1956-07-10

Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the capital budget of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the financial year ending March 31, 1957.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Revenue if copies of the capital budget of the C.B.C. which he tabled earlier this afternoon are available for general distribution among members? If not, and if the document is not too long, could it be printed as an appendix to Hansard?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, there has only been one copy of the budget tabled. It will not be a very difficult task to have mimeographed copies made of it, and they will be made available to those who are interested. I may say we expect to have copies of the annual report mimeographed by the time we come to a discussion of the estimates of the C.B.C.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Milion F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: On June 19 the hon. member for Comox-Alberni asked me several questions referring to overtime and wage rates on federal works at La Scie, Newfoundland. At that time I stated that our Newfoundland officer had been instructed to investigate the complaint and make a report.
The first complaint was that the companies concerned were working their employees in excess of the authorized hours. The second complaint was that they were paying local workers less than mainland workers for the same work; and third, our representative was asked to investigate and determine whether the companies should be required to pay
penalty overtime rates for hours worked in excess of the statutory hours.
Our officer has now reported in the negative on the first two complaints, and on the third that he was making an effort to effect an understanding with the company on the question of overtime payments.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: May I
ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if the agreement reported in the press between Cambodia and Soviet Russia is likely to have any effect on the political situation in Viet Nam or other parts of French Indo-China?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the terms of any such agreement as has been reported in the press, and I have asked for a report on this matter from our commissioner in Cambodia. I prefer to wait until I get that report before I attempt to answer the hon. gentleman's question.


DANGERS TO FREE COUNTRIES OF ACCEPTING AID FROM RUSSIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I note in this morning's press that Vice President Nixon of the United States has issued a warning to the neutral free countries of the world against accepting any economic or military aid from Russia. Does the Prime Minister consider the time has come for a warning from this government to those countries which are being offered Russian aid; that is, a warning as to the dangers of accepting these offers?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to suggest that the Canadian government issue any warning against the acceptance of aid by less developed countries though, of course, there may be some dangers involved in doing so. But I think the fact that there would be assistance to underdeveloped countries is a meritorious fact in itself. I do not think we would put ourselves in the position where we

Inquiries of the Ministry might appear to be saying you should get the aid and if you refuse to take it from the countries behind the iron curtain we shall see that you get it from other sources. We are not in a position to do that. There has been a lot of propaganda about proffered aid, and I think it has gone beyond the actual benefits that those who seem to have been offered aid would receive from such offers.
It is very difficult to attempt to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries. Of course a country like the United States may be in a position to say, "If you do not take aid from Russia we shall see that you get it from us", but we are not in a position to make any such broad statement.


EFFECT ON COLOMBO PLAN OF SURRENDER OF BRITISH BASES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Solon Earl Low: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Will the present action of Britain in surrendering her bases in Ceylon affect in any way the assistance that is being granted to Ceylon under the Colombo plan?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker. We have endeavoured to have what is done under the Colombo plan done on its merits without any strings attached to it, and to avoid any suggestion whatsoever that it was meant to obtain any political influence over the affairs of the recipients.


ATTENDANCE BY RUSSIAN OBSERVERS AT U.S. AND CANADIAN AIR SHOWS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister or his department considering in any way the recent application by the Russians to attend air shows in Canada or the United States in the next month or two?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if an application is made for a visa for such a visit it will undoubtedly be considered by the department. I have no knowledge myself of such an application having been made but I shall be glad to look into the matter.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. If such an application is being made, and it appears that way from the United States press, will the minister look into the possibility of a polar trip by the Russians and the resulting danger to our secret northland defences?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that any such visit will not be prejudicial to the security arrangements we have in the north.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. When will motion No. 80 standing in my name, and made an order for return on May 21, be tabled? It has to do with the written agreement in connection with the low level bridge over Burlington channel.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: There is no written agreement, as I indicated previously in the house, but I shall endeavour to table a nil return at the earliest possible date.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. My question relates to the representations of the Department of Veterans Affairs employees national association about which he was asked a question by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday.
Can the minister say if it is correct that these representations were received last October or November? If so, is it still true that they have not yet been considered by the cabinet, as the minister stated yesterday?


Hon. Hugues Lapoinie (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: As I stated yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the officers of the association met with the Minister of Finance and myself during the course of last fall and made their representations at that time. Since that time consideration was given to these representations and in fact the 40-hour week was granted in two of the establishments, the Colonel Belcher hospital in Calgary and Camp Hill hospital in Halifax. Following the survey made by the civil service commission of the situation in civilian hospitals in those localities it was found that the general pattern was to have a 40-hour week. In the other localities where D.V.A. institutions exist and where the survey did not reveal that the pattern in other hospitals was to have a 40-hour week the matter was postponed, but it is being looked into again at the present time.


Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec Wesi):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs following the questions asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The minister said consideration was given to the 40-hour week in some localities other than where it exists now. Does he mean to suggest that consideration was given by the cabinet or by the officials of his department?


Hugues Lapointe: I explained, Mr. Speaker, that the process which is followed is that a survey is made by the civil service commission. They in turn report to treasury board on the result of their survey, and treasury board informs the cabinet of the situation. That is what is being done at the present time.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Is the minister aware that most of the trucks contracted to his department in Kitchener bear the words "Canada Post Office" and lack the royal cipher?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that. Evidently I do not have the same sources of information as the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace, but I will inquire into it.


An hon. Member:: You should look into the trucks, too.


Hugues Lapointe: I do know, Mr. Speaker, it is usually one of the clauses of the contracts we enter into with the contractors that the royal cipher appear on the trucks that are used for the conveyance of mail.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask the minister whether, after he has examined the newspaper clipping which I will send him with the photograph, he will take steps to see that this improper marking and wording is immediately corrected?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to see the report first and inquire.


Mr. Sinclair:: What is wrong with the word "Canada"?



FASSAMAQUODDY PROJECT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has
10,	1956
Natural Resources-Development he any further report to make with regard to the progress being made in connection with the Passamaquoddy development project survey?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I said on June 1 that a reference would be made on this important matter to the international joint commission as soon as the terms of the reference could be agreed on between the two governments; I refer to the United States government and the Canadian government. Exchanges of correspondence have been going on and discussions have been held with the United States government so that we can reach agreement on the terms of reference. It is obviously extremely important that there should be agreement on such terms before the investigation begins. That process is now almost completed, and I hope the terms of reference can be submitted to the commission within the next very few weeks.

The house resumed, from Monday, July 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.



MOTION FOR ADOPTION OF NATURAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT POLICY

Mr. Elmore Philpott (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned last night at ten o'clock I was trying to show the relation between these Yankee dollars and Canadian jobs. I am not going to keep the house too long today, because I do not want to hold up this session too long; I am very anxious to get back to Vancouver. I am particularly anxious to get back to Vancouver because since I finished the first half of my speech last night and today when I am beginning the second half, I have had news of my second new granddaughter since Easter. I would remind hon. gentlemen of the good old British Columbia custom that whereas fathers must give out cigars when sons or daughters appear, grandfathers always receive cigars from all quarters of the house.
I want to refer particularly to one section of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition when, as reported at page 5780 of Hansard, he said:
We all share the satisfaction in the growth and development that has already taken place. But this is only a promise of what can happen. Government policies should encourage the development of our own resources, should promote the processing of those resources in Canada, should correct our unfavourable trade balance, should assure the participation by Canadians in the development and processing of our resources, and should assure

Natural Resources-Development opportunity and employment for all Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific wherever they may live.
As I listened to the hon. members of the Conservative opposition yesterday developing their case, it seemed to me that I heard echoes of old, unhappy, far-off things and battles of long ago, because there was the distinct echo of 1911 in this approach. I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that there would be now anything as blatant as the slogan which won the election of 1911, namely "No truck nor trade with the Yankees". However, I am submitting that the Conservative opposition are on a slippery slope now, and that they could easily continue down the decline until they got themselves in a position even more dangerous for this country than that of advocating "No truck nor trade with the Yankees" as they did so successfully in 1911.
What I want to show, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a very real connection between these Yankee dollars which some of my hon. friends in the Conservative opposition would keep away from Canada, and Canadian jobs. I do not know whether they would chase out the dollars which are already invested here in the factories, in the pipe lines and in all the other things that go to make up the prosperity of Canada, or whether they would confine themselves to keeping out new investments in Canada; but I want to submit that Yankee dollars invested in Canada mean good jobs for the Canadian people. God help this country if we are ever foolish enough to turn away those Yankee dollars simply to make a convenient election slogan for a desperate party, or for politicians who have not thought things through.
Last night I referred to a very admirable volume, "Canada's International Investment Position, 1926-1954", and I submitted that it is a bargain at $1 from the queen's printer. On page 44 of that volume we get an exact breakdown of all the different industries in Canada, exactly what percentages United States-owned companies obtain in the Canadian market and exactly what percentage of employment is given to Canadians by that United States investment. Working from the bottom upward, 1 shall read the statistics on page 44:
Per cent
Printing, publishing, and allied	industries ..	1
Clothing (textiles and furs)	 2
Wood products	 6
Primary iron and steel	 7
Bakery products and confectionery	 10
Beverages	 12
Iron and steel products n.o.p	 14
Textile products (except clothing)	 14
Food industries, tobacco and tobacco
products and leather products, n.o.p. ..	14
Castings, iron	  15
Dairy products	 16

Non-metallic mineral products and products of petroleum and coke, n.o.p		18
Aircraft and parts, railway rolling stock,
and transportation equipment, n.o.p. ..	19
Agricultural implements	 20
Miscellaneous manufactures	 20
Hardware, tools and cutlery	 23
Canning and processing	 24
Toilet preparations	 27
Brass and copper products	 27
Paper products n.o.p	 29
Heating and cooking apparatus	 29
Grain mill products	 29
Machinery, industrial and machine tools ..	32
Chemicals and allied products n.o.p		36
Pulp and paper	 39
Sheet metal products	 39
Medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations 41 Soaps, washing compounds and cleaning
preparations	 45
Paints, varnishes and lacquers	 45
Electrical apparatus and supplies	 50
Non-ferrous metal products n.o.p	 50
Machinery, household, office and store _____ 60
Motor vehicle parts	 67
Petroleum products	 68
Non-ferrous metal smelting and refining ..	70
Bubber products	 78
Motor vehicles	 98
So I should like to know whether there is a single hon. member, even in the Conservative opposition, who will rise in this house and say in all seriousness that he believes the 98 per cent of the jobs which Canadians have in motor vehicle manufacture should be cut off simply because United States investments have provided us with those jobs. So on down the line.
No, Mr. Speaker; when we analyse the Conservative warning about the menace of these Yankee dollars, the menace of this great adverse trade balance about which they -are so fond of talking, we find that adverse trade balance almost entirely made up of tools and capital equipment which is coming in to develop this country. I would ask my Conservative friends to point out the name of the United States-owned factory which they think is a menace to this country. I submit that they are only against this United States investment in general terms, but when it comes down to concrete terms and they are talking about the exact factory or the exact job which is provided by that United States investment they are very vague indeed.
Take my own province of British Columbia. I should like to touch on one or two instances. I will start up the coast at Prince Rupert. I would wager that there is not a single person in the whole city of Prince Rupert who would say that United States investment there has been a menace to that city. As a matter of fact, United States investment in the past few years has transformed the city from one of very moderate progressiveness to one of the most prosperous cities in British Columbia.

I come down the coast to Ocean Falls, where United States investment is entirely responsible for the whole project. I come farther down to Powell River, where there is one of the greatest pulp and paper companies in the whole world. Incidentally, United States investment and for that matter United States management under the Foley brothers, who are among the most enlightened employers in the whole Dominion of Canada, have transformed the city from one which 21 years ago had some of the shadiest labour relations to a city with perhaps the most enlightened labour relations in the whole of Canada. I venture to say there is not even a member of the Conservative opposition who would suggest that is a menace to Canada.
Coming farther down to the city of Vancouver, certainly in my own constituency of Vancouver South I cannot think of any foreign investments that are a menace to Canada. I must say that when I have heard the term "foreigners" used with reference to Americans or "foreign investment" when we mean United States investment I have wanted to cry "shame", because everybody knows that no sensible Canadian ever calls an American a foreigner unless he is deliberately trying to insult him. In any event, in my riding of Vancouver South we welcome foreign investment.
I am sorry to see that my good friend the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is not in his seat at the moment, because yesterday he said he had some sensible things to say about forest production waste and some sensible remarks about what a young Scandinavian had said about our wasteful forest practices in this country. But, Mr. Speaker, never in the history of this young nation, Canada, has there been such an improvement in any industry as there has been in the forest products industry of British Columbia in the past 15 or 20 years with respect to the utilization of materials which formerly went to waste and the better exploitation of the raw materials, especially with regard to the manufacture of plywood.
I would point out that all or most of these improved practices are due to the know-how that came into this country along with some of the refugee capital which came here as a by-product of Hitler's persecutions in Europe. I would say that if there is not a silver lining to every cloud, there was a silver lining at least in one respect so far as Hitler's persecutions were concerned, in that we in British Columbia got fine and enlightened Czech capitalists like the Koerner brothers, who
Natural Resources-Development have not only improved our whole woodworking industry but have made a gift running into millions of dollars for humanitarian purposes in British Columbia.
When I look over the United States-owned factories in my riding and other ridings I invite any member of the opposition to get up and say which American-owned factory he would close down, which American factory he would keep out of the country. There are thousands of people employed in the United States-owned factories, at least a fifth of all the people in Canada. Incidentally, the people with the best jobs in Canadian factories are those who work in these factories created by United States investment.


Mr. Ellis:: What a straw man.


Elmore Philpott: When I hear the member for Regina City he makes me more homesick than ever, because his voice is exactly like the foghorn in Vancouver harbour. I submit that my hon. friends opposite are in a rather dangerous position. I have no doubt they know full well the meaning of the motion they have moved. It is of course a want of confidence motion, and if it were passed the house would be dissolved and we would have an election now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Claude Ellis: What are you afraid of?


Elmore Philpott: Of course my hon. friends opposite want an election now, especially the Conservative opposition, because they know very well that unless they get their election before the natural gas pipe line reaches Winnipeg they will be shown up as the most senseless, stupid obstructionists in the whole history of Canada. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, the party that aspires to be the government of Canada and that talks about reducing the adverse trade balance with the United States tries to block the pipe line which is going to substitute Alberta gas for Pennsylvania coal and thereby reduce the largest item that goes to make up this adverse trade balance with the United States.
I know that my hon. friends immediately opposite are in a little different position. They have about four months' extra grace. The poor old Tories there-I must apologize for that term, but it is the result of spending my boyhood days in the city of Hamilton, where people were not only willing to admit they were Tories but were proud of it. I am glad to say that I can remember when the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I lived in Hamilton in our boyhood days. I think he was born into a Conservative family, too. I believe my father was the first

Natural Resources-Development Liberal on our side. We even had an aunt whose name was Aunt Tory; that was her real name, too.


Alfred Claude Ellis: What party are you going into next?


Elmore Philpott: I can think back to my first experience in politics in 1911. I have a horrible admission to make, and that is that even in those days, although my father was a Liberal, the Tories sold me on the idea that if the Liberals won the election we were going to have annexation to the United States. I can remember the great crowds gathering in the dining room of our old home on what was fondly called the mountain in Hamilton, and debating the issue. These debates used to end in real fist fights, which is one reason of course why I felt a little bit at home in this chamber a while ago, because I had been in that kind of atmosphere before long ago.
When I grew up I talked to some of my colleagues like Mr. McGregor and Mr. McTav-ish of the Vancouver Province, who not so many years ago wrote a series of articles about the 1911 election. He gave the inside story of that 1911 election and told how some smart Tory newspaper man from Canada went down to Washington, if you please, and paid those congressman $100 per speech to make speeches in favour of annexation of Canada by the United States. Those fellows would have done it for nothing, especially if they could have had their names across the front page.
May I say that before my hon. friends opposite go farther down the slippery slope of warning against the menace of these Yankee dollars they should keep in mind what happened before. You cannot fool the people twice with the same trick while some of the same people are still alive. Never should they forget that the so-called menace of these United States dollars is the kind of menace which is responsible for one-fifth of the best jobs we have in this country.
I think back to the days of the war when the great Churchill coined one of his most famous phrases when asking for co-operation from the United States. He said, in effect, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job". I submit we could paraphrase that today in regard to this United States investment in Canada which has been responsible for the tremendous development we have had in this country, by saying that they have lent us the tools and we will finish the job; we will carry through from where we are now and proceed with the development of this country. No, Mr. Speaker; the Yankee dollars are not a menace to Canada except in the minds of the hon. gentlemen opposite.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I do
not intend, Mr. Speaker, to follow my hon. friend in the discussion of the fictional matters in which he indulged. He went back to 1911 and resurrected a fiction that has remained amongst those who do not read and will not hear, that in that election of 1911 this party took the stand "No truck nor trade with the Yankees". This indicates the paucity of argument in regard to the amendment before us, and the extent to which the hon. gentleman felt impelled to go into the fictional past in order to remove himself from the discussion of the present.
But there was one interesting thing I noted in his speech. After he had covered all this historical fiction and myth he finally came to mention the amendment and said, "You want to watch this; if you vote in favour of it we are going to have an election." This indicated that in behind all those words and the creation of all these straw men, there was a fear that could not be hidden. Over and over again-and you, sir, know the circumstances-we on this side of the house have done everything we could to challenge the government to do that thing to which my hon. friend referred a moment ago, but without success.
Now, returning to the amendment, I think at this time it might be well to read that amendment so the discussion might once more return to the subject matter before the house. This is the amendment:
This house is of the opinion that the welfare of the Canadian people requires the adoption now of a national development policy which will develop our natural resources for the maximum benefit of all parts of Canada, encourage more processing of those resources in Canada, correct the present serious unfavourable trade balances, foster wider financial participation by Canadians in the development of our resources, and promote greater opportunity and employment for a steadily increasing population.
I noted, sir, that throughout his remarks my hon. friend dealt with no portion of that amendment. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition set out in very considerable detail the attitude taken by this party in reference to the need for a development policy that will not only expand and develop Canada today, but preserve and maintain that development for future generations.
The attitude taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce was generally to this effect: After all, if we sell our irreplaceable resources in raw form it will be and is to the advantage of the present. The difference between his point of view and that of the Leader of the Opposition is this. The Leader of the Opposition is building for the future; for if we take our irreplaceable resources and move them from Canada in the raw form, the day will

come when, there being none to replace, the advantages of the present will be lost in so far as our national destiny is concerned.
No one has ever taken the stand that it is not to the advantage of this country to have investment from the United States or elsewhere, but what we do say is this. In that investment let Canadian considerations be No. 1, rather than subject to the interests of any corporation from any other part of the world. When you speak of the present and of the need of United States investment in Canada, let me say this. One of the most serious things that has taken place in recent months in connection with Canada's development has been the increase in discount and interest rates, thereby forcing Canadian industry, municipalities and provinces to go into the United States market to borrow because money there is cheaper than it is in Canada.
In today's newspapers parliament learns, as it so often does through the press, that interest rates on bank savings will be increased by one-quarter o.f one per cent after August 1. What kind of encouragement is that to saving in Canada so that Canadians will have money available in order to finance a larger share of Canada's development? Sir, this most niggling, niggardly increase can have no serious influence in causing Canadians to have more money available for investment in Canada. Indeed, the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself, when speaking recently in Hamilton, used these words:
I share the desire of Canadians to be free from dependence on large scale imports of capital. As a member of the Canadian government I do all I can to help maintain conditions favourable for Canadian investors, in the hope that one day we shall be able to look after all our capital requirements if we choose to do so. The plain truth is, however, that Canadians have not generated enough savings to supply all the capital required for Canadian development.
Well, no matter what savings they have generated the government has degenerated them by the heavy rates of taxation that exist, and this latest action of raising interest rates to that extent does not meet the situation and will not meet the situation, nor will it encourage further savings in Canada.
My hon. friend says let us get as much capital into Canada as we can regardless of whether we have any control over it. Well, Mr. James Muir-


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: When did I say that?
Natural Resources-Development


John George Diefenbaker: -the president of the Royal Bank of Canada, spoke before the Canadian club at Ottawa on January 19 and said this:
The disadvantages to the Canadian economy of non-resident control lie mainly in practices that would appear to be easily changed for the better.
Participation by Canadians in enterprises financed by outside (especially American) capital would be greatly encouraged were it not necessary in many cases to buy stock in the parent company in order indirectly to secure some voice in the operations of the Canadian subsidiary. In other words, Canadians should he allowed to buy stock directly in any Canadian corporation.
That point was made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Muir continued:
Another practice, with a similar effect, is that of centralizing research facilities in the non-resident parent company. This practice may result in economies.
Finally, he said this:
I believe that every encouragement and incentive should be given to the establishment, by nonresident corporations, of research facilities in Canada.
I shall deal with that in a moment, for Canadians find themselves in the position where corporations cannot deduct those expenses in Canada to the same extent that they do in the United States, where provision is made to encourage the research so necessary in the developments of today. Yesterday the Minister of Trade and Commerce ridiculed, or endeavoured to ridicule, the arguments advanced by the Leader of the Opposition regarding the fact that development was not reasonably equal in all parts of Canada. The Leader of the Opposition said, as reported at page 5775 of Hansard:
As trustees for future generations of Canadians, we should make sure in every way we can, within the framework of our constitutional structure, that by the combined efforts of all governments and all the people of Canada the opening up of our country brings the maximum benefit to every part of Canada, not only for today but for future generations far into the years ahead.
And then he said this:
Large areas right across Canada have not participated fully in our recent growth and development. This government has failed to meet its obligations to those parts of Canada which are most in need of encouragement and financial support.
To all of this the right hon. gentleman said he had never heard so much rot in one afternoon in his life.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will my hon.
friend read the extract from my speech in which I discussed distribution of development projects across Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: I read it, but I am just mentioning-

Natural Resources-Development Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): You are reading into it comments that are not there.


John George Diefenbaker: If I were to read all that the hon. gentleman said yesterday it would be perfectly clear that he did not admit the basic reason for this amendment, namely that across Canada there is not equal development and there is not equal opportunity for Canadians in every province of Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wondered what the reason was.


John George Diefenbaker: Nor any endeavour on the part of the government to secure it. Last evening the hon. member for Royal dealt with this question, as he has done on previous occasions, and pointed out the injustice and unfairness to the maritime provinces owing to the fact that this government has failed to act, has failed to give any support to the power development on the Saint John river, as it has failed to give assistance to the province of Saskatchewan in connection with the South Saskatchewan dam.
Where are the maritime members now? Today's press records that while the minister was ridiculing the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition, and also in anticipation the arguments raised by the hon. member for Royal, there was a gathering in Fredericton. It was a gathering of premiers, three Liberal and one Conservative. The conference was held. The maritime premiers demand a better deal for the maritimes. They want a coordinated policy, and they went on to point out, "Ottawa helps those who help themselves, but only if they complain loudly enough".
Well, that was the first principle they enunciated. Sir, it is worthy of the attention of the Liberal members from the maritimes, because it should not have been necessary after 20 long years in power for these three Liberal premiers to meet together and determine that in so far as their representation from the maritimes was concerned in government circles, there were insufficient demands for the rights of the people.
Let us go on:
Does the federal government consider that its mission in the development of the Atlantic coast of Canada has been accomplished by sending three geological survey parties to Newfoundland this year, Premier Smallwood demanded?
There is one of the great creative men of Canada. He created the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill). Then we have Mr. Hicks saying:
It is necessary to point out to the federal government that they do not have to think always of Industry in the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto region, when it comes time to hand out defence contracts. 

Coming back again to Premier Smallwood, speaking as the tribune of the people on behalf of equality of opportunity everywhere in Canada and in particular seeking to equalize those opportunities in the maritimes who said:
"The government of Canada is wrong when they say that all provinces should be treated as equals." The Newfoundland leader borrowed a phrase from communist philosphy to express his attitude: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
The policy of equal treatment, he said, would result in "four, or possibly five, rich provinces, with the rest of us in the poorhouse."
He went on to say there is a faint glimmer of hope:
There is now a glimmering of comprehension in Ottawa, and one of the signs was the appointment of the Gordon commission on the economic development of Canada.
He went on to express the hope that as the result of the work of this commission there may be some action such as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out over and over again is necessary in this country by way of equalizing opportunities for people in every province of Canada. He goes on to deal with freight rates; he speaks of the unfairness of flat increases that have the result of discriminating against the maritimes and the west, and he concludes by saying that action must be taken in order to secure an equality of opportunity and to raise economic standards in various parts of Canada to the level of other parts of the country. That is the purpose of this amendment. While the Minister of Trade and Commerce was saying yesterday there was no need for this amendment, these men were calling on the government to do the very things which are embodied in the amendment presented to this house.
Sir, it is a very serious question, and one that has been ignored by this government. This government has failed to recognize that every part of Canada deserves its fair share in the national development. It is because of that failure that we in this party have asked among other things that instead of shipping our resources from Canada in their raw form they should be processed here in Canada to the maximum extent.
The hon. member for Vancouver South says there are so many jobs resulting from those raw materials being sent out. I think the number is aproximately 250,000, representing people employed in Canada as a result of the export of raw, semi-raw and partially processed products. There is only a small labour content in raw material. When transferred into processed or semi-processed

material jobs are increased far out of proportion to the extent to which expenditure is necessary to transform those materials into saleable products.
What I want to deal with in particular now in the time at my disposal is one phase of this question that was alluded to by the Leader of the Opposition as part of a development plan. At page 5778 of Hansard he said:
Therefore, the training of skilled men and women to take their part in research and technical development must be part of the national program consciously designed to advance our industrial expansion in Canada.
Without interfering in any way with the exclusive jurisdiction over education which rests with provincial governments, encouragement should be given to advance research and within the framework of our constitution research facilities should be expanded rapidly right across Canada in our universities and industries. This is something the government can do and should undertake right away.
There has been considerable discussion on this subject of the shortage in Canada of trained technical personnel. Gilbert Jackson and associates of Toronto recently summed up their views in anticipation of the situation in Canada in the next ten years and pointed out this fact:
A leading impetus to industrial investment is the prospectively rapid rate of technological advance and automation. The surge in this direction is already under way and tends to feed upon itself. Even the cold war is becoming more and more a race for economic, industrial and technological superiority.
The prospectively rapid rate of technological advance and automation is now seriously threatened by the dearth of engineers and highly trained technicians. This may prove to be the greatest of our handicaps during the next decade.
In other words, training the necessary personnel in Canada under research facilities, either dominion or provincial, or through the instrumentality of business to the end that trained men will be available, is a serious need. Only today there is a report on the university situation in Canada which indicates that during the present year there are some 60,000 students in Canadian universities and eight years from now, according to the dominion bureau of statistics, there will be between 100,000 and 135,000. The U.S.S.R. has not only launched an international trading system but has also launched a vast training system to train the necessary technological workers, scientists, engineers and the like; but while the United States allows almost complete deductions for technical research on the part of industry we in Canada do not do so, nor do we have the opportunity of doing so because United States companies in the main do their research work in the United States. While we in Canada receive an
10, 1956	5821
Natural Resources-Development indirect benefit from that, we do not receive the benefit that we should in keeping Canadians in Canada.
In the last four years the U.S.S.R. has graduated 154,000 engineers; in the same period Canada graduated 6,900 and the United States 116,000. This year the U.S.S.R. will have 60,000 graduates in applied science as compared with 1,700 in Canada, 3,000 in Great Britain and 22,000 in the United States.
Everywhere the fear exists that Russia is outdistancing us and by 1968, according to an estimate that has not been denied, the U.S.S.R. with its present trade policy and its expansive industrial policy will equal the industrial production of the United States. Everywhere the fear is expressed that we are not doing our part nationally or provincially to provide the necessary trained personnel. Within the limits of our constitution, why should not the federal government expand and extend the amount available by way of scholarships in order to encourage and permit universities in this country to take their part in our national development and meet the international challenge presented by the U.S.S.R.?
Sir Winston Churchill warned that the western world is falling behind the U.S.S.R. in advanced training and research in pure and applied science. Last year in Canada one-sixth of the total number of undergraduates were in engineering. The engineering institute of Canada has stated that Russian tactics are building up the world's greatest army of technicians, and this fact should both disturb and inspire us.
I am not suggesting that our institutions of higher learning should become instruments of the state, dominated by the state, but I say this. In order to meet the responsibility of expanding the processing of our commodities in Canada and the development of our industry, we require more and more technicians, far beyond the numbers now being trained. Universities cannot carry on. Fees have increased in several of the universities by from 5 per cent to 11 per cent.
What the Canadian government is doing in these terms is merely touching the outer edge of this responsibility. Last fall they set up a scholarship fund in the national research council which granted some 267 scholarships worth $363,000. Rather, that was the general plan previous to last fall, and there was an increase in that number by 250 summer research scholarships to the value of $200,000. We want to build up in Canada that necessary research army, that scientific corps of trained men. There is no reason why there should be so few scholarships. They do not interfere with provincial rights. That number should be materially increased.

Natural Resources-Development
In addition to that, business should be given encouragement, and companies that come to Canada from outside should be required to provide a certain portion of their earnings for the purpose of research and for the training of research personnel. That is being done in the United States. That has been done in countries in Europe. That today is the purpose of a recent change of front on the part of the U.S.S.R. which, however, goes farther than any of us would wish to go in that it places industrial research and scientific education above any other type of education and denies to a major extent the development of the humanities.
The Globe and Mail of Toronto in March ran a series of articles by Jim Senter in which he set forth in detail the tremendous lack of trained men in Canada, including trained scientists, engineers, electronics technicians and the like. He went on to point out that the army and the air force are short of technical personnel, and that to a lesser degree Canada's defence research board and Atomic Energy of Canada find themselves in a similar situation but not to the same extent as does industry. He also pointed out that in Canada, in the engineering field, in one area to which he made reference approximately one-third of the engineers had come from elsewhere in the world and generally from Europe.
I think one of the main things that can be done today in order to make possible the laying of the foundation for the kind of development the Leader of the Opposition has envisaged as within the capabilities of Canada, would be first to make available the facilities and then train that army of technicians which will be necessary. Then, I repeat, Canadian industries should be encouraged to extend their research facilities by the necessary taxation allowances being provided and companies that come in from the outside, foreign companies, should be required as part of their development to devote a portion of their earnings to the expansion and development of research.
Just one word more, Mr. Speaker. At the beginning I mentioned that the Leader of the Opposition had painted a national picture in which development everywhere would be equalized within natural limitations. I do not want to refer once more to the South Saskatchewan river project, but I say this. Only in the last few days Mr. C. T. Hazen of Saskatoon set out in detail what this great project could achieve in my province. Why does not the government act? It met no opposition from any member of the opposition party. Why should not that project be


a national development? It is one that has received the support of the Leader of the Opposition through the years. It is one that we feel is necessary. It is one more argument in support of those maritime premiers who, meeting yesterday, pointed at the present government of Canada the finger of condemnation for the failure of this government to do that of which the Leader of the Opposition over and over again has stressed the necessity, namely the building up of equal opportunity in all parts of Canada.
Whether it be Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan or British Columbia, the federal authority should be charged with the responsibility of assuring the people living in those areas a reasonable and fair share of the national benefits that for the moment are concentrated to too great an extent in two or three of the Canadian provinces.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment that has been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition raises a number of important points, and in the speeches which have been made by hon. members opposite in support of this resolution a number of these matters have been dealt with.
I think it is quite obvious to all hon. members that in this resolution and in the speeches that have been made by members of the opposition there is nothing that is new. Everything that has been said or suggested has been said before by the same hon. members or by different hon. members in speeches in this house and in speeches outside this house. The wording and intent sometimes differs, but the basic material is the same.
The speeches of the Leader of the Opposition like those of others who have spoken in support of his amendment, were collections of generalities. This has been pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver South a few minutes ago. The hon. member for Vancouver South showed how, when those generalities are reduced to practical examples, the picture that has been painted in the general statement seems to change. I did not see any hon. member across the floor of the house rise to take up his suggestion that they deal with these individual examples that he gave.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that all these generalities are not supported by the facts of our present economic situation in Canada, nor are they supported by the history of the development of the economy of this country over the past 15 or 20 years. Many of these general statements, when taken alone, could perhaps be agreed with. But when they are put together in the form of a more or less connected speech they create an entirely

wrong and incorrect impression, and it is that impression and that wrong implication that requires an answer.
My purpose in entering this debate is only to deal with one or two of the major points that have been raised by several of the speakers opposite. The amendment itself refers to the adoption now of a national development policy which will do certain things. The Minister of Trade and Commerce in his speech in this house last evening pointed out and proved with facts that there is now an existing policy that is being put into effect by this government that it is achieving in very substantial and satisfactory measure the very purposes which are contained in the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.
This policy is achieving results, as has been proved in a number of fields, and I want to speak of that policy and its results in two important fields. The first is that of research. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned research in a number of places in his speech. As recorded on page 5778 of Hansard of July 9, he spoke of desirable steps to be taken which are necessary to encourage our own management and the expansion of our own affairs. He said this could be done in the important field of industrial research, and he told us of the success achieved in other countries. Then further down the page he went on to speak of university education and research in the universities; and in the next column he spoke of tax deductions that should be permitted to industry in respect of research expenditures, which would encourage our own research in every field.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar also referred to research in his remarks last evening; and the hon. member for Prince Albert, who has just resumed his seat, spoke at some length about the need for research and support of research by the federal government, by provincial governments and in the universities. We have had debates on research in this house in the past, and it is a fact that there has been a very considerable increase in activity and interest in research in Canada over a long period of years.
This increase in activity and interest has accompanied and paralleled the very rapid and satisfactory growth of both our primary and our secondary industries, which was outlined by the Minister of Trade and Commerce last evening. As far as government research is concerned, the federal government is spending this year over $100 million on a wide variety of essential research activities. I am sure it may be said with justice and truth that this represents a per capita expenditure on government research that compares
10, 1956
Natural Resources-Development favourably with similar expenditures in any other country in the world. I think it is also true that the quality of Canadian research and the results achieved fully justify these very large sums of money which have been voted by this parliament and expended by the various agencies and departments of government that exercise responsibility in this field.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the picture will be clearer if I place on Hansard a table prepared from the estimates which summarizes the figures of expenditures on research by the various departments of government. This table indicates that Canadian government research covers a very wide field including the responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, to say nothing of the national research council which is, as hon. members know, the main federal government organization active in the general field of industrial research and pure science. With the permission of the house I shall place this table on Hansard covering the estimated expenditures on research by the federal government for the current fiscal year 1956-57 and for the previous fiscal year 1955-56.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Horace Dickey: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Do these figures include, for example, all the expenditure on Canada's atomic energy program?


John Horace Dickey: Yes; I said they included all the moneys voted by parliament for research, and that is quite clearly set out.


Howard Charles Green: I am asking whether these figures include the total moneys voted for Atomic Energy of Canada, a large portion of which is not research at all.


John Horace Dickey: No. As the hon. member will see from the table, this includes only the $300,000 paid out in the form of grants by the atomic energy control board and the research operations portion of the activities of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited; but that, I think-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. member unanimous consent to place this table on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Horace Dickey: The table is as follows:

Natural Resources-Development



TABLE I


[Stage Direction]
Department or Agency	Fiscal Year 1955-56	Fiscal Year 1956-57	Operations	Capital	Total	Operations	Capital	Totals	$	s	$	$	$Agriculture-	715,074	811,609Animal pathology	657,869	235,685	893,554	96,535	Experimental farms service	9,923,000	1,356,000	11,279,000	9,593,174	2,428,000	12,021,174Science service	8,195,000	1,989,000	10,184,000	7,713,923	2,100,000	9,813,923Atomic Energy-	nil	300,000Control board grants	300,000	nil	300,000	300,000	Research operation, A. E. of C.	22,457,055Ltd	11,226,183	8,176,425	19,402,608	13,743,370	8,713,685	Defence research board	20,101,000	2,799,000	22,900,000	19,854,689	3,280,700	23,135,389Fisheries research board	2,631,000	267,000	2,898,000	2,916,000	689,000	3,605,000Mines and Technical Surveys-	4,230,355Mines branch	2,982,561	756,290	3,738,851	2,979,270	1,251,085	Geological survey	2,394,637	604,000	2,998,637	2,314,954	919,000	3,233,954Dominion observatories	632,083	97,050	729,133	691,512	123,738	815,250National Health and Welfare	527,200	10,300	537,500	616,500	nil	616,500National Research Council	16,300,000	2,470,000	18,770,000	17,697,000	2,818,000	20,515,000Northern Affairs and National Resources-	Forestry branch	1,611,634	1,205,513	2,817,147	1,687,505	1,988,497	3,676,002National museum	175,000	nil	175,000	175,000	nil	175,000Canadian wildlife service	275,880	nil	275,880	267,545	nil	267,545Veterans Affairs	350,000	nil	350,000	375,000	nil	375,000Totals	78,283,047	19,966,263	98,249,310	81,640,516	24,408,240	106,048,756
Hon. members will see from this table that in the fiscal year 1955-56 these estimates totalled $98,249,000 and for the present fiscal year 1956-57 thg total has advanced to $106,048,000. This, I submit, is a very substantial expenditure. This total includes only the expenditures made through estimates presented to and voted on by this parliament. There are other substantial expenditures on research not included in this table; for example, the Canadian National Railways, Polymer Corporation and other crown companies have substantial research programs in their own fields of activity.
In view of what has been said by hon. members opposite, and particularly by the hon. member for Prince Albert, who immediately preceded me in this debate, I should like to say a special word about the very considerable expansion that has taken place in the support given by the federal government to university research in Canada. This support is provided mainly through the agency of the national research council, and the increase has been truly dramatic. The program of scholarships and research grants under the national research council was begun in 1917, and has risen from a few thousand dollars in that year to almost $3
[Mr. DickeyJ
million per year this year. In particular it should be realized by hon. members that the support of university research by the national research council has multiplied by a factor of nearly six since the end of world war II.
The hon. member for Prince Albert demanded expanded scholarships. I am sure that every member in this house would wish to expand scholarships, particularly in the field of science and research, as widely as possible; but we must remember that the progress that can be made in this field is limited by the students available for graduate study and the research facilities available. The program of the national research council has been designed to try to ensure that, as students become available and research facilities are expanded and improved, the necessary support from federal government sources is available for scholarships and research grants.
In this case also it may be convenient for hon. members to give me permission to place on Hansard a table showing the actual expenditures by the national research council on scholarships and research grants from 1917, the year the program was instituted, to 1956, with the addition of the estimates of expenditure on this program for the current fiscal
[Stage Direction]
year 1956-57. This table will, I believe, indicate to hon. members as clearly as it is possible to do the steady and satisfactory growth of university research being carried on in Canada with federal government assistance because these figures, as they rise from $13,000 a year in 1917 to $2,955,000 this year, indicate the vast expansion in research activity being conducted on university campuses right across Canada. If I may have the permission of the house I should like to place this table on Hansard.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member permission to place the table on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Horace Dickey: The table is as follows: TABLE II
National research council,
Scholarships and research grants, 1917-56
Year	Expenditure
1917-	18	
13,7941918-	19	
36,6801919-	20	
53,4161920-	21	
68,7041921-	22	
62,3421922-	23	
77,0351923-	24	
101,6581924-	25	
93,7821925-	26	
106,2141926-	27	
119,1501927-	28	
154,5911928-	29	
252,5591929-	30	
270,4321930-	31	
238,4591931-	32	
209,3241932-	33	
121,7321933-	34	
205,0891934-	35	
191,6531935-	36	
164,1841936-	37	
192,4951937-	38	
213,6561938-	39	
247,2111939-	40	
369,5591940-	41	
279,4691941-	42	
281,8091942-	43	
267,6181943-	44	
227,6881944-	45	
284,2561945-	46	
307,8911946-	47	
537,0171947-	48	
949,6151948-	49	
1,064,4541949-	50	
1,552,7761950-	51	
1,810,1711951-	52	
1,836,5831952-	53	
2,141,6241953-	54	
2,123,3241954-	55	
2,230,0731955-	56 (Forecast)	
2,400,0001956-	57 (Estimates)	
2,955,000
There is, I believe, no question but that the support of the national research council has over the years been a major factor in the development of university research in Canada. I should also point out that the national research council is by no means the only federal government body which is supporting university research. In the year 195455, for example, support for research carried
Natural Resources-Development out in the universities came not only from the national research council but from the Department of Agriculture, the defence research board, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Department of National Health and Welfare, and to a minor extent from other sources. The amounts of these assistances to university research have not been included in the table I have just placed on the record.
The hon. member for Prince Albert laid some stress on the question of industrial research and the steps that should be taken through taxation policy to assist private companies in engaging in industrial research. The Leader of the Opposition took the same line in his speech yesterday afternoon when he said, as found at page 5778 of Hansard:
Tax deductions should be permitted in respect of research expenditures which will encourage our own research in every field.
I find it difficult to understand just how hon. members opposite, in the light of the law as it exists in Canada today, can suggest that this is not being done, in as full a measure as it is done in any other country of the world and in fuller measure than it is done in most countries. The hon. member for Prince Albert said during his speech that we should allow write-offs of research expenditures by industry, and he said we did not do it. That, Mr. Speaker, is just not the law. The law in Canada today with respect to the allowance of research expenditures by private industry is that in so far as current expenditures are concerned expenditures on research are allowed as deductions up to 100 per cent of those expenditures. How anything further could be done than providing a 100 per cent immediate allowance I am unable to imagine.
It is true that the expenditures made must be on a research program approved by the Department of National Revenue, but the regulations and the administration of those regulations are such that any research program even vaguely connected with the industry in which the particular company is engaged or the business that it is carrying on can be an approved project and the expenditures certified for complete write-off in the year of expenditure.
With respect to capital expenditures, which are also a very important consideration in connection with assistance to private firms engaged in industrial research, there is provision for the accelerated write-off of cost of both buildings and equipment, excluding the value of any land involved, over a three-year period. In other words, a company which wishes to do research is permitted to write off its full expense on current account each year 100 per cent, and if the building of any facilities or the provision of any

Natural Resources-Development equipment of a capital nature are required they have accelerated depreciation which permits them to write off those expenses in three years. How hon. members opposite, in the face of that, can suggest that this country is not giving very substantial and effective assistance to companies interested and anxious to go into research projects, I cannot possibly imagine.
The second point with which I should like to deal is one which has been dealt with very briefly by the Leader of the Opposition, in more detail by the hon. member for Royal last evening, and again to some extent by the hon. member for Prince Albert this afternoon. What has been said draws attention to the necessity of the federal authority taking reasonable steps, the best steps that are possible, to assist all portions of this country to develop their economic life on a basis which is fair and equal with the development going on in other parts of the country. Obviously it would be impossible to achieve complete equality of development in a country so diverse as Canada. But it is in this particular field that I think can best be demonstrated the truth of the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce last evening when he said that we have in effect now policies which are doing everything the Leader of the Opposition had in mind in placing his amendment before the house.
The suggestion has been repeated as a generality, but without any attempt to discuss facts or to establish the general statement by facts, that the government is doing nothing to assist the economy of the Atlantic provinces, for instance, in their development in order to try to level out any inequalities there may be there. Let us deal with the Atlantic provinces and the various federal government assistance programs that are being carried out in that area. I say "are being carried out". These are not vague generalities or promises, as are the suggestions made by hon. members opposite. These are actual programs on which money is being spent and through which achievements are being made.
Last night the hon. member for Royal, for example, spoke of the coal industry as one of the basic industries of the maritime provinces, particularly in the province of Nova Scotia. There are federal government assistance programs in effect and being carried out at the present time to assist the coal industry. There are not just one or two programs; they are five in number.
The first one is the transportation subvention on coal movements which is intended to overcome to some extent the handicap of coal mines far removed from the main markets in Ontario and Quebec. This program

was instituted in 1928 and has been in effect ever since. The expenditures under that program are of a substantial magnitude. For example, in the fiscal year of 1954-55 alone the expenditures under this subvention program for mines in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were $8,764,000. Over the period of the whole program from 1929 to 1955 the total amount expended under this program in the two coal producing provinces of the maritimes amounted to $56,066,000.
The second program is the subsidy payments on coal used in the manufacture of iron and steel. This program is designed to place Canadian coal used in the manufacture of iron and steel on a basis of equality with imported coal. These payments have only been made in Nova Scotia, because that is the only Atlantic province in which basic steel is produced. In the fiscal year 1954-55 those payments amounted to $224,000. Since they were instituted in 1931 up to the end of 1955 the total amount paid has been $6,914,000.
The third program provides coal production subsidies, loans and rentals, intended to extend financial assistance with a view to increasing the production of coal in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick mines. This was carried on from 1942 to 1947, the period of this program, with total expenditures amounting to $31,883,000.
The fourth program is coal production assistance, which was instituted to make longterm loans totalling $10 million to operators for the purpose of increasing efficiency of production through expanded and modernized mechanization. This has been in effect since 1949. The total expenditure under that program from 1949 to 1955 in the two maritime provinces has been $8,362,000.
Finally there is an export subsidy program which was brought into effect in 1955 to extend financial assistance in respect of coal from Nova Scotia being shipped outside of Canada during the period June 1, 1955, to March 31, 1956. This program has since been extended. The expenditures under that original program undertaken last year in co-operation with the government of Nova Scotia amounted to $300,000.
Mr. Speaker, that, very briefly, is a description of the actual assistance that has been given by this government to one of the basic industries in the maritime provinces to achieve the very effects of which hon. members opposite are talking. These are not promises. These are not suggestions of what might be done at some future time. Those are actual

programs which hon. members opposite obviously either did not know about or were unwilling to admit in their speeches last night and today.
Let us look a little further than the coal industry. There are two programs of a general nature which are of great value to the maritime provinces. The first is the steamship subvention for coastal services. This is to provide a payment to contractors for service between designated ports in the maritime provinces. This program is not as important as it used to be in some provinces, but over the period 1948 to 1955 the total payments on these steamship service subsidies in the three maritime provinces amounted to $4,644,000. In order to show the importance of this particular program to one of the Atlantic provinces, may I say that these steamship subsidies for Newfoundland in 1954-55 totalled $2 million and the total subsidies paid since 1951 and including 1955 amounted to $8,279,000 for that single province.
Then there is the freight assistance under the Maritime Freight Rates Act. This program is to provide for a reduction of 20 per cent on all rates charged on traffic which originates or terminates in the designated area, which is the maritime area. This was brought into effect under the Maritime Freight Rates Act in 1927. The expenditures for the Atlantic region in the year 1954-55 amounted to $10,590,000, and for the period 1946 to 1955 totalled $77,542,000 for this one program alone. I did not hear the hon. member for Royal mention that program in his speech last night.
The hon. member may be interested in the fishing industry. There are seven programs of assistance supported by the federal government for the fishing industry in the maritime provinces. The first is the fish bounty, most maritime members know about that. It is to aid the development of the sea fisheries of Canada, to encourage the building and fitting of fishing vessels and the improvement of working conditions for the fishermen. In the maritime provinces for the year 1954-55, $120,000 was spent on this program, and from 1946 to 1955 a total of $1,161,000 was spent.
Then there is assistance under the baits service which assists in making supplies of bait available to fishermen. This applies to Newfoundland, and since 1949 the payments made have amounted to $1,019,000.
There is a bounty program for the destruction of harbour seals to protect the fisheries, on which payments have been made since 1946 amounting to $95,000. There is a program of educational services for fishermen
Natural Resources-Development to provide for educational work in cooperative producing and selling amongst fishermen, on which the expenditure has been $459,000 since 1946. There is an annual vote of the Department of Fisheries for industrial development to provide technical services to fishermen and the fishing industry in the maritime provinces. Since 1948 and including 1955 this has cost $658,000, and for Newfoundland from 1953 to 1955, $88,000. Finally there is a program for the construction of bait freezing and storage facilities on which the expenditure in the maritime provinces from 1949 to 1955 has been $101,000.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit that these are important programs of assistance. These are intended to build up the basic industries of the Atlantic provinces, and these are programs that are in effect and achieving results.


Mr. Brooks:: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman? I wish to remind the hon. member that my complaint in my remarks last night was regarding markets for our products. I admit these small matters are important.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, on the question of markets, the success in marketing fishery products over the last five years has been outstanding, I believe, and I cannot think of any surplus of fish that has not found a market today, last year or in the last two or three years. We did have some difficulty about two years ago with lack of markets in the West Indies and in Europe for salt fish, but at the present time-I stand subject to correction-my understanding is that there is no fish production that has not found a ready market.


James Sinclair: That is quite correct.


John Horace Dickey: Let us look at one of the other basic industries, namely agriculture. There are no fewer than nine federal government assistance programs for agriculture in the maritime provinces. First of all there is assistance in reclaiming and developing the marshlands of the maritime provinces. This was started in 1946 under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, and since 1946 in the three maritime provinces expenditures of $4,127,000 have been made.
There is the agricultural lime assistance program, a policy of which the importance to agriculture, in the province of Nova Scotia at least, cannot be exaggerated. These payments are to assist the provincial governments in promoting the increased use of lime on acid soils. The total assistance under this program in the maritime provinces since 1946 has amounted to $1,369,000.

Natural Resources-Development
There is the program of freight assistance on western feed grains shipped into eastern Canada as feed for livestock and poultry. The recent development of both the livestock and poultry industries, certainly in my county of Halifax, is directly dependent upon this excellent program which, from 1946 to 1954, in the maritime provinces has involved the expenditure of a total of $26,339,000 by the federal government, and since it has become effective in Newfoundland from 1950 to 1954 the expenditure of $1,625,000 in that province.
Then there is the assistance to cheese factories under the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act, which has been very important particularly in the province of Prince Edward Island. The expenditures under that act from 1946 to 1954 amounted to $40,000, with an additional $86,000 to assist in amalgamating cheese factories into larger and more economical units.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the hon. member a question? Do the matters of assistance on feed grains and to those cheese factories not apply to all of eastern Canada, Ontario and Quebec, just the same as it does to the maritime provinces?


John Horace Dickey: That is correct.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There is no special benefit.


John Horace Dickey: As a matter of fact, if the hon. member had been paying attention and if he will check Hansard, he will see that as far as feed assistance is concerned I said that it applied to eastern Canada, and that is correct; but it is of much greater benefit, both relatively and actually, to the maritime provinces than it is to any other part of Canada that gets this assistance. After all, the argument that the hon. member was putting up was that he wanted equality of treatment. If he is going to suggest that programs that can be useful to agriculture in the central provinces should not be applied to those provinces but restricted to the maritimes, I think he is forgetting about his argument on equality of treatment.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member had better get the opinion of the four premiers meeting in Fredericton.


John Horace Dickey: The four premiers can look after themselves.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They certainly can.


John Horace Dickey: They have their responsibilities.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They do not say we are getting equal treatment.


John Horace Dickey: The hon. member has his responsibility not to mislead the house and the country the way he did last night.


Mr. Hees:: Nonsense; and the way you are right now.


John Horace Dickey: I am giving the hon. member for Broadview and anybody else who is listening the facts, not some general statements that cannot be supported.


George Harris Hees: What the hon. member is doing is preaching a sermon. Will the hon. member tell us who wrote his speech for him?


John Horace Dickey: The next program is the program of assistance on hog carcasses, which has resulted in payments in the maritime provinces from 1944 to 1954 totalling $1,970,000.
Then there is the assistance program in the removal of apple trees, which was designed to assist in the removal of ancient and less desirable trees in the Annapolis valley. Under that program from 1943 to 1952, when the program came to an end, we made expenditures of $2,163,000, and no one in the Annapolis valley of Nova Scotia will gainsay the advantage of that program to that area of the country.
Then there is assistance in the construction of cold storage warehouses, under the Cold Storage Act. That program has resulted in the expenditure in the maritime provinces from 1948 to 1954 of $489,000.
Then there is assistance under the Canadian farm loan board, which is, of course, an act of a general application similar in nature to those mentioned earlier by the hon. member who interrupted. The expenditures under the act have amounted to $4,401,000. In addition there have been loans for farm improvements under the Farm Improvement Loans Act amounting to $14,092,000 in the maritime provinces from 1945 to 1954. I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and list three other important programs in the field of forestry and the assistance given under the general health grants and other matters, but I think I have placed on Hansard sufficient facts to give the hon. member for Royal and a number of others some reason to reconsider the kind of statements they make in this house.
We are not going to solve problems of an economic nature in any part of this country by trying to make things look worse than they are. It is not facing the facts to suggest that this government is not undertaking policies that are designed to give assistance and that are having good results in bringing about the very things the Leader of the Opposition stated in his amendment. My purpose has been to point out very briefly some of the assistance programs that are in effect in the Atlantic provinces.

The programs I have described are current programs designed to give practical assistance to the basic industries, such as coal mining, fishing and agriculture, in the Atlantic provinces area. That is the kind of practical, effective assistance that can bring and is bringing results. I have not mentioned, and I will not take time to mention, the capital developments that have been carried out by this government, such as the construction and acquisition of auto ferry vessels serving the four Atlantic provinces, providing essential transportation services by connecting them, the ferry services to Prince Edward Island, to Newfoundland, and the Bar Harbor-Yarmouth ferry service which has come into effect this year, the cost of such projects as the strait of Canso causeway, which was a great and important development, the contributions that are being made under the Trans-Canada Highway Act to assist in highway construction in the Atlantic provinces. To no province in this country is the trans-Canada highway assistance of more importance and more benefit than to the province of Newfoundland.


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


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker we have had quite a survey of the industrial development, or lack of development, depending on the point of view, that obtains in Canada. As often happens when I listen to a discussion of this sort I am constrained to wonder if perhaps we do not frequently confuse means and ends. For instance, whenever I pass a particularly large pulp and paper plant in my own constituency, one of the largest in Canada, there is always a question arising in my mind as to just what is the purpose of that particular industrial development. Beyond providing jobs for a certain number of people I must admit I am sometimes in doubt as to whether there is any social purpose at all behind that institution.
I believe when we come to consider the question of the industrial development of Canada we should be asking ourselves not merely how large is that development, not merely how well are we employing our natural resources, but we should also be asking ourselves something else and that is, what is the purpose of our industrial development. As I said, I believe that today we tend to confuse means and ends; we tend to accept as ends industrial development which by the nature of things can only be the means to some real and valuable end.
I do not quite know how one would express that end. Perhaps each individual has his
10, 1956	5829
Natural Resources-Development own definition of it. Possibly the expression "the good life" might be as good a definition as any of the end of social organization and industrial development, for industrial development provides us with the material basis for that good life. I am not for a moment underestimating the extreme importance of that development, but it only provides one of the ingredients of what I think most of us would consider to be the good life.
I would remind hon. members that there have been other systems of society which have had varying degrees of success in industrial development. We have all heard of the success of the late unlamented Adolf Hitler in Germany and we all know, of course, that Mussolini made the trains in Italy run on time. In recent months we have heard a great deal about the industrial success now being achieved in the Soviet union. In each of these instances I have cited there has been brought to the nth degree that confusion of ends and means which I feel afflicts us too in some measure; for while industrial development provides the material basis for the good life for free men and women, it does no more; and as the instances I have cited suggest, if left unchecked by other developments in society it may very well develop into weapons which will more effectively destroy freedom than an underdeveloped economy would be able to do.
Now, to seek the basis for the other aspects of the good life for free men and women we have to look at other institutions and other developments in our society; and I submit, sir, that the basis for the most valuable part of the good life is to be found in the type of social and political institutions under which people live. Here in Canada the fundamental basis of that good life is to be found right in this chamber of the House of Commons, because here in the hands of the 265 members of the Canadian commons rests ultimately complete power over the lives and fortunes of the Canadian people. While it is easy enough for us to take the position that those who now exercise power through the medium of this institution have in their minds and hearts no desire and no intention to infringe on the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens, we must also bear in mind the fact that precedents and habits and procedures that are developed in this chamber may at a later stage in our history be used by men with definite intentions to infringe on the freedom, rights and liberties of the Canadian people.
Things have been happening in this chamber of late, sir, that raise some very grave doubts in our minds, doubts as to whether
5830	HOUSE OF
Natural Resources-Development this vast industrial power about which we heard so much from the Minister of Trade and Commerce last night may not in the future be used as a weapon of oppression rather than a tool for enhancing and expanding individual liberties and freedoms among the Canadian people. I have on previous occasions suggested that this House of Commons is but a frail barrier protecting the freedom and democratic rights of the Canadian people. It is the best we have, but it must be handled with great care and delicacy, and I think it is not too much to say that within recent days and weeks events have taken place in this chamber that have seriously corrupted this vital, central organ of democratic freedom in Canada.
A week ago yesterday the presiding officer of this chamber, for reasons that he considered good and sufficient-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would confine his remarks to the amendment about which we are speaking. It seems to me that in the last few minutes his remarks have wandered somewhat far afield, and at one point he almost reflected on a vote which had previously taken place in the house.


Colin Cameron: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to you that I am suggesting there is very little use of our discussing the industrial and economic development of Canada if we have not simultaneously as much attention and regard for the institutions that protect the freedoms and rights of Canadian citizens. On that basis, sir, with all due respect I suggest that my remarks are in order.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: You are not in
order.


An hon. Member:: It would be something new for you.


Colin Cameron: There has been some doubt lately as to who was going to be the Speaker of the house-


Pierre Gauthier: You go ahead and be Speaker.


Colin Cameron: -as we find out now from an unlucky candidate.


An hon. Member:: You are the least worried in this house about democracy.


Colin Cameron: I submit, sir, that I am in order to discuss the whole framework of Canadian society in which our industrial development is taking place.


Pierre Gauthier: You are not.


Colin Cameron: A vital section of the framework of that society is the conduct


of this central organ of democracy within the Canadian nation. If you wish to rule me out of order at this point, sir, I shall take my seat and raise this matter later as a grievance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I feel that we are limited by the terms of the amendment which is before us. I do not propose to read the entire amendment, but in the main it deals with the development of the natural resources of this country, and I feel that discussion of extraneous matters is, of course, out of order.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the speech made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce last night and by the manner in which he read it. He admitted, of course, at the beginning that it was a scissors job. At page 5795 of Hansard I find this statement:
.	.	. I am meeting a prepared speech with a
speech I have attempted to put together with scissors, largely from speeches I have made over a period outside this house.
Obviously that speech was based on the product of one or more ghost writers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: By what right does my hon. friend draw that conclusion? I mentioned speeches I had made outside the house. If he is going to talk about ghost writers, I myself can mention a few that are active on the other side.


Mr. Rowe:: But he is doing the speaking right now.


Howard Charles Green: I have the floor at the moment. I repeat that it is perfectly obvious that the speech which the minister read was a patchwork of speeches.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As was the one
which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) read.


Howard Charles Green: That may have been so. As I said, there is no doubt that the speech which the minister read was a patchwork of speeches read by the minister elsewhere at different times, and it contains some real highlights. For example, one was his attempt to paint the wonders of Canada's having an adverse balance of trade with the United States. That was something new, I am sure, in the annals of this house; yet the minister tried very hard to make out a case for that point. As reported at page 5796 of Hansard he explained that there was this adverse balance and then he went on to say this:
In fact, for most countries a current deficit of the same relative magnitude as that now being encountered by Canada would mean serious trouble.

But in the following paragraph he has this to say:
In Canada's present circumstances, however, this deficit is not a reflection of weakness but of strength , . .
And a little further on he added this:
I am astonished when I listen to criticism of the current trade deficit, which is so essential to our current phase of expansion and development.
Those remarks, Mr. Speaker, make one wonder whether it is not time that the minister had a new battery of economists advising him. Certainly, if he is right, all the economists in the country are wrong. 1 merely pointed out these statements to show how little value can be placed on many of the statements made by the minister last night.
Then he had another statement to make. It is to be found at page 5801 of Hansard. There he was trying to minimize the extent to which United States capital has been invested in Canada and he pointed out that on a per capita basis Canadians have more money invested in the United States than have Americans in Canada. It sounded like a good plausible argument until one began to read it; and then one could see clearly why it is said that statistics can prove anything. Here we have two countries and there are 15 times as many Americans as there are Canadians. Yet the minister argued that, because the average per capita of Canadian money invested in the United States was greater than the average per capita of United States money invested in Canada, there was therefore no problem. He almost tried to make us believe that Canada was taking over the United States rather than the opposite.
Then in the positive way in which the minister read this speech he once again- as he usually does-tried to make us and the country believe that black is white. But he never quite convinces himself because he always comes in with an addendum, namely that even if black is not white, we ought to consider ourselves lucky that we have black. In that spirit last night he tried to ram quite large quantities of gobbledygook down our throats.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition merited a good deal more substantial consideration than was given to it by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). This amendment sets out one of the long-term policies for Canada of the Conservative party and it was brought forth because we believe in the policy that is to be found in that amendment. I propose to read it again. It is as follows:
This house is of the opinion that the welfare of the Canadian people requires the adoption now 67509-370J
10, 1956	5831
Natural Resources-Development
of a national development policy which will develop our natural resources for the maximum benefit of all parts of Canada, encourage more processing of those resources in Canada, correct the present serious unfavourable trade balances, foster wider financial participation by Canadians in the development of our resources, and promote greater opportunity and employment for a steadily increasing population.
Our objective in that policy would be to make Canada one of the great nations of the world. We believe that is her destiny. We suggest that this policy gives the Canadian people a vision of what this nation can be. We believe that a national development policy -and I stress the word "national" without any apology-if pursued vigorously, would enthuse and inspire Canadians of all ages and would make that vision come true. I suggest to the minister that the Canadian people are not getting much inspiration from any policy or any kind of leadership that has been given by this government in recent months.
In considering this policy I think we should first review Canada's position today-in July, 1956-89 years after confederation. In my opinion here are some of the factors which are of vital importance to a consideration of future Canadian policy. The first is that Canada is still overshadowed by her great and friendly neighbour, the United States. This has been so since confederation and it has been necessary for public men to recognize that fact throughout the whole history of Canada and to adopt policies to counteract it in so far as it was possible to do so. Let us consider confederation itself. One of the main reasons there ever was a Canada was this overshadowing by the United States. Then consider the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. That construction took place almost entirely in order that Canada's boundaries might be stretched right out to the-Pacific ocean rather than having the whole northwestern part of the continent become a part of the United States. Today the situation is just the same-namely that we are overshadowed by our great neighbour-and it, probably will be the same for many generations in the future.
Then the second factor, which is vital in my opinion, is that this neighbour is depleting its national resources, and at a much greater rate than the Americans had ever anticipated. In the course of this debate several references have been made to what is known as the Paley report. As the minister knows, that is a report made by what was called the materials policy commission set up by the President of the United States a few years ago. I believe they reported to him in the year 1952.

Natural Resources-Development
I have here an interview with Mr. Paley conducted by the editors of the U. S. News and World Report and contained in the edition of that magazine for August 15, 1952. I propose to read two or three paragraphs because they focus attention on the findings made by Mr. Paley and his fellow commissioners. One answer he gave in this interview was as follows:
A. As a nation we have crossed the great industrial divide. We used to produce more raw materials than we used, but now we are using more than we produce. And this is not a temporary situation. In 1950, we had to import about ten per cent of the raw materials we used, and they cost about 900 million in prewar dollars. We estimate that by 1975 we may have to import about three times as much.
Then he was asked:
Q. Then, the days of ''self-sufficiency'', as you see it, that for generations we have felt that we had, are over?
A. Yes. Our technical people figured that even if we had what we started with-all the materials that were in this country to begin with-it still wouldn't be enough for another 25 years of growing at the rate we've maintained for the last half century.
Another question was this:
Q. What are the principal commodities that are in an unsatisfactory condition today?
A. If you want to get dramatic about it, you could talk about the additive alloys-cobalt, columbium, and such materials as high-grade quartz crystals, mica and industrial diamonds- those materials for which we are largely or completely dependent on foreign supply. But the thing that bothers me most is the lessening adequacy of low-cost supplies of the staples, such as iron, copper, zinc, petroleum, lumber, water for industries, and so forth.
This means that the United States will look more and more to Canada for raw materials in the days that lie ahead, and therefore there will be a more rapid depletion of our own resources than there would otherwise have been. I use minerals as an illustration. There will certainly be a far more rapid depletion of our minerals by reason of this great need which has arisen in the United States. Canada too has a lesson to learn from the Paley report. A few months after it was published, the Bank of Montreal dealt with the question in its monthly Business Review for November 20, 1952, and had this to say:
The commission's policy suggestions and recommendations are, of course, directed to the United States administration. But for Canada the moral is clear. We may reasonably hope to benefit richly over the short and middle term from the colossal appetite for materials of our neighbour to the south;
In my judgment, that is the policy that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is working on. The bank review goes on to say:
__and we may rejoice in our wealth of resources
and our timely capital expansion program. Yet, if the trend is toward an age of scarcity that can
[Mr. Green.l

only be averted by major technological developments, we too may be well advised to do some serious stocktaking for the longer range in the midst of our apparent plenty. For, in the words of the commission, "the consumption of almost all materials is expanding at compound rates and is thus pressing harder and harder against resources which whatever else they may be doing, are not similarly expanding."
Then the third factor in Canada's position today, which is very material, I believe, is this. Our friendly neighbour-and no one questions the wonderful friendliness between the Americans and the Canadians-is unwilling to let Canadian products interfere with the United States home market. I need only mention farm products. Time and again in the past few years we have had moves made by the Americans which have affected our sale to them of farm products, and those moves have been taken on the basis that it was not right to their own countrymen to allow our farm products to take the United States home market. Just last week they made a similar move with regard to a mineral, and I refer to nickel. I have here a dispatch of July 5, just five days ago, from Washington:
The United States is trying to free itself from dependence on Canada for its nickel supplies.
The article goes on to say that already some success is being achieved in reaching that objective.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Should my hon. friend not be pleased with that situation, according to his theory of saving our natural resources? The United States is also worried about excessive imports of lead and zinc; perhaps those metals would fit in too.


Howard Charles Green: I am not quarrelling with the Americans. I tell the minister this, and I hope he will remember, that the reason why the United States is the most powerful nation in the world today is that that nation adopted the policy we are advocating in our amendment. The article has this to say:
This desire to become independent of Canadian supplies, these officials say, forms one of the primary aims of a new nickel-purchasing policy announced recently by the office of defence mobilization, the United States government agency charged with stockpiling essential war materials.
Then it points out that Americans are planning to speed up production of nickel, and there is this further paragraph:
The ODM proposes to achieve that increase by offering to buy nickel from all suppliers on a contract basis at a firm price of 64J cents a pound, which is about the current market price,-
Here is a point the government of Canada might note.
-and by offering tax concessions to United States producers who undertake to expand production.

Since Canadian producers would not be eligible for the tax concessions, the program obviously favours domestic United States mines.
Then it goes on to point out that Canadian nickel mines are concentrated in a few centres and are therefore very vulnerable to hostile attack. Then there is this report:
At the same time, other sources report that administration circles for some time have been unhappy about a long-standing situation which leaves the United States dependent on one country-even so friendly a neighbour as Canada- for the bulk of its supplies of so strategic a mineral as nickel.
The new program, besides seeking to stimulate domestic output, apparently is aimed at encouraging American firms to build plants to process low-grade ore from Cuba. They could obtain the tax benefits by setting up processing plants in the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Fine.


Howard Charles Green: Why try to delude ourselves? This has been, is now and will be the basic policy in the United States. As I have said, it is because of that basic policy that they have built such a powerful nation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Thus they will not be stripping us of metals.


An hon. Member:: Sure they will.


Howard Charles Green: There is no doubt they will be getting all the nickel they want from Canada in addition to getting it from these other sources. The fourth factor which should be considered by Canadians today is this. The Canadian government has been concentrating on trade with the United States. Last year 60 per cent of our exports went to the United States and 73 per cent of our imports came from that country. In this connection we must always remember that we are importing from the United States goods which are far more highly processed than the goods we are sending to them. The very heavy adverse trade balance does not seem to be worrying the minister at all. In fact, he gave us the impression last night that he was very pleased that Canada had such a large adverse trade balance with the United States. To point up the extent of our adverse trade balance I should like to refer to a dispatch I have here of July 6, just four days ago, which has this to say with respect to the importation of consumer goods:
The main rise was from the United States, Canada's top customer and chief source of her imports. Canada's trade deficit with the United States continued to rise to new heights.
Farther on in the article there is the following:
The great imbalance was with the U.S. Exports to the U.S. rose by some $40 million in May-
In one month.
-to $261,700,000-
10. 1956
Natural Resources-Development
For the first five months of this year.
-while imports increased by almost $90 million to $404,100,000. . . . For the first five months the Canadian deficit in American trade almost doubled to $625 million from $352,800,000.
The Canadian Statistical Review for June of this year, which we received yesterday, points out on page 4 that the deficit on current account for the first quarter of this year was at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of approximately $1-2 billion. If these adverse balances go on for the rest of the year they will aggregate over $1 billion for the whole twelve months which, as the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) reminds me, will be an all-time record.
The fifth factor which should be considered by Canadians is this. In the last ten years Canada-this has very little to do with any activities by the government-has been discovering raw materials to a far greater extent than at any other time since confederation; oil, natural gas, iron ore, reserves of copper, nickel, uranium, titanium and so on down the list. These discoveries have improved our economy immeasurably. I happened to run across an old advertisement the other day which was published by the government in 1947 when restrictions were placed on trade with the United States. Here is an advertisement headed, "This Is An Emergency-Let's Treat it as Such." The advertisement goes on to say:
Canada is heavily "in the red" in present trading with the U.S. dollar area.
She was not one-half as much in the red as she is now.
In our total trade with the world we are in a good position but not in that part which is done with the U.S. dollar countries.
There is a picture of an oil barrel, a coal scuttle, a bale of cotton and a steel rail, and there are these words:
To keep our industries humming, our living standard high, we need petroleum, coal, cotton, steel and similar essential things.
Our position with regard to at least some of these commodities has greatly improved in the meantime. I realize that the minister said we are still importing as much oil but we are producing a great deal more than we did then. We are to get natural gas and it will be replacing coal to some extent. We have also had the huge discoveries of iron ore. By the way, we should always remember that none of these resources being dug out or pumped out of our soil are inexhaustible. These discoveries have opened wider opportunities for Canadians than we have ever had before, and that very fact alone merits reconsideration of the long-term policy of Canada with regard to future development.

Natural Resources-Development
There are obviously two main roads this country can take in the future. I admit at once that it is largely a matter of emphasis. No matter what government is in power, that government will not be able to follow one narrowly confined policy. It is a matter of emphasis. The first road is to continue concentrating on trade with the United States and to stress the export of raw materials. That is the policy this government is following today. I will not say that they are not doing something about processing materials here. They are, but they are not placing as much emphasis on that type of activity as a Conservative government would do. The Liberal emphasis is on exporting raw materials, and that has been the case right down since the time of confederation, as well as their policy of concentrating on trade with the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would my hon. friend think it is a mistake to exchange raw materials? I would remind him that at the present time the exchange is very much in our favour. We get far more raw materials from the United States than we sell to the United States.


Howard Charles Green: That was another phony argument the minister made last night. He of course left out of his figuring all the commodities that are only processed to a very small degree.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Such as what?


Howard Charles Green: Some of the ways in which logs are treated, for example. In that way he arrived at these favourable figures, which in my opinion meant very little.
The other main road which the people of this country can follow is to strive to process more of our raw materials at home and to diversify our trade, in particular to give more attention to trade with the commonwealth. We do not say for a minute that no raw materials must be exported. The member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) based most of his speech on that thesis, which of course was completely wrong. We would follow this second road, and therefore it is from that thinking that we have devised this national policy.
I come back to the terms of that policy. We advocate a national development policy which will develop our natural resources for the maximum benefit of all parts of Canada and encourage more processing in Canada. In effect what it means is this: we would try to get the maximum return from our own Canadian resources for the Canadian people.
I come now to British Columbia and I will show how that policy would apply there. We


have in British Columbia and the Yukon a body known as the British Columbia and Yukon chamber of mines. They made a submission to the Gordon commission in December of last year which contained this paragraph-


Mr. Lesage:: Do you rely completely on this association?


Howard Charles Green: I think the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) has got enough problems in settling what is to be done about power on the Columbia river without trying to interrupt my speech.


Jean Lesage: I would not rely on you.


Howard Charles Green: The organization had this to
say:
We think every effort should be made to encourage establishment of more manufacturing plants in Canada, including those that utilize as their raw materials products obtained from the mines. This would put Canada in the position of not being so dependent upon foreign markets for sale of her mineral production.
At the present time, nearly all of this province's extensive output of such important metals as lead, zinc, copper, iron ore and asbestos, are shipped to manufacturing centres in other parts of the world. An aggressive policy of encouraging new manufacturing industries in Canada, in addition to a continuing program of research, would undoubtedly develop local markets for many of our mineral products.
I can see no reason why other countries would not be just as anxious to get our minerals in the form of ingots, rods, sheets or wires or at least in a semi-processed form as they are to get them at the present time in the raw state.
In British Columbia we have comparatively small deposits of iron ore. We have been trying for years to bring about the establishment of a steel industry. The minister and I have exchanged words on that subject more than once. When I pointed out to him that this iron ore was being dug out and shipped in the raw state in Japanese ships to Japan, and we were buying back the semi-finished product in the form of steel at greatly increased prices, the minister said, "Well, it is a good thing to get the mine developed."


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said nothing of the kind. I said I had no authority to stop it. The reason I had no authority to stop it was that the opposition prevented me from passing legislation which would permit me to do so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thank heaven for the opposition!


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not make any attempt to stop it when he had the authority. I believe he has authority to stop it under the Export and Import Permits Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You had better read the act again.


Howard Charles Green: The minister does not want to do anything about it; that is the trouble. Bast night he spoke about iron ore and the fact we were producing so much we had to export most of it. That is not the position on the west coast at all, although it may be in the eastern part of Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does my hon. friend challenge my statement that I have no authority to stop this export.


Howard Charles Green: Certainly.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, you are quite mistaken.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me time for all these interruptions by the minister.


Mr. Pickersgill:: But not for provoked interruptions.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, don't you pop up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not take up as much time as the hon. gentleman.


Howard Charles Green: Your interruptions are not very impressive, and I would advise you to keep out of this debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman has anything to say about immigration, I will reply to him.


Howard Charles Green: So farms iron ore is concerned, the minister is evidently interested only in selling this abroad.


Jean Lesage: You had better talk to Mr. Duplessis about that. Ask the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) about it.


Howard Charles Green: I am getting a lot of help here, but unfortunately it is not much good. I should like to read to the minister an extract from a speech made by Dr. Hume with regard to the processing of iron ore in Canada. This speech was made on March 9, 1953. He said:
No one needs to minimize the difficulties of research directed towards the processing of this ore to the pig iron stage at or close to the point of origin.
He was referring to the Quebec-Labrador ore.
But perhaps a really concentrated effort on the part of Canadian metallurgists and scientists would seem important at the present not only to investigate much more fully possible methods of treatment but if present methods are totally unsuited to conditions as we have them, to devise new methods, an accomplishment surely not beyond Canadian inventive capacities.
Then he said:
It is suggested as not beyond the possibilities of our research scientists to find ways and means in
Natural Resources-Development Canada to utilize electric power and iron ore occurring together in the same area to at least effect a partial processing which would be of immense benefit to this country. The Ontario research foundation has been doing excellent work on the study of iron and our mines branch at Ottawa has a number of scientists well versed in the technology of treatment of all kinds of ores. Thus well directed efforts might accomplish much toward reducing our iron ore to the metal before shipment outside Canada . . .
It is not my intention to advocate extreme views in this regard but even a partial solution would bring great additional wealth to this country and show that we are capable of handling our heritage for the welfare of our nation with not only great credit to ourselves but perhaps by discovering new processes we might bestow great benefits on mankind as well.
And then he said:
There is no reason, however, to hesitate to tackle the problem because it is hard and with hundreds of millions of tons of iron ore in sight with mining on a large scale assured for many years a success promises rich rewards nationally.
Then just this year Mr. P. E. Cavanagh, director of metallurgy of the Ontario research foundation, had this to say:
... it appears certain that most of this iron ore will be exported to the United States and Europe.
In this situation it is proper for us to consider means of converting some or all of this Canadian ore into semi-finished or finished products here in Canada. Several proposals for establishing new steel industries in Canada to use large tonnages of this iron ore have already been advanced.
So much for iron ore, Mr. Speaker. Then another example is in the production of heavy water. Canada's whole atomic program is based on the use of heavy water. We are giving a reactor to India and we hope to sell reactors to other nations based on heavy water. For some years there was a plant manufacturing heavy water at Trail. It is true it was owned by the United States but Canadians learned how to manufacture heavy water there. A few months ago that plant was closed and now Canada gets all her heavy water from Savannah, Georgia, the only heavy water plant on this continent. Talk about concentration of nickel and the dangers of concentration-there is the only heavy water plant and this Canadian government has apparently made no attempt whatever to have heavy water produced in this country. We are going to require a great deal of it in the future with new reactors and with the development that takes place, but no move has been made to produce our own heavy water. I might go on to deal with other products, other resources, but my time is running out. I think those will suffice as an illustration of what we have in mind.
Then, the amendment mentions the correction of the present serious unfavourable trade balance. If we process our own resources to a greater degree, that of course would go
5836	HOUSE OF
Natural Resources-Development some way towards meeting this problem of an adverse balance. I suggest also that we should stop this bowing to Washington at all times. This course has been followed by this government ever since the end of the second war. They hurriedly adopted United States arms for our defence forces to just as great a degree as they possibly could. This attitude has been carried on ever since.
The other day the minister announced the changes that had been made in the GATT agreement. He pointed out that the United States had made concessions to Canada, and that they had benefited and that we had benefited. The Montreal Gazette punched a hole in that argument very neatly when they said that concessions on an equal basis would be all right if our trade were anything like on an equal basis, but it is not. Before the government starts cheering too loudly about getting equal concessions from the United States under GATT, I suggest that they should take into consideration some way of bringing trade between the two countries more nearly into balance.
At the same time as there has been this bowing and scraping to Washington, we have had an indifference towards commonwealth preferences. Of course, these preferences were fought tooth and nail by the Liberals in 1932. That party, now in power as the government, had no use for them. The former minister of national defence expressed the attitude of the government very clearly when he was questioned in the house about preferences on October 12, 1949, and the late Tommy Church asked him this question at page 705 of Hansard:
May I say to the hon. gentleman that the proposal also hangs preferential trade on the sour apple tree, like John Brown's body.


Mr. Claxton:: That is a good place for it too.
Our own Prime Minister, speaking here on June 22, was asked by the hon. member for Prince Albert whether he would be opposed to any extension of the British preference. This is the Prime Minister's answer, as recorded at page 5284 of Hansard:
That is not correct as a general statement. The matter will have to be considered in all its aspects and of course in the light of its possible repercussions upon the general tariff and trade arrangements which are still in force and which have proved to be of quite substantial benefit to Canadian trade.
The Prime Minister obviously is not very much interested in the preferences, and I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce is even less interested than the Prime Minister. Canada should be buying more in the commonwealth and less in the United States, but there is very little indication of a policy of that kind being adopted.


Finally, the amendment proposes that wider financial participation by Canadians in the development of Canadian resources should be fostered. Even the members of the government admit that this situation should be remedied, but what do they propose to do about it? So far, we have heard no proposal which would meet that situation. Tax exemptions? No, not a word about that. Tax reductions? Oh, no, they are holding off the reduction in taxation in order to help them win an election next year, although there are surpluses now in the moneys coming into the treasury.
Perhaps this is the most important point of all, because here is a case where a vision could be held out before the Canadian people, a vision of Canada for Canadians. The president of the University of British Columbia summed up the picture very neatly when he spoke in Rochester, New York, about a month ago. President Norman A. M. MacKenzie is not a politician, is not a partisan in any sense of the word. He is one of the outstanding Canadians today. Here is what he told an audience at the University of Rochester:
He said Canada is delighted to have United States capital in the country.
But "some of us like being Canadians and want to remain Canadians, and we are not unaware of the influences and pressures infiltration and intervention of this kind bring with them and imply".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Order. I am afraid I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired. I have allowed some time for the interruptions which occurred.


Mr. A. B. Weselak (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable interest to the speeches which have been made in the course of this debate. The amendment urges this government to take such steps as will ensure the greater processing of our raw materials in Canada. A great deal has been said in the course of this debate regarding the trade deficit which Canada suffers from at the present time in her trading relations. I think it is only common sense to recognize that any country which is experiencing the industrial development and expansion which Canada is experiencing today requires a great deal of specialized equipment, tooling equipment and other items to expand her industrial potential. I think a striking example of this is the pipe which is being imported into Canada at the present time for the construction of the trans-Canada pipe line which eventually will add a great deal to the industrial development and indeed to production in this country of ours.
In discussing the trade deficit a great deal has been made of the statement that Canada

is suffering an increasing trade deficit as a result of her trading relations. Very little has been said in the course of this debate about the increase in exports which this country is experiencing throughout the world.
In the mail this morning I received the dominion bureau of statistics daily bulletin for Monday, July 9, and the first paragraph makes interesting reading as far as this debate is concerned. The section is headed: Domestic Exports in May Reached Record Value and Volume
The article states:
Canada's domestic exports reached an all-time high record total for a month of $428,501,000 in May, topping last year's May total of $367,100,000 by 16-7 per cent and bettering the previous monthly peak of $411,700,000 in June, 1953 by slightly more than 4 per cent, dominion bureau of statistics reports in its monthly summary. In the first five months of this year exports to all countries advanced 11-6 per cent to $1,846,300,000 from $1,654,200,000 a year earlier. The volume of exports, also a record, rose 12-5 per cent in May and 7-9 per cent in the 5-month period, while prices averaged 3-8 per cent higher in May and 3-4 per cent in the cumulative period.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that these export figures indicate an expansion in our industrial economy which is going forward apace.
On the second page of this bulletin are some rather interesting figures in so far as the group values of exports are concerned. These figures are given in millions, with comparisons for the same period last year. Agricultural and vegetable products, $358 million as compared with $297 million last year; animals and animal products, $102 million as compared with $101 million last year; fibres, textiles and products, $8 million as compared with $7 million last year; wood, wood products and paper, $612 million as compared with $597 million last year; iron and products, $154 million as compared with $128 million last year; nonferrous metals and products, $356 million as compared with $326 million last year; non-metallic minerals and products, $110 million as compared with $71 million last year; chemicals and allied products, $98 million as compared with $92 million last year; miscellaneous products, $44 million as compared with $32 million last year. Across the whole range there has been a substantial increase in our exports in the 5-month period this year as compared with last year.
Then, if we look at the main commodities themselves which are entering into our export trade, I think we can get some idea as to what percentage of those commodities form the raw materials to which the Leader of the Opposition has made reference. At the top of the list we have newsprint paper, a fully processed commodity. We find that in the 67509-371
Natural Resources-Development 5-month period of this year exports of this item have increased from $267 million to $290 million. Wheat, which is incapable of processing, and is generally shipped in its natural state, has increased from $134 million to $191 million. Planks and boards dropped slightly from $151 million to $131 million. Wood pulp, which is capable of further processing, increased from $118 million to $125 million. Nickel increased from $89 million to $93 million. Copper and products increased from $59 million to $85 million. Aluminum and products dropped from $88 million to $80 million. Fish and fishery products rose from $45 million to $46 million. Farm machinery and implements are at the same figure, $42 million.
In this whole range of products which are set out on this sheet, actually the only products which are capable of further processing are wood pulp, nickel in some instances, copper in some instances, zinc in some instances and iron ore. These are our main export commodities, and a very small portion of them is made up of commodities that are capable of further processing in Canada. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comparisons between 1939 and 1954.
It is true that in this 15-year period our exports of raw materials increased by 288 per cent but alongside this export of raw materials we find that in this period the index on durable manufactures rose from 107-9 per cent to 297-9 per cent or an increase of 277 per cent, which is less than the increase in our export of raw materials. The index on non-durable manufactures rose from 108-2 to 222-4 or an increase of 206 per cent. I think these figures indicate that where it has been economically feasible secondary industries have been established in Canada at a pace which compares favourably with the increase in our exports of raw material.
If we look at the exports we find that exports of partially and fully manufactured goods have risen in that period from $511 million to $1,846 million or an increase of 361 per cent which is far in excess of the percentage increase of our export of raw materials. Our total export of raw materials in 1954 amounted to $1,082 million. It is interesting to note that of this total figure 75 per cent comprises agricultural and other products which are generally exported in their natural and unprocessed state. The remaining 25 per cent or roughly $304 million were mineral and forest products which are quite capable of further processing.
In the same period in 1954 we imported $473 million worth of raw materials of the

Natural Resources-Development same category and this figure indicates, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce and other speakers have stated, that we are a net importer of raw materials to the tune of roughly $170 million in the year 1954 and not net exporters.
The official opposition in this house has advocated that a policy be adopted by this government of encouraging the maximum processing of raw materials within this country. In the course of the speeches which we have heard I do not think that any definite statement has been made by the Conservative opposition as to how they would achieve this end or just what actually would be done by them, should they form the government, to increase the industrial production in this country. However, I recall that the manufacturers' association of Canada were not quite as wary as the Conservative party concerning what means they would suggest be employed to achieve this end. They stated point-blank that they felt the tariff structure in this country was not such as to encourage the expansion of secondary industries. I believe the figures I have quoted indicate there has been a progressive expansion of industry in Canada and that industries have located themselves in this country where they have found it profitable to do so.
I do not think that in this country there is a lack of businessmen with sufficient foresight that where an industry can be established within the country which can compete with other industries in the home and the world market any opportunity would be overlooked by those businessmen to establish such an industry within Canada.
If the only answer lies in the suggestion of the manufacturers' association, then the work which has been done over the past 25 years in encouraging international trade would be lost. In addition to that we would create in and for Canada a state of economic isolation. We would try to reach absolute self-sufficiency at the cost of isolating ourselves from the trading markets of the world. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if we were to follow that policy we would be going against the record of history. A reading of history indicates to me that in 1930 this method was tried. We tried to isolate ourselves from the other markets of the world and endeavoured to create tariff walls to prevent other people from bringing their goods into this country in competition with our own industrial development. The government of that time no doubt sincerely felt this was the answer, but before its reign was over it found this was
[Mr. Weselak.J
not the answer, and in 1932 the British preferential tariff was brought in in an effort to open the markets of the world to our primary production.
In 1935 the Liberal government came into power and in 1937 a statement of policy was adopted by Mackenzie King in which he stated that this party would bend every effort toward breaking the shackles which prevent free international world trade. I think this government has done that because in the period during which it has been in power protective tariffs in Canada have been reduced by close to 40 per cent and during that period our trade relations with other countries have increased tremendously and our exports have also increased proportionately. By adherence to GATT and bilateral agreements with such countries as Japan and the U.S.S.R. we have opened new markets particularly for our farm products and we expect these markets will be of great benefit to us in the future.
If we were to follow the suggestion of the opposition to its logical conclusion, it would appear to me we would have no alternative but to create an atmosphere wherein we would establish in this country uneconomic secondary industries which would not be capable of competing in the world markets without a certain amount of subsidization or protection. I suggest that the creation of this atmosphere would have an adverse effect upon the economy of this country. If we were to use protection as a means of achieving this end we would soon find we would lose our markets throughout the world.
As has been aptly said, trade is a two-way street. We must buy a certain amount from other countries in order to receive an open port into their markets, and I think this experience is illustrated by the bilateral agreements which have recently been concluded with Russia and which two years ago were concluded with Japan. On the other hand, if we were to try to subsidize these markets we would of necessity have to tax the people in order to meet the cost of such subsidization. If we were to sponsor or force uneconomic industries to establish themselves in this country we would possibly, as I have said, lose our world markets. We would be restricted to our own local markets and as a result we would naturally have to restrict our primary production because we would have no market for it.
This is a serious thing to us in western Canada. Our primary production through agriculture in western Canada is very great. We are dependent for approximately 70 per cent of our production in grain or foreign

markets, particularly in wheat. The expansion of the discovery of raw materials in western Canada has been encouraged by the markets which have been made available for these products and the effect of the development of raw resources in the western provinces is that there have been established service industries and other light industries which are required to service the raw material industry which has been developed as the result of the discovery of such materials, and they are continuing to develop and establish themselves in those particular provinces.
In my own constituency we have a very large pulp and paper mill which is dependent practically completely upon foreign markets. We have recently had brought about mineral developments in the Bird river and Cat lake areas where many metals are being discovered and which are presently being developed and mine shafts being sunk. If we were to adopt the policy of restricting our exports I am sure that these industries would definitely suffer. In my view, this proposition which has been put before the house should be scrutinized very closely. It has many implications which, if carried to their logical conclusion, would certainly have a serious and bad effect upon the economy of the country.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, this motion that is now before the house is to my mind an extremely important one. I believe it is much more important than many of the government members and members of the cabinet-what is left of them here-really assume it to be.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Look around yourself.


William Earl Rowe: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that this government feels that everything is well as long as they are there. With reckless abandon they disregard parliament, they disregard the opposition, they disregard the people and they say, "All is well so long as we are here". Yesterday evening the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), I believe, said that we must not be governed by emotionalism and ignorance, that we must view these matters with common sense or in a spirit of common sense and good will. He said he had listened to the greatest rot that he had ever listened to. Then he said, "Do not let us fool ourselves; there are plenty of natural resources; we are not going to be short. There are plenty of them in the world." He said that it does not make much sense to smelt every ton of iron ore and refine every barrel of oil that comes out of the ground.
I could not help thinking of my three or four-year-old grandson setting up a teddy 67509-371J
10, 1958
Natural Resources-Development bear and knocking it down in order to show how strong he was. I could not help thinking how the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was setting up these straw men and knocking them down like a little boy with a teddy bear. We have the minister giving us a lecture about emotionalism and talking nonsense in the house; we have a responsible minister trying to say that to this house. It is bad enough when these Liberal henchmen go out in the country and misrepresent the facts in the country as to what this party stands for. But it is worse to stand here in the house and say that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) implied at any time in his life that every ton of iron ore should be processed in Canada, that every barrel of oil that comes out of the ground should be refined. Mr. Speaker, there is not an hon. member within the sound of my voice nor a child in the Ottawa public schools who does not know better than that.
Mr. Speaker, what we have said in this motion is consistent with Conservative policy all down through the years. It was Conservative policy many years ago-yes, at the beginning of our history of industrial development-that gave birth to industrial development in this country. Even the most bitter free traders of the day, and even a few that may be left yet who still cling to that old dusty halo of free trade, practise the policy laid down by the Conservative party down through the years, namely to raise tariffs instead of lowering them, and other methods, in order to develop industry in Canada. We have no apology to make for that.
I believe, however, that we have common hopes in this house, independent of party, race, class or creed. As Canadians, I believe that we have common hopes in relation to our national security, the defence of our way of life and our survival itself. We have common hopes that we shall become a strong country, that we shall have more people and that we shall have a greater degree of economic independence rather than dependence. I believe those are the common hopes and aspirations of every man, woman and child in Canada who takes time enough to think. The trends, however, are different. No one can study the trends of our development without realizing this. Perhaps the government, in their smug complacency have not bothered to realize that it is nothing they have done, particularly so far as fiscal policies are concerned-for they have not any-* which resulted in the development that has taken place. It is the demand of foreign countries on our resources that are being depleted. It is the demand of $2 billion for expenditures for national defence and other

Natural Resources-Development more or less abnormal features that has kept our prosperity developing as it has lately to a great extent.
There are some things that Canada stands out in. There is no other people with such great resources, as we will all agree. No other country exports more raw resources per capita in world history than Canada has been doing in the last number of years. No other country per capita buys as many of the manufactured goods, the product of other countries' labour, and no other country exports more with less labour. In other words, there is no other country that exports so many dollars worth and that distributes and gives as little benefit to so few people as we do in Canada under our present policy. There is another particular in which Canada stands out. There is no other country in the world that places so many of its trade eggs in one basket. No other country is depending so much on another country. No other country in the free world depends on requirements of other nations so much as does Canada. No other country in the free world needs population more than does Canada and no other country in the free world is increasing its population more slowly.
Why are these things so, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we have an all-time high national product? Surely that should exercise the dullest mind in this house and even in the country. Why do you boast so much about a great national product of $26 billion and promising to be $28 billion while you are employing on new jobs only half as many as you did in 1952. You say a billion dollars less. Why? Because it takes less men to export our products than it does to finish the product where there is 75 per cent to 80 per cent more finished goods in the last ten years. We need a policy. We need it for our national security. We need it for sound prosperity and economic stability.
In the last ten years, Mr. Speaker, 300,000 Canadians have gone to the United States to find employment in fabricating the raw resources that have gone over there from here. In other words, three have gone to the United States for every one that came to Canada or three times as many. Today, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, as many Canadians from your own native province and from your own great race have down through the years gone to the United States to find employment as you have almost in the whole province of Quebec. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that will give employment to more people than will the gradual development of our manufacturing industries. It is important. It will give the maximum benefits to the greatest number of people. It will help


to equalize these benefits among our people. It will help to level out the benefits that we have heard about in this house, where some districts had 30 per cent less benefits in this so-called prosperity in the last few years. It will help to decentralize our development. It will help develop home markets which after all are the best markets. Hon. members speak of what the government has done. Hon. members have talked about the Beechwood development, and they have talked about the Saskatchewan dam. For years they have brought that out at election time but they have never put it into effect yet and they will not do so until after the next election; and if they thought it would not be a tattered and torn issue they would probably save it for the next federal election as they saved reform of the Senate for the last thirty years in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we have an all-time high, it is true, in our national production. But at the same time that is dependent to a great extent on other countries. We are more dependent on our export markets than is any other country. Let us consider the United States and the United Kingdom. As someone has said already today, what has made those countries great? What has made the United States to the south of us the most powerful industrial country in the world?
What made the United Kingdom the great power she has been down through the last century? It was the development of her manufacturing industries, even though she had to import a great deal of her raw resources. Here in Canada we have an abundance of raw resources; and yet we are buying more per capita than any other people in the world of finished manufactured goods and we are exporting more of the raw products. We are dependent on others to market our products. We are dependent on the whims of Washington. We are dependent on the policies of France. We are dependent on the policies of Germany. We are dependent for 17 per cent of our total national output on the whims of others who need our products or who may not need them, whilst the great United Kingdom, with all her problems, is only dependent on four per cent of her national output. We deal almost exclusively with one country; 73-3 per cent of all our purchases last year were from the United States of America, while only 8 [DOT] 5 per cent were from Britain.
We have had a lopsided trade policy down through the years. What has been the result? The government speaks about this party not believing in development. I believe that the Minister of Trade and Commerce tried to imply that it was apparent that we were

opposed to development. There is no party in this country that has a record of national development equal to that of the party I represent here this evening. Down through the years, the national development of our own resources for the benefit of our people has been a fixed policy of the Conservative party, in this country for 75 years. The party to your right, Mr. Speaker, has never been conspicuous for that. They were not conspicuous for that when it was created; they were not conspicuous for that after it was first practised. They opposed it all through the years. They even wanted commercial union with the United States in 1895; in 1911 they wanted reciprocity; in 1930 they wanted countervailing duties; they wanted to go to Washington and find out what Washington thought about fixing tariffs and they would fix them the same. They have no fiscal policy. They have no immigration policy. At the present time they boast about their achievements in the past few years, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce has tried to imply that no other country has made such advancement as we have. No other country has been so dependent on other countries for the requirements of raw resources, which are being depleted. The United States to the south of us needs our raw resources and therefore is buying them from us, it is true; but, so far as the development of manufacturing industries and giving employment to our people are concerned, this government has failed dismally.
No other country in the world has had a greater opportunity to develop manufacturing industries, with the raw resources available here, in the last ten years, than this government has had. Yet we find that we have only a 25-6 per cent improvement in our manufacturing development in the past ten years, while France had a 50 per cent increase, the United Kingdom had a 42 per cent increase, the United States had a 35-5 per cent increase, and communist countries behind the iron curtain have had an increase of over 50 per cent. So on that score we have seen the lack of a policy by this government. We have seen a government tired, smugly complacent, self-satisfied and saying, "Everything is well; we will never run out of our resources." Yet our economists tell us that the visible supply of our chief resources in this country at the current rate of consumption will not last more than 30 years.
Probably the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he says, "That will be enough for us", figures that his government will have pretty well passed by that time. That is not good enough. There is no industry in Canada that could justify its place in the life of this country except by extending
Natural Resources-Development equalizing conditions and extending benefits to the greatest possible number of people. There is no other way. If we are going to be true to ourselves and true to our children's children, we will develop that great heritage of resources in a way that will give the greatest amount of employment to the greatest number of people and equalize conditions through the different parts of this dominion, rather than exporting our resources in the raw form.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce and others have chided the leader of this party about his development policy. Members from the province of Ontario and others who wish to observe it know very well that we have in the province of Ontario many monuments to his policies of development when he was premier of that province. In the district I was very familiar with, I am satisfied there were at least $200 million and at least 30,000 people employed merely because of the development of the resources of northern Ontario set out by the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. George Drew, when he was premier of Ontario. These things are history. You will find that the history of this country's industrial development has been based more on the sound Conservative policies down through the years than any of the expediencies and shot-gun prescriptions that have been put forth by those who have ridden the gravy train in cold wars and hot wars on these matters and are selling our raw products and our heritage too to people who want them-and risking that they will not want them in the years that lie ahead. Will any hon. gentleman, even those in the back benches who say so little and think so much, they say, pause for a moment and think what will happen if we had anything in the way of a world depression, when these countries would not want some of the raw resources?-We are depending so much more than any-other country on such exports. What would' happen? What would happen if we were not spending $2 billion for defence? It would be most conspicuous then that this government would have no fiscal policy, as they have demonstrated down through the years.
The United States, it is true, has depleted its raw resources, but it depleted its resources as old England depleted hers to a great extent. It depleted them for the benefit of its workmen. The United States is rapidly depleting its resources of iron ore for the great industrial plants of the United States. They are sending their finished products over here at a tremendous rate. In the United Kingdom they do the same thing. The history of these countries and the history of any

Natural Resources-Development country that has had substantial and sound development has been through that development.
This government seems so self-satisfied, even in the face of an increasingly unfavourable trade balance. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said last night, though our trade balance would frighten any other country and in fact would almost ruin many countries, that it was a good thing for this country. That is a strange type of thinking. It is a strange type of logic. It is like telling someone, "Sell a little more of what you have every year and keep buying more, but buy more than you sell and you cannot go broke. It will break another country, but it will not break this country as long as we have a government in power that does not listen to an opposition or is afraid to listen to the people and ignores parliament itself."
This year we are now developing in our trade tendencies the greatest unfavourable trade balance that this country has ever known. In March 1956 we bought $4J million per day more of finished products from the United States than we sold of any of our raw products and all other products combined: $132 million in one month. Yet, even that does not shake the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He says that is a good thing. If that is a good thing, we probably should anticipate a billion and a half, and if it is a good thing probably he and the Minister of Finance will get together and say, "We boasted to the country that we have lowered tariffs at the GATT conference; we will lower some more." If it is a good thing to buy $1J billion more of manufactured goods which our own people could make, it might be a good thing to buy $3| billion more. Then we could be truly the hewers of wood and drawers of water that some of the statements of the government indicate they want us to be. I do not think any of the frontbenchers have actually said that in the house but it has been said outside, and down through the years for the last quarter of a century, yes, for the last half century, many people in Canada have felt that the policies of the party now in power would eventually, if allowed, bring this country to a state of hewers of wood and drawers of water. This is a term that was used in the past but only lately has it been used by their admirers and supporters.
The government seems to think that all is well. They have no manpower policy. They have no fiscal policy, and when they have neither they do not need an immigration policy. They do not have one anyway. We know that immigration into this country is falling down. We will soon be losing more
IMr. Rowe.l
people than we are gaining. Why, Mr. Speaker, at this late date and in. this dangerous trend we hear these tired old ministers boasting about what they have done in the past, about their past reductions in tariffs at GATT conferences. We see them hiding behind the Gordon commission and dreaming and guessing about the population of Canada in 1980, at the same time not saying why because they are exporting more with less work year by year.
It will take the best ingenuity of industrial leaders and executives and labour leaders and the best ingenuity of a new government to safeguard the sound economic independence and development of this ountry. We cannot boast about our raw resources and the great wealth we are bringing into the country. The United Kingdom has been our best market, but on two occasions we have virtually lost it when the Liberal party was in power. Between 1921 and 1930 we virtually lost the whole British market. We lost it for agricultural products between 1921 and 1930 and we have lost it again to a great extent. Yet down through the years we have had favourable trade balances with that country. Even during the past 10 years we had a favourable trade balance with Britain of $3,413 million and yet in the very same period we bought $7,679 million more from the United States than we sold to that country.
Therefore it is not surprising to find that today the United States owns 91 per cent of our mining and smelting business. It is not surprising that they have a 75 per cent interest in our industrial concerns. It is not surprising that about 50 per cent of all our industrial and primary activities in Canada are controlled by United States investment because we have given it to them in trade balances. On the other hand, despite what the ward politicians out in the country may say, the Conservative party led by the Hon. George Drew has never at any time said that they were opposed to United States investment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friends laugh. If you would listen more and laugh less you would learn more about what has been going on in this country down through the years because that was the established policy of this party before some of you laughing boys were born. Who was it who developed the industries of this country? What was it that developed them more than the imperial trade agreement, even in the days of the depression? Many of the biggest industries in Canada today were established here because

of the imperial preference agreement brought about by the Hon. R. B. Bennett in 1931.
Where was your party in those days? You were opposing the policies of the imperial preference. Only one among all your members supported that policy at that time and he was almost ostracized. At least there was one Liberal at that time who voted as he thought, independent of the crack of the whip. Those were difficult days. It is all very well to talk about those difficult days and blame them on a government. You might as well blame them on the United States where there were 12 million people unemployed. You might as well blame them on Britain where there was almost a revolution, or on France. Throughout the world 35 million people stood idle between 1930 and 1935. Yet during those years of depression more industries were brought into Canada under the imperial trade agreement preferences than at any time of normal business prosperity.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, oh!


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend laughs. He was just going to school in those days and he has not learned much since.


Mr. Nowlan:: Are you sure he went to school?


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend laughs but he knows very well that the government in power at that time, for which he was such a good secretary along with half a dozen more secretaries who were more important than he was, lost every market we had in Britain by 1930. We were buying Danish bacon to feed our own people and your party went out of power. We did not bring about the depression. You left it on our doorstep.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You made it worse.


William Earl Rowe: You left every lumber yard that was not burned bulging with unsold lumber. You left every elevator filled with unsold wheat and you lost every important market for agricultural products overseas. You left more people unemployed following your regime than at any other time in our history. We had it left on our doorstep. He laughs best, Mr. Speaker, who laughs last, but I will remind my hon. friend that when the history is written of the development of this country it will be told that the party I have the honour to represent in speaking today is the party whose record of policy has been closely associated with the record of our development down through the years. The party that my hon. friend, the little Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill), represents has been the party of expediency down
Natural Resources-Development through the years. They look north and south trying to develop trade with the United States and climax it at last by our having more trade with one country than any other country has ever had with another country in the history of the world's business. You are depending more on the whims of Washington, as you tried to do years ago, than at any time in our history.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Back to Bennett.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
William Earl Rowe: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that under the new standing orders I have only a few minutes to conclude the remarks I was making this afternoon. I wish to summarize what I was saying in connection with our hopes for the development of this country, the employment of our people and the equalization of conditions amongst the various parts of this dominion. I feel that the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) is one which should have been given more serious consideration than it has by this government which has shown distinctly today, and in the last few months, that there is a clear-cut difference of opinion between the government of the day and Her Majesty's loyal opposition. This government has shown all down the years that they believe the development of this country is to be achieved by the exhaustion of our vast resources for the immediate gains that might be brought about through employment of our people. We of Her Majesty's loyal opposition have, since the early days of Sir John A. Macdonald, believed in the development of our own resources for the development of our own people and for the equalization of conditions in the long term interest.
The Leader of the Opposition followed that policy in the days when he was the premier of the province of Ontario, and has emphasized and re-emphasized that the great resources we have, like the great estates of any country or any family, are not inexhaustible. We are the trustees of those resources and we should plan for the future, for future generations. We should try to husband those resources and not to reap the immediate benefits that the members of the government seem prone to emphasize and boast about. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out yesterday, many of our major resources in this country, great as they are, could be

Natural Resources-Development exhausted at our current rate of consumption within 30 years. Stop and think about it! Some of you men who have children, and who expect their children's children to have opportunities in this country, will realize that these resources should not be exhausted, like the nickel and other resources of this country, in a period of 30 years.
This government has grown very smug and complacent. They have been in power so long, they think nothing matters as long as it does not happen to them. I realize that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is just back from the conference in the United Kingdom. Before he went the Leader of the Opposition urged upon him that he call a conference of the commonwealth prime ministers. The Prime Minister told us on his return that it had been intimated to him that it was not desirable now. He left the impression it may have been intimated by anybody, but it was asked by the Leader of the Opposition and it was refused by the Prime Minister, who took no recommendations over to the conference and brought nothing back. As a matter of fact, he contributed very little to the conference except to tell them how Mr. Eisenhower was going to run his election in the United States. That is not good enough. He told them that about President Eisenhower. If the Leader of the Opposition had said anything like that, he would have been condemned right across the country for interfering in international affairs. The Prime Minister said, "I do not tell you where I stand on anything; I brought nothing in my hands and I take nothing back. I said in the house that I would not do anything without their approval, but I tell you now that President Eisenhower of the United States will make no statement on any great international problem until after the next election." In other words, he interprets Mr. Eisenhower as playing politics, as the Grit politicians in Canada have played it for the last 25 years. Nothing but expediency of the moment: that is the keynote of what you did while you were over there at the prime ministers conference.
I am glad you are back and looking so well.


An hon. Member:: You do not mean that.


William Earl Rowe: I am glad the Prime Minister has returned in such good health. He looks well. However, no one should look badly who travelled over that long distance and did as little as he did. We have pleaded with you for five years to have an imperial conference. Do you want this trade to continue with a balance of $7 billion or $8 billion favourable to the United States, as in the last 10 years?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Having been advised by the Clerk that it is six minutes past eight o'clock, it is my duty under standing order 56 to put the question on the amendment.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
And the Clerk, proceeding to announce the result of the vote:


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Clerk announces the result of this division, I heard at a certain moment cries of "order" on the part of some hon. members presumably because a member entered the house while the division was in progress. If that is so, the vote of that hon. member cannot be counted and therefore the vote of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Henry) will not be allowed. See standing order 12(2).
And the result of the vote having been announced:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I see that two hon. members are now competing for the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Three.


Mr. Speaker:: I will have to bring the matter to a head. I see that the C.C.F. party has had only one speaker in this debate and
10, 1956	5845
Parliamentarians-Suggested Summer Recess I also see that the Social Credit party has had only one member speak in this debate, but I will have to bring the matter to a head. I give the floor to the hon. member for New Westminster.



SUGGESTED SUMMER RECESS FOR MEMBERS

Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, the grievance I intend to raise is one in which every hon. member of this house is interested because it affects not only my riding but the riding of every hon. member in this house and I would say it possibly affects every Canadian citizen as well, at least those who are interested in what is being done in parliament today. It is not my intention to speak to it at great length because I feel the interest in this subject indicated by certain hon. members of this house is such that every hon. member who cares to do so should be permitted to speak to it.
My grievance is that we as members of parliament do not declare a recess period in summer to afford ourselves an opportunity to visit our constituencies as we should. There are a great many members in this house who are fortunate enough to live within a very short distance of Ottawa and they are able to come here without spending a great deal of time in travelling. I can fully understand that they would feel it is not at all necessary for us to adjourn for the summer recess and go home so that we can visit our constituents. However, Mr. Speaker, may I point out to those hon. members that there is a great deal of difference between the time it takes to travel, let us say from Ottawa to Vancouver or Victoria, or the far-flung parts of the maritimes, and the time involved in travelling from Ottawa to a city like Toronto. For that reason alone, if for no other, I think it is necessary for us to rearrange our business or else find some other means of transportation to enable those members who live a long distance from here to get home to see their constituents.
We in this parliament like to think we conduct the business of the nation in such an excellent fashion that we should receive high praise for it. On the contrary, I would say we mishandle our affairs here by failing to recognize the need for hon. members to go home to see their constituents as well as in the fashion in which we conduct ourselves, which is much worse than most of the Polly pigtail clubs or other literary clubs in the country.
May I point out that to reach the city of Vancouver by train, which is our common mode of travel, it requires at least four nights and three days by ordinary rail traffic-although the Canadian and the supercontinental do it more quickly-and it requires another four nights and three days to
5846	HOUSE OF
Parliamentarians-Suggested Summer Recess return. In other words we must spend at least a full week in travelling across the continent if we wish to see our constituents. On the other hand it is only a matter of an overnight trip to the city of Saint John, New Brunswick, and those who are fortunate enough to represent a riding in New Brunswick do not find themselves in the same awkward position as do we who come from the far west of our fine country.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that we owe it to our constituents, to our families, to ourselves and to Canada that we have the right to declare a recess here and go home during the summer months when most of our families are on holidays so that at least we may have the privilege of seeing them from time to time. During my short period in this parliament-a matter of three years-we have had three summer sessions. As I stated earlier, I can understand the need, or the lack of need, as is manifest, with respect to the people or the representatives from Ontario and Quebec who live near Ottawa. I can understand that there is no need for a holiday so far as they are concerned. They can go home and examine their constituencies at their pleasure over the weekend or they may meet their constituents over the weekend. As has so frequently been suggested by members in this house, we have our "T to T" boys in the chamber who do not necessarily stay here but who find that their business takes them home and rightfully so. It is much easier to handle the problems of your constituency at home when you have before you the person who has the problem and can discuss it with him at first hand.
I say this. Let us use some common sense. Let us show the intelligence with which we are endowed. Certainly there is no need for us to carry on here year after year during the summer months. We find, for instance, that industry declares a certain holiday for its employees. Management recognize the need for the employees to have a holiday. Management also recognize the fact that they themselves must have a holiday. The holiday might be only for the purpose of visiting their families or their friends. I am not pleading for a holiday, Mr. Speaker. Rather I am pleading for the opportunity for us to get home legitimately, go and see our constituents, talk to them as we should like to do, and hear of their problems at first hand.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) earlier this session asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) to give some consideration to allowing members of parliament from British Columbia and the far west and from the maritimes to have air transportation-that is to have a pass on Trans-Canada


Air Lines-once a session or more often in order to visit their constituencies. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), in the absence of the Minister of Transport, answered the question he was taking it as notice and we have not heard any definite decision on it since. But understandably, I say, as we have heard in the railways, canals and telegraph lines committee room from time to time from the representative of the air lines, Mr. McGregor, this would be a very costly thing as far as Trans-Canada Air Lines is concerned. Seats are at a premium on our air lines. It is a very costly matter. It costs $312.45 to go from here to Vancouver by plane return. To some or to many, possibly, that is not too big a sum and probably they should use their funds for that purpose and spend more time in their constituencies.
Possibly it might be considered that the 21 days we are allowed is sufficient to spend in our constituencies. But, Mr. Speaker, I find-and I am satisfied that many members in this house who have spoken to me on this very same question find the same thing-that the 21 days is in itself not adequate. We must feel free to leave this chamber with the knowledge that the estimates in which we might be interested or some vital piece of legislation that is still before the house or might come before the house might not be brought into the chamber while we are at home and we would not have our constituents tell us that we should have been in the House of Commons to speak to that particular question.
The opportunity for members of parliament to take part in the normal civic affairs on Dominion day and other holidays during that season is lost because we find that it is necessary for us from the far west to stay in this chamber to take part in the discussions or to look after our business from this point of view. After all, that is the reason we are being paid; or one of the reasons we are being paid is to be doing our business in Ottawa. It is true that we might go home and say, "We are home on parliamentary business". I would admit that. But, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it takes us four nights and three days by train to reach Vancouver and another four nights and three days to come back; in other words if we are to spend a week in our constituencies, it would take three weeks for a British Columbia member to do his job at home and use the train going and coming. Mr. Speaker, I feel that that is a mistake. We should declare a recess just the same as would any other common-sense business enterprise, and get our business done. I am satisfied that if that were done and if we, let us say, declared our recess some time before July 1 and had

only one month recess or two months, as the case might be, whatever is decided upon, we would get a great deal more business done before June 30 than we are getting done at the present time. I think that a great deal of our time is being spent in not doing the business that we have been sent down here to do because so many of us,- and not for political reasons-by reason of the fact that they cannot see their constituents, are frustrated from time to time by knowing full well that certain of the estimates or other business will be before the house when they are at home trying to look after their constituencies.
We recognize, Mr. Speaker, that there is need for a recess period at Easter so that members of parliament can go home to see their constituents at that time. How much truer it is to recognize the fact that it is more important to go home during the early part of July or all of July and part of August and carry on later in the year again and finish the legislation in a common-sense fashion. Mr. Speaker, it may be that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the government may feel that it is impossible for us to finish our business in ten months' time. I have been given to understand heretofore that the government has felt that we should finish our business by June. This suggested procedure would at least give them the opportunity of trying to get it done by that time. Certain individuals may argue that it might be impractical, that we might reach the stage, let us say, toward the end of June when it became apparent that an extra week of sitting would finish our legislation and we would be finished for the year. To them 1 would say that certainly we should be able to revise the rules in order to make it possible for us, by unanimous consent, to decide to continue to sit for that extra week, as the case might be, and finish the business for the year. But, Mr. Speaker, I feel-and I am satisfied that there are many more in this house who feel likewise-that we should have a recess during which we can visit our constituents and for which we can plan so that we can tell our constituents we will be home during that particular time of the year. I find that the constituents-many of them in my riding at least, and I am satisfied that the same applies to many other ridings- do not realize that their legislators do not regulate their business so that they can be home for events such as Dominion day and on other occasions, as they might expect them to be.
I would say that we should change our rules to call for a recess possibly of one month-it might be found convenient to have a two-month recess-not for holidays but to
Parliamentarians-Suggested Summer Recess go home so that we can look after the business properly as we are expected to do in our own ridings, at least during the summer months.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) following the same grievance subject or opening a new subject?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My subject could be related to what the hon. member said, but a part of it will be different.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The hon. member who is following the same subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is not a put-up job, is it?


Mr. Byrne:: You have a suspicious nature.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: I was
very much interested in the remarks just made by my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Hahn), because he echoed thoughts which I have entertained ever since I came to this parliament. Hon. members will appreciate that the thoughts of those of us who live down by the sea go back at this time of the year to the balmy breezes coming in from the Atlantic ocean and the smell of the salt water and the seaweed. We find it quite a sacrifice to exchange those pleasures and beauties of nature for the steamy hot weather of Ottawa, particularly in view of the ordeal we all suffered so very much last year. This year we have been more fortunate, and the weatherman has been extremely kind, but I do not think we can bank too much on his indulgence in that respect.
My chief complaint about these long sessions is that they interfere so much with family life. I have known constituents to say, "We elect the members; we send them to Ottawa; we pay them $8,000 a year and $2,000 for expenses; and they should be very grateful. What have they got to complain about anyway?" I should like to tell the world that there are many easier ways of earning a living than coming here to Ottawa, and the $8,000 a year remuneration that I get in no way compensates me for the sacrifice that I have to make in family life.
Last year I came to Ottawa early in January. I got home for a week at Easter, and then we were here till the end of July. It takes five days to travel by rail to my constituency, and it was the first week in August when I got home. I had a week's rest and then I started to go around my district. I can tell hon. members that my
5848	HOUSE OF
Parliamentarians-Suggested Summer Recess district covers almost 1,000 miles of coast line and contains 260 different settlements. Each one of these settlements expects to see its member at some time in between sessions. I myself find it necessary to make that trip to find out what is going on in my district, because communications are so poor that the only way to find out is to get first-hand information. Last year it was December before I completed my trip around my riding. I can tell my hon. friends that when daylight saving time goes off and the days begin to get short it is no picnic travelling around the south coast of Newfoundland in all weathers, sometimes tied up for two or three days or a week at a time in a settlement on account of bad weather. I got home about the middle of December last year.
I had no time at all with my children last year. They were out of school before I left here and they were back in school again before I finished my trip around my district. I was home in December for about two weeks, and this year early in January I had to leave again to come up here. This year I was a little better off because I had a week extra on account of a conference. But except for that, I was here this year until Easter, when I had another week or so at home. Now it looks as though we shall be here again all this summer, at least for all of July and possibly for part of August. So again I shall have no time with my family. My children were out of school in the middle of June, and before I get home they will be back in school. 1 can tell hon. members that it is impossible to compensate for the sacrifice in family life by dollars and cents. That is one sacrifice that members who live a great distance from Ottawa have to make.
Perhaps many of us would not complain at making that sacrifice if we felt it was really necessary. I have been here now since 1949 and I have not seen any session that could not have closed and completed the business at least six weeks earlier than it did.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Chesley William Carter: Certainly last year-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is that why we had closure?


Chesley William Carter: I am sorry; I am all for closure. I do not think we have enough closure. I hope that from now on we shall make a regular practice of having closure on every bill. If we get ten days on a bill, we are pretty stupid if we cannot put forward all the arguments for and against it in 60 hours.


William Earl Rowe: That is one man well trained.


Chesley William Carter: We are not helping parliament's prestige by endless repetition and mere sounding off without adding anything to any debate.


William Earl Rowe: Why not have closure and send in for your cheque?


George Harris Hees: Why not sit down now?


Chesley William Carter: I want to give my hon. friend some good advice, which I hope he will listen to and practise.


George Harris Hees: You are giving us advice but not good advice.


Chesley William Carter: Perhaps my hon. friend is not able to discern good advice. If he would listen a little more and practise what he learns a little more he might accomplish something.


George Harris Hees: Get her all wound up again. Let her go. Come on, boy. He has lost his place.


Chesley William Carter: I do not speak very often but when I do speak in a debate I can manage to say everything I want to say in half an hour.


George Harris Hees: You can say it in five minutes.


Chesley William Carter: I have seen too many of my hon. friends on the opposite side of the house stand up, talk for 40 minutes and say what could be said in five minutes. There is another aspect, apart from this unnecessary absence from one's family, which I think is a terrible thing. I do not think it is good for members, I do not think it is good for parliament, and I do not think it is good for our constituents. As the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) said, there should be a stated time when we could plan visits to our districts. We should be able to spend more time there than we do now. We cannot do it as long as we are here just talking sweet nothings.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Like now.


Chesley William Carter: No, this is something worth listening to, and I hope the hon. member will let it sink in.


James Sinclair: These Ontario members do not under stand the problem. They are home every week.


Chesley William Carter: Another aspect is that we are all very conscious of the taxpayers' money. We make considerable fuss when we think the taxpayers' money is being wasted. I do not know any way in which the taxpayers' money is wasted more than it is in endless futile talk. This parliament costs money. Every minute that an hon. member spends occupying the floor is costing the taxpayers money. Every unnecessary minute is money wasted. If we prolong parliament 20 per cent longer than is necessary that 20 per cent extra cost of parliament is sheer waste of the taxpayers' money.
I want to support what my hon. friend said about air travel. I do not think it is an

unreasonable thing to expect to be provided with air transportation. Members who live at the extreme ends of Canada, at least 500 miles from Ottawa, should have the privilege of travelling by air. This would put them on a par with hon. members who live in the central provinces. Most members from the central provinces can go home on the week ends. Certainly that discrimination should be done away with and that can only be done by granting air travel privileges. I do hope that the government will give consideration to this problem because I think what has been suggested is in the interests of parliament and of the members of parliament. We should be able to spend the odd week ends with our families. We should be able to spend the odd week ends with our constituents. In my opinion any provision that will facilitate that end will be in the interests of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The
hon. member for Kootenay East indicated when I did not see him before that he wished to follow the same line of argument. If I am correct in that and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre does not, then I recognize the hon. member for Kootenay East.


Alfred Claude Ellis: It is all arranged in advance.


An hon. Member:: Oh, shut up, Ellis.


Alfred Claude Ellis: A Liberal-Socred coalition.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, if I thought for one moment that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was going to follow the line introduced by the hon. member for New Westminster I would be indeed pleased to allow him to take the floor at this time.


Mr. Mcllraith:: He has just been home.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: My memory harks back several years to the time when some hon. members were seeking to do something for members of parliament. It is a great axiom of long standing that the Lord helps those who help themselves, but the members directly opposite me are always pleased to ride along on the coattails of those of us who are prepared to stand up and take criticism, rightly or wrongly, when we attempt to do something about the conditions affecting members of parliament. Perhaps my training in the past leads me to take the position that when people help themselves they are indirectly helping others.
As a trade unionist and miner I always found that when I was able to get a higher rate of pay or more dollars per foot for the breaking of rock I was helping my fellow
Parliamentarians-Suggested Summer Recess workers. So far as I have seen, that has not been the policy of the members directly opposite. I said that my memory harks back to the time when members sought to do something to alleviate the situation that left members in very dire financial circumstances after having served seven to eight months here in Ottawa and having to undergo the very great expense that is a part of being a member of parliament. They were certainly a rear guard and far in the rear when it came to the point of assisting us. As a matter of fact, they were all for it behind the curtains when they came and spoke to me about the pay increase, even suggesting that $12,000 might not be too much. They said that they would not go for that but that $10,000 was perfectly all right. However, they then rushed in with amendments to reduce that amount to $8,000. I would not suggest for a moment, of course, that that was done for political purposes. I am sure it was entirely for the benefit of the taxpayer. However, I leave that to your imagination.	[DOT]
The question of holidays in the summer, which was brought up by the hon. member for New Westminster, no doubt is a good one, but I think that the committee that spent several years changing and attempting to improve the rules of parliament perhaps did not go far enough in its deliberations. We had hoped that the improvement in the rules would have streamlined the procedures in the House of Commons so that the business of the house could at least be completed in six months. That, of course, has proved not to be true.


Alfred Claude Ellis: If we did not have to listen to speeches like this we would get through.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Has the hon. member something to say?


Alfred Claude Ellis: If we did not have to listen to speeches like this we would get through.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member takes exception to listening to speeches-


Alfred Claude Ellis: Like this one.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -that are not to his liking. Of course, I realize that some of the things I said a few moments ago are not to his liking but I have listened endlessly to the hon. member. I recall that earlier today and on several occasions in the past he has been likened to the foghorn in the harbour at Vancouver. That becomes a very tiresome sound if you happen to come from the interior of British Columbia, as I do. I can assure the hon. member that I have sat here endlessly listening to speeches by him that have been anything but invigorating and
5850	HOUSE OF
Parliamentarians-Suggested Summer Recess have certainly led me to believe that the rules should have been improved upon a great deal more and should perhaps even go so far as to say who should be members of the House of Commons.
Now, I have been attracted by those people directly opposite who have perhaps taken up three-quarters of the pages of Hansard during the past session. Of course, there was one debate when they were outstripped, but generally they are occupying the floor and wasting much of the time of the house, so they should not feel too disconcerted if at this time we try to do something for the members of this house, and indirectly something for the people of Canada.
It has been suggested that a member should have at least a limited pass on Trans-Canada Air Lines, and Canadian Pacific Lines should not be overlooked in this regard. I do not believe these companies should be expected to indiscriminately issue passes. Perhaps it would be a better method if we were allowed to travel on the air lines and charge the expenses to the House of Commons. The T.C.A. should not be expected to make up the losses that may result from members travelling to far eastern Canada or far western Canada. Members at least should be given the right to travel home to their constituency two or three times during a session. In this way members would be enabled to provide some service to their constituents, and would be placed on an equal footing with members who are living in the central provinces. I would certainly support such a suggestion because it is not a good arrangement for a member who comes to Ottawa to move a young family to Ottawa for six or eight months of the year. It breaks up the school year, and the cost of maintaining two homes is certainly prohibitive.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn), a member should be able to visit the various parts of his riding to hear the complaints and requests that his constituents may have. The hon. member from Newfoundland-I shall not try to pronounce the name of the riding-has pointed out that it requires a great deal of travelling to get around to the various points. While most of my travelling can be done by automobile, still the riding is approximately 300 or 350 miles long and 150 to 200 miles wide. If we are going to be sitting here seven or eight months of the year, and are expected to get around the entire community, then something should be done to enable us to visit the constituency periodically during the session. We might even this year have been able to find that our constituents were more enthusiastic about building a pipe line than was evidenced from the letters that we


received which would have given us a great deal more persuasion to carry on this great struggle we had to put up.
Now, those are my reasons for feeling that something should be done either to provide for shorter sessions or to enable a member to visit his riding periodically. While I cannot give wholehearted support to the summer holiday idea, I do think we should conduct the business of the house more efficiently and be able to get the work done within six months.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: see several hon. members. Does the hon. member for Wetaskiwin wish to-


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: It has been customary in this house, although not always usual, when two members rise, one member for a larger party and one member for a smaller party, one substantially senior in service, that the one who was senior was seen. On this occasion such did not happen. I wish to tell you why, Mr. Speaker; because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) informed His Honour tonight he would like to speak and he was sufficiently ill-advised to tell the Speaker that he wanted to speak about something affecting His Honour-


Some hon. Members:: Order; sit down.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I condemn the shabby conduct of the Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Before the hon. member goes any further, he will permit me to tell him and the house that I saw the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre every time he rose.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: You were not in the chair first.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, having quite frankly said he did not propose to follow the same line as was introduced by the hon. member-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am not
talking about you, I am talking about the Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: If the hon. member for Winnipeg North is rising on a question of privilege which occurred before the present time, then surely the time to have raised it was at the time.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I did not
see the plot.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North might pay me the same courtesy which I am trying-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I do not
know what right you have to be occupying the chair. I do not know what right any of the three elected officials of this house have to be in this chair. What has happened tonight is shameful.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: I would suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North that as he knows-I am afraid it has been drawn to the attention of this house on more than one occasion- there is a procedure he can follow if he wishes to question my right to occupy the chair. At the moment, of course, he knows that it is because the house saw fit earlier in the session to elect me as deputy chairman of committees, and under certain circumstances I find myself occupying this chair.
I think perhaps the matter which has been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North should not be allowed to drop there, but I do feel this, that the debate which I happen to be presiding over at the moment is a time limit debate and any time I take now is going to be taken from one of the members who has a chance to speak between now and the expiry of the two hours and six minutes.
When I was interrupted, I was asking the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas) whether or not he proposed to follow the same grievance line which has been discussed by previous members?


Mr. Thomas:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Applewhaite):
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin.


Colin Cameron: I want to speak on the same grievance,	Mr. Speaker.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Applewhaite):
I am sorry, did the hon. member for Nanaimo have a question of order?


Colin Cameron: No, I want to speak on the same grievance.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Applewhaite):
I shall remember that when the hon. member rises. In the meantime, I have seen the hon. member for Wetaskiwin.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Haven't we any rights here at all?


Ray Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege as that raised by the hon. member for New Westminster. Unfortunately, I am going to have to disagree with the stand that he took because I feel it would be unwise and
10, 1956	5851
Parliamentarians-Suggested Summer Recess improper to adjourn, as he suggested, around the end of June and to reconvene at a later date. Although I like my holidays and vacation as much as anybody else, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the question raised by the hon. member for New Westminster was that he wanted to go home during that period to meet with his constituents, do work around his constituency and cover his own area.
All of the work that can be done between July 1 and the end of August in one's constituency is very small because, when you go home during that period, you find that people are on vacation. It is impossible to call people together. The service clubs and all of the other organizations have adjourned for the summer months and you cannot get more than a bare minimum of work done during the months of July and August. By the same token, if the work is not completed here by the end of June-and mind you, I would like to see it done by the end of June-by that time we would be far better off to stay here during July and whatever part of August we find necessary so that we can get home by the time the holiday season is over around the end of August, and we can then get down to work by the first day of September, or at least after the labour day holiday. Otherwise, if we adjourn for the six weeks or two months in the middle of the summer, as suggested by the hon. member for New Westminster and others who have spoken on this matter, we go back and we sit at home for the summer; we come back here in September and sit here through September and probably part of October; we go back home again just about freeze-up, the weather turns bad and it is impossible to cover our constituency at all. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, the logical thing is, if we have not completed our work by July 1, to continue on until we have completed the business, go home, spend the fall months and the early winter months when we can get around our constituency and meet the people and when we can find the service clubs in operation and we can address various groups that are meeting at that time. Then in the winter time we can come back here, start our session and finish it up in the middle of the summer if necessary.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on the same matter that was raised by the hon. member for New Westminster. I would like to carry it to a more logical conclusion. As you may recall, sir, a very distinguished constitutional lawyer wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister in which he outlined what he considered to be

House of Commons
the most logical way of conducting this parliament from now on. At that time he suggested to the Prime Minister that we should meet for one afternoon a year, and when we came in we would be given a questionnaire with the government's proposed legislation outlined on it. We would listen to the speech from the throne. On retiring, we would mark on this questionnaire "yes" or "no" to each of the government's proposals, and then wend our way home.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that might be a very reasonable way of conducting this parliament since it has been reduced to such a farce within recent days when the Prime Minister, in the most insolent manner, took to himself the right to decide who should preside over this assembly-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Colin Cameron: -and, Mr. Speaker, reduced those of us who are obliged to sit on this side of the house to the position of sitting under the presidency of a man who has openly stated that in his opinion certain members have falsified the facts for their own political ends.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that we have been placed in that position. The logical thing to do is either to dissolve this parliament immediately or to follow Dr. Eugene Forsey's suggestion and meet for one afternoon a year. That would be carrying out all the democracy that is left in this parliament after the activities of those who should be its guardians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Is
the house ready for the question?



ACTION OF PRIME MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFICE OF SPEAKER

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to state a grievance. In doing so, I speak on behalf of this group and I believe I speak on behalf of the institution of parliament and on behalf of the good name of this house.


George James McIlraith: Did you hear your colleague tonight?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My grievance is against the Prime Minister. I do not propose to rehash any of the events which are part of the records of this session of this parliament prior to a few days ago; but I feel that in addition to the injury that has been done to parliament in this session a further insult was added yesterday by the Prime Minister.
There are certain matters which are the prerogative of the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker. Those matters include a number of important considerations, one of them being

the decision as to who will preside over the deliberations of this house. This is provided for, Mr. Speaker, not in anything that is temporary or passing but in the British North America Act itself. Section 44 of the British North America Act reads as follows:
The House of Commons on its first assembling after a general election shall proceed with all practicable speed to elect one of its members to be Speaker.
Section 45 reads:
In case of a vacancy happening in the office of Speaker by death, resignation, or otherwise, the House of Commons shall with all practicable speed proceed to elect another of its members to be Speaker.
Surely, I do not need to emphasize the point that it is laid down clearly in the constitution of this country that it is the House of Commons, not the government, not the Prime Minister, but the House of Commons that decides who shall be its Speaker. In this connection, there is an interesting citation in Beauchesne's third edition, citation 35, which reads as follows:
The choice of Speaker is the choice of this house. The house chooses and elects its Speaker; he is in no sense the choice of the government-in no sense the choice of the Prime Minister. In the British house, this has been the practice since the earliest times; we have followed that custom in equal degree and with equal fidelity. Indeed, in the British parliament it has never been the practice even for a member of the government to move or second the selection of a Speaker; that is left to the private members.
I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that that is a quotation from a speech made in this house by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. I think it is properly included in Beauchesne's third edition as an annotation to the sections of the British North America Act that I read a moment ago.
Perhaps I might read as well a few lines from the next citation in Beauchesne's third edition, citation 36:
Mr. Pitt once intended to propose Mr. Addington, but Mr. Hatsell, Clerk of the house, on being consulted by Mr. Addington, said; "I think that the choice of the speaker should not be on the motion of the minister. Indeed an invidious use might be made of it, to represent you as the friend of the minister, rather than the choice of the house." Mr. Pitt acknowledged the force of this objection.
Mr. Speaker, I am ready to admit that it took quite a few years for the Canadian House of Commons to develop a tradition with regard to the choice of its speaker. I read again today the account of the sitting of the House of Commons the first day it met in 1867 and there was a dispute on that very first day over the choice of the speaker proposed on that occasion by Sir John A. Macdonald. I have read debates at the opening of a number of parliaments across the years and I find that on quite a number of occasions

there have been disputes. There have been occasions when some alternative person was proposed in opposition to the name suggested from the government side. True, in all the cases the choice of the government became the choice of the House of Commons. What interests me, however, is that gradually the house came to realize, although there might be differences over some things that were done in connection with the election of the speaker that basically he must be recognized not as the choice of the government nor as the choice of the prime minister but as the choice of the entire House of Commons.
The Right Hon. Arthur Meighen on March 8, 1922, speaking to a motion of the then prime minister, Mr. King, for the appointment of the speaker for that parliament, used the words I read a moment ago from Beau-chesne's third edition and then he went on to say:
Indeed, in the British parliament it has never been the practice even for a member of the government to move or second the selection of a speaker: that is left to the private members. In our parliament we have not in that special regard followed the British practice. No one would deny that a member acceptable to the administration should be selected; but I do deny the right of the administration-the right of the prime minister to announce to this house and to the country m advance whom we shall select as speaker.
In 1930 Mr. Bennett was prime minister and on September 8, when it was proposed that Mr. Black be appointed as speaker, Mr. King indicated he had no objection to the person of Mr. Black but he did object to the way in which Mr. Bennett had gone about announcing the appointment of Mr. Black, more or less installing him as speaker, even before his election had been accomplished by the House of Commons. In objecting to what was done at that time, Mr. King, as recorded at page 3 of Hansard for September 8, 1930, read some of the statements that Mr. Meighen had made in 1922 and put his stamp of approval on Mr. Meighen's statement:
. . . that the government have not any right as such to name a speaker, that the speaker is essentially an officer of the House of Commons: he '*S an appointee of the House of Commons and is in no sense an appointee of the government.
There, Mr. Speaker, you have both the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen and the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King making it extremely clear that the choice of the person to preside over the deliberations of this house is the prerogative of the House of Commons and not the prerogative of the government nor of the Prime Minister. It is clear that it took a few years to build up that tradition but it had certainly become firmly established by the twenties and thirties of this century.
House of Commons
In 1936 when Mr. King moved the nomination of a speaker for that parliament he ran into some difficulties because of certain things that had happened. He referred to the practice at Westminster of having a permanent speaker. I should like to interject that this matter seems to have been discussed a good many times in the history of the House of Commons and although it has been discussed at times when speakers were elected nothing seems to have been done about it in the meantime. At any rate, Mr. King on February 6, 1936, as reported at page 2 of Hansard for that date, said:
In Canada the practice since confederation has been different; the speaker has been nominated by a member of the ministry, the prime minister, in fact, and I think the nomination has in all cases been accepted by members of the commons. It is but right, that the ministry should have at least an opportunity to make known its view with regard to the person it thinks should be appointed to the high office of speaker.
I continue with these words used by Mr. King:
I wish to make it very clear, however, to hon. members, that the choice of a speaker is the choice of the commons itself, and that hon. members themselves must elect the one who is to be the occupant of that office.
Although on that occasion Mr. Bennett and Mr. Woodsworth had reason to object to some of the things the government was doing they both concurred in that statement made by Mr. King that the choosing of the speaker is the prerogative of the House of Commons and not the prerogative of the government nor of the prime minister.
Similarly on May 16, 1940, when Mr. King was moving the nomination of Mr. Glen he referred once more to the difference between the tradition at Westminster and the tradition here but as reported on page 2 of Hansard for that date he said this:
However, this difference is not in any way intended to imply any restriction of the freedom of members to make whatever choice they wish. The speaker of the house is not appointed by the government, he is elected by the commons. Members of the house are entirely free to make whatever choice they wish.
I said at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, that my grievance is against the Prime Minister. It is my considered view- and some of us have had time to think this over since the events of yesterday afternoon- that the Prime Minister has added insult to injury, that he has given this parliament a serious affront in what he did yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A week ago yesterday the Speaker of the House of Commons placed his

House of Commons
resignation before us. As found at page 5555 of Hansard for July 2, 1956, he put it in these words:
I place now my resignation before the house to take effect at the pleasure of the house. I would wish that it be accepted as soon as possible.
He then went on with further comments, which he began with the words, "This is my farewell speech."
In my view, Mr. Speaker did the right thing on that occasion; he did the honourable thing. He placed his resignation before the house. He made his own decision on the basis of what had transpired in days just previous to July 2; and not only did he do the right and honourable thing in offering his resignation, but speaking in parliamentary terms he did the correct thing in placing it in the hands of the House of Commons. It was there, Mr. Speaker, for the House of Commons to deal with. This is something that is one of the prerogatives of the House of Commons. The acting prime minister of that day, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), was quite correct, I think, in suggesting that this was a matter that might wait until the return of the Prime Minister yesterday; and so we waited with anticipation the return of the right hon. gentleman. Yesterday, with regard to the resignation offered the week before by the Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) chose to say that it was not really a resignation. I quote from page 5763 of Hansard of Monday, July 9. This is what the Prime Minister said:
Of course, all hon. members are aware that such a statement or declaration of intention does not constitute the formal action required as the actual resignation of a Speaker.
I do not think anyone will deny that, in the view of the Speaker, he was placing his resignation in the hands of the house for the house to deal with, when he took the course of action that he pursued on Monday, July 2. The Prime Minister took it upon himself to place on the Speaker's statement a different interpretation than that which the Speaker had placed upon it and a different interpretation than that which was understood by the house. Not only did the Prime Minister place this different interpretation upon the words of the Speaker. He violated the prerogatives that have been laid down over a number of decades by choosing to make by himself a decision as to who would be Speaker of the House of Commons for the balance of this parliament. I can imagine that some hon. members would like to argue with me and say that what we were confronted with at this stage is something different from that with which we are confronted at the beginning of a parliament

when we have no Speaker. Technically that statement is correct. Technically there has been no break in the Speakership in the House of Commons in this parliament. But in spirit, speaking virtually, from the time Mr. Speaker placed his resignation in the hands of the House of Commons on Monday July 2 until yesterday, we were really without a Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It had not been decided who would preside over the deliberations of this House of Commons for the balance of this parliament. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) asked the house and the Speaker to wait until the return of the Prime Minister for that question to be settled. What question? The question as to who would be Speaker of the House of Commons for the balance of this parliament.


Mr. Harris:: Nonsense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By his action yesterday the Prime Minister took unto himself that prerogative, made that decision and did not even give to the House of Commons the chance to pass upon it either by way of approval or otherwise. It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that we now have an issue that is greater than any issue we have had yet in this session. That is one of the reasons why I have taken no time at all in dealing-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman want to go back to yesterday?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration say?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I asked if the hon. gentleman wanted to go back to yesterday.


Mr. Casileden:: No. That is done by the Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am talking about yesterday, Mr. Speaker. I am saying to the house and to the Prime Minister that, in addition to all the injury that was done to parliament by the way in which a certain piece of legislation was put through this house, and in addition to all that has been done by way of destroying the atmosphere of this parliament and making it a place where we cannot properly carry on the business of the country, we now are aware of the fact that we have as Prime Minister, as leader of this house, a person who thinks of it not as a House of Commons but as a Liberal caucus in which members of other parties, by his grace, are allowed to sit and to make speeches.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yesterday the Prime Minister, as reported at page 5763 of Hansard, said this:
As Prime Minister I have the ultimate responsibility for the leadership of the house, and I do not intend to shirk that responsibility in any way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those are plausible words, but the applause that has just been given to them by the Liberals opposite underlines my point that he spoke and acted yesterday not as the leader of the House of Commons but as the leader of the Liberal party, making the decision that he felt was best for the fortunes of the Liberal party. Mr. Speaker, the issue is no longer the things that happened in the month of May and the early part of June. The issue is not who actually occupies the chair for the balance of this session or the balance of this parliament. The issue is that there should be no "balance" to this session and no "balance" to this parliament. Any vestige that was left-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has not that question been settled by the house?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: By the Liberal party; not by the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is not the hon. member out of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am prepared to answer that question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman poses as a great expert on the rules. I am asking if that question has not been settled by vote of the house and therefore should not be raised again. I should like him to give an answer to that question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am quite prepared to answer that question. In fact, I would be happy to listen to a speech by the minister on that question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it would be out of order to make a speech.


An hon. Member:: Oh, shut up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I may tell the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) that one of the reasons I am talking about the present situation is precisely because I realized that a point of order could be raised if I talked about things that happened prior to the time that certain votes were taken.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not answering my question.
House of Commons


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was a vote on the question as to whether or not the Speaker should be censured.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. That is not the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was also a vote, on party lines, on the motion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) calling for dissolution of this house and an election.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And that question was decided.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But, Mr. Speaker, what I am talking about has happened since then. I base my contention that the time has come for dissolution not just on the things that took place in days gone by and on which there may have been decisions by the majority of this house, even though in some of those cases the decision was really not valid unless it was unanimous. I base my protest on what happened yesterday afternoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, the hon. gentleman is objecting to a decision of the house.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am asking if the hon. gentleman is not setting himself up above the house. A decision was made by the house by an overwhelming majority. He is now asking that that decision should be reversed.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The hon. member will have the opportunity to make a speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The house decided on Tuesday, June 26, by a majority vote that there should not be a dissolution. To the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration does that mean that there is never to be a dissolution?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does it mean that this
government is to stay in office forever? Would that vote of the house deny to the members of the government the right to meet at any time and decide on dissolution when they wished to do so?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at all; but if I may
answer the question which the hon. gentleman asked, I will do so. What it means is that no hon. member has a right in this session in debate to raise the same question again for decision by the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the rule and the hon. gentleman knows it very well.

House of Commons


Stanley Howard Knowles: The decision, even though it was only a majority decision, was on the motion of the Leader of the Opposition calling for dissolution not in the abstract but on the basis of what had happened prior to the time he made that motion. I call for dissolution of this parliament, if for no other reason, on the basis of what happened yesterday. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration cannot get around the fact that something new in terms of damaging parliament has been added to the picture by the action of the Prime Minister yesterday.


An hon. Member:: A very flimsy basis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier that the question of how the Speaker gets elected in this House of Commons has an extremely interesting history. There were earlier occasions when there were struggles and squabbles of one kind and another; but gradually it has been accepted that he is the choice of the whole House of Commons. Indeed it was in this very parliament, under the present Prime Minister, that I think we reached perhaps as high a point as we have ever reached when, at the opening of the first session of this parliament in 1953,- I think for the first time in history-the Prime Minister's motion that the present Speaker take the chair was seconded by the Leader of the Opposition. At the start of this parliament under the present Prime Minister we had reached a high point in the unanimity with which the house acts in the matter of electing a Speaker. Yesterday under the same Prime Minister we reached a low point, when the right of the House of Commons to have the say as to who is to be the presiding officer was taken away from the House of Commons-I do not think even the Liberal party had any say in it-and was exercised by the Prime Minister himself.
I have already said that I think His Honour the Speaker did the right and honourable thing on July 2, when he placed his resignation in the hands of this house. I am not now offering any words of criticism of the Speaker, despite what I might have felt about something that happened earlier this evening. I have refrained from any criticism on that score because I think a new issue has arisen, the issue of the rights of the House of Commons itself, rights which the Prime Minister himself has violated.
The reason I said earlier that I could have [DOT] related my remarks to the not too important issue raised by the hon. member for New Westminster was that I realized he was asking that parliament go home for the summer and I could have supported that suggestion because certainly I think it should

be going home right now, but not for the same reasons which he gave.
Because parliament has got into an atmosphere where we are not able to do the business of the country properly, it does not matter, from here on in this parliament, who is put in the chair, the present Speaker or someone else. If he is going to be chosen by the Prime Minister and given to the house on the Prime Minister's authority without any attempt to pay some regard to the decencies of parliamentary procedure that would simply continue to damage and destroy the atmosphere of this house.
I think most of us believe that certainly one of the most important institutions in Canada, if not the most important, is the parliament of Canada. The people of Canada have the right to have that institution on the highest possible level. The people of Canada have a right to have the discussions in this parliament take place on a basis of give-and-take, of argument and conflict, but nevertheless of understanding as to the points that we are discussing and with respect both ways and with respect for the Chair.
We have had an unfortunate atmosphere since the events of earlier this session, and I think it has become very clear that this parliament's prestige in the eyes of the Canadian people does not merit its being continued and that the Prime Minister, who will have the ultimate say as to when dissolution will take place, subject to the five-year limit, owes it to parliament and owes it to the people of Canada to give consideration to a very early dissolution of parliament and the calling of a general election.
I insist that the issue now-and I say this for the benefit of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as well as others-is not with reference to things that have happened in the past and on which the house may have taken decisions. The issue that faces us in this house is pin-pointed by the dictatorial attitude of the Prime Minister yesterday in his disregard for the prerogatives of parliament. I feel more strongly now than I did when I urged on earlier occasions that there be a dissolution that that is the only course to follow. I hope that the Prime Minister will give serious consideration to this matter and do something about it at an early date.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the situation was such that I did not get the floor earlier so that there might be more time for this matter to be discussed, but even so I feel I should not speak longer, for I wish to leave at least the 12 minutes that there are tonight and the six minutes there are tomorrow for the Prime Minister to speak on this matter if he wishes to do so, and I trust he will.

But, if he does exercise that right, as I hope he will, I trust he will not say the kind of thing that will close the door to a proper consideration of what I think is now his duty to the Canadian people, namely, the early dissolution of parliament and the calling of a general election so that we might have a new parliament, clean and fresh, that can measure up to what the Canadian people have a right to expect.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I shall require even the 12 minutes that remained a moment ago, when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre sat down, and the six minutes of tomorrow to tell him that it is not what he thinks I should do that is going to be done. There may come a time when he will not only have to think but be in a position to do what he thinks should be done; but that time has not yet arrived.
With respect to everything the hon. gentleman has said about the choice of the Speaker, I am in full agreement, and it did not require 89 years of practice to make it absolutely crystal clear that the Speaker was the choice of the House of Commons. However, the hon. gentleman, who referred to sections 44 and 45 of the British North America Act, certainly overlooked, and many others in the house have overlooked, the provision of section 49 of the British North America Act, which provides that the actions of the House of Commons do not have to be by the unanimous decision of the House of Commons but that they are the result of decisions by the majority of the members of the House of Commons.
It has been sought to be established for quite a long time in this House of Commons that it was not the supporters of the government who had the right to make decisions but that it was the members of the opposition, and that whenever there was any suggestion put before the house with which the members of the opposition did not agree it was wrong, unconstitutional and a contempt of parliament not to take into account their views instead of taking into account the views of the majority sent here by the Canadian people-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -to make the decisions that are required to be made to carry on the business of the country. It is not by any accident that the party of which I have the honour to be the leader at the present time has been in office now for 21 years and plans to continue in office for several years longer.
House of Commons


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: 1957 will be the end.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Now, with respect to what I did yesterday, the hon. gentleman says that that is an act of contempt of parliament. I submit that it was an act of full respect for the rights and privileges of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman has been posing, and with some justification, as an expert on the rules and precedents of parliamentary institutions. The hon. gentleman knows as well as I do that there has never been any formal acceptance by the House of Commons here or by the House of Commons in the United Kingdom of the resignation of a Speaker. A Speaker who chooses to resign does resign and it is the act of his own will that creates the vacancy required under the British North America Act to make way for the appointment of a new Speaker. The hon. gentleman knows as well as I do, and as well as all other hon. members who have not made as profound a study as he has of the rules and precedents, that what was stated by Mr. Speaker on Monday, the 2nd of July, did not vacate his office and that it was expected there would be some other formal action that would bring about the situation provided for in section 45 of the British North America Act, that is to say, a vacancy happening in the office by resignation or otherwise.
That being the situation, I felt that it was necessary for me to say to the house whether or not I was going to take any formal action to bring about a vacancy in the office of Speaker. What I did yesterday was to declare to the house that, having ascertained that the Speaker was willing to have his duty to parliament and to the country regarded as higher than his natural desire to be able to meet the criticisms that had been and were still being levelled against him, I felt under no obligation to take any action in respect of the statements that had been made on the 2nd of July.
I appointed no Speaker. I made no pretence of appointing any Speaker. I proposed the motion, which was seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), made at the beginning of this parliament that the present Speaker take the chair for this parliament. I did that because I realized, as the hon. member realizes, that it is desirable to have the appointment of the Speaker in the form in which it is made represent what is provided for by the constitution, that is to say, an appointment by the House of Commons and not an appointment by the government.

House of Commons
I remember that both in 1949 and in 1953 newspapermen were anxious to find out whom I was going to propose for the speakership. I told them that the speakership was something that was within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons itself and that I could give them no information, that I had in mind the gentleman I wished to suggest to the house to appoint but that he would become Speaker only if and when he had become appointed by the House of Commons. He is still Speaker of the House of Commons because there has never been the formal act required by the constitution to create a vacancy in his office, and I felt that it was desirable as soon as possible after my return to state publicly that I was not going to take any action to bring about a vacancy unless Mr. Speaker himself refused to continue to carry out the responsibilities of the office which he has discharged with knowledge, competence and distinction.
Whatever the hon. gentleman may think of my conduct, and I know that he is sincere, I do not think that my conduct requires me to advise His Excellency to dissolve parliament at this time. The hon. gentleman has said that is the only matter with which he is dealing as his grievance at this moment. Well, I am not going to satisfy that grievance and his grievance must persist if the only way in which it caj be removed is by my stating here that I have come to the conclusion that I have acted in a way that makes it improper for me to continue to be a member of parliament. I do not agree that that is the case, and I am convinced, as I was convinced yesterday, that in informing the house that Mr. Speaker was willing to continue I was informing a majority, a large and overwhelming majority made up not only of those who support this government, of something which was very agreeable to them.
If the hon. gentleman feels that I mistook the sense and feeling of the majority in this house he knows that he can at any time put on the order paper a notice of motion to remove the Speaker from the chair and he will see-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege, will the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) not admit that I made it clear that I did not think it mattered who is in the chair. Will the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -not agree that I made it clear that it was not the resignation of the Speaker I was suggesting but rather the dissolution of parliament?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I know that it was the dissolution of parliament that the hon. gentleman was suggesting, but he was suggesting the dissolution of parliament because I had stated yesterday that I believed that it was the will of the majority in this house, if Mr. Speaker was willing to do so, that he continue to preside over our deliberations. That being the only reason urged by my hon. friend for a dissolution of parliament, I consider it to be a very insufficient reason.


William Earl Rowe: You will not need any more votes, just your opinion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. gentleman thinks that I am mistaken about how the votes would go in this house he knows how he can test that opinion.


William Earl Rowe: You are sure they will all vote for you.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, it is ten o'clock. I will not continue now unless it should be the unanimous feeling of the house that the six minutes additional should be taken up tonight.


William Earl Rowe: Ten o'clock. You have said
too much now.


James Joseph McCann: You cannot take it any more.


An hon. Member:: Sit down and take it.
On motion of Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we will conclude this debate tomorrow and then take the estimates of veterans affairs and northern affairs.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the Prime
Minister-


Some hon. Members:: No, sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Casselman:: Get the steamroller out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, July 11, 1956


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the capital budget of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the financial year ending March 31, 1957.

On the orders of the day:


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Revenue if copies of the capital budget of the C.B.C. which he tabled earlier this afternoon are available for general distribution among members? If not, and if the document is not too long, could it be printed as an appendix to Hansard?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, there has only been one copy of the budget tabled. It will not be a very difficult task to have mimeographed copies made of it, and they will be made available to those who are interested. I may say we expect to have copies of the annual report mimeographed by the time we come to a discussion of the estimates of the C.B.C.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Milton Fowler Gregg: On June 19 the hon. member for Comox-Alberni asked me several questions referring to overtime and wage rates on federal works at La Scie, Newfoundland. At that time I stated that our Newfoundland officer had been instructed to investigate the complaint and make a report.
The first complaint was that the companies concerned were working their employees in excess of the authorized hours. The second complaint was that they were paying local workers less than mainland workers for the same work; and third, our representative was asked to investigate and determine whether the companies should be required to pay
penalty overtime rates for hours worked in excess of the statutory hours.
Our officer has now reported in the negative on the first two complaints, and on the third that he was making an effort to effect an understanding with the company on the question of overtime payments.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: May I
ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if the agreement reported in the press between Cambodia and Soviet Russia is likely to have any effect on the political situation in Viet Nam or other parts of French Indo-China?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the terms of any such agreement as has been reported in the press, and I have asked for a report on this matter from our commissioner in Cambodia. I prefer to wait until I get that report before I attempt to answer the hon. gentleman's question.


DANGERS TO FREE COUNTRIES OF ACCEPTING AID FROM RUSSIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I note in this morning's press that Vice President Nixon of the United States has issued a warning to the neutral free countries of the world against accepting any economic or military aid from Russia. Does the Prime Minister consider the time has come for a warning from this government to those countries which are being offered Russian aid; that is, a warning as to the dangers of accepting these offers?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to suggest that the Canadian government issue any warning against the acceptance of aid by less developed countries though, of course, there may be some dangers involved in doing so. But I think the fact that there would be assistance to underdeveloped countries is a meritorious fact in itself. I do not think we would put ourselves in the position where we

Inquiries of the Ministry might appear to be saying you should get the aid and if you refuse to take it from the countries behind the iron curtain we shall see that you get it from other sources. We are not in a position to do that. There has been a lot of propaganda about proffered aid, and I think it has gone beyond the actual benefits that those who seem to have been offered aid would receive from such offers.
It is very difficult to attempt to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries. Of course a country like the United States may be in a position to say, "If you do not take aid from Russia we shall see that you get it from us", but we are not in a position to make any such broad statement.


EFFECT ON COLOMBO PLAN OF SURRENDER OF BRITISH BASES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Solon Earl Low: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Will the present action of Britain in surrendering her bases in Ceylon affect in any way the assistance that is being granted to Ceylon under the Colombo plan?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker. We have endeavoured to have what is done under the Colombo plan done on its merits without any strings attached to it, and to avoid any suggestion whatsoever that it was meant to obtain any political influence over the affairs of the recipients.


ATTENDANCE BY RUSSIAN OBSERVERS AT U.S. AND CANADIAN AIR SHOWS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister or his department considering in any way the recent application by the Russians to attend air shows in Canada or the United States in the next month or two?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if an application is made for a visa for such a visit it will undoubtedly be considered by the department. I have no knowledge myself of such an application having been made but I shall be glad to look into the matter.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. If such an application is being made, and it appears that way from the United States press, will the minister look into the possibility of a polar trip by the Russians and the resulting danger to our secret northland defences?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that any such visit will not be prejudicial to the security arrangements we have in the north.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Exton Lennard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. When will motion No. 80 standing in my name, and made an order for return on May 21, be tabled? It has to do with the written agreement in connection with the low level bridge over Burlington channel.


Robert Henry Winters: There is no written agreement, as I indicated previously in the house, but I shall endeavour to table a nil return at the earliest possible date.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. My question relates to the representations of the Department of Veterans Affairs employees national association about which he was asked a question by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday.
Can the minister say if it is correct that these representations were received last October or November? If so, is it still true that they have not yet been considered by the cabinet, as the minister stated yesterday?


Hugues Lapointe: As I stated yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the officers of the association met with the Minister of Finance and myself during the course of last fall and made their representations at that time. Since that time consideration was given to these representations and in fact the 40-hour week was granted in two of the establishments, the Colonel Belcher hospital in Calgary and Camp Hill hospital in Halifax. Following the survey made by the civil service commission of the situation in civilian hospitals in those localities it was found that the general pattern was to have a 40-hour week. In the other localities where D.V.A. institutions exist and where the survey did not reveal that the pattern in other hospitals was to have a 40-hour week the matter was postponed, but it is being looked into again at the present time.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs following the questions asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The minister said consideration was given to the 40-hour week in some localities other than where it exists now. Does he mean to suggest that consideration was given by the cabinet or by the officials of his department?


Hugues Lapointe: I explained, Mr. Speaker, that the process which is followed is that a survey is made by the civil service commission. They in turn report to treasury board on the result of their survey, and treasury board informs the cabinet of the situation. That is what is being done at the present time.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Is the minister aware that most of the trucks contracted to his department in Kitchener bear the words "Canada Post Office" and lack the royal cipher?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that. Evidently I do not have the same sources of information as the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace, but I will inquire into it.


An hon. Member:: You should look into the trucks, too.


Hugues Lapointe: I do know, Mr. Speaker, it is usually one of the clauses of the contracts we enter into with the contractors that the royal cipher appear on the trucks that are used for the conveyance of mail.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask the minister whether, after he has examined the newspaper clipping which I will send him with the photograph, he will take steps to see that this improper marking and wording is immediately corrected?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to see the report first and inquire.


James Sinclair: What is wrong with the word "Canada"?



FASSAMAQUODDY PROJECT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has
10,	1956
Natural Resources-Development he any further report to make with regard to the progress being made in connection with the Passamaquoddy development project survey?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I said on June 1 that a reference would be made on this important matter to the international joint commission as soon as the terms of the reference could be agreed on between the two governments; I refer to the United States government and the Canadian government. Exchanges of correspondence have been going on and discussions have been held with the United States government so that we can reach agreement on the terms of reference. It is obviously extremely important that there should be agreement on such terms before the investigation begins. That process is now almost completed, and I hope the terms of reference can be submitted to the commission within the next very few weeks.

The house resumed, from Monday, July 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.



MOTION FOR ADOPTION OF NATURAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT POLICY

Elmore Philpott: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned last night at ten o'clock I was trying to show the relation between these Yankee dollars and Canadian jobs. I am not going to keep the house too long today, because I do not want to hold up this session too long; I am very anxious to get back to Vancouver. I am particularly anxious to get back to Vancouver because since I finished the first half of my speech last night and today when I am beginning the second half, I have had news of my second new granddaughter since Easter. I would remind hon. gentlemen of the good old British Columbia custom that whereas fathers must give out cigars when sons or daughters appear, grandfathers always receive cigars from all quarters of the house.
I want to refer particularly to one section of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition when, as reported at page 5780 of Hansard, he said:
We all share the satisfaction in the growth and development that has already taken place. But this is only a promise of what can happen. Government policies should encourage the development of our own resources, should promote the processing of those resources in Canada, should correct our unfavourable trade balance, should assure the participation by Canadians in the development and processing of our resources, and should assure

Natural Resources-Development opportunity and employment for all Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific wherever they may live.
As I listened to the hon. members of the Conservative opposition yesterday developing their case, it seemed to me that I heard echoes of old, unhappy, far-off things and battles of long ago, because there was the distinct echo of 1911 in this approach. I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that there would be now anything as blatant as the slogan which won the election of 1911, namely "No truck nor trade with the Yankees". However, I am submitting that the Conservative opposition are on a slippery slope now, and that they could easily continue down the decline until they got themselves in a position even more dangerous for this country than that of advocating "No truck nor trade with the Yankees" as they did so successfully in 1911.
What I want to show, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a very real connection between these Yankee dollars which some of my hon. friends in the Conservative opposition would keep away from Canada, and Canadian jobs. I do not know whether they would chase out the dollars which are already invested here in the factories, in the pipe lines and in all the other things that go to make up the prosperity of Canada, or whether they would confine themselves to keeping out new investments in Canada; but I want to submit that Yankee dollars invested in Canada mean good jobs for the Canadian people. God help this country if we are ever foolish enough to turn away those Yankee dollars simply to make a convenient election slogan for a desperate party, or for politicians who have not thought things through.
Last night I referred to a very admirable volume, "Canada's International Investment Position, 1926-1954", and I submitted that it is a bargain at $1 from the queen's printer. On page 44 of that volume we get an exact breakdown of all the different industries in Canada, exactly what percentages United States-owned companies obtain in the Canadian market and exactly what percentage of employment is given to Canadians by that United States investment. Working from the bottom upward, 1 shall read the statistics on page 44:
Per cent
Printing, publishing, and allied	industries ..	1
Clothing (textiles and furs)	 2
Wood products	 6
Primary iron and steel	 7
Bakery products and confectionery	 10
Beverages	 12
Iron and steel products n.o.p	 14
Textile products (except clothing)	 14
Food industries, tobacco and tobacco
products and leather products, n.o.p. ..	14
Castings, iron	  15
Dairy products	 16

Non-metallic mineral products and products of petroleum and coke, n.o.p		18
Aircraft and parts, railway rolling stock,
and transportation equipment, n.o.p. ..	19
Agricultural implements	 20
Miscellaneous manufactures	 20
Hardware, tools and cutlery	 23
Canning and processing	 24
Toilet preparations	 27
Brass and copper products	 27
Paper products n.o.p	 29
Heating and cooking apparatus	 29
Grain mill products	 29
Machinery, industrial and machine tools ..	32
Chemicals and allied products n.o.p		36
Pulp and paper	 39
Sheet metal products	 39
Medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations 41 Soaps, washing compounds and cleaning
preparations	 45
Paints, varnishes and lacquers	 45
Electrical apparatus and supplies	 50
Non-ferrous metal products n.o.p	 50
Machinery, household, office and store _____ 60
Motor vehicle parts	 67
Petroleum products	 68
Non-ferrous metal smelting and refining ..	70
Bubber products	 78
Motor vehicles	 98
So I should like to know whether there is a single hon. member, even in the Conservative opposition, who will rise in this house and say in all seriousness that he believes the 98 per cent of the jobs which Canadians have in motor vehicle manufacture should be cut off simply because United States investments have provided us with those jobs. So on down the line.
No, Mr. Speaker; when we analyse the Conservative warning about the menace of these Yankee dollars, the menace of this great adverse trade balance about which they -are so fond of talking, we find that adverse trade balance almost entirely made up of tools and capital equipment which is coming in to develop this country. I would ask my Conservative friends to point out the name of the United States-owned factory which they think is a menace to this country. I submit that they are only against this United States investment in general terms, but when it comes down to concrete terms and they are talking about the exact factory or the exact job which is provided by that United States investment they are very vague indeed.
Take my own province of British Columbia. I should like to touch on one or two instances. I will start up the coast at Prince Rupert. I would wager that there is not a single person in the whole city of Prince Rupert who would say that United States investment there has been a menace to that city. As a matter of fact, United States investment in the past few years has transformed the city from one of very moderate progressiveness to one of the most prosperous cities in British Columbia.

I come down the coast to Ocean Falls, where United States investment is entirely responsible for the whole project. I come farther down to Powell River, where there is one of the greatest pulp and paper companies in the whole world. Incidentally, United States investment and for that matter United States management under the Foley brothers, who are among the most enlightened employers in the whole Dominion of Canada, have transformed the city from one which 21 years ago had some of the shadiest labour relations to a city with perhaps the most enlightened labour relations in the whole of Canada. I venture to say there is not even a member of the Conservative opposition who would suggest that is a menace to Canada.
Coming farther down to the city of Vancouver, certainly in my own constituency of Vancouver South I cannot think of any foreign investments that are a menace to Canada. I must say that when I have heard the term "foreigners" used with reference to Americans or "foreign investment" when we mean United States investment I have wanted to cry "shame", because everybody knows that no sensible Canadian ever calls an American a foreigner unless he is deliberately trying to insult him. In any event, in my riding of Vancouver South we welcome foreign investment.
I am sorry to see that my good friend the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is not in his seat at the moment, because yesterday he said he had some sensible things to say about forest production waste and some sensible remarks about what a young Scandinavian had said about our wasteful forest practices in this country. But, Mr. Speaker, never in the history of this young nation, Canada, has there been such an improvement in any industry as there has been in the forest products industry of British Columbia in the past 15 or 20 years with respect to the utilization of materials which formerly went to waste and the better exploitation of the raw materials, especially with regard to the manufacture of plywood.
I would point out that all or most of these improved practices are due to the know-how that came into this country along with some of the refugee capital which came here as a by-product of Hitler's persecutions in Europe. I would say that if there is not a silver lining to every cloud, there was a silver lining at least in one respect so far as Hitler's persecutions were concerned, in that we in British Columbia got fine and enlightened Czech capitalists like the Koerner brothers, who
Natural Resources-Development have not only improved our whole woodworking industry but have made a gift running into millions of dollars for humanitarian purposes in British Columbia.
When I look over the United States-owned factories in my riding and other ridings I invite any member of the opposition to get up and say which American-owned factory he would close down, which American factory he would keep out of the country. There are thousands of people employed in the United States-owned factories, at least a fifth of all the people in Canada. Incidentally, the people with the best jobs in Canadian factories are those who work in these factories created by United States investment.


Alfred Claude Ellis: What a straw man.


Elmore Philpott: When I hear the member for Regina City he makes me more homesick than ever, because his voice is exactly like the foghorn in Vancouver harbour. I submit that my hon. friends opposite are in a rather dangerous position. I have no doubt they know full well the meaning of the motion they have moved. It is of course a want of confidence motion, and if it were passed the house would be dissolved and we would have an election now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Claude Ellis: What are you afraid of?


Elmore Philpott: Of course my hon. friends opposite want an election now, especially the Conservative opposition, because they know very well that unless they get their election before the natural gas pipe line reaches Winnipeg they will be shown up as the most senseless, stupid obstructionists in the whole history of Canada. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, the party that aspires to be the government of Canada and that talks about reducing the adverse trade balance with the United States tries to block the pipe line which is going to substitute Alberta gas for Pennsylvania coal and thereby reduce the largest item that goes to make up this adverse trade balance with the United States.
I know that my hon. friends immediately opposite are in a little different position. They have about four months' extra grace. The poor old Tories there-I must apologize for that term, but it is the result of spending my boyhood days in the city of Hamilton, where people were not only willing to admit they were Tories but were proud of it. I am glad to say that I can remember when the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I lived in Hamilton in our boyhood days. I think he was born into a Conservative family, too. I believe my father was the first

Natural Resources-Development Liberal on our side. We even had an aunt whose name was Aunt Tory; that was her real name, too.


Alfred Claude Ellis: What party are you going into next?


Elmore Philpott: I can think back to my first experience in politics in 1911. I have a horrible admission to make, and that is that even in those days, although my father was a Liberal, the Tories sold me on the idea that if the Liberals won the election we were going to have annexation to the United States. I can remember the great crowds gathering in the dining room of our old home on what was fondly called the mountain in Hamilton, and debating the issue. These debates used to end in real fist fights, which is one reason of course why I felt a little bit at home in this chamber a while ago, because I had been in that kind of atmosphere before long ago.
When I grew up I talked to some of my colleagues like Mr. McGregor and Mr. McTav-ish of the Vancouver Province, who not so many years ago wrote a series of articles about the 1911 election. He gave the inside story of that 1911 election and told how some smart Tory newspaper man from Canada went down to Washington, if you please, and paid those congressman $100 per speech to make speeches in favour of annexation of Canada by the United States. Those fellows would have done it for nothing, especially if they could have had their names across the front page.
May I say that before my hon. friends opposite go farther down the slippery slope of warning against the menace of these Yankee dollars they should keep in mind what happened before. You cannot fool the people twice with the same trick while some of the same people are still alive. Never should they forget that the so-called menace of these United States dollars is the kind of menace which is responsible for one-fifth of the best jobs we have in this country.
I think back to the days of the war when the great Churchill coined one of his most famous phrases when asking for co-operation from the United States. He said, in effect, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job". I submit we could paraphrase that today in regard to this United States investment in Canada which has been responsible for the tremendous development we have had in this country, by saying that they have lent us the tools and we will finish the job; we will carry through from where we are now and proceed with the development of this country. No, Mr. Speaker; the Yankee dollars are not a menace to Canada except in the minds of the hon. gentlemen opposite.


John George Diefenbaker: I do
not intend, Mr. Speaker, to follow my hon. friend in the discussion of the fictional matters in which he indulged. He went back to 1911 and resurrected a fiction that has remained amongst those who do not read and will not hear, that in that election of 1911 this party took the stand "No truck nor trade with the Yankees". This indicates the paucity of argument in regard to the amendment before us, and the extent to which the hon. gentleman felt impelled to go into the fictional past in order to remove himself from the discussion of the present.
But there was one interesting thing I noted in his speech. After he had covered all this historical fiction and myth he finally came to mention the amendment and said, "You want to watch this; if you vote in favour of it we are going to have an election." This indicated that in behind all those words and the creation of all these straw men, there was a fear that could not be hidden. Over and over again-and you, sir, know the circumstances-we on this side of the house have done everything we could to challenge the government to do that thing to which my hon. friend referred a moment ago, but without success.
Now, returning to the amendment, I think at this time it might be well to read that amendment so the discussion might once more return to the subject matter before the house. This is the amendment:
This house is of the opinion that the welfare of the Canadian people requires the adoption now of a national development policy which will develop our natural resources for the maximum benefit of all parts of Canada, encourage more processing of those resources in Canada, correct the present serious unfavourable trade balances, foster wider financial participation by Canadians in the development of our resources, and promote greater opportunity and employment for a steadily increasing population.
I noted, sir, that throughout his remarks my hon. friend dealt with no portion of that amendment. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition set out in very considerable detail the attitude taken by this party in reference to the need for a development policy that will not only expand and develop Canada today, but preserve and maintain that development for future generations.
The attitude taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce was generally to this effect: After all, if we sell our irreplaceable resources in raw form it will be and is to the advantage of the present. The difference between his point of view and that of the Leader of the Opposition is this. The Leader of the Opposition is building for the future; for if we take our irreplaceable resources and move them from Canada in the raw form, the day will

come when, there being none to replace, the advantages of the present will be lost in so far as our national destiny is concerned.
No one has ever taken the stand that it is not to the advantage of this country to have investment from the United States or elsewhere, but what we do say is this. In that investment let Canadian considerations be No. 1, rather than subject to the interests of any corporation from any other part of the world. When you speak of the present and of the need of United States investment in Canada, let me say this. One of the most serious things that has taken place in recent months in connection with Canada's development has been the increase in discount and interest rates, thereby forcing Canadian industry, municipalities and provinces to go into the United States market to borrow because money there is cheaper than it is in Canada.
In today's newspapers parliament learns, as it so often does through the press, that interest rates on bank savings will be increased by one-quarter o.f one per cent after August 1. What kind of encouragement is that to saving in Canada so that Canadians will have money available in order to finance a larger share of Canada's development? Sir, this most niggling, niggardly increase can have no serious influence in causing Canadians to have more money available for investment in Canada. Indeed, the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself, when speaking recently in Hamilton, used these words:
I share the desire of Canadians to be free from dependence on large scale imports of capital. As a member of the Canadian government I do all I can to help maintain conditions favourable for Canadian investors, in the hope that one day we shall be able to look after all our capital requirements if we choose to do so. The plain truth is, however, that Canadians have not generated enough savings to supply all the capital required for Canadian development.
Well, no matter what savings they have generated the government has degenerated them by the heavy rates of taxation that exist, and this latest action of raising interest rates to that extent does not meet the situation and will not meet the situation, nor will it encourage further savings in Canada.
My hon. friend says let us get as much capital into Canada as we can regardless of whether we have any control over it. Well, Mr. James Muir-


Clarence Decatur Howe: When did I say that?
Natural Resources-Development


John George Diefenbaker: -the president of the Royal Bank of Canada, spoke before the Canadian club at Ottawa on January 19 and said this:
The disadvantages to the Canadian economy of non-resident control lie mainly in practices that would appear to be easily changed for the better.
Participation by Canadians in enterprises financed by outside (especially American) capital would be greatly encouraged were it not necessary in many cases to buy stock in the parent company in order indirectly to secure some voice in the operations of the Canadian subsidiary. In other words, Canadians should he allowed to buy stock directly in any Canadian corporation.
That point was made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Muir continued:
Another practice, with a similar effect, is that of centralizing research facilities in the non-resident parent company. This practice may result in economies.
Finally, he said this:
I believe that every encouragement and incentive should be given to the establishment, by nonresident corporations, of research facilities in Canada.
I shall deal with that in a moment, for Canadians find themselves in the position where corporations cannot deduct those expenses in Canada to the same extent that they do in the United States, where provision is made to encourage the research so necessary in the developments of today. Yesterday the Minister of Trade and Commerce ridiculed, or endeavoured to ridicule, the arguments advanced by the Leader of the Opposition regarding the fact that development was not reasonably equal in all parts of Canada. The Leader of the Opposition said, as reported at page 5775 of Hansard:
As trustees for future generations of Canadians, we should make sure in every way we can, within the framework of our constitutional structure, that by the combined efforts of all governments and all the people of Canada the opening up of our country brings the maximum benefit to every part of Canada, not only for today but for future generations far into the years ahead.
And then he said this:
Large areas right across Canada have not participated fully in our recent growth and development. This government has failed to meet its obligations to those parts of Canada which are most in need of encouragement and financial support.
To all of this the right hon. gentleman said he had never heard so much rot in one afternoon in his life.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will my hon.
friend read the extract from my speech in which I discussed distribution of development projects across Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: I read it, but I am just mentioning-

Natural Resources-Development Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): You are reading into it comments that are not there.


John George Diefenbaker: If I were to read all that the hon. gentleman said yesterday it would be perfectly clear that he did not admit the basic reason for this amendment, namely that across Canada there is not equal development and there is not equal opportunity for Canadians in every province of Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wondered what the reason was.


John George Diefenbaker: Nor any endeavour on the part of the government to secure it. Last evening the hon. member for Royal dealt with this question, as he has done on previous occasions, and pointed out the injustice and unfairness to the maritime provinces owing to the fact that this government has failed to act, has failed to give any support to the power development on the Saint John river, as it has failed to give assistance to the province of Saskatchewan in connection with the South Saskatchewan dam.
Where are the maritime members now? Today's press records that while the minister was ridiculing the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition, and also in anticipation the arguments raised by the hon. member for Royal, there was a gathering in Fredericton. It was a gathering of premiers, three Liberal and one Conservative. The conference was held. The maritime premiers demand a better deal for the maritimes. They want a coordinated policy, and they went on to point out, "Ottawa helps those who help themselves, but only if they complain loudly enough".
Well, that was the first principle they enunciated. Sir, it is worthy of the attention of the Liberal members from the maritimes, because it should not have been necessary after 20 long years in power for these three Liberal premiers to meet together and determine that in so far as their representation from the maritimes was concerned in government circles, there were insufficient demands for the rights of the people.
Let us go on:
Does the federal government consider that its mission in the development of the Atlantic coast of Canada has been accomplished by sending three geological survey parties to Newfoundland this year, Premier Smallwood demanded?
There is one of the great creative men of Canada. He created the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill). Then we have Mr. Hicks saying:
It is necessary to point out to the federal government that they do not have to think always of Industry in the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto region, when it comes time to hand out defence contracts. 

Coming back again to Premier Smallwood, speaking as the tribune of the people on behalf of equality of opportunity everywhere in Canada and in particular seeking to equalize those opportunities in the maritimes who said:
"The government of Canada is wrong when they say that all provinces should be treated as equals." The Newfoundland leader borrowed a phrase from communist philosphy to express his attitude: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
The policy of equal treatment, he said, would result in "four, or possibly five, rich provinces, with the rest of us in the poorhouse."
He went on to say there is a faint glimmer of hope:
There is now a glimmering of comprehension in Ottawa, and one of the signs was the appointment of the Gordon commission on the economic development of Canada.
He went on to express the hope that as the result of the work of this commission there may be some action such as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out over and over again is necessary in this country by way of equalizing opportunities for people in every province of Canada. He goes on to deal with freight rates; he speaks of the unfairness of flat increases that have the result of discriminating against the maritimes and the west, and he concludes by saying that action must be taken in order to secure an equality of opportunity and to raise economic standards in various parts of Canada to the level of other parts of the country. That is the purpose of this amendment. While the Minister of Trade and Commerce was saying yesterday there was no need for this amendment, these men were calling on the government to do the very things which are embodied in the amendment presented to this house.
Sir, it is a very serious question, and one that has been ignored by this government. This government has failed to recognize that every part of Canada deserves its fair share in the national development. It is because of that failure that we in this party have asked among other things that instead of shipping our resources from Canada in their raw form they should be processed here in Canada to the maximum extent.
The hon. member for Vancouver South says there are so many jobs resulting from those raw materials being sent out. I think the number is aproximately 250,000, representing people employed in Canada as a result of the export of raw, semi-raw and partially processed products. There is only a small labour content in raw material. When transferred into processed or semi-processed

material jobs are increased far out of proportion to the extent to which expenditure is necessary to transform those materials into saleable products.
What I want to deal with in particular now in the time at my disposal is one phase of this question that was alluded to by the Leader of the Opposition as part of a development plan. At page 5778 of Hansard he said:
Therefore, the training of skilled men and women to take their part in research and technical development must be part of the national program consciously designed to advance our industrial expansion in Canada.
Without interfering in any way with the exclusive jurisdiction over education which rests with provincial governments, encouragement should be given to advance research and within the framework of our constitution research facilities should be expanded rapidly right across Canada in our universities and industries. This is something the government can do and should undertake right away.
There has been considerable discussion on this subject of the shortage in Canada of trained technical personnel. Gilbert Jackson and associates of Toronto recently summed up their views in anticipation of the situation in Canada in the next ten years and pointed out this fact:
A leading impetus to industrial investment is the prospectively rapid rate of technological advance and automation. The surge in this direction is already under way and tends to feed upon itself. Even the cold war is becoming more and more a race for economic, industrial and technological superiority.
The prospectively rapid rate of technological advance and automation is now seriously threatened by the dearth of engineers and highly trained technicians. This may prove to be the greatest of our handicaps during the next decade.
In other words, training the necessary personnel in Canada under research facilities, either dominion or provincial, or through the instrumentality of business to the end that trained men will be available, is a serious need. Only today there is a report on the university situation in Canada which indicates that during the present year there are some 60,000 students in Canadian universities and eight years from now, according to the dominion bureau of statistics, there will be between 100,000 and 135,000. The U.S.S.R. has not only launched an international trading system but has also launched a vast training system to train the necessary technological workers, scientists, engineers and the like; but while the United States allows almost complete deductions for technical research on the part of industry we in Canada do not do so, nor do we have the opportunity of doing so because United States companies in the main do their research work in the United States. While we in Canada receive an
10, 1956	5821
Natural Resources-Development indirect benefit from that, we do not receive the benefit that we should in keeping Canadians in Canada.
In the last four years the U.S.S.R. has graduated 154,000 engineers; in the same period Canada graduated 6,900 and the United States 116,000. This year the U.S.S.R. will have 60,000 graduates in applied science as compared with 1,700 in Canada, 3,000 in Great Britain and 22,000 in the United States.
Everywhere the fear exists that Russia is outdistancing us and by 1968, according to an estimate that has not been denied, the U.S.S.R. with its present trade policy and its expansive industrial policy will equal the industrial production of the United States. Everywhere the fear is expressed that we are not doing our part nationally or provincially to provide the necessary trained personnel. Within the limits of our constitution, why should not the federal government expand and extend the amount available by way of scholarships in order to encourage and permit universities in this country to take their part in our national development and meet the international challenge presented by the U.S.S.R.?
Sir Winston Churchill warned that the western world is falling behind the U.S.S.R. in advanced training and research in pure and applied science. Last year in Canada one-sixth of the total number of undergraduates were in engineering. The engineering institute of Canada has stated that Russian tactics are building up the world's greatest army of technicians, and this fact should both disturb and inspire us.
I am not suggesting that our institutions of higher learning should become instruments of the state, dominated by the state, but I say this. In order to meet the responsibility of expanding the processing of our commodities in Canada and the development of our industry, we require more and more technicians, far beyond the numbers now being trained. Universities cannot carry on. Fees have increased in several of the universities by from 5 per cent to 11 per cent.
What the Canadian government is doing in these terms is merely touching the outer edge of this responsibility. Last fall they set up a scholarship fund in the national research council which granted some 267 scholarships worth $363,000. Rather, that was the general plan previous to last fall, and there was an increase in that number by 250 summer research scholarships to the value of $200,000. We want to build up in Canada that necessary research army, that scientific corps of trained men. There is no reason why there should be so few scholarships. They do not interfere with provincial rights. That number should be materially increased.

Natural Resources-Development
In addition to that, business should be given encouragement, and companies that come to Canada from outside should be required to provide a certain portion of their earnings for the purpose of research and for the training of research personnel. That is being done in the United States. That has been done in countries in Europe. That today is the purpose of a recent change of front on the part of the U.S.S.R. which, however, goes farther than any of us would wish to go in that it places industrial research and scientific education above any other type of education and denies to a major extent the development of the humanities.
The Globe and Mail of Toronto in March ran a series of articles by Jim Senter in which he set forth in detail the tremendous lack of trained men in Canada, including trained scientists, engineers, electronics technicians and the like. He went on to point out that the army and the air force are short of technical personnel, and that to a lesser degree Canada's defence research board and Atomic Energy of Canada find themselves in a similar situation but not to the same extent as does industry. He also pointed out that in Canada, in the engineering field, in one area to which he made reference approximately one-third of the engineers had come from elsewhere in the world and generally from Europe.
I think one of the main things that can be done today in order to make possible the laying of the foundation for the kind of development the Leader of the Opposition has envisaged as within the capabilities of Canada, would be first to make available the facilities and then train that army of technicians which will be necessary. Then, I repeat, Canadian industries should be encouraged to extend their research facilities by the necessary taxation allowances being provided and companies that come in from the outside, foreign companies, should be required as part of their development to devote a portion of their earnings to the expansion and development of research.
Just one word more, Mr. Speaker. At the beginning I mentioned that the Leader of the Opposition had painted a national picture in which development everywhere would be equalized within natural limitations. I do not want to refer once more to the South Saskatchewan river project, but I say this. Only in the last few days Mr. C. T. Hazen of Saskatoon set out in detail what this great project could achieve in my province. Why does not the government act? It met no opposition from any member of the opposition party. Why should not that project be


a national development? It is one that has received the support of the Leader of the Opposition through the years. It is one that we feel is necessary. It is one more argument in support of those maritime premiers who, meeting yesterday, pointed at the present government of Canada the finger of condemnation for the failure of this government to do that of which the Leader of the Opposition over and over again has stressed the necessity, namely the building up of equal opportunity in all parts of Canada.
Whether it be Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan or British Columbia, the federal authority should be charged with the responsibility of assuring the people living in those areas a reasonable and fair share of the national benefits that for the moment are concentrated to too great an extent in two or three of the Canadian provinces.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, the amendment that has been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition raises a number of important points, and in the speeches which have been made by hon. members opposite in support of this resolution a number of these matters have been dealt with.
I think it is quite obvious to all hon. members that in this resolution and in the speeches that have been made by members of the opposition there is nothing that is new. Everything that has been said or suggested has been said before by the same hon. members or by different hon. members in speeches in this house and in speeches outside this house. The wording and intent sometimes differs, but the basic material is the same.
The speeches of the Leader of the Opposition like those of others who have spoken in support of his amendment, were collections of generalities. This has been pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver South a few minutes ago. The hon. member for Vancouver South showed how, when those generalities are reduced to practical examples, the picture that has been painted in the general statement seems to change. I did not see any hon. member across the floor of the house rise to take up his suggestion that they deal with these individual examples that he gave.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that all these generalities are not supported by the facts of our present economic situation in Canada, nor are they supported by the history of the development of the economy of this country over the past 15 or 20 years. Many of these general statements, when taken alone, could perhaps be agreed with. But when they are put together in the form of a more or less connected speech they create an entirely

wrong and incorrect impression, and it is that impression and that wrong implication that requires an answer.
My purpose in entering this debate is only to deal with one or two of the major points that have been raised by several of the speakers opposite. The amendment itself refers to the adoption now of a national development policy which will do certain things. The Minister of Trade and Commerce in his speech in this house last evening pointed out and proved with facts that there is now an existing policy that is being put into effect by this government that it is achieving in very substantial and satisfactory measure the very purposes which are contained in the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.
This policy is achieving results, as has been proved in a number of fields, and I want to speak of that policy and its results in two important fields. The first is that of research. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned research in a number of places in his speech. As recorded on page 5778 of Hansard of July 9, he spoke of desirable steps to be taken which are necessary to encourage our own management and the expansion of our own affairs. He said this could be done in the important field of industrial research, and he told us of the success achieved in other countries. Then further down the page he went on to speak of university education and research in the universities; and in the next column he spoke of tax deductions that should be permitted to industry in respect of research expenditures, which would encourage our own research in every field.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar also referred to research in his remarks last evening; and the hon. member for Prince Albert, who has just resumed his seat, spoke at some length about the need for research and support of research by the federal government, by provincial governments and in the universities. We have had debates on research in this house in the past, and it is a fact that there has been a very considerable increase in activity and interest in research in Canada over a long period of years.
This increase in activity and interest has accompanied and paralleled the very rapid and satisfactory growth of both our primary and our secondary industries, which was outlined by the Minister of Trade and Commerce last evening. As far as government research is concerned, the federal government is spending this year over $100 million on a wide variety of essential research activities. I am sure it may be said with justice and truth that this represents a per capita expenditure on government research that compares
10, 1956
Natural Resources-Development favourably with similar expenditures in any other country in the world. I think it is also true that the quality of Canadian research and the results achieved fully justify these very large sums of money which have been voted by this parliament and expended by the various agencies and departments of government that exercise responsibility in this field.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the picture will be clearer if I place on Hansard a table prepared from the estimates which summarizes the figures of expenditures on research by the various departments of government. This table indicates that Canadian government research covers a very wide field including the responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, to say nothing of the national research council which is, as hon. members know, the main federal government organization active in the general field of industrial research and pure science. With the permission of the house I shall place this table on Hansard covering the estimated expenditures on research by the federal government for the current fiscal year 1956-57 and for the previous fiscal year 1955-56.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Horace Dickey: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Do these figures include, for example, all the expenditure on Canada's atomic energy program?


John Horace Dickey: Yes; I said they included all the moneys voted by parliament for research, and that is quite clearly set out.


Howard Charles Green: I am asking whether these figures include the total moneys voted for Atomic Energy of Canada, a large portion of which is not research at all.


John Horace Dickey: No. As the hon. member will see from the table, this includes only the $300,000 paid out in the form of grants by the atomic energy control board and the research operations portion of the activities of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited; but that, I think-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. member unanimous consent to place this table on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Horace Dickey: The table is as follows:

Natural Resources-Development



TABLE I


[Stage Direction]
Department or Agency	Fiscal Year 1955-56	Fiscal Year 1956-57	Operations	Capital	Total	Operations	Capital	Totals	$	s	$	$	$Agriculture-	715,074	811,609Animal pathology	657,869	235,685	893,554	96,535	Experimental farms service	9,923,000	1,356,000	11,279,000	9,593,174	2,428,000	12,021,174Science service	8,195,000	1,989,000	10,184,000	7,713,923	2,100,000	9,813,923Atomic Energy-	nil	300,000Control board grants	300,000	nil	300,000	300,000	Research operation, A. E. of C.	22,457,055Ltd	11,226,183	8,176,425	19,402,608	13,743,370	8,713,685	Defence research board	20,101,000	2,799,000	22,900,000	19,854,689	3,280,700	23,135,389Fisheries research board	2,631,000	267,000	2,898,000	2,916,000	689,000	3,605,000Mines and Technical Surveys-	4,230,355Mines branch	2,982,561	756,290	3,738,851	2,979,270	1,251,085	Geological survey	2,394,637	604,000	2,998,637	2,314,954	919,000	3,233,954Dominion observatories	632,083	97,050	729,133	691,512	123,738	815,250National Health and Welfare	527,200	10,300	537,500	616,500	nil	616,500National Research Council	16,300,000	2,470,000	18,770,000	17,697,000	2,818,000	20,515,000Northern Affairs and National Resources-	Forestry branch	1,611,634	1,205,513	2,817,147	1,687,505	1,988,497	3,676,002National museum	175,000	nil	175,000	175,000	nil	175,000Canadian wildlife service	275,880	nil	275,880	267,545	nil	267,545Veterans Affairs	350,000	nil	350,000	375,000	nil	375,000Totals	78,283,047	19,966,263	98,249,310	81,640,516	24,408,240	106,048,756
Hon. members will see from this table that in the fiscal year 1955-56 these estimates totalled $98,249,000 and for the present fiscal year 1956-57 thg total has advanced to $106,048,000. This, I submit, is a very substantial expenditure. This total includes only the expenditures made through estimates presented to and voted on by this parliament. There are other substantial expenditures on research not included in this table; for example, the Canadian National Railways, Polymer Corporation and other crown companies have substantial research programs in their own fields of activity.
In view of what has been said by hon. members opposite, and particularly by the hon. member for Prince Albert, who immediately preceded me in this debate, I should like to say a special word about the very considerable expansion that has taken place in the support given by the federal government to university research in Canada. This support is provided mainly through the agency of the national research council, and the increase has been truly dramatic. The program of scholarships and research grants under the national research council was begun in 1917, and has risen from a few thousand dollars in that year to almost $3
[Mr. DickeyJ
million per year this year. In particular it should be realized by hon. members that the support of university research by the national research council has multiplied by a factor of nearly six since the end of world war II.
The hon. member for Prince Albert demanded expanded scholarships. I am sure that every member in this house would wish to expand scholarships, particularly in the field of science and research, as widely as possible; but we must remember that the progress that can be made in this field is limited by the students available for graduate study and the research facilities available. The program of the national research council has been designed to try to ensure that, as students become available and research facilities are expanded and improved, the necessary support from federal government sources is available for scholarships and research grants.
In this case also it may be convenient for hon. members to give me permission to place on Hansard a table showing the actual expenditures by the national research council on scholarships and research grants from 1917, the year the program was instituted, to 1956, with the addition of the estimates of expenditure on this program for the current fiscal
[Stage Direction]
year 1956-57. This table will, I believe, indicate to hon. members as clearly as it is possible to do the steady and satisfactory growth of university research being carried on in Canada with federal government assistance because these figures, as they rise from $13,000 a year in 1917 to $2,955,000 this year, indicate the vast expansion in research activity being conducted on university campuses right across Canada. If I may have the permission of the house I should like to place this table on Hansard.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member permission to place the table on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Horace Dickey: The table is as follows:



TABLE II

[Stage Direction]
National research council,
Scholarships and research grants, 1917-56
Year	Expenditure
1917-	18	
13,7941918-	19	
36,6801919-	20	
53,4161920-	21	
68,7041921-	22	
62,3421922-	23	
77,0351923-	24	
101,6581924-	25	
93,7821925-	26	
106,2141926-	27	
119,1501927-	28	
154,5911928-	29	
252,5591929-	30	
270,4321930-	31	
238,4591931-	32	
209,3241932-	33	
121,7321933-	34	
205,0891934-	35	
191,6531935-	36	
164,1841936-	37	
192,4951937-	38	
213,6561938-	39	
247,2111939-	40	
369,5591940-	41	
279,4691941-	42	
281,8091942-	43	
267,6181943-	44	
227,6881944-	45	
284,2561945-	46	
307,8911946-	47	
537,0171947-	48	
949,6151948-	49	
1,064,4541949-	50	
1,552,7761950-	51	
1,810,1711951-	52	
1,836,5831952-	53	
2,141,6241953-	54	
2,123,3241954-	55	
2,230,0731955-	56 (Forecast)	
2,400,0001956-	57 (Estimates)	
2,955,000
There is, I believe, no question but that the support of the national research council has over the years been a major factor in the development of university research in Canada. I should also point out that the national research council is by no means the only federal government body which is supporting university research. In the year 195455, for example, support for research carried
Natural Resources-Development out in the universities came not only from the national research council but from the Department of Agriculture, the defence research board, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Department of National Health and Welfare, and to a minor extent from other sources. The amounts of these assistances to university research have not been included in the table I have just placed on the record.
The hon. member for Prince Albert laid some stress on the question of industrial research and the steps that should be taken through taxation policy to assist private companies in engaging in industrial research. The Leader of the Opposition took the same line in his speech yesterday afternoon when he said, as found at page 5778 of Hansard:
Tax deductions should be permitted in respect of research expenditures which will encourage our own research in every field.
I find it difficult to understand just how hon. members opposite, in the light of the law as it exists in Canada today, can suggest that this is not being done, in as full a measure as it is done in any other country of the world and in fuller measure than it is done in most countries. The hon. member for Prince Albert said during his speech that we should allow write-offs of research expenditures by industry, and he said we did not do it. That, Mr. Speaker, is just not the law. The law in Canada today with respect to the allowance of research expenditures by private industry is that in so far as current expenditures are concerned expenditures on research are allowed as deductions up to 100 per cent of those expenditures. How anything further could be done than providing a 100 per cent immediate allowance I am unable to imagine.
It is true that the expenditures made must be on a research program approved by the Department of National Revenue, but the regulations and the administration of those regulations are such that any research program even vaguely connected with the industry in which the particular company is engaged or the business that it is carrying on can be an approved project and the expenditures certified for complete write-off in the year of expenditure.
With respect to capital expenditures, which are also a very important consideration in connection with assistance to private firms engaged in industrial research, there is provision for the accelerated write-off of cost of both buildings and equipment, excluding the value of any land involved, over a three-year period. In other words, a company which wishes to do research is permitted to write off its full expense on current account each year 100 per cent, and if the building of any facilities or the provision of any
[Stage Direction]
Natural Resources-Development equipment of a capital nature are required they have accelerated depreciation which permits them to write off those expenses in three years. How hon. members opposite, in the face of that, can suggest that this country is not giving very substantial and effective assistance to companies interested and anxious to go into research projects, I cannot possibly imagine.
The second point with which I should like to deal is one which has been dealt with very briefly by the Leader of the Opposition, in more detail by the hon. member for Royal last evening, and again to some extent by the hon. member for Prince Albert this afternoon. What has been said draws attention to the necessity of the federal authority taking reasonable steps, the best steps that are possible, to assist all portions of this country to develop their economic life on a basis which is fair and equal with the development going on in other parts of the country. Obviously it would be impossible to achieve complete equality of development in a country so diverse as Canada. But it is in this particular field that I think can best be demonstrated the truth of the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce last evening when he said that we have in effect now policies which are doing everything the Leader of the Opposition had in mind in placing his amendment before the house.
The suggestion has been repeated as a generality, but without any attempt to discuss facts or to establish the general statement by facts, that the government is doing nothing to assist the economy of the Atlantic provinces, for instance, in their development in order to try to level out any inequalities there may be there. Let us deal with the Atlantic provinces and the various federal government assistance programs that are being carried out in that area. I say "are being carried out". These are not vague generalities or promises, as are the suggestions made by hon. members opposite. These are actual programs on which money is being spent and through which achievements are being made.
Last night the hon. member for Royal, for example, spoke of the coal industry as one of the basic industries of the maritime provinces, particularly in the province of Nova Scotia. There are federal government assistance programs in effect and being carried out at the present time to assist the coal industry. There are not just one or two programs; they are five in number.
The first one is the transportation subvention on coal movements which is intended to overcome to some extent the handicap of coal mines far removed from the main markets in Ontario and Quebec. This program

was instituted in 1928 and has been in effect ever since. The expenditures under that program are of a substantial magnitude. For example, in the fiscal year of 1954-55 alone the expenditures under this subvention program for mines in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were $8,764,000. Over the period of the whole program from 1929 to 1955 the total amount expended under this program in the two coal producing provinces of the maritimes amounted to $56,066,000.
The second program is the subsidy payments on coal used in the manufacture of iron and steel. This program is designed to place Canadian coal used in the manufacture of iron and steel on a basis of equality with imported coal. These payments have only been made in Nova Scotia, because that is the only Atlantic province in which basic steel is produced. In the fiscal year 1954-55 those payments amounted to $224,000. Since they were instituted in 1931 up to the end of 1955 the total amount paid has been $6,914,000.
The third program provides coal production subsidies, loans and rentals, intended to extend financial assistance with a view to increasing the production of coal in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick mines. This was carried on from 1942 to 1947, the period of this program, with total expenditures amounting to $31,883,000.
The fourth program is coal production assistance, which was instituted to make longterm loans totalling $10 million to operators for the purpose of increasing efficiency of production through expanded and modernized mechanization. This has been in effect since 1949. The total expenditure under that program from 1949 to 1955 in the two maritime provinces has been $8,362,000.
Finally there is an export subsidy program which was brought into effect in 1955 to extend financial assistance in respect of coal from Nova Scotia being shipped outside of Canada during the period June 1, 1955, to March 31, 1956. This program has since been extended. The expenditures under that original program undertaken last year in co-operation with the government of Nova Scotia amounted to $300,000.
Mr. Speaker, that, very briefly, is a description of the actual assistance that has been given by this government to one of the basic industries in the maritime provinces to achieve the very effects of which hon. members opposite are talking. These are not promises. These are not suggestions of what might be done at some future time. Those are actual

programs which hon. members opposite obviously either did not know about or were unwilling to admit in their speeches last night and today.
Let us look a little further than the coal industry. There are two programs of a general nature which are of great value to the maritime provinces. The first is the steamship subvention for coastal services. This is to provide a payment to contractors for service between designated ports in the maritime provinces. This program is not as important as it used to be in some provinces, but over the period 1948 to 1955 the total payments on these steamship service subsidies in the three maritime provinces amounted to $4,644,000. In order to show the importance of this particular program to one of the Atlantic provinces, may I say that these steamship subsidies for Newfoundland in 1954-55 totalled $2 million and the total subsidies paid since 1951 and including 1955 amounted to $8,279,000 for that single province.
Then there is the freight assistance under the Maritime Freight Rates Act. This program is to provide for a reduction of 20 per cent on all rates charged on traffic which originates or terminates in the designated area, which is the maritime area. This was brought into effect under the Maritime Freight Rates Act in 1927. The expenditures for the Atlantic region in the year 1954-55 amounted to $10,590,000, and for the period 1946 to 1955 totalled $77,542,000 for this one program alone. I did not hear the hon. member for Royal mention that program in his speech last night.
The hon. member may be interested in the fishing industry. There are seven programs of assistance supported by the federal government for the fishing industry in the maritime provinces. The first is the fish bounty, most maritime members know about that. It is to aid the development of the sea fisheries of Canada, to encourage the building and fitting of fishing vessels and the improvement of working conditions for the fishermen. In the maritime provinces for the year 1954-55, $120,000 was spent on this program, and from 1946 to 1955 a total of $1,161,000 was spent.
Then there is assistance under the baits service which assists in making supplies of bait available to fishermen. This applies to Newfoundland, and since 1949 the payments made have amounted to $1,019,000.
There is a bounty program for the destruction of harbour seals to protect the fisheries, on which payments have been made since 1946 amounting to $95,000. There is a program of educational services for fishermen
Natural Resources-Development to provide for educational work in cooperative producing and selling amongst fishermen, on which the expenditure has been $459,000 since 1946. There is an annual vote of the Department of Fisheries for industrial development to provide technical services to fishermen and the fishing industry in the maritime provinces. Since 1948 and including 1955 this has cost $658,000, and for Newfoundland from 1953 to 1955, $88,000. Finally there is a program for the construction of bait freezing and storage facilities on which the expenditure in the maritime provinces from 1949 to 1955 has been $101,000.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit that these are important programs of assistance. These are intended to build up the basic industries of the Atlantic provinces, and these are programs that are in effect and achieving results.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman? I wish to remind the hon. member that my complaint in my remarks last night was regarding markets for our products. I admit these small matters are important.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, on the question of markets, the success in marketing fishery products over the last five years has been outstanding, I believe, and I cannot think of any surplus of fish that has not found a market today, last year or in the last two or three years. We did have some difficulty about two years ago with lack of markets in the West Indies and in Europe for salt fish, but at the present time-I stand subject to correction-my understanding is that there is no fish production that has not found a ready market.


James Sinclair: That is quite correct.


John Horace Dickey: Let us look at one of the other basic industries, namely agriculture. There are no fewer than nine federal government assistance programs for agriculture in the maritime provinces. First of all there is assistance in reclaiming and developing the marshlands of the maritime provinces. This was started in 1946 under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, and since 1946 in the three maritime provinces expenditures of $4,127,000 have been made.
There is the agricultural lime assistance program, a policy of which the importance to agriculture, in the province of Nova Scotia at least, cannot be exaggerated. These payments are to assist the provincial governments in promoting the increased use of lime on acid soils. The total assistance under this program in the maritime provinces since 1946 has amounted to $1,369,000.

Natural Resources-Development
There is the program of freight assistance on western feed grains shipped into eastern Canada as feed for livestock and poultry. The recent development of both the livestock and poultry industries, certainly in my county of Halifax, is directly dependent upon this excellent program which, from 1946 to 1954, in the maritime provinces has involved the expenditure of a total of $26,339,000 by the federal government, and since it has become effective in Newfoundland from 1950 to 1954 the expenditure of $1,625,000 in that province.
Then there is the assistance to cheese factories under the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act, which has been very important particularly in the province of Prince Edward Island. The expenditures under that act from 1946 to 1954 amounted to $40,000, with an additional $86,000 to assist in amalgamating cheese factories into larger and more economical units.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the hon. member a question? Do the matters of assistance on feed grains and to those cheese factories not apply to all of eastern Canada, Ontario and Quebec, just the same as it does to the maritime provinces?


John Horace Dickey: That is correct.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There is no special benefit.


John Horace Dickey: As a matter of fact, if the hon. member had been paying attention and if he will check Hansard, he will see that as far as feed assistance is concerned I said that it applied to eastern Canada, and that is correct; but it is of much greater benefit, both relatively and actually, to the maritime provinces than it is to any other part of Canada that gets this assistance. After all, the argument that the hon. member was putting up was that he wanted equality of treatment. If he is going to suggest that programs that can be useful to agriculture in the central provinces should not be applied to those provinces but restricted to the maritimes, I think he is forgetting about his argument on equality of treatment.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member had better get the opinion of the four premiers meeting in Fredericton.


John Horace Dickey: The four premiers can look after themselves.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They certainly can.


John Horace Dickey: They have their responsibilities.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They do not say we are getting equal treatment.


John Horace Dickey: The hon. member has his responsibility not to mislead the house and the country the way he did last night.


George Harris Hees: Nonsense; and the way you are right now.


John Horace Dickey: I am giving the hon. member for Broadview and anybody else who is listening the facts, not some general statements that cannot be supported.


George Harris Hees: What the hon. member is doing is preaching a sermon. Will the hon. member tell us who wrote his speech for him?


John Horace Dickey: The next program is the program of assistance on hog carcasses, which has resulted in payments in the maritime provinces from 1944 to 1954 totalling $1,970,000.
Then there is the assistance program in the removal of apple trees, which was designed to assist in the removal of ancient and less desirable trees in the Annapolis valley. Under that program from 1943 to 1952, when the program came to an end, we made expenditures of $2,163,000, and no one in the Annapolis valley of Nova Scotia will gainsay the advantage of that program to that area of the country.
Then there is assistance in the construction of cold storage warehouses, under the Cold Storage Act. That program has resulted in the expenditure in the maritime provinces from 1948 to 1954 of $489,000.
Then there is assistance under the Canadian farm loan board, which is, of course, an act of a general application similar in nature to those mentioned earlier by the hon. member who interrupted. The expenditures under the act have amounted to $4,401,000. In addition there have been loans for farm improvements under the Farm Improvement Loans Act amounting to $14,092,000 in the maritime provinces from 1945 to 1954. I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and list three other important programs in the field of forestry and the assistance given under the general health grants and other matters, but I think I have placed on Hansard sufficient facts to give the hon. member for Royal and a number of others some reason to reconsider the kind of statements they make in this house.
We are not going to solve problems of an economic nature in any part of this country by trying to make things look worse than they are. It is not facing the facts to suggest that this government is not undertaking policies that are designed to give assistance and that are having good results in bringing about the very things the Leader of the Opposition stated in his amendment. My purpose has been to point out very briefly some of the assistance programs that are in effect in the Atlantic provinces.

The programs I have described are current programs designed to give practical assistance to the basic industries, such as coal mining, fishing and agriculture, in the Atlantic provinces area. That is the kind of practical, effective assistance that can bring and is bringing results. I have not mentioned, and I will not take time to mention, the capital developments that have been carried out by this government, such as the construction and acquisition of auto ferry vessels serving the four Atlantic provinces, providing essential transportation services by connecting them, the ferry services to Prince Edward Island, to Newfoundland, and the Bar Harbor-Yarmouth ferry service which has come into effect this year, the cost of such projects as the strait of Canso causeway, which was a great and important development, the contributions that are being made under the Trans-Canada Highway Act to assist in highway construction in the Atlantic provinces. To no province in this country is the trans-Canada highway assistance of more importance and more benefit than to the province of Newfoundland.


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


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker we have had quite a survey of the industrial development, or lack of development, depending on the point of view, that obtains in Canada. As often happens when I listen to a discussion of this sort I am constrained to wonder if perhaps we do not frequently confuse means and ends. For instance, whenever I pass a particularly large pulp and paper plant in my own constituency, one of the largest in Canada, there is always a question arising in my mind as to just what is the purpose of that particular industrial development. Beyond providing jobs for a certain number of people I must admit I am sometimes in doubt as to whether there is any social purpose at all behind that institution.
I believe when we come to consider the question of the industrial development of Canada we should be asking ourselves not merely how large is that development, not merely how well are we employing our natural resources, but we should also be asking ourselves something else and that is, what is the purpose of our industrial development. As I said, I believe that today we tend to confuse means and ends; we tend to accept as ends industrial development which by the nature of things can only be the means to some real and valuable end.
I do not quite know how one would express that end. Perhaps each individual has his
10, 1956	5829
Natural Resources-Development own definition of it. Possibly the expression "the good life" might be as good a definition as any of the end of social organization and industrial development, for industrial development provides us with the material basis for that good life. I am not for a moment underestimating the extreme importance of that development, but it only provides one of the ingredients of what I think most of us would consider to be the good life.
I would remind hon. members that there have been other systems of society which have had varying degrees of success in industrial development. We have all heard of the success of the late unlamented Adolf Hitler in Germany and we all know, of course, that Mussolini made the trains in Italy run on time. In recent months we have heard a great deal about the industrial success now being achieved in the Soviet union. In each of these instances I have cited there has been brought to the nth degree that confusion of ends and means which I feel afflicts us too in some measure; for while industrial development provides the material basis for the good life for free men and women, it does no more; and as the instances I have cited suggest, if left unchecked by other developments in society it may very well develop into weapons which will more effectively destroy freedom than an underdeveloped economy would be able to do.
Now, to seek the basis for the other aspects of the good life for free men and women we have to look at other institutions and other developments in our society; and I submit, sir, that the basis for the most valuable part of the good life is to be found in the type of social and political institutions under which people live. Here in Canada the fundamental basis of that good life is to be found right in this chamber of the House of Commons, because here in the hands of the 265 members of the Canadian commons rests ultimately complete power over the lives and fortunes of the Canadian people. While it is easy enough for us to take the position that those who now exercise power through the medium of this institution have in their minds and hearts no desire and no intention to infringe on the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens, we must also bear in mind the fact that precedents and habits and procedures that are developed in this chamber may at a later stage in our history be used by men with definite intentions to infringe on the freedom, rights and liberties of the Canadian people.
Things have been happening in this chamber of late, sir, that raise some very grave doubts in our minds, doubts as to whether
5830	HOUSE OF
Natural Resources-Development this vast industrial power about which we heard so much from the Minister of Trade and Commerce last night may not in the future be used as a weapon of oppression rather than a tool for enhancing and expanding individual liberties and freedoms among the Canadian people. I have on previous occasions suggested that this House of Commons is but a frail barrier protecting the freedom and democratic rights of the Canadian people. It is the best we have, but it must be handled with great care and delicacy, and I think it is not too much to say that within recent days and weeks events have taken place in this chamber that have seriously corrupted this vital, central organ of democratic freedom in Canada.
A week ago yesterday the presiding officer of this chamber, for reasons that he considered good and sufficient-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would confine his remarks to the amendment about which we are speaking. It seems to me that in the last few minutes his remarks have wandered somewhat far afield, and at one point he almost reflected on a vote which had previously taken place in the house.


Colin Cameron: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to you that I am suggesting there is very little use of our discussing the industrial and economic development of Canada if we have not simultaneously as much attention and regard for the institutions that protect the freedoms and rights of Canadian citizens. On that basis, sir, with all due respect I suggest that my remarks are in order.


Pierre Gauthier: You are not in
order.


An hon. Member:: It would be something new for you.


Colin Cameron: There has been some doubt lately as to who was going to be the Speaker of the house-


Pierre Gauthier: You go ahead and be Speaker.


Colin Cameron: -as we find out now from an unlucky candidate.


An hon. Member:: You are the least worried in this house about democracy.


Colin Cameron: I submit, sir, that I am in order to discuss the whole framework of Canadian society in which our industrial development is taking place.


Pierre Gauthier: You are not.


Colin Cameron: A vital section of the framework of that society is the conduct


of this central organ of democracy within the Canadian nation. If you wish to rule me out of order at this point, sir, I shall take my seat and raise this matter later as a grievance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I feel that we are limited by the terms of the amendment which is before us. I do not propose to read the entire amendment, but in the main it deals with the development of the natural resources of this country, and I feel that discussion of extraneous matters is, of course, out of order.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the speech made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce last night and by the manner in which he read it. He admitted, of course, at the beginning that it was a scissors job. At page 5795 of Hansard I find this statement:
.	.	. I am meeting a prepared speech with a
speech I have attempted to put together with scissors, largely from speeches I have made over a period outside this house.
Obviously that speech was based on the product of one or more ghost writers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: By what right does my hon. friend draw that conclusion? I mentioned speeches I had made outside the house. If he is going to talk about ghost writers, I myself can mention a few that are active on the other side.


William Earl Rowe: But he is doing the speaking right now.


Howard Charles Green: I have the floor at the moment. I repeat that it is perfectly obvious that the speech which the minister read was a patchwork of speeches.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As was the one
which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) read.


Howard Charles Green: That may have been so. As I said, there is no doubt that the speech which the minister read was a patchwork of speeches read by the minister elsewhere at different times, and it contains some real highlights. For example, one was his attempt to paint the wonders of Canada's having an adverse balance of trade with the United States. That was something new, I am sure, in the annals of this house; yet the minister tried very hard to make out a case for that point. As reported at page 5796 of Hansard he explained that there was this adverse balance and then he went on to say this:
In fact, for most countries a current deficit of the same relative magnitude as that now being encountered by Canada would mean serious trouble.

But in the following paragraph he has this to say:
In Canada's present circumstances, however, this deficit is not a reflection of weakness but of strength , . .
And a little further on he added this:
I am astonished when I listen to criticism of the current trade deficit, which is so essential to our current phase of expansion and development.
Those remarks, Mr. Speaker, make one wonder whether it is not time that the minister had a new battery of economists advising him. Certainly, if he is right, all the economists in the country are wrong. 1 merely pointed out these statements to show how little value can be placed on many of the statements made by the minister last night.
Then he had another statement to make. It is to be found at page 5801 of Hansard. There he was trying to minimize the extent to which United States capital has been invested in Canada and he pointed out that on a per capita basis Canadians have more money invested in the United States than have Americans in Canada. It sounded like a good plausible argument until one began to read it; and then one could see clearly why it is said that statistics can prove anything. Here we have two countries and there are 15 times as many Americans as there are Canadians. Yet the minister argued that, because the average per capita of Canadian money invested in the United States was greater than the average per capita of United States money invested in Canada, there was therefore no problem. He almost tried to make us believe that Canada was taking over the United States rather than the opposite.
Then in the positive way in which the minister read this speech he once again- as he usually does-tried to make us and the country believe that black is white. But he never quite convinces himself because he always comes in with an addendum, namely that even if black is not white, we ought to consider ourselves lucky that we have black. In that spirit last night he tried to ram quite large quantities of gobbledygook down our throats.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition merited a good deal more substantial consideration than was given to it by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). This amendment sets out one of the long-term policies for Canada of the Conservative party and it was brought forth because we believe in the policy that is to be found in that amendment. I propose to read it again. It is as follows:
This house is of the opinion that the welfare of the Canadian people requires the adoption now 67509-370J
10, 1956	5831
Natural Resources-Development
of a national development policy which will develop our natural resources for the maximum benefit of all parts of Canada, encourage more processing of those resources in Canada, correct the present serious unfavourable trade balances, foster wider financial participation by Canadians in the development of our resources, and promote greater opportunity and employment for a steadily increasing population.
Our objective in that policy would be to make Canada one of the great nations of the world. We believe that is her destiny. We suggest that this policy gives the Canadian people a vision of what this nation can be. We believe that a national development policy -and I stress the word "national" without any apology-if pursued vigorously, would enthuse and inspire Canadians of all ages and would make that vision come true. I suggest to the minister that the Canadian people are not getting much inspiration from any policy or any kind of leadership that has been given by this government in recent months.
In considering this policy I think we should first review Canada's position today-in July, 1956-89 years after confederation. In my opinion here are some of the factors which are of vital importance to a consideration of future Canadian policy. The first is that Canada is still overshadowed by her great and friendly neighbour, the United States. This has been so since confederation and it has been necessary for public men to recognize that fact throughout the whole history of Canada and to adopt policies to counteract it in so far as it was possible to do so. Let us consider confederation itself. One of the main reasons there ever was a Canada was this overshadowing by the United States. Then consider the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. That construction took place almost entirely in order that Canada's boundaries might be stretched right out to the-Pacific ocean rather than having the whole northwestern part of the continent become a part of the United States. Today the situation is just the same-namely that we are overshadowed by our great neighbour-and it, probably will be the same for many generations in the future.
Then the second factor, which is vital in my opinion, is that this neighbour is depleting its national resources, and at a much greater rate than the Americans had ever anticipated. In the course of this debate several references have been made to what is known as the Paley report. As the minister knows, that is a report made by what was called the materials policy commission set up by the President of the United States a few years ago. I believe they reported to him in the year 1952.

Natural Resources-Development
I have here an interview with Mr. Paley conducted by the editors of the U. S. News and World Report and contained in the edition of that magazine for August 15, 1952. I propose to read two or three paragraphs because they focus attention on the findings made by Mr. Paley and his fellow commissioners. One answer he gave in this interview was as follows:
A. As a nation we have crossed the great industrial divide. We used to produce more raw materials than we used, but now we are using more than we produce. And this is not a temporary situation. In 1950, we had to import about ten per cent of the raw materials we used, and they cost about 900 million in prewar dollars. We estimate that by 1975 we may have to import about three times as much.
Then he was asked:
Q. Then, the days of ''self-sufficiency'', as you see it, that for generations we have felt that we had, are over?
A. Yes. Our technical people figured that even if we had what we started with-all the materials that were in this country to begin with-it still wouldn't be enough for another 25 years of growing at the rate we've maintained for the last half century.
Another question was this:
Q. What are the principal commodities that are in an unsatisfactory condition today?
A. If you want to get dramatic about it, you could talk about the additive alloys-cobalt, columbium, and such materials as high-grade quartz crystals, mica and industrial diamonds- those materials for which we are largely or completely dependent on foreign supply. But the thing that bothers me most is the lessening adequacy of low-cost supplies of the staples, such as iron, copper, zinc, petroleum, lumber, water for industries, and so forth.
This means that the United States will look more and more to Canada for raw materials in the days that lie ahead, and therefore there will be a more rapid depletion of our own resources than there would otherwise have been. I use minerals as an illustration. There will certainly be a far more rapid depletion of our minerals by reason of this great need which has arisen in the United States. Canada too has a lesson to learn from the Paley report. A few months after it was published, the Bank of Montreal dealt with the question in its monthly Business Review for November 20, 1952, and had this to say:
The commission's policy suggestions and recommendations are, of course, directed to the United States administration. But for Canada the moral is clear. We may reasonably hope to benefit richly over the short and middle term from the colossal appetite for materials of our neighbour to the south;
In my judgment, that is the policy that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is working on. The bank review goes on to say:
__and we may rejoice in our wealth of resources
and our timely capital expansion program. Yet, if the trend is toward an age of scarcity that can
[Mr. Green.l

only be averted by major technological developments, we too may be well advised to do some serious stocktaking for the longer range in the midst of our apparent plenty. For, in the words of the commission, "the consumption of almost all materials is expanding at compound rates and is thus pressing harder and harder against resources which whatever else they may be doing, are not similarly expanding."
Then the third factor in Canada's position today, which is very material, I believe, is this. Our friendly neighbour-and no one questions the wonderful friendliness between the Americans and the Canadians-is unwilling to let Canadian products interfere with the United States home market. I need only mention farm products. Time and again in the past few years we have had moves made by the Americans which have affected our sale to them of farm products, and those moves have been taken on the basis that it was not right to their own countrymen to allow our farm products to take the United States home market. Just last week they made a similar move with regard to a mineral, and I refer to nickel. I have here a dispatch of July 5, just five days ago, from Washington:
The United States is trying to free itself from dependence on Canada for its nickel supplies.
The article goes on to say that already some success is being achieved in reaching that objective.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Should my hon. friend not be pleased with that situation, according to his theory of saving our natural resources? The United States is also worried about excessive imports of lead and zinc; perhaps those metals would fit in too.


Howard Charles Green: I am not quarrelling with the Americans. I tell the minister this, and I hope he will remember, that the reason why the United States is the most powerful nation in the world today is that that nation adopted the policy we are advocating in our amendment. The article has this to say:
This desire to become independent of Canadian supplies, these officials say, forms one of the primary aims of a new nickel-purchasing policy announced recently by the office of defence mobilization, the United States government agency charged with stockpiling essential war materials.
Then it points out that Americans are planning to speed up production of nickel, and there is this further paragraph:
The ODM proposes to achieve that increase by offering to buy nickel from all suppliers on a contract basis at a firm price of 64J cents a pound, which is about the current market price,-
Here is a point the government of Canada might note.
-and by offering tax concessions to United States producers who undertake to expand production.

Since Canadian producers would not be eligible for the tax concessions, the program obviously favours domestic United States mines.
Then it goes on to point out that Canadian nickel mines are concentrated in a few centres and are therefore very vulnerable to hostile attack. Then there is this report:
At the same time, other sources report that administration circles for some time have been unhappy about a long-standing situation which leaves the United States dependent on one country-even so friendly a neighbour as Canada- for the bulk of its supplies of so strategic a mineral as nickel.
The new program, besides seeking to stimulate domestic output, apparently is aimed at encouraging American firms to build plants to process low-grade ore from Cuba. They could obtain the tax benefits by setting up processing plants in the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Fine.


Howard Charles Green: Why try to delude ourselves? This has been, is now and will be the basic policy in the United States. As I have said, it is because of that basic policy that they have built such a powerful nation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Thus they will not be stripping us of metals.


An hon. Member:: Sure they will.


Howard Charles Green: There is no doubt they will be getting all the nickel they want from Canada in addition to getting it from these other sources. The fourth factor which should be considered by Canadians today is this. The Canadian government has been concentrating on trade with the United States. Last year 60 per cent of our exports went to the United States and 73 per cent of our imports came from that country. In this connection we must always remember that we are importing from the United States goods which are far more highly processed than the goods we are sending to them. The very heavy adverse trade balance does not seem to be worrying the minister at all. In fact, he gave us the impression last night that he was very pleased that Canada had such a large adverse trade balance with the United States. To point up the extent of our adverse trade balance I should like to refer to a dispatch I have here of July 6, just four days ago, which has this to say with respect to the importation of consumer goods:
The main rise was from the United States, Canada's top customer and chief source of her imports. Canada's trade deficit with the United States continued to rise to new heights.
Farther on in the article there is the following:
The great imbalance was with the U.S. Exports to the U.S. rose by some $40 million in May-
In one month.
-to $261,700,000-
10. 1956
Natural Resources-Development
For the first five months of this year.
-while imports increased by almost $90 million to $404,100,000. . . . For the first five months the Canadian deficit in American trade almost doubled to $625 million from $352,800,000.
The Canadian Statistical Review for June of this year, which we received yesterday, points out on page 4 that the deficit on current account for the first quarter of this year was at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of approximately $1-2 billion. If these adverse balances go on for the rest of the year they will aggregate over $1 billion for the whole twelve months which, as the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) reminds me, will be an all-time record.
The fifth factor which should be considered by Canadians is this. In the last ten years Canada-this has very little to do with any activities by the government-has been discovering raw materials to a far greater extent than at any other time since confederation; oil, natural gas, iron ore, reserves of copper, nickel, uranium, titanium and so on down the list. These discoveries have improved our economy immeasurably. I happened to run across an old advertisement the other day which was published by the government in 1947 when restrictions were placed on trade with the United States. Here is an advertisement headed, "This Is An Emergency-Let's Treat it as Such." The advertisement goes on to say:
Canada is heavily "in the red" in present trading with the U.S. dollar area.
She was not one-half as much in the red as she is now.
In our total trade with the world we are in a good position but not in that part which is done with the U.S. dollar countries.
There is a picture of an oil barrel, a coal scuttle, a bale of cotton and a steel rail, and there are these words:
To keep our industries humming, our living standard high, we need petroleum, coal, cotton, steel and similar essential things.
Our position with regard to at least some of these commodities has greatly improved in the meantime. I realize that the minister said we are still importing as much oil but we are producing a great deal more than we did then. We are to get natural gas and it will be replacing coal to some extent. We have also had the huge discoveries of iron ore. By the way, we should always remember that none of these resources being dug out or pumped out of our soil are inexhaustible. These discoveries have opened wider opportunities for Canadians than we have ever had before, and that very fact alone merits reconsideration of the long-term policy of Canada with regard to future development.

Natural Resources-Development
There are obviously two main roads this country can take in the future. I admit at once that it is largely a matter of emphasis. No matter what government is in power, that government will not be able to follow one narrowly confined policy. It is a matter of emphasis. The first road is to continue concentrating on trade with the United States and to stress the export of raw materials. That is the policy this government is following today. I will not say that they are not doing something about processing materials here. They are, but they are not placing as much emphasis on that type of activity as a Conservative government would do. The Liberal emphasis is on exporting raw materials, and that has been the case right down since the time of confederation, as well as their policy of concentrating on trade with the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would my hon. friend think it is a mistake to exchange raw materials? I would remind him that at the present time the exchange is very much in our favour. We get far more raw materials from the United States than we sell to the United States.


Howard Charles Green: That was another phony argument the minister made last night. He of course left out of his figuring all the commodities that are only processed to a very small degree.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Such as what?


Howard Charles Green: Some of the ways in which logs are treated, for example. In that way he arrived at these favourable figures, which in my opinion meant very little.
The other main road which the people of this country can follow is to strive to process more of our raw materials at home and to diversify our trade, in particular to give more attention to trade with the commonwealth. We do not say for a minute that no raw materials must be exported. The member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) based most of his speech on that thesis, which of course was completely wrong. We would follow this second road, and therefore it is from that thinking that we have devised this national policy.
I come back to the terms of that policy. We advocate a national development policy which will develop our natural resources for the maximum benefit of all parts of Canada and encourage more processing in Canada. In effect what it means is this: we would try to get the maximum return from our own Canadian resources for the Canadian people.
I come now to British Columbia and I will show how that policy would apply there. We


have in British Columbia and the Yukon a body known as the British Columbia and Yukon chamber of mines. They made a submission to the Gordon commission in December of last year which contained this paragraph-


Jean Lesage: Do you rely completely on this association?


Howard Charles Green: I think the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) has got enough problems in settling what is to be done about power on the Columbia river without trying to interrupt my speech.


Jean Lesage: I would not rely on you.


Howard Charles Green: The organization had this to
say:
We think every effort should be made to encourage establishment of more manufacturing plants in Canada, including those that utilize as their raw materials products obtained from the mines. This would put Canada in the position of not being so dependent upon foreign markets for sale of her mineral production.
At the present time, nearly all of this province's extensive output of such important metals as lead, zinc, copper, iron ore and asbestos, are shipped to manufacturing centres in other parts of the world. An aggressive policy of encouraging new manufacturing industries in Canada, in addition to a continuing program of research, would undoubtedly develop local markets for many of our mineral products.
I can see no reason why other countries would not be just as anxious to get our minerals in the form of ingots, rods, sheets or wires or at least in a semi-processed form as they are to get them at the present time in the raw state.
In British Columbia we have comparatively small deposits of iron ore. We have been trying for years to bring about the establishment of a steel industry. The minister and I have exchanged words on that subject more than once. When I pointed out to him that this iron ore was being dug out and shipped in the raw state in Japanese ships to Japan, and we were buying back the semi-finished product in the form of steel at greatly increased prices, the minister said, "Well, it is a good thing to get the mine developed."


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said nothing of the kind. I said I had no authority to stop it. The reason I had no authority to stop it was that the opposition prevented me from passing legislation which would permit me to do so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thank heaven for the opposition!


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not make any attempt to stop it when he had the authority. I believe he has authority to stop it under the Export and Import Permits Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You had better read the act again.


Howard Charles Green: The minister does not want to do anything about it; that is the trouble. Bast night he spoke about iron ore and the fact we were producing so much we had to export most of it. That is not the position on the west coast at all, although it may be in the eastern part of Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does my hon. friend challenge my statement that I have no authority to stop this export.


Howard Charles Green: Certainly.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, you are quite mistaken.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me time for all these interruptions by the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But not for provoked interruptions.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, don't you pop up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not take up as much time as the hon. gentleman.


Howard Charles Green: Your interruptions are not very impressive, and I would advise you to keep out of this debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman has anything to say about immigration, I will reply to him.


Howard Charles Green: So farms iron ore is concerned, the minister is evidently interested only in selling this abroad.


Jean Lesage: You had better talk to Mr. Duplessis about that. Ask the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) about it.


Howard Charles Green: I am getting a lot of help here, but unfortunately it is not much good. I should like to read to the minister an extract from a speech made by Dr. Hume with regard to the processing of iron ore in Canada. This speech was made on March 9, 1953. He said:
No one needs to minimize the difficulties of research directed towards the processing of this ore to the pig iron stage at or close to the point of origin.
He was referring to the Quebec-Labrador ore.
But perhaps a really concentrated effort on the part of Canadian metallurgists and scientists would seem important at the present not only to investigate much more fully possible methods of treatment but if present methods are totally unsuited to conditions as we have them, to devise new methods, an accomplishment surely not beyond Canadian inventive capacities.
Then he said:
It is suggested as not beyond the possibilities of our research scientists to find ways and means in
Natural Resources-Development Canada to utilize electric power and iron ore occurring together in the same area to at least effect a partial processing which would be of immense benefit to this country. The Ontario research foundation has been doing excellent work on the study of iron and our mines branch at Ottawa has a number of scientists well versed in the technology of treatment of all kinds of ores. Thus well directed efforts might accomplish much toward reducing our iron ore to the metal before shipment outside Canada . . .
It is not my intention to advocate extreme views in this regard but even a partial solution would bring great additional wealth to this country and show that we are capable of handling our heritage for the welfare of our nation with not only great credit to ourselves but perhaps by discovering new processes we might bestow great benefits on mankind as well.
And then he said:
There is no reason, however, to hesitate to tackle the problem because it is hard and with hundreds of millions of tons of iron ore in sight with mining on a large scale assured for many years a success promises rich rewards nationally.
Then just this year Mr. P. E. Cavanagh, director of metallurgy of the Ontario research foundation, had this to say:
... it appears certain that most of this iron ore will be exported to the United States and Europe.
In this situation it is proper for us to consider means of converting some or all of this Canadian ore into semi-finished or finished products here in Canada. Several proposals for establishing new steel industries in Canada to use large tonnages of this iron ore have already been advanced.
So much for iron ore, Mr. Speaker. Then another example is in the production of heavy water. Canada's whole atomic program is based on the use of heavy water. We are giving a reactor to India and we hope to sell reactors to other nations based on heavy water. For some years there was a plant manufacturing heavy water at Trail. It is true it was owned by the United States but Canadians learned how to manufacture heavy water there. A few months ago that plant was closed and now Canada gets all her heavy water from Savannah, Georgia, the only heavy water plant on this continent. Talk about concentration of nickel and the dangers of concentration-there is the only heavy water plant and this Canadian government has apparently made no attempt whatever to have heavy water produced in this country. We are going to require a great deal of it in the future with new reactors and with the development that takes place, but no move has been made to produce our own heavy water. I might go on to deal with other products, other resources, but my time is running out. I think those will suffice as an illustration of what we have in mind.
Then, the amendment mentions the correction of the present serious unfavourable trade balance. If we process our own resources to a greater degree, that of course would go
5836	HOUSE OF
Natural Resources-Development some way towards meeting this problem of an adverse balance. I suggest also that we should stop this bowing to Washington at all times. This course has been followed by this government ever since the end of the second war. They hurriedly adopted United States arms for our defence forces to just as great a degree as they possibly could. This attitude has been carried on ever since.
The other day the minister announced the changes that had been made in the GATT agreement. He pointed out that the United States had made concessions to Canada, and that they had benefited and that we had benefited. The Montreal Gazette punched a hole in that argument very neatly when they said that concessions on an equal basis would be all right if our trade were anything like on an equal basis, but it is not. Before the government starts cheering too loudly about getting equal concessions from the United States under GATT, I suggest that they should take into consideration some way of bringing trade between the two countries more nearly into balance.
At the same time as there has been this bowing and scraping to Washington, we have had an indifference towards commonwealth preferences. Of course, these preferences were fought tooth and nail by the Liberals in 1932. That party, now in power as the government, had no use for them. The former minister of national defence expressed the attitude of the government very clearly when he was questioned in the house about preferences on October 12, 1949, and the late Tommy Church asked him this question at page 705 of Hansard:
May I say to the hon. gentleman that the proposal also hangs preferential trade on the sour apple tree, like John Brown's body.


Brooke Claxton: That is a good place for it too.
Our own Prime Minister, speaking here on June 22, was asked by the hon. member for Prince Albert whether he would be opposed to any extension of the British preference. This is the Prime Minister's answer, as recorded at page 5284 of Hansard:
That is not correct as a general statement. The matter will have to be considered in all its aspects and of course in the light of its possible repercussions upon the general tariff and trade arrangements which are still in force and which have proved to be of quite substantial benefit to Canadian trade.
The Prime Minister obviously is not very much interested in the preferences, and I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce is even less interested than the Prime Minister. Canada should be buying more in the commonwealth and less in the United States, but there is very little indication of a policy of that kind being adopted.


Finally, the amendment proposes that wider financial participation by Canadians in the development of Canadian resources should be fostered. Even the members of the government admit that this situation should be remedied, but what do they propose to do about it? So far, we have heard no proposal which would meet that situation. Tax exemptions? No, not a word about that. Tax reductions? Oh, no, they are holding off the reduction in taxation in order to help them win an election next year, although there are surpluses now in the moneys coming into the treasury.
Perhaps this is the most important point of all, because here is a case where a vision could be held out before the Canadian people, a vision of Canada for Canadians. The president of the University of British Columbia summed up the picture very neatly when he spoke in Rochester, New York, about a month ago. President Norman A. M. MacKenzie is not a politician, is not a partisan in any sense of the word. He is one of the outstanding Canadians today. Here is what he told an audience at the University of Rochester:
He said Canada is delighted to have United States capital in the country.
But "some of us like being Canadians and want to remain Canadians, and we are not unaware of the influences and pressures infiltration and intervention of this kind bring with them and imply".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Order. I am afraid I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired. I have allowed some time for the interruptions which occurred.


Anton Bernard Weselak: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable interest to the speeches which have been made in the course of this debate. The amendment urges this government to take such steps as will ensure the greater processing of our raw materials in Canada. A great deal has been said in the course of this debate regarding the trade deficit which Canada suffers from at the present time in her trading relations. I think it is only common sense to recognize that any country which is experiencing the industrial development and expansion which Canada is experiencing today requires a great deal of specialized equipment, tooling equipment and other items to expand her industrial potential. I think a striking example of this is the pipe which is being imported into Canada at the present time for the construction of the trans-Canada pipe line which eventually will add a great deal to the industrial development and indeed to production in this country of ours.
In discussing the trade deficit a great deal has been made of the statement that Canada

is suffering an increasing trade deficit as a result of her trading relations. Very little has been said in the course of this debate about the increase in exports which this country is experiencing throughout the world.
In the mail this morning I received the dominion bureau of statistics daily bulletin for Monday, July 9, and the first paragraph makes interesting reading as far as this debate is concerned. The section is headed: Domestic Exports in May Reached Record Value and Volume
The article states:
Canada's domestic exports reached an all-time high record total for a month of $428,501,000 in May, topping last year's May total of $367,100,000 by 16-7 per cent and bettering the previous monthly peak of $411,700,000 in June, 1953 by slightly more than 4 per cent, dominion bureau of statistics reports in its monthly summary. In the first five months of this year exports to all countries advanced 11-6 per cent to $1,846,300,000 from $1,654,200,000 a year earlier. The volume of exports, also a record, rose 12-5 per cent in May and 7-9 per cent in the 5-month period, while prices averaged 3-8 per cent higher in May and 3-4 per cent in the cumulative period.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that these export figures indicate an expansion in our industrial economy which is going forward apace.
On the second page of this bulletin are some rather interesting figures in so far as the group values of exports are concerned. These figures are given in millions, with comparisons for the same period last year. Agricultural and vegetable products, $358 million as compared with $297 million last year; animals and animal products, $102 million as compared with $101 million last year; fibres, textiles and products, $8 million as compared with $7 million last year; wood, wood products and paper, $612 million as compared with $597 million last year; iron and products, $154 million as compared with $128 million last year; nonferrous metals and products, $356 million as compared with $326 million last year; non-metallic minerals and products, $110 million as compared with $71 million last year; chemicals and allied products, $98 million as compared with $92 million last year; miscellaneous products, $44 million as compared with $32 million last year. Across the whole range there has been a substantial increase in our exports in the 5-month period this year as compared with last year.
Then, if we look at the main commodities themselves which are entering into our export trade, I think we can get some idea as to what percentage of those commodities form the raw materials to which the Leader of the Opposition has made reference. At the top of the list we have newsprint paper, a fully processed commodity. We find that in the 67509-371
Natural Resources-Development 5-month period of this year exports of this item have increased from $267 million to $290 million. Wheat, which is incapable of processing, and is generally shipped in its natural state, has increased from $134 million to $191 million. Planks and boards dropped slightly from $151 million to $131 million. Wood pulp, which is capable of further processing, increased from $118 million to $125 million. Nickel increased from $89 million to $93 million. Copper and products increased from $59 million to $85 million. Aluminum and products dropped from $88 million to $80 million. Fish and fishery products rose from $45 million to $46 million. Farm machinery and implements are at the same figure, $42 million.
In this whole range of products which are set out on this sheet, actually the only products which are capable of further processing are wood pulp, nickel in some instances, copper in some instances, zinc in some instances and iron ore. These are our main export commodities, and a very small portion of them is made up of commodities that are capable of further processing in Canada. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comparisons between 1939 and 1954.
It is true that in this 15-year period our exports of raw materials increased by 288 per cent but alongside this export of raw materials we find that in this period the index on durable manufactures rose from 107-9 per cent to 297-9 per cent or an increase of 277 per cent, which is less than the increase in our export of raw materials. The index on non-durable manufactures rose from 108-2 to 222-4 or an increase of 206 per cent. I think these figures indicate that where it has been economically feasible secondary industries have been established in Canada at a pace which compares favourably with the increase in our exports of raw material.
If we look at the exports we find that exports of partially and fully manufactured goods have risen in that period from $511 million to $1,846 million or an increase of 361 per cent which is far in excess of the percentage increase of our export of raw materials. Our total export of raw materials in 1954 amounted to $1,082 million. It is interesting to note that of this total figure 75 per cent comprises agricultural and other products which are generally exported in their natural and unprocessed state. The remaining 25 per cent or roughly $304 million were mineral and forest products which are quite capable of further processing.
In the same period in 1954 we imported $473 million worth of raw materials of the

Natural Resources-Development same category and this figure indicates, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce and other speakers have stated, that we are a net importer of raw materials to the tune of roughly $170 million in the year 1954 and not net exporters.
The official opposition in this house has advocated that a policy be adopted by this government of encouraging the maximum processing of raw materials within this country. In the course of the speeches which we have heard I do not think that any definite statement has been made by the Conservative opposition as to how they would achieve this end or just what actually would be done by them, should they form the government, to increase the industrial production in this country. However, I recall that the manufacturers' association of Canada were not quite as wary as the Conservative party concerning what means they would suggest be employed to achieve this end. They stated point-blank that they felt the tariff structure in this country was not such as to encourage the expansion of secondary industries. I believe the figures I have quoted indicate there has been a progressive expansion of industry in Canada and that industries have located themselves in this country where they have found it profitable to do so.
I do not think that in this country there is a lack of businessmen with sufficient foresight that where an industry can be established within the country which can compete with other industries in the home and the world market any opportunity would be overlooked by those businessmen to establish such an industry within Canada.
If the only answer lies in the suggestion of the manufacturers' association, then the work which has been done over the past 25 years in encouraging international trade would be lost. In addition to that we would create in and for Canada a state of economic isolation. We would try to reach absolute self-sufficiency at the cost of isolating ourselves from the trading markets of the world. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if we were to follow that policy we would be going against the record of history. A reading of history indicates to me that in 1930 this method was tried. We tried to isolate ourselves from the other markets of the world and endeavoured to create tariff walls to prevent other people from bringing their goods into this country in competition with our own industrial development. The government of that time no doubt sincerely felt this was the answer, but before its reign was over it found this was
[Mr. Weselak.J
not the answer, and in 1932 the British preferential tariff was brought in in an effort to open the markets of the world to our primary production.
In 1935 the Liberal government came into power and in 1937 a statement of policy was adopted by Mackenzie King in which he stated that this party would bend every effort toward breaking the shackles which prevent free international world trade. I think this government has done that because in the period during which it has been in power protective tariffs in Canada have been reduced by close to 40 per cent and during that period our trade relations with other countries have increased tremendously and our exports have also increased proportionately. By adherence to GATT and bilateral agreements with such countries as Japan and the U.S.S.R. we have opened new markets particularly for our farm products and we expect these markets will be of great benefit to us in the future.
If we were to follow the suggestion of the opposition to its logical conclusion, it would appear to me we would have no alternative but to create an atmosphere wherein we would establish in this country uneconomic secondary industries which would not be capable of competing in the world markets without a certain amount of subsidization or protection. I suggest that the creation of this atmosphere would have an adverse effect upon the economy of this country. If we were to use protection as a means of achieving this end we would soon find we would lose our markets throughout the world.
As has been aptly said, trade is a two-way street. We must buy a certain amount from other countries in order to receive an open port into their markets, and I think this experience is illustrated by the bilateral agreements which have recently been concluded with Russia and which two years ago were concluded with Japan. On the other hand, if we were to try to subsidize these markets we would of necessity have to tax the people in order to meet the cost of such subsidization. If we were to sponsor or force uneconomic industries to establish themselves in this country we would possibly, as I have said, lose our world markets. We would be restricted to our own local markets and as a result we would naturally have to restrict our primary production because we would have no market for it.
This is a serious thing to us in western Canada. Our primary production through agriculture in western Canada is very great. We are dependent for approximately 70 per cent of our production in grain or foreign

markets, particularly in wheat. The expansion of the discovery of raw materials in western Canada has been encouraged by the markets which have been made available for these products and the effect of the development of raw resources in the western provinces is that there have been established service industries and other light industries which are required to service the raw material industry which has been developed as the result of the discovery of such materials, and they are continuing to develop and establish themselves in those particular provinces.
In my own constituency we have a very large pulp and paper mill which is dependent practically completely upon foreign markets. We have recently had brought about mineral developments in the Bird river and Cat lake areas where many metals are being discovered and which are presently being developed and mine shafts being sunk. If we were to adopt the policy of restricting our exports I am sure that these industries would definitely suffer. In my view, this proposition which has been put before the house should be scrutinized very closely. It has many implications which, if carried to their logical conclusion, would certainly have a serious and bad effect upon the economy of the country.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, this motion that is now before the house is to my mind an extremely important one. I believe it is much more important than many of the government members and members of the cabinet-what is left of them here-really assume it to be.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Look around yourself.


William Earl Rowe: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that this government feels that everything is well as long as they are there. With reckless abandon they disregard parliament, they disregard the opposition, they disregard the people and they say, "All is well so long as we are here". Yesterday evening the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), I believe, said that we must not be governed by emotionalism and ignorance, that we must view these matters with common sense or in a spirit of common sense and good will. He said he had listened to the greatest rot that he had ever listened to. Then he said, "Do not let us fool ourselves; there are plenty of natural resources; we are not going to be short. There are plenty of them in the world." He said that it does not make much sense to smelt every ton of iron ore and refine every barrel of oil that comes out of the ground.
I could not help thinking of my three or four-year-old grandson setting up a teddy 67509-371J
10, 1958
Natural Resources-Development bear and knocking it down in order to show how strong he was. I could not help thinking how the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was setting up these straw men and knocking them down like a little boy with a teddy bear. We have the minister giving us a lecture about emotionalism and talking nonsense in the house; we have a responsible minister trying to say that to this house. It is bad enough when these Liberal henchmen go out in the country and misrepresent the facts in the country as to what this party stands for. But it is worse to stand here in the house and say that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) implied at any time in his life that every ton of iron ore should be processed in Canada, that every barrel of oil that comes out of the ground should be refined. Mr. Speaker, there is not an hon. member within the sound of my voice nor a child in the Ottawa public schools who does not know better than that.
Mr. Speaker, what we have said in this motion is consistent with Conservative policy all down through the years. It was Conservative policy many years ago-yes, at the beginning of our history of industrial development-that gave birth to industrial development in this country. Even the most bitter free traders of the day, and even a few that may be left yet who still cling to that old dusty halo of free trade, practise the policy laid down by the Conservative party down through the years, namely to raise tariffs instead of lowering them, and other methods, in order to develop industry in Canada. We have no apology to make for that.
I believe, however, that we have common hopes in this house, independent of party, race, class or creed. As Canadians, I believe that we have common hopes in relation to our national security, the defence of our way of life and our survival itself. We have common hopes that we shall become a strong country, that we shall have more people and that we shall have a greater degree of economic independence rather than dependence. I believe those are the common hopes and aspirations of every man, woman and child in Canada who takes time enough to think. The trends, however, are different. No one can study the trends of our development without realizing this. Perhaps the government, in their smug complacency have not bothered to realize that it is nothing they have done, particularly so far as fiscal policies are concerned-for they have not any-* which resulted in the development that has taken place. It is the demand of foreign countries on our resources that are being depleted. It is the demand of $2 billion for expenditures for national defence and other

Natural Resources-Development more or less abnormal features that has kept our prosperity developing as it has lately to a great extent.
There are some things that Canada stands out in. There is no other people with such great resources, as we will all agree. No other country exports more raw resources per capita in world history than Canada has been doing in the last number of years. No other country per capita buys as many of the manufactured goods, the product of other countries' labour, and no other country exports more with less labour. In other words, there is no other country that exports so many dollars worth and that distributes and gives as little benefit to so few people as we do in Canada under our present policy. There is another particular in which Canada stands out. There is no other country in the world that places so many of its trade eggs in one basket. No other country is depending so much on another country. No other country in the free world depends on requirements of other nations so much as does Canada. No other country in the free world needs population more than does Canada and no other country in the free world is increasing its population more slowly.
Why are these things so, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we have an all-time high national product? Surely that should exercise the dullest mind in this house and even in the country. Why do you boast so much about a great national product of $26 billion and promising to be $28 billion while you are employing on new jobs only half as many as you did in 1952. You say a billion dollars less. Why? Because it takes less men to export our products than it does to finish the product where there is 75 per cent to 80 per cent more finished goods in the last ten years. We need a policy. We need it for our national security. We need it for sound prosperity and economic stability.
In the last ten years, Mr. Speaker, 300,000 Canadians have gone to the United States to find employment in fabricating the raw resources that have gone over there from here. In other words, three have gone to the United States for every one that came to Canada or three times as many. Today, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, as many Canadians from your own native province and from your own great race have down through the years gone to the United States to find employment as you have almost in the whole province of Quebec. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that will give employment to more people than will the gradual development of our manufacturing industries. It is important. It will give the maximum benefits to the greatest number of people. It will help


to equalize these benefits among our people. It will help to level out the benefits that we have heard about in this house, where some districts had 30 per cent less benefits in this so-called prosperity in the last few years. It will help to decentralize our development. It will help develop home markets which after all are the best markets. Hon. members speak of what the government has done. Hon. members have talked about the Beechwood development, and they have talked about the Saskatchewan dam. For years they have brought that out at election time but they have never put it into effect yet and they will not do so until after the next election; and if they thought it would not be a tattered and torn issue they would probably save it for the next federal election as they saved reform of the Senate for the last thirty years in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we have an all-time high, it is true, in our national production. But at the same time that is dependent to a great extent on other countries. We are more dependent on our export markets than is any other country. Let us consider the United States and the United Kingdom. As someone has said already today, what has made those countries great? What has made the United States to the south of us the most powerful industrial country in the world?
What made the United Kingdom the great power she has been down through the last century? It was the development of her manufacturing industries, even though she had to import a great deal of her raw resources. Here in Canada we have an abundance of raw resources; and yet we are buying more per capita than any other people in the world of finished manufactured goods and we are exporting more of the raw products. We are dependent on others to market our products. We are dependent on the whims of Washington. We are dependent on the policies of France. We are dependent on the policies of Germany. We are dependent for 17 per cent of our total national output on the whims of others who need our products or who may not need them, whilst the great United Kingdom, with all her problems, is only dependent on four per cent of her national output. We deal almost exclusively with one country; 73-3 per cent of all our purchases last year were from the United States of America, while only 8 [DOT] 5 per cent were from Britain.
We have had a lopsided trade policy down through the years. What has been the result? The government speaks about this party not believing in development. I believe that the Minister of Trade and Commerce tried to imply that it was apparent that we were

opposed to development. There is no party in this country that has a record of national development equal to that of the party I represent here this evening. Down through the years, the national development of our own resources for the benefit of our people has been a fixed policy of the Conservative party, in this country for 75 years. The party to your right, Mr. Speaker, has never been conspicuous for that. They were not conspicuous for that when it was created; they were not conspicuous for that after it was first practised. They opposed it all through the years. They even wanted commercial union with the United States in 1895; in 1911 they wanted reciprocity; in 1930 they wanted countervailing duties; they wanted to go to Washington and find out what Washington thought about fixing tariffs and they would fix them the same. They have no fiscal policy. They have no immigration policy. At the present time they boast about their achievements in the past few years, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce has tried to imply that no other country has made such advancement as we have. No other country has been so dependent on other countries for the requirements of raw resources, which are being depleted. The United States to the south of us needs our raw resources and therefore is buying them from us, it is true; but, so far as the development of manufacturing industries and giving employment to our people are concerned, this government has failed dismally.
No other country in the world has had a greater opportunity to develop manufacturing industries, with the raw resources available here, in the last ten years, than this government has had. Yet we find that we have only a 25-6 per cent improvement in our manufacturing development in the past ten years, while France had a 50 per cent increase, the United Kingdom had a 42 per cent increase, the United States had a 35-5 per cent increase, and communist countries behind the iron curtain have had an increase of over 50 per cent. So on that score we have seen the lack of a policy by this government. We have seen a government tired, smugly complacent, self-satisfied and saying, "Everything is well; we will never run out of our resources." Yet our economists tell us that the visible supply of our chief resources in this country at the current rate of consumption will not last more than 30 years.
Probably the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he says, "That will be enough for us", figures that his government will have pretty well passed by that time. That is not good enough. There is no industry in Canada that could justify its place in the life of this country except by extending
Natural Resources-Development equalizing conditions and extending benefits to the greatest possible number of people. There is no other way. If we are going to be true to ourselves and true to our children's children, we will develop that great heritage of resources in a way that will give the greatest amount of employment to the greatest number of people and equalize conditions through the different parts of this dominion, rather than exporting our resources in the raw form.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce and others have chided the leader of this party about his development policy. Members from the province of Ontario and others who wish to observe it know very well that we have in the province of Ontario many monuments to his policies of development when he was premier of that province. In the district I was very familiar with, I am satisfied there were at least $200 million and at least 30,000 people employed merely because of the development of the resources of northern Ontario set out by the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. George Drew, when he was premier of Ontario. These things are history. You will find that the history of this country's industrial development has been based more on the sound Conservative policies down through the years than any of the expediencies and shot-gun prescriptions that have been put forth by those who have ridden the gravy train in cold wars and hot wars on these matters and are selling our raw products and our heritage too to people who want them-and risking that they will not want them in the years that lie ahead. Will any hon. gentleman, even those in the back benches who say so little and think so much, they say, pause for a moment and think what will happen if we had anything in the way of a world depression, when these countries would not want some of the raw resources?-We are depending so much more than any-other country on such exports. What would' happen? What would happen if we were not spending $2 billion for defence? It would be most conspicuous then that this government would have no fiscal policy, as they have demonstrated down through the years.
The United States, it is true, has depleted its raw resources, but it depleted its resources as old England depleted hers to a great extent. It depleted them for the benefit of its workmen. The United States is rapidly depleting its resources of iron ore for the great industrial plants of the United States. They are sending their finished products over here at a tremendous rate. In the United Kingdom they do the same thing. The history of these countries and the history of any

Natural Resources-Development country that has had substantial and sound development has been through that development.
This government seems so self-satisfied, even in the face of an increasingly unfavourable trade balance. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said last night, though our trade balance would frighten any other country and in fact would almost ruin many countries, that it was a good thing for this country. That is a strange type of thinking. It is a strange type of logic. It is like telling someone, "Sell a little more of what you have every year and keep buying more, but buy more than you sell and you cannot go broke. It will break another country, but it will not break this country as long as we have a government in power that does not listen to an opposition or is afraid to listen to the people and ignores parliament itself."
This year we are now developing in our trade tendencies the greatest unfavourable trade balance that this country has ever known. In March 1956 we bought $4J million per day more of finished products from the United States than we sold of any of our raw products and all other products combined: $132 million in one month. Yet, even that does not shake the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He says that is a good thing. If that is a good thing, we probably should anticipate a billion and a half, and if it is a good thing probably he and the Minister of Finance will get together and say, "We boasted to the country that we have lowered tariffs at the GATT conference; we will lower some more." If it is a good thing to buy $1J billion more of manufactured goods which our own people could make, it might be a good thing to buy $3| billion more. Then we could be truly the hewers of wood and drawers of water that some of the statements of the government indicate they want us to be. I do not think any of the frontbenchers have actually said that in the house but it has been said outside, and down through the years for the last quarter of a century, yes, for the last half century, many people in Canada have felt that the policies of the party now in power would eventually, if allowed, bring this country to a state of hewers of wood and drawers of water. This is a term that was used in the past but only lately has it been used by their admirers and supporters.
The government seems to think that all is well. They have no manpower policy. They have no fiscal policy, and when they have neither they do not need an immigration policy. They do not have one anyway. We know that immigration into this country is falling down. We will soon be losing more
IMr. Rowe.l
people than we are gaining. Why, Mr. Speaker, at this late date and in. this dangerous trend we hear these tired old ministers boasting about what they have done in the past, about their past reductions in tariffs at GATT conferences. We see them hiding behind the Gordon commission and dreaming and guessing about the population of Canada in 1980, at the same time not saying why because they are exporting more with less work year by year.
It will take the best ingenuity of industrial leaders and executives and labour leaders and the best ingenuity of a new government to safeguard the sound economic independence and development of this ountry. We cannot boast about our raw resources and the great wealth we are bringing into the country. The United Kingdom has been our best market, but on two occasions we have virtually lost it when the Liberal party was in power. Between 1921 and 1930 we virtually lost the whole British market. We lost it for agricultural products between 1921 and 1930 and we have lost it again to a great extent. Yet down through the years we have had favourable trade balances with that country. Even during the past 10 years we had a favourable trade balance with Britain of $3,413 million and yet in the very same period we bought $7,679 million more from the United States than we sold to that country.
Therefore it is not surprising to find that today the United States owns 91 per cent of our mining and smelting business. It is not surprising that they have a 75 per cent interest in our industrial concerns. It is not surprising that about 50 per cent of all our industrial and primary activities in Canada are controlled by United States investment because we have given it to them in trade balances. On the other hand, despite what the ward politicians out in the country may say, the Conservative party led by the Hon. George Drew has never at any time said that they were opposed to United States investment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friends laugh. If you would listen more and laugh less you would learn more about what has been going on in this country down through the years because that was the established policy of this party before some of you laughing boys were born. Who was it who developed the industries of this country? What was it that developed them more than the imperial trade agreement, even in the days of the depression? Many of the biggest industries in Canada today were established here because

of the imperial preference agreement brought about by the Hon. R. B. Bennett in 1931.
Where was your party in those days? You were opposing the policies of the imperial preference. Only one among all your members supported that policy at that time and he was almost ostracized. At least there was one Liberal at that time who voted as he thought, independent of the crack of the whip. Those were difficult days. It is all very well to talk about those difficult days and blame them on a government. You might as well blame them on the United States where there were 12 million people unemployed. You might as well blame them on Britain where there was almost a revolution, or on France. Throughout the world 35 million people stood idle between 1930 and 1935. Yet during those years of depression more industries were brought into Canada under the imperial trade agreement preferences than at any time of normal business prosperity.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, oh!


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend laughs. He was just going to school in those days and he has not learned much since.


George Clyde Nowlan: Are you sure he went to school?


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend laughs but he knows very well that the government in power at that time, for which he was such a good secretary along with half a dozen more secretaries who were more important than he was, lost every market we had in Britain by 1930. We were buying Danish bacon to feed our own people and your party went out of power. We did not bring about the depression. You left it on our doorstep.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You made it worse.


William Earl Rowe: You left every lumber yard that was not burned bulging with unsold lumber. You left every elevator filled with unsold wheat and you lost every important market for agricultural products overseas. You left more people unemployed following your regime than at any other time in our history. We had it left on our doorstep. He laughs best, Mr. Speaker, who laughs last, but I will remind my hon. friend that when the history is written of the development of this country it will be told that the party I have the honour to represent in speaking today is the party whose record of policy has been closely associated with the record of our development down through the years. The party that my hon. friend, the little Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill), represents has been the party of expediency down
Natural Resources-Development through the years. They look north and south trying to develop trade with the United States and climax it at last by our having more trade with one country than any other country has ever had with another country in the history of the world's business. You are depending more on the whims of Washington, as you tried to do years ago, than at any time in our history.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Back to Bennett.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
William Earl Rowe: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that under the new standing orders I have only a few minutes to conclude the remarks I was making this afternoon. I wish to summarize what I was saying in connection with our hopes for the development of this country, the employment of our people and the equalization of conditions amongst the various parts of this dominion. I feel that the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) is one which should have been given more serious consideration than it has by this government which has shown distinctly today, and in the last few months, that there is a clear-cut difference of opinion between the government of the day and Her Majesty's loyal opposition. This government has shown all down the years that they believe the development of this country is to be achieved by the exhaustion of our vast resources for the immediate gains that might be brought about through employment of our people. We of Her Majesty's loyal opposition have, since the early days of Sir John A. Macdonald, believed in the development of our own resources for the development of our own people and for the equalization of conditions in the long term interest.
The Leader of the Opposition followed that policy in the days when he was the premier of the province of Ontario, and has emphasized and re-emphasized that the great resources we have, like the great estates of any country or any family, are not inexhaustible. We are the trustees of those resources and we should plan for the future, for future generations. We should try to husband those resources and not to reap the immediate benefits that the members of the government seem prone to emphasize and boast about. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out yesterday, many of our major resources in this country, great as they are, could be

Natural Resources-Development exhausted at our current rate of consumption within 30 years. Stop and think about it! Some of you men who have children, and who expect their children's children to have opportunities in this country, will realize that these resources should not be exhausted, like the nickel and other resources of this country, in a period of 30 years.
This government has grown very smug and complacent. They have been in power so long, they think nothing matters as long as it does not happen to them. I realize that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is just back from the conference in the United Kingdom. Before he went the Leader of the Opposition urged upon him that he call a conference of the commonwealth prime ministers. The Prime Minister told us on his return that it had been intimated to him that it was not desirable now. He left the impression it may have been intimated by anybody, but it was asked by the Leader of the Opposition and it was refused by the Prime Minister, who took no recommendations over to the conference and brought nothing back. As a matter of fact, he contributed very little to the conference except to tell them how Mr. Eisenhower was going to run his election in the United States. That is not good enough. He told them that about President Eisenhower. If the Leader of the Opposition had said anything like that, he would have been condemned right across the country for interfering in international affairs. The Prime Minister said, "I do not tell you where I stand on anything; I brought nothing in my hands and I take nothing back. I said in the house that I would not do anything without their approval, but I tell you now that President Eisenhower of the United States will make no statement on any great international problem until after the next election." In other words, he interprets Mr. Eisenhower as playing politics, as the Grit politicians in Canada have played it for the last 25 years. Nothing but expediency of the moment: that is the keynote of what you did while you were over there at the prime ministers conference.
I am glad you are back and looking so well.


An hon. Member:: You do not mean that.


William Earl Rowe: I am glad the Prime Minister has returned in such good health. He looks well. However, no one should look badly who travelled over that long distance and did as little as he did. We have pleaded with you for five years to have an imperial conference. Do you want this trade to continue with a balance of $7 billion or $8 billion favourable to the United States, as in the last 10 years?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Having been advised by the Clerk that it is six minutes past eight o'clock, it is my duty under standing order 56 to put the question on the amendment.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
And the Clerk, proceeding to announce the result of the vote:


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Clerk announces the result of this division, I heard at a certain moment cries of "order" on the part of some hon. members presumably because a member entered the house while the division was in progress. If that is so, the vote of that hon. member cannot be counted and therefore the vote of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Henry) will not be allowed. See standing order 12(2).
And the result of the vote having been announced:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I see that two hon. members are now competing for the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Three.


Mr. Speaker:: I will have to bring the matter to a head. I see that the C.C.F. party has had only one speaker in this debate and
10, 1956	5845
Parliamentarians-Suggested Summer Recess I also see that the Social Credit party has had only one member speak in this debate, but I will have to bring the matter to a head. I give the floor to the hon. member for New Westminster.



SUGGESTED SUMMER RECESS FOR MEMBERS

Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, the grievance I intend to raise is one in which every hon. member of this house is interested because it affects not only my riding but the riding of every hon. member in this house and I would say it possibly affects every Canadian citizen as well, at least those who are interested in what is being done in parliament today. It is not my intention to speak to it at great length because I feel the interest in this subject indicated by certain hon. members of this house is such that every hon. member who cares to do so should be permitted to speak to it.
My grievance is that we as members of parliament do not declare a recess period in summer to afford ourselves an opportunity to visit our constituencies as we should. There are a great many members in this house who are fortunate enough to live within a very short distance of Ottawa and they are able to come here without spending a great deal of time in travelling. I can fully understand that they would feel it is not at all necessary for us to adjourn for the summer recess and go home so that we can visit our constituents. However, Mr. Speaker, may I point out to those hon. members that there is a great deal of difference between the time it takes to travel, let us say from Ottawa to Vancouver or Victoria, or the far-flung parts of the maritimes, and the time involved in travelling from Ottawa to a city like Toronto. For that reason alone, if for no other, I think it is necessary for us to rearrange our business or else find some other means of transportation to enable those members who live a long distance from here to get home to see their constituents.
We in this parliament like to think we conduct the business of the nation in such an excellent fashion that we should receive high praise for it. On the contrary, I would say we mishandle our affairs here by failing to recognize the need for hon. members to go home to see their constituents as well as in the fashion in which we conduct ourselves, which is much worse than most of the Polly pigtail clubs or other literary clubs in the country.
May I point out that to reach the city of Vancouver by train, which is our common mode of travel, it requires at least four nights and three days by ordinary rail traffic-although the Canadian and the supercontinental do it more quickly-and it requires another four nights and three days to
5846	HOUSE OF
Parliamentarians-Suggested Summer Recess return. In other words we must spend at least a full week in travelling across the continent if we wish to see our constituents. On the other hand it is only a matter of an overnight trip to the city of Saint John, New Brunswick, and those who are fortunate enough to represent a riding in New Brunswick do not find themselves in the same awkward position as do we who come from the far west of our fine country.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that we owe it to our constituents, to our families, to ourselves and to Canada that we have the right to declare a recess here and go home during the summer months when most of our families are on holidays so that at least we may have the privilege of seeing them from time to time. During my short period in this parliament-a matter of three years-we have had three summer sessions. As I stated earlier, I can understand the need, or the lack of need, as is manifest, with respect to the people or the representatives from Ontario and Quebec who live near Ottawa. I can understand that there is no need for a holiday so far as they are concerned. They can go home and examine their constituencies at their pleasure over the weekend or they may meet their constituents over the weekend. As has so frequently been suggested by members in this house, we have our "T to T" boys in the chamber who do not necessarily stay here but who find that their business takes them home and rightfully so. It is much easier to handle the problems of your constituency at home when you have before you the person who has the problem and can discuss it with him at first hand.
I say this. Let us use some common sense. Let us show the intelligence with which we are endowed. Certainly there is no need for us to carry on here year after year during the summer months. We find, for instance, that industry declares a certain holiday for its employees. Management recognize the need for the employees to have a holiday. Management also recognize the fact that they themselves must have a holiday. The holiday might be only for the purpose of visiting their families or their friends. I am not pleading for a holiday, Mr. Speaker. Rather I am pleading for the opportunity for us to get home legitimately, go and see our constituents, talk to them as we should like to do, and hear of their problems at first hand.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) earlier this session asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) to give some consideration to allowing members of parliament from British Columbia and the far west and from the maritimes to have air transportation-that is to have a pass on Trans-Canada


Air Lines-once a session or more often in order to visit their constituencies. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), in the absence of the Minister of Transport, answered the question he was taking it as notice and we have not heard any definite decision on it since. But understandably, I say, as we have heard in the railways, canals and telegraph lines committee room from time to time from the representative of the air lines, Mr. McGregor, this would be a very costly thing as far as Trans-Canada Air Lines is concerned. Seats are at a premium on our air lines. It is a very costly matter. It costs $312.45 to go from here to Vancouver by plane return. To some or to many, possibly, that is not too big a sum and probably they should use their funds for that purpose and spend more time in their constituencies.
Possibly it might be considered that the 21 days we are allowed is sufficient to spend in our constituencies. But, Mr. Speaker, I find-and I am satisfied that many members in this house who have spoken to me on this very same question find the same thing-that the 21 days is in itself not adequate. We must feel free to leave this chamber with the knowledge that the estimates in which we might be interested or some vital piece of legislation that is still before the house or might come before the house might not be brought into the chamber while we are at home and we would not have our constituents tell us that we should have been in the House of Commons to speak to that particular question.
The opportunity for members of parliament to take part in the normal civic affairs on Dominion day and other holidays during that season is lost because we find that it is necessary for us from the far west to stay in this chamber to take part in the discussions or to look after our business from this point of view. After all, that is the reason we are being paid; or one of the reasons we are being paid is to be doing our business in Ottawa. It is true that we might go home and say, "We are home on parliamentary business". I would admit that. But, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it takes us four nights and three days by train to reach Vancouver and another four nights and three days to come back; in other words if we are to spend a week in our constituencies, it would take three weeks for a British Columbia member to do his job at home and use the train going and coming. Mr. Speaker, I feel that that is a mistake. We should declare a recess just the same as would any other common-sense business enterprise, and get our business done. I am satisfied that if that were done and if we, let us say, declared our recess some time before July 1 and had

only one month recess or two months, as the case might be, whatever is decided upon, we would get a great deal more business done before June 30 than we are getting done at the present time. I think that a great deal of our time is being spent in not doing the business that we have been sent down here to do because so many of us,- and not for political reasons-by reason of the fact that they cannot see their constituents, are frustrated from time to time by knowing full well that certain of the estimates or other business will be before the house when they are at home trying to look after their constituencies.
We recognize, Mr. Speaker, that there is need for a recess period at Easter so that members of parliament can go home to see their constituents at that time. How much truer it is to recognize the fact that it is more important to go home during the early part of July or all of July and part of August and carry on later in the year again and finish the legislation in a common-sense fashion. Mr. Speaker, it may be that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the government may feel that it is impossible for us to finish our business in ten months' time. I have been given to understand heretofore that the government has felt that we should finish our business by June. This suggested procedure would at least give them the opportunity of trying to get it done by that time. Certain individuals may argue that it might be impractical, that we might reach the stage, let us say, toward the end of June when it became apparent that an extra week of sitting would finish our legislation and we would be finished for the year. To them 1 would say that certainly we should be able to revise the rules in order to make it possible for us, by unanimous consent, to decide to continue to sit for that extra week, as the case might be, and finish the business for the year. But, Mr. Speaker, I feel-and I am satisfied that there are many more in this house who feel likewise-that we should have a recess during which we can visit our constituents and for which we can plan so that we can tell our constituents we will be home during that particular time of the year. I find that the constituents-many of them in my riding at least, and I am satisfied that the same applies to many other ridings- do not realize that their legislators do not regulate their business so that they can be home for events such as Dominion day and on other occasions, as they might expect them to be.
I would say that we should change our rules to call for a recess possibly of one month-it might be found convenient to have a two-month recess-not for holidays but to
Parliamentarians-Suggested Summer Recess go home so that we can look after the business properly as we are expected to do in our own ridings, at least during the summer months.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) following the same grievance subject or opening a new subject?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My subject could be related to what the hon. member said, but a part of it will be different.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The hon. member who is following the same subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is not a put-up job, is it?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You have a suspicious nature.


Chesley William Carter: I was
very much interested in the remarks just made by my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Hahn), because he echoed thoughts which I have entertained ever since I came to this parliament. Hon. members will appreciate that the thoughts of those of us who live down by the sea go back at this time of the year to the balmy breezes coming in from the Atlantic ocean and the smell of the salt water and the seaweed. We find it quite a sacrifice to exchange those pleasures and beauties of nature for the steamy hot weather of Ottawa, particularly in view of the ordeal we all suffered so very much last year. This year we have been more fortunate, and the weatherman has been extremely kind, but I do not think we can bank too much on his indulgence in that respect.
My chief complaint about these long sessions is that they interfere so much with family life. I have known constituents to say, "We elect the members; we send them to Ottawa; we pay them $8,000 a year and $2,000 for expenses; and they should be very grateful. What have they got to complain about anyway?" I should like to tell the world that there are many easier ways of earning a living than coming here to Ottawa, and the $8,000 a year remuneration that I get in no way compensates me for the sacrifice that I have to make in family life.
Last year I came to Ottawa early in January. I got home for a week at Easter, and then we were here till the end of July. It takes five days to travel by rail to my constituency, and it was the first week in August when I got home. I had a week's rest and then I started to go around my district. I can tell hon. members that my
5848	HOUSE OF
Parliamentarians-Suggested Summer Recess district covers almost 1,000 miles of coast line and contains 260 different settlements. Each one of these settlements expects to see its member at some time in between sessions. I myself find it necessary to make that trip to find out what is going on in my district, because communications are so poor that the only way to find out is to get first-hand information. Last year it was December before I completed my trip around my riding. I can tell my hon. friends that when daylight saving time goes off and the days begin to get short it is no picnic travelling around the south coast of Newfoundland in all weathers, sometimes tied up for two or three days or a week at a time in a settlement on account of bad weather. I got home about the middle of December last year.
I had no time at all with my children last year. They were out of school before I left here and they were back in school again before I finished my trip around my district. I was home in December for about two weeks, and this year early in January I had to leave again to come up here. This year I was a little better off because I had a week extra on account of a conference. But except for that, I was here this year until Easter, when I had another week or so at home. Now it looks as though we shall be here again all this summer, at least for all of July and possibly for part of August. So again I shall have no time with my family. My children were out of school in the middle of June, and before I get home they will be back in school. 1 can tell hon. members that it is impossible to compensate for the sacrifice in family life by dollars and cents. That is one sacrifice that members who live a great distance from Ottawa have to make.
Perhaps many of us would not complain at making that sacrifice if we felt it was really necessary. I have been here now since 1949 and I have not seen any session that could not have closed and completed the business at least six weeks earlier than it did.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Chesley William Carter: Certainly last year-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is that why we had closure?


Chesley William Carter: I am sorry; I am all for closure. I do not think we have enough closure. I hope that from now on we shall make a regular practice of having closure on every bill. If we get ten days on a bill, we are pretty stupid if we cannot put forward all the arguments for and against it in 60 hours.


William Earl Rowe: That is one man well trained.


Chesley William Carter: We are not helping parliament's prestige by endless repetition and mere sounding off without adding anything to any debate.


William Earl Rowe: Why not have closure and send in for your cheque?


George Harris Hees: Why not sit down now?


Chesley William Carter: I want to give my hon. friend some good advice, which I hope he will listen to and practise.


George Harris Hees: You are giving us advice but not good advice.


Chesley William Carter: Perhaps my hon. friend is not able to discern good advice. If he would listen a little more and practise what he learns a little more he might accomplish something.


George Harris Hees: Get her all wound up again. Let her go. Come on, boy. He has lost his place.


Chesley William Carter: I do not speak very often but when I do speak in a debate I can manage to say everything I want to say in half an hour.


George Harris Hees: You can say it in five minutes.


Chesley William Carter: I have seen too many of my hon. friends on the opposite side of the house stand up, talk for 40 minutes and say what could be said in five minutes. There is another aspect, apart from this unnecessary absence from one's family, which I think is a terrible thing. I do not think it is good for members, I do not think it is good for parliament, and I do not think it is good for our constituents. As the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) said, there should be a stated time when we could plan visits to our districts. We should be able to spend more time there than we do now. We cannot do it as long as we are here just talking sweet nothings.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Like now.


Chesley William Carter: No, this is something worth listening to, and I hope the hon. member will let it sink in.


James Sinclair: These Ontario members do not under stand the problem. They are home every week.


Chesley William Carter: Another aspect is that we are all very conscious of the taxpayers' money. We make considerable fuss when we think the taxpayers' money is being wasted. I do not know any way in which the taxpayers' money is wasted more than it is in endless futile talk. This parliament costs money. Every minute that an hon. member spends occupying the floor is costing the taxpayers money. Every unnecessary minute is money wasted. If we prolong parliament 20 per cent longer than is necessary that 20 per cent extra cost of parliament is sheer waste of the taxpayers' money.
I want to support what my hon. friend said about air travel. I do not think it is an

unreasonable thing to expect to be provided with air transportation. Members who live at the extreme ends of Canada, at least 500 miles from Ottawa, should have the privilege of travelling by air. This would put them on a par with hon. members who live in the central provinces. Most members from the central provinces can go home on the week ends. Certainly that discrimination should be done away with and that can only be done by granting air travel privileges. I do hope that the government will give consideration to this problem because I think what has been suggested is in the interests of parliament and of the members of parliament. We should be able to spend the odd week ends with our families. We should be able to spend the odd week ends with our constituents. In my opinion any provision that will facilitate that end will be in the interests of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The
hon. member for Kootenay East indicated when I did not see him before that he wished to follow the same line of argument. If I am correct in that and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre does not, then I recognize the hon. member for Kootenay East.


Alfred Claude Ellis: It is all arranged in advance.


An hon. Member:: Oh, shut up, Ellis.


Alfred Claude Ellis: A Liberal-Socred coalition.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, if I thought for one moment that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was going to follow the line introduced by the hon. member for New Westminster I would be indeed pleased to allow him to take the floor at this time.


George James McIlraith: He has just been home.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: My memory harks back several years to the time when some hon. members were seeking to do something for members of parliament. It is a great axiom of long standing that the Lord helps those who help themselves, but the members directly opposite me are always pleased to ride along on the coattails of those of us who are prepared to stand up and take criticism, rightly or wrongly, when we attempt to do something about the conditions affecting members of parliament. Perhaps my training in the past leads me to take the position that when people help themselves they are indirectly helping others.
As a trade unionist and miner I always found that when I was able to get a higher rate of pay or more dollars per foot for the breaking of rock I was helping my fellow
Parliamentarians-Suggested Summer Recess workers. So far as I have seen, that has not been the policy of the members directly opposite. I said that my memory harks back to the time when members sought to do something to alleviate the situation that left members in very dire financial circumstances after having served seven to eight months here in Ottawa and having to undergo the very great expense that is a part of being a member of parliament. They were certainly a rear guard and far in the rear when it came to the point of assisting us. As a matter of fact, they were all for it behind the curtains when they came and spoke to me about the pay increase, even suggesting that $12,000 might not be too much. They said that they would not go for that but that $10,000 was perfectly all right. However, they then rushed in with amendments to reduce that amount to $8,000. I would not suggest for a moment, of course, that that was done for political purposes. I am sure it was entirely for the benefit of the taxpayer. However, I leave that to your imagination.	[DOT]
The question of holidays in the summer, which was brought up by the hon. member for New Westminster, no doubt is a good one, but I think that the committee that spent several years changing and attempting to improve the rules of parliament perhaps did not go far enough in its deliberations. We had hoped that the improvement in the rules would have streamlined the procedures in the House of Commons so that the business of the house could at least be completed in six months. That, of course, has proved not to be true.


Alfred Claude Ellis: If we did not have to listen to speeches like this we would get through.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Has the hon. member something to say?


Alfred Claude Ellis: If we did not have to listen to speeches like this we would get through.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member takes exception to listening to speeches-


Alfred Claude Ellis: Like this one.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -that are not to his liking. Of course, I realize that some of the things I said a few moments ago are not to his liking but I have listened endlessly to the hon. member. I recall that earlier today and on several occasions in the past he has been likened to the foghorn in the harbour at Vancouver. That becomes a very tiresome sound if you happen to come from the interior of British Columbia, as I do. I can assure the hon. member that I have sat here endlessly listening to speeches by him that have been anything but invigorating and
5850	HOUSE OF
Parliamentarians-Suggested Summer Recess have certainly led me to believe that the rules should have been improved upon a great deal more and should perhaps even go so far as to say who should be members of the House of Commons.
Now, I have been attracted by those people directly opposite who have perhaps taken up three-quarters of the pages of Hansard during the past session. Of course, there was one debate when they were outstripped, but generally they are occupying the floor and wasting much of the time of the house, so they should not feel too disconcerted if at this time we try to do something for the members of this house, and indirectly something for the people of Canada.
It has been suggested that a member should have at least a limited pass on Trans-Canada Air Lines, and Canadian Pacific Lines should not be overlooked in this regard. I do not believe these companies should be expected to indiscriminately issue passes. Perhaps it would be a better method if we were allowed to travel on the air lines and charge the expenses to the House of Commons. The T.C.A. should not be expected to make up the losses that may result from members travelling to far eastern Canada or far western Canada. Members at least should be given the right to travel home to their constituency two or three times during a session. In this way members would be enabled to provide some service to their constituents, and would be placed on an equal footing with members who are living in the central provinces. I would certainly support such a suggestion because it is not a good arrangement for a member who comes to Ottawa to move a young family to Ottawa for six or eight months of the year. It breaks up the school year, and the cost of maintaining two homes is certainly prohibitive.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn), a member should be able to visit the various parts of his riding to hear the complaints and requests that his constituents may have. The hon. member from Newfoundland-I shall not try to pronounce the name of the riding-has pointed out that it requires a great deal of travelling to get around to the various points. While most of my travelling can be done by automobile, still the riding is approximately 300 or 350 miles long and 150 to 200 miles wide. If we are going to be sitting here seven or eight months of the year, and are expected to get around the entire community, then something should be done to enable us to visit the constituency periodically during the session. We might even this year have been able to find that our constituents were more enthusiastic about building a pipe line than was evidenced from the letters that we


received which would have given us a great deal more persuasion to carry on this great struggle we had to put up.
Now, those are my reasons for feeling that something should be done either to provide for shorter sessions or to enable a member to visit his riding periodically. While I cannot give wholehearted support to the summer holiday idea, I do think we should conduct the business of the house more efficiently and be able to get the work done within six months.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: see several hon. members. Does the hon. member for Wetaskiwin wish to-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: It has been customary in this house, although not always usual, when two members rise, one member for a larger party and one member for a smaller party, one substantially senior in service, that the one who was senior was seen. On this occasion such did not happen. I wish to tell you why, Mr. Speaker; because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) informed His Honour tonight he would like to speak and he was sufficiently ill-advised to tell the Speaker that he wanted to speak about something affecting His Honour-


Some hon. Members:: Order; sit down.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I condemn the shabby conduct of the Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Before the hon. member goes any further, he will permit me to tell him and the house that I saw the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre every time he rose.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: You were not in the chair first.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, having quite frankly said he did not propose to follow the same line as was introduced by the hon. member-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am not
talking about you, I am talking about the Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: If the hon. member for Winnipeg North is rising on a question of privilege which occurred before the present time, then surely the time to have raised it was at the time.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I did not
see the plot.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North might pay me the same courtesy which I am trying-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I do not
know what right you have to be occupying the chair. I do not know what right any of the three elected officials of this house have to be in this chair. What has happened tonight is shameful.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: I would suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North that as he knows-I am afraid it has been drawn to the attention of this house on more than one occasion- there is a procedure he can follow if he wishes to question my right to occupy the chair. At the moment, of course, he knows that it is because the house saw fit earlier in the session to elect me as deputy chairman of committees, and under certain circumstances I find myself occupying this chair.
I think perhaps the matter which has been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North should not be allowed to drop there, but I do feel this, that the debate which I happen to be presiding over at the moment is a time limit debate and any time I take now is going to be taken from one of the members who has a chance to speak between now and the expiry of the two hours and six minutes.
When I was interrupted, I was asking the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas) whether or not he proposed to follow the same grievance line which has been discussed by previous members?


Ray Thomas: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Applewhaite):
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin.


Colin Cameron: I want to speak on the same grievance,	Mr. Speaker.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Applewhaite):
I am sorry, did the hon. member for Nanaimo have a question of order?


Colin Cameron: No, I want to speak on the same grievance.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Applewhaite):
I shall remember that when the hon. member rises. In the meantime, I have seen the hon. member for Wetaskiwin.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Haven't we any rights here at all?


Ray Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege as that raised by the hon. member for New Westminster. Unfortunately, I am going to have to disagree with the stand that he took because I feel it would be unwise and
10, 1956	5851
Parliamentarians-Suggested Summer Recess improper to adjourn, as he suggested, around the end of June and to reconvene at a later date. Although I like my holidays and vacation as much as anybody else, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the question raised by the hon. member for New Westminster was that he wanted to go home during that period to meet with his constituents, do work around his constituency and cover his own area.
All of the work that can be done between July 1 and the end of August in one's constituency is very small because, when you go home during that period, you find that people are on vacation. It is impossible to call people together. The service clubs and all of the other organizations have adjourned for the summer months and you cannot get more than a bare minimum of work done during the months of July and August. By the same token, if the work is not completed here by the end of June-and mind you, I would like to see it done by the end of June-by that time we would be far better off to stay here during July and whatever part of August we find necessary so that we can get home by the time the holiday season is over around the end of August, and we can then get down to work by the first day of September, or at least after the labour day holiday. Otherwise, if we adjourn for the six weeks or two months in the middle of the summer, as suggested by the hon. member for New Westminster and others who have spoken on this matter, we go back and we sit at home for the summer; we come back here in September and sit here through September and probably part of October; we go back home again just about freeze-up, the weather turns bad and it is impossible to cover our constituency at all. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, the logical thing is, if we have not completed our work by July 1, to continue on until we have completed the business, go home, spend the fall months and the early winter months when we can get around our constituency and meet the people and when we can find the service clubs in operation and we can address various groups that are meeting at that time. Then in the winter time we can come back here, start our session and finish it up in the middle of the summer if necessary.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on the same matter that was raised by the hon. member for New Westminster. I would like to carry it to a more logical conclusion. As you may recall, sir, a very distinguished constitutional lawyer wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister in which he outlined what he considered to be

House of Commons
the most logical way of conducting this parliament from now on. At that time he suggested to the Prime Minister that we should meet for one afternoon a year, and when we came in we would be given a questionnaire with the government's proposed legislation outlined on it. We would listen to the speech from the throne. On retiring, we would mark on this questionnaire "yes" or "no" to each of the government's proposals, and then wend our way home.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that might be a very reasonable way of conducting this parliament since it has been reduced to such a farce within recent days when the Prime Minister, in the most insolent manner, took to himself the right to decide who should preside over this assembly-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Colin Cameron: -and, Mr. Speaker, reduced those of us who are obliged to sit on this side of the house to the position of sitting under the presidency of a man who has openly stated that in his opinion certain members have falsified the facts for their own political ends.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that we have been placed in that position. The logical thing to do is either to dissolve this parliament immediately or to follow Dr. Eugene Forsey's suggestion and meet for one afternoon a year. That would be carrying out all the democracy that is left in this parliament after the activities of those who should be its guardians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Is
the house ready for the question?



ACTION OF PRIME MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFICE OF SPEAKER

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to state a grievance. In doing so, I speak on behalf of this group and I believe I speak on behalf of the institution of parliament and on behalf of the good name of this house.


George James McIlraith: Did you hear your colleague tonight?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My grievance is against the Prime Minister. I do not propose to rehash any of the events which are part of the records of this session of this parliament prior to a few days ago; but I feel that in addition to the injury that has been done to parliament in this session a further insult was added yesterday by the Prime Minister.
There are certain matters which are the prerogative of the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker. Those matters include a number of important considerations, one of them being

the decision as to who will preside over the deliberations of this house. This is provided for, Mr. Speaker, not in anything that is temporary or passing but in the British North America Act itself. Section 44 of the British North America Act reads as follows:
The House of Commons on its first assembling after a general election shall proceed with all practicable speed to elect one of its members to be Speaker.
Section 45 reads:
In case of a vacancy happening in the office of Speaker by death, resignation, or otherwise, the House of Commons shall with all practicable speed proceed to elect another of its members to be Speaker.
Surely, I do not need to emphasize the point that it is laid down clearly in the constitution of this country that it is the House of Commons, not the government, not the Prime Minister, but the House of Commons that decides who shall be its Speaker. In this connection, there is an interesting citation in Beauchesne's third edition, citation 35, which reads as follows:
The choice of Speaker is the choice of this house. The house chooses and elects its Speaker; he is in no sense the choice of the government-in no sense the choice of the Prime Minister. In the British house, this has been the practice since the earliest times; we have followed that custom in equal degree and with equal fidelity. Indeed, in the British parliament it has never been the practice even for a member of the government to move or second the selection of a Speaker; that is left to the private members.
I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that that is a quotation from a speech made in this house by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. I think it is properly included in Beauchesne's third edition as an annotation to the sections of the British North America Act that I read a moment ago.
Perhaps I might read as well a few lines from the next citation in Beauchesne's third edition, citation 36:
Mr. Pitt once intended to propose Mr. Addington, but Mr. Hatsell, Clerk of the house, on being consulted by Mr. Addington, said; "I think that the choice of the speaker should not be on the motion of the minister. Indeed an invidious use might be made of it, to represent you as the friend of the minister, rather than the choice of the house." Mr. Pitt acknowledged the force of this objection.
Mr. Speaker, I am ready to admit that it took quite a few years for the Canadian House of Commons to develop a tradition with regard to the choice of its speaker. I read again today the account of the sitting of the House of Commons the first day it met in 1867 and there was a dispute on that very first day over the choice of the speaker proposed on that occasion by Sir John A. Macdonald. I have read debates at the opening of a number of parliaments across the years and I find that on quite a number of occasions

there have been disputes. There have been occasions when some alternative person was proposed in opposition to the name suggested from the government side. True, in all the cases the choice of the government became the choice of the House of Commons. What interests me, however, is that gradually the house came to realize, although there might be differences over some things that were done in connection with the election of the speaker that basically he must be recognized not as the choice of the government nor as the choice of the prime minister but as the choice of the entire House of Commons.
The Right Hon. Arthur Meighen on March 8, 1922, speaking to a motion of the then prime minister, Mr. King, for the appointment of the speaker for that parliament, used the words I read a moment ago from Beau-chesne's third edition and then he went on to say:
Indeed, in the British parliament it has never been the practice even for a member of the government to move or second the selection of a speaker: that is left to the private members. In our parliament we have not in that special regard followed the British practice. No one would deny that a member acceptable to the administration should be selected; but I do deny the right of the administration-the right of the prime minister to announce to this house and to the country m advance whom we shall select as speaker.
In 1930 Mr. Bennett was prime minister and on September 8, when it was proposed that Mr. Black be appointed as speaker, Mr. King indicated he had no objection to the person of Mr. Black but he did object to the way in which Mr. Bennett had gone about announcing the appointment of Mr. Black, more or less installing him as speaker, even before his election had been accomplished by the House of Commons. In objecting to what was done at that time, Mr. King, as recorded at page 3 of Hansard for September 8, 1930, read some of the statements that Mr. Meighen had made in 1922 and put his stamp of approval on Mr. Meighen's statement:
. . . that the government have not any right as such to name a speaker, that the speaker is essentially an officer of the House of Commons: he '*S an appointee of the House of Commons and is in no sense an appointee of the government.
There, Mr. Speaker, you have both the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen and the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King making it extremely clear that the choice of the person to preside over the deliberations of this house is the prerogative of the House of Commons and not the prerogative of the government nor of the Prime Minister. It is clear that it took a few years to build up that tradition but it had certainly become firmly established by the twenties and thirties of this century.
House of Commons
In 1936 when Mr. King moved the nomination of a speaker for that parliament he ran into some difficulties because of certain things that had happened. He referred to the practice at Westminster of having a permanent speaker. I should like to interject that this matter seems to have been discussed a good many times in the history of the House of Commons and although it has been discussed at times when speakers were elected nothing seems to have been done about it in the meantime. At any rate, Mr. King on February 6, 1936, as reported at page 2 of Hansard for that date, said:
In Canada the practice since confederation has been different; the speaker has been nominated by a member of the ministry, the prime minister, in fact, and I think the nomination has in all cases been accepted by members of the commons. It is but right, that the ministry should have at least an opportunity to make known its view with regard to the person it thinks should be appointed to the high office of speaker.
I continue with these words used by Mr. King:
I wish to make it very clear, however, to hon. members, that the choice of a speaker is the choice of the commons itself, and that hon. members themselves must elect the one who is to be the occupant of that office.
Although on that occasion Mr. Bennett and Mr. Woodsworth had reason to object to some of the things the government was doing they both concurred in that statement made by Mr. King that the choosing of the speaker is the prerogative of the House of Commons and not the prerogative of the government nor of the prime minister.
Similarly on May 16, 1940, when Mr. King was moving the nomination of Mr. Glen he referred once more to the difference between the tradition at Westminster and the tradition here but as reported on page 2 of Hansard for that date he said this:
However, this difference is not in any way intended to imply any restriction of the freedom of members to make whatever choice they wish. The speaker of the house is not appointed by the government, he is elected by the commons. Members of the house are entirely free to make whatever choice they wish.
I said at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, that my grievance is against the Prime Minister. It is my considered view- and some of us have had time to think this over since the events of yesterday afternoon- that the Prime Minister has added insult to injury, that he has given this parliament a serious affront in what he did yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A week ago yesterday the Speaker of the House of Commons placed his

House of Commons
resignation before us. As found at page 5555 of Hansard for July 2, 1956, he put it in these words:
I place now my resignation before the house to take effect at the pleasure of the house. I would wish that it be accepted as soon as possible.
He then went on with further comments, which he began with the words, "This is my farewell speech."
In my view, Mr. Speaker did the right thing on that occasion; he did the honourable thing. He placed his resignation before the house. He made his own decision on the basis of what had transpired in days just previous to July 2; and not only did he do the right and honourable thing in offering his resignation, but speaking in parliamentary terms he did the correct thing in placing it in the hands of the House of Commons. It was there, Mr. Speaker, for the House of Commons to deal with. This is something that is one of the prerogatives of the House of Commons. The acting prime minister of that day, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), was quite correct, I think, in suggesting that this was a matter that might wait until the return of the Prime Minister yesterday; and so we waited with anticipation the return of the right hon. gentleman. Yesterday, with regard to the resignation offered the week before by the Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) chose to say that it was not really a resignation. I quote from page 5763 of Hansard of Monday, July 9. This is what the Prime Minister said:
Of course, all hon. members are aware that such a statement or declaration of intention does not constitute the formal action required as the actual resignation of a Speaker.
I do not think anyone will deny that, in the view of the Speaker, he was placing his resignation in the hands of the house for the house to deal with, when he took the course of action that he pursued on Monday, July 2. The Prime Minister took it upon himself to place on the Speaker's statement a different interpretation than that which the Speaker had placed upon it and a different interpretation than that which was understood by the house. Not only did the Prime Minister place this different interpretation upon the words of the Speaker. He violated the prerogatives that have been laid down over a number of decades by choosing to make by himself a decision as to who would be Speaker of the House of Commons for the balance of this parliament. I can imagine that some hon. members would like to argue with me and say that what we were confronted with at this stage is something different from that with which we are confronted at the beginning of a parliament

when we have no Speaker. Technically that statement is correct. Technically there has been no break in the Speakership in the House of Commons in this parliament. But in spirit, speaking virtually, from the time Mr. Speaker placed his resignation in the hands of the House of Commons on Monday July 2 until yesterday, we were really without a Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It had not been decided who would preside over the deliberations of this House of Commons for the balance of this parliament. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) asked the house and the Speaker to wait until the return of the Prime Minister for that question to be settled. What question? The question as to who would be Speaker of the House of Commons for the balance of this parliament.


Walter Edward Harris: Nonsense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By his action yesterday the Prime Minister took unto himself that prerogative, made that decision and did not even give to the House of Commons the chance to pass upon it either by way of approval or otherwise. It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that we now have an issue that is greater than any issue we have had yet in this session. That is one of the reasons why I have taken no time at all in dealing-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman want to go back to yesterday?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration say?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I asked if the hon. gentleman wanted to go back to yesterday.


George Hugh Castleden: No. That is done by the Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am talking about yesterday, Mr. Speaker. I am saying to the house and to the Prime Minister that, in addition to all the injury that was done to parliament by the way in which a certain piece of legislation was put through this house, and in addition to all that has been done by way of destroying the atmosphere of this parliament and making it a place where we cannot properly carry on the business of the country, we now are aware of the fact that we have as Prime Minister, as leader of this house, a person who thinks of it not as a House of Commons but as a Liberal caucus in which members of other parties, by his grace, are allowed to sit and to make speeches.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yesterday the Prime Minister, as reported at page 5763 of Hansard, said this:
As Prime Minister I have the ultimate responsibility for the leadership of the house, and I do not intend to shirk that responsibility in any way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those are plausible words, but the applause that has just been given to them by the Liberals opposite underlines my point that he spoke and acted yesterday not as the leader of the House of Commons but as the leader of the Liberal party, making the decision that he felt was best for the fortunes of the Liberal party. Mr. Speaker, the issue is no longer the things that happened in the month of May and the early part of June. The issue is not who actually occupies the chair for the balance of this session or the balance of this parliament. The issue is that there should be no "balance" to this session and no "balance" to this parliament. Any vestige that was left-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has not that question been settled by the house?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: By the Liberal party; not by the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is not the hon. member out of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am prepared to answer that question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman poses as a great expert on the rules. I am asking if that question has not been settled by vote of the house and therefore should not be raised again. I should like him to give an answer to that question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am quite prepared to answer that question. In fact, I would be happy to listen to a speech by the minister on that question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it would be out of order to make a speech.


An hon. Member:: Oh, shut up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I may tell the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) that one of the reasons I am talking about the present situation is precisely because I realized that a point of order could be raised if I talked about things that happened prior to the time that certain votes were taken.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not answering my question.
House of Commons


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was a vote on the question as to whether or not the Speaker should be censured.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. That is not the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was also a vote, on party lines, on the motion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) calling for dissolution of this house and an election.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And that question was decided.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But, Mr. Speaker, what I am talking about has happened since then. I base my contention that the time has come for dissolution not just on the things that took place in days gone by and on which there may have been decisions by the majority of this house, even though in some of those cases the decision was really not valid unless it was unanimous. I base my protest on what happened yesterday afternoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, the hon. gentleman is objecting to a decision of the house.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am asking if the hon. gentleman is not setting himself up above the house. A decision was made by the house by an overwhelming majority. He is now asking that that decision should be reversed.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The hon. member will have the opportunity to make a speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The house decided on Tuesday, June 26, by a majority vote that there should not be a dissolution. To the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration does that mean that there is never to be a dissolution?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does it mean that this
government is to stay in office forever? Would that vote of the house deny to the members of the government the right to meet at any time and decide on dissolution when they wished to do so?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at all; but if I may
answer the question which the hon. gentleman asked, I will do so. What it means is that no hon. member has a right in this session in debate to raise the same question again for decision by the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the rule and the hon. gentleman knows it very well.

House of Commons


Stanley Howard Knowles: The decision, even though it was only a majority decision, was on the motion of the Leader of the Opposition calling for dissolution not in the abstract but on the basis of what had happened prior to the time he made that motion. I call for dissolution of this parliament, if for no other reason, on the basis of what happened yesterday. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration cannot get around the fact that something new in terms of damaging parliament has been added to the picture by the action of the Prime Minister yesterday.


An hon. Member:: A very flimsy basis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier that the question of how the Speaker gets elected in this House of Commons has an extremely interesting history. There were earlier occasions when there were struggles and squabbles of one kind and another; but gradually it has been accepted that he is the choice of the whole House of Commons. Indeed it was in this very parliament, under the present Prime Minister, that I think we reached perhaps as high a point as we have ever reached when, at the opening of the first session of this parliament in 1953,- I think for the first time in history-the Prime Minister's motion that the present Speaker take the chair was seconded by the Leader of the Opposition. At the start of this parliament under the present Prime Minister we had reached a high point in the unanimity with which the house acts in the matter of electing a Speaker. Yesterday under the same Prime Minister we reached a low point, when the right of the House of Commons to have the say as to who is to be the presiding officer was taken away from the House of Commons-I do not think even the Liberal party had any say in it-and was exercised by the Prime Minister himself.
I have already said that I think His Honour the Speaker did the right and honourable thing on July 2, when he placed his resignation in the hands of this house. I am not now offering any words of criticism of the Speaker, despite what I might have felt about something that happened earlier this evening. I have refrained from any criticism on that score because I think a new issue has arisen, the issue of the rights of the House of Commons itself, rights which the Prime Minister himself has violated.
The reason I said earlier that I could have [DOT] related my remarks to the not too important issue raised by the hon. member for New Westminster was that I realized he was asking that parliament go home for the summer and I could have supported that suggestion because certainly I think it should

be going home right now, but not for the same reasons which he gave.
Because parliament has got into an atmosphere where we are not able to do the business of the country properly, it does not matter, from here on in this parliament, who is put in the chair, the present Speaker or someone else. If he is going to be chosen by the Prime Minister and given to the house on the Prime Minister's authority without any attempt to pay some regard to the decencies of parliamentary procedure that would simply continue to damage and destroy the atmosphere of this house.
I think most of us believe that certainly one of the most important institutions in Canada, if not the most important, is the parliament of Canada. The people of Canada have the right to have that institution on the highest possible level. The people of Canada have a right to have the discussions in this parliament take place on a basis of give-and-take, of argument and conflict, but nevertheless of understanding as to the points that we are discussing and with respect both ways and with respect for the Chair.
We have had an unfortunate atmosphere since the events of earlier this session, and I think it has become very clear that this parliament's prestige in the eyes of the Canadian people does not merit its being continued and that the Prime Minister, who will have the ultimate say as to when dissolution will take place, subject to the five-year limit, owes it to parliament and owes it to the people of Canada to give consideration to a very early dissolution of parliament and the calling of a general election.
I insist that the issue now-and I say this for the benefit of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as well as others-is not with reference to things that have happened in the past and on which the house may have taken decisions. The issue that faces us in this house is pin-pointed by the dictatorial attitude of the Prime Minister yesterday in his disregard for the prerogatives of parliament. I feel more strongly now than I did when I urged on earlier occasions that there be a dissolution that that is the only course to follow. I hope that the Prime Minister will give serious consideration to this matter and do something about it at an early date.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the situation was such that I did not get the floor earlier so that there might be more time for this matter to be discussed, but even so I feel I should not speak longer, for I wish to leave at least the 12 minutes that there are tonight and the six minutes there are tomorrow for the Prime Minister to speak on this matter if he wishes to do so, and I trust he will.

But, if he does exercise that right, as I hope he will, I trust he will not say the kind of thing that will close the door to a proper consideration of what I think is now his duty to the Canadian people, namely, the early dissolution of parliament and the calling of a general election so that we might have a new parliament, clean and fresh, that can measure up to what the Canadian people have a right to expect.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I shall require even the 12 minutes that remained a moment ago, when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre sat down, and the six minutes of tomorrow to tell him that it is not what he thinks I should do that is going to be done. There may come a time when he will not only have to think but be in a position to do what he thinks should be done; but that time has not yet arrived.
With respect to everything the hon. gentleman has said about the choice of the Speaker, I am in full agreement, and it did not require 89 years of practice to make it absolutely crystal clear that the Speaker was the choice of the House of Commons. However, the hon. gentleman, who referred to sections 44 and 45 of the British North America Act, certainly overlooked, and many others in the house have overlooked, the provision of section 49 of the British North America Act, which provides that the actions of the House of Commons do not have to be by the unanimous decision of the House of Commons but that they are the result of decisions by the majority of the members of the House of Commons.
It has been sought to be established for quite a long time in this House of Commons that it was not the supporters of the government who had the right to make decisions but that it was the members of the opposition, and that whenever there was any suggestion put before the house with which the members of the opposition did not agree it was wrong, unconstitutional and a contempt of parliament not to take into account their views instead of taking into account the views of the majority sent here by the Canadian people-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -to make the decisions that are required to be made to carry on the business of the country. It is not by any accident that the party of which I have the honour to be the leader at the present time has been in office now for 21 years and plans to continue in office for several years longer.
House of Commons


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: 1957 will be the end.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Now, with respect to what I did yesterday, the hon. gentleman says that that is an act of contempt of parliament. I submit that it was an act of full respect for the rights and privileges of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman has been posing, and with some justification, as an expert on the rules and precedents of parliamentary institutions. The hon. gentleman knows as well as I do that there has never been any formal acceptance by the House of Commons here or by the House of Commons in the United Kingdom of the resignation of a Speaker. A Speaker who chooses to resign does resign and it is the act of his own will that creates the vacancy required under the British North America Act to make way for the appointment of a new Speaker. The hon. gentleman knows as well as I do, and as well as all other hon. members who have not made as profound a study as he has of the rules and precedents, that what was stated by Mr. Speaker on Monday, the 2nd of July, did not vacate his office and that it was expected there would be some other formal action that would bring about the situation provided for in section 45 of the British North America Act, that is to say, a vacancy happening in the office by resignation or otherwise.
That being the situation, I felt that it was necessary for me to say to the house whether or not I was going to take any formal action to bring about a vacancy in the office of Speaker. What I did yesterday was to declare to the house that, having ascertained that the Speaker was willing to have his duty to parliament and to the country regarded as higher than his natural desire to be able to meet the criticisms that had been and were still being levelled against him, I felt under no obligation to take any action in respect of the statements that had been made on the 2nd of July.
I appointed no Speaker. I made no pretence of appointing any Speaker. I proposed the motion, which was seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), made at the beginning of this parliament that the present Speaker take the chair for this parliament. I did that because I realized, as the hon. member realizes, that it is desirable to have the appointment of the Speaker in the form in which it is made represent what is provided for by the constitution, that is to say, an appointment by the House of Commons and not an appointment by the government.

House of Commons
I remember that both in 1949 and in 1953 newspapermen were anxious to find out whom I was going to propose for the speakership. I told them that the speakership was something that was within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons itself and that I could give them no information, that I had in mind the gentleman I wished to suggest to the house to appoint but that he would become Speaker only if and when he had become appointed by the House of Commons. He is still Speaker of the House of Commons because there has never been the formal act required by the constitution to create a vacancy in his office, and I felt that it was desirable as soon as possible after my return to state publicly that I was not going to take any action to bring about a vacancy unless Mr. Speaker himself refused to continue to carry out the responsibilities of the office which he has discharged with knowledge, competence and distinction.
Whatever the hon. gentleman may think of my conduct, and I know that he is sincere, I do not think that my conduct requires me to advise His Excellency to dissolve parliament at this time. The hon. gentleman has said that is the only matter with which he is dealing as his grievance at this moment. Well, I am not going to satisfy that grievance and his grievance must persist if the only way in which it caj be removed is by my stating here that I have come to the conclusion that I have acted in a way that makes it improper for me to continue to be a member of parliament. I do not agree that that is the case, and I am convinced, as I was convinced yesterday, that in informing the house that Mr. Speaker was willing to continue I was informing a majority, a large and overwhelming majority made up not only of those who support this government, of something which was very agreeable to them.
If the hon. gentleman feels that I mistook the sense and feeling of the majority in this house he knows that he can at any time put on the order paper a notice of motion to remove the Speaker from the chair and he will see-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege, will the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) not admit that I made it clear that I did not think it mattered who is in the chair. Will the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -not agree that I made it clear that it was not the resignation of the Speaker I was suggesting but rather the dissolution of parliament?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I know that it was the dissolution of parliament that the hon. gentleman was suggesting, but he was suggesting the dissolution of parliament because I had stated yesterday that I believed that it was the will of the majority in this house, if Mr. Speaker was willing to do so, that he continue to preside over our deliberations. That being the only reason urged by my hon. friend for a dissolution of parliament, I consider it to be a very insufficient reason.


William Earl Rowe: You will not need any more votes, just your opinion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. gentleman thinks that I am mistaken about how the votes would go in this house he knows how he can test that opinion.


William Earl Rowe: You are sure they will all vote for you.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, it is ten o'clock. I will not continue now unless it should be the unanimous feeling of the house that the six minutes additional should be taken up tonight.


William Earl Rowe: Ten o'clock. You have said
too much now.


James Joseph McCann: You cannot take it any more.


An hon. Member:: Sit down and take it.
On motion of Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we will conclude this debate tomorrow and then take the estimates of veterans affairs and northern affairs.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the Prime
Minister-


Some hon. Members:: No, sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Arza Clair Casselman: Get the steamroller out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, July 11, 1956