Mr. Speaker. He said "ah-h". But if that camp had been built by the Tories he would be up on his feet now, flinging his arms around and shouting, "Look what we did for the province of New Brunswick". But because it was built while we had a Liberal government and it would have to be during that time because we will never have another Tory government-he is sore and it is just of no benefit to anyone. I am going to ask him again-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I rise on a question of
privilege. The hon. member says I said the army camp was of no benefit to anyone. He never heard me make such a statement and I never made such a statement in this house or anywhere else.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I did not say that. I said he had never given any credit to anyone for it. I did not say that you said it was no good.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is another falsehood.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: You misunderstood me.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I want to correct another
statement. I was the first one who requested that an army camp be established in the province of New Brunswick.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I want to contradict that immediately because I knew there would be an army camp in New Brunswick six months before the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) ever heard of it, so that little bit of political propaganda will not go over.
Before I resume my seat-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The records can prove it.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The records might prove it, but you know we who sit on the government side do not go around boasting. There are so many things we know about that we do not go around boasting. Questions are asked here in the house and we already know the answers. I have seen the hon. member for Royal get up and ask about the Passamaquoddy dam. He has no interest in the Passamaquoddy dam, not one-tenth of the interest that I have. He got up and asked a question and I had the answer. He thinks he is doing a great job when he gets up, as I have seen him do, and say, "I should like to ask the Secretary of State . . ." this or that. Then, the Saint John Telegraph-Journal headlines the question and says this shows the interest the member takes, but I had known two weeks before he asked his question.
Before I resume my seat I have these figures that I want to give. The total collections in the province of New Brunswick for 1954-55 from all sources amounted to $45 million. Now, that is what we took out from all sources, in taxation to the federal government. We put back $130 million and I will ask the member to judge if we are getting a raw deal.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to ask the hon. member where he gets those figures.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I have them in my office, but I know they will be the same.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: He gets them from his office, but I got mine from the bureau of statistics.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Of course, I would realize that the figures the hon. member for Royal has and the figures I have would not agree. I am going to suggest to him that he get up in a better mood than he is usually in and give us one speech, even if it is only for five minutes, giving this government which has done so much for the Canadian people one little bit of credit, and then I will go home happy.


Mr. Bell:: You will never be happy after June 18.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: In rising to take part in this debate, I should like to take a little time to see if we cannot get away from the provincial elections. I have been sitting here wondering if possibly the purpose of this motion was the discussion of some of the provincial elections. However, let me read it to you so it will be on Hansard:
In the opinion of this house the Prime Minister should give immediate consideration to the advisability of bringing about the dissolution of this parliament and the calling of a general election as soon as possible.
I just wish to say one or two words about the underlying principle of this motion, which
67509-342J
26, 1956	5397
Request for Election and Senate Reform is not that of non-confidence as we ordinarily understand it, but which is rather part of the unscrupulous behaviour of the Conservative party as expressed by them during the pipe line debate. We did not stoop to such low levels then, nor will we now, no matter what the disguise might be. Therefore, we Social Crediters will vote against this motion, knowing what it involves. We have voted nonconfidence in this government and in the Liberal party on other occasions and we shall probably do so again but it will be done in a straightforward manner.
I can recall that during the first session we had after the last election the Conservative members were claiming that the government should go to the country. Last year I will bet there were 100 occasions upon which they said the government should call an election. I do not see what they hope to benefit from it, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure the people of Canada generally will not return as many Conservatives next time as they did the last time. I quite understand-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You cannot see it because you are in the same bed with the Liberals.


Charles Edward Johnston: -the eagerness of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) to go to the country now. The reason is apparent because he has failed in two general elections to make any material improvement in the Conservative party and if he does not make a better showing the next time then the Conservatives will kick him out. He need not think for one moment that we are going to be drawn into such a net as that and vote for this unscrupulous motion.
Now, I want to- turn my attention to a problem which I think it would have been more in keeping with the Conservative party to have made a motion about rather than a motion asking for a general election, which they really do not want. I refer to the question of the recent increase in freight rates. May I say to some of the Conservative members from New Brunswick and the mari-times generally that what I am about to say concerning these increased freight rates applies just as much to the maritimes as it does to western Canada. I would have thought, since the matter is so important to the maritimes, they might have been giving some consideration to it and in that way help the people of the maritimes more by relieving them of this unnecessary increase in freight rates rather than appealing for another federal election.
This recent request by the railways for a 15 per cent increase in general freight rates is one that is going to affect all of Canada.
5398	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform It is not going to affect central Canada, Ontario and Quebec as much as it does the other part of Canada, for very obvious reasons with which I shall deal later. The board of transport commissioners decided, without a full and complete hearing, to grant this interim 7 per cent increase. As I say, this was done without ever hearing the completed appeal from the provinces, seven of which were protesting. It is rather obvious how that came about. When this 15 per cent, seven per cent of which is already applied, is levied it is going to be levied not on the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, because they are in that area which is considered to be the competitive area. The railways are allowed by law, under any general freight rate increase, to apply that increase in the non-competitive areas. These non-competitive areas are the maritime provinces and western Canada. Once again we are going to bear the burden of these tremendous railway freight increases.
It would have seemed rather fitting, Mr. Speaker, if the board of transport commissioners had refused to grant any interim increase until the provinces were able to make their complete case. Of course, there were submissions made to the board of transport commissioners but it was on June 18 that this interim increase of 7 per cent was granted. As I say, seven of the provinces had protested, and the only ones who did not were Ontario and Quebec. May I just ask the Conservative members in this house from the maritimes why they have not heard their leader come out and complain against this increase? We have heard lots of complaints in the last few days about the pipe line because western Canada was going to get some benefit from that. Now, since Ontario and Quebec are going to get the major advantage from this increase you have not heard the leader of the Conservative party say one word and you will not either, make no mistake about it. He knows which side his bread is buttered on.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Don't be so foolish!


Charles Edward Johnston: Did you hear him say anything about it? Of course, you did not. The only reference made by Conservatives was a passing one. You were more concerned with your provincial political affairs than you were with national problems. Don't butt into me when I am talking.


Mr. Charlton:: What about yourself on the pipe line?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You did not get very far in New Brunswick.
IMr. Johnston (Bow River).]


Charles Edward Johnston: We did not do
the political graft and skulduggery that you did, and I may tell you about that.


Mr. Van Home:: What do you mean?


Charles Edward Johnston: What do I mean? You are more conversant with that because you were probably one of the ringleaders.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I think perhaps-in fact, I am quite sure

that even in the heat of the political exchanges that we are having in this debate a direct accusation of political graft addressed to a member should be unequivocally withdrawn.


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not say
that he did. I was saying there was political graft there and the evidence is very clear.


Mr. Dufresne:: You said he was one of the ringleaders.


Charles Edward Johnston: He probably was.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. Perhaps I might draw the attention of both hon. gentlemen to the fact that I am on my feet. I would ask the hon. member for Bow River, since I have drawn this to his attention, to make it quite clear and specific that he was not accusing the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska of political graft.


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not say
he was, Mr. Speaker. If I did not say it, how can I be expected to withdraw something I did not say. He was the one who was interrupting me; I was not bothering him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: am not trying to put words in the hon. member's mouth. I am asking him to make it clear because the record will make it appear as though he had charged the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska with political graft. I am asking him to make it clear that he did not so charge.


An hon. Member:: He did.


Charles Edward Johnston: Charge him with what?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: That he did not charge the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska with political bribery.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And skulduggery.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: do not know whether the other term is unparliamentary.


Mr.   Johnslon@Bow River: That is right. I agree with that. I cannot say that he did not give the loads of gravel, but there were lots given.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: On a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: do not want to be harsh in this, but I heard the hon. member for Bow River-and I do not know what was in his mind-and I do know how his words will appear when they go out in Hansard. All I am asking him to do, because I must ask him to do it, is to make it clear that he was not making a personal charge of political graft against the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I say unhesitatingly that I did not accuse the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska of driving those gravel trucks. I never saw him on them. I cannot say he had anything to do about political graft; I did not say that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order-


Charles Edward Johnston: Were you on the gravel trucks? Sit down.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: All the members of the
Social Credit party lost their deposits. The hon. member has no right-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order, If the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska is rising on a point of order, he will please state it as briefly as possible.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I insist, Mr. Speaker, that he withdraw his entirely false accusation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The
hon. member knows as well as I do that what he is doing now is debating. I will say this to the hon. member. If he considers that some statement which has reference to him or to his speech is being misinterpreted by the hon. member for Bow River he will have an opportunity to make his correction at the end of the speech of the hon. member for Bow River. I rose on the personal accusation. That has been made clear. The hon. member for Bow River should now proceed to make his speech.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He made another one.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was just trying to help those fellows out and they do not appreciate it. What I was trying to point out was that they should get some more support from the members of the Ontario Conservative party to fight this increase in freight rates.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I rise on a point of order.


Mr.   Johnslon@Bow River: Who has the
floor?
Request for Election and Senate Reform


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I am rising on a point of order.


Charles Edward Johnston: How many points of order have you?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The hon. member for Bow River said in his speech that there was some political graft in New Brunswick and that the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska was probably one of the ringleaders. I am asking Your Honour to have the hon. member withdraw the whole statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The hon. member has clearly done so. He said that he did not make the statement that I accused him of making; that is, that he did not make the personal reference to the hon. member. I am not going to stand here and rule unparliamentary the accusing of a political party of things which perhaps are not too ethical because I am sure that every party in this house has been accused by every other party of doing what should not have been done on many occasions. The hon. member for Bow River.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, now that that little flurry is over I would like to point out to the house again that in my judgment one of the most important things that we should be discussing now is the increase in freight rates. I did point out that this increase affects the maritime provinces just as much as it affects the western provinces. I also want to point out that in the application of those freight rates one of the industries affected, particularly the one; in western Canada that I am more closely-associated with and therefore more familiar with, is that of agriculture. Agriculture-stands to lose a great deal because of this; increase in freight rates. Industry in central Canada is not in a position similar to that of agriculture because no matter what freight rates may be applied in those competitive areas there is an opportunity for industry to pass the cost along to the consumer, aitdi they do that on every occasion. But agriculture has not that privilege, and therefore we must take very careful cognizance of the increase.
It has been suggested that in Canada the national product this year will be $28 billion. That of agriculture, of course, as everyone knows, is away down. An increase in freight rates at this time is certainly not going to do agriculture very much good. I doubt very much whether the railways really do need the increase that is being granted. Seven per cent has already been granted, and another 8 per cent will probably be granted after the final hearings in September.
5400	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Request for Election and Senate Reform
A good article appeared in the Western increased wages; but, of course, in their subProducer dealing with whether or not the mission that is not so. Not only do they railways could have absorbed this increase, outline the necessity for more revenue to pay The railways claim that the increase was wage increases but they contend, as they necessary because of the increased wages they always have, that they want to maintain their had to pay to their employees. The Western fixed charges, dividends and surpluses and Producer of Thursday, June 14, had this to they want to have sufficient revenue for those say in an article entitled:	purposes. It is not for the sole purpose of
Pool Brief Says Railways Should Be Able to meeting the increase in wages which was the Absorb Their Present Increase in Costs	result of the last arbitration.
The article says in part:
In the application of the railway association for a 15 per cent increase in general rates, it is contended that railways are not enjoying their just share of the national prosperity. Nevertheless, operating income of the C.P.R., the yardstick company for rate-making purposes, amounted to $37,400,000 during 1955, the highest annual level recorded during the past 10 years with the exception of 1950.
Based on these railway operating statistics and the cash farm income position outlined previously, it is our contention that the Canadian railways are in a much better position to forgo increased freight rates at the present time than is the farm industry to pay another 15 per cent in general rates. We can see no reason why the farm population, which still constitutes a large percentage of our population, should be burdened with further increased expenses which they are unable to pass on to anyone else.
The wheat pool and other organizations representing farm people have appeared before your board in opposition to proposed freight rate increases probably more often than the representatives of most other major industries. The reason is the fact that farm people are much harder hit by increases in freight rates and increases in prices of consumer goods than any other group.
They were not the only ones who were "concerned about this. Let me just refer to the Wheat Pool Budget of June 22, which "says:
Freight Increase Protested
The Canadian federation of agriculture has protested the granting of an interim increase in freight rates, declaring such a move both >unnecessary and unreasonable. In a submission filed with the board of transport commissioners the federation pointed out that the present failure of agriculture to share in the general Canadian prosperity means that a further rate increase would impose an unfair and unreasonable burden on the farmers. Farmers could not pass on the burden of increased freight rates to consumers of farm products, but as heavy users of transportation services, increased freight rates would place a double burden on the farmer. They would reduce the price he receives for his products, and increase the price of farm supplies and equipment.
The C.F.A. said that even if increases were granted they should not apply to farm products. It suggested greater efficiency on the part of the railroads.
I would like to emphasize that last sentence where they say that greater efficiency on the part of the railways might improve their position. Let us have a further look at the reason for this increase in freight rates. The railways have suggested that it was necessary because of the demand of the unions for

When we are considering the revenue of the railways it is most unfair of the board of transport commissioners not to take into consideration the tremendous amount of revenue which is derived through hotels, the oil rights held by the railways from which they are receiving millions and millions of dollars, and the smelters in British Columbia. None of these revenues are considered when we are granting this ultimate 15 per cent increase in freight rates. These are the sources-the hotels, oil rights, smelters and all the other subsidiaries-from which the railways are receiving a tremendous amount of money. When anyone says the railways of this country are hard up I suggest they have another think coming because the railways are better able to absorb this increase due to wages than are the farmers able to absorb an increase in freight rates on the movement of their products.
Let us just review for a moment the increases the railways have had since the spring of 1948. I refer again to the publication Wheat Pool Budget dated June 22, 1956, which contains a table showing the rate increases
granted the railways since the		spring of 1948
as follows:		Cumulative
	Increase	Per cent
	Per cent	Increase
April 8, 1948 .	
210	21 0Oct. 11, 1949	
80	30-7Mar. 23, 1950	(16 per cent	in lieu of 8	per cent) ... 7-4	40-4
June 16, 1950 (20 per cent
in	lieu	of 16 per cent .	. 3-4	45-2July	26,	1951 	. 120	62-6
Feb. 11, 1952 (17 per cent
in lieu of 12 per cent)	.. 4-5	69-9Jan. 1, 1953 	... 90	85-2March 16, 1953 	... 70	98-2July 3, 1956 	... 70	112-1Just see how the	railways have	been increasing their rates since 1948; and now they come and ask for a further increase.
Mr. Speaker, this is indeed putting western Canada and the maritimes in a most difficult position. It is putting us in a position which makes it next to impossible for us to develop our industries. Some of the maritime speakers referred a moment ago to the lack of industry in the maritimes. How can they ever expect to get an increase in the industrial field if they continue to have these cumulative

freight increases piled on their backs? We have had that experience in western Canada. It has been most difficult for us to get any industries located there because of the unfair freight rates. These freight rates impose an unbearable burden upon agriculture, one of our greatest industrial assets in western Canada. There should be some decided improvement in these conditions.
I would like now, Mr. Speaker, to refer to a particular illustration or example of where this has created an unfair burden upon western Canada. I wish to refer to the agreed charges. It is not my intention to criticize the agreed charges at this moment but I want to show how they bear a direct effect upon the burden the maritimes and western Canada will have to carry when this further 8 per cent increase is granted to the railways in compensation, as they say, for the loss of their revenue due to wage increases.
It has been stated that the agreed charges and competitive rates represent about 30 per cent of the traffic of the Canadian Pacific Railway and that company is used as a yardstick in these arguments. If that is so it is clear that 100 per cent of the increase is going to be applied to 70 per cent of the traffic. In other words, that means that 100 per cent of this proposed increase is going to be applied on 70 per cent of the traffic and that 70 per cent lies in those areas which are in the non-competitive field. That does not include Ontario and Quebec because they are in the competitive area, as I stated previously in my remarks.
Let me refer to one particular item. In the case of farm machinery from Ontario to western Canada there will be charged 100 per cent of this 7 per cent increase-and ultimately of the 15 per cent increase-while automobiles shipped to western Canada from the east will get no increase because they are entrenched under the agreed charges contract. It is an amazing thing that wherever there has been competition from trucks on items that trucks can carry the railways have succeeded in putting all of those under agreed charge contracts, and now when they go to apply this 7 per cent increase in freight rates the agreed charges are not going to be touched because they are already protected by legislation and by contract. The entire 100 per cent of this new increase is going to be applied on these commodities which trucks cannot handle and which are not in the competitive area of Ontario and Quebec and therefore western Canada and the maritimes are going to be soaked the total increase of this new interim payment which the railways are receiving. Surely no one can consider this is a fair and proper deal to put over on other parts of Canada.
Request for Election and Senate Reform,
Again we have steel plate going to Vancouver which pays $1.10 and takes no increase under this "first aid" treatment, as it was referred to by Mr. Justice Kearney, but Edmonton and Calgary-paying $2.80, over two and a half times as much as Vancouver must pay-must pay the 100 per cent increase.
All this steel plate which is being shipped to the prairie provinces and the maritimes is going to pay the full 100 per cent increase but those commodities which are shipped through to Vancouver are going to get protection because of the agreed charges. No wonder I have condemned agreed charges ever since 1938 because I could see exactly what they were leading to. I ask you, where is the justice of this? How can anyone say this is an honest, impartial application of this 7 per cent increase? The method of applying the freight rates is making it impossible to establish industries in the maritimes and in the western provinces.
In a minute I shall have to conclude, but I want to say this. If there is to be an application of this increase, then it should be applied uniformly across the freight rate structure. That is pointed out by the Edmonton chamber of commerce in this resolution:
Whereas the Board of Transport Commissioners has announced its plans to grant the railways an interim increase in freight rates, subject to review next September;
Therefore be it resolved that the Edmonton chamber of commerce requests the Board of Transport Commissioners, in reviewing the general increase in freight rates, to order the railways to apply any increase which the board may see fit to grant, as uniformly as possible to all existing rates, excepting those rates fixed by statute; and
Further requests that the railways be required to show cause where they propose any departure from such uniform application.
Without question, the last reference was to make the railways show cause and reason why these increased rates for which they are asking should not be applied on agreed charge contracts as well as on the general freight rate structure. If that were done, there might be some excuse for granting this increase. If the railways need it, and I doubt very much that they do, then every effort should be made to see that this rate is applied uniformly across the country except under those conditions where the freight rate is written out by statute.


Thomas Miller Bell: On
a question of privilege, the hon. member for Bow River, who has just taken his seat, seems concerned about the fact and he also left the impression that those of us in the maritimes are not worried as much as we should be about freight rates. Whilst I appreciate his interest on behalf of the maritimes, I would refer him to the speech made
5402	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform yesterday by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), the first speaker from the maritimes in this debate, who dealt extensively with the freight rate problem. In fact, he spent over half of his speech on this subject.


Donald D. Carrick: I should like to take the opportunity of speaking shortly on this motion because I have a few ideas I should like to express that have been disturbing not only me but many members of the public in connection with the type of opposition that is being met with by this government in this house.
I read over the speech of the Leader of the Opposition today and I listened very carefully yesterday when he spoke, with a view to ascertaining exactly what the grounds were on which he supported this motion that the Prime Minister dissolve this house immediately and call an election as soon as possible.
The foremost ground put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, without referring to details of the recent gas pipe-line debate, is that the Speaker of this house and the Deputy Speaker and deputy chairman of committees were dominated by the government in this house and that their position has been called into question. Under the ruling that the Speaker has given, it is not permissible for me to refer to details of that debate, and I shall refrain from doing so. I simply want to make the observation that it is my firm conviction that any person reading that debate could come to no other conclusion but that the officials of this house whose position has been challenged acted honourably and impartially and free from any pressure by this government.
I also point out to the house that nobody has called into question the position of the officials of this house except the official opposition. It would be an absurd position if this house were in the position where, because the opposition calls into question the conduct of the officials of this house-and I may say, sir, calls them into question improperly-they could therefore, upon the basis of that demand, feel justified in obtaining an election.
The second ground advanced by the Leader of the Opposition is that a member of the cabinet, the representative of the government in the other place, has bent to the will of this government in the discharge of his duties in the other place and that he has procured the other members of the house to bend to the will of this government. I point out to the house that the Leader of the Opposition has not adduced the slightest evidence to substantiate such a charge. It is


difficult for me to realize how a man could be in public life as long as he has and make serious charges of that kind without endeavouring to persuade this house in the slightest degree that the charges are substantiated by adducing any evidence to this house.
I am not permitted to refer to the debates that took place in the other place, and I do not intend to do so, but I want to say that from talking to people who heard those debates their reaction was that the other place could reach no other conclusion but that the gas pipe-line bill should be approved, and approved expeditiously.
The Leader of the Opposition has urged that this government has lost the moral right to govern this country. I say that that is simply not true. This government did nothing in the gas pipe-line debate and in the applying of closure that it was not entitled to do and that was not completely proper, and the people of this country are wholeheartedly still in favour of the present government continuing to administer the affairs of this country.
The last accusation of the Leader of the Opposition is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce bent this house to his will. This is another type of charge which it is difficult to meet, as many charges are when accusations of this kind are made, but it is completely untrue.
I point out to this house that the whole cabinet supported the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Eight members of the cabinet spoke in support of this resolution and the subsequent bill, and I estimate that about 60 members from the government side did so. I know that hon. members from time to time make light of the support given by backbenchers on this side to measures of the government. I ask them in all sincerity if it is not the practice in Canadian politics for members of every party to support their own party in so far as their conscience permits them to do so. I have not made a check on the debates and proceedings in this house, but I dare say that if a check were made it would show that the members of the C.C.F. party and the Conservative party support their leaders to just as great an extent as the members of this party support the government. I can tell them that, in connection with the gas pipe line, there was no doubt whatsoever about the sentiments of this party. They were wholeheartedly in favour of it because they believed that the gas pipe-line bill was a good thing and they realized that the only way of putting a bill through and having the majority express its wishes in this house was by the application of closure.

The matter that somewhat disturbs me and is disturbing to many other people in this country is what I describe as the evil tendency of the opposition to denigrate and belittle and attack the integrity of men who are occupying prominent positions in this government and this country. I simply point to this motion. The basis of the attack in this case is against the three officials of this house and against the government leader in the other place and, indirectly, against all members in that other place and against the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In any country this would be a serious enough thing, but this is not a sporadic, unpremeditated episode. It is part of a systematic attempt on the part of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) to undermine public confidence in the integrity of the men who are directing the affairs of this government. When I say it is not something unpremeditated and that it is a systematic attempt, I need only refer to what has happened in this parliament on other occasions. I will not go into the particulars of the debates because I do not want to transgress against the rules, but I point out that the same type of attack has been levelled against the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in connection with the debate on external affairs. He was accused of not being candid with parliament. I consider that an attack upon his integrity. He was accused of withholding information that the house was entitled to receive.
But there has recently been some little change of direction in the attack upon the Prime Minister of this country. The reason must be perfectly obvious. It must be realized that with the ordinary men and women of Canada his reputation is beyond reproach. As a result we see some of the second lieutenants called into action such as the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) who made a speech the other night in which he referred to the Prime Minister as being old and tired. On what basis? Because he only participated about four or five times in the gas pipe line debate. That may indicate weariness and lack of interest to some members of the opposition but I will tell you what it indicates to the public. The people of Canada believe that the Prime Minister of this country was too much of a gentleman, too much of a statesman, to stoop to lower himself to the political gutter because the Leader of the Opposition did in the pipe line debate.


Hazen Robert Argue: Pretty feeble.


An hon. Member:: Go on back to Saskatchewan where you belong.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, I am not sure that I heard all of the concluding
Request for Election and Senate Reform remarks of the member for Trinity but if I did hear correctly it seemed to me he was saying that the Leader of the Opposition, in the course of a certain debate, had descended to the political gutter of debate. If I heard correctly, that is a completely unparliamentary remark-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nonsense.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and I am rather surprised to hear such a remark come from the member for Trinity. I ask you, sir, to direct the member to withdraw an aspersion of that kind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: More of this thin-skinned stuff! Childish!


Donald D. Carrick: I am willing to say that perhaps that was a little extreme. I do say, however-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Withdraw it, then.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: The
hon. member for Trinity should be allowed to explain.


Donald D. Carrick: I withdraw it. I simply say that the Leader of the Opposition involved the house in a low level of debate, a level which it has not reached in many years and of which the country as a whole disapproved, and I lay that at his doorstep.


An hon. Member:: Look at the Gallup poll, Don.


Donald D. Carrick: Lastly, we have before us in this debate accusations levelled against the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). That is nothing new to the house. There has been a calculated attempt to destroy him in the opinion of the public which began last year with the Defence Production Act. We saw a follow-through on it in the external affairs debate and now we see a follow-through on it with the accusation that he has endeavoured to bend parliament to his will. I say, Mr. Speaker, that nobody in this country can say anything that can destroy what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has done for this country. I say to hon. members opposite: Let them contrast what happened during the last war, with not a breath of scandal even though millions of dollars were passing through the hands of the government, with what happened in the first war. Does anybody suggest for a moment that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not completely honest? Even the opposition sit silent on that question. They are willing to make charges on the public platform, to suggest by innuendo and influence that he is not a man of integrity, but I face them now with
5404	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform the actual charge and I say: If you do not believe he is a man of integrity and honesty, say so now.


Edward George McCullough: What about the Bren gun scandal?


Donald D. Carrick: The Leader of the Opposition may be under the impression that these personal attacks upon members of the cabinet, officials of the house, the leader of the government in the Senate and the members of the Senate, are winning him some votes. I can tell the hon. gentleman that he is gravely mistaken. Millions of decent men and women in this country object to politics being conducted in that way.
Mr. Pallet!: What is this, a personal attack?


Donald D. Carrick: They say that the Leader of the Opposition or any person who conducts himself in that way is not a big enough man to be prime minister of Canada.


Mr. Churchill:: That is a personal attack.


Donald D. Carrick: Furthermore, they are suggesting what is obvious to everybody. If it must be the policy of the official opposition to centre their attack upon individuals-


An hon. Member:: That is what you are doing.


Donald D. Carrick: -and challenge the integrity of the members of the government, there must be an explanation. The explanation has been patent to everybody for the last twenty years. It is patent to them at the present time. The only reason they do it is that they have nothing else they can talk about to commend themselves to the voters and they mistakenly think that by making personal attacks on these people they are going to succeed in winning votes. I tell them they are gravely mistaken.


An hon. Member:: Who is mudslinging now?


Donald D. Carrick: Mr. Speaker, nothing has been advanced by the Leader of the Opposition or by his supporter, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), to indicate that the government should dissolve the house at this time and call an election. We are enjoying a period of prosperity unprecedented in the history of Canada.


Edward George McCullough: How
about agriculture?


Donald D. Carrick: The government has carried out the proceedings in connection with the pipe line bill, including closure, in a way that commends itself to every fair-minded person in this country.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nonsense.
[Mr. Carrick.)


Donald D. Carrick: The attacks that have been made upon the officials of this house, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the government leader in the other place and the members of the other place are something that everybody in the country dislikes. I submit to you, sir, that it would be a catastrophe for the opposition if their request were granted at this time, but their request should not be granted for the reasons I have respectfully endeavoured to set before you.


Mr. F. S. Zaplilny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, the motion we are now debating is one which asks the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to give consideration to an early election. I think the hon. member who has just taken his seat perhaps provided the best reason why the motion should be carried. It was his contention that everything the government has done in recent months and, in fact, in recent years, has been perfect and that every person who occupies the government benches is a paragon of virtue and all their officials are beyond reproach. If these are his opinions and if they are shared by the hon. members who support the government, I would think that they would support this motion with great alacrity, go to the people and reap the benefit of all this virtue.
But it seems that they are very reluctant to capitalize upon this great, virtuous government that they support. As a matter of fact, we are in a sort of curious position as far as this motion is concerned. If those members who support the government vote against the motion they are in effect voting lack of confidence in their own party because if they have the confidence in the party they support which they express in the house then they would of course vote for the motion and get their case before the people as quickly as possible, but by voting against the motion they will be expressing lack of confidence in their own party, showing they are afraid to go to the people.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That is pretty muddled thinking.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yesterday the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Gardiner) endeavoured to give some reasons why he did not think it would be a wise thing to go to the people at this time, and I believe he more or less inadvertently gave the clue to the reluctance of himself, the government and their supporters to go to the people at this time. He said in one part of his speech that in his opinion certain things that had been said by the opposition were not properly understood by the public, and then he said: "Just give them a few weeks and then we will see what the people will say." Apparently he feels there is something that he wants the public to forget because he wants to give them a few

weeks, or better still, a few months, and then go to the public. That indicates that the government is anxious that the people should forget certain things that have taken place. So far as the real issues are concerned, I propose today to give five reasons why I believe it would be proper and appropriate for this house to be dissolved and to go to the country at this time or in the nearest possible future.
The burden of the reply to this motion by the Liberal speakers so far has been the claim of prosperity. Again and again they have repeated that this country is experiencing the greatest prosperity in its history. Mr. Speaker, I think there is something a little bit rude-if I might use that word- about that kind of a boast made in this house. I should like to read to them a bit of scripture. I am sure they will not mind my doing so. I should like to refer them to the fortieth verse of the twenty-fifth chapter of St. Matthew, which reads as follows:
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Why do I quote that passage of scripture? Because when they make these boasts about prosperity, they back up their arguments by pointing to the business world, to the increased dividends being paid by the huge corporations, and to the huge profits that are being reaped by the huge corporations in this country. To them that constitutes prosperity. But to me, Mr. Speaker, and, I am sure, to my colleagues in this party and to a great many people in this country, many of whom at present are in the class who may not be even supporters of this party but who are of a sympathetic nature politically speaking, prosperity does not mean huge profits or huge dividends to the shareholders of our corporations. Prosperity means the well-being and the welfare of every citizen in this country. As long as there is one citizen in this country who through no fault of his own or her own is suffering, we cannot claim that we have achieved prosperity in this country. There are many hundreds of thousands-yes, perhaps millions-in this country who are today not experiencing anything like the prosperity we heard talked about by members on the government side of this house.
Even a quick look at the statistics will indicate that the average income of the families in this country is a long way from being such that they are in the position in which they can buy even the essentials of life such as the food, clothing and shelter which they require. Then of course we have the whole sector of our economy which comes under the general description of agriculture. Members
26, 1956	5405
Request for Election and Senate Reform on both sides of the house but particularly members on the Liberal side of it have admitted from time to time that, whereas we have this so-called prosperity, our agricultural section of the country has not shared in that prosperity. As a matter of fact, in the last few years, it has been getting a smaller share of the national income than before. How can members supporting the government say that this country is experiencing prosperity when the most important basic industry in this country upon which our whole economy is based has been experiencing a severe recession in recent years? How can members of the government say that all is well, that there is no need for a reference to the people, and that this government should carry on in its merry way, when they know that that part of our population which is engaged in agriculture is now receiving the smallest share of the national income, in proportion to its numbers, that it has received since 1933 when we were at the depth of the depression? Those are facts and figures they must face.
That is why I say it is a little bit rude and boastful to be talking about this prosperity when there are thousands, hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of people in this country who are not enjoying what is known as prosperity but who are struggling to make ends meet. There are many thousands who are living at a substandard level or a subsubsistence level in this country. You have only to contact the welfare societies across this country and the various organizations which are interested in the welfare of the people, and they will point out to you people living in poverty, in hunger, practically in starvation in our midst, while we talk about prosperity and the members supporting the government use that as an argument or a reason why they should not go to the people at this time. I therefore say that my first reason why this motion should carry and why a reference should be made to the public at this time is that this government has failed agriculture. It has failed agriculture in several ways. I will mention two in particular.
First of all, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) with regard to freight rates. Certainly the government has not protected the interests of agriculture by allowing freight rates to go hopscotching on their way year after year. Let me say this. The hon. member for Bow River has already drawn attention to the fact that one of the companies-that is the Canadian Pacific Railway Company-without taking into account profits which they get from their mining interests, hotels and other interests

Request for Election and Senate Reform but out of their transportation alone, accumulated a profit of $37J million.
It may be argued that the Canadian National Railways from time to time require money because they have a deficit. I want to make it perfectly clear that there is a great difference between giving assistance to the Canadian National Railways and giving assistance to the Canadian Pacific Railway. I do not think a flat increase across the board in freight rates is the right way in which to come to the assistance of the Canadian National Railways. Certainly the Canadian Pacific Railway does not require it. The Canadian National Railways is partly if not totally owned by the Canadian people. We have an interest in it. We have a stake in it. We rescued several bankrupt private companies and formed them into a national railway system. That railway system is there to serve the people of Canada. It was not intended or designed to be a profit-making organization. Certainly we are happy and glad to see a surplus if they can operate efficiently and revenues are buoyant enough. We are glad to see the Canadian National Railways make a surplus. But that is not the reason why the Canadian National Railways was established in this country. It was established to provide service.
You have only to look at the map of Canada, particularly one of western Canada, to see the reason why the Canadian National Railways has a financial struggle as compared with the Canadian Pacific Railway. Here is a railway that had to run branch lines or spur lines into the most uneconomic parts of the prairie west, when the west was opening up, in order to provide a service-often at a loss-so that people would not be left isolated in communities without service. They were put there to provide service whereas the C.P.R. would not touch it with a ten-rod pole. For that reason the C.N.R. have had to suffer deficits. Any time that the Canadian National Railway system can show that they require a grant of money from this parliament or some form of assistance in order to provide a greater service for the Canadian people, I for one would be glad to vote such assistance. To lump them together with the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is nothing but a purely commercial profit-making organization, and to say that because we have to give some assistance to the Canadian National Railways, we will raise the freight rates across the board and let this huge Canadian Pacific Railway system benefit also is going about the matter in the wrong way and doing it to the detriment of agriculture.
The government has also failed the farmer in a very important principle with regard

to agriculture. In the last three or four years- and as a matter of fact, more than that, but more recently it has been given greater emphasis among farm organizations-my colleagues and I in this house and others have been fighting for the principle of parity prices for agriculture. I have heard many members-and many candidates who have not become members-who were supporting the Liberal party, speaking on the public platforms in western Canada in agricultural communities, pledge themselves to the principle of parity prices for agricultural products. Now, some of those gentlemen sit in this house now but every time that issue has come up in the form of a motion they have solidly voted against it.
The farm organizations across this country are getting a little tired of being told one story by the Liberal members out in the country and then told a different story in the House of Commons. This is a principle which I believe should be adopted by this parliament. If the members who support the government are in doubt about it, then what better way of finding out what the public reaction is could there be than going back to the people? This is a very important time for agriculture to establish the principle of parity. We are at the crossroads now. If we have even a slight recession in our general economy, and it seems to be on its way,-it is already affecting the housing situation-we know that agriculture will be the first to suffer a decrease in its income because that has been the trend throughout the years. It was what happened in 1929 and again in 1952, 1953, 1955 and so on. This is the time when this parliament should establish a basis upon which a sound and prosperous agriculture in this country can function. The only principle upon which it can function as a sound and efficient industry is the principle of parity prices.
I give as my second reason why we should now make a reference to the public the fact that this government has failed to promote social security for the citizens of this country. When we see the readiness with which the government can toss about $80 million in this direction and $130 million in that direction, it saddens me to think that looking back over the record I find the last time this parliament increased old age pensions was in 1949. For seven years now, with the cost of living rising, with production increasing in this country, with the gross national product climbing, with Liberals running all over the country crying prosperity, the older people who pioneered and built up this country, who made the greatest contribution to the welfare of this country, have had to sit back for seven years

and beg the government time and again for a little increase in that pittance which they are getting in order that they may get a little share of this so-called prosperity, this great surplus they are crying about. There has not been a one cent increase for old age pensioners in the last seven years.
We come to family allowances, which is something that affects practically every family in the country one way or another, and nothing has been done since 1945. Here is this government which talks about prosperity, here is this government which feels it can shell out $130 million to a private company to establish a gas monopoly in Canada without batting an eye and even bulldozes it through parliament by gagging the members, but when it comes to the children of this country who are the greatest natural resource today and to the older people who have made the greatest contribution to this nation, they say no, we simply cannot afford it. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), according to the newspapers, expects a surplus of about $250 million.


Walter Edward Harris: No, I did not say that.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am quoting what appeared in the newspapers. I think $242 million was the figure and judging from the attitude of the minister I think it might go to $250 million. However, let us say it is $200 million. What is the government planning to do with that surplus? Are we going to be treated again to what is sometimes referred to as cyclical budgeting, and what I call cynical budgeting, by which they will dispose of some of this surplus in the form of tax reductions and other concessions? Should the government today not go back to the people and say, "This is your money; this $200 million surplus is $200 million more than we required for ordinary expenses. We have overtaxed you to the tune of $200 million; we have overcharged you for the administration of this country. This is your money and what do you want us to do with it?" That is the question that should be asked of the Canadian people. It is the people of the country who should decide what should be done. It should not be left to the treasury board or to the brain trust behind the Liberal party to calculate how many votes they can buy with that $200 million. This money belongs to the people who have overcontributed and they are the only ones who have a democratic right to decide.


Walter Edward Harris: What do you do when you have a deficit?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That is another reason why there should be a reference to the public at this time.
26, 1956	5407
Request for Election and Senate Reform
While I am talking about the question of social security let me add this. Our whole economic structure is such that from the financial point of view it is based on a foundation of sand. It is tricky and uncertain. Today we are talking about prosperity. Looking at the balance sheet of the business world we seem to be sitting on top of the world, but a slight difference in the stock exchange situation on Wall street or St. James street, or any other place where the financial world is really based, and we would find our whole economy begin to tumble like a house of cards. That is one reason why my colleagues and I have introduced this question of a sound basis for social security for all people in this country now, not only because it is the humanitarian and Christian thing to do but also because it is good business. It is the only thing which will save this kind of an economy from these booms and busts we have experienced in the past. So long as there is a steady flow of income into the hands of the people who need it most, who deserve it most and who will spend it most readily, then we have the soundest and the best insurance for the continuance of our economy.
We cannot measure the soundness of our economy by the number of our millionaires because they are few and they are not the main part of our economy. We have to measure the soundness of our economy by the citizens of this country who provide the goods and services, those who contribute so much to the welfare of this country, have a solid basis of social security upon which they can depend, then our economic future is sound. But if we leave it simply to a scramble for profits, leave it to those who are struggling to take advantage of the weaker ones, leave it to that method to carry on our economy, then we will have a repetition of the great depressions we have had before.
I give as my third reason why a reference should be made to the people at this time the fact that the government has failed to deal effectively with monopolies and combines in this country. One has only to read some of the reports of the investigators themselves of monopolies and combines in this country to realize how far behind anything the government has done heretofore is. They are behind the formation of monopolies and combines; they are merely scratching the surface. Once in a while we see in the newspapers that some huge monopoly or combine has been hauled into court and fined for breaking the Combines Investigation Act. We see that they are fined some $40,000 or $50,000 and some people looking at that think it is a rather stiff fine. If they look further behind that they find that the people who have been fined this $40,000 or $50,000, by

Request for Election and Senate Reform virtue of having broken the law and formed a combine, have been exploiting the people unfairly and have been making anywhere from three-quarters of a million dollars to a million dollars a year profit more than they should. All this $40,000 represents is a licence to break the law, and that is all this government has been doing up to now. This country is more under the control of monopolies and combines today than it ever was before in history. The government must take the responsibility for that because it is their primary responsibility to use the Combines Investigation Act.
I give as my fourth reason the fact that the Liberal majority has failed to protect the democratic procedures in this house-I say the Liberal majority instead of the government, because I think that all that needs to be said has been said with regard to the actions of the government in the recent debate in regard to the pipe line. But I want to remind the private members who support the government-because it is by their support and by virtue of their majority that the government exists-that they seem not to have realized the responsibility which rests upon their shoulders for what has happened. They have only to look at the newspapers, to look at the editorial comments in the last three or four weeks. Let them go to the newspaper files in the reading room; let them leaf through the pages of the newspapers and read some of the editorials and then stop and ask themselves who is responsible for the disregard of parliamentary procedure in this house. Primarily, of course, the government is behind it and the main responsibility rests upon those members supporting the government who, meekly and with a subservience that is hard to understand, allowed the government to use them as an instrument for bulldozing their bill through the house.
There is only one final judge in this matter. We could argue about it here for the next six months or the next year; we could say that the government was responsible for the disregard of parliamentary procedure and the breaking of rules in this house, and members of the government could claim that the opposition was responsible. I think there is only one judge in the long run, and that is the Canadian people. Go back to the people. After all, this parliament belongs to the people of Canada. Ask them the question, do they believe the government was justified in using the tactics they used, in using the high office of the Speaker of this house, in order to put through a measure which under ordinary rules of procedure they would have failed to put through. Let the people give them the 

verdict. It is time that the people of Canada had an opportunity to pass upon what has happened here.
Then, as the fifth reason, I would give the one that was the chief reason, as I understood it, proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. He spoke about Senate reform. While he covered the subject rather comprehensively from the point of view of what is wrong with the other place, so far as I could see there was no specific proposal made as to what could be done about it. I think the people of Canada are getting a little tired of hearing about Senate reform. I can recall that one of the first things I heard in a political meeting in my life was about Senate reform, and that is quite a few years ago. It is more than 25 years ago. In 1919 the leader of the Liberal party at that time asserted, as part of his platform, Senate reform. We have been hearing about it and debating it in this house ever since, and nothing has been done about it. I think the people of Canada now have the right to state whether they want some finality on this question. The people of Canada feel that if this other place needs to be reformed certainly plenty of arguments have been brought forward to point that out. It is time that this house, if it has a responsibility in the matter, took some action instead of just talking about it for the next 25 years.
I am going to propose something which I think might be the solution. I believe that in conjunction with the federal election there should be a plebiscite, and the people themselves could have an opportunity to express their opinions directly on this question of Senate reform. I would prefer it that way, rather than making it a political issue, where one party would take a particular stand, opposed by another party, because I believe that this parliament, any part of this parliament whether it is this house or the other house, is so important to our whole democratic structure and to our constitution that any reform of our parliament should not be a political issue. I think it should be an issue placed squarely before the Canadian people themselves. Let them express their preference. I think a plebiscite would probably be the best way in which to do it. I would propose that a ballot be prepared at the time of the next general election and given to the public on which there could be four questions. If any one can suggest better questions or perhaps arrange them in a better way he is welcome to do it. I would start out by asking the question:
Do you prefer that:
(1)	The Canadian Senate remain as presently constituted?

(2)	The Canadian Senate be an elected assembly?
(3)	The Canadian Senate be appointed by the provinces?
(4)	The Canadian Senate be abolished?
I think that pretty well covers all of the proposals that I have heard in this house and outside as to what could be done to reform the other place. Obviously, if the majority of the people of Canada prefer to leave the Canadian Senate as it is constituted at the present time, then this house will have to honour it and we will know that nothing more needs to be done. If they choose one of the other three alternatives, then our duty will be clear, and it will take it out of the area of political discussion. It will not be a party issue. Members who are elected at the next election will feel that they have a mandate from the people of Canada, who are the sovereign body of this country, to take certain steps to make certain reforms in order that the other place will perform its function, if it is to exist. If the people of Canada feel that it no longer serves a useful purpose, then it will cease to exist and the question will be settled once and for all.
I have given these five reasons and I summarize them by saying this. I would suggest to the members supporting the government that they think very carefully before opposing this motion, because anyone who takes the stand in this house that this parliament should not be dissolved and an appeal made to the public of Canada for a new parliament is, in my opinion, taking the stand that the people of Canada should not be given the opportunity at this time to pass judgment on all those issues I have mentioned, plus the very unusual things that have happened within the last month.
No one will say, neither the government nor anyone in the opposition, that what has happened here within the last four or five weeks has been anything like normal in a Canadian parliament or in any democratic parliament. It has been something very unusual, and something which has disturbed the public mind to a great extent. I am not going to argue that all the people of Canada agree with what the opposition did. Neither will the Liberals, I think, seriously argue that all the people of Canada agree with what they did. There will be differences of opinion, but the fact is that the people of Canada today are perhaps more aware of the Canadian parliament than they ever were before, and it is a good thing. It is a good thing that the people of Canada are beginning to think in terms of this parliament, because it is their own instrument of democracy. What finer time could there be to appeal to
26, 1956	5409
Request for Election and Senate Reform. the public than when interest in this parliament as an institution is at its peak, at a peak which it might not reach again for many years? This, I think, would be an excellent time to appeal to the public, to place the issues squarely before them and ask for their verdict, and then this parliament would come back refreshed, renewed, feeling that it had a mandate to carry out the wishes of the Canadian public.
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, the no-confidence motion now before the house and which was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew! could hardly have been brought forward at a better time. Public opinion is growing more and more alarmed at the unfortunate turn of events following upon recent happenings in this Canadian parliament.
Public opinion, forever alert, and at this time more wide-awake than ever, has been deeply moved-and still is-by the disastrous impact upon the future of our parliamentary system of the actions of a government whose sole object now appears clear. By any and every means, democratic or not, it intends to retain that power which it now feels slipping from its grasp. To this end it has resorted to sabotage, flagrant violation of our rules of procedure, abuse of the well disciplined numerical majority which it enjoys, and to any number of other actions which it would take too long to spell out at this time.
In this house, the official opposition represents a very important section of the Canadian people and it is its duty to exercise the right conferred upon it by popular consultation, conscientiously, strongly and firmly.
That right we are exercising today, convinced as we are that we speak for the majority of the Canadian people, who can no longer stand to see the party in power ill-use its prerogatives in order to prevent those sitting on this side of the house from fulfilling the mandate which they undertook to fulfil when they took their oath of office.
The Canadian people no longer have confidence in the democratically constituted authority and insist upon withdrawing, as soon as possible, the confidence which it had so generously bestowed.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you ruled that we could not recall the events which occurred in the dark days of the passing, without proper discussion, of the pipeline bill. May I say, however, that the unusual, objectionable and
5410	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform dictatorial methods which were used on that occasion profoundly shocked all those who have any respect for our parliamentary institutions, in the defence of which so many Canadians have fallen, at the hands of those who sought to destroy them.
That sole reason is one which, in my opinion, justifies the public outcry which is being heard in all parts of our great country, for a general election which, I have no doubt, would condemn the undemocratic attitudes of this government.
By going to the country, we would also give the Canadian people an opportunity to express themselves on other very important issues to which the government failed to bring the promised solution.
The Leader of the Opposition has spoken about the reform of the Senate, which, in our view, has become a party to all the actions of the subservient majority the government commands in the House of Commons.


Mr. Boisvert:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) is violating the rules of this house. He is reading from a written speech. I have been watching him closely. He was very carefully following a written text and I saw how he manoeuvered a second page into view. Therefore I submit that the member for Quebec West should be called to order. He should do as we do on this side of the house and make his speech without reading it.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I heard the point of order of the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert). He has attempted to imply that I have been reading my speech word by word. I would point to him, however, that I have extensive notes which I mean to use, and I do not believe this is against the rules of this house.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that my present statements are ill calculated to please the hon. member, but he will have to submit to them just the same.
As I was saying, the opposition has a part to play. I think I shall keep doing my duty that way, and to fulfil the task entrusted to me. More than ever it is time to undertake Senate reform, unless we want respect for the honourable upper house to become a thing of the past.
Far be it from me to demand the abolition of the Senate. This parliamentary institution, wanted and created by the fathers of con-


federation in 1867, i.e., more than 89 years ago, has never undergone any change that would adapt it to needs and requirements of our time. In its present form, it has lost the real purpose for which it was created.
At the time the Senate was established, it was meant to undertake a more meticulous and dispassionate study of any legislation passed by the House of Commons. It was, moreover, supposed to protect minority rights. As a matter of fact, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), whose words I am now quoting as they are printed on page 5331 of yesterday's English edition of Hansard, so rightly said:
Its members were to be selected from those who in one way or another had brought dignity or distinction to the public life of the country. They were to be chosen by the representatives of the sovereign for their acknowledged achievements or for their moral and intellectual excellence. They were to be placed in this position which was to keep them above the ordinary influences of party strife.
Let me emphasize that last sentence:
They were to be placed in this position which was to keep them above the ordinary influences of party strife-

in order to show that today appointments to the Senate are made as a reward to those who have dedicated themselves to the promotion and triumph of political ideas for which they fought most of their life.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, when the house took recess, I was recalling some statements made yesterday by the leader of the opposition showing the necessity for Senate reform and the important role which devolves upon those who are called to the upper house.
To continue my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will say that the system has become dangerous, because today the Senate is considered as a single-party institution which reflects the feelings and ideas of those who are responsible for the appointment of its members. That abnormal situation, which jeopardizes freedom of speech, requires a long overdue reform, but the government, in its indifference, is opposed to the solution of that serious problem. The appointment of an independent committee to examine that

reform and bring about the required changes is therefore most urgently needed.
I have already stated in the house and elsewhere that the provinces should have the privilege of appointing a great proportion of the members of the Senate, so that they may truly play the part assigned to them, that is to represent public opinion as expressed by those who elect the governments of the various provinces. I therefore urge the setting up of a committee and the appointment of representatives of all the Canadian provinces. We would then be sure that such a committee would be free from partisanship and could submit to the government such changes as would be in the best interest of the Canadian people.
It is becoming more and more imperative that the Senate be composed of members of unquestioned independence and impartiality. Their role would then be that envisioned by the fathers of confederation. They would protect minorities and be devoted to the Canadian people rather than to a political party.
A few days ago, Mr. Speaker, in three Canadian provinces, situated in various parts of our country, the people clearly and definitely rejected the policy of the Liberal party represented in this house by the government in power. It might be argued that provincial elections have nothing to do with the federal government and that Quebec, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan were called upon to elect a government to administer these provinces for the next four years. One could very well use that argument if the federal Liberal party had stayed away from these purely provincial elections.


Mr. Arsenault:: Will the hon. member allow me a question?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Certainly.


Bona Arsenault: Has the hon. member for Quebec West always stayed away from provincial elections?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I am very
glad to answer that question from my hon. friend from Bona venture (Mr. Arsenault) as, in fact, I took part in all the provincial electoral campaigns in my province for 25 years.


An hon. Member:: In Quebec West?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: In Quebec West and I can tell my hon. friend from Bonaventure that I took no part, either directly or indirectly, in any provincial campaign since I have been
26, 1956	5411
Request for Election and Senate Reform a member of this house, because I feel that my first duty is to the House of Commons and not to provincial electoral campaigns.


Bona Arsenault: Have the ministers and members of the Union Nationale party never taken part in federal elections?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: As far as I can remember, Mr. Speaker, in a few isolated cases, some ministers-I know one of them and some members have, in their respective constituencies, campaigned side by side with the opposition candidate, especially when the rights of the province of Quebec were at stake; they felt it their duty to ask the population of their respective constituencies to vote for those who would protect the rights of the province of Quebec so that the interests of that province may be upheld.


Bona Arsenault: Does my hon. friend from Quebec West forget that the electors of Quebec West have returned a Liberal member, Mr. Jean-Paul Galipeault, general batonnier of the Quebec bar?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, that question is quite amusing. I thought that my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) was perfectly acquainted with the Quebec city constituencies, but a little error has undoubtedly crept in thd question he has put to me.
The constituency of Quebec West, which I have the honour of . representing in this house, comprises, first of all, the provincial constituency of Saint Sauveur, where we have about 140 out of 150 polls. In this constituency of Saint Sauveur, which I represent entirely and which is known federally as the constituency of Quebec West, the Liberal candidate has lost his deposit, as my hon. friend would possibly be interested in learning.


Bona Arsenault: Not in Quebec West.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If my hon. friend refers to Quebec West constituency, in which I count about 10 polls out of a total of 150, I do not think he can boast so much about that Liberal victory, for the new member in the Quebec provincial legislature, Mr. Jean-Paul Galipeault, to whom my hon. friend referred, obtained a majority of only 158 votes in the whole of Quebec West constituency.


Bona Arsenault: Just the same he was elected.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Such was not the case however and members of the federal Liberal party, ministers and back benchers, co-
5412	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Request for Election and Senate Reform operated closely with provincial organizations in order to dominate these provinces and to force upon them the dictates of Ottawa, in the interests of the Liberal party.
In the face of this centralizing assault for the benefit of a political party, the provinces concerned arose and convincingly indicated that they did not intend to accept orders from those who proclaim themselves to be almighty because they have been presiding over the destinies of Canada for the past 21 years.
The opposition is not alone is calling for a vote of non-confidence in this government, for such a vote has been registered in no uncertain terms in three Canadian provinces, the most important and the most populous being unquestionably the province of Quebec, part of whose population I have the honour to represent here.
What is the special meaning of the vote recorded in the province of Quebec on Wednesday, June 20 last?
It expressed the indignation of a whole people in the face of federal centralizing tactics. It showed that the people of Quebec want to look after their own affairs without having to follow the lines laid down by the federal Liberal party. It shows that they are bent on regaining the rights which are theirs and which were unjustly taken away from them by the central government, through the unpardonable complicity of those who used to get their orders from Ottawa.
Finally, it represents a repudiation of the laissez faire policy of the federal government in the face of the ever increasing activities of communists, who continually extend their tentacles and resort to all possible means to spread their nefarious ideology among the Canadian people.
The Canadian people have no longer confidence in this government, which permits the royal mail to be used for subversive and pernicious propaganda by those who want to enslave us and destroy the religious and democratic institutions to which we are so deeply attached.
(Text):


Maurice Boisvert: On a point of order, the hon. member for Quebec West is reading his speech, which was previously prepared.


Hazen Robert Argue: A Liberal complaint.


Maurice Boisvert: He should not violate that rule of procedure. I am referring, Your Honour, to citation 314 in Beauchesne's second edition, page 103.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, that is the second joke of the same kind that the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert)

has tried since I started to speak this afternoon. I would remind him and I should like the chair to know, as I said this afternoon, that I have many notes. I have certain expressions in French that I want to use and I do not want to forget them. That is why I have written them down, and I think this is very important, Mr. Speaker. After all, we are in the chamber of the nation, and I do not think I should use any words that come to my mind without thinking of them first.


Mr. Dickey:: Definitely not.


Mr. Sinclair:: Tell that to your colleagues. (Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the people have lost confidence in the government, which dares not do anything to check the progress of communism, and even allows the spread of that propaganda over the Canadian radio and television networks, as well as through its national film board.
Not only does the Liberal government keep in its employ civil servants of dubious reputation in this respect, but it indulges in shameful relations with certain people whose allegiance to the Kremlin was at one time recognized.
Any alliance whatsoever is commendable to the government, so long as the interests of the party are at stake. Let us save the Liberal party from ruin, disaster, defeat and annihilation, even at the sacrifice of the best interests of this our country.
In the past few weeks, especially in the province of Quebec, we have been through a critical period on which we ought to meditate, lest we forget.
We have seen a Liberal party, which once was great, happy to associate with people who have been exposed more than once for their past activities and who have even founded on October 10, 1936, in Quebec city, a communist politburo-
(Text) :


Bona Arsenault: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if I understand well what has just been said, the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) is trying to give the impression to the house that there are communist adherents or sympathizers among the Liberal members of the house. I would wish him to correct this impression.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I hope that the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) did not feel that he was being attacked. I have never mentioned anything of the kind. I have never thought for one moment that any hon. member sitting on the other side of the house could be a communist or a sympathizer. I never thought

of saying that those on the other side of the house who took part in the last provincial election in the province of Quebec could also he communists or sympathetic to communist ideas. That is not my intention. I felt that none of them were and I hope that none of them ever will be.
(Translation):
We have seen the Liberal party which, as I said, was once a great party, gladly associate with people who more than once were denounced for their communist activities and who even established, I repeat, on October 10, 1936, in Quebec, a communist politburo. I have myself warned the government and the Prime Minister of what was going on; I called the attention of the house to a statement, among many others, from a party by the name of Jean-Louis Gagnon whose contempt for our democratic and parliamentary institutions was once well known.


Mr, Arsenault:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is now speaking under parliamentary immunity. Would he be able, outside this house, to prove the serious charges he is making against the well-known journalist he just mentioned?


Mr. Habel:: No fear of his doing so outside this house!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I have, on many an occasion, made charges in this house which, as a matter of fact, were never denied. Just now, I raise a serious accusation which I can prove at any time. And the matter is a timely one, for I have in my possession some authentic records written by the said Jean-Louis Gagnon when he had, on October 10, 1936, founded in Quebec the communist polit-bureau I just mentioned. I have here some photostats of papers signed by the man himself. My hon. friend must surely know that, at this moment, libel suits brought by the same Jean-Louis Gagnon against certain people are now before the superior court of Montreal.


Maurice Boisvert: Why, then, are you talking about them if they are before the courts?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I am talking about it merely because I wish one thing, and it is that the said Jean-Louis Gagnon, after the bitter defeat he suffered in Quebec, will be courageous enough not to drop his proceedings; there the truth will come out and the charge I am presently making in this house will prove to be true.
26. 1956	5413
Request for Election and Senate Reform


Bona Arsenault: Did that happen about the time Mr. Camillien Houde was in a concentration camp?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: No, I spoke of 1936. I thought the hon. member for Bonaventure was more conversant with Canadian history.


Mr. Gagnon:: He knows Acadian history better.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, when I raised the matter in the house, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) only replied that Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon was well known to the Canadian people and that he did not need the help of the Prime Minister to defend himself. Neither the Prime Minister nor any member of his party have ever denounced the fiery remarks made by the chief publicist of the Liberal party and editor of the official publication of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec, the newspaper La Reforme, which has never reformed anything, as you know.
On the contrary, in the last electoral campaign, the Liberal leader in the province of Quebec tried to defend him, and all the ministers and federal members did not fear to associate themselves closely with a man who once stated-and I have here the remarks made by Jean-Louis Gagnon, editor in chief of the Liberal newspaper La Reforme in the province of Quebec and lately chief publicist of the Liberal party of the province of Quebec:
"Bourgeois" are like pigs, and I am beginning to understand Lenin.
Lenin has never been the leader of a democratic party. Mr. Gagnon adds:
Gambetta is going right to my head. It will work out all right, and we will kill all the priests.
Mr. Speaker, I have here official documents which cannot be denied and which confirm what I say.
A Canadian political party which acts that way no longer deserves the confidence of the people, and it should have the courage of having its policies supported or condemned by requesting, as soon as possible, a new mandate.
If, as we have heard many times from the other side of the house, the majority must have its way in a democracy, it seems to me that a substantial part of the electorate has given an unequivocal verdict on June 18 and 20 last, a verdict which, in my opinion, should be heeded.
In order to avoid abuses and unworthy alliances, I once more urge the outlawing of communism in Canada. Let us put aside once and for all the interests of a political
5414	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform party. Let us be sincere with the Canadian people and let us put an end to the dangerous progress of the enemies of democracy.
In 1953, Mr. Speaker, a majority of Canadians put their confidence in the man who is now called the Prime Minister of Canada and entrusted him with the administration of this country. There is no question about asking him to act as a dictator since he surrounds himself with collaborators. He must however be the real leader of the government and not the servant of his cabinet ministers, especially the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).
At this stage, even those who sit in this house are asking themselves who is the leader of the government. How then can we wonder if the people do not know who he is?
For these few reasons and many others, we urge the government to have enough courage to face the people as soon as possible. The people are looking forward to this opportunity to break the shackles tying them to a party which has shamefully failed to discharge its responsibilities and no longer deserves their confidence.
The Canadian electors want to rid themselves of those who, like chameleons, change their colour according to the conditions and the needs of their political party.
The people want real statesmen, conscious of their responsibilities and capable of sacrificing the interest of their party to save the threatened Canadian nation.
Mr. Speaker, I shall vote with enthusiasm in favour of the non-confidence motion introduced yesterday in this house by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.
(Text) ;


Mr. Charles Henry (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, we are in the 22nd parliament of Canada which normally should run for a five-year period. At the three-year point we find ourselves confronted with a motion of non-confidence in the government moved by the opposition and it is based on moral reasons rather than on legal reasons. This is an unusual procedure, to say the least; and we must examine into the circumstances surrounding the debate on the establishment of Canada's first natural gas pipe line in order to consider what underlies the situation. However, I think it is only necessary to say that in that debate the government enforced the rule of law to the distaste of the opposition, based as it is on Magna Carta and the British North America Act. In particular we enforced in this chamber that rule which is based on the common ordinary phrase "majority rule".
[Mr. Dufresne.l

To come down to the procedure in this house, the rule which was enforced was that the house is master of its own procedure in times of emergency as existed during that debate. If the government is immoral, Mr. Speaker, we should like to know the particulars. However, I think it follows, if the government is immoral because of what it has done in enforcing the rule of law, that we are in company with Premier Frost of Ontario whose support we had here, and in company with Premier Manning of Alberta and Premier Campbell of Manitoba.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They did not support what was done by this government to destroy democracy.


Charles Henry: The vast majority of Canadians supported us and indeed our mandate remains unrevoked at this time in the matter which was then before the house when the pipe line bill was under discussion.
But going abroad at this time, there are deliberations taking place within the sphere of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and I say to this house that if the government is immoral so is a very prominent member of the government, one who has certainly been honoured by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and has been praised and named in the public press of the world, as one of "the three wise men" in NATO. So at this time we find with regret, the opposition reflecting upon one of our most eminent Canadians as he goes abroad to reorganize and reorientate the functions of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. That is a strange situation. But we look forward to a reorganized NATO for better world trade and for better economic conditions. If NATO can be used for war prevention, it can be used for peaceful pursuits such as better trade and better economic conditions throughout the world. We are proud of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), past president of United Nations as he is, and we wish him well despite the domestic wrangle fomented by the opposition at this time on the home front.
However, I wonder about this matter of morality in public affairs, Mr. Speaker. We have noticed of late how queer it is that Her Majesty's loyal opposition, so firm in their moral position in this debate, boycott the ceremony of royal assent as we obtain assent to the legislation which has been passed by this house. Indeed, can we not say that their morals are a little bit weak on commonwealth relations, and matters affecting the crown so near and dear to us all?


Donald Methuen Fleming: How silly!


Charles Henry: But I think there is a story behind the story of this motion which is now

before the house and I say it is a similar story which underlies the motion of non-confidence concerning the Speaker of this house. In my view, there is a new outlook as to sportsmanship on the part of the opposition because we can sum up their activities in this way: If you lose a game, attack the referee and the umpire and the officials; then you will feel better. This is indeed a new code of sportsmanship. But we see emanating from the other side of the house likewise a new code of political morals based on national disunity, minority rule and freedom of speech run rampant. Indeed, I see this once famous party which was the party of the fathers of confederation presenting to Canada in these months in this parliament a retrogressive Conservative new deal for Canada. Shades of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Robert Borden! If the day comes when we shall be unveiling a statue of Sir Robert Borden on parliament hill, I wonder how members opposite will be able to go and attend that ceremony for that great man, who was indeed a leader in the field of national unity.
I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal in January, 1956, reporting the proceedings of the Progressive Conservative party in Canada, and reporting an event which took place in the presence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and other top-ranking dignitaries of the party. On that occasion an address was delivered by Mr. Grattan O'Leary editor of the Ottawa Journal and he laid down, as do so many members of the party opposite, a policy for the party in his own way. I wish to quote in part as follows. He said to the party chieftains and the party followers on that occasion:
Our task is to mobilize the spirit of discontent and channel it into support of the Conservative party and the people know we are the only alternative.
This indeed is a fine sounding policy for the successors to the fathers of confederation. As they sow, so shall they reap; and generally, if they are going to rely on disunity and discontent, that is what they will reap. One need only turn to the province of Quebec in order to see what has happened to the Conservative party there. It is practically extinct, save and except for the remnants which remain by way of alliance with Premier Duplessis, based as they are on supernationalism. We can look to the prairies and British Columbia. In that great part of the country Conservatives are not even an alternative; they are not even a desperate alternative. What are we to say of their position with Premier Frost, that great premier of Ontario who took a forthright stand on Canada's
26, 1956	5415
Request /or Election and Senate Reform natural gas pipe line? What are we to say of the situation within their own party when they turned their backs on their adviser as to natural gas matters during the recent pipe line debate? I refer to the cleavage of opinion between the Conservative speakers in this house and their adviser the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle).
On this side of the house, Mr. Speaker, we of the Liberal party have more things to do for Canada than to think about politics and elections at this time. We wish to see a better division of the tax revenues as between Ottawa and the provinces. This is a matter which will come before this chamber in due course. Perhaps at this session good results will come from the solution of this longstanding problem now that we have worked towards a better division of revenues than ever for the good of Canada. We wish to see brought before this house legislation which will enable unemployment assistance to be shared by the dominion and the provinces to cover those unemployed not covered by unemployment insurance. In addition, we believe that the government will bring before the house, before this session concludes, legislation to cover better unemployment insurance for those now entitled to it under the statute. Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is in the process of negotiation as between this government and the provinces the matter of health insurance proposals. Those proposals are of vital interest to the nation. They stand to be implemented and the optimistic spirit which prevails is at an all-time high. We look forward to stage one in the national health insurance before long. We look forward to nation-wide hospital insurance as a result.
Now, let me deal with the dominion-provincial fiscal arrangements briefly. This rearrangement of tax revenues could mean more revenue and better opportunities to fulfil provincial obligations in so far as the citizens of the provinces are concerned. In particular, I am one who looks forward in Ontario to better old age pensions for our senior citizens following upon these fiscal rearrangements. Every member in this house knows that in Ontario now the old age pension is up to $60 at age 65 by reason of joint co-operation between this government and the province. However, I must say that the top figure, $60, is only made available after the application of a very rigid provincial-municipal means test. I think of that great province of ours, Ontario, the industrial giant that it is and greater it will become, but I think it does not stand up by way of comparison in what it is doing for the old age pensioners when we compare what takes place in some of the western provinces. Therefore, I for one would
5416	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform ask the government to expedite the dominion-provincial rearrangement of fiscal revenues because I feel the government of Ontario under Premier Frost will take second place to none in lessening the rigours of the means test once more revenues as planned are made available in this manner.
I feel, too, that we can always at the federal level look forward to improving our pension legislation because in my city of Toronto there is much need amongst the pensioners. We must constantly be thinking of their needs and problems. They are our senior citizens. In particular, I wish to say a word about pensions for new Canadians. This involves the problem of obtaining more suitable immigrants overseas. If Canada is to succeed in this mid-twentieth century she must have good immigrants from places where immigrants will be found who are suitable to the political and economic needs of Canada. I mention the United Kingdom and I mention Europe. Those places are sources of immigrants, but they are places where old age security is a paramount problem and where good measures exist for those entitled to old age security. How can we expect the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) to obtain suitable immigrants in great numbers for Canada if when they arrive here they have to wait 20 years before being entitled to old age assistance or security? I think, Mr. Speaker, what the government should consider in due course, perhaps at the next session, would be a provision that after a new Canadian becomes a citizen following a five-year period of residence, then that new Canadian should be on a par with older Canadians in obtaining the old age assistance or old age security.
I wish to speak briefly on unemployment assistance and unemployment insurance. I say that it is always a problem with us because in Canada we are beset with problems that arise out of our geography and our weather so we do have regional and seasonal unemployment. This being so, I look forward to the measures which will be forthcoming concerning the sharing of unemployment assistance between the provinces and the dominion and also better unemployment insurance legislation.
Finally, as to health insurance: what is proposed by the government would absorb something like 50 per cent of the cost of hospitalization provided we can obtain the co-operation of more than half the provinces and provided those provinces represent more than half of the population of the nation. Now, the reason for the optimism as to the success of those proposals I think lies in the fact that a recent public opinion survey indicates


more than two-thirds of the people of Canada are in favour of the government's proposals.
At the moment there are considerable health services in this nation of ours handled by public authorities. The indigents in the lower income groups receive a scattered type of health service throughout the country from governments at provincial levels. In 1952 there were limited schemes of health service for indigents in both Ontario and Nova Scotia. One cannot fail to note that according to the 1952 figures there was spent $9.96 per person in Ontario, and $10.84 per person in Nova Scotia.
However, turning to the western provinces, we find that services are much better. In the first place the western provinces had in force in 1952 more comprehensive programs than did Ontario or Nova Scotia. They spent anywhere from $50 to $75 per capita in this field. When I think of the great province of Ontario and the great province of Quebec! Those figures are an indictment against the province of Ontario in particular. Here, in central Canada, we have the great basic manufacturing industries, and yet we have this disparity as to the treatment in health services. This is a basic reason for proceeding with the first stage of a health insurance scheme now, namely nationwide hospitalization.
There are other inequities that we could mention. Hospital plans are to be considered. These plans for hospital services are operative in the middle and upper income groups principally. Private plans cover less than 50 per cent of the population, and this rate of coverage does not proceed at more than a snail's pace. In fact, I think the members of this chamber should be indebted for the research and the publications of Dr. Malcolm Taylor and also for the republication of summaries of his studies in this field of health insurance.
It is estimated that if the private plans were allowed to proceed with their coverage efforts it would take until the year 2000 to cover the whole of the Canadian population for hospital service under the auspices of private plans. Speaking personally, I say this is the mid-twentieth century which belongs to Canada, and it is unthinkable that we in this chamber should have to wait that length of time. Therefore, I see looming, the only way, public enterprise in the field of health insurance and particularly in the field of hospital insurance.
In the recent speech of Dr. Taylor before a national association a good analysis was given of many matters in relation to health insurance, and this was reviewed in the Toronto Daily Star editorial columns too. It

was pointed out that the cost of administering the private hospital plans has proved to be greatly in excess of the charges experienced by the western provinces in their publicly controlled hospital plans. These are matters which we may well consider at this time as we watch the progress made by the government in the matter of its proposals to the provinces. We should consider also the British post-war experience in the field of health insurance. We know that the British government has had a lower cost per capita in the field of health than we have had in Canada, and in the United Kingdom they have an over-all health insurance plan in force. I think we should consider this as a safe guide as we in this young nation follow the experience of the British authorities.
It is noteworthy also that last year the medical authorities of the United Kingdom visited the Canadian Medical Association in Canada and gave every assurance to Canadian medical men that health insurance was something of which they approved in the United Kingdom. It was also discussed this year at the Canadian Medical Association convention and now we see in the daily press that the Canadian medical men endorsed in convention assembled the current proposals as outlined by the government. I would just say this too. We seem to be well supplied with doctors in Canada. The national average is one doctor for every 989 people. In Ontario, we have one doctor for 874 people; in British Columbia, one for every 866 people; in Quebec, one for every 1,012 people; ind in Saskatchewan, one for every 1,288 people. I believe these to be 1951 figures, but they do indicate that if Saskatchewan can implement a hospital scheme with one doctor for every 1,288 people, surely central Canada can respond to the proposals of the government with safety.
However there is one slight reservation I have, and that has to do with our hospital resources. I find that 1953 figures disclose British Columbia operates with hospitals to the extent of 88.9 per cent of normal; Ontario operates with a figure of 67 per cent of normal; Quebec has a figure of 56.2 per cent; and Saskatchewan 87 per cent of normal.
It may be that the government should reconsider its policy of grants in aid of hospital construction, but before doing so I should like to hear from the minister, on his estimates, let us say, as to the state of hospital construction following these figures of 1953. It might be desirable to increase the grants to the provinces to the end that we might have a higher percentage across
26, 1956	5417
Request for Election and Senate Reform the board, and particularly in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario in the field of hospital construction.
As I conclude, may I say this as to the question of the motion of non-confidence brought against the government on moral rather than on legal grounds? Abroad we must consider the morality of federalism which is the dominating keynote of the NATO negotiations in these days of competitive coexistence. Through NATO, for Her Majesty the Queen and the commonwealth, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is seeking to marshal the forces of Americanism, Europeanism and Canadianism. This is an expanded partnership which will bring much good to the western world and, yes, to the world at large. There is the spirit of what Sir John A. Macdonald was pleased to call the grand design of confederation at home, and, in my opinion, abroad there is what is known as the grand design of NATO, and this must be extended in the spirit of federalism to the fields of trade and other economic matters.
Now, finally let me just speak about what I call the morality of federalism at home. The keynote of federalism at home, the keynote of the spirit of the grand design of confederation, is indeed national unity and not disunity. I for one am greatly put out that the great Conservative party of the past bases its activities in this year, 1956, on the mobilization of discontent, as outlined in the beginning of my speech. I say that on this side of the house we stand for matters which promote federalism in confederation and which promote in particular our national development, dominion-provincial reallotment of tax revenues, better old age pensions, better unemployment relief and insurance. Finally, we hope that in that way we shall attain for this nation health insurance. These things the people of Canada elect, and I do not think that we should elect for an election and play politics.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased indeed to hear the wonderful pre-election talk, that I have just listened to, by the hon. member for Rosedale. I have been worried about what he is going to do if, before that election rolls around, the C.C.F. in this house introduces another resolution asking for the immediate implementation of national health insurance. The curtain might be a good place to hide behind at that time, after the speech that has just been made. However, I do want to refer to one attack the hon. member made on the opposition in this house. Mr. Speaker, I no longer count the Social Credit members in this house as being
5418	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform in the opposition. They are now merely a poor second-hand rubber stamp for the Liberal or the Yankee party in Canada.


Mr. Blackmore:: Pretty cheap.


Erhart Regier: I know the hon. member for Lethbridge is pretty good at interjections.


John Horne Blackmore: Pretty cheap.


Erhart Regier: The hon. member for Rosedale wondered why Her Majesty's loyal opposition had abstained from attending the granting of royal assent when it last occurred. I might reply for myself personally, and I think for the members of this group. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made very plain the other day, we feel this government no longer has the moral right to sit in office. We feel they absolutely emasculated all rules of decency, all rules of parliament, and that it was no longer a democracy that marched over to the other place to meet Her Majesty's representative. I felt that it would have been a disgrace to pretend to Her Majesty's representative that this pipe-line bill was the will of the Canadian people. Even such an honoured man as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) speaking as Acting Prime Minister yesterday evening-


An hon. Member:: Ha!


Erhart Regier: -informed this house and the country that the people of Canada were not with the government on this pipe line deal when he pleaded, "Will you give us only three weeks of electioneering and then the people of Canada will change their opinion."
One of the reasons I rise at this time to express my motive for supporting the amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition is the matter of housing. As early as January 18, about a week after the opening of this house, we had an announcement by one of the leading chartered banks of Canada to the effect that they had arrived at a position where they would have to limit further investments in the field of housing and I asked a question about this on orders of the day. The bank-and I am referring to the Royal Bank of Canada-has supplied leadership among the chartered banks in the matter of financing new homes for Canadians. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) was not here on the 18th but on the 19th I again rose and in reply to my question the Minister of Public Works, as reported at page 281 of Hansard for that date, said:
I understand that yesterday In my absence the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam asked the following question:
"In view of yesterday's announcement by the banks indicating a decline in money being available for housing, would the government consider again


supplying a portion of N.H.A. funds as it did before the first session of this parliament?"
In reply, I should point out that I do not know of any general announcement by the banks regarding a decline in money available for housing. There has been no indication by prospective borrowers that there is a general shortage of mortgage money under the National Housing Act. As the hon. member knows, the act contains authority by which Central Mortgage may make loans directly to borrowers if loans are not being made available by approved lenders. If a shortage of mortgage money did occur it would be a matter of government policy, in light of the circumstances at that time, to determine to what extent the corporation's power to make direct loans should be used. At the present time this authority is being used in the smaller communities.
And then note this; the minister concluded with this statement:
It is the government's intention to ensure that a high level of house building continues.
Only the other day, on June 21, the government having been severely reminded on several occasions of the growing shortage of mortgage money, I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) about a statement of his and my question is reported at page 5238 of Hansard of that date:
... I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he would care to clarify what he said a few moments ago, that he had become aware of this shortage or apparent shortage only a few weeks ago. On January 19 the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) in replying to a question said that there was no indication by prospective borrowers that there was going to be a shortage. Was it only a few weeks ago that the minister became aware of a shortage?
The Minister of Finance replied:
I think I can correctly say it was only about two weeks ago that I personally was informed of the difficulties.
At that point the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked:
Where has the minister been?
I should like some time to have an answer to that question posed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre: Where has the minister been?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Right here doing his work.


Erhart Regier: I think it would be only right if at this time we had a little review of what has gone on over the past few years in the matter of mortgage money for new homes in Canada.
Under the operation of the act prior to 1953 most of the mortgage money for new N.H.A. homes was supplied by mortgage companies and by the insurance companies of Canada with the government lending to these institutions 25 per cent of the money that was needed. The insurance and mortgage companies made a little bit on this 25 per cent in that they were able to obtain a higher rate from the purchaser than they had to

pay the government for this share of the money. However, the time came when the investment houses of Canada felt they had invested a sufficiently large share of their capital assets in housing and henceforth they would have to limit their investments in new housing to the percentage they felt was safe to have invested in housing and that any new money they would have available for this purpose would consist only in the natural growth of the percentage in terms of dollars in line with the growth of the companies and with the repayments of the loans that had already been made.
The government had ample warning of this and looked around for other means of obtaining mortgage money and they decided to call on the chartered banks of Canada. When they did call on the chartered banks of Canada, however, they decided to supply no longer 25 per cent of the needed money and ever since that amendment to the National Housing Act the federal government has not supplied 25 per cent of the capital needs for new housing. The chartered banks of Canada, some of them rather reluctantly, entered the field of housing and on the whole I think perhaps all hon. members will agree that the chartered banks of Canada have done a significant service to the Canadian people. Many suburban areas in Canada which hitherto had been unable to lay their hands on N.H.A. mortgage funds were able to undertake housing programs because of the existence of chartered banks branches in the suburban areas simply because the banks proved themselves more accommodating and a little more willing to move into the suburban areas than the insurance companies had been. However, even the chartered banks, like the insurance companies before them, decided it would be safe for them to invest a certain specified percentage of their assets in housing.
The time has now arrived-and it arrived for some of the banks as early as six months ago-when that percentage allotment has been used up and last new year the banks gave warning to the government that henceforth their investments in new housing would be limited to the repayment on advances they had made in former years and the natural growth in the assets of the banks and to the extent that the percentage in the assets each year would be able to make more money available to them. The government had plenty of warning and yet the Minister of Public Works on January 19 saw fit to deny any knowledge of the impending shortage of mortgage money. As late as June 21, even the Minister of Finance denied that he had had several months of warning.
I feel the Minister of Finance, if indeed he is a minister of finance, had ample warning;
26, 1956	5419
Request for Election and Senate Reform he had at least six months' warning as did the Minister of Public Works. However, there were so many beginnings, so many new houses that had started, they felt the Canadian people would not notice this shortage of mortgage money with which they were going to be faced and they decided to wait and see what transpired.
If I read correctly the words of the Minister of Public Works as he spoke them yesterday on the orders of the day, it is his intention to have fewer new houses start in the last six months of this year than was the case in the first six months of this year.
The Minister of Public Works was very careful, when answering the hon. member for Broadview yesterday, to tell him that the number of housing starts had grown for the first five or six months of this year, but he very carefully avoided any reference to what has taken place within the last month throughout Canada. I am sure the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Public Works have enough communications in their offices, both letters and telegrams, to indicate to them in no uncertain terms that the major source of mortgage money for new homes in Canada has to all intents and purposes come to an end and that a new way out has to be found by the government.
One of the recommendations I have made from time to time is that the government re-enter the field, at least to the extent of supplying 25 per cent of this money, as they did before the chartered banks were brought into the picture. I cannot blame the insurance companies of Canada, nor can I blame the chartered banks of Canada. After all, for many years during the hungry thirties we did not build any new homes in Canada, and yet the population grew. During the war housebuilding came to an end, so that at the end of the war there were from half a million to a million homes badly needed. We have never yet caught up.
The Minister of Public Works pointed out that last year we built some 50,000 more homes than new family units were formed. At that rate, 50,000 a year more new homes than new family units being formed, it would take us ten years before we came anywhere near to having an adequate supply of houses for the people of Canada.
Another reason why I feel that I at least have lost confidence in one minister of this government and that an election should be called-and I am again coming back to the same minister-is the policy he pursues.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh!


Erhart Regier: I notice the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration laughing when I say
5420	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform an election should be called. I would just love to see him contest any seat whatsoever in British Columbia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman accept my challenge and come and run against me?


Hazen Robert Argue: How brave can you get?


Erhart Regier: I am not prepared to be a candidate in a riding where I know that some people have for so many years been held in subservience and slaves to the fish companies-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a nice way to talk about the free Newfoundlanders.


Erhart Regier: -and have grown old without ever having had a nickel in their pockets. They are slaves to the economic system that prevails there and to the Liberal party of Canada. However, I tell the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that on his policies of racial discrimination and on that one issue alone I will defeat him in any riding in British Columbia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that when the free Newfoundlanders hear that the C.C.F. calls them slaves they will know how to deal with the C.C.F.


Erhart Regier: I am afraid that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will not have any room to be a candidate in my riding because already I hear that the Minister of National Defence has selected that riding. If that should be the case, might I inform him that he may find a bunch of shipwrecked people in the slums of Vancouver centre whose vote he can buy at $5 a piece, which the Liberal party has always bought ever since they robbed Arnold Webster of that seat in 1935, and that in my riding the Minister of National Defence will be unable to win an election on that basis. There will be a thousand volunteer workers who will be worth more than $100,000 of Liberal bribe money any day.
Now I should like to come back to the Minister of Public Works. A year ago, Mr. Speaker, you will remember, we held up the prorogation or the adjournment of this house on the subject of federal aid to universities. That was sufficient cause to hold up the adjournment. That subject was worthy by itself. However, on the day following, as a result of our holding up this house for one more day, the member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis) was able to ask the Minister of Public Works concerning the sale of veterans' houses to the veterans in Regina. When I got home after the adjournment of the house I found that there were also hundreds of people in


the lower mainland who were very much interested in this subject. When the minister on that day-I believe it was July 29- replied to the member for Regina City, his reply was to the effect that the government, in selling these homes to veterans, was not planning on making any money. The plan was only to break even, but the government was not planning on making any money from the veterans.
I had noticed that the member for Regina City asked, "Why is it that the veterans of Regina are being asked to pay for these houses almost as much as the houses originally cost? When I came back to the lower mainland, I found that the veterans there in the Renfrew Heights subdivision were being asked to pay, not a little less than these houses cost, not what these houses cost, but much more than these houses cost. The Liberals who were at the mass meeting in Renfrew Heights repeated the minister's answer, "We are not making any money on these veterans' houses." However, I feel that the government may not be planning on making any money on these veterans' homes over the nation as a whole, but that is not interfering with the government's plans to make these veterans in this area and living in those homes make up the losses that the government will have to accept in other of the 92 cities of Canada.
The veterans in Renfrew Heights in Vancouver are being asked to pay thousands of dollars more for these homes than these homes cost, in order to help the government out of the losses it is experiencing on homes in other Canadian cities. That was one statement I made at one time at this mass meeting, and one statement that the government has never yet officially denied. The only answer government spokemen had at the meetings was that the veterans are buying these homes. I can list my home for sale, which is perhaps worth $15,000, and I can sell it for $30,000. As long as I am willing to take a $10 down payment, I can always find a fish who will buy that home and obligate himself and his descendants after him to pay interest for all eternity. The reason why the veterans are buying the homes is that they cannot resist buying them. The down payments are so low and, despite the denials of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials, there is pressure exerted upon them to purchase these homes. They finally yield and buy these homes, simply because they have not the necessary down payment to go on the market and buy themselves decent homes at market values.
I feel that the Minister of Public Works should reassess the whole situation, and from

the Vancouver people he should take only such money as these homes in Vancouver cost. It the government has made a blunder and perhaps lost a thousand homes in a swamp somewhere in northern Ontario, the veterans in Renfrew Heights should not be asked to foot the bill for them in the cost of their homes.
Then, coming back to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), I am afraid time will not permit me to deal with everything I should like to concerning that minister.


John Horne Blackmore: You are wasting your time on too much boasting.


Erhart Regier: I am very glad to be able to represent such a progressive community as Burnaby in the House of Commons. We have there a voluntary organization known as the New Vista housing society, of which the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) is a permanent member of the board of directors. This organization collects money throughout the municipality of 80,000 people for the purpose of building low rent housing for senior citizens and other people of equally low income. They obtain from the Social Credit government of the province, reactionary as it is, formerly a Liberal-Conservative coalition government almost as reactionary, a grant of one-third of the capital cost. Through tag days, service organizations and what-have-you the people raise as much money as they can. They receive one-third of the cost from the provincial government. But then does the federal government come along through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and make a grant? Oh no. It would be horrible to help our senior citizens and people on low incomes. We could not afford to do that. They will grant them a mortgage which has to be repaid with interest over a period of 30, 40 or I believe in some cases even 50 years.'
When one looks at the resources of the various levels of government in Canada, I feel it is high time that the municipal government and the provincial government should be relieved of costs such as these. If they are not relieved, then their contribution should at least be matched by an equal contribution by the federal government. These old age pensioners are very fortunate in comparison to those who must rent on the open market. However, even to them $25 a month is a very large share of their income indeed to have to pay for rent. Why? In order to repay the mortgage held by the federal government.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) gets considerable publicity back home with his announcements each time the
67509-343J
26, 1956	5421
Request for Election and Senate Reform federal government helps with $100,000 for unit 6 or 7 or whatever it may be of the New Vista society. In the same publicity he does not inform the people of Burnaby that they themselves have made a cash donation and that the government in Victoria gives a donation but that the magnificent handout from Ottawa has to be repaid with its pound of flesh in interest,
The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Henry) mentioned old age pensions. I am very pleased to say that we in western Canada take a little more progressive attitude regardless of the kind of government we have. I should not say "western Canada" because there is a Liberal government in Manitoba which still only pays a niggardly $40 a month to needy, old age pensioners. However, under certain conditions, and the conditions vary from one province to another, old age pensioners in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia can receive as much as $60 a month. But most of the old age pensioners live in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and I have no reason to believe that the cost of living in Ottawa, Montreal or Toronto is very much lower than it is in Saskatoon, Edmonton or Victoria. The minister or his officials have indicated to the newspapers that they have a surplus for the last two months of $247 million. If they have such a surplus, I think one of the wisest ways in which they could invest at least a portion of it would be to make a little progress once and for all in the field of old age pensions.
In 1927 the federal government started to make a payment of $20 per month by way of an old age pension. In terms of the goods that old age pensioners have to buy the government, with its payment today of $40 a month, is paying less than it paid in 1927. We have made no progress whatsoever as a nation. We have gone backwards, and it is high time that another J. S. Woodsworth and a ginger group again had the balance of power in the House of Commons and forced this issue so that we might obtain $65 a month for men at age 65 and for women at age 60.
I think I have said almost enough. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has called for the dissolution of the house. I am looking at the seating plan of the House of Commons, and I see that we have a Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) who is doing practically nothing to find jobs for Canadians over the age of 35 who are unemployed. These people are left to the tender mercies of the municipal welfare officers back home. Then we have a Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) who unfortunately is ill at this time. Perhaps I should not say anything about him, but I have noticed that he is more concerned with
5422	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform maintaining friendly relations with the ten provincial attorneys general than he is to see that all Canadians from coast to coast enjoy at least some basic rights as Canadian citizens. That is a concept he has never yet grasped as Minister of Justice.
I see a Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) who still collects income tax from single citizens of Canada earning the magnificent total of $1,001 per year. We have a Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) who may know a lot about wheat although according to some of my colleagues he gets badly mixed up about wheat. However, as the farmers of the rest of Canada know full well, he knows very little about most of the farmers of Canada who do not grow a grain of wheat. We have a Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), or possibly I made a mistake. Maybe we have not got a Prime Minister.
I have not noticed him for several years. However, we have an Acting Prime Minister who also acts as Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). He is more interested in maintaining the value of the Canadian dollar by the mass export of our raw natural resources south of the border to maintain employment there than he is in building up trade within the British commonwealth.
Then we have a Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). Someone once said that he is a small town country lawyer from Ontario. When it comes to matters of international affairs at least, I hope he never succeeds to the leadership of the Liberal party because I am afraid his concept of Canada's role and Canada's potentialities for world peace is very small indeed. We have a Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) who I am confident knows no more about his department than I do. We have a Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) who just loves to take two steps forward and three back every time he makes a speech. Nobody yet knows what position he takes on any problem.
We have a Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) who will be perfectly happy to inaugurate a national health insurance plan in Canada as soon as all Canadians have asked for it. We have a Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard) who I am told represents the province of Quebec, whatever that may mean. We have a Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) who, in my experience, is only too happy to let the harbours that are established monopolize the field and who is unwilling to undertake any harbour development except that which involves the well established vested interests in the major cities of Canada.
We have the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) whose citizenship I understand is based on a fishing village
[Mr. Regler.l

in Newfoundland. I do not know whether or not he was born there as a Canadian baby. However, the Canadian people are resentful of the fact that thousands of Italians, thousands of Chinese and, for all I know, maybe thousands of Janpanese are being allowed to immigrate into Canada. I am not for one moment going to oppose that immigration. However, to our commonwealth allies from Ceylon, from Pakistan and from India, 150 a year is the limit and no more. There is racial discrimination and the minister knows it. I will give him credit for this. I heard him admit racial discrimination.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I never admitted racial discrimination.


Erhart Regier: At least he admitted discrimination on a television program. We have the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) and I will speak kindly of him. He used to represent the seat I have, and he did such a good job of educating my electorate to socialism that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) will lose if he should decide to be a candidate there the next time. We have the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) who is overburdened. He is supposed to be licking postage stamps and to be running veterans affairs and looking after the war widows of Canada, all at the same time. Somebody mentioned that he was being appointed ambassador to France. I do not know whether he is planning on holding down all three jobs. We have the Minister of Public Works; I think I have said enough about him tonight. We have the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) who, I understand, knows almost as much as I do about mines in Canada. As to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) I wish him well indeed. I hope he can persuade the slow government-and I am not referring to the Socred government alone-of British Columbia finally to release Garibaldi park to the federal government so that we can have a national park for the people of British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Under the provisions of standing order 56, paragraph (d), it is my duty to put the amendment to the main motion.


Mr. Martin:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the main motion lost. May I be so bold as to remind the Minister of National Health and Welfare that pairs are not announced until after the Clerk has given the results of the vote to the Speaker and the Speaker has announced the results.
++NAYS
Messrs:


Mr. Marlin:: I am very glad to accept your direction.
Anderson	Hellyer
Applewhaite	Henderson
Arsenault	Henry
Ashbourne	Hollingworth
Batten	Houck
Benidickson	Howe (Port Arthur)
Blackmore	Huffman
Blanchette	Hunter
Boisvert	James
Bonnier	Johnston (Bow River)
Bourget	Jutras
Bourque	Kickham
Breton	Kirk (Antigonish-
Brisson	Guysborough)
Brown (Brantford)	Kirk (Shelburne-
Brown (Essex West)	Yarmouth-Clare)
Bruneau	LaCroix
Buchanan	Laflamme
Byrne	Lafontaine
Cameron (High Park)	Leduc (Jacques Cartier-
Campney	Lasalle)
Caron	Lefrangois
Carrick	Legare
Carter	MacEachen
Cauchon	MacKenzie
Cavers	Macnaughton
Cloutier	McCann
Crestohl	McCubbin
Denis	McCulloch (Pictou)
Deschatelets	Mcllraith
Deslieres	Mclvor
Dickey	McLeod
Dumas	McMillan
Dupuis	Mang
Fairey	Masse
Forgie	Menard
Fraser (St. John's East)	Mitchell (Sudbury)
Gagnon	Patterson
Garland	Pickersgill
Gauthier (Portneuf)	Pommer
Gingues	Poulin
Girard	Power (St. John's West)
Gourd (Chapleau)	Proudfoot
Habel	Prudham
Hahn	Purdy
Hanna	Quelch
Hansell	Ratelle
Hardie	Richard (Ottawa East)
Harris	Richard (St. Maurice-
Harrison	Lafleche)
Healy	Roberge


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, there is one question I should like to raise before the motion is passed. It has to do with the conference which is to take place next week in Victoria between the premier of the province of British Columbia and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage). We were told that this conference would be concerned with the question of the development of the Columbia river in British Columbia and with other similar problems which have arisen between the federal government and the provincial government. I believe that because the future of the Columbia river is of such great concern to the whole of the coast province and of the nation there should be some consideration given to what is to be done at this conference next week before the minister leaves the house.
There have been earlier discussions in the house, but since then developments have taken place which have altered the situation considerably and which have made it even more important that a decision be reached by the federal government without any further delay as to just what part it is to take in the development of the power potential of that river.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, last year this house passed an act known as the International River Improvements Act. It contained a new principle in federal legislation in that it gave the dominion licensing control over most of the improvements which are placed on rivers flowing from Canada to the United
5424	HOUSE OF
Columbia River-Power Development States. That question had become of great importance because the government of the province of British Columbia proposed last year to enter into an agreement with the Kaiser interests in the United States for the construction of a dam near the lower end of the Arrow lakes in the Kootenay district of British Columbia. It was felt by the dominion government officials that the result of the construction of such a dam would be to prejudice the over-all development of the Columbia river system in Canada. As a result this legislation was introduced in the house and eventually was adopted with some changes which I think were very material.
Your Honour will perhaps remember that the stand taken by the official opposition on the second reading of that bill was that we believed the issue should be settled between the two governments concerned, and we asked that the bill be sent to the standing committee on external affairs for study and in order that the officials of the dominion government might be heard and also those of the provincial government.
The hearings held by that committee were very successful. As a result, quite a large measure of co-operation was reached between the two governments concerning the bill and, in its final form, the bill was modified a great deal from what it had been originally and much of the bad feeling between the two governments was done away with. I at least hoped that as a result it would be possible to have full co-operation in proceeding with plans for the use of the Columbia river. I am still hoping that that co-operation will be possible. It is only because I believe that the river cannot be developed as it should be for the greatest benefit of the people of my province, and incidentally of the Canadian people, unless the two governments can work out some cooperative plan, that I raise the matter now.
It has been recognized throughout that the key to the whole development was a dam and power plant to be erected at Mica Creek, which is up at the head of the Big Bend about 100 miles north of Revelstoke. There General McNaughton, as the leading dominion authority on the question, foresaw the erection of a very large dam, and last year, in the committee hearings, representatives of both governments admitted there was no reason why the construction of this dam could not be proceeded with just as soon as the final plans could be drawn.
A few days ago, in the sittings of the standing committee on external affairs, General McNaughton stated he was now positive that this plan could go ahead. I hold in my


hand No. 15 of the proceedings of the committee for June 14 of this year. The general had this to say at page 416 concerning Mica Creek:
We are well satisfied it represents a firm conclusion by the consulting engineers who have been doing the work for us. The Mica Creek dam, on the basis of 1,100,000 kilowatts installed would cost, including the power plant, $247 million, and it would give a firm power in kilowatts at the site of 625,000. The estimated head at the normal full pool would be 563 feet. If we include the diversion of 5,000 cubic feet per second by way of Canal Flats into the Columbia,-
There he was referring to a possible diversion of the headwaters of the Kootenay river into the Columbia. The general went on:
-it brings the installed capacity to 1,320,000 kilowatts, and raises the firm power very considerably. The dam, according to lastest proposals, will be a rock fill which is much more stable than the original concrete structure which was proposed, and it has great merit in reducing the total cost from about $417 million down to $247 million for this dam.
That is a very substantial reduction in the estimated cost. In the next paragraph he went on to say:
So, I think that all concerned. Including the various other consultants to whom the matter has been referred, feel that we now have a completely firm proposition for Mica. Within a matter of a very few months the designs given in this book could be translated into contract drawings, and the matter could be launched.
Mr. Speaker, may I move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I presume the proceedings from which the hon. member is quoting have been reported?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.
On motion of Mr. Green the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for the relief of Michael Costom.
An act for the relief of Marie Theresa Gerega St.-Jacques.

An	act	for	the	relief	of	Julius Michael Cantor.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Gerald Zelman.
An act for the relief of Lucille Viola Arthur Ward.
An act for the relief of May O'Connor MacKenzie.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Rita Cleevely Scott.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Leah Banfield Rideout.
An act for the relief of Margaret Isobel Gillespie MacKenzie.
An act for the relief of Edda Roehm Sackmann.
An act for the relief of Joseph Ernest Adrien Joly.
An act for the relief of Jacqueline Bussiere Sirois.
An act for the relief of Doris Elaine Cameron Gladwish.
An act for the relief of Mary Goodman Lobell.
An act Wiseman.	for	the	relief	of	Jennie	ZalezniakAn act	for	the	relief	of	Phyllis	Elizabeth
Jardine Williams.
An act for the relief of Martha Hope Mac-Dougall Fortier.
An act for the relief of Hugh Oliver Semper.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Yvonne Elizabeth
Thurgarland Brosseau.
An act for the relief of Hugh Lawrence Byers.
An act for the relief of Jean Benoit Maille.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Elizabeth Redling
Lefebvre.
An act for the relief of Marie Cecile Veronique Goudreau Johnstone, otherwise known as Lucille Goudreau Johnstone.
An act for the relief of Claire Esther Cohen Weiner.
An act for the relief of Vera Norine Tromley Ashford.
An act for the relief of Jacques Demers.
An act for the relief of Virginia Ruth Jones Lord.
An act for the relief of Harold Barnes.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Geraldine Isabella
Johnson Mole.
An act for the relief of Adam Forbes.
An act for the relief of Rose-Anna Rose Crombie.
An act for the relief of Esther Pheobe Brunger Abels.
An act for the relief of Lorna Elizabeth Cadorette Belinsky.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Benjamin Franklin
Luther.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Gordon Frederick
Collins.
An act to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
An act respecting the construction of a line of railway in the province of New Brunswick by Canadian National Railway Company from a point at or near Bartibog in a westerly direction to the Tomogonops river in the vicinity of Little River lakes.
An	act	to	incorporate	the	Albion Insurance
Company of Canada.
An act respecting the Canadian forces.
An act to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
An act to amend the Veterans' Business and Professional Loans Act.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1957.
The Royal Assent BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue with this debate and then take the resolution in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare with respect to unemployment assistance costs.
May I raise a point of order at the moment, having to do with the length of the debate upon which we are now embarked. My understanding is that when we amended the rules last year we set out to give to those members who wished to raise grievances a period of two hours less 15 minutes, as I recall it, from the time that the vote was taken on the amendment. In other words, we said that the debate on the amendment would come to an end at quarter past eight and the vote on the main motion would occur at ten o'clock. We had that period during which time we assumed there would be a grievance period. If there has been any interference with that by reason of the royal assent, to the extent of perhaps eight or nine minutes-I am not sure-I would suggest in taking that into account tomorrow that extra time be allowed for the purpose of this debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The Clerk informs me, in relation to the point made by the Minister of Finance, that tomorrow for private members' grievances there is still available one hour plus 31 minutes-that is, altogether 91 minutes of debate-on this motion.


Howard Charles Green: Could we have the other business for tomorrow?


Walter Edward Harris: I gave it. We go on with this debate, and then take the resolution of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is not announcing any estimates for tomorrow?


Walter Edward Harris: I shall be glad to call the estimates of the Secretary of State if there is any time left after the resolution.


Howard Charles Green: In that connection, could the minister tell us what other branches under the Secretary of State will be handled, for example, the library, the archives or the national gallery?


Walter Edward Harris: The Secretary of State has the printing establishment as well as those estimates which are in the book in his name.


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