1956-06-25

PRIVILEGE


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a question of privilege. On May 10 last I addressed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) as follows:
When does the minister expect to have the reports of the board of grain commissioners and the wheat board before the committee on agriculture and colonization?
In response to my question the Minister of Trade and Commerce replied as follows:
The reports of the board of grain commissioners and the wheat board are filed with this house and have been referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization.
I find that on Friday last the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) asked a similar question of the minister and received a similar reply. On conferring with the chairman of that committee I find these reports have not been referred to that committee. In view of that I suggest that either the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the chairman of the committee owes an explanation to this house.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (for the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to move when we reach motions that these reports be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.



AGRICULTURE


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I move that the following reports which have already been tabled in the house be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. They are the report on the Canadian wheat board for the crop year ending July 31, 1955, the report for 1955 on the board of grain commissioners for Canada and a supplementary report of the Canadian wheat board on the 1954-55 pool account-wheat.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that the Minister of Finance may pay to a province, out of the consolidated revenue fund, in respect of any fiscal year in the period commencing on the 1st day of April, 1957, and ending on the 31st day of March, 1962
(a)	a tax equalization payment with respect to individual and corporation income taxes and succession duties:
(b)	a provincial revenue stabilization payment with respect to such taxes; and
(c)	a tax rental payment in accordance with a tax rental agreement that may be entered into by any province as an alternative to levying such taxes on its own behalf;
and also to authorize tax collection agreements with the governments of the provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Could he explain to the house the reasons for the purported 20 per cent reduction in housing starts for the first 23 weeks of this year, as reported by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, from 28,258 in the first 23 weeks of last year to 22,618 in the corresponding period of this year?


Robert Henry Winters: Since the hon. member has asked that question, perhaps I should make a brief statement about housing, particularly having in mind the telegrams I have received recently which have alleged particularly two points about the house building program: first, that it is being seriously retarded because of the unavailability of mortgage money; and, second, that as a result large scale unemployment will develop. I think I can demonstrate to hon. members that both these statements reflect undue pessimism.
In centres of 5,000 population and over, as I indicated to hon. members on June 13, housing starts for the first five months of the
5328	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry year 1956 exceeded starts during the first five months of the year 1955. Up to the end of May this year, 30,687 units had been started, as against 29,669 last year. Completions at 35,322 exceeded those of the same period last year, which numbered 33,064.
As of the end of May this year there were in these centres 48,206 housing units under construction. Last year at the same time the number was 47,445. Hon. members will recall that in the year 1955 more houses were started and more were completed than in any previous year in our history.
I refer to centres of 5,000 population and over because it is in these centres that the dominion bureau of statistics and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation make complete enumerations.
As for the suggestion that significant unemployment will follow any likely downturn in housing, I would refer to the recent survey by the Department of Labour of labour conditions in Canada. At the present time there are more people employed than ever before, and fewer people without jobs. These statements have reference to the over-all labour force. The situation is that the construction industry is experiencing a shortage of manpower, and we are only now coming into the period when the demand for labour is at its peak. Thus anyone who might be laid off from house building would be apt without difficulty to find employment in other parts of the construction industry, where activity is at a record level.
While I believe that the complaints give an erroneous impression, I realize that difficulties are being experienced by some builders in obtaining mortgage funds. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, is in a good position to tell hon. members that the economy as a whole is moving at such a vigorous pace that there is keen competition for material, labour and financing. Some builders in the house building industry are feeling this competition, and particularly is this true in respect of those who have just recently come into the field. In no industry is it possible for everybody to obtain all the credit desired at all times. Government guaranteed loans under the N.H.A. are not available as of right to everybody who asks for them. It is a matter of the banks and lending institutions awarding credit on the same selective basis as applies for other industrial and commercial activities.
In the first quarter of 1956 expenditures on non-residential construction were 27 per cent higher than in the first quarter of 1955. Expenditures on new residential construction were up 7 per cent in the same period. These figures are tangible evidence of the increasing pressure of demand on the (Mr. Winters.]


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Might I ask the minister whether he has received a communication from the city council of Regina regarding the falling off of construction in that city due to government policy?
I may say to the minister that the mayor and council of the city of Regina do not share the minister's confidence or optimism in this particular case.


Robert Henry Winters: I am not sure that I have seen a communication from the city council.
I have received communications from Regina and I think included in them there was a telegram from the premier of Saskatchewan which, if I remember correctly, was directed to the Prime Minister. It is largely the same telegram that has been sent from some other areas in Canada and it does not alter in any respect the statement I have just made.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Would the minister give the reason why there is a falling off in construction in those areas of the country to which he has just referred, including the city of Regina? Would he give an explanation?


Robert Henry Winters: I just gave a detailed explanation, and I stated therein that the housing program this year will be a very substantial one, as my hon. friend will learn in due course.


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: Is the
minister aware that it is not only the large cities which are growing and need houses? Smaller, rapidly growing parts of Canada, such as the part I come from, are affected-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The question is this. When can these people expect money at a reasonable rate of interest and in sufficient quantity to build roofs over their heads? That is what I am interested in. This running of the matter by rule of thumb is not the correct thing to do. There are people who need roofs over their heads.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Kamloops wish to pursue the same subject?


Mr. Fulton:: No.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question. Can the minister answer question No. 368 which was placed on the order paper nearly three months ago, namely on March 28?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to investigate with respect to the hon. member's question. I was not aware of the fact that it had not been answered.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES UNDER TAX COLLECTION AGREEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question with relation to the resolution or rather the motion which he moved today. Can the minister give the house the figure which the government sets as the annual obligation on the dominion treasury which would result from the adoption of the resolution following upon the motion he made today?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, the resolution relates to future years. One can only make an estimate of the amount based on a projection of the income from various taxes at that time. If my hon. friend desires it, I will, in moving the resolution, put that information on the record but I would not want at this time to mention a specific figure for any one of the three payments that are concerned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then we may anticipate that this motion will be debated without closure?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, could we have a report on the fire which took place on the northern supply ship C. D. Howe in Montreal over the week end; in particular the cause of the fire, and to what extent it will delay her departure for the north?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I will see that an answer is given.



WESTERN FEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. T. Purdy (Colchesler-Hanls):: I
should like to direct two questions to the Minister of Agriculture, whom I am glad to see in his seat again and able to report

Inquiries of the Ministry "mission partially accomplished". My first question is this. Will the government take under consideration increasing the freight rate assistance on western feed grain to the Atlantic provinces in an amount equal to any freight rate increases? It will be noted that I refer only to the Atlantic provinces because they will not benefit from the St. Lawrence seaway and the pipe-line development.
My second question is this. Having regard to the motion of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), who I believe is acting minister of agriculture, will an opportunity be given to general agriculture to present their problems before the committee on agriculture and colonization?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I just arrived back this morning. Naturally I have not had time to go over Hansard but I shall look up the references that were made and answer either tomorrow or the next day.



FINANCE


[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 Minister of Finance and to ask him whether he would comment on the dispatch in the New York Times yesterday to the effect that in the last few months there has been a great increase in the amount of United States investment in Canadian provinces, cities and industries, the major reason for which is that the interest rate in the United States is lower and the increase of interest rates in that country has been less drastic than in Canada. Would the minister say whether or not consideration is being given to reducing interest rates in Canada to U.S. levels so as to make it possible for Canadians to borrow in Canada for the needs of expanding industries and of provinces and cities? Would he tell the house the result of the interview he had the other day regarding interest rates with the representatives of the bankers' association and other financial interests to which he made an allusion a few days ago?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, that is a rather long question.
I will prepare an answer and give it either on the orders of the day at a later time or on my estimates, whichever suits the hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: Then, Mr. Speaker, I believe I could ask this question. Is the government giving any consideration to having the Bank of Canada reduce the high rate of interest that has been in effect now for several weeks, in order to bring about a better opportunity for investment in Canada and also an expansion of housing?


Walter Edward Harris: I think I can answer that by saying this. In so far as the United States and Canadian rates are concerned, they have not altered since, I think, the first or second week of April. At that time the discount rate at the Bank of Canada was raised to 3 per cent, and a few days later the discount rate in the United States was raised to 2J per cent in New York and 3 per cent in Minnesota and California. These rates have remained constant since.
Now, my recollection is, in answer generally to the earlier questions, that the cost of money or the interest rate on borrowings in the United States was lower relatively than the Canadian rate earlier in the year, but at the moment the margin has narrowed somewhat and the difference now, the going cost on medium-term money, is -4 or -5 on the dollar.


John George Diefenbaker: Has that made all the difference in investment?


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee of supply.



REQUEST FOR ELECTION-SENATE REFORM

Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of fhe Opposilion):: Mr. Speaker, on a supply motion it is particularly appropriate at this time that I should refer to the discussions that have already taken place here and their effect upon our present position in this house. I think it is the correct time to express our belief that this government has lost any moral right to govern this country. I know that this statement has been made, but I intend to emphasize, by reference to further material, the extent to which that moral breakdown has gone and the extent to which precedent has been abandoned.
We all know how precedents were broken in this house in a debate which took place not long ago. There was some discussion on Friday last about whether or not the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) had used the words in a television interview, "We violated the rules". There is no question that those words were used. I do not think, however, that the use of those words is so particularly open to criticism. In fact, it is

the frankest statement that has been made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce since this debate began. What is surprising is not that he made the statement but rather that there should be any question about the fact that he made the statement. What is important is not that the record available from the C.B.C. showed that he made the statement; what is important is the denial of the statement. The denial of the statement is consistent with the attitude of this government towards parliament.
It would have been quite natural, and quite a reasonable thing, for the minister to have said, "Well in an interview of that kind, without a text, it is easy for a person to use words which afterwards should be corrected. It is true that I did say he violated the rules, but I did not intend to say that." Nevertheless, I would think that in most interviews mistakes of that kind might be made if that was not what he intended to say. Now, if the minister had said that, that would have been a perfectly reasonable explanation. What is important is the attitude of the minister in regard to that statement. He has set himself up as the infallible director of the business affairs of this house. He has, in fact, set himself up as a virtual dictator. He is not prepared to admit that even in error he correctly stated the facts, and therefore he must repudiate what it is quite clear he said.
I am not going to say more except to repeat that the important thing is not that he did say the words; the important thing is that having said them he denied to this house that he did. It is only in keeping with many of the things that have happened. But I want to speak particularly of what has happened, not only to the House of Commons during those tragic weeks, but also what has happened to that other place which is also part of our parliamentary system. What a change has occurred from the original concept of the other place. How little it resembles in its function the purpose it was intended to serve by those who decided at Quebec when they were drafting the resolutions which were embodied in the British North America Act that we should have a second parliamentary body appointed and not elected. A high purpose was envisaged for that other place.
The fathers of confederation who met at Quebec in 1864 had an overwhelming feeling in favour of a second chamber. The possibility of a single chamber parliament was considered but, with the background of our own history, a considerable majority of those who attended that conference decided that they wanted the two-chamber system. They
25, 1956	5331
Request for Election and Senate Reform had, of course, the experience of a second chamber under two systems in this country. Under the old constitution of the united provinces there was a legislative council appointed by the crown. Then, there were the reforms of 1856 and the upper house of the legislature was made elective. Its members were chosen by direct suffrage of the people. They were entitled to serve for a term of eight years instead of a four-year term set for the members of the assembly, which was the lower house. The conditions of the franchise were the same for both houses. However, the members of the upper house represented much larger constituencies, as their numbers were smaller. At that time, strangely enough, when we had adopted an elective system, the constitution of the United States provided for the appointment of senators by state legislatures. Two were appointed from each state. That was not changed in the United States until the seventeenth amendment was adopted in 1913 to provide for the popular election of the senators to the upper body.
The system in the United States was the very opposite to what we had prior to confederation following the reforms I have spoken of. With those two systems before them the men who had seen both systems in operation decided they wanted an appointed body. In that they were undoubtedly influenced very greatly by the similarity of our parliamentary system to that at Westminster where the second and upper house, the House of Lords, was of course an appointed body. That has remained unchanged to the present day.
We have the reports of the opinions expressed by the men who made this important decision prior to confederation. The Senate, in the minds of the framers of confederation, was to consist not of partisans but of men who would deal in a judicial manner with the problems before them. Its members were to be selected from those who in one way or another had brought dignity or distinction to the public life of the country. They were to be chosen by the representatives of the sovereign for their acknowledged achievements or for their moral and intellectual excellence. They were to be placed in this position which was to keep them above the ordinary influences of party strife. It was thought at that time by the men who drafted our constitution that this would invest the members of the upper house with a moral authority which would make their decisions more acceptable when they became a body of review to consider what had taken place in the House of Commons. It was thought that the appointment in this way would detach

Request for Election and Senate Reform them from those considerations which might affect their judgment in any way from a partisan point of view.
In order to better secure the impartiality and independence of those appointed, the appointees were to be appointed for life and not for a term of years so that nothing might influence the independence of their expression of opinion and their judgment. Such an upper house would in the first place exercise immense influence upon public opinion. That was the dream of those who drafted the constitution. It was also thought that they would exercise influence on any rash decisions made by the lower house under the pressure of urgent demand or partisan debate. In every discussion the power of the upper house to review the decisions of the lower house and the likelihood and certainty that they would give careful review to the decisions of the lower house was constantly in mind.
These people who were to be appointed to the upper house and were to occupy this position of dignity and independence were to have a freedom from any influence that might spring from their dependence on re-election. Never were high expectations of that kind more completely broken and shattered than they were within these past weeks.
Reform of the upper house has been demanded for generations. Every other parliamentary body or legislative body of importance in the world has carried out sweeping reforms of its upper house in the time that ours has been in existence. It is only in the upper house of Canada that we go on without any attempt to bring the upper house into harmony with the aspirations of the people in this modern and vital democracy of ours. Nevertheless, it is not in recent years alone that the demand for reform has been emphatic and urgent. For reasons which perhaps are perfectly natural, it was the Liberal party which first began to present demands for reform of the upper house. We find that Sir Oliver Mowat, a great and distinguished member of the Liberal party of those days, presented this resolution to the Liberal party convention in Ottawa as far back as 1893. Most hon. members of this house had not yet been born at that time. This is the resolution that was adopted:
The present constitution of the Senate is inconsistent with the federal principle in our system of government and is in other respects ineffective as it makes the Senate independent of the people and uncontrolled by the public opinion of the country and should be so amended as to bring it into harmony with the principles of popular government.
Then again at the same convention, and speaking to this resolution, we find these words spoken by another very distinguished

member of the Liberal party, Sir Richard Cartwright. These were his words:
I think, sir, we all agree that the constitution of the Senate as it at present exists is a blot upon popular government and free institutions.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if those words had any meaning whatever in 1893 they certainly have meaning today because the upper house as it at present exists is precisely the same as the upper house was at that time except for the people who constitute the membership of that second chamber.
I am dealing with this subject at greater length today because I raised it briefly on Friday last and urged the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) before he left for the prime ministers' conference to initiate in consultation with the provinces a proper inquiry which would lead to a reform of the second chamber in keeping with the aspirations of our people for a democratic structure which has been brought into consonance with the development of industrial, economic, social and other conditions in this country. The Prime Minister made no response one way or the other to that request. Unfortunately, that is all too often the way in which proposals are dealt with when they are presented to this government. I am mentioning that now to point out that, when I raise this today, it might not have been necessary to go into some of the detailed remarks which I shall make had the Prime Minister acceded to what seems to be a perfectly reasonable request.
May I say at the outset, in pressing our demand for consideration of this subject, that I am not for a moment suggesting that the unfortunate features of our upper house, in so far as its composition is concerned, are not something in which both the major parties in this country have shared some responsibility over the years that have passed. The time is long overdue, however, for the implementation of the promises made by this government-and they were made by this government-to consider Senate reform and to take up with the provinces, in a manner which would lead to some positive results, this extremely important question.
On only one occasion has this matter been brought up in a comprehensive manner before a conference at which the federal and provincial governments were represented, and that was at the conference of 1927. At that time Mr. Lapointe, who was minister of justice, laid before the conference a summary of proposals which had been made by different people for Senate reform. He did so without any suggestion that he sought approval of any particular type of reform. However, these were the points he put before the conference for consideration, as reported in what

was described as "A Survey of Dominion-Provincial Conference, 1906 to 1941", by Darrell Thomas Braidwood. I quote this from page 32 of the survey:
1. Abolition of the Senate,
2. Adoption of the elective principle,
3.	A combination of both the appointive and elective principles,
4.	A fixed and limited term of office,
5.	An age limit with possible superannuation,
6.	A bringing of relations between the Canadian upper and lower chambers into accord with the relations between the House of Commons and the House of Lords in Great Britain-with particular reference to the powers of the upper house in vetoing or amending money or general public bills.
That quotation indicated the breadth of the subject matter placed before the conference. Each of these proposals was discussed but it was not followed through, and no results flowed from that discussion, nor was there any resumed examination of the proposals.
I point out that this summary made by Mr. Lapointe in 1927 did review most of the proposals which have been made for the reform of the upper house. Since then still further proposals have been made. It seems to me that it would be neither desirable nor in keeping with the purpose of the upper house to lay down an arbitrary formula which must from necessity be followed if there is to be reform. I say that because our upper house in this country had a dual purpose. Its first purpose was, of course, the ordinary review responsibility of an upper house, which corresponds to that of other upper houses under a similar parliamentary system. The second, and in many ways the most important from the point of view of those who were discussing the possibility of confederation, was that an upper house in Canada would protect the constitutional rights of the provinces under the constitution which they were about to adopt.
I think it is quite certain that there would not have been anything in the nature of the confederation that we know unless there had been an upper house to assure the protection that it was intended to give to the provinces joining in confederation. The maritime provinces were urgent and emphatic in their demand that there be an upper house which would protect their rights. The province of Quebec wanted an upper house to assure the protection of its constitutional rights, no matter what might happen at any time in the House of Commons. Ontario as well looked to the upper house to protect its own traditional rights. All the provinces looked to the upper house as the guardian of their heritage, which they were preserving under their provincial legislatures but placing in substantial measure in the keeping of the federal parliament.
67509-338*
25. 1956	5333
Request for Election and Senate Reform
The very arguments that were made in support of a second chamber all indicated the belief that this independent body would at all times carefully consider and carefully review what took place in the lower house and particularly where there were matters of public importance, constitutional or otherwise. For that reason we must look with some very real concern at what has taken place recently here in our own parliament.
I indicated my belief that the Prime Minister should initiate appropriate steps, and I referred briefly to what had occurred in the upper house. I wish to do so now in more detail. I cannot read the debates which took place there, but under citation 293, appearing on page 95 of Beauchesne's second edition, we find this statement, which I believe is accepted without question. It indicates that there are certain things which a member may not refer to. It indicates that a member may not refer to any debate in the Senate, but then I quote these words from citation 293 (b):
.	.	. but he may refer to the official printed
records of the upper house though they have not been formally communicated to the lower house.
Therefore I refer to those printed records and simply ask hon. members to bear in mind what those records indicate in regard to what took place in the upper house when a bill, which has been described by the government as one of the most important ever to come before parliament, was in fact being referred to the upper house. In the minutes of the proceedings of the Senate of Canada for Tuesday, June 5, 1956, as recorded at pages 486 and 487, I read the following:
Pursuant to notice of motion-
The Honourable Senator Macdonald, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Beaubien-
That for the balance of the present session, rules 23, 24 and 63 be suspended in so far as they relate to public bills.
After debate, and-
The question being put on the said motion, it was-
Resolved in the affirmative, on division, and-
Ordered accordingly.
Then I refer to the minutes of the proceedings of the Senate of Canada for Wednesday, June 6, 1956, and I read from page 490:
A message was brought from the House of Commons by their clerk with a bill (298), intituled: "An act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation", to which they desire the concurrence of the Senate.
The said bill was read the first time.
Moved by the Honourable Senator Macdonald, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Godbout, that the said bill be placed on the orders of the day for a second reading later this day.
After debate, and-
The question being put on the said motion, it was-
Resolved in the affirmative, and-
Ordered accordingly.
5334	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform Then, as recorded on the next page, page 491, I read the following having to do with the same day:
Pursuant to the order of the day, the Honourable Senator Macdonald, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Godbout, that the bill (298), intituled:	"An act to establish the Northern
Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation", be now read the second time.
After debate-
It being six o'clock, the Honourable the Speaker left the chair to resume the same at eight o'clock, The Senate resumed. 8:00 p.m.
The debate continuing-
After further debate, and-
The question being put on the said motion, it was-
Resolved in the affirmative, on division.
The said bill was then read the second time, on division.
It was moved by the Honourable Senator Macdonald, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Godbout, that the said bill be committed to a committee of the whole presently.
The question being put on the said motion, it was-
Resolved in the affirmative, and-
Ordered accordingly.
The Senate was, accordingly, adjourned during pleasure and put into a committee of the whole on the said bill.
(In the committee)
The Honourable Senator Golding, chairman. Title read and postponed.
Clause	1	was	read	and	agreed	to.Clause	2	was	read	and	agreed	to.Clause	3	was	read	and	agreed	to.Clause	4	was	read	and	agreed	to.Clause	5	was	read	and	agreed	to.Clause	6	was	read	and	agreed	to.Clause	7	was	read	and	agreed	to.
Title again read and agreed to.
After some time, the Senate resumed, and-
The Honourable Senator Golding, from the said committee, reported that they had examined the said bill and had directed him to report the same to the Senate, without amendment.
The said report was adopted.
On motion of the Honourable Senator Macdonald, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Godbout, it was-
Ordered, that the said bill be placed on the orders of the day for a third reading tomorrow.
Then, on Thursday, June 7, 1956, the day that had been set by the government as its deadline date, we find the following at page 494 of the minutes of the proceedings of the Senate of Canada:


[Stage Direction]
Prayers.

Pursuant to the order of the day, the Honourable Senator Macdonald, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Godbout, that the bill (298), intituled: "An act to establish Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation", be now read the third time.
After debate, and-
The question being put on the said motion, The Senate divided and the names being called, they were taken down . . .
I shall not read the names as they were taken down. The house divided on the measure in the way in which the members are 
[Stage Direction]
recorded according to the political affiliations.
I then continue reading:
So it was resolved in the affirmative.
The said bill was then read the third time.
The question was put whether this bill shall pass.
It was resolved in the affirmative.
Ordered, that a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house that the Senate have passed this bill, without amendment.
Mr. Coldwell:: What time did the Senate adjourn?


George Alexander Drew: The Senate adjourned at 11.45 a.m. Thus we find that this measure was dealt with in a matter of about ten hours. It is little wonder that about two days later an editorial appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail headed "Sic Transit.."Sic transit gloria" is indeed an appropriate expression. Such glory, such tradition as remained, had indeed departed on that occasion. What had happened then was not merely the incredible expedition with which the Senate had moved under this unique form of closure. It was the fact that a minister of the crown, who sits as a member of the government, had placed the upper house in a condition of subservience to the government. I think it is appropriate that I should read what was written about this event, not for the purpose of taking issue with what took place there but so that we may know what the impact of this event has been on the minds of the people of Canada.
After all, at a time when we are considering ways in which democracy must be strengthened, it is vitally important that we should not ignore representative opinion which may be taken as indicating the attitude of a substantial part of the public to any function of this parliament of ours. On June 8, the day after this matter had been disposed of, I find that the Toronto Star had an editorial under the heading, "What Purpose Does it Serve?" The opening paragraph reads as follows:
The Senate is being criticized for taking only ten hours to consider the controversial pipe line bill. Ten hours admittedly did not permit anything but the most cursory examination of the bill.
Then I would read the closing paragraph of that editorial:
If, for the reason cited, the Senate cannot take more than a superficial glance at legislation as important as the pipe line bill, what real purpose does it serve? The answer is little if any.
I am not seeking to identify myself, Mr. Speaker, with the opinion of one newspaper or another in regard to the statements that they may make. I am simply seeking to indicate to hon. members of this house what has happened with respect to the attitude of newspapers in Canada towards a part of the bicameral system under which we take our

responsibilities as members of parliament. In the Toronto Telegram for June 7, the same day as that adjournment took place, there was an editorial under the heading, "The Impotent Senate". I read the first sentence in that editorial:
A meek and obedient Senate has suspended its rules and passed the government's pipe line measure in undignified and subservient haste.
Then I refer to the editorial in the Globe and Mail on June 9 to which I have already referred under the heading "Sic Transit..
I shall read two paragraphs from that editorial:
The Senate is supposed to be detached from the hurly-burly of political seeking and striving. In that detachment, it is supposed to look calmly, carefully at legislation sent on to it by the Commons; having power, if it wishes, to amend that legislation or to reject it completely. The Senate did not reject the sinister pipe line bill, nor amend it by one iota. It did not even take the time to have a good look at it, but rushed the bill through in a day and a half, so as to meet the deadline imposed on it.
Then I read the last paragraph of that editorial:
Sic transit gloria. Perhaps it is true, as some say, that the Senate no longer serves any useful function in Canadian life. Perhaps it does not even provide, as some say, security for deserving politicians in their old age. The Senate conducted itself this week as though it were anything but secure; as though, like the government majority in the House of Commons, it could only survive by licking the boots of its master.
Mr. Speaker, I wish just to read an editorial which appeared in the Calgary Herald, a newspaper which has been regarded as being very independent in the expression of its opinions. That newspaper is also situated in a province where there was reason for some particular interest in this issue. I should like to read that editorial because, even in that province where there could be many reasons for perhaps looking with more favour than elsewhere on some of the steps that were taken to expedite proceedings, we find this reflection of the impact on public opinion of what took place in the upper house at the bidding of one of the members of this government. The heading of that editorial is "How did the Senate serve Canada?" and it reads as follows:
The pipe line deal is now the law of the land.
It became law right on schedule, June 7.
The schedule was maintained in the House of Commons by use of a battering-ram operated by the Rt. Hon. C. D. Howe, and Prime Minister St. Laurent.
And it was speeded on its way to royal assent by a pusillanimous performance by the Senate of Canada.
It is of this last phase that we propose to speak.
The House of Commons has to its credit, at least, the fact that a valiant fight was put up, a fight to
Request for Election and Senate Reform the finish for the traditional rights of parliament and for the good of the Canadian people.
The Senate has nothing whatsoever to its credit.
This vaunted Other Place of sober second thought, this guardian against tyranny and improvidence, this citadel of life-appointment independence, what did it do? It submitted to a gag to which it did not have to submit. Then it went tiredly through a few motions, as though it were really alive. And then, in unashamed subservience to its Liberal masters, it doffed its cap and did the government's bidding voluntarily, right on schedule.
We say these things in bitter sorrow, for on repeated occasions we have come to the defence of the Senate as a valuable institution when others, many others, were baying for its abolition. And if the Senate of Canada conducted itself as tradition demands, we would gladly defend it again. The loss of a proper Senate would be a sore blow, a dangerous blow, to our system of parliamentary democracy. The loss of a Senate which bowed and scraped as this one did this week would be no loss at all. It is a mockery, a sham, an expensive luxury, far too expensive to keep around for minor chores like granting divorces.
Can anybody point to one single useful thing the Senate of Canada did in this pipe line affair, the most controversial, perhaps the most significant decision this country has had to make in modern history? Can anybody point out one constructive thing it did? Did it probe, did it query, did it demand that it be satisfied that a great blunder was not being made? Did it appear to be protecting any Canadian against anything? The answer in all cases is a melancholy "No".
It is understandable that Liberals in the Commons might have been reluctant, for obvious reasons, to step out of line no matter what their private opinions.
No such practical pressures bear on any Senator. But still, with nothing to fear, unreachable by political vengeance, the Liberals in the Senate behaved like sheep.
They ought to be ashamed. Meantime, we are ashamed for them.
Mr. Speaker, that is the impact this sorrowful event had on the thinking of one of the most independent newspapers in Canada. I could read a number of other editorials from other papers as well as articles which have been written which leave no uncertainty as to the shameful destruction of respect which has taken place at the instance of a member of this government who was able to persuade the subservient members of that Senate to follow the will of the government in a new form of blanket closure which disposed of any pretence that this is any longer a serious body of sober second thought. In this house opinions differ as to the desirability of continuing the Senate. I know that, in great sincerity, there are hon. members in this house-and they are not of one party alone-who believe that the time has come when the Senate might be abolished. I do not share that opinion. I believe that it is the opinion of the majority, if not all, of the members of the party to which I belong that there are strong constitutional reasons, as well as reasons of tradition and sentiment, why the second chamber
5336	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform should be preserved but in a form in which it will be permitted to perform the duties that were contemplated by those who brought it into being in 1867. Surely it is not reflecting upon any hon. member of that other place to say that the upper house needs drastic reform if their attendance there is to be justified. Let no hon. member in that other place who declares his allegiance to the Liberal party suggest that there is anything partisan in demanding that in the interests of respect for our parliamentary system there be reform. After all, who could make stronger statements on this subject than Sir Richard Cartwright who, in a very pithy sentence, said this:
I think, Sir, we all agree that the constitution of the Senate, as it at present exists, is a blot upon popular government and free institutions.
That was the other place in the same form as it now is, without reform. If those words were not too strong then, still stronger words could be used today. Perhaps no stronger words need be used than those powerful words of the Calgary Herald which were unquestionably written with the deep feeling of someone who believes in and respects our existing constitution. I share the view of whoever wrote that editorial when he speaks of the danger of losing the second chamber unless there is a change.
If things go on as they are, if this government continues in power and imposes its will on the other place as it did on this occasion, then the demand for the abolition of the other place may come to the point where it might not be possible to stem the tide of that demand. I would hope, and I do hope very strongly, that it may be possible to take steps in time to stem that tide. I think there would be very grave concern in the minds of the members of our legislative bodies throughout Canada if the supposed protection, if the intended protection, of the upper house were completely removed. I am not putting myself in the position of suggesting that on recent performance they have any reason to believe that the other place, as now constituted, does offer them any real protection. For that reason I would hope that the members of the provincial legislatures are examining with care and with great concern what has happened to the upper house.
It was bad enough when they were denied the opportunity to do an effective job; it was bad enough when a one-sided chamber made any effective second examination no longer a possibility; but now we have come to something that is no longer a question of the composition of the other place, no longer a question of the opportunity it has to deal with legislation or the procedures which


are followed, but the dignity, honour and independence of the other place have been destroyed in the same way that the dignity, the honour, and the independence of high offices in this house were destroyed at the same time. That is the serious feature. I would hope that we would hear an echoing demand from the other place. I would not wish any hon. member of the other place to think that I am reflecting on any individual. I believe that there are people of high integrity, of great experience, of long training, who could serve Canada well in that other place.
In Britain at Westminster the House of Lords, which is the corresponding second body, has been drastically reformed. A system has been established under which the House of Lords can have an effective voice, not only in regard to ordinary legislation but in regard to money bills as well under certain limiting provisions. The House of Lords cannot hold up legislation indefinitely. A recent provision makes it possible for the House of Lords to veto a measure, and then it would come back to the commons. When the House of Commons passed it a second time, it would become law. I believe that is the most recent revision. The House of Lords as an appointed body, for that reason, has a vitally important part in the functioning of parliament. It also has wider opportunities for the initiation and review of legislation, and for the consideration of many important subjects.
I believe that our second house, under our parliamentary system, could perform a most useful service. I believe there are types of legislation, other than divorce legislation, which they could handle with great expedition. They could discuss these subjects in that detached atmosphere which is supposed to prevail there, and then this legislation would be brought before this house with the advantage of the advice of experts in that field who would have been brought before the Senate committee before this house was called to pass upon it. I think an amendment of the upper house, which in no way changed its constitutional relationship to the provinces, could greatly shorten the sessions of this house and bring about a better balance between the work of the two houses than exists at this time. I hope that I will not be regarded as being unduly envious when I mention that there are many members here who wish they were members of the other place when it adjourns from time to time because there is not sufficient work before it. My comment is no reflection on the other place. There is no reason for them to continue in Ottawa when they have no work

before them. I think that what is essential for the effective operation, not only of the other place but of the House of Commons, is that under a proper system of reform, which maintains the protective feature of the other place's constitutional relationship to the provinces, there will be a balance of work between the two houses that will keep them closer together in their time tables and not cause the members of the other place to move back and forth from time to time as they are called upon to do during the course of the session.


Mr. Lesage:: Would the hon. member permit a question for the purpose of clarification? Would he go so far as to propose that in the division of work between the other place and the House of Commons, money bills could be initiated in the other place?


George Alexander Drew: No, I am not suggesting that money bills, in general, be initiated in the other place. After all, if there is one thing that above all else does attach itself to the responsibility of the government, it is the initiation of money bills.


Jean Lesage: Yes, that is why I asked the question.


George Alexander Drew: There is every possibility of a reference of money bills in the way that has been established in the House of Lords at Westminster. It was in regard to such a reference of money bills that I made the suggestion that we might, perhaps with some advantage, consider what had been done there. I wish to leave no uncertainty, however, because I did say this before. I am not seeking to lay down any rigid formula. The provinces have a very important part to play in whatever is done, and while there must be a keen desire to work out a balance between the work of the two houses which will give to the very distinguished and highly trained members of that upper house a wider scope for their training and experience, we must also remember that there should be no diminution of the authority of the other place over the constitutional relationship between the provincial governments and the federal government which was contemplated in the original drafting of our basic constitution. That, of course, also is inherent in the fact that the members of the upper house are not appointed on the basis of representation by population. The numbers are fixed. There is agreement as to that. The appointments are made with recognition of the unique duality of its function, of the duty of the upper house in relation to the provinces and their constitutional position, and also the relationship
25, 1956	5337
Request for Election and Senate Reform, of the other place to the ordinary business and proceedings of this house.
I mention that because the discussion that takes place should be brought forward, as it was brought forward by the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe in 1927, before a conference representative of the federal and provincial governments. My hope would be, though, that with what has happened and with the urgent desire to revive respect for the role of the upper house and its traditions, we should carry this forward, or see it carried forward, to a satisfactory conclusion which would be acceptable to the provinces and to both houses.
I say this without in any way accepting the proposition that is sometimes put forward that when we urge a reform of the other place here in this house it would of necessity be repudiated by the other place. I cannot believe that, Mr. Speaker. I cannot believe that men and women of great ability, chosen to fill an honoured position in the upper house, would not welcome a reform which would give them an opportunity to play their full part in the operation of the parliament of Canada at this important time.
It is not only at Westminster that these reforms have taken place. In Australia they have had sweeping reforms and they elect their upper house. I have said I would hope we would not come to that point. In New Zealand, under demands such as have arisen here, they have abolished the upper house.
I hope that does not happen here. The danger, however, will increase as events of this kind occur.
Now, Mr. Speaker, today on this supply motion I have dealt with one particular subject and I intend to move an amendment which does not relate to this subject alone but which does re-emphasize our belief that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) should take those constitutional steps which would bring about a dissolution of this house and an election at the earliest possible date. We have emphasized that before. There was an interjection the other day that this was being done in a half-hearted manner. I have not heard anything half-hearted about the demands that have been made. We wish to remove any suggestion that there is anything half-hearted about our demand that there be dissolution and an election which will give the Canadian people the chance to express their opinions. We have spoken with deep earnestness, and we speak with deep earnestness today when we say that a great tragedy has occurred in the parliament of Canada, not only in this house but in the other place as well. Emphasis has been placed in this house on the tragedy to the House of Commons, on the events which placed the position of the Speaker, the chairman of the
5338	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform committees and the deputy chairman in question as the result of the action of the government. We have spoken of the concern and the grave concern we feel for the future, with the precedents that have been established in regard to a form of closure never before at any time contemplated which, in the hands of people who sought to destroy parliament, could be applied as effectively as measures were ever employed under any dictatorship. It may be easy to say, "Oh, well, that cannot happen here". This has been said in most countries where free parliaments were destroyed by the methods and procedure of democracy itself, and that after all is the way in which it has happened in many lands.
We saw a system adopted here which denied to the house the opportunity to discuss individual measures, and yet found a declaration made that we had given consideration to sections of a bill which were never before us for a moment. No; things have happened here in rulings in this house by the Chair and by the chairman of committees which could be very dangerous precedents for the years ahead.
After the debate closed here and the votes were taken, things happened in the other place which were a part of this whole evil attempt-and I confess, a successful attempt -to bend parliament to the will of one man, to the will of a man who does not like the rules of parliament, and the will of a man who has been able to get the support of the other members of the government as well as the members of his own party for the demands he has made. Only a year ago we sat here well on into the summer because of the demands that that man made for unprecedented powers which had never been exercised in peacetime and never written into the statutes as they then proposed to do. That debate came to a successful conclusion in so far as the people of Canada were concerned because the government finally acceded to our proposals that a limit be placed upon those wide powers, and in that way the law should not become part of the permanent statute law of Canada, which would have practically made it possible for the government by order in council at any time to have dealt with any aspect of our economy. We were successful then; we were not successful on this occasion except to the extent that we did arouse a public consciousness of what was taking place here.
I am well aware, as is every hon. member, that there is a large majority on the government side. Mr. Speaker, I think the free press of Canada-and I use these words without capitals-on this occasion did indicate clearly what the people were thinking. I believe that those of us who opposed the course followed 

by the government were in fact expressing the sentiment of the people of Canada. I believe the people of Canada were shocked and ashamed at the arbitrary action taken by this government to comply with a date line set by a company which was not even controlled by people from our own country. I believe that Canadians are sickened by what has happened here in this House of Commons and in the other place.
I urged the Prime Minister to take some action such as the Prime Minister could take and such as the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe obviously contemplated a few years ago when he presented these suggestions to a conference. There was no reply just as there was no reply on the other occasion to set up a committee on defence.
Before I sit down I just want to refer to that because I did not have the opportunity to do so and it shows exactly how far this goes. When I asked that the committee on defence be set up the Prime Minister said we could not have that committee because that was a practice followed in Washington. I then informed him there were inquiries of this kind in Britain. He said that was not his understanding but he would make inquiries. I need only remind him that it is done here and it is done every year by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) when he refers his estimates to a standing committee for that department. These are merely examples of the way in which this government denies to this house the opportunities to assume its responsibilities. I do not believe there will be a full acceptance of parliamentary rights nor will there be a parliament in keeping with the wishes of the people of Canada until there has been a change.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker): That all the words after "That" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
in the opinion of this house the Prime Minister should give immediate consideration to the advisability of bringing about the dissolution of this parliament and the calling of a general election as soon as possible.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker I rise to support the amendment. It is perfectly obvious to me that the present House of Commons has lost the confidence of the country.


Mr. Mclvor:: No.


Major James William Coldwell: If a demonstration were needed as to how the control of this house and the use of the proper rules of this house have not been enforced at the present

time it could be found in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon.
I want to say that you, Mr. Speaker, were in the chair and the Speaker also occupied the chair during part of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, and while I am glad the Leader of the Opposition was able to place on record the editorials to which he referred, I say that in placing those editorials before the house and putting them on the record the rules of the house were clearly violated and neither you nor Mr. Speaker dare to rise and interrupt the Leader of the Opposition and call him to order.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, may I just interrupt for a moment and say I think I was as conscious as my hon. friend of the violation of the rules, but I think in fairness it should be stated it occurred after the Speaker left the chair.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh no, some of them
occurred while the Speaker was in the chair.


Walter Edward Harris: I am not suggesting, however, that the Deputy Speaker was not paying attention to his duties.


Mr. Hodgson:: The Minister of Finance was shaking his head at the Speaker.


Major James William Coldwell: I will put it this way: the leader of the house dared not rise and call the hon. member to order.


Walter Edward Harris: I will say something about that later.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I should say something at this point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I listened to the editorials which were read by the Leader of the Opposition. These points are extremely difficult to adjudicate upon from this position. The rule is against the reading of editorials which reflect on a proceeding of this chamber or of the other chamber. I listened very carefully to the editorials and it seemed to me the editorials which were read did not so reflect. They reflected on the chamber itself but not on a proceeding in that chamber and for that reason I did not rise.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I accept your explanation so far as this chamber is concerned, but if the editorial in the Calgary Herald did not reflect on the other place I would like to know what remarks could reflect on the other place.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It reflected on the institution, in my opinion, but did not reflect on a proceeding which took place in the other place. That is the line of distinction which I was able to draw.
25, 1956	5339
Request for Election and Senate Reform


Major James William Coldwell: I would say it reflected on the other place and at the same time it also reflected on the hon. members who constitute the other place. You cannot get away from that, Mr. Speaker.
What I was going to say is this. To my mind the dissolution of this house is essential because of the manner in which this house has been used over the past month or so. I do not think any reading of parliamentary history anywhere in the commonwealth or anywhere else with an institution like our own will give any support to the manner in which the rules of this house were set aside-


Mr. Byrne:: By the opposition.


Major James William Coldwell: By the what?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: By the opposition.


Major James William Coldwell: Do not be foolish.


James Garfield Gardiner: Certainly.


Major James William Coldwell: The opposition relies on the rules; we are the minority.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You broke them.


Major James William Coldwell: The majority in this house requires no rules to support it because they can always enforce their will on this house so we could not be accused of setting the rules aside because we have no power to do so. How can anyone say such a thing? My hon. friend and others like him on the other side of the house have assumed an attitude toward this parliament which is the kind of attitude the followers of the dictators in Europe adapted during the 1930's, and I want to say that I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we should have a general election and get this mess cleaned up, for it is a mess indeed.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: A mess of your making.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member can make his speech after I sit down.


An hon. Member:: He could not make a speech if he tried.


Major James William Coldwell: If he can pull apart what I have said, he is perfectly at liberty to do so. I want to tell him he does not understand the rules of this house if he thinks the rules can be used as they were used by the government in the debate of recent occurrence and particularly in connection with the manner in which closure was enforced.
I may say I have never felt as strongly about anything as I have felt about this situation in our parliament.


An hon. Member:: Too bad.


Major James William Coldwell: This is something that first of all grieved me and then angered me and

Request for Election and Senate Reform the thing that grieved me most in all probability was the fact that over the years I have believed that many of the hon. gentlemen sitting opposite may have believed in democratic procedures, and to see them set aside by the people in whom I had some confidence as democrats was indeed a very sorry thing to observe in this house.
My hon. friend can make his speech when I sit down.


Alfred Claude Ellis: He would not have nerve enough to.


Major James William Coldwell: I have no doubt that his remarks stem back to some of his background in the past-party solidarity. My hon. friend knows to what I am referring. It stems from some of his background in the past.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: My background will stand up against yours any time.


Mr. Trainor:: He is an independent.


Major James William Coldwell: We take a somewhat different attitude to the other place from that expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. For many years we have seen no good purpose in continuing a second chamber which simply does the bidding of the government, and again if ever a demonstration were needed of the second chamber doing the bidding of the government it was in connection with this pipe-line matter.
When it comes to the Canadian Senate, I think we could modify a famous saying: Everybody talks about the Senate but nobody ever does anything about it. That is true of whatever party is in power in this country.
Right from the earliest days of confederation, the appointments to the Senate by Sir John A. Macdonald were being criticized by the Liberals of that day. Subsequently, when the Liberals were in power, the appointments to the Senate were criticized by the Conservatives. Today we have a Senate which is no longer representative of anything but itself and the Liberal party, a Senate which is predominantly Liberal and where the opposition members in the Senate-and I speak respectfully of them-mostly have reached an age Where the long hours of parliamentary debate and so on cannot be sustained by them. The very fact that in ten hours they were able to put through the measure that they did put through in connection with the pipe line is, I think, sufficient evidence that the Senate is no longer functioning and indeed should be abolished.
As far as reform is concerned, I believe it would be much easier to abolish the Senate chamber than to reform it. There would be

a long controversy in the country as to how it was going to be reformed, but a simple proposal placed before the people of Canada for the abolition of the Senate would, I believe, be sustained by the people of Canada.
True, we know that under the confederation agreement the Senate was supposed to protect the rights of minorities, but when at any time in recent years has the Senate protected the rights of minorities, and particularly the rights of those of the other language than the one I am using myself this afternoon? I think the answer is never. The Senate has never done anything, that I know of, to protect the rights of the French-speaking Canadians, and for a very good reason. The very good reason is that it is not needed to protect those rights. Those rights are amply protected now, first of all by the constitution of this country itself, the British North America Act; then, of course, by the courts of our country and particularly, perhaps, the Supreme Court of Canada; and then the manner in which the representation in this house is set up, guaranteeing representation as the population of the province of Quebec and the other provinces grows. Then, of course, another reason for the fact that protection is no longer needed is the growth of the French-speaking population in our country and the influence exerted by our Frenchspeaking compatriots. Today the protection of those minority rights, as they were thought of at the time of confederation, is no longer needed from a Senate of Canada.
I am of the opinion that the people of Canada would welcome a proposal for the abolition of the Senate. It is true, as I think the Leader of the Opposition indicated, that in all probability, the consent of the Senate being required, it would be very difficult to pass legislation to bring that about by a joint address, shall we say, of both houses of parliament, but I am sufficiently democratic in my point of view to think that, if the Canadian people indicated in a very clear and certain manner that they wanted either to reform the Senate or to abolish the Senate, the democratic desire of the people of a democratic country would ultimately prevail.
As I see it, there can be no logical reason today in a democracy for an appointed institution of this description. As the Leader of the Opposition has said already-and I do not want to go into details, because he has done so-the House of Lords has been very considerably curtailed in its powers. The Senate of Canada, modelled on the House of Lords, still retains all the power that the British House of Lords had. It can veto any bill, if it dares to do so, and it can exercise powers that the House of Lords

exercised once but can no longer exercise. It seems to me that, if the more, shall 1 say, traditional-minded British people can curtail the power of their second chamber in the manner in which they have done, we should be able to deal with our second chamber at least in the same manner.


Walter Edward Harris: Would the hon. member mind a question?


Major James William Coldwell: Not at all.


Walter Edward Harris: Is it not a fact, though, that the destruction imposed in the United Kingdom on the House of Lords is with respect to their powers, and not with respect to their composition?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, certainly with respect to their powers and not to their composition, but I am hoping that their composition will be changed. Let me say this to my hon. friend: that appointments to the House of Lords by all recent governments of Great Britain have not been made on a partisan basis. They have been very largely made of men of outstanding service to the country, of outstanding ability in law, in parliament, in the armed services, in education and in other places, whereas our appointments in this country have been made mainly on a partisan basis, and very often the people who have been appointed are people who tried to get elected in constituencies and could not achieve the desired result and were put into the Senate as a reward for their services to the party in power. It is predominantly now a Liberal Senate.
So I say that the hon. gentleman is quite right when he says that the constitution is different. Of course, we do not want the hereditary principle in Canada, and I think that sooner or later it will be dispensed with in the United Kingdom. At the moment it is there, but the hereditary peers do not play any very important part as a whole in the deliberations of the House of Lords. It is the appointed people, either the lords spiritual or the lords temporal by appointment, that exercise the greater influence in the British parliament.
I am not going to speak at any great length but I did want to rise in support of the Leader of the Opposition and say that, as far as I am concerned, I am wholeheartedly for this resolution. We have asked for dissolution, and I think that the only way in which we can once again get back to a proper atmosphere in this house and a proper respect for the Chair and all the rest of it is by electing a new parliament. I do not know what effect the situation in the house had on the recent elections in
Request for Election and Senate Reform the country. Probably they did not have much effect on the elections of the legislatures in the provinces. I do not think they should; I think provincial matters and federal matters are somewhat apart. None the less, I think the Liberal party can take very little comfort from what happened in the provinces in recent days. Without prolonging the debate unduly-because a number of other members want to speak-I want to say that we are going to support this amendment.


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: I am rising to support the amendment moved by my leader. He dealt with one particular facet of this problem which I feel indicates that there should be an election, and a new government elected in Canada. I do not propose to follow him on the particular matter on which he laid special attention, the situation involving the parliament of Canada. I simply say that I agree entirely, of course, with the criticism which has been made and the documented evidence he has adduced. But there are many matters involving this country at the moment on which one can speak on this occasion because as a vote of confidence with respect to supply it involves all of the issues which confront the government of Canada at the moment. Therefore I propose to deal with one or two other facets of this problem independent of that which has been mentioned by my leader and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell).
The first one is one which has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) on various occasions during the past week or two but only with respect to one particular facet, namely, the increased interest rates throughout the country. Whatever may have happened in the past, whatever responsibility the government may assume for inflation, there is no doubt that a substantial degree of inflation does exist in Canada at the present time. There also can be no doubt that deflationary measures are always unpopular and sometimes are necessary. With that general proposition, assuming that these circumstances exist, one could not take issue. But certainly in a country as vast as this, with all the various conditions prevailing from the Atlantic to the Pacific-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but may I advise him that the Leader of the Opposition has moved an amendment dealing with the dissolution of parliament and that automatically prescribes our discussion at the present time. Therefore I do not think the question of interest rates would be in order under this amendment.
5342	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, there are various other matters which one can discuss. I am raising this one for the very reason that you pointed out, because we are asking for the dissolution of parliament, because we feel that the way in which the affairs of this country have been administered by the government is such that dissolution is warranted, that an appeal should be made to the country and a new government elected to deal with these matters. On that basis, I suggest with respect, almost any criticism of the government with respect to administrative or policy matters is a fair field for discussion under this amendment, as would be the case on any motion to go into supply when (grievances may be raised if it is a motion of want of confidence.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I agree with the hon. member that once this amendment has been disposed of he may then, under a general discussion of grievances, raise this subject, but after all we are now dealing with the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member will recall that the two speeches made so far have dealt mainly with the question of Senate reform and other questions relating to the Senate and the House of Commons. I do not feel that we can depart from that subject in view of the amendment which is now before us. Of course, the hon. member will have his opportunity to deal with other matters once the amendment has been disposed of.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I do submit that under a motion saying that the government has lost confidence and should be dissolved the mere fact that the Leader of the Opposition dealt primarily with the Senate and also with other matters which have taken place in this house surely does not narrow the scope of the amendment before us. There are various matters I want to bring up, including this matter to which I have made some slight reference. I say that surely on a general vote of confidence on a motion saying that the government has lost the confidence of the people one can raise almost any matter. It would be impossible, Mr. Speaker, for any speaker, for any speaker, even one as gifted as the Leader of the Opposition, and with all the time which might be available to him, to catalogue all the sins of omission and commission of this government. He just could not do it. Surely one is not going to be limited to the repetition of any statements he made. Therefore I do think, with all respect, that I am entitled to discuss other matters which have been brought up in the house before with regard to which criticism has been levelled at the government and changes have been suggested which the government has so far seen fit to disregard.
IMr. Deputy Speaker.]

Therefore, unless I have a positive ruling that I am out of order, I will proceed. 1 am only going to deal with this one matter for one minute because I am passing on to other matters which have been discussed and in connection with which criticism has been made at greater length. I wanted to deal with this one matter for a moment in opening, and in my opinion it is within the scope of the motion that I should be able to do so.
I wanted to say with respect to the matter of interest rates that protests have been made against inflexible principles as applied to flexible matters. We have heard it emphasized with respect to housing and the attention of the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Finance has been drawn to certain areas in this country with respect to which statements have been made that housing is limited, curtailed or prejudiced because of the policy of the government. In passing may I suggest-


Mr. Blackmore:: On a point of order, it seems to me-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member for Lethbridge is rising on a point of order?


John Horne Blackmore: That is right. I think Your Honour was thoroughly justified in suggesting that the hon. member should discuss nothing else except the matter which the Leader of the Opposition used as the basis for his amendment. If he continues to discuss such matters as he is now discussing it will mean that when we come to the vote all those who may vote against the principle which the Leader of the Opposition has laid down could also be accused of voting against the representations on the various subjects which the hon. member wants to bring up, and that would certainly be unfair to hon. members. I think we should proceed and have the vote on the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I really feel that the point of order just raised by the hon. member for Lethbridge is well taken. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings is now discussing the matter of housing. I agree that he is perfectly entitled to raise that point but only after the matter now before us has been disposed of. I think, as is our invariable practice in airing grievances, that on a motion of this kind we must confine ourselves to one subject at a time. I would invite the co-operation of the hon. member in confining himself to this subject at the moment, and I will be glad to recognize him later to raise his other point once the amendment has been disposed of.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I think there is one point with regard to this matter which seems to have been overlooked in the remarks that have been made. The motion that has been presented to the house is clear and specific. It reads: in the opinion of this house the Prime Minister should give immediate consideration to the advisability of bringing about the dissolution of this parliament and the calling of a general election as soon as possible.
I made it clear I was only referring to one reason why I thought this motion should be supported, and it seems to me that any subject in regard to which it can be reasonably contended that the motion itself is justified should be admissible and that the fact that I happened to raise the particular question of what had taken place in the other place, with a comment also in regard to a request I had made for an inquiry into the defence estimates as showing a certain parallel with my request in this case, should not place any limit on the subjects that can be brought 'orward.
After all, on this supply motion we have a certain limitation in any event. It is not like the debate on the speech from the throne or the budget debate where the debate goes on indefinitely or could until the rules were changed this year. This is limited by having to end tomorrow, and I submit that anything that can be reasonably put forward as justification for the contention that the Prime Minister should take the constitutional steps which would lead to dissolution should be admissible in relation to this motion. That is my contention, sir. I regret very much the fact that I limited my remarks to the one subject instead of saying that there are 15 or 20 and then mentioning them at least once, a procedure which would have brought them all in. I would regret very much if that fact were permitted to limit debate which seems to me to be a wide open debate of the subject as to why dissolution is essential in the interests of the people of Canada.


Mr. Nicholson:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. While I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) gave sufficient reasons for this motion to be accepted, I see no reason why at this stage Your Honour should try to bar other hon. members from expressing views. I think the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) is quite within his rights in presenting other reasons which should be taken into consideration with a view to getting favourable consideration for the motion which is before us. I hope Your Honour would not prevent other members from presenting other reasons which might be as valid as the reasons
25. 1956	5343
Request for Election and Senate Reform given by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


George Clyde Nowlan: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think your difficulty is that you have suggested that on the matter of grievances, we follow one after the other; and the practice has been in this house that you discuss the one grievance and make sure that members have all spoken on that before we move on to another one. This is an entirely different situation, I suggest, this afternoon where we are not discussing grievances per se but where we are discussing a motion of want of confidence and are saying that this house should be dissolved and therefore it brings everything within its ambit.
I must say that if I had thought that, by continuing my speech on interest rates, I would be encouraging the hon. member who raised the point of order a few moments ago to intervene in this matter, I would willingly drop it and move on to some other matters, because I do not want to see what he suggests happen. But apart from that, I have other matters to raise anyway and I am saying with respect that I think you are confusing a grievance with a vote of confidence. With all the seriousness at my disposal I submit that under the rules it is open to us to discuss these various matters. I have one, two, three or possibly more. If this question is going to be raised again, perhaps I had better enumerate them so that there will not be this problem facing anybody following me.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, might I say this. While this may not in itself in any way be conclusive as to the interpretation of the motion put forward, in drafting the motion, it was done intentionally without any specific limitation. It was drafted as a bald declaration that there should be dissolution and an early election with the idea that different subjects could be discussed. I recognize that Your Honour is not in any way bound by what the intention was, but I thought I should explain that the motion was particularly drafted with that thought in mind. I myself indicated that I was merely dealing with one of the reasons that I thought it was so essential that this be done. I submit to Your Honour that, under the rules, we can only carry this forward I believe until 8.15 o'clock tomorrow night and that after that there is the open debate, at which time there must be continuity. The moment a change is permitted, then something else comes in, but I submit that until that time comes and a vote is taken on this motion certainly the intention was-and I hope the interpretation would be-that this is a motion calling for dissolution and that arguments put forward
5344	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform as to reasons why there should be dissolution-that is why confidence has been lost in the government to the extent that it is desirable that the	dissolution-should	be
permitted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings has quite rightly stated that once the amendment has been disposed of, then we deal with one subject at a time and we recognize speakers who wish to deal with a certain subject. I think that is quite true. In view of the fact that this amendment is a very broad one, perhaps I should hear the hon. member.


George Clyde Nowlan: way and which is inflexible. The minister says they are giving consideration to this matter in so far as housing is concerned. He told us in a rather mysterious way about having a conference with bankers, and intimates that something may be done some time to change the situation. I stress now with all the point that one can that the time to do it is now, at least in so far as these areas in the maritime provinces are concerned which need this additional capital, and with particular reference to the great fruit growing industry of eastern Canada which is going to suffer disaster again this year comparable with that which it suffered last year because they will not even be able to finance the crop unless there is a relaxation of these banking regulations, and that within the next few days. By friends of mine who are close to the situation I am told that at the moment there are only about two in the whole industry of those who ordinarily finance their growers who are able to do so out of their own reserves. The others normally borrow from the banks and they have been told this year that they cannot borrow anything like what they borrowed before. Of course, any increase in the rates naturally adds to the cost but that applies to everyone in business and is not a particular grievance of those people.
I draw that matter to the minister's attention and to the attention of the house as one thing in which I suggest this government has failed, where they are administering an inflexible policy rather than a flexible one, and that you need a different approach to this matter. For that reason I think it well comes within the scope of the motion which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon.
I turn from that, Mr. Speaker, to another matter which is of national importance, although it has a local application too, and one which I am certain that the government has failed to deal with as it should have on a great national basis. One could read editorial after editorial dealing with that matter but I do not propose to do that. I am referring now to the matter of education in this country and the responsibility of this government towards that educational policy.
There are two facets to it, of course. There is one dealing with the problem in the maritime provinces. The Minister of Finance has heard me stress that in times gone by. I am not going to repeat those arguments this afternoon because I still have the hope that someone who looks as intelligent as he does and who has some knowledge of conditions prevailing in local universities and universities generally throughout the

country will reverse that iniquitous program or that faulty program-I will not say iniquitous program-which was inaugurated by his predecessor whereby grants to universities are made on a per capita per province basis. That results in the universities of the maritime provinces, where we have a smaller population and more students, getting relatively little government assistance. Practically every university, with the exception of one, is financed by private charity or by endowment. They are suffering tremendously in comparison with universities in the rest of Canada, and steps must be taken whereby that situation can be ameliorated.
I have suggested that before, and I should like to hear some effective answer. I have not heard one so far. In fact I give the minister credit, because I do not think he has ever tried to justify this policy. At least there should be a basic minimum per head established, and having got that basic minimum per student-which was the principle adopted by this government during the war, and which worked out so satisfactorily for the education of our returned veterans-then you superimpose upon it 50 cents per head of population. I believe in some provinces they get more than that, but you do get the absurd situation-I have not checked the figures this year, but speaking entirely from memory- that in one province at any rate a university was getting as high as $400 per student, while in Nova Scotia I think it was $88 per student. It varied within that fairly extreme range of $400 down to $88. If a basic minimum of $125 per student were financed by the dominion treasury it would be of tremendous help at least to universities in the maritime provinces.
This is only one segment of this important problem which is going to confront us within the next few years. My charge against this government this afternoon is that apparently it has failed utterly to realize the impact of that problem on our national development. You cannot open a newspaper in Canada today but what you will read statements from university heads, business heads, the Canadian Manufacturers Association or labour unions, whatever it may be, to the effect that Canada is facing a problem within the next few years in getting trained personnel, and that we have not had the facilities with which to produce that personnel nor have we been getting leadership from the government or any assistance whatever.
I was interested the other day in reading a speech given by Mr. Crawford Gordon, president of the A. Y. Roe Company Limited, to the Canadian Manufacturers Association, in which he pointed out some of the problems with which we are confronted. He said that
25, 1956	5345
Request for Election and Senate Reform Canada was lagging farther and farther behind in the training of manpower. He quoted figures with respect to Russia, where apparently a few years ago we had the picture presented that they were all sort of stupid peasants going around in great fur coats whose educational system we did not envy. Now the emphasis has gone the other way, perhaps too much so, and we are suddenly being told, whether it be by James Duncan, a manufacturer, or Norman Smith, a reporter, of the tremendous progress which is being made in the educational field and how far we are lagging behind. Mr. Gordon said the other day that he is setting up a conference in September to deal with this problem. It has been suggested by many newspapers that we have a manpower conference-I have forgotten the exact name of it-which was constituted by this government several years ago to survey the whole problem of manpower. It had three or four meetings, but nothing has been heard of it since 1953. Now we are getting into a situation where everyone says something must be done and done immediately. I say the problem must be met.
I noticed a speech the other day by Dr. Sidney Smith in which he says the expansion of plant alone for universities within the next three or four years is going to amount to over $350 million. We will have this tremendous increase of student population starting within the next five years as a result of the increased birth rate during the war. This $350 million is for increased plant, but what about the training of personnel? Nothing is being done about it. The Canada Council was recommended five years ago by the Massey report, and we are told today that cannot be established because the Prime Minister cannot find the personnel. This is one of the problems that could have been dealt with by the Canada Council, the question of universities, of leadership and guidance. I suggest that if the Prime Minister finds it very difficult to get the personnel for the Canada Council, he might turn the problem over to the conference of presidents of universities, and within two weeks they would come up with satisfactory nominations.
At any rate, the situation is this. The universities of Canada are facing an important task, whether they are huge like the University of Toronto or relatively small like Acadia University, in my home town. They are confronted with a problem which none of them can meet. You have to have leadership, guidance and assistance from a government, and so far that has not been evident in any way whatever.
I am not blaming the government alone for this. I think we have all failed Canada on that score. I noticed the other day that in

Request for Election and Senate Reform Canada, for instance, 878 corporations gave nine-eighths of one per cent of their income to education, but only one-tenth of that went to higher education, or roughly $3 million. At the same time industry in the United States gave over $100 million to higher education, and it was a smaller percentage of their entire income.
We need leadership in this sphere, and we are not getting it here. There must be a system of scholarships set up so we can provide this trained personnel. There must be general assistance given in the field of education because Canada is facing, and I reiterate it and stress it, a problem far greater than anyone here realizes. This is what Mr. Gordon said the other day:
Unless an answer is found, and found quickly, we and the whole western world will start to slip behind in the race for technical and productive supremacy.
I am not only concerned about technical and productive supremacy, I am also concerned about the humanities, the arts as well as the sciences. Within the last two or three days I noticed that Premier Frost has spoken on the matter of education and research. He said:
The matter of university education and research is not one which in 1956 we can relegate to the province by a clause in the confederation act. in the drawing of iVhich the fathers of confederation could not anticipate world crisis such as 1914-18 and 1939-45, nor the battle of peace upon which the future of Canada, and indeed the survival of democracy depends.
The future of Canada and the survival of democracy-those are fairly strong words.
I do not think they are too strong, Mr. Speaker. I do think a problem is presented to the government there with which it should deal and with which I have seen no indication of it dealing so far. I should like to see a government returned here, of whatever political party it might be, fresh from the people with a mandate to deal with matters such as this. Although the problem is somewhat indefinite and perhaps has no great popular appeal, yet I think it is fundamental at least to our national future if not to our very existence.
I am not sure what time I have remaining in view of the discussion which took place a while ago on a point of order, but there is another matter to which I want to refer. It is separate entirely from the one I have mentioned so far. This is a matter about which we have read in the press recently, the increase in freight rates which has been authorized by the commission, a temporary increase until fall. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that in so far as the transport commissioners 
are concerned, this government has no responsibility whatever. I think that would be the proper position for them to take.
My complaint in this particular phase, Mr. Speaker, is that for years some of us have been urging that the Maritime Freight Rates Act be brought up to date, not only be amended but be revitalized, be made to live in 1956. I spoke on that in 1949, in 1950 and in 1951. That is a matter in which this government has direct responsibility. Because it has failed to deal with it in any way I believe it does come within the ambit of this resolution. It is something for which this government must take full responsibility, and possibly needs a government with a fresh mandate in order to see that it is done.
I think it is worth while referring briefly to the record in this regard, Mr. Speaker. I have not time to deal with it at any great length but, as Premier Flemming said the other night in an address he made somewhere, sometimes you have the feeling, when you are referring to the Maritime Freight Rates Act, that you are a poor relative asking for charity at the hands of some wealthy person. That is far from the situation. Without taking the time of the house to put it all on the record, I wish to establish this point. Section 145 of the British North America Act is the keystone of this entire structure. This is what it says:
Inasmuch as the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have joined in a declaration that the construction of the Intercolonial Railway is essential to the consolidation of the union of British North America, and to the assent thereto of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick . . .
That is the prime condition on which they entered. It is interesting to see the technological advances that have taken place since 1867. Eight years later Prince Edward Island was brought in and virtually the same thing was said. However, they were then emphasizing telegraphs as well. We come to 1948 and Newfoundland finally comes into the dominion. The technological field has developed still further. Now we have airports, airplanes, railways, telegraph; the whole picture. As the technological field has developed so I suggest should the interpretation of this problem and what is envisaged by it.
The whole matter of the Maritime Freight Rates Act was considered many years ago, away back in 1926. It would be worth while, Mr. Speaker, if time permitted, to put on the record the preamble of the Maritime Freight Rates Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: It
may be a little irregular for me to say so, but the hon. member's speech was interrupted. He has often referred to his time. For his information, may I say that according to our record he has 20 minutes of time still left.


George Clyde Nowlan: I did not realize there was that much, Mr. Speaker. The Maritime Freight Rates Act was passed in 1927. There was a preamble to that act which is very important, and which for some reason has been left out of the printing of the act in the Revised Statutes of Canada. In order to find the preamble one has to go back to the original statute. I think it is worth while to put on the record what was said by the royal commission as a basis for the establishment of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. It was as follows:
Whereas the royal commission on maritime claims by its report, dated September 23, 1926, has, in effect, advised that a balanced study of the events and pronouncements prior to confederation, and at its consummation, and of the lower level of rates which prevailed on the Intercolonial system prior to 1912, has in its opinion confirmed the representations submitted to the commission on behalf of the maritime provinces, namely, that the Intercolonial Railway was designed, among other things, to give to Canada in time of national and imperial need an outlet and inlet on the Atlantic ocean, and to afford-
These are the important words, Mr. Speaker:
-to maritime merchants, traders and manufacturers the larger market of the whole Canadian people instead of the restricted market of the maritimes themselves, also that strategic considerations determined a longer route than was actually necessary, and therefore that to the extent that commercial considerations were subordinated to national, imperial and strategic conditions, the cost of the railway should be borne by the dominion, and not by the traffic which might pass over the line.
There are several other sections, but this is the important one. One of the purposes of the railway was strategic, Mr. Speaker, which resulted in a railway 300 miles longer than was necessary. That is rather interesting today, Mr. Speaker, when we have our United States friends co-operating, in fact working, in the north country and taking over the D.E.W. line. One reason we in the maritime provinces are penalized in regard to freight rates is that when we entered confederation there was a real or imagined fear of the United States, and the Intercolonial Railway was built all the way up along that New Brunswick coastline, as far away as possible from the United States border. That resulted in an increased mileage of over 350 miles. Our goods have to move back and forth over these miles to get to central Canada.
Request for Election and Senate Reform
Up to the early part of 1912, in fact up to the outbreak of the first world war, those rates were preserved at a proper level. The principle was maintained that the traders and manufacturers of the maritimes should get into the larger market of upper Canada. Those rates started to increase during the war. The Maritime Freight Rates Act was brought into effect in 1926. In effect they froze the rates at a certain level and gave a reduction of 20 per cent on goods originating within certain areas in the maritime provinces moving into the markets of Quebec and Ontario.
That seemed to be a satisfactory solution. Then what happened? We began to get these horizontal increases at one time and another, until recently it*was computed that from 1948 to 1955, because of horizontal increases, the freight rates had increased over 98 [DOT] 7 per cent. When we take into consideration the 7 per cent increase which was authorized the other day by the board of transport commissioners we have had an increase of over 100 per cent since 1945.
What a bill to give to a territory which used to get a 20 per cent reduction. When the principle was established one might be paying $1, and with the 20 per cent reduction it amounted to 80 cents. That put us in a competitive position. In the meantime that rate has gone up to 82 and now we are paying $1.60. It is true that we are getting the 20 per cent reduction, but we are paying $1.60 instead of the 80 cents we were paying before because those horizontal increases have not applied to traffic in Ontario and Quebec where there is competition from water transportation and from trucks. Because of these short-haul, competitive rates which have been established, goods in this part of the country have not borne the same relative costs as they have in the maritime provinces. I could produce example after example of that but I am not going to do it at the moment because the situation is well known to all of us.
Now, someone has said, "You are getting special subsidies, a special benefit." Premier Flemming said, when he mentioned the Maritime Freight Rates Act, he sometimes felt like a poor relative looking for charity. I suggest to this house that in the short time I have been here we have provided special subsidies for transportation. We provided it in connection with the railway bridge across northern Ontario. We pay $7 million a year for the reduction of rates across that northern Ontario bridge. If you take the car loadings moving you will find that the subsidy per car on the so-called bridge is $48.44. I find that reference in the study made by the

5348	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform maritimes freight rates commission. The subsidy per car under the Maritime Freight Hates Act is only $29.25. Therefore I do not think anyone can complain that we are getting any great subsidy which puts us in a unique position when compared with any other province.
As I said, as the result of these horizontal increases a situation has been created which has entirely negatived the provisions of the Maritime Freight Rates Act as it was envisaged by the Duncan commission and by this government. In 1927 this government, then led by prime minister Mackenzie King, brought in the legislation and said, "This is a solution of the problem for all time to come".	,
This is just illustrative of the problem which exists in my own constituency. When this act came into effect, and as late as 1937, a carload of apples going from Middleton in my constituency to Montreal cost $120 and in 1955 it cost $272. A carload of apples going from Grimsby, Ontario, to the Montreal market in 1937 cost $97 and that was increased to only $127 by 1955. In other words a carload of apples being shipped under the so-called benefits of the Maritime Freight Rates Act has had an increase of $148 imposed on it, and a carload getting standard rates from Grimsby to Montreal has had an increase of $30. So we are $118 worse off under the so-called benefits of the Maritime Freight Rates Act than under the other rates.
I can also quote figures for a carload of lumber from Ontario to New Brunswick. It was $80 in 1937 and it is $160 today, or an increase of 100 per cent. From Val d'Or Quebec to Montreal it was $86 in 1937 and it is $111 today.
One could go on, Mr. Speaker, but I think I have said enough to give some examples of the complete failure of the Maritime Freight Rates Act to operate under existing conditions. There are other phases one could mention. As a matter of fact, I mentioned this back in 1951, so I think we have a legitimate grievance in suggesting it is time the government dealt with this matter.
This act does not apply to shipments going to the United States. It goes back to the time of the building of the Intercolonial Railway, when the Duncan commission felt we could have nothing except what we were logically entitled to as the result of confederation. Back at the time of confederation reciprocity with the United States had just been abrogated and the maritimes were shipping very little to the markets of Massachusetts and New England. In 1926 the Duncan commission said, "You cannot get any benefit
[Mr. Nowlan.f
from goods going into the United States". Today, of course, we are shipping large quantities of apples and vegetables, some lumber and tremendous quantities of fish into the New England states, and thus we should get the benefit of that act.
For some strange reason which no one has been able to determine the act has been administered so that it does not apply to goods moving by C.P.R. into Nova Scotia, coming over from Saint John to Digby. As a result goods moved over that route by the Canadian Pacific Railway into Nova Scotia are paying the highest rates in the maritimes. No change has been made so far and apparently no change is being contemplated by this government. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say the time has come when that act must be revised. It must be brought up to date and applied to give us that to which we are entitled.
We do not want that to which we are not entitled; not charity or grants in aid or assistance of any kind except the fundamental matters which were guaranteed by the British North America Act, recognized by a commission appointed by this government in 1926, and written into the preamble of the act, all of which have been lost through technological changes in transport and freight rates by two innovations:	(a) horizontal increases and
(b) by creating special rates to meet competition by water and truck. The situation today in the maritimes is much more adversely prejudiced by the act being in existence than it was 25 years ago before the act came into existence at all.
As I said, that is only the third matter I want to bring to the attention of the house at this time. It is a matter that was outstanding long before I came to the house. When I first came into the house in 1949 the then member for Cumberland, Mr. Percy Black, moved an amendment on going into supply. The government said it would take it under consideration and something would be done. This afternoon I was looking at the speech made by the then minister of transport, Mr. Chevrier, in which he admitted there had been difficulties in the administration of the act and said something must be done about it.
That took place in 1949, and this is 1956. Is there any reason one should not say that is a matter on which there is a justifiable complaint? We in the maritimes believe this government has failed in dealing with this problem and that it is necessary to have a new parliament elected with a fresh government to deal with this and a score of other problems which may or may not be raised during this debate.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I must say that to some extent I have enjoyed listening to the Leader of the Opposition make his annual speech concerning why the Senate should be reformed. Listening to his address I admit I thought a logical amendment would have been to the effect that it was resolved the government should bring in a bill to reform the Senate, but the Leader of the Opposition did not bring that in. I am not championing the cause of the Senate because I want to go there. I shall be in the House of Commons for as long a time as the people of Fort William want me to be here, and while I am here I will not be in the Senate.
If I had been a senator sitting up yonder looking down on the Commons during the pipe-line debate there is one question I would have asked myself: Why does the opposition not debate the bill? Why are they moving so many motions for the adjournment of the house, and why are they raising so many points of order and questions of privilege? Why do they not debate the bill?
I will admit, Mr. Speaker, that when the pipe-line bill went to the Senate the Senate debated the bill with dignity, and in proportion to their number they said more in the discussion of the bill than did the opposition here. The opposition in the Senate did not get angry and rush out into the aisle calling the other side names and doing other undignified things. I must also confess, Mr. Speaker, that during that fracas I was the only one on this side of the house who did not act with dignity. When an hon. member over yonder called out, "Throw out the mace", and then when the leader of the C.C.F. and other hon. members came out in the aisle like a howling mob, I must say I stepped out into the aisle and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, though I might have gone down under the advance of the members, somebody else would have known the reason before I would have allowed anybody to touch the mace. I think the Senate would be well advised to send a bill down to this house for the reform of the House of Commons, after what the members of the Senate saw take place here.
The policy of the government was that we would have an all-Canadian gas pipe line for Canada. That was expressed in the speech from the throne. One hon. member who was not a Liberal said to me, "If the government does not pass this bill, if it allows the opposition to defeat it in this respect, it is not fit to govern the country". But the opposition did not win this time, and I would just like to remind the opposition that those who came out into the aisle using language they
25, 1956	5349
Request for Election and Senate Reform would never use to their better halves will regret that scene as long as they live.
Perhaps the Senate does need some reform, but I am not going to go into that now. I am going to say, however, I think the government stands high in the estimation of the people of Canada, and I am going to allow a cabinet minister to prove that.


Mr. Montgomery:: Bring on an election if you think so.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I am not listening to any questions from the opposition when a man does not rise in his place. I was home in Fort William. If we had not passed the pipe-line bill I doubt that I could have been elected again there. Perhaps I could not be anyway. But that is the government policy. When I think of the government of Ontario to a man standing for this pipe line and then the opposition here trying to do everything possible to defeat it, I think there is another thought coming to the opposition.
As I have said, I shall allow a cabinet minister to show why the government is held in higher respect in Canada today than ever before. We have better times today than ever we had before; unemployment is low; and today we have an atmosphere in Canada that many other countries in the world would like to imitate.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: The
motion of non-confidence that the leader of the official opposition moved reads:
In the opinion of this house the Prime Minister should give immediate consideration to the advisability of bringing about the dissolution of this parliament and the calling of a general election as soon as possible.
It is one in which every Canadian should be most vitally interested. I listened with some interest to what he had to say with respect to the reform of the Senate. I must say that possibly much of what he said thereto was called for, and that our upper chamber was drastically in need of some reform. I am satisfied, too, that possibly the senators themselves desire certain changes to be brought about in the operation of that august chamber. However, I do not view this amendment as one that would be a vote of confidence in the government; rather I think it would indicate that it is a vote of confidence in democracy itself.
It would seem to me that here we have many instances where a minority group feels that because it has not had its way, the government is not rightfully in office. I listened with a great deal of interest some days ago when the Leader of the Opposition spoke in respect to the vote of censure on Mr. Speaker. The only fault I heard him find,
5350	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform was that Mr. Speaker admitted he had made a mistake and was trying to do something about it. I for one consider that when a man makes a mistake and is big enough in a chamber such as this to admit he has made a mistake, he should be given credit and not censured for it.
In dealing with the trans-Canada pipeline bill the official opposition and the C.C.F. apparently were ill-disposed to feel that the bill was a good one for this country. They have a right to their opinions, but I wish they had said more about the bill at that time and less about the rules of procedure, and had let us discover what they had to offer in place of it. Then possibly some of us might have been more prone to support them in that particular case.
In respect to the matter of education, raised earlier by one of the members of the Conservative group, I think he indicated he felt that the federal government should do more in respect to education. I have supported from time to time a plea that the federal government should assist in education to a greater degree than it is doing today, especially in the higher grades. That would not be a mistake. However, it would be a mistake on the part of this parliament to foist its ideas upon any of the provinces that do not wish us to assist in education at the federal level, and for that reason I again feel, much as I would like to see assistance in the education field by the federal authority, that it is impossible for me to agree that it should be forced upon any group in this country that does not wish it.
The future of democracy will not be met by this bigoted action but, I should say, rather by a moral acceptance of the responsibility of each member of this house that he has a job to do here. His job in the opposition, I should say, is to try to persuade the government that what it is doing is wrong and possibly might be amended, but certainly not to tell this country that after a government has been elected by the people for an understandable period of four or five years if it so wishes, it must do as the minority says it should do or else go to the country every time there is a contentious measure.
A year ago we in this group most heartily supported the opposition in respect to the defence production bill. Even on that issue, however, unless the people of this country are stirred up to the extent that they show they are absolutely opposed to the reigning government, I feel that no election is called for and we should carry on in a practicable way and let democracy function as it is
[Mr. Hahn.l

intended to function, by the rule of the majority and not by the rule of the minority.
I think it is to our discredit that we should say that we as M.P.'s are not exercising the authority that is vested in the office we hold; that some of us are voting for a particular political machine. I am satisfied that each member of this house, including each of the hon. members on this side, when they took the oath of office agreed they would do as their conscience bade them, and I am not going to accuse anybody of not having done so. If it would appear that certain members have followed in the footsteps of their leaders and followed their suggestions, it may be that persuasion was the driving force that caused it. It is not a force of fists, but possibly a force of words and explanations that showed them the merits of what they were voting for.	.
The fact is that I find in my own area at least, for that is the area from which I get most of my correspondence, that there is no extreme discontent, and I consider that would be the prime reason for any election to be held in this country. Certainly at this time, in considering what has taken place in this country, no matter how badly we feel about the events that have taken place I cannot see sufficient reason for calling an election and so doing us out of the proper field of democracy as it is expected to function. Probably I should be the last to suggest that we should not have an election, for I am possibly one of the very few in this house who at this time have been favoured with a nomination to contest the next election. Personally I would be quite ready for it, but I see no reason for it. I am satisfied that those who are clamouring the most for it would be the most disappointed should the government call an election immediately.


An hon. Member:: Nomination does not mean election.


Frederick George Hahn: I take note of the interjection with respect to nomination not meaning election. There is no one more aware than I am of the fact that nomination does not mean election. I was one of the few who were declared defeated and later elected in the last election. However, it will remain for my constituents to decide, and I will be prepared to let them decide the issue in due course. But I do not consider that this is the proper time for such an election.
The question of freight rates was raised. As the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings did, I should also like to indicate that I am quite opposed to the latest increase in the freight rate structure of this country. It is true that the board of transport commissioners

determined that a 7 per cent hoist in rates at the present time was quite justified, having regard to the increases in wages that were given to certain railway employees. However, freight rates play such an integral part in this nation, especially in the parts that are distant from Ottawa and the central provinces, that they have a material effect upon the cost of living; in fact to such a degree that I am satisfied the whole nation may well suffer if we continue to have increases in freight rates every time there is an increase in wages.
Agriculture in Canada has suffered badly during the past few years. We have been told by members of all parties, and the statistics bear it out, that agriculture is suffering more at the present time and also suffered more last year than at any time since the depression years. In British Columbia we have a strong agricultural industry. It is the third major industry of the province, being surpassed only by logging and mining. There are certain branches of agriculture in that province which require a great deal of wheat.
I refer to the poultry, dairying, pork and beef industries. We are not primarily a graingrowing area, so we have to import a great deal of grain into the province from our neighbours.
The increase in the price of grain brought about by the 7 per cent increase in freight rates is merely going to put our farmers into a 14 per cent cost squeeze. The farmer will have to pay 7 per cent more on domestic grain coming into his area and an additional 7 per cent on the other goods he has to purchase. The two combined add to 14 per cent. There is also the fact that we have to compete with produce coming into the province from outside markets, particularly from our neighbours to the south. Other countries are also favoured under the export freight rate, which makes a big difference with respect to the cost of production so far as poultry, pork, beef and dairy production particularly are concerned in the province of British Columbia.
A year ago or more, I believe it was in February, the government saw fit by regulation to reduce by $5 a ton the subsidy on feed grain coming into our area, and it now becomes apparent that whereas heretofore our farmers were just able to make ends meet, they are going to have to pay an additional 7 per cent for feed, which is going to put them in a position where they just cannot carry on any longer.
In my opinion an examination of railway operation methods is desirable at this time. It is desirable because we find that the railways today are giving agreed charges to certain particular industries in order that the
Request for Election and Senate Reform railways may compete more favourably with the trucking industry and so get revenue they would otherwise lose. These agreed charges can run into the thousands, although they may not run that high at the present time, but by having more and more agreed charges it means that some other part of our economy must pay the difference between what the railways were previously getting from freight and what they are going to get in the future.
In other words, if we have a thousand agreed charges set up by the railways then products that can only be hauled by rail, such as grain or heavy steel products, must pay additional freight and thereby offset the loss under the agreed charges. During the discussion in the special committee this year of the affairs of the Canadian National Railways I remember quite well asking Donald Gordon where these agreed charges were in effect, how they became compensatory and how it was decided whether such rates applied between Hamilton and Toronto, Hamilton and Montreal, or any other two points. We always arrived at the same answer, that it was impossible to determine the exact cost from point to point. If it is impossible to determine that, how do we know that we are not losing money on agreed charges? If we are losing money on these agreed charges in order to be competitive with the trucking industry, and at the same time are taking business away from that industry, then certainly there is not sufficient derived from the grain trade at the old rate to keep up the revenue.
Therefore it becomes necessary in my opinion to examine again the problem of the railways, their handling of the business of this country and the special agreements they make with other industries in order to transport a major part of their goods and gain revenue that would otherwise go to truckers. I say that the farmer in British Columbia and in the maritimes is subsidizing the agreed charges, and we must not carry on in that fashion any longer.
It is high time we looked into this matter and stopped this indiscriminate method of just slapping on a 7 per cent or 15 per cent increase in freight rates in order to meet certain losses. It is time our railway industry woke up as to what its problem is, and it is not just the single problem of carrying freight at a nominal charge. There should be special privilege for none.
In the province of British Columbia we have other subsidiary industries that are going to be affected by the 7 per cent increase in freight rates. We have the gluten and adhesives industries. We have the edible
5352	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform starches, macaroni and paste foods, distillery products and other industries. With respect to the macaroni industry may I say that we had three or four factories not so many years ago that were busy all the time. Today we have but one. It is a plant which would normally keep 300 people busy. Today we find just a handful of employees working in that particular industry. The British Columbia farmers must compete with United States producers. They must compete with the foreign market completely.
We have the two freight rates. We have the domestic rate and the export rate in this country on our wheat, and this is what we find. I have a table which I took from a report given to the board of transport commissioners by the British Columbia government on February 7 of this year-it is known as Exhibit "C"-in which they take certain terminal points and discover the various costs in respect of the handling of grain. This is what we find. We find that the number of miles a car travelled to go to British Columbia was 780; the average number of tons per car was 50; and the average revenue per car was $571. These figures-the revenue figure of $571 and the mileage of 780-are important.
Transposing that, we find the following comparative rates. Exhibit "D" of that same report would indicate that on a 700 mile haul -taking other items as examples, in carload lots-aircraft parts would be carried for 700 miles for $330 as compared with $512 which might be computed on a 700-mile basis for wheat on the domestic freight rate. Ammunition pays slightly more by the carload for hauling on that same basis; it pays $660. And so we could go through this whole chart. I find, for instance, large bottles-breakable glass-being hauled over a distance of 700 miles for $369.60 while on the other hand we have $512 which must be paid for hauling wheat which is needed in order to keep our industry in operation on the west coast.
On the next page we have shown the revenue per car on coconut shells and skins, $327; ores and concentrates, $545-they too pay more-some grain products, $356; other grain, $396; hydrated lime, $320.40; old rails, $445. From studying these figures, Mr. Speaker, it becomes apparent that wheat, a commodity which is so simple to handle, is paying a rate out of all proportion as compared with that on any other product in this country for hauling to the west coast.
Exhibit "E" of this same brief deals with varying classes of freight and the distance hauled. I am just going to read one or two of these examples to illustrate the point. The chart is headed "Average revenue per car by classes compared with yield from domestic 

grain rates". First-class rate, special type, number of cars 89; revenue, $33,295; average revenue per car, $373; average haul, 731 miles. Mr. Speaker, on grain for domestic purposes, on that same basis, the revenue per car was $590. In other words we pay $217 more for the hauling of grain to be used to be fed to our stock in our poultry industry, our cattle industry and our dairying industry. Wheat pays $217 more than does the first-class freight into that particular area. The fact is that out of the ten examples we find given here, there are only two which pay more than wheat for domestic purposes.
Exhibit "G" is another of these charts which indicates a comparison of refrigerated and heated car prices as compared with domestic grain revenue. We find the cost for carrying commodities such as eggs, dressed poultry, cured meat, butter, cheese and so on. They are carried under very difficult circumstances. Yet in the case of eggs the revenue per car is $348; in the case of dressed poultry and dressed meat it is $350; cured meat, $382; butter, $320; cheese, $384; sheep, goats, cattle, hogs, $200; domestic grain, $540. In other words it costs more than twice as much to carry grain to the Pacific coast for the purpose of raising cattle and hogs than it does to send the animals themselves to the Pacific coast. That is something Mr. Speaker, that I consider is definitely wrong.
Earlier I indicated that I was opposed to the calling of an election on the premise the Leader of the Opposition indicated. While this is a particular problem that is prevalent in the province of British Columbia, and one which I am satisfied this government must examine into if they are going to keep the people of British Columbia happy and not discontented, at the same time it is not of such an extreme nature at this time, because the people in my province have not been stirred up to the degree that they feel that this government should be forced out of office after three years because they have not found a better solution to our rail problem in this country.
I would not agree that the government should permit an increase of 7 per cent in freight rates. I will not vote for such a thing. However, I am forced into the unhappy position where if I vote for the resolution I defeat my own purpose. As I said earlier, it is not in my opinion a motion of censure on the government, but is a motion of censure on democracy itself. I agree with democracy and believe in democracy; therefore as an individual I shall have to vote against the amendment.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, from listening to the young gentleman from British Columbia-and it was quite an interesting experience-I am not sure whether he realizes what he is here for. To hear him talk you would think that he was on the government benches. Judging from the remarks he has just made he does not realize that he is here for one purpose, namely as the representative of his people-a status he acquired the day after the election was over-in order to be the censor of this government and on all occasions to bring up everything necessary to throw not only this government but any government out of power after any length of time, whenever they deserve to be thrown out of power for mismanagement of the country's affairs.
He says the government are entitled, by virtue of their election, to a four-year term. Mr. Speaker, imagine a member of parliament saying that.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: He was trying to be fair. You could not understand that.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: If I cannot, then nobody can. I am positive you could not enlighten anybody on anything yourself. We will hear you later and let you struggle and try to demonstrate your great ability to explain anything. At the end of it nobody will know anything. Thank you.


Charles Edward Johnston: You are welcome.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, after that rude interruption I shall proceed. I shall endeavour to teach one of that gentleman's cohorts his position in parliament. His position in the opposition is to do everything in his power to enlighten the public. If he thinks the government is wrong, whether it has been in power for a week or for four years he has the right to call for an election. He should not sit back and say they have been elected for four years, because that is not so. A government is not elected for four years or four months-


An hon. Member:: For five years.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: -it is elected at the discretion of the public. The public will vote the government out if they see fit. The Leader of the Opposition has every right in the world, as has every man in this house, to call upon the Prime Minister, if he sees fit, to call an election. He may be wrong, but he has the right to say that the country has no confidence in this government and to ask the Prime Minister to adjourn the house and call an election; let the public decide. Now, the Prime Minister will decide whether or not that shall
Request for Election and Senate Reform be done, but everybody in this house has a right to voice his opinion. This closure procedure has even reached the Social Crediters. They have even closed their own mouths for a period of four years.


Charles Edward Johnston: They were the ones who would let your member speak, when you would not; don't forget that.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I always like to let somebody speak who can speak. We have heard you speak twice during my brief-


Charles Edward Johnston: I was just trying to help you out.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: -remarks. I have been here 12 years, and I did not need your help.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is gratis.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Everything you get for nothing is not worth a cent, so we all know what it is worth. I wish that from now on you would refrain from speaking and let the public enjoy themselves. I would think we need an opportunity to consult the people on the serious questions confronting Canada today, and for these reasons. Never in its history has Canada enjoyed the prosperity it is enjoying today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Look who gave it to you. Look who put the oil in the Alberta sand. Look who put the iron in the rocks of Quebec. As I said before, God had nothing to do with it; they did it all.
Now, we are enjoying the greatest prosperity we have ever had. The banks in Canada have been making more money. Last year was the greatest year in their history. Industry is busy. You cannot find labour. We have a country here that deserves a population now of 16 million, and if it were not for the lack of foresight of our forefathers, my own included, this country would have had 16 million people. This country would not be looking to a foreign country to defend it. We would not be making a loan of $119 million to a foreign country to build a pipe line across Canada if our forefathers had proceeded as they should have. I am talking about my own forefathers who sat in this house and the legislatures before this.
This government has about the same kind of vision. It should have a vision for the future. It is all very well to sit back and say we are enjoying great prosperity. Is that our yardstick, that we are enjoying prosperity? The yardstick of this country, based on the natural wealth we have discovered in the last 10 years, should have no limits. Immigration has been tossed around
S354	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform like a wet rag by every minister this government has had since 1945. It has been the sick dog that nobody wanted; give it to the other fellow. Each one has made a greater mess of it. Here we find ourselves in a great era of prosperity saying that we must charge the man who wants to build a home in Canada more interest. We must curtail these ambitious persons. On the one hand we talk about our progress and our wealth, the position Canada holds in this world, and on the other hand we are formulating the idea of burdening the home owner. That is one reason I say the government should not be in power today, but it is not the only reason.
Then we find a man who has borrowed money from coast to coast in this country. During the period of the loan he gets a very curt letter from his bank advising him that the bank is going to raise the interest rate. In the same note they give the reason for that, practically saying that it is on orders from your government. They are not going to live up to this contract; they are going to take a half of one per cent more on the loan that they agreed upon. They are going to put another burden on his shoulders during this great period of prosperity.
We are going to stop inflation. We are going to give the stockholders of the banks of Canada additional dividends. If they do not have the dividends they are going to have permission to buy up every vacant corner in Canada and build banks on them in order to squander the earnings forced upon them by this government. That is another reason why this government should not be in power.
There is too much control in the hands of the few banks in Canada. One bank has 600 or 700 branches across Canada. They write a letter to a young man who calls himself a bank manager in an area where we might discover oil or some other commodity in a year or two, and they limit his discretion. The manager may have knowledge of the integrity of the borrower, but they impose a rule of thumb by saying to the manager, "Your limit is $1,000." If he dares exceed it he loses his job, his pension and everything else. This does not enable a man to develop his brains. This is only a suggestion, but I would suggest that all banks in Canada should be made to have a director who resides within the province, in order that the director's nose would be close to where the money is needed. These banks are controlled from Montreal or Toronto.
A gentleman may live in Saskatchewan or Alberta because he believes that is the best place in which to live. He may go to IMr. Ferguson.]

the bank manager to borrow money but the bank manager will say, "No matter how much I feel you are worth, no matter how much I know from general observation that you will succeed, I can only lend you $500. I must send a letter down to head office to get you $625." It is a time for expansion in our great country. It is time a great country like Canada broke those shackles and went on with the prosperity that God gave us. Do not do like our forefathers did. There were many things we adopted from the old country that were great anchors and formed great foundations, and we should still remember them and use them for all they are worth, but we should develop some new ideas. This is a new country so far as development is concerned.
We should have an official in charge of immigration who is scheming and planning and successfully bringing immigrants of all classes and creeds into this country. We are short of labour in Canada today. We are lacking good competition owing to the shortage of labour. This country has been built largely on immigrants, the type who work. Surely when we are at the height of our prosperity that is not the time to tell the world we do not want them. We have missed the boat-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That is why you just got back.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: -on first class, selected people who have wanted to come here in the past 10 years. What is happening today? The people we wanted, the people we needed, are not permitted to leave their own countries because those countries are so busy. The present government had not faith enough to see or believe that this country would need manpower. Now we are curtailing construction. The brains that should be used in progress are now being used to curtail construction. Today the Minister of Finance spoke about 2J per cent interest rates in New York and 3 per cent rates in Minnesota. What has Minnesota to do with the Dominion of Canada?


Walter Edward Harris: Because of the federal reserve bank. That is what I was talking about.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Let me say this to the Minister of Finance. The banks of Canada will not take and pay interest on millions of European dollars that want to come out here for investment purposes. That is the situation. I would ask the Minister of Finance whether he can tell this house right now if any foreign bank or citizen wishes to deposit with or lend to any Canadian bank the sum of $2 million, will they pay 1J per cent on that money? Can the minister answer that question?


Walter Edward Harris: I will not answer it now.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I know they will not, and I believe the minister knows they will not, but he is not quite sure and therefore he is quite right not to answer. I know they will not take a deposit of $1 million from a foreigner and pay him 1-J per cent interest. We are short of capital and foreigners want to invest in this country, but the banks will not pay interest on the money. The Bank of Canada should take that money and lend it to further justifiable projects.
That is the reason I call this government a gumbo government. May I say to those who do not know what it means that in the western provinces there is a soil that when you get into it you get mired and you cannot go anywhere. Progress stops. This government reminds me of a democrat and a pair of horses on the prairie out in the gumbo. They cannot get out and they cannot go any farther. They are gumboed by prosperity. Their great effort is to get out of the prosperity by increasing the interest rates, by decreasing the loans and by working in with the United States and charging a rate of interest equal to that charged in Montana. Montana is not Canada. Montana is not enjoying the prosperity of Canada. Montana has not the riches Canada has. There is no resemblance in the two pictures.
We are a nation on our own, and it is time we took the bit in our teeth and went forward. I am a Canadian who loves this country; I am a Canadian who wants my people to go forward. Whenever I hear of a discovery of natural resources I say, "This is my Canada". When I see shackles put on people in any way, shape or form, and on young people who are the future leaders in this country, I say this government has been in office long enough and I shall do everything within my power to see that it goes out as quickly as possible.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in supporting the motion of the Leader of the Opposition that this government has lost the confidence of the people of Canada, I intend to show that this is particularly true in the maritime provinces. The New Brunswick election of June 18 has come and gone, and a great many things will be read into the sweeping Conservative victory of that day. I suppose some will say it was the personality of the premier and the other candidates. Others may say it was organization.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: No; it was Tom Bell.


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. member for Charlotte has certainly an awful lot of nerve to make 67509-339
Request for Election and Senate Reform any reference at all to the New Brunswick election after what he said.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I must rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Charlotte said not a word.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Don't blow your top. I did not say a word.


Thomas Miller Bell: All I can say to the Minister of Public Works is that he may get his own due in Nova Scotia some time this year or next spring. I do apologize to the hon. member for Charlotte, because I know he would be much wiser than to say anything.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: On a question of privilege; it is not that I would be much wiser not to say anything. The fact is, I did not say anything. I shall have something to say later.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Speaker:: Before allowing the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) to resume his speech, it has been brought to my attention that this afternoon while participating in this debate the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) made some reference to myself when I was away from the chair. I asked for the transcript of Hansard, and I find that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said this:
I want to say that you, Mr. Speaker-
Referring to the Deputy Speaker.
-were in the chair and the Speaker-
Referring to myself.
-also occupied the chair during part of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition and while I am glad the Leader of the Opposition was able to place on record the editorials to which he referred, I say that in placing those editorials before the house and putting them on the record the rules of the house were clearly violated and neither you nor Mr. Speaker-
Talking about myself.
-dared to rise and interrupt the Leader of the Opposition and call him to order.
I notice that just prior to that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, while the Leader of the Opposition was speaking and was quoting from the printed Journals of the Senate, asked:
What time did the Senate adjourn?
I did not hear that interjection by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, which occurred
5356	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform much prior to the time the Leader of the Opposition began quoting from editorials, the first quotation being from an editorial in the Toronto Daily Star; therefore, not being in the house, how could I have attended to a violation of the rule and how could I have not dared to rise and interrupt the Leader of the Opposition and call him to order? I should just like to clarify the record in this respect.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, before supper I did not do very well-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Miller Bell: -in my reference to an interruption. I confused the Lunenburg twang of the Minister of Public Works and the American-influenced drawl of the hon. member for Charlotte with a well-known interrupter from the western provinces, and I wish to apologize for referring to them in that regard.
As I was saying, however, the New Brunswick election was perhaps not a great surprise but it did show the feeling we have in New Brunswick toward the interest of the present federal government. No individual, with the possible exception of the premier, had a great bearing or influence on the results, and I think there was a noticeable trend as the election approached toward the attention or lack of attention we get in New Brunswick and the maritimes generally from the federal government.
If an election were called, Mr. Speaker, as is suggested by the Leader of the Opposition in his motion, I say that New Brunswick, and I think the other maritime provinces, would vote against this government and its so-called policies. It is not so much the discrimination and the lack of attention, perhaps, as the runaround we get with our proposals. Then afterwards comes the old salt in our wounds treatment, and it is rubbed into us as we go along trying to catch the elusive bait. It is somewhat like losing a deposit at election time when you know you did not have a chance anyway.
There is some history to this and I could go back over quite a few years, but the point I have in mind is illustrated very nicely by a statement made by the Prime Minister recently to the labour convention at Toronto. I was at this convention sitting there listening to his remarks on labour, and all of a sudden out of the blue came a reference by the Prime Minister to the maritime economic situation. I do not have the exact report, but the press quotes the Prime Minister as using these words:
.	.	. economic redevelopment of the Atlantic
provinces deserves consideration.


That was the first reference; later on the Prime Minister said:
. . . special measures should perhaps be taken to improve the economy of the Atlantic provinces. This merits and is receiving attention from many of us. However, the initiative and the ideas, the energies and the determination to accomplish this redevelopment cannot originate in other parts of Canada; they must come from the Atlantic area.
The first part, where the Prime Minister recognizes the fact that we do need consideration in our economic development, is appreciated. We marvel at the innocent candor of it; we marvel at the fact that the Prime Minister is so late in recognizing this need; we wonder where his advice has been. We appreciate that these are the words of the Prime Minister, and the intention must be taken for granted. The respect the Prime Minister held at that time was possibly a little different from what it is now, but I have no quarrel with the thought behind those words.
The second part of the statement does give me some difficulty. First of all there is the fact that the Prime Minister suggests that we do not have and have not shown the initiative and energy in the past; that is confusing to me, and I could not let that part of his statement go unchallenged. There is also the fact that all the initiative must come from the maritimes rather than Ottawa itself showing some interest; that is another part of his statement the tone and inference of which I do not like. There is the further implication in his words that we must again come to Ottawa, when we decide what we have in mind, with our hat in hand. I do not like that principle, Mr. Speaker.
When the proposal was made and when we heard about it in the maritimes, there was generally a good response to it and it was a non-political response; I want that on the record. The premiers of all the provinces have shown a willingness to get together to see what can be done. They take this as a good omen for the future. The various boards of trade, the maritime transportation commission and A.P.E.C., the new Atlantic provinces economic council, have all increased their own interest as well. Even the few Liberals who are left in the opposition in New Brunswick have shown an interest in this and have gone on record as supporting it. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the latter part of the Prime Minister's words go unchallenged when he suggests that energies and initiative have been lacking in the past, and that we must come again with our hat in hand to Ottawa.
I ask the house tonight, Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister not heard of our efforts in the past with respect to various phases of

federal aid? Has the Prime Minister not heard of Passamaquoddy, that project between New Brunswick and the United States that harnesses the tides which would give us power, the dream of the fabulous Dexter Cooper of the 1920's? The United States government have not followed along as well as they should, but they are moving on it. Canada now is forced to take part at least in investigations of that project.
Has the Prime Minister not heard of the Chignecto canal project, that shortcut between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick that would mean so much to coastwise trade, that project that has been talked about since the late nineteenth century?
Has the Prime Minister not heard of our efforts to obtain atomic power plants in the maritimes? Nova Scotia, hard up as it is for power, approached the federal government very early in the proceedings with a request that it be given first consideration for an atomic plant there. New Brunswick is on the list, too, but what happened? It went to Ontario again. We are still on the list.
How about the dominion-provincial conference? Does the Prime Minister not remember the proposals we made there? Nova Scotia and New Brunswick again were in substantial agreement on the fiscal need factor. They asked only that the income of the maritimes be brought up to 85 per cent of the national average. Surely that is not too much to ask. That was another proposal about which it would appear the Prime Minister did not hear.
How about the coal industry and the efforts that have been made by Nova Scotia to obtain some help there? How about the request that we have made so many times for protection, for the protected industries to use Canadian ports instead of New York and other United States ports? How about the request we made for consideration for defence industry? Has the Prime Minister not heard of those proposals? Does he suggest, in his words to the labour convention at Toronto, that we did not make efforts during the war and afterward to obtain some defence industry?
Then, of course, there are the various appeals that have been made by the members from the maritimes over the years. I think those words are almost an insult to the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), 21 years here, speaking time and time again of the various needs. Yet it would appear that the Prime Minister had never heard of any of them, when he said at the Toronto convention that the initiative and energy must come from ourselves.
25, 1956	5357
Request for Election and Senate Reform
Then, of course, there is the final red herring and the final smokescreen with regard to the request of the New Brunswick government to obtain much-needed financial assistance for its power development. I refer specifically to the Beechwood project. I am going to take a minute to dwell on this, to show the way this government has confused and misled everybody with respect to this. We came up here in 1952 or thereabouts with this Beechwood proposal. True, we may not have been definite at that time. It was impossible to be definite about some of the various financial requirements that we might have, but it was an unpartisan approach. We gave credit to the old Liberal government in the province, which made some of the initial investigation.
We came here, we thought we saw the right people and we did the best we could. The thing has gone on and on. It reminds me of a fisherman who has a baited hook. Just as we get up to it, it is pulled a little further away and we lose sight of it. Then of course, the bait has been changed on the hook, and there have been different fishermen. I come to three statements that I think are pertinent and show the confusion that exists. They show the way the maritimes are misled and mixed up in these matters. We came up here with this Beechwood project, a project that is similar to the seaway and the pipe line. We have been all through that. This is the treatment we got. There were no efforts made in the house by the responsible ministers from New Brunswick or from the other parts of the maritimes on the treasury benches. The first we heard about it was in a radio broadcast made some two years ago by the Minister of Labour, and this is what he said about our request.
Labour Minister Gregg told New Brunswick by radio Sunday the federal government can't help the province finance the Beechwood hydroelectric project on the St. John river.
He said in his report from Parliament Hill that since confederation such matters have been reserved to the provinces.
There is the first reference. The Minister of Labour, our representative from New Brunswick in the federal cabinet, fell back on constitutional grounds.
The next reference that is important came on January 26 this year, when the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud), asked a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage). I shall not go into the question, but it dealt with the possibility of obtaining co-operation, and particularly financial co-operation, in the development of the Saint John river. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National
5358	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform Resources at that time fell back on the fact that we had not made a substantial request. I have the latest request here, and it certainly seems definite to me. That was another red herring and another act of confusion.
The final outrage in the whole treatment by the cabinet of this serious request of ours, which meant so much for our future, was given by the Prime Minister on May 8 in answer to a question by the hon. member for Royal. The Prime Minister at that time- I do not know whether it was through ignorance or in a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue again-referred to the fact that a loan had been undertaken. There has not been any loan undertaken by anybody, as far as I can find out, in connection with Beechwood. Then the discussion went on with respect to the loan for the Beechwood project. The Beechwood project has not been financed; the provincial government have gone ahead with it but they are meeting the cost from year to year out of their ordinary capital commitments.
I say that because I think it shows the confusion this government has always attempted to convey in connection with any legitimate requests of the maritime provinces. I mention this seriously because I feel that it is the reason there is such growing unrest in the maritimes against the policies of this government.
All the time the ministers were making these statements, the deputy minister of finance, in open letters to the government, was suggesting that it was economically feasible that Beechwood be proceeded with. Then the other part of the government which deals with such matters, the joint commission headed by General McNaughton, had this to say. In the committee on external affairs last year General McNaughton said that, as an individual, he saw no reason why Ottawa should not help New Brunswick in obtaining power. He said:
After all. what have we got confederation for?
These are the reasons why, if an election were held tomorrow, the people of New Brunswick would show their indignation. Then I have another quotation from General McNaughton yesterday:
The rapid construction of Beechwood following the recommendation of the international joint commission was a courageous act.
He gives us credit. A servant of the crown gives us credit for going ahead and attempting this development on our own. I suggest that this new statement the Prime Minister has made is another smokescreen and another red herring. We are taking advantage of it because we do not want to be accused of missing anything. I hope there is sincerity


and good intention behind it, but I say to all the members in attendance this evening that if this house were dissolved tomorrow and an election held, the province of New Brunswick would vote 100 per cent against this government and the lack of attention they have given to our proposals. I would be willing to wager that the other maritime provinces would vote substantially the same way.


An hon. Member:: Put up your money.


Thomas Miller Bell: What is the reason behind this, Mr. Speaker? There is only one reason. The government has failed to recognize that Canada's resources should be developed by Canadians in every part of Canada. That is the crux of the whole complaint. There is a serious undertone in the air in the maritimes today. It is the reason Premier Hugh John Flemming was returned in the New Brunswick provincial election last week. He recognizes the principle that this government does not appreciate for one minute. That principle concerns the development of the resources of our province. The federal government does not appreciate that it should assist in such development in every part of this country.
The principle was established when we assisted jointly with the trans-Canada pipe line. It was also enunciated in the same degree when we went along with federal assistance to the St. Lawrence seaway. We have come forward now with our request, and it bears repeating and repeating because some people here cannot seem to understand what we want and they seem to throw up roadblocks and smokescreens. We want the same consideration in our part of the country that these other sections of the country are now receiving. I say that has not been given to us.
I go along with the motion of the Leader of the Opposition that the house should be dissolved so the people can voice their indignation against such sectional, discriminatory policies. This is the same old Liberalism to me. I do not care if it is Liberalism in New Brunswick or Liberalism across Canada. It is that Liberalism that thrives on sectionalism, on playing one part of the country against the other. We saw it in the election in New Brunswick. They pitted Saint John against Fredericton, one end of the country against the other, and when they attempt to do it in Canada by assisting in developing one part and not developing others it has the same old smell to me.
Finally, I say the government are on the wrong track. They refuse to recognize that this is a great country. We have a great future, and we have to go along with it. If

the maritimes only want 85 per cent of the national average income I say they should get it, and we are going to voice our opinions this fall if this motion does not go through.


Mr. Speaker:: I feel I must say a few words. The Leader of the Opposition made a speech this afternoon, part of which I listened to and the other part of which I have read. He spoke about Senate reform. He spoke about proceedings in the Senate and proceedings in this house, and concluded with a motion which reads as follows:
In the opinion of this house the Prime Minister should give immediate consideration to the advisability of bringing about the dissolution of this parliament and the calling of a general election as soon as possible.
I have listened reverently to the speech just made by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. He spoke of several projects which are of great interest to his native province and to the maritime provinces generally. I did not hear him say anything about the main subject which led to the motion that was moved as a grievance. I heard him refer to the Beechwood project, which I think was one of the hydroelectric projects included in a grievance motion earlier this session together with other similar projects, and therefore a matter which had already been discussed. But 1 will grant him this, that there might have been some new facts come to light since and therefore it might have been worth while airing them. But I am in the same position as I was in 1955. I see that citation 467 says:
Whenever an order of the day has been read for the house to resolve itself into the committee of supply or the committee of ways and means, the motion "That the Speaker do now leave the chair" must be proposed, except on Thursday and Friday as provided by standing order 28.
That part has been changed by a new standing order. Anyway, I continue:
When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance, and it is not necessary to move an amendment for that purpose; provided that the discussion and the amendment, if one is moved, shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means, nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
Then citation 468 reads:
It sometimes happens, on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for committee of supply, that members air grievances without moving amendments. A member may speak on railway rates, another on naturalization, and so on. Five or six different matters may then be brought to the government's attention. But no member is allowed to speak more than once on the motion. He cannot discuss all the matters which may then come up, and when he has spoken on one of them
25, 1956	5359
Request for Election and Senate Reform he has exhausted his right to speak to the motion before the house, namely, "That the Speaker do now leave the chair".
It appears to me that if we are to follow the subjects that have been introduced so far during the debate, which is supposed to be one on a specific grievance, we can speak about Senate reform, we can speak about proceedings in this house and the proceedings in the Senate on the pipe-line bill, we can speak on all the projects which are of interest to the maritime provinces, as outlined by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, and there may have been other hon. members who have spoken and discussed other matters but whom I did not have the chance to listen to because I was absent from the chair from 3.30 until six o'clock.
Hon. members will remember that in 1955 the hon. member for Prince Albert made a speech on wheat and concluded with a motion having to do with the South Saskatchewan river dam. Members were puzzled. They did not know what they were going to speak about, whether they could speak on the South Saskatchewan river dam or on wheat or on both subjects at the same time. An arrangement was reached at that time whereby we would deal with the river dam project and later with wheat. That discussion of order, as it took place, appears at pages 3790 and 3791 of Hansard of May 16, 1955.
I expressed the view at that time that we should not get into another budget debate. I realize that this is the fifth supply motion and that there is just one left. Supply motions are opposition motions; they are want of confidence motions. There is no doubt in my mind that this amendment, as it is brought forward at the moment and as it is being interpreted by those who have taken part in the debate, does take in too much territory. In other words, during the rest of today and tomorrow we can have on this motion a miniature budget debate, and all this for the purpose of calling an election.
There is another point I want to warn the house against, and it is the terms of the motion itself. Should this motion carry the house would resolve that in the opinion of this house the Prime Minister should give immediate consideration to the advisability of bringing about the dissolution of this parliament and the calling of a general election as soon as possible. I do not make this a major point, but I submit it to hon. members.
There are certain prerogatives attached to the office of the Prime Minister, and one of those is to advise that parliament be dissolved and a general election be called. According to the citations I have just read, is this matter, that is the exercise of the
5360	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform prerogative of the Prime Minister, one which comes within the jurisdiction of the house or is it one which comes within the category of affairs within the administration of the government?
I have made these observations not for the purpose of ruling the amendment out of order and not for the purpose of curtailing the discussion, but merely to warn that in the future if a similar motion were to be made under similar circumstances, with a speech of a certain type leading to the motion and other members speaking on many other subject matters; if it should come up again I may be in a position to deal with it. I hope that in the meantime I shall have had a chance to study the situation as it is presented and perhaps make a ruling.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, while the last
speaker was addressing the house I was of course reminded of the fact that both he and I are interested in certain parts of the country where there have been elections recently.


An hon. Member:: Not with the same result.


James Garfield Gardiner: While he had the privilege of assisting a government back into office, I had the opportunity to try to put one out, but was not successful.


An hon. Member:: That is putting it mildly.


James Garfield Gardiner: I took a considerable part in that campaign and was pleased to find, when I got back, that one of the important duties I performed while there brought forth quite an editorial in the local Conservative paper. I may say to begin with that the editor of the local paper is a personal friend of mine, in spite of the fact that we do not belong to the same political party.
He took the trouble to point out that I had been putting up bills. After all, putting up bills is an important part of a campaign, as a rule; and I must admit that I spent part of my time in putting up bills. But I had another matter in mind rather than just the matter of putting up bills. In the days when I came into politics first we had only two parties in Canada. When we put up bills our opposition left them up and when our opposition put up bills, we left them up. But in recent years we have had the experience that when we put up bills, they seemed to disappear; and I had the idea that maybe somebody took them down. Hence when I was out there in the campaign this time I took some equipment along with me


and I put up a few bills myself. Then I drove around again the day after the election and I found that they were still all up.
I do not know whether or not it was some C.C.F. friend who reported back to Ottawa that I was out putting up bills and who might have been following me around, but I simply want to say that I am in doubt now as to whether the wind took the bills down in the past or whether somebody pulled them down. Those I put up-and I put them up in the proper way-stayed up. In that particular part of the country no C.C.F.'er was elected, so the bills might have had some effect.
The resolution before the house at the present time suggests that this government should go to the country. The motion of the Leader of the Opposition was as follows:
I therefore move, seconded by Mr. Diefenbaker: "That all the words after 'That' to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
in the opinion of this house the Prime Minister should give immediate consideration to the advisability of bringing about the dissolution of this parliament and the calling of a general election as soon as possible."
Your last remarks, Mr. Speaker, remind me of the fact that our system of government sets up a method under which elections must be called. The fact is that the only one who can form a government is an individual in the house who can command a majority of the membership of the house. It does not make any difference whether they are elected as Conservatives, C.C.F.'ers, Social Crediters, Liberals or what. If there is any individual in the house who can command a majority he is entitled to form a government, and he does so.
At the present time an appeal is made- and one was made the other day-to the Prime Minister to call an election. Surely there is not anyone in this house who contends that there is any other person in the house who can command a majority except the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: Go to the people and find out.


James Garfield Gardiner: Judging by what has happened in the past I think he would have good reason for believing that there is not much likelihood of an election bringing about any different result, namely that after the election the present Prime Minister would be the only one who could form a government.


An hon. Member:: Wishful thinking.


James Garfield Gardiner: Hence nothing much is going to be gained by yielding to the suggestion that we have an election.

The motion is based upon some remarks which were made by the Leader of the Opposition. He referred to a debate which had taken place in this house, but I think he lived within the rules in not quoting the debate and not trying to say what had been said during the debate. Probably that was just as well from his point of view, because in the period that I was here while that discussion was taking place I do not remember that anyone on the other side of the house said much about the pipe-line bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: Some of my hon. friends are beginning to look up their notes. If they said anything about the pipe-line bill, it was only for the purpose of hanging on it a point of order or something else in order to get a vote.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is one reason that is referred to as giving background for the calling of an election. The other is the possibility that something might have happened over in the Senate that gives some reason for discussion.


An hon. Member:: Something will happen over there.


James Garfield Gardiner: Let us see just what happened.


An hon. Member:: Nothing has happened there in years.


James Garfield Gardiner: Here is one thing that happened in the Senate:
If the house is not agreeable to third reading now, I suggest that we meet tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock. I do not want the charge to be laid against this house that the bill was forced through in one day. That just is not done.
Those are the words of the leader of the opposition in the Senate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They forced it through in two days.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then he went on to say this:
With the consent of the house may I say a word before we adjourn? I wish to thank the leader of the government for the splendid way in which he has conducted this committee of the whole. It has been a very great pleasure to all of us.
Apparently the leader of the opposition in the Senate does not agree with the Leader of the Opposition in this house. He maintains that the discussions were what was expected in the Senate, and he thanks the leader of the government in the Senate for having so conducted those discussions. I venture to say that the leader of the opposition in the
Request for Election and Senate Reform other place is not so much concerned about an election as is the Leader of the Opposition in this house.
This afternoon we listened to an outline of the democratic system as we enjoy it in this country, and the opinion was expressed by the Leader of the Opposition and by some others who have spoken that the conduct of the house during a certain period was not such as to inspire confidence in our system in the minds of people in Canada or outside of Canada.
In making these statements the Leader of the Opposition referred continuously to the subservient members of that part of the parliament of Canada, subservient to the members of this house, subservient to the members of the government. I submit, Mr. Speaker, if there is any term that should not be applied to the members of the Senate, it would be that term. I am inclined to think that during most of the discussion on the point, what we have considered to be the rule laid down with regard to mention of what goes on in the other place, although it is not a hard and fast rule, has been lived up to by members in this house and members in other houses where you have a secondary chamber. They do not make references to individuals or to the house as a whole such as were made here this afternoon. I wish to take some objection to those remarks having been made.
Our democratic system, as everyone in this house knows, is based upon the experiences they have had in the centre of the empire, in Britain. Those experiences run over a long term of years. The statement is made that our system of government is built up from precedent to precedent, and that is true. Practically everything which takes place in this house or in the parliament of the United Kingdom has also taken place at some previous time, and whatever is proper to do now has been established as a precedent. We go on doing things in accordance with those precedents.
So we have here the Commons and the Senate, and in the Commons we introduce legislation. Sometimes we introduce it in the Senate, but in this particular case it was introduced in this house. During the discussion members have been raising some objection to the fact that in the debate on the pipe-line bill the opposition took one point of view and the government party took another. This is the common thing in a house constituted as this is. On this occasion, of course, two of the opposition parties opposed the action taken by the government and one party agreed. The Prime Minister, therefore, in this particular action had more
5362	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform support than he has on ordinary questions that come before this house. On other occasions he has only had the support of the members of the Liberal party. He can only rest assured that he is going to have that support in the future.
Before the hon. member for New Westminster spoke on behalf of the Social Credit group just before dinner with regard to the matter there were very few, if any, on this side of the house who knew just how the Social Credit group might vote on this particular question. In other words, while they have supported this side of the house on the bill itself there was no particular reason why, on a motion of want of confidence in the government, they should be bound to support the government now. But at least one member of that party has indicated here that he intends to do so. He is not going to support the motion that this parliament be brought to a close and an election held. I presume there will be others who will do the same. I repeat, therefore, there is no indication in this house that the Prime Minister cannot control a majority of the house in connection with this or any of the other questions that may come before the house in the immediate future.
The opposition has stated time after time in this debate that the rules are made to protect the opposition. Well, that may be correct; and I will agree that they need some protection, Mr. Speaker. The rules may be made to protect the opposition. I think, as a matter of fact, they are made to protect all the members of the house.


Alfred Claude Ellis: They are broken to protect the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: It would require a very peculiar kind of rule to protect the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis). He just rushes in where angels fear to tread. Nevertheless he has a right to do whatever he feels like doing in the house, I suppose, as long as he stays within the rules. The rules of this house are simply based upon common sense. One does not need to study the rule book too much to know whether he is in order or out of order.
There are one or two members on this side of the house who may take offence at what I am going to say. I have sometimes thought if Cecil Rhodes had his life to live over again he would not send Rhodes scholars over to Oxford. One of the reasons I have come to that conclusion is that in watching the actions of certain members of this house I have noticed that the more time they have spent in a university the more difficulty we have in understanding just why they do certain things. As a matter of fact the only


fellow who has done this, and whom I can really understand, is my friend the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). He was in college when I started, and he was still there when I came out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: However, that was not because he was not passing his examinations but because he went through an arts course and then went through a course in theology. He was there just twice as long as I was because he went through that particular course.
I see my friend on the other side of the house who has done a similar thing, and I see another gentleman sitting across the aisle from him who was a Rhodes scholar. I am reminded that both of them spent most of the early part of their lives studying the rules in mock parliaments in a university somewhere, and they have been applying that idea to the running of this house during this session. You know, when we used to have mock parliaments in university-it does not make any difference where it was-our chief objective was to learn the rules. There was not anything else we could do anyway. We could not pass any laws that had any effect upon anybody, so we made a study of the rules by moving this and moving that, moving points of order and keeping everybody het up over something.


Mr. Murphy (Lambton West):: You had
closure, then, I suppose.


James Garfield Gardiner: We had a demonstration of that in this house during this session. It was nothing more than that. I must say that I did not stay for all of it, but I did stay for half of it. During the time I was here I did make a speech on the bill, and I am sure none of my friends opposite read it because they were not interested in the bill at all. They were only interested in these points of order that they could bring up in order to take up all the time.
Someone says that public opinion was such and such as a result of this. Well, not being here but being out in the country I had a better opportunity of learning what public opinion was on the question. I had occasion to talk to people from time to time and learn what they were really thinking. You know, when I did discuss these matters with people from time to time I found they did not hold the same opinion as the hon. member who just sat down thinks they hold. I must say that out in the country where I was they did not vote for the government party either.
I do believe, though, there is a considerable number of people in Canada who believe that

the old tradition, which is historical in this country, still lives. This old historical tradition is that it is easier for a provincial government to get elected when the federal government is on the other side of the fence. I think that is true, and has been true over the years. Probably our friends who are suggesting that because certain things happened over the country in connection with these provincial elections, that indicates some reason why the situation which exists is still going to exist when we have another federal election.
I am quite sure that is not the case. My hon. friends would be well advised not to build up their hopes too much, because an election will roll around soon enough. I am quite sure it will come a few months earlier than they expect it, and a few months earlier than is good for them when it does come.
We have had these men asking the government to resign, and my friends keep shouting "closure". What is the situation with regard to rules? There was a considerable time in different parts of the world when they copied the British form of government, whether it was within the commonwealth or outside of it, and tried to carry on in the same manner as they did in Britain. In all these countries they had rules, and those rules were made, as has been said, to protect the interests of the opposition. But in all those countries they eventually found that the tendency to take advantage of situations which might develop is not confined to government parties. It can be just as prevalent among opposition parties, and so other rules had to be added.
When people on the other side of the house talk about the rules having been used for certain purposes, they lose sight of the fact that such procedure as that was followed by practically every country where there is a democratic government. Some procedure of closure on debate is in force in most of the legislative bodies of the world, notably in Great Britain, Italy, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Portugal, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Switzerland and in the United States House of Representatives.
Now, this is a pretty complete list of the nations that have democratic governments and all of them have found it necessary to have a closure rule. Why have they found it necessary to have a closure rule? They found it necessary to have a closure rule because eventually, sooner or later, chaps like those on the other side of the house who are yapping all the time get into the house, and when they do they think it is their special privilege to hold up the proceedings of the house. They say, "If we can 67509-340
Request for Election and Senate Reform just hold it up long enough then we will be able to drive the government to the country and have an election. There are such a few of us here anyway that we cannot hope to be any worse off than we are now." When you get people of that kind in a house you cannot have government in this country, or in any other country, if it is not made possible for the majority who were elected in a previous election to carry on within the legal term as long as the Prime Minister has the support of the majority within the house.
Every speaker on the other side of the house who has been on his feet today, with the exception of my hon. friend from New Westminster, has referred to the Prime Minister as having gone through some rather difficult times recently. Well, may I say, Mr. Speaker, there is no one in this house who knows better when to speak and when not to speak than the Prime Minister. When a lot of people are falling over themselves in an effort to say nasty things about the Prime Minister he knows that the public in this country know him better than they do. He is able to sit here in his seat and listen to their twaddle no matter whether it means anything or not, when they are trying simply to use up the time of the house, as they did on the occasions referred to. I do know what happened in this house while I was here, anyway, and I understand it was worse after I left. While I was here the Minister of Trade and Commerce rose in his place and outlined all the facts in relation to this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course my hon. friends do not know, because they did not listen to him; and they will not know when I am through, because they are not listening, either. When they go back to the country the people will know that they do not know what they are talking about. But, anyway, the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave a full outline of the bill, what it meant and what was going to be brought before this house on second reading. Three days later I myself had the privilege of speaking, and if you read that speech you will know far more about the pipe line than you know now. After that a considerable number of the members on our side of the house made speeches in which they discussed the bill, but others did not seem to be interested in those discussions, and they went on discussing something else. Many other Liberals spoke on the bill.
Finally we got into committee, and it was realized that it was necessary to put through the different sections of the bill one after another and then bring the whole matter before the committee.
5364	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform


Joseph Warner Murphy: What about the first three clauses?


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friends on the other side of the house thought they could block it, that they could make it absolutely impossible for this house to do anything. If they did that long enough they would do one of two things; they would either kill the bill that everybody in this country wanted or they would drive this government to the country. That was the objective and, of course, the reason for that was suggested here this afternoon two or three times. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned it. He said, "We drew blood last summer when the Minister of Trade and Commerce brought his bill down and then went away from the house for a time."


Joseph Warner Murphy: Fishing.


James Garfield Gardiner: "We carried on a campaign and with such effect that we were able to force certain things to be done."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: When you give an opposition of the kind we have here a taste of blood of that kind they are just like a pack of wolves, they are back for another taste of blood, and that is what they have been doing during the last while. They keep on saying, "What we did once we can do again". That is the reason there is a closure rule in all these parliaments of importance around the world; that is the reason there is a closure rule here. The fact that it has been applied only on a few occasions does not indicate that this house has always been of the same type that we have here at the present time; it indicates that it has been the very opposite. It has been used on only four occasions before. It has had to be used on the fourth occasion this year. Three of the four times the Conservatives used it. They brought it in the first place as a government in self-protection against the kind of thing my friends are talking about.


Mr. Dufresne:: After a long discussion.


James Garfield Gardiner: After a long discussion, yes, but not any longer discussion than we had during this session.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: We never had any.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just wait. My hon. friend chipped in once in connection with butter and took some of it out of Hansard.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You did.


James Garfield Gardiner: Later I was accused-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You did.


James Garfield Gardiner: You did, too. Do not make any mistake about it. I read Hansard before you took it out.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I did not. Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I absolutely deny what has just been said by the Minister of Agriculture. There was only one member in this house who had the nerve to take out of Hansard what he said, and that was the minister himself.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. The hon. member has denied it and we must accept his denial, but that is as far as he is entitled to go on a question of privilege.


James Garfield Gardiner: I must repeat that I read Hansard before and corrected my own speech, and I know he corrected his.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another question of privilege, and I ask one privilege from the Chair. I ask that the Minister of Agriculture withdraw exactly what he has said because I never tried-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order.	_


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I never tried-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I rose myself on the question of privilege which affects the house as well as the hon. member. The hon. member for Quebec West has made a definite statement as to what he did or did not do. The house and the members of the house must, by the rules, accept that statement. I have not the citation before me, but it is well known that an hon. member speaking of his own personal actions, as known to himself, must have his word accepted by the house.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Does that stop the Minister of Agriculture?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On the question of privilege, the Minister of Agriculture must accept the statement made by the hon. member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: I have made it perfectly clear, I hope to the Minister of Agriculture and to the house, that the statement made by the hon. member for Quebec West must be accepted by the house. I do not think it is necessary to pursue the matter further.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, you just said that the minister has to accept what I have said. I have spoken the truth and I want to repeat that I have never gone and made any change in Hansard.

The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):
Order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Now, Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, the minister-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: Order, please. I think the hon. member is perhaps now going further than he should. The Minister of Agriculture made a statement-


Alfred Claude Ellis: And he repeated it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: -
about the hon. member for Quebec West which the hon. member for Quebec West rose on a question of privilege to deny. The Minister of Agriculture indicated that he had not accepted that denial and I rose before the hon. member for Quebec West to tell the Minister of Agriculture and the house that he must accept it; and that, I submit to the house, settles the question. There was a statement made by the hon. member for Quebec West as to his own actions, which must be accepted by the hon. members of this house.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: And withdrawn.


James Garfield Gardiner: I accept the statement made by the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: And you withdraw.


An hon. Member:: That is enough.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not withdrawing; I shall be back with it later, at some other time.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I am ready to come back any time you are; any time you feel like it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure no hon. member should make that sort of correction, and the minister must withdraw the statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: Order. Let me tell the hon. member who just interrupted, or who just raised this last, point, that I stated that the minister mifst accept the statement made by the hon. member concerned. The minister has risen and said he has accepted it, and the question is closed.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: He said he was going to come back with it.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, Mr. Speaker, the matter I was dealing with was the fact that we had closure and the reasons we needed it, and
5365
Request for Election and Senate Reform I am very glad to have the demonstration of the need for it that we have just had.
The members of the government, of course, are responsible for bringing down legislation. They are responsible for bringing in the votes that are necessary in order to finance the operations of this country, and if a few members of the opposition have conceived the idea they can absolutely prevent that from going through they have ruined every vestige of the fundamental principle that underlies our democratic system of government, namely the right of the majority to rule.
There has to be some one form of government in any country. Under the old form of government we had absolute monarchs. Under the democratic system the majority of those in the house have the right to form a government and see to it that it stays there as long as the law of the country makes it possible for it to stay. In this country that is five years during which they can stay if they can command a majority. The one individual who has the right to announce that decision either before the house or to the country is the Prime Minister himself, concerning whether or not he can command a majority, unless there is a vote called in this house as there is now.
If my hon. friends can command a majority on this vote when it is taken, as it will be under the rules tomorrow night, of course they can have an election; but if the Prime Minister can command a majority in this house then, of course, they cannot have an election and we will go on until such time as the Prime Minister says he thinks we should dissolve and go to the country.
That is our system of government, and if you are going to make that system of government operate in a manner that gets money voted for the carrying on of the activities of government in this country, and if you are going to be able to carry on in a way that enacts the laws that have to be enacted, then the government must have some authority within the rules of the house in order to take care of a situation such as that which developed here a few weeks ago in connection with the pipe-line debate.
I am quite sure my hon. friends-if and when they ever get on this side of the house- will take exactly the position I am taking now. It is the only means by which you can set up a government as was suggested by my hon. friend from New Westminster. This is the only way by which we can maintain a government in power to do the things the people ask the government to do.
Well, there was some laughing done and some comments were made by the members
5366	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform
0	1 the opposition with regard to the remarks which were contained in the speech of the member for New Westminster. That speech was sound in every sense. The only thing that was not stated by the hon. member-and though I do not believe he stated it I am sure he had it in his mind-was that that is a matter which rests with the Prime Minister during whatever time he can command a majority in this house; and that is the position we are in today.
If we are sitting here passing resolutions or attempting to pass resolutions based upon some things that happened in carrying out the obligation which the government had to carry out in order to put through legislation, we are simply begging the question and not getting anywhere so far as discussion is concerned.
Coming back to the matter of closure, the rule of closure is absolutely fair in every way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, my hon. friends will think differently if they are ever over here. Every government that has been here since 1913 thought so, and the only time the Liberals ever used it before was when we were sitting here with a majority of only one or two and we had to use it in order to get certain measures put through under those circumstances.


An hon. Member:: You did a good job this time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Others have used it under quite different circumstances, and I am not criticizing them for doing so. The words of Sir Richard Cartwright have been quoted here from statements he made when he was in the government of Canada a long time ago; and because he represented the part of Ontario I come from I have some respect for his opinions. There were also quotations from statements made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier when he was opposed to the bringing in of closure and putting it on the statute books.
1	am sure if my hon. friends had been sitting on the opposition side of the house they would have put up the same kind of argument; but why not quote Sir Robert Borden who brought it in? Why not quote the others who used it as well?


An hon. Member:: Not the way you used it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not going to attempt to explain the actions of the Liberals during that time, or admit they were the same as those of my hon. friends now, but the Liberals have had to take all the blame because the only opposition in the house at that time


was a Liberal opposition and any opposition that was raised was raised by the Liberal party.
Returning to the most recent use of closure, there had to be four motions of closure made in connection with this bill. When each one was made, no matter whether there had been little discussion or a great deal of discussion-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: There was none.


James Garfield Gardiner: -the house had two days in which to discuss that particular matter on each motion of closure, and in addition to that they had three hours added on to the last day, more hours than they had at any other time. Therefore when closure was moved all anyone had to do was discuss the pipe-line bill for two days from every point of view, and then the vote would take place at the end of those two days. After they got through with that they could start all over again and cause some obstruction if they wanted to, which they probably did. When the next motion was raised they had another two days in which to discuss the pipe-line bill, but they refused to discuss the pipeline bill.
Returning to my suggestion that we have had too much of a mock parliament here, I might point out that someone was spending his time figuring ways and means of holding up the passing of this bill until such time as it would be of no value to this country. They kept on with that and wasted the first four hours; then there was another motion made for closure and the third motion gave them another two days in which to discuss the bill-


Alfred Claude Ellis: Who wasted five years?


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend wasted a lot of it, I might say. As I was saying, they did not discuss the bill at all. Instead, they discussed points of order, and every time a point of order was moved in committee the chairman could not put the point of order to the committee, he had to step out of the chair-


An hon. Member:: Time. '


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no time limfi* to this.


An hon. Member:: Closure again, eh?


James Garfield Gardiner: The chairman had to step out of the chair and move over in front of the Speaker and read to him the motion that had been made by some member of the committee, after which he called the Speaker to the chair. The Speaker then put the motion and enough members got up on the other side of the house to call a vote, and when

the bell rang nearly all the members on the other side of the house walked out. When they walked out I do not know where they went, but when they came back they were quite talkative, and they continued to talk a lot here. That may only mean that they just went and had a consultation and had more to talk about. I do not put any other interpretation on it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On a question of privilege, the minister has cast a reflection on hon. members on this side of the house. He should either clarify or withdraw.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member has a bad conscience. I did not say anything in that way. I simply said-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) would mind telling us the expression to which he raises objection.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister is well aware of the aspersion he cast on members on this side, and I suggest that he either withdraw it or clarify it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: am asking the hon. member for Mackenzie if he will kindly advise the Chair what it is that he complains of.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: He said something to the effect that hon. members on this side of the house left the chamber and, when they came back, they were much more talkative than when they left.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said they were quite talkative.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I submit that is not a reference which should be permitted in this chamber.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: am sorry, but if that is the aspersion of which the hon. member is complaining I am afraid I could not rule that it was an unparliamentary expression. I am not ruling as to whether or not it was a fact, but I am ruling that it is certainly not an unparliamentary expression.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, anyway, they went out, and we all know how long it took to get them back. The two whips had to walk down to the door every time and stand outside while the bell was ringing, and they eventually came back and we were ready to have a vote.


An hon. Member:: You were in Saskatchewan.
25,	1956	5367
Request for Election and Senate Reform


James Garfield Gardiner: I was here for two of those votes, and I do not believe you were here. You stayed away after the margarine talk for some time. Anyway, the whips went outside the door; then they came back here together, one walked up that side and the other up this one, and then we had a vote. It just took about half an hour to go through all that proceeding. On the last or the second last day I was here they did that ten times, and I thought it was far more important for me to be hanging up bills in Saskatchewan than sitting here while that was going on, sitting in the house watching a bunch of fellows performing and trying to obstruct anything that came before the house. They did not start the obstruction there. I remember that back in the early part of the session, weeks before we got to this bill, my friends on the other side had this thing in their minds. The Minister of Trade and Commerce moved a motion with regard to bank loans, and how long did it take to get that through the house?


An hon. Member:: Fourteen days.


James Garfield Gardiner: I spoke for the second time on it 20 days after it was first introduced, trying to get it through.


Alfred Claude Ellis: That is what we are down here for.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what you are down here for, but we are down here to see that legislation that is in the interests of the people concerned is put through the house. My hon. friend made a remark, and I took occasion at the time to remind him of the fact that there was going to be an election in Saskatchewan this summer, and I said to him that that question would not be discussed by the C.C.F. party, and it was not. It was discussed by the Liberal party, and every farmer in Saskatchewan who had a loan under that measure was an opponent of those who took that position in this house, and there were many of them.


Mr. Argue:: Ten per cent.


James Garfield Gardiner: The men who were talking here in the house were very quiet about that. But I am pointing out to the house that it took 21 days to get an obvious piece of legislation, the only kind of legislation that could do the job that was to be done, through this house. Why were they so anxious to hold that up? I know they were doing everything possible to lengthen the time until we got down to the pipe-line bill, when they were going to knife the government and finish the whole job.
Here they are moving a resolution of want of confidence based upon the actions of this
5368	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform government at that time. I am sorry there is one gentleman who is not here this evening.


An hon. Member:: Who?


James Garfield Gardiner: The leader of the C.C.F. party.


An hon. Member:: He was here this afternoon.


James Garfield Gardiner: I know he was here this afternoon, but he ought to be here now. He does not like other people being absent. It would be a nice time for him to be here, because I would like to tell him something, and this is the time to tell him. I was addressing a meeting out in Saskatchewan a short time ago, and when I finished a young lawyer got up at the front of the hall, pointed at me and asked, "Is everything as true as what you said about the university?" I said, "Yes, everything I said about the university is true, and everything else I said is just as true." Then he asked, "Were you in the house when the pipe-line bill was up?" I said, "Yes, I was there for the first and second readings; I was there for four or five days until the second closure vote was taken." Then I said, "As a matter of fact, I made a speech. You ought to read it."
Then he asked me, "Were you there on the third reading?" I do not know whether or not he had it right. I have not checked Hansard closely enough to know that myself, but I heard the hon. member for Fort William this afternoon describe the scene, and I am quite sure I was fairly accurate in what I said in reply to my questioner. I would like to have my hon. friend hear it. I said to him, "No, I was not there for the third reading. If the scene was on the third reading, then I am very pleased I was not there. I am going to tell you why. Because apparently an old friend of mine, 83 years of age, according to the newspaper reports started toward the gentleman who got up from his seat and went to the mace and shook his fist at the Speaker of the house." I said to the audience, "If I had been there I would not have pulled Dan back, because I know Dan, and in spite of the fact that he is 83 years of age the debate would have ended about then. That was one scene in this house. Then, while he was standing there-and this is in Hansard so I can read it-


An hon. Member:: Did you lose that seat?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, we won that seat; by a good vote, too. Another member, from Winnipeg North, I believe, said in the house, and it is in Hansard, "Throw out the mace." That means, "Throw out the sovereign of this


country"; that is what the ma-ce represents. He said, "Throw out the mace." Well, if my hon. friends-


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and I do so in all sincerity. It may be a little academic, but I should just like to know your decision now as to whether the subject of the pipe-line debate and the subject of closure as applied are going to be allowed to be discussed by the other groups when the minister is finished.


Mr. Speaker:: I am very glad the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) rose to raise the point. As I was listening to the remarks of the minister I was myself very conscious of the fact that if we start reviewing the proceedings in a previous debate already concluded we shall be spending our time repeating again and again what has taken place, and under our rules that should not be done. I just heard the minister seem to indicate that someone else, prior to his taking the floor, had referred to those proceedings. I do not know. As hon. members know, I took the chair at 2.30, left at the usual time at 3.30 to go to attend to other duties, and did not resume the chair until eight o'clock.
I said earlier that I do not want to curtail discussion, but surely that should not cover as much territory as to include reference to a debate already concluded. I have in mind, of course, that citation 244 reads as follows:
A member may not speak against or reflect upon any determination of the house, unless he intends to conclude with a motion for rescinding it.
Then citation 245 reads:
It is a wholesome restraint upon members that they cannot revive a debate already concluded; and it would be little use in preventing the same question from being offered twice in the same session if, without being offered, its merits might be discussed again and again.
Citation 246 reads:
Besides the prohibitions contained in standing order 41, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:
(a) refer to any debate of the same session on any question not then under discussion . . .
I think that we ought to restrict ourselves to whatever latitude may be given under an amendment which is so wide in terms that we can cover a great deal of territory. But that should not include references to debates already concluded. The minister may perhaps argue that he is not reviewing the debate itself but the proceedings, that is the motions that were moved or the application of certain standing orders. I would imagine that the reference to a previous debate would include that as well. If that is not his view

perhaps he could explain, but I would wish that he would come to my view.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I of course have no objection to the general ruling, namely that I cannot quote from a preceding debate, but I did not. I quoted from a speech made this afternoon in this debate. As a matter of fact the words are not exactly the same, but they mean the same thing and they were said here this afternoon. I was quoting from the speech made by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor).


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In a previous debate.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, in this debate this afternoon, while I was sitting here listening to him. I was not here during the previous debate.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Two wrongs do not make a right.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: On the point of order, the minister is up to his usual tricks. Of course he now admits that he was arguing on the basis of a speech that was made this afternoon, but he omits to mention that he has been talking about what took place in the house some weeks ago and, furthermore, things that took place when he was not here at all. May I say that I do not care what the minister says or what he talks about. I simply want to ensure our rights, so that if the minister proceeds along the course he is now pursuing we shall have equal rights in this house to discuss the whole question of the pipe line and the closure that took place.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Saskatoon has heard what I have said?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister has not.


Mr. Speaker:: Does he agree that what I have said establishes the correct procedure?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Certainly.


Mr. Speaker:: He indicates his acceptance. The minister may be referring to a speech by another hon. member, but because the other hon. member was not in order in referring to a previous debate does not establish his right to do likewise.


James Garfield Gardiner: I quite agree, Mr. Speaker, that there is some question about that and I am not going to question your ruling at all, but I would remind you on the other question with respect to whether I can discuss the incident that the ruling given before I got to my feet was that the incident I have been discussing was the incident upon which the motion is based, that is the incident during the pipe-line discussion in this house and following that the proposed reform of the Senate. Those were the two things that were
25, 1956	5363
Request for Election and Senate Reform used as the reason for this motion, and I am sure you have not made a ruling which is any different from that. I shall do the very best I can to keep within that ruling. Now, I think the situation is pretty much as I was describing it, namely that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) came right up the centre of the floor-


Mr. Speaker:: Oh, no. Order. I am afraid the Minister of Agriculture does not fully understand the purport of my ruling.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, yes, he does.


Mr. Speaker:: If he does, perhaps he has not grasped the full meaning of it. I said that we should not refer to a previous debate already concluded, and I do not think we can separate the proceedings, the attitude of members with respect to those proceedings, and the debate itself. They must be considered in a package, and I do not think we ought to refer to those proceedings.


James Garfield Gardiner: As long as you do not rule
that a man leaving his seat, walking up the centre of the floor and shaking his fist is part of a debate, because that is not part of a debate; that is an action taking place on the floor of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is not part of a debate then the hon. member is referring to an incident which might have taken place when the bells were ringing and at a time when the proceedings are suspended, no debate being permitted. The minister knows it is the practice for some members to sing, others to talk, and others may perhaps do something else.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry I cannot read from Hansard, because I could indicate to you what the time was.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the minister that he does not have to indicate to me what the position was. I was here and I know exactly what the position was. Therefore I would ask him to take the position as I see it and adhere to my ruling.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You were here, Mr. Speaker,
and he was away in Saskatchewan.


An hon. Member:: Oh, shut up.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is another incident which came up this afternoon to which I want to refer and which also has to do with the leader of the C.C.F. group. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) interrupted and after some little discussion it was suggested to him that he should be very careful in what he said about party actions because he had not always belonged to the same party. I think that was a rather unfortunate remark for the leader of the C.C.F.

Request for Election and Senate Reform party to make, because I have heard him on the platform many times and I have heard him describe his past.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I believe the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar made reference to my background as being the reason I took the attitude I did during that debate.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, that is a little more damaging than what I said. Anyway, that remark was made. I recall that I have been on the platform many times with or in oppo-sion to the hon. member in years gone by, and have heard him recite his past history. I have heard him say quite candidly that he was a strong Conservative over in the old land and he had-


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Before he was old enough to vote.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Before he reached the age of discretion.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not quite that far back. In any case, he was a Conservative and he roomed with a gentleman who was a socialist. The two of them roomed together throughout their college course. Then at the end of that, at the time he was speaking, he said, "Here I am running as a socialist and my socialist friend over in England is a Conservative member of the House of Commons". Each of them converted the other; nevertheless he seems to have belonged to two parties up to that time.
I know he belonged to another one, because when I knew him first he belonged to the independent labour party which contested an election in Saskatchewan. At a later time he belonged to the farmer-labour party. Then later on he belonged to the C.C.F. party. As I have said in this house before, he and I had conversations quite a number of times as to why he should become a Liberal. He therefore has a background also. I would suggest to him that in speaking of backgrounds he should keep that in mind.
There are other members of this house who have believed in different political faiths at different times in their lives, and some of them have changed. Some of the greatest statesmen in the British Empire have done that. There is no reason for taking the position that a man on this side of the house has a background when others on both sides of the house have similar backgrounds, and I suppose they can account for the changes they have made. But that is much along the line of some of the things that happened. I did not finish my story from out in Saskatchewan. I do not know whether or not you will permit me to finish it.
[Mr. Gardiner.!


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


James Garfield Gardiner: My story out there was that I had always known our friend as a pacifist and that I could not understand his shaking his fist at anybody. I think my idea is the correct one, rather than the stories that have gone around as to what did take place in the house.
I should like to suggest to my hon. friends on the other side of the house that if they had an election there would be many things heard. The public would understand better than they do now what went on in this house for three weeks, and when they understood it as do those of us who sat here through the greater part of it and others who sat through it all and watched the performance go on, they would know who it was that placed the institutions of democracy in jeopardy in this house. It was our friends on the other side of the house. They will never be able to live that down as long as they are in politics, and there will not be many of them there too long after that experience.
The quickest way to get out of politics that I have noticed other people take-I have been in politics myself for 42 years without being out at all, and I have watched many fellows come in and go out-is to try to leave the impression that your opposition are doing things which they were not doing and get out in the country and try to convince the public. The public eventually will become wise. When they do, then it is you who will disappear, not the members on this side of the house.
The sooner an election comes the better I will be satisfied, but that may not be the best thing for the country as a whole. I know that the Prime Minister of this country will not yield either to my wishes or to the wishes of hon. gentlemen opposite if in yielding to them he is going to do anything which is not in the interests of Canada as a whole. My friends on the other side of the house may from time to time think that because he sits here and does not reply to them, he has no reply to make. I should like to see their faces when they meet him out in the country in the next election campaign. They will be the most downcast individuals who will be met from one end of this country to the other. Just as in the past, they will find that the people of Canada have the same confidence in him now as they had on the two previous occasions-


An hon. Member:: We shall see.


James Garfield Gardiner: -on one of which they gave him the greatest majority any party ever had in this house up to that time, and on the next occasion they increased it. I think they will increase it again whenever they get an opportunity to do so.

As to development in this country, may I say this. Not only every person in this country but every person of any importance in the United States, in Britain and in the countries over the world knows that there is no comparison between the development that has taken place in this country during the last 10 years and that in any other 10 years in its history. During the past 10 years this country has grown into a nation recognized by all the countries in the world as one of the outstanding nations. We shall carry that reputation down to the next election, at which time I am sure we shall carry ourselves through at the polls and leave a few of our friends sitting on the other side of the house.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention and great interest to the diffuse and rambling speech made by the Minister of Agriculture, who I understand is tonight Acting Prime Minister, and which dealt so fully with bill posting, parliamentary procedure, Saskatchewan politics and the pugilistic ability of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). I am not going to be like the minister and break the rules. I am, as usual, going to keep to the rules and apply my remarks to the amendment that is now under discussion.
I rise this evening particularly to bring to the attention of the house the neglect of this government in one respect of about 5,000 of my constituents. I have done it a number of times throughout the years, but I do so tonight again because I think this is an opportunity to focus attention on this injustice that about 5,000 of my constituents have suffered for some 30 years. Satisfactory radio reception has been available to the majority of Canadians for about 30 years; but, as I said before, I have about 5,000 constituents who are unable to hear Canadian radio during the greater portion of the 24 hours.


An hon. Member:: They are lucky.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I say that is unjust. We can spend millions of dollars on television and on the improvement of television. That is something I do not regret, though on two or three evenings when I looked at a program .-I forget the name of it just now-on which they produce some rather queer plays from Toronto I thought that if they would spend the money it cost to produce one of these plays in assisting my constituents to enjoy radio, it would be to the better advantage of this country.
These people, Mr. Speaker, have a real grievance, and this is a time for bringing grievances to the attention of the house. That is why I raise it again. I have raised it year after year without results. The area affected
Request for Election and Senate Reform -and I know there are other areas; there are,
I think, about eight or ten other areas in Canada-that suffers in a similar way, and of which I am speaking, is the greater part of the Arrow lakes area, the north Kootenay area and the Slocan lake area. While other Canadians have been enjoying Canadian radio, these people for 30 years have been unable to enjoy radio the greater part of the time.
I know that in order to overcome that situation low-power relay stations have been erected at Castlegar and Kaslo. That move has been much appreciated by the people who are affected. But this area of which I am speaking is still as it was 30 years ago, and that is why I raise the question this evening.
When I went into this question some half dozen years ago I said, "Is the situation caused by unusual radio interference?" I took it up with the then minister of transport, Mr. Chevrier, who very kindly agreed that he would have a thorough investigation made of the whole area by the officials of his department, and he did so. After that investigation was completed I received this letter, which indicated that the major trouble was not radio interference, although there is considerable of that. I read from the letter dated May 30, 1952:
The provision of reliable radio reception throughout British Columbia is a very difficult problem. The mountainous terrain, which absorbs the daytime radio waves travelling along the ground, prevents reliable daytime reception in such areas. As a result radio signals are not strong enough to be clearly heard above the normal, irreducible background of radio noise from electrical sources and atmospherics. At night distant radio signals which travel far above the earth and are reflected back to earth by the ionisphere, cause interference to local stations occupying the same channels. There are in the neighbourhood of 3,000 broadcast stations on the North American continent, operating on only 107 channels. Thus there is considerable interference between stations transmitting on the same channel where the desired signal is weak.
For instance Nakusp is not within the primary service area of any Canadian station. Nighttime secondary service may sometimes be had from Trail, Kelowna or Penticton, with occasional reception from CBE Vancouver or CBX Lacombe, but signal strengths are found to be very low.
It is therefore apparent that the poor radio reception in Kootenay West is due to inadequate signal strength, and is not generally caused by excessive interference from electrical sources. In many areas which suffer in this manner, the C.B.C. has installed "booster" stations which are located at repeater points on the wire networks and which afford broadcast service to local communities where they are situated.
So we cleared that up, Mr. Speaker. I can speak from personal experience on this matter, because I live miles away from anyone else. There is no road access to my home, and my nearest neighbour on one side is seven miles

Request for Election and Senate Reform away and 12 miles on the other. We therefore depend on the radio. One evening my daughters were trying to tune in some station and a United States station came in. They said, "Well, Daddy, we have got Charlie McCarthy." I said, "It cannot be Charlie McCarthy because he comes on Sunday evenings." They were insistent upon that, so we listened to that program for about 10 minutes. Then when it came to a conclusion we heard the announcer say, "You have been listening to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) broadcast from Lethbridge." I mention that to indicate the difficulty in radio reception in our area.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this matter is of such consequence that it has been studied by all types of organizations in the area; the chambers of commerce, the boards of trade of southwestern British Columbia. They have taken up the matter and have asked the federal government to have a survey made of our district. This was last year. It has been discussed at many of their meetings. The local chambers of commerce in Kootenay West that are affected, boards of trade, farmers' institutes and women's institutes have had meetings and passed resolutions, but so far without effect. Then the local people have had petitions signed which I have sent to the chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Hundreds of people have written letters concerning these circumstances. In addition to that, those who operate air services in the area have written pointing out that they are unable to receive weather bulletins and on that account their flying is made much more difficult.
Now, in order to indicate the situation-and I bring it up because this is an unfair situation to these people-I am going to quote from one resolution that I received recently, which was sent to the chairman of the broadcasting corporation. This was a resolution passed unanimously by the Nakusp chamber of commerce. I might say here that is one of the beauty spots on the Arrow lakes, a very active, progressive and growing community. The resolution reads:
Whereas the geographical location of Nakusp and its surrounding area is such that it is impossible to get satisfactory radio reception; and Whereas it does not appear possible to build Canadian stations of sufficient power to overcome those American stations in California and Seattle which are of the same wave length; and,
Whereas the Canadian government is spending millions of dollars each year to provide television to people who have excellent radio reception; and,
Whereas it is not possible to consistently receive Canadian news, Canadian civil defence instructions or warnings, Canadian political broadcasts or any Canadian cultural programs; and,
Whereas as Canadians we feel that we have the right to know what is happening in Canada; and,

Whereas the farmers of this district need the Canadian weather forecast if they are to properly take care of their crops; and,
Whereas the farmers of this district need the Canadian market news; and.
Whereas other areas and communities of less population are at the present time satisfactorily serviced by C.B.C. booster stations:
Therefore be it resolved that this chamber of commerce recommend to the board of governors of the C.B.C. the installation of a booster station at Nakusp to serve the needs of the people in this area.
I just read that resolution to indicate they are concerned about this matter. It would not take more than three booster stations, one at Nakusp, one at Rosebery, and one at Balfour. To these repeated representations from organizations, petitions and letters, Mr. Dunton has replied in each case, and I am going to read his latest reply in this connection. He says in part:
As we have explained before the difficulty about filling in some of the gaps in our coverage is that of finance. As matters stand now the outlook is that we shall be short of funds even to carry on existing services and it will be a question not of expanding but of reducing. It is possible, however, that some adjustment will be made in the methods of financing the sound broadcasting system, and with that in mind the corporation is going ahead with further study of coverage needs, and the costs involved, including southeastern British Columbia.
So we are told it is a matter of financing. I understand that nothing will be done to remedy this situation until a report is received from the royal commission on broadcasting. Well, it is unfair to ask these people to wait that long.
Then quite recently the present Minister of Transport had a survey made of the area to see if there was a great deal of interference that could be overcome by various measures. They come to the same conclusion, I think. There were three officials from the Department of Transport who made the survey in the area, and this is what they say according to a letter received from the deputy minister of transport, Mr. Brassard, dated May 9, 1956.
The report indicates that the main reason for the complaints is not that the interference level is high, but rather that the strength of the broadcast signals received is extremely low throughout the Nakusp area due to the terrain.
That applies to the whole area.
In the circumstances, it is not always possible to suppress interference to the point where satisfactory reception is attained, however, our staff will take all reasonable measures to eliminate preventible sources.
We appreciate what is being done in that respect. They did discover some sources of interference.
We are given to understand that the Nakusp board of trade had previously approached the C.B.C. for the installation of a low-powered

broadcast relay station in Nakusp, but that the request was turned down because program carrying lines were not available. It is reported that such lines are now available and that the board is making a new application.
I read that to indicate it is still not a question of interference but the low strength of the signals. We have Canadian Pacific lines going in which were not available some three or four years ago. The poles were old and the lines almost obsolete. Since that time there have been some severe storms and the Canadian Pacific has taken advantage of the situation to rebuild the line, so they are now in a position to give a wire service between Nelson and Rosebery and Nelson and Nakusp. There is also at the present time a B.C. telephone line between Nelson and Kaslo, and we would only have to take a feeder line off to serve Balfour, Procter, Crawford Bay and the Kootenay lake area.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this does not seem a serious matter to people who enjoy good radio reception. In my opinion it does seem unfair that those people who are producing such a great amount of wealth should be denied the opportunity to listen to Canadian stations. They can listen to United States stations at Seattle, San Francisco, Portland and the south, usually in the evening. Rarely can we get Canadian stations. We can never hear them properly, or get a complete program.
There is tremendous production right within the area I am speaking about that does not receive radio reception at the present time. Just last year in the Arrow lakes area alone 100 million feet of lumber were cut. That is a great contribution to the production of this country and to the taxes of this government. In the area I am speaking of, the Kootenay lake area, 50 million feet of lumber were cut. There is a tremendous mineral production in the area concerned. I have not the figures, but they are included in the total area. In the Kootenay West area there is extensive agricultural production, particularly in fruit, dairying and poultry, and there is an extensive tourist trade.
While millions have been spent in developing the C.B.C. in other directions, the people I am speaking about, and I know some other groups in Canada, have been completely denied the opportunity of enjoying the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's radio facilities. At the present time, and until this situation is remedied, the people of whom I am speaking will be forced to obtain their news, their entertainment, their commentaries and programs they wish to enjoy, from United States stations.
Request for Election and Senate Reform
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do urge that the government give consideration to circumstances such as these and by the installation of the low-power relay stations that are necessary for these Canadians, good Canadians, largely living under pioneer conditions, to enjoy the Canadian radio programs and the benefits that the great majority of Canadians have enjoyed for over 30 years.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: May I adjourn the debate?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may proceed; it is only five minutes to ten.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, because of the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, and because of the material he introduced, the debate tonight should rightly centre around the pipe-line bill and the other question of reform of the other place.
I am wondering what will be the position of those hon. members who are sympathetic to questions such as those raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell), if they are expected, as is usual, to support the government on a want of confidence vote.
The Social Credit party do not appear to be in such a peculiar position with respect to this omnibus motion. They have indicated they do not feel that recent actions should require the government to go to the country, yet they may be sympathetic with some of the questions that were raised this afternoon. It is for that reason that I feel the debate has ranged somewhat too far and too wide. Tomorrow, when I take my place in the house again, I expect to continue this debate. I intend to discuss the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and to show that if the rules of this house were broken during the pipe-line debate they were broken by members of the official opposition and by members of the C.C.F. party, not by any members on this side of the house. I hope I shall be allowed to continue in that vein, Mr. Speaker, as it will simply be answering what hon. members on the opposition side of the house said this afternoon.
On Friday last the Leader of the Opposition reiterated a speech he made on an earlier occasion, and I hope I shall be permitted to say that the opposition have been the ones who have broken the rules thus far in this session. May I adjourn the debate?


Mr. Van Horne:: The hon. member's time is not up.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If my time is not up I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.
5374	HOUSE OF
Request for Election and Senate Reform


Ralph Byron Horner: The hon. member sat down. I wish to speak.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. At the moment the hon. member for Kootenay East resumed his seat and asked me to call it ten o'clock I was about to rise in relation to his last remarks. He indicated what the content of his speech might be. If he recalls what I had to say earlier when the Minister of Agriculture was speaking he will know that his program is not quite in line with the ruling I made. I fully understand it may be very difficult for hon. members on both sides of the house to keep away from a debate that has taken place and that has been concluded;

but if hon. members insist on reviving again and again matters that have been dealt with, well, I shall have to take a very serious second look at the whole matter.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I certainly will not abrogate your rule in any way. I have many things to discuss tomorrow, and should you find that the tenor of my discussion is out of order I shall be pleased to conform to your ruling; but at this moment I wish to adjourn the debate.
On motion of Mr. Byrne the debate was adjourned.


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

[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. Van Horne: What action, if any, has been taken to establish door to door mail delivery at Marysville, New Brunswick?
Answer by: Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):
A survey has been carried out by field officers and instructions have been issued to provide letter carrier delivery service as soon as the usual conditions respecting letter slots, house numbers, etc., have been complied with.


C. N. R. APPROPRIATIONS, EDMUNDSTON, N. B.
Mr. Van Horne: 1. Has an appropriation been made for a new Canadian National railway station and/or freight terminal at Edmundston, New Brunswick?
Questions
2. What action, if any, is being taken to build a new station and/or freight shed at Edmundston, New Brunswick?
Answer by:	Mr. Langlois, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	No appropriation is included in the 1956 capital budget for the construction of a new station. Provision is made in the 1956 budget for the construction of five storage tracks and other track changes. This work is a continuation of extension and alterations commenced in 1954 and continued during 1955.
2.	Plans have been prepared and are now being completed with a view to commencing construction of a new station and freight shed during 1957 if funds are authorized in that year's capital budget.
ft

Tuesday, June 26, 1956