1957-01-14

Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved: tor leave to introduce Bill No. 7, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters).


Mr. Knowles:: Explain.


Hazen Robert Argue: The purpose of this bill is to amend the Canada Elections Act to reduce the eligible voting age from 21 to 18 years.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INTEREST ACT


Hazen Robert Argue: for leave to introduce Bill No. 8, to amend the Interest Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


Hazen Robert Argue: The purpose of this bill is to place a limit of 12 per cent per annum on the interest, carrying and other charges that may be made by companies engaged in lending money, instalment sales, automobile financing or any other such financial transaction.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 9, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose of this bill is to extend the expiry date of the act by a further five years.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in connection with a recent request made of parliamentary observers from Canada to the United Nations
assembly in being asked to sign a declaration to the effect that they would be bound by the Official Secrets Act or intimating the need for such a declaration being signed. I brought this matter to the attention of the minister the other day and he has looked into it. In view of all the circumstances I would ask him whether a decision has been made that the discretion of members of parliament, having regard to the oaths they take as members of parliament, is of itself sufficient to absolve them from being obliged to make such a declaration.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I heard of the procedure which had been proposed at our delegation to bring to the attention of these members of the delegation, including members of parliament who had not taken an oath under the Official Secrets Act, the requirements of that act, I looked into the matter. It was also brought to my attention by my friend the Leader of the Opposition. I have written to him on the subject to the effect that while the intention of the officials concerned was, in my opinion, a laudable one so that members would know what were the requirements under the act, nevertheless the procedure which was adopted was, I think, regrettable as it might conceivably give rise to the impression that some limitation was being imposed on their freedom of action in the House of Commons when they returned from the delegation.
That, of course, has never been the intention of the government and I think the hon. members of the opposition party who have been at the United Nations assembly meetings will agree that there has been no suggestion that a limitation of that kind should be imposed on any member of the delegation. I think it is desirable that all members should be informed of the requirements of the act. However, the procedures adopted for this purpose were, as I have said, regrettable and I have given instructions that they should not be followed.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, whom I am sure we all welcome back to Canada. In view of the fact that only three

Inquiries of the Ministry provinces have agreed to the health insurance proposals made by the federal government last year, is consideration being given to improving those proposals so that at least six provinces might see their way clear to agree to them in order that this country might soon take some steps in connection with national health insurance?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, if there could ever have been any evidence of my hon. friend's interest in these matters, that has now been provided, and it is that the hon. gentleman does not give me even an opportunity to catch my first breath. Nevertheless, I may say to him that the matter of the hospital insurance proposals is one which, during the time that I have been absent from the country, has not been without full attention on the part of the government and indeed of some of the provinces. I hope that before too many days are out we shall perhaps be able to make a further observation in this connection. I think the proposal is basically so constructively wise that it does not need the suggested changes proposed by my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? Can the minister say whether the government of any province which is Liberal in character has shown any interest in agreeing to the proposal?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Practically every government in Canada has shown interest in the proposal.



PRICE INCREASES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In opening may I state that he may not have received a copy of the question I sent him in time, and if not perhaps he would accept this as notice of the question. In view of the fact that only 15 per cent of petroleum imported into Canada for refining comes from the Middle East, is the government considering taking action to make sure that the blockage of the Suez canal is not used as a pretext by the oil companies to increase the price of crude oil and refined products, as has been done in some parts of the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The oil that comes into the eastern part of Canada comes largely from Venezuela and from the United States. Only a small part of our requirement comes from the Middle East. The prices of the product
[Mr. Knowles.)

are prices fixed in the United States, and the question of whether or not further Middle East oil is received in eastern Canada will have no bearing on the price of the product.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance if he has had time, since the end of the session last August, to give further consideration to the plight of superannuated civil servants, particularly those whose pensions are in the lower brackets? Will something be done to improve their position in the near future?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: We have considered the question of superannuated civil servants and their pensions at some considerable length, Mr. Speaker, and have had discussions with various groups of persons who would be interested in it, including a deputation from the superannuated civil servants themselves. I do not want anyone to conclude from this that any action is imminent because these things are only announced in due course, if they are announced at all.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbiff (Oxford):: I should like
to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, which he may take as notice. In view of the fact that at the last regular session the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines approved a proposal for the regulation of motor propelled craft on the inland waters of Canada, have any steps been taken to draw up these regulations or have any conferences been held with operators of motorboats in connection with this matter?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: As I am not in a position to
answer the question now, I will take the question as notice.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. R. F. L. Hanna for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at

the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: On
Friday last when the house adjourned, Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about wharves and in particular the wharf at Point du Chene in Westmorland county. This wharf was used as a terminal for the Prince Edward Island ferry and is now used by fishermen and by exporters in the pulpwood business. However, since the war shipping to and from the ports has not been as great. One of the reasons for this is the channel. I feel that some dredging should be done in the channel, to a depth of at least 18 feet, so ocean going steamers will not have to leave Point du Chene harbour and complete the loading at some other port in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. I ask that this wharf be maintained and that dredging be carried out in the very near future.
I should like now to speak of some of the matters that are brought to my attention, sometimes very forcibly, by my constituents. One thing about which I am going to speak is television. Last year I spoke about television, and perhaps I was not very complimentary about some of the programs.
This year I should first of all like to start my remarks on television by complimenting the television section of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on some of the fine programs they have for children, and some of the shows they put on at other times. I also wish to say that the local television station, CKCWTV, which has 22 hours of live broadcasting, is doing a wonderful job in the southeastern New Brunswick area. They do a lot of community work. The news service is quite good, as are also the children's programs and live shows.
I am going to criticize some of the television productions or shows, and in particular I am speaking of the arrangement of time of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television broadcasts. In the constituency that I represent we can receive three stations very well, and in some instances more. These stations are in Saint John, Charlottetown and Moncton. During the week program time is allotted for Canadian Broadcasting Corporation production. One program is called "C.B.C. Folio". In the month of December, starting at 9.30 at night, "C.B.C. Folio" came on and continued until eleven o'clock, the very choice part of the listening evening. During the programs I received many telephone calls complaining about the type of program. I am not saying that the programs should not
The Address-Mr. H. J. Murphy be shown, but the people in my district do not like to get such a large dose of one type of program at one time.
Take ballet. About three weeks ago we had 90 minutes of ballet right in the middle of the evening. I know there are people who are very fond of ballet but there are people who are not, and many people called me up. They were annoyed that they should be subjected to 90 minutes of ballet. They would call me and ask me if I was watching the program and ask me for my opinion of "those long-haired nut boys cavorting around in tight, long underwear" for an hour and-a-half. I could not say very much one way or another except that some people like this type of program. The answer I would get from my constituents was, "Why, certainly some people like it and they should be able to see it." They would go on and tell me that they liked wrestling, boxing or mystery shows, but this type of program that the minority of viewers liked was put on at a later hour after the news, at the time of the late show, and I think probably the ballet lovers could do the same as other people and have their favourite program 90 minutes long at some other time rather than in the middle of the evening.
The next week it was opera that lasted the same length of time. There are many people in my riding who like opera, but there are just as many who like other types of programs that are produced locally or by the C.B.C. Some like the old time music; some others like choral music produced by the choirs we have in our section. I would like to point out that in New Brunswick we are not lacking in fine music. We have St. Joseph's University choir, a group known as the Westmorland singers, and the Notre Dame Convent choir. These are all splendid choirs but when we view them on television their appearances last only for a short period of time.
I understand that everybody is now culture conscious and I believe that over a period of years a Canadian culture will evolve. I do not think, however, we are a people who want to absorb culture in large doses, nor do I think this will in any way contribute to the evolution of a distinctive Canadian culture, and therefore I am making the suggestion that the time of C.B.C. productions on stations in New Brunswick be revised, that a second look be taken into the matter. I know something can be worked out.
Last year the radio listeners in New Brunswick complained that they could not get the national league play off hockey games which were broadcast elsewhere. Hockey is the national sport of Canada and is enjoyed
168	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. H. J. Murphy by most Canadians. I took up this matter with the department and I am told listeners in Moncton, Westmorland county and in New Brunswick generally will be able to hear the national league play off hockey games this year.
We all enjoy comedy on television and radio but I think it is sometimes carried a little too far. I am not being thin skinned about anything in connection with the government, but recently I watched a C.B.C. television program which attempted to review in -broad farce the events of 1956. In this farce a parliament in China was depicted. At the opening of the program headlines from all the big Canadian newspapers such as the Montreal Gazette and the Globe and Mail were shown and they all related to the pipeline debate. It was obviously a parody of the pipeline debate held in the House of Commons last year. The next scene opened in the parliament of China in the third century and the debate taking place there concerned the building of the wall of China by the trans-Canton wall company. The procedure was similar to that which occurred in the pipeline debate here last year. The leader of the government in this production was Mr. Ho and the leader of the opposition was Mr. Doho. The mace was replaced by a crow.
I believe in the freedom of the press and certainly many cartoons appear in newspapers which poke fun at the government and parliament, but when parliament votes money to a crown corporation I think the corporation should undertake to use the time to better advantage. I am suggesting the public's money could be better spent than ridiculing and showing disrespect to parliament and the symbol of the crown.
I would ask that a second look be taken at the television productions of the C.B.C. before they are released. If they want to speak to me in private I can point out many objectionable features in their productions.
I would also ask that the allocation of time on the private stations carrying C.B.C. programs be arranged so we would have a choice and not have three or four stations in an area carrying the same type of program simultaneously. As I said previously, I am not contending that they should not produce these programs. I am saying, though, that we are not all "egg heads"-we are not all high intellectual types who can stand two or three hours of ballet. I think that since we are paying for this we should have what we like. The minority groups should be able to enjoy their types of programs at suitable hours.


Another matter that I should like to bring up, though very briefly because several of my colleagues will be dealing with it more extensively, is an agricultural matter. When I was home between the sessions I attended a meeting of agricultural association in my district-it is called the W. A. K. E. Federation of Agriculture-and at that meeting agricultural problems were discussed. In particular they asked me to bring to the attention of the government for discussion and consideration the question of the importation of powdered dairy products from Australia and New Zealand, and to suggest that the older tariff regulations set some time ago be reconsidered and, if it was thought advisable-that is to say if it would not disturb export and import balances-that another look be taken into the tariff regulations between Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
In my concluding remarks I would like to mention the Gordon commission. I have not read the whole of the report but I have read that section which deals with the Atlantic provinces. There are some things that I am very pleased to read in it and there are others with which I do not, perhaps, agree. I certainly would not agree with the movement of the people from the province of New Brunswick or the maritime provinces to other parts of Canada. We in New Brunswick and in the maritimes went there because of conditions in other countries similar to those which the Gordon report now describes-low incomes, famine or the fact that landlords could make more money by turning the tenant farmers out and raising sheep. We came to New Brunswick 100 years ago or more, and now we are told we should move on again. But I believe that if conditions in the maritime provinces continue to go ahead as they have been, and this report shows that the economy of New Brunswick and the maritime provinces is rapidly catching up with the rest of Canada-the percentages are given and are rising by leaps and bounds-with continued and increased government assistance such as we have had since 1935, by 1980 or earlier our maritime provinces will be on a par with the rest of Canada and perhaps on their way to surpassing the rest of Canada.
There is one paragraph in the Gordon report which I should like to read into the record because it sums up conditions there so well. That paragraph is on page 104 and it deals with the establishment of the army camp at Gagetown, New Brunswick. It reads: The establishment of the army camp at Gagetown, New Brunswick, will undoubtedly result in very substantial benefits to that province in the years to come. There may be a number of other matters which, while of relatively lesser importance, might be handled in a way which would help one or other

of the Atlantic provinces. To begin with, it is suggested that a greater measure of decentralization of government purchasing policies would be beneficial to local areas. This might be particularly true in the case of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia where the defence forces have considerable establishments. Similarly, if it should prove possible to place a greater number of defence orders with manufacturing concerns in the Atlantic region without substantially adding to costs, the resulting benefits might more than justify the additional effort and perhaps inconvenience involved. Then too, as previously suggested, if the railways were able to work out their purchasing program more evenly over a longer period this would be of great benefit to the car manufacturing industry in Nova Scotia and help to stabilize employment in that area.
That is a very fine paragraph. The establishment of Camp Gagetown has already resulted in benefits to the province of New Brunswick and I believe that if the policy and the suggestions of the Gordon report, as set out in that paragraph, were carried out there would never be any need for the movement of people from New Brunswick to other parts of Canada. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the maritime provinces and the province of New Brunswick be given special consideration this year by my government. Thank you.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may my first words be those of congratulation to the mover and seconder of the acceptance of the speech from the throne? I was particularly interested in hearing of the development of the city of Edmonton which was described in the speech of the proposer. My next remark must be that of satisfaction that the rail strike has been solved for the time being. The whole country has been seriously disrupted and communications with the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway came to a standstill during the time the strike was in progress. One thing that I believe everybody will be wondering is why, if it was possible last Friday for the government to impose certain conditions both on the company and the firemen's union, similar action had not been taken a couple of weeks ago. Why was it necessary to subject the country to all the inconvenience we had to go through when a temporary solution was apparently such an easy matter to bring about? Surely, if a little more energy had been displayed on the part of the government, that strike could have been averted altogether or at least postponed, as perhaps it is being postponed now, until next October. After all, this is only a temporary solution which has been reached. The strike was a great inconvenience to the people of this land and I feel that more resolute action might have been expected from the government.
The Address-Mr. Pearkes
An inquiry is to be set up into the various aspects of the dispute particularly in connection with the diesel problem and the safety angle connected with the running of these diesel locomotives. A few weeks ago I had the opportunity of travelling in what is technically known as a Budd car, which is an ordinary passenger coach driven by a diesel engine, and I was invited to go into the cab of this coach between Nanaimo and Victoria. I was surprised to find that there was only the engineer in that cab; there was no fireman, no front end brakeman, and yet this coach was carrying 60 or more passengers and was travelling at a high speed, in some places at well over 60 miles an hour. It did seem to me that that engineer was in an extremely lonely position, shut in by closed doors from the rest of the coach, and that he had difficulty in observing both to the right and to the left. He was sitting on the right-hand side of the coach and was able to see with some ease cars approaching on the right- there was a large number of level crossings- and he could see the signals given to him, but when passing stations and signals on the left and any cars approaching from the left-hand side his view was obstructed. I do suggest that when this board carries out its investigations it should not limit its inquiries solely to the freight and yard engines but that consideration should be given to advisability of having just one man in the cab of the Budd passenger coach.
Living on an island, as we do, we are not so much concerned with the railway as we are with other approaches. Our railways are limited and they are in the main used for the conveyance of logs and lumber to the seaboard. From the seaboard exports are taken by vessel to all the ports of the world and it is the development of the ports and the means of getting our produce off the island, and the means of bringing people to the island to enjoy the holiday resorts of Vancouver island, that concern us rather than the actual operations of the railway.
I do not think that in the whole history of Vancouver island in the last 75 years has the provision for the movement of the residents of the island to the mainland has been so inadequate as it is today. The service between the southern portion of the island and the mainland of British Columbia is extremely poor despite the fact that the traffic available justifies a much better service than is being provided at the present time. If one wishes to leave the city of Victoria in order to catch the fast train, either the C.P.R. or C.N., out of Vancouver the next day, one has to take the boat overnight from Victoria and remain the whole of the following day iu

The Address-Mr. Pearkes Vancouver. Alternatively you have to drive 75 miles up to Nanaimo and take the ferry across from Nanaimo. There is no direct connection between the Canadian Pacific boat service between Victoria and Vancouver which avoids a long delay in order to make connections with the fast trains to the east. Exactly the same thing happens on the return journey. The last time I went back to my constituency I had to take the ferry to Nanaimo and drive 75 miles to Victoria.
For many years recommendations have been made by various bodies that greater facilities should be provided somewhere on the Saanich peninsula so that a fast passenger and freight ferry service could operate all the year round between some port in the southern end of the island and Vancouver. Recommendations were made as long ago as 1913 that a breakwater should be constructed at the village of Sidney, at the northern end of the Saanich peninsula. If that harbour were developed it would be quite possible for vessels plying out of Vancouver to land their passengers at Sidney and they would then have to drive rather less than 20 miles to Victoria, thus saving two hours on the trip.
The harbour is exposed during the winter to high winds and surf from the southeast and some form of breakwater is required in order to make it suitable for all-year service. Ministers of the crown have visited the harbour but have done nothing about its development after their visits. This is not merely a local problem, it is one which concerns the whole economy of Vancouver island. One of the main industries of Vancouver island is the providing of accommodation for tourists who visit the island at all times.
The increase in the number of tourists coming to Vancouver island is demonstrated by the figures indicating the number of passengers and vehicles which have been transported to the island at Sidney from the state of Washington in the United States. During the summer months the Washington state ferries operate a service and in 1953 they carried 42,884 passengers; in 1955 that had gone up to 67,216 passengers, and last year up to August 31, they had carried 83,853 passengers. The number of passengers coming to Sidney from the state of Washington has doubled in three years. The same increase has occurred in the number of vehicles carried. In 1953 the Washington state ferries carried 13,532 vehicles whereas last year up to August 31 they carried 26,765.
That is an indication of the travel between the United States and Vancouver island. The same development would be possible if

facilities were provided for a fast ferry service between Vancouver and the southern part of the island. There is a customs port at Sidney and last year 1,300 United States yachts put in there to clear customs. The only accommodation they had was a float approximately 150 feet long. I have seen vessels lined up five and six deep waiting for better accommodation. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) was out there a year ago and looked over the situation. In a letter which he wrote he indicated that he recognized that there was a shortage of mooring space and stated that proper facilities could be provided for approximately $432,000. I hope it will be possible for some action to be taken.
There is another problem connected with transportation which was brought to my attention recently and this is the hazard created by overhead power lines particularly when they cross navigable waters. About six weeks ago I flew over and under some power lines which had been constructed recently by the B. C. Electric between Salt Spring island and Vancouver island. There were no markings whatever on the five wires which span Sansum narrows. You could not see the cables until you were almost on top of them and if my pilot had not known exactly where they were he might have been forced to alter course on very short notice. Some attempt was made to mark these lines by suspending spheres every 150 feet, but that did not prove adequate when there are low clouds and seaplanes are approaching the seaplane base at Patricia Bay.
I feel it is up to the Department of Transport to investigate this matter. This does not concern Vancouver island only because power lines have been placed across many navigable waters. A particular hazard is created when these lines are on the direct approach route to seaplane bases. The line I am referring to is on the direct route for planes coming from the north into the seaplane base at Patricia Bay, which is a recognized base. The Department of Transport must be aware of the danger and know that with the increased number of power lines being constructed all over the country this danger is increasing.
I believe that wherever possible these power lines should be submerged rather than hanging at not too great heights across navigable waters. If they cannot be submerged they should be clearly marked. I should think it would be possible to have some sort of flashing red light attached to these power lines.
To give some idea of the length and of the danger that there is, I should like to

give some instances. Over the Sansum narrows to which I referred there is a span of 5,753 feet. The highest part of the supporting structure on Salt Springs island is 900 feet whereas the lowest point in the sag of the cable comes down to 200 feet. Hence you have a diagonal cable running across that approach. But by no means is that the longest stretch there is. In Jervis inlet there is a span of 10,100 feet, and at many other places on the west coast there are other spans of cable which are more than 5,000 feet in length. So much for the question of transport.
I wish to say a word with regard to agriculture because I note that, according to the speech from the throne, a committee is to be set up to inquire into the better use of agricultural lands. We have some spots of extremely fertile land on Vancouver island but I suppose the majority of it would be considered as rather submarginal on account of the rocky condition of the soil. When crops are grown they must be rotated in just exactly the same way as crops are rotated in the larger agricultural districts. In the main our crops do not consist of cereals, such as wheat, oats arid barley. They consist largely of vegetables, small fruits and flowers. Flowers are used as a definite rotation crop on a great deal of our land and every encouragement should be given to increase the yield and to facilitate marketing conditions in connection with our flower crop. In other instances where it is not possible to grow extensive crops outdoors, utilization is made of the land and developments are made for the improvement of our flower crop by the construction and operation of greenhouses.
Greenhouses are only assisting nature in the growing of the flowers. The flowers depend upori the soil which is placed in the greenhouse and on the amount of sun which they receive. Yet for some reason or another plants produced in the greenhouses or flowers cut in the open fields are regarded by this government as being manufactured articles and therefore a ten per cent sales tax is imposed on cut flowers which are sold. We believe that flowers are part of the general economy of our island and that they should be regarded as an agricultural crop, not as manufactured articles.
To show how ridiculous is the imposition of the tax, may I give this illustration. If an agriculturalist cuts holly off his trees for the markets in eastern Canada at Christmas time, he must pay a ten per cent tax on those holly berries which are shipped. If, ori the other hand, he digs up a whole tree, wraps it up in burlap and sends it 82715-12J
The Address-Mr. Pearkes away he is not obliged to pay any sales tax at all on it. If somebody goes out and cuts boughs off a cedar tree for decorations or with which to wrap up flowers which are being sent across the country, he must pay a ten per cent tax on those cedar boughs. But there is no tax on Christmas trees which can be dug out and sold. The whole thing is full of inconsistencies and I think it should be carefully investigated.
Another important industry on our island is that of our fisheries. It is interesting to note what has been said in the Gordon report with regard to the fishing industry. One sentence which is found at page 36 of the report reads as follows:
We are of the opinion that it will also be necessary for Canada to re-examine its doctrine of territorial waters . . .
This question of the distance over which Canada can control her fisheries has been brought very much to the fore in the last year. Owing to recent technical developments, both for the discovery of fish and for increasing the efficiency of catching fish, larger and larger vessels have been used. The result is that those larger and larger vessels move farther and farther out into the ocean. This year there has been evidence that fishing vessels with nets a mile long have been catching salmon far beyond our territorial waters. If that condition is allowed to continue and if no control is exercised in the catching of fish beyond our territorial waters, then we can predict the depletion of our salmon fish industry in the foreseeable future. It is of the utmost importance that in the near future steps be taken to find some method by which the catch of fish far out in the ocean is to be regulated.
I am pleased that in the speech from the throne there is an indication that the sockeye salmon treaty will be extended to include the pink salmon. Pink salmon are also now being caught farther out to sea than they were a few years ago. It is going to be a case of either extending control beyond our territorial waters or finding some other method of regulating the catch if our fish industry is to be preserved. As these larger vessels move farther and farther out to sea there is likely to be a concentration of the industry in various ports. Such large fishing centres as Vancouver, New Westminster and, farther north, Prince Rupert are replacing the old-fashioned, small fishing villages. At the southern end of British Columbia the fishing industry is mainly centred around Vancouver. It is there that the boats are registered and from where they commence their operations. They go far out to sea, and the approach to the Pacific ocean lies around the south end of Vancouver island. As more money is being

The Address-Mr. Pearson spent for the development of bigger vessels and more modern equipment, it becomes more and more important that safe harbours be provided. There is a shortage of safe harbour sites on the south coast of Vancouver island.
I am pleased that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) has been carrying out some investigations as to the advisability of developing harbour facilities at Port Renfrew. I would urge that without any further delay a model of the approaches and water conditions in that island should be constructed. I have seen some of the models that have been made of Hecate strait, and it is undoubtedly an up-to-date method of deciding on the type of construction which should be undertaken. I hope it will be possible, even if some expense may be involved, to construct a large-sized model of the harbour of Port Renfrew in order that a decision may be made of the best type of structure to be built there so that a safe harbour may be developed for the fishing fleet which operates now so much farther out to sea.
In connection with the last point I wish to make I should like to endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) a couple of days ago when he pleaded so earnestly that consideration be given to extending the war veterans' allowance to those men who served only in the United Kingdom during the first world war. I noticed that the Legion presented a brief to the government in November, and that they had introduced into the recommendations they have been making for a great many years on this point, the fact that a limitation should be imposed in that before a veteran could receive the allowance he should have served in the United Kingdom for at least one year. I think that is a qualification that should appeal to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) and should make it quite possible for the government to extend that war veterans' allowance to those men who, through no fault of their own, were retained in the United Kingdom during the first world war, and who have now reached advanced years and are in rather straitened financial circumstances, their power of earning a livelihood very definitely restricted because of age and disability. Now is the time when we can extend that war veterans' allowance to include those men who served in the United Kingdom only during world war I, provided that they served there for at least one year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like in the first place, Mr. Speaker, to join very sincerely and warmly in the congratulations that have

already been offered to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, on the way in which they have discharged those important duties. Their participation in the work of the house and the contributions they have made to our debates, gave us every reason to believe that they would discharge these tasks with distinction and we were not, of course, disappointed.
A very considerable portion of the speech from the throne is devoted to external affairs, Mr. Speaker. This fact, as well as the fact that reference has been made to external affairs in the debate, will, I am afraid, make it difficult for me to discuss, as I would otherwise like to discuss, developments in the banner constituency of Canada. I need hardly say that I refer to Algoma East and the exciting industrial developments that are taking place there, especially in the field of uranium production.
So far as external affairs are concerned, Mr. Speaker, recent events, especially events in the Middle East, have emphasized to all Canadians the importance and the responsibilities of Canadian foreign policy, even in respect of far away areas where there may seem to be few direct Canadian interests but where the paramount interests of all in peace and war are often involved. These events have also brought about, not only widespread public discussion of the decisions that we have made and may have to make, but also a reassessment of the principles which have underlined our policies and the factors which influence them. It has, I think, Mr. Speaker, been confirmed, if confirmation was necessary, that our foreign policy must be Canadian, based on Canadian considerations, Canadian values and Canadian interests, the greatest of which, however, apart from freedom itself, is peace. But a Canadian policy, in this day and age, is not necessarily the same as an independent policy. There is no country in the world today, even the most powerful, which in the preservation of peace and security can afford the luxury of, or run the risk of, a policy of independence in foreign affairs, in the sense that independence means isolation from one's friends or immunity from the effect of their decisions and their actions.
We should not, of course, and we do not, automatically or unhesitatingly follow the policy of the United States or the United Kingdom or any other country. Nevertheless, we cannot, and I suggest we should not, make our own decisions and our own policies without being influenced by, without taking into consideration, the policies of the United

Kingdom or the United States or those of our other friends and allies with whom we are associated. No country is in a better position to appreciate the necessity and indeed, if you like, the opportunities of interdependence in the realm of foreign policy than Canada, situated as we are on the North American continent but being an active member, as we are also, of the commonwealth of nations, NATO and the United Nations and trying to play a responsible part in all those associations. We are, of course, a free and a sovereign state, but freedom and sovereignty do not mean for us, or for other nations, either isolation or immunity; unless we abandon all of our national and international responsibilities, and perhaps not even then. It seems to me evident, then, that Canadian foreign policy must be influenced by various factors which we can and indeed which we often try to modify, but which we ignore at our peril.
These principal factors, I suggest, are four in number. The first is our membership in the commonwealth of nations, four-fifths of the people of which are now Asian, 443 million out of 530 million. Action by any of the commonwealth nations which seems likely to foster and strengthen the ties which bind us together is almost certain to deserve, and certainly should receive, our support. The reverse, of course, is also often true.
In actual practice, there have been over the last 10 years or so since world war II very few international occasions when we have not been on the side of Great Britain; the centre of our commonwealth. But the rarity of dissenting occasions stems not from our automatic acceptance of the policies of Great Britain but from the fact in the vast majority of international questions our interest and hers have happily been almost invariably identical. When that does not happen we, of course, regret it deeply and we do our best to reconcile our differences without delay and without recrimination. We experienced such regret indeed to the point of distress when we differed, not perhaps in objectives but in methods and procedures, with the United Kingdom on certain occasions at the United Nations assembly meeting last autumn in connection with the Suez crisis. The commonwealth was indeed deeply split on that issue and our relief was therefore correspondingly great, a relief shared in full measure by the Asian members of the commonwealth, where the separation pressures were most intense, when this danger to the commonwealth was removed by the Anglo-French decision to accept the cease-fire resolution of the United Nations assembly. So the commonwealth association remains strong
The Address-Mr. Pearson and close. The friendly, informal and frank exchange of views in a sincere effort to reach agreement on all matters of common concern goes on, and the commonwealth continues to play its invaluable and constructive role in today's troubled world; a role for which the whole world has reason to be grateful.


Mr. Churchill:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? What nations of the commonwealth would have left the commonwealth had the British and French not abided by the resolution of the United Nations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is evidence, strong evidence, which I and others have received, to suggest that if the fighting in Egypt between Anglo-French and Israeli forces and Egyptian forces had continued and if the United Nations assembly cease-fire resolution had been repudiated or rejected, the pressures in regard to separation from the commonwealth in certain Asian members of the commonwealth would have been so great that it would have been indeed very difficult to resist them. We have had evidence to that effect both from New Delhi and from Karachi.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Has that not been denied by both Ceylon and India?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This has been questioned, I believe, in Ceylon, including the Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, I am giving my opinion on the basis of information which I have received from the highest authorities in the government of India. I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker-and in my earlier statement on this I think I made it clear in the house I did not suggest-those pressures affected what we sometimes call the old members of the commonwealth, but they certainly did affect those new members which, as I have just said, constitute four-fifths of the population of the commonwealth.
It seems to me that this commonwealth association, which all its members wish to preserve, to be of enduring value must strive for the widest possible areas of agreement between its members. It seems to me also that the limits of such areas, though not often expressed, may be pretty clearly discerned. Whether or not we speak of it, there are certain fundamental things that unite the governments and the peoples of the commonwealth:	freedom, personal and national;
parliamentary democracy and the supremacy of the individual over the state. There is also a certain basis of morality in political action to which commonwealth members are by tacit consent expected to adhere. Such a basis can easily be disregarded, on the other hand, by those who do not share our commonwealth beliefs and our ways of doing things. They have, for instance, often been and are being

The Address-Mr. Pearson disregarded by the Soviet union in Hungary; but the barbaric luxury of this type of conduct is not open to us. Indeed, it is completely foreign to us and that is one reason, perhaps a main reason, why we can and must work together in the commonwealth. It is more important than ever for us at this time to strengthen within the commonwealth our will to work together in defence of these principles; for very significant events are now about to occur in the commonwealth as significant perhaps as those which took place 10 years ago when India, Pakistan and Ceylon became members.
We often also, Mr. Speaker, speak of the commonwealth as a bridge, as it is, between Asia and the west; and perhaps it would not be inappropriate at this moment if I expressed my own feeling of gratitude for what the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), in his recent trip to Asia, has done to strengthen that bridge. If there is such a bridge, it has been made possible by the accession of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, which was in its turn the result of an act of constructive abdication by the United Kingdom in India in 1947. Now, this evolving process is about to shift to Africa. On March 6 next we shall welcome a new member into the commonwealth, the state of Ghana, at present known as the Gold Coast. It will be the first native African member, and its progress as an independent nation inside the commonwealth will be watched with great interest throughout Africa and Asia, and also in the west and by the Soviet union.
Ghana will probably be the first of a series of new members to emerge from the continents of Africa and Asia. It may be that by 1960 and 1962 the commonwealth will include also Malaya, Nigeria, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and nearer home the Caribbean federation.
Thus the process of what I might call creative withdrawal continues to the special credit and indeed to the glory of the heart and centre of the commonwealth, the United Kingdom. As has been said, "The smaller the empire the greater the commonwealth." New nations arise from former colonial territories to take their place among the free democracies of the world. As an older member of the commonwealth Canada is proud, I am sure, to assist in welcoming these young countries, as they attain independence, to our growing family and to assure them of our friendship and our support.
A second factor influencing Canadian foreign policy, Mr. Speaker, is the United Nations, now going through a testing period that will have far-reaching effects on its
IMr. Pearson.]

future as an organization effective for the promotion of international peace, security and justice.
It should, I think, be clear to us that so long as we try to discharge our obligations we have accepted under the United Nations charter we must by that fact accept some limitation on our complete independence in international affairs. There are now 80 members in the United Nations assembly with widely varied resources, traditions and political experience. The assembly's decisions, which are, after all, merely recommendations and not laws, although this is sometimes forgotten, necessarily involve a great deal of give and take. We cannot expect always to have our own way on matters which are decided by the wisdom, or if you like the unwisdom, of a majority of 80 sovereign states with differing interests, differing loyalties and unfortunately with different conceptions of peace and justice.
The activities of the United Nations assembly in recent weeks in regard to the Middle East have given us some ground for hope that the organization can be used effectively and swiftly in bringing about a cessation of hostilities, though it remains to be seen whether it will be as effective in bringing about a just settlement of the issues that brought about those hostilities. That will be for the United Nations a more important and I suspect a more difficult task. We can take satisfaction over what has already been done in the assembly, but recent developments have raised in our minds some questions regarding its future and I want to mention one or two of these.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, we have become more aware than we were previously of the gap between responsible and irresponsible membership; between the membership of those democratic countries such as the United Kingdom and France who are loyal members of the organization and as such take heed of its recommendations and those totalitarian despotisms such as the Soviet union which treat such recommendations with contempt when they cut across their own national policies.
This has led to a demand in some quarters that somehow or other the United Nations assembly should take action to enforce effectively its own recommendations. This of course ignores the fact that such compulsory enforcement procedure through the assembly is not in accordance with the terms of the charter as drafted; and also that resolutions that may be passed by an irresponsible majority in the assembly may be such that we ourselves would find great difficulty in
m

accepting them and the enforcement of which we would in certain circumstances resist.


John George Diefenbaker: What does the minister mean by irresponsible?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, I mean by exercising the right of membership in an irresponsible fashion against the principles of the charter which was accepted by all members. This leads to another question which causes some anxiety in our minds, and that is the growing tendency in the assembly, which is of course facilitated by the one-state one-vote principle, and regardless of the powers of state, to force through, by sheer voting strength, resolutions that are impractical and at times quite unreasonable. In reverse there is the power of a minority of one-third plus one to prevent reasonable and useful resolutions of the majority which we may consider ourselves to be both practical, reasonable and desirable.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in a very real sense the effectiveness of this unique instrument for the preservation of peace, the United Nations assembly, rests with a majority of small nations now operating at least to some extent in blocs. If the group veto or the bloc veto in the assembly, irresponsibly exercised, replaces the single-power veto in the security council, the larger body will soon become as futile as on so many occasions the smaller body has become. I suggest therefore that each member of the assembly has now a greater duty than ever before to exercise its rights with a clear and unprejudiced understanding of their implications for the future of the organization and for international peace and security. If they do it in that way they will be showing a sense of responsibility.
The need for a constructive and moderate approach to complex political and economic problems without which the general assembly will not be able to function effectively and may not even survive can be illustrated, this is only one illustration, by the attitude taken by some members of the assembly to what are called the colonial powers. Incidentally, those who use that term at the United Nations often exclude from its meaning the greatest colonial power of all and the one which exercises that power in the most arbitrary and tyrannical fashion, the Soviet union. The old colonialism is disappearing inevitably and, if the process is orderly, desirably; but that is all the more reason why those countries which still have direct responsibilities for non-selfgoverning territories should not be made to feel at the United Nations or elsewhere that they are oppressors to be deprived arbitrarily of their rights or indeed their reputations.
The Address-Mr. Pearson The actual fact is that these countries for the most part have been leading participants in the great twentieth century experiment of bringing national consciousness and selfgovernment to peoples who have never known them before.
There is another danger, Mr. Speaker, which faces the assembly of the United Nations, the tendency to forget that while the world organization can perform and is performing, as I see it, an indispensable role it is no substitute for the national policies of its members. It reflects those policies, it influences them, but it rarely creates them. I think it is wrong, even dangerous, to suggest that it does or to try to replace the necessity of hammering out wise and constructive policies among one's friends merely by a resort to high-sounding moral platitudes at the assembly. As Mr. Dean Acheson put it the other day, "Nothing more comes out of the United Nations than we put into it."
I think it is also wrong to rely on United Nations decisions only for a particular area or a particular situation. It should be remembered that if governments are to use the United Nations when they consider it in their interest to do so, and ignore it on other occasions when they find it a less convenient instrument for their purposes, the organization will be very greatly weakened indeed and will be open to the criticism of being merely an agency for power politics. I am not suggesting that these things have happened at the United Nations but I am suggesting that we should watch carefully to see that they do not happen.
Recently the assembly took a very important step indeed in extending its functions into the field of security after the security council itself became powerless in that field through the exercise of the veto. I refer, of course, to the emergency force which was set up to supervise and secure a cessation of hostilities. Now, Mr. Speaker, the immediate value of this force which now numbers, incidentally, about 5,500 of whom over 1,100 are Canadians, in respect of the specific emergency which brought it into being has I think been well established. Its continuing value in helping to bring about and maintain peaceful conditions and security in the area in which it operates remains, of course, to be proven. I myself think it should be of a great value for this purpose also, provided it remains genuinely international in control, composition and function, and providing also that its limitations are recognized, especially that it is a voluntary organization which must act strictly within the terms of resolutions which are only morally binding and which must be

The Address-Mr. Pearson passed by two-thirds of the assembly in each case. But even within these limitations the United Nations force can, I think, play an important part in bringing about an honourable and enduring political settlement in the Palestine and Suez area.
We have been discussing the possibilities of such a settlement with friendly governments in recent weeks and it seems to be the general view among members of the United Nations that the present atmosphere, charged as it is with fears and suspicions which have been exacerbated by recent armed conflicts is not at the moment conducive to the kind of discussion and negotiation which would have to precede such a settlement. I think perhaps we have to accept that position. But if, however, the passions and the bitterness of fighting must be given time to recede, that does not, as I see it, mean we can safely sit back and let nature take its course. There may be some reason for delay; there is none for indifference or for indefinite avoidance by the United Nations of a responsibility which is escapable: to make peace in the area, without which the cease fire would not have any permanent value.
While the political climate of the Middle East is maturing toward the time when conditions will be more appropriate for a comprehensive settlement it is essential, I think, for the countries of the region, and indeed for us all, that there should be no return to the former state of strife and tension and conflict on the borders; that security should be maintained and, indeed, guaranteed. I suggest that for this purpose there will be a continuing need during the period until a political settlement is achieved for the stabilizing international influence that the emergency force is now exercising. And this essential stabilizing role might well require the continuing presence of a United Nations force along the boundary between Egypt and Israel; perhaps also for a time in the Gaza strip and, with the consent of the states involved, along the borders between Israel and her other Arab neighbours, though that of course would require a further resolution from the United Nations assembly.


Mr. Fulton:: What about the Suez canal itself?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be coming to that in a moment.
It seems to me that some such United Nations supervision might help to ensure the security of the nations concerned which is so vital if they are to approach with the necessary confidence negotiations toward a comprehensive solution of their conflicts.

Not only, Mr. Speaker, in my view, must the borders be made secure betwen Israel and her neighbours; so must freedom of navigation through the Suez canal and in the gulf of Aqaba. As the canal will soon be open to traffic again it is, I think, very important indeed to press on with discussions which have already begun at the United Nations so that the control of the operation, maintenance and development of the canal will be in accordance with the six principles agreed on at the security council last September-I think it was last September. Events since that time, far from weakening the validity of these principles, have strengthened that validity and I think it is now more important than ever that the operation of this essential international waterway be-and I quote from one of these principles-"insulated from the politics of any one nation" and that the United Nations recognize and confirm that fact.
This is a problem which is right on top of us at the United Nations assembly now, and it must be solved satisfactorily or there will be further trouble in that area. It is obvious of course-I think it is obvious, though I wish it were not-that the Soviet union will do its best to prevent such an agreed solution on terms satisfactory both to the users of the canal and to Egypt. Moscow has already shown that its policy is to trouble these waters and to fish in them.
Looking further ahead, the experience of the United Nations in respect of the Suez crisis, especially the necessity for hasty improvisation, underlines, I think, the desirability and the need of some international police force on a more permanent basis. We have recognized this need in the past. We have expressed that recognition at the United Nations and elsewhere as recently as in the General Assembly before the recess and we have done all we could to translate that necessity into reality, but for one reason or another it has never been possible for the United Nations, except in the special and limited cases of Korea and the Middle East, to have armed forces at its disposal; the reason for that I will not go into at this time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the minister permit one question before he leaves the subject of Suez? Is it the view of the Canadian government that the United Nations emergency force should be assigned a stabilizing role in connection with the Suez canal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are possibilities for that if such a role is needed, but if there is agreement between the users of the canal and the government of Egypt which would in its turn provide for a satisfactory means of resolving the dispute over the

use of the canal it might not be necessary for any outside United Nations force to be present on the canal while that agreement is in effect. I think the best thing to do is to wait and see how these discussions work out.
This present emergency force in the Middle East is a unique experiment in the use of an international police agency to secure and supervise the cease fire which has been called for by the General Assembly. Why should we not, therefore, on the basis of this experience-the experience we have gained by the operation and establishment and organization of this force-consider how a more permanent United Nations machinery of this kind might be created for use in similar situations as required?
What the United Nations now would seem to need for these limited and essentially police functions is perhaps not so much a force in being as an assurance that members would be prepared to contribute contingents when asked to do so, to have them ready and organized for that purpose; with some appropriate central United Nations machinery along the lines of that which has already been established for this present emergency force.
The kind of force we have in mind would be designed to meet situations calling for action, intermediate if you like, between the passing of resolutions and the fighting of a war, and which might incidentally have the effect of reducing the risks of the latter. It would not, however, as I see it, be expected to operate in an area where fighting was actually in progress; it would be preventive and restoratory rather than punitive or belligerent.
It is not possible to determine in advance what would be required in any emergency, but surely members through the proper legislative processes could take in advance the necessary decisions in principle so that should the occasion arise the executive power could quickly meet United Nations requests for assistance which had been approved by it. In doing so we would be making at least some progress in putting international action behind international words.
The third factor that has a bearing on our independence in foreign policy is NATO, our membership in which gives us, not only the assurance of a strong and collective defence if we are attacked but, even more important, is our strongest deterrent against attack. Since I last had occasion to speak on foreign affairs in the house a NATO council meeting of very considerable importance has taken place in Paris.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the minister goes on to the next question. He has mentioned the need of a strong force under the United
The Address-Mr. Pearson Nations and has expressed the hope that the day would come when that force would be able to carry out the resolutions or directions of the United Nations. What has the minister to say with regard to President Eisenhower's recent announcement that having regard to conditions in the Middle East there is a necessity for the establishment of a United States force to operate there in the event that aggression takes place. Has he taken any stand on behalf of Canada with relation to that announcement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was going to say a few words about that if I could bring them within the 40 minutes of my time.


An hon. Member:: We will give you more.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be coming to that later. The NATO council meeting, to which I have just referred, took place in Paris from December 11 to December 15. Ministers from each of the NATO countries met in Paris. My colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) and I represented the Canadian government at this meeting. In addition to the annual stocktaking of NATO's defence plan and the approval of a directive for future military planning, secret of course, which took into account both economic and atomic capabilities, we had what we considered to be useful discussions of the general international situation, particularly on the impact on the alliance of developments in the Middle East and eastern Europe.
In these discussions we devoted more time than usual to political developments outside of what is described as the NATO treaty area. That merely reflected the increasing awareness of the NATO governments that the security, stability and well being of an area like the Middle East, to quote one example, is essential to the maintenance of world peace, which in turn is the matter of primary concern to the NATO members.
A significant aspect of this recent meeting was the evident desire on the part of all members to strengthen the non-military side of NATO; as we increasingly realized that relations between the western alliance and the Soviet have become a contest in terms of political judgment and action; of economic and industrial power, and not merely a contest in military strength. Having said that, it would be unwise not to add that it was recognized at our council meeting that events in Hungary and the use of naked military force there by the Soviet union, which use might have had far-reaching effects; these events have underlined the absolute necessity of maintaining also our military defensive

The Address-Mr. Pearson strength as we become more and more preoccupied with the political and economic aspects of the struggle. As has been said by so many people so many times, we have to continue to do both.
It was to these problems of non-military co-operation confronting the alliance that the committee of three report addressed itself. That report, which has been made public, was submitted to the council and its recommendations were accepted by the council members. Apart from maintaining defensive military strength the most important need of the NATO alliance in the present circumstances is for the development of common policies, as essential to that unity which is important as strength itself. The committee of three report recognized this, also that new institutional arrangements or organizational changes or changes in structure would not in themselves meet this need.
What is required, and this is easier to say than to bring about, is a sustained will and desire on the part of member governments to work out through consultation policies which will take into account the common interests of the members of the alliance. If that is not done and if national factors alone prevail in the formulation of policy, then the alliance will have great difficulty in surviving. Certainly it will not develop beyond a purely military arrangement which will disappear if and when the fears and emergencies of the present lessen and disappear.
The most powerful member of our NATO coalition, and as recent history has perhaps demonstrated the only one which now has the economic and military power to enable it to discharge fully truly world-wide responsibilities, is the United States. Within the last few days the administration in Washington has proposed to congress an increased acceptance of those responsibilities in the Middle East in what is called the Eisenhower doctrine.
I do not think it would be appropriate for me to discuss in detail a proposal of the United States government which is now before congress and concerning which differences of opinion have already appeared, but I think I can say without impropriety that the ideas behind this doctrine are welcomed by this government as evidence of the increased interest of the United States in the Middle East in terms of both defence and economic aid for the development of the area. It seems to me important that those two things go together there as elsewhere.
Mr. Dulles, in quoting the President's declaration to a congressional committee, has warned, and I think the warning is a good one, that no single formula will solve all the

problems in the Middle East and that there is no single panacea for them. Nevertheless it is quite obvious I think that those proposals have very important implications which have been very well put in my view by the Washington correspondent of the Winnipeg Free Press, and I quote from one of his articles as follows:
The American government, once congress has given its expected approval,-
Or perhaps as I should say "if congress gives its expected approval."
-will be committed to a solemn and unprecedented obligation in the Middle East. It will be pledged to use force if necessary to protect that region from Russia or from any state responsive to Russia's pressures.
Then Mr. Freedman went on to say this:
That is the ultimate commitment. There can be none greater. It has been defined in this challenging form to prevent Russia from believing that the eclipse of British and French influence allows it to bring the Middle East under Moscow's control.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: May I ask
the hon. gentleman a question at this point?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Does that doctrine not suggest there is a danger of by-passing the United Nations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think so. However, I shall have a word to say about that matter also. Indeed, I am coming to that point now. It has been said that the principles and the procedures envisaged in this doctrine are the same as those which prompted Anglo-French intervention in the Suez crisis last October. But I doubt whether that deduction will be borne out by the text of the presidential declaration which contains the following points, and some of these bear on the particular point raised by my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North: (1) any assistance against aggression would be given only at the request of the state attacked; (2) any obligation to give such assistance is restricted to overt aggression by any nation controlled by international communism; (3)-and this is of some importance-any measures taken must be consistent with the charter of the United Nations and with any action or any recommendations of the United Nations; and I take it that would mean either positive or negative action by the United Nations.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the minister this question? Does that mean that action is taken first and then the United Nations acts afterwards or just what does it mean?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think I had better stick to the wording of the declaration. You know what happened in the case of Korea, Mr. Speaker. Certain action was taken by one

member of the United Nations. But within half an hour or an hour, I forget which

within a very short time-the matter was referred at once to the security council and this action was before security council for confirmation or otherwise.


Howard Charles Green: That is only because Russia was absenting herself.


Lester Bowles Pearson: True, confirmation was
received only because Russia absented herself from the security council. But we now have a procedure which, when action is vetoed in the security council, the assembly can be called together within twenty-four hours and the matter referred to the assembly, as was done indeed last October.
The fourth point is that the measures to be taken or envisaged would be "subject to the overriding authority of the United Nations security council in accordance with the charter".
Then, Mr. Speaker, I think I should also point out-and this is of some importance- that the declaration does not deal with conflict between non-communist states in the Middle East nor does it deal with communist subversion brought about by nonmilitary means.
Welcome as is this indication of the acceptance by the United States of a direct and immediate responsibility for peace and economic progress in the Middle East, even more welcome to a Canadian would be the full restoration of close and friendly relations between London, Paris and Washington in respect of that area, and the strengthening of their co-operation generally.
Perhaps we in Canada are particularly conscious of the desirability and the need of this result. For that reason I think we would all want to give particularly wholehearted support, especially at this time, to one sentence from President Eisenhower's state of the union message last Thursday when he said this:
America, alone and isolated, cannot assure even its own security. We must be joined by the capability and resolution of nations that have proved themselves dependable defenders of freedom. Isolation from them invites war.
I think it is hardly necessary to add in this house that no people in the world have proved themselves more "dependable defenders of freedom" than have the British.
Co-operation in the commonwealth of nations, in the United Nations and in NATO -all this-is important, indeed essential. But nothing is more important in the preservation of peace and the promotion of progress than is an enduring and solid friendship as the basis for co-operation and unity between the
The Address-Mr. Pearson United Kingdom, France and the United States. The recent NATO council meeting in Paris-and this may have been almost its most important achievement-began the process of restoring and strengthening that cooperation after the strains and interruptions to it brought about by the Suez crisis. It is essential that this process should continue.
We now have a great opportunity to profit from the unhappy experiences of the recent past by taking steps to ensure that those experiences will not be repeated.
Perhaps I should not close, Mr. Speaker, without at least mentioning-and there will be time only to mention it-a fourth factor which bears strongly on the formulation and execution of Canadian foreign policy. I refer to the fact that we are a neighbour of the United States on the North American continent.
On our relations with the United States my colleagues and I have often spoken over the last few years. I think we have made it abundantly clear that our acknowledgement of the United States as the inevitable and indispensable leader of the free world does not at all imply automatic agreement with all its policies. I have even been told by some of my friends below the line that we have a tendency to make this fact almost unnecessarily clear. On the other hand, it seems to me to be difficult to imagine a really critical situation in international affairs, one which involved final questions of war or peace, on which we should be likely to diverge very widely from the attitude of our neighbours. If we had to, for Canadian purposes, we would certainly be in a most uneasy position. For us in Canada, therefore, to formulate and try to follow foreign policies which do not take into account the closeness of all the ties which link us-and must do so-with the United States, would surely be nothing but unrealistic and unprofitable jingoism. The time when we can comfortably enjoy this particular form of national indulgence seems to me to have long since disappeared.
In our relations, then, with the commonwealth, with the United Nations, with NATO, and with the United States, we have the fullest liberty to propose, to persuade, to advise, to object; and this liberty I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, we have used and shall use whenever a Canadian interest requires it. We will not, however, be using this freedom for the benefit of our country if we try to secede or weaken from our international commitments or if we try to ignore or take away from the geographic and economic facts of life on this continent. Membership in the international association to which we belong undoubtedly brings us nationally very great

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
advantages in terms of security and progress. The national advantages are, however, coupled with international responsibilities. I think, Mr. Speaker, that Canada's record in the discharge of those responsibilities over the years has been a good one and I am sure it will continue to be so.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I want to take a moment of the time of the house, Mr. Speaker. There are a lot of questions we would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), but we can ask them another time. There is one question I should like to put to the minister and it is this. Was it generally foreseen that because of the terms of what I believe was called the uniting for peace resolution, which was passed about a year ago by the United Nations general assembly, that the resolutions passed at the United Nations general assembly on November 2 and November 7 last, which were based on the former resolution would be clearly placing the Egyptian president in a position to dictate to the United Nations with respect to the emergency force?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I could just try to answer that in a word. When the uniting for peace resolution was passed by the assembly, as my hon. friend may know, two committees were set up by the assembly to follow up the question of uniting for peace through the appropriate machinery. Canada was represented on one of those committees. At that time we did try to make provision, and made proposals to that effect, for some permanent United Nations police machinery which would be available for the kind of emergency which took place last October. This was not possible and, therefore, though we may have at that time foreseen the kind of emergency which we had at the end of last October, I am afraid we did not do very much to be in a position to meet it.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, before making the remarks which I propose to make I should like to associate myself with those who have congratulated the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think this is more than just a pleasant piece of politeness. I believe it indicates something which is quite basic in our parliamentary practice and which has been referred to in these 
very often quoted words of Churchill who said, "The things that unite us are greater than the things that divide". Also, I think it is part and parcel of another thing which is essential in our parliamentary life, namely, a kind of sense of sportsmanship which does not often desert us, and which, when it does desert us, causes difficulties. I think ordinarily we have the feeling that, as I said, we can afford to be polite to each other, usually, because of the fact that the things that unite are greater than the things that divide.
I had no idea when I put together my thoughts to express today that I should have the honour of following the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). I had, in fact, determined to base my remarks on that paragraph in the speech from the throne which did have a passing reference to the commonwealth and I do not propose to be diverted from that except that I shall try to comment on some of the remarks made by the minister with particular reference to the commonwealth.
I want to read the paragraph which refers to the commonwealth:
Visits to Canada in the last few weeks by the prime ministers of Ceylon and India have been conducive to a renewed strengthening of the bonds which unite the peoples of the commonwealth in their constant aim to co-operate in the pursuit of peace, liberty and progress.
Now, I suppose I ought to be grateful for two reasons that Mr. Nehru and the prime minister of Ceylon were here; if they had not been here we might not have had any reference to the commonwealth at all in the speech from the throne; and it is interesting to have them here, too, because of the fact that in the case of Nehru he represents hundreds of millions of Asians. We are reminded of this fact incidentally, in the article by the Right Hon. Mr. Nutting in the Montreal Gazette when he pointed out the other day that our great task now is to make friends with the teeming millions in what he called the "uncommitted world".
I find the words I have read from the speech from the throne very disappointing. There is nothing in them which suggests any action, and that is my criticism of the pleasant words used by the minister this morning in speaking about the commonwealth. "The visit is conducive to a renewed strengthening of the bonds". There is not very much suggestion of action there.
I suppose something had to be said about the commonwealth because of what happened in this chamber last November. A great many of us remember with great regret the words

used by the Prime Minister on November 26 when he said, as reported at page 20 of Hansard:
The era when the supermen of Europe could govern the whole world has and is coming pretty close to an end.
We remember not only the caustic words but the caustic tone which he used, and perhaps it was not surprising that before the session ended on November 29 the Prime Minister thought it wise to temper those caustic words in what I can only call a speech of repentance. It seems to me repentance; I think it was repentance. I quote briefly from the Prime Minister's words at page 174 of Hansard:
While I am on my feet there was something I did wish to say, which I think was expressed in some of the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops and other hon. members and is summarized in a paragraph of an editorial in the Ottawa Journal of today. It reads:
"Canada should have but one major goal for its foreign policy these days, more important even than the doings of its troops in Egypt: that is the immediate improvement of commonwealth relations, of Anglo-American-French relations-but the greatest need of all is the reuniting of the principles and policies of the British and American governments".
That is the end of the quotation from the Journal. The Prime Minister goes on:
I had intended to take the opportunity of saying that had been the goal we have been pursuing ever since the first of these resolutions came before the United Nations, to work toward what we regard as almost essential for the peace and security of the free world; that is to say, the reliance on commonwealth relations and the reuniting of this alliance in an effective way between the United Kingdom, France and the United States; something that has, I think, been of immense value and without which there would be a void that would cause all of us deep anxiety.
In these words of the Prime Minister there was some warmth, some suggestion of action, but when we come again to read these tepid, lukewarm words in the speech from the throne there is no suggestion of warmth or of action. It is, as I say, a tepid, lukewarm performance.
I do not propose to refer at any great length to the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. One might say of it "good sentences, and well pronounced," in his reference to the commonwealth. I do not feel that I can quarrel much with what he said; they were fair words. But what one wants to know is what is going to be done. Is there any sign of action? And, also, I cannot rid myself entirely of the wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs is so completely North American, is so completely engrossed with his dealings with Washington, that he finds it impossible to take very seriously the affairs of the commonwealth. We remember when, some years
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell ago, he came back from a meeting at Colombo with the other commonwealth nations and announced that he had been there as a "dollar gadfly." A gadfly is a not very co-operative form of insect. I understand what he meant, of course, is that he had been there, the only member representing a country not in the sterling bloc, and that he had been at pains to outline the special views of Canada as a non-member of the sterling bloc.
I wish to refer just briefly to another matter which troubles and perplexes me because of the fair words the minister uses about the commonwealth. He delivered some lectures at Princeton a year or more ago and I intend to read from page 95 of this book of lectures. I am also going to refer to an editorial reviewing the book in the Queen's University Quarterly. The reviewer says in brief:
One very puzzling aspect of Mr. Pearson's . . . discussion is that there is only one mention of the commonwealth of nations.
That is, in this whole book of 120 pages or so. The reviewer goes on to say that while there are frequent references to the Atlantic triangle and our allies as represented by the Atlantic triangle there is only this one reference to the commonwealth of nations. As a matter of fact, the reference is introduced in rather curious words, almost words of apology. This was originally delivered as a lecture at Princeton University and I am now quoting from page 95 of the book of lectures:
Before leaving this subject of understanding between systems of society and civilizations, I would like to mention-and it can be only to mention- the unique role which may be played in this matter by the commonwealth of nations of which Canada is privileged to be a member. Its value as a bridge of understanding between the west and Asia and Africa is very great in this age of suspicion and strain where there are few such bridges.
Well, I do not quarrel with those words; indeed, I rather welcome them. I would go back again to ask, however, whether we find any evidence of action as described in these fair words and in particular whether this paragraph which I have read suggests action or any approach to action. I find myself disappointed and indeed there are other things too which disappoint me. If we think back to the time when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) returned from the commonwealth conference last summer we will recall that he had very little to say about what had taken place. He said they had not had to deal at any length with the affairs of the commonwealth itself because they did not

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell really need attention. His exact words as reported at page 5764 of Hansard for July 9, 1956 were:
Problems of the commonwealth, as such, did not require very much attention.
It is quite true that the conference had discussed various other matters but we could get very little satisfaction from the Prime Minister because, as he said, "The problems of the commonwealth, as such, did not require very much attention". Those were the words of the Prime Minister on his return on July 9 last and when the then leader of the opposition, and the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) too, asked whether there was any indication of our taking the initiative in calling a future meeting the answer was in the negative.
In view of what has happened in these last few months I think the question arises again as to whether we can take the lead. If times were normal one could better tolerate a passive attitude, but the times are not normal. In the morning paper we read a remark of Mr. Chou En-lai of China who has been hailing the Russians as the leaders of the communists in the world and referring to the rest of us as "the enemy". I think the question arises as to whether we do or do not take these things seriously. If we do not, that is that; but if we do, then I suggest again that no proper steps are being taken to give the commonwealth the scope which it might have.
I wish to refer to Mr. Nutting's words in Saturday's Gazette in which he refers to the Anglo-American bridge. There are all kinds of bridges being referred to these days. He said:
First I want to set forth some general ideas on the basic problems that face our two countries.
Our survival depends on whether we can make friends not with communism but with the millions of the uncommitted world. That is the simple life and death issue which faces us, how do we approach it?
I come back to the paragraph I read from the speech from the throne and ask whether it means anything at all. Do the fair words of the minister this morning mean anything at all? Do they indicate any function for the commonwealth or do they just give it a blessing? Do we regard ourselves merely as members of a club or are we members of a live organization that is able to play its part?
The commonwealth has a special role among free nations and I want to read a sentence from an extremely interesting lecture delivered not long ago in Britain by Sir Oliver Franks, who has this to say about the commonwealth. Franks, you will remember, was the British Ambassador in Washington for

some years and he gives rather an amusing picture of his arrival in these words:
The nations of the commonwealth are free and equal: they are all sovereign states. This was impressed on me the very first day I arrived in Washington. There was a group at the station to welcome me. It included the chief of protocol from the American State Department, British Embassy staff, and seven commonwealth ambassadors. I suddenly realized that there were already six representatives of His Majesty in Washington, as well as the Indian ambassador whose government recognized the King as head of the commonwealth. From one point of view, and it was a real one, I was the junior ambassador of His Majesty in the United States.
At page 21 he says:
The strength and vitality of the commonwealth does not lie in the separation of its members from their neighbours. It is not that sort of exclusive club. It is its nature to reach out, not to retreat like a snail into its shell. Rightly conceived, the connections of interest and policy which each commonwealth nation enjoys with its neighbours are a source of strength to the whole, not of weakness. They contribute to the effective working of the commonwealth because they increase the understanding and the influence of each member in its region. And between them the members cover five continents of the world.
Its members, one might say, have a dual role. Australia and New Zealand are part of Southeast Asia and they are also part of the commonwealth. Canada is part of the commonwealth but is also part of North America. Britain is part of the commonwealth and also part of Europe. India, Ceylon and Pakistan are part of Asia and also part of the commonwealth, and today we were told of other eastern nations that will shortly be coming into the commonwealth as well. We remind ourselves that in addition to the commonwealth there is NATO about which we hear so much and there is also ANZUS; that is the Pacific organization comprising Australia, New Zealand and the United States. It is still in existence and it continues to function although we do not hear nearly so much about it as we hear about NATO.
Having another look at the commonwealth we observe it is not a bloc. It is spread all over the world separated by large tracts of sea. As someone has said so aptly, "By its very existence it says to the world, 'Don't just be American or European or Asian or African, but something more than that. Be worldwide.' " It has something more in common than the sharing of a continent and it can bring the continents together.
I wish to read at greater length from what the minister said in his Princeton lecture. At page 95 the following words appear:
I would like to mention the unique role which may be played in this matter by the commonwealth of nations .	.	. This is a loose but intimate
association which includes in its membership nations from each of the continents. Its value as

a bridge of understanding between the west and Asia and Africa is very great in this age of suspicion and strain where there are few such bridges .	. . The strength of the commonwealth
lies precisely in the undefined but genuine recognition by its members of the value to each of such an association with the others and of a common interest in the preservation of a system which includes us all.
I repeat that these are fine sentiments and are well expressed but the question which continually arises in my mind is that of action. Now the circumstances of the moment of course, in view of what has happened during these last months, suggest more than ever the strengthening of the commonwealth. Let us be frank. Britain has taken a knock, but do not let us forget 1940. A lot of people were ready to write her off then but we all remember the magnificent recovery which was made and I believe it will happen again. I do not think those 50 million brave and able people are going to play any second-rate part in world affairs. Their country is not as big or strong as the United States, of course, but I do not think they can be relegated to any second-rate role.
I have been discussing, particularly, political considerations up to now and those were the only considerations which the minister (Mr. Pearson) discussed this morning. That is one of the things that disappointed me-he said nothing about anything specific; he gave no indication of any function which the commonwealth could exercise at the moment; and yet it seems to me, there is a matter of vast importance spread before our eyes now and that is the question of whether Britain is going to join a free trade bloc of nations in Europe. Speaking of this possibility the Winnipeg Free Press says:
This is a bold design, if it is ever effectively translated into practice-through a transition period of perhaps ten years and more-It will recast the structure of world trade.
I am amazed that the minister said nothing about that this morning. I would have thought he should be particularly alive and alert to that situation. But there is no word, as far as I know, of any commonwealth conference being held this year, as has been requested. I can only hope it will take place this year because it seems to me it has now got something important to get its teeth into.
I am going to read a short piece from the London Economist's Canadian representative because he has things to say about this free trade prospect that I think we should bear in mind:
Canada must be concerned and disappointed that the free trade area as now envisaged by the British government puts paid to all hopes of expanding the exports of Canadian manufacturers to Britain. It is not comforting to hear British ministers brush
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell off-as Mr. Macmillan has done-the "mere ten per cent" of present Canadian exports which would be affected by the plan.
It is true our manufactured exports are only ten per cent. Then the correspondent goes on to say this:
Most of the ten per cent consists of semi-fabricated goods like paper of various kinds, chemicals- whenever import licences could be obtained-and some synthetic fibres. All of them benefit from substantial preferences. If the quota restrictions can be overcome, the tariff has been favourable. All these commodities represent the fractional beginnings of what Canada has always hoped might develop into considerable lines of trade.
Later the article goes on to say:
Some of the most important products concerned, moreover, have been things like chemicals where Canada is establishing new domestic industries to which even a limited export market was of great importance. When therefore Canada is invited to give up all preference on its manufactured goods as against Europe, the reluctance stemmed chiefly not from attachment to the present ten per cent of exports but rather from the shattered dream of the exports that might have been.
Those are serious words used by serious men and yet no reference of any kind has been made to them today by the minister. It is quite true, when facing this situation that we must remember that Canada would have a special problem in any negotiations because of her status as a dollar country, but that does not mean the problem should be ignored; it merely means that it is a challenge to statesmanship.
If we lose vital contacts with the commonwealth we shall fall more and more into the orbit of the United States and increasingly lose our individuality; we are finding out what that means to an ever-increasing degree.
I have tried to make a case on the political side and in practical matters of trade. If the case is as strong as I have indicated, why are we not more forthcoming? I think there are two reasons, among others. I sometimes wonder if we are as forthcoming as Australia and New Zealand. I do not think we are. First, for example, I noted that the minister of external affairs in his book containing the Princeton lectures had occasion only once, in those lectures, to mention the commonwealth and even then rather apologetically. Is it because we are so dominated by the U.S.? Then there is, apparently, another reason which I mention particularly because I think it is so wrong, and that is the feeling that close association with the commonwealth will somehow lessen our position as an autonomous state. I think that is so wrong, and yet it presents the danger of driving a wedge between the two founding races in our country. Yet I believe that if we would consider it carefully we would find there is

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell nothing in this point at all. I wish in this connection to quote briefly from three of the great voices of the past who have spoken on this subject-Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Robert Borden.
Sir John Macdonald, speaking on February 20, 1890, in this house in a speech which concerned the rights of the French language, said:
I appeal to all our friends In this house, without reference to party, to forget what may be an inconvenience when they go back to their constituents on both sides; to forget that for a moment, and to merge everything in the great desire to make Canada, French and English, one people without any hostile feeling, without any difference in feeling, further than that which arises from the different literatures and the different strains of mind that run always in different races and which sever the Scotsman and the Irishman from the Englishman as much as they sever the Frenchman from the Englishman. Let us forget this cry and we shall have our reward in seeing this unfortunate fire which has been kindled from so small a spark extinguished forever and we shall go on as we have been going on since 1867 as one people with one object, looking to one future and expecting to lay the foundations of one great country.
And now I wish to quote words from Sir Wilfrid Laurier which interested me particularly, partly because of the place in which they were uttered but also because of their intrinsic merit. When Sir Wilfrid was at the diamond jubilee in 1897 shortly after he became Prime Minister, he had occasion to visit Paris, and speaking in Paris he said this:
In passing through this city, beautiful beyond all cities, I have noticed upon many public buildings the proud device that the armies of the republic carried through Europe-Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Very well: all that there is of worth, of greatness, of generosity in that device we have today in Canada, that is our conquest. We have liberty absolute, complete; more complete-pardon my national pride for the affirmation I am making -more complete than in any country whatsoever in the world. Liberty for our religion, liberty for our language-liberty for all the institutions which our ancestors brought from France and which we regard as a sacred heritage. Equality is ours. What other proof of it could I give you than this? In this country, where the majority is of English descent and of the Protestant religion, the last general election have brought to power a man of French descent and Catholic religion, who has always strongly affirmed his race and religion. Fraternity is ours. There is with us no domination of one race over another. . . .
If in becoming subjects of the British crown, we have been able to keep our ancient rights and even acquire new ones, upon the other hand we have undertaken obligations, which, descended as we are from a chivalrous race, we recognize in full and hold ourselves in honour bound to proclaim. .	.	. That double fidelity to ideas and
aspirations quite distinct, is our glory-Canada. We are faithful to the great nation which gave us life, we are faithful to the great nation which has given us liberty.
I quote briefly from Sir Robert Borden, who was quoted by the Prime Minister himself the other day at the ceremony in connection
[Mr. Macdonnell.l
with the unveiling of Sir Robert's statue. This is an extract from a speech given before the Canadian Bar Association in 1929:
On the whole there has been an honourable and wholesome co-operation of the two races in the upbuilding of Canadian institutions and in the development of the heritage with which Providence has endowed the Canadian nation. The pioneer races are and they always will be distinctive but in their origins they are much nearer to each other than either seems to imagine. It is desirable to emphasize their points of sympathy and contact rather than their divergences of temperament and outlook.
I have quoted these words; I have reminded the house of the decisive part which the commonwealth played in two wars. I have indicated the enormous potential importance of commonwealth influence. I have pointed out its widespread ramifications and its influence everywhere in the world. I have reminded you that notwithstanding the autonomy of its component parts it has always been able to act together in crises. I have emphasized the need of unity of heart and purpose at home. I have quoted the great voices of the past.
I come back again to the urgent hope, the urgent demand that somehow or other this commonwealth will be able to play a greater part. I believe we have been soft pedalling. I feel it has not done what it should. I feel that the proximity of Washington and our constant contact with urgent problems which may arise there have perhaps served as an excuse but not as a reason for soft pedalling the work which the commonwealth can do and the services it can render. I believe that the services it can render are perhaps greater than ever before.
We have been well described as constituting a bridge between the east and the west, but in a sense we are also a bridge between the United States and the United Kingdom. That gives us a dual role, but it should not lead us to soft pedal the one because the claims of the other can so easily become insistent. Surely this all adds up to the conclusion that we should not be content with these tepid half-hearted words. I do hope that we shall have an indication that the real intention of the government is not expressed by these words and that we shall have action which will be much more reassuring than those faint and stumbling words which I have read.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National
Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is in accordance with our parliamentary traditions that one who has had the experience I have had in the last 63 days should at the first opportunity make a report to his colleagues in the House of Commons in a general way and through this house to the people at

large of an experience which has been certainly for me of great value, and which I would like to think will prove to be of value to the country and to the assignment I was asked to undertake. Without having had an opportunity of preparing the headings under which I propose to speak I hope on this account I shall not be less effective in giving the house some of the information and some of the impressions which I gathered during my trip to South and Southeast Asia.
I was asked by the Prime Minister and my colleagues in the government to represent Canada at the consultative meetings on the ministerial level of the Colombo plan which were held, beginning on December 4, in Wellington, New Zealand and at the same time to take advantage of that long journey to visit some 13 countries in South and Southeast Asia with which Canada has not had as great contact in the past as have many other nations whose history and period of existence is longer than our own.
So on November 11 I journeyed first to the Philippines and from there to Indo-China to Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos. I am the first Canadian minister of the crown to have had the privilege of going to Indo-China at any time, certainly since the setting up of the three international supervisory commissions which operate in those three countries in that historic part of Asia. From there I went to Indonesia and then to Thailand; from there to Australia and to New Zealand for the Colombo plan meeting. Then back to Sydney, that great city in Australia, and on to Canberra for consultation and talks with the prime minister and members of the government of Australia.
Afterward I journeyed to Singapore, to Malaya, to Ceylon, to India and Pakistan, and then back home.
In all of these places I had the opportunity of discussing matters with the head of every state where the head of the state is actually the chief of government. In those countries where the prime minister is the head of the government or, as in the case of Singapore and Malaya where the chief minister is the head of the government, I had the opportunity of conferring and talking with these latter persons on matters of mutual and world interest. Likewise in every country I had the opportunity of valuable talks with all the foreign ministers but one and with my opposite numbers in the field of health and welfare. I should like now to thank all of those governments for the opportunities which they provided me as a member of the government of Canada to discuss with them problems of common interest and of international concern.
The Address-Mr. Martin
It is I know difficult to draw conclusions from what one has seen and heard. It is possible sometimes to formulate too readily impressions which one has gathered particularly in a continent like Asia with its millions of people, more people than are to be found anywhere else in the world, more in the two countries of China and India than in all Europe and all the Americas together. The overriding impression I gained is that in the formulation of policy which has to do with the peace of the world, with the relations of one state with another, we ought in the assessment we make of other peoples' conduct and actions, of other governments' policies, to seek to understand the circumstances and the context in which those policies are formulated and projected. That certainly is true of Asia.
Canada has consistently sought to express to all nations its friendship and understanding. It has not received in return the kind of collaboration and appreciation that one would sometimes think it should receive from certain quarters. But as between Canada and India, for instance, there has been, during the past half decade at any rate, a close understanding and a disposition on our part to appreciate the significant and potential role and actual role which that country can play in Asia and in international affairs generally.
In spite of that, and although I in a modest way at the United Nations have from time to time been part of this desire to understand India, I must frankly say that I did say in India on several occasions that some of the attitudes taken in Asia did cause me personally at any rate on occasion to express some wonderment. In the light of this, with existing foreshadowings in terms of geography that confront that great nation and other Asian nations, I can well understand how important it is that each of us, officially and privately, try to understand the problems immediately confronting some of these countries and at the same time urge that there be reciprocal action on their part as to the reasons we in the west on occasion take the courses which, in our interests and in the interests of the world at large, from our point of view we regard as essential.
I neglected to mention that among the countries I visited was Burma, which borders on China, close to Indo-China and India. It is a country of 18 millions of people dedicated to the principles of a strong religious belief. It serves as a symbol in one sense, of the kind of forces that are at play in that great land mass we call Asia.
Wherever I went I sought first of all to affirm our friendship for these nations, and

The Address-Mr. Martin to indicate to them that the Canadian government, regardless of party, and the Canadian people, disposed as they are toward building a peaceful world, had for them nothing but a desire of friendship and collaboration to the extent of their capacity. I also told them that, as a member of the commonwealth, Canada felt that that instrument had in its very concept the opportunity of providing not only for the good of its constituents but for the welfare of all nations in the world, in Asia as well as elsewhere, who are prepared to understand its good intentions and purposes. I also sought to indicate that while there had been differences between Canada and others in the United Nations on recent actions on the part of one member of the commonwealth, because of that difference, while it reflected the objective character of Canada's approach to international affairs as certainly the government saw it, there could be no justification for any nation believing that Canada did not have absolute faith in the character of and the purposes which, generally speaking, Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom seeks to establish. I also sought to indicate that, because we were the closest neighbour of the United States with whom we did not always have full accord in matters having to do with problems affecting our two countries, we had, side by side, over 140 years, lived in peace; and that whatever may be the misgivings of certain countries about that nation it was my judgment, as one Canadian representing my government in Asia, that the basic foreign policy of the United States could only be interpreted as one directed toward the easing of international tension and the preservation of peace in the world.
I will not say that these interpretations were always acceptable but I thought that was the place to say these things, and I said them, I hope, in proper terms and in proper context; and I believe they were accepted as coming from a nation that has gradually built up for itself a reputation for an objective approach in international affairs.
Of course, in Australia and in New Zealand one felt that one was within, as it were, the family circle even though in respect to some matters of recent origin there have been honest differences of view. The position of Australia in this particular is well known. I had the opportunity of discussing these matters with Mr. Menzies, the Prime Minister of Australia, and his foreign minister and, indeed, on one memorable afternoon with all the members of his government. Mr. Menzies said of Canada that notwithstanding what may in particular instances be differences in point of view, one thing that the world

could know of Canada was that it spoke as a member of the commonwealth in the light of what it understood to be its obligations based on no consideration but the good of the commonwealth and the good of all nations throughout the world.
In Ceylon, in India and in Pakistan, notwithstanding the fact that recent events have, understandably, caused a strain on certain relations I found that the situation there now *-based upon my conversations with the three leaders, namely the Prime Minister of Ceylon, Mr. Bandaranaike, Mr. Nehru in India and Prime Minister Suhrawardy in Pakistan-is that there is on their part a recognition of the value of the commonwealth not only as a sensible grouping of nations in this interdependent world but as an instrument which can and is being used to interpret western opinion in many sectors of Asia. I believe that is an important fact to state and to remember. There may be dissident voices in some of these countries but my judgment would be that, for the most part, those who at the present time have to do with the conduct of government in those great countries recognize that in the consultations of prime ministers, in the consultations of commonwealth foreign ministers and in the collaboration that takes place in the United Nations, the commonwealth serves as a valuable instrument in a world that needs to move closer and closer together rather than diverge on an increasing scale.
I took occasion not only to discuss matters in accordance with the mandate given by my colleagues with those responsible for the conduct of government but to visit the people as well. I took occasion to go into their villages. Anyone who knows anything about the complex character of that great Asian state of India will understand what the village means to that country with its 360 millions of people, 80 per cent of whom live in the villages of which there are some half million which have the form, the character and the quality of centuries-old construction. I sought by going amongst the people to indicate, by manner and conduct, that it was the desire of the people of Canada that we should be friends with them, and as well with other nations in Asia, as indeed is the case with other countries in the world who are willing to accept our friendship.
There are some on this continent, and I suspect the same is true in other parts of the world, who possibly misunderstand on occasion a country like India; who sometimes feel that possibly India is disposed, because of its policy of neutralism, to give greater support to those who do not agree with the basic concepts of the free nations

of the world. I should like to say this at once. There is a great undercurrent of spiritual conviction in India, as there is in the case of most of the countries I visited. The religion of Buddha, the Hindu religion, the Moslem religion, the Christian religion, together with the natural instinct so many Asians have for a philosophical bent, in my opinion all these things make these countries an impregnable fortress against the possible encroachment of totalitarian ideals or programs.
Based on these facts and the talks I had in India with many members of the government, with one of them on five occasions and with another on four, I cannot believe that we are justified in suggesting that India would ever embrace dialectal materialism as it is projected to us frequently from the Kremlin or from any other source. This is an important consideration in the kind of world in which we live, where some time there may have to be a decision as to which form of society will prevail ultimately. I am satisfied that while there may not always be political affinity there will be what is even more important, a sort of spiritual affinity between these nations of Asia and the basic concepts of western civilization.
In addition there is another reason for the conclusions I reached. India, Ceylon and Pakistan are deeply dedicated to the democratic form of government and to the parliamentary process. There is no disposition there to accept as efficient or as possible a totalitarian form of government, suppressing, as ultimately that form does, the kind of freedom out of which political maturity can only grow. Of course, that exists in Australia and New Zealand, as it does here. I spend little time on this because it is taken for granted, although in some places on this continent it is not taken for granted that the kind of fundamentals which I have postulated are accepted generally in Asia. I can only say that my belief, and it is a strongly entrenched belief now, is that these principles are widely accepted in India, in Pakistan and in Ceylon.
The Colombo plan came into being in 1951 in Ceylon, in the capital of the country which was the first nation of the commonwealth in that part of Asia which I visited. I think I can say, whether or not we all agree on the extent of the contributions made, that having in mind that the old world extracted from the great Asian land mass much of the wealth of that continent in another day oftentimes for its own benefit, nothing is more salutary in our time, I believe, than the fact that now the western nations of the British commonwealth, in association will) nations in Asia,
The Address-Mr. Martin have joined together for the purpose of promoting the improvement of the economic and social life of the people of Asia. It is a hopeful sign for the improvement of international relations between certain nations of the west and that section of the world that it should be possible for nations like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain and the United States to share some of their skills and some of their resources according to their capacity with nations whose material standards of life admittedly are not as high as their own. I am firmly of the view that to the extent we follow this course we will be making an important contribution to the peace of the world.
I realize that one must be practical and realistic about the extent to which any nation can go. But, Mr. Speaker, I could not refrain from saying these things to this house, when I think of the hospitals I have visited, the maternity centres I have visited, the eye centres I have seen, the need for medical schools and hospitals and the like. I cannot help but feel that we, through the Colombo plan, are really making a useful contribution in the kind of assistance which we are able to give. I saw a doctor in Chittagong, in east Pakistan, only 10 days ago who had received his degree as an ophthalmologist at the University of Montreal under the Colombo plan. He was the only eye specialist in that part of the country. I saw before him some 300 cases of glaucoma that might have gone without treatment if it had not been for the fact that he had received training under the Colombo plan and in this particular case through Canada.
But one should not for a moment conclude that it is possible through a plan of this sort to take care entirely of the problem of reconstruction in a continent like Asia. The assistance given by the United States, and it is considerable, and by the other participating countries in the Colombo plan, and that assistance too is considerable, is marginal only. If there is going to be a satisfactory measure of reconstruction on the economic and social side in Asia, it will be largely due to the efforts that are now being put forward by the people of Asia themselves. This I clearly indicated to them when I said, on behalf of Canada generally, that our assistance as a Colombo plan power was made without any strings attached. It was not made for the purpose of effecting political alliances or of having them move from positions of neutrality to positions of protagonistic support. I said, what is the case, that our assistance-[DOT] and I indicated we were not all agreed in Canada on what the measure of assistance
188	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Martin
should be-was based upon a sincere appreciation that in this interdependent world our humanitarian obligations demanded of us to render some assistance to those nations and to these people.
While that is the case, I could not help but feel, particularly at the Colombo plan meetings, as I now visualize the political personalities who sat around the conference table, ministers representing every government of the Colombo plan group, that while we might have our differences in economic and social terms, every minister there represented governments that share with us common beliefs in the value of individual freedom, and share with us our view of the importance of the individual human being in his or her relationship to the state, and the belief that, inadequate as it sometimes may be, there is no more effective guarantee for the preservation of human freedom than governments composed of men and women chosen by the people to govern the nation; in other words, a common belief in the parliamentary form of government. And with those common denominators, together with the spiritual foundations, which I have already mentioned, I have no doubt, whether or not we belong to the same military alliances, or the same political grouping, that the vast majority of the nations of Asia with whom I had these contacts can be counted on in the long term to give their expression in support of a society based upon freedom and not on its suppression.
While there was concern in some places about actions taken in Egypt, there were strong denunciations about the aggression of the Soviet union in Hungary. I spoke on one occasion to the Indian council on world affairs. I do not know whether there were reports here of this meeting, but some critical comment was made by one or two individuals who interpolated questions at the meeting. I said in my remarks that there was a vast difference between the attitude of Great Britain and of France toward their obligations under the charter of the United Nations and the reaction of the Soviet union not to one but to 10 resolutions passed in the assembly against the aggression it perpetrated in Hungary. The difference in the two cases was that in the one there was an acceptance on the part of the charged parties, if you like, of the resolution taken by the United Nations and in the other a complete flouting of the resolutions passed by the United Nations. And that I regard as a matter of the greatest significance.
It would be wrong for me to overlook in this account the important work of the international supervisory commissions in

Indo-China. Whenever I use the phrase "Indochina" now I remember the correction made by a distinguished Australian who told me that I should no longer speak of Indo-China but rather of three countries in Indo-China. Indo-China is no longer a fact although at one time it did represent a geographical entity. Now there is no Indo-China but North and South Viet Nam, a nation in its undivided quality representing 20 millions of people; Cambodia, representing 3 million people; and Laos, a small nation representing li million people. In each of these there is now a rivalry of varying dimensions for supremacy between competing interests.
The house will recall that the international supervisory commissions came into being not as a result of the action of the United Nations but of the accord arrived at in Geneva in 1954 by the great powers. Canada is represented on the three international supervisory commissions that exist in these countries. The chairman is a national of India and the third member is from Poland. If one wanted an example of the effectiveness of a United Nations paramilitary force in action to meet a specific ad hoc purpose one finds it in the three international supervisory commissions. Those three commissions have kept the peace in an area of the world that threatened us all, the house will recall, some two and one-half years ago. When those commissions will be able to finish their work I cannot say. Many Canadians are serving on these three commissions. I would like to pay a tribute, on the occasion of my return to the house, to the work of our fellow citizens who during the past two years, under the most trying of circumstances, have upheld the dignity and the honour of this nation.
It is difficult, I know, to translate one's feelings about a matter such as this, and I am not doing it to the extent that I possibly could if I were less fatigued and better prepared; but I would like the house to appreciate for one moment the significance of an international supervisory body that has its scene of operations away up in the mountains of Laos, in a primitive part of the country, where the march of civilization seemingly has made but little impress, and where the troops of the royal government occupy strategic hills in their several thousands, and not far away are the forces of the Pathet Lao group, forces that have received assistance from the so-called Chinese People's Republic and from the Soviet union, both holding fixed positions, positions that

represent the situation on the date of ceasefire but who, thanks to the stabilizing influence of the international supervisory commission, are not at war but at peace with one another.
We shall hear more of these three countries in the course of the ensuing period. They may not be the most powerful countries in the world but they do occupy geographic areas of strategic interest, not only geographically but in terms of the acceptance or the rejection of political forces that are basic, Mr. Speaker, in the troubled world which confronts all of us. No one man represents Asia. When he was in Washington Mr. Nehru is reported to have said that he did not seek to be the single spokesman for Asia. I can well understand now what he meant and why he made that statement; but he hoped to provide a bridge between one important section of the western world and Asia. I believe that Mr. Nehru is the bridge between that section of the world and those sections of the west who respect his judgment and who understand the basic purposes of his policies. It would be easy and popular to join in decrying some of his actions but I shall not do that because I believe more strongly than ever before that in the interests of world peace if we are going to have a proper acceptance on the part of Asia of our good intentions we for our part must recognize the dominating motives of the present great prime minister of India.
For us he has great respect and in our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the President of the United States he has great confidence, as he has in other political leaders in other parts of the world, and the existence of this confidence is a most important matter.
I saw Mr. Nehru for a few moments immediately upon his return from the United States and Canada; I saw him the next morning and later again that day. I found in him the same disposition to understand other points of view in a spirit of tolerance that I personally had experienced at the United Nations in my relations with spokesmen of India. It is not always possible to agree but it is essential, if constructive efforts are to be made, that there should exist a capacity to appreciate the reasons for certain attitudes and approaches. It is in this way that differences are composed and agreements are achieved.
I do not believe one can attach too great importance to the acceptance by political leaders of the good intentions of others and their appreciation of the factors involved in differing attitudes. Given conditions of this
The Address-Mr. Martin kind and an absence of vituperation in the conduct of one nation with another, I think it is possible to work out solutions that will result in a satisfactory disposition of the problems that divide mankind at this time.
I was not the only one travelling in Asia at this time. There were more important political personalities than myself, holding higher offices and representing greater power numerically and perhaps influentially. I could not hope to emulate some of the receptions accorded them or the influence which for the time being they may have sought to exercise. I spoke in one village to about 10,000 people one day where others only a week before spoke to several hundreds of thousands. We did not speak of the same things and I am sure that behind the things that were said there were different motivations and intentions.
I spoke of international friendship, of the importance of social and economic reconstruction and of improvements in health and living standards, of our belief in the value of the United Nations as an instrument for the discussion, and we trust ultimately the resolving, of some major world problems that divide us at this time. Behind my simple observations was based the pattern that comes from a belief in spiritual values, that comes from a belief in individual freedom as opposed to totalitarian power through which millions of people are caused to accept the dictates of a small group which constitutes itself as the government of the day. No one can tell whether my peregrinations will have the kind of effect which I in moments of deep sincerity would like to think possible. But I would say this, that as one man in the face of the situation attending that tremendously interesting and complicated continent, I did my best to put forward not only the point of view of the government of Canada and of all shades of political opinion but as well the point of view of all the people of Canada. In my discussions with members of governments, of course, I could only speak for the government of Canada. I would like to think I did put forward in those private talks, the results of which I hope will in the not too distant future become apparent, the point of view which we on this side believe to be the most desirable position to take.
I come back from this experience, Mr. Speaker, not as an expert but more humble than ever in the face of the great problems that stagger mankind in Asia today as they do elsewhere. I return confident in the belief that if we observe the principles embodied in the charter of the United Nations, if we employ the media of adjudication and conciliation instead of force, if we bear in mind at the same time that every country has its

The Address-Mr. W. M. Johnson own problems and its own way of dealing with them, then assuming the necessary conditions of good faith, we shall, as mankind has in the past, surmount the tremendous issues that confront us all.
Having said all these things I would not want to indicate to the people of Asia, whose guest I was, who extended me their friendship and their collaboration, whose members of government listened understanding^ to what I had to say on behalf of my colleagues, that I now make invidious comparisons between my country and the lot of the people of Asia. That is not my purpose when I say that having had the experience of visiting lands where long before this country came into being there was deep theological and philosophic thought, having in mind the fact that the industrial revolution has not touched them as it has reached us and as a consequence has not given them the same material benefits it has given us, I will not be misunderstood when I say to this house that I return to my seat, I come back to Canada convinced more than ever before of the richness of our heritage.
I can only express the hope that all of us will in the face of our good fortune seek to give expression to Him who in the final analysis is responsible for many advantages that have not yet been opened to peoples in other areas, and that this will stir us on to recognize that we are all our brothers' keepers in this interdependent world. Unless this attitude and the policy of the good neighbour prevails, we cannot look forward to the fulfilment of what we want to see realized in our times and for our children, those things without which we cannot preserve responsible measures of security and freedom in a world at peace.


Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I would like at the outset to express the hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will reserve some of his energies in order to make a 50-minute address in this chamber to convince his colleagues of the desirability of introducing a comprehensive national health insurance plan.
I welcome the opportunity of participating again in this debate on the speech from the throne, and it will not be surprising to many members to learn that the subject of my speech is the problems which it is my duty and responsibility to present before this house. The problems that confront those in my constituency are not too different from those confronting all agricultural constituencies in western Canada and, in some measure, throughout all Canada. There is, it will be appreciated, a limitation of time on this debate, and 1 will therefore not be able to deal


with all the problems which are confronting agriculture in Canada. I shall therefore limit my remarks specifically to matters affecting western Canada and those whom I represent in the Kindersley constituency.
Members representing other areas of Canada, if they have farmers within their constituencies, will have an appreciation of the problems confronting all these people and will, I feel, give consideration to what I have to say so they may better appreciate the peculiar circumstances which have existed in western Canada for the past five years. These are growing problems which, to my mind, are much greater than those which affect any other parts of Canada because after all, Mr. Speaker, agriculture is the backbone of our economy and western Canada has for decades played an important part in that economy.
I think we could say that the treatment which the present Liberal government has given agriculture over the past number of years is very shabby indeed. I am not going to condemn everything the Liberal government has done; it is not to be expected that in the 21 years during which they have been in power they could have blundered all the time. Some of the legislation they have introduced must have reflected the desires of the farmers in Canada. The comments and criticisms I am going to make in connection with agricultural problems are constructively intended to present our views to the government for their consideration and action and, as is characteristic of members of the C.C.F. party, I am not going to confine myself to criticism but am going to suggest solutions and policies that this government should adopt immediately.
It has been conceded generally that farmers all across Canada are being caught in the ever-tightening vise of cost-price squeeze. The cost of everything that we as farmers have to buy is going up and up while the price we receive for our products is continually declining. Today a western farmer is required to pay $7,000 for a self-propelled combine needed to harvest his crop. Seven thousand dollars is the price of a pretty good quarter-section of land in many areas, and members will appreciate what that means, when one piece of farm machinery equals the price of a quarter-section of land. The cost of repairs and fuel has also increased and, in addition, farmers are confronted with the problem of getting adequate labour to help in the operation of their farms. They have found that because of the continuously hazardous nature of agricultural production it is impossible to guarantee year-round employment to hired help. As a result they have to pay very high wages indeed in order

to induce men to work on the farm. They have to ask for high wages because they, too, require security. This problem is becoming a very serious one indeed, Mr. Speaker, and it is felt in many areas that measures will have to be taken to assist farmers in securing full-time or part-time hired help. To this end I have introduced the following resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act so as to provide coverage for agricultural workers.
It is my opinion that this will provide one solution, and I hope that when the matter is debated in the House of Commons favourable consideration will be given to that subject.
Along with these increasing costs which I have mentioned is the item of freight rates, which are increasing by leaps and bounds every year. Let us look on the price side. Members will find that the prices farmers are receiving are declining year by year. In 1950 farmers received $1.85 a bushel for their wheat. Today it is $1.40, both prices being at the head of the lakes with the farmers paying the freight on their wheat. The price of beef, eggs and poultry has declined this year. Last fall you could buy a calf at the Edmonton stockyards for $25. The Economic Annalist in the October issue, using the years 1935/39 as equalling 100 as a basis, points out that the cost of commodities and services to the farmer this year stood at a record high of 254.3, an increase of 24.3 points in the last five years. The price received for field crops stood at 171.1, a decrease of 29.3 in the last five years. In other words, in 1951 the cost price was separated by 29.6 points and in 1956 it was separated by the colossal amount of 83.2 points.
The cost of production of bountiful crops has naturally increased, and this has been reflected in the economic position of the farmers. In the Kindersley vocational farm management survey it is pointed out that out of 83 farms, only 65 per cent of all farms in this sample were able to realize the total cost of production on the basis of a yield of 24 bushels an acre, and not on the basis of the amount of wheat they were able to sell. This report goes on to indicate that the average cost of production for the 83 farms stands at $17.49 per crop acre basis, allowing no wage for the operator; with an operator's wage it stands at $24.61 per acre. It is apparent that the farmers in western Canada are indeed suffering because of the glut of wheat which has developed in Canada.
Judging from many of the reports we see in the newspapers and announcements by government leaders we are tempted to rush
The Address-Mr. W. M. Johnson out to the granary to see if we have any wheat left, because those reports indicate it is being sold so rapidly that we are not going to have any left with which to fill our quota. But when you do go out to the granary you find the bottom six inches or one foot rotted, because after all the wheat has been there since 1952 or 1953.
The true picture is presented in the November issue of the Wheat Review, and I quote:
Total supplies of Canadian wheat for 1956-57 are estimated at 1,075 million bushels, consisting of the July 31, 1956 carryover of 537 million and the new crop of 538 million. A supply of the size indicated is the largest on record, 8 per cent above that of last year and exceeding the previous record of 998 million set in 1953-54.
That is the true picture. It is interesting to note that of the four major exporting countries, Canada is the only one with an increase in supply. There has been some indication that the delivery position is improving. At this time last year we had delivered only 83.6 million bushels during the period August 1 to December 19, while this year we have delivered 122.5 million bushels. Those deliveries must be compared with the ten-year average of 201.2 million bushels. It is quite apparent that our stocks are increasing because our sales are not increasing in proportion to the amount being grown.
It is apparent that the long-term solution of this problem must be along the lines of a more aggressive sales policy. Some might scoff at that and ask where we are going to sell more wheat, but I have here an indication where we can do so. I have here an extract from a paper prepared by the foreign agricultural service for the wheat commodity section of the 34th annual national agricultural outlook conference held in Washington, which indicates that the possibilities for the export of wheat will be much more favourable during the coming year. It states:
Exports July-October 1956-57 amounted to 160.4 million bushels, virtually twice as great as the 81.5 million bushels shipped in the same period a year earlier.
Exports for dollars are expected to be greater, especially to the northern European countries where poor harvesting weather together with the severe damage suffered in early 1956 have materially decreased domestic crops. Also, this situation will curtail wheat exports from France and some of those markets will be supplied by the United States.
There is an indication of an ever-expanding world market, and Canada must take its share of that market. As it presently stands, the impact of this increasing world market has been in the form of even lower quotas on the average to western Canada. When the government changed their policy last year and decided that no effort would be made to equalize the quotas, complete

The Address-Mr. W. M. Johnson chaos reigned. We found some points that ended the crop year with a 4-bushel quota; some with 5 and some with 7. That certainly seemed inherently unfair and was protested by the Saskatchewan wheat pool and the Saskatchewan farmers' union. It was protested in the House of Commons by members of the C.C.F. group, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce assured us that those points which had a low quota would be given priority at the start of the new crop year to equalize their opportunity. That promise has never been filled.
We find that as of January 4 there are still three marketing points in western Canada on a unit quota; 478 are on a 1-bushel quota; 962 are on 2-bushels, 469 on 3-bushels and 140 on 4. Over two-thirds of the marketing points are on a 2-bushel quota or less, and I suspect that many of those points that are on quotas up to 4 bushels have not had an opportunity to deliver their grain.
There should be a much greater attempt to equalize these quotas in order to give each farmer an opportunity to share in the return from the sale of his grain. While consideration is being given to this problem, consideration should also be given to the problem of the allocation of box cars to marketing points on a more equitable basis. There is something else which has been requested consistently by farm organizations, and that is the allocation of box cars to the elevator of the farmer's choice.
The government does not seem to be concerned with these vexing problems, and there has been no spurt of activity to deal with them. Indeed the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) has indicated that he is not even going to bother appointing a transport controller. On January 9 I asked the Minister of Transport, as reported on page 24 of Hansard, the following:
In view of the termination of the duties of the former transport controller at the conclusion of navigation last December 17, can the minister make an announcement that an appointment has been made to fill this important post.
The minister replied;
Regardless of the impression of the hon. member, the resignations of the transport controller and of the deputy transport controller were received only in the last week of December.
Later on I asked this question:
Am I to assume that there will be an appointment made at a very early date.
To this the minister replied as follows:
I think I should say this, that the transport controller carried out his duties with outstanding success in the face of very substantial criticism from the hon. gentleman opposite. In the first place, I think it is going to be exceedingly difficult for the government to find a transport controller of the caliber of Mr. Milner. In the second place.
[Mr. Johnson (Kindersley) .1
I think in view of the criticism expressed by my hon. friend it will be very difficult for us to find someone who will be willing to accept the duties.
I would be the last one to deny that I have attempted to reflect the views of western farm organizations in a critical manner in relation to the way in which the transport controller has carried out his duties. It is significant that in the recommendations of the interprovincial farm union council is included a recommendation that a full-time transport controller be appointed with sufficient power to exercise the responsibility of making available sufficient numbers of box cars for the movement of grain. The Saskatchewan wheat pool has been on record consistently as objecting to the manner in which the former controller dealt with this problem. At one time the Minister of Transport indicated that he was not going to allow this position to remain vacant. Discussing the Department of Transport Act on April 25, 1956, as reported on page 3271 of Hansard, the minister said:
I do not believe that an operation so complex as the movement of grain from the western provinces to the Pacific coast or to the lakehead and thence to Atlantic ports is something that can be left without direction.
Yet we have the situation that this same minister has left this important post unfilled for nearly one full month. During that month we had a tie-up of the Canadian Pacific Railway which further complicated the movement of grain in bulk. The minister might say that he received the resignation from Mr. Milner only at a very recent date, but I would point out that, as found at page 314 of the proceedings of the committee on agriculture of July 6, 1956, Mr. Milner states this:
As I shall not be transport controller after the close of navigation this year, this occasion gives me the only opportunity . . .
And so on. It is just another indication, Mr. Speaker, of the irresponsibility of the present Liberal government in dealing with these grave domestic crises.
The government's solution to this problem has been to institute this despised system of bank loans, namely a system requiring the farmers to pay 5 per cent interest on what is in effect their own wages. The impracticability of that system has certainly been proven by the number of farmers who have been able to take advantage of the scheme. The farm organizations have requested the immediate adoption of a cash advance proposal on a permanent basis. This would give an opportunity to equalize the returns of farmers on unequal quotas. A farmer on a unit quota would then have the opportunity, which is justifiably his, of getting some return on his grain rather than being obliged to

wait several months until the quota has been increased. The Gordon commission indicates that it is necessary to adopt this principle in part.
That would seem to be one point on which I could find myself in agreement with the Gordon commission. Yes, we must have a permanent system of cash advances in order to allow the farmers to have the income with which to meet their debts.
I would call on the government right now to make an immediate interim payment on last year's pool. This would be more valuable than any other single factor which the government could deal with at the present time. I estimate that there would be funds available for an interim payment of between 10 and 12 cents to be made in the very near future. I would warn the government that the financial position of the farmer is such that he is not in a position to wait for them to hand it out as a pre-election bribe in the form of a fatter annual final payment. The farmers who find they have huge piles of wheat out on the ground are not going to be fooled in that way.
I point out that the final solution to this problem, of course, is an increased trade policy to deal with the ever-expanding markets of the future. In the meantime the government should certainly give the farmers some assistance and some guidance in the selection of crops. I have seen many farmers who were in a complete quandary, not knowing what to grow for the future. Some farmers in my constituency tried growing Argentine rape, only to have it frozen. Others have tried flax on land unsuited for flax. Others have tried and are trying field peas in an attempt to diversify, in order to dodge the blows which the federal government seems determined to level at agriculture. Instead of using the agricultural conference which is held each fall as a means of giving a guide to our farmers, they just have it as a casual little meeting where a great many pious statements are made, but when you boil them all down there is no guide for the farmer. The farmer is not told to grow more Durum, more flax, more wheat or more barley. He is left entirely to his own devices.
I have pointed out many of the factors with regard to which this government has fallen down in dealing with agricultural problems in Canada, but the biggest problem of all is the complete absence of an agricultural policy. Oh, you might say that we have an Agricultural Prices Support Act, which in reality is nothing but a patchwork of support prices and guarantees, each below the market 82715-13
The Address-Mr. Bruneau price. There is no program for agricultural credit. There is no program to guarantee* the farmers a fair return for their produce. I should like to see this government adopt a comprehensive agricultural policy which would incorporate these features and give agriculture all across Canada a fair share of the national income, that is to say, give to the farmers of Canada a parity with other occupations.
I think it is only right that we should have that policy, because the farmers are certainly one class who are deserving of it. I should like to see this agricultural policy include price supports and price levels which would guarantee a reasonable standard of living to the family farm. It is a workable proposal which may, as the Saskatchewan wheat pool indicates, involve deficiency payments to producers. I think the adoption of an agricultural policy would do more than any other thing to resolve the dilemma which confronts us at the present time. The Edmonton Journal in a news story on Friday, November 16, 1956, had this to say under the heading "Liberals Say Farmers Unhappy at Policies":
The closing sessions of the Alberta Liberal association's annual convention Wednesday, said farmers were uphappy with farm policies.
Rulon Dahl of Raymond, Alta., said the average farmer in the west is not satisfied. "If we are to win the next election, we must smarten up the farm picture".
I think you will find many farmers in Canada who will agree with that speaker, and who feel that the Liberals must certainly smarten up the farm picture. But on the basis of their past record there is really no hope. It will take the C.C.F., through their role as an effective opposition or as the government, to provide fair treatment for what is still the basic industry of Canada, namely agriculture.


Mr. Raymond Bruneau (Glengarry-Pres-cott):: Mr. Speaker, allow me at this moment to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare on his extremely interesting description of his good-will mission around the world.
When the members of this house assembled on January 8 in the Senate chamber to hear the message from His Excellency, the representative of the Queen, I am sure we all had the feeling that the present session would be of the greatest importance. I for one have been much more impressed with this idea after hearing the speech from the throne, which reflects the powerful impetus our country is experiencing under the enlightened guidance of the present government. May Providence continue to inspire those who

The Address-Mr. Bruneau
share in the heavy task of governing the country, and shower countless gifts upon our population.
Even if this does not mean that all is for the best in the best of worlds we may, however, consider ourselves a most privileged nation, which is now well on the way to becoming one of the most essential wheels in the gearbox of world affairs. Both on the international and the national levels Canada has shown in recent events its capacity to stand at the outposts of foreign affairs for the preservation of peace and the advancement of the human race. Only a few weeks ago our government, through our most able and distinguished Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson )and other members of the Canadian delegation to the United Nations, was the keystone in solving many of the Middle Eastern problems including the Suez canal crisis.
Moreover, a point has been reached now where no major decision on western policies can be taken without Canada being consulted. Our influence in international affairs is constantly growing, both because of the policy of our government on external affairs and the sound and comprehensive interpretation of our national problems. The well-established policies of the government on international affairs are agreed upon and supported by all including, I am sure, hon. members of the opposition. I shall, then, refrain from taking any more of the time of the house on this matter. I would feel guilty, however, if I did not mention our hope to see our country continue to be the guiding light and an effective worker in the task of healing many of the sore spots still threatening world peace.
May I at this point also congratulate the government for the efficiency and spontaneity with which they offered help to the Hungarian people who were forced by the communist persecutors to flee from their homeland. These martyrs to the cause of human freedom are most welcome to Canada because our nation wants to be in the forefront of those nations giving aid to these people who did not hesitate to sacrifice everything for the right to live as free citizens. They will be a great asset to our country in the future. Evidently new blood is needed to maintain the steady progress Canada has experienced during the last few years. With the enlightening advice contained in some of the conclusions drawn by the royal commission on economic prospects, there is no doubt but that the government will be in a position to use this increased manpower to the best economic advantage for the good of

the country. It has shown already that it can give a stable and vigorous economy.
Incidentally, may I say that so stable and vigorous is the Canadian economy at present that it has hardly been disturbed by the recent railway strike, for the settlement of which the Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet deserve to be highly commended. Some disturbances have occurred, as was to be expected, but they were of minor importance compared to what would have happened in a country with a staggering economy. However, that industrial dispute was a very serious one and had many ill effects on many sectors of the country. I noticed, for instance, that many remote areas were suddenly cut away from the economic life of the country, and this affected the daily life of the people as well as their daily productivity, small though it may have been. I see in this fact additional proof of the need for the decentralization of our manufacturing industries, both primary and secondary.
In the speech from the throne the government has indicated its intention to recommend the establishment of a committee to consider what should be done to make better use of the land for agriculture, and thus to contribute more effectively to the improvement of agricultural production and the incomes of those engaged in it.
(Translation):
In seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne, my hon. friend the member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) mentioned all the benefits that our farming class and our people in general can expect from that measure which, he said, is very promising indeed for the future. I agree with him completely and I take this opportunity to congratulate him on the excellent speech he made in this house in seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
(Text):
By the same token, may I also extend my hearty congratulations to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) on the very keen and interesting views he put forward in proposing the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
The principles underlying the setting up of the proposed committee to study the means of making better use of land for agriculture are of the same vintage as those calling for a similar measure to study the possibilities of drawing a master plan to decentralize industry in this country. It will be recalled that last year during the budget debate I made such a suggestion. Those who have had the opportunity of perusing the preliminary re-

port of the royal commission on economic prospects, tabled in this house last week, must realize that many findings of the commission call for such decentralization and for the better use of areas outside large centres which are suitable for manufacturing industry. One could be convinced that such a move would benefit agriculture as well as the manufacturing industry.
For instance, paragraph 17, chapter 2, of the Gordon preliminary report states that Canada is becoming an increasingly urban country and that this trend will continue. It is predicted that over the period running from 1951 to 1980 the proportion of the population living in metropolitan and urban areas of more than 100,000 people may represent from 36 to 56 per cent of the entire Canadian population. Is this expectation to become a reality, or should not something be done to alleviate the trend? Everyone knows that overpopulated metropolitan and urban areas are amongst the worst enemies of a sound and growing economy. I demonstrated that point last year, and I shall not take the time of this house to repeat what I said then. I will point out again, however, that in my own constituency of Glengarry-Prescott there are scores of communities suitable for industrial purposes, either for the establishment of new industries or the re-establishment of previously existing industries. The same situation, I am sure, prevails in dozens of other constituencies.
In Glengarry-Prescott we have all the facilities. I know that other areas cannot secure manufacturing industries because of lack of hydro-electric power. With the advent of dieselization and the coming use of atomic energy for industrial purposes I do not think this will constitute a problem any longer. In any case this is one of the points into which the committee or royal commission I suggested last year would have to investigate. Had such a body been formed last year it could have laid down the main foundation of its work after the publication of the report of the Gordon commission. Now that the preliminary report is out, I think it is more than ever the time for the government to give all its attention to such a measure if we are to draw up a policy capable of influencing the economic life of Canada in the course of the next 25 years.
To further help the economy of the manufacturing industries; to ease the housing situation in the big cities; to provide for better and more logical distribution of industrial products, decentralization would give more impetus to the agricultural areas benefiting from it. The increase of population it would bring in those semi-urban regions normally 827I5-13J
The Address-Mr. Bruneau, would increase the local consumption of agricultural products grown nearby, thereby reducing the cost of transportation and consequently lowering the cost of living.
Another effect of decentralization would be to get more agricultural manpower on the farm. The Gordon preliminary report also points out that in agriculture output is expected to decline in round figures from 13 per cent to 6 per cent of the total output. Here again I think efforts should be made to alleviate such a trend. In my humble opinion the boosting of regional economy and the keeping of agricultural manpower on the farms would be two very important steps in the right direction.
Since the preliminary report of the royal commission on economic prospects has been tabled, economics have been paramount in most parliamentary and political circles. It is surely a subject of prime importance, and I think in a democratic and peace-loving country like ours a sound economy is possible only if all classes of society are assured of a decent living and of freedom from want. That is why the government initiated a program of social security some years ago.
Some of my colleagues who have preceded me in this debate have voiced their views on the subject. I should like very briefly to emphasize the importance it has for the people of Canada. When speaking of social security one thinks almost immediately of old age pensions. The number of people for whom this measure means the difference between a very frugal living and dire poverty is unbelievable, and statistics do not always reflect that. What these old people receive now under the Old Age Pensions Act, however, is merely sufficient to subsist on. When it was increased to $40 a month the old age pension came as a benediction from heaven for those who had nothing to live on, and even then it could not buy for them all they needed; but nowadays it is felt that this amount is utterly insufficient.
We all know that the cost of living has skyrocketed during the last few years. It has also skyrocketed for old people, especially for those who have no other source of income but this pension. That is why I would suggest the increase be possibly $25 a month, bringing the pension to $65 a month for all old age pensioners, with a means test for those who are between 65 and 70 years of age. Also, if we are to help the Canadian people to keep pace with the constantly rising cost of living, I feel that family allowances should be increased accordingly, let us say to possibly $5 to $7 on the basic allowance, with an equivalent increase for other classes.

The Address-Mr. Bruneau
In that regard I am also very sorry to deplore the fact that it has been impossible up to now to implement the health insurance plan that the Canadian government proposed last year. It is to be hoped that some of the provinces will not continue to minimize the importance of such a scheme of social security to our country.
In the speech from the throne the government has shown once again its appreciation of the interrelation between the various activities which are to make Canada a great country in the future. It is very gratifying indeed to know that hon. members will be asked to approve the establishment of the Canada Council for arts, humanities and social sciences. Although those three fields are not directly connected with the administration of the country, they must be considered as the inspiration of the leaders and as vital factors in the superiority of a nation.
This new council will be called upon to grant many scholarships and bursaries, especially to young Canadians. I would like, then, to suggest that it could be attached, for administrative purposes, to a new department of youth which I have advocated many times in this house. Under the same new youth department could come the administration of the increased annual grants to universities, to be distributed by the national conference of Canadian universities, for the purpose of helping our institutions of higher learning to prepare the future leaders of our country.
On that measure, which has been so widely approved throughout Canada, I will mention my belief that the national conference of Canadian universities, having undertaken to act as a distributing agent of those grants, should immediately start an inquiry to determine the various needs of each university, aside from construction projects. As it is now, the plan calls for the distribution of the grants on a per capita basis of the student population. These per capita grants undoubtedly will constitute a great factor in the development of our universities, but it is also evident that some universities are not in quite the same position as others, either because of local conditions or because of their growing influence, which calls for a more extensive and faster development.
I am not suggesting that grants should be given on a discriminatory basis, but simply that a study should be made with a view to extending on a rational basis, some additional help to institutions that are capable of absolutely proving their need of money for new equipment or additional personnel, for instance.
The speech from the throne also mentioned that a measure will be placed before the

house for the purpose of renewing, on a revised and increased basis, the federal program of amounts to provincial governments in aid of technical and vocational training. This is another item which could be administered by a new youth department. Everybody knows how useful technical and vocational training has been in Canada since the inception of the Roger plan. Incidentally, is it not a little strange that the skin of certain provincial governments is not so tender when it comes time to accepting federal grants in this particular field of education? Is it that they consider technical and vocational training so much less important than university training, or is it an effort to continue an established tradition, hoping that people of particular provinces will not notice the inconsistency of their attitude? Whatever the reason is, this plan is accepted even by the most discriminatory province and I heartily support it, because it is aimed at bettering the conditions of life of the working classes who are the active nucleus of our free enterprise system.
There are many other points in the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, that are of high interest to all Canadian people. I only wanted to emphasize a few points which I consider of prime importance to the country at large and to my constitutents in particular. Briefly, I think the present session has started out under very good auspices. Canada is near the top with respect to influence in international affairs. The economic outlook of the country is better than ever, both in view of our growing activities and a stable economy, and we can say that there is nothing to fear in the future as long as our administrators will make it their duty to pave the way for our future leaders. Nevertheless, those bright prospects, most of which have been emphasized in the Gordon preliminary report, will not materialize unless we start immediately to implement some measures to make sure that the great majority of Canadian citizens will benefit from those gifts of nature.
These, Mr. Speaker, are the few remarks I wanted to submit very humbly to the house.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I was very much interested in hearing some of the observations made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, by reason of the fact that he may have an opportunity to vote for the increase in the old age pension and possibly the increase in the family allowance which he has indicated he thinks is necessary. So far as his observations concerning a national health plan are concerned, I would point out that it is most unfortunate that this government has

such little confidence in the scheme itself that it has not proposed to make it possible for those provinces which have indicated they wish to share in it to have at least the opportunity of discovering whether or not the plan will work.
It is so often the case that "the best-laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley". It was my intention to speak of some of the questions that my own people regard as vital in their particular orbit. I am thinking of specific problems in connection with dredging and fishing; old age pensioners' problems; customs and revenue problems, and certain others about which people in my constituency approach me from time to time. However, in today's Globe and Mail I found an article which gives me a great deal of concern. It is probable that it would be viewed with considerable alarm by the people in British Columbia if there were any truth to the matter, and I have every reason to believe that the article is quite accurate. The article appears in the column headed "B.C. Letter" and is found on the financial page of the Globe and Mail of Monday, January 14, 1957. The article is entitled "Forest Industry Woes Affect Whole Economy" and was written from Vancouver by Nigel Dunn. The first paragraph reads:
British Columbia's vital forest industry is in trouble. It is suffering from the effects of an increasingly sticky market; and it can expect to suffer more from the demands of labour.
A good many people of course are all too frequently inclined to blame labour for most of our ills, but history has proven that in my province labour and management have made a habit of resolving their difficulties to the mutual satisfaction of both, and I am sure this will be the case in this instance as well. However, further down in the report we find this notation:
British Columbia's forest industry is a $500 million a year operation. It employs more than 50,000 men. ... In addition to the many big companies whose capitalization is counted in tens of millions of dollars, there are more than 1,000 small logging companies whose existence depends completely on the prosperity of the major producers for which they work.
If by reason of the fact that we have lost our export markets, or if the forestry industry in British Columbia is curtailed in any other way, it will be more serious, as far as the people of my province are concerned, than the rail strike which we have just experienced. I venture to say it would not only be much more serious but would be viewed with considerably more alarm. The article goes on to say:
British Columbia is losing its lumber markets abroad as a result of the prosperity which it has
The Address-Mr. Hahn helped to create. Its important British market is shrinking alarmingly because of skyrocketing ocean freight rates.
We find the responsibility rests completely with this government in the establishment of freight rates to and from ports of entry in British Columbia. This is a difficulty which only this government can resolve, and if our market is shrinking as this article indicates then I would say this government has the responsibility to look into this question immediately in order to see if something can be done concerning the high freight rates we are subjected to in ocean navigation. The article continues:
Its United States market-the biggest single buyer of British Columbia forest products-has been cut back because of United States credit restrictions on home construction.
I am fully aware that it is impossible for us as Canadians to determine what should be the credit restrictions in the United States. However, I am also aware that this government was advised a year or more ago by many 'hon. members in this house that we were becoming altogether too dependent on United States markets, and that this dependency would some day put us in a difficult economic condition if we should lose those markets. Apparently we are reaching that point today. The fact is that our government has put all its eggs into one basket in the export field.
As recently as last week the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) indicated to the chamber of commerce in Portland, Oregon, that the people of the United States would be expected to buy more goods from Canada so we could have a better balance of trade. The very fact that this government through its economic policy has made it impossible and impractical to keep the market we did have with Great Britain and other European countries has had the effect of denying to us as British Columbians and as Canadians the business we normally should have which would keep in operation our great forest industry.
The article says further:
Ocean freight rates are only part of the reason for the decline in the usual $60 million worth of lumber imported by Britain from British Columbia.
. . . The 25 per cent decline in house building estimated to result in the United States this year is expected to decrease even more British Columbia's exports south of the border in 1957.
In that respect, Mr. Speaker, I can only re-emphasize what I drew to your attention earlier, and I trust through you to the government, that it is necessary for us to find markets other than in the United States to


Mr. Irvin Sluder (Swift Currenl-Maple Creek):: The opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of speaking to this House of Commons on the address in reply to the speech from the throne is appreciated by all of us in western Canada. It is an opportunity for me to present the views of the great constituency of Swift Current-Maple Creek, and also to make a few observations on the state of the nation, as it is called to the south of us. Congratulations would, of necessity, be in order to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the splendid address. The contributions they made were appreciated by all members of this house, and that appreciation has been voiced by them.
So far as we Liberals are concerned, that is what we expect of other Liberals. We expect not the common but the uncommon; we expect nothing mediocre; we expect the

The Address-Mr. Studer extraordinary, not the ordinary, and that is what the Liberals who sit in this house endeavour to present. I would, therefore, like to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Gloucester and the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. They are a source of pride to each and every one of us.
By their deeds we shall know them. Since it was my privilege to speak in this house last year I think everyone will agree that progress has been made in Canada. Not all the difficulties have been solved, but I think no one will disagree with the statement that progress has been made. This is a better country in which to live than it was last year. If that is true, and I think you will all agree that it is, then we must have had a government and government policies that made that possible. With the help of all, including the opposition, I am sure that next year, when at least the government and all its members will be back again, perhaps in greater numbers, the people of Canada will again agree that progress has been made in this country. How can Liberal policies have a different effect? What else could you expect from policies that, through experience, have been proven to be adaptable to the needs of the Canadian people and which will bring Canada to the heights that every Canadian expects?
My constituency of Swift Current-Maple Creek is, as you all know, predominantly agricultural. In every session I have endeavoured to present to you some of the good things that come from that constituency. However, agriculture is not the only means by which the people of the constituency make a living. We have a great number of labouring people who make a great contribution to the welfare of Canada. We have railway people, and there are two divisional points in the constituency, Swift Current itself and Shaunavon. The people in that area are almost entirely dependent upon the Canadian Pacific Railway, so you would expect them to be happy that a solution was found to the rail strike which was so detrimental not only to that area of western Canada but to all areas in Canada dependent upon that great service organization. Irrespective of the motives for that strike it has been settled, and I was pleased that all members of the opposition congratulated the government on the form of the settlement and the fact that it was settled without compulsion. May it ever be that all strikes in this country when they originate-perhaps one could call them the penalties of democracy but I would rather call them one of the rights of democracy, that any individual organization in the country has the right to strike because any time that right does not exist then in my opinion


we no longer have a democracy-will be settled without compulsion. We in western Canada are grateful to the government for promoting a settlement of the strike.
I am more familiar, Mr. Speaker, with agriculture than with any other activity, because I have lived with it practically all my life. I consider it, as perhaps all of you consider the occupation in which you are engaged, as one of the most important contributions to the welfare of the country. I would submit that in the great economic expansion of Canada the most important industry in Canada was agriculture. Let us never accept the idea that we can depend on all the other industries for our advancement and leave agriculture on its own. It seems to be inherent in human nature that we take agriculture for granted. As a result it is necessary for agriculture, throughout the years, to make appeals to governments for assistance.
We often wonder why that is so. Why is it necessary for agriculture to apply for assistance to the Canadian government or other governments in the world? It should be the other way around; every other industry in Canada should be making the appeals that agriculture is making, because agriculture should be in the preferred position. Agriculture should never have to appeal, shall we say, or go in a begging manner to the government of Canada or the government of any other country.
I am trying to tell this parliament that the people of this country cannot exist without agriculture. All flesh is grass, and from grass everything in the form of flesh is originated. If you took grass out of existence, if it refused to grow for even one year, there would be no life in existence any longer. The importance of agriculture is not at any time overemphasized. It is more important than any other vocation, and I do not wish to deprecate any other vocation. It is more important than any other business, and the same holds true in regard to any other endeavour or any other profession or any corporation or any government. Without agriculture there could be no existence.
Have you noted this, that wherever new settlement takes place, whether it is in a new country or within an area, the first thought is not whether we shall have business, not whether there shall be lawyers-as necessary as they are, and they have been referred to in this house-the first thought is for the planting of the seed because that is the seed of life. Surely it is of primary importance to all the people. As I have so often stated, we should not place agriculture in a position

where it is neglected, because upon the welfare of agriculture depends your nation's security; that is your cheapest insurance, to keep agriculture in a prosperous condition.
We all know that agriculture has expanded also in various parts of the country and many agriculturists have done well. We know also that in other areas other forms of agriculture have not done so well. This is the condition that we, as a government, are endeavouring to correct. I am tired, Mr. Speaker, of hearing people, as I sometimes do, refer to the rich farmers. Well, if there are rich farmers they are not in my district. There are some of them who have done better than others, but there are no Cadillacs in my part of the country. The people are glad to have any kind of automobile which they can operate. There are no trips to Florida by the people in my part of the country.
But why should there not be? Why should not farmers have a right to go to Florida and own Cadillacs? This right is given to every other occupation in Canada; every other profession takes that right upon itself. If anyone hears of a farmer having a Cadillac it seems that is an offence against the country, or against nature or against the professions. He has the same right to have a Cadillac but he does not have it. Therefore we would like to suggest that the farmers have expended their greatest efforts to remain in existence, have expended all of their time and all their overtime to make it possible for the people of Canada and of other countries to have food at lower costs than they should have paid.
That is the only reason Canadian farmers are coming to parliament, or to the government, for assistance. They are coming to the government for assistance because over the years the people have paid lower prices for their food than would permit the farmers to continue in farming. What is the alternative? There is no other alternative but for the farmers to come to the government for assistance and to encourage the government to formulate policies that will assist the industry. Why should that be? I ask any person in this House of Commons, why should that be? Why should agriculture ever since I have been associated with it be in the position that it has had to appeal for subsidies and legislation and government operations and so on in order to sustain itself?
Well, the farmers are going to do something about it before the whole economy of the country is completely changed and consider that the economy can get along without agriculture. It is my hope that before that happens the people of this country will be sufficiently sympathetic to make that result possible without the actions that other people 82715-141
The Address-Mr. Studer have it within their power to take to correct their conditions, actions that the farmers do not have within their power. As I mentioned before, with the exception of the larger farmers, who in Canada other than the fishermen have a lower standard of living than the farmer? Yet many things have been done to encourage the farmers and make it possible for them to exist and to make a living comparable with other industries and with other people in Canada.
I have endeavoured to outline the situation in my immediate area, but I do not think it is prevalent everywhere. It may sound like a paradox, but the difficulty in my particular area is that we lack production and have lacked it throughout the years. These people who have overproduction, who have granaries bursting with wheat, who have sufficient credit to carry on and have credit facilities available to them, are in a position where we do not have to worry about them except to help them to sell their grain. We should give our real sympathy to the individual who has not that surplus of grain.
I refer to the ordinary, every-day farmer who is endeavouring to make his living without mining the soil, without taking everything out of the soil and not putting anything back, the small farmer who is trying to make a living for his family and who, by his sweat and toil expended throughout his lifetime, has tried to maintain himself on the land in an effort to supply the people of Canada and other countries with food at below cost. Therefore I would suggest that if we are to remedy that condition, and perhaps it is within our means to partly remedy it, some action should be taken. We are endeavouring, and we shall endeavour, to recommend policies that will bring about that result.
We know the trend in western Canada is toward larger farms. The Gordon commission suggtUed that farms will be still larger in the future, but they will also be more efficient. The same thing will happen as happened in other economies; other provision will have to be made for those who cannot be accommodated within their industry. What this government has endeavoured to do is to have an economy that will absorb those people in whatever occupation of life they may be, be it the forests, the mines or the farms; to absorb them, as it is absorbing them, in other industries in which they can make their living.
No government in the world can guarantee me that I am going to make my living in the profession in which I am working, or the vocation or occupation. The government cannot do that, but it can formulate policies and have an economy that will make it possible

The Address-Mr. Studer for all the people to make their living within whatever form of economy is in existence in the country at the particular time. That is what this government is endeavouring to do.
We are now suggesting to you what the price of food should be. If you were paying the price for food that you should pay, that is the consumers of this country as well as in other countries, then it would not be necessary for the farmers to come to the government for assistance, or to have laws enacted to protect them. If the people of this country and of the world will pay the farmers the price they should receive for the food they produce, then we will not come to the government begging for assistance. I think that is a fair deal.
Why is it that when we go to buy an automobile we do not question the price? They tell us what the price is. We do not haggle over it; we do not argue about it. All things being equal, we either take it or leave it; but when it comes to food we tramp the streets-at least my wife does-looking for the cheapest food. I am trying to train her out of that and to look for the most expensive food, but thus far I have not been successful in doing it. That is the point. When it comes to food we try to get it at the lowest price. In other things, television sets or automobiles, or anything you wish to mention, we ask no questions; we take it home if we have the money.
I would like to suggest to you that the subsidies that are asked for by farmers are merely compensation for the discount the public has received in the price of food throughout the years. If anyone has any other explanation for it, well, I would be glad to hear it. Therefore if you will pay farmers $2.20 let us say, instead of the $1.75 you have been paying during the years from 1944 to 1953, he will not need help. And do not think it is $1.75, because the farmer does not receive that. He receives a maximum of about $1.55, because the $1.75 includes freight; and when the grade is lower, say grade 4, 5 or 6, he receives $1 or less for that wheat. If you will pay $2.20, instead of $1.75 f.o.b. Fort William, which is the fair price he should have been receiving during the past 10 years; instead of 78 cents for oats, 98 cents for oats; instead of $1.16 for barley, $1.45 for barley; instead of $1.95 for rye, $2.45 for rye; instead of $3.65 for flax, $4.59; instead of $18.50 for steers, $23.27; instead of $23.94 for hogs, $30.12; instead of $19.49 for sheep, $24.51; instead of 48 cents for grade A eggs, 57 cents, we will never come here to the House of Commons and ask you for a thing. I think that is a fair

deal. How many bidders do we get on the deal? What do you offer? That is the situation.
Unfortunately, farmers are not in a position where they can demand things as other occupational groups do. We recently had a strike. Even in Saskatchewan, where we have a state-controlled and operated bus system, we had a strike a few years ago. People in Canada have the right to strike if they do not think they are receiving their fair share or a just wage, or for any other cause. But how can the farmer strike? He cannot do a thing about it. He can have his unions, and then through political agitation or some other type of agitation they disappear. That has been proven in the past, and the farmers have no one to speak for them except their representatives in the House of Commons, the grass roots representatives who come from Saskatchewan, and by those I mean the Liberal representatives because the other groups from the province of Saskatchewan who are supposed to represent the farmers are not the grass roots; they are the quack grass roots.
I would suggest to the people of western Canada that it is the real grass roots that produce something in abundance, that produce the revenue for the farmers. In other words they are the people who are listened to. The proof that the people of Canada have not been listening to Saskatchewan is the fact that the majority of the representatives from Saskatchewan during the past few years have not been true representatives of the people. In other words they are the enemies of the government, and if the government represents the people of Canada, then they must be the enemies of the people. At least that is the way it looks to me. If the people of western Canada wish to have representation that would be of value here in eastern Canada and in this parliament, they should do something about it.
The government has been doing something about it. Instead of having our farm unions come here to present their case, the representatives of the people have been trying to do it here in this house. I would suggest that any time the farmers of western Canada do not think that their representatives have been doing it sufficiently well they should themselves come here to Ottawa. They have the same right as anyone else to come here. We have seen people from different organizations who thought they had a grievance walk up and down in front of the House of Commons. The farmers have the same right; why should they not have it? This government is as partial and sympathetic to them as to anyone else; therefore I would advise

The Address-Mr. Studer
them to come whenever they think they can make an appeal to the government that will be more effective, and whenever they have any wrong they think should be corrected. They can present it to their own seat of government, and they have the same right to do so as the people in any democratic country.
The government has been endeavouring to correct the difficulties existing among the farmers. The government has made operative policies to stabilize agriculture and to encourage co-operatives. Incidentally, I might say there is no problem for which farmers cannot find a solution in their co-operatives. In fact they could get along fairly well even without representatives because they have the solution right in their own hands, providing someone does not disturb the cooperatives. Throughout the years the farmers have been able to solve their own difficulties through the co-operatives. The federal government has encouraged co-operatives, as did the former government in Saskatchewan and as the present one in turn is doing. In their efforts to assist the farmers the federal government has operated a wheat board on behalf of the farmers of western Canada, and has taken it upon itself not only to promote the wheat board but to extend it for five years. It has supported the international wheat agreements and provided loans to foreign countries to purchase Canadian grain. It has also instituted floor prices on wheat, oats, barley, hogs, butter and eggs. It has originated the Agricultural Prices Support Act, the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, and has paid out over $1 billion in subsidies to farmers in the past decade as has been pointed out in an issue of the Western Producer printed in Saskatoon a year or two ago. It has made the Canadian farm loan board operative and promoted the P.F.R.A. and P.F.A.A., and it is now thinking of crop insurance as far as it is applicable to western Canada. It has also progressively abolished tariffs and removed the duty on farm machinery and supplies. It has negotiated trade agreements with 73 countries of the world.
Why have these considerations been necessary? They have been necessary for the reason I stated at the beginning of my remarks, because the public has been paying less than the cost of production to the farmers of western Canada, and there is no alternative except to have the government promote, advocate and originate policies that will compensate the farmers for the difference between what they actually receive and what they really should receive, something that will help meet what the price should have been in the first place. Agriculture
has to be supported because circumstances over which it has no control prevent it from sustaining itself.
What are the demands of farmers today? They demand policies that will enable them to produce without government assistance, and that is a reasonable request. The farmers ask, how high can floor prices be advanced without instituting production controls? No one has ever given them an answer. The farmers are also asking, can a parity price be established without acreage control? No one in this House of Commons has answered that question. The only body to have answered it is the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The vice president of the wheat pool said that if you instituted parity prices as promulgated or formulated by certain farm organizations, then you would have to establish it at between 65 and 85 per cent of parity or the farmers would go hog wild on production.
If the farmers want parity prices under which to reduce their acreage to the extent of the wheat that can be absorbed in this country-because you cannot expect the 16 million people in Canada to pay the difference -they should have the right to vote for that, and we will give them consideration on that basis. If they wish to produce one hog instead of three to come under a parity price structure they should have the right to vote on that.
However, they must also take into consideration that by doing so they will be reducing the entire economy of Canada, the gross national product of the country, because if you reduce your acreage and production from 500 million to 150 million bushels then Canada has lost the difference between the value to be received from the 150 million and the revenue to be received from 500 million, and perhaps that is not in the best interests of the national economy. For this reason the farmers will not vote for parity prices under that system, but they have a right to express their opinion through a vote on control and acreage reductions, the same as a union has the right to express its opinion concerning whether or not a strike vote should be taken.
I would therefore suggest to the farmers that policies be originated which are acceptable to the rest of the people of Canada, including the members of this house; because if they cannot accept them then they are wasting their time. The recommendations of the Gordon commission concerning wheat are in the public eye at the moment. These could be considered, if the farmers would accept the consequences and dangers particularly as

The Address-Mr. Siuder they relate to the wheat board, the economy of Canada and their own economy.
What the farmers want are stabilized prices for their production. They want crop insurance for those years when there are no crops. They want unemployment insurance to be extended to farm labour, and they want every effort to be expended in an effort to sell their produce. They want more storage for their grain and equalized freight rates so they are not penalized because of where they live.
Incidentally, if this can be thrown in, I might point out that farmers want the other amenities of life which are enjoyed by approximately 75 per cent of the people of Canada. In other words, in our part of the country in order to keep up to date I think we should have some of the modern conveniences and pleasures of life. We in the southwest also want a television station so we can enjoy the educational benefits of programs and in order that the cultural advantages television provides to the other people in Canada will not pass us by. The farmers want no more and no less than the same security and standard of living enjoyed by those in other occupations.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we commend the government for having created an economy that can absorb those whom agriculture cannot accommodate.
I would point out, however, that not all our troubles are due to circumstances such as I have described. Some of our troubles in the west are due to politics, and I would like to dwell on that subject for a moment because if there is any place in Canada where political disunity exists and has existed throughout the years with harmful effects it is among the farmers in western Canada. There is an old saying to the effect that united we stand and divided we fall. Well, if we in western Canada have fallen it has been through division, it has been through political disunity, and it has been because individuals have proclaimed that their election was more important than the welfare of western Canada.
During the last 30 years have we not had an example of the futility of divided strength, when splinter political parties say, "Elect me and I will correct the difficulties that exist in western Canada." It is interesting to note that none of the difficulties have been corrected, at least according to what the disunited opposition members of parliament tell us. They constantly tell us that nothing has been accomplished as a result of their efforts. They bemoan the fact that they have been here year after year telling the


government what should be done, and nothing has happened as a result of their pleas. I can only observe that they must have made an extremely poor job of it if they have been unable to convince any other person in the whole of the country that the situation in western Canada is as they have described it. I suggest to them that they go back home and tell the people there that they have been a complete failure in representing western Canada. They have gone among the people there and suggested that fighters be sent here; that is what they told them.


Mr. Blackmore:: What about the maritimes?


Irvin William Studer: Well, if they are fighters and if they have fought for something, where is it? They point out in every speech they make that they have been unable to accomplish anything for western Canada. A prime example is the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier), the "Quebec is ripe for communism" member from Burnaby-Coquitlam. He was a pathetic example as he stood in the House of Commons just two days ago and wept over the plight of the people in his constituency. He does not need to weep; he merely needs to be told to go back to his constituency and tell the people there to send a representative to the parliament of Canada who will speak on behalf of his people and who will be believed by the rest of the people of Canada.
So far he has not done so. So far none of the others have done so. There is no sense in my standing here weeping floods of tears over the plight of the old age pensioners if it does not cost me anything. If I have never produced a single nickel's worth of wealth in the world it is easy for me to ask other people to make their contributions. I would suggest to them that if they produced some wealth to distribute for the benefit and welfare of the people of Canada instead of teaching the children of Canada socialism in their schools, it would be better for us all. Because that is what they have been doing, teaching socialism to the children in western Canada; and if they have not been doing so they have not been doing their duty as socialists.
So, Mr. Speaker, all our difficulties are not due to climatic conditions or to the policies of the government. I was interested the other day in hearing the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) try to explain the difference between Social Credit and socialist credit, and I would suggest to him that his explanation why there is Social Credit is not genuine. The reason there is Social Credit is that 50, 60 or 70 per cent of the Social

Credit members here sit under that title because they were not qualified to be Liberal candidates at previous elections, and in order to be elected to the House of Commons they formulated the hodge-podge of discarded political theories that all the civilizations in the world threw away long ago. They have been playing with the discards out of the deck for so many years that they do not know what a new deck is. They have been playing neulo with the discards and there are no face cards in the discards; all the face cards are on the government side of the house. They are relegated to playing neulo in this political game. They are a party of Rosicrucian technocrats with hellfire and brimstone and applesauce; with a policy that was spawned in some other country and which grew to maturity, if you could ever call it that, in the foothills of Alberta. What a discredited organization they are. Did you read the recent Commission's report in New Zealand, where there was a Social Credit government of what Social Credit is?
They claim they have a monopoly of political righteousness. Without referring to any individual I would say they have a monopoly of hypocrisy, because they originated politics and in doing so they caused all areas of western Canada to suffer for the sake of their political expediency. They are the jokesters of the House of Commons and, Mr. Speaker, though I could use some other words, I would just like to ask where is the $25 they were supposed to have had in Alberta as a result of the Aberhart administration. The people of Alberta got it, but not from the Social Credit organization. They got it from the Liberals. They got it from the Liberals through family allowances, through the same organization and the same policies every one of them had voted against to defeat the government on February 10, 1944.
It was a sin against humanity to deprive the mothers of western Canada of these family allowance benefits by trying to defeat the government on a policy of that kind. Even the Conservatives had the good sense not to do this. The Social Crediters should go out in western Canada and confess their sins and tell the people about the crimes they have committed in the name of humanity. Instead they imagine that they have a halo and that they have a dispensation to promote socialist credit throughout the country. That would destroy this country as quickly as socialism, because the whole policy is dependent on state control. I challenge them to deny it, these so-called professors of freedom.


An hon. Member:: I deny it.
The Address-Mr. Studer


Irvin William Studer: They cannot expect their policies to operate without having state control, and they know it. That is why it was thrown out in New Zealand. And what about the press censorship? That was the first thing the province of Alberta enacted when Social Credit obtained power, so the people could not determine what that government was doing. What about their sterilization laws? I do not see anything in the Bible that says we should incorporate this in any of our laws throughout the country. It is the only province in Canada that has sterilization laws. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) or for some other constituency was telling us that Major Douglas, who invented socialist credit, came out to Alberta and disappeared overnight. Why? The hon. member explained that he went because he had a difference of opinion with the Premier of Alberta. That is not why he went. When the sterilization laws came into existence, or anticipating them, he knew what was good for him.
I suggest that when socialist credit comes into existence it will not be necessary, because there will be no people left in Canada. Even I would go-head for the ocean and swim for it if I had to-as Major Douglas would, before I would place myself under the jurisdiction of such a sterilization law. I understand that the insane people would be affected by it, and that a board would be set up. But how can the blind lead the blind? How can a lunatic determine who is sane? No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we want social or socialist credit in this country. I would suggest to the members of that party that they were originally Liberals in Alberta, and that they should come back to the fold and make a contribution to the welfare of the people of Canada.
We have, also, some remnants of the socialist party left in Saskatchewan. If they are not a disillusioned party no one has ever been disillusioned. They heaped abuse upon the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) because he left the party, but he was merely a precursor of the inevitable, a St. John the Baptist; because, following him, in September or October they all gathered in Winnipeg.
What was the result? At the same time the communists were tearing down Stalin the socialists at Winnipeg were taking the ground from under Karl Marx. What have they left? The Liberal policy. Therefore I suggest to them that they should leave their policy, forget all about their particular theories which make no contribution to the welfare of Canada, and associate themselves with the new, growing and great Conservative
208	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. A. E. Robinson party which only can provide an alternative to the Liberal party and to the government.
At the same time we congratulate them on their new 'leader. If he does as well for himself in Saskatchewan as he did for himself in Prince Albert no doubt he will do well for himself elsewhere. It is always necessary when you have leaders to have a few followers, and there has been no dearth of leaders in the Conservative party. There has, however, been a scarcity of followers; and when they have as many followers as leaders then, some time in the hazy future, they might have a government. In the meantime we wish them well.
So, in conclusion, we observe that there are some good things in Canada. More good things have come to the people of Canada in these past years than in any socialist credit, Socialist, or Conservative country anywhere in the world, and the people of Canada are not going to throw that away in the vain hope of finding something as good or better given to them by any of the other political parties. We invite the people of Canada to join with the Liberals and go forward, as the Gordon commission has outlined, to greater prospects of peace, happiness and well-being in the great world of tomorrow.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. A. E. Robinson (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, along with many other members who have taken part in the debate on the speech from the throne I wish to commend the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply for the manner in which they handled their difficult assignment. Considering the meagreness of the throne speech with which they had to work, I think they did very well. I wish to declare publicly my allegiance to our Conservative party leader and the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the House of Commons. I also wish to say that we in the Conservative party are looking forward to the day when John will be prime minister of Canada.


Mr. Hees:: That's our boy.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: We in Bruce
county are very proud of the fact that our leader has such strong ties with us, and that his mother is a Bruce county girl. The last resting place of two of his grandparents is to be found in a beautiful rustic setting in the cemetery at Tiverton, nine miles from my home town of Kincardine.
[Mr. Studer.l

It is my happy lot, Mr. Speaker, to be chosen to represent the good people of Bruce county in the House of Commons. When I say "good people" I mean it in every sense of the word. They are mostly descendants of pioneers who settled there 100 or more years ago. The names of these pioneers have passed down from generation to generation. If you will pardon a personal note, I wish to say that our son is the fourth generation on the farm that my grandfather operated over 100 years ago. In addition to the descendants of these early pioneers we have many people who have chosen Bruce as an ideal place in which to live and raise a family.
Bruce county is well up to the top in production of dairy products, beef and hogs in the province of Ontario. Bruce county, as I have stated before, has approximately 300 miles of shoreline bordering on the blue waters of lake Huron and Georgian bay. We have an ever-growing business in summer visitors, both from Canada and the United States of America. Many visitors, after experiencing the friendly atmosphere of our people and seeing the beautiful sunsets over lake Huron, which are known over the world, decide at once that they wish to come back every summer for their vacation.
We have many nice towns and villages in Bruce, all ideal places for anyone to live. We have good schools, good churches, good stores and good roads. Some of the towns and villages have industries, some large and some small. Many of these industries have been located in Bruce for a great number of years, while a few are of more recent growth.
Irrespective of the facts I have given concerning Bruce, there is a growing discontent among the citizens. The farmers are in the squeeze between falling farm prices and the ever-increasing cost of production. Because of the increased size of farms due to mechanization, their sons and daughters must leave home to find jobs, mostly in the cities. In some of our towns and villages we have factory buildings that are closed. Over the last decade the population of Canada has increased rapidly, but Bruce county has not shared in that increase.
According to the preliminary report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects it is expected that Canada's population will reach 26 million in 1980. On page 66, paragraph 11, these words are to be found:
It seems probable that the demand for secondary manufacturers will be at about the same rate as the anticipated increase in the gross national product. In this event the total demand by 1980 may be three times what it is at present.

The question here arises, is Bruce county going to get its share of that secondary manufacturing increase? On page 3, paragraph 7, of the Gordon report you will find these words:
Throughout our work we have made a number of general assumptions on which all our forecasts are predicated. Of overriding significance in the world today is the fact that two great powers, the United States and the Soviet union, both possess weapons of mass destruction in such quantity that their use might destroy organized society throughout the world. Other countries may well acquire an armament of similarly frightening power before many years are over, and this would add to the potential danger. Within a few years intercontinental missiles with nuclear warheads will be in existence, capable at a single blow of crippling, if not completely destroying, any city, no matter how large. A single hydrogen weapon, for example, could devastate and make uninhabitable an area approximately 50 miles wide and 200 miles long. Such an area, stretching along the shores of lake Ontario, might extend from Hamilton at one end to Kingston at the other, and include within its orbit Toronto, Oshawa, Port Hope and Belleville. A similar area along the St. Lawrence might run from the Ontario-Quebee border to Quebec city and contaminate with radioactive fall-out all the cities, towns and villages in between, including the entire population of Montreal. These are among the new facts of life and death in this nuclear age.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this in itself is reason enough for all governments to encourage decentralization of industry. On February 21, 1956, civil defence co-ordinator F. F. Worthington had this to say in Belleville, Ontario:
If I were a dictator in this country I would ban cities of more than 50,000 population and order Toronto and Montreal to stop growing.
Mr. Worthington said the expense of decentralization was nothing compared to saving lives of people or the life of the country. Sweden, he said, was limiting cities to 25,000 population. There are many ways and means of encouraging decentralization rather than by direct orders of any dictator. The report of a special committee of the Ontario legislature on air pollution and smoke control was tabled on March 15, 1956, by the chairman, A. H. Cowling. It had this to say in part:
It Is estimated that smoke and smog in their various forms cost the people of this province about $120 million a year. It is also a fact that air pollution does have a detrimental effect on the physical and mental health, the efficiency and wellbeing of people who must exist in it.
Air pollution affects every citizen, the report states. Depending upon his activity, each individual inhales from 8,000 to 16,000 quarts of air per day. Great attention is being paid to the purity of food and water supplies, but very little has been done yet about the vital air supply.
For generations, we have been content to inhale several thousand gallons of contaminated air every day.
The Address-Mr. A. E. Robinson
Air, like water, is a limited natural resource. It has taken us a long time to realize that there is a limit to the amount of man's garbage the air can absorb and still be suitable for living in. We have come to the conclusion that air pollution is a serious, dangerous and costly curse to civilized living.
Industrial areas, of course, are the most affected. In this respect the air pollution problem is most serious in Toronto, where it is estimated to cost people of the area at least $60 million a year. Based on studies made in the United States and the United Kingdom, the report estimates that polluted air costs every person in the Toronto area an average of $40 a year, and that the average cost per person across Ontario is in excess of $20 a year.
The old-fashioned idea was that a smoking chimney is a sign of full lunch pails and of prosperity.
So states the report. It continues:
Today, however, it is an indication of waste, of bad manners, and of a source of unnecessary dirt and work for the housewife.
It may also be a sign of full hospital beds. Air pollution does have a detrimental effect on the physical and mental health, the efficiency and wellbeing of people who must exist in it.
There is considerable evidence to indicate that it is one of the causes for the growing incidence of lung cancer.
It certainly predisposes the Individual to other respiratory illnesses and to cardiac trouble, and makes his recovery protracted, or his complaint chronic.
It can cause sudden death and has produced many episodes throughout the world which have resulted in large numbers of fatalities.
On the other hand, deaths from cancer of the trachea, lung and bronchus, from cancer of all kinds and from pneumonia and bronchitis are unexpectedly low in the rural areas and in Ontario municipalities with population less than 15,000.
The London Free Press in an editorial dated May 12, 1955, had this to say:
Too much concentration in a few larger cities will make for a situation such as in Australia, where nearly half the population is to be found in a few great cities. It has not been a healthy development. This must be avoided if at all possible in Ontario and in Canada.
J. V. McAree, a noted columnist, writing in the Globe and Mail, had this to say about traffic congestion in Toronto:
To wait fifteen minutes or more while crowded cars go by is a daily experience to tens of thousands. But we think that instead of blaming the Toronto transport commission, we in Toronto should realize that we are paying a price for living in a metropolitan city. What we are suffering every person in a big city suffers. There is no escape from it except possibly to move to a smaller town.
Mr. Speaker, I do not say that any government should force an industry to locate in any certain area, but I do say very emphatically that provincial and federal governments should encourage the decentralization of industry by improving the services which they,

The Address-Mr. Girard the governments, are responsible for, such as transportation facilities by road, water and rail, and cheaper electric power for outlying districts. I hope the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, considers well the resolution that was passed at the annual convention of the Ontario municipal electrical association held in Toronto early in 1956. That resolution asked the commission to consider taking steps that would eventually lead to an equalization of wholesale power rates to all municipalities in the province.
Mr. Speaker, concerning transportation by water, I wish to state that we in Bruce county have many locations where harbour facilities are crying for attention. Money is spent occasionally in small amounts, mostly for repairs, and in some cases the money spent does not bring any benefit whatsoever. As I stated before, the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Transport should get together to formulate a plan of long-term improvements. By doing so they would save much of the money that is now being spent foolishly.
To the Minister of Transport I wish to say that the railway situation in Bruce is, to say the least, unsatisfactory. Down through the years the hard-working, industrious citizens of Bruce have paid their share of the C.N.R. deficits and in return received poorer and poorer service. Owing to this poorer service some business to the rail lines was lost, and of late years the C.N.R. has talked of curtailing the service we now have. I plead with the Minister of Transport to see that we not only hold the service we have but in addition receive improved service. It will be a sorrowful day if the good citizens of Bruce continue to be sacrificed on the altar of centralization.
As the Minister of Finance has the privilege of representing part of Bruce county, I feel that I am quite in order in drawing to his attention our hopes for a brighter industrial future.
I am very sorry that the Gordon commission did not recognize the seriousness of the problem of centralization, as I am sure there are many other districts with problems similar to those we have in Bruce. I am also disappointed that the throne speech did not deal more with health insurance, increased pensions to the aged and needy, the blind and the veterans. These increases are due owing to the higher cost of living and inflation, and they will probably be produced before the next election as election propaganda.


Mr. Fernand Girard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, in order to acknowledge the principle of bilingualism in the house I should like


to say a few words in the English language. First may I extend my compliments to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. May I extend the compliments of the season to all the members of the house. I should like to wish a victorious come-back to all members after the next election, but we must let the interests of the nation come first. Hence I shall leave the choice to Providence.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, the recent C.P.R. strike has again given rise to the grave worries that beset the minds of all every time we witness a labour dispute of some importance.
We might even say that if labour problems are of concern to the public at large, it is more because those problems are a threat to people's comfort than because people are anxious to work efficiently for the establishment of true social justice. Politicians in particular work hard to preserve the sympathy of the workers but it is apparent that the politician fears the worker more than he understands him. There is promotion of economic liberalism in all its forms; the virtues of private enterprise are rightfully extolled but we forget to give it a heart. We are afraid to see the worker throw himself into a dangerous socialism which often leads to communism, but we forget that capital, which is heartless, is one of the main causes responsible for that threat. Economic liberalism, which is based on the inexorable law of supply and demand, leads to competition. In the face of this taskmaster, the only course open to the worker is the labour union, whose main force resides in the threat to strike. If ever the day comes when workers will no longer have the right to strike, we shall no longer have democracy.
Whether or not some strikes are just, whether or not they serve the ambitions of some individuals, it is not up to us here to decide. However, we who are responsible for the commonweal have a duty to improve the social climate that brings about these strikes. Every finished product coming out of a factory is the fruit of the harmonious union of two main factors, namely capital and labour.
In the social field, instead of close cooperation between capital and labour, we have a conflict of two groups from which originate misunderstandings between the main parties as they both remain obstinately attached to their own particular ideas, as well as misunderstandings among other groups of anxious bystanders who measure the repercussions of these disputes by the

yardstick of their own interests. There is great talk of rights but little or no talk of obligations. Let capital have compassion and help the worker lose his own rancour. In his Magna Carta of labour, the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, the text quoted being from page 140, Five Great Encyclicals, the Paulist Press, 1945, Pius XI has clearly defined the role of capital and labour. He declares among other things in this encyclical:
It is therefore entirely false to ascribe the results of their combined efforts to either party alone: and it is flagrantly unjust that either should deny the efficacy of the other and seize all the profits.
This encyclical which is the social gospel of right-thinking conservatives nonetheless recognizes the right of capital to a reasonable profit but also claims for the worker a family salary which takes into account both the cost of living and of services rendered. This is where, to my mind, the state should intervene to protect the family which is the basic cell of society. A family allowance proportionate to the number of children must restore the family budget. It is a fact that the same salary for the same work can at once be a reasonable salary for a bachelor and the small family and a totally inadequate one for the father of a large family.
It is true that the multiplication of social measures leads to state socialism, but some are indispensable for the preservation of a social balance, and family allowances are, to my mind, the most essential legislation.
Immigration is called upon to people our country, whereas we should preach a higher birthrate which would enable the large family to prosper as it should. The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) has said and rightly that he had greater confidence in Canadian babies than in immigrants for peopling our country. I hope he will draw the logical conclusion of his convictions and agree to a raise in family allowances, which is essential if Canadian babies are to multiply. I have asked every year in this house and I am insisting upon it again-that the government make family allowances proportionate to the cost of living. If a minimum rate of $5 was thought absolutely necessary in 1945 for this allowance, why do we tolerate that it should fall to $3.25 in 1957, as a result of the constant rise of living costs?
On every occasion when we advocated an increase of family allowances, we have been met with an easy answer about the lack of money.
When the time comes to appropriate billions of dollars for national defence, for the Colombo plan, for our contributions to NATO,
The Address-Mr. Herridge and for some justifiable assistance to the Hungarian people, the government is softhearted. However, when the family is at stake, financial considerations are uppermost in its mind.
With the $400 million surplus of this year's budget, added to the $22 million we are about to dispose of as a free gift, family allowances could be doubled for the next ten years without an increase of a single cent in taxes. We are fed up with the financial argument. This government is far too generous in the fields assigned exclusively to the provinces by our constitution to act as a poor relation when the vital interests of the family are at stake.
I hope that the government will change the Family Allowances Act so that the allowance may be paid for dependent students as long as they are going on with their studies. I hope also that the government will do away with the inconsistent law which allows the deduction of only $150 to parents whose children receive the allowance. This is levying a tax on social legislation itself and take back with one hand what is given by the other. This money comes from taxes and to tax it is to levy a tax on a tax.
Let us place the family first. We will thus discharge our duties more surely and thus contribute to remove the dangers which threaten our world.
On the international level, in every country, in the heart of every human society and in the individual himself, we find the same universal "sore"; the world is dying from a lack of generosity. If we were as keen about charity as we are about our rights, the world would not need so many guns.
(Text):


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: There are many things in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, that indicate the government proposes to introduce legislation that we welcome, such as the establishment of the Canada Council, the implication that there are going to be increased grants to universities, and the suggestion that a committee of the Senate be established to deal with conservation and the development of agricultural land in Canada. While these things are commendable and are welcomed by us, we find on an examination of the throne speech that there is a complete lack of proposals for the introduction of legislation that will meet the needs of many Canadians who require assistance and consideration at this time.
I have been searching for a reason, Mr. Speaker, as to why the throne speech is so barren of this legislation that most of us had

The Address-Mr. Herridge a right to expect and which I think a good many of the Canadian people were expecting. I think I have come to the correct conclusion. I have come to the opinion that the government considers the official opposition no menace to its continued existence, and on that account we have this address with rather scanty proposals for legislation at this session.
I sympathize sincerely with the opposition, which contains a group of men of unquestioned integrity, many of them good friends of ours, genial and hard-working. But in the present circumstances in Canada they operate under a very severe handicap. I would say that they are a group of gentlemen who are frustrated in their efforts to do good by the strait-jacket of the circumstances that exist in Canada today.
If they adopt concrete proposals that go to the right, they lose popular support. If they develop some concrete proposals that go to the left, they find themselves in our camp. They are, therefore, in very difficult circumstances. Generally speaking I believe that is the reason they find it necessary to sit on the fence on most major issues, and to date have not proposed an alternative program. As our leader said some days ago, you cannot suggest to the Canadian people that you are an alternative to the present government unless you have an alternative program. I sympathize with them because it is most difficult for them to provide an alternative program to the program of the government of the day.
I said that was why they were reduced to sitting on the fence on risky and major issues. It was for that reason their leader did not take a definite stand on the strike issue. It is for that reason they are constantly required to speak in ambiguous terms. They cannot help it; the circumstances in Canada force that upon them. It is for that reason their major policy at the moment is one of directing questions to the cabinet on the orders of the day on matters, on many occasions, of little consequence.
I do not blame these hon. gentlemen for that approach. They are confined to that approach by the fact that the Progressive Conservative party, under the conditions that exist in Canada at this time, is a species that will be extinct in 10 years. I feel sorry for these gentlemen because some of them are good members. I may say the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) would make a good member of this group with a little polishing up on economics. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) would be a welcome addition. He is considered by some a secret C.C.F.'er. There are a number of other members in the group whose objectives

in broad outline are the same as ours or those of any other hon. member who wishes to represent the people and see some improvement in Canadian conditions; that is, they wish to do well by the Canadian people, but-


Mr. Hodgson:: Why did you change your policy?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Because I saw the light.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It is not the Regina manifesto you are talking about.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: They simply cannot produce an alternative policy to that of the Liberal government under conditions that exist in Canada at this time. It is for that reason I say that the situation in Canada is developing under which this group offers an alternative policy to that of the government in power. We have a different basic philosophy and we have concrete proposals to put before the house and the country, namely democratic socialism.
I will admit that the party has a new leader, who no doubt will do his best. Mind you, they have a certain advantage over us in that respect, because the new leader of the Progressive Conservative party is a master of propaganda. His public relations organization, which has constant contacts with the press; his knowledge of the use of the radio and photographs at home, when they are appropriate, are such-and I admit it-that if the Leader of the Opposition were to burp tomorrow in the outer recesses of Afghanistan it would be known around the world in 24 hours. Mr. Speaker, under present conditions that will not elect a party that finds it impossible to produce an alternative program to that of the Liberal party at this time.
I say we have an alternative program. Our fundamental objective in Canada at this time is the development and conservation of our human and natural resources. We see this problem as a whole. I cannot deal at length with our program tonight to indicate that we do have a basic program in opposition to the government in power. We believe that under present economic and social conditions in Canada we have to look at our problems as a whole from a national point of view. That is why we believe in basic planning. We believe in the enlargement of the sector of public ownership in this country. We believe that a great number of these developments will not be undertaken to the advantage of the Canadian people unless they are at least promoted and developed as a result of federal government co-operation with the provincial governments

concerned, whether it is development in the maritimes, the building of the South Saskatchewan dam or the building of the necessary dams in the development of the Columbia.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: You had better watch out or they will take over your timber limits.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In addition to that we believe in genuine free enterprise. We believe in providing opportunities for legitimate competitive free enterprise and for the development and extension of co-operative ownership in this country. We believe in the use of Canadian capital for the development of Canadian natural resources. We believe we have a program that would make this possible under present conditions, and make it unnecessary to bring into this country such large imports of United States and other capital at this time. We believe in a national development investment board for that purpose, so that investment could be directed to the best social advantage. We believe in a national investment and development bank.
We believe that if the federal government used its powers in relation to the use of the national credit and mobilized the national savings under a national investment board, whether they are corporate or personal, we could do a great deal to build these things which are required in Canada with Canadian savings and resources. In addition we believe it is very necessary that there should be a revision of special exemptions to corporations, and we also believe there must be an increase in corporation taxes and higher income taxes. We say that frankly. We do not believe in making proposals for social welfare improvements without at the same time coming out frankly and saying we have to get the money to do these things, and we suggest where we should get it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the possibilities in the revision of exemptions given to corporations in Canada at the present time and the possibilities in higher income taxes. In support of that argument I wish to read briefly some figures which have been obtained from the dominion bureau of statistics and the Bank of Canada. When these figures are given let no one say that we cannot consider the needs of old age pensioners, disability pensioners and others in the country at this time. Between 1946 and 1955 there was a total of $6,940 million in undistributed corporate profits in Canada. In addition, between 1946 and 1955 the total depreciation allowances permitted corporations amounted to $11,214 million, and the total of corporation internally-generated funds amounted to
The Address-Mr. Herridge $1,854 million. During that same period we had a net direct foreign investment in Canada of $2,119 million.
We are all concerned about the cost of living, and without doubt the cost of living is caused primarily by the excessive amount of direct foreign investment in Canada and competition for materials and labour. It is almost a direct result of heavy investment spending. I suggest in that connection our fiscal policies are radically different from those of the government. They are possibly policies that the official opposition would not advance, because they do not believe in taking this sort of action. Therefore under these circumstances we suggest there can be a legitimate increase in corporation taxes and higher income taxes, and there should be a revision of corporate exemptions. From these two sources we would obtain tremendous assets to give effect to some of the things we propose.
We now come to the cost -of living. The government to date has a restricted money policy. I want to bring to the attention of the house an article that I happened to be reading this, evening. It will be found in the January 19 issue of Saturday Night. Apparently the Minister of National Revenue recently addressed a meeting in Toronto with respect to this question. This is what the article has to say with reference to the minister's remarks:
Dr. McCann could have given the students something better to think about by discussing, not the inevitability of tight money in inflationary times, but the relationship of economic development, inflation and credit controls that are not selective.
Credit restraint that is non-selective, however, is a clumsy, perhaps even a dangerous weapon against inflation. It has proved to be far from the delicate mechanism that economists talked about a few years ago.
When there is too much demand for too little money, the available funds flow inevitably into the most profitable channels.
That is our objection to the present credit controls. The article goes on:
More often than not, the most profitable uses of money are also the most productive ones, from a business viewpoint. But while productive, these may not be the most imperative social uses. Unable to borrow, for example, builders are unable to put up as many houses and buyers must take on the extra load of higher interest rates; municipalities must either delay building the schools and other services they need or shoulder a heavier burden of debt.
If credit must be controlled, it seems necessary that it also be rationed. Dr. McCann and his colleagues should do some serious thinking about credit in terms of distribution as well as restriction.
Personally I think those are extremely sound observations. Our credit restrictions should not be such as to prevent the building of houses, the provision of services required by municipalities, or those things that are

The Address-Mr. Herridge required socially at this time. Our credit restrictions should be such that those projects do not suffer from whatever credit restrictions are necessary. It is because we take this point of view that we believe we are sound in urging the program we present to this house and to the country.
We have heard a great deal about prosperity, and without a doubt there is a general measure of prosperity in Canada at the present time, and there has been for some years; but there are many Canadians who at this moment do not enjoy that prosperity, and those Canadians are overlooked in the proposals contained in the throne speech. Because we believe our fiscal policies are alternative policies to those of the government and that they are sound because they are based on the theory that two and two make four, we say certain things can be done by this government to meet the needs of the people of this country at this time.
It is for that'reason we advocate increased old age security, increased old age assistance and a reduction of the qualification age. We realize this would cost the country more money, but on the basis of the corporate profits paid out during the last 10 years, on the basis of the undistributed dividends, on the basis of total exemptions of corporations and on the basis of over $2 billion being spent for defence, surely no one could reasonably argue that if we sit down and try to redistribute the wealth of this country at this time in such a manner as to give all fair shares, we cannot do what is necessary for our older citizens. We say that if we want to we can give them $75 a month without question.
In that connection I also want to bring to the attention of the house what I consider an injustice. Judges, civil servants and other persons who receive various types of pensions from the federal government are allowed to leave Canada and continue to receive their pensions. In the case of persons receiving old age security or assistance they can leave Canada only for a period of three months. If they are not away for a longer period than three months I understand they are able to collect their cheques covering the period they were absent, but for not more than three months in any one year.
Surely these senior citizens who pioneered in this country have as much right to go to California or to the south in the winter because of their health or in order to overcome severe climatic conditions that exist in their districts as have judges and other federal pensioners, I think that is most unjust, and I urge the government when it introduces the measure to increase old age pensions to


give consideration to permitting old age pensioners to enjoy the same rights with respect to leaving Canada as are enjoyed by other pensioners of the federal government.
Because of our belief in our sound fiscal policies simply through a proper redistribution of the wealth that now exists, we continue to urge a national health insurance plan, not a hospital plan but a total health insurance plan that will provide for hospital services, medical attention, drugs and the other clinical services that are necessary at this time.
We also continue to urge, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did the other day, the necessity for a national industrial pension scheme. I brought this up in the house at the last two sessions, and I think the hon. member for Cape Breton South has mentioned it for 10 years in succession to my knowledge. This is a scheme that requires only government administration and coordination. It will cost the government very little more than at present. We ask the government to give consideration to establishing a national industrial pension scheme so the workers employed in various industries in this country will have freedom of movement in labour, will be able to go from one plant to another instead of being chained to one plant by any present pension scheme after paying for more than five years because of the fear of losing their pension rights and so on.
We believe there should be greater provision for low cost housing. That will cost the government some money. I shall not deal with it at length at this time, but we in this group see no reason at all why we should not be giving these benefits to needy Canadians on the basis of the gross production of the country.
I want to refer briefly to the Legion brief which was presented to the cabinet by the dominion officers of the Legion on November 9. We all know the Canadian Legion and the other senior veterans associations are responsible organizations who are in touch with conditions as they concern veterans across this country through provincial commands, zones and local branches. I am pleased to see, Mr. Speaker, that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs is listening intently to what I have to say.
The Legion brief dealt largely with suggested amendments to the Pension Act and to the War Veterans' Allowance Act. I believe the Legion representatives presented excellent arguments and evidence in the brief, and it is my opinion that the veterans affairs committee should be established immediately

to give consideration to these representations from the Canadian Legion and other bodies. In fact, it is the opinion of this group that the veterans affairs committee should be a permanent committee.
I do not intend to deal at length with this brief. I support the proposals because I have read the brief. I know the circumstances they refer to, and I believe their requests are fair, sound and within the capacity of the Canadian people to meet financially.
In their representations the Legion urge that section 13 (1) (a) of the Pension Act be amended so that where a pension applicant who served in an actual theatre of war is found to have a disability resulting from an injury or a disease not recorded on medical examination prior to enlistment, such injury or disease shall be presumed to have occurred or had its inception subsequent to enlistment. I know that is a difficult question, but the number of veterans affected by this amendment would be relatively small, and I urge the government to give consideration to this proposal because there is an injustice done to some veterans under the present legislation.
The Legion also urges revision of the rates for dependent parents, and recommends that the pension of dependent parents be restored to the former position whereby the rate for one parent was equal to the rate for a widow, with a more adequate additional amount than at present provided where there are two dependent parents. I know the parliamentary assistant realizes this is a recurring problem for the Canadian pension commission and those responsible for the administration of this act. The Legion then asks for an increased pension to certain dependent parents, and recommends that section 38 of the Pension Act be amended so that a dependent parent of a deceased member of the forces would become eligible for the maximum rate on the remarriage of the pensioned widow, even though pension is still being paid on account of a child or children of the deceased serviceman.
There is a further resolution here that I am not at all surprised to see in which they recommend that all disability pensions when granted should become effective from the date of application; but in order to allay fears of excessive awards going back to the first world war, jeopardizing the chances of the applicant, they append the following saving clause, namely that this provision should not apply to claims granted prior to January 1, 1946 and that no retroactive payments shall be made for a period prior to that date. I think that is a very reasonable
The Address-Mr. Herridge and modest request as a result of my experience with the operation of that section of the act at the present time.
They also recommend that in order to obviate all possibility of future diversion of war pensions, section 24(3) of the act be amended to bind the Crown specifically so that a pension cannot be attached in any circumstances.
Then they come to the veterans who served in the first world war in the United Kingdom, and who are presently denied certain rights. They recommend that these veterans who saw service in the United Kingdom or with other allied governments should be brought within the provisions of section 13 of the act in the same way as those who were in Newfoundland at the time of enlistment.
Later they go on to the War Veterans' Allowance Act. I give credit to the government that the later amendments to the War Veterans' Allowance Act brought great benefits to many veterans, and I know from personal knowledge that they have been appreciated by many people who were able to take advantage of those amendments. I raise this point because our legislation has, generally speaking, been good. These are recommendations by the Canadian Legion as a result of their experience in the administration of these acts in recent years. In the light of this experience the Canadian Legion has recommended that ceilings on total permissible incomes under the War Veterans' Allowance Act be increased to $1,200 per year for the single recipient and $2,000 per year for the married recipient. The Legion also recommends that the married rate of war veterans allowance be increased from $108 per month to $120 a month. That was the point of major dispute when the act was before the veterans affairs committee some two or three years ago.
Further, the Legion recommends that Canadian veterans of the first world war whose overseas service was restricted to the United Kingdom be eligible for war veterans allowance provided that such service be at least one year in duration. That clause "one year in duration" has been added, very sensibly I think because at times there is evidence that the veteran was posted to Great Britain on service, frequently against his will. There are very few of these veterans who served in England in the first world war alive today, and the granting of this request of the Canadian Legion would not mean a very large expenditure on the part of the government. I would urge that further consideration be given to this question.

The Address-Mr. Herridge
Later they come to the question of the widows of allied ex-servicemen and urge that they be granted war veterans allowances where the recipient died before completing 20 years' residence in Canada, providing:
(a)	That the effective date of her eligibility be 20 years after the husband's arrival to take up permanent residence in Canada;
(b)	That the widow herself has completed 20 years' residence in Canada, and
(c)	That the husband and wife were both otherwise eligible.
There follows another clause which I think is a very necessary amendment to the act, and that is the recommendation which deals with the permissible equity in the value of the house which a veteran may own. The present figure is $6,000. The Canadian Legion has considered this matter very carefully and recommends that the permissible equity value of the house in which a recipient of war veterans allowance resides be increased from $6,000 to $9,000.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that deals with these recommendations. I have not taken time to elaborate on them. I do not think that is necessary. But I do ask the government on behalf of this group to give consideration to establishing a veterans affairs committee as soon as possible, and permitting the Legion and other organizations to present their evidence and their arguments before that committee. I am confident of this; that if the members of the committee recognize the validity of the evidence and the arguments, and appreciate the situation of many of the veterans in this country on whose behalf the Legion speaks, we shall have some very appropriate amendments to the Canadian Pension Act and the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
Before leaving this matter of veterans affairs I would like to refer briefly to the question of small holdings. In my opinion the most successful housing program undertaken by this government has been by the Department of Veterans Affairs under the small holdings section of the Veterans' Land Act. Unfortunately, as I have mentioned I think in eight previous years in this house, veterans are in many cases unable to take advantage of this excellent legislation because of the acreage requirements. I understand at least three acres of land are required to qualify if the land is not valued at $500 an acre or less, but that it is possible to obtain qualification in respect of 1.6 acres if the land is valued at $500 or more.
I know one veteran who has a piece of property just 1.56 acres in size. He does not qualify under the small holdings provision of the Veterans' Land Act. I do urge reconsideration of this acreage requirement

in order that we may meet the needs of veterans in many parts of Canada, particularly in British Columbia, where it is difficult to get these larger areas of land such as three acres and so on. In order that no veteran should be prevented from taking advantage of the act the acreage requirements in my opinion should be reduced to half an acre. In my own constituency there are nearly 400 veterans who are denied an opportunity to take advantage of the act by the present acreage requirements, men who would be able to take advantage of it if the requirement was reduced to half an acre. If the position is as serious as this in the constituency I have the honour to represent, similar circumstances must exist in many other ridings in Canada, and I urge the government to give consideration to this question.
Mr. Speaker, I just wish to make a few remarks with reference to international affairs. Since the house adjourned in August I have had the opportunity of visiting England, Belgium and France, and while there I took every opportunity to investigate the administration of the various departments of government; to discuss matters with labour people and industrialists; to visit housing developments in Britain and France, and to see many other interesting things.
I had the opportunity while in France of visiting all the Canadian fronts of the first world war. I have a particular and personal interest in those fronts, and while I was there I had occasion to see the Canadian war memorials now under the administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I have no hesitation in saying that the war memorial at Vimy is the finest war memorial in France or Belgium. It is magnificent in design, in conception and in location, and I must pay a tribute to the officials of the department and their gardener assistants in France for the excellent way in which the gardens are kept, for the landscaping, and the administration in general. The administration of war memorials in Belgium and France is a credit to the Canadian people.
In addition, I had the opportunity to look at some housing developments in France which I thought were very ugly indeed. I cannot understand how people like the French, who have developed such magnificent architecture in centuries past, can now be constructing such ugly and uninteresting housing developments. I saw development after development without any particular design at all, with houses like boxes, built of cement and ugly in the extreme, apparently

built with only one object in view, to house as many people as possible within a certain space.
I returned to England and had the opportunity to sit in the House of Commons during the major portion of the debate on the Suez issue. I must say that I received every courtesy from members of all parties and members of the House of Lords whom I had the opportunity to meet. I sat there and listened to that interesting debate, and I was particularly struck with one thing. I talked to members of the house, members of the upper house and other persons I met generally, and travelled around a great deal. What struck me particularly was the basic stability and underlying cohesion of the British people, regardless of the great division of opinion on a most serious and important matter; an underlying stability and cohesion that kept the nation, shall I say, united in principle although divided on a particular issue, an issue of such serious moment that it could have split apart other nations we know.
I was particularly pleased with the very high quality of the debate in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords, and I must say that as an Anglican I was delighted to hear the Archbishop of Canterbury say what he thought about the Suez issue. He was very vigorous in the expression of his opinion about that issue; he was chivied a bit afterwards by three or four noble lords who spoke after him, and he rose on three or four occasions to defend what he had said. But regardless of the deep division there is a tremendous respect for the elected representatives of the people in Great Britain and no one, whether they were on the government side of the benches or the Labour side, questioned anyone's motives. All that was questioned was the action that was undertaken.
I see that my time is disappearing very quickly and I must hurry along. I had the opportunity to go to the United Nations as a parliamentary observer. I think that is an excellent arrangement. Apparently ours is the only government that does it exactly in that way, and anyone who takes full advantage of the opportunity provided as a parliamentary observer at the United Nations must find it a fruitful and useful experience.
I must take this opportunity to compliment the Secretary of State for External Affairs for his work at the United Nations in recent months. It is recognized throughout the world, and Canada's prestige is particularly high at this time. I spoke to representatives of other nations, and whether they agree with us completely about this or that Canada is recognized as a country without any exterior
The Address-Mr. A. Gauthier ambitions, able to look upon these questions in a very objective manner. I have no hesitation in paying my tribute to the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the magnificent job he has done in recent months.
However, having said that I find that there is some division in the Liberal party. This party is united on this issue. I find there is one section of the Liberal party that has what I would term a duplex, reversible international policy. I want to read a Canadian Press dispatch of November 9, 1956. The heading is, "Thatcher Lauds Eden's Actions", and it is in these words:
Ross Thatcher, member of parliament for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, says Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden may have saved the Middle East from communism by moving forces into Egypt.
The former C.C.F. member, now Liberal candidate for Assiniboia in the next federal election, said Wednesday Eden "by halting the antics of a sawdust Hitler may well have saved the Middle East from communism.
"Canadians generally are proud of the part taken by Lester Pearson in the United Nations in bringing about a cease-fire. It is quite possible that in so doing he has prevented a third world war."


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


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Have I permission to finish one sentence or so?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to say that here we have the hon. member congratulating both sides. It is obvious he has no greater understanding of Liberal policy than he had of C.C.F. policy when he was a member of this group.
(Translation):


Mr. Andre Gauthier (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, custom and tradition have given a great flexibility to the debate on the address in reply. That is why I shall take this opportunity to express personal opinions on special problems, especially those of particular concern to the people I have the honour to represent in this house.
Before going into the main part of my remarks, I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The well prepared speeches they have made reflect their knowledge of politics and of the problems of the day. Their constituents have reason to be proud of the choice they made at the last general election, a choice which they will no doubt renew with pleasure at the next election.
The agricultural class and the working class share about equally in the economic

The Address-Mr. A. Gauthier activity of the constituency of Lake St. John. Generally speaking we are quite happy about our lot. The Aluminum Company of Canada which, together with the pulp and paper industry, is responsible for the industrialization of the district, has just undertaken works of immense magnitude on the Peribonca river, in the northern part of the constituency, in order to develop hydroelectric power to the extent of 700,000 horsepower. 1,500 men are already gainfully employed there and it is assumed that before the end of the summer this figure will have more than doubled. Before that project is completed, lines of vats for the production of aluminum will be erected at He Maligne so that the production of aluminum ingots in this locality should be equal to that of Arvida which is at present the greatest aluminum producing centre. It means that the working class is justified in hoping for a high level of employment and for reasonable salaries but, even though full employment brings prosperity to all sections of our economy, the situation of the farmer remains unstable and unsatisfactory.
Agriculture is a section of our Canadian economy to which the government must give particular attention; I am glad to see that the speech from the throne provides greater encouragement for agriculture.
On January 9, in the course of this debate, the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has shown that he is well aware of the situation of our Quebec farmers and of the importance, to the Canadian economy, of our agricultural element. That is the reason why the Senate investigation proposed by the government cannot but bring beneficial results for agriculture as a whole as well as an improvement of economic conditions for our farmers.
Meanwhile, a good way to help the farmers, as well as the workers with large families, would be to increase the rate of family allowances.
We are indebted to the Right Honourable Mackenzie King and to the liberal party for this excellent social legislation. I do not know of any other social measure offering as many advantages as the Family Allowances Act; it is the one that helps the largest number of Canadians.
Since 1945, the cost of living has increased substantially, so that the original value of the allowances has sharply decreased.
We are now facing a serious threat of inflation, which causes more concern to those who come under a measure of such a high social value.
I have received requests from several hundreds of my constituents who are asking

the government to increase the rate of family allowances.
I support these requests, Mr. Speaker, for I know they are rightful requests. If the government could double those amounts it would be a very good thing, but the least that can be done is to give these social dividends the buying power they had in 1945.
Ever since I became a member of this house I have taken a keen interest in unemployment insurance. As a matter of fact, at the first session of the last parliament I asked that our bushworkers come under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I thought that the need for protection was greatest for those who are the most exposed to fluctuations in the labour market. That is why I did not hesitate to speak on their behalf in this house. And it was not in vain, since on April 1, 1950, bushworkers could qualify as all other workers.
When the law was revised, in 1955, I advocated the abrogation of the seasonal regulations concerning that class of workers. I wish to thank the authorities of the commission who saw fit to grant my request and the request which was made, the same day, by my colleague from Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais).
The purpose of the revision of the Unemployment Insurance Act was to extend its application to a larger number of people, and to increase the amount of the benefits. We have achieved our goal in part, but I thought I should make a suggestion to the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) in order to improve the lot of those who want to avail themselves of it to a larger extent.
Amendments to the act voted early last session had the effect of assimilating the rate of seasonal benefits to the rate of ordinary benefits and to extend to ten weeks the minimum period during which an unemployed person is entitled to receive such payments during the off season. When bringing in these amendments, the legislators had mainly in mind the human side of the question; this is why I too want to suggest that seasonal benefits should begin to be paid as from early December; a construction worker generally becomes unemployed at the end of November and such amendment as I just proposed would enable our unemployed to receive unemployment benefits before the Christmas and New Year holidays. What a comfort it would be to those people who are already in a plight after losing their jobs to receive benefits enabling them to buy at least the bare necessities of life at that time of the year!

Each of us still remembers with anxiety the events of last fall, when Israel, France and England, each in turn, invaded Egypt. Upon this occasion, our Prime Minister and our representatives in the United Nations played a most important part and history will recognize that Canada, in proposing the creation of an international police force, found the formula which prevented another world war. I must say that I was very proud of the firm attitude of our Prime Minister. His words and his deeds proved to the world that our country was an independent and sovereign country and that, consequently, it could take its own responsibilities and its own attitudes.
Afterwards, an incident occurred which emphasized a national weakness, namely the absence of a distinctive national flag. Hon. members will recall the refusal of Colonel Nasser to approve the presence of a Canadian battalion because the flag of that regiment contained a union jack which could lead to confusion with the British flag.
I have brought up this question of a flag two or three times in this house but, in view of its importance, I want to raise it again.
On December 9, 1953, seconding a motion introduced by my colleague from Bonaven-ture (Mr. Arsenault), I made the following statements which I would like to repeat today:
We have achieved national unity through the efforts of the Liberal party and of those who have been Its leaders for the past 50 years. It is also under Liberal administrations, and more particularly through the efforts of our present leaders, that our country progressed through the various stages that led to complete sovereignty and independence. The logical consequence of our previous moves would therefore be to endow our country with a distinctive national flag.
There has been much thought of national unity. To my mind there is nothing more important for the furtherance of that national unity than a flag which, in every circumstance, should serve as a rallying sign for all Canadians. Every citizen of this country is proud of belonging to this great Canadian nation of ours. The best way to give concrete form to this pride is to adopt an exclusive Canadian symbol.
Certain timorous individuals, more imperialistic than Canadian, fear that by doing away with the union jack we will weaken the ties that bind us to the commonwealth. To them I would say that the strength of the whole is the sum total of the strength of the parts. In any event these people should now understand that sentimental links are a thing of the past so far as Canada is concerned and that if we remain in the commonwealth it is because we find it to be in our interest, to begin with, as well as in the common interest of the free peoples and of the cause of world peace.
The present Prime Minister has stated on various occasions that he is favourable to the
The Address-Mr. Van Horne adoption of a truly distinctive flag, but he believes, wisely, in my opinion, that the taking of such a step must not be a matter for controversies sufficiently bitter to prejudice national unity.
Last Tuesday when the house opened, he said something which has given me an idea which I would like to pass on to the government. In congratulating the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon. Prime Minister said:
I extend to the Leader of the Opposition our sincere good wishes in his new position and I wish to assure him quite seriously that I will be ready at all times to discuss with him in advance matters which need not be controversial on party lines and about which national unity might perhaps be best served by solutions that we could all recommend to those whom we represent in parliament.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the choice of a truly distinctive national flag should not be a controversial matter in Canada. That is why I am suggesting a conference of the four party leaders; if there are still some Canadians who do not favour a distinctive national flag, I say that the duty of the party leaders is to direct and guide public opinion.
Such a consultation would acquaint us with the opinion of the different party leaders and, I am sure, would bring about a unanimous feeling on a question so essential to Canadian sovereignty and to the independence of our beautiful and great country.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that the population has heard with the greatest satisfaction about the settlement of the Canadian Pacific strike.
I wish to congratulate the hon. Prime Minister for his part in the negotiations. He has shown that, in this field, as well as in many others, he is a true leader for the Canadian nation. I am sure that, when the time comes, Canada will show him its appreciation.
(Text):


Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resligouche-Madawaska):: I wish to congratulate the
mover (Mr. Hanna) and seconder (Mr. Robi-chaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It was indeed gratifying to note the spirit A'ith which the mover of the address went out of his way to say a few words in the French language, thus recognizing the importance of the two languages in this country.
As I rise to speak in this debate let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, as I remind this house, that unemployment is still the No. 1 problem in my riding. While the government
220	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Van Horne stubbornly refuses to build the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge or to even divert some repair work to our only foundry, thousands of men are idle. Many of them do not have enough insurance stamps to benefit from the badly regulated and directed unemployment insurance commission. In the midst of the mythical and invisible prosperity, in the maritimes at least, of which the mover and seconder of the address boasted, stark misery, suffering and hardship are seen on every hand. The hon. member for Gloucester, the seconder of the address, unless he is much more misinformed than I think he is, is well aware of the hardships of his people, and his smug indifference to their plight must astound this house as it indeed astounds the people of his riding. He leaves me no alternative but to agree with many people in his riding that the hon. member would make a good baby sitter, but he is no representative of his people.
Undoubtedly this hon. member feels that so long as his people live in misery, want and hardship, the Liberal propaganda machine can again scare them into voting Liberal by making threats, at which the hon. member is an expert, that to vote anything but Liberal will mean the loss of widows' allowances, family allowances, old age pensions and so on. It is indeed a most fortunate omen that recent Conservative victories in the maritime provinces have killed this myth once and for all. Our people will no longer vote Liberal because of the fear,-instilled by crooked, dishonest Liberal propaganda-of losing their pensions. The flagrant swinging of this club has for years been the No. 1 tactic of the Liberal propaganda machine. More and more our people are awakening from their past indifference in federal politics and realizing how badly, how inefficiently and how wastefully this country is being governed. They are realizing how much worse off our citizens in this country are than they would be if we had a good federal government. They are realizing as never before that a freshly dedicated, conscious government must take oven
As we reach this inescapable conclusion we cannot escape the stark fact that only the Conservative party offers an alternative to this present dead, dormant and decadent administration. Never before in our history have our people been more aware that Canada has been putting up with half measures of the prosperity, security, and standard of living which would now be ours if only we


had a good federal government, one dedicated to the welfare of the Canadian people, first and foremost; one more prepared to listen to the will of the Canadian people than the dictates of Colonel Nasser; one willing to give full opportunity to all the sections of our country and all of our people.
Let me just spend one minute on this tight money policy. In order to cure possible inflationary tendencies in central Canada, the government increases the economic depression already existing in the maritime provinces. This forces the small businessman to turn to the high-interest money lender, and the prices of many goods go up. Household appliances, cars and heavy equipment formerly financed by notes at the bank at reasonable rates of 5 per cent or 6 per cent are now being financed by finance companies at 16 per cent, 24 per cent and in some cases 50 per cent.
Is this government acting in collusion with the finance companies? Why do they overlook the fact that inflation results from the scarcity of labour or materials or both? In my riding at the present time one-fourth of the labour force is out of work, and many who are still employed are working for starvation wages in certain areas of my riding. One firm pays less than $30 a week for 10 hours a day, six days a week.
In the midst of prosperity we remain poor and provincial governments are crippled. Projects like Beechwood suffer. Municipalities, church bodies, school boards, towns and villages see their plans for providing urgently needed services dissolved while their people suffer for want of work, food, shelter and fuel. If ever we saw a government legislate a section of our country into deeper and deeper depression, we are seeing it now as we look across the floor of this house at the prima donnas of the Liberal tight money policy, as they pursue it and as they apply it.
Let me say a word about farming. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has indeed earned every epithet the farmers of my area and across Canada may be levelling at him. Personally I like the Minister of Agriculture. Although he stretches like an elastic band the credulity of our people when he speaks, he seems to be a good joker. How I wish he were also a good Minister of Agriculture. I wish we had a Minister of Agriculture who would at least take the trouble to come down to our riding and see the pitiful condition in which the farmers of Madawaska county find themselves. If he did, he would resign. This is no idle statement. If my friendly enemies on the other side of the floor should think otherwise, let me mention only one case.

The Address-Mr. Van Horne
Hon. members will recall the much-publicized aid to the potato growers for which we fought so long and worked so hard. Here are the results of that aid. The Liberal propaganda about it cost many times more than the amount of the aid itself. You will recall that in approving the plan to help our potato farmers, $500,000 was voted. But by the time this indolent government got the plan into operation, do you know how much aid was actually received? Let me refresh your memory. There was $5,000 actually spent, and $495,000 never reached our farmers. Is there any doubt now that this program was for publicity only and Liberal votes, not for help for our still hard-pressed farmers? This bird-brained saboteur of New Brunswick, the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart), and the baby sitter from Gloucester cannot deny these figures because they were given to me by the department itself in a letter from the deputy minister. Only 9,100 barrels of potatoes were marketed under this plan, and only $5,000 in aid was expended. This is indeed a far cry, Mr. Speaker, from the Liberal bragging about $500,000 worth of assistance. One per cent of the amount got to the hard pressed farmers.
I was talking today to some very good Liberal farmers in Carleton county. Let me tell you that these farmers recalled how a few years ago 100 cargoes of potatoes would be shipped to Cuba. But that was before this government put an import duty on sugar, and as a result of retaliation by the Cuban government they now import less than one cargo of potatoes a year.


Mr. Gardiner:: It was the Bennett government that did that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: False. Senator Pirie was not a senator during that regime. I can assure you that he was one of the men from New Brunswick, and a Liberal at that, who rose in the Senate and objected when it was adopted, and said publicly for everyone to hear that this was having a crucifying effect on the potato farmers of New Brunswick. If the farmers in my riding had a minister of agriculture things might be different. We want to know where he is; we never see him; we never even see his shadow.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have been all over the province.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In my area we have a
farm loan board, and it is a farce. First of all, the comfort-seeking investigators will not lower themselves to make an investigation of an application in winter time. Oh, no; it is too cold; they might get their feet wet; and
our farmers have to need the money when it is convenient for the officials of the board to investigate their applications. Our farmers in Madawaska county and in the St. Quentin area speak French only. They do not understand, let alone speak, English. Why do you insist on sending investigators who speak not a word of French? However, these matters could be endured if only the loans were made, but one application after another is turned down, in many cases without even the semblance of an investigation being made.
Why cannot this government have more faith in our farmers, and why can it not smarten up and give to those farmers the consideration that it gives to foreigners? Why is it that unemployment insurance is refused to our farmers and our farmers' helpers? Our farmers keep complaining that they cannot keep hired men on their farms, and the reasons are not hard to find. The federal government chase our farm help away by their stupid refusal to make them eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. Who will deny that these men are the men who need unemployment insurance benefits the most? They work 14 hours a day in the summertime and have to lie idle for many months during the winter time. I ask you, what is your idea of justice? Of course, I realize that as long as we have the present misfit as Minister of Labour our farmers and our farm help will continue to be unjustly treated.
I speak, Mr. Speaker, for the forgotten people of this country, and it is high time this government stood up and took notice. The same situation applies to farmers who earn a living cutting pulpwood on their lands. They are denied unemployment insurance benefits. They work the hardest and under the worst conditions, but get the least. Unemployment insurance acts like a mythical life insurance company which would require a person to die four or five times before his widow could collect the insurance.
Another point I would like to bring up this evening is this. The north shore of New Brunswick is without air services. At the present time, in view of the budwormspraying program, several good air strips are in operation. Very little would be needed to convert one of those landing strips, such as the one on the plateau above Robinson-ville, into a first-class air field. Our people demand that the government convert this field into an airport and let the Maritime Central Airways, or Trans-Canada Air Lines, provide regular air service from this point. I mention this area because it would cost comparatively little to convert the present air strip into a first-class airport. The work

The Address-Mr. Van Horne has already been partly done. Next summer it will be able to accommodate something like 50 or 60 airplanes at a time, and there is no reason whatever why one of those air strips, particularly the one above Robinsonville, because it is the handiest to all points in the area, could not be converted into a first-class airport. In view of the work already done the cost would be small.
By the way, what does the government intend to do about the pitiable state of some of our airports? The airports at Sydney, at Quebec city and at so many other places are as dull and drab as is the Minister of Transport himself. The dining service at these terminals is getting worse. It would appear that short-order cooks discharged from some of our lumber camps for inefficiency have taken over the catering at these airports. I ask, why is it that the meal service at terminals cannot approximate the meal service on the Canadian National Railways, for instance, or the dining service so much appreciated at terminals in Europe?
In the field of foreign policy Canada has, in the past months, with its subservient acceptance of Colonel Nasser's dictates, with the minister's cocky boasting, with the ridiculous attitude he has adopted toward Nasser's slightest wishes, slipped and slipped badly. Indeed, our Secretary of State for External Affairs has given the impression that Canada has become a little bulldog in a bow tie. I recall what the New York Daily Mirror said not so long ago in very plain terms:
Come on, Mr. Pearson, no one in our country challenges Canada's greatness or sovereignty. Let us continue the world's finest example of international friendship in equality and mutual respect- with no backbiting.
I can assure this house and all the people of all countries that we in Canada resent this backbiting on the part of our minister and our government, and this nauseating kowtowing to Nasser's slightest wishes, just as much as the people of the other countries resent them.
Canada's entire military organization is replete with names denoting royal affiliations and traditions. To prevent the 17-year old untrained soldiers of the Queen's Own Rifles from seeing their families before being forced to leave for Egypt, and then to keep them stranded and in bounds in Halifax for weeks just because of the Nasser-Pearson partnership, with Pearson the junior and order-taking partner, is nothing short of an insupportable insult to all our troops and to the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: You are insulting your own party.

(Translation):


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to deal in French with a few problems concerning particularly the Minister of National Health .and Welfare (Mr. Martin) who, I am sorry to say, has just left the house, and the negligent way in which he directs his department. I understand perfectly, of course, that the minister is so full of himself and so possessed with the burning desire to see his picture in the papers, that he no longer finds the time to look after his own responsibilities. I urge him most energetically to forget his selfish and narrow-minded attitude and to think of our invalids, of the mothers of our families, of our children, of our older citizens who have been so cruelly abused by the federal government for the last few years. When you reach 65, you still have to be poor to receive a miserable pension of $40 and you have to be most careful about remaining poor not to lose it. How can one believe in justice if one remembers that the cost of living has almost doubled over the last ten years but the government still refuses to increase pensions and family allowances in a way which would be commensurate with this rise in the cost of living? Do you think that our pensioners can work miracles and live on $40 a month when even your statistics show that it takes at least $87.50 a month for a person to live?
The pension to disabled persons is as unjust as ever. I know hundreds of men unable to walk and consequently unable to earn their living, who cannot obtain this pension, little as it is. As I said, one has to be practically dead to obtain it and remain so to keep receiving it. In fact, unless our people can prove that the sole reason for which they are not dead is that they cannot afford funeral expenses, they are unable to obtain that pension. If, perchance, one succeeds in obtaining this pension, one loses it as soon as one enters the hospital or a rest home, that is at the very moment when it is most needed. If the minister calls that justice I suggest to him quite sincerely to go back to school.
Moreover, can the minister tell us what he has against children of unknown parents, so as to refuse to pay allowances to the institutions where they are kept at a heavy cost and sacrifice?
The minister is so infatuated with himself and is so fond of having his picture taken, of facing cameras, that he is no more aware of the suffering and of the hardship he is inflicting upon thousands of our unfortunate citizens. His crime is the more horrible considering that his victims are, mostly, children,

disabled people, mothers of families. The minister has only one thing to do: resign from his post. If he wants to chase cameras throughout the world, let him do so at his own expense, and not at the expense of the neglected citizens of Canada.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I was just speaking about the Minister of National Health and Welfare-


Mr. Byrne:: Reading about him, you mean.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -and saying that if the Kodak kid spent half as much time looking after his department as he spends chasing cameras all over creation we would have a better department.
Last October I spent a few weeks travelling from capital to capital in Europe studying the social security systems operating in several countries, and in particular I studied the national hospitalization plan of the United Kingdom. I look across the floor of this house and I fix my regard on the minister. I ask him now as I will ask him again and again, what is wrong with his department and what is wrong with him? Is he going to sit there and proclaim that the Canadian people just do not deserve the same advantages as do our kinsmen in Great Britain, for instance? I visited doctors, nurses and hospitals and talked to patients. There is no escaping the fact that a crushing burden borne with such patience by our people in Canada has been lifted from the people of Great Britain in ridding themselves of hospital and doctor bills.
When I see dying people in Canada refused admittance to hospitals because they have not been able to pay their last hospital bill, and when I consider the vast improvement in the health of the English people and the many benefits of the system as it works in Britain I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that nothing short of the indifference of the Canadian government is responsible for not having established a similar system in Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would you mind waiting until I am finished, sir?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Not at all.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: One of the greatest tragedies in Canada is the failure of so many of our people to realize how badly we are governed. Under our National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and under the direction of a government interested in the welfare of the
The Address-Mr. Van Horne people, housing could become a solved problem; but the facts show in no uncertain way that countless thousands of Canadians are denied the right of owning a home for one or more of the following reasons.
1.	The loan cannot be obtained. Stupid, overbearing and discriminatory regulations prevent loans being made in many areas where they are most needed, and the tight money policy stops the money-lending agencies from making loans.
2.	The down payment is too high. Why cannot this government get off its high horse and adopt the United States housing plan, under which down payments are waived entirely for veterans and where the sum of $400 or $500 constitutes the down payment for a house costing from $10,000 to $12,000, as compared with the down payment of $3,000 or $4,000 required here to purchase a similar house? Our people have been so misgoverned and ill-treated for so long that they simply do not have the $3,000 or $4,000 needed for a down payment under the government plan, and our people with large families on limited incomes who need housing the most are pushed aside and denied the right to own their own homes.
3.	Loan values are not permitted for houses already built. Here again, why cannot this government adopt the United States attitude and recognize that by its present stupid policy the government is making houses impossible to purchase because sufficiently large loans on them just are not available? The result is that our people who already have homes see their equity diminish and sometimes disappear as they are unable not only to sell their houses but must accept prices which cut out or reduce their interest or equity in them.
4.	The present regulations and standards are unreasonable, and the interest rates are unreasonably high.
These wrongs can be righted without costing the government one cent. This is not a hand-out; this is a money-making proposition for the government. The government is making millions each year on the present loans, and this in spite of the costly palace which serves as headquarters for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the terrific overhead and expense incurred in the running of this department.
In 1954 the government cleared over $14 million on these loans; in 1955, over $16 million. The profits are going up all the time. Is this not sufficient proof that the government can do better, and in regard to housing, as in regard to so many other things, place the Canadian people in the same position in which the United States government places

The Address-Mr. Van Horne its people? How stupid can this government get? Think of the cruelty of which you are guilty as you prevent hundreds of thousands of good Canadian families from owning their own homes. This government has much to answer for, and it cannot escape the moral obligations confronting it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to dwell for a moment on maritime rights, particularly as they relate to the report of the Gordon commission. Some progress has been achieved in having this government recognize the seriousness of the depressed economic situation in the maritime provinces. The premier of my province has emerged as the foremost champion of the long-ignored maritime rights. Never before have Canadians as a whole been so keenly aware that this country cannot and should not exist on the basis where one part enjoys a degree of prosperity, however meagre, while the Atlantic provinces are pushed aside and forgotten by this government.
Canadians are shocked to learn, for instance, of the government's recent gift of $35 million to India to build a hydroelectric project-not that we oppose foreign aid-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -while it still refuses to even endorse our note for $45 million to build the Beechwood project. I am not opposed nor do I think anyone could be opposed to foreign aid commensurate with Canada's position as a leading nation of the world, but we elected a government to look after the needs of Canada, and that is what we expect this government to do as its first consideration. Canadians are shocked to see government advertising proclaim that it will build 10 new bridges over the St. Lawrence, while it has stubbornly refused a miserly little bridge across the Restigouche river at Campbellton.
All our newspapers appear unanimous in their expressed opinion that remedial measures are needed to help equalize opportunities and the standard of living in the maritimes with the level of semi-prosperity that exists in central Canada. The Prime Minister himself has on several occasions acknowledged the backward and depressed economic conditions in the maritimes, and several ministers of the crown have confirmed this view. Therefore our problem at this time is not so much to acquaint this government with the conditions that exist, since we have finally succeeded in penetrating the thick wall of stubbornness, apart from a couple of saboteurs of New Brunswick whose blind stupidity prevents them from helping New Brunswick. The government realizes the conditions as

they exist in the maritime provinces. In other words the first stage has been overcome, but our great problem now is to get this lazy and indolent government to move, to take action, to take the steps necessary to equalize the economic opportunity of all sections of our country, to give the maritimes justice and good government, which we have never received from this administration.
But now the escape tactic of the government has changed. Previously they said everything was fine in the maritimes; previously the government was blind. Now the escape tactic is; "Tell us how we can help you?" Now, Mr. Speaker, just who is this government trying to fool? Has it the effrontery to stand here and tell us in the maritimes that we have not stated, again and again, what our needs are and what measures must be adopted to equalize our economic situation and advantages with those of upper Canada. From that first day, the first day of confederation, the day on which so many of our forefathers flew the flag at half mast, our representatives of the maritimes, apart from those who were blinded and silenced by this trained seal, safe seat somewhere Liberal subservience, have risen and spoken for the maritimes.
At the time of confederation, as an inducement to influence the maritimes to enter confederation, the Chignecto canal was to be the No. 1 project to help New Brunswick and Nova Scotia maintain their transportation advantages in regard to their advantageous pre-confederation trading position and to help overcome the back-seat trading position they had to accept as they entered confederation.
I will not repeat all the statements I made last year concerning the Chignecto canal, but briefly it would permit a whole new industrial expansion program to come about in the areas adjacent to the canal, and would give New Brunswick and Nova Scotia the advantage of cheaper transportation. Transportation in the maritime provinces is as much a stumbling block to progress as lack of power. We demand, as we have demanded over the years, drastic reductions in transportation rates to the full extent needed to permit competition by maritime producers and manufacturers in confederation-made markets. We demand action, and we demand it now. We demand a whole, new and complete revision of our freight rates act. In other words, we have demanded and we demand again a new deal for the maritime provinces.
Power has long held us up. Even today the pulp mill at Dalhousie is held up for lack of power. Every day opportunities to develop our mines are lost because of lack

of power. Let us look at what this government did and what it is doing regarding the position at Beeehwood. If ever a government went out of its way to give a province a slap in the face, to reduce its federal Minister of Labour to a choreboy of the cabinet, to insult a province, it was when this government refused to sign our note to let us borrow money at a lower rate of interest to build the Beeehwood power project. We did not ask for one cent; we asked for a signature only. But we got insults instead, and this at a time, Mr. Speaker, when hundreds of millions were being given away to build power projects in other countries.
Lack of capital for our industrial development has also held us up for a long time, and don't think for one minute that the industrial development bank does more than render lip service in the maritime provinces. Why does the government not adopt the United States attitude and help out? The industrial development bank could become an effective means of helping the maritimes, but at present it is failing miserably.
A word about the Gordon commission. I hear Liberal members complain that the Gordon commission is making statements that the government should pay people to move out of the maritimes. Well, Mr. Gordon, very reluctantly I suppose, came to the conclusion and was so convinced that this government would do nothing for the maritime provinces that the least it could do was to buy tickets for those who wanted to leave. What other alternative did Mr. Gordon have? Why get up and blame him for telling the truth? He confirms what has been said time and time again. It is a fact. The report said that the average income in this region continued to lag behind the average for the rest of Canada. In 1955 average income per family was 31 per cent below the average for the other six provinces and, the report continues, there is a disparity of 37 per cent on a per capita basis. The fact remains, the report says, that living standards are lower in the Atlantic provinces than in the rest of Canada, and that it is in everyone's interest to reduce this differential.
I feel this government has now been told what it has always refused to believe. Mr. Gordon says in this report that it is not suggested that this assistance should be affected by hand-outs or ad hoc projects. Surely when New Brunswick asked the government for the endorsement of its note we were not asking for a hand-out. "They are as unpalatable", Mr. Gordon says, "to the recipient as to those who must foot the bill", to quote the report.
The Address-Mr. Van Horne
What is required is a positive and comprehensive approach to the problems of the Atlantic region. With this as the objective it is suggested that the people of Canada as a whole may be willing to assist the people of the Atlantic provinces in discovering, developing and making the best use of resources in that area.
If it should turn out that there is not the necessary combination of resources in sufficient quantity to permit a substantial rise in the standard of living in the Atlantic region generous assistance should be given to those people who might wish to move to other parts of Canada where there might be greater opportunities.
I could think of a few people who might very well take that advice. The hon. member for Charlotte, for instance; maybe he will take that advice or the advice of Premier Smallwood of Newfoundland, who incidentally happens to be a Liberal. He said:
Every year that passes, no matter how we strive, no matter what risks we take or what gambles we risk-every year that passes leaves us relatively weaker compared with the rest of Canada.
How long can this go on? The people will be sucked irresistibly into richer and more attractive parts of Canada. We are not willing to lie down and die on the Atlantic coast. We shall kick up such a devil of a row that we shall make them ashamed.
He added some hopeful words at that time. Premier Smallwood prophesied that the Gordon commission would produce a new charter for the Atlantic provinces and that confederation would begin to mean just and equal treatment for the Atlantic provinces.
There was the prophecy and the Gordon report is the reality. As one of the newspapers said, "We say thank you very much, Mr. Gordon-thank you for nothing; we knew all about it before you said those things".
Mr. Speaker, I see my time is about up. There are a few more subjects I would like to discuss. I have not approached the subject of unemployment insurance, which in my riding and in many sections of this country continues to be one horrible mess. We see big families whose fathers work at seasonal jobs, jobs that do not give them the required number of stamps, and I have visited families in distress because of this; I have seen them time and time again. I have brought hon. members of this house to visit families where there were no fires in the house and where an orange crate was used as a cupboard, often with very little in it and sometimes nothing at all, simply because these people lacked two weeks of stamps. They have to eke out a living as best they can, simply because this government has refused to give them unemployment insurance benefits. Why call it unemployment insurance if it is not going to be that?
It is not the fault of these people. I speak today for the suffering people of this country of whom this government is not aware, judging by its actions and especially with regard

The Address-Mr. Van Horne to unemployment insurance. I am sorry the Minister of Labour is not here in his place tonight, because I have a few things to say when he is here and I will wait until he comes into the house before saying them.


An hon. Member:: He will be here.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will wait till he comes. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the people of the country expect more of the unemployment insurance commission than it is doing with over $950 million in reserve. Surely methods can be adopted to reduce the number of weeks required to obtain unemployment insurance. What possible reason can you give? I look across the floor at this baby sitter, the hon. member for Gloucester, and I know full well the conditions that exist in his riding, and how the people are suffering. I ask, "Why are you hoarding this money?" Why is the government not taking steps?


Mr. Robichaud:: We are not buying anything.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I call it ten o'clock.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Certainly.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member has
eulogized the British national health scheme. If the present government introduced such a scheme, would his party support it?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will say this. You read the manifesto of the Conservative party.


Mr. Lesage:: You say nothing.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You know very well that the Conservative party has for many years past advocated and pleaded for a system of national hospitalization which would-


Jean Lesage: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This misfit minister of the neglected Eskimos should wait until I finish my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We stand for good government, and we will give good government after June 17 next. I must say I am not through my remarks. I am calling it ten o'clock. I adjourn the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: In fairness to the hon. member I must say to him that I have been informed by the deputy clerk that his time expired at 10.01, and that was just prior to the time the hon. member for Kootenay West asked him a question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which he did not answer.
On motion of Mr. Weir the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, January 15, 1957