1956-01-20

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader oi the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under standing order 26 to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the need for a definite government policy regarding the shipments from Canada to foreign countries of arms, military equipment and ammunition and the effective supervision thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Drew asks for leave under standing order 26 to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of public importance. He has indicated that the matter in question is the need for a definite government policy regarding the shipments from Canada to foreign countries of arms, military equipment and ammunition and the effective supervision thereof.
As the house knows, according to standing order 26, it rests with the Speaker to decide, not only whether the motion for leave is in order, but also whether in his opinion, that is, in the Speaker's opinion, he thinks that it is of urgent public importance. Under our practice, a matter of urgent public importance is understood to be one with regard to which there is urgency of debate.
I do not know to what extent I should preserve the line of reasoning that I and many of my predecessors have followed, namely, that whenever there is a debate like the one currently going on, which gives the opportunity to hon. members to discuss a wide range of subjects, motions such as this one have not been allowed. I am inclined today to follow the precedents that have been established. Today is the seventh appointed day of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. There are still three more days.
We all know that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn), who adjourned the debate last night, will shortly obtain the
floor and, on the basis of our memory of what has happened in previous sessions, is likely to move another subamendment which will give hon. members the right to speak for 40 minutes each. Therefore they can debate at great length the matter proposed for this day in the motion now before me. In view of that I would submit that all those who wish to put forward points with regard to this matter can take advantage of the debate which is going to follow shortly on the amendment to the amendment about to be moved by the hon. member for New Westminster. In these circumstances I do not think I would be justified in accepting the motion.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I with deference place a consideration before you. While I recognize that such a dispatch need not necessarily be taken as evidence that the facts are so, the Canadian Press carries a dispatch this morning that there has been a permit issued for the shipment of 25-pounder shells out of Canada to an area where there is disturbance at the present time and that the permit order is dated since the disturbance actually began. Having regard to that and having regard to the fact that there is an incompleted order for aircraft of value for military training purposes, if nothing else, I submit it would be advisable that there should be an opportunity to deal with so important a subject as this without further delay. That was the reason for putting forward this proposal.


Mr. Speaker:: We must be realistic about this matter. The hon. member cannot do anything else but debate the matter named in his motion. As soon as questions on the orders of the day are disposed of the hon. member for New Westminster will be able to speak for 40 minutes. Then the Leader of the Opposition may speak immediately following him and may deal with the subject named in his motion. That is why when we are considering urgency of debate we must bear in mind the fact that whenever a debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne or a debate on a motion to go into supply is under way the range of subjects that can be covered is very wide and great latitude is offered. Therefore it has been the consistent policy of Speakers as far as I can remember not to accept these motions in the circumstances in which we find ourselves
344	HOUSE OF
Reported Export of Military Equipment today. Would the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway like to help me in this instance?


Mr. Maclnnis:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I am afraid I shall not be able to help you. I rather think that the Leader of the Opposition is in a strong position in raising this question this morning. You have stated that the Leader of the Opposition can present bis views after the hon. member for New Westminster has finished. That is true mough, but what is more important than a statement in this regard by the Leader of the Opposition is that we should have a statement from the government. In a debate such as that on the speech from the throne ;here is no compulsion on the Secretary of State for External Affairs or any other member of the government to make any reply ifter the Leader of the Opposition has made iis speech. In my opinion that is the point of :his whole matter. I should like to see you illow this motion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Harris:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. I have never heard t suggested in this house-although I have rot been here so very long-that a motion )f this kind would be entertained by Your donour when a general debate of this nature vas going on. Indeed, I have heard it said nany times that it would not be entertained 'or the obvious reason that these general lebates give the opportunity for discussion >f any subject that anyone wants to raise.
On the point made by the hon. member 'or Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) nay I point out that if it is open to an hon. nember, in the course of this debate, to speak >n any subject on which he may choose to ipeak, surely it is equally open to the gov-;rnment to declare its position if it so chooses. Jnder these circumstances I can see no point n not supposing that this whole matter could >e disposed of by discussion during the course if this debate. Whether or not the hon. nember who has moved the adjournment of he debate should raise this matter by way of i subamendment is a matter of opinion for tim to decide. As I said before, it has never >een in the contemplation of any of the larties, so far as I know, that on this occasion motion of this kind could be entertained.


George Alexander Drew: Since the Minister of Finance Mr. Harris) has mentioned this matter, I hould like to point out that the key words n the statement were that the government nay reply if it chooses to do so. Our point 5 that it does not choose to give us the nformation that we should have and that a iebate of this kind would call upon the overnment to give a statement of policy 

with regard to something that is of great concern as it is related to the whole question of our relationship with other nations at an extremely important time in the world's history.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, earlier in this session the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) asked for a specific debate on external affairs. In his absence the other day and in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I said that we would have that debate within two, three or four days after the conclusion of this debate. It was my understanding that on that occasion these matters could be aired. There is no question of the government's not choosing to declare their position. We certainly will do so. We are quite proud of our record and we are prepared to defend it at any time.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has referred to his statement, I would point out that prior to his making this statement the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) had assured me personally of a debate on external affairs.


An hon. Member:: What more do you want?


George Alexander Drew: I would ask the Prime Minister if, in the meantime, he will assure us that there will be no further shipment of arms or equipment from Canada.


Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East):: I think it is quite proper for me, Mr. Speaker, to give the assurance that we consider very carefully at all times any request for anything that can be of war service or armament service and that at the present time we are as much concerned about the situation in the Middle East as is any hon. member of the house; and that there will be no shipments for that area pending the debate on the matter in the House of Commons.


Mr. Pearson:: Mr. Speaker, may I say that not only would there have been an opportunity in the debate on external affairs to discuss this matter that my hon. friend has suggested, but it was also my intention, after discussing the matter with my colleagues, to anticipate this debate and make a statement to the house on this particular subject on Monday or Tuesday next.


Mr. Knowles:: I am sure we all appreciate what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has said. It is a little bit better than the offer made by the Minister of Finance in that we shall get a statement next week rather than the week after next. However, it seems to me that

in this matter there is immediacy-a real urgency-that calls for discussion today.
I should like to submit for Your Honour's consideration a new procedural point which I think has arisen because of one of the changes we have made in the rules. Your Honour suggests that so long as debate on the address is going on and provided that new amendments or subamendments are made, any hon. member may enter the debate and speak on any question such as this. Your Honour is referring to various precedents of that nature, but those precedents relate to a period when there was unlimited time for the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. There is now a ten-day limit. It may be technically correct to say that any member could rise on the supposed subamendment by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) and speak on this question. The fact of the matter is that there are only so many days left and many members who have already spoken who might wish to speak on this question would feel that they would not be fair to other members of the house if they were to speak a second time before all members have had a chance to speak once. I suggest therefore to Your Honour that in considering this situation, before you rely too completely on the precedents of the past, with some of which I do not agree anyway, you consider the new situation created by the time limit now fixed for the debate on the address.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, no matter what time limit has been placed on the debate on the address in reply there is no change as to what kind of vehicle the debate on the address in reply is. It is one which consists of'giving hon. members an opportunity to discuss anything coming within the administration of this parliament. If while this debate is going on by virtue of a particular announcement made a few days ago by the acting leader of the house if hon. members wish to put the debate on the address aside from time to time and use standing order No. 26 as a vehicle to discuss questions of actuality because they do not wish that day to be counted within the ten-day period for the debate on the address, I suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the matter will have to be very seriously considered. I am not prepared today to give way and put aside all the decisions that have been rendered by my predecessors and myself, but I will consider it.
It does pose a problem, I realize that. It seems that before I do put aside all the precedents to which I have referred, I should
Reported Export of Military Equipment like to give it some more thought. It does pose a problem. It seems to me that if the members of a party do consider that a particular matter needs to be debated on a particular day, then those who are interested in making, let us say, constituency speeches, could give way to those who want to take part in the debate on the matter named in the motion. There are other opportunities during the session, such as supply motions and the budget debate, for discussion of a wide range of subjects.
Now, are we going to allow the motion under standing order No. 26 to be a vehicle for questions of actuality and to displace a debate so wide as the one in which we are currently engaged at the moment? The same situation will obtain with regard to supply motions and the budget debate. Therefore, I think the hon. member will agree with me that before I change the practice I will have to give the matter very careful consideration.


George Alexander Drew: Since Your Honour has indicated you propose to give this very careful consideration, may I point out that there is a very marked distinction between a motion of . this kind and a motion in regard to a subject of general concern. When Your Honour suggests that the matter could be dealt with on a motion to go into supply, I would point out that the house has been informed by the government that three aircraft are actually now on the way-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: -to the Middle East; that 12 of the 15 aircraft ordered remain to be shipped; that certain shells are still to be shipped, and the purpose was to deal with this before that took place. The situation would in no way be met by waiting for a purely academic debate on the motion to go into supply.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may have an opportunity during the day. The argument that has been made by both himself and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Maclnnis) is that if this motion were allowed today it would compel a member of the government to give the government's views on the subject matter. Surely, they will both agree that ministers are not precluded from doing exactly the same thing today during the debate on the address.
[Later:!


PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN ISSUING PERMITS FOR EXPORT OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr,
Speaker, reverting to the earlier discussion
346	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, would the Prime Minister tell the house whether the issue of export permits covering aircraft, explosives or other war material is decided at the cabinet level or on the basis of certain principles and, if so, what are those principles and when were they first communicated to the Department of Trade and Commerce?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Matters concerning the acceptance or otherwise of orders for any of that type of material are discussed at cabinet level, but to my knowledge no orders are accepted before information has been communicated to those with whom it is sought to place the orders and the circumstances under which the permit could be given. The question of whether or not a permit could be granted is considered in the light of the situation and the repercussions it might have upon the situation with respect to peace in the world. In the discussions great consideration is given to the information we have from our allies in respect of similar matters.


John George Diefenbaker: When was the decision
made regarding the export permit for aircraft for Egypt? At approximately what date did the cabinet determine that question?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It was
some time in June of last year.


John George Diefenbaker: How is it that when the question was asked at the beginning of the session none of the ministers seemed to know anything about it? How is it they knew nothing about it?


Mr. Fleming:: I guess they were not at the cabinet meeting.
[Later:1


George Alexander Drew: In view of the answer just
given by the Prime Minister with regard to decisions on these matters all being made by the government, can the Prime Minister tell the house if a decision has been reached by the government with regard to the dismantling of field artillery and the sale of parts thereof as scrap to any agencies either inside or outside Canada?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope that we will have a full statement on Monday, but I can give the hon. member the assurance that no scrap is sold to any but Canadian consumers and that no permits are given for the exportation by them of any parts of military equipment.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.!


PASSAMAQUODDY PROJECT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson)-


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Who has the floor?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a very difficult position for me to find myself in. Since both hon. members are from New Brunswick I would imagine they might have the same question.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was up first.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should ask the
question.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I should like-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Walter Edward Harris: May I point out to Your
Honour that when the Leader of the Opposition presented his motion the hon. member was on his feet, and it was not until recently that the hon. member for Royal rose to his feet.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I might say that I was also on my feet at the same time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not always the case, but usually when we call the orders of the day it has been the practice to give a member of the opposition the floor first to ask his question. The Leader of the Opposition did not ask a question. He made a motion under standing order 26, which is a different proposition. It is up to hon. members to move that Mr. So and so be now heard, by virtue of standing order 29. But in order to clear the matter and make an issue of it at this time, if necessary, I will give the floor to the hon. member for Royal.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, when the orders of the day were called I rose to my feet to ask a question. I was on my feet before the Leader of the Opposition took the floor. I feel I have every right to expect the privilege of being permitted to ask a question. Since a member of the opposition has already had the floor, I feel a government member should be given the privilege of asking the question I have in mind.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question is based on a Canadian Press

dispatch from Washington to the effect that the House of Representatives today approved a $3 million survey to determine the cost and economic feasibility of the Passamaquoddy tidal power project.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My question is: Is it the intention of the federal government to join the United States in the cost of the proposed survey into the economic feasibility of the Passamaquoddy tidal power project?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question of my hon. friend, I should first say that last evening the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) approached me with a press dispatch which had just come off the ticker on this subject and asked me if I would reply to a question by him this morning. Perhaps I can now reply to both questions.


George Alexander Drew: Now that you have given him a credit mark.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The question, Mr. Speaker, concerns a decision taken yesterday by the House of Representatives in the United States of America to go ahead with an economic survey of the Passamaquoddy project, a decision which had previously been taken by the Senate in Washington. In reply to the specific question as to whether or not we are participating in this matter I can only say what I said to the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) who brought this question up in July of the last session.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As I also did.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As my hon. friend has done too. I said to the house at that time that if as a result of the passage of this resolution- at that time the resolution had passed the Senate but not the House of Representatives- the United States government wishes to request the international joint commission to undertake a survey, the Canadian government would be prepared to give sympathetic consideration to a proposal for a joint reference to the commission by both governments. A joint reference would have the effect of indicating that Canada is interested and cooperative and not merely giving reluctant consent.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would you answer a supplementary question? Is the Canadian government paying part of the cost of this survey?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not at the present time. That matter would only arise if a reference were made to the international joint commission.
Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


METHOD OF PAYMENT OF CHRISTMAS OVERTIME
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Is the Post Office Department giving consideration to the request of postal workers in various cities across Canada that the overtime they worked during the Christmas rush period be paid for in wages rather than by being granted time off in the month of January?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the method of compensation for overtime performed by postal employees during the Christmas rush is the same as that which would apply to the employees of any department. It is a matter of government policy which is determined by order in council.
That order covers employees in all departments.


INQUIRY AS TO SPACE AVAILABLE IN ELEVATORS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Baiilefords):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister present the latest figures concerning the amount of empty space now available in terminal elevators?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I was able to obtain those figures from Winnipeg since I had notice of my hon. friend's question. I might say that the rated capacity, in other words the licensed capacity, is hardly a practical figure. If an elevator were filled to its rated capacity it would be unable to salvage any out of condition grain. There must be some limit. We regard the effective capacity as being approximately 10 per cent less than the rated capacity. Using the effective capacity as the figure we have the following:
Interior terminals	 700.000 bushels
Pacific coast terminals
Vancouver-New Westminster . 8,200,000	"
Victoria	
400,000	"Prince Rupert	
700,000	"Churchill	
600,000	"Fort William-Port Arthur	
34,800,000	"
Eastern terminals
Bay and upper lake	 6,100,000	"
Lower lake and upper St.
Lawrence	
1,200,000	"Lower St. Lawrence	
4,000,000	"Maritimes	
1,500,000	"
58,200,000
348	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
As far as the eastern terminals other than in the maritimes are concerned there is no possibility of filling them after the close of navigation. They are filled from the lakes and shipments are constantly being made to the eastern Atlantic seaports for export. The unused capacity in the eastern terminals will grow steadily until at the opening of navigation these elevators should be empty.


REPORTED LOSS OF SALES BECAUSE OF SHIPPING POSITION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Have any sales of wheat or other grains been lost because of unavailability of grain in shipping position or have any complaints been received from Canadian customers that grain of the kind and variety they wished to buy was not available in shipping position?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would need to make a very careful study of that matter. Many sales of grain are made every day. To say categorically that no sale has been lost because grain was not in shipping position is something I cannot do. I dare say sales have been lost. I do not know of any Canadian customer who has not been able to buy grain whenever he wished to place the order. We have always had sufficient stocks to supply Canadian customers.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will the minister tell us when he expects to have the report of the Fauteux commission on correctional services which last July he hoped might be made in October, and will he lay on the table the documents containing the terms of reference of that commission?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I wish to thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of this question. So far as the presentation of the report is concerned, I was talking to Mr. Justice Fauteux recently, and I think that the best I can say, conservatively, at the present time-


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the way to talk.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -is that it will be made during the present session of parliament. With regard to the instructions, perhaps the quickest way to deal with that question is


to read into the record my letter to Mr. Justice Fauteux, the chairman of the committee. This letter is dated at Ottawa, December 11, 1953. It reads as follows:
This will confirm the arrangement under which you have been good enough to undertake to act as a member of an informal committee established to investigate and report upon the principles and procedures followed in the remission service of the Department of Justice in connection with the exercise of clemency and to recommend what changes, if any, should be made in those principles and procedures.
As I think you know, I do not propose to place restrictions of any kind upon your field of inquiry. Rather, it is my hope that members of the committee would find it possible to examine the entire field of remission and parole and, after a full inquiry, report to me their findings and recommendations.
I may say that the officials and facilities of the Department of Justice will be available for the assistance of members of the committee in connection with the inquiry. Arrangements will, of course, be made for the payment of your transportation and living expenses while you are engaged in this work away from your ordinary place of residence.
In conclusion I wish to thank you again for undertaking to perform this public service.
Identical letters were sent to the other three members of the committee, Mr. J. A. Edmison, assistant to the principal of Queen's University of Kingston, Mr. W. B. Common, Q.C., the director of public prosecutions for the province of Ontario and Mr. Joseph McCulley, the warden of Hart House, University of Toronto.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask a supplementary question? Does the government consider that the words in that letter, which I believe are "remission" and "parole", cover the question that was under discussion last July, namely probation?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the words "parole" and "remission" should be considered in connection with the second paragraph of the letter, which perhaps I had better repeat:
I do not propose to place restrictions of any kind upon your field of inquiry. Rather, it is my hope that members of the committee would find it possible to examine the entire field of remission and parole and, after a full inquiry, report to me their findings and recommendations.
That would certainly include all those branches of probation which are tied in very closely with the question of remission and parole.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister a supplementary question? In view of the fact that doubt appears to exist on this point, would he be prepared now to clarify the terms of reference to the committee and assure the committee that the question of probation is now to be included within the scope of its inquiry?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think my hon. friend, like myself, is a lawyer and I am sure he would know the principles of constitutional law well enough to recognize the difficulty we would have in the federal field in setting up a commission of inquiry to investigate that which comes under the provincial field of jurisdiction. I think he would agree with me that we could not go any further with propriety than we have gone in the letter I have just read, and that really this committee can examine where the matters of remission and parole touch upon probation, but we can hardly authorize a federal committee of inquiry to investigate into another provincial field of jurisdiction.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I point out that the Archambault report, in my recollection-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member now is beginning to debate the answer. The hon. member for York South.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member will come back later. There are other members who have been standing two or three times in order to ask a question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Justice? Will the minister, if he thinks there is any constitutional difficulty in dealing with the question of probation by the present committee, communicate with the provinces and get their concurrence, which I am sure would be forthcoming?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, during the whole course of this inquiry, I have had no reason to suppose that there was any difficulty whatsoever in this regard. Under the terms of reference, which were deliberately made quite unrestricted, I think the committee is quite able to examine into the whole field of federal jurisdiction over remission and parole and also into those fields of provincial jurisdiction over probation which are related to these federal fields I have named.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works? Is the recent change in the appraisal value in Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation houses resulting in
Inquiries of the Ministry a reduction in the amount of the down payment on these houses, and if so by how much?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the change in the basic appraisal rates is in accordance with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation practice of periodically adjusting these rates to changes in construction costs. The revision to which the hon. member now refers came into effect on December 15 last and has application to loans approved since that date. The full effect of the change on selling price cannot be seen at this early date.
The revision upward of the basic rates will result in an increase in loan, and if builders continue to sell at the same price as they have been, the down payment will be reduced by the amount by which the loan is increased.



PACIFIC GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, in view of the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce yesterday that ships are awaiting rail shipments of wheat, owing to the shortage of box cars. Will the government reconsider the offer of assistance in the building of the Pacific Great Eastern railway, in view of the fact that this railway will shorten the haul from the Peace river area to tidewater by half the distance, in other words, that one box car on the short haul will do the work of two?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I announced in this house on June 3 last that the federal government was prepared to pay a subsidy of $25,000 per mile for not more than 50 miles of a northward extension of the Pacific Great Eastern from Prince George. I stated that the government did not believe a through line to the Peace river valley was economically justified at that time. 1 pointed out, in support of that contention, that the Peace river area already has rail access through the Northern Alberta railways and that, although this railway taps the greater part of the area, it does not obtain a sufficient volume of traffic to result in profitable operations.
Great developments are taking place in our northern area, but I do not think that even the renowned productivity of the Peace river area has increased in less than one year to a degree where reconsideration of the offer made last June would be necessary.
350	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hahn LABOUR CONDITIONS



REPORTED CUT-BACK IN ORDERS AT CANADA CAR- LAY-OFF OF EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has there been any cut-back in orders for box cars placed with Canada Car at Fort William and a consequent lay-off of a large number of employees at that plant? In view of our need of both box cars and employment, would the minister look into the matter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can tell my hon. friend that there has not been an order for box cars placed with Canada Car at Fort William since 1912.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister look into the reasons for the lay-off of employees at that plant? If there has been a lay-off, why not put them to work producing box cars?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The plant was originally built to build box cars, but as I say, since 1912 it has not built a box car. Today it is not in a position to build box cars. I may say that since that particular plant is adjacent to my riding I am keeping a very careful watch on the employment situation.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimali-Saanich):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister inform the house what supplies of 25-pounder shells in excess of Canadian requirements are now in Canada?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Not offhand, Mr. Speaker.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, January 19, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Shipley for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset compliment you on the capable way in which you conduct the office of Speaker of the house. I should also like to compliment the members of the 

cabinet who show such dexterity and capability in side-stepping the issues at hand. If I may say so, I am almost inclined to say that they show as much dexterity and skill as did the New Westminster soccer club in winning the dominion championship last year. I should like at this time to ease the mind of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) by announcing that it is my intention to submit an amendment which will give him the opportunity to discuss the question he wanted to discuss, and after the present debate is finished possibly he could continue its discussion by means of such a motion as he has in mind.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley), in the course of moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne, said in effect that she could not understand why so much valuable time should be taken up by member after member repeating what had been said in other words by many other members. I hope she will forgive me therefore if I add my congratulations to the others with which she has been showered because through her I wish to congratulate the women of Canada and the constituents whom she has the honour to represent. I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme) on the capable way in which he conducted himself, and also the newly elected members of the house who I am sure will represent their constituencies ably and well.
During the course of the past two years when I have been in the house it has been my privilege to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) the need for a secondary airport to supplement the Vancouver international airport. It was with great pleasure therefore that I read the press release on January 12 that he had seen fit to accept the advice of some of his colleagues and possibly accept the thought I had in mind, that the White Rock airport would be a good secondary airport. The choice is well taken because the White Rock airport will lend itself to expansion. It is off the main air routes and is fog free. It is away from any military air base so that there probably will not be any danger of a tragedy similar to the one that occurred at Moose Jaw last year. It is also a short distance from Vancouver.
I wish to express gratitude to the minister and to anyone else who may have had anything whatsoever to do with the final decision that White Rock should be the secondary airport. I was pleased to see that the minister indicated in his news release that there was need for examination into the possibility of finding another site suitable for small craft.
I trust such a site will be found before all the possible sites are used for other purposes.

During the past few days the discussion in this debate has been concerned principally with the question of grain surpluses. Other surpluses were also mentioned. The question of cheese was raised by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). The hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) referred to the question of dairy products.
The hon. member for Wellington-Huron (Mr. Howe) mentioned butter. Yesterday the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery) dealt with potatoes. One might ask what brings about this cry. The real reason behind it, Mr. Speaker, is that the farmers have a right to expect a fair share of the national income. As pertinent to that matter, I have here a compilation of some figures respecting percentages of total national income received by farmers by years. It is not my intention to read all these figures but I should like you to note that during the years 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 and 1919, when the farmers represented about 30 per cent of the population of Canada, their share of the national income was 30 per cent. From 1926 to 1928 the number of farmers was less than that-it would be from 25 per cent to 30 per cent-and their share of the income dropped to the point where it was from 17 per cent to 14-6 per cent. During the depression years from 1929 to 1939 the share of the national income that the farmers received was reduced tremendously, to an all time low of a 4-1 per cent in 1933 while the farm population represented a little better than 20 per cent of Canada's over-all population. During this past year the share of the national income received by the farmers was 6-7 per cent. Yet they represent 20 per cent of Canada's population today. In effect that situation would indicate that the share of the national income received by the farmers compares approximately with what they received in 1934, which was a grave depression year.
During the war years, because of price stabilization and price control as set down by the government, the share of the national income received by the farmers rose to approximately 11 per cent. As was explained yesterday by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), the reason for that situation was that the farmer was promised a better deal after the war in order to compensate for the low price he was accepting for his commodities. Since the war, of course, we have had a continual decline in farm income with the result that I mentioned earlier, namely that today the farmers are in effect receiving about the same percentage of the national income as they were receiving during the depression year of 1934.
The Address-Mr. Hahn
As far as my riding is concerned the problem is this. While there happens to be a grain terminal in my riding, it is not my desire to talk about grain at this time although I must say I could do so. The problem in my particular riding in this instance is that of the potato grower. He is not getting his fair share of the national income. One might say: Is this a national problem? It is definitely a national problem because, on reading the report made by a committee set up to study the question of potatoes last year, I discover that the potato industry is of major importance in every province in Canada except the province of Newfoundland. Therefore these people whose livelihood is so greatly affected should be given the consideration to which they are entitled. This particular committee, which was set up last year at the behest of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), was to hear representations but was not to make recommendations. The hearings were set for June of last year in the city of Ottawa and representations were made by the various potato growing groups across the nation. I would draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, pages 60 and 61 of their report. Eleven conclusions are arrived at. All of them are reasonable and sound. However, I would say that two of the conclusions definitely carry with them an inference or a recommendation which possibly affected the government's decision not to take any action on the tariff question last year. I would draw to your attention particularly conclusion No. 8 on page 61, which is as follows:
Geared by force of geography to reliance upon export markets-whether elsewhere in Canada or abroad-the industry in Prince Edward Island is very greatly dependent for its continuance upon the demand at home and abroad for its certified seed potatoes.
That statement is perfectly correct but we have here an inference in the conclusion:
Loss of its seed-potato quota in the United States would be but short of disastrous for the island and only somewhat less so for New Brunswick.
Mr. Speaker, the inference is that by the setting up of a tariff the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island would lose their seed potato market. In reply to that contention I would say that the potato growers of New Brunswick and of Prince Edward Island have a high quality seed as well as a disease-free seed. That is the actual reason for the American people buying seed potatoes from them. They buy them because they need them, not because they particularly want to buy seed potatoes from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.

The Address-Mr. Hahn
The other inference is included in conclusion No. 10 of the report which is as follows:
While no rigid generalization can be made, because of occasional and quite abnormal variations from the rule, such imports of table potatoes from the United States as do occur, appear to be attracted to this market by higher domestic prices which in turn frequently reflect a short crop in Canada.
That part of the statement is true. However, here is the inference:
So called "new potatoes"-imported into this country during the spring and early summer months-command a premium because they are new; and probably would enter whether or not they faced a customs duty at the border.
The suggestion then is that there would be no value in putting a tariff duty in effect because these new potatoes would come in no matter what the price might be, and that there would be no stopping them. Those inferences should not be included in the report and the government should not have taken them into consideration. However, they apparently must have done so, the facts being what they are in the potato industry today. There is need for some action by the government in respect of protecting the potato grower.
The developments since the hearings were held in Ottawa in June-and there were several-are as follows. The first was definite action taken by United States authorities in respect of the size of potatoes that would be allowed to come into their country and which affected our market. I wish to thank the government for taking action on this particular question and bringing cur regulations in line with those of the United States.
There is, however, another question which is more important and which affects the industry more greatly. I refer to the announcement made by secretary of agriculture Benson of the United States. On August 26 he announced that the United States department of agriculture extends financial assistance to those United States producer states which sign an agreement to show an approved plan which will eliminate, by various means, 20 per cent or more of marketable grade 2 or better potatoes. This program was to begin on September 26, 1955.
If the hon. gentlemen opposite who are from British Columbia wish to take part in this discussion, they may do so later.


An hon. Member:: We never said a word.


Mr. Byrne:: I was not paying attention. I do not know what you are talking about.


Frederick George Hahn: Diversion of grade 2 or better to starch, feed or flour was called for by the regulation.

Now, the fact of the matter in this instance is that the United States authorities were going to pay $10 a ton for the period from September 26 to December 31 last year; $8 until March 31 and $6 until June 30, 1956. In effect, this would act as a subsidy to those U.S. growers who were getting less than the normal price for their potatoes. Now, the conclusion that I must draw from this is that the assistance that was being given to the United States potato grower on potatoes diverted to these other industries was nothing more or less than a subsidy. In the retail trade this procedure is covered by the phrase, what I lose on the coffee I make up on the beans. So far as the United States grower was concerned, what he was losing on his table potato crop he was going to gain on the crop that was being diverted.
The Department of National Revenue says that this is not dumping. In reply to this particular question there is a letter dated September 20 from Mr. D. Sim, deputy minister of national revenue, at Ottawa, in which he says:
Section 6 (A). as recently enacted by parliament, empowers the governor in council to impose an additional duty equal to the amount ot subsidy on the goods, but provides that where the imported goods are also subject to special or dumping duty under section 6 (say by reason ot an export subsidy) -
That is the important phrase.
-the amount ot the additional duty under section 6 (A) shall be reduced by the amount of the special or dumping duty under section 6.
The argument is that the potatoes that are being sent into Canada, while they are being exported, are not subject to this assistance because they do not come under the diversion plan. Technically, that is quite correct, but if you give a farmer $10 in another way as a bonus or anything else, that is going to make it possible for him to eventually give his potatoes away. It should be called dumping for the same reason.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in my own riding of New Westminster and the lower Fraser valley this has had a marked effect upon the potato growing industry. Last year, according to figures I have here, between June 1 and June 15, a time at which United States potatoes were being imported, the British Columbia potato growers association could only sell 197 tons of their own potatoes while United States imports amounted to 3,382 tons. From June 18 to July 2, a period when the duty was being imposed, the United States exported 1,244 tons which made a grand total of 4,626 tons of potatoes that were imported from the United States. During that time the B.C. grower could only sell 197 tons. In July the B.C. grower sold 3,482 tons and at the same time the United States exported to

us some 1,327 tons. I might say that by this time the United States grower had skimmed the cream off the crop, as any person from British Columbia will recognize when they sold us 4,626 tons to July, for that is when the new potatoes come on the market and the United States growers were able to get high prices for them.
Then later, in August, the British Columbia grower was only able to sell 3,027 tons while the United States growers sold 2,805 tons. This made a total for the three months period for the B.C. grower of 6,787 tons, while the United States grower sold 8,788 tons in the same period. There is only six weeks' protection period for the potato grower in Canada. The figures were not available for the rest of the year, but the British Columbia coast marketing vegetable board had this to say in a release in October. They put out a regular bulletin, I should say, Mr. Speaker, from which this extract is taken in October, 1955:
Imports of potatoes from the United States into the Vancouver market for the four-week period September 5 through 30th amounted to 1,455 tons. White varieties have moved fairly well up to the present date. However, it was found necessary by your board to drop the price on netted Gem potatoes by $6 per ton to be competitive with shipments being received from across the border. The Yakima market declined from $43 per ton on September 16 to $32 per ton on October 1.
Now, looking at the figure very quickly, one would say the United States market declined by $11 per ton, but the United States grower was getting a $10 subsidy for every ton of potatoes he was diverting at that time into another field. His market, therefore, declined by only $1 per ton, but the B.C. grower at that time had his market drop by $6 per ton in order to be competitive. The additional loss suffered by the United States grower would be made up by diverting 20 per cent of his other potatoes into the United States feed and flour business. This is one of my reasons for saying that this diversion scheme the United States has invoked at this time is, in effect, a subsidy. It is one of the arguments into which I would ask the minister to look very closely.
The December bulletin issued by this same organization, the British Columbia coast vegetable marketing board, had this to say:
Closer to the border, the growers directly across the line have this past week approached the trade in Vancouver .	.	. offering to sell their
Ho. 1 Gem potatoes at $2 below the prevailing Vancouver board price. Your board had declined to reduce the price of No. 1 Gems as it felt that these shippers would only again cut below us.
You can only go so far in reducing the price of your potatoes or any other commodity. You can hope that something will happen that will protect your market, and 67509-23
The Address-Mr. Hahn possibly you will be free to sell at a later time. Fortunately, that did happen for the B.C. potato grower in November. Heavy frosts in the Pacific northwest, which unfortunately wiped out almost every nurseryman and every small fruit grower, had a good effect so far as the B.C. potato grower was concerned. As a result of the frost it was not possible for the United States potatoes to come into the B.C. market, and the B.C. grower was able to sell his own potatoes in the lower mainland area of British Columbia.
Imports into Canada for the first seven months of 1955, as compared with 1954, are as follows. In 1954 imports amounted to 1,057,947 cwt., and in 1955 they amounted to 1,987,089 cwt.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: What about export?


Frederick George Hahn: I have not the figure for export, I am sorry. However, our exports are quite negligible because they consist of seed potatoes which would go to the United States in any event because they are short of quality seed. The authority for that statement will be found in this tariff board hearing. The fact is that in 1954 we imported only about one million cwt. of potatoes, and in 1955 we imported very nearly two million cwt. In other words, last year the American potato grower was able to sell twice as many potatoes in our country as he had done theretofore. Naturally, that has its effect on the Canadian potato market. Not only is the subsidy having an effect on the price and the sales we make, but this matter of importing potatoes in such heavy quantities is bound to affect the potato grower in Canada.
There was an editorial in the British Columbian of January 17, 1956-I may say that the British Columbian is a daily newspaper within the area I represent-which had this to say:
The British Columbia coast vegetable marketing board and growers in British Columbia have attempted to bring the intolerable situation to the attention of the federal authorities for several years.
This is the matter of tariffs on potatoes. The article goes on to say:
Coast producers do not think the starch subsidy is the answer,-
That is the starch subsidy that the Minister of Agriculture pointed out yesterday we were putting into effect. I continue:
-and remark that the hope such a subsidy "will help maintain prices across Canada is merely wishful thinking on the part of the federal department of agriculture inasmuch as Canadian prices are governed by the heavy imports from the United States whose product often enters Canada at below actual cost of production of either United States or Canadian growers."

The Address-Mr. Hahn
The grower in the United States has a tremendous market for his goods, and the small amount that he sends to Canada does not affect his market at all; it does not affect his wealth. He is just getting rid of a small surplus. On the other hand, the Canadian producer finds that the potatoes that come in from the United States affect his price and his market a great deal.
The speeches that were made in the past few days with respect to surpluses were actually unwarranted, although I will say they were necessary. I say they were unwarranted for the reason that if the government were to examine into the possibility of the two-price system that was proposed by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), I am satisfied that most of the economic ills in the agricultural and primary producing fields would be adequately looked after.
As I indicated earlier, it is my intention to move an amendment to the amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Yuill):
That the amendment be amended by inserting after the words "by reason of", the following:
1.	Their failure to adopt and implement agricultural and marketing policies designed effectively to keep farm cash income in Canada at a just and economic level.
2.	Their utter neglect of any responsibility with regard to assisting the provinces to maintain a satisfactorily broad tax base through adequate development of their resources, and-
The amendment as amended would then read thus:
We respectfully represent that Your Excellency's advisers, by reason of
1.	Their failure to adopt and implement agricultural and marketing policies designed effectively to keep farm cash income in Canada at a just and economic level.
2.	Their utter neglect of any responsibility with regard to assisting the provinces to maintain a satisfactorily broad tax base through adequate development of their resources, and their indifference, inertia, and lack of leadership in the face of serious national problems and their disregard of the rights of parliament, are not entitled to the confidence of this house.


Mr. MacDougall:: That is a good one. The hon. member has everything in it but baling wire.


Frederick George Hahn: Give me time, and I will have it in there, too. There are ranchers in the country who could tell you something about the price of baling wire, and perhaps it should be included.
I would agree with the hon. member for Jasper-Edson who the day before yesterday raised the question of the sale of butter. His proposal and his method of disposing of it through those who are in need of social security, such as the aged, the blind, the disabled, the war veterans, and others, are

worthy of consideration. I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that if we are to give something to the people behind the iron curtain we should not give away our butter. Let us give away margarine and let us keep the butter for the people in Canada. Let us sell the butter to the people of Canada at the price at which we sell margarine. I am satisfied that the people of Canada would enjoy butter, and some of them would get in the position where they would begin to use it again.
I have included in my amendment to the amendment a matter having to do with the taxation field. The letter that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) tabled the other day contained new proposals having to do with taxation under which the provinces were to get 10 per cent of the income tax, 9 per cent of an unstated corporation tax, and 50 cents out of every dollar of succession duty. The objective is certainly a good one, namely, to bring the tax income of the poorer provinces up to that of the richer provinces. However, I would have the house recognize that the richer provinces are relinquishing the three major fields of taxation on a rental basis. If those provinces are to continue to produce and develop their resources and to be in a position to keep pouring dollars into the coffers of the federal government, then it will be necessary for them to receive more income to keep the rest of Canada happy.
In my province we would have no objection to assisting those other provinces, if we felt for a moment that the federal authorities were not, through their bungling and interfering methods, ruining the chances of some of those other provinces of advancing. Let me take our own case. In British Columbia last year we had an instance of the federal authorities interfering with our river development, as proposed by the government of British Columbia. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), as well as the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage), thought that we should divert water from the Columbia river into the Fraser. Because the Columbia river would come under the authority of the federal government, it left only one river over which the provincial government would have authority, namely, the Fraser river.
The moment that they started talking about putting a dam on the Fraser there was an objection from the Minister of Fisheries to the effect that that should not be done. I would agree with the Minister of Fisheries, because the salmon industry is vital to our country and must be protected. However, I would disagree with him, as I did earlier,

with regard to diverting the excess water of the Columbia into the Fraser river. I say, let us go ahead and develop the Columbia river, as proposed by the provincial government a year ago. If we do that, then we shall have more tax dollars to pour into this government to help assist some of the other provinces.
This was not the only instance of interference in our province or in any other province. Not so many years ago, when the Alberta government enunciated a gas export policy, it was interfered with by the federal authorities. They would not agree with the export of gas so that the province of Alberta in turn could use the dollars they would get from the United States purchasers of that gas to develop industries within the province.
If we are to build up this nation, then we must have more dollars. We cannot for one moment hope that the people of Canada will have sufficient dollars to build up industries and keep them operating without being permitted to export their surplus production. The socialistic attitude, expressed earlier by the leader of the C.C.F. party, of denouncing the United States dollars that are being poured into this country, is entirely false and wrong.
I believe it is absolutely impractical and impossible to think that we in Canada could build 125,000 homes in a year and carry on all the other development that is required. Where would we get the millions of dollars for the St. Lawrence seaway project, the millions required for building our dams, bridges and other projects in British Columbia? Within the confines of all provinces this government has demonstrated time and time again its inability to bring about a satisfactory solution to the development of our coal and gas industries and our problems of primary industry. It has failed to put them on a good and sound financial basis. This has been the cause of much of the difficulty in which we find ourselves today. It has ceased development in many instances.
To add to the difficulty we find the change in this particular regulation respecting assistance to the various provinces is advanced for political purposes. The government has seen fit to present this proposal which would cut by $45,000 the allowance which British Columbia under ordinary circumstances is to receive, despite the fact that our province gained in population by almost 300,000 people. This just does not make sense. It does not add up.
I am aware that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has indicated that the government will rectify the situation by ensuring that no province will receive less than it did 67509-23i
The Address-Mr. Hahn before, but why should our agreement today call for $45,000 less than what British Columbia heretofore received under the old agreement. I contend that if by proper direction this government were to encourage the development of provinces that have not they would be in the position of having.
We find, for instance, that in 1951 the Department of Defence Production issued contracts to the total amount of $5 million. I do not have the covering release with me but hon. members from British Columbia might well take note of this. An amount exceeding $5 million in government contracts was issued in 1951 in one group of which British Columbia's share was the small sum of $78,000.


Mr. Goode:: Would my hon. friend permit a question? How does he prove his statement concerning the sum of $78,000? May I say that the Liberal members have been most concerned with the amount of business going to British Columbia.


Frederick George Hahn: I will allow you to make your speech later. The proof of the statement is in fact that it was a release by the government of defence production contracts across Canada, which totalled $5 million, of which British Columbia's share was $78,000.


Tom Goode: Surely the hon. member realizes that he is talking nonsense.


Frederick George Hahn: The hon. member is not talking nonsense. I would be only too pleased to show you the directive.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Why do you not
do something to help British Columbia? Do not interrupt so much.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Frederick George Hahn: I would conclude my remarks by drawing again to the attention of the government that the particular tax agreement which is being proposed at this time is one which ostensibly is advanced for political purposes to garner votes in certain parts of Canada. In effect this says to our premier, as it does to the premier of Alberta: "If you do not like it, put on your own tax agreement scheme".
That is very fine, but there is a calculated risk there and the Prime Minister knows this as well as do the premiers of Alberta and British Columbia. They are fully aware of what that calculated risk would involve. The fact is that nobody wants double taxation because it costs so much more for the individual. Businessmen realize it. Everyone recognizes the efficiency and the business acumen demonstrated by the premier of. British Columbia during the past three years.. He himself recognizes what this might cost.
356	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gingues
I would ask members opposite to examine this matter closely before they find themselves facing the accusation across the dominion that they have been deliberately going out of their way to support a tax scheme which has the one object in mind of prolonging the existence of a Liberal government in Ottawa.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Hahn moves, seconded by Mr. Yuill, that the amendment be amended by inserting after the words "by reason of," the following:
1.	Their failure to adopt and implement agricultural and marketing policies designed effectively to keep farm cash income in Canada at a just and economic level.
2.	Their utter neglect of any responsibility with regard to assisting the provinces to maintain a satisfactorily broad tax base through adequate development of their resources, and-
May I say that it seems to me that the amendment to the amendment is placed at such an early point in the amendment that it gives the appearance of displacing the amendment rather than amending it.
It could probably be amended as to form in order to make it fit into the wording at a later stage of the amendment, but as it stands it would read:
We respectfully represent that Your Excellency's advisers, by reason of-
The amendment which presumably is amending the amendment then comes in. It seems to relegate the amendment to the bottom, and displaces it completely. However, I will accept it. Perhaps later we can get together and place it elsewhere. I do not wish to appear to be too meticulous about this matter but it does occur to me that it has this effect.


Frederick George Hahn: Then the amendment now is as follows:
That the amendment be amended by inserting after the words "serious national problems" the following words:
"in particular, their failure to adopt and implement agricultural and marketing policies designed effectively to keep farm cash income in Canada at a just and economic level and their utter neglect of any responsibility with regard to assisting the provinces to maintain a satisfactorily broad tax base through adequate development of their resources,".
(.Translation):


Mr. Maurice Gingues (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, at the start of this important session, while we are on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, will you kindly allow me to join the other members of the house in offering my best wishes to you and in pointing out how able and dignified has been


your chairmanship of the proceedings of this Canadian parliament. You bring to the discharge of these difficult duties remarkable tact and fairness. Your knowledge of parliamentary law and of the rules of the house, and more particularly the way in which you apply them in practice, place you in the first rank of the eminent Canadians who have preceded you in the Speaker's chair.
My most sincere good wishes also go to the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) whose magnificent good health and fruitful labour are such as to forecast more happy and prosperous days for the whole Canadian people.
May I also heartily congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address (Mrs. Shipley and Mr. Laflamme). Their constituents may rightly be satisfied with them and must be proud, after seeing them at work, of having asked them to represent their constituencies in the parliament of the nation.
I rise today, Mr. Speaker, because I feel it is my duty to submit to the house and to the members of government a few practical suggestions, a few constructive ideas which, to my mind, are likely to help my electors and those of all constituencies of the country.
I must first express regret at the absence in the speech from the throne of any indication of the government's intention to propose, at this session, health insurance legislation, a measure which would add to the impressive body of social security legislation put forward by representatives of the Liberal party in recent years and later adopted by parliament. I know the feelings of the right hon. Prime Minister on the matter. I know that the members of his cabinet understand the urgency and necessity of this essential measure, that already they have long debated its advantages and foreseen the difficulty of putting it into force.
The question of a health insurance plan has been discussed in Canada for a long time.
I believe that the time has come to put the project into effect so that our people may without further delay benefit from this salutary legislation. We have now come to the point where something must be done to protect the large number of our fellow citizens who are suddenly taken sick.
When a child or a mother is sick, the cost of medical and hospital care may be heavy, but when sickness suddenly strikes the father, the head of the family, the cost of the necessary care becomes almost prohibitive. There is no use in trying to hide the truth, Mr. Speaker; at present, in a country that enjoys

Canada's prosperity, only two classes of people are in a position to get the necessary care, the needy and the rich. People who come under the public assistance act, or those who are personally well off can afford the luxury of going to the hospital. There is no alternative. As for the average Canadian, the middle class man, the one we usually call the white-collar worker, the man who has a small income, who is on a fixed salary-and that group includes the great majority of our workers and farmers-is no longer able to pay alone the cost of medical, surgical and hospital care. This fact cannot be challenged. The farsighted head of a family who has painstakingly managed to put a few dollars away for a rainy day is ruthlessly ruined when illness strikes him or anyone in his family. A few weeks in hospital and his property is mortgaged, his savings gone and he must then ask for credit and borrow money often at prohibitive rates.
Every day some good people come to my office to ask for assistance, because they cannot afford to pay their hospital bills, or those of the doctor, the surgeon or even the druggist. Hundreds of others, as I have just said, fall prey to lending institutions and have to pay interest up to 24 per cent to fill the gap left by a recent illness.
Some time ago, a respectable man whom I know very well and with whom I have been associated, a man of temperate habits, in other words a man like the hundreds of thousands of others in this country, came to me to tell of his sad experience. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to repeat this story to my colleagues as it shows the necessity of a protecting health insurance legislation, of an immediate, well drafted and truly generous act, one which, if I may say so incidentally, will allow the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) to convince his colleague, the member for Three Rivers in the Quebec legislative assembly, to co-operate for once for the general welfare of the population. He must know or rather we know that, by itself, the federal government can do nothing in that field; it has to rely on the full co-operation of all the provincial governments without exception. After this little digression I now turn to my story.
Last fall, an honest man whom I have known since childhood, a man of 60 who has worked all his life and has managed to save some $8,000-you will admit that $8,000 is
The Address-Mr. Gingues not very much but it is a rather considerable amount for a man who earns a modest salary and has to save this money bit by bit-came to my office. Two years ago, his wife was taken ill. She was taken to the hospital where she underwent an operation. She was in and out of the hospital for a period of two years. He came to my office, crying like a child, to tell me that in the short period of two years all the money he had saved in order to have some security in his old age was gone, and that he was now sick himself and could no longer do his usual work. Well, Mr. Speaker, this would mean that, at 60, this man who is still young, will be unable to obtain the old age pension and will be forced, owing to sickness, to depend on public relief.
I admit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a special case, but I could mention many others which strangely resemble this one.
That is why I say, at the beginning of this 1956 session, that the time has come to enact legislation in that field.
I know that certain doctors, certain specialists-not all, fortunately-fear the inroads of health insurance legislation. Still, to my mind, the common good must prevail over particular interests. I am speaking here today in this house, on behalf of the community as a whole. When anything has become a national scourge the duty of the lawmakers is to take whatever means are necessary to set matters right.
The one and only means, in this case, is federal legislation supported by similar provincial legislation.
This measure has become necessary, I repeat, not because our hospitals abuse their privileges and overcharge their patients. That is not the case. In hospitals, as everywhere else, everything is more expensive and like all well organized corporations they have to balance their budget. However, when this law is assented to, the very great majority of Canadians who, I repeat, earn enough to live from day to day but hardly enough to make any savings, even when they are in perfect health, will feel they are protected and will enjoy thereby a greater feeling of security. If anything should happen to them, their morale will remain good and their chances of getting well again will be better. Under the present system there are large numbers of poor people who have to shorten their period of

The Address-Mr. Gingues convalescence so as to reduce costs and who undergo serious relapses a short time later.
I know that thousands of sick people go back to work too soon because that is their only means of earning a livelihood for their family. Hence the great number of premature deaths in these families, because the last link in the chain of social security legislation given the country by the Liberal party has not yet been welded.
Since my election to this house in 1940, I have had the pleasure to vote for great social enactments of this government. First, it was the marvellous Family Allowances Act, then the Unemployment Insurance Act, the amendments to the Old Age Security Act, to the Blind Persons Act and to the Disabled Persons Act. I was happy then to advocate and support these basically Liberal measures. I shall be happier still, Mr. Speaker, to vote for a health insurance act for, if there is in life a time when we need help and the solace of human fraternity, it is when illness strikes us and when misfortune knocks at our door. I shall not insist any more, because I know all my colleagues share this feeling.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, last week, when I was listening to my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Brown), my speech was all prepared in French. When I heard him address himself to the house in my maternal tongue, and this for quite a few minutes, I decided to do likewise, and that is why I shall continue a part of my remarks in English. I hope that effort of my hon. friend and mine at this moment will contribute to good understanding amongst us members.
There is another suggestion which I would like to submit to the government, and particularly to the Minister of Finance. I should rather say two suggestions, because the matter with which I wish to deal concerns both the budget and the income tax.
In income tax return forms there is an item dealing with charitable donations made by every individual, by every taxpayer during the year. It is stated therein that a maximum of 10 per cent of the net income may be deducted for that purpose. In order to benefit from these exemptions, one must attach to the income tax reports receipts signed by charitable organizations, members of the clergy or other authorized persons. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this entails additional inconveniences for the taxpayer. He


is not only compelled to figure out his income to the last cent, but he must endeavour to obtain a receipt which will justify, so to speak, a great number of small or negligible donations, the amount of which is rather difficult to remember. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that all this paper work be done away with and that these proceedings be simplified by putting everyone on the same footing, that is, by simply allowing everyone a 10 per cent deduction of net income for charitable donations.
This is the practice in other countries. Why should we not do the same in Canada? This would simplify matters and would be fairer to the taxpayer and easier for the income tax department. I therefore request the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) to include this amendment or improvement in his next budget. I believe everyone will benefit therefrom.
And since I am talking about the budget, I should like to put before the Minister of Finance another request, and a very important one, the immediate granting of which could bring about happy results. By this, Mr. Speaker, I mean that the national budget should be presented sooner. I believe that the budget should be presented to the house in January every year, and I shall tell you why. Most merchants, industrialists and businessmen take inventory after the festive season, that is, at the beginning of January. After that they must wait weeks and even months before finding out whether changes will be made in the Customs Act, Excise Tax Act, the sales tax or otherwise.
Owing to this state of uncertainty most merchants wait before making purchases, and I believe that this situation is greatly responsible for the increase in seasonal unemployment which occurs mostly during the months of January, February, March and April. The unemployment insurance commission, together with municipalities, chambers of commerce and other public bodies, and also individuals, are doing constructive work in order to alleviate this idle period which we call seasonal unemployment. If the budget were presented in January I believe this situation would not be as bad.
I am asking the Minister of Finance to study this matter carefully. We would indeed be entirely justified to act accordingly if thousands of workers could be retained in their jobs who otherwise must rely for their livelihood on their unemployment insurance benefits. I would be curious to find out the opinion of merchants and manufacturers about this scheme.
After submitting these suggestions, which I believe are in the general interest of all

Canadians, may I, Mr. Speaker, put forward a request which concerns especially my district, the eastern townships. I am asking this now of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-ler), whose sympathetic disposition we all know. In Quebec, as you know, the eastern townships are a small province within a province, and Sherbrooke, which I am privileged to represent in the house, is its capital. Writers and poets compare Sherbrooke to a queen and certain neighbouring towns to pearls and other jewels. They are right because Providence has showered its favours upon this privileged district which is represented by a dozen members in this house. We have rich mines, a great variety of industries; our population is progressive and alert, we have wonderful agricultural domains, an attractive countryside, magnificent mountains, large lakes teeming with fish, excellent hunting grounds, a prosperous tourist industry; in other words, prospects for a most brilliant future.
We also have numerous land transport facilities. The eastern townships are served by the large railways, the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian National and the Quebec Central which runs from Sherbrooke to Quebec City, via the rich mining district of Thetford Mines and Black Lake. We have numerous highways which, of course, could be improved but nevertheless help in expanding trade and industry. However, something is lacking. The eastern townships need air services which would speed up transportation between Sherbrooke, Quebec city and Montreal, and consequently with the rest of the world.
The minister knows that strong representations were made to his department for the building of an airport near Sherbrooke. Trans-Canada Air Lines were approached and, if I am not mistaken, they are making a survey at the present time of the passenger potentialities which the eastern townships would offer. I do not want to prophesy, but I can assert that air lines which would call at Sherbrooke would find it to their financial advantage.
As I have already said, the population of the eastern townships is progressive and full of initiative. They do not like to be behind the times. But in the field of air communications we are lagging behind other districts in our province and in the rest of the country. Therefore I request the Minister of Transport to provide in his 1956 budget sufficient estimates for the construction of at least two runways at the St. Frangois airport, a few miles from Sherbrooke. In asking him to act as soon as possible, I am talking not only on behalf of the citizens of Sherbrooke but also on behalf of the population of the whole district.
The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton
I am convinced that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who is one of the most illustrious sons of the eastern townships, will support my request with his colleague and that when I go back to Sherbrooke I will be able to assure my constituents that the airport for which we have been waiting for such a long time will be built this year.
(Translation) :
I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, with a word of gratitude to the Lord, for He has been kind to Canada. Under the aegis of those in authority, under the leadership of the real patriots who are guiding our party, Canada is gaining in importance every year. Its vast economic wealth is envied by the rest of the world. In the international field, the wisdom of our statesmen is recognized by all, and people from all parts of the world now come to consult with the heads of the Canadian government with regard to the complex problems upsetting other nations.
Canada has become a great nation, a country where we know the joy of living, where our children will be able to grow up and prosper in peace, we hope, saying, as we do now, that they are proud to be Canadians.
(Text) :


Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to congratulate most sincerely the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It seems to me we agreed last year that in the interests of saving time these little formalities were not going to be observed any more, and therefore I think the number of members who have commented on the excellence of their remarks is a tribute to them. I also think many of us are happy to see the very belated recognition of the importance of women in this house which was accorded by the selection of a woman to move the address in reply.
To the seconder, the hon. member for Bellechasse, I would sound one word of caution. Do not look forward to anything on the basis of your experience to date. As long as you remain on the government side of the house do not look forward to having great opportunities to indulge your oratorical prowess. There is the greatest bunch of tongue-tied orators over there I have evei seen or heard of in any legislature. To prove my point may I present a little statistical support of what I have said for the benefil of the hon. member for Bellechasse. I investigated to see what had happened to the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Leduc) whc moved the address last year. He managec

The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton to get into the fray actually more than is usual, but still only twice during the remainder of the session with comparatively short speeches. As a matter of fact, if it were not for those of us on this side of the house who have the responsibility of putting forward the views of the people of Canada, we could go home-I worked the matter out on a statistical basis-at the end of approximately 30 days. I certainly think that the people of Canada expect more attention to be paid to their business and more effort to be put into the debates than has been evidenced over the past years in the contributions of government members. I just mention that matter because I would not want the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme) to be disappointed when the gag goes on during his subsequent stay in this house.
I, of course, occupy a new location in the house this session. I am not quite sure whether it is the C.C.F. party to my left- that is what they are in some parts of Canada-or whether it is the social democratic party to my left-that is what they are in Quebec. I want to say that it is nice to be a member of a party that has the same name, principles and the same ideals no matter what part of Canada you come from.


An hon. Member:: What about the Liberals?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about yourself? Are you a Progressive Conservative or a Conservative?


William McLean Hamilton: should like to turn now for a few minutes to the Post Office Department which is a subject of considerable interest to most people in Canada. Do I hear from the other side of the house an interruption "Not again"? That is so typical of the attitude on that side.
I think it came from the treasury benches. Perhaps the hon. member might identify himself rather than throwing in interjections without identifying himself. Apparently he does not want to be identified.


Mr. Robichaud:: Are you giving orders?


William McLean Hamilton: The difficulty of the government-and it is one tmong many others-is that they do not like to have in this house discussion of subjects 3f importance to the Canadian people about .vhich the Canadian people are disturbed and annoyed. I think there is no better indication ;hat the post office is one of those subjects ;han the fact that someone from the govern-nent benches says "Not again". He would prefer that the important subject of the post >ffice be swept under the rug with all the >ther embarrassing little matters which they lave been trying to hide underneath it. As i matter of fact, that is another reason why 

they should give more prominence to women in this government because, goodness knows, if ever there was any party that needed a housecleaning or any government that needed a housecleaning, it is the one now in office in Canada. I think the women are the people to do it for them. Goodness knows, the men have not done it up to date.
Toward the end of the last session we had in this house considerable discussion with regard to thefts from the post office. Substantial evidence was introduced showing the serious condition in this respect. Almost as if to prove the point,-that is the way it appears to me personally-during the recess of the house an attractive new post office in my riding was robbed not once but twice within three weeks. Here in my hand I have a press clipping which gives some details. The first time the safecrackers took $18,000 in cash and stamps. Then they came back three weeks later and escaped with about $10,000 in cash and stamps. The last paragraph of this clipping from the Montreal Star is interesting because it shows that even when they have the experience of something being wrong, the post office does nothing to correct it. The last paragraph of this news item reads as follows:
Lt. Det. Richard Jones, of the Montreal police western division, said the burglars gained entry through a rear window. It was substantially the same method used in the previous burglary.
I think that is a sample of what is happening continually across Canada, namely the post office refusing to take advantage of the unfortunate experiences they have had to date.
I have another fascinating example, Mr. Speaker, of what happened to a post office and a bank in the same building on the same night, when an attempt was made to rob both; but I think perhaps we shall leave the Postmaster General (Mr. Lapointe) hanging on the wire-certainly he is not hanging around in the house at the moment-until after lunch. If I may do so, I should like to call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
William McLean Hamilton: When we rose for lunch, Mr. Speaker, I was just about to make a comparison between the care of money and other valuables as taken by the post office and by the banks, in an attempt to show that many of the thefts from the post office are the direct result of inefficiency and lack of attention on the part of

the senior administrators of the department. I think an example is best drawn from a situation which arose last December in Cha-teauguay. I hold in my hand a newspaper clipping with photographs from the Gazette of Thursday, December 22. I am reading the caption of that picture which summarizes the situation fairly well:
When Miss Marie Soyer, daughter of Chateauguay Mayor George Soyer and post office clerk for the town, entered her office yesterday morning she saw a scene of wreckage and looting. The post office was robbed of $500 in stamps and $49 in cash when thieves smashed the lock on a box. But when the burglars attempted to loot the Banque Canadienne Nationale bank safe in the building they faced a different proposition. After drilling through the left side of the vault for at least six inches, they were forced to call a halt when they hit a solid sheet of cold steel.
Here, we have a situation in which a post office and the branch of a bank in the same building are entered on the same day. The post office is looted but the bank property remains safe. Someone listening to these words, and thinking in terms of the great banks of our larger cities, might think that the bank had an almost impenetrable vault. The interesting thing is that this clipping contains a photograph of this particular vault. We find it is an ordinary office safe, about four feet high, such as one will find in office after office across this country and costing a comparatively few dollars in relation to the valuables which it contains. It is the sort of thing one would expect a post office, when they have $500 or $1,000-in some cases $20,000-worth of valuables to have.
What do we find in this instance, and doubtless in instance after instance across the country? If the valuables are put away at all they are put away in a box, something that thieves could break open and remove the contents with a minimum of difficulty. If these thefts were only isolated around the country, perhaps we would have no major cause for worry. But the pattern as was shown last year, and the pattern that has continued to evolve month after month as is evidenced by newspaper story after newspaper story, is that the post office is considered, shall we say, a good business proposition for thieves. For some reason, almost certainly the lack of protection the post office is giving to the valuables it has, these thieves are breaking into post office after post office.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, very strongly that more adequate measures are going to have to be taken in this connection. With that in mind, I shall make one very definite recommendation at this point for the benefit of the minister. I suggest he transfer to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the complete 67509-24
The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton and final responsibility for protective processes in his department. There is a great deal of uncertainty in this thing as to who is responsible for what. I think that is best illustrated by an amusing interchange which occurred in the house last year. On page 6778 of Hansard for July 26, 1955, in answer to a question by the leader of this party, we have the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) saying:
I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that the security measures taken by the post office are under constant review. Every time a theft occurs the circumstances of the case are considered and serious consideration is given by the R.C.M.P. to the security measures in existence-
Then there is more along the same line. Later on, we find the Prime Minister saying:
Special inquiry is going on all the time and I do not know of any better method of making inquiry and considering the system in force than the very close co-operation that exists between the post office authorities and the R.C.M.P.
Now, on the basis of the statement so far by the leader of the government one would imagine that there was close co-operation. However, on page 6779, the following page, in that same series of questions we find the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) asking the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) whether the R.C.M.P. was asked to assist in investigating recent post office losses in the province of Quebec. The answer is:
Mr. Speaker, I do not maintain that detailed supervision over the R.C.M.P. which would permit me to answer a question of that sort without notice. I should think, however, that they would not assist in such an investigation. The detection of crime in a province is under the jurisdiction of the provincial police and it would be only in the event of their calling in the mounted police or the post office calling in the mounted police that the mounted police would act.
In the last few days we have seen a most considerable mess in the government benches, with the ministers not knowing what they were answering and with contradictions between one another, so this should come as no surprise. Let me emphasize that here again, on the same day within a few minutes of one another, you have the Prime Minister of this country saying there is very close co-operation between the R.C.M.P. and the post office, and the R.C.M.P. are working on these matters. Then we have the Minister of Justice under whom the R.C.M.P. comes, stating he does not think they would be called in on a particular case. It is for that reason I suggest that the present investigatory staff of the post office, which, according to the estimates of last year, numbers five people, might very well be transferred to the jurisdiction of the R.C.M.P. Certainly the R.C.M.P. should be given final and absolute responsibility, in so far as federal jurisdiction is concerned, for the protection of Her

The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton Majesty's mails. I feel that if that were done this fine national police force we have would make considerable progress in a field which has so far given us nothing but a cause for worry.
Turning to another aspect of the post office service I should like to ask again, as I did last year, that the post office consider the re-establishment of the two-a-day mail delivery rather than the present one-a-day system which extends into such a large part of Canada. We should have a two-a-day mail delivery on a five-day week basis.
The immediate objection raised by the post office to the return to the two-a-day mail delivery is the increase in the cost. As one who has discussed this thing, not only with some of the biased people in Ottawa, but with people on the lower levels right across the country, I would point out that the return to the two-a-day, five days a week delivery would not cause a major cost increase in the operation of the post office.
Some people may ask, why can we not have mail delivered twice a day on a six-day basis? I would point out to them that the great majority of the industrial concerns of this country even our banks and other businesses, are now on a five-day week basis, and that from a realistic point of view it would be better to have ten deliveries a week than the existing one delivery a day for six days.
My second point is that such a system would eliminate a great deal of the difficulties -now arising in mail delivery across the country. Under the present system, in order to arrange for delivery six days a week, the post office must employ a man for one of those six days who is unfamiliar with the route, and who rotates from route to route, spending only one day a week on each route. That enables them to have a five-day week for their employees. However, mail service is a very personal thing. All the myriad little changes which occur on a route are not known to those rotating mail carriers, or supervisory letter carriers, as the technical term is. The result is, there are continual complaints, continual difficulties and continual embarrassments for the post office.
Under a five-day-a-week system, the same man would service his route continuously, and the service to the people of that route would be improved as the number of complaints would be reduced. Another great advantage of this, Mr. Speaker, would be that the system would eliminate the miserable unfairness which the post office has instituted for most of its letter carriers on the island of Montreal. Unlike the rest of Canada where seniority is given primary consideration in


establishing summer vacations for letter carriers, another factor has entered into the picture in Montreal, and that has moved supervisory letter carriers of comparatively few years' experience ahead of men with many years of experience on the vacation lists. If this were being done across Canada on an equal basis the post office might perhaps claim that there was some reason for it and that it was necessary, -but it has been instituted in only a very few centres in Canada. In Toronto they have a totally different system of establishing the vacation period. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this inequity should be remedied. We tried to get that done last year and we were unsuccessful. The reason given was that it was brought up just as the vacation schedules were being established. Well, this year, slow moving as the department is, and slow moving as the minister may be, we at least have sufficient time for him to make up his mind and do something about this particular situation.
Let me turn now to a few things of local interest in Montreal. I should like to join my voice to that of the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau), when he gets around to it, in suggesting that there be an underpass constructed, and that very shortly, on Decarie boulevard, north of the Cote de Liesse traffic circle. That is a major traffic artery in the city. It presents a considerable danger, with trains periodically travelling across it. It is the wish of the people of that area that something be done about it and before too long.
I could not help but be amused by the typical example of this government's operation which I saw not too long ago in connection with the St. Lawrence seaway. I am delighted to see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) in the house at this time. The seaway, of course, is well under way. We have already poured out millions upon millions of dollars into the construction, and now we are going to make models of it. I have no doubt that the models may serve a purpose. It is not the models that I object to so much, Mr. Speaker, as the basis on which we are going to house them. In the Globe and Mail of Toronto of December 6 we find this:
The seaway authority also announced that a $500,000 contract has been awarded for the construction of two models of the seaway sections in the Montreal area.
Further on we find this:
The contract calls for the construction of a $300,000 building to house the models. The models will cost an estimated $120,000.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, they are going to have a building to house a model which is two and one-half times the value of the

model, a model of something which is already well on its way to completion. There is very grave doubt in my mind of the necessity for such a building, particularly even if we admit the need for the model.
The other day I listened with a great deal of interest to the comments of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on the question of wheat and agriculture. I must say that after having travelled across this great country of ours not more than a couple of months ago from Winnipeg through to Vancouver and back, and after having listened to many people in that area, I came to the conclusion that the government has a certain policy on wheat and on agriculture. I have come to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that it is a two-part policy. It is compounded in equal parts of faith in the Liberal party and hope for a crop failure. As far as I have been able to see, that is about the only helpful advice or counsel that the government has so far been able to put forward in connection with the wheat surplus.
I do hope that when the estimates come down later this year we shall be able to get an explanation of some of the items in the public accounts book which reached us recently. The attention of hon. members should be drawn particularly to this book because there is so much of interest in it. I looked at a little item in the book only this morning and I discovered that one gentleman had drawn something over $11,000 in travelling expenses in the year ended March 31, 1955, and another gentleman had drawn something over $7,800 in travelling expenses. Both of these gentlemen are in the Department of Transport. I am reasonably sure that in the one case there is an explanation, but it is interesting to note that that explanation was brought forth by questioning by myself in the house last year. I believe the department has changed its policy in this regard.
This gentleman drew $11,000 in travelling expenses but what actually happened in that particular case is that he had a number of people working for him and he put in for their travelling expenses as well as for his own and apparently disbursed the money back to them. That policy I am informed has now been changed as a result of the representations made last year.
Let me point out that it was not until this matter was brought up in the house and the government criticized on that particular point that anything was done about an employee of the government disbursing funds to other employees. Eleven thousand dollars is a sizeable amount of money to give to any one individual to use to pay the travelling expenses of other people.
67509-24J
The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton
I am not at all sure that the same explanation applies to the other case which will be found on Z-84 of the public accounts. In that case the man received $7,865 in travelling expenses last year. I look forward with considerable interest to an explanation of that case.
When selecting people for government service there seems to be a practice on the part of the government to insist on abnormally high qualifications for particular jobs. Let me say at once that properly trained, properly educated, properly prepared people are necessary for many of the posts in our government, but at the same time let me say that there are many jobs which do not require a university degree as a qualification. Individual cases should be examined on their merits. Let me show what the government is doing in certain cases.
I have here an advertisement for fire protection officers, whose duties will be, under the supervision of the dominion fire commissioner, to inspect, test and report upon the condition of fire protection facilities n. 'uding chemical extinguishers, stand pipes ann hose systems, automatic sprinkler systems and the like. We have all seen this type of man who occupies a most important position going up and down the corridors of important buildings checking the fire extinguishers to see that they are in operating shape.
The desirable qualifications given for this position include graduation from a university of recognized standing in science, majoring in mathematics, physics and chemistry with preference being given to applicants with at least one year of experience in fire prevention or related work with boards of insurance underwriters, and so on.
One hardly needs a man with a university degree to go around checking fire extinguishers, stand pipes and automatic sprinkler systems. I make that statement with the proviso always that we must have people who have adequate training, adequate education and so on to fit them for the particular job they are going to do.


Mr. Reinke:: Would the hon. member outline the duties as listed?


William McLean Hamilton: I
shall be delighted to read them again. I do not know where the hon. gentleman was when I read the duties.


Russell Earl Reinke: Verbatim.


William McLean Hamilton: I
shall be delighted to read them again. Apparently it takes twice as long to get something through the heads of some people in this house as it does to get it through the heads of most people.

The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton


Russell Earl Reinke: It all depends on where it
comes from.


William McLean Hamilton: Considerably more than the hon. gentleman who has just asked the question. The duties are:
Under supervision of the dominion fire commissioner, to inspect, test and report upon the condition of fire protection facilities including chemical extinguishers, stand pipes and hose systems, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm and watchman systems, hydrants and fire pumps; to inspect and report upon fire exits and fire spread and exit protection in government owned or leased properties in the Ottawa area; to recommend necessary corrections in fire prevention equipment and practices in a variety of types of buildings involving common and special fire hazards; to assist senior fire protection engineers in professional inspections, tests etc.; and to perform other related duties as required.
I hope that the hon. member got that the second time around. Another case concerns a particular officer that I must admit the government is badly in need of, that is a pest control specialist to use on their own ranks. This man will be required to develop a continuous program for more efficient and economical control of insects and rodents at all army installations; to review, study and evaluate methods and techniques and recommend adoption of most efficient and economical means of control in individual projects. The advertisement then goes on in similar vein. Here is a man who is to be a rat catcher on a large scale. Essentially the job is that of pest control. It is a most practical job, but he must have graduated from a university of recognized standing with specialization in biology.


Mr. Murphy (Lambion West):: And be a
Liberal.


William McLean Hamilton: As
someone says, "And be a Liberal." More and more one wonders whether these specifications are drawn up with someone specially in mind. I do not know that and I do not suggest that. This is not a matter of sour grapes as I am a university graduate. I feel most keenly that university training is required in many positions, but I am open-minded enough about it to realize that there are many positions to fill in this country where that sort of experience and education is not required. The quickest way to make a person unhappy is to take a man of superior education and perhaps intellectual attainments and put him at checking fire extinguishers in a government building and setting rat traps. It seems to me essentially that is what the government is trying to do in these two cases and I bring them forward for your consideration.
A matter which is causing considerable concern in Montreal has to do with the

Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). Our hope is that he will consider amending the Criminal Code to cover the operation of private card houses. As I understand it, at the present time the Criminal Code legalizes the operation of a room or club where for the payment of 10 cents an hour or 50 cents a day people may play cards or gamble legally. It seems to me that this should be corrected. When that section was included in the Criminal Code 50 cents a day or 10 cents an hour were realistic amounts, but the cost of everything has gone up and this section should be corrected on that ground alone quite apart from the inconvenience and trouble it is causing the Montreal police department at the present time in proving cases against people.
I want to express the hope that this year those members of the government who occupy the treasury benches will keep their noses to the grindstone and stay with us in this house. Some of them are quite good about it but others are a little bit delinquent. I am not only thinking of the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) who went off salmon fishing last year when his bill was up in the house.
I do want to express my regret at one particular instance. In the heat of last summer, when we here were doing our very best, I read in the newspaper that a certain cabinet minister had arrived in London for a two-week vacation. It so happened that during the course of that vacation his estimates were considered in the house and were quite ably handled by another minister. I am not going to name the particular minister, as I think it would be a little unfair to him, but this illustrates an approach to this house and to the nation's business that, in my opinion, is very strongly to be condemned. That is only one illustration of their disregard for their responsibilities and disregard for the work of this house, and it could be multiplied many times.
I should like to mention just one final point, since I see I have a moment for it. Earlier in this speech, I gave an illustration of the confusion existing between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice regarding what the R.C.M.P. and the Post Office Department were doing. I wish the departments would get themselves at least halfway sorted out. I have here an advertisement by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for an architect with several years' varied experience to help with all types of buildings for Indian agencies and reserves across Canada. We all know that the primary responsibility of the Department of Public Works is in that

field, but now we find that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has to have its own officer.
Then we find that the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is looking for an engineer to be responsible for certain installations in the Jasper national park. On the other hand, the Department of Public Works is looking for two engineers to take care of highways in the national parks. In other words, these departments, in the confusion which is so rampant in the government, are running one over the other willynilly. Without any consideration for the taxpayers, without any consideration for expenditures, without any consideration for anything except building their own private empires, these ministers, one after the other, are advertising for people, and in many cases they do not even know what to do with them.
I am quite sure that, when the estimates come up for consideration this year, we shall be able to look at some of these situations, and we shall certainly give the government every possible help we can in straightening out the stupid mess it is getting itself into today.


Russell Earl Reinke: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to offer my congratulations, as previous speakers have done, to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) on the very fine way in which she moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The hon. member for Timiskaming is one of the outstanding women of today. She was outstanding in her own riding before she came to this house and she has certainly been an asset to all of us here and a credit to the women of Canada. I am quite sure that her appeal to the Prime Minister to appoint a woman to sit on the civil service commission will not fall upon deaf ears.
I should like also to congratulate the seconder of the motion, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme). His fine oratory and his knowledge of parliamentary business were very apparent, and we certainly welcome him to this corner of the house.
The matter about which I intend to speak today is, to my mind, of very urgent public importance. I had intended to discuss it when the estimates relating to the Department of Justice were before the house but events over the past four weeks have been of such a serious and critical nature that I must bring it to the attention of the Minister of Justice and the hon. members of this house at this time.
The city of Hamilton, in which I have the honour to represent the riding of Hamilton
The Address-Mr. Reinke South, is, I believe, an average Canadian city. One of my hon. friends says it is a little better than average, and I agree with him. In the space of a few more years it will no doubt reach a population of a quarter of a million people, since we are now fast approaching that population. The people of Hamilton, as I have said, are average people; they are hard-working, industrious, peace-loving citizens fulfilling their duties to their families and to their communities.
I point out this fact because what I am about to say affects the citizens of every town and city across this great dominion of ours. Whilst I am going to refer to my own particular riding, it is only because I am more cognizant of conditions there than I am of any other communities across Canada.
The people of our municipality are incensed, the citizens are riled, they are desperate and they are afraid. The men are afraid for the safety of their wives, and parents for their daughters. Why are they afraid? Because we have never in the history of our city experienced a more serious and! despicable wave of heinous sex crimes than at the present time. Since December 5, eight cases of sexual assault have been reported to the police. Of these assaults reported, five have been brutal cases of rape.
Last Friday night a small young mother of a young child was hauled into a car as she walked along the street in the west central part of the city. She was taken to the outskirts of the city, was attacked by two men who were in the car, and was turned loose to wander about in a dazed condition until she finally reached a telephone. Since that time, an 18-year-old girl was abducted by two men, badly beaten, taken to a motel on the outskirts of town and there assaulted by one of the men.
Last Monday night, a 52-year-old woman complained to the city police that she had been raped by two men on a lonely township road just outside the city limits.
The week end before Christmas, a young couple walking home from a dance were assaulted by two men. The husband was knocked to the ground partially unconscious. His terrified wife was pulled into a car, assaulted and left near a small town on the outskirts of Hamilton.
Just two weeks ago, a 15-year-old girl on her way home from a skating rink in the east end of the city suffered a similar fate. On Sunday morning, a daring daylight attempt was made by two men on a 25-year-old girl. Here it is reported in the Hamilton. Spectator of Tuesday, 17th January:
The attacks have resulted in strict security regulations being put into effect at the student nurses' residence at St. Joseph's hospital. Girls

The Address-Mr. Reinke are not being allowed out alone at night and all late passes have been cancelled for the time, it was learned today.
Many parents are taking the precaution of driving their daughters to and from places at night until the case is cleared up.
Then we have another account on the following evening, Wednesday, 18th January. The Spectator for that date contains the following report:
One of those "barbaric rapists" who have been terrorizing young women in the Hamilton district recently could be that young man who lives next door! If you're hunting for the $3,000 reward money offered for their arrest don't assume that the wanted pair are thuggish "bums" from the underworld. You have the word of their latest victim, the attractive young woman who was attacked in broad daylight at Aberdeen and James streets Tuesday, that they are not.
"That's the surprising part of it," she told the Spectator this morning. "The man who grabbed me seemed like a Quite ordinary young man."
"You mean he looked quite respectable?"
"Yes, he did. He was neat and clean. There was nothing untidy or dirty about him."
I have no doubt whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, that the police of Hamilton will apprehend these thugs. Four of these attacks have taken the same pattern and are attributed to the same men. But what will we do with these callous, hardened beasts, once they are apprehended? What will happen to the degenerate who murdered 5-year-old Susan Cadieux of London, who after this despicable crime left her to die of exposure? What will happen to the sadistic rapist who spirited away 13-year-old Linda Lampkin of Toronto Wednesday night, strangled her with her own scarf and, according to newspaper reports, threw her battered body from a moving vehicle on Commissioner street in Toronto?
Most people are not aware, however, that the biggest percentage of these degenerates are sane. To back up that statement I should like to read the opinion of the superintendent of a mental hospital as reported in the Hamilton Spectator of Tuesday, January 17, which is as follows:
Dr. J. N. Senn, superintendent of the Ontario hospital here, said today the majority of suspected sex offenders committed by magistrates for observation are returned to the courts as sane persons.
I am not in a position to criticize the punishments or penalties handed out by our courts, but I will say that either our Criminal Code should be made more stringent or it is not being enforced severely enough, and I am inclined to lean towards the latter view. Section 136 of the Criminal Code reads:
Every one who commits rape is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life and to be whipped.
I think this section is perfectly clear. I believe every man who commits this offence 
should receive the maximum penalty. He should be put out of society for all time and be given lashes. Section 137 reads as follows:
Every one who attempts to commit rape is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for ten years and to be whipped.
Here again I suggest that every offender should receive the maximum penalty. These people deserve no sympathy. I am speaking now of course of the sane person who wilfully and methodically sets out to carry out this act. As I have pointed out from good authority, I believe most of them come under this category no matter how they may try to hide behind the curtain of insanity. The penalty is there and must be meted out severely to act as a deterrent to others.
But more dangerous perhaps than the type of criminals I have just mentioned, who have been molesting women and children in Hamilton, is the type of sex deviate involved in the last two instances I referred to, the Cadieux case in London and the Lampkin case in Toronto. This is the type of criminal who, after committing this foul deed, kills his victim for the purpose, I suppose, of hiding his identity. The Hon. Kelso Roberts, attorney general of Ontario, expressed his views in the Toronto Star of January 12, 1956, as follows:
We are concerned about these cases and we are studying the problem but we have got to move slowly. I sympathize with the people who are angry over these recent assaults on children. But we cannot just go around locking up each and every sex deviate. We are not behind the iron curtain. We have got to try and understand each individual problem.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I most vehemently oppose this opinion. I should like to know why in heaven's name we cannot lock up each and every sex deviate. To my mind any man who is guilty of molesting small girls or full grown ones, for that matter, is a sex deviate. Under section 661 of the Criminal Code these men can be taken out of society for an indeterminate period and for life if necessary. I suggest that if the act of molesting, which in effect is an indecent assault, takes place more than once, society should be rid of that person at least until this complex problem is solved and while it is being solved.
To me it would seem reasonable to assume that the sex deviate probably begins his life of crime in the same way as a bandit or an alcoholic. It is very unlikely that a thief would attempt to rob the main branch of the Royal Bank of Canada in Ottawa in his first attempt at crime. I cannot conceive of a person becoming an alcoholic after one drink. It is a state that is brought into being progressively as the person becomes

bolder and bolder and more irresponsible, gradually acquiring a thirst that cannot be quenched. The same is true of the sex deviate. His first offence may be to watch little children playing in the grounds of a school and attempt to entice them away. Becoming bolder and bolder and taking fewer precautions, he is finally successful in luring them to their downfall and leaving them maimed for life or ravaged and killed.
If life imprisonment and the lash are not enough of a deterrent, then these crimes must be prevented before they happen by taking these molesters out of circulation. I maintain that these men, who are urged by some mental deviation to molest children, even though it may be in a minor way at first, should be held in custody, and if they have not been guilty of indecent assault under section 141, which deals with that crime, we should add another section to this part of the code to deal with those who begin with a minor sex offence. One thing I am certain of is that we must be strict in dealing with these men.
I am pleased that at last we have section 162 dealing with peeping Toms. You have no doubt read of sex crimes committed by criminals who started by peeping in a window of an apartment or a home. The first thing you know some urge impels them to gain entry and then there is an assault and possibly a murder.
Some five years ago I had a personal experience in this connection. We were preparing for bed one evening and our dog kicked up quite a racket. I threw on my dressing gown quickly and went out to investigate. I arrived in time to see someone jumping over the side fence and then run around the side of the house next door and out to the street. A few hundred feet up the street a car was parked. Of course I was not attired to take chase but I got the colour and make of the car and so on and telephoned the police.
While I was waiting for the police to come I jumped in my own car to see if I could spot the car in the district. I noticed the car as a matter of fact cruising the district about two blocks away but unfortunately I was travelling the wrong way when I spotted it and by the time I had turned around he had disappeared. I returned to my home and waited for the arrival of the police. I was standing on the front verandah still attired in my dressing gown and, lo and behold, I looked over on the next street and saw what appeared to be someone looking in a window. I thought: How could this be so soon after this has happened to me?
The Address-Mr. Reinke
I went into the house, secured a flashlight and turned it on this house which faced the same way mine did but was on the next block. There framed against a back window was this fellow looking in a bedroom. Of course he immediately noticed the light on him and took off with me after him. Here I was still only in my dressing gown. He ran down the block a hundred yards or so and I think I was gaining on him a little. I was younger in those days and in better shape. He jumped in his car and fled.
But this time I was fortunate enough to secure the licence number, so I turned it over to the police and he was apprehended. My wife and I picked him out of a line-up the next day, and sure enough it was he. He came from a good, respectable family in Hamilton, and was married and had two or three children. As a matter of fact, I felt sorry for him. He having pleaded guilty to this offence, the judge said, "I am powerless to convict him", and he was let off on suspended sentence. Of course at that time the code contained no provision for this type of crime. He was let off, put on a $100 bond and I think for a period of two years he was to stay out of that district. That was all the satisfaction that I had after this man came to my own window and within half an hour was looking into the window of someone across the street.
Let me read to you, Mr. Speaker, the definition of a criminal sexual psychopath as defined in our Criminal Code under section 659:
. . . (b) "criminal sexual psychopath" means a person who, by a course of misconduct in sexual matters, has shown a lack of power to control his sexual impulses and who as a result is likely to attack-
I would ask you to note those words "likely to attack".
-or otherwise inflict injury, pain or other evil on any person, . . .
Then it goes on and points out that preventive detention under the act means detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period. Are these men not criminal sexual psychopaths? Either they go back into society completely cured or they should stay in prison or in a mental institution. Whether they can be cured without surgery is not for me to say, since I am not a psychiatrist nor a doctor. In a great many cases I am of the opinion that surgery may be the answer. Those who are opposed to this solution might do well to remember the words of our Lord when He delivered His sermon
368	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy on the mount as is written in the gospel according to St. Matthew, dealing with adultery:
29.	And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30.	And if thy right hand offend thee, cut It off, and cast it from thee: . . .
And so on. A royal commission, headed by Chief Justice McRuer, is studying the problem to see whether the section of the Criminal Code dealing with sex offences should be changed. That commission is holding meetings and has been sitting for two years in all parts of Canada. I would certainly hope that the commission will report to parliament at this session so that we shall have an opportunity to see whether this part of the Criminal Code needs some revising. Our children must come first. We are not going to keep them locked up or under surveillance while this sort of deviate runs at large.
Since 1947 when section 661 of the code was passed by parliament-that is the section to which I just referred-only 20 men in all of Canada have been given indeterminate sentences under this section dealing with sexual psychopaths. Possibly this is because sex offences are seldom repeated after the criminal has paid his penalty. Of 5,821 cases studied in New York city, 39 per cent had previous police records but for other offences. Only 9 per cent had been involved in previous sex offences. If our percentages in this country are comparable, surely 9 per cent of the sex deviates would amount to more than 20 over the past eight years. I can therefore only conclude that although under our Criminal Code we have provided a law under which to commit these men, our courts have been too lenient. This 9 per cent must be securely placed in detention forever or until there is no chance of recurrence, so that mothers and their daughters can once more move about without any fear whether it be daylight or dark.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to join those members who have preceded me in offering my congratulations to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The mover of the address, namely the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley), can, with considerable justification, feel proud of the fact that she is the first woman in Canada to have had that honour. What I think may be of equal importance to her as a Liberal as well as a woman is the fact that at long


last the Liberal party have succeeded in electing a woman upon whom they can bestow that high honour.
Those of us who have been here for some years, Mr. Speaker, do not expect to find much by way of progressive legislation or of new legislation proposed in the speech from the throne in the third session of a parliament with an election more than a year away. The best we can hope for is a vague foreshadowing of better things to come when election year comes around, possibly next session. It is therefore gratifying to find in the speech from the throne a promise of legislation to provide, as between men and women, equal pay for equal work in the federal section of our economy. This is a matter for which another lady member of the house, namely the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough), will be justified in taking some credit.
It would really be interesting if we were to make a study of just how much of the Liberal legislation introduced over the past years has originated on this side of the house. I think a close study would reveal the fact that most if not all of the best legislation that has been introduced by this government in the past 20 years or so was first brought to the attention of the house and the country by one or other of the opposition groups. As a matter of fact, it looks very much as though the government no longer takes the initiative or leadership in the field of progressive legislation but rather has become the agent of the opposition to implement legislation proposed by opposition groups.
Now that we have voted on the question of wheat surpluses it may be well to look at some of the other major issues that confront us today. First and foremost among those, in my opinion, is the international relationship between east and west, that which we speak of as the tension between east and west which exists at the present time. I refer to the struggle for supremacy between the communists and the capitalist countries of the world. It is the struggle for supremacy between Russia and her allies on the one side and the United States and her allies on the other. It is an issue, Mr. Speaker, the outcome of which is a matter of life and death for a whole generation of people in every country in the world today.
We can talk all we like about peaceful coexistence or competitive coexistence, but I think the cold stark fact is that as long as we have communism and capitalism dividing the world with two ideologies that struggle for supremacy will continue. The most we can probably hope for in the years to come is that the contest can be carried on without

recourse to war. In view of the situation, it seems to me we should direct our thoughts along two main lines. We should first of all seek to use all the prestige and influence that Canada can command amongst the nations of the world to avoid what Mr. Eden has chosen to call a universal explosion. Secondly, we should seek to find ways and means of demonstrating to our own people, and to the people of other nations, nations that are now teetering in their support between the east and the west, that the democratic way of life can provide more tangible benefits than can the communist way of life. As I see it, that is the twofold challenge which confronts both the governments and the citizens of the countries of the free world today.
Mr. Eden was reported in the press yesterday as having pledged the British people to keep working for some way in which the communist nations and the free world can live together without quarrelling over the domination of the world. Canada has good reason to be proud of the prominent part which our own Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and our Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) have played in this field. I think Canadians everywhere recognize and congratulate those ministers on the good job they did for Canada and the world during recent months. Even though there are new clouds on the horizon, even though there may be new problems arising every day, we must, to use the words of our own Secretary of State for External Affairs-
-stand firm against tactics of divide, weaken and destroy, but equally do nothing by provocative word or policy to increase Russia's fear of the west as a threat to peace.
While we welcome those words from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, we wonder how the policy of the government which has recently come to light regarding the shipment of arms to Egypt can be made to fit in with the secretary's words. It would seem that there really does exist a right and a left in government circles, and that the government's right hand does not really know what the left hand is doing nor the left what the right is doing. We have heard a great deal of criticism regarding Russia's or the communist countries' shipments of arms to Egypt in recent months. One wonders just why we can blame one country for shipping these arms while we are engaged in the same practice.
So, Mr. Speaker, defence and negotiation must continue hand in hand. While we give our support to measures of protection against communism, we must continue our efforts to secure a genuine disarmament agreement. I want to add my voice to others in urging
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy the government, and particularly the two ministers already referred to, to continue persevering to secure such an agreement. Here, I want to call attention to the recommendations made to the government by the Canadian Congress of Labour in this matter a few weeks ago. On page 1 of their memorandum to the government the congress says:
The congress urges the government to press for a firm international agreement on the abolition of all stocks of atomic and hydrogen weapons and the prohibition of the manufacture and use of such weapons, under effective international control. As a first step towards these ends the government should take the initiative to obtain an agreement to stop nuclear weapon tests.
Just what is to be gained, Mr. Speaker, by continuing to build still more powerful nuclear weapons? Apparently, both east and west now have a sufficient number of these weapons to destroy each other in a matter of hours, if not in a matter of minutes. What is to be gained by building still more? Surely, since no one nation can keep such tests a secret from other nations and since science cannot yet tell us just what the disastrous effects of these tests may be upon unborn generations, as human beings, whether Russian, American, British or Canadian, we are intelligent enough to reach some agreement to stop further tests as a first step in an agreement for effective international supervision of a disarmament program.
Lord Beaverbrook's powerful newspaper, the Daily Express, in its New Year's message to the British people on January 2, asked these questions:
What should be foremost in the minds of the people as the New Year opens? What should be their guiding light in the months that lie ahead?
The Daily Express gives these three answers:
(1)	War should be repudiated. It should be utterly dismissed from the thoughts of the public.
(2)	Armaments should be reduced to the utmost extent.
(3)	Above all, espouse the cause of world-wide control of atomic weapons. Press for it.
Urge it upon the leaders of the nations.
Atomic weapons have a particular horror for humanity. They hold a unique menace.
Nothing would contribute so much to easing the tensions that exist today as the knowledge that these terrible instruments of destruction had been immobilised.
Nothing could do more to relieve the world of its load of poison.
As the Canadian Congress of Labour points out, defence against communism is "not simply a matter of guns and planes and bombs, of armies and navies and air forces"; it is also a matter, to use the words of the congress, "of rooting out poverty and exploitation" wherever they exist. Only when
370	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy we can prove to the world that as a nation we are employing our national wealth and our national resources to root out poverty and exploitation at home, and particularly in those underdeveloped countries of the world, shall we be able to demonstrate to these people that democracy can give them more tangible benefits than can communism.
We welcome the government's proposal to increase its contribution under the Colombo plan. In the opinion of many of us that contribution is still too small. There are, moreover, a number of sectors of our domestic economy where poverty and exploitation still exist. The old age pensioner, for instance, who has to live on his $40 each month, judged by present-day living standards, is not very far removed from poverty. The employable unemployed who has exhausted his unemployment insurance and is forced to fall back upon municipal relief is oftentimes on the very edge of poverty. It is no credit to democracy, no credit to our federal government or to our provincial governments that we have another winter upon us and still no satisfactory agreement has been reached regarding the responsibility for those who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed employables.


Mr. Philpoii:: Ontario would not take it.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I have brought both provincial and federal governments into the picture.


Elmore Philpott: The other provinces did.


Joseph William Noseworthy: There are many municipalities in Canada, Mr. Speaker, which are today without financial resources to meet their responsibility for social services and education; yet while we pride ourselves on our democratic freedoms and the strength of our free institutions, we permit petty jealousies as between governments at different levels to undermine the strength of those institutions, to undermine democracy itself at a time when democracy, as we know it, is engaged in a life and death struggle for existence against communism.
Here is another example, Mr. Speaker. Our sightless citizens whom we still subject to a means test, and to whom our government refuses to grant a small special allowance to cover the cost of guiding and other essential expenses, are oftentimes brought very close to poverty. Can Canada, with its vast national product, not spare just a few dollars for those sightless persons in the name and in the interests of democracy?
We were told in yesterday's press that in the last ten weeks 180 Canadian lives had been lost through fires. Tests show that in the great majority of cases inferior building


material and substandard houses have been the causes of those fires, and the cause of this appalling loss of life. Notwithstanding the improvements we have made in the National Housing Act, notwithstanding the increase in building that has come about, we have not yet seriously tackled the problem of providing houses in Canada for those who need them most. The majority of the houses built under the National Housing Act are sold to those who are in the $5,000 income bracket or higher. There are still no houses being built or made available that can be sold or rented at prices that tens of thousands of Canadians in the lower income brackets, Canadian couples wtih young families to support, can afford. Our major problem in housing is still with us. It is that of providing houses for those people.
While I am on this subject, I wonder whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare will take an opportunity soon to tell us whether or not his department considers taking some action in this field. In my opinion his department is in a better position than any other organization in this country to carry on a national, all-out educational campaign to show our people both how to prevent those fires and what to do when they occur. A very prominent specialist, a man who is employed by the insurance companies as a specialist in this field, Mr. Douglas Abbey- I think he is the standards engineer of the fire protection division of the underwriters laboratories of Canada-tells us that:
-an informed public would go a long way toward lowering the annual toll of lives lost in house fires.
What an opportunity there is for the Department of National Health and Welfare, which every month is in correspondence with the mothers of the children of our nation, to provide the homes with some form of guidance and instruction in this field. Of course the minister will run foul of provincial regulations and responsibilities. He may even find that his terms of reference and his budget will not permit him to take action along this line. If I know the Minister of National Health and Welfare, he is a man of vision, a humanitarian, and I am sure he is man enough to rise above those petty difficulties and do something for the children to whom his department is sending family allowance cheques every month.
The leader of the official opposition has already in this debate called attention to the need for the revision of some of our labour legislation. The grievances of a large group of railway employees still remain unsolved, and no edict of the Prime Minister that these men should not go on strike is a solution of

that problem. Railways are essential in this country, and if because of competition they must be operated at a loss, then the employees of the railways should not be called upon to bear the brunt of those losses. Some means must be found other than the undemocratic method of depriving these men of a right that has been long established as a part of our collective bargaining system.
Much has been said already about unemployment insurance. I realize that the Department of Labour is watching this act very closely, and that the legislation requires continual revision to meet the needs of the day. There is one phase of this act to which I should like to direct the attention of the house.
I am given to understand that an employee who has suffered an industrial accident for which he is paid workmen's compensation suffers some loss in his unemployment insurance. While he is receiving compensation no payments are made on his behalf into the unemployment insurance fund. If after returning to work he finds himself unemployed, the number of days to which he would normally be entitled are reduced by reason of the fact that he has been drawing workmen's compensation.
It does not seem fair to me that a workman who has suffered an industrial accident, probably through no fault of his own, and who is placed on workmen's compensation of say 75 per cent of his wages for a period of time, should be penalized further by having his entitlement to unemployment insurance reduced by reason of that fact. I would suggest to the minister that some study be given to this problem and means found whereby workers who are injured and in receipt of workmen's compensation shall not have to suffer later on because of that fact.
I understand that hon. members generally are attempting to co-operate in keeping their speeches down to 25 or 30 minutes, and as a matter of fact I have been warned by our whip that if I exceed the 30-minute limit I am not likely to get on again in a hurry. So I had better watch my time.
There is just one further matter I should like to mention. I was disappointed personally, and I am sure many others are also disappointed, that no mention was made in the speech from the throne of the setting up of a Canada council to support the arts in Canada. It is now about five years since the famous Massey commission recommended the setting up of such a council, but when we heard the statement the other day by the Prime Minister that the government does not contemplate setting up such a council this year we were further disappointed.
The Address-Mr. Thatcher
It is difficult to understand why a prime minister who sets such a high value on culture as does our Prime Minister should take an attitude like this on this matter. The Prime Minister is a man of culture, he appreciates culture and he comes from a province where recently a Gallup poll showed there were more people supporting the idea of government subsidies for the arts than in any other province of Canada. He comes from a province where artistic culture is probably better established than anywhere else in Canada.
We wonder just what it is the Prime Minister and his cabinet are afraid of, for they must be afraid of something when five years are allowed to go by since that famous report was made. I merely want to say in closing that I trust the Prime Minister and those in his cabinet who are interested in Canadian culture will review the situation, and that before this session ends we shall have a recommendation for the setting up of this long-promised council.
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw-Lake
Centre): Mr. Speaker, my first remarks this session must be directed to the Minister of Finance. In his budget speech last year the minister stated that in 1955 Canada would probably have a gross national product of $25-25 billion. On the basis of that gross national product he intimated that the federal government would probably have a deficit of $160 million. Fortunately for the people of Canada, the minister was apparently somewhat conservative, because instead of a gross national product of $25-25 billion for last year the figure was $26-4 billion, or $1-2 billion more than expected. I would remind the house at this time of what the minister said in his budget speech last year, at page 2733 of Hansard:
I propose, therefore, to recommend a tax structure which, as closely as I can estimate, would produce a balanced budget if we had a gross national product of about $26 billion.
In view of the fact that the gross national product was $26 [DOT] 4 billion I think it is reasonable to expect that the government will come reasonably close to balancing its budget.
I was interested to note that in a year-end statement, the Minister of Trade and Commerce made the prophecy that in the coming year our gross national product was going to reach $28 billion. If that should happen it is quite likely that in the coming year the government will have a fairly substantial surplus.
I should like to express the hope at this time that the government will use that surplus to give our people a substantial tax cut.

The Address-Mr. Thatcher I think tax cuts are needed tor very obvious reasons. In the first place, they are needed to bring relief to those in the lower income groups. In the second place they are needed to spur investment in Canadian mines, industry and business.
If the minister should find it possible to bring about tax reduction within the confines of a balanced budget, I would hope that the reduction will be in the field of personal income tax. I would hope it may be possible to increase the income tax exemption for married people from $2,000 to $3,000 and for single people from $1,000 to $1,800. I believe such action would be most beneficial. I sincerely hope that the government will not wait for an election year before they grant such tax reduction.
A good deal has been said already in this debate about the wheat crisis in western Canada, and I should like to refer to it briefly. It has been pointed out many times that the wheat surplus in the west recently reached an historic peak of almost one billion bushels. Out west we have grain in our barns, in our stables, in our granaries, in our elevators. Indeed, many farmers have grain out in their fields which they have not been able to get in.
As a result the great majority of farmers have been unable to deliver enough wheat to pay their ordinary living expenses. During the past four years farm income on the prairies has dropped by almost two-thirds. I do not think it is necessary for me to belabour the point to this house that the western farmer is in real difficulty. The important question we must face this session is, what can be done about it? Is there any practical solution? Dozens of proposals have already been made in this debate. Dozens of other proposals have been made outside the house, throughout the west. Some of those proposals are reasonable; some of them contain food for thought but many of them, in my opinion, have been little more than economic nonsense.
As I see it, this issue is not a political one. It is far too important. I think all political parties should get together to see if they cannot find a practical solution to this problem. In the west, in the past few months, I have asked dozens of farmers this question:	If
you were the Prime Minister of Canada, what would you do to solve the wheat crisis? Most of them would look at me for a moment, smile a little, and then quite frankly admit that they did not know precisely what an over-all solution would be.
The fact is that, as I see it, there is no easy answer. There is no pat solution. There is no magic formula. If there had been, I am

quite sure the government would have been intelligent enough to find it many months ago. What are some of the solutions that have been seriously suggested in this house and elsewhere? I should like to comment on five or six of them.
Some people say that we should give away our wheat to the countries of Asia, or possibly of Europe, as a solution. Speaking for the C.C.F. group the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), as shown on page 88 of Hansard, took such an attitude. Personally I feel that Canada should not hesitate to make modest gifts to needy countries for humanitarian reasons if there is a famine or something of that nature. But to propose that a billion dollars should be set aside for such a purpose is, in my opinion, neither responsible nor practical.


Mr. Nicholson:: Give them a stone when they ask for bread.


Mr. Thatcher:: As federal representatives we should be just as responsible with the taxpayers' money as we are with our own. I do not think members who make suggestions of this kind would dream of spending their own money in such a reckless fashion. I say again that they should be infinitely more careful in proposing to give away money that belongs to someone else, in this case to the Canadian taxpayer.
Our farmers in the west, I believe, realize that it is not practical to give away all our wheat in order to solve this problem. They know that if we started giving away wheat the government would be called on to give away our butter surplus. If we gave away our wheat surplus, maritimers would expect us to give away our apple surplus. Ontario farmers would reasonably ask the government to give away our cheese surplus. Our textile industry is in difficulty; it could press for action to give away our textiles, and so on. Giving away our wheat, in my opinion- and perhaps I am biased-is not a feasible solution, at this time at least.


Mr. Studer:: Give away the socialists.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They have no surplus.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: It has been suggested that we should take sterling from the United Kingdom in payment for wheat. That suggestion has been mooted a great deal in western Canada. I do not believe that is much more practical at this time than the first suggestion. As has been mentioned in this house already, Mr. Gordon Bowen, the United Kingdom senior trade commissioner, came out to Saskatoon a short time before Christmas to address a farm union meeting and was

asked this question from the floor by a farmer:	"How much more wheat would
Canada sell to Britain if we were prepared to take sterling in payment?" Mr. Bowen made the flat and categorical answer: "You would not sell one solitary extra bushel more." So that disposes of this solution.
A third suggestion which is frequently made is that we should cut the price of wheat to encourage consumption. I certainly believe that the Canadian wheat board at all times must meet price competition, because if it does not it is going to lose its traditional markets. But my understanding is that it is already doing this. Today prices paid to United States, United Kingdom, German, Belgian and Argentine producers, and to producers in other countries, are considerably higher than the Canadian export price.
From past experience it seems very doubtful that a cut in price would sell more Canadian wheat. In the depression years the price went as low as 30 cents a bushel, and we did not sell very much more. In fact in some cases we actually sold less, because some of the countries put up the tariff to protect their own home producers against cheap Canadian wheat. It seems to me that if Canada cut her wheat prices today, probably Australia, Argentina and the United States would soon follow suit. None of us would sell any more wheat. Canada probably would not regain a larger proportion of the market, and in the long run the western farmers would be in a worse predicament than when we started. So I reject this third suggestion as not being feasible.
A fourth solution which has sometimes been suggested is that we should reduce the amount of acreage sown to wheat. If, to the extent that wheat acreage is taken out of production, rye, oats, barley, corn or hay is planted in its place, I am all for it. But I think it is contrary to economic sense and to humanitarian principles to encourage a farmer to take his land out of production altogether, when there are so many hungry people in the world.
A fifth suggestion, of which we have heard a good deal in this house, is that we should accept barter in return for our wheat. Personally I have nothing against barter. As a matter of fact, if a nation could be found which had something that Canada could use, to barter for wheat, I would be in favour of it. However, I have not been able to learn of any such country. I would very respectfully point out that those who suggest barter as a method of getting rid of wheat should be more specific. They should talk less in generalities and tell us precisely what country wants to barter with Canada
The Address-Mr. Thatcher for wheat. Then, if it is practical, let us go ahead with it. Personally I am rather of the opinion that barter would have as much effect on our wheat surplus as a pail of water taken from the Ottawa river would have in lowering its level.
A sixth proposal sometimes put forward is that we should scrap the Canadian wheat board and get back to the Winnipeg grain exchange. This school of thought proposes that we should let the law of supply and demand set the price of wheat. Personally I would hope that this course is not followed, because if the law of supply and demand were setting the price of wheat today, with our huge supplies on hand, the price would soon drop very sharply and drastically.
I could go on about some of the other proposals which have been made in this house to get rid of our wheat surplus. As I see it, none of them would do very much more than nibble at the crux of the problem. In my opinion it is a mistake for any citizen to feel that the government, by waving a magic wand of some kind, can get rid of this wheat. Unfortunately our grain economy is not under the control of the government; it is under the control of an uncontrollable world market.
I have always felt, and I feel more strongly than ever today, that the most practical way for the prairie farmers to get rid of large quantities of this grain is to feed it to livestock and poultry. I believe that such a program should channel some of our borderline grades of feed wheat into livestock consumption rather than into human consumption. I certainly do not suggest that this is the over-all answer. It is not, but it would put a good deal of cash into the hands of the farmer.
Some people will immediately say this is no solution because as soon as you feed grain to livestock and hogs you will have a glut of those particular farm products. I admit there is that danger, but apparently we are not very close to it at the moment. Today we are consuming practically all the beef and hogs we produce in this country. As a matter of fact, lately we have been even consuming a little of the United States production, because since November 12 last, carload after carload of steers has been coming into the Toronto market. Since that date approximately 5,400 United States cattle have been imported for slaughter by Canadian packing houses.
I say that through immigration, through natural increase, our population is growing by 400,000 per year. That is a pretty healthy increase but I do not think it is enough. If the government really wants to do something

The Address-Mr. Thatcher
about the wheat crisis it should increase immigration. It should bring in not 125,000 people a year but 250,000, so that our home markets will be enlarged by people who will eat meat and dairy products. That will be a secure market. That would be the place for our farmers to start to get rid of some of their grain. Our farmers could then safely diversify. They could feed a lot of this wheat to cattle. If the glut is to be ended the government must build up our home market.
I would also remind the house that there is yet another market for Canadian meat products. Today, for reasons of price, Canada is not taking advantage of the provisions of the Geneva trade agreement which permit us to ship large quantities of meat to the United States. For example, as far as cattle are concerned there is a tariff today of 1J cents per pound on the first 200,000 calves shipped to the United States, and a similar tariff on the first 400,000 cattle over 700 pounds shipped to that country. In the first 11 months of 1955 we only shipped 4,600 calves and 55,000 cattle south of the border. This means in effect that we only took advantage of 1-6 per cent of our minimum market for calves in the United States and 14 per cent of our minimum market for cattle.
What about hogs? Under the Geneva trade agreement we are permitted to send unlimited quantities of hogs to the United States by paying a tariff of 1 cent per pound. Yet last year, again for reasons of price, we only shipped 8,212 hogs. As far as sheep are concerned, we can sell unlimited quantities by paying a tariff of $3 a head, but in the 11-month period we only exported 8,382 sheep. Much the same situation exists in connection with poultry.
I say we are missing the boat. I admit that the United States already has large surpluses of certain meat products. Nevertheless they signed a trade agreement with us which permits Canadian livestock to enter their market when the price is sufficiently attractive. If they live up to the agreement I see no reason why Canadian farmers cannot compete over the ensuing years with a reasonable degree of success.
I repeat that, as I see it, the most practical way for parliament to fight the grain crisis is to encourage our prairie farmers to diversify their economy. If diversification is to be successful our home market must be built up, and the United States market must be cultivated. Personally I think the legislation announced by the government in the speech from the throne, which has as its purpose the paying of abnormal storage charges on wheat, will be welcomed in western Canada by pretty 
nearly everyone. At the same time I think the government erred in making loans available through the banks instead of making advances on farm-stored grain. However, I am going to comment on that legislation at the appropriate time.
I said a moment ago that in my opinion it is not reasonable to expect the government to solve the wheat crisis by waving a magic wand. However, there is one place where I think the government can be severely criticized. As has already been pointed out by various speakers, there are large quantities of elevator space available in western Canada. Some people suggest that there is space for 100 million bushels. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said this morning that it was only about 58 million. Whether the figure is 100 million or 58 million, that space should be filled. I think the situation which permits such empty elevator space to exist is inexcusable. The minister or the responsible authorities should tell the railroads that they are expected to give top priority to box cars for moving grain. If such action were taken I think it would do more than any other single thing to alleviate immediately the cash picture in the west.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, in the more leisurely days of the past it has been customary for all hon. members taking part in the throne speech debate to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As far as I can determine it has been customary to carry out this bit of good manners even on occasions when the recipients were not particularly deserving because their efforts were only fair. However, those leisurely days are gone forever, and we now find ourselves operating on a schedule. We are faced with the problem of conducting ourselves suitably in this new age of efficiency and expedition.
We find ourselves in circumstances where debates, arguments and controversies must be carried on under a pre-set schedule. It is not surprising, therefore, that many hon. members rising to take part in this debate this year find themselves torn between two desires. On the one hand, they wish to comply with the spirit of the new rules and get down to the business at hand as quickly as possible. On the other hand, they do not wish to break away from the traditions of gallantry and good manners evidenced by complimenting the mover and seconder. Our desires in that respect are even less

compatible this year because not only gallantry but chivalry are involved on this occasion, since for the first time in the history of this parliament the mover of the address has been a lady.
So here we are impaled on the horns of a dilemma. Shall we proceed to the business before us immediately we rise to speak and run the risk of appearing rude, or shall we carry on the traditional courtesies to which we have become so accustomed and run the danger of infringing on the time of some other hon. member who may have something really worth while to contribute to the debate? By way of compromise I should like on this occasion, not only on behalf of myself but, if they will permit me, on behalf of all hon. members planning to take part in the debate, to congratulate most heartily the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I turn now to the speech from the throne itself, and I wish to quote one short excerpt. It reads:
Canada has enjoyed, on the whole, a high level of prosperity. Some sectors of the economy have not fully participated in this increased well-being.
Then it goes on to make reference to wheat. I presume, therefore, that one of the sectors which is not participating fully is the industry of agriculture. If the statement refers to agriculture, it is an understatement almost without parallel. I say that for the reason that agriculture is a keystone of our whole economy. I think it is fair to say that about 50 per cent of the people in Canada either directly or indirectly depend upon agriculture for their livelihood. Agriculture is therefore a vital part of our economy. Merely to say in passing that it is a sector which is not sharing fully in the general high prosperity is somewhat similar to a medical doctor's saying, when reporting on the health of a patient, that the patient looked fit all over with one minor exception, namely that his throat was slit from ear to ear.
We should remember that every depression in Canada since confederation began in the first instance because the farmers in this country did not have the purchasing power with which they could go to town and buy a lantern, a set of harness, a tractor or a light plant, as the case may be.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has taken exception to the fact that some hon. members have seen fit to criticize the fact that our agricultural surpluses are accumulating, especially in wheat. He took the attitude that surpluses are an unmixed blessing, and that we do not ever want to be in the position of old Mother Hubbard. That is
The Address-Mr. MacLean perfectly true. But we should remember that almost anything, if carried to excess, can cease to be an advantage. If out of her abundance nature showers us with material blessings in the way of food, raw materials for clothing and so on, and if this country of ours becomes, literally and figuratively, a land overflowing with milk and honey, it is a good thing provided that special difficulties are not created. In most cases special difficulties of economics arise under those circumstances. It should be remembered that the promised land which overflowed with milk and honey is now a desert. Anything can become excessive. It is always possible to reach the point where virtues become vices and where assets become liabilities. When the minister put his defence of surpluses on those grounds I could not help being reminded of a young lady in my province who went to a psychiatrist complaining bitterly that her husband claimed that she was crazy simply because she liked pancakes. The psychiatrist said, "Your husband must be a most unreasonable man, because I myself like pancakes". She said, "Is that really so? You must come over to my house some time and look at mine. I have a whole trunkful".
Surpluses in themselves are not something of which we should be afraid. But if agricultural surpluses mean that we are going to have a depression in agriculture, with the attendant dislocation of our whole economy, we must be concerned with excess surpluses. If this government are developing a guilt complex over the present state of affairs as did Macbeth after he committed his well-known crime, I suppose they will have misgivings about their course of action. As you will remember, Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances Macbeth was visited by several characters from the hereafter. I do not think it has been definitely established whether or not that sort of thing ever occurs with the cabinet but if it does it might be appropriate that one of the visitors the cabinet might have from the hereafter would be one of the same visitors that Macbeth had on that memorable night. Among the ghosts who visited him was a farmer who had hanged himself on thinking of the prospects of a bounteous harvest. That is about the position in which the farmers of Canada find themselves at the present time.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the situation in agriculture-at least in my part of the country; I do not pretend to be able to speak for the west-is extremely serious. Agriculture cannot continue to exist in the economic atmosphere in which it now finds itself. It is true that the result will not be felt for some time. It is true that the farmers are still carrying on trying to make ends
376	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. MacLean meet while their machinery is wearing out, their soil is being mined and they are drawing on their capital in every way. It is also true, especially in my province, that farms are still being operated by elderly people who cannot, at their stage in life, change to some other more profitable occupation. Hence they decide to mine their soil, let their plant run down and eke out a living in that fashion until they are old enough to qualify for admittance to an old people's home. The tragedy of it is that among the rising generation there is almost no one to whom agriculture appeals sufficiently, on economic grounds, to entice him to the land to carry on where his father left off.
Defenders of the present agricultural situation may take refuge in statistics to prove that farmers are not as badly off as we farmers think we are. I should like to point out that statistics are a good thing if properly interpreted and if used for the purpose for which they were intended, but one should not forget that there are a great many things that statistics do not tell. When statistics say that the net farm income of the Canadian farmer has dropped by a certain percentage, it means more than just a few cold figures. It means that with every percentage drop in the net income there are hundreds if not thousands of farms in Canada that have been operating for a century which must go out of business. These farms rapidly reach the point where they have little or no market value as agricultural land, quickly reach the point of no return, and are thus permanently lost to the Canadian people as a potential source of food and clothing.
It may be true that a few favoured farmers are still doing reasonably well. There may be farmers who find themselves with a large plant, a local market, good land and other special circumstances which put them in a favoured position. But all the farmers in Canada are not large producers. I do not have the figures for Canada, but it is a fact that in the United States 50 per cent of the agricultural production is produced by 10 per cent of the farmers. The other 90 per cent are important people, too. If they are eliminated from our economy, dire results will ensue. So I hope no one will try to dismiss the very difficult situation in which thousands of Canadian farmers find themselves by saying that farm net income has only dropped by a certain percentage in the last year.
As I said before, statistics can be deceiving. It is said that at one time there was a lumber camp in New Brunswick in which there were 100 men and two female cooks employed. Some statistician reporting on the state of the


camp, and noting that one of the men had married one of the cooks, reported that 1 per cent of the men had married 50 per cent of the women.
There are three possible explanations of the government's apparent lack of concern about present conditions. One possible explanation is that the government do not realize the seriousness of the situation. It may be, too, that they know what is happening but think it is a good thing and are willing to let it happen. They may argue that our economy is out of balance, that we produce too much food, that there are too many farmers and some of them must be eliminated by the cold laws of economics. It may be that they realize the situation but find themselves powerless to do anything effective about it.
But agriculture is of tremendous importance to the Canadian people. It is, I believe, of vital importance not only for economic reasons but for other reasons as well. Some of the most obvious economic reasons, of course, are that we in Canada are one of the best fed nations in the world. This results from the efficiency of Canadian agriculture. If Canadian agriculture is permanently damaged, that will not continue to be the case. We depend on agriculture for many other raw materials besides food. We depend on agriculture for much of our clothing, and in a broader sense we depend on the soil for the raw materials of the pulp and paper industry and many other things. About 50 per cent of the Canadian people are dependent, directly or indirectly, on the products of the soil for their livelihood.
In this connection I should like to quote briefly from a small pamphlet entitled, "At the first table". It is written by Mr. Stewart Page, the agricultural representative for North Simcoe. He says:
More and more we are learning to look at the land as the major source of real wealth, and to farming as a high art. We are learning that while soil fertility is highly perishable, it is also a renewable resource, and herein lies the art of good farming-How to extract a living from the soil in such a manner as to be able to pass on the farm to the next generation in a more fertile condition than we found it?
What we need most for Canada, and for Simcoe county, is a readjustment of basic values so that the dollar will once more be the servant of man, not its master. Half of the world is hungry and needs our surplus food but we have priced ourselves out of the world market. Over half of our soils are hungry but we have put such a high value on the services of labour, industry and commerce that there is seldom enough left over to feed the soil.
The crux of the whole problem today is that our greatest natural resource, the soil, must subsist as best it can on the scraps left over from the banquets of our highly artificial way of life. This

was the way of all vanished civilizations of the past and we are travelling along the same road but at the speed of jet propulsion.
There is a very good sociological reason, too, why the economy of our rural areas and small towns must be preserved. After all, it still is a fact that the rural areas and the small towns are the wellsprings from which our civilization draws its leaders for the most part. In that connection I should like to quote very briefly from the footnote in a book recently written by Louis Bromfield entitled "From my Experience". This footnote appears on page 53:
It is not perhaps without significance that the vast majority of the names listed in Who's Who are those of men who came from farms or from small communities in agricultural territory. Even with the immense development of industry and cities, the leadership of the country in all fields seems still to come very largely from rural areas where a sense of responsibility and maturity grows from work and contacts with the soil and with livestock, and where, more often than not, a boy or a girl learns to work and to think for what he gets in this life.
From the point of view of public health it is important, too. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) pointed out very forcibly the other day figures which are shocking so far as the physical condition of the average Canadian youth is concerned. I believe I am right in saying that this condition is worse in the large metropolitan areas. As the agricultural industry is starved, more and more people are forced to move into metropolitan areas and more and more people find themselves growing up in the larger cities where life itself is perverted. The justification for the existence of many of these cities no longer exists in this day of rapid transportation, instantaneous communication and the atom bomb.
The hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Reinke) pointed out recently one of the symptoms of the unnatural life lived by thousands of people in large cities. He pointed out that conditions were such that children on many streets in some of our cities are no safer than they would be in the jungles of Africa.
The obvious question to ask is, what is the answer? One of the most thorny problems facing all Canadians at the present time, of course, is the question of our wheat surplus, but I do not intend to take up the time of the house on that matter. However, in some other agricultural fields we do not have a surplus, yet the situation is little better.
I come from an area where the chief cash crop is potatoes. At the present time the farmers are asked to operate and to continue to produce one of the most basic foods of our country at a continual loss, and this at a time when Canada has not a net surplus of
The Address-Mr. MacLean potatoes. Those producers of potatoes are asked to sell their product on an unprotected market, subject to being flooded with surplus potatoes from' the United States with no duty chargeable on them. Those same farmers are asked to buy much of their equipment on the protected markets of the industrial areas of central Canada. We in the maritimes feel that this is not a reasonable or a fair state of affairs, and we hope that action will be taken to rectify it.
Some people will say that it is easy to talk, but what are we to do? If we go to the United States and point out these inequalities in our tariffs as between the two countries, they will say they must not be offended because they will retaliate with some other tariff. I feel very strongly that the United States people are reasonable, and if the situation were fairly explained, not so much to the experts but to the legislators of the United States who are required to make a decision, a reasonable decision could be arrived at.
A few weeks ago another member of this house and I had the privilege, along with a number of members of parliament from various European countries, of being guests of the United States government for some time in that country. While in Washington I found myself seated at dinner next to a very well-known United States representative. He asked me about the state of the economy in the maritime provinces. Among other things I mentioned this matter of the depressed state of the potato industry, which concerns us in many areas there. In passing I mentioned the tariff situation with which we are expected to cope. I said that our growers were not very happy about having to sell their product in the United States over a tariff of 351 cents a hundredweight while United States potatoes come into their market duty free.
His reaction was, "I could not agree with them more. I think it is an unreasonable state of affairs." If he were a typical United States citizen described by the defenders of the present situation, I would have expected him to say, "It serves them right, because if we do anything for the potato grower, we shall have to do something for the apple grower, too."
We in the maritimes have the growing feeling that the horizons of almost all federal governments are limited to a varying extent. We have the feeling that the horizons of most federal governments are bound on the east by the St. Lawrence valley and on the west by the great lakes. We feel strongly that it is not only the members of the governments themselves who err in this direction, but the whole of parliament. None of

The Address-Mr. MacLean us is as well acquainted with our country as we should be. As a suggestion toward correcting this situation, I would like to see members of parliament given the right to travel free at least twice a year on the air lines of our country so that members whose homes are in the extremities could have the opportunity to visit their constituencies, and those from central Canada could avail themselves of the opportunity to become personally acquainted with the problems that exist in other parts of Canada.
In the maritimes we have the feeling that if a problem of national importance arises, either in our part of the country or in the west, it is just simply beyond the ken of the government. We are not pleased with the lethargy of this government with regard to the problems facing the agricultural industry of this country and the west and the maritimes in general. Apologists for the government will say, "After all, you cannot expect a cure overnight. This is a democracy, and a democracy is like a good wife, very attractive but not fast." That is their excuse for not doing anything about it. I would point out that this is not a legitimate excuse for not doing anything. Action must be taken immediately to correct the situation if irreparable damage is not to be caused.
In the maritimes we have the feeling that the lethargy of the government is proportional, perhaps, to the square, or even the cube, of the distance of the problem away from Ottawa, and we are getting absolutely fed up with this state of affairs. Therefore we have two major problems facing the Canadian people at the present time. On the one hand, generally speaking, we have the depressed state of the agricultural industry, and on the other hand the fact that the maritime provinces, and to a lesser extent the west, continues in a state of chronic depression.
When my ancestors, and the ancestors of all the people of the maritimes, were pushed, either by religious persecution or by economic pressures, from the countries of Europe, they came to what are now the maritime provinces because they looked like a land of promise, and they were a land of promise. They progressed and prospered wondrously well for many years, as a matter of fact, until confederation. For more than 80 years confederation has hung like a killing blight over the economy of the maritimes. That is a tragic thing to have to say; nevertheless it is so. We in the maritimes whose ancestors came to a land of plenty find ourselves forced to migrate again because of economic conditions. Our patience is running out.
[Mi MacLean.]

The patience of the agricultural people of Canada is running out. After all, this government is now starting on its twenty-first year in office, and the problems of the maritimes and of agriculture remain unsolved. The farmers of Canada and the people of the maritimes are dissatisfied with this situation, because they remember that even Rip Van Winkle woke up after 20 years.


Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted at the outset of my remarks to pay my respects to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Lafiamme) of the motion now before the house. I think this is probably one of the finer practices which have grown up over the years concerning this debate. The mover and seconder are placed at a disadvantage in that they are the first to speak in the debate. They are notified in advance, and this year they certainly appear to have done considerable work, from the efforts they have made.
I am not so well acquainted with the seconder of the address, as he has just come to the house; but judging from the way he conducted himself I would say that it augurs well for the people of Canada when we have men of such ability standing for public office. It augurs well for the people of his own constituency and province.
I should like to say something about the mover of the address. She has handled herself with obvious distinction and ability while in this chamber, and I would say has been far above the average in her attendance and conduct of affairs. In particular I should like to refer to her work as a committee member, for it is in committee that the ability of a member is made known. I noted in the committees in which I have been associated with the hon. member that she has been most faithful in attendance and has shown a distinct ability in the conduct of the affairs of the committee. If necessary she can be very forceful.
If I were in authority I would recommend to the Prime Minister that when he is looking for a way in which to express the wishes of the government by giving advancement to hon. members, he would be well advised to look with favour upon the mover of this address, not because she is a woman but because of the ability which she undoubtedly has and which she has manifested in this chamber.
I should like to refer now to a matter which has to do with money. Loans of up to $500 are controlled by the Small Loans Act of 1939. I have no complaint whatsoever with regard to the majority of moneylenders who operate under this act. I am fully aware of the great need for such a service, because obviously

the banking system under which we operate has not met the needs and wishes of a certain cross section of our population. I am aware also of the great good which moneylenders have accomplished, especially during and following world war II when many of our people had need of immediate cash for emergency purposes and to consolidate obligations incurred while in the armed forces or during the course of the war. This money was not available from any other source.
There has sprung up in the business sections of most of our communities numerous loan companies and moneylenders which are doing a most aggressive business in lending money, not solely to meet the necessities of persons but to satisfy the desires and whims of the Canadian people. Our newspapers contain large advertisements urging people to borrow money and using such slogans as "I like to lend money" or "We have the money you need in the amount you want" or "Phone for your loan in one trip". Many other catch phrases are used.
The slogans I have given were taken from the daily newspapers, but our motor buses and street cars blare forth the need to hurry to such and such a loan company to borrow up to $2,400 without any guarantee being required. Billboards impress upon the passing motorist how simple it is to get money without any security. The radio and television impress the listener and viewer with the simplicity of getting money for a trip to Florida or the purchase of a new television set. Many of the companies operating in Canada do so with United States capital, and naturally the profits of their operations go to United States investors.
We seem to have forgotten the fatherly and wise financial advice given by our bankers. It may be that our bankers have expressed too much concern, or shown too much restraint in the manner in which they make advances'. We forget also that we have the privilege of banding together in credit unions which are growing in numbers so rapidly throughout this country. Money can be borrowed from a credit union at a rate usually not exceeding 1 per cent, after investigation by the other members of the credit union.
Under the provisions of the Small Loans Act a moneylender may charge 2 per cent per month for a period of 15 months and 1 per cent per month thereafter on loans of not more than $500. On this basis, in the year 1940-that is 15 years ago-the Canadian people borrowed approximately $20 million from loan companies and moneylenders. As I say, these were in amounts not exceeding $500. By January 1, 1954, the amount borrowed by the Canadian people during the
The Address-Mr. D. F. Brown preceding year had grown to $175 million. Owing to the power of publicity and advertising, it is estimated that in the calendar year 1955 the Canadian people borrowed approximately $200 million in amounts under $500.
Even with this class of loan, if it were divided among all the Canadian population of 16 million it would mean that each man, woman and child in Canada had borrowed approximately $14. However, this is not exactly the true picture, since it covers only loans up to an amount of $500. I have been told by the manager of a reputable loan company that the average loan today is for an amount far in excess of $500.
I hold in my hand a report from a commercial agency in my constituency showing the chattel mortgages that were filed in the county clerk's office in one week; this happens to be the week of November 30, 1955. This indicates that altogether there were 115 loans of which registration was made, and of those 115 loans there were only 18 under $500. Those over $2,000 numbered 5. As 5 and 18 make 23, you will readily see that 92 of these loans were for amounts between $500 and $2,000, in other words, approximately 90 per cent of the loans made.
I hold in my hand also a further report, for the week of December 14, 1955, which shows a similar situation. In that week there were 141 loans, of which 16 were under $500. Five were over $2,000, leaving 120 between $500 and $2,000. This leaves about the same percentage referred to above. This indicates to me that between the amounts of $500 and $2,000 there is a vast field of borrowing, a great deal of which is without proper departmental control or supervision.
We may reasonably ask why we should concern ourselves with any supervision in this field. After all, this is a free country, and business should not be interfered with by a paternal government. My answer to this would be that, if two and two are four, it is reasonable to assume that 200 and 200 would then be 400. If $500 in 1939 was of value-and it was-to the extent of $500 at that time, all will agree that today it is the equivalent of about $1,000 to $1,500 or in that neighbourhood. Therefore if it was necessary and beneficial to the Canadian people in 1939, it is equally of benefit to us in 1956 to have an increased amount of control over the loans made under this act, especially since the economy has been expanding so rapidly.
From the investigations I have made I find that in connection with loans up to $500 there are very few infractions of the act or of ethics in the operation of the act, but it is between the sums of $500 and $2,000
380	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. D. F. Brown that there is no control, and I regret to say that in many respects the ethical standards of the moneylenders in many cases leave something to be desired. Let me repeat that I have no quarrel with borrowing for needs such as medical and hospitalization necessities or any other necessities for the home or the family, but I do not believe that we should instil in our people the belief that money can be gained easier by the toss of the pen than by the tug of the plow.
Most of this borrowing is secured by an assignment of wages given by the borrower and directed to the employer, or by obtaining security on the individual's household furniture, motor car or other chattel he might happen to have. When default is made, the more reliable companies interview the borrower to see wherein the difficulty lies, to find out why he has made default and try to help him to correct the practice into which he has fallen. They will try to work out a solution that will be of benefit both to the borrower and to the moneylender. But the more unscrupulous moneylender will seize or threaten to seize the goods and chattels pledged, and some may take garnishee proceedings on the wages, or threaten or cajole the borrower into refinancing the loan, for which an extra charge is made by the moneylender, and often a bonus is extracted.
It is in this particular case where, I believe, the greatest evil results; in the refinancing of these loans when the borrower falls into default. Legal expenses are added, though I have not been able to find out whether they are incurred. Insurance in large amounts is added. I have one example here in which insurance of $177 has been added on a loan of $950.
Over the years the government has done much to lessen the fears which beset our people. Family allowances have reduced the fear of youth; old age security has reduced the fear of old age; blind allowances have reduced the fear of blindness; unemployment insurance has reduced the fear of unemployment. Now I urge that controls be extended to reduce the fear of the loan shark.
Persons borrowing money are living in a state of acute fear, to such an extent that they will not give information with respect to their borrowings for fear of reprisals by the moneylenders.
However, I have in my hand evidence that excessive amounts are being charged on loans in excess of $500. I hold here a copy of an affidavit filed in the supreme court of Ontario in an action instituted by a moneylender. It is his own affidavit and in it he claims 33 per cent interest on the balance of principal which, in the schedule to the affidavit,
[Mr. Brown (Essex West).!

appears to be $1,270. At the rate of 33 per cent he is claiming some $590 per annum as interest. I will be pleased to turn this information over to the persons in authority when the time arrives.
I have also interviewed a borrower who obtained a loan of $800 and had to repay therefor the sum of $1,200 within a period of two years. This loan has been completely paid off. I have interviewed another borrower who obtained a loan of over $3,600 for which slightly over $4,400 had to be repaid. This loan was also repaid in full within the period of a year, but the rate of interest works out to about 30 per cent per annum.
All these claims for interest may be perfectly legal, but in my opinion they are highly excessive and should be controlled. I am therefore recommending that the provisions of the Small Loans Act be extended to control loans up to $2,000. Loans over $500, as I have pointed out, are where the great evil enters the picture. Up to $500 everything seems to be in order because such loans are quite closely controlled by the department of insurance.
Borrowers of amounts over $500 are often faced with the necessity of paying a bonus to obtain a loan. The borrower is in such a financial position that he wants to raise a sum of money; and for various reasons, usually because of his credit standing, the moneylender will require that he either pay a cash bonus, or he will give him a loan of a stated amount taking therefor a mortgage for a larger amount. Of course, in the first place a person of this type would probably be better off if he was not given a loan, because on the basis of his past record in handling money he is not in a position to handle it in such a way as to come out of the deal profitably.
If the terms of repayment are too onerous and the borrower makes default for one month the unscrupulous moneylender will, after the exercise of pressure, enter into a refinancing arrangement under which the first loan and bonus are absorbed in an arrangement whereby a second bonus is taken, until eventually the property of the borrower is so encumbered that any equity in the chattel or real estate disappears, and then possession is taken over by the moneylender.
This actually came to my attention recently in a case in my own constituency which is also on record in the supreme court of Ontario wherein, from correspondence with the moneylender's solicitor, I find that the borrower approached the finance company for a loan of $2,000, which he obtained. The security given was a mortgage for $2,500 with

interest being charged at 2 per cent per month on the $2,000. In other words the actual money advanced had interest added at 2 per cent per month. The mortgage was to run for a period of six months, when the whole amount was to become due and payable.
At the expiration of the six-month period the borrower was not in a position to pay the balance of the $2,500. So he approached the moneylender and an arrangement was entered into whereby a further bonus of $500 was added to the $2,500 and a rate of interest of 2 per cent per month on the whole $3,000 was inserted in the contract. Therefore the borrower wound up by getting $2,000 cash and giving security for $3,000, with interest at 2 per cent per month on the $3,000.
Eventually default was made on the mortgage and it was foreclosed. The property was lost and, incidentally, the borrower's family were separated, the wife going to one part of the country to find a job and the husband to another part of the country to find employment.
A further unsatisfactory practice which I believe is not prohibited by the act is where a loan is made for a stated amount and an amount equivalent to the first monthly payment is deducted immediately and interest charged on the whole loan. A case has come to my attention recently where the first monthly payment was deducted by the moneylender immediately the loan was given. The loan has not been repaid yet, and it will be interesting to find what adjustment is made by the moneylender when the loan is repaid in .full.
All such practices, which I am sure can be repeated and magnified many times by many members of the house, tend to stain the reputation of the legitimate and reputable loan companies and moneylenders who are trying to do a good job by maintaining high ethical standards and by retaining a reputation for fair dealing in the performance of a worthwhile service. I therefore suggest to the government that an examination be made into the whole practice of personal loans up to $5,000 to see what can be done to protect the citizens of our country, and to remove some of the unsatisfactory practices which now appear to be in vogue.
Here again I realize the difficulty in getting evidence of such malpractice because of the fear of people in coming forward to give evidence. First of all, they do not want other people to know about their financial dealings, their banking practices and their personal affairs. Second, they are afraid that if they do come forward to give evidence the loans which they at that time have will be jeopardized and they will suffer considerable loss.
The Address-Mr. D. F. Brown
I have received a number of anonymous letters telling of sordid cases, some in Montreal, others in Hull, Toronto and elsewhere, none of which letters can be used because they are anonymous. But I am sure these matters are within the knowledge of the industry itself, and I am glad to see that the Canadian consumer loan association is most anxious that any unsavoury practice be stamped out. As a matter of fact I have a letter from the president of the association, which states in part:
The Canadian consumer loan association wholeheartedly supports your view that legislation should be drawn so as to protect the welfare of these borrowers. We congratulate you on your industry and enterprise on speaking out on behalf of the people in the Windsor area.
As to the amount of interest being charged -and this matter is the subject of legislation which is now before this house-a study should be made to see what is an equitable rate. Having in mind the fact that few loans today are for $500 or less, and having in mind the large amount of work that is involved in the processing of a small loan, it may be that 2 per cent per month, which is the present rate, is not excessive. I am sure that the loan companies would have no objection to a considerably lower rate of interest on amounts in excess of $500. As a matter of fact I have discussed this matter with the head of a loan company. I have his letter which indicates that they would be quite pleased to have a lower rate of interest on amounts in excess of $500 up to, say, $1,500 or $2,000.
However, the people at large are not without fault. From a study of the report of the superintendent of insurance we find that those who apply for those loans are usually repeaters. They are persons who are continually in the hands of some loan company. They do not seem to be able to keep ahead with respect to their own financial dealings. They seem to need some paternal care. I think that is a further reason why we should see that the provisions of this act are extended. It seems to me that the average individual who takes out a loan from a moneylender is interested not so much in the amount of interest he is being charged or the other charges that are being added to his loan but rather is interested in how much a month he will be obliged to pay. The matter that interests him is, how much do I have to pay to get this loan? If he figures that he can pay that amount of money each month, he is quite satisfied.
If we are going to protect the general body of the public in Canada from the financial slavery of which we hear, I strongly recommend to the government that first of

The Address-Mr. Bell all the provisions of the Small Loans Act be extended to $2,000, so that in that act coverage will be given to an amount of $2,000; and further that there be an investigation-either departmental, by royal commission or otherwise, as the government may see fit-into the operation of all these personal loans up to an amount of $5,000.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in congratulating the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and in welcoming the new members to this house, I should like to mention particularly the new hon. member from New Brunswick who is with us. To put the matter statistically, as the h'On. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) would, we have increased the Conservative representation from New Brunswick by one-third. If in the future we are able to get one-third as much for New Brunswick as we have been able to get in the past two years, we shall really be able to take our place in the economic sun.
During the by-election campaign it was my pleasure to spend a brief time in the constituency of Restigouche-Madawaska. While I should not like to hold myself out as an authority on all matters in that constituency,
I think there is a lesson to be learned by those senators, cabinet members and M.P.'s who came in from outside our province to take part in that campaign. I derived a great deal of personal satisfaction out of the result because I knew that the people up in the northern part of our province, by voting in the present hon. member, had completely rejected the election ideas those outsiders had when they came into New Brunswick. It certainly gave me a great deal of satisfaction to know that our French-speaking citizens and other people in New Brunswick were willing to make their own decision. As hospitable as we may be at other times, at election times we insist that certain conduct foreign to us be left at home.
Long before this session began, Mr. Speaker, it was obvious that economic conditions were looming large as points of discussion. It is in Canada the day of new heights of resource and capital investment. It is the day of prosperous economic conditions. It is in Canada the day of shattering gross national products. It is also the day of great national projects. I should like particular notice to be taken of that last reference, because it is my main theme in these few remarks.
Having said that we are in a period of great economic development in Canada, the question that immediately comes to mind is this. How are we in New Brunswick sharing 
in that development? I cannot do better than to quote from a review that was made by two professors at the University of New Brunswick. I refer to professors Smith and Whalen, both personal friends of mine. They are brilliant young men who undoubtedly could have proceeded west or elsewhere and done exceptionally well, as have a great many other maritimers. However, they have chosen to stay with us and help us during these crucial times. May I quote the first part of a review they did recently with respect to our economic development:
New Brunswick entered confederation in 1867 with a highly mature and prosperous economic system. The provincial economy was then based almost entirely on forest and sea, and these basic occupations sustained small agricultural, manufacturing, handicraft, and service industries. The techniques of wood, wind and water (that is, lumbering, shipbuilding and the carrying trade) were favourably developed during the first half of the nineteenth century in a province girt by the sea with a climate highly conducive to the growing of trees.
After 1880, however, the rate of economic growth in New Brunswick began to lag far behind that of the Canadian economy as a whole. This was due to a number of factors, including the development of the steamship, the construction of a national transcontinental rail system, the growth of protectionism, certain technological changes especially in manufacturing, and the opening of the Panama canal.
To put the matter in my own words, as applied to present-day circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I would say this. Personal income is perhaps the best indicator of our situation. To express it as a percentage of the Canadian personal per capita income, we know that our figure declined from 72-4 per cent in 1946 to 61-8 per cent in 1953. That is an alarming situation. In 1954, the latest year for which figures are available, we only reached the per capita personal income that the rest of Canada had attained in 1946.
It was natural, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that when the speech from the throne unfolded we should look for some definite word about a particular economic development that might help us in New Brunswick. We heard about pipe lines; we heard about wheat, but I am afraid there was no direct reference to anything that would materially assist us in this economic picture today. On January 12, at page 49 of Hansard the Prime Minister gave us some sort of an explanation for this omission from the speech from the throne. I quote his words:
I said we felt that parliament should not provide for sharing in the cost of provincial projects except in special circumstances and as a part of a policy which we could justify on national grounds.
Please notice those words, "national grounds", again, Mr. Speaker, because they

continue my theme. The situation in New Brunswick today is good so far as future possibilities are concerned. We have been fortunate in discovering new minerals in that province, and with the development of those we hope that the future will be much brighter. However, a snag has cropped up in our plans. We find that in order to locate smelters to refine the minerals in that province we must provide cheap electric power. We have potential power there, as everyone is aware, but we are not able to finance it properly. We do not have such resources in the provincial treasury, and it has been necessary to make appeals to the federal government for some sort of interest free or low interest loan. So far the federal government has not seen fit to assist us in this way. They have said it is a provincial matter and that they cannot possibly help us because it is not a national project. Please notice that reference again, Mr. Speaker; they said it was not a national project.
I ask very seriously here today, what is the difference between a pipe line out west which cannot possibly benefit us in the maritimes in any way, and one of our own local development projects such as the Beechwood project I have mentioned? On September 13, 1955, it was announced that a joint agreement between the federal government and the government of Ontario had been reached with respect to a plan of financing to assist the new Alberta pipe line. The principle is there, Mr. Speaker. There is direct assistance given by the federal and provincial governments. As I have said, we cannot see what difference there is between our own project and a project such as a pipe line.
Second, I would mention the seaway. We were very wary of the seaway. We were annoyed at the lack of consideration that was given to the future of maritime ports when the seaway was being talked about originally. We are growing more suspicious every day. During the past summer there were one or two items that came to light that bear out the fact our fears were not completely groundless. On November 10,	1955, Mr. Chevrier, in an address in Boston said this about the seaway:
A great increase in the flow of traffic between the St. Lawrence seaway area and the New England states was forecast here last night by Lionel Chevrier, president of the Canadian seaway authority.
He told members of the New England railroad club that this would result from expansion of industry and population in the seaway area which *'would be of advantage to both areas and the transportation lines that connect them."
The Address-Mr. Bell
''Rapid economic growth in both the United States and Canada is diminishing potential dislocating effects on existing transportation," Mr. Chevrier declared. "Industrial areas exchange traffic readily with other industrial areas and where the distances are not great the volume may become very large."
It was for this reason-with industrial expansion due to the seaway in mind-that he predicted a significant increase in what is now a relatively light flow of traffic between New England and central Canada.
Where do the maritimes fit into that prediction by Mr. Chevrier? Then we had a further cause for alarm with respect to the seaway when a strike occurred in Saint John. One of our large employers of labour, the sugar refinery was in a state of expansion, and as the result of a disagreement with the union it was found necessary to cease work. Negotiations were halted by both parties. Finally the matter was settled on December 8, and a significant statement was made by the management. It is worth noting that the management control of this organization is in central Canada. This is what they said:
Referring to union demands for a shorter work week, the statement said that throughout negotiations the company conceded that a 48-hour work week had become outmoded. It had "frankly and clearly put its cards on the negotiating table with respect to major location disadvantages which have been highlighted in an economic survey just completed, the major impact of which will be felt with the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway."
This is the great national project that is going to help all of Canada. No, Mr. Speaker, we find it very difficult to see why it is that wheat can become a great national project; the South Saskatchewan dam can become a national project, yet one of our projects such as Beechwood, the development of a merchant navy or maritime coal, cannot be. The latter would seem to result in benefits to us all.
I suggest we have serious problems to overcome in the maritimes in our efforts to sell these ideas of ours. First we must sell the Canadian people the fact that we have a small diversified economy because of our location, our geography and the fact that we have no one particularly large industry. We will, therefore, always be in this category. We have no large rivers; we have nothing that fits into the Canadian economy which could possibly give us an opportunity of saying that it would benefit all the provinces. It must be appreciated from the beginning that we are small, and consideration must be given.
I feel that perhaps the more difficult problem that has to be overcome is what has been described as the Ottawa mentality. I refer to the politicians in Ottawa who refuse to look any farther than the Rideau canal.
384	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bell They refuse to look down to the sea and realize that we do have an important part to play in the development of Canada. It has been said that we are a nation of landlubbers. That is true, Mr. Speaker. Instead of being a great maritime nation, we are controlled from central Canada. It really amuses me to hear people in this part of the country talk about these great national projects, and in the same breath refer to Sir John A. Macdonald's great national policies. He would have shuddered to think of some of the narrow-minded projects that seem to be considered national policies today.
We must revise our thinking with respect to these words that are bandied, about so much today, namely "national projects". With respect to these enterprises, everybody in Canada must take a look at them and think once again about what we mean when we say "national projects". The government is entirely to blame for hiding behind these words in the way they have been doing of late. Perhaps we are all to blame for not thinking correctly about them but I think we could go further and say that the government is taking unfair advantage of the use of those words.
A dominion-provincial conference was held last year. We arrived here with what we thought was a new approach to the matter. We had our own formula and proposals to make. In fact, I believe it was recognized on the floor of the conference that our proposals were most ingenious. We had a formula worked out which suggested that our per capita income should reach 85 per cent of the average per capita income of the dominion. We were not asking for 100 per cent, only 85 per cent. That meant that we were asking that the people in our part of the country should have a standard of living 85 per cent as good as the Canadian average. What happened? After some encouragement we now have some indication of what is to be given to the provinces?
In this connection I can only quote an editorial that appeared in the Globe and Mail of January 13 with respect to announcements that were made regarding the new tax agreement. I should also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Globe and Mail deserves a great deal of credit for the enlightened approach it is taking to the ills of the maritime provinces. It is very gratifying to all of us to see the tremendous interest the Globe and Mail is taking in the situation down there. All summer long there were very good articles on our conditions, and they are well aware of our problems.


In the final paragraph of the editorial the Globe and Mail sums up our arguments in much better language than I could use today. I quote:
Where fiscal need is fully apparent, as in the maritimes, the new formula is as inadequate as the old. If Ontario's contributions to British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec were lumped together and distributed to the maritime provinces, the national interest would be better served. And Ontario would be glad to make that contribution to the advancement of confederation's objectives.
Perhaps this is a new approach to this whole problem of ours. I have tried to point out the fears that are gripping our thinking with the ill-advised and ill-timed use of these words "national projects". I can only say in closing that it was a professor from the maritimes who is now out west, Professor Norman MacKenzie, who said that the provinces' economic welfare depends on Canada's prosperity. I ask, Mr. Speaker, how can Canada be prosperous when we have such a festering sore down east?


Mr. R. F. L. Hanna (Edmonion-Siralhcona):: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to join with the hon. members who have spoken in this debate in congratulating the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I would also like at the beginning to bring greetings from my home city of Edmonton, still the fastest growing city in Canada, we believe, and now popularly known as the home of the Grey cup.
On behalf of the people of Edmonton-Strathcona I would like to say how happy we were to have seen so many federal cabinet ministers out west during the past year. It is hoped that the members of the cabinet who did not get out west in 1955 will somehow or other find it possible to visit Alberta during the present year. Indeed, I hope that all eastern members of parliament, especially those who have not yet seen the west, will find some opportunity this year to pay us a visit. It seems likely that we may have another Grey cup match out west this year; and if we do, the city of Edmonton is looking forward to another very happy occasion at that time, and we think it would be appropriate for as many members of parliament from the east as possible to visit us on that occasion.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that all Alberta rejoiced when the Prime Minister found it possible to come out to Alberta early in September to participate in the celebration of our golden jubilee. His visit on that occasion was reminiscent of the visit of Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the time of the inauguration of the province of Alberta 50 years ago. On behalf of the people whom I have the honour to represent I should like

again to express my thanks to the Prime Minister for taking time off to visit us on that occasion, in spite of the very arduous responsibilities which he carries at all times here in Ottawa.
I should also like to compliment the government on the fact that the speech from the throne gives every indication that our country will continue to enjoy prosperity during the next 12 months. While there may be some soft spots in our economy, such as the wheat surplus that we have heard so much about in the last week, I am confident that the government will do whatever needs to be done to bring those soft spots into line with the general high level of our national prosperity. I should like to commend the government on the steps it has already proposed. They will be a big help to our farmers out west, who are hard pressed for ready cash. However, further steps may be necessary, and if they are I am sure our government will not be found lacking.
I have already placed a resolution on the order paper concerning the wheat surplus, and I shall refrain from making any further reference to it at the present time. However, there are some matters that I should like to draw to the attention of the government.
In recent months we have had considerable publicity in northern Alberta on the subject of our northern Alberta Indians. This publicity has quite rightly caused a good deal of concern amongst those who feel very keenly for this particular ethnic group who make up part of our population. Personally I am convinced that there is a good deal of hardship, if not actual distress, amongst our northern Alberta Indians. This opinion is based upon reports I have received from what I consider to be very reliable sources.
I would like to state here and now that I very definitely do not consider myself to be an authority on Indian affairs. I doubt, in fact, that we have very many authorities on Indian affairs in this parliament at the present time. However, the Indians are our problem, and we must do our best to deal with it as adequately as we can. I believe it is one of the most difficult problems we face in Canada today.
I am sure there is not one of us who would not like to see our Indian population taking their full and rightful place in our national, social and economic life, with full citizenship status. I believe that is the goal we have for our Indian population, or at least I hope it is.
But we must be realistic. I think we must face the fact that many Indians are not yet ready, and probably will not be ready for some time, to become fully integrated with the rest of our population. I think it can be 67509-25
The Address-Mr. Hanna said that our Indians are free to move about in our society if they so desire, but unfortunately most of them have chosen a sort of self-imposed isolation. The reason for this unfortunate situation appears to be a combination of lack of education, lack of trade skills, language and other cultural barriers.
I believe another motive behind this self-imposed isolation is their natural desire for self-preservation, the idea that if they forsake their reserves they are in danger of losing everything. I believe that somehow or other we have to persuade them that they should find a better way of life, and we should try to have them leave the reservations and find employment in the general population.
There are those who go so far as to say that some Indians are gradually losing ground as the other elements of our Canadian civilization advances steadily. I do not consider myself a judge of this situation, but if there is any truth in it, it is certainly deplorable. But of one thing we are certain, and that is that there need not be any real distress amongst our Indian population. If there is such distress, and it has been reported among northern Alberta Indians, then immediate and effective relief is most essential. Better rations and better clothing for those in need must certainly come before such long-term remedies as better education. But mere relief is not the answer to the problem, and relief must not be made more attractive than work.
Some Indian bands in Alberta and probably in other parts of Canada are well-off financially through oil leases and the like. However, it appears they are still not getting very much nearer to the goal of full and complete citizenship. Therein lies the core of the problem. I am afraid I must admit that I am an environmentalist in this respect. If we do not do something really effective to change the Indians' environment we will continue to have Canadian Indians rather than just plain Canadians.
We should, I believe, give more encouragement than we do to those who are ready to leave the reservations and make their livelihood amongst the general population. We must take measures to combat this self-imposed segregation which perpetuates the problem.
It may very well be asked, "What do you propose to do about it?" Briefly I propose that our short-range and long-term programs should be more effective, and they must be speeded up. Our progress in bringing up the Indian has been so slow that I am convinced we have not sufficient supervisors and other workers in the field.

The Address-Mr. Hanna
I would like at this time to pay unstinting tribute to those Indian agents, teachers, doctors, nurses and missionaries who have worked so hard, and are working so hard, at this most difficult problem. But I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the job is virtually overwhelming those workers who are in the field. I am convinced that our present rate of progress is so slow that in northern Alberta, at least, we are not getting anywhere.
I believe we must be prepared to vote more money to help solve our Indian problem. This is needed to place more workers in the field, and to speed up our education program. The immediate cause of hardship amongst the northern Indians appears to be the depletion of game, due to the advance of white settlement. This has deprived the Indians of their traditional livelihood and reduced them to a marginal existence dependent on relief.
I see it is approaching six o'clock, but perhaps I may be permitted to complete this subject.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: We must as quickly as possible convince them that they ought to find alternative ways of making a living. Surely it is possible to demonstrate to them that they would enjoy a much better life in work other than hunting, fishing, and trapping. At the moment they appear not to have the necessary skills. We must therefore adopt the quickest way possible to train them in agriculture, lumbering, mining and construction work. There is no question about the need for farm labour and workers in the lumbering industry, but we have not so far persuaded very many Indians that these occupations would offer them a better way of life.
Nearly 150 years ago Thomas Jefferson said of the Indian problem:
Encourage them to abandon hunting, to apply themselves to the raising of stock, to agriculture, and to domestic manufacture, and thereby prove to themselves that less land and labour will maintain them: and bring within their reach more and more of the things which would help them make the transition.
In that connection I should like to make two comments. First, I agree with it; second, in a century and a half nobody seems to have done very much about it. Much has been said in the chamber in praise of the Colombo plan, and quite rightly so, but

what we need is a little Colombo plan for our Indian population. If it works in southeast Asia it should work at home. We have to speed up the program of helping them to help themselves, rather than merely giving them relief. Direct relief, surely, where it is needed; but it ought not to be needed in times like these.
Having said all this, I should like to compliment the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) upon the measures he has taken already to solve the Indian problem. There is no doubt that much good work is being done by many devoted workers. Under the present and former ministers the work of Indian education is being speeded up and many new schools have been opened. The other day I was reading in the Edmonton Journal about an excellent experiment which is being conducted in the town of Jasper Place on the outskirts of Edmonton. Here 60 Indian children are being brought in daily by school bus to attend the town schools with other Canadian children. Everyone connected with this plan deserves the highest praise, for I am sure this sort of thing will pay dividends. All these young Canadians will surely benefit by growing up together.
I should like also to compliment the minister upon the measures he has taken to have Indian children attend technical schools in Alberta. He has also made arrangements to co-operate with the Alberta department of agriculture so that agricultural short courses will be given on Alberta reservations. I hope that measures such as this will be rapidly expanded to embrace as many as possible of our Indian population.
The minister has indicated that he intends to go out west at the first opportunity and study the problems of our northern Indians at first hand. I hope he will find it possible to do this, as I would like him to see for himself what needs to be done.
On motion of Mr. Hanna the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, so far as I can see, we shall continue with this debate on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, if it is necessary to continue that long.


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

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

Mr. Gagnon: 1.	What are the names of the senior officials of
the taxation division (a) at the head office of the Department of National Revenue:	(b) at the
Ottawa district office?
2.	What are their salaries?
Answer by: Mr. McCann:
1. (a)
Deputy minister, Mr. J. G. McEntyre $15,500 Asst, deputy minister, Mr. D. H. Sheppard	 13,500
Question
Director, Assessments branch, Mr. H. Milburn	 12,000
Director, Administrative services branch, Mr. M. W. McA'Nulty ....	10,000
Director, Legal branch, Mr. A. A.
McGrory	 12,000
Director, Inspection services, Mr. S. F.
Hobart	 10,000
Director, Planning and development,
Mr. H. F. Herbert	 9,000
(b)
Director, Mr. G. W. Northfleld	 9,500
Chief assessor, Mr. W. O. Wadge____	7,900
Supervisor of administration, Mr. T.
W. Thompson	 6,800
2. Answered by No. 1.
67509-25 J

Monday. January 23, 1956