1957-10-22

DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister is it his intention to lay on the table of the house the correspondence, if there was correspondence, with the provincial governments about the forthcoming federal-provincial conference that the Prime Minister mentioned some time ago?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, at the earliest moment.



REPORTED TRADE MISSION TO COMMUNIST CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Prime Minister. I notice that in the newspapers we are told a trade mission is proceeding to China. Could the Prime Minister give the house some information regarding this mission, if it is a mission, so that we may know something about it officially?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I
could answer that question for the hon. member. There is no trade mission as such proceeding to China in the sense that a large group of people are going on a mission; nothing of that sort is taking place. The situation is simply this. For a number of years we have had a trade commissioner living in Hong Kong and looking after Canada's trade interests in that area. During the course of the summer his area was extended to include adjacent territory, and some time ago our department suggested to him that he might look into the possibilities of trade on the mainland. It was left to him to use his own initiative as to how he would go about that enterprise.
What is happening at the moment is that his proposal is to leave some time in early November for a period of perhaps two weeks. He may visit four cities in China: Peking,
Tientsin, Canton and Shanghai. What he will discover in the course of his visits I do not know. If there is a possibility of disposing of some of our good Canadian wheat in China, naturally he will report to us with regard to that. Actually, he is doing simply what the trade commissioner service throughout the world attempts to do, and that is initiate discussions with people who are interested in trade, discover possibilities for trade on the part of Canada, and inform Canadian businessmen as well as the Canadian government as to what the prospects are. It is a routine mission. It is not really a trade mission; it is just routine business, and it is just the initiative on the part of a trade commissioner dealing with the area that comes under his jurisdiction.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask a supplementary question. I understand he is going as an official of the department. May I ask who is making arrangements before he goes so that he may meet the right people? Is that being done through any other diplomatic agencies, through the United Kingdom or through any other agency of a government having diplomatic relations with China? Who are the officials who are making the arrangements for him to receive the right treatment in China?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have not the information at hand to answer that particular question, but I will obtain it.


Mr. Benidiclcson:: The press report says that an external affairs man is to accompany him.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: May I
ask the Prime Minister whether it would not facilitate the sale of wheat if we recognized the government of the mainland in connection with this visit?


John George Diefenbaker: I have seen no facilitation or acceleration of the trade in so far as Britain is concerned in communist China, as a result of her recognition of the Chinese government prior to hostilities in Korea.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Algoma East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I ask what credentials the trade commissioner will be carrying on this mission, and to whom they will be addressed?
240	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Churchill: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is simply a plan that has been put forward, and it has not been finalized.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hon. members across the house may laugh, but this has simply come to notice at this particular time without the final plans being made. It may be that I will have more information for the house in a few days with regard to this particular suggestion. So far as the details are concerned, I have not them available at the moment.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: A supplementary question. Can the minister tell us whether or not the proposed visit has or has not the approval of the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would say this, Mr. Speaker. Our trade commissioners stationed throughout the world are empowered on their own initiative to investigate ways and means of increasing trade with any country.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce supplementary to the questions that were asked earlier by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and others.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I remind the house that supplementary questions are to be used sparingly to elucidate answers, and are not to be used for the purpose of engaging in debate. I have permitted five supplementary questions to the original question directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I feel that should satisfy the house, and that we should not go forward with further supplementary questions on that point.



INQUIRY AS TO CURRENT MEETING AT GENEVA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. James Sinclair (Coast-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Prime Minister another question on trade, based on the Department of External Affairs release announcing the start of the meetings of GATT at Geneva this week. What position has the Canadian delegation been instructed to take when the treaty for the establishment of the European free trade community and the possible adherence of Britain to this community are before the meetings of GATT?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Perhaps I could answer that question for my hon. friend. So far as the GATT 

negotiations in general are concerned, a Canadian delegation will be there and it will have instructions to enter into negotiations for the renewal of GATT with certain modifications. As to the effect on those negotiations of the proposed plan for a European free trade area, it will be necessary for Canada to know more as to how far the countries in western Europe and the United Kingdom are going to go in this respect before it can attempt to give detailed instructions to its delegates in that regard.
From the extent to which this subject has been under current discussion for some time on the part of the countries of western Europe and the United Kingdom, I should think some clearer statement in that regard as to how far these countries intend to go in that direction, and how soon, may be forthcoming before the present GATT negotiations have run their course this autumn.



INQUIRY AS TO MINISTER JOINING UNOFFICIAL DELEGATION TO UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Before the cabinet leaves as a whole I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether it is his intention shortly to join the unofficial trade delegation to the United Kingdom?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, an announcement with regard to the mission will be made in due course.



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question not related to the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I should like to direct the question to the Prime Minister. Can he tell us whether, as a result of his discussion with President Eisenhower, steps are being taken to exchange scientific information, and whether it is contemplated to undertake any joint scientific projects?


John George Diefenbaker: I want to thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of this question.
I will say this. This week end, when the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom visits Ottawa, one of the matters for consideration will no doubt be the exchange of scientific information. I am one of those who believe there is a necessity, having regard to the scientific advances being made today,

for the free world to unite to the greatest degree possible in a spirit of co-operation to pool scientific information so that the free world will maintain its superiority in that direction. After I have the opportunity of discussing this matter with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom I will say more. At this time I can say no less.



LICENSING OF OFF-SITE STORAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce giving consideration to the licensing of off-site storage for grain at country points in order to ease congestion?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I have a reply here which deals with the situation as of last year and the present position. The licensing of off-site grain storage was the subject of discussions between the board of grain commissioners for Canada and the Canadian wheat board in June, 1956. At that time the two boards issued a press release and an instruction to handling companies which read as follows:
The licensing of off-site grain storage is a matter of concern to the board of grain commissioners for Canada and the Canadian wheat board. The board of grain commissioners are interested from the standpoint of actual licensing and the adequate warehousing of grain. The Canadian wheat board are interested from the standpoint of availability of grain for prompt shipment. Both boards have carefully reviewed their position in respect to the licensing of off-site storage facilities.
As a result of discussions between the two boards it has been decided that no further applications for off-site storage will be considered. This decision has been reached after careful consideration of the storage position, including the extent of off-site storage presently licensed and the immobility of grain stored in many types of off-site facilities.
As indicated by the statement at that time, the two boards were concerned about the volume of grain which was then being warehoused in off-site facilities. Should deterioration set in, there was no way in which this grain could be turned and there could never be assurance that grain in off-site facilities would be moved forward promptly for treatment in terminal elevators. Another factor was that off-site storage facilities were confined to certain delivery points, giving advantages that could not be extended to producers generally.
I have inquired from both the board of grain commissioners and the Canadian wheat board as to whether, in their opinion, any
Inquiries of the Ministry change should be made in the policy which was announced on June 25, 1956. Both boards are of the opinion that the present restriction on licensing of off-site storage should be continued. In their opinion off-site storage is not a solution to the congestion problem, and could result in serious problems in respect of grain stored in these immobile positions.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question. Would the minister make inquiries himself to see whether in fact grain in off-site storage is not just as mobile within a 24-hour period as grain in any elevator annex? Would he further make his own observations as to the quality of the grain in off-site storage, which I believe to be generally superior to the quality of the grain in present annexes, many of which are not up to standard?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I shall be glad to look into the question the hon. member has raised.


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldi-Melforl):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of his answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Acadia relative to offsite storage. Is it not a fact that the government is now approving and authorizing elevator companies to acquire off-site storage?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take notice of that question.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Sinclair: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence based on an article in last night's Citizen headed "Tory Corrects Quotes on Auxiliary Airmen". Is it true, as implied at this most recent press conference by the hon. member for York West, that the government is intending to proceed to equip the R.C.A.F. with the supersonic CF-105?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: No, it is not correct.


James Sinclair: I would suggest that the hon. member be better informed before he gives more press conferences about that department.


George Randolph Pearkes: No member gives press conferences about my department except myself.


James Sinclair: That is a commendable statement, and the hon. member should keep it in mind.

Inquiries of the Ministry



U.S.-CANADA  INTEGRATED OPERATIONAL CONTROL OF AIR DEFENCE FORCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister inform the house whether the system of integrated operational control of the air defence forces of Canada and the United States through a joint command, as agreed to on August 1, has yet been set up and, if so, will he table the order in council and other relative documents?


George Randolph Pearkes: Air Marshal Slemon is now at the headquarters at Colorado Springs, and I will be pleased to table the order in council.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Lesage (Montmagny-L'Islei):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the decision of Canadian National Railways to decrease the number of sections in the Levis division, which is on the south shore of the St. Lawrence and covers my constituency? I do not have to add that this means the laying off of a number of sectionmen?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I think it is obvious to members of the house that the Minister of Transport cannot be advised at all times of any decrease or increase of traffic on the Canadian National or any other railway.


Jean Lesage: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister be kind enough to inquire about it, because this decision is effective on November 1 and affects a great number of heads of families?


George Harris Hees: I shall be glad to look into that. If that had been the original question it would have been acceded to at once.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Douglas S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) asked several questions, as follows:
Has there been any importation of pork into Canada from the United States and, if so, in what form? Does the United States hog producer use live serum for the control of cholera in that country?
The answer is importations of pork into Canada from the United States in the first

six months of 1957 were as follows: Fresh pork, none; bacon, ham and other pork in prepared form, 160,548 pounds. All importations were cooked pork, in accordance with the provisions of a ministerial order prohibiting the importation of swine and uncooked pork into Canada.
In connection with the serum question, a live virus vaccine is used for the control of hog cholera in some states. I had perhaps better say in connection with that matter that anti-hog cholera serum, used widely in the United States in inoculating hogs against cholera, does not contain any virus, living or dead. Its effectiveness lies in its content of antibodies which protect against the disease.
Vaccines, also used in the control of hog cholera in the United States, are a totally different product from blood serums. Hog cholera vaccines contain the hog cholera virus itself and can be made with the virus either in live or attenuated form. I think that is what the hon. member was referring to rather than a serum.



FREE DISTRIBUTION OF TROLENE FOR CONTROL OF WARBLES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I might say I gave him notice of the question at the opening of the house today. Owing to the interest of the livestock industry in this matter perhaps he will be disposed to take it as notice. Has the minister been informed of the systemic treatment by trolene for the control of warbles in cattle? If so, can he inform the house whether the government has any plan to undertake the free distribution of this treatment, as has been done with certain serums, in order to wipe out most of the annual loss of $14 million now estimated to be caused by warble fly infestation?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As suggested by the hon. member I will take this question as notice and give an answer at the earliest possible time.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, also on Friday the hon. member for Springfield asked this question:
At what price is the government selling butter held in government storage to the trade at present?

Inquiries of the Ministry
I was sorry I was not able to hear his Mr. Gardiner: But is it not true that this question at the time. The price is 63 cents a will mean that the consumer will pay the pound. There have been no sales, as a matter difference? of fact, by the agricultural prices support
board since the price was put at 63 cents, Mr- Harkness: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of which is a price designed to cover our buy- ^act the wholesale price of butter has not yet ing price of 58 cents a pound plus the costs reached 63 cents, and as I said previously we of storage and handling.	have not sold any butter as a result.


Mr. Jacob Schulz (Springfield):: I would
like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Agriculture in view of the answer he has just given. If the government is supplying this butter at 63 cents a pound to the trade, how then is it possible that the wholesale price of butter is 62 cents?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I stated in my previous reply that there has been no demand as far as the wholesale trade is concerned for this butter, and we have not been selling any of the butter held by the agricultural prices support board since the price was placed at 63 cents.


Jacob Schulz: May I ask another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Why did the government raise the price of butter in the first place?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, it was not a matter of raising the price of butter. We placed the selling price of the butter held by the agricultural prices support board, as I explained a few moments ago, at 63 cents in order that there would be no cost to the taxpayer in handling this butter.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I was not in the house when the question was asked with regard to butter. I heard only part of the answer and therefore I may have misunderstood; but did I understand from the last answer given by the Minister of Agriculture that the prices board has directed that the wholesale price of butter be raised to 63 cents?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker. What the prices board have done is set their selling price for butter at 63 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: That means the same thing, then. They have raised it from 58 cents to 63 cents.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes; as I explained before this was done so there would be no expense to the taxpayer involved in handling this butter.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport a question of which I have already given him notice. Since the United States has announced plans to develop Duluth as the western terminal for the St. Lawrence seaway, will the federal government take immediate steps to develop a suitable harbour and harbour facilities at the lakehead to act as an ocean port for western Canada when the St. Lawrence seaway is completed?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in giving me notice of the question he has put. I think I can best answer it by repeating the answer I gave to the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) when I replied to his question on October 16 last. At that time I said:
I have discussed this matter with my colleague the Minister of Public Works. As a result of these discussions, officials, not minor officials but senior officials, of both departments will go to the lakehead next Monday-
That was yesterday.
-to examine the harbour facilities to ascertain if they are adequate, in their opinion, to handle such extra traffic as could reasonably be expected to arise when the St. Lawrence seaway is completed.
A survey will be carried out from an engineering point of view. Following that survey, a thorough study from the economic point of view will be carried out by the economics section of my department in order to ascertain just what additional traffic might be expected to pass through to the lakehead as a result of the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway.



COASTAL STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport a question, notice of which I have sent him. Is it the intention of the government or of the Department of Transport to review the policy with reference to subventions for coastal steamships across Canada?

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Laurier for his courtesy in giving me notice of his intention to ask this question; and as he as a former minister of this department well knows, these steamship subventions have always been subject to annual review and this government intends to continue that practice.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in connection with a question asked by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) relative to the prospective Canadian contribution to the Colombo plan and also questions that were asked by some other hon. members, I wish to advise that, subject to the approval of parliament, Canada will contribute $35 million to the Colombo plan in 1958.
For some years now the basic Canadian contribution to the Colombo plan has stood at $26.4 million. In order to meet certain additional expenditures in connection with the Warsak project in Pakistan and the Canada-India reactor, this amount was supplemented by a further $8 million both this year and last. We have now decided to do away with this idea of a basic contribution to which additional amounts are added. We shall therefore seek the authority of parliament to provide that the total vote for Canada's regular Colombo plan program be, as I stated a moment ago, $35 million for this year.
In connection with the expenditures being made thereunder we have agreed, first, to provide $1 million worth of flour to the government of Ceylon. The proceeds of the sale of this flour will be used by the government of Ceylon for various development projects.
Second, the government of Pakistan has drawn our attention to the very serious floods that occurred recently in west Pakistan and to the resulting need for food grains. We have therefore offered $2 million worth of wheat to the government of Pakistan out of Colombo plan funds and the government of Pakistan has indicated that this would be very welcome. This wheat will be shipped very shortly.
In India we have proposed to the government of that country that the balance of counterpart funds held by the Indian government which have been created by the sale of Canadian commodities supplied under the

Colombo plan will be used to meet the further rupee costs of the Canada-India reactor. These counterpart funds amount to the equivalent of $2,900,000.
In connection with other proposals concerning the Colombo plan program they will be announced in due course after they have been discussed with the governments concerned. Might I add that later today the leader of the Canadian delegation to the Colombo plan conference at Saigon, Hon. W. J. Browne, will be announcing in that country what I have stated here.


Mr. Wesley Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question with reference to the report which was read by the Prime Minister. Will the increase the Prime Minister announced today in the Colombo plan payments be endorsed by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Thanks for mentioning my name.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with his statement about Canada's contribution to the Colombo plan. Does the government consider making a contribution to the special United Nations fund for economic development?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact the minister is in New York at this moment, and consideration is being given to that problem at this time.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. In view of the Prime Minister's answer to my friend the hon. member for Nanaimo regarding the special United Nations fund for economic development, to the effect that the minister was considering it at the United Nations, may I ask what instructions, if any, the government has given the minister in this regard?


John George Diefenbaker: The instructions were to give the best possible consideration to that question.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister not aware that it is usual with delegations at the United Nations to have any proposal of this nature involving the expenditure of money come from the government at Ottawa rather than from the minister who is present at the assembly?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned no one needs any lecture of that kind from the hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: There are several matters before the United Nations at this time, and when the matter of decision comes up it will be the decision of the government.


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES-PASSES FOR MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to address to the Minister of Transport. Now that he is the Minister of Transport when will he implement the proposal he made so often as a private member in this house that all members of parliament who came from a distance of more than 500 miles from Ottawa should be given passes on Trans-Canada Air Lines?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have been discussing this matter at some length with the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines, and I have recently received a report from him which I am studying. I might say that I am rather startled at the cost to the taxpayers which it appears this would involve. However, I can assure the hon. member and all hon. members that I am just as interested as I ever was as a private member in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: What are you going to do about it?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Well, might I ask a supplementary question, then? If he thinks this would be too difficult would he be prepared to extend it to say 1,000 miles?


George Harris Hees: I was just about to say before I was interrupted, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is receiving my very serious consideration and that of the management of Trans-Canada Air Lines. I very much hope that something can be worked out.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact members of parliament have passes on the railways does he consider that with the limited facilities of Trans-Canada Air Lines this parliament would be justified in proposing passes on Trans-Canada Air Lines in view of the financial burden involved?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the matters that is receiving very serious consideration at the present time.
Inquiries of the Ministry


REQUEST FOR SHORTENING OF QUESTION PERIOD THIS DAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, again I rise as I did yesterday to ask whether or not the thirst for dependable information has not been assuaged. The Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour has been waiting since eleven o'clock to meet with the ministers of this cabinet, and with the consent of the house-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Some ministers will stay here?


John George Diefenbaker: I think 50 minutes is a fair length of time.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the leader of the government a question. Is it the intention of the government or of the house leader, when important delegations meet with the government at certain fixed hours, to abridge the length of the question period in the house?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: I have not noticed that the time allowed for questions has been abridged very much to date.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the throne speech debate may I point out that routine proceedings and orders of the day describe today as the fifth appointed day. Hon. members will recall that on Thursday last less than an hour was devoted to the throne speech debate. For that reason it is not the intention of the government to count that day as one day in the debate. Therefore I am asking that tomorrow's order paper show tomorrow as the fifth appointed day.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact that his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare has now given notice of resolutions with regard to the matters in the speech from the throne that come under his purview, will the Minister of Veterans Affairs give notice of his resolutions regarding amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Pension Act?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: We will take that under consideration, Mr. Speaker, and give the hon. member an answer later.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the very serious charges which his other department laid in the courts and in view of the report of the judgment given in the court of sessions in Montreal yesterday, is the minister giving consideration to appealing and, if so, would he advise the house of the results of that consideration?


Hon. E. D. Fulfon (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are expecting a report from counsel today and as soon as that is received consideration will be given to the question of appeal. As requested, we will announce the decision as soon as it is made.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise the house if it is his intention to bring before the house during the present session a bill to authorize the construction of a spur line from the Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation deposits to the proposed location of the new harbour at Caron point near Bathurst?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, there are no plans for such a spur line at the present time.



CRIMINAL LAW


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I regret I have not had an opportunity of giving him notice. What action is being taken by the government to implement the report of the joint committee on capital and corporal punishment and lotteries made to this house last session?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, as I said in reply to a question raised by an hon. gentleman opposite earlier,
(Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]

the previous administration did not make available an opportunity for that report to be discussed in the house. Before we can make any definite decision on it we are inclined to consider that parliament should be given an opportunity to discuss it, and that matter is under consideration at the present time.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, of which I have given him notice, in relation to what plans there are and what steps are being taken with respect to providing a much needed federal government building in Kitimat?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of this question. The answer is that the department is at present studying the requirements of the various departments in order to establish the size of the site required. A private architect has been retained to prepare the plans and specifications, but no start has been made as yet.


Frank Howard: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have any discussions been held with the Aluminum Company of Canada about acquiring property?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I will have to make inquiries about that question.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, and I believe this concerns the Secretary of State as well. Does the government at this session intend to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act by removing the objectionable section 55 of that act, which presently bars the way to collective bargaining for federal civil servants?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member intended to direct his question to the Secretary of State or to the Minister of Labour. Was the question directed to the Secretary of State?


Alfred Claude Ellis: Well, I believe both are very much interested in this matter, and I am not too concerned as to who prefers to answer. Nevertheless I want an answer from the government.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is probably aware the matter is under consideration, and representations have been heard from several of the associations.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, my desire is to find out whether the government intends to take action on this matter at this present session. I fully realize the matter is under consideration.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, if and when a decision is taken in this matter the hon. member will find out.



STATEMENT ON DISPOSITION OF DOWNSTREAM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the supplementary question directed to me on the orders of the day on October 18 by the hon. member for Kootenay East. The hon. member asked whether negotiations have been transferred back to the international joint commission. I have consulted with my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is more directly concerned in these matters of diplomacy, and the answer is that the negotiations were never transferred to or from the international joint commission. Concurrent with discussion within the international joint commission under the reference made to the commission in 1944 by both the United States and Canadian governments, diplomatic talks were initiated in 1956. Both forums remain open to the governments as regards the matter within the respective spheres of these forums.
As to the main question asked, there will be a statement on this at a later time.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether since I led a delegation to Washington on May 20 on that subject there has been any correspondence exchanged or any meeting with the United States authorities on that very important matter?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's supplementary question on this point, there have been negotiations with members of the United
Inquiries of the Ministry States government, but I am not prepared at this time to give any more details than that.


Jean Lesage: Will the minister inquire in his department and give an answer to my question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will be glad to inquire, but I have already given the answer.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister describe to this house the specific site of the new bridge which will span St. Paul island, commonly called Nuns' island, facing Verdun? Has a name already been selected for that bridge?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question, but since I received it just as I was coming into the house it was impossible for me to obtain a plan or a detailed description of the exact location of this bridge. However, there has been quite a bit of publicity in the press about its location, and if the hon. member would care to call at the office of the national harbours board they will be very glad to show him the plan giving all of the information that he would like to obtain.


Lionel Chevrier: He should get the information in the house.


George Harris Hees: Second, I would like to advise him that no name has yet been decided upon for the bridge.


Joseph Gérard Yves Leduc: A supplementary question about the name. Will the minister who has jurisdiction over this bridge agree with my suggestion made in this house last year that such new bridge be named the Louis St. Laurent bridge.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, this being a democratic government it is always willing to consider any suggestion. However, I think that in the democratic way the people of Canada decided otherwise on June 10.



ALASKA HIGHWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: Perhaps I might give a further reply to various questions which were asked concerning the bridge over the Peace river which

Inquiries of the Ministry collapsed recently. I think hon. members will be interested to hear that as a result of the emergency measures taken, traffic has now been restored on the northwest highway. A ferry capable of carrying 50 tons is now operating a short distance upstream from the collapsed bridge at Taylor flats. The offer of the premier of British Columbia to use the Pacific Great Eastern Railway bridge has been accepted. Detours from the highway to this bridge are being constructed. The bridge will have to be planked before it can be made passable for vehicles. It is hoped that these roads will be built and the bridge put into a condition for vehicle traffic within the next three weeks. The use of the Pacific Great Eastern bridge will ensure full resumption of highway traffic, while the ferry meets immediate needs.
I might say that there has been a splendid spirit of co-operation shown by all parties connected with this operation. These include provincial government officials, construction companies and personnel of the Royal Canadian Engineers. Meanwhile, alternative routes are being utilized via the towns of Peace River and Dunvegan.



SOCIAL SECURITY


[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. In view of the fact that in the resolutions of which he has given notice calling for amendments to the Old Age Security Act and related statutes he has been good enough to give us all the other details, can he now tell us what is to be the effective date?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the effective date will appear in the legislation when the bill appears before the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There will be no gap?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to address a supplementary question to the house leader. Can he say whether consideration is being given to arranging for the house to proceed with this social security legislation at an early date?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The government hopes to be able to go ahead with this measure at the earliest possible date.
[Mr. Pearkes.l



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the
hon. member for Westmorland asked a question of the Minister of Public Works regarding the rates of pay of labourers and mobile equipment operators and mechanics at No. 5 depot, R.C.A.F. station, Moncton. Since these personnel are employed by the Department of National Defence perhaps I might answer the question.
These employees, in accordance with longstanding practice, are paid rates of pay prevailing in the area of employment for the class of work performed. The government gives continuous consideration to the adequacy of the wage rates of the personnel who are paid on the basis of prevailing rates of pay.
Wage surveys have recently been conducted in the Moncton area by the Department of Labour, and that department expects very shortly to submit to my department recommendations with respect to wage rates of labourers, operators of large and small tractors, mechanics and other classifications employed at No. 5 supply depot, Moncton. When these recommendations are received they will be submitted promptly by my department to the treasury board.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the
Minister of Finance. Is the minister giving consideration to his own often-expressed ideas concerning the deductibility of medical expenses for income tax purposes? Does he intend to make arrangements for all medical expenses to be deductible, including payments for eyeglasses and other such items?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows quite well that whenever a decision is taken on this matter it will have to be announced by the Minister of Finance at a particular time in the session, because this is something that obviously affects the balance of ways and means.
I should like to add this for the benefit of my hon. friend, who keeps bringing up subjects upon which members on this side of the house have spoken, and spoken very earnestly, in times gone by. We have been
*

in office for four months. We have been preparing for an important session with a heavy volume of legislative work. No government in this country's history has done as much in the space of four months as this government has done.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask the minister not to trespass on the rules.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister did not hear my remarks. I was just suggesting that ministers as well as members who ask questions are bound by the rules, and that it is not desirable to enter into too lengthy explanations or to begin arguments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I ask a supplementary question. In view of the minister's reference to announcements of this kind being made at certain times in the session, can he say whether, in pursuance of the suggestion that there would be income tax changes, he will be introducing a budget at this session-


James Sinclair: As he promised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -so
there will be a budget debate, as required by the rules?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Measures to implement the undertakings of the government and to carry forward the program outlined in the speech from the throne will be introduced in due course, and the sooner we have co-operation from the hon. member and others the sooner we will get that program before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
view of the minister's request for co-operation, may I ask if he will co-operate by answering the question whether there is to be a budget introduced at this session and a budget debate as provided by the rules of the house?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, whatever is required to give effect, in accordance with the sound practice of parliament, to the program which has been announced in fulfilment of the undertakings made to the Canadian people in the election campaign, and which they endorsed, will most assuredly be done.


James Sinclair: I should like to ask a supplementary question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
rule book is still in the river.
The Address-Mr. Deniset


James Sinclair: Does the Minister of Finance not recall his own solemn promise last July that there would be a budget at this session?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not know what solemn promise the hon. member for Coast-Capilano is talking about. Promises were made in the election campaign and those promises-


James Sinclair: Since the election.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -will be fulfilled to the letter.


James Sinclair: Since the election.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I suppose the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, with no more than his usual accuracy, is referring to a statement that was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition the other day. I can say that what was indicated then on my part was that whatever was required in the way of resolutions-


John Whitney Pickersgill: A budget.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -to give effect to the undertakings of the campaign would be introduced. That is still the position. I am indeed flattered, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member should be so impatient to hear a speech from me after what he said last Thursday.


James Sinclair: It is not a speech. It is either yes or no as to whether or not there is going to be a budget. No speech; just yes or no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is one of the most evasive replies we have ever had.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, October 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South) for an address to Her Majesty the Queen in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Coldwell, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Low.
Mr. Louis Deniset (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I made a few remarks in French and in English, and then the inexorable hand of time indicated that it was almost ten o'clock, at which time the house kindly permitted me to resume my speech today.
(Translation):
Yesterday, most of my remarks were in French, but today I propose to speak in English, because I do not want the immediate effect of my words to be lost on the members of the government. That this should be the case is regrettable. However, in this loyal and friendly though earnest joust, no one will blame me for making use of the best weapons at my disposal.

The Address-Mr. Deniset
(Text):
Yesterday I was paying my compliments to one of Canada's great soldiers, and I still pay my respects today. However, I did advise the hon. gentleman that when I rose again it might be quite possible that I would disagree with him, and I find that it is my duty to bring to his full knowledge the great concern aroused throughout the country concerning government policy with regard to the militia. We know now that summer camps are not to be held in 1958. Militia personnel will have the opportunity to attend camps with the regular forces, but of course there will be fewer militia people interested because one of the great attractions of the militia is for one to train with his own unit.
Another loss could be from the point of view of teamwork. Teamwork is one of the fundamentals of sound military training. Furthermore the days of training have been reduced from 60 to 40 which means a total of 80 evenings of training. But if one excludes week-end schemes and range firing which should take at least five or six days of training the evenings of training will be reduced to about 68. In addition we now have the block syllabus based on civil defence precis taking 60 periods. This would mean at two periods an evening 30 evenings out of 68.
What does the department propose to do regarding recruit training, basic training, weapon training, qualifications for infantrymen, group 1, specialist training, signals training, driving and maintenance, qualification of N.C.O.'s, professional advancement training for officers, and so on? These are all questions that people across the country in the militia and people interested in the work of the militia are asking.
I must confess that at this stage I am a bit bewildered, and that many Canadians are bewildered. It is of the utmost necessity that the government determine what its policy is and, furthermore, state it clearly for the benefit of all.
I must turn now, Mr. Speaker, to some remarks which were made in this house by the Minister of National Defence. I refer to Hansard for Wednesday, October 16, at page 38. The minister was speaking of the militia, and I read what he is reported as having said:
That may not be as glamorous a role as some of the other ones which have in the past been carried out by the militia, but I am confident that the militia will render the same patriotic service in this role as it has always done, rather than seeking some phony, glamorous role which hardly exists.

It is true that the minister backtracked somewhat in his remarks, as is evident from what I shall read farther down on this page:
There is no suggestion of the militia having carried out in the past any role that could be considered as phony or glamorous, but there might be roles carried out in the future which would not be practical.
I feel it is possible that at that time the minister made a slip of the tongue, but I should like to have it placed on record that during the last three years I have had the privilege of commanding one of Canada's finest regiments, the Winnipeg Grenadiers. I relinquished that command at the end of September because of my obvious duties here in Ottawa. I will say this, that I do not consider the officers, non-commissioned officers or men under my command have performed any training during the last three years that could be termed either phony or impractical. We did not intend, during the winter training program, to contemplate any training that could be termed either phony or impractical.
Furthermore, I have been associated with the militia during the last eleven years, and I must say that neither the Winnipeg Grenadiers nor the 19 militia groups in greater Winnipeg have contemplated or carried out anything that could be termed either phony or impractical. I believe the same remarks will apply to the militia right across Canada. I feel that the thousands of Canadian people who have sacrificed so many evenings, so many week ends and so many vacations during the summer time, purely as a result of devotion to duty to carry out training with the militia, deserve an explanation, and I trust this explanation will be forthcoming sooner than in mere due course.
Another hon. gentleman on the front benches, Mr. Speaker, is one who has the job of selling wheat. He no doubt remembers the years we spent together at law school, and he can expect that we will resume the discussions that were started in those days. Following the example set by my leader, I do not propose to obstruct the minister's work, but certainly he can expect criticism, which I shall try to make as constructive as possible. The minister's task is so difficult and the difficulties facing Canadian agriculture are so great that I would rather help than engage in petty politics.
The agricultural problem in Canada is not new. It has been with us for many years, and is of such a nature that it is likely to remain with us for a great number of years. It cannot be solved in one day. As a matter of fact there are few solutions to the problem that could be said to be of a permanent nature

because of the economics involved. I have paid close attention to the many speeches that have been made, particularly by western members, concerning agriculture. Yesterday I found great enjoyment in listening to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson), and I want to congratulate him upon his speech. It definitely showed that he had done his home work. I would say that his remarks proved that the agricultural problem is indeed a very intricate one.
I was surprised, therefore, to hear the Prime Minister, in his address in reply to the speech from the throne, try to lay the blame on the previous administration. Surely he does not expect the Canadian people to be so naive as to believe him in that regard. He knows quite well that the previous administration did its best to try to retain markets and find new ones. He has the files at his disposal. The present government, after studying the matter with experts, created a committee of three wise men. They then sent four heavyweights to the United States for a conference on economic matters. What happened? The United States secretary of commerce is reported to have stated, "We fixed them." I do not believe that this is really what happened, but that is what was said.
These four heavyweights, including the Prime Minister, must have realized the tremendous difficulties, not only those that lie ahead but those which the previous administration had faced. Although I am a novice in this house, Mr. Speaker, I was surprised and saddened to hear a man as responsible as the Prime Minister of Canada trying to throw the blame for this situation on persons of whom it was never said they had been fixed, and when the present administration does not seem to be doing any better. It would appear that they are doing much worse. The people of Manitoba, at any rate, are not as gullible as the present government would like them to be.
We heard statements that there would be more trade with Great Britain and less with the United States. This interested the western farmer. It meant the possibility of greater sales of wheat and other grains. Then, when the British government proposed free trade between Britain and Canada, it was really humiliating to find the only reaction one of "intensive examination and consideration". It appeared as if Britain was calling Canada's bluff. I do not propose to say that at this time it is possible to implement complete free trade, although it is a goal of which we must not lose sight. There are, indeed, very formidable difficulties in the way. But why try to impress the western farmers by saying that free markets are to open in Britain; that wheat "galore" will be sold, and then
The Address-Mr. Deniset when there is a chance for the western farmer to sell his wheat the government admits that finding markets is not as easy as it would look on the surface. I might say, too, that one day the western farmers will call the Conservatives' bluff.
I should like to turn now to certain problems in my own constituency. I would point out that while these problems are local in their application, their solution will stem from government policy which has to be applied in many other constituencies across Canada. First of all I would refer to the matter of erosion. At the junction of the Assiniboine and Red rivers, in the very heart of the metropolitan area of greater Winnipeg, the combined waters of these rivers eats the earth away from the east bank of the Red river. This is where the St. Boniface hospital is situated, as well as many other buildings having a total value of well over $10 million. There is also Tache avenue, which is a main artery of the city of St. Boniface.
The situation thus created simply cannot be allowed to continue. I understand that some proposals were made to the government, but they are still under study. I noticed the statement made by the Minister of Public Works in which he said the federal government could not be held responsible for erosion unless it was attributable to navigation. I wonder what the government would do if the erosion was endangering navigation itself. The earth that is continually taken away from the bank falls into the river and lifts up its bed. Consequently it endangers navigation and, furthermore, increases the danger of floods. It is not necessary for me to recall to the house the anxious moments of the inhabitants of the Red river valley during the 1950 flood. In this regard I might add that the people of Manitoba are still very grateful for the assistance provided at that time. I shall leave this point now because I propose to take up the matter again with the Minister of Public Works.
Another problem in my constituency is caused by the fact that the town of Transcona used to be only a railway town practically under the control of the Canadian National Railways. Now it is a growing, prosperous and industrious community, the hub of southeastern Manitoba. The Canadian National Railways take the stand that they do not legally have to pay taxes to the municipality. All the town of Transcona gets is a grant in lieu of taxation. The town of Transcona is demanding that these grants be more realistic. Year after year resolutions are passed by meetings of mayors and municipalities asking for more realistic grants.

The Address-Mr. Deniset
There is also in Transcona the matter of getting the Canadian National Railways to pay their share of sewer and water installations on Pandora avenue, east of Madeline street. The railways have been asked to pay their share of these improvements but they refuse to do so, and their reason is that they feel that such sewers and water mains are of no useful purpose to them. This means that a municipal taxpayer who is close to the railways must pay more taxes than do other taxpayers.
It may very well be that the railways stand is solid on legal grounds. However, I am not speaking of the law at this time but rather of what would be a fair way in which to deal with taxpayers. One would expect that the Canadian National Railways could more easily afford to pay taxes than the small taxpayer. This again is a matter that I shall bring up again in the near future with the minister concerned.
I understand further that one line going through the municipality of Springfield does not pay anything, this again because of an old statute. One cannot but have a feeling at times that big people do not care about small people, many of them railway employees. Surely statutes do not exist solely to protect big people. Other statutes may be passed.
In conclusion I should like to set out the reasons why I do not propose to support the amendment to the amendment nor the amendment itself to the motion. I have first of all to look at the motion of the Social Credit party and I read as follows:
However, we regret that there is nothing in the speech from the throne to indicate that it is the government's intention to ask parliament to lay down a scientific, modem financial policy for Canada that will guide the Bank of Canada in its operations, . . .
The important governing words, I submit, are "scientific, modern financial policy". This would mean a scientific, modern financial policy according to Social Credit principles. I have read many articles about Social Credit and I have read a number of speeches made by Social Crediters, and as yet I must confess that I find their financial theories to be rather nebulous. Furthermore, their financial theories have not been applied in the two provinces which have Social Credit governments. I would venture to say that the success of the Social Credit party in these two provinces has been caused by the fairly sound administration by the people concerned, but it is in no way a proof that Social Credit principles are sound. For that reason I cannot support that particular amendment.

I now turn to the C.C.F. amendment, Mr. Speaker, and I will try to read the governing phrases:
We respectfully submit, however, that in the opinion of this house Your Majesty's advisers should give immediate consideration to the advisability of taking steps to deal with the menace of inflation, rapidly rising unemployment and other serious problems facing this country. We call upon the government to give immediate effect to the social and economic planning necessary to cope with these problems.
Here the governing word is "planning", and "planning" here can mean only planning a la C.C.F. I should now like to say a word about the C.C.F. I have followed their progress with great interest throughout the years, and I have found many admirable things in what they said. As a matter of fact, when they speak of social security and social justice I believe that they are preaching pure Liberal doctrine. I go along with them 100 per cent along those lines. I believe that the big must help the small and that the rich must help the poor. That is only charity, and that should be done.
On the other hand, when I follow their philosophy and principles to their logical and ultimate conclusion, I cannot but fear that we would end up with a form of bureaucratic government of the worst order. There is enough bureaucracy as it is. Too much government interference is not good. We would lose a sense of initiative and we would lose fundamental rights to private property and free enterprise. For these and other reasons I simply cannot go as far as they do. For that reason I cannot support their amendment.
Turning to the motion for the address itself, I should like to state that I do not propose to vote against the government on this occasion. The reason is simply this. My electors have asked me not to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis Deniset: That statement applies not only to my electors but to the electors of the province of Manitoba. I am not speaking of parties right now; I am speaking of electors generally. In order to explain what I am talking about, let me refer to a certain statement that was made by the Prime Minister in his own speech. You will recall that he was asking us why we did not permit a vote to take place. Then pointing to the heckling he was receiving he said, "They have already jeered themselves out of this side of the house". It was a Shakespearean gesture. I cannot here re-enact the scene, Mr. Speaker, but at that time I could not help but think to myself, "If anything, the Conservatives have done nothing but promise their way out of this side of the house where I am".

I say this in all seriousness. Since the June 10 election I have been out in my own constituency and elsewhere in Manitoba. I have spoken to hundreds if not thousands of people. We talked about the election. We said, "What are we going to do now?" The most common remark was, "Well, we will see what they can do. They are in office. They promised many things, such as reduction of taxation and increases in services. Let us give them a fair chance but"- and it is that "but" that stands out-"watch out if it does not come true." Some even say, "Watch out when it becomes impossible". One cannot help but remember the old saying, Mr. Speaker: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." Beware, I tell you-


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is what you discovered on June 10.


Louis Deniset: The bubble may burst.


An hon. Member:: Which bubble?


Louis Deniset: Yours. The Canadian people will stand for only so much oratory, and I would suggest that in the final analysis they will prefer to a cascade of words, however eloquent they may be, the record of achievement to which they have been accustomed during the last 22 years.


Mr. S. H. S. Thompson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: As a new member, Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to congratulate you on your appointment to the high office you hold and to pledge my support in first learning the rules of this house and, second, in abiding by your rulings which I am sure will always be given in full sincerity.
May I next congratulate the mover (Mr. Smith) and the seconder (Mr. Arsenault) of the speech from the throne, which I feel they did excellently.
As the member representing the southern portion of the great northern city of Edmonton I am, of course, particularly interested in congratulating the member for Calgary South, our neighbouring southern city. As you know, out there normally we fight it out in football or anything else, but when we get here we have a rather close affinity. It is therefore, I feel, important that at this stage I agree with him on at least one question. He brought forward the question of the position of Canada's oil companies in comparison with American oil companies so far as income tax is concerned. I feel that it is fully justified that he should work within his party to achieve an improvement in this situation. Of course Calgary is the paper oil capital of
The Address-Mr. S. H. S. Thompson Canada and therefore it should be his duty to continue with this job. We in Edmonton have the production facilities.
I note that the hon. member who spoke immediately before me on behalf of the Liberal party took issue with our amendment to provide a scientific, modern, financial policy, on the basis that we had not already done so in the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. May I remind him that the Liberal party proved through the courts that this was their responsibility at the federal level. I am very pleased to acknowledge the great compliment he paid our provincial administration in saying that what has been done has been accomplished through very sound administration.
In my opinion the importance of the memorable occasion which we witnessed at the opening of this parliament is not to be found only in the glorious traditions which were represented but rather the effectiveness displayed in the present and the good omens portended for the future. My wife and I were deeply conscious of the honour which had been given us when we had the privilege of meeting the sparkling eyes of Queen Elizabeth and attempting to return the smile of Prince Philip. As we shook hands we were well aware that our duty on this occasion was to bring the greetings of everyone in our constituency at home to the royal couple and through them to Canadians everywhere; and, yes, to the members of that great association of peoples throughout the world which our royal family represents.
It was very apparent here in Ottawa and in Hull as the crowds gathered from day to day, as the children cheered and the members of this parliament mixed happily together, that the royal couple have a unique power to bring us together on a common ground in joyous jubilation. For a time at least our newspapers, radio and television forgot the tragedies, crimes and fears which normally form their headlines, to unite across the country and bring us joyous news of every event which happened throughout the opening of this parliament by Her Majesty. Even if our royal family served no other purpose than to bring us happily together they should be cherished as irreplaceable. May it ever be thus.
We notice in the speech from the throne that it is the intention of the government to continue the Colombo plan, for which I am sure they are to be complimented. As was mentioned on the floor of this house this morning and at other times, it appears that we intend to use wheat as part of our contribution in that area. May I note that this will have a twofold message of good will,

The Address-Mr. S. H. S. Thompson first to the recipients in that area of southern Asia and other distant lands and, second, to the western wheat farmers. All too often in the past the only gifts which we as a nation seemed to think of were those of arms and weapons of war. These in some instances can have a twofold purpose, in that they may be used either for or against our best interests.
We note that there will be held shortly a dominion-provincial conference. While the government are conducting this conference I would ask them to keep in mind that the taxes paid by the people of Alberta are to a large extent collected by the dominion government in other provinces, and I charge them therefore with the job of ensuring that equalization payments are made in a fair and just manner.
It is with great pleasure that I note there is to be an increase in the old age security pensions. I may say that I had the privilege of campaigning strongly as a Social Crediter on this matter right from the beginning of the campaign, and that I was immediately joined by my C.C.F. opponent. My Conservative friend-and that can be taken literally, as we were school friends together-proudly announced at the first of these all-candidate meetings that he had no platform whatever, and proceeded to criticize me for the fact that I had one, but very shortly on this question at least he was very pleased to join ranks with us. In view of the fact that the Liberal party therefore appears to be the only party in opposition, there should be no trouble in bringing this legislation quickly to fruition.
In this connection, while of course this increase will bring assistance to many of our senior citizens throughout the land, I would like to mention another phase of the matter which was particularly brought home to me by the eventide home operated by the Salvation Army in our particular community. I might mention that a former member of the legislature of the province of Alberta is now living out his days there among old friends.
The people who pledge their lives to the work they are doing in providing homes and friendship for our senior citizens should not have to be perpetually plagued by financial problems as they have been in the past. Therefore the increase in pensions will carry a message of goodwill throughout all these organizations across the land.
However, I would ask one question about the next part of the speech from the throne. Is it wise to shorten the period of residence for qualification for the old age security pension? What effect will this have on the


amount of increase which will be available for those who are already entitled? Perhaps this shortening of the period is based on the assumption that those who pay into a fund should reap a benefit from it. If this is the case then may I ask the government to bear in mind the fact that a person may live in this country for the full 70 years of his productive life, yet when he receives his pension he may lose it again if his doctor suggests that for health reasons he should live in Arizona. Therefore I charge the government that if it is to consider the period of residence necessary to qualify, then it must also consider the period of residence necessary to disqualify.
We welcomed the announcement that blind allowances will be increased in proportion to the others. If any of you have not had the privilege of being associated with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and meeting their executives, who in most instances conduct the business of that organization in total blindness themselves and do such a wonderful job of it, who come out into the seeing world among us and put forth the problems of their fellow men who are similarly afflicted, I say you have missed an education. You have been deprived of an important lesson in life if you have not had the privilege of attending some function held by the blind, usually very casual, at which they rise so easily, again in total darkness, to take part in whatever activity it may be.
As a veteran I welcome the increase in veterans allowances and pensions, and charge the Minister of National Defence to fight within the government a final and lasting battle to ensure that all veterans will secure a just allowance at this time. In conjunction with this I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton West on his appointment to the position of parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. I might say I have had the pleasure of being associated in business with the hon. member for Edmonton West, and look forward to him playing a vital role in securing those allowances which are so greatly required by veterans throughout the country.
The constituency which I represent contains a wide belt of excellent, black loam farm land extending around the southern and eastern edges of the city of Edmonton. This is, of course, a highly developed area in which there are many of the finest dairymen, poultry men, pig men and other producers, and the rich market gardens supplying the city of Edmonton. Many of these producers are known across the country for their efficiency.

What does the wheat question mean to us? As you know, the Minister of Agriculture has told those who grow wheat and rely on it to diversify production. If you are familiar with what happened in the case of eggs last year you will realize that in large part this has already been done. For a period of some six months eggs remained at the floor price. Comparisons are sometimes odious, but if you would compare the price which our farmers received during the six months including the middle of winter with the price received in the 'thirties you would find they were receiving less. This appears a strange situation, but we must commend the farmers for the job they have done in finding ways and means of producing efficiently in winter, which they could not do a short time ago. I would point out that while cash advances are most welcome they represent only a temporary measure, and this government must do its best in accepting the responsibility which rests with it through the Canadian wheat board, that of selling our wheat.
To a large extent the sale of wheat is more an internal problem than people realize. Each time we attempt to sell wheat the purchaser feels he should sell us something in exchange. This is called trade. We have protections for industry which are known as customs tariffs, taxes, duties, etc. In many cases we are therefore unable to import from the countries to which we can sell our wheat. When the Prime Minister said an attempt would be made to divert 15 per cent of our present purchases from the United States to countries that could use our wheat I think his statement was justified, and this represents practically the only method by which we can sell Canadian wheat without disrupting our own economy. I am not suggesting for an instant that duties are not needed for the protection of our industry. However, as a new member arriving here and visiting the office of stationery supplies I was surprised to note that the ink well, stapler and pair of scissors for which I signed-and which they said would be available for only one session and therefore must be carefully accounted for-were all made in the United States.
While the South Saskatchewan river dam project is important and worth while on its merits, I submit the time may not be ripe for proceeding with it if in doing so it is the intention to irrigate a large part of southern Saskatchewan and place there men to compete with those who work in the irrigated areas of Lethbridge and the highly developed special producing areas of Manitoba.
In the area from which I come we are faced with powerful competition from the
The Address-Mr. S. H. S. Thompson Lethbridge area, which is better developed and organized than our own. We are also confronted with keen competition from the distant area of southern California with regard to our vegetable products. I would therefore charge the government, when considering the South Saskatchewan river dam, with ensuring that there will be markets available for those who will farm that land and that we shall not add to our problems by launching a huge project prematurely, thus bringing about a situation in farming which is worse than the prevailing one.
The price spread between producers and consumers has been mentioned in this house. It is suggested that by investigating this circumstance we shall improve the situation. Usually when any investigation is going on those who are being investigated are in danger of being blamed. I am quite sure that the entire food industry will prove its strength and efficiency during this investigation. I might mention that during hurricane "Hazel" I had the privilege of being in Toronto to attend the convention of the retail merchants' association of Canada. At that time we were asked by the milk foundation whether we as retailers would give assistance in moving our butter surplus. In reply we suggested that this could be done simply by enclosing a coupon with family allowance and pensions cheques across the nation, and that by doing so it would promote the sale of butter, not only at that particular time but for a considerably longer period, for butter would be going to the homes of many people who were not accustomed to using it.
We received from the Minister of Agriculture what I thought was rather a strange reply, which in general suggested there was not a surplus of butter. However, it was not long until we found that a large quantity of butter had been sold to Poland at a price nearly equivalent to the price of margarine which we, the people of Canada, were eating and which we were importing almost entirely from the United States, at least the product from which margarine is made. I can assure hon. members that the food industry generally will be very pleased to extend invitations to them to visit their plants and their stores, as we have done in Edmonton, to find out just how this giant industry works.
In the bureau of statistics somewhere here in Ottawa-I have not found it yet-there are many facts concerning the food industry. In these facts you will find it is pointed out that generally speaking the entire industry works on lower margins, in comparison with sales, than practically any other industry. I would suggest that a fact-finding body composed of members of this parliament should
25$

The Address-Mr. S. H. S. Thompson do the job. It would be more appropriate to give this job to members of parliament than to pass it over to a royal commission.
There is another reason for the rising cost of food, and it is a very important one to consider. Some time ago our homes were equipped with a washboard and a clothes line at a total cost of perhaps $2.50. I am sure most of the homes of hon. members here today contain a dryer and an automatic washer worth perhaps $600 or $700. When compared with the price of the washboard and the clothes line the increase in cost is fantastic.
Many improvements have been made in the food industry, and most of them have been asked for by the housewife. There are ready mixes and prepared food, which relieve drudgery in the kitchen. There are items such as washed potatoes. I do not think in the fine modern home the housewife would appreciate our old custom of buying a 100-pound sack of potatoes and getting with it a large quantity of the good earth. I therefore charge the honourable lady member of the government to work toward the emancipation of the home-maker and impress upon the government the fact that it is quite all right for the home-maker to demand that which she wants, namely prepared foods. I might say that is the difference between our way of life and that of the totalitarian states, where somebody decides what everyone should have.
In our constituency we are very proud to have the University of Alberta appropriately situated on very nice grounds on the banks of the North Saskatchewan river. It has now, of course, been enhanced by the glorious Jubilee auditorium built so recently. In this connection I might say that Calgary also has one. In this regard we are, of course, interested in the grants being made by the Canada Council. We say they should be equitably distributed, and we trust the government will see that this is done. In so far as grants for culture across the country are concerned, it is our desire that these grants should not attempt to control culture. We are very proud of the varied cultures which are our heritage in the west. Our people have come from all around the world and have brought those cultures to us, and we trust it will be the policy of this government to encourage those various cultures rather than attempt to put them all in the same mould.
The international airport in Edmonton is now under construction in my constituency. The Minister of Transport was very pleased to take his place at the opening function at that airport. You can imagine his surprise when, instead of being handed a silver spade, he was handed a giant bulldozer. However, he


carried on very well and after a while was in charge of the controls in the midst of the proud assembly there. After his departure his wife climbed aboard and added an interesting part to our ceremony that day. I say to the Minister of Transport that he has accepted this airport as his baby, and we trust he will ensure that everything goes forward at full speed and that the problems surrounding it will receive his full attention.
I may say that already the municipality of Leduc in which the airport lies is rather concerned regarding some problems that are developing. As hon. members know, when you start to build an airport you move heavy equipment. There will be a continuous stream of trucks hauling gravel to this airport. We trust this government will assure the municipality of Leduc that it will repair or rebuild the roads which these gravel trucks may destroy.
Edmonton-Strathcona is one of the most progressive and fast-changing constituencies in Canada. At the end of the war there was only one factory of any size in the constituency, and that was the factory of Gainer's Limited. This was true until a few years ago. We now have the refineries of Imperial Oil, McColl-Frontenac, British American and the giant Celanese Corporation plant, which is a city in itself. The C.I.L. company have completed their plant and are developing their facilities very rapidly. I cannot claim the Sherritt-Gordon plant; it is just on the other side of the line, but most of its workmen live in the fast-growing town of Fort Saskatchewan, from which you will be hearing much in the future.
These industries have in turn brought subsidiary industries which either supply them or process their products. Many changes have taken place in our community. As all these industries work round the clock; there is continuous shift work and shift changing. We have now become accustomed to having our highways suddenly clogged as shift changes take place, and to having perpetual traffic throughout the night.
We are starting to realize more of the problems throughout the country and to feel a closer affiliation with the industrial east. We are also interested now in markets throughout the world, not only for wheat but for many other products as well. As you know, the production of the celanese plant will be seeking markets wherever they can be found anywhere in the world. Yes, the single wheat economy is leaving our area.
I come now to changes in taxation. I, of course, do not know at the moment what these may be, but I should like to mention

those which I feel are most important to my constituents. First of all there is the matter of the personal exemptions now provided under the Income Tax Act. The income tax of the average person in the country has been increasing continually as his wages have increased to keep up with the cost of living. This did not require any act of parliament. However, in order that he may be relieved of continually increasing income tax the exemptions must be increased. Over any considerable period, if wages continue to rise this would not necessarily mean any reduction in the return to the government from the income tax field.
May I also say a word about corporation income taxes. If it is the intention of the government to do anything in this connection I suggest that a similar policy should be adopted. In other words, the amount on which the 20 per cent levy is made, that is $20,000, should be increased in order to give small business a better opportunity, rather than to decrease the higher taxes on larger corporation profits. If it is the intention of the government to reduce the sales tax on cars I suggest that they keep in mind the position of the dealers holding cars and ensure that they are treated equitably.
In our urban area we of course have problems similar to those throughout the country, but in the fast moving city of Edmonton I think the housing shortage is more pronounced than in other places. At a time when immigrants were flooding into the city and we were reaching the period when the large increase in the birth rate of the war years was going to be felt in the number of young families seeking homes, action was taken to curtail house construction.
In addition, we saw the development of high interest rates, which meant that those providing the money suddenly had an increase in profits greater than the builders could ever hope to make in, the construction of houses.
I submit it is most important that our house-building industry be revived, for individual homes are the stronghold of democracy. We saw small business crushed and destroyed by the sudden imposition of a blanket policy across the country to protect us from supposed inflation. Financially strong companies could weather such a change but many solid, efficient firms were suddenly destroyed because they were caught short at that particular time. This was called a tight money policy and introduced to curb inflation.
Our Liberal friends have accused this party of having a policy which would create 96698-17
The Address-Mr. Van Horne inflation. It was certainly most interesting during the election campaign to be able to challenge them on what they meant by inflation. Mr. Speaker, rapid deflation could have a worse effect on the country than any inflation. I do not mean to say that rapid inflation is a good thing either, but rapid deflation represents in a way a strike of the top bracket organizers of industry and business across the land, of the men who have the know-how to develop Canada. This is no time for a pessimistic attitude, for I predict that regardless of what we may do Canada will surge on to claim the last part of this century as Canada's own.
Finally may I say that while I am sure it is the feeling of my constituents that in the house I should always criticize anything which affects their interests adversely, I am also sure it is their feeling that they elected me to come here and do a job. Therefore I shall always be ready to cooperate with the government as far as possible in attempting to ensure that this parliament shall continue in session and shall not become such a fiasco of procedural debate as that one which had for its excuse the trans-Canada pipe-line issue. I hope we will not hear anything more about closure, for it would appear that the government in power are the only ones who can use closure and if they were to eliminate it, it would suggest that they intend to be sitting in the opposition very shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Restigouche-Madawaska.


Mr. Van Horne:: Mr. Speaker, I gather that I should call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: As I rise to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend to you my sincere congratulations upon your so well deserved appointment. I should like also, through you, to congratulate the Speaker of the house on his elevation to his very high office. As Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Philip return to England I know they leave in the hearts of all Canadians feelings of loyalty, gratitude and joy at the knowledge that we have a real Queen of Canada. I am sure she takes with her the best wishes of the Canadian nation.
I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Smith) and seconder (Mr. Arsenault) of
258	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Van Horne the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Certainly it is fitting that the address should be moved by a western member. When the hon. member for Bonaventure speaks of the backward conditions along the Gaspe coast, I can assure you that he speaks the truth. The Gaspe coast, like the maritime provinces, has been a neglected part of Canada for the past 22 years.
I wish to say a word to express to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) my sincere best wishes for many happy years in retirement. While we were celebrating the victory of June 10 in premises that had been arranged for long before the election, because we knew we were going to win, I could not escape noting that a great chieftain had fallen. Later I was pleased to hear that he intended to lead his party through the next general election. Then those young Liberals came from Ontario and decided to see how far they could go, aided and abetted by some of the Leader of the Opposition's own colleagues on his left and right, in criticizing their chief. This action strikes me as the height of ingratitude to a man who has given so much to his party and his country. Certainly I for one and many members of my party were quite willing to give the former government advice which, if followed, probably would have meant their re-election last June. However that may be it is well to reflect that my people, and the people of Canada, will long remember how these young, two-bit political hoodlums treated their chief after this last election. Our people can hardly wait for a chance to rid this country of the remnants of the soon to be leaderless Liberal party.
Quite apart from all this, sir, I wish to assure you that there has never been on my part, and there never will be, any feeling of animosity toward any member of this house, let alone the former prime minister. We come here to do a duty, sent here by the people we are elected to represent. My loyalty in the past has always been, and will continue to be, to the people I am here to represent, regardless of party politics. At the outset I should like to congratulate one minister of the new government who has done more for my riding, and for the maritime provinces, than any other minister of public works in the long history of Canada. I recall coming to Ottawa a few weeks ago on a Sunday night with Mr. Leo Hachey, the unsuccessful candidate in Gloucester county. This was just before the announcement had been made that $3.5 million had been made available to develop the harbour at Bathurst. I noted then that Mr. Hachey was doing more for his


riding, although he had not been elected, than all the Liberal members had been able to do during the past 22 years.
By the way, I should like to thank the exminister of national health and welfare for the help he gave me during the campaign. He was down in my area, and I am assured that if I received the largest majority in the history of Campbellton it was due in no small part to his efforts on my behalf.
For many years the port of Dalhousie had been a sore spot because the minister of transport had refused, times without number, to have it declared a year-round port, although it had been open for five consecutive years without expense to anyone. The only trouble that developed was ice forming in the gulf during two weeks one winter. No sooner had the election taken place than the present Minister of Public Works dispatched to my riding his chief economic adviser and other distinguished members of his staff. Even the editorials in the Liberal papers in my riding mentioned the fact that these officials came to us for the first time since confederation. We have been getting recognition for our problems that we have never been able to get before. It is indeed satisfying to learn that just last week arrangements were made, in collaboration with the president of the Canadian International Paper Company, whereby the port of Dalhousie will become a year-round port, and whereby a fine new wharf will be established there in the course of the next year.
The former government never quite appreciated our problems, because I am sure if they had they would have acted. This was due in part, I think, to the fact that Liberal representatives were so sure they would not be listened to that they did not see fit to speak. I can tell the former government that if it had taken, for instance, some of the advice given to it by the hon. member for Westmorland the result of the vote in the last election might have been quite different, especially in the maritime provinces. In any event the port of Dalhousie will now become a reality.
I should like to deal for a few moments with the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge. Twelve surveys have been made in connection with this bridge by various governments since confederation. Sets of plans have been drawn up and at various times estimates have been prepared. At election time these plans were hauled out and shown to the people. This bridge became a political football during one election after another. Now, less than 22 weeks after June 10 a proposal has been made whereby the federal government will undertake to pay $1,400,000 toward the cost

of that bridge, plus one-third of the balance. The government was paying $70,000 a year in subsidies and repairs to the ferry wharves. The government made a brief mathematical calculation and saw that the $70,000 a year would be better spent in taking care of a capital expenditure of something like $1,400,000.
Instead of expecting the two provinces and the dominion to each pay one-third of the cost, as the previous government had so often declared was its policy, the new government proposed to pay $1,400,000 plus one-third of the balance, leaving Quebec and New Brunswick each to pay one-third. When Hon. Hugh John Flemming received this proposal I was immediately summoned to Fredericton. Within five minutes of the commencement of our meeting to discuss this proposal it was accepted by the province of New Brunswick. The federal government has now been advised that New Brunswick accepts the proposal and is prepared to pay this one-third of the cost. We are waiting momentarily for word, which we understand will be forthcoming today or tomorrow, from the government of Quebec, indicating their approval in contributing in a like manner.
There is a concrete example of good business administration and a sound investment. There is an example of a government that is trying to do something for a part of the country which we all know was neglected for too long by too many governments.
I should also like to say a word of thanks in connection with the new federal building which will be going up in Campbellton. I should like to say a word of praise for the splendid co-operation we have been getting from the Minister of Transport, from the Prime Minister's office and from all branches of the government. Our people in the maritime provinces now know that we have in Ottawa a government that is prepared to sit down and listen to their problems and endeavour by all possible means to bring about a solution to those problems which have been ignored ever since confederation.
In connection with the throne speech I should like very much to express my gratitude. I know I speak on behalf of the people I represent when I say that this throne speech is indeed indicative of the new deal which this government is prepared to give to the people of the maritime provinces. How often in the past have we pleaded, in this house for help for Beechwood, and how often have those requests been turned down. Yet, I dare say there was not a man in this house who did not recognize the merits of that case and who did not in his own heart feel that something should be done. It was 96698-17*
The Address-Mr. Van Horne only because of the indifference of the past government that nothing had been done. Yet within weeks of taking office this new government has indicated in no uncertain way that the Beechwood project, along with the other four accompanying projects which will completely harness the Saint John river, costing as they will something like $215 million, will not be retarded because of lack of co-operation and help from this government.
Likewise as to electric power development in the entire maritime provinces; we are grateful that at last we have a government that is willing to help us out. We do not ask for favours. We are asking merely that we be given a chance to develop in the same manner as the rest of Canada has had a chance to do. We are indeed gratified, and the news in the throne speech fills the heart of every person in the maritime provinces with pride in the new government that is finally prepared to recognize its duty to do it.
I should like also to say a word in connection with social security. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that this government, which I am privileged to support, will take advantage of the opportunity it has to do everything possible to rid this country of the means test. I confidently expect that old age pensions will be increased to $60 a month and be made available to all Canadians at the age of 65.
I have been asked before where I stood in this house. As long as I am here I will continue to repeat the demands I have been making in the past. What I ask is reasonable. Certainly if the late government had implemented only a portion of those demands it would still be in office today. This is a case of not punishing people because they want to supplement their meagre pension by earning a few extra dollars while working some place in the summer months. It is a case of not punishing a person because he has had the courage to save a few dollars and has a little bank account of $1,000 or $2,000. It is a case of not punishing the father of a family who had the courage to save his money, and who is now denied that pension precisely because he had the courage. In my opinion the situation is most unjust, and this government will be unworthy unless it does everything within its power to bring about the abolition of the means test at the earliest possible moment.
I should like to say a word about the Chignecto canal. I realize that the canal has been another political football ever since confederation, at which time it was promised as part of the inducement offered to the maritime provinces to have them join confederation. As a supporter of this government I know it will not delay in appointing

The Address-Mr. Van Horne the commission which has been promised and which will be appointed to investigate all phases of this important canal. The Chignecto canal must be built. This government must recognize the fact that the canal was a premise upon which the maritime provinces entered confederation. I am sure this government will do that.
I should probably take a minute to speak of unemployment since it was mentioned by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) the other day. I realize that unemployment is a problem that has plagued the maritime provinces for years without number. In June there were 1,109 people unemployed in Camp-bellton. It is true that today there are something like 710 persons unemployed. This means that there are 339 or approximately one-third fewer unemployed than there were at the time of the election.
I certainly have investigated this problem. I have gone to the heads of all the pulp mills in my area. Their explanation is clearcut. They say that had it not been for the tight money policies of the late government, and were it not for the unfavourable exchange on United States money, our mills would be going at full capacity and all our people would be working.
I remember discussing this problem with the presidents and other officers of the Irving Pulp and Paper Company, and they decided- not entirely, I may say very frankly, without grave consideration and expense-to employ this year twice as many men as they employed last year in order to offset the unemployment situation that developed in that part of the province with regard to the lumber industry. In other words, instead of 1,000 men being in the woods cutting pulpwood for the Irving Pulp and Paper Company, there will be this year over 2,000 men.
I visited these camps some time ago and asked one man how much he was making cutting pulpwood. He said, "In the past three months I have averaged $24 a day". The International Paper Company told me that those employed by it doing similar work average $15 a day. Certainly those wages compare favourably even with the salary paid to a member of parliament, I might say. The management of the International Paper Company have also tried to do everything possible to put men to work early in the summer in order to offset unemployment.
So while possibly the hon. member for Charlotte and I are in agreement as to the grave dangers of unemployment, I may assure him, as I assure this house, that the industries operating in that area are not lacking

in knowledge of the situation and are not lacking in the desire to do everything possible to assist the workingmen of my riding.
What I was complaining about last year I shall be complaining about this year if the situation arises. I refer to delays in settling unemployment insurance claims. Those notices to which the hon. member for Charlotte referred were invitations to those people in my riding who were experiencing six weeks, seven weeks and eight weeks of delay in getting their unemployment insurance cheques to let me know about those matters. If this year these complaints can be handled by three stenographers that will be a help, because last year it would have taken twelve.
I should like also to speak briefly this afternoon with regard to housing. I am very grateful that this government has recognized the difficulties of the average wage earner in purchasing a home, and the $150 million which has now been made available by this government will certainly go a long way in providing houses for thousands of our families. But I say this in all frankness, as I have said it before in this house; that this is not sufficient. I have long advocated in this house, and I advocate again, the adoption of the American national housing act, lock stock and barrel. Why is it, if in the United States legislation can be introduced and properly carried out whereby a person can purchase a house with 4 per cent down of the first $10,000 and with nothing down in the case of a veteran, this government cannot do the same? I certainly see no reason why similar action would not be possible here in Canada.
There is nothing that gives more pride or satisfaction to a young father of a family as the knowledge that he can possess his own home. There is nothing which encourages good citizenship like property ownership, and nothing which would more effectively relieve the unemployment situation or would move our unsold lumber, of which our people down home have over 10 million feet in one yard alone, than an entirely new approach to our housing problem.
In the United States even the utensils in the kitchen, such as the electric stove, electric refrigerator, dryer, washer and even the fan that takes the smoke from the kitchen, are all included in the cost of the house. So a person who makes his down payment of $400 on a $10,000 home buys a house that comes to him almost fully equipped in regard to the heavy equipment which is needed in a modern home. If this system would cost this government anything I might take a different approach, but this government is making $15 million one year and $16 million

the next in profit under its national housing scheme. In the United States the same situation exists.
Why was the late government so afraid of the Canadian citizen that it would not trust him? There is not a valid reason that could be advanced as to why the down payments on homes could not be on the same scale as they are in the United States. There funds are provided with interest at 5J per cent, and there is no reason why funds could not be made available to the Canadian people in like manner. There is also no reason why we in Canada, under our housing scheme, could not recognize the loan value of a house already built. The effect of our housing scheme is to diminish the equity which people have in homes already built outside of our national housing scheme.
It seems unfortunate that the late government did not recognize its duties in this connection. Goodness knows, and I have spoken about this often in the house, if we are to solve our housing problem we have to do what has been done successfully in other countries. I remember in one little operation, in a town where a housing project was started, 104 people applied for homes. Yet not one person was able to purchase a home because not one person had the $3,000 or $4,000 needed for a down payment. Certainly I trust that this government will take every occasion to make sure that the National Housing Act, as we know it, is altered to meet the needs of the Canadian people.
I would like to say something about agriculture. In my riding since June 10 something like $400,000 has been expended in an effort to help the potato farmers in the northern part of New Brunswick. This help is certainly very much appreciated, but four or five weeks ago our small potato farmers had upwards of 600,000 barrels of potatoes which they were unable to sell and which they were unable to keep because of the lack of proper storage facilities. If a diversion program had been undertaken at that time I feel sure that the small potato farmer would have been greatly helped; and I know that although everything possible has been done since June 10, a whole new approach to agriculture as it exists in northern New Brunswick should be undertaken.
I should like also to say a word of commentary in regard to a statement made last Friday by the member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier). If ever there was a party in this country which pitted religion against religion, race against race and province against province in a deceitful effort to gain votes during the past 20 years, it was the Liberal party. I come from a riding where the population
The Address-Mr. Van Horne is 85 per cent French speaking or Acadian, and I know whereof I speak. In the past I have no doubt that under the vigorous leadership which existed in the Liberal party those tactics were not permitted to be mentioned in this house. Now, however, when the Liberals are about to become leaderless, they have brought these tactics into the open in the House of Commons. I could tell you stories of happenings in my own riding that would make your hair stand on end with respect to disgraceful tactics in bringing race and religion into elections. It is a disgrace to the member who brought up the subject in this house. It was bad enough when they kept it behind closed doors, as in the past.
Before taking my seat I would like to mention one more subject. I presume this combines investigation into pulpwood fixing prices may have had its place, but I wish to state publicly here that I very much disapprove of the actions taken by members of that investigation committee or board in their conduct with many of the officials of our paper companies. I know of one instance where after rifling through the files in the president's office, they took advantage of his absence to go and rifle his desk without any form of authority from any court.
We are determined, and I know this government will take every opportunity to do this, to rid these services of the Gestapo methods which have been customary in the past. The people who operate these industries, the people who operate these mills, have a hard enough time getting along without the government interfering as it has done. I maintain that this investigation was properly set up, but it miscarried and was conducted in such a way as to bring discredit on the Department of Justice and the government as a whole. Certainly we have a right to expect a different kind of attitude, and I know we will have a different kind of attitude from now on.
Before resuming my place I invite hon. members on both sides of the house to give us a hand in the maritime provinces. I know we will have to await another election before we will have 10 Conservative members from New Brunswick, but in the meantime we urge the five Liberal members to not stint their efforts to co-operate with us to bring about the improvements we have so long needed in the province of New Brunswick and indeed in the maritime provinces generally.
In closing I would like to say I am very grateful and glad to be seated on this side of the house, but I wish to make it very clear at the same time that our problems are above party politics, and the needs of our people

The Address-Mr. Gardiner demand immediate action. While it is a pleasure to work and co-operate within the framework of a party may I assure you, as I assure this house, that the duty I owe to the people of my riding and to the people of the maritime provinces will always come first.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to join with those who have spoken before me in congratulating the hon. member who was chosen as Speaker of the house on the first day we met, and to say to him I feel confident that in the period he occupies the chair of this house he will do so-and we are acknowledging that he does so-by maintaining the traditions of the speakership. During the long history of Canadian parliaments I think there has been no occasion upon which the Speaker himself was responsible for any unnecessary scenes which may have taken place in this house.
I would also like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The seconder of the motion, the hon. member for Bona-venture (Mr. Arsenault), is not very well known to me and I regret that I am not sufficiently familiar with the language which is his natural language to have followed him closely throughout the entire course of his remarks, but I am assured from the discussions which have taken place since that he fulfilled his duty in a manner which is most acceptable to the house.
As far as the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne is concerned, I have been familiar with his family for a long time. His dad and I knew one another well in our school days when we took part in college and other sports. He was always known as Sport Smith, which indicated that he was not only a good athlete but that he had the proper attitude toward the game he was playing and toward both those who were with him and against him.


Mr. Mclvor:: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: As we listened to our young friend, his son, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) as he made his first speech in the house the other day I was reminded of the fact that in those days his grandfather used to walk up and down the field where a game was being played and every time one of the boys kicked, he kicked too and gave the best of encouragement to those of his family who were participating in the game.
I am sure had he been present the other day sitting in the gallery-and if he had been following the same line of thought he followed in those days he would have been


sitting in the gallery facing the opposition, but it would not have made any difference where he was sitting-and, had been listening to our young friend deliver his first speech in this house, he would have been extremely proud of his grandson. So would his dad had he been able to be here. I am not sure whether his uncle who lives in Regina was here the other day, but he too would have been proud of our young friend and would have followed his remarks with keen interest. I understand his mother was present, and I am sure she felt proud of the capable manner in which her son made his maiden speech.
These people were all friends of mine and friends of Saskatchewan in the early days. They lived in Regina and conducted an important business there in the pioneering days. We all acknowledge them for what they have done for us and share their pride in this young member of their family to whom was given the honour of moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I personally wish him every success.
I should now like to refer to what has been mentioned by most speakers who have participated in this debate, namely the 10-day period immediately past during which Her Most Gracious Majesty was present on this continent, four days of which were spent in association with the opening of parliament and other matters in this capital city of Canada and the other six in connection with the affairs of the country to the south. I think this 10-day period will go down in history as one Which has done more to promote the best interests of the commonwealth of nations, and through the commonwealth the best interests of all the people in the world, than any other 10-day period in the entire history of the commonwealth.
To watch the proceedings of yesterday on television when the Queen was in the city of New York, and to have observed the previous proceedings when she was in the city of Washington, would suggest to one that at least those people on the other side of the line who associate their beginnings with Great Britain, and perhaps not less the people whose ancestors came to this continent from other parts of Europe, where they had monarchies for a long period of time, were very proud of the fact that the race to which many of them belong could produce a sovereign of the type we have today as Queen of Canada and Queen of the other nations of the commonwealth.
Just an hour ago I heard over the radio that the royal plane had arrived at the London airport. I am sure we all congratulate Her Majesty upon her fine appearance on this

continent and upon the fact that she and her husband have arrived back home safely.
Before going on to say more I think I should ask why we are here and try to give an answer as to why, in my opinion, we are gathered in this parliament. I am not speaking so much about the fact that for the first time I am sitting in the opposition in the House of Commons, which is a rather new experience for me. I have spent 44 years in politics. Out of that period I have been in opposition for only five years, and during that period of five years I was leader of the opposition in the legislature of Saskatchewan. So I cannot complain about the treatment I have received from the voters of the province of Saskatchewan and more particularly of my own constituency over that long period of time. Finding ourselves on this side of the house we must of necessity ask not only why we are here but we must attempt to answer the question why we are taking the position we are with regard to certain matters.
In the first place I might point out that this house was dissolved in April before we had voted all our estimates. As a matter of fact we had voted only a small part of them. At that time full expressions of opinion had not been given about a considerable part of the legislation which had been introduced in the house by the government of that time. It is probably going too far to say that the new government is in any way responsible for the legislation which was introduced but not passed, and of course we do not expect that it will be reintroducing that legislation in the house in the form in which it was then brought down either now or at any other time. On the other hand the system under which we operate presupposes that the money required for the conduct of the affairs of this country must be voted by parliament. Dissolution of the house at the time it took place resulted in that money not being voted; therefore it is necessary for us to be here at this time in order to see that that vote is carried through.
Of course we do not expect, and it has not been the case, that the present government is going to agree in every particular with the legislative program and the votes that were brought down by the preceding government, but it will be necessary to vote in general the greater part of the funds which were to have been made available through the estimates at that time, and we are here for that purpose.
Since that time we have had an election which has produced certain results. Every member of this house knows that under our constitution the leader of the party which can command a majority in the House of
The Address-Mr. Gardiner Commons is called upon to form the government. Therefore on this occasion when the people of Canada did not select any party with a majority of seats in this house; at a time when they gave to the Liberal leader the greatest number of votes in his favour obtained by any person but gave to the leader of the Conservative party the greatest number of seats given to any party, then it stands to reason that we are in a very peculiar situation at the present time.
This is not new to me at all, because most hon. members know that I went through a similar experience in Saskatchewan back in 1929, although there was this difference then. Although we did not have a majority we had the largest group. I was advised then, and I am advised now, that under our constitution when the government itself has the largest group following an election but there is no majority in the house in their favour, it is necessary for them to meet the house. They should meet the house and have the house determine as to who should be responsible for forming the government.
On this occasion the government party did not have the largest group. I am advised that under the constitution, in those circumstances, it is not necessary but is a matter of choice with the leader of the party which forms the government for the time being as to whether he should meet the house or whether he should advise the Governor General to call upon some other member of the house to form the government. Well, the leader of the government decided on the latter course, that is was advisable to go to the Governor General and discuss with him the possibility of resigning and not meeting the house, and turning the government over to some other party.
Well, naturally on an occasion of that kind the first thing the Governor General would want to know, the first thing a representative of the crown would want to know, is how do you propose that the government should be able to carry on sufficiently long to make it possible for the people of this country to know as to whether the person to whom they have given the largest representation is a person who can command a majority? There was only one way in which that information could be given to the Governor General, and that was for his adviser of that day to give it. Before going to see the Governor General the leader of the government naturally went to see the leader of the official opposition, who had the largest group in the house, and found him not only willing but anxious to form a government and take the responsibility for setting up a government under our democratic institution.

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
When the government of the day found it necessary to give assurance to the Governor General those assurances, of course, were given to the effect that we would carry on in such manner as to make it possible for the new government to have sufficient support in the house to be able to place their policies before the people of this country and carry on from there.
I recite these facts in order to say this, Mr. Speaker. I find it a little difficult to understand some of the criticisms that are made at the present time of the attitude of the present opposition. Before going on to speak further with regard to that point I would call attention to this also. Before the prime minister of that time went to the Governor General to discuss the matter the leaders of the two smaller groups in this house gave interviews to the press, in which they stated that they were not prepared to join in a coalition with either of the larger parties, but that they were prepared to give whichever party undertook to carry on sufficient support to allow it to make it apparent in what direction they wanted to go after forming a government or continuing as a government.


Major James William Coldwell: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says "no". Perhaps I am giving him a little too much credit; perhaps he did not go quite that far in so far as the old government was concerned. However, we had been in power a long time, and having been in power a long time-


Major James William Coldwell: Too long.


James Garfield Gardiner: He says "too long". Since we had been in power a long time they thought we should turn over the government to some other group, and therefore they supported our turning the government over to the Conservatives. I am quite sure I am correct-I am sorry I did not bring the clippings from the papers with me-when I suggest that sufficient assurance was given to the party which now forms the government that if they did form the government they would be given an opportunity to make their views known to this house before they were voted out.
Therefore I say, with regard to the official opposition of today, that we feel we owe an obligation not only to the government of the day, not only to the group who form a minority in this house and who form the government, but we owe a duty to the crown and to the people of Canada to see to it that the affairs of this house are conducted in such a manner as to permit of the government placing their views on certain matters,


on legislation, on the budget and on estimates, squarely before this house with their support and their recommendations to the Governor General behind them.
Before there was any thought of choosing a new Liberal leader in this country the prime minister of the day made the announcement, when he tendered his resignation, that he had given those assurances to the Governor General; that we would carry them out, and at the time he gave the assurance that it was his declared intention to lead the Liberal party in the next election in this country. When it is suggested here by some critics that anything we do in this house has anything to do with the fact that a Liberal convention is to be held to elect a leader, I want to say to the house and to the people of this country that the whole matter under discussion was settled before it became necessary to choose a leader at all.
I do want to say this-I have not consulted with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) or anyone else about this-that so far as I am personally concerned and I think so far as most of the Liberal members, or all the Liberals in Canada are concerned, if the press which is advocating such a policy, or if those on the other side of the house think it is a good line to follow, there would be nothing that would be more helpful to the Liberal party in the next election, whenever it may be called, than that we should be fighting it under the leadership of the present leader of the Liberal party. I wanted to say that in order to leave the impression that it had nothing to do with the matter of our giving assurances under the constitution as it exists that we would give the government an opportunity to place their policies before the house and the people of the country before we would consider it necessary to move a vote of want of confidence.
I would like to submit, Mr. Speaker, that I think the smaller groups would have been well advised to follow at least the intimation that was made prior to the calling of the house and to have desisted from moving votes of want of confidence at this stage. While this party is not moving a vote of want of confidence, it does not mean that we have absolute confidence in the government.
It does indicate that our constitution has got to be allowed to operate. At the same time I feel personally, believing as I do that the two opposition groups had given an assurance very similar to the one we had given, that they are moving their motions of want of confidence at too early a stage in the development that has taken place since the election. So as far as I personally am

concerned I am going to vote against both of them. When I do vote against both of them I will not necessarily be voting against anything that may be in either one of them, but I will be voting against the fact that two considerable groups in the house, having given everyone to understand that they would allow the constitution to operate, are placing party above the welfare of the country at the present time.
We in this group do not intend to do that. I am of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that we should get on with the business we came here to do, namely to provide the money with which the government is going to be able to carry on until March 31. That is really the only work we came here to do. When the government finds it necessary to make some changes, slight or otherwise, in the provision for the spending of that money we must, of course, give consideration to that, and express our opinions as we go along; but in my opinion we should get on with the business of providing supply, clearing the order paper of legislation necessary to authorize expenditures and return to our homes until the government is prepared to bring in legislation and a budget and estimates they are prepared to recommend to the Governor General which will set out a policy based upon their criticisms of the last government and their election promises.
I would judge from what has been said and the attitude taken by the leaders of the party facing us that is what they intend to do. Of course if they intend to do that they will expect that some members on this side of the house may raise some objection to some of the things they are suggesting should be done which the previous government had not intended to do had it remained in office, but I think they will find that if they can listen to the expression of opinions on those matters without too strong political feelings resulting from such expression we will get along fairly well to the end of this particular session.
There is only one further remark I should like to make with regard to this discussion, and it is this. I was a little surprised at the attitude taken by the Minister of Finance early in the discussion, when he rose in his place at a time when the Prime Minister was not here-there is no criticism in that; I think he was in Washington-and said in effect that he intends to make all members in the house stand up and be counted on every occasion when any advance is being made on any estimates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Only on that one occasion.
The Address-Mr. Gardiner


James Garfield Gardiner: In other words he is showing that lack of self-control which is necessary to the administration of a department such as the one over which he is presiding. I am sure, since he and I come from the same town in the western part of Ontario, he will learn in due course that is not the proper way to proceed in this house or even outside the house. After all, we are working under a rather peculiar set of circumstances and we must perhaps work in peculiar ways sometimes in order to accomplish the task that is ours as citizens of this country, no matter what political party we belong to. Therefore I would suggest that if we can all accept the position that we are here to do the particular job that ought to be done, we can express our criticisms from any place in the house from time to time, put them on the record and refer to them in times to come when we desire to do so.
It is not my intention to spend any more time on that matter in dealing with the speech from the throne. It is my intention to spend most of my time on past and present proposals with regard to agriculture. But I must first call attention to the similarity between the campaign of 1930 and the one just past. Quite a number of those who have spoken since the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) spoke last Friday have chosen to use his remarks as the basis for a discussion of an old issue that has been present in this country for a long time. But I should like to remind hon. members that this is not a new and unheard of situation. Prior to 1930 and after Mr. Bennett had been chosen leader of the Liberal-the Conservative party; I think it was Liberal-Conservative at that time-his supporters decided to put on a sham battle in a section of Canada that had never been anything but Liberal since it came into confederation, and that sham battle was fought on the issue that has been referred to in the debate here.
It had the result of electing eight members of that party from the province of Saskatchewan, which is the most it has ever elected either before or since that time. The election which followed a year later was won by Mr. Bennett and his party and he came into office. It does not make any difference what members on the other side of the house think. It is quite proper that they should think whatever they wish about the matter, but it has some effect when I hear persons get up and object to criticisms being made when everyone in the house and the country knows that this has been an issue between two sections of Canada over a long period of time. The introduction of certain ideas into the Conservative party convention last year did introduce the

The Address-Mr. Gardiner subject whether or not anyone said anything about it. So we had a section of the country that for two elections had been more strongly Liberal than at any other time in our history reverse its position and go to the opposite extreme in its voting.
It is all very well for members of the house and people outside the house to try to convince themselves that some other issue decided the last election, that it had something to do with economics, something to do with other things. All I want to say to the government is that if they are of that opinion they have an even greater task before them in 1957 in satisfying the people that they can create a better economic situation than Mr. Bennett had before him in 1930. I think the more you think about that the more you will agree it is correct.
Mr. Bennett had other ideas that were similar to those that are held now. He thought it was necessary to call a session of the house right after the election in 1930, as a matter of fact in September also, and he called that session. I sat in the gallery some place-I had great difficulty in getting into the galleries at all-and listened to the speech he delivered to the house on that occasion. In that speech he reviewed a considerable number of the things he had said during the campaign, and he said, "We are here to put them into effect."
Well, there is no doubt that he did put them into effect. If there ever was a man who led a party in the Dominion of Canada, who advocated conservatism and put it into effect when he came into office, that man was Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, later Lord Bennett. He put those ideas into effect.
Now, what was the result? He had stated in that campaign-note the similarity of subject-put me in and I will pay 100 per cent of old age pensions. Did he ever do it? No, he did not. He did get it up to 75 per cent at one time, but he did not get it any further than that. I sat in a legislature at that time and they did not bring down a dollar to pay their 50 per cent share of the old age pension, with the result the legislature had to be called upon at a later date to vote the money because the federal government could not carry out its policy.
I listened a few moments ago to the hon. member speaking about Chignecto. I do not know if that is the way it should be pronounced but I think that is about right. Here is what Mr. Bennett said about that, according to the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of July 1, 1930:
We offer you the St. Lawrence waterways; the Chignecto canal is a possibility, yes, even a probability.


He said this in Saint John, right in the neighbourhood from which my friend who has just spoken comes. We have had two governments since those days and we have not got a Chignecto canal. We have had two governments since then and it was the second one, the Liberal government, which built the St. Lawrence waterway.
I hope our friends are not going to do as Mr. Bennett did in 1930, bring policies into this house in a rush in the first session a few weeks after an election. He pushed them through with his majority and made it absolutely impossible to pay 100 per cent of old age pensions. These policies made it absolutely impossible for him to build the St. Lawrence waterway or the Chignecto canal, and later made it impossible for him to carry on with the trans-Canada highway system, which had been introduced by Mr. Meighen, or the Trans-Canada Air Lines system, which had been introduced by Mr. King. The policies he introduced in that short session, without having given sufficient thought to them, raised great issues with the result that in 1935, speaking in New York. Mr. Bennett said this:
I say that tariffs in many ol the countries in the world today are much too high.
This is after he had been in office for five years. I could read earlier statements made to the effect that he was going to cure everything with tariffs.
He continued in New York:
I say that tariffs in Canada are too high.
One could go on reading statement after statement by Mr. Bennett indicating that after five years experience he had learned that it was not a good thing, either for the party or for the country, to rush legislation through the house without much consideration.
I believe I have said sufficient to indicate that there are similarities between the party of that day and the party of the present day. There is a little more to which I would like to call particular attention with regard to agricultural conditions. Mr. Bennett, speaking in Winnipeg on June 9, 1930, said this:
Listen, you agriculturists from the west and all the other parts of Canada, you have been taught to mock at tariffs and applaud free trade. Tell me, when did free trade fight for you? You say tariffs are only for the manufacturers. I will make them fight for you as well. I will use them to blast a way into the markets that have been closed to you.
Anyone on the other side of the house, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) if he wished, could say that tariffs did work in the case of butter. They have. Governments since have continued what Mr. Bennett

did with regard to butter. However, I believe it will be found difficult to suggest that these policies worked in any other place in the interests of agriculture. One policy was the use of higher tariffs, together with quotas arranged at conferences. This is another similarity. A conference was held immediately after the election, and another one was held in 1932. Out of these conferences came policies which ruined the agriculture of this country. My friend shakes his head. I would suggest to him that he go over to the apple growing country of Great Britain, as I was invited to do two years ago. He will find there one family which, under the preference forced upon Great Britain by two dominions in 1932, has a third as many apple trees as there are in the whole of Nova Scotia and a quarter as many as there are in the whole of British Columbia. In other words, when you try to force your way into the markets of the world, and to control your marketing of products by the use of tariffs, you can do yourself much more harm than good.
During that period under these preferences these people have put in more new apple trees than we have in the whole of the Dominion of Canada. Since Britain has planted more new apple trees during that period than we have in Canada how could we expect to sell many apples in Great Britain? One has to give most careful consideration to these policies as we go along.
The present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker), speaking at Portage la Prairie during the last campaign stated, as reported in the Regina Leader-Post of May 10, as follows:
The Liberal government is doing nothing while the United States attacks Canada's wheat markets with almost ruthless abandon.
He called for several measures to regain markets, including an approach to Britain to take wheat in place of some $17 million In interest owed to Canada on a postwar loan.
It is true that this statement does not mention tariffs, but some of the others do. Tariffs were mentioned as a means of taking care of this situation. Not very long ago the Minister of Agriculture announced that he was advancing the date on which fowl would be prevented from coming into this country. It would come into this country under the conditions set up by the order in council which we passed. I must say that at the time I discussed the matter with the officials of the department and the government, I was advised that fowl did not come into this country in any considerable numbers until August 1 and therefore we made it August 1. I would say it is a sort of bid for votes to tell the people of Canada under those circumstances you are advancing the date two weeks to the middle of July and say, "We 96698-18i
The Address-Mr. Gardiner are going to apply the same thing as the previous government, but two weeks in advance."
Then there was the announcement that there would be a duty on turkeys. The only reason there had not been something done about turkeys before was that turkeys were selling at 6 cents per pound higher in Canada than they were in the United States. That is the reason products come to this country from the United States or from anywhere else, the person who produces them and has them for sale can sell them at higher prices here than in their own country. If you want to stop that, there are two or three ways of doing it, but the Conservative way of doing it is to use tariffs. Another way would be to use embargoes. May I say to the government that they have been doing a lot of talking about ways and means of dealing with our wheat problem. The biggest obstruction to the proper disposal of our wheat in this world is right on this continent.
Prior to the last war there was a duty of 42 cents on our wheat going to the United States. When the president got the authority to reduce that he made it 21 cents, but just prior to that they imposed an embargo on our wheat so it could not go in at all.
Those are two ways of performing. If the government desires to perform in either one of them they will run into some difficulties which will give them considerable trouble over the weeks that are ahead. So I would again warn those who have been talking in the election of 1957, as their predecessors did in 1930, to study the aftermath of the action of their predecessors in the session of 1930 and to avoid the mistakes of that earlier time. This government should ask support at this session to do only what must be done now and should call us back to consider their well-thought-out policies early in the new year.
When the Liberals took over in 1935 we had two trans-Canada railway systems, a telegraph line and a telephone line to provide communication across Canada. When we turned the country back to the Conservatives in 1957 those railway systems were greatly developed, along with our telephone system and our telegraph system. But in addition to that we had a trans-Canada highway system which a world traveller said, as reported the other day in a newspaper, was one of the best that he found anywhere in the world.


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


James Garfield Gardiner: I am speaking, of course, on the amendment to the amendment. I shall be obliged to finish on the amendment.

The Address-Mr. Winch


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to every word just spoken by the former minister of agriculture. Having regard to the majority of the time he took and what he said, out of the generosity of my heart the best I can say is that never has it taken so long to say so little. To me the majority of his speech seemed to be only an expression of the rabid fears of the Liberals that they may be forced to face an early election. When added to the other speeches to which I have listened emanating from the Liberal side of the house, it can only be interpreted as an admission of the fact that in the general election campaign and since this house has met they have been caught with their political pants down and now they are trying desperately to cover up the fact that they are exposed.
I noticed that the hon. member who immediately preceded me went out of his way, and made it a point to do so, to go after the C.C.F. because we had moved an amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne. May we make it emphatically clear that we deliberately moved an amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne and that we did so as a matter of fundamental principle and not as a matter of expediency.
We in the C.C.F. recognize the fact, as do most others, that although we welcome and will support

and have so stated-the beneficial proposals that have been mentioned in the speech from the throne, we differ in basic economic principle. We believe that the government, despite all it has said it is going to do, has missed the boat in connection with fundamental policies that will meet and solve the problems of this nation and will give and guarantee full employment, security and prosperity to the people of Canada. Because of the failure of the government to recognize that fact we have moved, as a fundamental principle, an amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I am most grateful to the voters of Vancouver East for the fact that they saw fit to return me as a result of the poll taken on June 10. I feel absolutely sure that this is going to be a most interesting and intriguing session. Those of us who have been here previously cannot help but be amused at the session thus far in seeing the Liberals, as an official opposition, screaming to high heaven because they cannot get answers to their questions or do the things they want to do, things which they denied when they were on the other side of the house; and then at the same time to

see the Conservatives, in what they have done thus far, giving exactly the same type of administration of parliamentary procedure as the Liberals gave previously and which they the Conservatives screamed to high heaven against. This sham battle would be most amusing if it were not actually so crucial. That is the way in which I want to introduce what we have to say.
Just as the previous Liberal government did not do so, the present Conservative government is not facing up to the real facts of Canadian life, the Canadian economy and developments throughout the world. Already this session we have heard from the parties of free enterprise-all three of them-a denouncement of the public ownership policies of the C.C.F. and a denouncement of the requisite social and economic planning as government policy which we say is so necessary at this time. Yet not only have we seen it year by year under the past government, but now we see through the medium of the speech from the throne the recognition by the present Conservative government that, in part at least, the future of Canada depends upon the co-operation of the federal authority and the provincial authorities in the realm of development under public ownership.
Knowing the free enterprise spirit of the other three parties, but in particular that of the Conservative government, may I say that this preliminary recognition must have been brought about because circumstances have forced it. We see it in the announcements already made of joint participation between the federal and provincial authorities in British Columbia on the Columbia river development, with the government of Saskatchewan on the Saskatchewan dam and, as mentioned by one hon. member-I think it was the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne)-on development in New Brunswick.
That is good, Mr. Speaker, as far as it goes but it is not going to solve the problem. Much as we welcome increases in pensions and allowances, that is not going to solve the problem either. Analysis will show that the only answer is an accelerated, deliberate policy of greater participation between the federal government and provincial governments on the development of natural resources under public ownership.
If that policy is not soon established then Canada is going to suffer from betrayal by, not only the past but the present government; because the way things are going today, in certain provinces under free enterprise governments there just are not going to be

any natural resources left as a heritage for the people of those provinces and the people of Canada generally.
Here we have, or we should have, recognition that Canada spent billions of dollars to fight and win a military war, not so many years ago at that. Now having won the military war we find our natural resources being handed away to those against whom we fought and those who lost the war. We are rapidly finding ourselves in the position where those who lost the war, under private enterprise policies in Canada are approaching the position where they own a great deal of our country.
Take the situation in British Columbia where there are now 71,000 square miles of that great province which have been handed over to the Wenner-Gren interests. One can pick up the paper every week and read of the infiltration of industry by the Krupp interests and others into the Canadian economy.
Now no one is going to oppose the development of our country, but if the major benefits of the wealth produced through the development of our natural resources is to remain in Canada then surely common sense dictates the policy to be established in the public interest is public ownership by cooperation between the governments of Canada. If the members of the free enterprise governments of the provinces are not prepared to go that far, if the free enterprise parties in this house are not prepared to go that far, and if the government now in office is not prepared to go that far, then surely it is not asking too much that they insitute policies to give the greatest possible return to the people of Canada to whom the heritage of our natural resources belongs and whose work produces the wealth.
It is with a great deal of regret that we in this corner of the house have to note that there is no indication whatsoever of this recognition, nor is there any indication of a line of action being taken and policies established which will retain in this country to the greatest possible extent the wealth produced here. We have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that it is wrong that outside capital can come into the country and reap untold millions of dollars' profit and yet pay no tax to the Canadian people through the medium of a capital gains tax.
Coming down from Vancouver to Ottawa I had a most interesting discussion with two very wealthy Americans on the train. They told me how much they loved Canada and I replied that I understood that because of our beautiful scenery, our natural resources and so on and so forth. They said we do not
The Address-Mr. Winch mean that, what we mean is that Canada is the land of golden opportunity for the profiteers. They told me quite honestly, knowing that I was an M.P. and a socialist one at that, that what they were doing was getting their capital out of the United States, putting it into Canada and leaving it here. I asked why, and they told me it was because there is no capital gains tax in Canada.
Time does not permit me, and I do not think it is even necessary because you, Mr. Speaker, should know from the records- especially with respect to the gas lines and oil pipe lines-that what has and is taking place is legal, financial highway robbery. This was pointed out by my leader who referred to the activities of the robber barons during the past months and years. If the government will not recognize the responsibility of public ownership in order to hold our natural resources for Canada, if they will not go along-and they have already said they will not-with a capital gains tax, then is it unreasonable to expect that the government and the government agencies should live up to the laws of Canada and that Canadians should not be made to subsidize Americans in the export of our raw materials to the United States.
Only a short time ago we had the opening of the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited operations in British Columbia. I made an investigation of what took place and I thought it was a matter for action by the Department of Justice but have since found that there is no legal action there, at least as far as it comes under that department. In the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited operation, under their present contract they are going to sell 500 million cubic feet of natural gas per day. Of that, 200 million cubic feet per day is contracted for by the B.C. Electric in British Columbia at a price of 32 cents a thousand and at a demand rate of 90 per cent.
Now they branch off to the United States at Huntington I believe, just alongside of
B.C. Electric's takeoff, but immediately that gas crosses the border, coming down the same pipe line, 200 million cubic feet per day is supplied to the United States company at 22 cents per thousand cubic feet. I would like to know why the citizens of British Columbia should have to pay almost 50 per cent more for our own gas on the whosesale basis than the cost to the wholesaler when it crosses the border into the United States.
I, through you, Mr. Speaker, most certainly direct these questions to the Conservative government in view of all their talk in this house during the past five years, in view of their campaigning across the country prior

The Address-Mr. Winch to June 10 about Canada first and the protection of Canadians, and how "we were not going to be rooked by the United States interests." Would they explain why the present situation has been allowed to develop. Not only, as I say, has the situation been allowed to develop, but this is something which I maintain is contrary to the law of Canada because we have an act entitled Exportation of Power and Fluids and the Importation of Gas Act. In the regulation of this act, which has not been repealed because I checked up on that, it says
The price charged by a licencee for power or gas exported by him shall not be lower than the price at which power or gas, respectively, is supplied by him or his supplier in similar quantities and under similar conditions of sale for consumption in Canada.
That is a regulation in effect made under authority of an act of parliament. We want to know why a law enacted by this House of Commons is not lived up to. Even if there were no law, what is the political morality of a government that will allow a situation of this kind to continue?
I want to be absolutely honest. I believe this was the first such contract ever made in Canada and perhaps it slipped by those who are responsible for its ratification as far as the government or one of its agencies is concerned. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, may we ask assurance from the present government that there will be no repetition anywhere in Canada and that there will be a close scrutiny made of all contracts which may be presently under consideration or approaching consumation to ensure that the regulation will be lived up to and that Canadian consumers will not be placed in the position of subsidizing United States consumers in the export of our own raw materials.
I am certain the cabinet ministers from British Columbia will look into the point I am about to raise. I hope they will investigate the possibilities of examining into the re-drafting of the contract now in operation and which covers a period of 20 years. That is all I want to say on that matter at this time; but I wish to deal somewhat briefly with something else although it is a most important question.
A number of hon. members have spoken already on the question of unemployment and I feel I must, too, because of my knowledge of the situation as it exists in British Columbia and because on checking with the appropriate department I find, as I suspected was the case, that on a percentage basis unemployment in the Pacific region is higher than elsewhere in Canada.


During the past few months more than ever before I have been approached as a member of parliament by people in search of employment who were unable to find it. According to official figures I have been able to secure there were 29,138 registered unemployed in the Pacific region in September of this year as compared with 15,892 in the same week a year ago. In the city of Vancouver, one constituency of which I have the honour to represent, there were 15,141 registered unemployed on September 12 this year as compared with 8,019 in the same week a year ago. When you have an increase of almost 100 per cent in unemployment within a 12-month period it is a situation that cannot and must not be ignored.
I regret the evasiveness of the answer I received from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) the other day when I asked what action was contemplated by his department in meeting the unemployment problem. Whether there are 100 or 100,000 unemployed we have to be interested because these people are hungry. A great many of them are not covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act and with regard to those who do come under the act there is the essential need for an increase in the allowance paid comparable at least to the increases contemplated under other acts.
I wonder how many members of this house, especially those who are married, could pay rent and live on the amount paid under the act today with the existing high cost of living? It cannot be done. The allowance paid under the act is too little to live on and too much to die on; it should be better than that. We certainly hope that the matter is under active consideration and that immediate action will be taken. We hope also the government will not wait for some future dominion- provincial conference to determine federal financial responsibility before extending benefits to those who are not covered by the act.
Time after time such people have come to my home; they have no unemployment insurance either because they are not eligible for it or because it has run out. They are being evicted from their homes for non-payment of rent and find themselves with nothing to eat and no means of providing for their family. Where do we send them? In most instances the best we could do is send them down to the community council where they can get assistance for one, two, or perhaps three days; but what do they do then? M.P.'s cannot support them.
I cannot stress too strongly the seriousness of this situation. I believe that if the federal government would not wait for the . proposed

conference but would immediately notify the departments of labour of all the provinces that it is prepared to pay 50 or 60 per cent of the assistance to those not covered by the act prompt action would be taken in most provinces. I constantly encounter unemployed individuals in Vancouver who come to me for advice and assistance. I sincerely hope something will be done immediately and that it will be based on a decent standard.
In the few minutes left at my disposal I wish to draw to the attention of the government one other matter. I ask the government not to plan just from day to day but to look forward with creative vision. Despite all the questions that have been asked on the subject and all that has been intimated it is my belief that the government is going to proceed with a hospital insurance plan. God help them if they don't. If they fail to meet this challenge we will not have a new election in Canada, we will have a revolution because the people expect that at least hospital insurance will be brought into effect in the near future.
The experience we have had in British Columbia-and I think I can add the experience in Saskatchewan-when hospital insurance was first introduced was that people who required hospital treatment over the years requested hospitalization. This involved the construction of new hospitals. The time to start is before the over-all national plan comes into effect in order to be ready to meet that situation. If a plan for the construction of hospitals were undertaken now it would greatly assist the lumbering, construction and related industries as far as employment is concerned. But in addition to that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) should take under advisement a change in government allocations for the construction of hospitals.
A very good principle was introduced, I believe in 1948, by the previous minister of national health and welfare under which a federal contribution was made toward the construction of hospitals based on a payment of $1,000 per bed for acute treatment hospitals, $1,500 per bed for chronic, convalescent and tuberculosis hospitals and $500 per bed for the erection of nurses' quarters. There has been a vast increase in the cost of construction since that time. In Vancouver the cost of construction of a hospital in 1948 was $9,000 per bed and at the present time it is $15,000 per bed but there has never been an increase in the federal grant.
We heard from the previous government about rising costs and I am sure we will hear about this from the present government. Well, as it affects you, why not recognize that it affects the provinces and municipalities as
The Address-Mr. R. M. T. McDonald well and give benefits to them such as I have outlined. The principle is still good but the payments by the federal government should be in line with the increases in construction costs presently being faced by our municipalities and provinces in the erection of much needed hospitals. I earnestly hope this matter will be thoroughly investigated and that speedy action will be taken on it by the present government.
That is all I am going to say now. There are many other things I would like to speak on but there will be opportunity to do so as the session progresses. May I conclude by just saying that as an individual I am 100 per cent behind the amendment moved by my leader. It is an amendment of principle. By this amendment we hope to draw to the attention of the government that as much as we welcome the progressive measures they have in mind we feel it imperative for the security of Canada and the prosperity of its people that they should broaden their vision and lay down policies which will be, not only a fulfilment of their campaign promises but will go a lot farther and lay an economic, a philosophic and a parliamentary basis for a real prosperity guaranteed to all Canadians for all time.


Mr. R. M. T. McDonald (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a privilege to rise in my place in this house for the first time. It is an honour because I stand here with men of the calibre of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent), the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). It was indeed a great thrill for me to have been elected on June 10 and I hope I can convey to this house the fact that I intend to represent the people of Hamilton South in no small measure. I think it is the duty of a parliamentarian to represent his people. In the past few days I have heard more speeches on history, on religion and on other things than I have ever heard before. I have learned more about the political history of Canada in five days than I have heard of constructive criticism of the speech from the throne.
I am not so naive as to pit myself against such experienced veterans as the former minister of agriculture, but I do recall reading that it was the hydro electric system of Ontario and New York state which prodded the Liberal regime to immediate development of the St. Lawrence seaway.
I should like to take this opportunity to commend my room mate, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith), on the wonderful speech he made in moving the address
272	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. R. M. T. McDonald in reply to the speech from the throne, and with a little practice I hope that I may be able to give the same type of oration as he gave.
As a young man looking forward to a great future in Canada I want my children to have all the benefits of the resources and of all the facilities available. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) took a great deal of pride in telling this house about the wonderful immigration policies of the Liberal party. I believe that in the next 25 to 35 years Canada should have a very large population to cope with the economic developments of this country. We should have an immigration policy based on that fact, and we should tell the people in the countries of Europe and in Great Britain that it is not a picnic over here; that this is a place where they must strive to make their living.
I come from Hamilton South where we have a great cross section of peoples from all over the world, Scots, Irish, English; from Italy, Yugoslavia, Serbia and from all over western and central Europe; with language difficulties, which we have heard talked about here, far surpassing the difficulties between the French and the English. They come from countries operating under the suppression of Russian dictatorial masters. I hope that we can have more constructive criticism in this house than that which was put forth by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). I am not trying to criticize in any way the manner in which he put forth his suggestions, but I believe and hope that everyone here has high ideals and a high regard for this House of Commons which holds the traditions and the heritage of the Canadian people.
As a young man watching the course of Canadian politics, whether it be Liberal or Conservative, I do not want to see or hear ever again-and I am not saying this in a very jovial kind of way-the petty and stupid politics played by any member in this house, whether he be on our side or on the other side, with regard to religion or classes. Where can a young man turn for another example than to the senior members of this house. I hope that we shall all do our duty to the best of our ability.
The riding of Hamilton South consists of a population which is half residential and the other half industrial, with innumerable small businesses, along with large steel companies, rubber corporations, textile mills and the house-building industry. They are looking for a new deal and I think they are going to get it.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate you and the Deputy Speaker on your high appointments. I feel sure that you are both fine and honourable men and will conduct the affairs of the house in keeping with the British parliamentary system. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on his selection of the two members who moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think they both did well although I do not think they can expect me to agree with them fully. Nevertheless they expressed their views and their views, taken with the views of all other members of the house, go to help to create good government for the people of Canada.
I listened with great interest to the speaker who has just taken his seat. I do not want to deal today with anything mentioned in the speech from the throne. I want to take up the effect the operation of the St. Lawrence seaway may have upon our district, particularly the Welland canal district, Hamilton and Toronto. The hon. member said that he is free to bring up matters in caucus and I would be very glad to have him raise this one there.
The St. Lawrence seaway authority and its counterpart in the United States have held hearings in preparation for an agreement for the imposition of tolls on vessels and cargos that will be using the St. Lawrence seaway when completed and the Welland ship canal.

The Address-Mr. McMillan
Many will argue that the users should pay for the canal in full. As the member for Welland I would agree to this proposition if there was any economy added to the operation of our plants by virtue of deepening the Welland canal. On account of an unfair toll system being applied I do not want to see any plants closed down or their operations curtailed. This would mean unemployment. If the price of skelp, for instance, from the Steel Company of Canada at Hamilton should be increased until it is too high in price to the tube mills in Welland it could be that the United States would supply more of our Canadian pipe requirements and thus cause unemployment in the tube mills as well as in the steel mill at Hamilton.
In any case I think the Welland canal should not be put in the same category as the St. Lawrence seaway itself. The Canadian government did not impose tolls after rebuilding and enlarging it. The canal was conceived in order to have a more closely knit Canadian economy. The maritimes now ship paper and some other products through the Welland ship canal. The other day in Hamilton, according to the press, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) said that Nova Scotia coal would compete with United States coal and be used in Hamilton. I sincerely hope that he is right. I wonder, however, if when he made that statement he gave consideration to the fact that Pennsylvania coal could be railed to nearby Rochester and shipped to all Canadian ports on lake Ontario, including Hamilton, without paying any toll whatsoever.
There are so many problems in connection with the application of tolls that I feel that this government will have to be extremely careful in setting up toll charges that they do not dislocate any part of our economy and make ourselves even less of a factor in the processing of our own raw materials.
The one big danger of setting tolls too high is that the seaway canal system might price itself out of the market against competitive carrier systems in eastern United States so far as our iron ore from Seven Islands and Labrador is concerned. As Canadians we would not be concerned if tolls were free and this ore went by another route because then we would have fewer local problems with canal traffic. However, if this happened with the proposed system- that is the system of tollage that we are about to set up-we would fail to collect canal tollage on a good or major part of our own iron ore destined for United States steel centres. In my opinion our ore should help to pay for the canals. If it does not assume a large share of canal costs, then our wheat,

our pulpwood and other commodities will have to pay more per ton to go through the canals in order to meet the yearly amortization costs.
As a private member I should like to make some suggestions for the consideration of this government. I suggest that tolls be delayed until the larger seaway tonnages are established, and I do not think the seaway tonnages can be established until the deepening of the upper lake channel starting at the Detroit river and all the way up to lake Superior is completed. At least they cannot be established fully.
My second suggestion is that consideration be given to plants already established on our great lakes system whose raw or finished products or both are caught in the tollage areas. Few United States plants are so unfavourably situated; and if they are, they have competitive routes, since the cost of the deepening of the Detroit, the St. Clair and the St. Mary's rivers is not to be charged directly against shipping. I also suggest that in the transition period smaller canal freighters be given special consideration until an opportunity is given for the building of larger freighters and that consideration be continued to be given to the smaller freighters because of the difficulty or impossibility of using larger ones at the source of raw materials.
The amortization costs are made up of the cost of the seaway plus interest plus operational charges. This will amount to a large sum of money every year. It is my honest opinion, having in mind the increased cost of the seaway over the estimated cost, that shipping cannot stand this in full. For instance, there are about 23 million tons going through the seaway. It would take $28 million or close to that figure to pay those charges. That would be well over a dollar a ton. Of course I realize that the shipping through this canal will greatly increase and thus will bring down these charges. On the other hand, I do not think anyone knows what is the physical capacity of the Welland and the seaway canals.
As one measure of relief why should not the governments themselves operate and maintain the canals as our government has done for the last 50 years? If our government does not continue to assume this obligation it will be saving a good deal of money over what is now being spent on the canals.
One good argument in favour of both governments assuming some of the costs of these canals is that it was argued here in this House and in the United States that these canals were required for the defence of both our countries and certainly that would have very little to do with shipping.

One last suggestion is that the Welland canal should continue with the charges as now paid for the passage of ships. After all its deepening will cost only about one-twelfth of the cost of the deepening of the upper lake channels. I realize that as canal traffic increases certainly the per-ton costs will come down. I hope that rates will be worked out to agree with the terms laid down by the United States congress in which they said the rates should be fair and equitable and give due consideration to the encouragement of an increased utilization of navigational facilities.
Now the other day the hon. Minister of Transport was shown over the Welland canal by the St. Lawrence seaway authorities and my good friend the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Smith) and I were asked by the minister's office here in Ottawa to join the party.
I do not think there is anything controversial in this as the minister is not here. The officials drove the minister so fast through the area that we who were riding in other cars had no opportunity to show him some of our local problems in that area, and certainly we have some problems. We have the need of overpasses or underpasses in two or three areas on the canal and we have that old problem, the old Welland canal cleanup. There is a good deal of congestion of traffic on the highway in the Niagara peninsula crossing the Welland canal and this traffic is particularly bad in Welland, Port Colborne and on the Homer bridge on the Queen Elizabeth way near St. Catharines. The mayor of Welland was here in Ottawa and he saw the former minister of transport who directed him to take his problems to the minister of highways of Ontario, promising that if that minister would make some recommendations regarding the crossing of the canal at Welland he would be glad to recommend financial assistance from this government in Ottawa. That was before the election. I know the minister of highways for Ontario was approached and I was sorry to learn in the question period last Friday, October 18, that he had not yet approached the new Minister of Transport with regard to this matter.
It is rumoured that as soon as the St. Lawrence and the Welland canals are completed their operation will be handed over to the St. Lawrence seaway authority. In the past the canals have been run very efficiently under all governments, either under the Department of Transport or the department of railways and canals. The canals have been staffed very efficiently with men who have the know-how. To turn the operation of these canals over to an authority
The Address-Mr. Olson which would not have the same or as direct responsibility to parliament would, in my mind, be very unwise.
I would just like to make one reference to another point. When I was home last weekend I heard a good deal of talk about unemployment. I met some heads of industry who claimed that they were getting no economic directives from this government. Now I think we all remember that early in the session the former minister of trade and commerce always gave the house and the country his idea of our economic outlook. On the change of government, with the talk of free trade with Britain and so forth, I think it is up to the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) to get up and tell this house what the country, industry and the people should expect. Some heads of industry are losing confidence in this government, in fact I may say some heads of industry who supported this government are now losing confidence in it. The wholesalers are not building up inventories and I think this tends to cause unemployment.
I listened to the Minister of Trade and Commerce during a television interview when he was in London speaking about the sale of wheat. As far as I can remember he said the sale of wheat was a long-term view. I think I am right in repeating his words. Also he said he had seen the bankers, the buyers and the bakers. In my view he might just as well have seen the butchers and the candlestick makers, because he did not seem to sell any wheat while he was in Britain. A day or two after that I saw a dispatch from London to the effect that England had bought a large shipment of wheat from the United States. I do think the people of Canada deserve to have an economic report on our prospects of trade at this time.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise in my place for the first time in this house it is with all humility that I deliver this reply to Her Majesty's speech from the throne. Before I start I would like to tell you that I have just come through a bout of flu and still have a persistent cough which is troubling me. So if I am interrupted by this cough I ask you to forgive me. I do not intend to use all of the time allotted to me because I do not believe my voice will carry me that far and of course there will be many things which I would like to discuss but, for this reason, I cannot do so.
First, and again in all humility and seriousness, allow me to congratulate the Speaker on his election to the high and exacting position as Speaker of this house. I should like also to congratulate the senior members of our Social Credit group and particularly our

The Address-Mr. Olson leader for their achievements in returning a colleague to every seat occupied by our party prior to the last election.
While it may not be customary, but because I like to give credit where credit is due, allow me to congratulate the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) for the success of his party on June 10th, which I believe is largely due to his own personal effort.
Mr. Speaker, the experience I have had and the events I have witnessed here in Ottawa during the past few days are ones I shall never forget, and I would like to express my appreciation to the electors of the Medicine Hat and surrounding districts for having seen fit to send me as their representative to these history making events. My respect, my admiration and my loyalty are on an even higher plane, if that is possible, for Her Majesty and His Royal Highness now that I have come in closer contact with them. May I also extend my sincere congratulations to the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) and the seconder (Mr. Arsenault) of the reply to the speech from the throne and to the Prime Minister for his choice.
As you will all know, I can deeply appreciate the words of the hon. member for Calgary South when he spoke of the terror and the subsequent reduction to straight fear in the hearts of new members when they are in the position in which I now find myself. I beg to advise the house that if he was gripped with these emotions then I am even more their victim not having behind me the valued and distinguished service in the provincial legislature it was his good fortune to have had.
It is also of particular interest to me that the Prime Minister has seen fit to recognize the ability of all his colleagues from Alberta, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness), now our Minister of Agriculture; the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who is parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence; and the hon. member for Calgary South to whom was given the honour of moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I congratulate all of them.
Since Tuesday October 15, when the Prime Minister announced that the governor in council had established a royal commission to enquire into and make recommendations concerning energy and sources of energy, it has been difficult for me to believe that this commission could do the best job possible without a representative from the province of Alberta when we know that a large percentage of the known sources of energy such as natural gas, coal and oil are found there. Many of Canada's important rivers rise in Alberta and I do not 
think it presumptuous to suggest that possibly many of the most efficient hydro sites may be located in that province where the elevation drops sharply to the east.
Perhaps I may refer again to the words of the hon. member for Calgary South when he informed this house of the fact that the Alberta government has already assessed its resources and as a consequence was able to develop policies for conservation-and I might add utilization-which have been in the interest of the people as a whole. I quite honestly believe that even though this information may be available, a representative of the people who prepared it could make an invaluable contribution to the commission.
We in Alberta are perhaps more interested in developing the sources of energy than in ascertaining where they are. In that regard I would like to read a part of an editorial taken from The Albertan of October 16, 1957:
So far as oil and gas are concerned, there's a mountain of evidence. The Alberta conservation board, more competent and more in tune with Alberta's interests than is the Diefenbaker royal commission, has conducted several formal investigations and keeps a constant watch on all phases of the industry.
Now all that will be explored again, and not only for oil and gas but for all energy sources, coal, hydro power, atomic energy and so on.
We aren't opposed to facts being ascertained, but we suspect the purpose of this move is to becloud facts, not uncover them, and the prime fact is the need for getting on with development of Alberta's oil and gas. A commission on how to reach additional markets might have been welcomed by this province, but not one that puts an extra barrier in the way.
I do not agree with all of the opinions expressed in the editorial but the reason I read it is that it is my sincere hope that the commission will not be a barrier to the development of those resources that are already known.
I am primarily interested in my own constituency and as it is customary for a new member to talk about his constituency let me first of all say that while many of the things I will talk about may possibly be familiar to the older members there may be some of the new members who are not as well informed as to the problems, conditions, etc. in southeast Alberta as indeed I am unfamiliar with many of the constituencies in other parts of Canada.
The constituency of Medicine Hat is a large prairie area consisting of some 365 townships and the people are chiefly engaged in agriculture, growing a wide variety of foodstuffs, cereals, sugar beets and many other crops suitable to dry land and irrigated farming, and in raising livestock. There is, however, a highly important industrial centre in the city of Medicine Hat and also at Redcliff and of

course there is a concentration of industrial workers there who man the plants. One of the most serious handicaps to these industries is the extremely high cost of transportation of their products to the markets and because of this I would urge the new government to give consideration to the adjustment of the unfavourable freight rates to and from Alberta. Of course the workers in these industrial areas have many problems that are peculiar to themselves but by and large their well-being is dependent on the well-being of agriculture in the west in general.
I would also like to point out at this time that in the city of Medicine Hat we have a need for a new federal building. At the present time the offices of the various departments of the federal government are scattered all across the city and some of them, I may say, are not even located in the downtown section. The post office is virtually bursting at the seams. I would ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) if he would seriously consider the erection of a building in the centre of the city to house all of the offices of the federal government under one roof.
One other thing in the city of Medicine Hat which is a concern of the federal government is the airport. At the present time the facilities at the Medicine Hat airport are such that many of the aircraft the air lines are using cannot touch down there. For example, only last month when the chamber of commerce of Edmonton was going to pay us a visit they arrived in a Viscount and were required to land at Suffield some 35 miles away. We would appreciate if the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) would consider enlarging our airport to accommodate this type of aircraft.
Turning back to agriculture now, Mr. Speaker, it is needless for me to say we are keenly interested in the proposal of advancing money to farmers for farm-stored grain. I will not dwell on the point which so many hon. members have ably discussed, that being the fact that the farmers are far more interested in selling their wheat and moving it into the hands and stomachs of hungry people all over the world than they are in receiving advance payments, subsidies or anything of that nature. Of course, as we do not know as yet all the details of the proposed machinery for advancing this money I will leave that for comment at a later date.
The farmers in my constituency wish to commend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) for his efforts in organizing trade delegations. We do not know as yet how much favourable effect this has had in building up markets for wheat
The Address-Mr. Olson but certainly we have something to sell and I believe some genuine salesmanship is necessary to move our wheat in this age of highly competitive international markets. I would also like to suggest that when they make up this trade delegation they put some professional salesmen on it.
There are one or two other things about cereals and cereal production which may not have received proper consideration. I have read press reports in which prominent men have indicated that the major contributing factor leading up to the present surplus of cereals is the series of big crops due to abnormal weather. There have also been suggestions that a return to normal would relieve the situation. Certainly I will have to agree with part of this opinion. However, this year, 1957, has pointed up one thing that many farmers have been coming to believe and I feel that we may as well be realistic and recognize the fact that today we can and do produce far larger yields, given the same amount of precipitation during the growing season, than we could 10 to 15 years ago.
This, of course, has been brought about by several things, more know-how, new and better methods, new and better equipment, particularly in moisture conservation from one year to the next. There are other things, too, such as new varieties of grain and many other factors. This year, for example, 15 to 20 bushel crops of wheat were not uncommon where there was but one to two inches of rainfall during the growing season. This, of course, would have been impossible 15 years ago. The significance of this development is that I now believe the dry land areas in western Canada can produce all of the domestic and export market requirements of cereal grains in the immediate future; indeed, until there is some plan put into operation whereby we can share our production with those parts of the world that cannot produce enough for themselves.
The cost of production of crops, particularly cereals, which are adapted to dry-land farming is substantially lower than on irrigated land. For this reason I think that when there are suggestions to build new irrigation projects and bring more land under the ditch there must also be serious consideration given to what the people farming this land will try to grow. The farmers in my constituency who are trying to grow dry-land crops on irrigated acres in competition with the lower cost operation of dry-land farming are the ones who are now in the most serious difficulty.
We certainly do not take the dog-in-the-manger attitude towards new development

The Address-Mr. Olson
of irrigation projects because we already have these projects in operation. We do not object to hydro development, but-and I emphasize this-two or more farmers in serious economic difficulty is a worse situation than one who is doing fairly well farming the same land.
Unless and until we can set up ways of marketing or distributing the products particularly adapted to irrigated farming, and until the acres now under the ditch are being utilized, I think we should proceed with caution with any new projects. To this end, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the new government that they seriously consider giving assistance to establishing this distributing machinery.
We know that southern Alberta now has acreage under irrigation with the capacity to produce thousands of tons of specialized crops and we also know that there are thousands of tons of products being imported from the United States, which could be grown in south Alberta, especially vegetable crops. I have several briefs prepared by an official of the provincial government and various chambers of commerce to substantiate these statements.
In viewing the whole picture of irrigation, it becomes apparent that we already have the potential productive capacity and also the markets, but there is a link missing, that of processing and distributing. The farmers cannot start growing certain crops until there is a plant to process them, and it is difficult to interest anyone in building the plants until the crops are being grown. Now I am not suggesting that the government should get into the business of processing and distributing vegetables; but I do believe they should underwrite the financing of these plants, preferably producer co-operative efforts.
The speech from the throne indicates that there will be increases in old age and other pensions. This I wholeheartedly endorse. I only hope they are large enough to compensate for the increased cost of living during the last number of years.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the members of this house have been very kind and considerate to me as a new member and before sitting down I would like to make one or two observations on the debates thus far in the house. Many references have been made to what certain hon. members of the government, particularly cabinet ministers, said in the past sessions prior to the last election. This appears to me to be a kind of negative criticism which I do not believe the Canadian people will approve of. On the other hand,

some of the hon. members on the government side apparently have a chip on their shoulders, and have taken the attitude of daring the opposition parties to defeat them. They apparently feel the tide is running in favour of the Conservative party. They may do well to bear in mind what the electors did to the Liberal party last June which was contrary to all predictions.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people have sent a group of minority parties here to administer their affairs. They are looking for a high degree of statesmanship rather than political manoeuvring. Anyone, and I care not from which side of the house he comes, who attempts to manoeuvre for political advantage only, who obstructs solely to obstruct, who criticizes without a constructive thought, will have to answer to the people, and I am sure that these members will be severely rebuked by the electors.
If members of the government do not mind I would like to offer a suggestion. There is a far more effective way to deal with some of the front-benchers of the official opposition while they are jockeying for position in the race for leadership of the Liberal party and that suggestion, sir, is to kill them with kindness.


Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate you and the Deputy Speaker on the high position that you now grace in Canada's 23rd parliament. To the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) and the seconder (Mr. Arsenault) I would just like to say a heartfelt "well done". I am quite sure that the constituencies of Calgary South and Bonaventure will be very proud of you. I think your ability in the house, your dignity and fluency will make a great contribution to this chamber and to Canada.
A great deal of verbal sparring has been going on in parliament, Mr. Speaker, since we convened about a fortnight ago, and I think this is as it should be. Parliament is a place for talk; it is a place for airing opinions, but I am not going to contribute to that verbal sparring today because I find myself in a singularly benign mood.
One reason for this is the throne speech which promises to bring about so many of those things that should have been brought about long before this. Ever since coming into the House of Commons I have worked for and raised my voice on behalf of those senior citizens in my constituency of York-Humber who have been trying to live on their old age pensions. They are a gallant, uncomplaining group of people and they have made no small contribution to the progress and prosperity of Canada today.

Rising costs of living have visited very real hardship upon these pensioners, in fact, upon all pensioners, and I do commend the government for its promise to improve the lot of the senior citizens in our community and for the promise of increased payments under the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act.
I also find myself in a happy frame of mind over the government's promise to shorten the qualifying period of residence for old age pensioners. As has been said in the house many times, to set 20 years arbitrarily as the necessary period of residence before receiving the old age pension is, it seems to me, to establish a second-class citizenship. If a man or woman meets the qualifications to become a citizen of Canada, then surely the benefits that we are able to bestow upon Canadians are theirs by right long before two decades.
Finally, there was that tantalizing little sentence in the throne speech, "Changes in certain of the taxing statutes will be submitted for your approval." I do not know just what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has in mind but I should like to say this. In Canada today there are more than 2J million persons earning less than $4,000 a year, or about 77 per cent of the taxpayers. They are the people who need and deserve some relief from taxation because as it is with pensioners on fixed incomes so it is with the lower income bracket Canadian. The increased cost of living has played havoc with his budget. Again I am speaking on behalf of a good many of my constituents in York-Humber which is a suburban riding and full of young people just starting out on their careers. They are finding the taxation burden very heavy indeed.
These are some of the things in the throne speech that have contributed to my benign mood these days. Now I come to something less tangible but equally important. This something has filled my heart and mind with a profound gratefulness for Canada and for being a Canadian. This summer I went on a sort of busman's holiday which took me behind the iron curtain into Russia. I call it a busman's holiday because I did not go in any official or even professional capacity. I was not invited to go. I simply went on my own as a tourist because I wanted to see with my own eyes that puzzling and menacing country on the other side of the iron curtain.
I went, I saw and I came home thanking God for this beautiful land of freedom, for our parliamentary system where the people choose their government and we who are given the honour to serve in parliament
The Address-Miss Aitken answer to the people, not, Mr. Speaker, to a power-hungry group of 15 people in an ivory tower called the kremlin.
Last year we of the Conservative party put up a strong fight for what we believed were the rights of parliament. We believed that parliament was being gagged by closure. We could not and did not win that good fight because there was a large parliamentary majority against us. But, Mr. Speaker, under our system of government it is not in the end parliamentary majorities that decide great or small issues, it is the people. This could not happen in Russia or in any communist country.
In the throne speech Her Majesty spoke of our parliamentary government as having been fashioned by the wisdom of many centuries. Russia's system is founded on fear. Some years ago the Right Hon. Sir Winston Churchill described our parliamentary system in his own inimitable way when he said:
By trial and error and perseverance through the centuries, we have found a very good plan.
During the past fortnight we have seen how that very good plan works in response to the voice of the people. The other day the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke of the ease and smoothness with which this change of government was accomplished. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) referred to it also when he said that it illustrated the concept of true democracy.
My sortie behind the iron curtain, Mr. Speaker, has given me an even greater appreciation of this concept of true democracy. When the people choose to elect a new government former leaders are not purged or banished to Outer Mongolia. Fear does not burn deep into the hearts and minds of those who did the opposing. In our very good plan we move with ease and smoothness to fulfil the wishes of the people. The former opposition becomes Her Majesty's government and the former government becomes Her Majesty's loyal opposition.
I am not going to hold forth on my trip to the U.S.S.R. except to say that in that country behind the iron curtain there are none of the freedoms that we cherish. There is no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom of privacy. I think one of the things that shocked me most in Russia was the dreadful overcrowding in housing. There is no freedom of choice. Certainly there is freedom to work. Everybody works, men and women, but they have no choice of a job. A job is allocated to them. There is no freedom of movement. Even within Russia itself the people cannot travel at will. As the Russians have told us. and it is true, there is freedom of religion, but religion is

The Address-Mr. Robichaud not a menace any longer to communism because in 30 years religion has been wiped out in Russia. Today all the young adults in that country are declared atheists.
Communism reduces people and living to the lowest denominator. It is absolutely incomprehensible to me how any Canadian with any spiritual values whatsoever can look with favour upon or even tolerate communism. It is incomprehensible to me how any Canadian labour union can allow communist domination within its ranks. Russian labour has none of the hard-won rights to bargain, to strike, to negotiate for higher pay and shorter hours, such as Canadian labour has.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say these few words, and in conclusion I say to every member in this house, let us guard well the very good plan that our forefathers have evolved through the centuries by trial, error and perseverance.
(Translation):


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Deputy Speaker, before proceeding with my remarks on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I should like to join with those who preceded me in this debate in offering you my most sincere congratulations on having been elected to the chairmanship of the committees of this house.
And through you, also, I would like to offer my most sincere and heartfelt congratulations to Mr. Speaker on his appointment. I am sure that he will at all times uphold the finest traditions of democracy and of the British parliamentary system.
I would also like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply, who have both acquitted themselves of their task, in a masterful way, a fact which reflects credit on their respective constituencies.
I would deserve censure, Mr. Speaker, if I were not to recall briefly the memorable moments we have all lived through during the solemn ceremonies which took place on the opening of this session. Through her presence, Her Majesty has most assuredly imparted to the opening ceremonies a character as yet unique in all Canadian history.
As a result, the colourful ceremonial and ritual observed on the opening of a new session of parliament will become better known and better appreciated. As for those of us who are of French-Canadian or Acadian descent, that is of French origin, we have been deeply moved by the words spoken by Her Majesty in our native tongue.
True, Her Majesty had a right to expect the Canadian people to express their feelings towards her as they did, but we must also

recognize that the grace, charm and ease with which Her Majesty the Queen addressed us in the two official languages of this country should be such as to provoke some soulsearching on the part of those sitting on the other side of this house who unfortunately are far too prone to neglect those principles of national unity so essential to the progress and advancement of the Canadian nation.
(Text):
In the few minutes at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal briefly with the contents of the speech from the throne. If we are to judge from certain press reports the present government, perhaps I should say the members of the present government, are very sensitive to criticism. For instance, in the Globe and Mail of Saturday, October 19, we read the following:
Conservative members in and out of Commons are talking about the possibility of a snap election unless cutting attacks which have been followed by the all-but-unanimous vote in favour of the government are toned down.
Here we are in the House of Commons, facing a government which pretends to be not quite immune to attack and criticism. I am not at all surprised at the Prime Minister's (Mr. Diefenbaker) announcement that a bill will be introduced at this session to abolish closure, a measure which is so commonly used in the British parliament. Is it possible that the present government, not satisfied with the criticism offered by Her Majesty's official opposition and not being in a position to apply this parliamentary procedure which is so essential to the protection of the will of the majority will counter-attack by saying, "If you do not stop or cut down your attacks we will dissolve parliament and call an immediate election." What a situation to exist in a progressive country like Canada, a country which so proudly pretends to be an example of freedom and democracy.
Mr. Speaker, as long as I am sitting in this chamber as a member of parliament I have a duty to my constituents to defend their rights and interests. It is not my intention to follow the practice of certain opposition members in the last parliament and call cabinet ministers by unparliamentary names, or to act in such an unparliamentary manner that it could result in Mr. Speaker failing to recognize me when I am asking for the floor. I do not intend to do this, Mr. Speaker, even if those unparliamentary practices of certain members met with the approval of the Prime Minister when he was acting as leader of the official opposition. It is my intention to offer constructive criticism as I feel that is the duty of the official opposition in this house.

The announcement made by the Prime Minister, as reported in the Telegraph-Journal of Friday, September 27, that Ottawa was ready to spend $3.5 million on a major harbour development at Bathurst, in my constituency, was received with great satisfaction by the entire population of Gloucester county. It is true that the project has been approved, conditional upon the New Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation Limited going ahead with plans for a further $20 million development of its property in this area. I should like to point out, however, that a decision of this kind is not taken even three or four months after a new government has taken office. A decision of this kind is too important, even for the present government, to take quickly and decisively without study. The engineers of the Department of Public Works had been carrying on experiments for the last two years to determine the possibility of such a major project. No later than April 16 last the then minister of public works, the Hon. Robert Winters, the manager of the mining company and myself visited the site of the proposed project and thoroughly discussed the possibility.
I want to commend the Prime Minister and his Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) upon their decision to proceed with this development as soon as the mining company is prepared to go ahead with its own plans for expansion. I would remind the Minister of Public Works, however, that the announcement made no mention of the public wharf to be built on the south side of the company's main wharf. The need for a suitable wharf to provide adequate shipping facilities for our local industries is urgent in the Bathurst area. I sincerely hope that this request will be recognized and that the department will undertake this major project.
On Wednesday, October 16, I asked the Minister of Public Works the following question, as reported on page 36 of Hansard for that date:
Can the minister advise this house whether he has received a copy of a resolution dealing with low cost housing passed by the National Retail Lumbermen's Council of Canada at their eleventh annual meeting held at Clear Lake, Manitoba, in September of this year; and if so, what action if any has the government taken to implement the recommendations contained therein?
In his reply the minister stated that he would have to ask his department to see whether he had a copy of these recommendations. I am sure that the resolution of the National Retail Lumbermen's Council referred to in my question was of such importance to the general economy of this country, and even more so to the lumber industry, that the minister should have been
The Address-Mr. Robichaud
in a position to refresh his memory and state at once what measures, if any, had been taken by his department to implement it. I should like at this point to place on the records of the house the contents of this resolution passed by the National Retail Lumbermen's Council of Canada at their eleventh annual meeting at Clear Lake, Manitoba, on September 11, 1957:
Whereas it is recognized the low but stable income group of Canadians are increasingly dependent on their own manual efforts and private financing to provide low cost houses.
And whereas they represent a very large portion of our population.
And whereas there is a reluctance on the part of lending institutions and on the part of these citizens to assume a contract under National Housing Act regulations.
And whereas many are being forced to assume obligations beyond their means to obtain accommodation commensurate with their needs and locality.
And whereas the government should foster and assist the Canadian tradition of home ownership.
And whereas statistics indicate there is a decreasing number of people in low and middle income brackets building under present regulations.
And whereas our forefathers through their individual initiative built Canada as their funds and labour permitted.
Therefore be it resolved that the government give consideration to legislation that would permit this important group of our citizens to enjoy, in proportion to their means, the borrowing privileges now available to those in the higher income group by the following:
1.	Down payment to be considered on the basis of lot and/or foundations and owner labour.
2.	Amount of mortgage to be determined by the bare minimum living standards required by the borrower, all such building as may be done to conform to a recognized standard.
3.	Home to be completed as owners' funds permit with inspection and valuation carried out through present Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation inspectors, Veterans Land Act inspectors, mortgage and loan company inspectors, municipal building inspectors or other qualified inspectors.
4.	This would be applicable to approved serviced or unserviced rural land.
We all heard the reply given in this house on October 16 by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) to a question asked by my colleague the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) and dealing with the unemployment situation in New Brunswick. One of the main causes of this approximately 100 per cent increase in the number of persons registered as unemployed in New Brunswick today, as compared with the same date last year, is the unhealthy and uncertain position of our lumber and pulp and paper industries. The average home built under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is too expensive for the majority of the average prospective home owners in Gloucester county and in many other areas of New Brunswick. A large number of families in the $50 per week bracket have been unable to build new homes which although not

The Address-Mr. Robichaud entirely up to the present Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation standards would be adequate and suitable having regard to the needs of the area without creating the possibility of additional slums which we all agree should not be incurred.
I am informed that the National Retail Lumbermen's Council has taken on its own the responsibility of building a model house which would meet the minimum standards required by this particular class of borrowers and I strongly urge the minister concerned to recommend its acceptance by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Such a move involving loans of less than $4,000 or $5,000 would stimulate home construction in many sections of the country and would give new stimulus to our seriously affected lumber industry.
One of the major problems also facing the lumber industry in the Atlantic provinces is the greatly increased cost of transportation. It would appear desirable for a manufacturer in the lumber field to have his processing plant as close as possible to the source of production or to his raw material. However, this becomes rather impractical mainly on account of heavy competition and the high cost of modern plants required to meet this competition which exists in the lumber industry as well as in other similar enterprises.
In the lumber industry, for example, it is only logical that the raw material required, which in this case is green lumber, usually sawn near the cutting area, be transported from its source of origin to the drying and planing mill. There exists, as we all know, a great difference between the weight of rough product and that of the dressed product, as well as the weight between green and air-dried lumber.
Prior to the year 1951 there existed a milling in transit privilege allowing a lumber manufacturer to bring in his lumber by rail from any point in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia on a basis of reduced rates under tariff No. CF.220-2. This privilege allowed the shipment of rough lumber from points of origin on a special rate and after having been piled up in the manufacturer's yards, sometimes up to a period of two years, at which time he would get the throughrate from point of origin to ultimate destination of his finished product in effect at the time of original shipment along with refund of incoming freight, less shrinkage and stop-off.
This privilege was abolished in 1951 when the Canadian National Railways cancelled tariff CF.220-2 and replaced it by a local rate tariff known as CF.299, thus increasing the
[Mr. Robichaud. 1


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, when the house arose at six o'clock I had just completed the few remarks I intended to make at this time concerning the fishing industry. However before resuming my seat I would suggest that the Minister of Fisheries take a serious look at this alarming situation which is so obvious even to the fishermen of his own province where the price of 2J cents is paid for cod landed at Souris compared with a price of 31 cents at Halifax and Lunenburg.
During the last four years the Department of Public Works has co-operated in improving landing and harbour facilities in various fishing communities in my constituency. However in two important fishing centres the facilities are still inadequate and the fishermen have to curtail or limit their operations


due to lack of proper landing facilities. The proposed extension to the Blue Cove wharf should be proceeded with without delay in order to provide these fishermen with adequate wharf space and shelter for their 35 fishing boats. The total revenue of the fish landed at Blue Cove wharf during the last two seasons I am convinced was sufficient to meet the requirements of the economic branch of the Department of Public Works and there is no reason whatsoever why this project should be delayed any further.
A similar situation exists at Maisonnette and if the department is not prepared to proceed at once with the wharf extension at this particular locality consideration should be given at least to recommending the dredging of the approach to the existing wharf in order that the Maisonnette fishermen may use this wharf to land their daily catch.
I would like now to mention another item which appears in the speech from the throne and relates to a matter which directly concerns the province of New Brunswick. The throne speech announced that we would be asked to provide assistance in financing the Beechwood project which has been under construction in New Brunswick. Before making any comments on this announcement I would prefer to wait until the measure is introduced to the house for consideration. I hope, however, that the assistance or financial aid to be provided for Beechwood will not interfere in any way with the program outlined in the last budget, providing for the entire financing by the federal government of the thermo plants in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia together with the integration of the power systems of these two provinces.
I also notice that the speech from the throne mentions that we will be asked to approve certain bills relating to certain railway branch lines. In a reply I received this morning from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) the house was told that no plans have been made to introduce during the present session a bill to authorize the construction of a spur line from the Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation ore deposits to the site of the proposed harbour development near Bathurst. An early start on this branch line would provide additional employment and would alleviate to some degree the critical labour situation presently existing in Gloucester county where the number of unemployed today is more than twice what it was at the same time last year.


Mr. Palleii:: It is a little lower than it was on June 1 last year.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am sorry, but I think the hon. member is misinformed and I could also tell him, Mr. Speaker, that the situation in

Restigouche-Madawaska is not as rosy as it was described this afternoon by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne).


An hon. Member:: Don't pay any attention to these members from upper Canada.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I realize, Mr. Speaker, it may be a good policy for the government to fulfil some of its election or pre-election promises but I do not hesitate to state that our industries are more concerned about maintaining their operations and in giving employment to their employees than in having to curtail their production and face a three or four-day week operation with a percentage of their regular employees out of work.
Social security measures have their good points. I understand perfectly the needs of the aged, the disabled and the blind; but there is also an economic heresy which goes something like this: "The state can give without taking in with one hand what it hands out with the other." We all know, Mr. Speaker, that the truth really is that the state is not a source of wealth. The individuals produce and what is given out by the state originates from this source of production. Public funds are provided from taxes whether through direct or indirect taxation and taxes originate from the sweat of the brow of the man who works.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate as a newly elected member I understand there are certain courtesies which are accorded new members in that others do not interject, intervene or make any comments. I also understand that one is not generally supposed to be too harsh in his initial remarks with respect to government policy and so on. As far as I am concerned, if any hon. members feel they need to interject or offer some comments during the course of my remarks I hope they will feel free to do so.
I would like to offer my congratulations to you, sir, as other hon. members have done, in the election to the post you now hold, and also extend my congratulations to the other presiding officers of this house. I am personally very partial to the system of having what is known as a permanent speaker and I hope-and I am sure in my own mind- that your activities and interpretation of the rules of the house and your application of them will result in your being Speaker, not only for this parliament but for many parliaments to come regardless of which party might sit on your right side as the government.
However, I do not think we could quite properly apply the system which is in effect
The Address-Mr. Howard in the United Kingdom to the post you hold here in Canada. I am of the opinion that the general public enjoy having a member in this house who is vocal, one who is ready, willing and able, as the saying goes, to present the problems of his constituents, to speak in debate on the various matters afEecting people all across the nation even though they may not reside within his particular constituency. Having thought about this matter I offer as a suggestion the idea that we might approach the question of having a permanent Speaker in Canada, not along the lines of having his seat uncontested during election time but of establishing this House of Commons as an additional constituency, the members of this chamber being his constituents and accordingly electing a Speaker at each new parliament. In that way each constituency in Canada would have a member in this house who is not restricted in his speech as Mr. Speaker normally is. I do not know whether this suggestion will meet with approval on the part of the government but I hope we can approach the question in that light.
I could spend considerable time discussing the beauties and glories of the constituency of Skeena, one of the largest in Canada, but I doubt whether we should take the time of this house on that sort of thing at this particular moment. However, I might say in passing that I have a large number of 35-millimetre size coloured slides of various scenic, industrial and human interest shots taken in the riding of Skeena and if you, Mr. Speaker, or any hon. members would be interested in seeing them at any time I would be more than pleased to show you in that way some of the natural beauty of the riding I have the privilege of representing. One of the main reasons I think it is the best riding in Canada-I am sure I will find many hon. members disagreeing with me on this- naturally is that it is contained within the best province of Canada and I am sure I will find less hon. members disagreeing with me on that point than on the other.
Seriously though, Mr. Speaker, the constituents in Skeena have many problems which are similar to those which have already been mentioned in this house by other hon. members from all across the nation. I think I will have an opportunity of presenting those problems and grievances in some other proceedings before this house and I would rather leave them until that particular time presents itself.
There are, however, a couple of matters with which I should like to deal and with which other members have dealt, relating to other parts of the country. So far I have

The Address-Mr. Howard enjoyed very much listening to other hon. members relating matters affecting their particular part of the country. I was particularly interested in the question of unemployment, with which I should like to deal to some extent, not only because it affects us particularly in northern British Columbia but because it affects people all across this nation.
The most interesting discussion I have heard so far, sir, relating to unemployment, are the proposals and the criticisms advanced by the hon. members who happen to sit in the official opposition. I have noticed also that they are attempting to pass themselves off at this time as champions of practically all causes in Canada, hoping thereby, of course, to curry some favours in various sections at the next election, whenever that might be held. But personally I do not look too kindly upon their attitude now with respect to unemployment, particularly in view of the callous attitude they had while they were in office with regard to the unemployed and industries closing and laying people off. I know the individual members certainly may be sincere in their desire to overcome this problem of people being unemployed and out of work and not having the wherewithal to provide the food, clothing and shelter necessary for themselves and their families. I wonder whether this is an approach that we can expect the general public of Canada to agree with, especially in as much as those hon. gentlemen belong to the Liberal party.
We hear, of course, that unemployment in Canada and in certain parts of it has become a problem only since June 10, or a little bit later on, probably when this government took office. For the benefit of the hon. members and others who might be interested and who will have an opportunity to look at these things, may I say there are a few figures that I should like to put on the record with respect to unemployment this year and last year. To do that I must go back to the first of the year when our friends the Liberals were in office * in this country. I will not bore the house with reciting facts and figures attempting to show the difference; I will merely relate to the house the percentage of one month over the other as it applied all across Canada during the early months of this particular year. Incidentally, these are unemployment insurance commission figures.
In January of this year we had a 12 per cent increase in unemployed workers in Canada over January, 1956. In February the situation was quite a bit better than that in that the figure was 10 per cent; but there 

the good picture ends. In March we see a difference of 11 per cent; April, 17 per cent; May, 32 per cent; June, the middle of the year when unemployment is supposed to be at its peak, the election month, we find a 40 per cent increase in unemployment this year over last year. I hope the citizens across the nation will take cognizance of these figures and will look at the record of the party that was in office at that time when these things existed.
The picture, as it relates to British Columbia-and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) also mentioned this today [DOT]-is as follows. British Columbia appears to be the hardest hit of any of the provinces in the nation today in regard to over-unemployment. We find a similar set of percentage figures. They are similar in that there are more unemployed every month this year than there were last year. The percentage figures are high and I should like to relate them to the house.
In January this year there was a 35 per cent increase in unemployment in British Columbia over the year before. In February the figure was 32 per cent; in March, 23 per cent; in April, 39 per cent; in May, 62 per cent; and in June, 48 per cent.
I do not want to go beyond these figures because these are the only official ones I could get to date from the Department of Labour; but from information given to this house by the Minister of Labour in reply to questions we can see the situation has not bettered itself in the last few months in that unemployment is steadily on the increase, with a much greater percentage in each month this year over the * same month last year.
If we look at individual communities we find substantially the same picture; therefore, it is not a localized question; it is not the result of some peculiarities of an industry, be it over-production, bad weather, or some other reason. It is a general nationwide problem and the Liberals must stand up and take the proper amount of blame that they should take for having been in office during the time that this sad thing was developing. My hon. friends opposite can pound their desks because they in turn should be subjected to the same sort of criticism. Actually they are no better than the other people were when it comes to this question. Both of the parties, the one representing the government and the other representing the official opposition-incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I enjoy that expression "official opposition"; it makes us in this corner feel just that much more sure of ourselves as being the real opposition in the

house-say that this is so; I am not telling you anything that they do not agree with themselves. They agree that our present capitalist system is the one which must carry on and the only one with which they will have anything to do. So long as both parties take that attitude, so long as they refuse anything in the nature of public direction, anything in the nature of public ownership of the proper means of production and distribution, so long shall we have unemployment along with it because they know as well as I do that industry will operate and will build up the productive means of their plants if it is profitable to do so. If it does not become profitable or things become a little bit difficult the next thing they will do is to cut back their production, lay off their employees and then unemployment develops. This is a cyclical thing and it happens time after time and has been going on continuously throughout the tenure of office of the last government. Unless this government changes its attitude and is willing to take these other factors into account and do something concrete and constructive about it they will have to suffer the consequences.
I see some hon. members over here wish to say something. I am sorry I cannot hear them and am not able to make the proper comment.


An hon. Member:: They	did not say
anything.


Frank Howard: Oh, they did not say anything. Well, quite seriously, Mr. Speaker, the question of the steadily increasing number of unemployed in Canada is the one thing facing not only the government but every hon. member in this house and to which we must all put our best effort in order to find a solution immediately, not next spring or next summer or at some other time but right now when the crisis is imminent. There is every indication that our army of unemployed will reach a figure of three-quarters of a million this coming winter and it would not surprise me one bit if this turned out to be so. There is every indication that we are heading in that direction.
But the situation of people being unemployed is not the only thing that is bad. Of course some people will say that these unemployed are able to get unemployment insurance; some of them are and that helps to tide them over somewhat. However, in my opinion there is one thing with regard to which we must take immediate action. I was very dismayed when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), in answer to a question the other day, replied that it was not the intention of 96698-19
The Address-Mr. Howard the government, because the present session was going to be a short one or something of that nature, to introduce amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is time that amendments were made to the Unemployment Insurance Act. If we are not going to take action now along concrete, economic lines to deal with the problem, then let us take action along the other line and assist the unemployment insurance commission in whatever way we can in order to make things a little bit easier.
If I am not mistaken the minister was a member of a house committee that dealt with the Unemployment Insurance Act a few years ago and made amendments to it. Therefore he is probably far more familiar with the matter to which I wish to refer than I am. There is a particular section of the Unemployment Insurance Act, section 45, subsection 2, that sets up the qualifications a person must meet before he is eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. One of those qualifications is that if a person has a previous benefit year, that is if he has applied for unemployment insurance before, then in the case of a subsequent claim he must have 24 weeks of benefit contributions to the fund in that 52-week period before he can qualify.
I am thinking specifically now of the lumber and logging industries of the west coast of British Columbia which have been in the doldrums for some time so far as employment is concerned. Under that particular section the result will be that this coming winter there are going to be many hundreds of loggers on the west coast of British Columbia who are not going to qualify under the 24-week contribution provision because they will not have had 24 weeks of employment throughout the year. Many of them are already unemployed.
From talking with the president of district council No. 1 of the international woodworkers of America, who keeps a very close watch on the situation in British Columbia and Alberta, I understand that there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4,000 loggers unemployed at the present time which is far in excess of the normal figure for this time of the year. These unemployed people are going to have a pretty difficult time this winter to try to qualify under that particular section of the act. I hope the minister and the government will reconsider the matter of introducing amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act at this fall session in order to help to alleviate the economic picture of these unemployed workers. I do not think it would take a great deal of study to draft an appropriate amendment or even to guess at what the effect would be on the unemployment insurance

The Address-Mr. Howard fund which stands at $800 million or $900 million at the moment. It would merely mean reducing the 24-week period to some smaller number of weeks, 20 or 18, and I am sure such a move would mean that a great many more loggers could qualify than is the case at the present time.
With respect to disqualification you may think I am talking about figures for the sake of talking, but from statistics compiled by the unemployment insurance commission I find that in the first six months of this year, January to June, 275,000 people who became unemployed and applied for unemployment insurance benefits were disqualified because they could not meet the benefit contribution qualification. The figure of 275,000 does not include people who quit their jobs or were fired or left for some reason for which they might legitimately be disqualified under the act, but people who could not meet the minimum benefit contribution requirement. There were 275,000 disqualified during the first six months of the year and the situation is not going to get better as time goes on.
I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a little booklet with the title "Labour" in black print. I do not know how many members have received one of these but I am sure most members on the government side will have had them. I only wish to refer to it briefly. It contains what I assume you would call the election promises of the Conservatives and it deals with quite a number of subjects. I am sure hon. members opposite are familiar with the booklet. They probably held it in their hands during the election campaign, waved it around and said, "This is what we will do." I do not know whether the numerical order in which these promises appear indicates the degree of importance placed upon them but I see that the first one is "maintain full employment and the highest possible standard of living". I agree with both of these proposals because I think they are sound and I think some attempt should be made to put them into effect. However, as I said, I doubt whether it is possible if the government is going to follow the present pattern of our society.
They deal with a number of items to improve the Unemployment Insurance Act. I would not be at all upset if out of the six items with various subheadings that appear in the booklet they would select the one relating to some form of economic assistance to unemployed people this coming winter and not leave these people to wander around, as the hon. member for Vancouver East said, and have to go to the community chest or


other organizations of that nature to get a hand-out to tide them over for a day or two and then have to wonder what is going to happen to them.
While we are on the question of employment and unemployment I should like to refer to the recent action of the government in releasing an additional $150 million from the consolidated revenue fund into the economy of the country for home building purposes. I understand that depletes the statutory limit of money which the government is able to transfer or give to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I certainly welcome this action. To some limited degree it will help people to buy their own homes and also stimulate employment in the case of those who build the homes and supply the raw materials that go into them.
I know the government is quite proud of its action in releasing that amount of money to the general public for the great purpose of building homes but I do not know whether they should be as proud as they are when there is additional action that can be taken with respect to unemployment and also stimulation of the lumber industry which finds itself in an upset condition in central Canada and it is also pretty sick in British Columbia. Not only can the government do something by way of stimulation in that regard but they can also take a concrete, definite forward step in helping people to own their own homes and in making provision for low rental housing units, slum clearance and things of that nature.
What happens to the $150 million the government has decided to release? A person who wants to borrow part of it has to go to one of the loan sharks and interest hounds operating our banking system and has to pay through the nose to them to get his own money, which he paid in taxes in the first place, in order to buy a home, and for which he has to pay the exorbitantly high rate of 6 per cent interest.
We are also paying fees to these banks out of the public treasury for administering the loans. We are paying money to the banks for lending money to people who paid it into the public treasury in the form of taxes. Now, a much more sensible way of doing it, and a much less costly way to the person who is building a home, would be for this government to take immediate steps to arrange for that money to be lent directly through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and not at the same interest rate that would be paid to a bank, 6 per cent, but at an interest rate that would be acceptable. Perhaps the interest rate could be sufficient merely to cover the cost of administering the

loan and the administration costs of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. As the situation is now with this 6 per cent interest rate or 5J or per cent, I do not care what it is, all we are doing is placing an additional burden on the person who wants to build a home. We can assist him immensely by cutting that interest rate in half. This will enable him to get a better home at less cost. This could be done in addition to all the other good things that can be done under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
At the outset I only wished to mention these two problems, one being unemployment as is evidenced by the amendment moved by the leader of the C.C.F. group. I think unemployment is the most important question facing the people across the country today. It is true that cash advances to farmers on farm-stored grain will be of great assistance to them, but that is something that is limited to a particular area of Canada. It is true that an increase in the payments to old age pensioners, as well as the recipients of other pensions, will help in so far as the inflationary problem is of concern to them. It will help them to get along a little better in life. However, I felt that unemployment was the one question that faced everybody, in all walks of life, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It is a problem about which our government has not indicated they are going to do anything except make this $150 million available, which is a mere drop in the bucket.
They have indicated also they have asked the national employment service to step up their program of finding jobs for people who become unemployed, but that is going to be rather difficult to do if there are no jobs available. Then mention was made of programming federal works so that more would be done during the winter. I mentioned this problem of unemployment because I thought it was so important. Housing is equally important and is connected with unemployment and with the economy of the lumber industry itself. I give you these two thoughts, and I want to thank you for your attention. I hope I shall have the opportunity later of participating in debates on specific matters relating to my constituency.


Mr. F. C. Stinson (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my first word is one of congratulation to you upon your election as Speaker of the house. I am one of those who, as a student-at-law, looked down on you from the gallery with respect and admiration when you were first elected to the legislature of Ontario, little thinking at that time the day would come when I would have the opportunity of addressing the representatives of the Canadian people through you as Speaker 96698-194
The Address-Mr. Stinson of the House of Commons. May I congratulate also the ministers of this government upon their appointments, and thank them and those members who have been here before for the many kind things they have done to assist those of us who are here for the first time.
The riding which I have the honour to represent is the second most populous electoral district in the nation, with a total population of 130,000 men, women and children and 75,000 electors. The constituency of York Centre lies immediately north of that much maligned, but nevertheless great city of Toronto. In fact many of our people journey south each day to their work in that city. York Centre has a character of its own. It is probably the best example in the country of that kind of community which has been called suburbia. Into the township of North York, most of which lies in York Centre, 100,000 people have moved during the past five years. Many thousands have settled in housing built under the provisions of the National Housing Act. The school-house has become the community centre, and during the five years in which I have had the privilege of serving the educational system as an elected representative, 35 new schools were constructed in the township of North York alone. As I drive through this riding on these fall weekends and talk to the members of these young families who are working so hard to maintain their homes and provide all they can for their children I am deeply conscious of the responsibilities I have as their representative in parliament.
While many immigrants have settled in York Centre, most of our young families have come from the city or the farm. We have representatives of every major ethnic group. I have the honour of representing many thousands of people of the Jewish community. In the past four years six new synagogues have been built in the riding and a new Jewish home and hospital for the aged, which is considered by qualified social workers to be the finest institution of its kind on the continent. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that a civilization may well be measured by the concern it shows for its elder citizens. In building a home for the aged and Baycrest hospital the Jewish people in metropolitan Toronto have shown not only concern but a high sense of responsibility to their community.
I should like also to express my esteem for the large numbers of people from Italy who have come to my riding in recent years. As businessmen and artisans they have had a share in the commercial and housing developments which have taken place in York Centre.

The Address-Mr. Stinson (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, may I just say a word, through you, to the hon. members here who speak French as their first language.
For five years I was associated with the educational system in my constituency as a member of the local board of education. Many of the teachers of French in our schools there had had the privilege of residing or carrying on studies at some time in the province of Quebec. Because of this experience, they were better teachers of the language and better qualified to introduce French literature to their English speaking students.
How much better it would be, however, if these people came from Quebec and spoke the French language as their native tongue. While legislation in the field of education is not a matter for this House of Commons, I think we would do well as individuals to promote an exchange of teachers of language between our two great provinces.
It seems to me also, that we would do well to encourage our young professional and business men in my province, to undertake part of their academic and professional training in the province of Quebec. Much is said these days about the need to persuade these young men to take a larger part in politics and business affairs. Yet how much better qualified they would be if they had a greater understanding of the laws and customs and language of French Canada.
It is a rare experience for the young English speaking members here to have the opportunity of serving our country in this house with our French speaking brothers. We can develop here a true fellowship, and this will help us in our task of bringing together the people whom we represent. Mr. Speaker, it lies in our hands to make the dream of Macdonald and Cartier come true. (Text):
May I now bring to the attention of the house certain matters which I believe to be of importance, not only to my constituents but to those of all other hon. members. The first of these is that I believe that our main responsibility is to see to it that our country makes its full contribution to the preservation of peace. Occupied as we are with the problems of these days, it is easy for us to forget that only 13 years ago tens of thousands of young Canadians were engaged in the utterly unproductive and wasteful activities of war and that many thousands lost their lives in the service of their country. It is our solemn obligation to make every

possible effort to ensure that that kind of thing will not happen again in our time.
I hope that our government will attract skilful and dedicated people to the cause of scientific research so that our country with its immense resources may be prepared to participate in a significant way in resisting an attack from the other side of the world.
It is even more important, Mr. Speaker, that we should accept a greater responsibility for assisting the under-developed countries of the world and for helping in the reestablishment of refugees. One cannot read the report of the United Nations high commissioner for refugees without thinking that this country has yet to make any real sacrifice to alleviate the distress of these homeless people.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to express the regard which I think is held by all the young members of our group for the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) each of whom has brought honour to Canada by service rendered to the world at the United Nations. It is impossible to calculate the effect of what they have done, but Canadians everywhere should be grateful to them.
I come now to the matter of dominion-provincial-municipal relationships in the field of taxation. In the riding of York Centre, the small home owner has reached the limit of his capacity to pay municipal taxes, and yet local councils are faced with the need to find more and more revenue with which to provide services not properly chargeable to owners of real property. Those who have been associated with these councils and boards of education have a great interest in the meetings of the dominion-provincial conference to be held here at the end of next month. So also do our constituents, especially those in these suburban communities where municipal taxation has become so severe.
Mr. Speaker, on taking my seat here the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Taylor) presented me with a statement made by Edmund Burke to the electors of Bristol in November, 1774. It is as follows:
It ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention.
It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interests to his own. Nevertheless, your representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgment, and he betrays instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
This statement, Mr. Speaker, is one which I intend to keep before me as a reminder of

my responsibilities here. These are important days for Canada, days of great opportunity for us who have been sent here to conduct the business of the country. To the members of this house and to the electors of York Centre I pledge my very best efforts as a member of this twenty-third parliament.
I shall vote in favour of the motion before this house.


Mr. Maurice Breton (Jolielle-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to join all of my colleagues in congratulating you on your election as Speaker of this house. Your reputation for courtesy and for grace of manner is such that we are sure you will carry out your duties with all the integrity and sense of fairness that we know are yours. I also offer my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker.
Some information was given to this house last Friday (October 18th 1957) by the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) on the question of simultaneous translation. As this information might mislead the house because it is incomplete or incorrect, may I say a few words on this subject.
To a question about the disposal of the simultaneous translation system used on the occasion of the universal postal union congress, the Postmaster General answered that the system was installed by the Department of National Defence which at all times retained ownership and possession of it. This declaration is contrary to that made by the postmaster general, Hon. Hugues Lapointe, in the last parliament whose words are recorded in the Hansard of March 7, 1957, page 1985, to the effect that the government was actually purchasing part of the equipment and that it would probably be taken up afterwards by the armed services who had been asked to provide for the installation. This answer was given in response to the demand of the member for Notre Dame de Grace.
Now when I asked the Postmaster General at what price we had disposed of the system, I believe I am right in saying that was the answer given. The Solicitor General gave another answer which is also incomplete or incorrect, to the effect that a special committee had been formed or would be formed to study the project of the installation of such a system in the House of Commons. In fact his answer was so confused that it is probably better to ignore it until the project is officially laid before this house.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the reason I raise this question is that for at least four or five years many French speaking members in this house have brought this matter before the commons
The Address-Mr. Breton and I am glad to say that last year we organized a committee which inquired of the members their reaction to such an installation and a great many of them, both French and English speaking, were very sympathetic to the idea. We felt sure, therefore, that the system would be installed, especially in view of the fact that on the occasion of the universal postal union congress the government had bought all the necessary equipment for such installation.
On September 17 I wrote a letter to the Postmaster General, a copy of which I sent to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes), and I received an answer explaining that the system was not entirely fit for immediate installation but that nothing of a technical nature interfered with the possibilities of such installation in this house.
I think the time is now ripe for such a reform in the House of Commons and I am sure this is the feeling of all the French speaking members. We believe that a transmitting system should be installed to give Frenchspeaking members a chance to take part in their own language in all debates. Last year I said to this house in words which I believed were polite but firm that we feel when we speak in French the members of this house are not interested. I do not think I will be disagreeable to my English speaking colleagues when I say that if the situation were reversed and they were in our position, with one-third of the house speaking English and two-thirds speaking French, the one-third would put up a strong case for simultaneous translation.
Now one day I heard a minister say that the members from the province of Quebec did not seem interested in the legislation of this country outside their own province. I admit that there seems to be some truth in that observation. However, I think one of the main reasons is the fact that the 75 members have to follow speeches in another language. In a democracy, under the system in which we believe and which we want to defend, with a parliament that we want to protect, I believe that we should have a system which allows everybody to speak in his own language and not be obliged to merely address the walls, the ceilings or the press. I think we are entitled to this opportunity. In making this statement I do not do so, I assure you, from a nationalistic point of view. It is made simply on the basis of a desire to preserve the democratic system which we all cherish.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that you will admit the time has come to instal a system,

The Address-Mr. Breton using the experience gained in other fields such as the United Nations and the various national and international conventions and congresses. Such a system is widely used in actual practice.
I might add that a simultaneous translating system would cost no more than our present amplifier system. The initial cost of putting in this present system was $33,529 and the annual cost for maintenance, operation and rental of the equipment is $27,500. The proposed scheme could hardly be turned down for reasons of economy. I would add that the system which we have in this house, and which is so expensive, is far from being perfect because many members complain that they have difficulty in hearing other members speak and this has been proven by the efforts of some members to obtain special earphones. I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) will agree that the system is not perfect. When I asked why, with the money we had spent on this system a better result had not been obtained acoustically, I was told that we could have a more perfect system than our present one but that the employees of the public works department felt it would spoil the appearance of the house. Therefore we have sacrificed efficiency to beauty.


Mr. Fraser:: May I ask the hon. member if he has any figures as to what it would cost for translators, because he would have to have two of them.


Maurice Breton: Last year I wrote to the United Nations requesting some information and was informed that the installation cost is $15 per seat. In this house we have 300 seats and there are 600 seats in the gallery and so for the full amount of $15,000 the system could be installed in this house.
Last year while asking some questions of the former postmaster general the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Hamilton) also quoted these figures. He advised that he had made inquiries and had been informed that the cost would be around $15,000.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member what would be the cost of engaging translators?


Maurice Breton: Well I am advised that at the United Nations translators are paid $15,000 a year. They are engaged for the entire year and naturally we would require them here for only a portion of the year. I am glad the hon. member raised this question because if the government is sincerely interested in this project it would be well advised to make immediate arrangements


for engaging people who could be trained as translators because I am told it takes six months to become a truly competent, expert translator.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That would mean an additional $30,000.


Maurice Breton: It would be expensive but the new system would be much better than the existing system. In addition to that if the unfortunate situation should prevail where the Speaker does not speak both languages he would be able to understand the discussion between hon. members if a simultaneous translation system were installed. For all these reasons, I think the government should seriously consider this request.
Last year I had a resolution on the order paper that did not come before the bouse prior to the end of the session. This resolution appears again on the order paper this year and will come to the attention of the house on an early occasion. I am sure that all French speaking members in this house, and I also know many English speaking members will support my resolution. We will not stop asking for this reform until it has been given to us.
The government claims that it wants to protect the rights of parliament and of hon. members of this house. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said in the speech from the throne:
... it will be the high purpose of my ministers . . . to take steps to make both houses of this parliament more effective in the discharge of their responsibilities to the people of Canada.
I feel that the first step towards protecting the rights of parliament would be to extend to each hon. member of this house the right and opportunity to be heard and understood in his own language.
International bodies of all kinds are adopting the system of simultaneous translation for the benefit of their members. It is fitting that an example of the harmonious relations that should exist between the two great races and language groups in our country should be underscored by the installation of such a system in the House of Commons. (Translation):
And now, Mr. Speaker, if I may, I should like to continue my remarks in French and this, in itself, emphasizes at once what a drawback it is for the Speaker to be unable to follow speeches in both languages. As a representative of the province of Quebec, I owe it to my province and to my fellow-citizens to speak French in the House of Commons.
I should like at this point to make a few comments on some disquieting contradictions of the speech from the throne.

The Prime Minister stated many times during the electoral campaign and the last session of parliament that there was need for "a return to the spirit of confederation". This statement, which sounded impressive, and implied that there had been a deviation from the spirit of the fathers of confederation, might suggest to many people that it was a matter of safeguarding the autonomy of the provinces.
I do not know whether the Prime Minister made the statement intentionally or not, but any one who has given the instrument of confederation some little study will admit, -and that I believe is the opinion of every jurist without exception,- that this constitutional document of 1867, in spirit as well as in letter, had markedly centralizing tendencies. It is therefore somewhat ironical to hear the Prime Minister talk about a return to the spirit of confederation while, in the same breath, he speaks of provincial autonomy.
The former prime minister (Mr. St. Laurent) had well understood that this document needed amending and had to be adapted to present conditions. In fact in 1949 he suggested certain new procedures for amending the constitution, which were to be acceptable to the provinces. Unfortunately these could not be accepted by the provinces because of lack of understanding among them. The only deviations from the spirit of confederation were made from time to time by judicial decision. That is to say that when we hear the Prime Minister talk of a return to the spirit of confederation, I wonder whether he is not thinking of even greater centralization of the economy of this country into the hands of the federal government. Whatever the case may be, Mr. Speaker, whatever his intention, the fact remains that the speech from the throne in its present state represents a real move towards centralization. I hope I may be allowed to dwell on this point for a few moments.
It will be remembered-and it is well that we should remind ourselves of these things- that the Hon. Mr. Duplessis, premier of Quebec, adopted an autonomous attitude during the federal-provincial conference of 1945. At that time he made statements which are important to read and to remember, having regard to the forthcoming conference.
The Hon. Mr. Duplessis made the following statements which will be found on page 409 of the brief submitted by the province of Quebec and presented by Mr. Duplessis.
It is the considered opinion of the province of Quebec, it is the considered opinion of highly qualified jurists, that the fact that the constitution
The Address-Mr. Breton of 1867 specifically gives to the province the right of direct taxation means conclusively that the provinces have priority in the matter of direct taxation.
This word priority has been used repeatedly by the Quebec press and I recall that, at one time, Mr. Duplessis even used the word "exclusivity" which, in his mind, as he explained, made it incumbent upon the federal government to withdraw completely from the field of direct taxation.
Mr. Speaker, on page 412 of the same presentation, there is a further statement which it would be well to recall because it applied exactly to the situation today. The new government promised to increase financial assistance to the provinces. Indeed it has given the provinces to understand that it would give them greater assistance as well as to municipalities. It also promised,-and therein lies the contradiction which surprised everybody,-that it was going to reduce taxes. Here we can recall the statement made by Mr. Duplessis in 1946 when he said:
The federal government is stating that they wish to decrease taxes.
It will be recalled that in 1945, the government actually meant to cut down taxes and indeed did so. Moreover, it proposed a tax agreement with the provinces in order to find a means of financing them while reducing taxes. And Mr. Duplessis added:
I do not know how they can decrease taxes. If it is their secret I do not ask them for the secret. What strikes me is this. How would it be possible logically to decrease taxes when they contend that the provinces will get more from the taxes, Ottawa will get more and the taxes will decrease?
Under such conditions, how could taxes be reduced?
I must admit that my intellect is not sufficient to arrive at such a conclusion.
I believe that this passage from the 1946 brief should be remembered. But that is not all. There is also a most interesting passage there concerning natural resources. Here is what Mr. Duplessis stated on that point:
Natural resources belong to the provinces. They belong to the provinces to such an extent that the privy council decided that even a federal loan does not affect provincial natural resources.
Note that, Mr. Speaker. The privy council has decided that a federal loan could not even concern provincial natural resources. Mr. Duplessis continues:
That is why I say that some consideration should be given to the exclusive and essentially indispensable right of the provinces in connection with natural resources, forests, water power, mining and so forth.
Mr. Speaker, I have quoted these statements to show that they are in gross contradiction with the intentions of the present government and the provisions of the speech from the throne. I wonder how these tendencies and statements can be reconciled.

The Address-Mr. Breton You may perhaps say that the hon. Mr. Duplessis represents Quebec but there are also in this house some members who, formerly, were sitting on the opposition side and who, at that time, not only endorsed the stand of the government of the province of Quebec on the constitutional question but made themselves, in this house, the spokesmen of the hon. Mr. Duplessis.
The hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer), who now sits on the other side of the house, is in an embarrassing situation. He has repeated time and again that direct taxation and subsidies are contrary to the spirit and the letter of the constitution, and he now finds himself saddled with the sad responsibility of sticking to his principles or letting his party down.


Mr. Balcer:: You do not know what will happen.


Maurice Breton: I am not speaking lightly. I will quote textually. In 1953, the hon. member for Three Rivers made a speech on that question and said this, as shown on page 67 of volume I of Hansard for 1953-1954:
. . . for the federal-provincial relations will not be settled by mere subsidies from the central government. These grants are contrary to the spirit which inspired the fathers of confederation and merely tend to make of Canada a centralizing country, that is to say a country having only one government.
It is clear that after such a statement there is no alternative. They do not criticize the manner in which the subsidies are distributed, but merely their distribution, which is in fact the opinion of the Quebec government.
On Friday last, I asked the hon. Solicitor General the following question:
When sitting in the opposition the hon. Solicitor General has, on various occasions, given expression to the well-known thought that federal subsidies are unconstitutional. The opinion which he voiced then was shared in every way by the government of the province of Quebec. In view of the proposed federal-provincial meeting on fiscal matters, could he tell us now if he will oppose the subsidies which his government seems to be preparing at this time?
And here is his answer:
I would like to tell my hon. friend that I am still opposed to subsidies such as were proposed by the former government . . .
Here is the difference of interpretation: "as were proposed by the former government"; it was not a question of subsidies, but rather of the way in which they were granted.


Léon Balcer: What I said at that time still holds true, and I will go on saying it.


Maurice Breton: My colleague will be able to speak when his time comes, if he wants to, and I hope that the house will accept his statement.
As far as his question is concerned, it seems to be a hypothetical one, since the proposals of the federal government are not yet known, but I am convinced that they will be made on a very different basis from those of the former government.


Léon Balcer: They are going to be based on a position far different from that of the former government.


Mr. Dupuis:: It is a subsidy just the same.


Léon Balcer: This means that we are no centralizers, but that we want the rights of the provinces to be respected.


Maurice Breton: It will still be a subsidy. It is obvious that, in the past, the hon. member for Three Rivers simply came out against subsidies themselves but not the way they were distributed.


Léon Balcer: I was opposed to the subsidies as distributed by your government.


Maurice Breton: I could quote here part of a speech which he delivered during the 1953-54 session, and which he could not repudiate.
He is now trying to reconcile his former opinions with those of the government of which he is a member. Yet, if he considers only the attitude of the Quebec government, -as I imagine he still holds the same views about provincial autonomy,-I hope he will make strong representations to his government.
The same questions were put to two other minister representing the province of Quebec in the cabinet. These two ministers did not want to commit themselves and refused to answer.
The other day, in laying the corner-stone of a new college in Montreal, the hon. Mr. Duplessis stated that he had no intention whatever of surrendering any of his rights in educational matters. This is the latest statement he has made about this question. I am now wondering whether his statement, which is very restrained on the whole and which regards only education, is not actually a change, preparing the ground for a more conciliatory stand towards the new government, and whether we must consider his previous statements as strictly political declarations. This is something to wonder about, not only in this house, but in the province of Quebec, and throughout the country.
Now I know, Mr. Speaker, that the next federal-provincial meeting will prepare another one, just as the meeting at Mont Tremblant was just a preamble for other conferences; I also know that the government would like to be elected on its intentions rather than on its record, for its members very well realize the impossible situation they will have to face three or four years

from now, and that is why I say that we now have a government of intentions. It is a government of intentions . . .


Léon Balcer: If this is a government of intentions, why don't you vote against it?


Maurice Breton: Ah! my dear friend, I could tell you that, the last four months the government has been in power, we have found two trends, but no achievements.
The papers were saying, the other day, that it was high time the government did something. The first trend is striking evidence of the value of the Liberal administration, because it is now possible to increase pensions without too much trouble. The other is a return to political attitudes which, in spite of the temporary favour enjoyed by the Conservative party, are neither in accord with our mentality nor with our wish for independence on behalf of the Canadian nation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will add this. The representatives of the province of Quebec in the cabinet are in an embarrassing position, for they cannot prevent the centralizing trend of the government. While the Liberal position remains the same, some of our friends opposite will encounter great difficulties in explaining their about-turn to the people of our province.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. members opposite are forced to change their minds realizing that, in the present circumstances, there are things that cannot be changed. Such admissions have been made, in fact, by several ministers, the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes), who all admitted that everything was going well under the former administration.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that our friends who represent the province of Quebec in the cabinet will make representations to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to the government in favour of a financial equalization system for the development of the natural resources of the provinces. What we have been noticing for the past four months, Mr. Speaker, is that the province of Quebec has been completely ignored by the new government. I do not know what our friends may think of the government's intention to spend millions on the construction 96698-20
The Address-Mr. Quelch of a dam in Saskatchewan, or millions more to develop the natural resources of the maritimes. We are by no means opposed to such proposals. But we must point out that the province of Quebec is ignored in that field as in every other field. It is ignored in the field of social security because, as everyone knows, the province favoured an increase in family allowances before anything else.


Léon Balcer: Are you against increasing old age pensions?


Maurice Breton: We are not against old age pensions, we are in favour of old age pensions.


Léon Balcer: Why have you been refusing them for the past 22 years?


Maurice Breton: You are among those, my friend, who at the Conservative convention held in Ottawa asked for adoption of a resolution in favour of the increase of family allowances.


Léon Balcer: This will be more readily done under our administration than under yours.


Maurice Breton: We shall see what we shall see. All we ask you is to give proof, nothing more. I said that the province of Quebec was being ignored in the field of social security, in the field of financial help, in the field of development of natural resources. I can also say that it is still ignored in the field of cabinet representation. According to the Prime Minister, we should have five ministers whereas we only have three.
I close by saying, Mr. Speaker, that the representatives of the province of Quebec in the federal cabinet will have a lot of work to do to improve the reputation of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec.
(Text):


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, I believe that there was fairly general approval of the proposals contained in the speech from the throne regarding our senior citizens, war veterans allowances and certain aspects of agriculture. However, on account of the vagueness of those proposals I will wait until the legislation is brought down before I refer to them further.
We in this group were sorry to note that there was no mention in the speech from the throne with regard to the tight money policy that is slowing down the Canadian economy,

The Address-Mr. Quelch and it is for that reason that the leader of this group, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), moved an amendment.
This afternoon the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner), the former minister of agriculture, was somewhat critical of the
C.C.F. group and our group for moving an amendment and a subamendment. He stated that we had promised to support government legislation but, of course, we did not make any such sweeping promise. We stated that we would support government legislation that was in the national interest even though it did not go as far as we would like to see it go but that we would certainly still feel justified in moving amendments where we thought legislation was of an undesirable character or where there had been any serious omissions. Not only would we feel justified but we would feel it a duty and a responsibility to move amendments in that case.
The amendment moved by the leader of this group reads:
That all the words in the amendment after the word "once" be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
"However, we regret that there is nothing in the speech from the throne to indicate that it is the government's intention to ask parliament to lay down a scientific, modern financial policy for Canada that will guide the Bank of Canada in its operations, bring about a speedy end to the present tight money policy, and effectively check the ever-rising cost of living."
It will be recalled that the former government during previous sessions and during the election campaign stated that things had never been so good. Since that time the people have spoken and I think they spoke in such a way as to make it clear to the former government that they were not in agreement with that slogan. They showed their disapproval by the way they voted.
It is true that during the past six years there was a fairly general level of prosperity but there were danger signals evident in the year 1955. By then the cost of living had started to rise. We had an adverse balance of trade of around $800 million with the United States and $427 million with the world at large. The amount of consumer debt had risen to the figure of $2.2 billion and agriculture had become quite seriously depressed.
The governor of the Bank of Canada met with the chartered banks in the fall of 1955 and laid down the foundation for the tight money policy that has been in operation for the past two years. In laying down that policy
[Mr. Quelch.J
he justified it very largely on the ground that there was a shortage of labour. He pointed out that consequently were the money supply to be increased it would create a demand for goods that could not be satisfied due to the fact that we lacked the labour with which to expand our production. He makes that clear on page 39 of the Bank of Canada report for 1956.
Now, two years later, in the light of that situation and in the light of the situation today I think most of us would agree that the policy has been somewhat of a flop because since then there has been a steady rise in the cost of living. The adverse balance of trade which was worrying us then has pretty well doubled; consumer debt has expanded from $2.2 billion to $2.6 billion.
It may be said perhaps that one of the achievements of his policy has been the loosening up of the labour situation. At that time he said there was a shortage of labour. Very largely as the result of his financial policy we find we have many thousands of unemployed. Whether or not he would feel that is an advantage I do not know, but I think the people of this country are justified in demanding that a financial policy be instituted which makes it possible to maintain full employment in this country.
I would say that one of the direct results of the restriction of credit has been the sharp rise in interest rates, and that has forced up costs and forced up prices. High interest rates have encouraged foreign investment in this country. I know it is argued that we need a high level of foreign investment in this country in order to meet our adverse balance of trade, but let us not forget that our adverse balance of trade is actually the counterpart of foreign investment and, of course, the more money that is invested in this country the more there is spent on United States goods. Consequently, the adverse balance of trade is expanded. The practice has been accelerated as a result of United States business getting more control over our industries, and consequently buying many of their requirements in the United States instead of buying them in Canada.
In addition the tight money policy is causing our provinces and municipalities to borrow in the United States instead of borrowing in Canada, partly perhaps because they cannot borrow in Canada and partly perhaps because they can borrow money cheaper in the United States than they can in this country. The result, of course, is a steadily expanding debt between Canada and the United States.
The tight money policy is also putting the small business firms out of business and

giving the United States a stranglehold on Canadian business. I was talking to a businessman in Edmonton the other day, the manager of a firm which supplies heavy equipment for construction. He told me that many of the small business firms supplying heavy equipment were being driven out of business. He said, "We have to wait quite a while for payments from construction firms and they have to wait quite a while for payments from municipalities, provincial governments and the federal government". He said, "Normally, having to wait did not bother us at all because we were able to get a line of credit from the banks, but today that line of credit has been cut off". As a consequence, many of these small firms have already been driven into bankruptcy. What he most strongly objected to was the fact that their main competitors are larger firms with parent companies in the United States and they are able to get all the capital they want from the United States. Consequently the larger firms are taking over the Canadian firms or driving the Canadian firms out of business because the Canadian firms cannot get capital whilst their United States competitors can.
I think most of us agree that is a very undesirable situation. The other day I was told that the situation is easing; the cash reserves of the chartered banks are increasing. However, it is going to take a long time for those cash reserves to filter back to those firms who are so direly in need of an extension of credit today.
The tight money policy has also caused a high premium on the Canadian dollar. This is a very severe handicap for Canadian exporters. Years ago it used to be the practice for a nation with an adverse balance of trade to depreciate its currency in order that its exporters might be able to compete with foreign countries by underselling them. This policy would, at the same time, discourage imports. In this way it helped to ease the adverse balance of trade. But what do we find in Canada? In Canada we have a very serious adverse balance of trade, yet instead of depreciating our dollar, as has usually been the custom, we maintain the dollar at a highly appreciated rate. This results in making it very difficult for our exporters to compete with our competitors in foreign countries. At the same time we make it easier to import goods. By making it harder to export and easier to import, we are steadily widening the adverse balance of trade which is causing a great deal of concern in the country at the present time.
96698-20J
The Address-Mr. Quelch
This policy has also severely handicapped our farmers, that is the policy of maintaining the dollar at an appreciated rate. For instance, our wheat is sold in terms of United States currency. This means that when we get paid in United States currency, instead of getting a dollar we get 96 cents. On a bushel of wheat, therefore, today the farmer loses around 7 cents as compared with what he would receive if the dollar were at par. If we compare the present situation with the situation when the dollar was held at 90 cents in terms of the United States dollar, as was the case in 1950, we find that the farmer today is losing 27 cents a bushel as a result of this highly appreciated dollar.
We in this group have always taken the stand that we should maintain foreign exchange control. We opposed the proposal to remove foreign exchange control. On the other hand, if we are not going to have foreign exchange control, if we are going to maintain the appreciated dollar, then the farmers have every right to demand that they be compensated for the penalty imposed as the result of that appreciated dollar.
I feel that parliament should make it clear to the governor of the Bank of Canada that it will not tolerate a money policy that forces us farther and farther into debt with the United States; that causes us to lose markets and, expands unemployment, and more important, places us under a severe handicap in the cold war with Russia by slowing down our production. This type of sabotage took place no later than the thirties before the world war in 1939. We suffered severely as a consequence of having allowed our production to slow down before that war. I am not suggesting the situation is similar today but I would say, in view of the fact we are entering the atomic age, the consequences might be even worse than they were in 1939. We cannot afford to slow down today whilst our competitor, in the form of Russia, is doing everything in its power to accelerate its rate of producton.
It has been stated that the tight money policy was needed to deal with inflation in this country. I think the important point to know is that there has not been any real inflation in Canada, as that condition has been defined in the past by the governor of the Bank of Canada, by our own finance officials and by former ministers of the crown. We have been told time and again that inflation means too much money chasing too few goods, yet for the past two years inventories in this country have been steadily rising while the money supply has been curtailed. I would say that what we really had in the past two years

The Address-Mr. Quelch was a wage-price spiral. Certain unions find that certain industries are making large profits and they call for an increase in wages. Then that industry increases prices, not merely sufficiently high to cover the wages but in order to give them a profit on the increased wages they are paying.
I was sorry that the proposal put forward by Walter Reuther was not given greater consideration. I thought it was an excellent proposal. The proposal to the automobile industry was that it should reduce the price of cars by $100, and in return the union would modify its proposal for an increase in wages. I should like to see the unions right across the country press the point that where there are large profits, those profits be used for the purpose of reducing prices rather than for the purpose of increasing wages because in that way they would be increasing the value of their own wages. Everybody would benefit, including the people with small fixed incomes such as those receiving old age pensions. Everybody would benefit by a reduction in price and that reduction in turn would make our prices more competitive with those in other countries and thus make it possible for us to expand our exports.
The governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Coyne, points out that consumer spending has not been a major factor in this country. I think we should note that statement because so many people seem to think that the consumers have been going on a spending spree. I note what the governor had to say at page 15 of his report for 1956:
Although certain forms of consumer expenditure financed to an increasing degree by a particular kind of credit expansion have contributed to the inflationary pressures, consumer expenditures in total have not been a major factor: consumers have not gone on a "spending spree" on the whole, and the rate of personal savings as a percentage of income has increased since the middle of 1955.
It is also interesting to note according to the October 12 edition of Saturday Night, that the managing director of the international monetary fund, speaking at the twelfth annual meeting of the world bank and international monetary fund, warned that today for trading nations deflation was a far greater danger than inflation. Perhaps I had better quote what the article said:
The other development was the backing given the fund's managing director, Mr. Jacobbson, in his contention that smaller trader nations have more to fear now from deflation than inflation-a contention that has significance for Canada. Canadians have been echoing American warnings about the dangers of inflation. Our cost of living index has continued to rise. But at the same time prices for most of our raw materials are going down and we have more unemployment than a year ago.
We hope Mr. Fleming listened carefully to what Mr. Jacobbson and his supporters had to say.

During the past six years there has been a tremendous expansion in capital investment. We have today created a tremendous productive capacity and we are in the process of turning out vast supplies of consumer goods. The greatest problem we are facing in the future is to maintain an effective demand against that production. I will agree that consumer debt today is too high. But if the total production is to be sold, and if consumer credit is to be restricted, then who is going to buy the goods that are today being bought with consumer credit? It is quite obvious that we shall be obliged to provide other sources of purchasing power by means of which to buy the total production of the country if we are going to curtail consumer credit. Otherwise goods will pile up, production will be restricted, capital investment will fall off and unemployment will steadily increase. Bankers invariably seem to be a little bit timid about a condition of full employment. They know there is a weakness in the present financial system. They know that when we have built up our productive capacity to turn out a tremendous volume of consumer goods, invariably there is difficulty in finding a market for that production. Mr. Coyne, the governor of the Bank of Canada, in his report for 1956 refers to that situation in these words:
It is not an accident that periods of inflationary prosperity are usually followed by periods of dislocation in production and employment. One of the main purposes of efforts to contain inflation is to avoid this aftermath.
I would certainly agree that it is no accident, Mr. Speaker. It is a deliberately planned recession. It is what the bankers usually call a breathing spell. But unfortunately the unemployed are not paid during that breathing spell. Why are periods of prosperity, as pointed out by the governor of the Bank of Canada, invariably followed by dislocation and unemployment? That has invariably been the situation.
We have from time to time pointed out that the reason lies in the fact that owing to certain practices that are inherent in our present system industry is not able to maintain effective demand against its own production except in times of abnormal capital goods construction such as you have in wartime, in the development of a new country or at times when there is large scale foreign investment in the country as, for instance, we have in Canada at the present time.
We have always pointed out that that situation is largely owing to the practice of saving and the reinvestment of saving. I know that proposition is nothing new. That proposition has been propounded for many years by prominent economists such as

J. Maynard Keynes, Professor G. D. H. Cole and many others. I think perhaps it has been put most clearly by the president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce in his 1952 annual report when he refers to the problem in these words:
If it is agreed that gross national production should as a minimum be sustained at present levels, then deterrents both to personal and corporate saving (investment) require immediate and careful examination. Income cannot be redistributed for consumption and at the same time invested to expand productivity without some serious strains developing-in short, deterrents to domestic investment must be examined and where consistent with domestic policies, be removed . . . Increasing consumption, both domestic and foreign, is necessary, if the heavier volume of goods and services arising out of our enlarged capacity to produce is to be absorbed.
If our objective is the optimum development of the resources of the country-and I think everybody would agree that it should be-and if a large percentage of income is to be diverted from the purchase of consumer goods to the production of more goods, then obviously purchasing power will have to be issued in order to finance the purchase of goods corresponding to the amount of purchasing power so diverted. Otherwise there is bound to be expanding consumer debt such as we have today. So when Mr. Coyne adopts a policy which is aimed at restricting credit for consumption, at the same time steps must be taken to provide for the purchase of those goods that are being bought with consumer credit. Otherwise, as I say, there is bound to be a slump, a fall-off in demand and an increase in unemployment.
In order to deal with that situation we have from time to time advocated the establishment of a national monetary commission, responsible to parliament, whose main responsibility would be to maintain the balance between the effective purchasing power of the people and the aggregate of prices of goods available for distribution. It will be their responsibility to keep a day by day check on the relationship between demand and supply. If they found that plants were running at a percentage of their capacity and if they found that demand was lagging behind supply, they would then take steps to increase the purchasing power of the people. We would suggest that the most logical way in which to do that would be to authorize a discount on the price of consumer goods so that the people's purchasing power might be equated with the aggregate of prices.
If for instance they found that demand was only 90 per cent of supply they could authorize 10 per cent discount on the sale of goods in order to equate demand with supply. Industry would sell the goods at
The Address-Mr. Quelch 90 per cent of the cost, they would turn their slips into the chartered banks and be credited with the 10 per cent and the chartered banks would then recover the amount from the national monetary authority. In that way you would help to increase the purchasing power of the people, such help being of a non-inflationary character because the increase in money supplied in that case would be used for the purpose of reducing prices rather than increasing prices.
The amount of money so issued would be just enough to equate the lag between demand and supply. Money required for that purpose would be obtained from the Bank of Canada so as not to increase the debt charges to the nation. The government would deposit nonnegotiable dominion certificates in order to receive the money. The rate of interest would be immaterial because all the profits of the Bank of Canada would go back to the government and they would therefore be receiving this money at actual cost.
I know that some will argue that if this is done you are going to expand the cash reserves of the chartered banks which will enable them in turn to expand their loans and cause inflation. That has been the argument in the past but it is not valid today because in 1954 when the Bank of Canada Act was under revision it was amended so that the Bank of Canada today has the power to alter the minimum cash ratio to be held by the chartered banks within the limits of 8 to 12 per cent of the deposit liabilities. This empowers the Bank of Canada to raise the cash reserve requirements up to 12 per cent. When this measure was before the banking and commerce committee the Social Credit party moved that the 12 per cent limitation be removed. We were supported by the C.C.F. group. We do not see any reason to have the 12 per cent limitation. The time may come when it will be desirable to raise the cash reserve requirements of the chartered banks above that level to whatever level the Bank of Canada may decide is necessary.
I intend to turn now to the question of markets because we feel the only real solution to our agricultural problems is the expansion of markets. Of course there are two markets, the home market and the external market. Of the two, the home market is by far the more important for this reason: the home market has to absorb an amount of production equivalent to the total production of the country. That is to say, it has to absorb the goods left within the country and, in addition, it has to absorb the imports brought into the country in exchange for our exports. That is why we in the Social Credit group have always insisted that if we
302	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Quelch are going to maintain full employment and maximum production in this country we have to maintain the purchasing power of the people at a level which will make it possible for them to buy the total production of the country. Otherwise goods will be left unsold, unemployment will increase and the consumer debt will steadily rise.
There is no doubt that today we have a tremendous potential market in Canada. This could be used to buy more of our agricultural products and many of the other commodities that are being piled up in the form of inventories. We have a potential market in the unemployed, the old age pensioners, the recipients of war veterans allowances and many others and we can increase our market by extending the amounts paid to those individuals and also by the establishment of a discount on prices which I have already mentioned. If we have large supplies of certain goods in Canada the discount on these goods could be increased in order to encourage their consumption. Goods in short supply could be without the discount or with a smaller discount so there would not be the same encouragement to increase the consumption of those goods in short supply.
On the question of foreign markets, we all know that we have lost many of these. We claim the reason why we have lost these markets is the slavish adherence to the principles laid down in the Bretton Woods agreement, that is to say the right of nations to receive payment in their own currencies without any obligation whatsoever to accept goods in payment.
Now if we are going to insist on payment in dollars, and refuse to balance our trade with other nations then it would make it impossible for those nations to pay for their imports from us. For that reason we have suggested time and time again that we should be willing to accept sterling from the sterling area to the degree necessary to make it possible for that area to balance its trade with us. After all, what is the purpose of international trade? Surely it should be the exchange of goods and services between nations on a basis of mutual advantage. If we agree on that basis, then when we export goods the only currency we need is the currency of the importing nations, because it is that, nation's currency which will buy that nation's goods.

I recall the former minister of trade and commerce often having argued that if we were to accept sterling we would not be in a position to spend it in a sterling area. Well fortunately many of us have had experience with sterling and have found that when we have a sterling balance in England we can use it for the purchase of goods in the sterling area and can ship them to Canada. I have done that myself. Therefore when anybody talks about not being able to use sterling balances in order to export goods to this country, they are just talking through the top of their hats; they are talking about something they do not understand.
I noticed last year that the right hon. A. B. Low, secretary of state for the board of trade in England, made that perfectly clear while he was in Canada. During an interview by the Western Producer, reported in their issue of October 11, 1956, he said that pounds sterling accepted by Canadian exporters for sales to Britain could be used for purchases of goods anywhere in the sterling area. I think therefore to the extent we have a favorable balance of trade with Britain we should be prepared to accept sterling in payment and then use our surplus for the purchase of goods from Britain. The Prime Minister has stated that he is anxious we should divert imports from the United States, such imports to be purchased from Britain. If we were willing to accept sterling we could very well use it to buy goods from Britain which we are today buying from the United States. In that way we would hope to reduce the adverse balance of trade with the United States.
On motion of Mr. Quelch the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we wish to proceed with this debate. It is our intention on Thursday to take up the resolution to precede a bill to provide for cash advances on grain, and if that by any chance should not take all day Thursday we would go on with the resolutions appearing in Votes and Proceedings today.


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