1957-01-17

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister what will be his attitude to the suggested conference of commonwealth prime ministers, which I understand is being placed before the various prime ministers by the new Prime Minister of Great Britain. Does he at this time consider, having regard to the possibility of the United Kingdom entering into a free trade arrangement with Europe, that at the same time something in the nature of a British commonwealth trade conference would be acceptable and indeed needful?


Mr. Si. Laurent (Quebec East):: Would the hon. gentleman repeat the last words of his question?


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister not consider that in view of the possible adherence by the United Kingdom to a European free trade agreement, at this time something in the nature of a commonwealth trade conference in so far as Canada is concerned is not only requisite but needful?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: These conferences have always been very useful. We have had no information other than newspaper reports of any consideration being given at this time to an attempt to arrange a conference. Of course at this time it would be somewhat inconvenient. I have some legislative proposals that I hope to be able to submit to parliament, and I also hope to be able to be here when they are being discussed in parliament.
I can assure the hon. gentleman that, if there is a suggestion for a conference of representatives of the governments of the United Kingdom and other commonwealth countries, the matter will be given very serious and careful consideration, because we do realize, as I think most Canadians do, the value of these exchanges of views and of the need to arrive at decisions which, of course, each government has to arrive at 82715-214
on its own responsibility, but which do all tend to the achievement of the same objective.


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps the Prime
Minister will also answer the other question: whether having regard to these economic developments in Europe he would give consideration to convening a commonwealth trade conference in order to assure and maintain Canada's trade.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, at this time we would not consider that we should attempt to convene a conference on trade until we have further information as to what exactly are the problems the new government in the United Kingdom would consider as having top priority in discussion with the representatives of other commonwealth governments.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister supplementary to the questions asked by my leader. In view of the fact that there is an indication that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom might desire a meeting of the commonwealth prime ministers and that he may also be going to Washington, would the Prime Minister consider requesting the convening of such a meeting of commonwealth prime ministers in Canada?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government would not consider at this moment substituting this action for what may be felt by the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to be the most urgent action that he should take. The government of Canada will co-operate wholeheartedly with the government of the United Kingdom in trying to arrange anything that may be felt there to be the most urgent matters that require to be dealt with.


John Borden Hamilton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statements made by both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, does the Prime Minister not think this country might take the initiative at this time?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not feel that this country should take the initiative
324	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry to try to determine what should be the policy of the United Kingdom government. That we think is the responsibility, which I am sure will be discharged to the best of his ability, of the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ALBERTA TAR SANDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Trade and Commerce, make a statement to the house concerning the reports that the new Prime Minister of Great Britain has under consideration what is described as a dramatic plan for the development of the Alberta tar sands? I think reports indicate that copies of this plan, which is under study, have been submitted to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. This would appear to be a very far-reaching development, and it would be of interest to the house and the country if either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce would explain just what is under way.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, so far as I am
aware the only communication we have had on the subject came from Mr. Carol Wilson, who was formerly general manager of the atomic energy commission of the United States and is now the president of a private firm. He wrote about a plan for developing the tar sands to meet the present oil shortage in Europe. There was nothing new in the letter that I could find, other than suggesting immediate development. He said he sent a copy to the then British ambassador in Washington. I answered the letter and said we were watching with interest the tar sands situation, but we felt that at the moment it is not a development that was justified by present prices for the product. We regard it as more in the nature of a reserve for the future. That is all I have heard on the subject. We have nothing whatever from the British government. As to whether that government is interested or not I have no information.



REPORTED CEILING ON EXPORTS OF MANUFACTURED COTTON GOODS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the


minister comment on the news report that Japan is going to place more ceilings on the export of manufactured cotton goods to Canada? What is the purpose of such action? Is such action not likely to adversely affect the sale of Canadian goods to Japan?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the export of textiles from Japan to Canada is a matter that was discussed when I visited Japan a few months ago. The Japanese have about 5 per cent of our market for textiles, and we think it would be difficult for us to live with a larger proportion.
The ceiling that has been put on in Japan has been put on by the industry, and not at the request of the Canadian government. I think the action taken may have been in furtherance of the thought I left there that Japan should be willing to see their market for textiles in Canada grow gradually with the growth of the total market, rather than flood this country with textiles at any one time. That is all I can say about it. We have had no communication on the subject from Japan. I read the same article to which the hon. member is referring this morning, and that is really all I know about the situation.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might ask a further supplementary question. Does the minister know whether any action will be taken subsequently to increase the ceilings, or are they placed on for an indefinite period?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, the ceilings were placed, not at the request of anyone here but rather because the industry in Japan thought that was the sound way to develop a continuing market in Canada. As far as purchases of wheat and barley by Japan are concerned, although I do not know whether or not my visit had anything to do with it, since the time of my visit exports of both grains have increased very considerably; in fact, we have a larger proportion of total Japanese imports of those two grains than we have ever had at any time.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Having regard to the failure of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to construct the pipe line to Winnipeg in accordance with its agreement, and the near approach of the deadline for

completion of its financing, has the government made any new concession to the company or entered into any new agreement with the company since last June?
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I may say that the loan to Trans-Canada today amounts to a little less than $45 million, and we expect that sum to be repaid very shortly. After that, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited will be a private company and the government will not have any official information about what it is doing.


Daniel Roland Michener: That would be a relief to the government.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member does not intend to ask a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for St. Paul's I think I should recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am sorry.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) asked me two questions. The first question reads:
Can the minister inform the house as to the date when it is now expected that the Trans-Canada pipe line will be completed to Winnipeg and Emerson?
I am informed by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited that it is expected the line will be completed to Winnipeg by late August or early September. With regard to Emerson, there are at this time no plans to build a line south from Winnipeg to Emerson.
The second question reads:
Has consideration been given to any extension of the date of repayment of the $80 million loan to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines beyond April 1, 1957?
The answer is no.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the statement that there are no plans for building the line from Winnipeg to Emerson indicate that there has been a change in the plans of the government, or of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, with respect to the export of natural gas?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has no meaning except that Trans-Canada is not at this time making plans to build the pipe line south from Winnipeg to Emerson.
Inquiries of the Ministry OLD AGE PENSIONS



INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh; here comes a speech.


John Borden Hamilton: He has been waiting for this opportunity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the number of Liberal members who are joining us in asking for an increase in old age pensions, may the people of Canada assume there will be such an increase before this year's general election? What amount of increase does the government have in mind?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is too mature in politics to not know that if the government proposed to take a particular course it would not be in answer to any of his questions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that there are many people in Canada, old people particularly, who are greatly disappointed that such an increase was not indicated in this year's speech from the throne?


Mr. Marlin:: Mr. Speaker, the government is aware, as is indeed every hon. member of this house, that there are instances of need, but this government feels satisfied that the people of Canada generally know that it has taken the lead in these matters and in accordance with capacity is prepared to do so again.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance supplementary to the question asked of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the minister's opinion has the financial capacity of this government reached such a position as referred to by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that it is able to give an increase to those on the old age pension?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Annually the Minister of Finance makes a statement on the financial affairs of the government and its capabilities. I expect to be doing that some time during this session.

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL PARKS



GRAND PRE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the minister advise the house of the state of the negotiations between his department and the Societe de l'Assomption and the Dominion Atlantic Railway with respect to the acquisition of the Dominion Atlantic park at Grand Pre?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the conditions covering the purchase of the park itself from the Dominion Atlantic Railway have been agreed upon and the same is true with respect to the purchase of the museum from the Societe de l'Assomption. I have been authorized by my colleagues to enter into agreements with the society and the company for the purchase. As soon as this is done the Grand Pre park will be proclaimed a national historic park.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. Upon what basis are wages paid to civilians employed at H.M.C. dockyards in the country? Do these wages and working conditions conform to prevailing rates in industry in the different parts of the country?


Mr. Paul Hellyer (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question correctly it is whether wages at each H.M.C. dockyard conform to prevailing rates. They conform to the general prevailing rates in the area.



REPORTED REDUCTION OF GRADINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could the minister inform the house if orders have been given to grain elevator companies to hold down the grades on wheat and, if so, by whom the orders were issued?
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce):	The grades of wheat are
set by the standards board, which is made up largely of producer representation. Those grades are established at the beginning of the crop year, and no one can change the standards thereafter.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question.
Is the minister aware that wheat grading No. 3 in November is now grading No. 4?
I have some concrete evidence on that which I could submit.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I am not
aware of that and I do not believe it. I think my hon. friend had better stick to questions on subjects he understands.
[Later:!


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce inform the house if any changes have been made in the grain act as to quality requirements which would justify the lower grading of western wheat, both in local elevator storage and newly delivered grain? If not, can the minister account for such degrading taking place in western Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There have been no changes in the grading regulations or the grain act. There have been no changes in the inspection staff of the board of grain commissioners. Anyone who is doubtful about the grade he is given at an elevator can send a sample to the inspection department at Winnipeg. He has always had this privilege. In this way he can obtain an official grade which will be based on the grades established by the standards board to which I referred earlier.


Edward George McCullough: May
I ask the minister whether or not he has received any notification from elevator line companies of the degrading of grain in elevator storage?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would have to examine the files of the department to make sure, but nothing has come to my personal attention in the nature of a communication of that kind.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the government any plans for revising the Maritime Freight Rates Act to bring it in line with

the intentions of 1927, which were to enable the maritime producers to compete in central Canadian markets?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: All I can say is that the matter is under consideration.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[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 an invitation been given or is one contemplated to the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to visit Canada during his intended visit to the United States?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with what has always been the practice, if and when there is an acceptance of an invitation to the British prime minister to visit Washington, an invitation to visit Canada will be extended to him, and I hope his engagements will make it possible for him to accept such an invitation.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Palletl (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can he give the house the benefit' of his opinion as to whether or not the policies of this government have created a position of inflation in this country at the present time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, my fee for that opinion would be quite heavy. I do not think I will offer it free.


John Cameron Pallett: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that he is already receiving quite a substantial fee from the Canadian people for this service?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That fee is for
other services, sir.


REQUIREMENT FOR CASH DEPOSITS BY STOCKBROKERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: I should like, Mr. Speaker, to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. The minister is no doubt aware that a firm of stockbrokers, R. Moat and Company of Montreal, was recently declared bankrupt, exposing hundreds of clients to serious losses. Can the minister inform the
Inquiries of the Ministry house whether stockbrokers, like banks and insurance companies, are obliged to make substantial cash deposits with the superintendent of insurance or another branch of government as a safeguard against such contingencies?


Walter Edward Harris: My immediate answer would be that I am not aware of any, but perhaps I had better check the record and see. I will make a statement.


INQUIRY AS TO BROADCASTING OF QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Have any requests been received from radio broadcasting or television stations to make use of the question period in the House of Commons as a sort of quiz program for the benefit and amusement of the general public?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of any such requests, but if they be made I think, perhaps, the results would be more entertaining than informative.


BRIDGES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Transport inform the house when construction is expected to begin on the Nuns' island bridge in the Montreal area?


George Carlyle Marler: I am afraid I have not the information available at the moment. I will have to make inquiries.


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: Could the Minister of Transport say whether, under whatever arrangement has been made between Canada and Mexico with regard to the flight of Guest Air Lines, any regulation requires the pilot to land in the United States should one or more of the engines cease to operate?


George Carlyle Marler: I know of no such provision in the bilateral agreement between the two countries, but I would have to examine the position

Inquiries of the Ministry in order to see whether anything in the agreement might bear the interpretation which the hon. member has suggested.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Then I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce this. If such an event occurred during the operation of one of the T.C.A. planes would the pilot land his machine for repairs?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In case of any difficulty in the air the pilot has the right under our bilateral agreements to land at any airport. Which airport he would use would depend, naturally, on the pilot's own discretion. There is no requirement that he should land, but he can land at any airport if he decides to do so.


BROADCASTING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May I
ask the Prime Minister if the royal commission on broadcasting has yet submitted its report and, if so, when copies may be available. If not, may I ask when the government expects the report to be submitted?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The report has not been submitted, but I know the commission is proceeding as expeditiously as possible. No date has been fixed for the submission of the report to the government, but as soon as it is completed and has been regularly submitted to His Excellency the Governor General it will be the endeavour of the government to make copies available to members of the house as quickly as arrangements can be made to do so.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the house that there was adopted this morning, and it has been approved by His Excellency the Governor General, an order in council setting up a royal commission to deal with the matters that it was agreed would be referred to a royal commission in connection with the dispute between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the union of locomotive firemen and enginemen. I have not yet had certified copies, but as soon as the material work can be done copies will be transmitted to the Clerk of the house for tabling. Perhaps in view of the general interest in this matter hon. members would

like me to read the text of the order in council into the record. If that is desired I would be prepared to do so at once.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It reads as follows:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report from the Prime Minister stating that in order to provide for settlement of the dispute between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, which gave rise to a cessation of operations on the railway in January, 1957, it is desirable to appoint a commission under part I of the Inquiries Act to inquire into and report upon the unresolved issues in the dispute.
The committee, therefore, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, advise:
1.	That:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Roy Lindsay Kellock, puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada,
The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell C. Mc-Laurin, chief justice of the trial division of the supreme court of Alberta, and
The Honourable Mr. Justice Jean Martineau, puisne judge of the court of Queen's bench for Quebec
be appointed commissioners under part I of the Inquiries Act to inquire into and report upon all matters they deem necessary in order to answer, and to answer the following questions:
(a)	Are firemen (or firemen helpers) required on diesel locomotives in freight and yard service of the Canadian Pacific Railway, including the eastern, prairie and Pacific regions and the Quebec Central and Dominion Atlantic railways?
(b)	If not, what terms and conditions, which would be fair to the firemen, to those who use the railway, to the railway company, and to its other employees, should be observed by the railway for the purpose of protecting firemen now in its employ against the consequences of the loss of such employment and seniority therein?
(c)	Should the provisions in the present agreements between the railway company and the brotherhood concerning "arbitraries" and the "mountain differential" be maintained, dropped or modified, and if in the opinion of the commission they should be modified, how and to what extent?
2.	That the Hon. Mr. Justice Kellock be chairman of the commission:
3.	That the commissioners be authorized to exercise all the powers conferred upon them by section 11 of the Inquiries Act;-
That section authorizes them to engage counsel, experts or clerks, the staff they may require for the performance of their duties.
4.	That the commissioners be authorized to secure technical advice and assistance from the members and staff of the board of transport commissioners and from any other board, commission, agency or department of the government of Canada;
5.	That the commissioners be authorized to engage the services of such counsel, staff and technical advisers as they may require at rates of remuneration and reimbursement to be approved by the treasury board;
6.	That the commissioners adopt such procedure and methods as they may from time to time deem expedient for the proper conduct of the inquiry and sit at such times and places as they decide from time to time; and
7.	That the commissioners report to the governor in council.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us will be very happy with the choice of personnel for the commission. Mr. Justice Kellock has attained for himself a reputation as a skilled chairman of commissions and one whose judgment can be trusted. The other judges bear similar reputations. I should like to ask the Prime Minister this question. Were the terms of reference submitted to the railway company and to the union? If not, I would suggest that even at this date consideration be given to the submission of the terms to both parties.
While the decision of the commission will not be binding on either party, I suggest that the submission of the terms of reference to both parties will at least ensure greater hope of acceptance of the decision by the parties. In other words, all the matters in issue should be covered by the terms of reference, and even at this stage I suggest if that has not been done the Prime Minister might consider it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The terms of reference were not submitted to the railway or to the union. I personally attended the meetings at which the memorandum which I tabled in announcing the resumption of service was agreed upon and signed, and I received a full explanation from both parties as to what they considered were the matters that should receive consideration by the commission. I think the order in council has been drawn in the widest possible terms to cover everything that was envisaged in the agreement that was reached between the parties.
The leader of the opposition will remember that all these things were written into the agreement or are to be written into the agreement to be signed for the resumption of service, and are to be the subject of renegotiation. With respect to those that are referred to in this order in council setting up the royal commission, we have purposely not confined them to answering the questions that were discussed before me but have made the terms of reference cover all matters into which the commissioners may deem it necessary to inquire.


John George Diefenbaker: It is pretty wide.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is left to the commissioners to decide, upon representations that will be made to them by the representatives of the railway and of the unions, what matters it is important to look at in order to arrive at the proper answers to the questions they want to have decided. I think it is preferable to leave it in that form, and to leave it to the commissioners to determine 82715-22
Commission on C.P.R-firemen dispute what are all the matters that it is important for them to inquire into and report upon in order to arrive at the proper answers.
When the Leader of the Opposition reads the terms of the order in council I think he will find that it would have been difficult to have made it more inclusive, and that any attempt to define particularly what they should do would have been restrictive rather than otherwise.


Daniel Roland Michener: While the Prime Minister is explaining this order in council, I wonder if he would indicate whether or not the findings of this royal commission in so far as they relate to the safety problem would be binding on the board of transport commissioners, whose responsibility I understand that to be, or whether the board of transport commissioners would have to deal with the matter afterwards.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, Mr. Speaker, the only binding force behind the findings of the commission will be the force of public opinion, and what we think is just as impressive a royal commission of this number of persons as could be selected. It will not destroy the jurisdiction given to the board of transport commissioners to deal with any application that may be made to them at any time with respect to any safety matters concerning any kind of operation of the railway; that is a statutory provision that confers jurisdiction upon the board whenever any Canadian sees fit to invoke the exercise of that jurisdiction. But I would imagine that so far as the answers to all of these questions go, their effect upon decisions that might be required of the board of transport commissioners will be very considerable unless other facts than those which would appear to have been presented had to be considered. I am sure if the hon. gentleman were a member of the board of transport commissioners that is the attitude he would take, and I think he can assume that those who are members of the board of transport commissioners would take the same attitude.


Daniel Roland Michener: Would the Prime Minister make the same observation with respect to the royal commission known as the Gordon commission?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The royal
commission known as the Gordon commission was not asked to answer any specific questions but to make a broad survey. This survey has been made and I expect, with regard to a number of points, there will be controversies, controversies that will be in the interests of the proper consideration of the problems that are apt to arise. I am sure that here again the hon. gentleman will agree with me that
330	HOUSE OF
Commission on C.P.R-firemen dispute anything that focuses and stimulates public interest in matters of public concern is a good thing for the proper handling, in a democratic way, of the affairs of the country.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: May I
ask the Prime Minister whether the order in council contains-because if so I missed it-[DOT] a time limit for the report?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker; and the hon. gentleman will see, if he refers to the document that was signed, that it was suggested they commence immediately and that they report not later than October 1, 1957. In transmitting to the members of the commission the provisions under which they will operate, it is my intention to convey to them that suggestion made in the agreement between the parties, and to inform them that the government concurs in the suggestion.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that he kept secret the findings of the Gordon commission report from this house and the public for over five weeks after its receipt, will the Prime Minister assure the house that in the unlikely event he is still prime minister he will release the findings of the commission on the diesel problem immediately they are received?


Mr.   SI Laurenl@Quebec East: The Prime Minister kept nothing secret. As soon as the report was received an order in council was prepared and submitted to His Excellency the Governor General, as is required by constitutional practice, and instructions were given to have the two versions of the report printed just as quickly as possible. We hoped it would have been possible to make them public before the end of the year, but that proved to be impossible. We did not think it would be proper, even had it been possible to get them by January 3 or January 4, to have them published two or three days before parliament was meeting. We felt that unless there would be some substantial advantage in having them published before the meeting of parliament, parliamentarians would prefer that they be communicated to them before they were communicated to the press and made public. It was for that reason that we asked the printer to be sure and have them ready so they could be tabled and published at the earliest possible moment after parliament met. I did say that I thought it would be preferable not to have them given out at the same time as the new Leader of the Opposition was making his first speech in parliament, because we did not want the hon. gentleman who has 

asked the question, or any other hon. gentleman, to suggest that we had endeavoured to blanket the report of the speech the new Leader of the Opposition was to make in parliament.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister now give the house the assurance requested, that there will not be a similar five weeks' delay in the case of the findings of the commission on the diesel problem?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Prime Minister will give the house the assurance that he will discharge his responsibilities to the best of his ability.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a further question to the Prime Minister in relation to his answer about the royal commission on the railway settlement. Does the Prime Minister consider that the terms of reference of the commission would allow the commission to make recommendations to the governor in council that might lie beyond what could be included in an agreement between the company and the union, if the evidence they received made the commissioners feel that was a desirable thing for them to do?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would be very surprised if the commission went beyond the requirements of the order in council. If they came to the conclusion that they had received information that was of such importance that they should discuss it and make representations about it, well, I suppose that would be a matter that would be within their discretion. The order in council does not tell them that they must not say anything that is not absolutely required to answer the questions, but I would be surprised if those gentlemen went beyond the task that appears to be assigned to them by the order in council.



CRIMINAL LAW


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Justice? In view of the fact that about two years ago two royal commissions were set up under the chairmanship of the chief justice of the high court of Ontario to look into the matter of insanity as a defence to various crimes and the problem of sex offenders, how soon may we expect a report from either or both of those commissions?


Hon. Sluarl S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: In reply to my hon. friend's question I may say that we have one of the reports, and it is being translated into the French language. As soon as the copies of both the English and French texts are available they will be tabled. With regard to the other commission-


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The first commission had to do with insanity as a defence to charges of criminal responsibility. The second one, the one which is still outstanding, has to do with criminal sexual psychopaths. That has not yet come to hand, and on my last checking with the chief justice he rather hesitated to state any definite period within which it was likely to come, but I am hopeful it may be before prorogation.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether he is yet in a position to answer my two questions of Tuesday concerning retired employees of the Canadian National Railways whose pensions are limited to $25 a month? Has he received any further representations concerning this matter? Whether or not such representations have been received, will further consideration be given to the plight of these retired employees?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I promise the hon. gentleman I will give him an answer just as soon as it is possible for me to do so.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, January 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. R. F. L. Hanna for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: 
Mr. Ellis:: Singing his swan song.


Frederick Davis Shaw: It was a speech liberally garnished with what the newspapers at one time called "Studerisms".


An hon. Member:: S'tupidisms.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Someone interjected "stupidisms"; that is not an expression I coined. We listened and laughed, but we also do that when we listen to and watch Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny. First we intended passing off what he said, but for one or two reasons I find it necessary to give some consideration to it. In the first place I wonder if he did keynote the Liberal campaign for the next election in the course of that speech. That would be quite possible to my way of thinking, because it would be then the type of campaign which the Liberals carried on in both British Columbia and Alberta during the last two provincial elections, campaigns consisting in the main of insinuations, innuendoes and inferences designed to cast doubt and suspicion if indeed they did not result in complete character assassination. We all know that all their charges, if one could call them that, were considered by an impartial royal commission and none was found to be true.


Mr. Byrne:: Not in British Columbia.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am talking about Alberta, and what I say would be equally true in British Columbia. It was the same type of campaign, completely divorced from fact and truth.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: In British Columbia the statements have been found to be correct.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Page 207 of Hansard is stained with expressions which seem to me to be completely foreign to the record of a democratic institution. We associate such words as "hypocrite" with the language used by those who support a political philosophy which is causing us our greatest concern in the international sphere, and which constitutes the greatest threat to the peace, security and happiness of democratic thinking people. I feel rather sad that one whom I believe is capable of better
332	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Shaw things should use such expressions. I find that such expressions-and let us remember they were used in this house and directed at those of us who sit here as Social Crediters

usually can be attributed to one who finds it completely impossible to answer by argument and the presentation of evidence. Such expressions usually come from those who are afraid, and who see before them the early twilight of a short and possibly uneventful political career. I say again that we very much regret their use.
However, there are one or two rather amusing things in connection with that same matter. First let us consider the expression "splinter group". The hon. member said we were a small splinter group, a chip off the Liberal block. Well, I say to him if that small chip can be described by such words as "hypocrites" and "jokesters" what words would he use to describe the entire block itself? I am waiting to hear that. Later on toward the end of his references to us he invited the Social Crediters to come back into the fold, despite the fact that he described us as hypocrites and jokesters. Does he mean to tell us that the Liberal party has deteriorated to the point where even if a small number of hypocrites and jokesters were brought into it this would bring back to it an air of respectability? Perhaps he can answer that question some time.


Mr. Nicholson:: He does not have a word to say today.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am not going to make further reference to that particular part of his speech, Mr. Speaker, but I will say again that language of this kind surely has no place in the records of this house. But let me tell him just one other thing. After all, if we are jokesters and hypocrites as he says we are, it is interesting to remember that each and every Social Credit member sitting here was chosen in preference to the Liberal candidate who ran against him.
Early in his speech the hon. member gave considerable thought, or I should not put it that way; rather he occupied considerable time dealing with agriculture. I have analysed what he said and it amounts to this. Farmers are having difficulties and there are three reasons for it. The first is themselves, the second is the consuming public other than farmers, and the third, those people who did not send Liberal members from every constituency in western Canada. That is what the hon. member's reasoning narrowed down to, and I confess I was amazed at the suggestion that non-Liberal members from western Canada, small in number as they are, could actually prevent the government with its overwhelming majority doing 

for the western farmers those things which are considered necessary in order to bring stability to their industry. The hon. member as much as admitted that the Liberals who come from western Canada are such poor salesmen that they cannot sell to their government with its overwhelming majority those things which they deem essential for western agriculture.
The hon. member did admit there were a few things wrong and his admission was in these words; what the farmers want are stabilized prices and full production. The hon. member of whom I am speaking and every other Liberal member of this house from time to time over the past number of years has been given ample opportunity to support opposition motions, resolutions and amendments designed to achieve those results, yet look at their record. It is always on the pretext that it is a want of confidence motion, that the poor government will be defeated if it is carried, that the hon. member refuses to vote against such motions, resolutions and amendments. In other words the hon. member says, "My party ahead of the welfare of my people". That is just what it amounts to.


An hon. Member:: What does it amount to out in Alberta?


Frederick Davis Shaw: The hon. member said the farmers want crop insurance for those years when there are no crops. He has had ample opportunity to support propositions advanced by us with a view to bringing about that end, but again the record is the same. He said the farmers want unemployment insurance to be extended to farm labour, and the same applies there. He said the farmers want more storage for their grain and equalized freight rates so they are not penalized because of where they live. There has been ample opportunity over the years during which he and his colleagues have occupied seats in this house to support measures designed to bring about those results, but in all cases the record is the same; "the safety of my party and the position it occupies in the house ahead of the welfare of those whom I should be prepared to jeopardize my own position to help."


Mr. Sluder:: Could I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Speaker, I object to any interruption.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I advise hon. members that the hon. member who has the floor may not of course be interrupted without his consent.


Frederick Davis Shaw: The hon. member said, "May I answer you?" No, he may not, because it is my time. Why waste time?


Jean Lesage: He said, "May I ask a
question?"


An hon. Member:: What do you know about it?


Jean Lesage: I heard it.


Alfred Claude Ellis: How many speakers are there in the house?


Frederick Davis Shaw: Shall I proceed?


An hon. Member:: With what?


Frederick Davis Shaw: Reference was made by the hon. member to another matter, and I feel it essential that I also make reference to it. For what reason or for what purpose or with what fear I am not certain, but he referred to the so-called sterilization law. He did not say so, but he definitely left the impression that this legislation had been sponsored by the Alberta Social Credit government and put on the statute books during their tenure of office. That is not true.


Irvin William Studer: There were amendments.


Frederick Davis Shaw: That legislation was put on the statute books of Alberta by the government which preceded the present government. That legislation was endorsed by the legislative assembly of the province. It came into being as a consequence of widespread requests. It has been used most sparingly and with tremendous care, and applies only to the mentally ill and then only where treatment has failed. Administration is under a medical board with representation from women's organizations. The consent of relatives is necessary. I emphasize that it applies only to the mentally ill when treatment has failed. Why the hon. member said that if he came under the jurisdiction of such legislation he would immediately jump in the ocean and start swimming remains for him to explain.
I wish to make only one other reference to the speech of the hon. member. I do not know that I can figure out what this means, as it is really a confusion of words. As far as I know it has not been corrected. Nevertheless I am going to read it as it appears on page 207 of Hansard of January 14. The hon. member is reported as having said:
Did you read the recent commission's report in New Zealand, where there was a Social Credit government of what Social Credit is?
I am not suggesting that he was not mistaken or misquoted-perhaps it was taken down incorrectly-but that is as it appears. I know what he was referring to. He was referring to a dispatch which came out of
The Address-Mr. Shaw New Zealand written by Douglas Leiterman of the Ottawa bureau of the Southam news service, I believe dated December 27, 1956. I am rather surprised that he did not have that dispatch before him.
The dispatch referred to a royal commission which had been set up to examine into monetary policy and so on. Of course if one had gone back to read of the events leading up to it and had read the evidence, as I have, he would know that the commission had been set up for one purpose only, to try to destroy the Social Credit movement in that country, a movement which had been able to secure 14 per cent of the national vote in the 1954 election.
The heading of this dispatch is all wrong because it says "Royal commission killed Social Credit." No royal commission can kill Social Credit; no inquiry can kill Social Credit. Hearings have been held here, but with what result? There has been a steady increase in the membership and growth and strength of the movement. It will interest the hon. member to know that never has the New Zealand association had a larger membership than it has now, never has it been in a better financial position.
Then the next headline is, "Nobody even laughs at it anymore." I can remember the days when there was much laughter in this country, but people laughed only when we were weak. They quit laughing when they realized that as a force in the affairs of this nation we were no longer a joke. If it is true that nobody laughs any more we can take that as one of the best signs based on our experience in Canada.
There is another thing I want to mention about this dispatch. Is our next election going to be characterized by guided political missiles? I understand that the Minister of National Health and Welfare went on a rather lengthy tour. Fine; I support the idea. He was cementing friendly relations, which is a good and admirable objective. He participated in Colombo plan discussions, which was an admirable thing. It was also admirable that he should take other people along, some to publicize his trip.
However, to the extent that Canadian taxpayers may have in any way financed Mr. Leiterman's trip, even if only by providing free transportation, I object. I object to that sort of thing because the report is designed deliberately for one purpose and one purpose only at this time, on the eve of an election. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has demonstrated the purpose for which it is to be used. I object as a Canadian taxpayer and as a Social Crediter to having any part of my taxes used,

The Address-Mr. Shaw if such were the case, to finance any part of a newspaperman's flight from here to other countries of the earth if this sort of thing might be the purpose behind it.
Knowing the Minister of National Health and Welfare as I do, I realize that he probably knew nothing about this. He was thinking in terms of the great sphere of international politics, not national politics. I know the Minister of National Health and Welfare would be the first to object to this sort of thing. Maybe someone in the government will inform me whether Mr. Leiterman received free transportation or anything else by way of service and so on which would be charged back to the Canadian taxpayer. I would like to know. Free transportation must be included, because we the taxpayers must finance the cost of the Canadian aircraft which was used and the many thousands of gallons of gasoline which were consumed.
Reference was made by my leader to the effect upon the present economy of the present system of credit controls. The thing which has surprised me is the condemnation which has come from many quarters of this country of the way in which this particular policy has been applied. One of the most interesting editorials I have read came out in Saint John on October 24. It was included in The Fundy Fisherman. This editorial states:
In announcing another raise in the bank rate last week the Bank of Canada showed an utter disregard for public opinion here in the east and the strong protests that have come from the different parts of Canada against high interest rates, which protests the Bank of Canada simply ignored. This is about the sixth time that bank rates have been increased in little more than a year and now . . . the people of Canada are being saddled with the highest interest rates that have been paid in over a quarter of a century.
Let me just go on to read a significant assertion like this:
The directors of the Bank of Canada have never given any sensible reason for their action.
Further down it says:
The different regions of Canada are represented on the board of the bank but it appears that these directors have nothing to say-they are all as "mum as an oyster".
Later the article goes on:
It seems to be clearly a case of taxes being imposed on citizens without representation.
And still further on:
The cost of living is inflated by abnormal interest rates in the same way as it is by extra taxes.
Then the article stresses this:
No inflation exists in this part of Canada.
I do not know whether that is a statement of fact, but considering all the reports which have come to us from that part of Canada,


reports given to us in this house, it is suggested that there is a substantial element of truth in this statement. I quote again from this editorial:
The people of the eastern provinces are a careful and saving people and have invested many hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds of different kinds, especially bonds of our various governments, federal and provincial. We have many large and small investors, especially the latter, all of whom have bought these bonds in good faith.
Just consider where these bondholders stand now. Their losses are appalling, all owing to the Bank of Canada's action in raising interest rates to the highest level in the generation. Millions untold have been lost by small investors who can ill afford to shoulder such losses.
Government bonds that were sold to investors at par are now worth in the market place between 80 and 85 cents on the dollar. It may be all right to say that if the people who invested their savings hold their bonds until they come due 15 or 20 years hence they will be redeemed at par, but tens of thousands of investors cannot wait. They have children to educate with their savings, hospital bills to pay and possibly a house under construction and many other obligations to meet.
Further on still the article continues:
Bonds to finance new projects such as we have now under way in the maritimes are next to impossible to sell, except at a great discount, which makes the cost of the money derived from the bonds far too high a cost for the venture capital that is absolutely necessary for these new enterprises.
The editorial concludes by saying this:
A trail of lost hopes and wreckage is bound to follow in the wake of a usurious bank rate as far as our maritime provinces are concerned.
Mr. Speaker, that is only one of the editorials which have appeared in publications in various parts of Canada. Another significant aspect of the subject is this, that such controls are actually not proving effective. Pick up almost any newspaper any day and you will find a list of many commodities, many of them in daily use, the prices of which have again moved up. This policy is not proving effective; in fact it is making it difficult if not impossible to carry out other aspects of government policy such as housing. Some of the most devastating charges have been made with respect to the effect of this policy upon Canadian housing. The Minister of Public Works is, on the one hand, endeavouring to expand his house-building program to meet urgent needs, while on the other hand the policy of the Bank of Canada is making it virtually impossible for the program to succeed.
Thus it goes on. The whole situation is in fact developing into one where we find an irresistible force working against an immovable object. Let hon. members figure out what the consequences of that may be. That is the position into which we are rapidly moving now because of the blanket application of the credit restriction policy.

Surely the responsible minister of the government will have something to say about the suggestion which came from the leader of this group with respect to the application of selective credit controls.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer for a moment to the subject of old age pensions. Call it our welfare program if you like. It is highly significant that after a number of years so many supporters of the government, Liberal members, should now be standing here and urging an increase in the basic pensions payable to our people. That is fine. I sometimes wonder why some of them did not start a long time ago, and I am certain in my own mind that they would not be doing it now if they had not been given a tip-off on certain proposed action on the part of the government.
If the government is going to act, I might ask why was such intention not set out in the speech from the throne. The answer to that is easy. The government will say that it did not really intend, at the time it brought down the speech, to take any action along these lines; but all the speeches from Liberal members have persuaded them that it is in the public interest. I can just hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare making the announcement; I can see his speech as though it had already been prepared.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we shall support such a proposition; in fact, we have urged it for years. The $40 basic pension paid now is not worth as much as the $20 when it was first paid in my province in 1929. In the most recent cost of living index it is reported that food is one of the commodities which have contributed toward the further increase in living costs. The situation, as we have pointed out for so long, is desperate. In only three provinces in Canada have pension recipients received any additional income since this $40 basic pension was brought into operation. In Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia the pensioners secure substantially more than the basic $40, and there is not a Liberal government in any one of those three provinces.


An hon. Member:: Thank God.


Irvin William Studer: You are using Liberal money.


Frederick Davis Shaw: That is an indication of just how thorough the hon. member's knowledge of the whole situation is. There is no section of Canada which has contributed more to the welfare of this nation or to our national economy than the province of Alberta. They have paid for more than this government has ever given or is ever likely to hand back to the people of that province.
The Address-Mr. Shaw


Irvin William Studer: Then distribute it.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Speaker, without the provinces there would be no Canada as such. The strength of this nation has come from the provinces and what has been done within the provinces. Sometimes I wonder why it is that over the years the national government has wormed its way more and more into the activities and fields of provincial jurisdiction. Is it so they could hand back a pittance, a few dollars, to the provinces and then claim credit for everything that was being done in the provinces.
We have seen that in connection with hospital construction. True, the national government is contributing toward hospital construction, but you could not build one hospital with what they give. The municipalities bear part of the burden. Ottawa says, "We will hand this much back to you if the provincial governments will match it dollar for dollar". They are giving us nothing. They are handing back to us part of what they have taken from us.
Nothing in this day and age, Mr. Speaker, short of an additional $20 a month to the recipients of old age security, a purely federal responsibility, will suffice. Nothing short of authorization to the provincial governments to increase the basic pension under the Old Age Assistance Act by $20 will suffice. There will still be some fringe difficulties, but at least we will be recognizing a need and we will be assuming our responsibility to our pioneer citizens.
I am going to move an amendment, Mr. Speaker, but before doing so may I suggest that there are people who will give lip service to certain propositions but who are strangely absent when it comes to a question of giving their open support. We feel that the members of this house should be given the opportunity to show clearly where they stand. For that reason I move, seconded by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smith):
That the amendment be amended by inserting after the word "parliament" the following words:
"and, by reason of their failure to take effective action to stop the continuous rise in the cost of living; their failure to lay down and follow policies under which Canadian farmers and other primary producers can enjoy an equitable share of the prosperity which Canada can achieve; and their failure to bring old age pensions and other social security payments into line with the present cost of living."
Here is a great opportunity-


An hon. Member:: Contradictory.


Frederick Davis Shaw: -for members of the house to face up to things in a practical manner. Some Liberal is going to say that this is a want of confidence motion. Well, what if it is; what

The Address-Mr. Shaw if we defeat them? Their days are numbered anyway. Why let them suffer longer? Let us put them out in the interests of those who are crying for our consideration. I should like to know where the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek will stand on this amendment.


Irvin William Studer: At least I will produce some of the money you are willing to spend.


Frederick Davis Shaw: You know, Mr. Speaker, we can say this for the hon. member. As I said earlier, like Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny he can give us plenty of cause to laugh.


Irvin William Studer: Like Aberhart.


Frederick Davis Shaw: We are certain that those who desire to do so can manufacture some good reason for not supporting our amendment. It will be nothing new.


Irvin William Studer: The government of Alberta
will not support an opposition member's motion.
Mr. V/ylie: Oh, you keep quiet.


Frederick Davis Shaw: The hon. member is always
ready to speak about Alberta, even though he has not yet demonstrated a knowledge of what is going on there, though he is close enough to the province that he should know.


Irvin William Studer: Nothing is going on there.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Speaking of Alberta, I am going to give the hon. member a suggestion. He is looking for advice, and I presume he is looking for election issues. Undoubtedly he would like some good advice for the next federal election.


Irvin William Studer: Where would I get it?


Frederick Davis Shaw: Do not make the mistake that was made in the last provincial election. In my riding the president of the Alberta Liberal association went on the air and urged the electorate to support the president of the Alberta Progressive Conservative association, who happened to be a candidate in that constituency. It was one of the most fantastic things I have ever witnessed. I do not blame the Conservative candidate for accepting their support. I do not blame him for going on the air and thanking the president of the Alberta Liberal association for having done that. I think he felt that he owed them something.
I say to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek that instead of bothering and worrying himself over things about which he has not much knowledge, he should concentrate on trying to resolve some of these situations. Possibly Liberal candidates in western Canada may then become more acceptable to the general electorate. I trust


that our amendment will secure the support of the entire house. I think members of the house generally would be thanked by a large cross section of the Canadian public.


Mr. Albert Lavigne (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) who so ably moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
(Translation):
I also wish to congratulate sincerely the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) who fulfilled his task so well in seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
(Text):
To the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) I offer my sincere congratulations on his success within his party. I wish also to pay tribute to my predecessor who so ably represented the county of Stormont for close to 20 years and who today, as an employee of this government, is administering the business of the St. Lawrence seaway in a most efficient manner. We in Stormont are proud of his achievements, and I am sure that all Canadians will remember him for many years to come.
I am happy to note in the throne speech that it is the intention of the government to come to the aid of municipalities by authorizing payments of grants in lieu of taxes on federal properties receiving normal municipal services. I am sure the electors of Stormont who will benefit by this legislation will be forever grateful to this government.
I should like to thank the members of the house in the name of the people of my riding for passing legislation that will bring about favourable changes in the county of Stormont and the city of Cornwall. I am referring to the St. Lawrence seaway development that will bring to our boundaries ocean navigation and a power potential which, along with our labour pool and the future availability of natural gas delivered by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, will make this area most advantageous for the establishment of industries which, I am sure, will find in our municipality cooperation and advantages unknown elsewhere.
I want to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour for their efforts in settling the recent railway strike.
In the northern part of the county of Stormont we have a group of people who earn their living by means of mixed farming, most of their products finding a market in the cities of Cornwall and Montreal. However, the county is known especially for the quantity and quality of its cheese production. For many years Stormont has been one of

The Address-Mr. Lavigne
the chief cheese-producing counties in Ontario, and from recent reports it is still in that category. In the matter of quality I should like to refer to the achievements of Mr. Harold Montgomery, who for the past two years has won trophies emblematic of the best entries in a commonwealth-wide competition. To the south we have the development of the St. Lawrence river and the power project, which stretches from the eastern extremity to the western boundary of the county.
We are in an area of great activity and prosperity. We have great confidence in the future development of our county. However, we find, like all other places which have experienced rapid development, that we lack certain transportation facilities which will be needed if we are to keep pace with our industrial potential. I am referring, Mr. Speaker, to airport and certain harbour facilities which will be urgently needed in this area.
I have no intention of dealing with the problems of all the industries in Cornwall and the surrounding area. May I acquaint you with the industries in this area and their products so you may know of the contribution which is being made to the national economy. Courtaulds (Canada) Limited manufacturer of rayon, artificial silk, and tenasco, a relatively new product that goes into the manufacture of tires and other allied products. We have the Howard Smith Paper Mills, Canadian Industries Limited, with whose products I think you are all familiar, Dominion Tar and Chemical "no-co-rode pipe", Kemkall-Bishop, citric acid, T.C.F., transparent cellulose film, Howards & Sons, chemicals, and many others whose products are sold locally.
In the city of Cornwall we have an important branch of the cotton industry. We have established in Cornwall Canadian Cottons and Dundas Mills, and more recently Dundas annex. Employed in this industry are an important number of citizens who have to work under the fear of a lay-off and under conditions inferior to others, because the industry has to compete with imports from subsidized and cheap labour countries.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to appeal, on behalf of the people who are employed in the cotton industry, to the government so they may live and work without fear of a lay-off at unexpected times, and so they may have better working conditions. I hope this matter will be given serious consideration and, if we are responsible for this situation let us rectify it so the cotton mill employees may enjoy the same privileges and the same security enjoyed in other industries.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, in deference to representations which have been made to me by a group of my constituents, I feel I should deal with the question of family allowances, a social security measure instituted by a Liberal government in 1945, and one whose benefits are well known.
In answer to those who insist upon a new increase in the basic allowance, I might say that the Liberal party having put forward this social security measure twelve years ago will know how to improve it in due course. However, the question is not without its importance since family allowances at the present time take up $400,000,000 out of the total annual budget.
Family allowances have not only raised the standard of living of our people, more particularly that of our large families, but they have stimulated Canadian economy by increasing the purchasing power of an incalculable number of Canadians without, on the other hand, constituting too heavy a load on taxpayers as a whole.
Since the institution of family allowances Canadians, especially those of the working classes, are better clothed, better fed and better housed. Moreover, the intellectual level of our people, thanks to greater educational possibilities, has been notably increased. It's all to the credit of the people of Canada, in the way of national culture.
It cannot be denied that the cost of living has greatly increased since 1945, when family allowances were brought in. Since then, there have been constant adjustments in wages and prices in general so it would probably be time to think of a new adjustment of family allowances.
Consequently, so that family allowances might again have the purchasing power they had in 1945, I urge the government to raise the amounts, and I do so on behalf of large families, which, as is well known, are not always the most privileged but are nonetheless the human potential on which rests the future of Canada. The government is duty-bound to think first of the human person whose natural surrounding is the family, the cell of society.
I should be very glad if that adjustment were made at this session and I do hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will be able to implement that request from a representative who is mindful of the welfare of the families of his constituency.
(Text):


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, since the appearance of the Gordon report a few days ago it has been seriously

The Address-Mr. Hees studied in all parts of the country. It represents a great deal of work, both on the part of the members of the commission and also by those who submitted briefs and who appeared before the commission. The report gives us an opportunity to have a look into what we might expect to see happen here in Canada during the next 25 years.
The main purpose of the government in setting up this commission and in having it make it's report just before a general election is to attempt to create in the minds of the public the idea that all the good things which the report forecasts will take place in the next 25 years, and will take place only if this government is returned to office.


Jean Lesage: It is the only way.


George Harris Hees: The report has been made close enough to the general election with the purpose in mind that the government can slip and slide around the tricky questions, and thus avoid answering whether it intends to implement any of the proposals contained in the report. Instead it can simply indicate during the election campaign that if the Liberal government is returned to office all of these things, and I mean all of them, will come to pass.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this report is mainly political. It is, in short terms, election bait. It is a desperate attempt on the part of the government to cover up the many things which the government knows it should have done and has not done, by dangling before the eyes of the voting public the attractive vision of things which can be expected to come to pass some time in the next 25 years. It is going to be put to the voting public by liberal speakers on platforms from one end of this country to the other that all they have to do is vote Liberal, reelect this government, and these things will be done immediately.
I think, however, Mr. Speaker, that the voting public has become wise to the Liberal techniques. They know that what they are going to hear is nothing but the usual tripe, and that there is no basis in fact for what they are going to be told. The Liberal party will find in the next election that this form of approach falls like a lead balloon.
Now, of course, Mr. Speaker, anything that is detrimental to the government, such as its tight money policy, has been conveniently left out of this report. The fact that this policy is hamstringing the construction industry and denying to young married couples the homes they so desperately need in which to bring up their families, has been conveniently forgotten. There is also no mention of the fact that a great deal of unemployment and


many bankruptcies have been caused by this stupid policy which the government has insisted on pursuing.
Now, of course, it is well known that the chairman, Mr. Gordon, will soon be rewarded for the political chore which he has performed so well by being invited into the cabinet. Very soon we can expect him to take his place beside the other members of the cabinet as the new minister of defence production. The plan, of course, is that he will soon take over the complete portfolio of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, and that is the bait that was used. It is too bad; I am sorry his term of office will be cut so short, because it is pretty well recognized by those who observe political matters closely that the term of office of this government will end on June 17 next.


Mr. Benneii:: Did you see the Gallup poll?


George Harris Hees: One thing this report does tell us is that during the next 25 years the consumption of power in this country will increase by three times. Because this government has no power or energy policy, this report has been very careful not to make any embarrassing suggestions of a specific kind as to what the government could and should do in order to assist the provinces develop this greatly enlarged quantity of power that will be needed. Since there is also no mention of any proposed legislation in the speech from the throne which will assist the provinces to develop power and natural resources within their borders, we must expect for the next few months a continuation of the government's do nothing, hope and grope policy in this regard.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you might well ask at this point, what should the government do? In New Brunswick it should start immediately -it should have started a long time ago-to assist Premier Hugh John Flemming to develop the half million potential horsepower on the Saint John river by backing his power development bonds and enabling him to obtain the money which he needs at a considerably lower rate of interest.


Jean Lesage: Will the hon. member permit a question?


George Harris Hees: Yes.


Jean Lesage: Is the hon. member aware that we are still waiting for the data on the possible storage on the Tobique river that we were promised by the government of New Brunswick some months ago in order to be in a position to make a decision on the request of that government?


George Harris Hees: My information is that you have had information on that subject for a long time.


Jean Lesage: Well, Mr. Speaker-


George Harris Hees: We differ. My information is that you have it.


Jean Lesage: I have not received it. I am the one who would know, and I have not received it.


George Harris Hees: Well, Mr. Speaker, we shall just have to agree to disagree, because my information is completely different.


Jean Lesage: I am the one who is supposed to receive it.


George Harris Hees: You are supposed to, but you do not seem to know.


Jean Lesage: I have not received anything.


George Harris Hees: As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Pickersgill:: It is hard to be rude to the hon. member.


George Harris Hees: This policy would not cost the government one penny, and it would save the taxpayers of New Brunswick several million dollars a year.


Jean Lesage: There is no definite project.


George Harris Hees: It would also help the premier of New Brunswick to produce power, which is badly needed; to attract industries to his province; and to enable that province to smelt their newly-found ores. This new power, which must be produced in the near future, will provide many thousands of additional jobs for the people of New Brunswick, and it will materially increase the standard of living of the people in that province.
However, Mr. Speaker, it has become very clear that this government is not interested in helping a Conservative government industrialize a province which badly needs industries. It might help the present government of New Brunswick stay in office and that, in the view of the federal Liberal government, is something which must be avoided at all costs. This is simply a return to the King doctrine of 1930, when he proclaimed that he would not give a five-cent piece to any province which had a Conservative government. Today we see the King doctrine of 1930 brought up to date. This is the St. Laurent doctrine of 1957; no help to any province that is not a Liberal province.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: He will not be helping many.
The Address-Mr. Hees


George Harris Hees: He will not be helping many. If Premier Campbell gets up his nerve and calls an election in Manitoba there will be one less. I will make a bet with any Liberal member that when that election does take place, Duff Roblin will become the premier of Manitoba, and all you will have left will be Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. You are going to lose Prince Edward Island pretty soon. After that the Liberal party will be able to refer to Newfoundland as the island stronghold. That is all you will have, and it will not be long before you will lose that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would you like to make a little bet about that?


George Harris Hees: Yes.


Jean Lesage: You must have a lot of money.


George Harris Hees: Similar assistance to what I have suggested for New Brunswick would be of great help to the people of Saskatchewan in building the South Saskatchewan dam, which has been on the books for so long but which has been held up because the present federal government has refused to give any assistance whatsoever to the government of Saskatchewan. This dam will make possible half a million acres of irrigated land, and will transform the present half million acres of marginal wheat land into market garden crop land. It will be of great benefit to the province of Saskatchewan. It will also make available more than a quarter of a million horsepower of cheap hydroelectric power, which will make it possible to bring industries to Saskatchewan to diversify the economy of that province, and increase greatly the standard of living of the people there.
Is this government interested in making these things possible? Of course not, because in Saskatchewan there is a C.C.F. government, and if this help were made available it might help that government stay in power. As far as the Liberal government in Ottawa is concerned that must be avoided at all costs.
Then out in British Columbia this kind of assistance would be of great help in aiding them to build the Mica dam on the Columbia river. That dam will produce a million and a half horsepower of badly needed hydroelectric power. In 10 years British Columbia will be short of electric power; it will be short of all types of power unless something is done to produce additional power immediately. It will take eight years of engineering to build the Mica dam; therefore there are only two years of leeway to avoid a serious power shortage in British

The Address-Mr. Hees Columbia, which would hamstring the industrial progress of that province.


Jean Lesage: Engineering studies are going on now.


George Harris Hees: I ask, has this government proffered any assistance to the province of British Columbia?


Jean Lesage: We have given them engineering service and we are still giving it.


George Harris Hees: What about backing their power bonds?


Jean Lesage: That is a stage we have not reached.


George Harris Hees: Are you going to back their power bonds?


Jean Lesage: This is government policy which will be announced in due course.


George Harris Hees: That is the kind of answer we get. That is typical of this government.


Jean Lesage: What help could be given up to now has been given.


George Harris Hees: The government say that in the future, when it is convenient, they will announce to the house what they are going to do. In other words we are going to do nothing, but we just do not like to say so; that is all. I say, Mr. Speaker, it is about time this government stopped playing politics with power development-


Jean Lesage: That is what you are doing.


George Harris Hees: -and went ahead with a national development policy which would give assistance to provinces to develop power and other natural resources within their borders; helping the provinces to get ahead and help themselves and increase the standards of living of their own people.


Jean Lesage: You had better go and talk to Duplessis about that.


George Harris Hees: Turning now to another subject, what is the attitude of this government toward the welfare of the people? I think that question can be best answered by looking at the treatment the old age pensioner in Canada is receiving today. In 1950 this parliament, and I underline the words "this parliament" and not the government, decided to give the old age pensioner $40 to buy the goods and services which they desperately needed in order to carry on after the age of 70, and this was voted for by every hon. member of this house.
There is no magic in the figure $40. It was decided upon, because at that time it would buy a certain quantity of the necessities of life, and it was that quantity of those necessities of life which this parliament


decided to make available to the old age pensioner. Today you need $47 to buy exactly the same quantity of goods and services that you could buy for $40 in 1950. In other words the pension today, in terms of what it would buy in 1950, is worth only $33. This means that the standard of living of those relying on the old age pension has materially decreased. We in the opposition have pleaded year after year for an increase in the old age pension, and have brought up actual cases by which we demonstrated to the government the needs of the old age pensioners. The government showed nothing but callous disregard for these people. Now the government has suddenly come to the realization that they are facing an election, and with it has come the equally startling realization that old age pensioners have votes.


Mr. Dufresne:: Everybody is talking about that now.


George Harris Hees: They have done nothing about it in the past because old age pensioners are unable to organize themselves and bring pressure to bear on the government, but old age pensioners do not have to be organized in an election. They simply go to the ballot box and mark an X. That is what this government are afraid of, so what have they decided to do? They have definitely decided to increase the old age pension, and my estimate is that the pension is going to be increased to something like $55 before this election. Mark my words, that is going to be done; and it will not be done through any love of the old age pensioner but simply because the government are afraid to go into the election and face the ire of those whom they have callously disregarded over the past three or four years.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It will be done out of love for the Liberal party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To what amount does the hon. member think the pension should be increased?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, this kind of philosophy that leads the government to take action only through fear of what will happen to them in an election if they do not take that action demonstrates clearly the political bankruptcy of this stumbling, bumbling, fumbling group of men who call themselves the government of Canada and whose only policy is the policy of hope and grope. It is high time that this old gang, this tired, worn-out old gang, this group who are ready to move to that rest home down the hall-


Jean Lesage: Thank you, George.

The Address-Mr. MacEachen


George Harris Hees: -were permitted to go there; and because of the magnanimity of the Conservative party we will take you all into consideration for posts in the Senate when we kick you out on June 17, because that is where you have been preparing yourselves to go.


An hon. Member:: What a dream.


George Harris Hees: It is about time this government, this weary group of men, were replaced by a Conservative government whose first consideration is always going to be for the welfare of-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Themselves.


George Harris Hees: -the people all the time, and not just before an election. In addition, a Conservative government will implement the national development policy which we spelled out in this house at the last session-


John Whitney Pickersgill: In that wonderful platform of yours.


George Harris Hees: -and which will assist in the development of power and natural resources. Cheap power will be made available in that way. The Conservative government will also introduce the sensible taxation policies which we have enunciated in this house previously, and which are completely contrary to the taxation policies of this present government. These policies will induce Canadians and those from other lands to invest their money in building secondary industries in every part of this country. These secondary industries will process a far larger proportion of our raw materials, materials which today, with the complete approval of this government, we are shipping out of the country to feed factories in foreign lands, and provide employment and profits which should belong to Canada.
We will build an industrial nation, where this government is perfectly satisfied to see this country remain primarily a producer of raw materials. We in the Conservative party believe that Canadian men and women, working in Canadian factories, can produce finished articles just as well as British, American, Dutch, French, German or any other workmen, working in factories in their own countries, with the Canadian raw materials which we so gladly supply to them. We also believe that an aggressive selling effort on the part of Canadians generally, led by this government, will enable Canadians to obtain a large part of the world's export markets.
Our national development policy and our industrial expansion policy will make possible jobs for all Canadians who wish to work at steadily increasing rates of pay.
They will make possible increased social security payments on a sound economic basis by enlarging the sources which pay for social security. They will make it possible to bring to this country many thousands of additional people with exceptional skills and talents to fill jobs which there are not enough Canadians to fill because, with an industrial expansion of this kind, we are going to need many more people than we have or can supply ourselves. This increased population will broaden the tax base and make it possible to lower the burden on individual taxpayers. In other words, Mr. Speaker, these policies will enable this country to develop to its full potential.
In conclusion I just want to say this. On June 17 next I have a birthday, and it gives me great pleasure in contemplation to realize that in addition to celebrating my own birthday on that date, I and all members of my party that evening are going to be able to celebrate the birthday of the next Conservative government.


Mr. Goode:: Mr. Speaker, I hesitated to interrupt the hon. gentleman in his bedtime story, but I wonder if he would now permit me to ask a question.


George Harris Hees: Certainly.


Tom Goode: Would he tell me the date
on which the British Columbia government asked the federal government to guarantee power bonds to build the Mica dam?


George Harris Hees: I do not know the date, but
I know very well they are very anxious to have that kind of assistance.


Tom Goode: They did not ask for it. Will
he tell me if the British Columbia government have offered to back their power bonds?


George Harris Hees: If the Social Credit premier of British Columbia has not asked for that kind of assistance, he is even sillier than I thought he was.


Jean Lesage: That is your judgment.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Rich-mond):: Mr. Speaker, in common with other hon. members who have preceded me in this debate I wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply upon their fine contributions to this debate. I am sure their

The Address-Mr. MacEachen constituents had every reason to appreciate the distinction with which the important task assigned to them was discharged.
I believe that we as representatives of the people of Canada are in position to express gratification over the continued economic expansion of this nation, an expansion which is likely to bring increasing material rewards and provide cultural and spiritual opportunities for an ever-growing number of Canadians. I noted that yesterday in his excellent address the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre pointed out that one of the chief domestic problems in this country was the problem of inflation. It is interesting to remember that for a 20-year period prior to 1940 the chief preoccupation of all democratic assemblies in every part of the world was the problem of deflation or mass unemployment.
I think at the present time we have every justification for feeling that the concentrated research and efforts made to overcome the problem of mass unemployment have yielded great results, and that in Canada in the future we are not likely to face this type of terrible dislocation. If that is so, I venture to suggest that in the future this parliament will show a growing concern that the fruits of our economic abundance shall be more fully shared by all classes and regions of this country.
Gross national product, net national product, national income, disposal income; all these are growing beyond the wildest expectations, and as aggregate measures of our national welfare are quoted to show that Canadians are better off than ever before. However, we are not representatives of economic aggregates, we are representatives of people. Although we rejoice at the general growth in our economy, we would be derelict in our duty and responsibility if we did not take measures to guarantee that all classes and regions of the country share in the general prosperity.
I wish at this point to express my appreciation to the government and especially to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour for bringing an end to the railway strike. The settlement was reached through the process of mediation and within the procedures of free collective bargaining. I am glad the government refrained from imposing a settlement in this situation. However, although the settlement of the strike makes us all breathe easier, there are still issues remaining resulting from this important national incident.
It seems to me that the railway strike has focused attention on a very important aspect of collective bargaining, namely the relationship between free collective bargaining

and the public interest or national welfare. We in this country believe in the process of free collective bargaining. We believe that employers and employees should settle their disputes by negotiation, mediation or ultimately through inflicting economic losses on the other party through a strike or lockout. These procedures are at the very root of our conception of free collective bargaining. Indeed in the United States those assumptions were explicitly written in the first Wagner act.
It would be a bad thing for free labour and free enterprise in this country if the procedures of collective bargaining were impaired or destroyed. At the same time, what made this strike so important in the field of collective bargaining was the feeling that in some way the national welfare or the public health and safety of the nation were threatened. As I said at the outset, the conflict presented by this strike was in a sense a conflict between the continued exercise of free collective bargaining and the interests of the nation as those interests are reflected in the health and welfare of its citizens.
In this case because of the intervention of the Prime Minister the strike did not move to its final conclusion, nor was there any imposition of compulsory arbitration. Nevertheless the issue still remains, and it seems to me that when the passion and prejudice of a strike of this kind disappear the whole problem of the emergency or the public welfare aspect should become the subject of investigation by the industrial relations committee of this house.
Other states, particularly in the United States, have made some effort to deal with the emergency aspect. I refer in particular to legislation of the state of New Jersey. In that legislation definite procedures are laid down setting forth the method by which the state can cope with emergency disputes. One of the real problems in this whole area is to define what is actually an emergency dispute, in other words what type of dispute threatens the public interest and the health and welfare of the nation.
Under the New Jersey act a 60-day cooling and mediation period is provided for, including hearings, in connection with all labour disputes in "public utilities." Of course that phrase is subject to very broad definition. Seizure and compulsory arbitration may be invoked if any strike, work stoppage or lockout in the opinion of the governor might result in the failure to continue the operation of a public utility and threaten the public interest, health and welfare.
It is very difficult to define exactly what strike will actually threaten public interest,

health and welfare. Certainly every strike involves economic losses. In many strikes involving non-public utilities there are very grave and heavy economic losses. As an illustration of the difficulty of defining the nature of public emergency I should like to refer to a strike which occurred in New Jersey in 1947, when the employees of the Bell Telephone system went on strike and completely interrupted the telephone service. The attorney general of New Jersey stated:
It is of course axiomatic that the telephone service is essential in the life of present-day civilization.
Later the supreme court of New Jersey agreed that in the economic and social life of today a method of communication such as the telephone was a vital and indispensable essential to the health, safety and welfare of the public. On the other hand, in the state of Massachusetts the governor, who at that time had a very outstanding labour management committee, asked an opinion of this body and they held that the absence of the telephone service would not jeopardize the public health and public safety.
The first problem in this particular area is to determine just what type of strike is involved, the magnitude of the economic loss and whether the extent of the inconvenience caused to the public would be such as to impair the public health and safety. I have not heard or read of any serious effort in this particular dispute to set forth the elements of what truly constitutes a national emergency arising from a labour dispute.
There has been a great deal said in this house and elsewhere both for and against the imposition of compulsory arbitration, and in discussing compulsory arbitration it seems to me the first consideration is the effect that compulsory arbitration is likely to have on collective bargaining itself. The best studies made of the experience in New Jersey reflect the opinion that instead of making agreement through negotiation easier, compulsory arbitration makes negotiation more difficult for both parties and undermines to some extent the process of collective bargaining. This is because, first of all, the disputants prepare for arbitration rather than for negotiation. The second reason-and all agree on this; labour, management and state-is that any reasonable effort made to reach a settlement by one party is usually taken by the other as a basis for bringing the dispute to arbitration in order to get a better settlement.
In Canada we have a set of rules applicable to collective bargaining in general, but no special set of rules which apply to both
The Address-Mr. MacEachen public utilities and emergency disputes. The whole area is very clouded and subject to a great deal of confusion. My own opinion is that it is not a healthy situation in the field of collective bargaining to have uncertainty with regard to the method of settling such disputes, and to have the whole argument reaching the Prime Minister's office where only the prestige and the skill of the Prime Minister himself can be used to provide the final momentum in settling difficulties of this nature.
I can think of no better subject for study by the industrial relations committee of this house than this problem of emergency disputes and the best possible procedure that can be used to settle them, consistent with the preservation of the best interests of free collective bargaining.
Mr. Speaker, many members of this house have already referred to the royal commission on economic prospects, and its report has become the subject of discussion all over Canada. It has been of particular interest to the Atlantic region, because many people from the Atlantic provinces felt that this commission would do for Canada what the Rowell-Sirois commission did for this country at an earlier period. The Rowell-Sirois commission, I believe, presented an economic and moral defence for the present fiscal arrangements and the present welfare community which has strengthened and made possible the continuation of the federation in this country.
It was my own feeling that the Gordon commission would attempt to set forth a particular program of economic redevelopment in the Atlantic provinces combined with a series of policy recommendations that could become the basis of legislative action by this parliament. The royal commission does recognize the necessity of such an approach to the problems of the Atlantic region. It states as follows:
What is required is a positive and comprehensive approach to the problems of the Atlantic region. With this as an objective it is suggested that the people of Canada as a whole might be willing to assist the people of the Atlantic provinces in discovering, developing and making the best use of resources in that area.
It is very hard to make fair comment on the suggestions in this section of the report in the absence of the supporting studies of the commission and, in particular, in the absence of the analyses which guided the commissioners in reaching their conclusions.
I am particularly interested in awaiting the study and contribution by Dr. Howland on the regional aspects of Canada's economic development. However, I believe general disappointment was felt that the Gordon

The Address-Mr. MacEachen commission had failed to present at this stage a general program for maritime economic development.
The expectations of many, including myself, were not realized in this report. There is no integrated program for maritime redevelopment; there is no examination of the commercial and monetary policies pursued by the government that might have a favourable or adverse effect on the economy of the Atlantic region. And finally, there are no recommendations for stimulating the private sector of the economy in the Atlantic region.
I have a feeling that the commission, for some reason, is out of step with the objectives of the Atlantic provinces economic council, which is now beginning a very comprehensive effort to solve some of the problems of the maritime region.
I hope the commissioners, who yet have to complete their final report, will remedy what seems to me to be a very vital deficiency in the preliminary report, namely the absence of a comprehensive and integrated program which might form the basis of maritime recovery.
Nevertheless there are one or two things mentioned in the commission's report which might form the basis for some discussion. The commission recommends the setting up of a capital projects commission to which the federal government would be expected to make annual contributions, and from which might be expected to evolve recommendations as to how public projects should be developed in the Atlantic region.
I cannot comment for the province of Newfoundland or, indeed, for any other province, but it seems to me that in the field of public projects the Atlantic region, or at least the province of Nova Scotia, has made the greatest headway. The federal government has already provided substantial capital assistance to public projects which merited consideration, among them the Canso causeway, the Yarmouth-Bar Harbor ferry and other schemes that come to mind. The suggestion of the commission would, it seems to me, simply make more formal the arrangement which already exists, and is likely to lead to difficulties in reconciling the various needs and requirements of the four governments who would form the group in the capital projects commission.
The commission itself lays great stress on the problem of transportation, and calls for a trunk highway system in the Atlantic region. Here again, in the field of road building and the provision of important links in our transportation system, to which I have already referred, considerable progress has been made in the Atlantic region.
	!
One problem mentioned by the Gordon commission was the inadequacy of the present transportation arrangements between North Sydney and Port aux Basques and the alleged bottleneck that exists in the transport of freight between Port aux Basques and North Sydney. I have had occasion already to suggest to the Department of Transport that an alternative steamship service be established between the Avalon peninsula and Port Hawkesbury on Cape Breton island. As you know, the construction of the Canso causeway has resulted in the creation of an all-year port at Port Hawkesbury, and its outstanding possibilities could be used in the setting up of this alternative steamship service. I realize that the commission suggested that the alternative service might be set up between Halifax and St. John's, but I am sure the members from Halifax will generously allow this steamship service to be rerouted to my constituency.
The commission placed great emphasis on the lower income levels that exist in the Atlantic area, and it is true that the level of income is lower in that area than in the rest of Canada. The commission goes on to suggest that several methods could be adopted to overcome this disparity in income levels, and one of the final suggestions made reads as follows:	,
Any serious attempt to raise income levels in the Atlantic provinces will soon break down into consideration of a series of problems which must be dealt with separately and individually.
Then it suggests that among the problems are matters which come within the general administrative competence of the federal government or its agencies, on which favourable decisions could provide some modest measure of assistance to one or other of the Atlantic provinces. I have a modest measure to propose to the government which I think will go some distance toward overcoming the disparity in incomes that now exists as between certain workers in the Atlantic region and in other parts of Canada. I refer to the prevailing rate employees of the federal government, particularly on the island of Cape Breton. I understand that under the procedure now in existence the Department of Labour strikes the prevailing rate that should be paid to federal employees, based on surveys, and then its recommendation is made to the various government departments.
I have in mind, for example, the employees at the Cape Breton highlands national park, Louisburg park, Point Edward naval base and, in the province of New Brunswick, the employees at Camp Gagetown. The employees in Cape Breton highlands national park receive an hourly compensation 30 to 35 per cent below the compensation paid to

equivalent workers in the province of British Columbia. This is so because the general wage level is lower in that area than in the province of British Columbia.
This policy of paying the prevailing rates accommodates itself to the lower wage rates existing in certain parts of Canada. I cannot see why we cannot pay a uniform rate to these employees as we do to civil servants and railway employees despite their location in the country. I believe the government should seriously consider paying a uniform rate to all prevailing rate employees in Canada. The uniform rate could be the equivalent of an average rate struck for the whole country, or the equivalent of the maximum rate existing in any particular labour market.
I know there are certain arguments in defence of the present policy. There are certain formidable arguments against it. For myself, I believe that our common Canadian citizenship should be a much more important factor in determining the rate of pay for government employees than our accidental presence in any particular labour market at any given moment. I urge the government to give serious consideration to the problem of prevailing rate employees, and to make an effort in this modest way to overcome some of the disparities that exist in income levels as between the Atlantic region and other parts of Canada.
I want to refer for a moment to the very welcome announcement made by the Prime Minister that a special study is to be undertaken of the problem of land use in this country. I have no doubt that such a study will inevitably lead to a consideration of the general economic forces determining the level of income for the farmers and the agricultural class of Canada. I am sure this opportunity so provided will result in a much wider understanding of some of the economic problems that are involved in getting higher incomes for the farmers of Canada. I must say that my own experience has been that on no other subject is there so much misunderstanding and confusion as there is on the economics of agriculture, and particularly the almost irreconcilable views that exist between the economists of agriculture and the philosophers of agriculture. I hope this opportunity will permit a meeting of minds between the economists and the philosophers, so that some agreed policy can be followed with wide public support that will provide to those who wish to farm a return commensurate to that of people in other occupations in Canada.
I had the opportunity just before leaving for Ottawa to have a discussion with the
The Address-Mr. MacEachen executive of the Inverness county farmers' association, and these men asked me to put forward two matters in the House of Commons. I believe the government intends to continue its present policy with respect to assistance on the movement of feed grains to eastern Canada. This policy has been of considerable advantage to the farmers of Nova Scotia, and they wish to have it continued as a permanent policy of the government.
The second problem brought to my attention is a problem that has been mentioned in the house before, and which has to do with the conservation of agricultural lands, particularly along the rivers of my constituency. There are many acres of valuable meadow land now being carried away because there is no provision by which the federal government, the provincial governments and the owners themselves can co-operate in a policy of conservation. I believe this is an immediate problem, and that it does not require the extended deliberations of a Senate committee to have some arrangements by which we shall conserve some of the best meadow land, certainly in my part of Canada and I am sure the same applies to other parts as well.
I have been interested in the discussions which have taken place on the subject of social security, and in particular the suggestions made in the house that the old age security payment be increased. I wish to assure my colleagues in the house that I have not been tipped off by the government or by anybody else as to the probable course of action that is to be followed in this matter. I prefer to be tipped off by the feeling of my own constituents, and in this case I can honestly say that of all the areas of need there is none which gets a greater response among the citizens of my constituency than any proposal to assist in a greater measure the older citizens of this country.
I would remind the house that the persons who are now in receipt of old age security in Canada are persons who were subject, in the course of their working and earning lives, to some of the greatest depressions and dislocations in our economy, and in many cases they are those who worked without the protection of improved legislation and without the protection of trade unions; whose earning capacity, certainly in their working years was much less than the earning capacity of their fellow citizens today. Here is one place where I feel that the usual sympathy with which this government treats those citizens can be very usefully employed.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, and I want to say this in conclusion, that the chief reproach

The Address-Mr. Jones made against this government by the official opposition has been a reproach that it is lacking in leadership, that the Prime Minister and his ministers have failed to provide the necessary leadership in this country. Each member of the house, and each citizen of this country, will wish to decide for himself the confidence he places in this government. For myself I believe that the Prime Minister in his magnificent intervention in the Suez debate, and later in the debate on the address in reply, has shown himself to be a leader in the proper sense of leadership, that is leadership tempered by wisdom and long experience; and his understanding and vigour in the solution of the railway strike were, to me, considerable evidence of leadership.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs certainly needs no recommendations from any member of this house. His real leadership in the United Nations has earned the respect of all countries of the world, and he has shown himself to be a skilful and resourceful champion of peace in a manner that achieves practical results. Recently all of us were grieved and saddened at the very horrible events which occurred in Hungary, and in the press of this country there were admonitions and fears that the government would not respond properly to this challenge. I noticed recently that the editorial writers, from whom it is often difficult to extract any praise, have given the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration considerable praise and approval for the manner in which he has responded to this problem. Finally the Minister of National Health and Welfare has returned from a mission which again shows the manner in which the government is working to protect the interests of this country at home and abroad.
In the light of these few instances which I have cited, and there are others which could be mentioned, this government is certainly deserving of the confidence of the house; and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that I will not hit the headlines by announcing that I intend to support the government in all the votes precipitated by this debate.


Mr, O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, like other speakers who have preceded me I must express my disappointment with the omissions from the throne speech of such important subjects as old age pensions, blind pensions, national health grants and so forth. But in spite of that I was rather pleased that it included one item which I was very anxious to see brought into effect; that is the extension of the Municipal Grants Act. I would like to compliment the minister for introducing it at this time. To my mind it' meets a moral and legal
[Mr. MacEachen.l

responsibility of the government which they have evaded for many years. In spite of that, I would like to offer one or two criticisms of the act. I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth but to my mind grants, while welcome, are not the solution to municipal-federal relations in this field.
Many years ago the union of British Columbia municipalities condemned grants in aid in general as a very unsatisfactory way to recompense a municipality for any service rendered, on the ground that those grants can and do vary from year to year, and they can be withheld or increased or decreased at the whim of the government. It almost reminds you of a mother trying to train her child by offering candy; a little more if he is better and a little less if he is not, and so on, forgetting that eventually he will become an adult.
That is the trouble with the federal government. The municipalities are just as capable of handling their own affairs and finances as the federal government is in its field. I feel, therefore, that the federal government is not the body which should determine the value of the service given by the municipalities. I do not suppose this grant will have any relationship to that service, because the federal government is not in a position to assess it. Therefore I suggest that the municipality should make the assessment. For that reason the federal government should take full responsibility for all municipal taxes on all federal properties within the municipalities, just as any other taxpayer or any businessman has to do. In this way the municipalities could budget properly which cannot be done with the uncertain type of grants in aid. The government then would be assuming a responsibility which to my mind they have been evading for many, many years.
I was going to talk a little about agriculture this afternoon. When I mention agriculture most of you will immediately think of wheat, but I -wish to remind hon. members that there are other important branches of agriculture, such as cattle and dairying, and so on. There is also what the government seems to regard as the Cinderella of the farm groups, and I refer to the fruit and vegetable growing industries. The Cinderella group is waiting at the present moment to try on a glass slipper. It may prove that it will be the right size. I refer to the provincial royal commission which is starting to work in British Columbia at the present time. They are going to investigate the problems affecting the fruit and vegetable industry of that province, but not of the whole of Canada. I hope when the investigation is finished and

the recommendations are made the story will have the same happy ending as the original Cinderella fairy tale.
I regret that the federal government could not see its way clear to join with our province in establishing a federal-provincial royal commission so the benefits of that commission could have been extended to other fruit and vegetable growing areas of Canada. In spite of the failure of the government to enter into a royal commission pact, the Minister of Agriculture has promised that he will give full support in supplying data and other information for the use of this commission. When those data have been submitted and the findings of the commission have been made we want sympathetic assistance from the federal government at the time it will be needed, because I am satisfied that the findings will include matters affecting the federal government, such as freight rates, tariffs, dumping, export policies, and so on.
I have not the time today to go into details, but I can assure the minister that these subjects will be and must be adjusted satisfactorily before we can restore a healthy economic condition to our fruit and vegetable industry. I would point out that the growers are not asking for charity; they are merely asking for a chance to acquire their fair share of the national income, which they certainly are not getting at the present time. As I pointed out to the house once or twice, their economic burden has been greatly increased by the loss of very valuable fruit trees which were killed by frost last year and one or two years before that. It will take many years to re-establish the trees on those farms so they will again be profitable to the growers.
Personally I feel that both the federal and provincial governments should have offered assistance to the fruit growers to help them through their period of difficulty, but so far neither government has done so, with the exception of the help given by the federal government to veterans whose farms had been ruined by frost. The federal government has started to try to help the veterans. How far it will go I do not know, but it has started.
As the royal commission is now starting to work on the problems of the fruit farmers, I will not take up the time of the house to discuss the matter in any detail at this time; but I should like to suggest to the minister that in future representatives of the fruit and vegetable growers of Canada as a whole be invited to appear before the agriculture committee of the house so the minister can hear from the operators and from the managers of the various organizations what the farm problems really are.
That is now done each year by the wheat growers. I support the wheat growers in
The Address-Mr. Jones their request to place before the government what they expect from the government. On the other hand, the fruit and vegetable growers are never invited to appear before the committee. As far as the committee is concerned it does not know that the fruit and vegetable growers exist. I would urge the minister to give them a chance to do this in the future. If it is done they can have their problems discussed. If it had been done in the past I am satisfied that the acute conditions in which they find themselves today could have been alleviated.
May I make one more suggestion to the minister. I am always pleased to praise the experimental farms in our province. They do good work on culture, on pruning, on farm practices and the use of by-products, but I should like to see the work extended. I should like to see another department to deal with marketing, transportation, packing and other matters vitally affecting the industry, placed under the experimental farms. The government could help immeasurably by adding a division to look after marketing, transportation and other problems of the fruit grower. The information obtained through an impartial and scientific study of marketing problems could be passed on to the fruit growers and it would be invaluable to them. Finally I would ask the minister to carry out his promise to give federal support to the investigation now taking place into the fruit industry of British Columbia.
I should like to deal briefly with the veterans. Their problem has been somewhat alleviated by the presentations made in this house by various veteran members, from time to time, but they have not all been ironed out. That is why I should like to draw the attention of the house to a copy of the Legionary which most hon. members must have received last week. I would ask the minister to study the excellent brief that the Canadian Legion recently presented to the cabinet. I do not intend to repeat the presentation here, but I do wish to endorse it. This brief was prepared by men who know the cost of war, who know that the present dangers may lead to war, who offered their lives for their country, and many of whom bear the scars of battle to this day. A brief prepared by such men deserves the closest study and attention by the government. I trust the cabinet realizes that and will act accordingly.
These men have made a close study of pensions as a whole, and have produced interesting comparisons of the increases in industrial compensation for services rendered since 1920 and the increases in war veterans pensions in the same period. I hope the minister will study the table. It

The Address-Mr. Jones is most interesting. One recommendation, if accepted, would solve a very difficult problem. I refer to the veteran who has difficulty in establishing his claim after neglecting for many years to make the claim. Oftentimes he is turned down on the ground that the injury or disease was of pre-enlistment origin. The Legion claim, and to my mind quite rightly, that the government through its officials, doctors and others, puts each recruit through a very comprehensive and rigorous examination, and when the recruit is finally accepted it is presumed, or should be presumed, that he is physically fit and in a healthy condition. I agree with the Legion when they claim that the government should, for pension purposes, abide by the findings of their own medical examiners at the time of enlistment.
I should like to read the recommendation covering this:
The Canadian Legion therefore recommends:
That section 13 (1) (a) of the Pension Act be amended so that, where a pension applicant who served in an actual theatre of war is found to have a disability resulting from an injury or a disease not recorded on medical examination prior to enlistment, such injury or disease shall be presumed to have occurred or had its inception subsequent to enlistment.
I think that is a very fair request. Most of their requests are on similar lines. I would mention one or two. One is:
That the ceilings on total permissible incomes under the War Veterans' Allowance Act be increased to $1,200 per year for the single recipient and $2,000 per year for the married recipient.
Another is:
That the married rate of war veterans allowance be increased from $108 per month to $120 per month.
A further one is:
That Canadian veterans of world war I whose overseas service was restricted to the United Kingdom be eligible for war veterans allowance, provided that such service be at least one year in duration.
I will read just one more:
That widows of allied ex-servicemen be granted war veterans allowance in cases where the husband died before completing 20 years' residence in Canada, provided:
(a)	that the effective date of her eligibility be 20 years after the husband's arrival to take up permanent residence in Canada;
(b)	that the widow herself has completed 20 years' residence in Canada, and
(c)	that the husband and wife were both otherwise eligible.
I would pass on these recommendations of the Legion to the minister and the cabinet. I think they are modest and deserving and the Legion is not asking for anything more than the country as a whole is willing to give them. There are other recommendations, but I do not have time to go into them more fully. I sincerely hope the minister will do

his utmost to put that brief into effect in order to carry out the wishes not only of the returned men alone but of every Canadian who feels obliged to the returned men for the service rendered on his behalf in protecting his home.
Before concluding I should like to mention old age and blind pensions. Like other hon. members of this house I have recently received numerous letters pleading with me as a member to do something on their behalf and outlining the difficulty they have in making ends meet. I am not going into the details of these problems, because you know them as well as I do; but they are serious problems, particularly those of the blind pensioners who have a severe handicap to begin with, plus the handicap imposed upon them by the small amount of their pension cheques.
The suggestion that the increase be made this year has already received support from all sides of the house, the Liberals, the official opposition, the Social Crediters and members of the C.C.F. party, and in addition it has the wholehearted support of all Canadians; for the need of a decent and satisfactory old age and blind pension is well known to every one of us. The least we can do is to keep on urging the government to assume this responsibility and alleviate the misery of these blind and old people by giving them a reasonable standard of living. Some of them cannot possibly get by on the present pension, and live on the charity of friends and relations. In many cases their lives are shortened because they do not have the wherewithal to buy sufficient sustenance. They are another group who, like the veterans, are deserving of a fairer share of our national economy. The aged are the pioneers who laid the groundwork which enabled our economy to reach its present standard; therefore to my mind they have a rightful claim to a far larger portion of the national economy which they helped to create.
I do not feel I am asking for too much when I request that immediate consideration be given to these matters. Do not use this as bait to gain votes at the election, because that will lose for you many friends. I am now referring to the minister or the cabinet, whichever you like, but I would urge in the name of common humanity and common justice that you immediately increase both the old age and blind pensions.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William):: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to follow a fellow countryman in this debate, a young man who was born in the north of Ireland and travelled across the Atlantic and across this country as far as Edmonton from where he was sent back here to serve her most gracious

The Address-Mr. Mclvor
majesty; who has told her that we dearly love her and are going to do what we can to maintain Canada as a leading nation. I congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) on his splendid speech. I also would like to congratulate the other Irishman who seconded the motion. While the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) is not altogether an Irishman he nevertheless has the honest look of one, and he did his part, too.
I would like to welcome to this house a group of very important persons, eight new page boys. I would like to tell them and those who are veteran page boys that we will treat them well and do our part for them, and they can feel at home with us.
I would now like to pay my tribute to a great Canadian who lived in Ottawa and who passed on last week. He was a classmate of mine over 60 years ago. I refer, of course, to Dr. John Woodside. He is held in very high respect and received the highest honours Canada could give him through the church and church councils. He was a man noted for his dignity, for his ability and for his kindness, and I pay my tribute to him.
I also wish to pay my tribute to a young man, the hon. member for Quebec East-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: West?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: -whom we call the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If you are speaking about me may I point out that I am from Quebec West.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: No, he is not
speaking about you at all.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: If the hon. member who is interrupting has imagination keen enough to suppose that he could take the place of the one of whom I am speaking, then he is welcome to it.
When the Prime Minister came into this house and served as the minister of justice I understood he had a drop of Irish blood in him because his mother was Irish, and I think he started out in the right way. He did not make a big splash at the beginning, but later he blazed a trail that has brought credit to Canada. In the last few days I have been somewhat tickled, Mr. Speaker, to hear the way the Prime Minister has been able to answer with dignity those questions that are honest requests for information; and when he is asked questions by those who seek to put something over on him he certainly lets them have it from the shoulder. At those times his face becomes a little redder, and although some call it righteous indignation I just say it's the Irish coming out in him.
The speech from the throne is a splendid pre-election speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: This is true, because it is built on the three pillars on which the Liberal party always builds, namely-


Alfred Claude Ellis: Doing nothing.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Liberty, unity and security. Even the leader of the C.C.F. said it had three good things in it. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat said there was one good thing in it. Even the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis)-


Alfred Claude Ellis: Oh, no.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: -after criticizing it admitted there were some good things in it, and to my way of thinking there are many good things contained in this speech. I do not think anybody would say the establishment of a Canada Council, giving them the green light to go ahead, is not a good thing. Surely no one would say that the giving of grants to Canadian universities is not a good thing. If anyone said that helping the municipalities is not a good thing then I would say something is the matter with his upper story and he had better start to think things over again. The speech from the throne deals with almost every aspect of our economy. In addition to those things I have mentioned it refers to aid to agriculture and fishing, and the dividing into two parts of the national museum. I congratulate the government on the advice they have given to the Governor General in bringing down this speech.
I have a word to say concerning strikes.
I know something about them, because I can remember stopping a strike on one occasion when a group of men employed in the same type of job I worked at for 15 cents an hour were considering striking.


An hon. Member:: You were overpaid.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Someone said, "Let us strike". There were 200 or more of us. I said, "I am not going to strike, because I have nothing to strike on. I have only enough to pay my board for a week, and I have to save enough to see myself through next winter. I am not going to strike; let us organize instead". As a result a committee met the builders' council, and an increase of 15 to 25 cents an hour was granted later on.
I should like to refer again to the hon. member for Regina City; he is a big fellow, and I know he will not mind. When the strike was on he said the government was doing nothing, that they were sitting back waiting for something to turn up. If this strike has settled anything, it has settled two things.

The Address-Mr. Mclvor First, the government, especially three members in the persons of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Trade and Commerce went all out in their efforts to settle the strike. The second thing this strike has shown is that the Canadian Pacific and the union officials are reasonable men who believe in co-operation.
I should like to offer a little advice, which I hope will be passed on to them. The C.P.R. officials, the C.N.R. officials and the officials of the Canadian Labour Congress would do well to get together and co-operate so there will never be another strike. They should realize the loss of business there has been because of the competition from highway and water transport. They must co-operate; they must work together.
I submit that strikes can be eliminated in three ways; first, by honest co-operation; second, by giving the men a share in the profits. This has worked out quite well in two places in Fort William, and if it works in Fort William it will work in Regina. The third way by which strikes could be eliminated would be by the application of the golden rule. This is the sure way. When you have that you have happy people working together.
I should like to say a word about northwestern Ontario. I remember when I first came down here I was told that all we had at the head of the lakes were big trees, big rocks, summer resorts and 40 below temperatures, all things that did not mean very much to the rest of Canada. That has all been changed. I would refer hon. members to Trade and Commerce magazine, and an article which appears on page 17 dealing with northwestern Ontario. This article indicates that nearly $400 million is to be spent in the expansion of primary industries of forest and mine and the development of electric power. It indicates that there is unprecedented growth all over northwestern Ontario. The government of the province of Ontario, under the leadership of Premier Frost, have certainly taken off their coats and gone to work in northwestern Ontario. Even though they are Conservatives they are doing a good job.
Fort William is leading in the development of northwestern Ontario. At the beginning of the year the Abitibi people announced they were going to expend $20 million in additions to their pulp and paper mill, and it is expected the expenditure will go beyond that. A gentleman came up from Quebec to manage the Great Lakes company, and it is noted that under his leadership they will erect the largest paper mill in the world. The first announcement was that there would be an expenditure of $40 million, but

it is now indicated that the expenditure will be $80 million. They will have the largest wood yard in the world at Fort William.
Activities at Canada Car are becoming more steady all the time. They have had one million accident-free hours, which indicates co-operation between the workers and the management. They have received a contract for 250 diesel buses for the Montreal tramways commission. Just think what that will mean to a city which is growing by leaps and bounds.
Our city council supported the Hungarian committee and has agreed to receive refugees. We are very proud of that. Donald Clark and Sons, who purchased the Great Lakes sawmill, which has been idle for some time, have indicated that they will make available several houses in which workers used to be housed. These have been turned over, and according to word I received from the city clerk are being used to take care of refugees. We appreciate that very much.
We hear a great deal about the government going to the bow-wows. I hardly think that is so, because so many people outside of this country want to come to Canada. I will refer only to one group because of their characteristics. Four thousand Scotsmen every month want to come to Canada. Scotsmen are supposed to be sane and steady, with an eye for the future. Yet in the face of that fact an hon. member over there is likely to get up and say that we are going to the bow-wows.


Mr. Ferguson:: If the Liberal government
stays in power.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: It will not be out of power in my time, and I expect to live to be 100. I should like to tell the Minister of Finance how he can spend some cash. We have an old rink in Fort William which was purchased by the government and made into an armoury. It was a wooden building which had not been painted for 20 years, so you can imagine its condition. When I was showing the sights to visitors to Fort William I never took them there. We need a federal building, because the unemployment office is hard pressed for space. These people are located in the old post office. Under my late friend, Hon. Dr. Manion, a new post office was built and I had the job of putting somebody in the old building. I could not get anybody but a beer parlor to go in; then finally we handed it over to the Salvation Army for a rental of $1 per year. They were there for seven years.
The building was then taken back from the Salvation Army. I did not like it, but I do not say many bad words about the government because I want them to measure up.

They certainly did measure up. They gave enough for a down -payment on a new building, $2,600 which will provide a place for the army. Therefore the Minister of Finance can spend some money along that line.
There are two other things about which the government can do something and which I have been advocating for the past four years. One is pensions for veterans. I have quoted several cases of men who were in the front trenches for four Christmas dinners. When they came back they were discontented and not at all like themselves, and they found it hard to settle down. I say that men who were in the trenches that long should receive a pension at 60 years without a means test. These men gave their best; they risked everything. A lot of them did not come back. These men deserve an old age pension without a means test at 60 years.
Another thing I have been advocating and which I have referred to previously is the case of the civil servant who has been on a small salary and has been retired. I have a resolution on the order paper which reads:
That in the opinion of this house the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to increase the pensions of civil servants who were retired when salaries were low, so as to bring such pensions more in line with the present.
I have visited some of these homes, and it is a pitiable thing to see. They are clean and tidy and in fine shape, but the people living in them certainly do not get three meals a day as I do. I will not say any more on this subject because it will be dealt with again in a full dress debate. I have spoken to the hon. Minister of Finance, and he has assured me of that.
I remember that before the last election I had a resolution on the order paper for three years in succession asking for pensions for the handicapped. This request was well supported by everybody, especially by some hon. members who have since gone to the Senate. The government did not wait until this session to grant those pensions; they did it immediately after the election, and I am expecting that right after this election the civil servants will receive their increased pensions and also that the veterans will get their old age pensions at 60. I would like to speak for the blind, but that matter will come up again on the budget.
Before closing I would like to congratulate the government on the steady way in which they are doing things and on the reputation they enjoy in the country. We will be happy to welcome anybody either on this side of the house or on the other side, after the next election, to tell us just how all these things should be done.
The Address-Mr. Ferguson
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your courtesy in allowing me to carry on.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all the complimentary things the hon. member has said regarding the Irish. My forefathers came to this country from Ireland around 150 years ago and I consider myself a Canadian equal, almost, to any Canadian except for the redskins who were here before us.
I believe we members come to the House of Commons for the purpose of speaking our minds on the various subjects in which we should be interested, touching the welfare of our constituents and the well-being of Canada. Within the last few months the nations of the world have been confronted with some of the most momentous problems they have ever had to face. Nobody will deny that we have been close to global war, war which, had it occurred, would have brought unpredictable consequences.
We here in Canada belong to a very grand body of well-wishing people called the United Nations. We also belong to another community called the commonwealth of nations, the British commonwealth. If we had always had the type of man who was not too prone to forget what that word "British" means, we would have had today a commonwealth of united nations at which no country in the world would dare to shake a mailed fist. We were on the verge of having a commonwealth of nations which had within its orbit every raw material necessary to support the greatest combined group of countries in this world, a commonwealth containing Australia, New Zealand, the Malay States, South Africa, Canada and the British Isles.
These territories are rich in tin, wheat, cattle, metals and minerals of every type the world requires. All were to be found within the British commonwealth. We had the desire to help the wide world before we had set our own house in order. If we had done what we should all have been striving to do; if this had been accomplished; if we had worked more with the other members of the British commonwealth of nations; if we had speeded up our efforts, we could have gone to New York as members of the United Nations with a solid bloc of our people, speaking various languages but with a common purpose. We could have put our shoulders to the wheel and the combined effort would have made a tremendous difference to the whole United Nations set-up.
The two great nations of the world which have settled in Canada, and of whose people Canada is so proud, are France and the British Isles, England, Ireland and Scotland.

The Address-Mr. Ferguson Alongside these are, fortunately, a good sprinkling of the right type of people who came to these shores from other countries such as Germany, Italy and Holland. We are proud of the type of men who are called Canadians today, workers, men of vision, men who want this Canada of ours to have a population sufficient to become a real power in world affairs.
But a problem comes up in the United Nations, and what do we find? We find, to my chagrin and shame, that the representatives of Canada appointed by this government are going in with the group who are not closely knit with us. Some members of this group are, indeed, very far from us. The Russians are far away. The United States is not knit to us; it is near. They soon tell us they stand, alone, when the time comes for them to do so. Our representatives at the United Nations did not take the position: we are sorry; we know you must have had some good reason for this tremendous move in sending British and French troops to Egypt.
Oh, no. They did not take the sympathetic stand which one member of a family usually does with regard to another, even if the latter had stubbed his toe, as happens on some occasions. This attitude could have been taken and should have been taken. Our representative at the United Nations was glad to stand in with the Russians and the United States in condemnation of the two mother countries of this Canada of ours.
I am speaking my own mind and voicing my own opinions when I make this assertion, but many, many Canadians right across this country are ashamed from the tops of their hats to their shoes, over the action which was taken on behalf of Canada by Canada s representatives. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is a very great man; he is a highly educated man; he has handled himself and the affairs of Canada is a most masterly manner. But he should have kept his tongue in his cheek at the United Nations meetings when his own flesh and blood were up against the situation that confronted the great statesmen of the British Isles. They believed it was necessary to go into Egypt to save their very lives and the lives of the people of France. It was not simply an individual who took that step. It was thought out more carefully than the Secretary of State for External Affairs thought out some of the statements he made at the United Nations. People do not send thousands of men to probable death unless it is the last straw.
For my part, I would have loved to see the French and British troops go right into

Cairo and kick this dictator, Nasser, right into Russia where he belongs. That is my opinion. You are going to have to do something like that before this situation is cleared up. We now have the President of the United States telling us that he is going to do it when it suits him. I will tell you when he will do it. He will do it the minute that the oil needed by the United States is cut off, and he will not notify anybody.
If we are going on as we are our soldiers will be going to a war started by the United States and will be marching down Sparks street to the tune of Yankee Doodle. Yes, sir, the Yanks are coming. We will be cheered when we clear these people out of Egypt who are upsetting the entire equilibrium of this world, supported as they are by Russian munitions. When we liberate the people of Egypt the Yanks will be cheered and we will be included if we just keep going on as we are. That is not a very happy thought.
When France and England decided what they were going to do and did it Australia and New Zealand said: We are with you. I do not believe there is a man or woman in the House of Commons today who fears that if the British and French had gone on into Egypt the Russians would have dared to send any more munitions or any human beings anywhere in the Near East.
I saw some cartoons recently that were published in a leading Cairo paper prior to the people of Israel going into Egypt. One cartoon depicted a high, military shoe with a spur on it kicking a man with a pronounced Jewish expression on his face under the chin, kicking him out of the Near East. Another one from a leading Cairo daily paper showed a long knife dripping with blood and a chicken representing the people of Palestine with an incision in its throat and an agonized look. I am sure these cartoons were widely acclaimed by many people in Egypt who thought this great puppet and upstart, this imbecile ass, Nasser, would lead the Egyptians to conquer the world.
Nobody had the nerve to put their foot down two or three years ago when Nasser stopped the ships of Israel from going through the Suez canal, a waterway supposed to be open to all nations of the world. There is no doubt that the President of the United States knew of that situation. In my opinion, we have acquiesced in his requests for too long. British troops were taken away from the Suez canal. That was a nice, friendly gesture. They knew in their hearts that the right thing to do was to keep those troops there. But no, for the sake of a pacifist move

and because certain people would not face the realities of life these troops were removed from the canal area.
Lots of us will not face realities. Many times we do not do the right thing when we should and then we are confronted with an impossible situation. Let me tell you that the situation in the Near East prior to the British and French going into Egypt was an impossible one. It was not something you could fool with. What happened? At terrific expense the British and French moved in and then through the efforts of the representatives of the Canadian people at the United Nations and the efforts of the United States, not the little nations, the British and French were convinced that they should pull out for the sake of the peace of the world.
We are told that there are members of the British commonwealth who say they are going to withdraw from the commonwealth unless we let the Russians and the Egyptians run the better two-thirds of the empire. Well, if that is the kind of people they are the sooner they get out of the British commonwealth the better. Oh yes, my words are not ultra-diplomatic but they are the truth.


An hon. Member:: Tory policy?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It may not be Tory policy but it is Julian Ferguson's policy. Where did the shoe pinch? It pinched on the continent of Europe and in England because of the oil situation. We in this country have grown fat on two wars. We do not know much about the shoe pinching but the people of the continent of Europe do. By withdrawing our troops from the Suez canal area we put the Egyptian people and this dictator in a position to block the canal, a world water passage. We did not threaten him in any way, shape or form with immediate action and carry it out if he did not permit the small, newly established nation of Israel to transport its products up and down the canal. No, we did not. Their voice was too small to be heard by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent).
The time to voice our opinion on behalf of these people was at the right place, at the right time and for justifiable reasons. We had the justifiable reasons. When we go to the United Nations do we always have to be so diplomatic that we cannot express our views and what our hearts dictate? Must we turn on the friend who will forget our action, not resent it and still be our friend? It is the kind of deed where you kick a friend because you know he is a friend and is not going to put up much of a row about it and will say: Oh well, he did not mean it.
353
The Address-Mr. Ferguson
Sir Anthony Eden and men of his calibre are saying, Oh, well, they did not mean it. Let me say to you that they did not need to do it. Our action has been misconstrued all over the face of the world to the detriment of the British commonwealth of nations and to the detriment of the free world.
It has been an incentive for a man like Nasser who tries to borrow money with one hand and who hits the donor with the other. It is the case of the dog that bites the hand that is feeding him. We are listening to that man. Here in Canada we are very proud of our regiment called the Queen's Own Rifles. We have every right to be proud of that regiment; they are the men who have defended the freedom of this country. The Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested with a great deal of pride that Canada would send troops to help keep the peace. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) who knew the great record of that famous regiment said, no doubt with pride, we are going to send a famous Canadian regiment, the Queen's Own Rifles. What happened? Let us face the facts. The Queen's Own Rifles were never sent because a puppet, a communist, a mean despicably-thinking man, a man who wants to cut the chicken's neck, said no.
I will say this about that Israel's chicken's neck; it is as good a neck as our neck, the neck to which Sir Winston Churchill referred. It was some neck when the hordes from Israel tore into Egypt. It was some neck and some chicken and the people of Egypt realize that today. They have $500,000 less in material that was shipped to them from Russia. Unfortunately at the present time the people of Israel are feeding 10,000 prisoners. If there is much more nonsense from that dictator I would certainly advocate that the people of Israel take another sock at them and clean them up properly. Do not let us just go home; in a few days let us not forget where the people of this country came from and where they started or how hard the battle was for our people to get in the position where we the people living in Canada today can say we have the most prosperous and progressive country in the world. It did not just grow on a tree, and we in the House of Commons had very little to do with putting us in the prosperous condition in which we are today and from which we are able to progress. We have been rather small contributors over the last 150 years. You have got to see just how much the last 20 years has contributed to the development of Canada. Let us go back a little further and give those people who hewed their homes out of the forests of this

The Address-Mr. Ferguson country the credit which they deserve. Let us try to unite the British commonwealth of nations. Let us try to stick together. Let us foster gatherings of representatives of all those nations. In the various parts of the empire let them know that we are with them. Let them know that we seek for them to be with us, and let them know that we stand together. There is no nation in the world would dare to try to put anything over an us. We would sleep a lot more soundly at night than we may sleep if the British commonwealth of nations is broken or if we neglect our old friends who fought with us in the last war and the first war. We had the Japanese and we had the Italians in the first war. In the last war they were our enemies.
That great nation of France was invaded by the destroying German hordes. They are the people who stood with us and lost hundreds of thousands of men in the first war. In the one battle they lost 250,000 of the flower of the nation, one battle, 24 hours. It takes centuries to recover that kind of blood and that kind of manpower. Do not let us forget that. We had every right to say to our old friend France-and I say our old friend because I know France has been our tried and true friend and the tried and true friend of the British Isles. If Canada had cabled and said we are with you and with your country, and has asked for volunteers for an army to help to defend the decision of the British government, you would get thousands of real Canadians as volunteers. But there would be a lot of them who would be reluctant to march behind the tune of a Yankee bugle.
While I am on my feet I just want to say a word about prosperity and about that terrific calamity which occurred in the United Nations due to the attitude of the government's representative. In various parts of Canada, particularly up in my own part of the country, we have people seeking to get roofs over their heads and to get out of the boarding houses and, in the case of young people, to get away from the old folks' home and to build homes of their own. Now, we talk about prosperity. All right. We have now reached, under the management of this government over the past 20 years, a prosperity in which you cannot pay for a home in 10 years. It takes 30 years, if ever. We have now reached a position where you cannot borrow the money necessary for a newly married couple to build a home and get a roof over their heads. The government tells us you can buy a house, or they have been telling us that for a long time. They say all


you have to do is go to the bank. After a lot of bickering and talking the banks have finally admitted that they will not make any more money available to young people to build houses.
Now, the manager of a bank operating in the town of Collingwood, where I come from, tells me, and I have asked the question several times, that they are not lending any more money for this purpose. That is prosperity. We are trying to curb that kind of prosperity. Let us curb something but do not curb the ability of people to get a roof over their heads. Let us scratch our heads so that we can get a thought as to how to overcome that obstacle, the obstacle of providing homes for the people of Canada. On the one hand we say, bring in immigrants, and I am heartily in accord with that. However, I hope they bring in men who are able to build houses and men who can lend money to the man who can only pay a reasonable amount down on a new home, so that he can proceed to build a new house. This condition exists across the country. People are not able to buy houses.
In the prosperity of today people are mortgaged to the hilt. The merchants in the smaller communities are finding business is not so good and when you inquire into it you find that the people are working but they are so heavily mortgaged that they will need to increase their wages before they are able to pay for the things which they are entitled to here in Canada such as refrigerators, electric stoves and automobiles. The average man who is willing to work should be able to have some of these commodities; they are not just luxuries, they are necessities. The automobile which you could buy in this country 12 years ago for $1,100 is now costing $2,600. The good home that you could buy for $5,000 is now costing $25,000. The bird cages which you are now getting are costing $15,000. When the young family move into a home now they get a warning, ' do not have any children because you will have to keep them out in the garage; there is no accommodation for them in the place. There is a living room, a bedroom and a kitchen. You could not swing a cat in it. It sells for $12,000 to $15,000. Well, that is prosperity. We must say something more than that we have prosperity. Unfortunately, people have learned to lean on the government to such an extent that the government finds itself in the position of having to be a guide and an aid to the great masses of Canada. We have the old age pension and unemployment insurance. Now there is talk of shorter working hours and more pay. Then, the commission the other day came out and

The Address-Mr. Ferguson
said, "Boys, a few years from now you are going to get $100 a week instead of $35 or $40. I had a carpenter working for me last week in Collingwood, doing some alteration on a building I own. He said, "Mr. J., we are going to have more employment in 25 years. Did you see where we are going to get $100 a week?" Well, I think I would have refrained from making that kind of statement if I had been on the commission. We all remember the difficult times we have gone through; all Canadians remember them. I do not know of any finer election statement that can be made prior to an election than that Canada is to have 25 years of uninterrupted prosperity. Unfortunately, the people of Canada are naive enough to believe statements of that kind.
The poor young fellow-he was a married man-who worked for me spoke of $100 a week and a 35-hour week. What a place to live in! I hope it comes true, but I would just as soon have $50 a week and be out of debt and pay for my home in 10 years rather than 30 years, and buy an automobile for $1,100 instead of paying $2,600 for almost the same kind of automobile. That is prosperity, all right, gentlemen; but we have to watch what we are doing. According to the press, the United States is paying two-thirds of its income on security. I do not know whether those figures include any money for the security of Canada; but if we keep on following them as we are doing we may have to look to them for money for our own security. We may have to ask, do you mind cutting us in on some of that because we have gone so far along the line that we cannot look after ourselves? We cannot even stand by our friends.
I should now like to deal with immigration. Since I have been in the House of Commons I have watched the various ministers of immigration. Shortly after the war this subject came up and the minister told us at that time that we needed immigrants. He said, "Canada is expanding, but we are short of ships". Well, we brought farmers out here, or men who said they were farmers. Many of them were school teachers, bookkeepers, nurses and so forth. They could not speak our language and had to learn it. After they had been here for one year they went back to their own vocations of life. I know a doctor and his wife from Rumania and Austria who served a sentence of one year washing dishes in Gravenhurst sanatorium. This graduate physician is now practising in Toronto. He will be able to tell his children when they grow up that his sentence was to come into this great country of ours, 82715-231
under the then existing immigration laws, and serve his term of one year washing dishes in the Gravenhurst sanatorium. That is the penalty that he had to pay. He will be able to say, "Son, are you not proud you are a Canadian, but I hope when you are old enough, and if you are able to reach parliament as a Canadian citizen, you will not penalize the people who want to come to this great country by making dishwashers out of doctors".
We have a trickle of immigrants coming to this country. There is a shortage of every kind of skilled labour in this country. I advertised in the Star and Telegram for two weeks for domestic help. I received three replies. All three admitted when I got in touch with them that they could not do the job but they just wanted to see what kind of job it might be. That is a reality. What is driving prices up? There is not enough good skilled labour to make labour properly competitive, and labour should be competitive. Efficiency increases in that way. Ever since the war this government has dilly dallied on the immigration question, which is one of the most vital questions in a growing country. We do not want farmers only; we want artisans of all kind, competent, honest, willing workers. We must plan the conditions under which they can be brought here under which they can be handled. We must have a strong and brainy, intelligent man in charge of the department to carry out the duties of that department in that manner. We do not want a man in charge of the department of immigration in this country who is criticized by the law society of the country; we do not want that type of man. He must be a competent and capable leader, and an exceedingly good businessman. He must be capable of co-operating with all other departments. The department of immigration is not the smallest of all the departments of a nation of 15 million people.
In the year 1957 in this great country of ours we have foreign capital developing this country so that our people continue to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. That is Liberal prosperity. I say that Canada is enjoying the greatest era of a certain type of prosperity that it has ever enjoyed. Millions of dollars are coming in from the United States, from Switzerland, from Germany, from England and from France. They are pouring in to develop our resources simply to give our people jobs, but in very few instances are they providing the cream of the profit to keep our people living over and above the old age pension. That is what we must have. We must have something

The Address-Mr. Carter more than the satisfaction of saying to a man, at the end of your efforts do not forget that you can get $40 a month to keep yourself in comfort here in Canada.
While I am on this subject may I say- I am speaking for myself-I think $40 a month is a disgrace. It is something we should not let happen. It could be changed quite easily. If an increase were proposed by this government it could be passed in 15 minutes, unanimously, I hope, to put the aged people, who served this country so well, in a position to have a slight degree of comfort in the final years of their lives so that they would not be seeking food in garbage cans when they are not depending on their families to look after them and feed them.
Every member of parliament knows how much the cost of living has increased. What effort has been made by the government to increase by a fraction the old age pension? Members of parliament know the price of automobiles as well as anybody in Canada knows it and we know the price of roast beef; not everyone does because they cannot afford it. We know that the price of food, clothing and housing is going up. Has this government stopped in its tracks and said, "This is going to be difficult. There is one group of people whom we cannot neglect any longer". I refer to the people who helped Canada become the great nation she is, the people who cannot now fend for themselves. I am speaking on behalf of every old mother who produced great Canadians for the future who is now hobbling along the street in ill health forced to live in a cold and bleak home in the city of Toronto, Montreal or elsewhere, eking out an existence on $40 a month, when we all know in our hearts that this sum is not adequate.
I am not asking for a luxury but for an increase that is long overdue. This is something that should be done without further procrastination, without further debate or political promises, long before the election- now.
Mr. Speaker, I have simply voiced my opinion here today on some subjects which are of great concern to me personally.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at the very beginning to associate myself with the very fine and well deserved tributes which have been paid to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne in recognition of the excellent manner in which they have discharged their duties. By the high order of their speeches and the manner


in which they were delivered they have enhanced the tradition of this chamber and reflected credit both on themselves and on their constituencies.
The speech from the throne refers to many matters which are of particular interest to my province and to my constituency. Apart from international affairs and economic developments which directly concern all Canadians from coast to coast there are three items dealing with education which show that the government recognizes both the vital necessity of attaining the maximum development of our human resources and the problems associated with it. The proposals to set up a Canada council for the arts, humanities and sciences, to double the grants for universities and to increase and improve grants for vocational and technical education will be heartily welcomed in my province and I believe by right thinking people in all parts of Canada. The extension of the scope of municipal grants, the plan to set up a Senate committee for the better use of land for agriculture and the proposed revision of the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act to provide a better scale of benefits to disabled seamen and the dependents of deceased seamen are three other measures of special interest to Newfoundland and to my own constituents. There will be opportunities for more extended remarks when these measures are brought before the house. At this time I wish merely to enumerate them and to commend the government for putting them on the agenda for this session.
Another item of special interest to all Canadians and particularly to the Atlantic provinces is the report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects commonly known as the Gordon report. I do not think we should criticize this report too hastily; after all, it is merely a compilation of facts and deductions. Some of the conclusions reached may be disappointing to us and possibly disagreeable but I feel we must accept the report as an honest appraisal of present economic trends and the results that are likely to ensue if these trends are permitted to continue throughout the next quarter century. We are not required to agree with the opinions expressed nor with the assumptions on which they are based; after all, they could very well be mistaken. At best they can hardly be expected to be more accurate than a long-term weather forecast. We should not therefore accept the predicted results as inevitable; rather, we must see to it that the necessary action is taken in time to prevent those results, which we consider undesirable, from taking place.

In compiling a report of this kind and particularly when formulating recommendations or policy based on the findings, care must be exercised to make certain that purely material and economic considerations are not permitted to override human considerations and the over-all national interest. For example, the report confirms the fact that in the Atlantic provinces per capita and per family annual incomes are some 30 plus per cent lower than the national average. This tremendous discrepancy is rendered still worse by the fact that the cost of living in the Atlantic provinces is considerably higher than the national average. In my own province of Newfoundland this gap is at its widest.
What is the answer to this situation? On a purely material and economic basis the solution could be to encourage a movement of the population from the Atlantic provinces to the central provinces and it should be borne in mind that this sort of migration on a voluntary basis has always existed. But would any sane person maintain that it would be in the national interest to have the Atlantic provinces completely denuded? Where then should the line be drawn? What does the national interest demand? Surely the national interest demands that measures be taken to close the gaps in annual income and the cost of living so that material living standards in the Atlantic provinces will compare more favourably with the rest of Canada. This does not necessarily mean handouts but it does mean, first and foremost, that ways must be found and the necessary assistance must be provided to enable the people of the Atlantic provinces to raise their own living standards through their own efforts by developing their own resources to the maximum.
It would appear that present credit restrictions tend to retard the industrial development of the Atlantic provinces more than that of other parts of Canada thus producing the greatest effect where it is least needed. No one can deny the necessity of credit restrictions and other measures to offset the present danger of inflation, but what seems to be required is a more flexible way of applying them so that developments may be restricted in those areas where its contribution to inflation is greatest, and permitted or even encouraged in other areas where its effect will be slight. In this way the effects of anti-inflationary measures will be distributed more evenly throughout the nation. It should be borne in mind that the differential in individual annual income and living costs between the Atlantic provinces and the rest of Canada is due to some extent to the fact that confederation changed their flow
The Address-Mr. Carter of trade from its normal and natural direction of north and south and compelled it to flow in the unnatural direction of east and west.
It can therefore be regarded as a price which the Atlantic provinces have been paying to make the concept of a Canadian nation a reality. The relative effects of this imposed disadvantage upon living standards and industrial and economic development have increased over the years and now represent a very real sacrifice on the part of the people of the Atlantic provinces. True it is a sacrifice which must be made in the national interest, but it is also one which benefits other parts of Canada and for that reason is entitled to recognition and compensation.
Whatever compensation resulted from the Maritime Freight Rates Act has been completely nullified by the recent freight increases, and simple justice demands that steps be taken to restore the maritime freight rates assistance to its original proportions.
We all know that our railways serve a purpose that is far more important than any economic consideration. Actually their east-west direction makes them economic monstrosities, but that east-west direction is essential to the national interest because it is our railways more than anything else that bind us together in a nation and make possible our political independence and economic autonomy as well as our economic growth and development.
The primary function of our railways is to integrate the different industrial sections of every province into a single provincial economy, and also to integrate the different provincial economies into a national economy. As far as Newfoundland is concerned, the Canadian National Railways are not performing either of these functions and will never be able to perform them as long as they maintain their present pattern.
We all want our railways systems to be operated as far as possible in accordance with sound business practices. I use this qualification because purely dollar considerations must not be permitted to take precedence over the over-all national interest and basic human needs. Since the railways are not basically sound enterprises within themselves as economic units, and since they have other functions even more important than the economic, I believe it would be better if they were regarded as public utilities. Certainly it would be better in Newfoundland.
The railways could be used as an effective instrument in equalizing the cost of living in

The Address-Mr. Carter different parts of Canada. In Newfoundland the Canadian National Railways create inequalities in living costs and make existing ones even worse. On Friday last my colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten), placed on Hansard at page 136 figures to illustrate how the recent freight increase of 11 per cent has resulted in an actual freight increase of 64 per cent to the consignee at St. John's, Newfoundland. I am not going to repeat what he so clearly and concisely stated but I want to give my unqualified support to everything he said. I wish also to add my plea to his that the government of Canada adjust the rates of payment under the policy of freight assistance on western grains and mill feeds shipped to eastern Canada in order to bring these rates once more in line with the 1956 rate increases.
Before I leave this subject of railways I must once again, as I have done on several previous occasions, raise my voice in this chamber in protest against the lack of passenger accommodation provided by Canadian National Railways on their Placentia bay service. I have brought this condition to the attention of the Canadian National Railways management repeatedly over the past six years and it has been consistently ignored.
Every time I travel on the M/V Burin I am scandalized at the conditions which the travelling public are forced to put up with in this part of my riding. Picture women and children being forced to sit up all night in stormy weather huddled together on a bench in a tiny dining room or sitting on their luggage in a narrow corridor because there is no place for them to lie down. This prime example of man's inhumanity to man is a disgrace, not only to Canadian National Railways but to Canada. It makes me ashamed that the half million dollars required for a new ship should be regarded as being of more importance than human beings. It makes my blood boil to see a crown company treating human beings, and Newfoundlanders at that, with less consideration than one would normally give to dumb animals. Not only has this situation been permitted to continue, but it has steadily worsened for six long years, and I plead with the government to bring pressure to bear on the Canadian National Railways to have it corrected immediately.
I would ask the government also to give sympathetic consideration to the plight of those railway employees who have received notice of the termination of their employment. Some of these employees are over 50 years of age and are practically unemployable elsewhere. Furthermore, many of them stand to lose their pension rights which they have

accumulated over a long period of satisfactory service. Apart altogether from the terms of union, it is our Christian duty to see that their livelihood is not jeopardized because people are always more important than things. Therefore I urge the government to remove the suspense which has been hanging over the heads of these employees since 1949 by having their positions clearly defined so that they will know exactly where they stand.
Last Monday we were privileged to hear two excellent speeches-one by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) who has done so much to raise Canada's prestige among the nations of the world, and the other by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) who has just returned from a tour of Asia and Australasia where he has rendered outstanding service in building up mutual understanding and good friendly relations between Canada and the free nations of the east.
In both these great speeches the underlying theme was the importance of the human individual; that the individual worth of every human being for himself alone as a person should be recognized irrespective of colour, race or class; that human rights and human dignity should be preserved and maintained and along with human needs be given priority over every other consideration. This is the basic foundation of our western civilization. Our allegiance to those values marks the fundamental difference between western democracy and other forms of government. It is also the cornerstone of true liberal philosophy, and it is within this framework that we must examine the recommendations contained in the Gordon report and formulate future policy. There must be this fundamental consistency between our domestic policy on the one hand and our foreign policy on the other. While encouraging and assisting other nations in their efforts to correct the adverse effects of so-called colonialism we must take care we do not permit another brand of colonialism to develop within our own borders. The idea behind the Colombo plan is a noble conception which deserves our fullest support.
This concept would be still further enhanced and its effects as a moral force would be multiplied many times over by the concurrent existence of a Colombo type plan for the underdeveloped areas of our own nation. Such a program is necessary for the maximum development of the fishing industry not only of Newfoundland but of all the Atlantic provinces, which industry must in my opinion be developed in an orderly manner as a single

unit and not as a number of separate small industries fighting among themselves and competing with each other.
No thinking person would maintain that it is in the best interests of Canada or of the world to permit this vast treasure house of self-perpetuating wealth to remain underdeveloped or undeveloped, particularly at a time when four-fifths of the people of the world are underfed and undernourished. Maximum development of the fishing industry is a responsibility which we owe to the rest of the world, and it can come about only by the co-ordinated efforts of private industry, provincial governments and the federal government working together as a team with a passion and a plan.
We can be justly proud, Mr. Speaker, that many of the nations are today looking to Canada for moral leadership. In meeting that challenge let us never forget that peace can never be created by organizations or alliances, however lofty or worthy their motives. If peace is to exist at all on this planet it must first be created in the human heart, and the national interest of Canada demands that all our efforts be directed toward this primary objective.


Mr. Charles Yuill (Jasper-Edson):: First, Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the compliments which have been paid to the mover and seconder of the speech from the throne. I think they did a very creditable job in discharging this very important duty.
The settlement of the railway strike is, I think, something that should give us all a reason for feeling very happy. A terrific mental and economic strain has been lifted from the minds of the people of Canada, not only those who were directly connected with the strike but also those communities which were the innocent victims of its effects. I am sure that with this return to normality they will all be breathing more easily.
With regard to the speech from the throne itself I think that we as ordinary members look to it in anticipation of finding something there that will be beneficial, first of all, to the public of Canada as a whole. Then, I suppose, in a more selfish manner we look at it to see whether it presents some ray of hope for those in our constituencies whose welfare we have the responsibility of safeguarding. As one of the members from an agricultural area I regret I can see nothing in the speech from the throne which throws out any fresh ray of hope to the people whom I represent. As usual, of course, the farmer is caught in the cost-price squeeze; he must sell everything on an uncontrolled market and buy everything back on a controlled
The Address-Mr. Yuill market. From what I see in the speech from the throne there is not the slightest indication that this government is even remotely interested in trying to do anything for the farmer. Because of the huge surplus of grain and the inability of this government to sell it, the farmers have had to seek alternative means of bolstering up their economy. They have had to diversify their efforts by trying to raise cattle or hogs or poultry; or they have been producing eggs as a means of supplementing their revenue and seeking some reasonable equation between the ever increasing cost of production and the revenue that accrues from their untiring efforts.
Let us consider, for example, the problem with regard to egg production and the instability of the prices that prevail by examining the poultry products market report of August 31, 1956, and, again, the report for November 16. We find that the major marketing centres such as Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal show a most marked variation in price between August 28 and November 16. On the earlier date the average price for "A" Qarge) eggs in those centres was 53 cents a dozen, and in a matter of about ten weeks-or on November 16-it was 36 cents a dozen, a difference of 17 cents a dozen.
Again, taking the report of August 28, we find the pricespread to the producer between "A" (large) and "A" (medium) eggs in the markets quoted varied from four cents in Calgary to 17 cents in Toronto. Similarly, the spread between "A" (medium) and grade "B" varied from two cents a dozen at Montreal to 20 cents at Calgary.
I think that such glaring differences in price between the various marketing centres is not very indicative of an orderly marketing system and I believe the government could very well do something to help stabilize these prices. I do suggest that the 38 cents "floor price" on grade "A" (large) eggs should be given to the producer, not to the wholesaler. I think it should be a guarantee to the producer that that will be his minimum sale price for grade "A" eggs. The wholesaler has a chance to get his own profit. He has the right to increase his price by 14 cents a dozen, which I think would give him a very good margin.
Again, taking the poultry business, in some areas of the country it is a very important industry and I would say particularly so in the case of sections of British Columbia. In the poultry business there has been perhaps the greatest drop in prices of any phase of the agricultural industry. To take my own community as a criterion, the price of turkeys was 20 cents a pound cheaper in 1956 than

The Address-Mr. Yuill in 1955. In 1955 grade A turkeys were bringing 53 cents a pound. In 1956 they were bringing 33 cents a pound. It is quite true that there was an increase in the production of turkeys and poultry in general but I think one depressing effect was the number of turkeys imported from the United States. I think that had a very depressing effect upon the normal markets of British Columbia particularly and in an indirect way it affected our own Alberta markets.
When the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), as of February 1, 1955, saw fit to remove the subsidy of $5 a ton on feed wheat or feed in general shipped to the people of British Columbia I think he posed an economic problem there that has not been solved up to this time. From the viewpoint of the Canadian economy I believe the minister could very well be classified as being penny wise and pound foolish.
We in Alberta suffered the loss of a large part of the British Columbia market basically, I presume, because of little or no opposition to United States turkeys coming into British Columbia and again perhaps of the freight differential we lost very heavily so far as our normally good market in Vancouver is concerned.
Let us take another phase of this diversified industry and look at the situation with respect to hogs. According to the Livestock and Meat Trade Reports we find that the average price of hogs at four major marketing centres, Toronto, Winnipeg, Moose Jaw and Calgary, for the first nine months of 1955 was $23.06 a hundredweight. For the first nine months of 1956 the average price was $22.75 a hundredweight. Taking the five year average for the years 1951 to 1955 inclusive, we find that the price was $27.70 a hundredweight. This indicates considerable shrinking in hog prices in the last two years.
I think it is quite obvious that the floor price of $18.25 existing in Alberta today is not compatible with the cost of production and I believe it should be raised. There is one way that I believe the government could help the producer of hogs quite materially and at the same time it would have an overall desirable effect. I suggest that the government should double the bonuses paid on the top two grades of hogs.
Turning to the cattle industry, never in the history of Canada has there been more production of beef than in 1956. In spite of that we are becoming a net importer of beef. In my opinion there are two reasons for that. First, there is the natural and rapid growth of the country. Coupled with that is the fact that on a per capita basis we are becoming greater eaters of beef.


One would imagine that because we are producing more and the demand is greater the price of beef would strengthen as a consequence, but I do not think that holds true. If you look at the Livestock and Meat Trade Reports you will see that the average price of good steers at Toronto for the first ten months of 1956 was $19.32 a hundredweight and $18.25 at Winnipeg. From the Livestock Market Review we find that the average price at Toronto for the years 1951 to 1955 inclusive was $24.40 and $23.19 at Winnipeg. This indicates quite a substantial difference. The high price in 1956 was reached in August and then the price started to recede. Prices went down and down until the end of the year.
There are one or two suggestions I might make that I think would be beneficial and in the interests of everyone concerned, not only the producer but the consumer as well. I believe the time has come when beef should be sold according to its true value. I believe it would be in the interests of everyone concerned for beef to be rail graded in the same way as pork. There are so many cases where the producer brings an animal to the packing plant or stock yard and the buyer of the "critter", particularly if it is an off type, must play it safe. He may be buying the animal for a packing plant or somebody else. But as a consequence he always tips the grade balance in favour of himself or the person for whom he is buying with the result that the producer is unduly penalized.
I do not think you can blame anybody particularly. It may be regarded perhaps as the normal course of good business but I am sure that the packing plant together with everybody else is interested in seeing that the producer gets a fair price for his commodity. I strongly urge the government to give serious consideration to bring about what seems to me to be a most equitable method of selling the farmer's commodity so as to arrive at a realistic basis where the farmer will receive value for the produce he delivers.
There are many things I should like to speak about. I think that my colleague, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), has made it very clear where we stand on the question of pensions, and there should be no doubt in anybody's mind about our position. The other day my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Holowach), was discussing certain problems of the municipalities and asked what the government was going to do. There was an interjection from across the floor by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) who asked what Alberta was doing. I know, and everyone

else knows that had my colleague from Edmonton yesterday had time he could have answered that quite realistically. But because of the time element he was not in a position to answer. As one who has been associated with school administration for 25 years and as mayor of Barrhead for almost 12 years, I think that perhaps I am qualified to answer on behalf of my colleague from Edmonton East. I have here, I would imagine, around 180 statements which deal specifically with the amounts of grants, direct and indirect broken down to show how these grants affected the economy of these municipal districts by village, town, city, rural municipality or county.
If the hon. gentleman asked his question in sincerity I believe I can give him an answer which would give him at least some reasonable peace of mind. I have heard him interject so often that I find it very hard to accept that his is an honest question. For his benefit, and the benefit of the others who seem to have lost their sense of balance to quite a degree, I would like to give you a few figures. First of all, he said what are you doing in Alberta to help the municipalities? Let us put it this way. In the last seven years the government of the province of Alberta has provided direct and indirect assistance by way of grants to the tune of $311,710,812. Well, I suppose that with that kind of reasoning which goes behind these stupid questions that would not be accepted. I would like to go a little further and break it down in terms which I hope are productive of happiness or peace of mind.
I have here, as I said before, records based on 1955 performance. In the case of the city of Calgary and the city of Edmonton, I do not have them for 1955 but I have them for the last five years, 1951 to 1955 inclusive. Take the city of Edmonton, the largest city we have; the city of Edmonton received through grants in the last five years $40,942,541. On top of that they borrowed from the provincial treasury, at interest rates ranging from 2 and the maximum of 3i per cent, the amount of $57,292,900. In the case of the city of Edmonton, through these two mediums they received $98,235,441. I suppose, in the minds of some people here, that is no assistance whatever. Take the city of Calgary. They received in direct and indirect assistance $27,681,017. They, again, were able to dip into the provincial coffers to the tune of $55,791,680 in low interest money; or a combined amount of $83,472,697.
I do not think that I should have to go any further, but just in case my hon. friend is over curious, I would like to go a little 82715-24
The Address-Mr. Yuill further. Take, for instance, the city of Lethbridge, a comparatively small city. They received in direct grants $247,322.89, in indirect grants they received $1,013,325.67, or a net total grant of $1,260,648.56, or 40-36 per cent of their total revenue.
My hon. friend may be interested in rural municipal districts. I am going to start with the one which surrounds my own town of Barrhead, known as Barrhead municipal district No. 106. In this case they received $158,575.02 in direct grants, and in indirect grants they received $364,246.40, or a total grant of $522,821.42, or half a million dollars of assistance in one municipality. The government of Alberta produced for them 68-60 per cent of every revenue dollar they needed to operate. Then, neighbours of mine, people who are supposed to know better get up and tell you our government does nothing for our people out there. Take again a neighbouring municipality like Lac Ste. Anne. They received a direct grant amounting to $209,919.88 and an indirect grant amounting to $373,192.53 or again over half a million dollars, the total being $583,112.41 or in this case 63-44 per cent of their entire needs. So on it goes. You can go right down the line. Take Leduc, the municipal district of Leduc. They received in direct grants $308,405.03, and in indirect grants $429,310.03, or a total of almost three-quarters of a million dollars, $737,715.06.
To take the municipal district of Sturgeon river, municipal district No. 90, they received a total of $645,399.80, or the equivalent of 52 [DOT] 96 per cent of their total revenue.
I come next to counties. First of all, let us take the county of Grande Prairie, No. 1 which is away up in the north part of our province. They received the sum of $509,793.20 in direct grants and $74,202.58 in indirect grants, or a total of $583,995.78. The percentage is 54.75.
I come next to the villages. I have here a village with a tax levy of $9,328. They received in joint direct and indirect grants $16,774.84, or 64.26 per cent. The village of Lougheed, a very small village, received a total of $10,129.87 in direct and indirect grants, or 44.74 per cent. Take the village of Girouxville. Many of the Edmonton members will know what I am talking about. They received combined grants of $21,328, or 57.26 per cent of their revenue from the province as direct and indirect grants without strings attached.
Take the village of Caroline, which is a very small village. They received a total of $33,842.73. Their total village levy was $9,498.44. They received 78.08 per cent of their necessary revenue from direct and indirect taxes from the province.
362	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Yuill
I now come to the towns and I would like to start at home. I believe charity always begins at home. Take the town of Barrhead. We had a tax levy of $74,145. We received in direct and indirect grants $114,942.40, or 60.79 per cent of our total requirements. Take the town of Edson, another town in my constituency. These are not foreign towns to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) or the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham). They know these places as well as I do. The town of Edson received $22,346.66 in direct grants and $211,659.74 in indirect grants, or a total of $234,006.40, or 69.45 per cent of their total requirements. And so it goes. The town of St. Paul received a grand total of $96,462.83, or 40.80 per cent of their requirements. Another town pretty well down in the southern part of the province, the town of Rocky Mountain House, received in direct and indirect grants the sum of $96,315.66, or 57.97 per cent. The town of McMurray, away up to the north, received $44,524.09, or 55.36 per cent. The town of Lac la Biche, which is well known to some hon. members from Alberta, received $124,011.52 in grants, or the equivalent of 71.87 per cent. I have more here and I would be happy to make them available to my hon. friend if he so desires, because I really feel that if he has the desire to know the truth-well, they say the truth shall make you free-I would like to contribute to his peace of mind.
I think one of the tragedies of our society is that people who are usually decent in so many ways seem to allow their minds to be so poisoned by political bias that they lose their sense of common decency. They lose their vision and their sense of justice and fair play to their neighbours. I would suggest that, in future when they have any funny questions to ask, at least they be sensible and ask them honestly. "Seek and ye shall And". If you want to know something you will find the answer in Alberta.
So far as the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek is concerned, I think he is a living example of a frustrated Liberal. For years he has accepted blindly the fact that he was serving a benevolent government, but he has suddenly awakened to the realization that he is paying lip service, at least, to a government that has filched away from him piece by piece his right to live as a successful producer in this wonderful country of ours.
I think that when a man has his eyes opened perhaps it is understandable that he becomes
(Mr. Yuill.]

frustrated. Perhaps in the final analysis he should be more critical and sensitive because there is nothing that adds as much to confusion as a frustrated Liberal living in a socialist community. He should be more pitied than censured.
(Translation):


Mr. Adrien Meunier (Papineau):: The Address-Mr. Meunier to the best possible use. Moreover I contend that these grants to our universities meet the views of the Massey Commission, which recommended the establishment of such grants to develop a culture in our young country. The culture of a people cannot be assessed in dollars and cents, but it is felt in the way of life of that people. If the federal government were to do nothing in that field, future generations would denounce it for its slackness and its inertia in not developing among our people a truly Canadian culture.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, a people without culture is to be pitied, and is difficult to get along with, because nothing beautiful or great can interest such a people. The life of a nation cannot be restricted to sports alone; there has to be an elite leading an intellectual life and imparting science and thought to the rest of the population. This elite should lead the people, and the eyes of the nations are upon it.
Our universities are schools for thought and higher learning, and if students are still not educated when they graduate, they will produce nothing for the community.
A university does not take its students from the cradle on, but at a more mature age in order to mould their thoughts, enrich their minds and give them a wealth of knowledge and science which they will radiate wherever they go. And these well-balanced, well-formed minds, full of intellectual scientific, literary, artistic and other concepts will mould a people's culture.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the government for offering these grants to the universities. This money will help in their development. My special thanks go to the Right Honourable Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) who has arranged for the universities of the province of Quebec which have consented to be parties to these agreements to retain the right to these grants, which will be held for them until such time as they may be in a position to use them.
Before closing my remarks I would like to deal with another matter which some of my colleagues have raised, that is with the increase in family allowances and old age pensions. The Liberal government has instituted a social security program which is a credit to Canada. Those who have benefited from this program have been better off for it. Today our young people are better educated, more active, better clothed, our schools have more pupils than ever thanks to the help extended by the government to the parents of these children. These young people, when they leave school, are better able to face life. They are a source of great wealth to the nation.

As regards old people, in connection with the increase of the cost of living, the amount that they draw at this time insures a certain amount of security but does not preclude all worries.
Consequently, I wish the government would increase the rates of these social security benefits as soon as the finances of the country will allow it and without further increasing taxes.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to reiterate to the Prime Minister of this country and leader of the Liberal party the sincere appreciation of the voters of the Papineau constituency, whether they be French, English, Italian, Ukrainian or of any other racial origin. Each and everyone admires the way in which he administers the affairs of the country both from the national and international point of view, as it brings them security and comfort. They have not lost confidence in him and will continue to consider him the great artisan of national unity in Canada.
(Text):
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel): Mr. Speaker, I should like to join in the pleasant custom and congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) and the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) upon their remarks in moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It was not my pleasure to hear them speak owing to my being at the United Nations, but I read their remarks with interest. When doing so the thought occurred to me that they both might qualify as very good cooks because they seriously endeavoured to make a palatable dish out of a very sorry mess of pottage.
It is sometimes customary when speaking in this particular debate for hon. members to enlarge to the house upon information with respect to their own ridings. However, as the population of the county of Peel has doubled approximately in the last five years and as its ideal location and climate must be well known throughout this land of ours, I am sure the people of my county will understand when I do not deal specifically with their individual problems. The county of Peel is both agricultural and industrial and therefore they feel that the situation that confronts Peel confronts the whole country and for that reason it is not necessary to specifically enumerate the matters affecting that county at this time.
In referring to the speech from the throne I find it rather difficult to envisage that it has been given on behalf of a government which for years has been saying that this is a country with a boom economy, built on a sound foundation and that Canada and Cana-

dians together make up the greatest combination on the face of the earth; that in this land of plenty we should each year set our sights a little higher than the year before. To me the speech from the throne indicates a new influence in the government ranks, an influence of people who have never been too successful in their own business affairs, an influence of people who were never in business, an influence of people who have very little if any confidence in the ability of Canadians to develop this country without interference from the government.
It seems to me that an attempt has been made to resolve some of the differences within government ranks by the age-old theory that when things are not going too well within a country, or within a party in this particular instance, attention should be directed elsewhere. I suggest to you that within the ranks of the government there is a decidely sharp conflict, a conflict between those who are pessimistic failures and those who are optimistic realists. In order to resolve these differences they have highlighted the external affairs aspect.
I suggest that at this time the government should make the frank admission that for many years in the future the position in external affairs is going to be one of point and counterpoint, that the world situation will be unsettled for some time to come. Why do not those who sit to your right admit that when the British commonwealth influence was dominant in world affairs, that when the British commonwealth assumed its position of responsibility, with all the consequences inherent in that responsibility, the world situation was relatively stable and the world was relatively at peace. Why does not the government, those who sit temporarily to your right, admit that there is now a nation of strength which will not properly assume that responsibility. Until it can be made to do so times will be unsettled, and for some time.
Why does not the government take as its No. 1 objective the restoration of the position of the commonwealth in the world, and having done that then turn its attention to the development and strengthening of this country within its own boundaries. But then you have the contention within the party ranks of the government between the pessimists and the realists. May I quote one paragraph from the speech from the throne as follows:
Indeed our economic expansion has been so rapid that it has put a serious strain upon the supply of various types of labour and materials needed for the many projects which are being put in hand. The corresponding competition to borrow savings to finance all these projects has brought about an increase in interest rates. Increases in the
The Address-Mr. Pallett volume of money and credit have had to be carefully limited in order to check inflationary tendencies and the financial policies of my government have also been directed to counteract these same tendencies.
I underline the method that the government appears to be using, "The financial policies of my government have also been directed to counteract these same tendencies." No word about the increase of labour and materials which is the positive approach and the approach that increases the spending and the standard of living of Canadians; no, only the juggling of figures which represent finance at the higher level. There is control by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and the governor of the Bank of Canada, who earns a salary of $50,000 a year. What can they know of the concern of the common man who wants to buy something on credit or borrow enough to buy a house, or of the businessman who has geared his business to a certain level over the years and now finds that the normal means of financing are closed to him. What do they know about the bonus mortgages that have been brought about by their actions, actions which are short-sighted, pessimistic and unrealistic, actions which tend to highlight in the people's eyes a situation brought about by too much government interference in business.
The Minister of Finance blandly says that someone must get hurt; he blandly says that municipalities must not spend money. I remind him that municipal representatives are also elected, but for a shorter term, and I suggest that therefore they are nearer to the sense of the people than he is himself. I suggest also to him that this theory of his of not spending money is not shared or practised by his colleagues.
Any person will tell you that when a plant is growing and steps are taken to stunt that growth artificially the plant will be hurt as a result. The minister is trying to apply the age-old custom used in China to make women's feet more attractive by binding them. He wants to make the economy of this country more attractive to us all, and he is binding it. The result in China was, of course, that the people were crippled. I suggest the result here will be the same. I ask the members of this house and the people of Canada: Do we wish to rely on the judgment of Harris and Coyne or should we rely on the judgment of the farmers, the businessmen large and small, the consumers, the local bank managers and all those others who are actually in touch with the day-to-day commerce of the country?
I would point out at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has not yet admitted that these steps proposed by the Minister of Finance

The Address-Mr. Pallett (Mr. Harris) are necessary, and there seems to be a significant omission in this regard from many government statements. It was significant, also, that the Gordon commission, made up of people well recommended by this government, completely omitted any reference to an inflationary economy.
I leave that point, Mr. Speaker, and would like to refer to the reference in the speech from the throne to a capital fund for universities. This, so far as it goes, is I suppose a sop of some sort but I think the sights should be set a little higher. Many years ago when it was proposed that students who went to secondary schools should not have to pay their way, the proposal was laughed at. I think, as this is a national question, that the government should show leadership along the lines that no student should have to pay a fee in order to go to a university. The standard of admission should not be financial ability to pay but rather the student's academic ability, and this end can be accomplished in a number of ways. One might be the setting up of a sort of loan fund recoverable through the extra income tax that university graduates are shown to pay in a national economy. Leadership must be displayed in this regard, but perhaps it is asking a little too much to suggest that leadership be shown by this government in any field.
While we are discussing universities, I think encouragement should be given to efforts to pay professors and teachers a salary commensurate with their abilities and responsibilities. We cannot do that under a tight money policy, of course, but there should be a concerted effort either by private individuals or by government to ensure that the high calibre of those who serve these institutions as teachers or professors is maintained.
It has been said that in this country there are enough houses for everybody and that the housing industry is going to slacken off a little this year. I wonder if anyone has ever compiled a list showing the number of requests made by people who wish to have houses but refused because they were unable to meet the requirements of the National Housing Act? This act was conceived, I suppose, to help provide houses for people from the working class upward. It has looked after the "upward" category fairly well but so far it has neglected the working class. The standards of qualification under that act are higher than the average income for Canada and it seems to me that some steps might well be taken to make houses available under the conditions of that act to those who have previously been disqualified under its provisions, and I do earnestly suggest to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) that during the few months left in his tenure of office these difficulties should be removed. If

he does not wish to amend the act in that regard I suggest that there are other amendments that could be made in order to provide housing on sound financing with minimum down payments under systems that have been in use for years in other countries.
Much has been said, Mr. Speaker, about the fact that the government may now pay municipal taxes. So they are going to give the municipalities a few dollars on the buildings while public fiscal policy takes many hundreds of dollars away from them in increased interest charges. The government never seems quite to round off the picture. They have not yet gone to the length of permitting a complete rebate of sales tax on buildings and supplies used for education purposes; they fail to recognize-or perhaps they have not the ability to do so-that it is of little use assisting municipalities in one way while at the same time taking resources back from them in another. Perhaps they have adopted the Social Credit policy of keeping the money in circulation as long as it goes round in government hands continually.
Mr. Speaker, before I close my remarks I do earnestly hope that someone from the government will tell us which of the two factions over there is going to dictate policy for the next few months in which they will enjoy office. I think the public are concerned and an explanation is certainly indicated. The speech from the throne has clearly shown that there is a division and I earnestly hope, Mr. Speaker, that someone will clarify this position for us.
(Translation):


Mr. David Gourd (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I may seem a little tardy, but I believe it is my duty to say a few words in connection with the speech from the throne.
I would like first to congratulate the honourable member for Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Hanna) for the brilliant and tactful manner in which he accomplished the delicate task of moving the address in reply. I am also very happy indeed to voice my appreciation to the honourable member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) who has so ably seconded the mover.
The speech from the throne reveals that, on the whole, Canada is enjoying a very high level of prosperity. As a matter of fact, it would be enough to travel abroad, to visit other countries, to find out how privileged we are to live in Canada and where the people enjoy so much affluence and freedom. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the members of the opposition that such conditions are due to the good administration of the Liberal government. I would like to tell them how privileged we are in

Canada to have as leaders men of such ability, of such skill to administer and develop this country. These men have given proof of their skill at the United Nations, at NATO, in the meetings at Geneva, New Delhi, etc., as well as during the negotiation of trade treaties, and that is why the voice of Canada is one of the most respected in the world.
While reading a few paragraphs from the report of the Gordon commission, I noted the forecast that the population of Canada will probably double within 25 years. Of course that depends on the development of this country, and if there is one area which should be developed and settled it is my constituency of Chapleau with all its great farm lands and natural resources.
First of all, the federal and provincial governments will have to agree on building roads and railways there; if, for instance, a road was built branching off the present Canadian National line, from a point between Senneterre and La Reine, and as far as James bay, that is a stretch of about 225 miles, it would be possible to open up the northwestern part of Quebec, and establish there several parishes, because the soil is very fertile, and this would only facilitate the development of mines, hydro power, and forest resources. To further this northern expansion, a new railway trunk would have to be built which would branch off the new line now being built towards Chibougamau close to Cedar Rapid or Beattyville, as far as Matagami lake, a run of about 50 miles. This would give companies a chance to erect a paper mill which would help develop this new country covered with beautiful forests, and filled with minerals of all kinds. That is the type of development this country needs to increase its population and supply it with employment. This is so true that, although the construction of the railway from Barraute to Chibougamau has not yet been completed the population has already substantially increased. New parishes are already being established, those for instance at Bachelor lake, Opemiska, and there is even talk of others being founded north of Chibougamau.
Moreover, the federal and provincial governments should get together to help the federated co-operative build a slaughter house and a cold-storage, and also to help the companies that would like to build refineries and paper mills. My observations are based on statistics and on past experience because, when I came to Abitibi, there was only a handful of families, and there are now there at least 250,000 people.
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to miss this opportunity to repeat, in connection with our national security, that a road should be opened between Norembega, in the province
The Address-Mr. D. Gourd of Ontario, and the town of La Reine in the province of Quebec, a distance of only 47 miles. It is inconceivable that the Ontario government should overlook the necessity of building that road which, besides being beneficial to the province, would open the way to the settlement of many new parishes and provide a link between the two provinces, and promote the tourist trade in northwestern Quebec and northern Ontario. I could mention another road section whose development, by the Department of National Defence, would unquestionably be both necessary and urgent. I refer to the construction of a road connecting Casey, where the National Defence department has built a very important airport, to the radar station of Parent, a distance of about 25 miles. The cost of construction would certainly not exceed $12,000 to $15,000 per mile and the population of Parent and the surrounding district would thus be provided with an outlet.
I wish also to take this opportunity to ask our devoted Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) to urge the government to grant the old age pension without the means test from the age of 65. This would spare us heavy administrative expenses and would be fairer to the people concerned. I would also like to ask him to increase family allowances. I can tell you that they are most useful in helping the families of my constituency in sending their children to school and in facing the rising cost of living. It would only be fair and reasonable to increase the rate of allowances. It would also be fair and proper to increase disabled persons' pension.
Mr. Speaker, you will no doubt pardon my obstinacy in again referring to the necessity for our country to be represented in the Vatican state along with almost every country in the world. It is with pleasure that I find myself in agreement with certain hon. members who understand that Canada is important enough to all points of view to have its own ambassador and not have to be represented by other countries, as it is the case now. To my mind it would be easy to arrive at an agreement in this matter and it would be in the interest of this country as a whole.
I would not want to conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, without mentioning, as I did in my previous speeches, the need for a distinctive Canadian flag. I support the suggestion made by the hon. member from Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier) that the leaders of all parties in the house come to an agreement on the choice of that flag. I am sure that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in discussing this matter with party leaders, will

The Address-Mr. Knight find with them a practical and just solution, which will be a credit to our great country, Canada.
(Text):
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. R. R. Knighi (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, may I first endorse the words of congratulations that my leader conveyed to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the motion in reply.
In looking over the domestic scene I think one must agree that the greatest problem with which we are faced is this problem of inflation, and I would couple with it the related problem of the economic farm crisis in Canada. That has a good deal of importance to the people in the prairie west from which I come. It is sometimes called the farm cost-price squeeze.
I do not propose here to discuss the causes of inflation; that would serve no particular purpose. However, I do wish to plead the case of some of those who have been and who are affected by it. I shall also say a word or two about the only prescription for that particular disease with which the government has come forward, and it is indeed more than a prescription because the medicine itself has been forced upon us. I mean, of course, the manipulation of the interest rates upwards. Admittedly there has been a great expansion and great productivity. No one can shut his eyes to that. However, there are those who would sum up those two terms in the single word prosperity; with that I would take issue because surely there must be in the meaning of that word "prosperity" some element of general human happiness and contentment, and there must be some trickling down through the economic strata, all the strata of society, some benefit from our natural production, some equity if you like, in the sharing of the wealth which people produce. A real prosperity, as I say, would entail the sharing of some of this so-called prosperity by everyone in the country. But if this is prosperity it is an uneven prosperity. This government has no machinery, as far as I can see here, for a solution of this problem. It appears as hopeless in the face of inflation
(Mr. Gourd (Chapleau).]

as its twin the last Conservative government appeared in the face of deflation, inflation and deflation being two sides of the same coin.
When I said that the government was helpless in bringing forward a solution, perhaps I gave the government too much credit. Wealth is being syphoned off, of course, by vested interests, and indeed the government may justly be said to be aiding and abetting that particular process. And by what devices? There are many that I would mention but those which come to my mind readily are things like accelerated depreciation, depletion allowances, or by allowing the 20 per cent deduction from the income taxes in respect of the amounts of their profit from corporation dividends. That I have always thought to be particularly unjust. I know the motive behind it but I think it is time it was removed. Then there is the other one which usually irritates me; that is the ceiling on the contribution to the old age pension fund. Those who have a high income and reach the ceiling pay no more towards the old age pension part of the income tax than those who are on very modest income.
I do not think that prosperity is the word for this whirlwind of borrowing and spending in which we are all caught up, and which does leave a good deal of wreckage in its path. I have thought of the effects of inflation upon the farmer. The farmer is the forgotten man, I think, in Canada; at least that is the way we feel about it in western Canada. Not only has there been a steady decline over the years in the price of his produce, but there has been a corresponding, and perhaps even faster, rise in the cost of production and the cost of the machinery which he uses. The agricultural industry is declining. There is no doubt about it and I think it is a misfortune. I do not know whether we are prepared to go into the tinsel and glittering atomic age with almost complete urban living. It is a good thing to have good sound people on good sound and prosperous family farms. I am a city member, of course, but I am well aware of the extent to which the prosperity of the city and town is bound up with the prosperity of the farmers who surround that particular city or town.
It occurs to me to say that Mr. Walker, who is the secretary of the retail merchants association, said in the year end statement not too long ago that 250 small private businesses had disappeared through bankruptcy in Saskatchewan in the year 1956. Those were

private enterprise businesses, and my laissez faire friends across the way say it is just too bad but there is nothing that can be done about it. The prosperity of those people was predicated directly on the prosperity of the farmer. It also occurs to me to say what a howl of glee would have gone up on the part of my free enterprise friends if these had been publicly owned, perhaps Saskatchewan government owned projects, and in their opinion, would have been all the proof you need that you cannot have successful public enterprise. These were small private enterprises and as far as we in the C.C.F. are concerned we would have liked to have seen those little private enterprises continue to live and continue to be successful.
The result of inflation felt most in the average Canadian home is, of course, the cost of living. Someone told me the other day-I have no documentary proof of it-that one-third of the money value of the gross national product was due to the increase in prices. The rise in cost is followed, justly enough, by a demand for increased wages. We have, therefore, this spiral; up and up it goes and, if I may paraphrase a nursery rhyme, where it ends nobody knows. Those who suffer most are those who are on fixed incomes. When one thinks of the purchasing power of the dollar of an old age pension nowadays as compared to the same power at the time when the old age pension was initiated, one realizes that we have not come very far in the direction of giving security to our old people, because the purchasing power of the dollar has been destroyed. The value of people's life savings has been cut in half. Each one of us knows that, in regard to the life insurance we undertook in our early years, if we have to cash it in

and I say it is a sad commentary upon this so-called prosperity that many less fortunate people are cashing them in in order to provide themselves with the daily necessities of life-we only receive about half what we had some reason to expect. The same thing is true, of course, of government bonds. That forsooth is prosperity. If that is prosperity, may I repeat, it is a very uneven one.
In family allowances, of course, we hear the same thing. I am in favour of family allowances; I am a believer in old age pensions. We in this group have perhaps contributed something to the acquiring of these things. I shall not go into that. Then, there is the matter of hospital costs. Medical costs are going up and up so that-I was going to say for the average man but we will not put it that way

for the people below average in income the thing is getting to be almost
The Address-Mr. Knight impossible. It is true that in our own province and in other provinces there are hospital schemes that do relieve the situation.
I notice that even Liberal members are asking for an increase in the old age pension. I take hope. I think that may be a favourable omen because, if my hon. friends across the way will excuse me, I do not think they would be embarrassing their own government to such an extent by talking on old age pensions if they had not some pretty good idea that a rise in such pensions was coming. I do not know what amount will be forthcoming. However, I would urge upon the government that if my case is a good one, it be answered, and if this thing called prosperity is to be evened up for all strata of society, the government will be compelled in the very name of justice itself to bring forth an increased security program for old age pensioners, for the recipients of family allowances, for blind pensioners, for pensioners of all kinds, so that the augmented pension will have some resemblance in purchasing power to the pension when it was first given. Personally, I would like to see a real increase and if we can get at least those amounts restored to the original purchasing power it would at least be a step in the right direction.
I would urge upon the government with regard to what I have said about medical and hospital services that they proceed to initiate at least something of the scheme which they have been promising us ever since 1919. Well, I have perhaps said enough on that subject in the time at my disposal.
I would like to say something on the effects of the remedy for inflation proposed. Before I do that may I quote from a clipping that I hold in my hand, which contains a statement on the increased cost of living. Perhaps I might document it. This information was supplied by the dominion bureau of statistics. There is a comment on it in an editorial as follows;
More significantly, the index-
Of course, that is the index of living costs.
-rose 3.4 points from March 1 to October 1, recording increases in five of the intervening months. This sudden spurt upwards in the index is but another evidence of the inflationary pressures which now are bedevilling the Canadian economy more than at any time since the early Korean war period of 1950-51.
I was going on to say that I should like to mention some of the effects of the government remedy. There is some doubt in a great many minds as to whether the remedy is actually effective or, if it is effective at all, whether it is sufficiently extended. I am no economist. I notice that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) took the
370	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knight position this afternoon that a man should not talk about something unless he knows a good deal about the subject about which he is talking.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is when
it helps.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: It helps, yes. I wish I had
time to tell my hon. friend a little story about that. One slippery night I was walking from the House of Commons down the sidewalk in Ottawa and I was going past a beer parlour about eleven o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: "Past", I said. It was about
eleven o'clock at night and the boys were coming out in various stages of intoxication. Just at that particular point, in the light of an open doorway, my foot slipped on the glare ice and I fell and bumped my head. The boys came out and picked me up. As you do on such occasions when you slip on an orange peel or something, you say something particularly foolish and I said, "A man does not have to be drunk tonight to fall on the ice". "No", this fellow said, "but it helps". My hon. friend the minister corrected our young colleague, the Conservative member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), for being so brash as to dare to bring to the attention of the government something in which his people are interested. Perhaps, in spite of my hon. friend's superior knowledge, as an expert on most issues, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris had the right conception of what the function of a member of parliament should be.
Well, to get back to my speech-there is no time for stories-I would like to mention how the effect of this government's cure, namely, the rise in interest rates, affects the ordinary people that I know. The first thing I have noticed is that it is driving more and more people into the clutches of the money lenders, since people are attempting to square up their debts at an exorbitant rate of interest. I have noticed an increase in instalment buying. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) probably knows the figure, but the last figure of consumer credit I had was $2,400 million, and that in a period of prosperity. May I ask, what kind of prosperity is that?
I was going to say a word or two to the Minister of Trade and Commerce about the statement of an expert in his particular field. I refer to a statement, I think it is the yearly annual statement of the president of the Royal Bank of Canada, Mr. Muir. He said this, as reported by the Montreal Gazette on January 11:
It would seem, therefore, to he at least open to doubt whether the present facilities and techniques


available to our monetary authorities are sufficiently wide in scope to deal with present-day problems of credit control. The classical weapon-upward movement of interest rates, largely through commercial banks-may by itself prove an impotent policy. It may be taking too positive a view of a distant scene, but it would at least appear that, in order to be fair and in order to achieve the best results, our monetary and credit control may have to embrace a wider area of our financial world than it now does.
There, I submit, is the evidence of the expert.
There are one or two other classes of people affected by this high rate of interest. The increasing of the interest rate does help to redistribute money. Well, it does transfer money from the pocket of the borrower, who has little money to spare, to the pockets of the lender, who has more. It adds to the difficulties of a man trying to finance the building of a house. Was it only today, or was it yesterday, that we had the interpretation by the Canadian Press of a statement made in this house by the Minister of Public Works? I hold the Canadian Press dispatch in my hand. It reads as follows:
The government may soon move to boost the interest rate ceiling under the National Housing Act to encourage a greater flow of mortgage money for house building, it was learned today.
The minister was questioned on that. I do not recall that he gave a satisfactory answer; but the possibility is those young people who are trying to establish a home-by the way, it is almost impossible to get money on a modest home basis

would perhaps be faced with the payment of six per cent as an interest rate. This high rate of interest cripples the small businessmen. The large corporations can get along and do their own financing because they use depreciation and various other methods. I am thinking particularly of the big retail stores which are actually turning themselves into finance companies because they find it much more profitable to sell on credit than for cash. Their real profits are derived from the finance side of their business. It is true that they are able to lower the price of goods somewhat and by this method they squeeze the smaller stores out of business. I should not be surprised if some of the 250 businesses that went bankrupt in the province of Saskatchewan did so as a result of being hurt by that particular thing.
Turning from the individual for a moment I would like to ask about interest rates. Here we have municipalities which even before the increase in interest rates were at their wit's end to obtain funds to keep their schools in operation and to extend sewer and water facilities, and they have been forced to borrow money. My own city of Saskatoon had to pay 5i per cent interest in

The Address-Mr. Knight
order to carry on in supplying essential services. There is no distinction, and you would not expect any, since private capital is involved, between the rate which is charged to people who are putting in luxury items and those who are concerned with essential services. Those involved with luxuries make more profit and are able to pay a higher interest rate and so they are able to obtain the money. This is something concerning which the government should take action, but of course the government will not do anything about it because it does not believe at all in economic planning.
I now wish to say a word or two about a matter that is very dear to the hearts of people in my particular part of the province. I am referring, of course, to the proposed, for that is all it is up to this moment, South Saskatchewan river development scheme. I was disappointed as I have been disappointed before by the adamant statement of the Prime Minister, which leads me to believe we will get no action concerning this project even in this election year. I shall be interested to hear my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) when he mounts the hustings in the province of Saskatchewan. He has contradicted the Prime Minister on other occasions. I remember reading a report of an occasion when both my hon. friend and the Prime Minister appeared on a platform one evening in the city of Regina. The Prime Minister said quite honestly what he has repeated here in recent days that nothing would be done about the dam and five minutes afterwards the Minister of Agriculture addressing the same audience proceeded to offer some hope and encouragement to the assembly that the project would be built, and this was done in the presence of the Prime Minister himself. Judging from the statement made today I suspect the matter will not be trotted out even in this election year, unless it be by the Minister of Agriculture.
I want to draw to the attention of the house this report with which fault has already been found in several quarters. I refer to the preliminary report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, commonly called the Gordon report. There is a very adverse report there with respect to irrigation. On page 27 of the report the following appears:
We suggest that substantial irrigation projects, while desirable from the standpoint of local areas, could be harmful rather than helpful to farmers in the aggregate.
The first thing I want to point out is that the South Saskatchewan river scheme is not solely an irrigation development, for the question of power is involved. Even if the
statement on irrigation were correct, the scheme cannot be judged on the basis of benefit or practicability in regard to irrigation alone. The statement is most contradictory because previously in discussing agriculture at page 26 the report says:
Demand will continue to rise for foods which can be produced profitably within a more intensive pattern of land use than is presently practised in Canada. This will be true as farmers move toward more meat production and higher output of poultry and eggs.
The report also refers to some form of fodder rotation to assist us in changing from a purely wheat economy. Anyone who lives in my part of the country and in the district to the southwest knows very well there is no security for the prairie wheat farmer in switching to mixed farming in that particular area. As far as I am concerned, I believe irrigation is the means of bringing about the kind of security the report mentions, and more than that it would provide the increased population to consume some of the food which would result from the implementation of the recommendations in the report. The population would be further augmented by the attraction to the province of those industries which would naturally follow upon irrigation, proof of which can be found in the southern part of the province of Alberta where you have sugar refineries, canning plants and the beef finishing industry. There you have the ideal situation that can develop on a dry belt in the prairie provinces. My second appeal to the government is to pay no attention to this part of the report but to proceed with the irrigation scheme.
There is one other matter with which I should like to deal before I resume my seat and although it may be considered a small matter by some hon. members of this house it deeply concerns the people of my constituency. Not too long ago the town of Sutherland, a railroad town on the outskirts of Saskatoon, amalgamated with the larger city. Naturally we got busy to try to get mail delivery service for that new part of the city. Well, after long delays the matter got under way, surveys were made and certain conditions were laid down. We were told that the city would have to mark the streets and name them and that 90 per cent of the people would have to write in giving their names and addresses under the new set-up, and I am told this has now been accomplished. When I recently inquired about the matter I was told that although we had fulfilled those conditions 90 per cent of the people had not yet advised that they have receptacles set up to receive the mail when it is brought around. I must say, sir, I know many people in the larger city of Saskatoon that have not yet

The Address-Mr. Knight established receptacles. For the last 30 years I have been receiving my own mail in my milk box although perhaps I should not admit that in the presence of the Postmaster General (Mr. Lapointe). I think it is time to stop this dilly-dallying and shilly-shallying- they are both good words and they rhyme- and get on with the task so that when the weather is a little warmer the mail will be brought around. Most people lived in hope of having mail service established before the cold weather set in. Although it is hard for our good postmen to deliver in cold weather it is, after all, their work, and if the service were established it would mean only one man would go to the post office instead of the 30 or 40 who now have to go daily. Let us proceed with the matter and complete it. Surely it will have been completed before the election at least.
One other subject with which I want to deal is one of which I am particularly fond. I have noticed the measures granting aid to education that have been foreshadowed in the speech from the throne. May I say I welcome them and I have no intention of debating them here because the proper place to debate them is when the legislation is brought into the house. However, it did occur to me that I might refer to a couple of statements that have been made, one contained in the speech of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) and one in the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I know the rules of the house would preclude my using those quotations at a time when the legislation was being considered. I referred first to the speech of the hon. member for Gloucester who discussed in both French and English-it is a pleasure for me to be able to understand both languages and I shall perhaps give quotations in both because I have a particular reason for so doing-this matter in some detail. You know, the hon. member for Gloucester and some of his confreres are coming along; they are making progress. Here is a man who believes in his heart that this legislation would be a good thing, not just because the government is proposing to bring it in. The hon. member is reported on page 4 of the translation of Hansard of January 8 as having said:
We recognize that the rapid growth of our country requires a similar development of our universities and we approve without any reservation the financial participation of the state as long as the federal government does not intend to interfere in the field of education, . . .
Then we have that rhyme that we always have from some of my friends across the way. There is no one in this house who


is more insistent than I, that the administration and curriculum of education should be completely within provincial jurisdiction. Then he goes on further and refers to financial assistance as constituting another means of safeguarding our cultural economy. He then went on in praise of the government and said:
It recognizes the increased demands brought about by our national evolution. It therefore proposes to revise once more and to increase subsidies and subventions to provincial governments to assist them in providing technical and vocational training for our young people.
So the hon. member is in complete accord with grants to universities; he is in complete accord with grants to technical schools; he is in complete accord with grants for technical training. I should like to turn for a moment to the part of the hon. member's speech which he made in French and in which he used a very significant word. I was not too familiar with the meaning of the French word but I do know my Latin and I think I know what lacuna means when I read the following quotation:
(Translation):
May I be permitted to point out one of the problems facing our municipalities, the seriousness of which is constantly increasing from year to year.
(Text):
What is the significance of the words "une lacune"? Here we have the hon. member unconsciously using that word. It was a word that came to his mind. What does it mean? I did not look it up in the dictionary but I know what "lacuna" means. It means a void, a blank, a spot that has to be filled.


Walter Edward Harris: A gap in the night.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do not "Harris" him.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I would say that there is indeed une lacune. It is a commonly used phrase and it is significant that my hon. friend used it because it has a special connotation in regard to education. Combler les lacunes de son education. My hon. friend would like to see that gap filled. Of course he expressed the pious hope that it will not be filled by financial support from the federal government. Oh, dear me, he must not suggest that. However, he says that it will be filled.
May I return for a moment to the English translation of the same speech, because the majority of hon. members will understand it a little better when it is given in that language. We find the hon. member returning to the wars. After pointing out that there is une lacune in this educational system, that there is this void, this blank spot, he goes on to say:
In my constituency of Gloucester, for instance, the population of 60,000 inhabitants has to provide primary education to some 15,000 children. The

high cost of building and maintaining our schools, as well as teachers' salaries require direct taxation, far beyond the taxpayers' ability to pay.
Then there is the pious declaration again that the federal government must not be permitted to assist in any way, no, not now. However, I think the hon. member is changing his mind and seems to be progressing, because he went on to say:
This should be dealt with exclusively by our provincial legislatures, and it is up to the municipalities to insist upon the distribution by the provincial governments of a larger share of the subsidies granted the provinces by the federal government.
There is not too much difference between us. I wonder if this little thing that lies between my hon. friend and myself, and I respect his opinions, is not more political than constitutional. I think we will let it go at that.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) dealt with a somewhat related matter and became rather heated because his motives had been questioned. He was talking about the federal government considering the granting of direct aid to the municipalities in order to help them provide the necessary services, and he is reported on page 35 of Hansard of January 9 as saying:
No matter what precautions we try to take to avoid it being done there will be some who would affirm, if you were going to do something about municipal government, that we were aiming at destroying the Catholic religion and the French language in the province of Quebec. Could anything be more silly, more groundless than that?
I hope I shall live long enough, and I hope the Prime Minister will too, to see the day when he will be willing and will dare to say that the idea that financial aid to the provinces for the purpose of education would ipso facto mean federal control over education is also silly. My time is about up but I have one concluding sentence. If it is a personal one I hope you will forgive me. Surely there is no man in this house, I do not care what his racial origin or religion may be, who can say that I have been anything but sincere in my belief that if we grant the provinces sufficient funds that there can be across this country not equal education but equal opportunity for education. It is all right for some of the provinces. I take it the province of Ontario can finance its own education. I am pleased to see that the premier of Quebec has given large sums to the support of education in his own province. But nobody who comes from the province of New Brunswick or the province of Nova Scotia, for instance, would say that those provinces can afford to give their children an equal opportunity for education such as can be given by some of the richer
The Address-Mr. Mang provinces of which we think but which I have no time to name. Surely, no one would believe that, and I do hope that my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) for whom I have the highest respect-now .that he has come to those three things; suddenly he has come to the ditch, the lacuna, the void that should be filled-that he himself will be an advocate that something should be done about it.


Mr. H. P. Mang (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few comments in this debate may I first of all be allowed to offer my sincere appreciation to the Prime Minister for his happy and tactful choice of the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In asking a representative from the western prairies in the person of the genial Irish Canadian from Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna), and the lively and active young member for Gloucester in the maritimes (Mr. Robichaud), to undertake this important parliamentary duty, the Prime Minister has once again demonstrated his broad and deep concern, and recognition of, the fact that Canadians are one family. He has again underlined by this generous gesture the necessity of unity for the future happiness and prosperity of the Canadian people. Allow me to offer my best wishes and congratulations to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and the hon. member for Gloucester on the splendid performance of their duties.
Coming from Saskatchewan as I do, I wish also to congratulate the new leader of the official opposition. Though he was not born on the western prairies, as I was, nevertheless, like our politically and physically indestructible Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), he came to Saskatchewan at an early age and has given all his life and all his talents to that great province. I may also add another word. There are some members in this house who have been honoured by the red man of this country by being made Indian chiefs. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and I have both had this honour conferred upon us, and so have some other members of this house. Thus, in addition to my political congratulations, as one chief to another I offer him my good wishes.


An hon. Member:: And how.


Henry Philip Mang: It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that every speech from the throne must cover a variety of subjects and that any comment on it cannot help but follow much the same pattern. The speech from the throne is, as a rule, divided into three main parts. It

The Address-Mr. Mang covers the international scene; it deals secondly with the national picture and the progress of the economy of the nation as a whole; and, thirdly, it brings to light and deals with conditions in particular areas of Canada, attempting to fit the program of these particular areas into the Canadian scene as a whole.
In this present session, as has already been pointed out by other speakers, a great deal of emphasis is placed on the international scene. The reason for this is, I think, obvious. In this modern world no nation can long remain prosperous and happy by itself alone. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly evident that what other nations do, either politically or economically, affects the life and happiness of every Canadian citizen. Speaking as a prairie westerner, I need cite only one example to give one minor illustration. Between 70 and 80 per cent of our wheat must find an export market. In consequence of this the agricultural policies of all our 80 customer nations throughout the world will affect the marketing of our product, while the agricultural policies of our competitors such as the United States and Argentina, by their disposal and sales decisions, will also affect the life of every Canadian in western Canada.
Last year this parliament in its wisdom granted some $32 million to the farmers of western Canada in an attempt to assist them in their problem of storing the surplus crops which had been produced, and in making that grant every taxpayer in Canada was affected. We appreciate the assistance very much because it did mean something like seven cents a bushel to us. That is to us in the west another illustration of the effect that this interdependence of nations throughout the world economy can have for all of us. Not only what happens in the field of trade but events in the field of politics mean that our interest is bound up with the world interest and the interest of every other nation.
What happened, for instance, in Suez and Hungary recently has affected Canada as well as the rest of the world. Little did we dream last September that we would be host to thousands upon thousands of Hungarian refugees at the present time. While I am drawing attention to this phase of international developments in recent weeks and months, and while I am mentioning the refugee Hungarians, I would just like to say that I saw some of the work done by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) in bringing some of these refugees over to this country. That was shortly before I left to attend this session.


The first arrival of Hungarian refugees at Regina was the occasion of a very warm reception. I was very interested in attending this occasion, on the evening of their arrival, because there is in my constituency of Qu'Appelle a large community of Hungarian people who went there at the turn of the century and who have since contributed much to the economy of that particular area as, indeed, they have contributed to that of other areas in Saskatchewan. I mention that to indicate that we should welcome these people from Hungary most wholeheartedly, as was done on that occasion. Many people from this community in my area were at the welcoming reception and took part through interpreters and also in a more tangible way, having gathered finances, in helping to establish these people in this country.
A further reason for mentioning this at this time is that I think it shows that Saskatchewan has taken to heart the words of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration just before he left for Europe when he admonished the communities of Canada to render every possible assistance in the placement and welcoming of these Hungarian patriots when they arrived here. Saskatchewan is doing this in a very commendable way.
There was one item on the agenda that evening that was most impressive. At one stage of the proceedings the chairman of the welcoming reception called upon the Hungarian patriots to rise and sing for us the Hungarian national anthem. By the time they had come to the second stanza of the anthem their emotions were very evident. Tears began to flow and at the end of their stirring rendition of the anthem the silence was such as to move all those present. We followed by singing God Save the Queen, and looking at the faces of these new Canadians I could see a spirit that will, I am sure, contribute a great deal to the progress of Canada, and when the time arrives for them to become Canadians I am sure they will make a great contribution to our national life.
I spoke to many of these people. They were from all classes of society. I spoke to engineers, mechanics, labourers, tailors, farmers and housewives. It seemed that a cross-section of the people of Hungary had been brought to our country and would be of great benefit to us. I noted in the paper today that of all the hundreds who have come here there are only about 35 who have not yet been placed in employment.
May I say a word or two about the recent railway strike that affected my constituency as I am sure it did every other constituency

in Canada. For the past few years we have been very anxious to get our products off the farms into a saleable position. In our particular area we have a good many shipping points where some millions of bushels of grain are produced. Before I came here for this session I had telephone calls and interviews with people who urged me to do what I could to bring to bear the sentiments of the farmers of Qu'Appelle constituency in order that the strike might be settled speedily.
I think that the government and particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) are to be congratulated on the manner in which this unfortunate and expensive interruption in the nation's economic life was dealt with. It is not easy for a third party to step in and intervene in the affairs of two stubborn disputants. Everyone will agree that it would have been a very unhappy situation if parliament had been forced to intervene in the matter. Even if it had become necessary to settle the strike and interruption of railway service through legislative action by using the machinery of parliament and introducing the element of compulsion, I do not think that the resumption of service could have been achieved more quickly and certainly not as satisfactorily.
As all of us know, parliament met on Tuesday and by Friday afternoon a solution to the deadlock was announced. Legislative action would have brought about ill will as well as throwing the matter into politics, which was to be avoided at all costs. Such a course would have caused confusion of the issues, confusion of the public mind and would have given birth to recrimination and disunity among Canadians.
Once again the Prime Minister has proven his ability to put immediate issues in their proper perspective and arrive at a reasonable solution. To solve the difficulty in this way and to have the ability to bring about a compromise in such a manner is nothing short of genius on the part of any individual. When the Prime Minister was created an honorary chief of the Great Plains Indians at Fort Qu'Appelle some years ago, an event at which I was happy to attend, he was named wise counsellor. I submit to hon. members that no Canadian deserves that title more or carries it with greater dignity.
Perhaps this may afford me an opportunity to say a few words with respect to the attitude of farmers and consumers in general. With regard to economic dislocations caused by disputes between corporations and labour organizations in the modern economic set-up in the world and in this country, I think we have come to the point where we must take
The Address-Mr. Mang a very hard look at the justification for break-downs such as strikes cause. In our highly organized society of today, whether in this country or any other, if one group however small-and this was illustrated by the recent strike-uses the power of its organization in order to attain its ends in a way that does not always indicate the highest sense of social responsibility, shall I say, I believe it will bring about a reaction on the part of those sections of society which are not as powerfully organized as the corporations or the labour unions. Because of the very nature of his occupation and also because of his temperament, the farmer is not in a position to organize and assert his economic strength. On account of the very nature of the way in which farmers earn their living and the very nature of the temperament of the individual farmer, it is not possible for them to marshal their economic strength and bring themselves to the point of economic welfare in the way that other sections of the community can.
The consumer is in much the same position. By the very nature of the consumer population in any country they cannot be organized to assert their economic rights and negotiate by means of ultimatum. Corporations can negotiate, and do very often bring negotiations to the point where they can issue an ultimatum and say either you come to terms with us as a corporation or we will close down and throw you out of employment. On the other hand, powerful labour organizations can also issue ultimatums and say, unless you meet our conditions and our demands we will not conform to an agreement. Now, that is nothing short of a shooting war in the economy of a nation. That attitude, I think, is in time going to bring about a reaction with which the public is going to deal in a way which is not desirable in a democracy.


Hazen Robert Argue: Who is threatening whom?


Henry Philip Mang: Both corporations and labour must be made to realize their social responsibilities in any demands which one makes upon the other, and could require eventually legislative action through parliament in order to safeguard the interests of the economy at large.
There are a few things which I would like to bring out with respect to my own particular area. We are a very diversified farming area. We have no industries except one small oil can industry employing 10 men in Rocanville. We have a small oil field at Wapella, Saskatchewan, but outside that we are entirely engaged in farming. The farming conditions vary in that constituency perhaps as in no other area of Saskatchewan. In

The Address-Mr. Mang the eastern part we have a very high cattle population, the highest in Saskatchewan per section of land. Therefore, we derive a good deal of our livelihood from that. In the extreme western part we have some of the farmers on the plains of Regina who produce over 100,000 bushels of wheat. In between we have a section engaged entirely in mixed farming producing milk and cream as well as grain. In general we are a very prosperous area.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not the farmers.


Henry Philip Mang: In general. We have produced the highest crops that have ever been produced. As a matter of fact farmers in some parts of my area have averaged 40 bushels per acre. We have what you so often have heard discussed in this house, namely a cash shortage, but that does not mean-


Hazen Robert Argue: The farmers have everything but money; you are right.


Henry Philip Mang: -we are bankrupt. If you were to travel through that area you would find that in general taxes have been paid at reasonable levels. We find that we own one-toned cars, two-toned cars, three-toned cars, and we drive good automobiles. We have new combines and trucks and we have paid mortgages; we are in a fairly good financial position. But we do have a cash shortage and that is attributable to various factors.
I do not want any of my C.C.F. friends to go out and say, as they will, that I have presented a rosy picture to this house. However, I do think that it is about time to raise some other angles of the cash shortage situation. We have always in western Canada been short of cash for one simple reason, that we are a very aggressive, very energetic, and very go-ahead people; as soon as we get some money we re-invest it, enlarge our holdings, buy better machinery; and while we may not have much money in the bank we do build up very fine farms and live a reasonably contented life.
We are proceeding with electrification, which will assist to a degree in the cash shortage situation. It costs money. It costs $2,000 or $3,000 to fully equip yourself with electrical conveniences of this modern day.


Hazen Robert Argue: How much does it cost for a combine?


Henry Philip Mang: Combines and machinery have been purchased and we are paying for them the same as anyone else in the economy of our country is paying for any goods which he buys. You buy a television set on time for 10 per cent down and in time you pay for it. We make our purchases and on the whole we do meet our commitments.

Besides investing the money which we receive we also have not quite become accustomed to the wheat board's system of marketing grain. In the years previous we, as farmers, used to be able to ship a carload of grain, and when that grain was shipped it was not very long before we received our $2,000 or $3,000 for it. We would then meet our commitments and take care of any of our purchases in that way. Now, under the wheat board's system of handling our grain, we as farmers have decided to pool our prices. There is no such a thing as No. 3 bringing a certain price in the fall and No. 3 bringing a certain price in the spring. We have instituted and agreed upon an orderly system of marketing, and I am glad to say that the preliminary report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects says, in connection with wheat in its first sentence, that it seems clear from the evidence presented that the method of marketing wheat and coarse grain to the Canadian wheat board is well accepted and established and that the majority opinion is strongly in favour of continuing it. But in backing this pooling system of selling our grain it has brought with it a price which we have to pay, and that is this. If the board handles our grain we are now in a position where we have sometimes to exercise a great deal of patience in bringing our grain into the marketing position because, according to our permit books, we are allotted a one-bushel quota, a two-bushel quota, a three-bushel quota and so on. On a 200-acre cultivated farm a one-bushel quota will bring you $200. You hear this every place: What can I do with $200?


Hazen Robert Argue: Hear, hear.


Henry Philip Mang: That stems out of our system
of marketing and handling our grain.


Hazen Robert Argue: No; the price of wheat is
too low.


Henry Philip Mang: In addition, very often there
is a disparity which cannot be helped. I refer to the difference in allotment as between stations. One station may have a three-bushel quota, another station may have a two-bushel quota and a third station may have a one-bushel quota. That is done because there are varying grades and in order to meet its foreign sales commitments the wheat board must be in a position to call for the kind of grain for which it has a sale, No. 3, No. 4, No. 5 or No. 6, as the case may be. Then, you have the people at station A who are on a three-bushel quota talking about it. They say, "Oh, we have a three-bushel quota; we are not too badly off". The one-bushel quota point will not take very kindly to that, and you have those

annoyances and those difficulties that stem out of the way in which we market our grain.
We have to come to the point in western Canada where we must be prepared to pool our deliveries as we are pooling our prices; that is, that certain sections will receive certain quotas while other sections may receive less or more. But over the years it is the determination of the wheat board, in so far as it is humanly possible, to deal equitably with everyone.
Another reason for cash shortage is that we are entering, and have come very rapidly, particularly in the last 10 years, into an era of mechanization. Thirty years ago we used to grow both our power, in the form of horses, and also our fuel, the feed for the horses to work our land. We did not require actual cash. But now, the motive power, the power we use in cultivating our farms, requires a good deal of cash. The tractor will not reproduce itself. Our fuel consists of gasoline, and both of these things demand cash payments. Therefore, in order to build our production we are in the position where we must have a continuous flow of cash. If we get some cash it is applied immediately and I admit that we are continuously out of cash.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is why we want cash
advances.


Henry Philip Mang: What assistance it will be
to get advances in one lump sum is perhaps something that will have to be considered. I mean cash advances on the farm in lieu of cash advances at the bank, which we now have, and which thousands upon thousands of farmers are using very satisfactorily.


Hazen Robert Argue: The United States farmer
gets a cash advance of $2 a bushel.


Henry Philip Mang: Yes. By the way, the United
States policies are tending to come to a more flexible program than the one they have been employing. They are trying to get back to the Canadian system just as fast as they can.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not at all.


Henry Philip Mang: And reduce their 88 million
acres down to 55 million acres.


Hazen Robert Argue: They get $17 an acre for
taking wheat out of production.


Henry Philip Mang: Yes, and what price do they
have to pay for that? They have to specify a certain definite acreage. If they have four quarters of land and they want to come under the scheme and take part of the benefits they must specify the northwest quarter, or whatever the land is, and take
The Address-Mr. Mang it out over a period of time. If it is turned over to reforestation, then they have to sign a contract that runs from 10 to 15 years in order to participate in the scheme.


Hazen Robert Argue: The price of $17 an acre is a pretty good price.


Henry Philip Mang: Not all United States farmers are going in for that. They are trying; they are doing their very best, but with some difficulty, to get down from the 88 million acres they used to have to the 55 million acres, which is what they had before the war. On the other hand, we in Canada must have a flexible agricultural program because we have held our acreage down to around 24 million acres.
I must hurry along. Our agricultural policy in Canada is a flexible one, as it must be, because the very nature of our climate, upon which we depend for our production in western Canada, demands it. Here again I should like to refer to the commission's preliminary report. I want hon. members to listen to this. The first sentence in paragraph 2 on wheat reads:
The surplus of wheat in Canada at present does not seem to have arisen out of the procedures used to market the crop. It has resulted primarily from weather conditions.
I think everyone will agree with that. We in western Canada know how our weather conditions fluctuate. We had in 1937 or 1938 an average crop of two and one-half bushels per acre. We climbed steadily until we reached a peak of 27 bushels per acre, and last year we had an average production of 23 bushels an acre. But that does not mean that these good crops will continue. Never before in the history of the production of grain in western Canada have we had years such as those we have had in the last few years. These years of high yields may very well come to an end. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has repeatedly drawn the attention of the farmers of western Canada to the danger of crop failures.


Hazen Robert Argue: Hoping for a drought.


Henry Philip Mang: We are not hoping for a drought, but on Sunday of this week President Eisenhower left on a trip through the drought-striken states of the United States, all the way from Texas to Dakota, to examine for himself the results of the drought that goes back as far as seven years. This drought is now at the Canadian border. I know that certain sections of the press and that certain people engaged in politics like to make light of that, but that disaster has struck before and it could strike again. If that time comes we should be in very severe difficulty.

The Address-Mr. Mang
I am not too happy when I hear this constant nagging on the part of certain people in western Canada, and a few of them are even sent down here. They are constantly nagging this parliament into policies which would be rigid and fixed and not flexible. The time may come when we shall need the good offices of the government of Canada to help us out of our difficulties.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is right now.


Henry Philip Mang: If we have two successive crop failures in western Canada due to the weather it will mean stark and naked disaster because we have built up our-


Hazen Robert Argue: With no crop insurance scheme it surely will.


Henry Philip Mang: You take television; you are good on that. We have built up our standard of living and our standard of social security on the western plains in the last 10 years, our social security program, our electrification program, our telephone system and our radio system, and we are now going into a grid system, to the point where we have built up for ourselves collectively and individually as high a standard of living as we can possibly afford to have at the present time. If we should have a drought great changes would take place. If any hon. member wishes to get a picture of what happens in a drought all he has to do is to read the January 14 issue of Newsweek and he will get a complete story of it. This drought has been in existence in Texas and has marched up through the United States and is now on the border of Canada. The hon. member for Lethbridge told me that his average crop this year was nine bushels to the acre. Now then, at this price and with our cost of production imagine what this will mean.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: We should build the South Saskatchewan river dam, then.


Alfred Claude Ellis: How about building the South Saskatchewan river dam?


Henry Philip Mang: The hon. member's position with regard to the dam is well known. I will tell you one sure way of retarding that program in central Saskatchewan. It would be to put a lake two-thirds the size of lake Erie right in the heart of the province that could be used for various things I will not mention now. The more this parliament and this government are nagged with respect to the development of Saskatchewan-


Alfred Claude Ellis: Is that a threat?


Henry Philip Mang: -the further back you will set progress.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Intimidation.


Henry Philip Mang: It is largely due to irresponsible statements-


Hazen Robert Argue: From the minister.


Henry Philip Mang: from hon. members from the west that progress has been retarded. You are doing a disservice the same way you are doing in connection with the wheat board. In that regard you are constantly emphasizing that the wheat board is not selling enough wheat. Certain hon. members from the west belonging to a certain political party continually repeat that not enough is being done and in this way those who are doing so are undermining-*


Alfred Claude Ellis: We are blaming the government.


Henry Philip Mang: -the faith of the western people in the efficacy of the wheat board.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is garbage.


Henry Philip Mang: The sooner those tactics are dropped the sooner will we be assured of the continuation of the wheat board.


Alfred Claude Ellis: We will see how you vote on our motion.


Henry Philip Mang: I have had many distracting interruptions-


Alfred Claude Ellis: Do you agree with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that we already have parity prices?


Mr. Habel:: Did you hear about Regina?


Henry Philip Mang: I would like someone in that group which is so vocal to make a close study of what they actually mean by parity prices. You know, one of our greatest difficulties in the west is this element of disunity and this intrusion of agitators into economics, and the spearhead of that is the C.C.F. party.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is always room for one dentist.	*


Henry Philip Mang: These policies-I just forget what the question was.


An hon. Member:: Lose your page?


Henry Philip Mang: No, I did not lose the page.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Do you agree with the Minister of Agriculture in his statement to the effect that we have parity prices now?


Mr. Gardiner:: I never made any such statement.


Henry Philip Mang: No one defines parity, but anyone who studies the situation means by parity a standard of living equal to that enjoyed by those people engaged in occupations other than farming, and any parity price adjustment that will eventually be worked out must take into account that attitude toward parity prices.


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


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Mr. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join the previous speakers who have taken part in this throne speech debate in extending my congratulations to the mover, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna), and the seconder, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud), on the fine contribution they have made and the manner in which they discharged their responsibilities in this debate. However, I cannot with the same enthusiasm extend congratulations to the authors of the throne speech, because I have come to the conclusion that many problems affecting the people of Canada have not been considered or dealt with in the presentation of the speech.
I do, however, wish to say that the grants to municipalities, which the government proposes to pay in lieu of taxes for federal property and buildings located within the boundaries of municipalities, and which require necessary municipal services, is a most welcome aspect of the throne speech. If we are to assume that the intention of the government is to pay grants in lieu of taxes on the normal assessment of any particular municipality, it would mean that the property located in the city of Oshawa, as an example, would annually bring an additional $40,000 in revenue to that municipality.
This matter has been continually advocated by members from this side of the house for many years and proposals have been submitted to the government in this respect. I, personally, have brought this matter to the attention of the government on a number of occasions. Unfortunately these proposals are either rejected at once or are heard in stony silence by the government. Instead of taking immediate action on sound proposals such as this, this government has a tendency to postpone action for four or five years. In my opinion, financial matters in respect to municipalities are not matters to be delayed but rather are of sufficient importance to be acted upon immediately.
The approximately 4,000 municipalities in Canada have had difficulties in raising money for necesary services and capital expenditures for quite some time. This pressure on the municipalities is getting more acute year by year. We are told that Canada leads the world in industrial expansion; that Canada is booming. We are also told that our productive capacity, our national income and our output of goods are rising to dizzy heights undreamed of even a decade ago. But for
The Address-Mr. Starr what reason do we work, save and invest, except to raise our family and individual standard of good living? These are the very things we expect our municipalities to provide-hospitals, schools, community services and comfortable, well-protected homes, well supplied with power, water and sewage systems in keeping with a progressive civilization.
But what is the situation today? The fact is that we are lagging behind in all these things. We are not getting the benefits of this boom because our municipal governments are being denied a fair share of the Canadian tax dollar. This situation is the result of the federal government's policy of monopolizing the major share of the tax dollars raised by all governments. The federal government is most reluctant to relinquish some of the taxing powers that were enjoyed previously by the provinces and the municipalities. This question of taxing power is most unfair and unjust. The result is that a heavy burden has been placed on the small home owner in the Dominion of Canada.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, the federal government is loath to part with even a slight portion of their share of the tax dollar in order to relieve the small home owner, but seems rather to enjoy and jealously hoard this taxing power within its scope. There is no question as to the heavy real estate tax burden that is now being borne by the small home owner of every municipality in order to pay for the many services that municipal councils are called upon to supply. The municipalities of all our provinces face the same problems. It does not really matter by what name we call them, whether it be townships, cities, towns or villages. In the long run they are all part of a level of government which is just as essential to the federal principle as are the provinces or the government of Canada. It would be a real catastrophe if a time should come when they are forced into obscurity or insignificance by any other level of government. This seems to me to be the real danger of the centralization of so many functions and powers of government here in Ottawa. It would also be a calamity if the municipalities were forced by sheer necessity of every day problems to so increase the tax load that home owning becomes in Canada a mark either of great wealth or of economic folly.
I wish to remind this house that no less than 80 per cent of municipal taxation is borne by real estate. According to the latest figures issued by the dominion bureau of statistics we find that in 1939 the tax dollar was shared as follows:	The federal

The Address-Mr. Starr government received 48 cents; the provincial government, 22.3 cents; and the municipal government 29.7 cents. At the present time the federal government has increased its share to 77 cents of the tax dollar; the provincial government has been reduced to 12 cents; and the poor cousin of the senior governments, the municipality, receives 11 cents.
The Canadian tax dollar represents the total amount of all tax collections at the levels of the three authorities which under our Canadian federal system have the responsibility in the matter of the expenditure of public funds. In the past number of years the federal government has encroached upon the Canadian tax dollar to an extent never before envisaged. I may be asked what the federal government should do immediately and constructively to help to meet this critical situation but I do not have to go far to find an answer.
In the first place there must be a rebalancing of the taxation powers between the federal government on the one hand and the provinces and the municipalities on the other. In other words, the central government must learn, in the same way that we all must learn in our private lives, to get along on less. Taxation must be reduced, particularly the federal share of the Canadian tax dollar which must be brought within reason to allow the municipalities to levy taxes which are at least close to being in keeping with the increased demands on their resources.
We must remember that there is only so much money in the budget and if one member of a family takes more than he needs the others must suffer. I do not advocate that we all should share equally, but it does seem to me to make sense that each should participate in the family finances, not according to his strength, size or power but according to his needs as agreed upon in family council.
Since world war II municipalities everywhere have experienced a tremendous growth in population. They have experienced expansion in every phase of community life. The result has been that they have been burdened by the problem of raising funds to supply the various necessary services which include such important things as schools, waterworks, sewers and water mains. For these very necessary services the municipalities must sell debentures in order to raise capital. They try to do this at as low a rate of interest as possible.
The present bond market situation poses some very serious problems for municipalities which are obliged to raise increasingly large sums of money by debenture financing. Interest rates which have risen sharply in

the past 18 months reflect the general scarcity of funds for investment purposes. The prospects of a downward trend, while unpredictable even within the near future, do not appear evident for some time to come, and especially as long as present economic conditions continue.
This situation appears to have developed as a result of the substantially high level of capital investment that has been and is being experienced in Canada within recent years at least, which has brought into play competing forces for the available supply of funds both in this area and in the general area of consumer demands.
With a view to easing this situation the monetary authorities, through various means at their disposal, have made it increasingly difficult to borrow money through the medium of forcing upward adjustment of interest rates.
This action has been taken undoubtedly in the interests of the economy of the country as a whole and it is inevitable under such circumstances that some groups or segments of the economy are affected more seriously than others. Municipalities are in this category.
Municipalities at the present time have to compete for borrowings against other securities which suffer less from the impact of a monetary condition of this kind such as private corporations which are able to offer securities at high interest rates because the net cost after taxation is only about half of the actual interest paid.
In addition they are able to offer other inducements to potential investors such as through dividend participation, stocks, warrants, etc. The unfortunate effect of this on municipalities at least is that under present market conditions they are obliged to pay a higher rate of interest on their borrowings than their actual credit warrants.
Quite recently, as reported in the Oshawa Times-Gazette of Friday, January 11, 1957, over which the headline read "Tight money policy hits city finances", a meeting was held of the Oshawa city council in conjunction with the public utilities commission and the board of education of that city. It was reported that a debenture issue in the amount of $1,600,000 will be placed on the market within the next week and a close watch will be maintained in the bond market for an opportunity to market a further issue to cover the expenditure already made. This meeting was called at the request of the board of education to discuss the financing difficulties confronting the board of education and the public utilities commission building programs. It was pointed out that

an immediate addition to the water works would have to be made and that water supply problems were at a critical point during the summer of 1956 and only the unusually cool season prevented major water shortages.
The board of education is faced with a program of five new schools and they advised this meeting that $1,250,000 is needed immediately for one secondary and one elementary school which are being planned for this year. What interest rate will have to be paid in the present competitive market it is hard to say, but there is no doubt that it will be high and difficulty may be experienced in the sale of these bonds.
The most disturbing feature of the whole situation is that the investment market does not appear to make any particular distinction between municipal and other corporate borrowers. Everything must be competitive. Because of that, the very interests which cried the loudest when muncipalities got into trouble through excessive borrowings and high interest rates in the thirties are now contributing to what might conceivably develop into a similar situation again in some areas at least. In any event they are not doing anything to alleviate the situation. The question is what, if anything, can or should the municipalities do about the situation.
The unfortunate part is that many services of municipal governments cannot be postponed, even with the best will and intentions of the authorities concerned. Children cannot go without schools nor can people exist without the basic amenities of life, such as sewer and water mains. The result of the present situation means that the 4,000-odd municipalities in Canada will have to pay additional millions of dollars in increased rates of interest to supply these necessary services, which in turn will be an additional burden on the small home owner in the municipality.
It has been suggested time and time again to this government by these hard-pressed municipalities which I have mentioned that the federal government establish a fund from which municipalities could borrow money at a low rate of interest in order to institute these necessary programs. I urge the government, Mr. Speaker, to give this matter very serious consideration without any postponement. The time has come for immediate and decisive action in order to help these hard-pressed municipalities. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is an acknowledged principle of our way of life that the strong must help the weak and that the rich must assist the poor. If these principles are adhered to I am sure that a great deal of the difficulty
The Address-Mr. Starr which now presents itself to the basic governments in our country could be alleviated.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the automobile excise tax for a few moments.
Although I have referred to the excise tax on automobiles in a number of previous speeches I have made in this house, and have also asked questions on the orders of the day, I feel it is necessary for me to bring this matter again to the attention of parliament.
This tax has readily been acknowledged by everyone as an unnecessary tax ever since it was instituted as a luxury tax, and at the present time it is most unsound. The automobile is now a basic necessity. At the present time a person buying an automobile pays $165 luxury tax when the automobile costs $2,500, though in the majority of cases the car is purchased for the purpose of driving to work. Also included in this price is another $165 in sales tax. To more than eight people out of ten a car is an absolute necessity.
To quote from a speech made by William A. Wecker, President of the Canadian Automobile Chamber of Commerce and President and General Manager of General Motors of Canada Limited, on August 28, 1956:
The history of our industrial development will record that much credit for our great progress in recent years is due to the automotive industry and the transportation provided by motor cars and trucks. Without them our economic life would remain narrow and restricted. It is unfair to tax as a luxury an item that makes such a contribution to our economy.
At the same time this discriminatory tax has a disruptive effect on our industry's efforts to provide an increasing measure of employment stability.
Two years ago, Mr. Speaker, I pointed out in this house that the loss of revenue from the decrease of the excise tax would not be very much, if any. I am sure that after the tax was cut by five per cent two years ago it was found that the additional revenue from the 10 per cent sales tax and the increased number of people employed who were eligible for income tax has more than made up the loss of revenue from the five per cent cut in excise tax.
The same thing would apply at the present time, and I urge the minister to give this matter his most earnest consideration. During the year 1955 the purchasers of new cars and trucks paid $172,189,762 in sales and excise tax.
Another very important matter in this connection is the application of tax reduction or removal on cars in the hands of dealers. At the present time the sales and excise taxes on passenger cars are collected by the manufacturer before the car goes to the dealer

The Address-Mr. J. R. Kirk for sale to the customer. This method is most unfair to all, and in effect treats these cars still in the salesroom and waiting to be sold as though they had actually been sold while the higher tax levels were in effect.
I bring this matter once again to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and hope that because of the representations which have been made by the automobile dealers in Canada he will give it his serious consideration and remedy this most unfair method of collecting taxes on automobiles.


Mr. J. R. Kirk (Aniigonish-Guysborough):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to join with previous speakers in extending felicitations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I congratulate them upon the excellence of their material, and at the same time I must confess to envying them both a little for the ease with which they expressed themselves.
It is not my intention to delay the house with extensive comments on the various items of legislation mentioned in the speech from the throne. However, I do wish to make some brief references to matters of special interest to those in the constituency of Antigonish-Guysborough which I have been privileged to represent in this house since 1936. I hope that I can make up by sincerity of purpose for what I may lack in oratory.
Antigonish and Guysborough counties have one very definite thing in common-both have very long stretches of seacoast, and in both counties many of our residents depend for their livelihood upon the products of the sea. The first part fo my remarks will therefore deal with those things which affect our fishermen and the fishing industry generally.
First of all, may I compliment our able Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) for putting into effect, recently, legislation benefiting our fishermen. I refer to the insurance coverage for fishing boats, nets, traps and other fishing equipment which has already been of great assistance to the fishermen; also to the more recent step of extending unemployment insurance benefits to our fishermen.
In speaking in this house on March 16, 1953, I stressed, along with other matters, the need for insurance for fishermen against storm losses, and unemployment insurance coverage for farmers and fishermen. It is gratifying to note that for our fishermen at any rate these protections have now become a reality. Perhaps at a later date our farmers will also be brought under the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
At this point I am also going to reiterate other suggestions which I made on March 16, 1953, and in fact, as far back as 1948. These

have to do with a search and rescue service and improved aids to navigation. True, some steps have been taken by our capable Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) in connection with the first named, by the establishing of a helicopter-equipped service. This, of course, will take several years to bring to completion, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.
I hope that we will soon see this type of service put into operation along the maritime coast. In my constituency within recent months a tragedy occurred off the coast of Canso, resulting in the loss of several lives, which could conceivably have been averted if a more up-to-date coast-guard service had been available.
The second item of improved aids to navigation is something about which I feel very deeply. I appreciate what our fishermen go through as they leave their home ports during the fall and winter months long before daylight for the fishing grounds. Their return trip is plagued only too often with fog, rain, snow, sleet, along with nightfall, and they must often pin their hopes for a safe arrival upon the navigational aids provided by the Department of Transport. In my opinion these aids are often too sparsely distributed and of a kind not best suited to the fishermen's need.
Quite frequently in this regard the judgment of departmental officials overweighs that of the fishermen who from bitter practical experience are in a better position to know what types of aids will prove most advantageous. In making representations to departmental officials in this respect I find their stock reply, in some instances, is that the aid requested is not needed, though, to repeat, I believe the fishermen to be the best judges in the specific localities where they operate. Other replies are either that the materials for such aids are in short supply, or else that there are no funds available.
I do not want to be too hard on these departmental officials nor upon the government but, as I have said, I feel very strongly for our fishermen and I contend that more money could and should be made available to provide these necessary navigational aids.
The fishing industry on the Atlantic coast will be greatly heartened by the action of President Eisenhower in turning down the recommendation of the United States tariff board concerning the tariff on Canadian fish entering the New England market. I am sure this was not done without considerable interest being displayed by our Canadian government, and we in the east are grateful to all concerned.
At this point I might be permitted to refer, as previous speakers have done, to the

recently published preliminary report of the Gordon commission on the Canadian economy, and particularly to that part which deals with the Atlantic provinces. The commission indicates that there is much doubt whether anything can be done to improve the lot of the maritimers other than by helping them to buy one-way tickets to greener pastures in upper Canada. I have some suggestions as to what could be done to encourage our fishermen to remain at home and improve their earning capacity. What our fishermen lack, in my opinion, are certain facilities whereby they can increase their catch and steady markets where it can be disposed of at a reasonable price. By navigational aids such as I have already mentioned, by freight rate revisions and by expenditures on wharves, breakwaters and dredging our fishermen could increase their earning capacity and do so without too great a hardship.
In this connection I am going to bring to the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) some improvements which are very much needed in the fishing centres of Antigonish-Guysborough, improvements which would be more welcomed by our fishermen than any dole or transportation allowance such as the Gordon commission report suggests. Speaking offhand, I would list the following points where public works would be welcomed and are necessary:	Arisaig,
Malignant Cove, Livingstone Cove, South Lake, Morristown, Bayfield, Barrio's Beach, Cape Jack, Havre Boucher, St. Francis Harbour, Boylston, Peas Brook, Canso, Little Dover, Port Felix, Charles Cove, Larry's River, New Harbour, Drum Head, Isaac's Harbour, Liscomb, Marie Joseph and Ecum Secum.
All of these have been brought to the attention of the Department of Public Works at one time or another while I have had the honour to represent Antigonish-Guysborough, now nearly 21 years. Undoubtedly the increased activity which would develop in our fishing industry would be very considerable if public works would improve the facilities at these fishing points.
I should like to turn now to the farming industry of Nova Scotia. On December 13 last most of the Nova Scotia members of parliament met with representatives of the Nova Scotia federation of agriculture in Truro. This meeting was quite informal and the discussions covered a variety of subjects dealing with matters of most interest to our farming communities.
One thing stressed by the federation representatives was the need of what they referred to as a protection policy. They did not explain as fully as I would have liked just what
The Address-Mr. J. R. Kirk they had in mind, but I presume it refers to a stability which would result from a more reasonably balanced relationship between farm prices and farm costs. It is true that farmers, like other consumers, must buy many articles of daily living on a protected market while they must sell their products on an open market. I have no pretensions to being an authority on economics, agricultural or otherwise, but I should like to see something done to ease this imbalance experienced by our farmers. I may add that I am satisfied that if any government can thus bring added prosperity to our farming population this Liberal government can and will do it.
There are various measures which can assist, directly or indirectly, in providing better returns for our farmers and I should like to comment briefly upon some of them. I welcome the appointing of a Senate committee to review the problem of submarginal lands in eastern Canada. In my constituency, where most of our farms lie close to the sea, it is only to be expected that the land is not particularly fertile, especially so when one realizes that much of this land has been tilled for several hundred years. I believe that the results of this study will be truly helpful to our marginal farmers, directing their energies towards the best use and conservation of the land. I hope too that erosion problems, land drainage and reforestation will be included as topics for study by the committee.
Within the last year or two, community pasturage programs have been initiated in Nova Scotia and it is hoped that this will be further developed to the benefit of our cattle and sheep farmers.
One matter I wish to mention is the benefit to our farmers of the feed freight assistance policy initiated by this federal government.
I would urge that this policy be maintained and, indeed, be placed on a permanent basis.
With regard to freight rates, the situation today is that the Maritime Freight Rates Act is no longer helping maritime producers. Increases in freight rates have been so frequent in recent years that the time has come for a complete revision of the act if we are to enjoy any of the assistance envisioned by the act at its inception. I cannot emphasize too strongly to the government the need for such a revision and with the least possible delay.
The welfare of our farming communities is affected by the buying power of the people generally. When old age pensions and family allowances were first introduced by the Liberal government of prime minister Mackenzie King, the amounts decided upon were governed in great part by the purchasing power they represented, and certainly
384	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. R. Kirk during the years that have intervened this added purchasing power has been a boon to all phases of Canadian life. However, with the passing of years the purchasing power of the dollar has gradually dwindled, and nowhere is it more evident than in its application to these pensions. I believe I am correct in estimating that by far the greatest part of these pensions goes for increased 'ood costs, and to the degree that this is true at least I should like to see these pensions increased to restore to them the buying power which was originally intended.
It was good news to hear that federal grants to universities are to be increased and that vocational and technical schools will also profit from the government's recognition of the contribution being made by education to the development of Canada. I would express the hope, however, along with other hon. members, that the system of allocating the grants to universities will be changed to a more equitable basis as between province and province. The province of Nova Scotia now suffers in this respect from the fact that such a large percentage of its population endeavours to attend our halls of higher learning.
In my home town of Antigonish we have the university of St. Francis Xavier where many students come from other countries, attracted by the studies in co-operative methods and adult education in which our university has pioneered. We have, indeed, a miniature commonwealth of nations in our midst. Students from India, Pakistan, Bermuda, South America, the United States and even from far away Kenya colony come to St. Francis Xavier to join with our own Canadian students in the pursuit of knowledge. I know I speak for the governors of the university when I express to the Prime

Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) their thanks as well as my own for his warm interest in matters academic.
Upon reading the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, one cannot but be impressed by the remarkable strides forward that Canada has made both in economic expansion and in its position as a world nation during the past number of years under a far-sighted Liberal government. For our younger Canadians especially there are now no bounds to the avenues open to them, and who would dare to forecast the future that awaits them?
I should like to conclude these remarks with an excerpt from a speech made by former prime minister W. L. Mackenzie King, in Kingston on June 7, 1941, words which seem particularly applicable to Canadians of this era. He said:
In a country like Canada, every man is more or less the architect of his own fortune. Our great public men have become the architects of our country's future, without regard to birth or race or class. Intelligence, industry and integrity are the basic qualities by which they have achieved this goal, qualities to be had by any Canadian who has the will to persevere.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall take the resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister with respect to the Canada Council; then, second reading of the Canadian Wheat Board Act; then, the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Justice; then, the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


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

Questions