1956-01-18

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the ways in which Canada can become involved in the results of foreign affairs decisions made at Washington, has the minister made any effort to ascertain whether Mr. Dulles' "brink of war" statement in Life magazine of January 16 represents United States foreign policy? Has the minister any comment to make on Mr. Dulles' statement?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of this question just before coming into the house. As to the first part, I would merely point out that Mr. Dulles takes no responsibility for the article in question except those parts in which he is directly quoted. In so far as the particular paragraph is concerned to which I believe my hon. friend makes reference, Mr. Dulles, at his press conference yesterday in Washington, clarified and amplified the meaning of that paragraph and I think no further inquiry on our part, in respect to that particular paragraph, is required.
So far as the second part of the question is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I have no comment to make on the statement. Some of the matters dealt with in the article might be touched on by me in the review of foreign affairs, which I hope to be able to make at an early date.


REQUEST FOR CANCELLATION OF PERMITS TO EXPORT PLANES TO EGYPT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: May
I direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) ? In view of the inflamed situation existing in the Middle East, will the Prime Minister cancel the export permits to send additional planes to Egypt?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, no consideration has been given to the question of cancelling the
export permit for these training planes and I know of no reason for reconsidering the matter and coming to the conclusion that the export permit should be cancelled.


RECOGNITION OF PEKING AS DE FACTO
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), arising out of an answer he gave yesterday respecting the recognition of the people's communist government in China. Is the minister prepared to give an assurance that the government does not at the moment contemplate early recognition being given to that government? Secondly, has he been in touch with the United States government recently, suggesting that something be done towards the recognition of that government by the United States government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is, of course, a very important question of government policy and, if there is anything I can appropriately say in regard to it, it will be during the statement on external affairs which I hope to be able to make shortly.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) or his parliamentary assistant, which is based upon a report that it is proposed to move the biological station from St. Andrews, New Brunswick, to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Is it the intention of the Department of Fisheries to move the biological station at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, to Halifax, Nova Scotia? If so, would the minister give his reason for such a move being made?


Mr. J. Watson MacNaughi (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of this question only as I came into the chamber a moment or two ago. May I say to my hon. friend that I think there has been a recommendation made that certain phases of the work done at
248	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry St. Andrews be moved to Halifax. I shall be glad however to look into the matter and give an answer later, particularly to the second part of the hon. member's question.


CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Did the provincial government of British Columbia approach the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for permission to enter on Indian land for the construction of a bridge approach through the Westbank Indian reserve? If so, was such permission granted?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the provincial government has made a cash offer to the Indians for certain land for the purpose of building this bridge but I do not believe any permission has been asked to build the bridge. Permission was asked and granted to a provincial surveyor to make a survey.


Owen Lewis Jones: Is the minister aware that Indians armed with shotguns are keeping government employees from the property?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I was not aware of that. In fact I would have been very alarmed if I had been.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if the Department of National Defence is continuing the policy of automatically laying off civilian employees when they reach the age of 65 years and, if so, how does that fit in with the program of the Department of Labour for the continued employment of senior citizens.


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his question. In answer to the first part may I say that the Department of National Defence does not automatically lay off people at 65 years, but we do regard 65 years as the normal age for retirement. However, when an employee reaches the age of 65 years and indicates that he wishes to continue working, each particular case is
IMr. MacNaught.J

considered on its merits, the man's usefulness, his ability to discharge his duties and whether a favourable decision would be helpful to him. I may say in this connection that a fairly high proportion of civilian employees who wish to continue working after 65 years of age are in fact retained by the department.
In reply to the second part of the question, I would say that I think the policy of the Department of National Defence in this regard is in accord with the program of the Department of Labour and with the practice in other government departments.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can inform us whether the question of postponing further thermonuclear tests until the report of the United Nations committee on the genetic effects of fall-out is received was discussed at the recent meeting of the United Nations assembly. If so, what was the attitude of the government of Canada to such a proposal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The question of the postponing of thermonuclear tests was discussed at the recent meeting of the assembly of the United Nations and the committee referred to by my hon. friend was set up. However, I am afraid it will take the committee some time to present its report.
The position taken by the Canadian delegation, headed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), was that we would agree to any postponement or cessation of tests of this kind, but only as part of a satisfactory disarmament scheme which would include adequate provisions for inspection and control. As the house knows, the Canadian delegation to the United Nations has been doing its best to bring about such a satisfactory scheme, especially through its membership on the subcommittee of the disarmament commission, the meetings of which will be resumed shortly.



PURCHASE AT REDUCED PRICE BY WELFARE INSTITUTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the

Minister of Agriculture inform the house as to whether or not the privilege of purchasing butter at 21 cents a pound below the support price has been extended to all welfare institutions operated by provincial governments across Canada?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question, and in reply to state that the answer would be yes if it were not for one phrase used. The phrase used is "has been extended". I am not certain that they have all made application but, if the word "available" were substituted for "extended", butter at 21 cents less has been made available for any institution, whether government or otherwise.
At the same time I should like to say that the fact that it is 21 cents a pound cheaper has made very little, if any, difference to the consumption of butter at those institutions.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I thought for a moment I was sitting on springs. I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe). Could the minister inform the house how far the CS-2F production program at the de Havilland plant in Toronto is behind schedule?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has spoken of the CS-2F. I shall have to consult counsel to find out what program that is.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for York West wishes to clarify his question.


John Borden Hamilton: Perhaps I might identify the plane in question as the plane required by the Royal Canadian Navy.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I shall make inquiries. The only delay would be due to the de Havilland strike. I understand the components manufactured in outside shops have not been delayed and I am under the impression that the completion date of the program has not been set back.



METHOD OF PLACING CONTRACTS BY DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. I have not given him notice but
Inquiries of the Ministry he will know the answer. It is prompted by an article in the Globe and Mail headed, "Weapons of Influence; Drew Says Contracts Used to Keep Liberals in Power."


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: My question is: Was the placing of contracts by the dominion government carried out so honestly and was it of such service to the country as to have the profound influence it did in the last election?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say there are no political implications whatever in the placing of contracts by the Department of Defence Production.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has there been a change in the policy of the department, involving a reduction in the number of days for which reserve army personnel can be paid for training? I ask this question because I understand an order has been issued in western command reducing the number of training days for reserve army personnel to 30.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that. I shall look into the matter and advise the hon. member.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of yesterday's announcement by the banks indicating a decline in money being available for housing, would the government consider again supplying a portion of N.H.A. funds as it did before the first session of this parliament?


Mr. Maurice Bourget (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's question as notice. I will be glad to bring it to the attention of the minister, who will be back tomorrow.

Inquiries of the Ministry VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs relative to the Department of Veterans Affairs office in Kingston, Ontario. Is it the intention of the Department of Veterans Affairs to reduce the district office of the department at Kingston, Ontario, to a sub-district office, and have the documents of the district office at Kingston been parcelled up and transferred to Toronto and Ottawa? If so, what is the reason for this change?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: It is the intention of the department to reduce the Kingston office to the status of a sub-office, and I believe this decision is being implemented at the present time. The decision was reached following a survey of the work load in that particular district and because of the decrease of the work in that office it was decided that it would be both more efficient and more economical to reduce the office to the status of a sub-office. The personnel will be decreased by about 25,
I believe. Part of the work will be done in the Ottawa district office and part of the work involving the county of Northumberland will be done in the Toronto office.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Has the minister received any protests from any veterans organizations in Kingston opposing this move?


Hugues Lapointe: No, sir.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to raise a point of order. It concerns the manner in which questions on the orders of the day are being asked. I understand that in asking questions on the orders of the day the intent of a question must not be the imparting of information but simply the asking of a question.
What I have in mind is a question asked by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Jones) this afternoon. As a supplementary question he asked whether the minister was aware that Indians on a certain reserve have taken up shotguns, apparently against the provincial officials.
I do not object to the question but the purport of the question is that a statement has been made which may result in a wrong interpretation. We do not know whether or not
[Mr. Bourget.I

the statement is true, and it could be interpreted that a sort of civil war has commenced between Indians and provincial government officials.


Mr. Ferguson:: Get it in the movies. Call in Hollywood.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know what all the gabble is about.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The kids will love it.


Ernest George Hansell: That information is given. I think we have a right to know the source of that information. Otherwise it may cause some considerable reflection upon individuals and, in this case, perhaps upon the British Columbia provincial government.


Owen Lewis Jones: In answer to that statement may I say that the information was given on the C.B.C. news this morning.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: If I may speak to the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say this. Earlier the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) asked a question in which he said that the banks had made a certain pronouncement with respect to lending on mortgages. While I do not profess to be fully informed about what the banks do, I am reasonably certain that I would have been informed of this development. However, it is my impression that only one bank stated that its portfolio was now full of mortgages and that it was unlikely to have additional money for mortgage lending.
This question was put in the form of the banks' announcement and I am sure-at least I speak subject to correction-that the bankers' association did not say there would be no more bank lending on mortgages. I say that only to emphasize the point of order, namely that some questions are placed in the form of a statement of fact and that they are never caught up with if they are in that form and happen to be wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might take this opportunity to inform the house how fully I appreciate the basic difficulty whenever question time comes along. As hon. members know, the same rules apply to questions asked orally and to written questions placed on the order paper after notice. There is a long list of limitations as to the type of questions which may be asked before the orders of the day are called. They are to be found at page 119 of Beauchesne's third edition. Although they are not obliged to do so, hon. members sometimes, through courtesy, give notice to the minister who is to reply to the question. Sometimes I myself receive a copy of the notice, for which I am grateful.

Most of the time, however, I do not get a copy of it. I do not complain about this matter because hon. members are not obliged to give me notice. But I cannot judge a question until I have listened to it. Once I have listened to it, if I see that the minister is ready to reply, I feel that it is his wish and that of the house generally to have the question dealt with.
There is no doubt in my mind that some questions contain a great number of unverified facts and should be prohibited before the orders of the day are called. If I were to interpret the rules in the way in which they should be interpreted and if I followed the previous rulings given over the years by my predecessors and reported at page 119 of Beauchesne's third edition, I think I could cut off about 95 per cent of the questions that are asked. Such action would be interpreted as extremely drastic action on my part. I myself do not see how we can properly give justice to hon. members who from time to time complain about the manner in which these questions are being asked.
I would ask the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) to realize that I agree with him but I would ask him to put himself in my position and to realize how difficult it is for me to enforce, in the way in which they should be enforced, the rules of the house with respect to these questions.
Perhaps I might venture a comment which some hon. members may feel to be uncalled for. I will risk making it, depending upon the indulgence of hon. members. We often hear some hon. members say that the British system with regard to question time is better than ours. May I say that in the British house no question may be asked without previous notice. I myself would much prefer that system.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I would not want it to be thought that I was criticizing your decisions or your work as Speaker of the house, because I certainly would not do that. All I am suggesting is that when questions are prefaced with statements, we at least have the right to know the source from which the statement comes.


INQUIRY AS TO SETTING OF DATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS DEBATE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as house leader? Can he say when arrangements will be made for the debate on external affairs to which his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, made reference yesterday and again today?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Edward Harris: hope this debate will be ended earlier than the last possible date, namely a week from today. Should it not be ended until that time, then we can arrange a suitable time shortly after that, not next week but perhaps in the following week.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, of which I have given him notice. Did any member of the government of British Columbia request time on station CBUT in Vancouver for political purposes in the Vancouver Centre by-election? If so, did the regional director in British Columbia refuse that request?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: I wish to thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of his question. I am informed by the C.B.C. that the government of British Columbia did not request time, paid or otherwise, on station CBUT for political purposes in the Vancouver Centre by-election.



BEECHWOOD PROJECT, NEW BRUNSWICK    INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL AID

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resiigouche-Madawaska):: Would the Minister of Finance advise if the government has changed its mind with regard to its refusal to help finance the Beechwood hydroelectric project in New Brunswick?


Walter Edward Harris: feel, Mr. Speaker, that this is one of those questions that might very properly be put on the order paper or be the subject of debate. It seems to assert a policy about which, to my knowledge, I have not said anything in the house. I shall have to examine the question to see what answer is required.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 17, 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, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Yves Leduc (Translation):
Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, in a page where friendly writer Legouve extols the merits of women, I came across a remark which has remained engraved in my memory: "Our glory is the outcome of a smile". When I heard the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) move the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I understood that beyond her smile which promised intellectual brilliance she had put in her speech a large part of her heart. Had it not been for the warmth of the speech of the seconder of the motion, I believe that she would have shattered the secular belief in man's intellectual superiority. Rather than dispute an opinion proudly held by so many human beings, may I be allowed to offer my warmest congratulations to my hon. colleagues of Timiskaming and of Belle-chasse (Mr. Laflamme) for a performance that was brilliant from the oratorical, intellectual and political points of view. The honour and glory which they reaped on that occasion will unquestionably earn them the abiding confidence of their electors.
(Text) :
May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the mover (Mrs. Shipley), in her own language, upon the excellence of her speech in moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is a tribute to her, not only on account of her personality and the fact that she is the only lady sitting on this side of the house, but it is also a tribute to every woman in Canada.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall continue my remarks in my mother tongue with the reservation that I shall conclude my speech in English, in order to show my affection and respect for my English-speaking colleagues in this house.
(Translation):
Last year I had the honour of moving the address. In my remarks pertaining to the electoral constituency I represent, I stated that there was only one important federal public service missing at Verdun, namely a post office that would adequately meet the essential needs of our greatly increased population. Without any delay, and perhaps to give the lie once more and in a tangible way to the unjustified and vague critics of some members of the opposition, our government, with its customary wisdom, understood the urgency and seriousness of the situation. Preliminary plans were prepared; the final plans were completed and the contract was granted to the lowest tenderer, without any political interference or influence, which greatly


honours the honesty and conscience of the present administration. Preliminary work has just started and we hope that, before the end of 1956, the new Verdun post office will stand in all its glory for the benefit and advantage of my fellow citizens. I wish once more to express my most sincere gratitude to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) and to his faithful and devoted parliamentary assistant (Mr. Bourget). The late lamented Hon. Alcide Cote contributed in no small measure to the realization of a project close to my heart. In my unworthy prayers, I reserve for him a heartfelt and grateful remembrance.
It is therefore with real pleasure that I wish to associate myself with the words of His Excellency the Governor General of Canada who, in the speech from the throne, stated with good cause that:
Various departments and agencies of government have sought to arrange their construction programs to provide more employment during the winter season.
Further on, this speech reveals an aspect of the social policy of this government and demonstrates its great readiness to relieve human suffering through changes in the National Housing Act and increased aid toward slum clearance and rehabilitation of the blighted areas of our cities. That is, Mr. Speaker, one of the best means of fighting juvenile delinquency; I am sure that the Canadian nation will join in the praise and congratulations which I am glad to extend to the administrators of this country. The working and underprivileged classes of society will also benefit from the paternal support of a state which unstintingly seeks the common good. Since we have touched upon the question of charity, would it be too much to wish that, as far as practicable, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) will, at this very session, lighten the burden of the taxpayer stricken by illness either personally or through his loved ones, by amending the Income Tax Act in order to allow the deduction, from the income of individuals, of all medical expenses.
At the opening of last session, I felt it my duty to appeal to the noble feelings of the members of the opposition and to invite them not to scream out loud without reason, not to exaggerate the seriousness of our national or international problems, not to try deliberately to provoke unrest and confusion in the minds of the population, to avoid preaching defeatism and not to ignore the explanations, the advice and the generous efforts of our government.

Every one in this house remembers however that most members of the opposition, particularly those of the official opposition, displayed their well-known pessimism by maintaining that there is widespread and acute unemployment in this country, and that Canada is heading towards bankruptcy. Together with many members from this side of the house, I protested vigorously against a stand or an attitude so prejudicial to the welfare and to the reputation of the Canadian nation. No, Mr. Speaker, it was not logical to talk about acute unemployment and distress in the country when there was only underemployment of a regional and seasonal nature, when our economy remained buoyant, when salaries and the standard of living were high.
I was glad last week to hear from the very representative of the Queen of Canada that the year just ended has been the most productive in our nation's history, that more men and women have been employed than ever before, that our harvests have been abundant, and that our trade has exceeded all earlier levels.
Unlike that of its opponents, the policy of the government is to work in a quiet and efficient way, and to spread, as usual, a rightful optimism. Against defeatism, it casts its energy, its power, its courage, its work and its victory; to mere talk, it opposes action and tangible achievements; in the face of depressing criticism, it shows its record of achievements and good deeds, the fruit of its labours, its competence, its will to fulfil the social mission that was bestowed upon it by Providence for the welfare, peace and happiness, not only of the Canadian nation, but of the whole of humanity.
May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the session that has just begun, humbly to express some suggestions and wishes of a purely practical nature.
Competent engineers are working at the present time, following suggestions made by interested localities, on the plans of a bridge which is to be built in Verdun, as I hope, or in the immediate vicinity, to connect both banks of our national river, in conjunction with the gigantic undertaking of the St. Lawrence seaway. Would it be premature at this time to wish that this piece of architecture be called "Louis St. Laurent bridge" as a tribute to the dynamic personality and the prestige of the present head of the Canadian nation, or just to commemorate the beneficial repercussions of his journey around the world
The Address-Mr. Yves Leduc during which he was rightly acclaimed and was able to note the marked progress towards his objectives, which is the recognition, by the other nations of the world, of our distinctive national identity, of the broadmindedness of Canadians and of their desire to fraternize with their fellow men. This, Mr. Speaker, is merely a personal suggestion which I wanted to put forward in my anxiety to avoid the trouble recently experienced with regard to the construction in Montreal of an up-to-date building, though devoid of the characteristics of a castle. With respect to this, I still trust that the management of the Canadian National Railways, who are solely responsible in this matter, will reconsider, if not for historical and patriotic reasons, at least in order to avoid certain inconveniences with regard to the transportation of tourists which may result from the existence of another hotel bearing a similar name.
Along the same lines, Mr. Speaker, and without wishing in the least to kindle racial prejudices of any kind, may I make so bold as to request the government, within the framework of its responsibilities, to see to it that those responsible for the filling of federal positions in Montreal and in other centres of this country, apportion these appointments with a view to providing adequate representation for all parts of the population, with regard to racial origin, while having due regard also for the ability, availability and effectiveness of candidates as well as for the rules and regulations in force at this time.
Public opinion and religious authorities have been quite concerned, for some time, and more precisely for a few months past, over the banefulness of certain immoral publications circulating throughout this country at the present time. True the federal government has done its part in the enacting of section 150 of the Criminal Code which concerns the entry into this country of obscene published material and its production, printing, distribution, circulation or possession. However, I thought it my duty, as a Christian and head of a family, to make this appeal in the house to the interested parties, in particular to the printers, distributors and dealers of these venomous publications, asking them to have the courage of their convictions and to work for the safeguard of the moral health of our people, especially of this the most tender section of our population, our children, this human capital that it is
254	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Yves Leduc our duty to mould, guide, encourage and feed, not with poison, but with the best cultural vitamins that we must administer to them intelligently. Quite often, in the course of electoral campaigns, speakers hold up cavalierly and on the least provocation the flag of autonomy and respect for the constitution. Well, Mr. Speaker, in the name of this autonomy, is this not for me an excellent opportunity to urge provincial censorships, where they exist, to use the necessary means at their disposal with a view to effective and constant respect for the law, if the ones responsible for its application are moved by a sincere desire to make use of this autonomy for positive, definite and moralizing results.
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to resume my seat without saying that right-thinking people in our country are convinced that our government, in administering the affairs of the country, shows the will to develop "our conquering energy" in the establishment of a true Canadian spirit, invigorated by the culture of our two great races and being, through its very existence, a source of peace, happiness, prosperity and fulfilment for our nation and for the community of free nations. The present government knows that its essential mission is to establish and maintain peace, the basis of all public happiness, through justice and the defence of the freedoms and the rights of everyone. It knows also that its supplementary mission is to replace private enterprise when it is found wanting or when its means are insufficient. Through legislation that has stood the test of life and of experience, our government ensures the progress and development of the nation and the stability of internal peace.
Following the first world war, an eminent French scholar, moved by all his country's misfortune, said:
To survive, France must grow.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the same applies to Canada for we have all the necessary elements of greatness. We have a vast territory; our population is constantly increasing, our inland navigation is growing and will further develop as a result of the deepening of the St. Lawrence river; we have a long seashore where we can build harbours that could serve powerful fleets to facilitate and provide uninterrupted commercial exchanges. But such industrial and commercial development is not sufficient. To be worthy of itself, to promote peace and harmony among its members by means of a truly Canadian mentality, the Canadian nation must, through moderation, tolerance, work and know-how, make that


mentality acceptable to all groups and all nationalities. To achieve that noble goal, men on the political and intellectual battlefields must give leadership and keep that goal constantly before the eyes, the intelligence and the will of the people so that freeing itself from the grips of prejudice and fanaticism, and understanding the perils of the future, the whole nation may marshal all its forces, energies and determination and bring together, so as to give life to the great ideal of Canadian greatness, all those who, under confederation, wish to go on living and ensure the greatness of our country, Canada.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, as I promised, I should like to repeat in English the conclusion of my remarks in French. Following the first great war it was said by a highly cultured Frenchman that if France wanted to continue to live she must become greater. The same can be said of Canada, for we possess all the necessary assets to ensure our greatness. We have an immense territory, an ever-increasing population, inland waterways which will assume much greater importance with the development of the St. Lawrence seaway, an immense coast line along which can be built harbours capable of accommodating powerful fleets which will facilitate trade.
However, industrial and commercial development will not suffice. In order to retain its self-respect, to promote peace and harmony between its members through the development of a true Canadianism, the Canadian nation must by its moderation, tolerance, hard work and skill bring all groups and all nationalities to the acceptance of such Canadianism.
To achieve this noble ambition the soldiers on the intellectual and political battlefields must give leadership, must always direct their eyes, their intellects and their wills toward the objective to be reached in order that, freeing themselves from prejudice and fanaticism and realizing the dangers with which the future is fraught, our people will consolidate their forces, their energies and wills and rally under the standard of Canadian might all those who under the aegis of confederation wish to continue to live and to ensure the greatness of our country.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say a few words on what 1 believe to be one of the most important speeches made in this parliament during the session, the speech from the throne. The people of this country wait most intently for the delivery of the speech from the throne, in other words, for words from the

government as to what people in all walks of life may expect in the way of management of the country's affairs.
It is or should be a guiding speech so that great industries may know whether to expand or curtail their production, so that the farmers of this country can make up their minds as to what crops they should specialize in. Our distributors of commodities from coast to coast await very intently the delivery of the speech from the throne. The people are entitled to know what the government intends to do on their behalf, at least from year to year. The government has available in the dominion bureau of statistics greater sources of information on world conditions, world production and, more particularly, Canadian production than any other group of people in this country. If people do not furnish to the dominion bureau of statistics information that is as nearly accurate as possible, they can be fined or imprisoned for not furnishing such information. It is compulsory. The gathering of this information is for the specific purpose of keeping the government posted.
After all, who' is the government? The government is the Canadian people. So the bureau of statistics is gathering this information for the Canadian people. From the speech from the throne I cannot see, for the life of me, any semblance of information for the people of Canada that has necessitated to any degree the bureau of statistics.
One item was the trans-Canada highway. That was old 20 years ago. That was initiated to give the unemployed young men 10 cents an hour, or $5 a month. It is something we should hide and forget about; it is a disgrace. We have men sitting in parliament today who worked on that project and received that kind of money, for wheeling muck from one mound to another and back again. That project should have been completed 15 years ago in a country like Canada. It would have been completed 20 years ago if we had had either a Liberal or a Conservative government in power with enough gumption and initiative to do the proper and decent thing. Everyone knew 20 or 30 years ago that the trans-Canada highway was a necessity. Look how they have handled it. Now they bring it out in the year 1956 as something great for the future. It is something of the past that we are going to do in the near future, everybody hopes.
The next item is the trans-Canada pipe line. It has been pulled apart, rebuilt, discarded, started east, north, south and in all directions, and finally we find it now in the 1956 budget. What kind of guidance is that from the bureau of statistics, who are the servants of
The Address-Mr. Ferguson the government of Canada? Is it a guide as to what course the government should follow this year?
A most important item, immigration, has been forgotten. That is something that never gets old. Selective immigration will always be a "must" for the Dominion of Canada, certainly for the next 75 to 100 years. Only in today's newspaper we see that there exist in this country shortages of materials and labour. We have had no guidance in the immigration department of this government since the war. When one man admits failure, they give him another cabinet job. The greater the failure is, the more promotion he gets in his next job.
For a long time we were told there were not sufficient ships to bring to this country artisans who could do a job. Shortly after the war many desirable immigrants from many desirable countries in the world wanted to come to Canada, but there were not enough ships to bring them-people from England, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, Switzerland, Holland and Italy. We screened them to see if they were farmers, barbers, butchers, bricklayers or other types of workers that this country could absorb. Now we find ourselves faced with a tremendous surge forward in the growth of Canada, short of people to operate Jhe country. If that is foresight, I do not want that kind of foresight.
There is an item that should have been foremost: coping with the prosperity of this country. It is very funny to listen to some of our Liberal members speak on the budget. They point their finger to the opposition and say, "In one breath the opposition say there is great prosperity in the country, and in the next breath they say it is going to the dogs". As this is not the case, I will say now that there is the greatest prosperity in Canada today that this country has ever enjoyed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You are applauding a little too soon, gentlemen. That is your trouble. You are willing to applaud and pat yourselves on the back when the country is enjoying only half the prosperity it should be. That is the Liberal gauge for prosperity for the people: "Half of what you should have is sufficient for you." Half of the prosperity to which this country is entitled, according to the Liberal government, is sufficient for the people of Canada. That is not my opinion about the prosperity of this country. The prosperity of Canada today should be twice or three times as great as it is. There is virtually no limit to what this country's prosperity should be in the year 1956.

The Address-Mr. Ferguson
I noted when my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) spoke yesterday he suggested there should be a new post in the cabinet, the minister of peace, and that the minister of external affairs would be the very man to suit that position. May I suggest another post for the Liberal cabinet: the post of Moses. He would give this country the guidance and prosperity it needs. The Liberals are very prone to forget that the cabinet of the government of Canada has assumed the position of the great Creator. They smile and stick out their chests as if they had put the oil in the ground in Alberta. They are taking the credit for the iron ore being put in the ground in Quebec and Labrador.


An hon. Member:: No, Mr. Manning put the oil in the ground in Alberta.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: They forget about God and say it is the cabinet of this government that has the credit for having done all this. If they reflect quietly about this, the people of Canada will realize that the great credit for the prosperity of Canada has been brought about by individual corporations and men with vision and confidence in the country and in the development of its natural resources. That is what has brought prosperity to Canada from one end of the country to the other. But the Liberal government, which is responsible for immigration and for keeping in pace with the national prosperity resulting from the resources of this country, has fallen down badly on its job. No matter how obvious the needs of this country, this government has done nothing to create any spark of prosperity. What has the government done that they should claim any credit? You hear them talk about the schools they are building. One C.C.F. member from Saskatchewan who spoke yesterday said, "If it was not for the federal government what would Saskatchewan do without schools?" Let me say this to him. The government is only giving back to the people of Saskatchewan money that they were forced to entrust to them. He spoke as if the federal government was making a gift to the great province of Saskatchewan. He did not even intimate, he asserted, that if the Conservative party were in power the province of Saskatchewan might lose their sources of money for education and that their educational standards would probably drop. How absolutely ridiculous and unfounded such a statement is!
Can anybody in the world conceive of any ten men in the House of Commons, irrespective of politics, cutting down or curtailing the educational system anywhere in Canada? A man who makes such a statement does so


deliberately to mislead the public or for want of something to say, and I think the latter was probably the case yesterday.
There is a perplexing problem mentioned in the speech from the throne, the problem of wheat. Here is where the Moses of the cabinet comes into the picture. The Moses of the cabinet stepped forth and said: "Moses is going to lead you into the land of promise; it is a godsend we have got all the wheat we have and no place to put it." Oh, what a Moses! Everything is going to be all right. Let me remind the Moses of the cabinet and the government that after the war European countries wanted all the wheat and other food commodities they could get but they did not have the necessary Canadian dollars to buy these commodities. Therefore they did everything in their power to plant wheat from which to make flour and thus replace to a degree the finest wheat in the world produced in this country simply because they could not buy our wheat. Through dire necessity, not having the money to buy our wheat, not having the Canadian or United States dollars, they began raising their own wheat.
In France 70 million bushels have been produced this year and in other parts of Europe 100 million bushels. The British Isles are almost producing enough wheat to fill their requirements. We sat back in 1953 with a crop of inferior wheat. We piled it into our granaries. We used all available storage space for that wheat when we should have sold it at a reasonable price for cattle feed. We should have got rid of it. We should have released the space knowing the positive fact that that wheat was not suitable wheat for flour. We should have taken 70 cents a bushel if necessary and made space available for the wheat crop of last year.


An hon. Member:: Tell the farmers that.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am sure that the members of the government, with their tongues in their cheeks, are hoping that the Good Book will come true and that there will be seven years of plenty and seven lean years.


Mr. Murphy (Lambton West):: And grasshoppers.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: If that occurs, and the old Bible is never wrong as far as I am concerned, then the government will get off the hook. They will be saved but they will be saved through Providence and not because of their vision or their proper management of the country's affairs. As sure as you are a foot high, if that prediction is one year out all the assets we believe we have in the form of wheat, for which the farmers are not being paid, will not be worth very much. I say

that if the farming community of the Dominion of Canada is not prosperous the factories will not continue very long to produce the commodities that our farmers normally purchase. Men will be laid off in our machine shops. The motor car industry will not be talking about a tough time due to a strike. It will be talking about a tough time due to lack of sales. We in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario will feel the results. We felt them in the thirties.
It is all right to talk about the terrible thirties and say they will never recur. Nobody wants them to recur and we can avoid the conditions of the thirties to some extent if we give the people of Canada some guidance as to what they should be able to do for the next 365 days. They are intelligent, industrious people. The government can and should give the Canadian people the proper guidance. They should give the Canadian people their head, give them the resources God gave them, and we will not need any nonsensical talk 30 years hence about the trans-Canada highway or the pipe line.
What a speech from the throne we listened to this year! What an incentive for the people of Canada! I have listened to quite a few speeches from the throne and in my opinion the present one is the poorest, the most sparse and bare speech that has even been delivered. In a year of prosperity there is no guidance for the future except from the Moses of the cabinet who says that our wheat is a great asset. It is like some people who had a few million dollars in the thirties. They had a great asset, but the great majority of the people were suffering from want, and that is what is happening today.
It is all right to tell the farmers of the country it is a great asset but we should be selling feed grain to eastern farmers in Quebec and Ontario at a reasonable cost and clearing our granaries for first-class flour grain which we can hold in readiness for the lean years that are bound to come. Do not continue to fool the people of Canada because the greatest sufferers, the people who will feel the sharpness of defeat, are the men who sit on the Liberal benches, particularly the members of the cabinet. They have missed an opportunity, a great chance, to do something as businessmen instead of spending their time changing one cabinet minister from one post to another.
During the last election campaign they paracftd a galaxy of pictures and said, "Look at all the wonderful men we have to fill the cabinet posts." Take a look at the posts today. They are almost all changed. With the exception of two, none of them occupies the same post, and one of them has been in 67509-17
The Address-Mr. Hollingworth every position in the cabinet in an effort to bolster up the brilliance that was depicted to us by the Liberal government during the last election. Some brilliance! Some cabinet!


Mr. A. H. Hollingworth (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, today I should like to make a few remarks concerning the guaranteed annual wage. Possibly it might be more pertinent to discuss wheat or the pipe line at this time but full-scale debates will be coming up in these fields soon which will afford me the opportunity to participate and make my contribution at that time, and also this debate is of course a general one.
Before I bite into the core of my remarks, however, I should like to make a few comments about matters of interest to my constituents and also to touch very briefly upon the international scene. First, may I congratulate most warmly and sincerely the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne upon their excellent contributions. May I also congratulate the new Postmaster General (Mr. Lapointe), whose department is so important to my constituents. Finally, I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and his colleagues for their effective governing of the country in both external and internal affairs since the house prorogued last July.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the Post Office Department, which has been criticized in the past, should be voted a hearty "well done" for the excellent job carried out this past Christmas. In my part of the country great credit should go to the postmaster of Toronto, Mr. Harry Lawrence, the various local postmasters, the inside staffs and, last but not least, to those tireless, good-natured and indispensable men, the letter carriers. They deserve the best but often I think they are the unsung heroes of the communications world. We in York Centre are grateful that approximately 40,000 more people now receive letter carrier service than received this service in 1953. There are still pockets which are not being served and there are also some brand-new subdivisions, but I feel sure that the Post Office Department will assist us in this regard and will render to us the effective and efficient service given us in the past.
I said that I would allude briefly to foreign affairs. I discern that the government is playing a more positive role in world affairs at the present time and this course I vigorously applaud. One might mention the trip of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) to the Soviet union and Asia and also one might mention the brilliant work of


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The
leader of the house told us today, Mr. Speaker, that within the next two or three weeks there would be an opportunity to have a debate on external affairs. That being so,
I want to speak today about the situation in the Middle East. I do so for this reason.
I want to advance certain propositions and to ask certain questions of the minister which he will have time to consider and which perhaps he will be able to answer.
The situation in that part of the world has become increasingly tense in the last few months, although judging from the Prime Minister's answer to my question today the right hon. gentleman did not seem to be too much aware of it. His Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is, as is illustrated by the fact he said there have been disturbing developments in the middle east in recent months. But the government as a whole apparently does not accept that fact. Potentially, the situation in the middle east is much more dangerous than that which existed in Korea or Indo China. The western world finds itself in trouble, and in no small measure through the shortsightedness of its own policies the western world has brought that trouble on itself.
What I do not like to see, and what I am not prepared to support, is any action by this country or this government which is going to add fuel to the flames which already exist. Canada is sending aircraft to Egypt. The minister told us that these permits were issued in the early summer. There is a vast difference between the situation which prevailed in the early summer of last year and the situation as it prevails today. There would have been much less danger in the situation had the aircraft been shipped when the permits were issued. Then only a few people realized that perhaps Russia was going to enter the Middle East in the way in which she did. But the unhappy fact is this. Although this government has expressed a desire to keep some sort of balance in the Middle East, yet it knows as well as I do that within recent months Egypt has entered into negotiations with countries behind the iron curtain whereby Egypt is buying at least $100 million worth of arms, and not at current market values. They are being bought at fire sale values, in some cases at a discount of as much as 90 per cent.
The result of that is going to be a decided imbalance of arms in the Middle East, with the Arab nations, comprising some 40 million inhabitants, replete with arms supplied by the Soviet union, ready to wage war on the small democracy of one and three-quarter million people which we helped to create. It is utter folly for Canada to send arms to


a country which at this moment is already being armed by the Soviet union. Yet, according to what the Prime Minister said today, the government intends to proceed with this policy which I maintain is disastrous. I repeat, there is a vast difference in the situation as it exists today, and the situation as it existed when these permits were granted.
Yet there is a layer of whitewash being administered by departments of government and on the radio. Last night I heard Mr. Blair Fraser discuss this matter on the C.B.C. I imagine he is a self-appointed Liberal apologist. I listened to him at first with some amazement, and then with great hilarity.


An hon. Member:: He is a Tory.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I cannot find the difference between a Tory and a Liberal sometimes. I am not suggesting he is a professional apologist. He is, however, a most highly enthusiastic amateur.
I want to remind the house of what has happened in the last week. I asked the minister a question last Wednesday. I suppose many members of this house had known that planes were being shipped to Egypt. It was no secret. The news appeared in the December issue of Canadian Aviation, a journal published in Toronto. I asked the minister whether these planes had been shipped and his answer was that, to the best of his knowledge, such was not the case. He said explicitly:
In order to give a final answer to this question I would have to make inquiries of the Department of Trade and Commerce as well as my own department. However, I believe I can say at once that I know of no shipments of Canadian aircraft to Egypt or of any orders for such shipments.
The members of the opposition sometimes find themselves in an unhappy position when a minister makes a denial. Of course the denial achieves publicity in the press, and I am not complaining about it. But, as I say, it does put those who know something of what is going on in an extremely invidious position.
I remember, Mr. Speaker, that on more than one occasion you have asked the members of the opposition to accept the word of a minister, and I think you were absolutely right. But I insist there must be a quid pro quo. If we are to accept the word of a minister, then the minister has to tell us the facts.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, maybe I should intervene and say the answer I gave at that time was strictly accurate. No planes had been shipped to Egypt at that time and no orders had been received recently in the terms of the hon. gentleman's question.

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart


Mr. Speaker:: May I interject here. The theory of the hon. gentleman as to the acceptance of a statement by any member of this house, that is from one by another, is not quite accurate. I think he might well compare notes with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I shall discuss the matter later with my colleague. I am now dealing with the minister and he is indulging in semantic quibbles.
Then the next day, knowing this was a matter of urgent public importance, I asked the minister again if the statement was right. The minister did not know then what the situation was. There has been nothing but confusion in this government. There is no liaison between ministers. They do not consult with each other. Each minister goes his own set way, and this minister was left in utter and complete ignorance of what was going on. The minister's answer to me, as reported at page 33 of Hansard, was:
I should have thought my hon. friend would have been satisfied with the answer to his own question which he gave to the press after the sitting yesterday.
The Canadian Press came to see me. I said I believed 25 planes were being shipped by Canadian Car and Foundry. This was published in the newspapers. Apparently the members of the opposition know much more of what is going on in the government than do members of the government. And I am satisfied that makes in no way whatsoever for good government.
Then the Egyptian ambassador appeared on the scene and stigmatized the whole affair as being a deliberate falsehood. Well, I had some sympathy for the gentleman. I remember the definition of Sir Henry Wotton that an ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country. His Excellency has all the attributes of an admirable ambassador and he should certainly go far in his chosen profession.
Then we have the case of the Star of Assuan. This is an Egyptian vessel which was taking a cargo to the Middle East. The captain of the vessel who might have access, one would think, to the ship's manifest said, "All we have are apples and things." These things 'included guns and trucks and three of these aircraft which the government apparently did not know about before nine o'clock yesterday morning. Then all the newspapers the next day tried to get at the truth of it. I have here the Globe and Mail of yesterday morning. There is a dispatch under the byline of Dave McIntosh who had this to say on two separate occasions:
Canadian arms are being shipped to Turkey but none to Egypt, responsible officials indicated today.
The responsible officials obviously knew nothing of what was going on. Further on we find this:
But one senior authority, through whose department all foreign orders for military supplies normally go, said that after an exhaustive check he could find nothing to indicate that arms were being exported to Egypt.
No one knew anything about it. The Liberal curtain of silence was being brought down on everything, and the only character absent from the scene was Ananias. His soul must have rested in peace, for his blood brothers were evident in the whole picture. Twelve planes are still going to this area where conflagration is imminent, and the Prime Minister said he had no reason to cancel the export permit.
Well, perhaps the Prime Minister does not know what is going on, but I am certain the Secretary of State for External Affairs does. I am certain the Secretary of State for External Affairs knows that today Egypt is arming the enemies of one of our closest allies, namely France. Is there any guarantee that Canadian planes are not going to be given away by Egypt to shoot down French soldiers? I cannot see the French government, itself, being very happy about it.
Then yesterday I asked the minister if he could tell us whether or not gun mountings are on the planes and he answered, again not too accurately:
I shall try to secure that Information, but I do not know how you could put a gun mounting on a Harvard training aircraft.
Well, Mr. Speaker, he was sitting next to his colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney), and the Minister of National Defence has issued certain pictures; one showing a Harvard releasing a stream of rockets, one showing a Harvard carrying bombs and one- showing a Harvard with machine guns mounted on its wings. Yet we are told these are just training planes, noncombat planes, civilian planes. There is no guarantee whatsoever from Egypt that these planes will be used in any way other than that for which Egypt wants to use them, which may be the attempted destruction of Israel.
I asked the Prime Minister last week, for his own sake as much as for any other reason, if he would try to let the right hand of the government know what the left hand of the government is doing. Apparently the right hon. gentleman was not interested. There has been nothing but fumbling and confusion in this whole sorry mess. The government comes out of it with very little credit-in view of the Prime Minister's answer to me today, with much discredit. The policy which

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart has been pursued at its best is dangerous and at its worst can be disastrous.
But what of the Middle East? The most obvious fact is that Russia is there and right in the middle of it. I am amazed at those who express amazement. We should have known that Russia was going to go in there. We should have known that Russia was prepared to probe every weak spot in the western armour. Russia has gone there because, as I said in the debate in 1948, one cannot appreciate Soviet ambitions unless one has a knowledge of czarist aspirations. There is no difference today between the foreign policy of the Soviet union and the foreign policy of czarist Russia in so far as expansion is concerned.
Last year I heard a well known United States diplomat say that conducting the game of diplomacy with the Russians was like playing a game of chess. I am not going to give that diplomat's name but he reminds me of a quotation from Disraeli:
To call him notorious might be offensive; to call him distinguished would be to prostitute an epithet and whom I shall therefore sum up as being rather well known.
Had this well known United States diplomat known something about the game of chess then he should have foreseen what was going to happen; that the Russian knight would jump over the pawns of the northern tier and threaten us with mate in the Middle East.
Russia has not gone through the back door; she has gone through the front door. The situation is dangerous for all of us. Russia has shown that she will not be stopped by pacts, such as the Baghdad alliance, another example of the state department "pacto-mania", an alliance ostensibly against communism. We have been told in this house that these alliances against communism were open to all countries which do not like the communist way of life. The Baghdad treaty, of course, is not open; it is a closed shop. It is not open because Iraq insists that it be closed to one nation, the only democracy in the Middle East, namely the democracy of Israel. Now what has Iraq done? As soon as Britain assumed her as a partner in the cold war against communism, Iraq warned the big three that she would use the arms she received under the Baghdad treaty as she saw fit.
A military spokesman said, only a month or two ago, "Iraq's best brigade is ready to march against Israel, supplied by western arms". And only recently Iraq has insisted that unless she gets the most modern western arms she is going to turn to the Soviet union. Again we are being played off; again we are falling for the same old game. The Arab nations are obviously arming to the teeth,


yet the British foreign office tells Israel it must not start an arms race.
There is a group in the British foreign office who seem to be passionate admirers of the Arabs. They are most self-righteous; they are clothed with impeccable correctitude; they give one the impression that they were sired by Jehovah out of the goddess of wisdom, but their policy has been little short of disastrous. The effect of playing up to Iraq in this way has been to antagonize Egypt, a country which legitimately has assumed leadership in the Middle East. Egypt has been by-passed and Iraq has been pandered to with all the consequences that will come from such action. We profess surprise that Egypt enters into a pact with the iron curtain nations to get arms, but there is no reason whatsoever for our surprise. Egypt told us some months ago, just last June, what she was going to do.
We have the cold war transferred to the Middle East, and I believe that Russia's intentions are absolutely clear. In 1947-48 the Soviet union supported Israel for one reason only, to get the United Kingdom out of Palestine. That having been achieved, the next step in Russian foreign policy is to get the west out of the Middle East as rapidly as possible, and so now it supports the Arabs. Russia does not want to get involved in a war in the Middle East, but Russia will not be too unhappy if as a result of her machinations and our stupidity Israel and the Arab states become involved in a war, because the west would be involved also and the only possible victor would be the Soviet union. If I am right in that diagnosis, and I believe I am, then the obvious way to block the Soviet union is to see that peace is maintained in the Middle East, and it is to that end that our diplomacy should be directed. We know what the Russians want; we know what they will do.
What about the western powers? What about the United States? I wish I knew what was United States policy in the Middle East. I wish the Americans knew what was their policy in the Middle East. We had a statement by Mr. Dulles last August which presented the skeleton of an agenda around which the nations could negotiate.	Israel #
accepted that proposal as the basis for negotiation, but the Arabs as usual spurned it.
The real problem is what are British intentions in the Middle East. I have never been an admirer of the Middle East division of the British foreign office, as I think the minister well knows. It has a record of which it has no reason to be proud. I remember commenting on that situation in 1948, especially on British relations vis-a-vis the Arabs, and what

I said then is true today. I should like to quote from page 3550 of Hansard of May 3, 1948 what I said when we were dealing with the partitioning of Palestine:
I say the British will find that the cost of Arab friendship has been expensive, for all their other attachments have been sacrificed. French interests and Jewish hopes have been laid on the altar of Arab intransigence, and the gift has been spurned. I do not profess to understand this pandering to feudal monarchs and the most reactionary and, indeed, treacherous interests in the Middle East.
I was discussing at that time the conduct of Egypt and Iraq during the war and I maintain that there has been no significant change in British policy. A particular section of the foreign office is still infatuated with the Arabs. It is afflicted with too many aspiring Lawrences. What is the record of Israel in this matter of negotiations with the Arabs? I am going to quote the London Times, which is not a friend of that country but which had this to say in an editorial:
She has grasped every chance and created more to negotiate with Arabs apart from their governments. She has tried to lead Arab governments into negotiation at all levels.
I wish the Arabs had been as willing to negotiate. This same paper, the London Times, which not too infrequently mirrors changes in or actualities of British foreign policy, made its position abundantly clear. I think this may be the position of the foreign office, when the Times, commenting on Israel's desire for a treaty, said in its editorial of August 29:
As things stand, such an alliance is impossible and such pressure futile . . . Alliance implies a high identity of interest and Britain's interest in the Middle East can be advanced now by alliance with the Arab states. They alone, however incompetent. unstable or unreliable, have the oil, occupy the territory and provide airfields in sufficient dispersion for the function they fulfil.
Perhaps that was a case of coming events casting their shadows before them, but I should like to ask the editor of that paper: Should our security be based on alliances which a few pieces of gold will upset? Has there been a record other than that in the history of the Middle East, with the exception of that one democratic country of which I speak? The Arabs have the oil. Russia probably needs that oil if she has war in mind. The United Kingdom needs that oil today because she gets from it dollars and the currencies of other countries by selling it on the markets of the world.
The story of oil is a dirty and filthy story, a story of crookedness, corruption, and rottenness. It is not much different today from what it was in the past. We should realize that as a result of oil those two allies, the United Kingdom and the United States, have almost been at war with each other in the
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart Middle East. In fact their pawns have been shooting at each other. I refer to the incident that occurred in the fall of last year when the troops of the sultan of Muscat supported by Trucial Oman levies with British officers clashed with Saudi Arabian military units. Saudi Arabia is backed by the Arab-American oil company, the sultan by the British foreign office, and both of them were fighting for oil in the Middle East.
There is nothing that could be more fatal than such results of avowed policies. I have talked about these oil companies before in this house and pointed out in 1948 how Aramco had made profits of $170 million on a capitalization of $1 million within a few years. Last year it paid King Saud more than $250 million in royalties, but not one cent of that money was used to improve the conditions of the people in that area. Instead Saud finds himself still helplessly poor, since he has to bribe and pay his way out of so much trouble and extravagance. Where does the money come from? A mpst revealing document entitled "The Price of Oil in Western Europe" was published by the United Nations. It shows where the money comes from. I quote:
Total payments in respect of taxes and royalties by Aramco to the government of Saudi Arabia amounted in 1952 to $212 million. Since, under the existing agreement, such payments represent 50 per cent of the net profits realized on crude oil production, net profits must have been in the neighbourhood of $425 million, on a total production in that year of 300 million barrels. In other words, with crude oil selling at $1.75 per barrel, a net profit in the neighbourhood of $1.40 per barrel was being earned.
Who is being held up in this process? We have an international cartel which decides what the price of oil shall be. They are the ones who are making the money; they are the ones who have a great interest in that area; they are the ones who will sacrifice honour and everything else as long as their profit situation is kept sacred. I am not saying that the oil industry is a monopoly, but I think it fulfils Stuart Chase's definition of an oligopoly.
What about the speech which Sir Anthony Eden made on November 10 last in the Guildhall. He said:
It is not right that United Nations resolutions should be ignored.
I welcomed that statement, and I am sure it will be welcomed by every hon. member of this house. United Nations resolutions should not be ignored. But this was a change in United Kingdom policy. They ignored these resolutions dealing with Palestine when it suited their particular purpose. The Arab nations not only ignored them but they destroyed them, as they would have destroyed

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart Israel had they been able to get away with it. I remind the house again that on the morning of May 15, 1948, the day the state of Israel was created, Arab legions were invading that area. War was declared by the Arab nations. They have not given any sign since that there is anything less than a state of war prevailing in that area.
One of the things which I think is implicit in Sir Anthony's speech is that Britain would be willing to act as a mediator if both sides would agree to come to terms and give up certain territory. This matter of giving up territory is of great importance. The Secretary of State for External Affairs made a speech in 1948. It is out of date, and I do not say that he holds the same views today, but I am quoting it because I want to know what he thinks now about this matter. Speaking in the United Nations assembly in November, 1948, he said in part:
On the other hand . . . the Jewish community should realize that it cannot have it both ways- it cannot have all the territory that was given it by the November 29 resolution, together with all the additional territory which it has been able to take by force of arms.
One of the questions I want to ask the minister is this: Is that still his position and the position of the government, or have intervening incidents compelled a change of mind? I hope they have. Let us consider this matter of Israel having to give up territory to appease the Arabs. What territory did Lebanon lose in the war of liberation? Her borders are practically the same. What territory did Syria lose in the war of liberation? Her territories are practically the same. Did Jordan lose any territory? No; on the contrary, in 1950 Jordan assumed responsibility for a large portion of what had been Palestinian territory. I have never heard any suggestion from the British foreign office or other countries that Jordan give up any territory.
What about Egypt? Egypt lost no territory; she gained some. She gained an area she would perhaps like today to get rid of; she gained the Gaza strip. Has it ever been submitted that Egypt should give up territory? But Israel has to accede to truncation in the sacred name of getting together and perhaps achieving peace.
Furthermore, there was never any United Nations resolution to the effect that the Arab states should profit out of their defiance of the United Nations. But those who advocate today that Israel, for the sake of peace, should give up territory which is vital to her, are advocating a reward for aggression; they are advocating a requital for Arab intransigence. I do not blame the government of Israel for not seeing eye to eye with the western powers in this matter.


In any event, let us assume that territory was given up. Is there any guarantee the Arabs would be satisfied with a truncated Israel? Everything they have said points to their insistence that Israel must be destroyed. Are we to gain anything whatever by appeasing the Arabs? Perhaps there may be two different points of views, but my point of view is that we have nothing whatsoever to gain.
It has been suggested that perhaps Israel might give up part of the southern Negev. That was a British expression of opinion. Why? Because Egypt wants to inherit more desert, or because the United Kingdom wants to have some means of communication between Aqaba, which is at the head of the Red sea, and her stations near the Suez? I should like to know what is behind many of these demands that Israel give up territory that was taken from nobody, which really was the territory of a state that had died stillborn, the Arab part of what was to be Palestine. Had that land belonged to other countries there might be some justification. It has not; therefore I cannot see why Israel ought to give it up.
Before I leave this matter, let me say that I believe there have to be rectifications of frontiers; villages have to be joined together and lines have to be straightened out. But there would be no sense in our insisting that Israel give up territory which, as I have said, is completely necessary for her future and her welfare.
The other vexing question is, of course, that of refugees. There are approximately
900,000	refugees in Arab countries around Israel, living in desperate poverty and misery. I myself cannot claim to have seen these camps, but I know others who have. I would feel happier were I convinced that the Arab nations were doing something to help these unfortunate refugees. There is a refugee camp in Jordan which one must pass when travelling from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. That camp is there for a deliberate purpose, so that every pilgrim to that area shall see the suffering of these Arab refugees, the idea being to instigate more dislike for the state of Israel which it adjoins. The refugees are being used by the Arab nations today as pawns in the game of power politics.
Lists of refugees have been padded. The United Nations pays out some $2.50 a month per capita to feed these unfortunate people, but the lists are padded. I am told it was reported last year that out of 900,000 refugees, only 400 died. The comparable death rate in this country, which is infinitely better off than the refugee camps, would be 8,000.

I should like to know where that money is really going. For eight years these refugees have been indoctrinated with hatred for the state of Israel. Now it is suggested that Israel should take them back. Obviously that is absurd. A few years ago Israel offered to take back 100,000. The offer again was spurned. However, in the interim many have been going back; probably some 60,000 or 70,000 families have been reunited, parents reunited with their children and husbands with wives. They have been coming back and living on exactly the same basis as any other citizens of Israel. But to expect Israel to take back a massive number of Arab refugees, who have been taught to hate Israel and to try to destroy it, is asking more than any modern state would be prepared to accede to.
Canada has a part to play here. We have, as a servant of the United Nations in the Middle East, General Burns, a man whose judgments are not always liked but a man who has the respect of the people there because they know he is a man of integrity. Because they respect him, they respect Canada. Canada is a nation without any imperialistic ambitions. Why, then, cannot Canada play a more significant part than it has in the past?
We speak a good deal about assuming the obligations which are ours under the United Nations charter. One of our obligations is to do everything in our power to see that war does not break out. Therefore I believe that Canada can do much more than it has done. Mr. Hammarskjold is now in the Middle East trying to bring Israelis and Arabs together. He may fail. If he fails, then another attempt must be made. Egypt is the linchpin of the whole business and it is Egypt which must be persuaded.
If we are to establish peace in that region, however, there will have to be a massive scheme of social rehabilitation. Such a scheme will be fantastically expensive; but if peace is the result I say it is worth it. Where are we going to obtain the money? We already know something of the profits of the oil companies in that area. We already know these oil companies are prepared to sacrifice national interests as long as their own interests are maintained.
I suggest it is worth considering that the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France nationalize or socialize-call it what you like-these oil companies. Let them reimburse their nationals with securities of the state. Let them approach the Arab states and say, "We are prepared to give you a half interest in these oil companies and, further, we are prepared to give 67509-18
The Address-Mr. Henry the profits which accrue from the development of oil in this area to a fund under the United Nations which will be used exclusively to rehabilitate the Middle East."
I can hear people say, "It is absurd, it is fantastic, we cannot do it." I say it has to be done or we will lose everything. How long is Saudi Arabia going to be prepared to sit back and get 50 per cent of the pie when she can get 100 per cent whenever she wants to? How long are these oil companies going to be safe from Arab determination to get more than they are already getting? The Arabs will take over these companies when they wish to do so.
I have been told the Arabs would face the great difficulty of having no technicians. Let us not be naive. They can get all the technicians they want today from Moscow, and with them, these oil fields will be run. Do not let these oil corporations have any illusions as to what their future is in that area. They are in danger.. They are in jeopardy. That is why, of course, they buy off the powers that be with such huge sums of money as we know are given to the king of Saudi Arabia.
But suppose after every step has been taken which could lead to peace the Arabs are still intransigent. What happens then? Here is a problem which has to be faced. There is only one thing the west can do. Along with the offer of rehabilitation, peace must be imposed in the Middle East by the United Nations, and peace on the basis of the existing armistice lines with certain emendations. I see no other solution, because if war breaks out there then we will lose everything. Israel is prepared to negotiate. The Arabs are not. Somehow they have to be brought together. That is the responsibility of diplomacy and the minister has to play a part in that.
It is not a task we can afford to shirk. It is a task that we have to try to accomplish. I am convinced that the great powers of this world will sacrifice Israel if they believe that country jeopardizes their own national interests. It is no cliche to say that Israel is a bastion of democracy. It is true. I have seen it at work. It is democracy, and to sacrifice that nation now leaves me at a loss for words to describe such a policy. We in Canada have played an honourable part in the creation of Israel. We can still play an honourable part, but in doing so we have to assume greater responsibilities than those we have had in the past.


Mr. Charles Henry (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to say a few words in this debate on the reply to the speech from the

The Address-Mr. Henry throne. The speech has set out adequately the state of Canada as we see it today, and I have no difficulty at all in agreeing with the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the motion for concurrence. I find that there is confidence in the government, and I say this because in a few words I find that the speech satisfies me that the twentieth century still belongs to Canada.
I think there is historic significance in that we have had the motion which we are considering moved by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley). She is one of the distinguished women and mothers of Canada, and it is historic to think that in the year when parliament will adopt a measure providing for equal pay for women, one of the distinguished women and mothers of Canada has entered this debate in this way. In addition, however, I wish to point out that the mover of the motion is a voice from the frontiers of northern Canada, this land of frontiers, a very significant thing at this time in our history.
As for the seconder of the motion, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme), it is a tribute to the Canadianism of our French speaking compatriots that he should take part in this debate, remembering that it was Lau-rier who proclaimed that the twentieth century would belong to Canada. It gives us a renewal of this spirit of the frontier in this debate to think that the hon. member for Bellechasse has seconded the motion.
We must not forget that under Laurier our frontiers were extended westward, and that under the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King the gains which we made were consolidated, he being the father of our social security system. We remember, therefore, that we are born to the spirit of the frontier, which gives rise to private initiative, private property and a feeling of political as well as economic democracy amongst us.
Under the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) this spirit of adventure still persists. This spirit of adventure has carried us into the United Nations, NATO, and into the parliamentary councils of the world. This Canadian spirit of the frontier has been projected abroad. But we must remember also that within the lifetime of this parliament the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage), a follower of Jacques Cartier, extended the boundaries of Canada to the north and now Canada has sovereignty extending to the Queen Elizabeth islands. As I see it, he did this not only for the queen of Canada and all Canadians, but for Her Majesty as queen of the commonwealth. He did it also on behalf of our NATO partners, because this extension of our


frontiers to the north is indeed a very important shield for NATO and for all the free world.
In considering the extension of Canada's political sovereignty we must also compare the extension of Canada's economic sovereignty. Indeed, these should be kept abreast and equal. Balance is an important thing for the development of our nation. Therefore the first problem of an economic nature which I should like to discuss is the question of foreign investment in Canada. There have been estimates made on the other side of the house ranging between 30 and 40 per cent in this field. However, I would point out that there is no great measure of agreement amongst economists on this point, and that it is a matter which should engage our consideration. One eminent Dutch economist in writing about the economic future of Canada has pointed out that post-war investment within Canada from outside Canada may be limited to the figure of 15 per cent. It will be important for the Gordon commission to consider this matter and to give a studied report on the subject.
On the question of foreign investment I think it is important to remember, however, that in the early days of the development of the United States there was heavy reliance on foreign investment, and a great piece of work was done there with the use of foreign capital for its development. We must remember also that there are projects of development under way in Canada today which are of such size that the question of foreign investment becomes almost a must.
There is the development of Labrador iron. It is beyond my comprehension how we could have developed that great project if there had not been reliance on foreign investment. In addition, it must also be remembered that when other countries bring their capital here for investment it is a tribute to Canada. Not only that, but when we use these foreign funds it frees much needed risk and equity capital within Canada for other domestic advances in our economy.
The next problem about which I wish to speak is that of providing a balanced share of the national income for those on fixed incomes. In this group, as we know, are included those who procure their income from investments and the group of senior citizens and others who are on pensions. I say the Gordon commission can do much for us if it will compare our standard of living with that of the United States, and our system of taxation as well as of social security, with those of our neighbour to the south.

Our standard of living is second to that of the United States, probably less by 20 or 25 per cent in the level of development. However, I trust that the Gordon commission can give us light on the subject. There is also for consideration the question of tax relief for those on investment income and, in addition, progressive increases in social security payments under our system for those receiving them.
The greatest social security measure yet unimplemented by this government and the provinces, of course, is health insurance. I think it is a tribute to the Prime Minister and the government, that we see an atmosphere prevailing as between the government and the provinces which, to say the least, is one of co-operation in the field of dominion-provincial relations. Let us hope that the committee at present studying health insurance will bring forward a solution for this problem, and that before long we may see, as between the provinces and the dominion legislation which may lead the way to this great social measure.
1 wish to consider next the future intervention of government in the economy and in business. In my view the policy of the government is sound in that public ownership is relied upon as the exception rather than the rule. The government has shown a clear indication of relying upon direction of the economy on its part, and leaving control for the most part to private enterprise. Using an analogy to the weather, I believe it is the function of government to provide a good climate but not to control the raindrops.
Under this thinking, private enterprise should be given the first chance to develop our assets in every case. But private enterprise may fail. There are certain cases where it will not and cannot carry on a development, and in those circumstances public intervention on the part of the government is warranted and indeed desirable. The common good must prevail, and where things are needed it is insufficient reason to say that private enterprise cannot provide them.
There is the problem, however, of balance in the economy generally. I speak of balance as between the primary, secondary and tertiary industries of our country. The balance to date, in the development of our country in the post-war period, has been very good. We have come through a hot war and a cold war, and now we are in a period of what some call the cold peace. The record for 1955 is encouraging. The books have been closed in effect and we have a record of prosperity that is very good.
67509-18J
The Address-Mr. Henry
However, we have some agricultural surpluses which are a matter of concern to all of us in this chamber and to Canadians generally. It has been encouraging to note the report of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in which he said that last year grain was marketed in the west which was the equivalent of an average crop, and that he thought the surpluses were temporary. In so far as city dwellers are concerned, there has been a substantial net gain in wages for labour estimated to be 7 per cent. This is an encouraging thing for Canadians at this time as we enter upon the year 1956.
In particular, the Gordon commission will take into consideration an assessment of the future, as well as plans for expansion in relation to our resource industries. I trust that we shall obtain guidance from the application of that famous United States commission which prepared the Paley report. As we know, this was a commission set up by the President of the United States to advise upon resource materials. Decision must be made as to the precise extent of its application to Canada and in particular as to the timing of the terms of the report to Canada.
In this particular period I think we have something to learn as to how much of our resource development has been due to Korean rearming, stockpiling for NATO and such things as political instability abroad. There are certain findings of the Paley report which should be studied carefully, too.
The report says in effect that domestic takings on the part of the United States in the past several years have now reached proportions which are greater than the known reserves in the fields of copper, lead, zinc and oil. In addition to this fact, the Paley report points out in another section that as of 1950 the United States was forced to import 10 per cent of its petroleum, one-third of its copper and zinc, and one-half of its lead. All those items were formerly exported by the United States. Finally the report projects this thought. In 1975 all materials on the part of the United States will be 50 per cent to 60 per cent higher in demand than as of 1950. All minerals except gold will be 90 per cent higher in demand than in 1950. Finally, as to certain mineral commodities, the demand will be even greater than the percentages and figures I have mentioned.
Obviously the Gordon commission will turn its eyes upon central Canada, that is Ontario and Quebec. An economist writing today about Canada tells us that it is the industrial heartland of North America and is destined to become the industrial heartland of the free

The Address-Mr. Henry world. I am referring now to that part of Canada which fronts on the United States and runs along the St. Lawrence river and the southern great lakes. Here you have an area which competent economists estimate as giving production which is greater than that of the whole of Europe minus Russia. This indeed is a tremendous record, but in this thermonuclear age I would think we in Canada should start to think about the implications involved in terms of the centralization of industry in this area.
I think it is a matter of urgent necessity at this time for the government, on the advice of the Gordon commission, to give thought to the expansion of primary and secondary industry elsewhere throughout Canada, bearing in mind this tremendous concentration in central Canada. Indeed, I think consideration should be given to decentralization of government records and certain functions which are centralized in this area. It is a matter of concern for provincial governments and the federal government as to planning and development of the decentralization in relation to government records and government functions. In this field I think there is a role for bar associations, business associations, trade associations and learned societies, and I think that they should be the right arm of government in planning this decentralization which I believe is needed in the circumstances. It is to be noted that in the United Kingdom these professional and business organizations play a role in this respect. All this is said, of course, because within our time in the immediate decade ahead this particular area will be the "workshop" and the "arsenal of democracy".
As to the resource industries in the other parts of Canada, let me remind lion, members about the lead and zinc which have been found recently in the Yukon and in New Brunswick and the nickel and copper found also in the Yukon, but again in Manitoba; and finally of the iron deposits not only in Labrador but in Newfoundland and in a place near here, namely Renfrew county. In the light of the Paley report I think these great resources are a challenge to the imagination of all Canadians for the development of industry throughout the whole nation.
I wish to pay a tribute in this house to Canada's newest and most unique province, namely Newfoundland. Here is one which has set a record as to the true frontier spirit for all Canadians to see. We have heard of Brinco, a crown corporation under the direction of the provincial government in that great province. Brinco has done much to bring outside capital to Newfoundland. Indeed, primary and secondary industries are being developed at a surprisingly successful

pace in that province at the very moment. Premier Smallwood has proved himself to be quite a private enterpriser not only within Newfoundland but also in the capitals of the world. He has investigated his great supply of primary resources and has done great things. We heard him speak at the dominion-provincial conference. Indeed, it will not be his fault if Newfoundland does not develop. Of one thing we are certain. He was correct when he said he had no intention of remaining idle and leaving his province to be a game preserve or a tourist attraction.
We think the great resources of that province will not be long in making themselves felt in markets at home and abroad. Of course he has an able assistant here in the person of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill), who makes an able advocate at the "nerve centre", Ottawa. Their combined efforts should indeed see to the welfare of that province.
As to the agricultural problem on the prairies and the surpluses, I do think it is important that in June next there will be a census of the people of Canada. This will give to the government and the Gordon commission up to date figures indicating how many Canadians are on the farms and in the cities. At present we have the 1950 figures, and at that time 13 per cent of the working force would appear to have been on the farms of Canada. Economists estimate that we can employ as many as 20 per cent on the farms, but there is a difference of opinion amongst economists on this matter. I feel that in the light of the census figures which we will obtain in June, a very important study will be forthcoming from the Gordon commission on this subject. I, for one, will look forward to reading it.
In conclusion, I wish to say that the speech from the throne has shown that this government is alert to the financial advances which are important for Canada if it is to have a balanced capital expansion. I have read the speech with care, and I see that for shortterm credit there is to be a revision of the Small Loans Act. I presume this will make small loan credit more readily obtainable by consumers throughout the country, which is a good thing. I note that in the long-term credit field there is to be an extension of the National Housing Act provisions concerning the redevelopment of the blighted areas in the cities. This has always been an important matter for me, because I represent the riding of Toronto-Rosedale.
I think that if the government sees fit to diversify the nature of the amendment to the extent that commercial properties may be included in the financial arrangements

under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, it will be a good thing. We would have the commercial development of properties which are blighted and in need of redevelopment in such areas. I know that it would be most welcome in Toronto because the daily press, particularly the Telegram, has been very active in advocating just such a redevelopment. In fact I believe this newspaper has had much to do with the sharpening of public opinion on the subject at this time. I visualize that there will come to a metropolis like Toronto great advances in commercial assessment and increased tax income as a result. I understand the mayor and board of control are looking for new income, and this should please them very much.
In addition to this, I wish to commend the Minister of Finance for the consideration he has given the taxation of crown-owned property in Toronto. I would remind him that in Great Britain all crown properties in cities comparable to Toronto are taxable by the municipal authorities notwithstanding that they are crown-owned. This should be a firm precedent. I hope the time is not long until we shall see taxes paid on those properties in order to enable our large municipalities to better discharge their financial obligations.
I welcome also the farm improvement legislation and the home improvement legislation. These are matters which will help Canada to expand. I do not think there is any industry which can better help to solve unemployment than the construction industry. This industry is active now throughout the whole year and is the answer to a very large extent to the regional and seasonal aspect of unemployment in Canada.
Finally I wish to speak about the industrial development bank and the legislation proposed by the government in this regard. There always has been in Canada, as indeed there has been in the United States, a shortage of equity capital to advance industrial expansion. Our banks have been limited in this respect by their charters. There has been a shortage of loan companies, a shortage of investment trusts, and indeed a shortage of building societies as we know them in the United Kingdom. This has meant that we have had trouble with our housing, both private and public.
One result of this was government intervention in requesting our chartered banks to take upon themselves the duty of mortgage financing. However this, tied in with the public housing provisions of the National Housing Act, has worked well and has produced municipal and public housing corporations. Good results have been achieved
26?
The Address-Mr. McLeod to date, but we hope that with the amendments now proposed there will be an expansion not only in the field of private ownership but in the public housing field.
1 feel that this industrial development bank legislation could be used to good effect in the commercial field, perhaps combined with the National Housing Act amendments. I hope to see an upsurge of the frontier spirit, an upsurge of private initiative in Canada, in this commercial redevelopment of our smaller cities outside the metropolitan areas, and indeed in our towns. I hope to see municipal industrial commissions established, which would be building societies. They would go forward with the matter of establishing factories for our workers in the primary and secondary fields. Equity funds could be provided, and mortgage funds could be provided also. They would build factories and long-term leases could be provided to attract industries to the smaller centres of Canada. This would give us a decentralized expansion of primary and secondary industry, which could be of great advantage to Canada in the future.
My final words are these, Mr. Speaker. Canada is the golden hinge between the United Kingdom and the United States, a dominant world trading power and a political figure in the world of nations. Let us have a balanced economy between farm and city, between our primary and our other industries. Let us watch to see that in expanding production we have markets to sell the products being produced. Above all, in watching the balance of the economy let us watch inflation. I do not fear inflation, because I believe this government has experimented sufficiently and satisfied itself as to the best monetary and fiscal ways of avoiding inflation.
I say it is no magic new law of control of our affairs that I am advocating. I am advocating vigilance at home and abroad; in NATO and the United Nations. I am advocating brotherhood, an old fashioned doctrine. Then I am advocating prudence in monetary, fiscal and commercial matters. I say there is a framework of combined private and public enterprise in Canada which has proven successful since confederation, and within this framework if everybody cares enough, if everybody shares enough, then everybody has enough.


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsioke):: In rising to take part in this debate for a few minutes I would say that I have found it rather difficult to become greatly interested in the speech from the throne. In this I believe I am not much different from the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address. However, those two speakers

The Address-Mr. McLeod were very enthusiastic about the ridings from which they come. I do like to see a member who is proud of his riding, and those two speakers certainly have shown pride in the parts of Canada which they so ably represent in this house.
During the last few months of 1955 I believe the people of Canada followed with interest the work of the Canadian delegation at the United Nations. I should like to commend our entire delegation under the able leadership of the Minister of National Health and Welfare for the prestige which they brought to this country during the deliberations which took place there.
Since coming to this house, Mr. Speaker, I have had a perennial problem, but during the past year the Minister of Public Works has relieved me of this. I am thinking of the new federal building at Vernon. This has now reached the stage where test holes have been sunk to test the foundation on which the building will be built, and we now assume that work will be started at an early date, so I am writing this off as one of my problems.
During the recess the Minister of Agriculture paid a visit to my riding. I sincerely regret that previous commitments had made it impossible for me to be present at the convention of the British Columbia confederation of agriculture the day he was there. However, the minister did perform various ceremonies and received delegations that I had arranged for, and he handled these with his usual good grace. I should like him to know that we appreciated his visit and would ask him for a repeat performance when I could possibly be a better host.
Naturally, since Vernon is the centre of the second largest and the best butter producing area in British Columbia, the minister became involved in the butter situation that we have heard so much about recently. I must say he slid out of this situation with better grace than might have been expected under such slippery conditions.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take the time of the house in talking about wheat and butter, but I am going to say this. We can talk about our farm surpluses and criticize the wheat board, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and Minister of Agriculture from now till doomsday and get nowhere. The challenge that faces us today is to work out monetary techniques by which those who need our products-and the need exists for all that we can produce-will be financially able to purchase the goods which we produce in such abundance. To this end we should and must devote our best energies.
In the debate the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) has stated the financial policy of this group, and he has indicated

the means for providing the purchasing power necessary to move all these so-called surpluses into the hands of the consumers. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) has expressed our policy for placing purchasing power in the hands of our wheat growers in respect of grain they cannot sell and must keep on their farms. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) will deal in his usual clear and constructive manner with the two-price system, which will allow us to dispose of our surpluses in the trade channels of the world without severe hardship on our products. All I need say is that I endorse these sound policies.
Here, Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate our C.C.F. friends for becoming so enthusiastic about the two-price system that has been advocated by Social Crediters for years. I must also congratulate them for finally acknowledging the necessity of accepting the pound sterling and other foreign currencies in settlement of our sales in foreign markets. When we recall that these same members voted against our amendment calling for this action last year, it is certainly quite a change of heart.
There is just one more thing about surpluses. I would like to notify the Minister of Trade and Commerce that when he was speaking in this debate on January 16, he made a remark to which I took exception. On page 125 of Hansard he was telling about what would happen had we had a dry year in 1955 instead of a wet, successful crop year. He said, and these are his words:
If we had had a very dry spring and a very dry early summer, instead of a very wet spring and a very wet early summer, we would have had no surplus of either wheat or butter. We would have been about on balance in wheat, and butter would have been In short supply. The Conservatives, the C.C.F.'s and the Social Crediters would have said this is wonderful-
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that Social Crediters have ever felt that an abundance of produce is a calamity, and I do not like to be grouped with those who figure that this surplus which we have at the present time is a problem and a calamity. In fact I will go so far as to say that at the present time we do not have any true surpluses, that you cannot have surpluses so long as there is need in the world for goods which we have in such abundance. I maintain that the problem is not a problem of surpluses but a problem of distributing goods to those who are so sorely in need; and I am sure that if the policies that have been advocated were adopted by this government, then our surpluses would soon disappear. No; we do not fear abundance, for we have the answer in policies which are geared to solve the problem that we

know exists today. The problem is distribution, and not a problem of overproduction.
Now let us talk about Okanagan-Revel-stoke, the finest part of the finest province of Canada. Here, Mr. Speaker, I have a report that has been compiled by the economics division of the Department of Agriculture in Ottawa, dealing with soil and agricultural conditions in the north Okanagan. It is a very able report and contains a lot of useful information. It was compiled by three very smart young fellows whom 1 had the pleasure to meet previously when they were working in that part of our province. In this report the conclusion is that we have in that area a tract of land that is perfectly well suited to the dairy industry, and it is recommended that this is the type of agriculture that should be carried on in the area.
In the Okanagan-Revelstoke area, Mr. Speaker, we have a very diversified production. The southern part is mainly a fruit growing district. Cherries and soft fruits are produced in abundance. Vernon has the largest McIntosh apple orchards in the British empire. Scattered throughout the whole riding are stock ranches that have captured prizes all the way from the Canadian national exhibition in Toronto to the Pacific coast.
However, our main agricultural industry is dairying. We have the second largest milk handling company in the province and the only two cheese factories west of the Rocky mountains. In the past few years these two companies have increased their production from nil until last year it was about 800,000 pounds. What cream is left from the surplus of fluid milk after supplying the Okanagan, Revelstoke and Kamloops areas is turned into butter, yet one of our creameries imports
300,000	pounds of butter from Alberta each year to satisfy the demand.
We have no butter surplus. Our problem is to build up our dairy production to meet our own needs. The demand has increased in one year by 22 per cent, but our milk production has increased only 8 per cent. Our problem is one of scarcity, not surplus.
The federal Department of Agriculture is doing a lot of good work for our dairymen, but we need technical and experimental services in order that our farmers may produce more feed on their small farms to support a larger number of dairy cattle. I am glad to say that the Minister of Agriculture and his officials are sympathetic to the need which they know exists, and I look forward to the not too far distant day when we shall have
The Address-Mr. McLeod a demonstration farm in that area under federal supervision to help our farmers better help themselves.
I could not rest unless I said something about power. We have one of the finest power sites that could be developed in British Columbia at Mica creek in the Columbia river basin. Last year we heard a lot about this, possibly too much, but today we hear nothing. A year ago we had reason to believe that the dam at Mica creek would be at least in the planning stage this year.
We want power in the interior of British Columbia, for we know that industry follows power. We want to share in the wonderful industrial development that is taking place in our province. In order to do this we must have action by this government toward the settlement of the whole problem of the Columbia river development. I would urge speed in gathering United States, British Columbia and federal authorities around the conference table so we can get on with the job of development which will mean so much to the economy of the interior of British Columbia.
I was particularly interested in the words of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar in the speech he made following that of the Prime Minister in this debate. The hon. member was referring to the development of our natural resources, and in referring to the Prime Minister he said, as reported on page 54 of Hansard of January 12:
I was glad to hear him say that because I believe the time has come when that should be undertaken; when through a public investment board, perhaps with a public investment authority, the savings of our people might be directed into desirable channels, that we might plan and use our resources in a planned way for the benefit of all our people, even if it requires-
I should like you to pay attention to this. -as I think it will, the extension of public ownership and socialization in this country.
I was rather surprised to hear those words from the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, because I had always thought that the matter of public ownership was first in his mind, but he is now asking that our resources be developed even if it requires national ownership. Our greatest resource in British Columbia is power. Being a good Social Crediter I can well endorse those words, because we believe that where private enterprise fails to provide the necessary facilities demanded by our citizens it then becomes the duty of the government to do so. In accepting the words of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar I do not want hon. members to jump to the conclusion that I have become a socialist.
In closing there is one little problem I should like to draw to the attention of the

The Address-Mr. Pallett Minister of Public Works, as I believe it comes under his department. The great Columbia river, which is a wonderful source of power, is also a great source of trouble. This river flows through the heart of my riding from Revelstoke into the Arrow lakes. In that small mileage there is considerable erosion; in fact, at the little town of Arrowhead which is located at the mouth of the river the rate of erosion is so high that it will be a matter of a few years only before the entire townsite has disappeared.
This is certainly something that is worthy of attention, because in that part of the country sites for the mills and industries which we hope to see there when Mica creek is developed are at a premium, and it is necessary that all local sites should be preserved. This is something which I will be taking up with the minister, and I am sure we will get satisfaction.
In closing I can only reiterate that we are not greatly concerned about these surpluses, as we know we have policies which will provide a cure. We urge this government to give serious consideration to them, and we urge the opposition to just forget about this criticism and harping at officials who they believe are not doing a good job, and get down to the actual problem of finding a solution.


Mr. John Pallett (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my congratulations to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. La-flamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. At this time I wish to avail myself of the opportunity of speaking about a matter which affects the whole population of Canada, and which will have an increasing influence upon their lives and our standard of living. The increase or decrease in our standard of living is influenced directly by the subject matter I intend to deal with today, and I refer to education and the relationship thereto of the federal government.
No one needs to be told that when the educational systems were first established in this country they were created at a time when the population was sparse and the day to day requirements small. There was an extremely keen local interest in all such matters. Nor do hon. members need to be told that the standards of education and living were met if the student was instructed in reading, writing and spelling, with a little arithmetic thrown in for good measure.
Since those systems were instituted there has been some considerable change. First of all there has been a change in the school-house. Many a tale is told of the old log schoolhouse, built by the labour contributed by the individuals of the community and


from material supplied by those same individuals. This schoolhouse has now evolved to a brick and mortar building. Society does not now contribute through individuals putting up so much material and offering so much labour; rather it contributes in the way of money for the construction of classrooms, which now cost between $15,000 and $25,000 each.
Originally students were trained for life in the community itself; today that type of education is not sufficient. You have to train your children so they may go anywhere in this great country of ours and fit in and be part not only of the community, but of the whole country. To that end the three R's were found to be lacking. Our educationists added first of all geography, history and physiology and, more recently, industrial arts, home economics, art, music, shopwork and vocational training.
When the little log schoolhouse was operating there was not much equipment in it, and not much maintenance was required. In many parts of the country the student who used to go down to fire the stove early in the morning is now a thing of the past, and a full scale janitor staff is employed. Now we find that the necessary equipment and the maintenance of that equipment are increasing the actual costs of producing the end result.
Then we find that everything else in the educational system seems to have changed and improved, taking advantage of new methods; but the means of financing these changes has stayed in the old rut. Rather than increasing means of financing, there have been decreasing means. At one time means were available to most municipalities-and some municipalities did in fact use them-of levying on personal and corporate incomes to assist them. However, through various agreements, the beneficiary of which was the federal government, this right was lost to the municipalities. So while the educational system has expanded, the tax base for paying for it has contracted.
In the early days farming and lumbering were the basic industries, and it was rather easy to determine the wealth of the person by the extent of his real estate holdings. Today such is not the case. There is much wealth hidden in personal property as well as real property. No one would suggest that the people who own the nice new homes that are being built in the country fall into the class of wealthy people. So there is no way of saying that the man who has real estate is the wealthy man to be assessed the extra costs of the educational system. These new

homes do not produce income; they are merely means of shelter for a man, his wife and his family.	^
In other matters this was recognized when the first income tax act was passed many years ago. It was felt then that the basis of taxation should be broadened and a system of taxation introduced that would be more productive and fairer. But not so in educational matters, the taxation was left to the community level. The tax load was left on the individual home owner's shoulders. At one time the responsibility for education was the community's. Today society generally has that responsibility. I would suggest that this government must recognize that and take such steps as may be necessary to correct the situation.
As I have said previously, there is much self-satisfaction on the part of the members who sit on the government benches and boast of a balanced budget. It is very easy to balance a budget for one set of books and at the same time allow a very large deficit on another set. In the provinces across the country, according to the Canada Year Book for 1954, which is issued by the dominion bureau of statistics, the debt of municipal and school corporations, by province, is indicated
as follows:

Newfoundland	 4,001,573
Prince Edward Island	 3,460,954
Nova Scotia	 47,193,229
New Brunswick	 47,195,303
Quebec	 556,574,459
Ontario	 550,036,933
Manitoba	 78,455,750
Saskatchewan	 47,081,265
These figures are given for the year ended 1951. In the Canada Year Book for 1955, printed under the same authority, we find that these figures have increased. The figures as given there are:
Province	Amount
Newfoundland	$ 4,507,659
Prince Edward Island	 3,971,538
Nova Scotia	 53,158,467
New Brunswick	 54,149,465
Quebec	 628,506,882
Ontario	 627,230,109
Manitoba	 78,298.733
Saskatchewan	 50,328,148
Alberta	 145,068,719
British Columbia	 186,679,221
In the same volume we find figures showing the total of municipal debts. In 19,50 the amount was $1,323,383,268. In 1951 there was an increase of just under $300 million, bringing the figure up to $1,606,609,259. Then we come to 1952, when there was another increase of $225 million, bringing the amount to $1,831,898,941. In the same volume we find that the amounts collected by the municipalities in each of these years also increased.
The Address-Mr. Pallett
What trick is there in balancing a budget at the federal level when the obligations of the Canadian people at another level are permitted to increase, according to the last statistics available, at the rate of $225 million a year plus the carrying charges? The tax load you are asking the home owner to pay is being consistently increased. People are encouraged to buy homes so they will have a permanent stake in Canada. Yet in many instances you seek to drive them out of their homes by failing to provide the tax remedy that is required.
The figures will show that the great bulk of the increase in the municipal debt of the country is on account of education. It is said that education is a provincial matter, and I agree. You may say, "Why do the provinces not increase their grants?" I suggest that the history of taxation in the last few years has been such that the provinces have been deprived of their proportionate share of the tax dollar.
So far as the municipalities are concerned, their share of the tax dollar has been practically eliminated. The federal government now stands in the position of hogging the largest share of the tax dollar, which is a complete reversal of the position in 1939. The government creates the impression of being a hog at the feeding trough of taxes levied on the Canadian people. Beware that you do not suffer the fate of all hogs when fattened.
The problem of education and providing proper facilities for the children of our country is not going to diminish in the future. I have here figures prepared by Dr. M. E. LaZerte at the instance of the Canadian school trustees' association. Incidentally, these figures are also taken from a publication of the dominion bureau of statistics entitled, "Probable Increase in Secondary School Enrolment in Canada, 1952 to 1964". The figures show an enrolment in 1952 of 305,200 secondary school students in grades 9 to 13. It is estimated that by 1964 the figure will increase to 611,475. That is a doubling of the population in the secondary schools. This is only an estimate, but it highlights the problem of providing (a) accommodation for these children and (b) the teachers to instruct them.
Many individual school sections in the country have recognized the basic necessity of trying to equalize the tax load. In the past few years there have been instances where separate school sections, some with large industrial and commercial assessments from which they were benefiting, realized that the fair thing to do was to join with other school sections which had a highly residential assessment, to try to level off the load.

The Address-Mr. Pallett It was recognized that it was to the benefit of all to equalize the load carried by the home owner. But of course the benefit such action can bring is limited to the effect that can be achieved by a school tax on real property.
The concern, however, is much broader in scope than merely that of a school section or school board. We have to educate our children as Canadians. As a society we have a duty to educate them as Canadians. Does anyone in this house contend that because a child comes from rich Toronto he is entitled to a better education than a child who comes from some outlying part of the country? If you say he is, then leave the legislation as it stands. If you say he is not, then steps must be taken by this government to ensure in some way that the educational opportunities across the country will be equal for all, no matter from whence they come. Do not make the dollar bill the necessary requirement to enter school and attain the standard of education being required in this country today.
I fully appreciate and recognize this fact. The actual curriculum and the actual teaching in the schools must now and, as far as I can see, for all time in the future remain under provincial direction. We have in this country, to add to our strength, many cultures. These differences must be respected and the various methods of teaching in the various parts of this country must be respected. But there must be made available the opportunity for every child who is a Canadian-whether he be natural-born or imported-to attend school and be educated, if he wishes to avail himself of the opportunity, in order to help us all maintain and raise the standards in this country.
In the fast-growing areas there is another problem, and it is one that is going to be enlarged rather than diminished. I refer to the serious potential teacher shortage. If a man wishes to take the formal training for commerce, he spends 16 years taking it. The same thing applies for agriculture. For law the training period is 17 years. For medicine it is 18 years. So far we have been fortunate in that, by and large, our educators have been perhaps a little bit dedicated. Nevertheless they have given to us a fair standard in our schools. But they are and will be faced with the prospect of asking people to spend the same length of time in qualifying themselves to accept less than other people receive, or they are going to be faced with the sorry measure of trying to short-cut the courses for teachers. Anyone here who has or is likely to have children in school can readily see the effects of that situation.
We cannot expect others in other businesses or professions not to keep in step with the
'Mr. Pallett.]

expanding economy, and that involves more money. Whether by design or accident, by the failure of this government to make available to the provinces money for distribution down to the municipalities, you have stretched to the limit the resources of the municipalities of this country. You yourselves are going to feel the effect of this when you find teachers leaving the profession for lack of increase in salary. Why should they stay in it? Would anyone here do so? You must make the funds available so that the most highly trained people in this country will come into the teaching profession, and teach our children so they may build this country of ours. The hog that has moved into the taxation trough and that is taking the big bite had better slim down and make some of it available to other levels of government in this country.
I have one other matter to which I should like to refer, Mr. Speaker. It has a rather direct bearing on my constituency. I know of one person who does not agree with me. However, there is in the area a transportation problem that is being partially met by large expenditures of money by the government of the province of Ontario on highways and bridges. They are doing everything within their field to improve the lot of the people riding into and out of the city of Toronto.
In my riding the Canadian people have quite a large investment in the way of railway tracks. No extra capital outlay is required for the creation of a roadbed. It is there. All that is required is for the Canadian National Railways, in this particular instance, to realize that in many instances their counterparts in the United States are successfully operating commuter trains through built-up areas, and are providing a service that has long been demanded by the people of the area from which I come. I suggest that a privately-owned company in the United States would not dare fail to put on adequate commuter trains.
I do not mean to merely put them on and say, "Now, look; the people do not ride on them." You have to put on proper cars; you have to build a service so people know they can count on it. The road traffic is becoming heavier, and I suggest from the floor of this house, Mr. Speaker, that if the Canadian National Railways would establish a modern, efficient, clean, adequate commuter service on their line running west from Toronto to Hamilton, (a) they would be providing a service which a publicly-owned company should provide; and (b) they would be pleasantly surprised at the revenue that service would earn.


Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale):: I should like to join with the many others, Mr. Speaker, who have thanked the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address. I particularly enjoyed the opening of the debate because the hon. member for Timis-kaming is a women for whom I have the greatest admiration. I feel that the historic occasion of having a woman move the adoption of the address is a tribute not only to the women of Canada but very definitely to the hon. member for Timiskaming.
The seconder of the address, the hon. member for Bellechasse, is a young man who shows great promise. I have no doubt he will make great contributions in the future to this house, to his riding and to the country.
There is something which I have not heard mentioned up to the moment, and that is a word of thanks to our Speaker. I am going to do that. Our Speaker made a speech before the Empire Club in Toronto which was one of the most brilliant and best presented speeches on British parliamentary institutions to which it has ever been my pleasure to listen. Personally I believe he did a great service to this parliament and to his own racial origin when he made that speech. It was one of the best received speeches that has ever been made in Toronto.
I should like to pay my respects also to the Prime Minister for calling this conference between the federal and provincial governments on the question of health insurance. This is the last great field of social security to be entered into, and I think he deserves nothing but commendation and admiration for calling this conference.
I want to pay tribute to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who I thought made one of the best speeches in this house the other day on the question of the wheat surplus that I have ever heard in my life. I should like to pay tribute to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who has been doing excellent work at the United Nations, following up the groundwork laid by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Last summer I was one of a group who were privileged to go to the meeting of the
The Address-Mr. Hunter United Nations interparliamentary association, and later to see the armed forces in France and Germany. Naturally it was a unique experience, one which I hope every member of this house will enjoy in the future. However, the thing about which I wish to speak particularly in so far as that trip was concerned is the armed forces. I can assure you that the money which has been spent on these armed forces has been well spent. The Canadian brigade up in Westphalia is one of the most efficient brigades I have seen anywhere. The men are well housed, well fed and well looked after. They are most efficient in their operations. It is a very well trained brigade, and I daresay there is no better brigade anywhere in any of the armed forces of the NATO nations.
I was particularly struck with our Canadian air division. The Canadian air division is something we hear about, but we do not seem to really appreciate the magnitude of it. It is one of the really big things in Europe. It is not just a small contribution by Canada, it is a very large contribution and is the finest of its kind in Europe. I might say it was rather interesting to find that our planes are the best day fighters in Europe. This was rather a shock to some of our allies, but it was very gratifying to a Canadian to find that this country is capable of building planes of that nature, having a Canadian engine which is more powerful than anything produced by our allies.
Originally I thought I would speak on external affairs, arising out of my interest in seeing these NATO forces. When I mentioned this to one of my friends he said, "Well, ignorance has never been a deterrent". Nevertheless, I thought possibly I would still try to give some views on external affairs, in view of the fact that I was so interested in seeing what was happening over there. However, I see it is now six o'clock, so I have pleasure in moving the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Hunter the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
276	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions

[Stage Direction]
(The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the House, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39.)

Mr. Fulton:: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: 1 and 2.
Immigration to Canada by Months
January 1, 1953 to November 30, 1955
Months	1953	1954	1955January ..	. . 5,627	8,080	4,210February .	. . 5,242	6,834	5,553March ....	.. 12,068	13,309	7,864April 	.. 16,118	16,654	13,072May 	.. 20,905	23,078	14,798June 	.. 18,376	17,810	12,920July 	. . 19,697	15,839	11,183August ...	.. 14,594	14,270	9,649September	.. 12,471	10,979	7,358October ...	. . 18,624	11,256	9,989November	.. 13,916	8,664	6,677December	.. 11,230	7,454	*168,868	154,227	103,273
^Statistics for the month of December 1955 are not yet available.
Source: Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Thursday, January 19, 1956