1957-01-23

FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister give his opinion on the resolution passed by the British Columbia car dealers, as reported in the Toronto Daily Star of January 22, to refuse to accept any more 1957 model cars from manufacturers until the federal budget, with possible cuts in' the 10 per cent excise tax, is handed down; which situation, if it developed in the rest of Canada, could result in a major tie-up of the Canadian automobile industry?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want what I say to be taken as any indication of any budgetary action that one might have in mind. The motor car dealers of Canada have intimated in each of the past three years that they would like the government to find a way of avoiding the loss which they suffer when the tax is reduced. There have been a great many conversation's between ourselves and the motor car dealers and the manufacturers' association. The last one was the week before last when several alternative methods of dealing with the problem were discussed with the representatives of the motor car dealers. Whether the action taken by the British Columbia branch of the motor car dealers has been taken in ignorance of these discussions or whether it has been taken as a result of the discussions, I do not know at the moment.



INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE TAX REDUCTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I
wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's generous spending policy as shown by the estimates, can he inform the house whether or not he will have any generosity left to deal with the matter of tax reductions?


Walter Edward Harris: I only want to answer, sir, by pointing out that I think this is the first voice that has been raised on the other side in favour of tax reductions.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I have a question I wish to direct to the Minister of Justice but I understand that the Minister of Finance is acting for him in his absence. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the items in this morning's papers reporting that five of the major oil companies in Canada yesterday announced price increases in gasoline and fuel oil of about a cent a gallon at the wholesale level? Will the minister consider ordering an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act with a view to determining whether or not there is a combine which resulted in these price increases being announced at the same time?


Walter Edward Harris: When the Minister of Justice knew he would be absent today he asked me to answer any questions that might be directed to him. I am quite sure, however, that the house would not expect me to answer this question because he usually makes fairly detailed answers to questions on the Combines Investigation Act, and I am sure he will answer this one in that manner when he returns.



INQUIRY AS TO OPERATION OF FLOOR PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In his absence perhaps his parliamentary assistant might answer it. What has happened to the government floor price on eggs? Has it become inoperative?


Mr. Roberi McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: I am
quite aware of the situation involved in the question asked by the hon. member for Huron. I can assure him that the agricultural prices support board has the matter in hand and we hope that everything will be straightened away within a reasonable length of time.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture. Is he aware that in western Ontario counties the primary producer is
558	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry getting 28 cents to 30 cents a dozen for grade A eggs at country delivery points?


Robert McCubbin: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I am well aware of these facts and 1 hope the situation will be straightened out.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: In view of press reports that an armoury or, indeed, armouries are to be built in the province of Saskatchewan this year and in view of the urgent representations I have had from the mayor and city council of my city, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if a building for Saskatoon is contemplated at this time?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I can say to the hon. member that ever since I visited his city and looked over the situation with respect to the armoury at Saskatoon I have had the matter under active consideration and it is being considered now.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: It is a desperate situation.



CANADA COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georg© H. Hees (Broadview): I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of press reports stating that Mr. Mackenzie, Dr. Sidney Smith and Mr. Brooke Claxton are all being considered by the government for the position of chairman of the Canada Council, has the government arrived at any decision as to who the chairman might be?
Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: When a Canada Council has been provided for by legislation the government will announce the names of the members of that council and it will not take it very long to make the selection.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Yesterday the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration undertook to give an answer to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich as to the composition of the appeal board which sat


on the hearing of the case of Christian George Hanna. Can the minister answer the question now?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Yes, sir. The appeal board consisted of Mr. P. W. Bird, superintendent of immigration, Vancouver, Mr. D. R. Henderson, supervisor of placement services, and Mr. H. D. Peters, Pacific district inspector, who are all members of a panel of persons that, under the authority given to me by parliament, has been established for the purpose of constituting appeal boards from time to time when they are required.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is it not a fact that the special inquiry officer from whose decision the appeal was taken was also a member of the Pacific district office and was appointed as special inquiry officer by Mr. Bird, the chairman of the so-called appeal board?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, that is very probably true.
[Later:1


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has any disposition been made of the unfortunate Hanna case or has any decision been arrived at or is the minister in a position to give the house one of his enlightening statements in this respect?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot do much to enlighten the house. The case is before the courts.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the minister received the report of the board which was mentioned a few moments ago? The press report indicated that it was on its way down and that the vessel was waiting until the minister should have made a decision. Has that report been received and is it before the minister?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that the hon. gentleman's facts are hopelessly out of date. I have, of course, received the report of the special inquiry officer.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am talking about the report of the board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The board simply dismissed the appeal and that is all there was to it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are getting information gradually.
[Later:!


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can the minister

say where Mr. Hanna is at the present time? If he is on the ship, has the ship already sailed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, I do not think I can say for sure where Mr. Hanna is at the present time; but I am informed he is not on the ship and I am also informed that the ship has sailed.
[Later:!


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration another supplementary question which I have been turning over in my mind since the last answer he gave the house. In view of the fact that the ship has sailed and Mr. Hanna is now in Canada, what is his position and what can be done about it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I presume, sir, that that is something the courts will decide.
ILater;1



C. G. HANNA-INQUIRY AS TO FURTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is the minister aware of any other or further legal proceedings which have been taken in the Hanna case with which the house is not acquainted?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not quite sure with what the house may be acquainted, but this case is before the courts and I do not think it would be appropriate for me to attempt to describe what is going on before the courts.


Daniel Roland Michener: That scarcely seems to be a complete answer to the question which I intended; it was the existence of legal proceedings about which I was inquiring. For example, has any writ of habeas corpus been served upon the department of immigration with respect to Mr. Hanna?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed that a writ-I think the hon. gentleman understands these things better than I do and I understand that a writ is not served on a department but on a person-has been served on the superintendent of immigration in Vancouver.


Daniel Roland Michener: Would the minister care to indicate what response was made to the writ?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, I would not.
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY



GORDON COMMISSION REPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resiigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government any intention of implementing a survey of freight rates and transportation in the maritime provinces, as recommended by the Gordon commission?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, when that matter has been decided it will be announced in the house.


Ralph Byron Horner: Has the government any intention of starting an expanded program of geological survey work in the maritimes, as also recommended by the Gordon commission? Has the government any intention of following the Gordon commission's recommendations to increase federal purchases for defence and other purposes in the maritime provinces or is the government going to do as it has always done in the past and do nothing?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the government has no intention of answering questions based on such erroneous assertions.


Ralph Byron Horner: You have no intention of doing anything.



INQUIRY AS TO NEW &quot;SHIELD&quot; VARIETY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister comment on the new variety of oats known as "Shield" which is said to be smut resistant and which, according to the Globe and Mail of yesterday, has been licensed for sale in Canada? Could the minister say whether this new variety is suitable for western Canada and, if so, whether any seed will be made available in the prairie provinces?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of this question a few moments ago and I communicated with an officer of the Department of Agriculture, who tells me that "Shield" is the name given to a rust resistant and smut resistant variety of oats which has been bred specifically for areas in eastern Canada where early maturity is of great
560	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry importance. It is being distributed to farmers in northern and eastern Ontario and northwestern and western Quebec. The present varieties of oats, notably Garry and Rodney, recently released by the Department of Agriculture are serving the needs of farmers in western Canada.



INQUIRY AS TO FURTHER INTERIM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising from the number of requests for information received in the last couple of days as to when it is expected the wheat board will make a further interim payment. I would like to know whether or not the minister would be able to indicate approximately when it is expected that a decision would be made in this regard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that I am not able to give any information at this time. The matter has been called to the attention of the wheat board but no recommendation has been received as yet from the wheat board.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. What progress has been made on plans to construct a new low-level bridge over the Burlington channel?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there have been no new developments with respect to this matter since we last discussed it in this house.


Frank Exton Lennard: A year ago.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, or perhaps the house leader would rather answer it. Is it going to be possible for the house to have a discussion on the proposal to train German pilots in Canada and the recently reported


rather large sale of Canadian jet training planes to the West German government?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I presume those matters, along with many other matters affecting the Department of National Defence, will be the subject of discussion when the department's estimates are being considered.



MIDDLE EAST


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister inform the house where the Canadian troops serving with the United Nations police force in the Middle East are now stationed and could he give us a report of their activities?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, I could not give the hon. member a detailed report at the moment as to where they are stationed. Their activities are pretty well indicated by the nature of the troops-engineers, signallers and various services. I would be glad to make a statement, if the hon. member wishes it, when I have detailed information.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Defence. Are we to understand that the minister is not aware whether the Canadian troops are in Egypt, Israel or the Gaza strip, or scattered somewhere around the eastern Mediterranean?


An hon. Member:: Are they in Asia or Africa?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not think any reasonable person would make any such deduction at all.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, where are they?



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of several recent press reports concerning the likelihood of the completion of the upper Thames valley authority in western Ontario, has the minister any comment to make?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: May I take this question as notice and give an answer tomorrow?



CRIMINAL LAW


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, and I understand the Minister of Finance has indicated he is answering for him. In view of the continuing threat to young children, could the minister not put a firecracker under the chief justice of the supreme court of Ontario, trial division, in order to obtain his report on sex criminals at the earliest possible date?


Walter Edward Harris: am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the high officers the hon. member has mentioned do not need firecrackers to discharge properly their duties to the public.


John Borden Hamilton: As a supplementary question, would the minister ascertain if the government has asked the chief justice for his report or has indicated that they desire it at the earliest possible moment?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker. NATIONAL REVENUE



INQUIRY AS TO ACTION RESPECTING NOVEL &quot;TEN NORTH FREDERICK&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: The
Minister of National Revenue indicated he intended to read the novel "Ten North Frederick" to see if it should be banned from sale in Canada. Has he read the novel, and what is his decision?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: The book is not yet in this country, unless it has been brought in privately, so I have not read it.


George Harris Hees: Is the minister not aware that the book has been on sale at Ottawa book stands for the past month?


James Joseph McCann: No, I do not frequent or patronize the places that sell that type of literature.
LLater.-]


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue if he refuses to read the book which he said he was going to read and decide whether it is salacious literature, in
Inquiries of the Ministry view of the fact that when I just sent him over a complimentary copy of the book he threw it on the floor.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I rather think the page boy dropped it instead of placing it on my desk.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: No, he did not. You threw it on the floor; you refused to take it.


James Joseph McCann: In any event I will read the book when it is brought to my attention officially by the people in my department.


George Harris Hees: You will have to pick it up off the floor, then.


James Joseph McCann: I am not going to waste my time reading these things for fun, nor do I frequent or patronize the places where such books are sold. If that is the policy of the hon. gentleman in order that he may have an opportunity to fire questions over here, it is certainly not mine.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I want to know what the minister meant when he informed the press conference that he intended to read the book. Evidently he did not intend to do what he said he would do.


James Joseph McCann: I have had no press conference with anybody.


George Harris Hees: Then how did the Journal get hold of the story?


James Joseph McCann: Pardon?


George Harris Hees: Then how did the report get in the Journal?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I was telephoned at my home on Saturday last by a representative of the Canadian Press and asked about this book and if I had read it, and my simple answer was that I had never heard of it.


Mr. Sinclair:: Have you any pictures you want to distribute too, George?


George Harris Hees: That is all you can understand, Jimmy.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bona venture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the government, or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, any plan to provide television service to the Bonaventure and Gaspe areas in eastern Quebec and to the adjoining sections of northern New Brunswick?

Inquiries of the Ministry


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government, pending the report and the recommendations of the royal commission on broadcasting, is unchanged. Under this policy the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been authorized to develop the national television system and to establish television production centres at Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Halifax. Also under this policy, licences are granted elsewhere to private applicants with the aim of extending service as widely as possible. If private stations are established in the Bonaventure and Gaspe areas, or in any other adjoining areas, the corporation will provide programs to them by means of television recordings if networks are impractical.
The C.B.C. has submitted proposals to the royal commission to increase the television coverage in areas where private stations are not established. Any such plans will have to be left in abeyance until the commission reports and parliament has a chance to study and act on its recommendations.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the acting minister of transport. Can the minister inform the house what progress is being made in attempts to refloat the ferry boat Cabot Strait and also would he comment on the adequacy of any temporary substitute service which has been provided?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport and his parliamentary assistant are absent today. I shall be glad to call the question to the minister's attention.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. Reinke (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, in view of a short telegram which I received from the president of the parents' action league in Hamilton, I should like to address a question to the acting minister of justice. With the indulgence of the house I should like to read the telegram. It reads:
Provinces not strictly enforcing the Criminal Code-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The h)on. gentleman will please not read the telegram.


Russell Earl Reinke: Can the minister comment on whether there are any steps which the federal government might be able to take to ensure a more rigid enforcement by the provincial governments of the Criminal Code, in view of the representations I have received and the tragedies in the past few days?


Walter Edward Harris: I shall draw the question to the attention of the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED $8 MILLION ELECTION FUND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ralph Byron Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is there anything, sir, in the private boasting by some Liberal members that your party has over $8 million with which to fight the next election?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to answer in the house questions of that character from the hon. gentleman.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Warner Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister tell the house whether he intends to set up the fisheries committee this year? Will he also tell the house whether there is any attack on the lamprey menace in any of the great lakes besides lake Superior?


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, I do not convene the committee on marine and fisheries. If the chairman of the committee chooses to call them, the officers and scientists of my department will, of course, appear before it.
The new international commission on the great lakes fisheries has now started its work and I should think we should wait until it files its first annual report to parliament on the work it has done before we discuss it in committee.


Joseph Warner Murphy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker; I probably did not make clear the last part of my

previous question. Is there to be an attack on the lamprey menace in any of the great lakes besides lake Superior?


James Sinclair: I understand the commission has now laid out its work program for the coming year which includes completion of the work in lake Superior and commencement of the work in lake Michigan on the United States side and lake Huron on the Canadian side.
( Translation):



STATEMENT AS TO DELAY IN TRANSLATING COMMITTEE REPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, January 18, the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) asked me whether steps had been taken to expedite the translation into French of committee reports, so as to avoid the six to seven weeks' delay which is said to have occurred in former years.
To answer his question I should first inform him that, as he no doubt knows, the bureau for translations has to carry out the specific duties which are assigned to it by virtue of the legislation under which it was set up. Now those duties consist in providing service to the various departments of the federal government as well as to both houses of parliament. In other words, it has to give such translation services as are required by those federal administrative agencies as well as those required by the House of Commons or the Senate.
With this qualification, I am pleased to inform him, however, that steps have in fact been taken to expedite the translation of committee reports, and that five translators have been added to the personnel of that particular division. I hope, as he does, that as a result of those arrangements the work will be speeded up.
(Text):



PASSAMAQUODDY PROJECT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on January 18 the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) asked me the following question:
In view of the recent announcement which has been made of President Eisenhower's recommendation to congress of a large appropriation of over $1 million with respect to the Passamaquoddy project, would the government make a statement on Can-
The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston
ada's up-to-date position with respect to this development in New Brunswick?
As the hon. member knows, a joint reference on the Passamaquoddy bay project was submitted by the government of Canada and the United States to the international joint commission on August 2, 1956. Subsequently, the commission set up two boards-an engineering board and a fisheries board- with instructions that they should commence studies and investigations without delay. In order that our sections of the boards could start work immediately, certain moneys were set aside from the allocations made to the Canadian section of the commission for the present fiscal year ending in March 1957.
In accordance with the agreement reached by Canada and the United States, the Canadian share for the studies will be $300,000 spread over three years. The required amount of $100,000 for 1957-58 is being asked for in the main estimates of this department for the forthcoming fiscal year.



GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL FAIR, MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce inform the house whether the government plans to participate in the international trade fair scheduled for Montreal this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, that matter is still under consideration.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. R. F. L. Hanna for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to avail myself, as others have done, of this opportunity to say a few words in this debate. It would be difficult for me to address myself entirely to those subjects which are outlined in the speech from the throne because there is not very much in that speech that is of real importance to most of the people of Canada, and those subjects which are outlined in that speech have been amply dealt with by other members of this party and by other members of the house.
I think the speech itself is probably more noteworthy for the lack of interest it shows

The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston in the common people of Canada than for any other reason. I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that there was no mention in the speech-no indication whatever-that the people of Canada would receive some relief from the tremendous burden of taxation which they have borne so patiently for so long. There was no mention that they might receive any relief whatever through a lowering of the ever-increasing cost of living, nor was there any suggestion that any assistance will be given to the old age pensioners or to those in receipt of family allowances. I mention these two things together, Mr. Speaker, because it has been quite evident during this debate that most of the Liberal party members in the house have given the impression- whether because this may be election year or not-that there would be an increase in these two items, namely old age pensions and family allowances. If that is so, Mr. Speaker, and if at a later date we find that the government has finally condescended to make an increase with regard to these two items, then I would say to you that that would be one of the most dishonourable things that could occur, because if the government can make, and intends to make, an increase in these two allowances now, then they could have made such an increase last year and the year before. The fact that they have held it up until an election year and deprived these people who are in dire need of assistance of receiving these benefits is, I think, a very despicable thing. There are surely other and more honourable ways the government can employ in order to get votes than the use of this underhanded method, and such bad treatment of a group of deserving people for the sake of party advantage.
Still with reference to the speech from the throne, I notice also that no reference was made to any increased allowances for disabled veterans, for disabled persons or for the blind; the speech from the throne was notorious for these, as well as for a great many other omissions. A moment ago, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned old age pensions and family allowances. They could very well have been increased. It is not my intention at this moment to delve deeper into that question, but I just bring it to the attention of the house to remind members that there is a need, and that Canada can well afford to take care of it, together with other problems which are so pressing today.
It is common knowledge that Canada on a per capita basis is the richest country in the world. We have a national product at present of over $29,800 million which is expected to reach the $30 billion mark and, maybe, pass that. Thus it cannot be said that this


An hon. Member:: They bucked them.


Charles Edward Johnston: -and, as is indicated by one of the members, they bucked them wherever they had the opportunity to do so. One of the other provinces that has made an outstanding record in industrial development is the province of

The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston Quebec. If you asked Premier Duplessis what share the federal government had in that industrialization and that promotion, I am sure he would tell you in no uncertain terms that it was not the federal government that was responsible for it.
Then there is the province of Ontario which is a great industrial province. I must say that probably the federal government has given Ontario more encouragement and more assistance than it has given to all the other provinces put together.
There is one thing, though, Mr. Speaker, for which this government can take credit, and I want to give them full credit for it. It is this. If there is any inflation in this country, they are responsible for it. I am not so sure that there is any real inflation, in the real scientific definition of the word. According to the general interpretation of the word "inflation", it means too much money after too few goods. But with a gross national product of close to $30 billion, I do not think that could be said to be the situation in this instance. When you take into consideration the tremendous amount of credit buying and the tremendous number of people who are continually going into debt in order to get money with which to buy the bare necessities of life, I think it can hardly be said that there is too much money after too few goods.
No, Mr. Speaker; inflation comes from the ever-increasing prices, a situation which is a direct result of the policy of this government. One of the outstanding examples is the announcement made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) just yesterday when he said he was going to make it easier for those in the middle income brackets to find money with which to build houses by raising the interest rate. How he is going to make it easier is going to be a mystery. Certainly those people who can afford to pay more for the money they get will probably be able to get that money. But the majority of people who are in need of houses are not those people who have incomes of $7,000, $8,000, $10,000 and $15,000 a year. It is those people in the smaller brackets who just cannot afford to pay any higher rate of interest than they have been paying in the past who are going to be affected.
The government's first step in this so-called inflation race was when they set a rate of 3 2 per cent for their short-term treasury bills. That was government policy. Then, of course, the Bank of Canada were forced to set their discount rate at 3| per cent. They had no alternative. That was a direct result of government policy. Then the


chartered banks-and this was another indirect if not direct result of the government's policy-had their cash reserve requirements raised from 8 per cent to a 15 per cent liquid reserve. Then the chartered banks immediately were forced to raise their interest rates and so they have raised them to 6 per cent and 7 per cent and in some cases up to 8 per cent, depending on the security which the individual has.
Under this so-called assistance by the federal government we find that big businesses and people who have money do not find it difficult to get possession of the money which they require. In most of those instances the large oil companies or other similar organizations-I do not pick them out particularly-with their credit behind them and the way they have of putting costs into prices, can afford to get this higher priced money. Hence they are not finding much difficulty. But under the system of this government in permitting interest rates and prices to climb, the little man has a great deal of difficulty in getting the amount of money that he needs in order to carry on his business. The small family firms are indeed finding it difficult and the small farms are finding it difficult. If that is the assistance that the federal government is giving to the little man-and I think it is-to about 75 per cent of the population of this country, I say that it is not too much to be proud of.
Certainly it cannot be said that the wage earner, the white collar earner, is overly prosperous during these times. I think it will be agreed by all hon. members in this house that after the ordinary working man receives his cheque and has paid his monthly accounts he has very little left, that the majority of the people are in the same predicament and that, as a result of this insufficiency of funds with which to carry on, they find themselves so far in debt that they will not get out of it for the next 25 years or 30 years.
I now want to speak for a few minutes about this high cost of living because I think that is one of the places where the government could and should do something. Not only has the price index risen up to the present time but it is continuing its upward trend. I have here an extract from the Western Producer of January 10, which deals in part with this matter. The heading is "Living Costs at New High Despite Food Price Drop". It reads in part as follows:
Although there was a substantial drop in the price of food, the Canadian consumer price index increased fractionally in November to a record 120.4, the third straight month a new high has been reached.
The index is based on 1949 prices equalling 100. In November a year ago the figure was 116.9.

The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston
Then further down the article goes on to say this:
The composite index of Canadian farm products prices at terminal markets declined 2.1 per cent from 212.4 to 208.9. The field products index dropped 0.7 per cent from 165.2 to 164.1, and the animal products index eased from 259.6 to 251.7.
The decline in the farm products index reflected lower prices for both field and animal products. The field products index declined due largely to lower prices for most grains and eastern potatoes. Substantially lower prices for hogs, coupled with lesser decreases for eggs, western steers and eastern cheesemilk, caused the drop in the animal products index.
From that article I think it is clear that the people who are raising these foods are not the ones who are receiving the benefit. While we have prices continually rising, the costs of those things which people need in order to live, namely farm products, are continually going down.
One of the other things which must be brought to the attention of the house, Mr. Speaker, is the tight-money policy of this government. That policy is reflected in the increased debt and credit buying of the nation. Last year the credit buying was the highest since September of 1955 when it reached $342 million.
I should like to quote from a publication of the dominion bureau of statistics, the Canadian Statistical Review. It says here that in the year 1941 the combined cash retail sales and credit retail sales amounted to-I shall read the table, which is as follows:
Year
1948
1950
1952
1954
Per Cent Cash Retail Sales .	71.6
.	75.0
.	73.5
.	72.7
.	71.6
.	68.4
.	64.6
.	65.4
.	63.7
Per Cent Credit Retail Sales
28.4 25.0
26.5
27.3
28.4
31.6
35.4
34.6
36.4
This shows that the cash retail sales continually declined and the credit retail sales continued to increase. Had it not been for the extended credit buying that has prevailed in this country, this country would have been in a much worse position than it is right now.
I should like, for a moment, to deal with a problem more local in nature, and that is the problem of Banff national park. As everyone in this house knows, Banff national park is the greatest national park in Canada; in fact, it is the greatest national park on the North American continent. It has the greatest population of any national park in Canada. In fact, it has a greater population than all the other parks in western Canada. When we in this house speak of some government assistance to the national parks, we always hear the Minister of Northern Affairs and National
Resources (Mr. Lesage) say the government is spending much more money on the national parks than it ever receives. This might be true. Although the government receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from the two dollar payment for every car that passes through the park gates, that is not the only contribution that the national parks, and particularly Banff, are making towards the progress and prosperity of this country. These tourists who come to Banff national park, or the other national parks in Canada, leave millions and millions of dollars in this country of which every Canadian receives a share. You cannot, therefore, judge the contribution the national park has made merely by saying that so much money was obtained at the park gates.
One of the things I want to bring to the attention of the government, and particularly the minister, is that when improvements are made or buildings constructed in the town of Banff then I believe the people of Banff have every right to have closer co-operation from this government because everything that is done in that park has a personal effect on the people there. I wish to give the government credit for the fact that in the last two or three years there has been much closer cooperation, and particularly in the last two or three months. This is as it should be, and it must continue to improve. If it does not the minister is not only going to hear from the people of Banff, but he will hear from their member in this house as well.
Let me say a word about the new developments that are taking place in Banff and and why it is so necessary that there be closer co-operation in that respect. Within the last few months the government decided to instal a new water and sewage system, or at least to improve the one that is there. There has been a very good water system in Banff and it has been there for years. These people have paid for it through the taxes that were levied. The government suddenly decided, without any consultation with the people of Banff, that they should put in a system which would be large enough to take care of all the tourists that might come to the park, and there are many thousands of them. The cost of this system would be shared, 50 per cent by the federal government and 50 per cent by the people of Banff. This decision was taken without any consultation with the people of Banff, but they are the ones who have to pay 50 per cent of the bills. The people never knew a thing about it until the rates were increased and their 50 % share of the increased rates amount to more than we in Calgary have to pay for equal services.

The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston
I know the minister will say that the government, by contributing 50 per cent, is going tar beyond what is really required. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government should pay at least 75 per cent of that increased cost because the 2,500 people in Banff should not be expected to. carry 50 per cent of the cost of a water and sewage system which will take care of all the tourists who go there for three or four months per year. Lest anyone think I am exaggerating the picture I should like to quote from a letter from the Banff advisory council. Some of the moneys that have been spent in Banff national park are out of all reason; the workmanship is poor and the general construction is not what it should be. I am going to read from a section of this letter from the advisory council to the minister, and I am not doing it behind his back because he knows about it. This letter is dated November 20, 1956. It reads in part as follows:
The council desires to thank you tor your courtesy and for the pains that you have evidently taken to present the department's case from its point of view. They much regret, however, that they are unable to accept, in many cases, the conclusions reached by the department as it seems to them that the facts are not capable of substantiating them.
Then, in another paragraph I find this:
Not having been supplied with any figures which could be checked and verified the council is at a great disadvantage and is not in a position to comment authoritatively on the manner by which the present sewer and water system has been evaluated; but such evaluation would have to take into account the sums expended on installation, repair and maintenance as shown by the department's records, but what the record would not show is the percentage of total cost covering bad workmanship, wasted material and ill-advised lanning. This, of course, extends over a long eriod of time and it would be absurd to attempt any investigation at this late date, but even in the last few years catch basins have been installed at considerable expense and in a short time have been buried under new sidewalks and rendered useless, others have been placed in locations where it was impossible for them to function. Other similar cases of waste of public funds could be cited. Such expense appears on the records, but there is nothing to show the disparity between actual cost and what the work should have cost had it been performed in a workmanlike manner.
Then, the concluding paragraph reads as follows:
Under these circumstances, therefore, the council feels that it cannot approve either of the new schedule of rates or of the manner in which it was put into effect. They also strongly urge that, in the future, no changes in tax or licence schedules be made without opportunity being afforded the parks residents, through their representatives, to investigate them and discuss them with the department and further that all major projects of construction or maintenance shall be open for competitive tender and that the citizens shall have the right to appoint a qualified inspector with authority to insure the carrying out of any project in a workmanlike and satisfactory manner.

The council feels that if the residents of the parks are to pay for all improvements they have the right to demand that they shall be consulted before such improvements are undertaken and to specify the manner in which they shall be done.
I point that out to show you that, to a large extent, federal government expenditures in national parks have been wasted. The projects have not been completed in a workmanlike manner and there has been a lack of planning. I say to the minister, therefore, that when things are being done in Banff national park the people, through their advisory council, should be fully consulted. These contracts should be let by tender and not be carried on by patronage.
I have not very much time left and I should have liked to deal extensively with the question of agriculture. However, my time has passed so rapidly that I will not have much opportunity to do that. Nevertheless, I wish to say that this is one of the great industries in western Canada, and in other parts of Canada as well, that has been neglected by this government. The ever increasing costs of agricultural production have made it almost impossible for them to stay out of debt; in fact, it has not been able to keep them out of debt. We as Social Crediters are firmly convinced that agricultural prices should be based on parity, and that there should be some recognition of this by the federal government in the policies which they pursue in order that the farmers of western Canada will be given some fair share of the national income.
When we consider the prices which farmers get for the goods they sell as compared with the goods which they are forced to buy we find that at the end of the calendar year, or their fiscal year, they have very little left to carry on. I would like to recommend to the government one of the things mentioned in the Gordon royal commission report, namely, that the government consider this session giving farmers cash payments for wheat stored on the farm. I know the royal commission suggested that cash payments should be given to the farmers for wheat stored on the farm in relation to the quota, but I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is not good enough. Farmers should be given more than a cash payment within the quota limit. They should be given cash payments sufficient to ensure that they will have moneys to carry on during the year or at least enough to keep them out of their ever-increasing debt.
I can only say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the consensus in this house, certainly of farm members, is borne out in the message given on January 4 by Mr. A. T. Baker

in a broadcast on behalf of the Alberta Wheat Pool. This is what he said in part:
It is a serious matter, however, that we in agriculture find ourselves in a state of semidepression while nearly all other sections of the nation are enjoying record prosperity. With clear heads and common sense we must seek a solution to the problem of our unfortunate relegation to the bottom of the economic structure.
It seems to me that short paragraph of Mr. Baker's address pretty well sums up the position in which western agriculture finds itself.
I would like to deal at great length with the agricultural problem. I have my notes before me but the time has slipped away. I can assure you though that when this question comes before the house again we shall have something to say about it. There are other problems too that are of major importance in my constituency. The declining of the coal industry is one of them. The question of labour is another. There are many more that I should like to deal with at greater length than I have found it possible to do in the short time that is available to me on this occasion.


Mr. J. Watson MacNaughi (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, may I through you, sir, extend to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne my warmest congratulations on the very excellent manner in which they discharged their duties. My congratulations at this time are all the more sincere because I recall that about 10 years ago I had the honour of moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I wish at this time to congratulate the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Kickham) on the excellent speech he made yesterday. The fact that he made that speech, talked about and discussed many of the important problems that affect Prince Edward Island at this time, makes it unnecessary for me to talk at any great length now.
There is one matter, however, that is causing our farmers, more particularly our potato farmers, much concern at this time, namely, the unfair tariff arrangements on potatoes that exist at the present time between Canada and the United States. About two years ago I spoke on this problem in this house. At that time I advanced reasons why I thought this unjust tariff should be renegotiated. I do not intend to put on the record now any of the arguments I used then. I understand, however, that an application has been made to GATT for permission to renegotiate the tariff agreement between Canada and the United States and that such permission has been granted. I hope that the tariff experts of Canada and the United States, if they have
The Address-Mr. MacNaught not already done so, will soon get together and try to work out a more equitable tariff arrangement on potatoes.
I intend now to discuss for a few moments the preliminary report of the Gordon commission on Canada's economic prospects, more particularly as it applies to the mari-times. It is unfortunate, I think, that this report has received such unfavourable press reports, particularly in the maritime newspapers. These reports seem to deal with the negative aspects of the report and ignore all the good suggestions that the report contains. I think the report must be considered as a whole and not have parts picked out of context and commented on. In my opinion, the report contains much that is good and much that will be of lasting benefit to the maritimes if carried out with the utmost co-operation of all parties concerned.
The most important problem of the maritimes is that of transportation, the problem of getting products of the farm and the sea to market. I am glad, therefore, that the commission has devoted a substantial part of its report to the problem of transportation.
The report says in paragraph 8 at page 101:
It seems evident that the transportation facilities of the Atlantic region are in need of improvement but it was not possible for us to undertake the kind of detailed study of the problem necessary in order to make positive proposals about the most appropriate measures which should be taken in order to provide solutions.
I doubt, Mr. Speaker, whether any brief presented to any economic commission during the last 50 years from persons in the maritime provinces has not contained some reference to transportation. It is our most important problem.


Ralph Byron Horner: And the government has done nothing about it.


John Watson MacNaught: The commission therefore recommends-and I agree very much with this recommendation-


Ralph Byron Horner: And the government has done nothing.


John Watson MacNaught: The commission suggests that this should be the subject of a special inquiry which should also include in its terms of reference a re-examination of the present effects of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. The Maritime Freight Rates Act was passed in 1927, I think, and has had a very beneficial result on the economy of the maritime provinces since that time. Many of the good and beneficial effects of the act, however, have been nullified or whittled away by the horizontal increases that have taken place in freight rates during the last 10 years. I was most pleased, therefore, to

The Address-Mr. Rowe see this recommendation in the report. It is one of the recommendations that the commission suggests should be carried out as soon as possible. I therefore urge the government to lose no time in appointing a commission to look into our transportation problems and more particularly the effects the horizontal increases in freight rates have had on the beneficial effects of the Maritime Freight Rates Act during the last ten years.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to comment on the speech from the throne I feel I must add my congratulations to those which have been extended to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on the able manner in which they discharged their respective duties. Although there has been a wide discussion on the speech from the throne in the limited number of days that we have been given to deal with it, there is not very much to discuss in the speech from the throne. It appears to be somewhat of a pre-election document filled with empty generalities and probably preceding the bringing down of a handout budget before voting day next June, which will in all likelihood be arranged so that we will have even less time to discuss the budget than we have had to discuss the speech from the throne.
I am sure that a great many people throughout the country have been disappointed by the contents of the throne speech. There is very little mention in it of the real problems which confront the people. Farmers throughout the country are disturbed. They find themselves in a steadily declining position and have become the most marginal group in Canada. In comparison with other industries those engaged in agriculture justifiably feel they are forgotten people. The costs of production have been steadily increasing and no other industry in Canada has a smaller margin of profit before taxes. In fact, other industries have almost double what the farmers have by way of return before income taxes. This does not seem to concern the government although it concerns almost everyone else in Canada. The government seems to be following its normal course of smug complacency. In fact, hon. members on the government side of the house do not seem to be very interested in the speech from the throne; very few of the ministers have spoken on it and very few of them even bother to remain in the house to listen to the comments of those who do wish to enter into this debate. The members of the government have been in power for so long a time that they have

grown satisfied with themselves and nothing seems to matter to them as long as it does not involve them.


Frank Exton Lennard: See them smiling even now.


William Earl Rowe: Governments are like machines and when they have been in power for a long time they wear out and become obsolete.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Some wear out faster than others.


William Earl Rowe: That comment came from one of the younger members, who has less experience in the cabinet; but he has only to look at his colleagues and examine their tired appearance in order to realize that this government is wearing out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Your government wore out in about six weeks.


William Earl Rowe: The Liberal government is indeed worn out. Indeed if democracy is to survive we must have alternative governments. Never was Canada more in need of an alternative government than she is at the present time. This government has been in power for so long that the people of Canada are becoming alarmed at its attitude. It is no mere figure of speech to say that the complacency of this government is now recognized by everyone. They would surely even admit that political expediency has been their watchword down through the years.


Frank Exton Lennard: They are getting pretty rusty.


William Earl Rowe: No government with such a vast majority can remain in power for a long period of time without growing, as they have grown, arrogant and contemptuous of parliament itself, showing utter disregard of questions of importance that are directed to them, and they are applauded by a host of followers. And they never receive more applause than when they give the emptiest and smartest answers in order to curtail interruptions. In fact, only the other day one hon. member said that the members on that side of the house were being criticized and indeed even the cabinet ministers were being condemned. Apparently it is a serious thing to members of the Liberal government when cabinet ministers are criticized by members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.


Frank Exton Lennard: How terrible!


William Earl Rowe: The view is that these men have been in power for so long that they should not be attacked and nothing should be said that would show disrespect toward them. Indeed, it is not just a case of showing disrespect; it is a matter of casting doubt concerning their type of intelligence. We have

watched changes occur on that side of the house and as the comedian said in the old adage, "What a difference just a few years make." I have seen a few changes over the years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why don't you refer it to a committee?


William Earl Rowe: And my hon. friend who interrupts me has, too. In fact, I have seen a lot of changes take place in him. When he first came into this house he was careful and cautious as a skilful engineer should be, but since he has engineered the house for so long he is growing reckless and is tossing caution to the winds. Such changes come over a man when he has been in power too long.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are speaking from experience?


William Earl Rowe: No, but I know one whom you followed very closely in the house. He grew so accustomed to being considered right that he could hardly contain himself and almost felt that he should consult with the spirits.
Mr. Speaker, governments grow that way, independent of party, and the trends which I have observed myself have been observed by many Canadians who view them with alarm. In fact, they are viewed with alarm by almost everyone who is not on the payroll, and since the government has put almost everyone on the payroll it would appear likely that those who have been forgotten will be put on the payroll before next June.


Walter Edward Harris: Perhaps you could remind us of a few.


William Earl Rowe: You have put so many on the payroll since I have been here and since you have occupied your present post that it would take a Philadelphia lawyer to discover those who have not been so honoured and even he would be hard put to remind you of any because political expediency has been your watchword, too.
These are serious times in the history of mankind, in the history of the commonwealth and in the history of world affairs, but this government sits smugly by and reveals very little evidence of concern for these twisting trends that we observe. I repeat, Mr. Speaker: oh what a change a few years have made! I can recall a time in this house when we had to be extremely careful not to appear to be too closely tied to the motherland. I remember listening to statesmen on the other side of the house tell us that there was nothing left of our bond with the motherland except a fine silken thread which you could
The Address-Mr. Rowe hardly see trembling across the ocean. Even that gossamer tie has been weakened since that time.
I can recall, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you can too,-coming as you do from the county I come from you must have similar ideas about such relationships-when our boys were fighting the most desperate battle in history some years ago we were told that we did not have room in this vast country to develop airfields even if they were to be paid for by the motherland for fear of the political repercussions they might create in this country. It was decided to let old England pay her own way in addition to all the burdens she was carrying. We had no room to build airfields in the wide open spaces of Prince Albert from where comes the new leader of this party.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What air field did Britain pay for?


William Earl Rowe: You would not let them pay for any because you would not let them in here at all. No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who has interrupted has, since that time, given vast areas to the United States, following the old policy of "we must not provoke her-we must not provoke our neighbour to the south" even though we quietly, slowly and silently ignore our relationship with the commonwealth.
Mr. Speaker, when this government goes to the country it will have to answer for some of these trends which have been developing so conspicuously in the natural life and character of this country by reason of its long and tedious control of affairs in Canada. I know there are those who disregard these issues. There is nothing more dangerous in a long era of prosperity. The Minister of Trade and Commerce tells us that even if we are buying to an extent of well over a billion dollars more than we are selling to the United States, that is a sort of prosperity. Ask the farmers in Simcoe and other areas what they think of that. It won't work. They have been buying iron and steel products that the United States has made out of our raw iron ore. Yes, the attitude seems to be that we must not provoke the United States even if they ask for investigations with regard to the prices we fix for our goods, should we increase the price of any of our forest products, newsprint or other exports which, of course, has been done. But for the sturdy attitude of the Conservative government of the province of Ontario they would have ordered the private books of firms in order to question our right to put a price on anything we have to sell.
It is true that in the meantime the prices of these articles have increased, like the

The Address-Mr. Rowe prices of everything else-85 per cent in the last 12 years-but there was no howl from Canada when they took our iron ore and made it into iron and steel products and increased the price of those by 114 per cent in the same period. It is true we sell to a great market-one and a quarter billion dollars' worth of forest products go to the United States. But we buy $1,490 million worth of iron products in exchange, though we only sell them about $136 million worth of the raw iron ore.
What is there in the speech from the throne which would give any consolation to the young engineer or to the mothers and fathers in this country who wonder what possibilities their children have before them? Sure, we have heard a great deal about the arts, the sciences and the humanities, and the council that is being set up, and the millions that are going to be spent on this project. That is all to the good. But cannot the government shake itself loose from its lethargy and realize that more scientists and engineers educated in our universities have gone to the United States in the last two years than in any other two years since confederation?.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not true.


William Earl Rowe: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would rather take the evidence I have than the reckless interruptions of the minister-


An hon. Member:: What is your evidence?


William Earl Rowe: -because, Mr. Speaker, that process has been going on for the last two years. I might suggest to the minister that since the government has control of radio and television along with other government monopolies, he might well give consideration to carrying out some scientific research into education, and to investigating more carefully what is being put on in these television programs, because our children now are learning to cheat before they are old enough to talk. I do not know what the next generation may be like. I like excitement as much as anyone else, and even though this government has become so slow and sluggish and old and tired that they cannot accustom themselves to anything new, I would urge them to give some study to what they are putting on television that is exciting our youth, encouraging them to run up the alleyways and highways and engage in all sorts of crime and adventure-activities which stem in some cases, and have been proven in the courts to stem in some cases-from what they have seen in these government-controlled pictures displaying the arts, social sciences and humanities.
[Mr. Rowe.l
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to review our trade situation; I realize there will be a budget brought down. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) smiles at that. Mr. Speaker, it must be a great feeling to be able to take from the people more money than has ever been taken from them since confederation, and spend more money than ever before, to raise interest on mortgages to an all-time high record and still have the largest surplus we have had since confederation and a hidden surplus as large as the one that is visible. Never was a government more prepared for an election than this government. We shall have an election next summer that will make all the others fade into insignificance. I have seen a lot of elections in my time. I have seen a lot of pork barrels packed with Liberal expediencies, but certainly I expect to see one next summer bulging over, filled with the gravy from the gravy train that the government has been riding on for so long, all taken from the taxpayers in the last five years

close to $1 billion more than they need. Then the government wonders why our farmers and our labour men are dissatisfied; why the people who have not benefited from all this are asking whether they can afford to keep their child at a university.
Then, to satisfy the bigger fellows and ensure their future, the government raises interest rates on about 80 per cent of the people of Canada and keeps taxes high to prevent them spending too much on boots or shoes for the babies, or to prevent the universities improving their facilities for the study of the arts and social sciences in Canada.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, this government is again embarked on an unhappy, slippery way, sliding more all the time. You have only to look at the number of vacant seats across the chamber during the debate on the speech from the throne to know that the majority of their members do not care what happens as long as it doesn't happen to them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How many were there on your side when you started to speak?


William Earl Rowe: I think there are a great many more on this side now than were on yours when I started. I thank you for the compliment. At least when I speak my members come in. When you speak most of yours go out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Servile followers.


William Earl Rowe: I am not making this speech in any slap-happy-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Slap-dash.


William Earl Rowe: You are a better judge of slapdash than any man in parliament. I am

not trying to make a slap-happy speech, or use any of the minister of immigration's slap-dashery before this house. I am trying to bring to the attention of the government some features that it seems to be impossible to instil into their minds. We have an able leader, Mr. Speaker, and we have a strong party but our party may not need to win the election on its own merits. This country will be so tired of an old and weary government that pays no attention to these fundamentals that the government will automatically defeat itself.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How long ago is it that you were a member of the government?


William Earl Rowe: That is when you were pretty much of a Conservative up in Fort William. That is why we employed you as our engineer to build elevators, and you did a good job.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Twenty-seven years ago.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Once more.


William Earl Rowe: These are not issues that can be brushed aside by the glib and clumsy interruptions of my hon. friends to your right. These are issues that concern the heart and soul of Canada. These are issues that concern the hope and security of this country. In all the years I have sat in parliament, Mr. Speaker, never have I been more ashamed of Canada's position within the British commonwealth than I have been during the last six months. There are hon. members in the house and I know there are those who sit to your right who will believe what I say but will not dare to speak. No man is more apt with honeyed words of praise for the commonwealth than the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). No man can say nicer things about our relationship. No man can express himself at the United Nations more eloquently than he can by an almost dangerous silence.
Where are we going, Mr. Speaker, so far as the commonwealth is concerned? What is our policy? Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) tell us? No, he cannot tell us.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) might.


William Earl Rowe: The Minister of National Health and Welfare might.


Frank Exton Lennard: But he will not.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, the commonwealth of nations has been the greatest, the most
The Address-Mr. Rowe successful experiment in human relationships of anything the world has ever known. Never in the history of this great old globe has an experiment been tried, tested and proven successful for more centuries than the British commonwealth of nations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Earl Rowe: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my friends to the right will applaud and will give lip service.


Frank Exton Lennard: And they cut their throats a month ago.


William Earl Rowe: But when the chips are down, as the saying goes, when their leaders are almost crippled under the burden of responsibility, when the nation that has been the beacon light of hope and security down through the centuries, the nation that took the lead in 1914, the nation that took the lead in 1939, the nation that was almost brought to her knees before our great friends to the south entered those wars, when that nation is in trouble, when its leaders are struggling for support, what do we do?


Frank Exton Lennard: We sold them out.


William Earl Rowe: The little nation of Australia, not nearly as large as Canada, was not consulted, was not so proud that they had to be consulted first. Oh no. But our Secretary of State for External Affairs, much as he loves the old land and praises it with honeyed words, could not stand with them because he thought he should have been consulted. Now he supports the United States of America which says that it does not want to be consulted. He opposed Britain for going into the Suez and he supports the United States of America when the government of that country asks congress: Now that we have got Britain kicked out, can we go in?
He opposed Britain because Britain said that, if allowed to do so, it would stay there until there were signs of peace and the dangers of war in that area were eliminated. He opposes them for taking that stand. Yet he supports the United States of America when its government asks permission from congress to go in there but says it will not go in until Nasser asks them to come. Britain and France told the United States of America that Russia was sending technical advisers, weapons and machinery to support the Arab countries which had threatened to eliminate Israel but even so the United States said: You must get out. Now the United States wants to go in there but is not going to go in without permission even though the whole road from Bulgaria to the North sea is plugged with Russian troops and equipment.
574	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Rowe
Do these facts not shock or shake this government?


An hon. Member:: No.


William Earl Rowe: Do the members of the government think that because they talk the most and travel the most of any cabinet ministers since confederation they know everything about the whole world? Never had we had such talkers and travellers as we have in the present government. They travel around the world. I do not mind the expense, Mr. Speaker. I have had travelling expenses that I paid myself and I know what they amounted to. The taxpayers of Canada are so accustomed to paying high taxes and watching reckless expenditure that even the money spent by these travelling cabinet ministers does not seem to disturb them. In fact, some of the farmers in my district would have spent more if they had had the opportunity.
But, Mr. Speaker, where do we stand? Where are we headed? Is the commonwealth worth anything or not?


Frank Exton Lennard: You would not think so, to hear them.


William Earl Rowe: Are we supposed to be a partner in the commonwealth? Do we pose in election campaigns and at Lions club meetings as the senior partner? Do we shove our chests out and say we are the brightest gem in Her Majesty's crown? Are we that great? Then, boys, England expects every man to do his duty. The commonwealth expects that the senior partner will be the senior partner in trial as well as in triumph. Where are we headed? There is no question that we are either in the commonwealth or we are not in it. If we are not in it, we will depend on the dollar sign and the dollar bloc or we will have to depend on communism and the Soviet bloc.
Do not sell the commonwealth short. I know there are those in the government who will applaud. I know there are those who are from the old land. I know there are those from every country in the world who are being assimilated in Canada and who realize that the British commonwealth of nations is the greatest assembly, the greatest partnership, the world has ever known. Whether they are Ukrainians, Czechoslovakians, Austrians, Poles, Netherlanders, no matter from where they have come, they are here because of the British commonwealth of nations.
There is no greater Liberal fetish, no greater Liberal delusion than the delusion of those who sit to your right, Mr. Speaker, in pretending that we who sit to your left are clinging to the old strings of colonialism,


that the British commonwealth is only for the sheltered few and that they are the champions of Canada's present status. A quarter of a century ago, Mr. Speaker, I heard in this parliament some of the members on that side bragging that they had won this status for Canada. Yes, I heard the late minister of justice and the late prime minister boasting that they had won it. You would have thought to hear them on the hustings that the only status Canada had was a status with a Liberal tag on it.
Who won this status for Canada? Who won our independence? We are grown up. As has been said in years gone by, certainly we are daughters in our mother's house but we have been mistress in our own for a long time. Canada is an independent country. She was not made independent within the British commonwealth. Her independence made her allegiance to the old land that much stronger.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, you know very well, as do many other hon. members on all sides of this house who served in the first great war, that this status was won for Canada from 1914 to 1918, when 60,000 Canadians paid the price. When the late Sir Robert Borden signed the treaty of Versailles, Canada signed as an independent nation. Her status was not won in 1926 at the conference attended by the Liberal statesman of that day. Her status was won between 1914 and 1918. When Sir Robert Borden signed that treaty of Versailles he said in this parliament that the tears rolled down his cheeks because as he signed the treaty for Canada as an independent nation he felt he was signing it with the blood of those who slept in Flanders fields rather than with the ink that was used a few years ago by Liberal politicians.
Mr. Speaker, we have a part to play and we have a responsibility. Again I say this: Do not let anyone sell this great institution short. The Canadian people will not allow any government to forfeit the great chance we have to become still greater in the British commonwealth of nations. Ever since I was a small boy I have heard it said that the sun never sets on the British empire, that it comprises one-quarter of the world. I just checked up here recently and found out the facts. Despite those facts there are those who sit back and say it is too bad, but the old land is through; that the commonwealth has lost her place in the sun; that we now will look north or south. Those sitting on the government benches have allowed over the last 20 years another dangerous trend to develop, so that about 70 per cent of our business is now done with the United States of America.

Stop and think of the matter. Never in the history of human relations and trade relations has any nation gambled as Canada has done. No other nation in the world has ever put so many of her trade eggs in the one basket. Yet, Mr. Speaker, some of the grandfathers and fathers of those young hecklers across the floor to your right, in the years gone by fought an election to have commercial union with the United States of America, and again in 1911. In 1925 I remember so well what happened. The Minister of Finance-he is not in the house; he is still in Montreal-some years ago said, "We do not believe in a brick for brick policy with the United States. We believe in countervailing duties. We will raise our tariffs when the United States raise their tariffs. We will have a countervailing system". In other words we will send our fiscal responsibilities and prerogatives down to Washington and will do what they do. Then a few years later the leader said, "We should like to raise tariffs against the United States of America with this trade coming in as it is, but we must not provoke the United States".
He said we must not provoke them. It would be too bad to provoke them. Mr. Speaker, since before you and I were born, every year consistently we have sold more to the old land, than we have bought from her. I spoke about the British commonwealth covering 25 per cent of the world area. She has more than that percentage of the world trade. Twenty-seven per cent of all exports of the free world today are coming from the British commonwealth of nations. Thirty-one per cent of all the imports are used by the British commonwealth of nations. This government are turning their eyes to Washington, afraid to provoke them, saying where they lead we will follow, even though they are condemning Britain for the same course, condemning Britain on the left hand and following the United States in an even more radical course on the right hand. Mr. Speaker, it is a spectacle that would be a comedy if it was not bordering on a national tragedy.
Mr. Speaker, what we should be doing and what our statesmen should be doing is this. I have no criticism for them at all for travelling; in fact for all they do at home they might as well be travelling. I would rather see the Minister of National Health and Welfare travelling, whether he is talking to bewhiskered men in Ceylon or wherever it might be. I am proud to see him travelling and gaining knowledge of world affairs.
But, Mr. Speaker, I say that we should not sell this commonwealth short. Instead of looking to Washington we should be giving study to our part in the British commonwealth
The Address-Mr. Rowe of nations, and how we can unite with western Europe. The hope of civilization rests more with the British commonwealth of nations united with western Europe than it does with the United Nations organization that can be defeated by those it is trying to control. Western Europe and the commonwealth combined, despite what some people think about the sterling bloc, today control 59 per cent of all the exports of the world and 65 per cent of all the imports. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is very glib with interruptions. If these figures startle him, let him deny them. If he were in his place he would probably say they cannot be true. Did the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration question them?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did.


William Earl Rowe: I am not here to educate the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. He has been around here for a long time, and he should have learned more.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The figures probably came from the Tory statistical office.


William Earl Rowe: The United Kingdom herself has given us a favourable trade balance down through the years. Britain imports 70 per cent of all she buys from western Europe and the commonwealth. She is playing her part as a partner. I think it is high time we played our part as a senior partner. My leader has asked repeatedly for a commonwealth conference. Before he became leader of this party he asked for one, and he has done so since. One of the first things he did when he became leader was to urge that we should have a British commonwealth conference. We have pleaded with this government for one. The answer has been no. The Prime Minister has said it is not convenient for him now. The ex-prime minister of the United Kingdom has gone out of public life perhaps for good, broken physically and almost broken-hearted. But no; we have no time for a conference. The new leader has come into office facing an economic crisis. The nation has been brought almost to her knees economically. On the floor of the House of Commons pleas have been made that the commonwealth nations should get together; that we should have a restudy of the matter; that we should bring this subject of international trade before the conference and find out, after careful study of this allimportant subject, where we stand and what we might do.
I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, and neither are you, whether, when we are confronted with a situation such as this we can arrange to change the picture overnight. But before I resume my seat I say in all sincerity that

The Address-Mr. Martin
we as a senior member of the commonwealth, independent of party, race or creed, should be ashamed to sit idly by and see develop a situation and a trend that threaten the economic soundness of the greatest institution, the greatest organization, the greatest and most successful experiment in human relations that world history has ever recorded, one that has shaped the pattern of the United Nations. The failure of the United Nations to follow that pattern has been responsible for its greatest lack of success.
Mr. Speaker, if this government are so sure of returning to power I urge upon them that, if they are interested in the generations that are yet to come, they have some research undertaken but not by a Gordon commission. Do not pick somebody whom you are going to make a cabinet minister to tell you how to win the next election by telling people that by 1980 they will be so happy that they will not have to work at all, that they will eat more, drink more and have more fun.
We do not need that in Canada. We want someone who will look into this and find out if Canada is a senior partner of the British commonwealth, and if she is playing her part as such. I do not like to think, Mr. Speaker, that our people have to go to the United States for jobs fabricating our raw resources to be sold back to us. I do not like to depend on the whims of Washington. I do not like to have our international affairs guided by our glib-tongued twin travellers in external affairs who follow the United States of America. I would rather that even when they have a little doubt they would follow the motherland that has given leadership to the world down through the years and, Mr. Speaker, could give even stronger leadership in the future if she were supported by her partners. Combined with her partners she can still be the greatest nation in the world; separated from them she will fall apart, and then we will have to line up either with the Yankee dollar or Soviet dictatorship.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: When the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, speaks in this house, Mr. Speaker, I am sure he is aware of the admiration and friendship that all hon. members have for him. But I would not want this tribute to be construed as meaning that one always agrees with what he says. Certainly there are occasions in this house when one wonders whether the hon. gentleman is not seeking to make an effective debating speech rather than have us take all the things he says with too much seriousness.


An hon. Member:: Now, now, careful.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not seriously believe there is anyone in 

this house, and I am sure he does not for a moment think there is any political group to your right or to your left, Mr. Speaker, that does not wholly subscribe to the view that the commonwealth is an instrument for good in this world and that it must be preserved. One would have thought we had long passed the day when it would be possible to seek to divide public opinion in this country on the question of allegiance to the commonwealth.


Frank Exton Lennard: The British commonwealth.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The British commonwealth. One would have thought also that we had passed the time when anyone could seriously assert that any responsible political group in this country did not recognize, particularly in view of the interdependent character of our world and the critical nature of the current international situation, the value of the British commonwealth of nations.
It is because we have heard in this debate a number of speeches suggesting that a serious divergence has taken place between the government, on the one hand, and certain groups in opposition on the other in respect of the commonwealth's value that I rise today as one member of this house to affirm strongly that the thesis of the speech to which we have just listened cannot be supported by any policy or declaration made by the government or by any responsible group of citizens in Canada. On what does the hon. gentleman rely for the statement he makes that we have reached in Canada a critical situation regarding our appreciation of the commonwealth? On what does he rely to suggest that anything that has transpired in this country during the last few months indicates that the government of this country does not share the view of most Canadians that the commonwealth is an institution for good and for peace in the world?
I believe we must understand what is the nature of the commonwealth if we are to deal successfully with the kind of statement to which we have just listened. Does it rest on the ground that one constituent member of the commonwealth must be regarded as not having any faith in the commonwealth because, in a matter of some importance, it has sought to take a course that was not wholly consistent with the course taken by another member of that commonwealth? Does it mean that the commonwealth association precludes freedom of decision and judgment on the part of any of its constituents? If that is the thesis of the hon. gentleman, for whom I have the highest personal regard, as he knows, then I must say to him that that concept of the commonwealth is one that is now long out of date.


William Earl Rowe: No one knows better than you that that is not the concept.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will not forget that in 1919 it was a Conservative prime minister, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, who took serious issue at a prime ministers' conference-


Mr. Knowles:: Was not Sir Robert Borden prime minister in 1919?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sorry, it was 1921; I thank my hon. friend for correcting the year. Mr. Meighen was attending an imperial conference in London in 1921 when he took the lead in denouncing the Anglo-Japanese alliance-


William Earl Rowe: That is the independence of which I speak.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman is now recanting his position.


William Earl Rowe: I told you before that you were setting up straw men. That is the position I took.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let me finish my remarks; then you can ask me any questions and I shall try to answer them. Mr. Meighen took the position that the Anglo-Japanese alliance was not in the interests of commonwealth unity and inimical to commonwealth-United States relations; that it was not an instrument for easing the tension that then prevailed between friendly nations; that it was not calculated to provide unity in the British Empire. Is one to argue that the prime minister of that day was not entitled to have an independent, Canadian point of view? Will anyone suggest in all seriousness that Mr. Meighen had a less appreciative concept of the commonwealth than the hon. gentleman who has just spoken?
I endeavoured when I was in Australia, speaking of the commonwealth and explaining our position, to describe my view of the commonwealth in these terms. I suspect that it represents the evolutionary character and quality of the commonwealth as it is understood today. I said:
Like all human institutions, the commonwealth is changing and will continue to change.
If anyone challenges that observation I would ask him to read the famous speech of Lord Milner, than whom there was certainly no greater protagonist of the empire and commonwealth.


William Earl Rowe: I never challenged that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says he does not challenge that, and that is a very important admission because of what is to follow.


William Earl Rowe: You are putting up straw men.
The Address-Mr. Martin


Paul Joseph James Martin: I continued:
That, I suggest, has been one ol the secrets of its success. It has grown and developed out of what was once a colonial empire, to become a free association of sovereign nations, made up of men and women of many races and colours and creeds but all united by their allegiance to a common crown and by their belief in the validity of the democratic process.
The right of each member to determine for itself its attitude towards important international issues is basic to our concept of the commonwealth.
It would be a distortion of the truth to say that our views on all important matters have always been identical. Variations in approach and emphasis are to be expected between nations that are situated in various quarters of the globe. But that is surely one of the strengths of this family association of ours-that we are able to speak frankly and thoughtfully to one another and not be misunderstood. In this way, we have in our informal and effective manner been able to get many things done and to demonstrate in the quality of our relationship the type of true international co-operation that should be the objective of all who, through the United Nations and other instruments of co-operative action, seek to build a world at peace.
That was and is my understanding of the character, the intentions and the purpose of the commonwealth.


William Earl Rowe: That was mine 30 years ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says that was his about 30 years ago. I am glad to know that, but it certainly was not the view he stated a few moments ago.


William Earl Rowe: Oh, yes; you were not listening.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I emphasize that the reason I expressed these views was that I was speaking in a sister country of the commonwealth at a time when the strains on all were great, and when all commonwealth members had not taken the same course in the United Nations in respect of the action of one of the important constituents of that commonwealth. An Australian newspaper, the day after, quoted approvingly this conception of the commonwealth and said its very essence consisted in that it afforded to its members the opportunity of freedom of judgment, and that that privilege could be compared with the totalitarian restrictions that did not permit under any circumstances any deviation. This is the strength of the commonwealth of nations, and I say I do not think one promotes the interests of this free association of nations by suggesting that because there have been disagreements, or shadings of disagreements, these should be regarded as an indication of a desire to destroy the unity of an instrument which at this time is one of the essentials for the peace of the world.


Frank Exton Lennard: What about supermen?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now, my hon. friend says we should not sell the commonwealth short. He

The Address-Mr. Martin has not given any arguments to support the justification for that interpolation.


Frank Exton Lennard: You certainly did last fall.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He put a rhetorical question to this house, and by the character of the question seeks to leave the impression that the government had sold the commonwealth short. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, with confidence that on the record there is-


Frank Exton Lennard: On the record, yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -no evidence to support that kind of statement or impression.


Frank Exton Lennard: What about the supermen?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the commonwealth made of? The commonwealth, inter alia, consists of the United Kingdom, of Canada, of Australia, of New Zealand and of South Africa. It includes among others those great Asian nations of India, Ceylon and Pakistan. Do we strengthen the commonwealth by suggesting to those Asian nations in particular that because they take certain courses they are contributing to the disruption and the disunity of the commonwealth? I have had the opportunity of talking, and talking seriously, to the prime ministers of all these commonwealth countries in Asia, and I can say with confidence that I am sure if that was the view of the commonwealth generally held, it would be a view that would not be fully subscribed to by all of them.
The commonwealth is an instrument for good, not only in America, not only in Europe but in Asia, and I doubt very much whether we strengthen it in these areas by suggesting, as was suggested just now, that a difference of opinion among members of the commonwealth is to be construed as evidence of or as a desire to disrupt this important grouping of nations.
The prime minister of India said the British commonwealth was important because it was made up of independent, sovereign nations bound together by certain common factors; a common appreciation of the value of individual freedom; an appreciation of the individual as being more important than the state; and an appreciation of the value of the parliamentary processes. These are some of the important links of the commonwealth, and to suggest now that it is predicated on the fact that we must agree on everything is to suggest something that is so out of date that one wonders whether it is necessary to spend much time by way of reply to a thesis that suggests the opposite.
It is only because words such as those we have heard are calculated to do more harm than good that I, as one member of this


house, feel that I should take issue with what the hon. gentleman has said.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has been very glib in misconstruing what I said, but I will not let him say in this house that my remarks were calculated to do more harm than good. He was a mighty flatterer in his original compliments, in saying what he did, and now he is suggesting that my remarks were calculated to do more harm than good in this house. May I assure you, sir, that I was not talking about differences. I emphasized the independence we have had ever since the days of Sir Robert Borden, and I also emphasized the need for a conference, on which the minister has not touched.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would not want for one moment to use words the hon. gentleman might find personally offensive, because the hon. gentleman is not the kind of man who deliberately seeks to do anything but good. But what I did say was that his speech today, notwithstanding what his intention may be, was not in my judgment calculated to strengthen the very organizations which he espouses so strongly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about the Prime Minister's speech of November 26, when he talked about supermen?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will anyone deny that the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about that?


Ralph Byron Horner: What did he mean by that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Something was said about supermen. I do not know what is meant by that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You were away.


Ralph Byron Horner: We do not, either.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If by that is meant we are trying to pit white against coloured I say that, too, is not in the interests of preserving the unity of the commonwealth of nations.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Was that what the Prime Minister was trying to do?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is there not another aspect of this that is important?


Ralph Byron Horner: That is what we are talking about.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom-


Lewis Elston Cardiff: On a point of order, who on this side said anything about colour?


Frank Exton Lennard: The Prime Minister did.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in a speech he made the other day in the United Kingdom, said that one of the purposes of his administration would be to strengthen the Anglo-American alliance, as he called it. I am sure that all of us, aware of the tensions that prevail in the world at this time, recognize that the welfare of the freedom-loving nations depends on the existence of that alliance as well as on the association of all free nations of the world.
The hon. gentleman suggested by implication in his speech, as did the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) who spoke yesterday, that not only were we seeking to bring about a disunity of the commonwealth-


Frank Exton Lennard: You have already done that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -but we were also seeking to add to this disunity closer association with the United States.


Frank Exton Lennard: You are just trying to mend the fences now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Secretary of State for External Affairs said at the special session that Canada was a messenger boy for no country, that we were capable of arriving at independent judgments-


Frank Exton Lennard: Sometimes we doubt that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -within the terms of the reference extended to us as a free, independent nation within the commonwealth of nations. He said not only were we not the messenger boy for any one country, but that by our policies and our attitudes over the past half decade we have indicated that where there were differences between ourselves and the United States we did not hesitate to firmly express our opinions and our intentions.
I would say that to seek to suggest that as a result of the course we have taken in respect of the matter of recent date we have thereby sought to move closer to the United States than to the commonwealth is not in harmony with the facts, and moreover is not in itself calculated to promote the kind of relations that should exist between Canada and Great Britain on the one hand and Canada and the United States on the other. Neither is it calculated to promote our position if we serve any purpose at all as a bridge between friendly nations, nor is it calculated to promote the very objective the British prime minister said it was one of his determinations to seek to do, to improve relations between the United States and Great Britain.
We have indicated from time to time at the United Nations and elsewhere a difference 82715-37i
The Address-Mr. Martin in point of view not only with Great Britain but with the United States and with other countries; and because we have expressed these differences, has that in any way alienated us in our associations, or in our friendships, or in our determination to do all we can to strengthen the existence of freedom by our association and collaboration with the United Kingdom, the United States, France and with other freedom-loving countries? The time surely is at hand when we all should realize that not only is it important that there should be the most cordial of relations between Great Britain on the one hand and the United States on the other, but that there should be a similar relationship among all the freedom-loving countries of the world.
The peace of the world at this time largely depends upon the collaboration of the United Kingdom and the United States, but it also depends upon the association for common purposes of all the freedom-loving nations of the world, and that includes the United States. Is it wrong for us, the country that is the closest neighbour of the United States, a country that has lived in relative peace with the United States for almost 150 years, to take advantage from time to time of an opportunity to affirm the peaceful intentions of the policies of the United States? When we do so, are we in any way giving evidence of less interest on our part in the commonwealth, or less appreciation of the value of the United Kingdom as one important member of that commonwealth?
Surely in this critical day when the free world finds itself, as was expressed by the President of the United States, "confronted with situations of the most serious kind", it does not seem proper for any hon. member of this house to suggest that by its policies the government of Canada is seeking to destroy the unity of the commonwealth and thereby impairing the relations that should prevail between the United Kingdom and the United States.
The hon. gentleman said we have grown up; he said that Canada is independent. If the hon. gentleman means that, and I am sure on reflection he really does mean that, surely his pronouncements should be predicated accordingly. As he himself said, a distinguished prime minister and leader of his own party played a great part at Versailles at the end of the first world war in giving expression to the new sense of nationhood which this country had acquired as a result of the heroism of her sons in that war. An independent nation within the commonwealth acts in accordance with what it conceives to be the interests of itself, of the common-

The Address-Mr. Martin wealth and of the peace of the world; and, Mr. Speaker, no other motive can be attributed to the policies of those who sit on your right in this house at this time.
It was suggested yesterday that we were giving too much support to the United Nations. I am not aware that we on this side of the house have ever said that the only consideration in our foreign policy had to do with the United Nations, but I was a little surprised when I heard the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, in what I thought was a failure on his part to appreciate the true present nature of the United Nations. I thought most of the people in this country supported those who spoke for this nation at San Francisco in 1945, when we affixed our signature to the charter of the United Nations and joined with Great Britain and the United States and other freedom-loving nations of the world in seeking by that instrument to set up for the second time in 25 years an organization by which we hoped to minimize the occasions of war and provide for our world some semblance of tranquility in order.
The signature of the prime minister of Canada was attached to the charter of the United Nations in the presence of representatives of the opposition. I well remember the late Mr. Gordon Graydon's views, and he was present at the signing of the charter in San Francisco. He was one of the staunchest friends of the United Nations and strongly supported the obligations that flowed from our signature to its charter. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre will remember that at the preparatory commission of the United Nations in the fall of 1945 Mr. Gray don spoke about the value of the United Nations as it was then understood in Canada.
The view he gave then is still the view of this government and I believe of the majority in this house and in this country. There was no suggestion by him, nor is there any suggestion now by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that the United Nations is a perfect organization, that it has so developed its processes of adjudication and conciliation or that its constitution is such that it is capable of dealing finally and effectively with every problem in international life today. What Mr. Graydon said and what we say now, as the President of the United States said yesterday and as Mr. Harold Macmillan, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said a year ago in the United Nations, is that this organization

with all its faults and with all the frustrations that have attended its operations in 10 years, represents for all of us in the long term the best hope for mankind.
The fact that it has not been possible to implement article 43 and give it, as an hon. member suggested yesterday, the kind of sanction necessary to make its legislative effort effective is not because of any fault of Canada, nor is it the fault of the United States or of the United Kingdom. If the United Nations has not yet achieved the powers involved in the kind of sanction that would make this organization fully effective, for example, in the case of Hungary, the fault lies at the doorstep not of any country in the free world but of the Soviet union, which has consistently refused to give effect to the implications of article 43. To say that the United Nations is one of the cornerstones of our foreign policy is not to suggest that we believe it to be a perfect instrument or organization; it is certainly no justification for the view that we have abandoned the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or that we have abandoned reliance on the potential and actual value of the commonwealth of nations.
Mr. Churchill, as prime minister of the United Kingdom, had much to do with the setting up of the United Nations. He and Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Mackenzie King, among others, played a great part in the inception of that organization and no one would suggest that because Mr. Churchill had been disposed to act as he did he was anxious to see the liquidation of the empire in which he found so much to be admired. To suggest that we have abandoned our other obligations in the commonwealth or under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is to suggest something that is simply not in harmony with the facts. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said he knew that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was a confirmed believer in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He acknowledged that in answer to a question I put to him at the end of his speech.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not say anything about his being a confirmed believer. I said he had applied himself-


Paul Joseph James Martin: But it was said that he was not vigorously extending his views to the public of Canada on the value of this organization. I do not know of anyone in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization who consistently, year after year, month after month and day after day, has done so much to promote, integrate and strengthen that organiza-

tion as the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Was he not one of three men selected by his own colleagues in NATO to seek additional ways of strengthening that organization as an instrument not of aggression but of defence against possible aggression from any quarter?
No, Mr. Speaker; we were forced to give support to the idea of NATO not because we lacked faith in the United Nations, not because we lacked faith in the commonwealth, but because it was not possible in the United Nations to get the amount of force collectivized for given situations which we considered vitally necessary. And this was the result of the attitude which the Soviet union took as late as 1947, and in which it has persisted ever since. That was why the North Atlantic Treaty Organization came into being. It was not because we did not have an appreciation of the United Nations as a force for good and peace in the world; it was not because we deprecated the value of the commonwealth. It was simply because we recognized that because of the character of the world as we found it then, and as it is now, there was no other course open to us. It is wrong to suggest that because we now give support to the United Nations that is our only concern. No man does himself justice when he says that because of our advocacy of the United Nations we have lost faith in any other association of nations with which we have had close collaboration.


William Earl Rowe: Why not call a conference?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says why not call a conference? The British commonwealth of nations is an organization of closely-knit members who have so much in common, and these links are essential for holding together those nations in the commonwealth and outside who recognize the nature of the gulf between themselves and those countries controlled by communism, or dominated by the Soviet union or by any other group of communist countries. Mr. Speaker, it is not desirable in my judgment if we would ease existing tensions; it is not in my judgment in the interest of the unity that prevails among commonwealth members and between close allies such as the United States, to suggest that our policies in the past months have been directed to purposes that would destroy the commonwealth or the friendship we have with certain countries whose existence or power is essential at this time for the preservation not only of the commonwealth, not only of the United States, not only of India but of all free peoples throughout the world.


Daniel Roland Michener: Will the minister permit a question? I shall be very brief. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the minister may not have
The Address-Mr. Castleden covered the point which I would like to raise with him. In putting a value on these relationships-and I think the house agrees with that-he does not seem to have dealt with this difficulty . . .


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Daniel Roland Michener: Does the minister not see some conflict between our relationship with our commonwealth friends and the action the government took in using the United Nations as an alternative; and was the choice of the United Nations not the choice of an imperfect instrument for the job that had to be done?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is a better student than I am of the charter of the United Nations, and I am sure he knows that the course taken by us was taken in full conformity with the solemn obligation we gave when we signed that charter.


Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, in the closing minutes of what is probably the last debate on the speech from the throne in this parliament, I intend to speak about the economic condition of the people in the area of that part of Canada which I have the honour to represent.
Today many of the producers in that part of Canada are bankrupt, and the people in the communities and cities are facing an economic slump. I wish to discuss this matter very briefly, and to close in time to give the government an opportunity to reply to an amendment I propose to move at the close of my remarks.
The cause of the economic conditions in that part of Canada is the extent to which the cost of living has been allowed to rise in recent years, seriously affecting the producers' operating costs. Each year costs of operation of the agricultural producers have spiralled until today, with decreasing returns, they are facing bankruptcy, as I have said. Every other business in Canada affected by increasing costs of operation merely passes on those increased costs in the form of increased prices to the consumer.
The Liberal government is solely responsible for the present spiral in the cost of living. I well recall when in the years following world war II the government proposed to lift price controls. We pleaded with them to leave the controls in force. We told them that if they took off price controls costs of living and costs of operation would spiral, and we would have an inflationary result in Canada that would ultimately bring about the ruination of the country. They replied, "Oh, well, there is nothing to fear; there may be a few increases in the cost of living, but the law of supply and demand will soon



S82 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Castleden
operate and competition will come into play in such a way as to level off everything".
There has been no levelling off. The cost of living and the cost of operating have continued to increase year by year over the past 10 years. Either there is no competition, or the so-called law of supply and demand is not operating.
What I wish to emphasize, however, is that in Canada there is one industry which cannot pass on Its increased costs of production to the consumer, and that industry is agriculture. No business can long continue to operate when its costs of operation are greater than the returns to the industry. In support of what I have said I am going to quote the words of the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool when he recently referred to the condition of the farmers in the prairie area. At that time he said:
The price he received for his grain and other agricultural products was too low to keep the average farmer out of debt. . . . The result is that many farmers are dipping into reserves to keep going while other farmers are accumulating debts which will be extremely difficult to pay at present prices.
Here is the ominous part of the whole situation. What of the future? Nothing has been done, nothing is being done to prevent the cost spiral from continuing. He went on to point out:
The disparity between costs and prices will in all probability continue to have a serious effect on farm people throughout the coming year.
It is because of the emergency facing these farmers that I rise at this time to protest the existing situation and the do nothing policy of the present government. In fact it is even worse than that. As evidence of what is happening, may I say that young, efficient farmers by the hundreds are selling out and leaving the farms even in the very constituency of the Minister of Agriculture, who was sent here 20 years ago to take care of agriculture and look after that industry for Canada. A more deliberate ruination of agriculture can scarcely be imagined.
Since the government are responsible for this condition, one would have thought that at least they would have introduced some measures to alleviate the situation. At least a parity price program could have been introduced which would have maintained a proper relationship between the selling prices of the farmers' goods and their income on the one hand and their costs on the other. Then the farmer could survive. But the government has left the farmer to the mercies of a cost-price squeeze.
Agriculture is one industry which cannot control its sales or prices, and a parity price program is imperative if agriculture is to

survive. The Liberal government and private Liberal members from Saskatchewan as well as the other prairie provinces, have always voted against a parity price program, and the prairie farmer is being left in a bankrupt state. Last year when cash advances were needed Liberal members voted against them. The government has failed to provide interior government storage for surplus grain in order to prevent spoilage, permit farm deliveries and give relief to the producers. The government has refused to do anything.
What contribution has the Minister of Agriculture made? In the face of the present deplorable condition of agriculture, for which he is responsible as minister, he continues to give the impression in the east and the west that farmers in the prairie areas are well off, in spite of every evidence to the contrary; and the minister knows it. He has not only failed to protect agriculture but has left agriculture open to the dangers of inflation. This misrepresentation of the actual conditions of the farmers of the west can only be described as one of the greatest betrayals of agriculture the history of Canada has ever known.
Millions of bushels of grain are wasting on the prairies. Millions of bushels of grain are piled in heaps or in bins open to the weather. If storage had been provided when the surplus accumulated this waste could have been prevented. This is the situation we have at a time when a billion people in Asia and Africa are hungry, people whose good will we need so badly. If the government had spent one-tenth of what it has spent on armaments, many of which are obsolete, on the feeding of these people and the promotion of peace we could have relieved the situation of the farmers and helped agriculture. The government continues to spend almost $2 billion a year on armaments and less than one-tenth of that amount in trying to promote peace and create good will.
In view of the fact that agriculture must have parity prices I move, seconded by the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell), the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by adding the following words to the said address:
"We regret, however, that Your Excellency's advisers seem to favour a flexible price support program, the effect of which is to leave the agricultural industry in a state of uncertainty and insecurity; we also regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to take the necessary steps to establish a system of parity prices for agricultural products at levels to ensure 100 per cent parity of income for agricultural producers.''
Russell Earl Reinke: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion to speak very briefly on two or three matters that are of paramount interest to myself, to the people

of my constituency and to Canada as a whole. First of all may I sincerely congratulate the mover (Mr. Hanna) and seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both these hon. gentlemen lived up to past traditions in that respect.
One of my reasons for speaking at this time is to pay tribute to my friend the late Mr. Ross, former member for Hamilton East.
I know that when parliament assembled last November the usual eulogies were expressed, but I do wish to pay my respects on behalf of the people of his constituency and of Hamilton. Mr. Ross was one of those persons who very seldom spoke in the house, but our people back home appreciated a quality in him which was much more important, that of getting things done. I wish he could have been here yesterday when the estimates were tabled to see the results of some of his endeavours. I wish to thank the Minister of Public Works and the government for their understanding of our problems in Hamilton and their confidence in the future of our expanding city.
This year, according to the 1957-58 estimates just tabled, the Department of Public Works will be spending $1,700,000 for harbour improvements and developments. These expenditures have been brought about to a great degree by the tenacity with which the late Mr. Ross represented Hamilton East. For the information of hon. members I might also add that while this large amount is to be spent in Hamilton, the benefits will be felt throughout the surrounding area over the next few years. Hamilton is the hub of shipping for this area. We rank third in all Canada for tonnage shipped. It is the hub for such cities as Niagara Falls, St. Catharines, Guelph and so on. Once again, as I have said, we have broken the tonnage record for Hamilton.
I now wish to say just a word about another matter of great importance. Many members of this house have spoken about an increase in pension for the old age pensioner. I have subscribed to this measure from the day I first arrived here, and I am pleased that this worth-while cause has caught fire. This is a problem of interest to everyone. We all expect to be senior citizens some day. The welfare of our senior citizens is everyone's business. Life expectancy is increasing, so it is becoming more and more necessary that greater attention be paid to this group. I believe an increase at this time will greatly enhance the opportunity for full employment, in which the government has always been interested. It will put more money in circulation, will cause
The Address-Mr. Reinke more goods to be consumed in Canada, and will contribute toward a more orderly distribution.
I do not believe that by increasing the old age pension any incentive to thrift or economy will be lost. On the contrary, every dollar paid to old age pensioners will be spent on goods and services, and will help create a better standard of living for others. It is indeed demoralizing in our economic and social system to have one group of people live under stringent circumstances. I realize, of course, that an increase in the old age pension will present a problem to our government. According to our estimates, just tabled, family allowance payments in 1957-58 will amount to $412,265,000; old age security payments for 1957-58 will amount to $392,536,000, making nearly $805 million for these two important items alone.
An increase of $20 per month would bring our expenditure for old age security to nearly $600 million, or the two combined to nearly $1 billion, almost 20 per cent of our total budget. But I believe most Canadian citizens are anxious to pay for these allowances, and when I say "most" I include persons in both high and low income brackets. I have not had one complaint about the 2 per cent deduction added to personal income tax for this purpose, and if necessary I am sure the average person would gladly pay 3 per cent to give our older folks a better life.
I feel, however, that some of our provinces have been rather shoddy in their approach to this problem of assistance to our aged. I believe that people today are expecting more in the way of security, and are prepared and anxious to pay for it. In an article appearing in the Ottawa Journal of yesterday I notice that reference is made to the new tax-free pensions in Germany. I have not time to read the article now, but just briefly it indicates that under present economic conditions there, a man retiring after 40 years of work would get a tax-free pension of up to $110 a month, the equivalent in purchasing power of about $220 here. The amount would increase in the case of inflation. The opposition socialists say the plan does not go far enough. Of course I suppose socialists, like our friends opposite, are the same anywhere in the world. It seems to me that this is a comprehensive type of plan and one which we probably could not extend that far.
On a former occasion, Mr. Speaker, I spoke rather elaborately about the national health insurance plan. I do not propose to deal with that matter at this time, except to say that in view of the generous proposal made by this government for a plan which will cover

The Address-Division all Canadians I think it is a shame that at least one of the two larger provinces does not accept the proposal. I hope the people of Canada, and particularly those in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, realize that without this acceptance by one or the other of these largest provinces we cannot have a majority of Canadians participating, and the rest of Canada is to suffer as a result.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That the address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Walter Edward Harris: That the messages of His Excellency the Governor General, together with the main estimates 1957-8, and further supplementary estimates (2)	1956-7,
presented January 22, 1957, be referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
586
[Stage Direction]
Questions

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

Mr. Kirk (Aniigonish-: Guysborough):
1.	How much has been paid by the federal government to the government of Nova Scotia under the Trans-Canada Highway Act?
2.	Has the government of Nova Scotia signed a new agreement under the 1956 amendment to the act?
3.	If so, (a) on what date; (b) what route is specified; (c) what "gap'' has been designated?
Answer by:	Mr. Bourgel, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	$1,097,639.31 to January 12, 1957.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) September 4, 1956.
(b)	Generally from the New Brunswick-Nova Scotia border to Oxford; thence via route 4 to Sutherland river; thence via Meri-gomish, Arisaig and Antigonish to the strait of Canso, crossing the strait via the causeway to Port Hastings; and thence via Whycocomagh and Baddeck to the Newfoundland ferry terminal at North Sydney. The trans-Canada highway in Nova Scotia shall also include that portion of highway from the junction of the West River-Pictou road at route 4, to Pictou, and thence to the Prince Edward Island ferry terminal at Caribou.
(c)	No "gap" section has been designated to date.


SUEZ CRISIS-EGYPTIAN REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING EMERGENCY FORCE
Mr. Poulin: Does the Canadian government have any information to the effect that, during the Suez crisis last fall, the prime minister of Egypt, or someone on
his behalf or on behalf of his government, made representations through diplomatic channels or otherwise, including the United Nations Organization and the officer commanding the international police force, concerning (a) the uniform to be worn by a group of Canadian servicemen about to join the international police force; (b) the flag such group would fly?
Answer by: Mr. Cardin, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
The answer to both these questions is "No". We have been informed that during the discussions last November, between the Secretary General of the United Nations and the government of Egypt, reference was made to the similarity in the uniform worn by Canadian troops to that worn by British forces, as a possible source of misunderstanding on the part of the Egyptian public. There were no representations, however, that Canadian troops participating in the United Nations emergency force would wear anything but their own uniforms together with the distinctive arm bands and headgear that were to be worn by all members of UNEF. Also, on the question of flags, there have been no representations to the Canadian government by or on behalf of the government of Egypt. The force as a whole, of course, operates under the United Nations flag, which is flown at the various headquarters and camps. National flags are, however, also flown on appropriate occasions and regulations governing this practice are being formalized by the United Nations authorities.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Holowach: What was the total amount of (a) Income taxes; (b) succession duties, collected from Indians on reserves for the years 1953, 1954 and 1955?
Answer by: Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):
No statistical information available.

Thursday, January 24, 1957