1957-01-11

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend the Financial Administration Act.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Raoul Poulin: The purpose of this bill is to provide that every cheque, postal note, etc., issued by any department or crown corporation shall be printed in both official languages.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether the government has any intention of bringing in legislation at this session to implement any of the recommendations of the Gordon commission on Canada's economic prospects; and second, and in particular, whether it is the intention of the government to bring in any measures to encourage Canadian companies in business to compete successfully with foreign companies, such as by special tax concessions and the like, as recommended by the commission?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the report of the commission was published only yesterday and will be given careful consideration. There has been no decision by the government about any of its recommendations up to the present time. If after careful consideration of the report the decision is made that there would be time during the present session to give proper consideration to legislation, it will be introduced in due course.
The hon. gentleman's question about competition by Canadian companies is in very
general terms. There are Canadian companies which are competing most successfully for business in both the domestic and world markets.
There are, perhaps, others that are not in a position to do so as successfully; all these matters will receive serious consideration. Now, with respect to the tax matters to which the hon. gentleman has referred he well knows that any announcements of that character are made in the budget speech and not before the budget speech.


John George Diefenbaker: Then, Mr. Speaker, is
this clear that at the present time the government has nothing in contemplation to be introduced at this session, having regard to the necessary shortness of this session, to implement the recommendations?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government has nothing to announce on this matter and it may very well be that some of the projects that the government will place before parliament will-not because of the report but because of the consideration that had been given to the matters previously- coincide with recommendations of the report; but nothing has been decided on the report since it was produced and submitted in the ordinary way to His Excellency the Governor General.


John George Diefenbaker: Some of the recommendations do not coincide with government views?



GORDON COMMISSION REPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he had an opportunity to study the recommendations of the Gordon commission before their official publication and submission to the members of this house.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As soon as the report was received it was submitted to His Excellency the Governor General. I read a summary of the report and I read the report itself in typewritten form. I did interest myself in the general tenor of the report but I had no time to go into it thoroughly. It is a very long and interesting document. There were some portions of it that did not surprise me at all

Inquiries of the Ministry and there were some that probably did surprise me because they seemed to indicate a conception of the existing situation, for example, with respect to the wheat board, that did not fit with my conception of what the role of the wheat board was. I was rather surprised that there should be in that section pages that appeared to me not to reflect a proper conception of what parliament had intended the role of the wheat board to be.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask a question of the Prime Minister? Will he say whether or not a settlement was reached in connection with the C.P.R. strike, and if not can he say what is the present position of each side with respect to the position?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No settlement has yet been
reached. I have had more than one interview with representatives of both sides and both sides have submitted objections to some of the terms I had set out in a short paper that I had entitled "A Proposal for the Termination of the Interruption of Transportation Services on the Canadian Pacific Railway Lines."
The objections were not the same on both sides, but I do not consider that they are insuperable objections. This is being considered by both sides and I hope that there will be a speedy settlement which will permit of a speedy resumption of the transportation services.
(Translation):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fernand Girard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell the house if the government has made any undertaking with regard to the proposed waiver of $22 million in interest charges due by the United Kingdom?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. member will see no objection to my answering his question in English since I will have to refer to statutes, and these references are in English. I have had no time to check


the French text and I should not like to make a free translation whose terms would probably not be those which the official translators have used in the French version of the statutes.
(Text):
The Canadian-United Kingdom loan agreement of 1946, which appears as a schedule to the United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act (1946, Chap. 12), provides that the United Kingdom is entitled to a waiver of interest in any year in which certain conditions exist. In brief, the Canadian loan agreement entitles the United Kingdom to a waiver when the following conditions are met:
(a)	That the United Kingdom finds it necessary, having regard to its gold and foreign exchange reserves;
(b)	That the international monetary fund certifies to certain specified conditions regarding United Kingdom balance of payments statistics; and
(c)	That any other country which has made a loan with similar conditions is also waiving the interest payment.
That is a commitment that was made in the contract that was approved by parliament in 1946. Early in December of last year the United Kingdom formally requested a waiver of the interest which would be due on the 31st of December, 1956. Because of another rather complicated clause in the United States-United Kingdom agreement relating to the status of certain sterling balances, a clause which is not in the Canada-United Kingdom agreement, the United States government found it lacked authority to grant the waiver, but it announced that it would renegotiate the waiver clause and submit a new clause to congress. That, of course, prevents one of the conditions under which the waiver would be contractually obligatory upon Canada from being realized.
The Canadian government is considering what action it would be appropriate for this government to take and as soon as this consideration has been completed the conclusion arrived at by the government will be put before parliament and there will be an opportunity to discuss it here in parliament.
In the meantime the United Kingdom has paid the instalment of principal amounting to $15J million which was due on December 31 and has, I understand, set aside in an account in the Bank of Canada the amount of interest, this to be held by the Bank of Canada until a decision has been reached whether or not there will be a waiver of interest granted by all those who have similar loans.



ROYAL BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister had drawn to his attention the remarks made yesterday by Mr. Muir, president of the Royal Bank, on the question of credit controls, and will the minister comment on them at all now or at some future date?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: have read the remarks as reported in the morning newspaper. My first impression is that Mr. Muir agrees with government policy that some form of credit restriction is necessary and not only agrees but goes further and says that perhaps additional forms of credit restriction are necessary. We shall have a look at his remarks in greater detail when there is an opportunity.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, January 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. R. F. L. Hanna for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
(Translation):
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was congratulating the government for preserving the unity of the commonwealth at a time of particularly serious emergency and saving the world from a third world conflict. Canada has declared its opposition to wars of aggression and we must recognize that, in this regard, its position was sound, no economic interests to my mind being worth a single drop of blood. If some people are not yet convinced that problems should be solved by peaceful means, they must not count on our aid. If the unfortunate experiences of 1914 and 1939 have not been such as to cause them to reflect upon these matters, the world is indeed in desperate straits.
As President Eisenhower said yesterday to the United States Congress: "An aggressive war is a crime against humanity". That is also the opinion of Canada; we do not want to be parties to any crime.
It is precisely because Canada is opposed to crimes against humanity that at the General Assembly of the United Nations our
The Address-Mr. Caron representatives have condemned in unequivocal terms the repression by the Soviet Union of Hungarian patriots.
I had the great pleasure of entertaining in my own home, on Christmas day, a group of Hungarian refugees, one of whom spoke French and another English. These people told me things that we would have not thought possible in this twentieth century. A father, his wife and two children had to crawl several miles through mud to take cover from Russian Are. Russians were firing at them to prevent them from gaining their freedom. These people told me that story themselves and it was corroborated by another member of the group.
In Budapest, a woman and child were killed by soldiers for failing to stop when ordered to do so. All these refugees can thus recount instances of truly revolting brutality.
I am convinced that when this crisis of Russian imperialistic madness is over, those barbarians themselves will blush at their own deeds. I am happy to congratulate the government, and particularly the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickers-gill), for the promptness with which Canada opened its frontiers to those unfortunate victims of their love of freedom.
I also congratulate the government for wishing to endow Canada with a council for the arts, humanities and social sciences. If our country has reached political and economic maturity, it must now turn to things of the mind. To prevent Canadians from becoming merely poor imitators, we must endeavour to create a truly Canadian art, one which will not be a pathetic copy of imported art.
A question that has been and will continue to be widely discussed, both verbally and in print, is the matter of proposed government assistance to universities. It is high time for action in that field and the Prime Minister has had the courage to propose a formula designed to save those temples of knowledge from bankruptcy; but the Quebec dictator is opposed to it, unconcerned about what our nation will become without those institutions of high learning.
In a country expanding as rapidly as Canada is doing, there is a growing need of specialists in all fields, which only our universities can train.
Indeed, we already hear the laments of those who are responsible for this stagnation! They accuse us of being centralizers. They claim that, through these donations, the federal government infringes upon a field that is exclusively provincial, that of education.
But how and where can the millions of dollars given unconditionally to universities

The Address-Mr. Caron be considered as an intrusion in the field education?
With such reasoning, millionaires should no longer be permitted to bequeath part of their fortune to such institutions. Wealthy corporations should no longer be allowed to grant scholarships for special studies. That would be ridiculous. I would be prepared to agree with them if, in exchange for such grants, the government required changes of curriculum in this or that faculty but, as I said, an unconditional donation does not constitute interference.
In all parts of Canada, rectors of universities have gladly and gratefully accepted this offer from the federal government, except in Quebec, where fear of the master causes them to hesitate between a realization of the great need, and threats which are not even veiled.
It is high time that the leaders of our Quebec universities make up their mind to face up squarely to the dictator and tell him: "Take care, for in the end we will come out the winners; remember that spirit has always prevailed over brute force." Then you will see the type of turn about of which this tumbler is capable.
When I hear people find fault with this proposal of the federal government under the pretence of safeguarding our language and our faith, I am inclined to think that this is sheer demagogy.
If actually we had been meant to disappear as a racial entity, it is immediately after the conquest of 1760 that it would have happened, because at that time, the noble and the rich went back to France, leaving behind 60 thousand poor people, most of them illiterate, to fight it out by themselves, or just about, with the conquerors who, however, have respected treaties.
Now that this miracle of the survival of a handful of men has been brought about by Providence, it would be impossible to crush the six million French-speaking Canadians scattered all over Canada, most of whom live in the province of Quebec.
We have acquired such a strength that we now hold the balance of power in Ottawa, a fact that the Liberal party has understood much earlier than did the other parties which are still stagnating on the opposition side.
Moreover, so long have we been ruled by fear, that French Canadians still hesitate to play their full part in our great Canada.
Yes, our country is now an international power, an evolution which the Fathers of the Confederation could not foresee. That is why we must look and act as full-grown men in a great country which will soon have, I hope, a truly distinctive flag bearing no sign whatever of interdependence.


(Text):


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: It is
not often, Mr. Speaker, that in the throne speech debate I concentrate exclusively on local matters. This year, as I look through the speech from the throne, unfortunately it does not provide too much opportunity to dwell on domestic problems because a large part of it is concerned with external policy. It could be argued, of course, that in view of the continuing international crisis this emphasis is important. We are still under the shadow of the crisis in Suez, and if those problems are not settled adequately there is very little use giving attention to domestic issues.
The speech from the throne is sometimes referred to as a state of the nation speech, and we should be able to cover the issues that are most pertinent in Canada at the present time, particularly those which concern our local constituencies. As far as the problems on the higher level of external and foreign policy are concerned, we hope there will be other occasions in this house during this session when we will be able to come to closer grips with these matters.
I notice that in their presentations both the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) concerned themselves with the matters that were closest to their constituencies. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, in his genial Irish way, very effectively presented the problems of his area, although I think perhaps he did not have much to say about those problems. He had definitely kissed the blarney stone in the traditional Irish sense, and he presented a picture that all was for the best in the best of possible worlds in Edmonton-Strath-cona. Then, too, the hon. member for Gloucester in his presentation ended on an optimistic note. He thought it was time that the maritimers forgot to be pessimistic and moved forward to emphasize the positive or the optimistic side of the picture. I am glad to know that he agrees that under the new regimes in the maritimes things are going to be much better in that part of the country.


Mr. Gillis:: Read the Gordon report.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have not read it in detail.


Clarence Gillis: On the maritimes.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is all in the past.


Clarence Gillis: It is not very optimistic.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Is it not?


Clarence Gillis: He deals with the future.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am going to crave the indulgence of the house to refer to some matters that are of immediate concern in the Brandon-Souris constituency. It is true the

speech from the throne talks in general terms about the continuing prosperity in Canada. However, I sometimes feel that on the Ottawa level we cannot see the woods for the trees, and while we can speak in grandiose terms about the general prevailing prosperity, sections of the economy have not participated in an equitable way in the general economic upsurge in Canada during the postwar years. However, I do not want to begin on that note, either.
One of the reasons why I am sticking to local matters in this address is that this year, in my particular corner of the country, we are entering upon anniversary observances which have some importance. These anniversary observances commenced some three years ago in southwestern Manitoba, an area that was settled in the early 1880's. In the past three years several of our communities have been observing 75th anniversaries. Two years ago the town of Deloraine had an observance of that kind. Last year it was the towns of Boissevain and Souris, and this year the towns of Killarney and Virden and the city of Brandon will be observing 75th anniversaries. It is an occasion when we are marking the achievements of the past and looking forward to the prospects of the future. The celebrating of 75 years of actual settlement and incorporation in that part of the world underlines the fact that we are a very young community in western Canada. There is to be another 75th anniversary this year. Very shortly, I believe, our Prime Minister will be celebrating his 75th birthday, his 75th anniversary. This also points out that actually within the lifetime of one man, who has assumed a very prominent role in this country, western Canada has progressed to the present relatively high state of organization and progress.
We are still a very young nation and while we sometimes feel we have not made very much progress in some parts of Canada this is perhaps due to our youthfulness and our anxiety to get on with the job, to seize the tremendous opportunities that are available to all Canadians today and also, of course, to seize the responsibilities arising from those opportunities.
My constituency which is presently called the constituency of Brandon-Souris existed as the constituency of Brandon until the redistribution in 1953. It is typical, I feel, of the type of social organization that has emerged in the west since settlement began in 1880. It has produced some of the most prominent men who have held a position of representation in this house.
From the year 1896 until about 1912, I believe, the late Sir Clifford Sifton was the
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale member for Brandon. It was under Sir Clifford's leadership that the tremendous upsurge in immigration took place in the early 1900's which assured that western Canada would assume a growing position of prominence in our Canadian economy. He established a pattern for immigration during those years that might well be followed by the present administration because in a comparatively short time some three million new citizens were brought into western Canada under his leadership.
Another important era in public life in this country was marked by another former member for Brandon, the late Hon. Robert Forke who for a few years was the leader of the Progressive party in this chamber. I think all hon. members will agree that very significant developments in public life on the national level emerged out of that period of politics in the twenties when the Progressive party played a prominent role.
I do not think I will be regarded as prejudiced if I say the Progressive movement, the farmers' movement in this country and particularly in western Canada, brought a fresh breath of air into public affairs which has had an influence right up to the present time. Certainly the Liberal party under the leadership of Mr. Mackenzie King, after he had absorbed the Progressive movement or certain aspects of it, was a very different Liberal party from the Liberal party that existed under the earlier regime of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. There was a new emphasis in Canadian public life. Not all of the things that emerged out of that movement were beneficial, of course. Sometimes we westerners are known as the wild and wooly westerners; sometimes perhaps we are regarded as being somewhat irresponsible or at least certain influences in western Canada are considered in that light. Nevertheless there were some beneficial influences that emerged out of the Progressive movement.
On opening day it was my privilege to attend the ceremonies held in connection with the unveiling of the monument to Sir Robert Borden. I found those ceremonies very impressive indeed and I was interested to hear the tributes that were paid to that outstanding Canadian leader and particularly the emphasis that was placed on the role he had played in establishing Canada's position as an autonomous nation amongst the British commonwealth of nations. It occurred to me at that time that had it not been for the fresh breezes that blew out of the west in the wake of the Progressive movement that introduced new ideas and emphases into Canadian public life it would not have been possible for Sir Robert Borden to have achieved the new status for

The Address-Mr. Dinsdale Canada. Certainly the wave of immigration under the leadership of Sir Clifford Sifton brought in new ideas and a new emphasis on national spirit that made it possible for Prime Minister Borden to declare a position of independence for Canada at the treaty of Versailles conferences without creating too much unfavourable reaction back home in Canada.
The fact exists as well that we had established our reputation as a responsible national power during the trial of world war I, but I still claim for western Canada that some of these new concepts, this fresh impetus and the new emphases made it possible for Canada to proceed one step further along the road toward becoming a nation among the nations of the world.
More recently we have had outstanding representatives from the constituency of Brandon in the persons of Colonel D. W. Beaubier, who represented that area during the difficult early thirties, the late Mr. J. E. Matthews, who at the time of his death was the dean of this house by point of age, and then of course, just prior to the amalgamation of the constituencies of Brandon and Souris, the latter constituency was represented by Mr. J. A. Ross who, like so many of those who have devoted the major part of their lives to public service, is unfortunately at the present time not enjoying good health. In the past two years he has unfortunately been suffering from ill health, a reaction to the strenuous exertion he put forward in this house for a period of 13 years on behalf of the people of the constituency I now have the honour to represent.
We have rather an illustrious history emerging from this part of southwestern Manitoba. It was the opening of western Canada which made it possible for the flow of golden grain which in many respects changed our whole national economic picture. In the early days Brandon became known as the wheat city of the west because it was the first point at which large shipments of wheat were received. John A. Macdonald's dream of national unity was only made possible when he conceived the whole plan of confederation on the opening up of western Canada and the beginning of our grain economy.
In those days the city of Brandon founded an agricultural exhibition. Perhaps they were a little ambitious when they called it the dominion agricultural exhibition. No doubt they hoped to occupy the place now occupied by the royal agricultural winter fair in the city of Toronto. Such was the spirit of those early pioneers who moved into that area. Somewhat later they had to be satisfied with calling their exhibition the provincial winter fair and the provincial ex-


hibition, but it is still one of the largest of its kind in the country and has made outstanding contributions to agricultural life.
That was the picture down through the years until fairly recently, perhaps we can say up to the commencement of world war II in 1939. More recently Brandon has become the home of the western Canada trade fair. I think that name nicely and aptly suggests the new pattern which is emerging in the western economy where you have the western Canada trade fair intimately associated with the provincial exhibition of Manitoba and the provincial winter fair.
There is a new order, if I may call it that, or a new era emerging in the prairie economy which has become clear to all hon. members from that part of the country. This is the picture which was presented by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona in his excellent remarks the other day. However, unfortunately the speech from the throne gives little indication that the present government is aware of what is taking place in western Canada. It gives little indication that the government is aware of the dynamic changes which are taking place.
I have had the preliminary report of the Gordon commission in my hands only overnight and have had an opportunity merely to scan it, but after scanning some of the main points in this interesting report I would say that here are a group of economists who have given serious thought to what is taking place in the Canadian economy at the present time, who have an appreciation of the changes that are taking place.
Looking at some of the sections of the report I find that their subject matters have been the topics of discussion in this house during recent months. I find reference to wheat, to the development of energy resources, the taxation of the oil and gas industries, secondary manufacturing industries, our commercial policy and foreign capital investment in Canada. After noting those I almost come to the conclusion that the commissioners responsible for the report had been looking over the shoulder of the Hon. George A. Drew or had been reading Hansard diligently to see the excellent analyses he had made of the situation during the past few years when it was my privilege to serve under his leadership in this house. I can almost say that he must have written part of this report.
Certainly it is a stimulating experience to find that those who have been charged with the responsibility for analysing our economy as it is and our future economic prospects have shown such a progressive and enlightened grasp of the situation. In many respects it is the viewpoint that we have held

in western Canada during recent years. It is a direct challenge to the government to do something about these things, to keep step with the dynamics of the economic and social changes which have been occurring in Canada, particularly since the end of world war II. It is a challenge to the government to do something about it or to step aside and let someone else meet the situation as it needs to be met at the present time.
There were some references in the speech from the throne to certain problems on the agricultural front. The agricultural picture has been far from bright in the past few years. Reference is made to a survey to be conducted in all parts of Canada of land use, and the suggestion is that the government is going to give consideration at long last to the possibility of establishing a legislative program for comprehensive conservation measures.
The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act has been on the statute books ever since the days of the drought in the early thirties. As has been mentioned in this house, it is a tribute to the appreciation of the problem by the prime minister of that day, Mr. R. B. Bennett. Unfortunately it applies only to western Canada. Certainly a measure of this kind would be in the best interests of the Canadian economy as a whole, not only from the agricultural standpoint but also from the standpoint of the total picture.
Considering the rapidity with which our economy is developing at the moment, we must give serious attention to this problem of conservation on a national basis. During recent years certain private members have placed resolutions on the order paper covering this matter and we have had worth while discussions, but to amend the P.F.R.A. in an attempt to cope with this problem is to deal only with a small aspect of the total difficulties which face agriculture at the moment.
We are moving toward an industrial economy. It has become almost platitudinous to say that you cannot have a healthy economy or a healthy society unless you have a strong, solvent and progressive underlying agricultural industry. Unfortunately we do not have that at the present time. The industrial revolution which has hit western Canada has made serious inroads into our agricultural activity. The government has done nothing to deal with the changes which are taking place. These matters have been mentioned many times in the house. We have talked about the price squeeze under which the farmer is suffering. We have talked about the problems created by surplus production. However, perhaps the major difficulty is the general exodus of people from the farm.
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale
These are only three of the subjects which require immediate action on the part of the present administration having regard to the nature of the economy in which we are operating at the present time and to the "price squeeze" in which the farmer finds himself. It is an inflationary economy-an economy key-noted by industrial development in which both capital and labour find themselves on a price escalator. It seems that no sooner do prices rise under the impact of creeping inflation than labour asks for an increase in wages. It is a fine, thrilling ride for those who largely derive their incomes from these two orders of activity, that is to say, capital and labour, but for those who are not on the "escalator" it presents a very difficult situation indeed. Those who do not benefit include, unfortunately, our farmers and those of our citizens in receipt of fixed incomes.
We have had many dramatic pleas in this house that some action should be taken which would at least place these people in receipt of fixed incomes on the first step of the stairway to better conditions even if they cannot ride the escalator which exerts such a heady influence on those who are riding it at the present time. We have heard appeals for war pensioners, appeals for blind pensioners and others, and I would like in particular to join in supporting the appeal which the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) made last night on behalf of veterans of the first world war who saw service only in the United Kingdom and who as a result are not eligible for war veterans' allowances. These are obvious questions, and questions to which immediate attention should be given by a government which professes to be representing the general interest of the people of Canada.
Someone has said that if capital and labour ever get together it will be "good night" to the rest of us, which recalls the original point I was making, namely that we find prices and wages going up in parts of the Canadian economy and remaining static in others. In these circumstances there is more truth than fiction in a statement of that kind. The price situation is, of course, giving rise to much discussion in western Canada concerning a fair price relationship. We hear a lot of talk among farmers' organizations about the necessity for parity. I think we can quite safely say that in regard to government intervention in economic matters the farmer has been the most neglected individual. Last spring we were sitting in on a hearing in connection with amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act and we were hearing evidence from Dr. Hope, who is the economist for the Canadian federation of agriculture. Someone-I have

The Address-Mr. Dinsdale forgotten which member it was, but it was one of the members from Saskatchewan- asked Dr. Hope this pointed question: "Do you, Dr. Hope, know of any country where the government does less for the farmer than does the Canadian government"? Dr. Hope's reply was very brief, yet very emphatic. It was: "No".
The agitation that goes on in the west as the farmers try to cope with the very rapid changes that are taking place in the economy is quite justified. A lot of it, perhaps, is not in touch with the realities of economics and there has been a divergency of opinion expressed from time to time; the organizations representing the farmers have not agreed as to what the best solution might be. But certainly, Mr. Speaker, something has to be done to stabilize the price position of the farmer more effectively if we are going to avoid some of the worst consequences to our agricultural industry. The Gordon commission deals with this question. I cannot refer to its report in any detail because I have not had time to read it fully but, briefly, the commission does refer to farm prices and makes recommendations concerning the activities of the Canadian wheat board and, no doubt, the government will be giving attention to some of these recommendations. On page 29 of the report in the chapter headed "Agriculture", paragraph 15, the report says:
We believe that the objective of a price support program for farmers should be roughly the same as that of unemployment assistance to industrial workers, namely, to mitigate distress due to economic fluctuations.
In paragraph 16 the report goes further with regard to this subject, and the concluding sentence says:
We believe that the determination of the support price on the advice of a full-time board would be preferable to the application of more or less automatic formulae.
These are specific recommendations made by the economists who were dealing with the problems.
The movement of people from the farms is one of the major difficulties. Dr. Baker, who has been conducting some research into agricultural matters in the province of Saskatchewan, says that the small farm has become obsolete on the prairies and that we are going to see a continuation of this movement of farmers away from the prairies. This is, of course, related to the problems of the price squeeze and surplus production. The danger point here is not that the farmers are leaving the farms-that is an inevitable process in a changing economy-but that the changeover may not be accomplished satisfactorily. I see, as I glance through the Gordon commission report, that in the year

1980, they mention, four out of every five of our citizens will be living in urban communities, which suggests that this trend from country to city will continue apace. But that is not the crux of the problem. The crux of the problem is: Where do they go and how do they get there? That is a matter to which this government has given absolutely no attention though it is one of the major difficulties which lie before us. The solution involves changes in educational policy-we shall be discussing that at length, Mr. Speaker, in this house in relation to improved grants to universities-it involves equitable distribution of industry across Canada rather than having it concentrated in two central provinces; it raises the old question of the decentralization of industry, and the government has hardly given that any consideration whatsoever.
This involves all the problems that arise when resettlement problems emerge in our economy. For example, with respect to the educational problem it has been pointed out to us on many occasions that we are not beginning to meet the need for new technicians in Canada. In a recent Citizen's Forum discussion on radio and television it was pointed out that we need immediately 100,000 new technicians. How are we going to produce them? We have two institutions devoted to this activity, the Ryerson Institute in Toronto and the Institute of Technology in the city of Calgary. They are capable of producing a relatively small number of technicians each year. In contrast, Russia has 1,500 technical schools.
This means that we are wasting the talents of our engineers by having them perform the functions of technicians when they should be devoting their better training to the functions of engineers. Someone has suggested that the proportion of technicians to engineers should be four to one. At the present time our position is the reverse: we have approximately three engineers for every technician. This situation is vitally related to the agricultural problem I have been discussing. If young people are moving from the farms in response to the changing economic pressures, if smaller farms are being absorbed in larger farms, certainly there is plenty of room for these displaced persons in our growing industrial activity, but the government must take some responsibility with respect to resettlement and retraining.
My time is rapidly coming to an end and rather than go farther with the matter of inequities in our national development I shall leave it on the basis of what I have said about agriculture. I could have gone further and discussed the industrial aspect. The two are closely related. After all, we are a national

economy and if changes take place in one segment we must make the necessary adjustments to restore a balance to the situation.
Donald Creighton, who has acquired a certain fame recently following the publication of his excellent biography of the life of Sir John A. Macdonald, Canada's first prime minister, made a speech to the anniversary banquet of the United Grain Growers in Calgary last November in which he put his finger on the nub of the matter with respect to the point I have been trying to make that there is an imbalance in development in Canada. At that time he said:
The farm leaders drove home the truth that a true national policy must be for the whole nation, for agriculture as well as for industry, and that the powers and resources of the state must be employed so as to distribute burdens and equalize opportunities over the nation and through all its classes and groups.
That, I think, Mr. Speaker, is an excellent summary of the approach that must be taken by the federal government during these changing times. The speech from the throne was utterly disappointing in this respect. I trust that the government, in any further proposals that it makes during this important session of parliament, will attempt to come to grips with the problem. Otherwise I am afraid the amendment to the speech from the throne moved by this group will come true very quickly in this country and it will be apparent that not only has the house lost confidence but that the people of Canada have also lost confidence in this administration.


Mr. A. W. Sluari (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robi-chaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The mover is well known to us all but we fellow New Brunswickers wish to express our appreciation of and gratitude for the manner in which our colleague from Gloucester county, New Brunswick, conducted himself during this debate. I believe his speech will be very well received by his constituents and by the people of the province of New Brunswick as a whole.
We met here on January 8 earlier this week at a time when a most serious and apparently unnecessary railway strike was affecting many parts of our great country. In my county, the county of Charlotte, we have no C.N.R. connections of any kind and this creates a more serious problem. Thous-
The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart ands of tons of Minto coal go to the pulp mill at Woodland, Maine. Thousands of tons of Minto coal go to the cotton mills in Milltown in my own riding. Conleys, who export hundreds of thousands of pounds of lobster to the United States, are obliged to truck their product long distances under very difficult circumstances. Connors Brothers Limited are in the same position. Ganong Brothers Limited, candy manufacturers in St. Stephen, are in the same position. I have received telegrams from many people explaining the serious situation as supplies of coal are running very short at this time.
Unemployment directly and indirectly attributable to the strike is having a most serious effect in my constituency and in all parts of the maritime provinces. We must all acknowledge, however, that the city and port of Saint John will be harder hit than any other section of our province.
I had expected great things from the new leader of the official opposition (Mr. Die-fenbaker) when he spoke on this serious problem in the house a few days ago, and I was particularly sure that the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) would come up with some constructive suggestions since his home city has been declared an area of serious emergency.


An hon. Member:: What a hope!


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The attitude taken by these two hon. members, however, is one of fence-sitting, pussyfooting, petty politicians. In his remarks yesterday in this chamber the hon. member for Saint John-Albert mentioned a strike which took place a year ago at a sugar refinery in Saint John and immediately said with emphasis: Remember now, I am not taking sides. With respect to every other strike he mentioned he wanted to emphasize the fact that he did not want it forgotten that he was not taking sides. The same statement was made with respect to the present strike arid the difficulties we have had to contend with in our part of the country. In his remarks regarding the railway strike he was most careful not to commit himself in any way. When he resumed his seat I asked him a question. I did not interrupt while he was speaking. I said, as found at page 68 of Hansard:
I would like the hon. member to tell us, if he would, what he would suggest as a solution to the railway strike.

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart
He answered:
The resignation of this government would be the best one

The resignation of the present government would only mean a 20 year delay so far as the Conservative party is concerned. That may be his solution to the problem but I know that most people in the maritime provinces would not be prepared to wait 20 years for a solution of this serious railway strike with which we are faced right now.


Mr. Cardiff:: How silly can you get?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I do not think that is quite as silly as my friend to the left because I keep still when others are speaking. I think he might follow the same practice. It is quite obvious that the hon. member for Saint John-Albert left this serious matter in a way that would allow him to interpret his remarks in any manner he wished. If the hon. member for Saint John-Albert were asked by a C.P.R. employee what his views were, he could immediately change this whole situation to meet the need. If he were asked by the management of the C.P.R. what his views were in connection with the matter, again, if he would be honest, he would say, "I have said nothing". But I feel quite sure that his attitude in this regard will not be acceptable to his own home city of Saint John. I do not believe that they would be satisfied with the manner in which he has dealt with this matter.
I received telegrams from W. W. Macaulay, mayor of Saint John; Parker D. Mitchell, mayor of the city of Lancaster; and E. B. Ross, deputy mayor of St. Andrews; Charlotte county board of trade and other boards of trade. In every case these words were used: A state of emergency exists. We request you to act at once by urging the government to use their emergency powers. That is exactly what I did when I came to Ottawa. I urged upon the government the necessity of settling the strike as soon as possible, and that they use anything within their power to see that it was settled. I want the people in my constituency to know just where I stand in this regard. There is no pussy-footing on my part. I believe in being straightforward and speaking what you believe to be honest facts.
The telegrams I have received are all urgent ones. The people who are sending those telegrams are greatly alarmed over
[Mr. Stuart (Charlotte) .1

conditions there at this particular time. I believe that circumstances warrant members from the maritimes taking that stand and that action. However, the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, I am sorry to say, did not take a stand at any time during his remarks in this house. It was a case of sitting on the fence from start to finish. It may not offend many in his constituency, but I feel sure it will not be endorsed by too many either.
After his remarks in connection with tht strike, the hon. member went on to condemn the federal government for their lack of interest in the maritime provinces. At the same time he painted a most gloomy picture of our economic future. I have here an advertisement that appeared in his own Saint John Telegraph-Journal just six months ago. It was placed in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal by the Progressive Conservative Association of New Brunswick. It reads in part:
Premier Hugh John Flemming has announced a $20 million manganese refining industry for New 13 runs wick.
Attorney General West has announced the reopening of the mill at Marysville.
The Ministers of Agriculture and of Industry and Development have announced a new frozen food plant for Florenceville. Another one is in prospect for the city of Lancaster.
Hon. Mr. Fournier has announced the Flemming government will construct a new bridge at Edmundston. The new Limestone Bridge, in Victoria county, was officially opened Saturday.
The pulp and paper industry has announced plans for a huge five-year expansion program-a direct result of Hugh John Flemming's power development.
Wages are up more than 15 per cent since 1952. Construction is up 21 per cent in New Brunswick over last year-the second highest increase in all Canada.
The economy of the province was never better . . .
For three consecutive years, the Flemming government has reduced the net debt ...
I realize that when we reduce a net debt here we are bitterly criticized by those sitting in the official opposition. But I am proud of any government that has a surplus rather than a deficit. Surely a government that has a surplus, be it federal or provincial, does not need financial aid. When they boast of their surpluses, it is good indication to the people of this country that things are not too bad.
I might follow this up with the statement that on New Year's eve our premier came out with a statement in the same glowing terms as the one I have just read, indicating that conditions were very good in our province. At that time I am sure he did not ask for any assistance of any kind. That story that was told in June and the one that was told on New Year's eve is different from the story we

heard told here yesterday by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. He made no mention, it is true, of the fact that the federal expenditure in the province of New Brunswick during the past twelve months was more than double the total revenue of our provincial government. This federal government spent in my province in the last twelve months $130 million but we never hear any credit given to anyone in connection with it. At this point I may say that $20 million of the $50 million that we have as our total revenue comes as a contribution from this government. Two fifths of our total revenue in the province of New Brunswick comes directly from the federal government. 1 never hear a Conservative member ever give anyone any credit for that. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in my province we could not exist without that assistance we are receiving from the federal government. There was no mention of the fact that this $20 million is used to provide employment for the friends of the Conservative government, something which is true. We all know it. Only yesterday I received a report. It is from the editorial and information division of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and it reads in part as follows:
. . . plans were outlined for a 1957 expenditure of about $3,500,000 to control the spruce budworm outbreak in northern New Brunswick.
This has been going on for several years. The federal government has never been hesitant in any way in making their contribution. I have yet to find one single circumstance where this government has ever refused to assist our provincial government when it had a legitimate case to place before it. I have searched the record and can find no case where assistance, when it was requested from the province of New Brunswick and where it was felt that the matter under consideration was beyond their financial capacity, was not provided. I also doubt that the hon. member for Saint John-Albert himself can find any such case. I have not been able to do so.
There is an article that appears in Maclean's magazine-a copy was sent to me yesterday- by Blair Fraser. It is headed "Backstage at Ottawa" and there are some extremely interesting remarks in that particular article. Under the subheading "Where can Ottawa spend Its Hoarded Half-Billion?" we find the following:
One region that leaps to mind when capital development is discussed is, of course, the Atlantic provinces-the maritimes and Newfoundland. Hundreds of millions in public funds have been spent or lent to develop other parts of Canada in recent years, with projects like the St. Lawrence seaway and the trans-Canada pipeline. Nothing proportionate has been done for the Atlantic region.
The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart
Ottawa would like to correct this imbalance. Hon. Robert H. Winters is Minister of Public Works as well as M.P. for Lunenburg, N.S., and a devoted maritimer.
That is something we all can confirm. The article continues:
He has repeatedly made, and Prime Minister St. Laurent has echoed, invitations to maritime spokesmen to bring to Ottawa any ideas they may have for development of their native land. The implication is that if money is all that's needed, that will be no obstacle.
So far there has been amazingly little response. New Brunswick has a hydro-electric project in mind but it presents serious engineering problems, as well as the doubt that a sound hydro project should need help anyway. Otherwise, a typical maritime reaction has been, "If Ottawa would make its suggestion more specific, we'd be delighted to discuss it''. The fact that Ottawa is inviting suggestions, not making them, is glossed over.
I think Blair Fraser made a true statement according to facts right there. He goes on to say that some plans have been proposed that are rather fantastic. We all know that. But as to any constructive plan that came from the province of New Brunswick that would help the province and the country, so far as federal funds are concerned I am confident that this government are prepared to go ahead and do what they can to improve conditions.
We must all admit, as New Brunswickers, that our retarded development in New Brunswick is caused by the serious lack of cheap electrical energy. We all know that. We can never hope to become an industrialized area until an abundance of electrical power at a reasonable cost can be developed. None of the projects now under construction or consideration can supply that power except the Passamaquoddy tidal power project. A survey has been undertaken jointly by the United States government and the Canadian government to determine whether this project is economically feasible. A full-scale investigation will get under way this spring. Today these engineers, whom I meet very often, are compiling information in their offices on both sides of the border that dates back 30 years. They hope to be able, by April 1, to get a full-scale investigation under way. It is my honest, sincere opinion that this is the only answer to our economic problems in New Brunswick. It is on this project that I pin my faith, and it is on this project that federal assistance will be required. It is on this project that federal assistance will be provided if the investigation proves the project is a sound one from an economic standpoint.
Again, I would wish to emphasize the fact that an abundance of cheap power is the only answer to our problem in New Brunswick. As Blair Fraser quite rightly said, some of the plans that have been proposed

The Address-Mr. Knowles whereby federal financial assistance would be required are pretty fantastic. Any assistance from the federal government should have long-term benefits, not just a flash in the pan. Let us hold this ace in the hole until we have the answer with regard to the Passamaquoddy project because that is the only source in New Brunswick, or in that area that I know of, where a great block of power might be provided. I have great faith in my own province, and I have faith in all the maritime provinces. If we wish to improve our standard of living and create an environment which will induce the young men and women to stay there with us, we must take full advantage of the bountiful resources God has provided for us. If all the citizens of the maritime provinces would place less emphasis on complaining and criticism and give more serious thought to constructive contributions, we might look to the future with a much more enthusiastic attitude. Criticism, as we listen to it here, and complaint without constructive suggestions, will never build a bigger and better maritimes which is the goal we all hope we may be able to achieve.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Members of this group, Mr. Speaker, are earnestly hoping that a settlement of the strike on the Canadian Pacific Railway will be reached today. In fact, we hope it might be reached at any moment, certainly within a few hours. We have felt right from the start that the only reason the strike came about was because the Canadian Pacific Railway insisted on injecting an issue into its negotiations with the firemen which should not have been raised at all, namely an issue relating to the safety of railway operations. I shall have something more to say about that in a moment.
May I at this point add the comment that we believe it has become clear to many more members of the house than was the case at the start, and has become clear to large sections of the public, that it is the intransigence of the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway which was responsible not only for the strike in the first place but is responsible for the delay in its settlement. The proposal the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has made to both sides for a temporary agreement similar to that made between the brotherhood and the Canadian National Railways is in line to a large extent with the proposals made earlier by the Canadian Labour Congress and supported by the union. It is also in line with the first proposal that we in this group made in a press release which we gave out on January 8. It is obvious, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the proposal made by the Prime Minister is not only

one that commends itself to this house as reasonable, but it obviously commends itself to the men who are affected. Indeed, a report in this morning's Montreal Gazette says that Mr. Jodoin has stated that the Prime Minister's statements and suggestions were very acceptable to the Canadian Labour Congress and to the brotherhood. This seems to make it quite clear to all who may want to look at this matter objectively that it is the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway which is holding out on the very fair proposals made to both sides by the government. Any further continuing of the strike is, therefore, the responsibility of the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway. We hope that there will soon be agreement to the proposal made by the government so that the strike may be settled and the operation of the railway resumed.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that in the view of the members of this group the strike came about only because in the midst of negotiations on wages, working conditions and other matters, the Canadian Pacific sought to introduce an extraneous matter, namely the proposal to do away with firemen on diesel locomotives in yard and freight service regardless of the effect of such a change on the safety of railway operations. We feel that a false picture of this proposed change has been given, largely through the publicity channels of the Canadian Pacific Railways, as to what it meant. The Canadian Pacific Railway has tried to play up the fact that on diesel locomotives there is no need for firing, as such, as used to be the case on steam locomotives. The Canadian Pacific Railway has overlooked the other functions of the person known as fireman on diesel locomotives. Gradually, as this matter has been discussed, and as attention has been paid to it because of the fact a strike was in progress, people are beginning to realize that on modern diesel locomotives with modern lengthy trains travelling at high speeds, there are many other functions to perform that have taken the place of the actual firing that used to be the main task of the fireman.
Not only has the publicity which the C.P.R. has been able to get for its side of the case played up the fact that there is no actual firing necessary on the part of the fireman on a diesel locomotive, but it has played down the safety angle involved. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this attempt to draw attention to the fact that all the C.P.R. is asking for is the elimination of firemen on freight and yard diesels is an attempt to lull the public into a feeling of security in the knowledge that, for the moment at any rate, passenger trains will still have firemen on diesel locomotives. After

all, so far as the public is concerned, for the most part our experience is in travelling on passenger trains, and of course so long as the C.P.R. does not propose to take firemen off diesel locomotives hauling passenger trains the general public could have a certain sense of security.
I suggest there are two points which ought to be taken into consideration in regard to that phase of the matter. One is that the change in the diesel rule which Canadian Pacific Railway is asking for is an over-all blanket change. True, for the moment, the C.P.R. says it intends to take firemen off only yard and freight diesels, but the change in the rule is so comprehensive that it would be possible at any time for the C.P.R., under that new rule, to eliminate firemen from diesels hauling passenger trains as well.
Even apart from the question as to whether or not firemen would be taken off diesels hauling passenger trains, surely the Canadian Pacific Railway, the government, parliament and the public have a responsibility to the employees who operate freight trains. Even if they never take them off passenger diesels, the fact is that we have a responsibility to protect the life and limb of those who are operating freight trains. To us it is a case of a callous disregard of the rights of workers for the Canadian Pacific Railway to assume that in the eyes of the public it is perfectly all right to have less of a safety factor on yard and freight trains than the public would expect to have on passenger trains.
During the negotiations, once this issue was raised, representations, of course, were made as best they could be made by the representatives of the brotherhood. I have had the privilege of looking over some of the evidence that was presented; I have had the privilege of seeing copies of scores of photographs that were shown to the board indicating the difficulties of operating diesel locomotives in yard service. Those photographs which were presented to the conciliation board show instance after instance where the view of the engineer on the right side of a diesel locomotive is completely obstructed so far as the situation on the left side of the train is concerned, to the increase of danger to the employees who have just as much right to protection by the C.P.R., protection by parliament and protection by the public as have passengers who ride on the trains operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway.
There is also the factor, Mr. Speaker, that if you step by step do away with the firemen on diesel locomotives, and if you increase the dieselization of our railways, the 82715-9i
The Address-Mr. Knowles day will come when, with present engineers retiring and moving out of the picture, engineers will have to be trained without having had the prior experience of being firemen. I have had both correspondence and conversations with engineers as well as with firemen during the time this matter has been under discussion, and engineers have said to me that they would not want to become engineers without first of all having had the experience of being firemen. It is one thing to train a person as to the actual techniques of operating a modern locomotive; it is another thing to have the experience of being put through as a sort of co-engineer during the years that one is a fireman. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we feel that this whole safety factor is one that has not been sufficiently publicized during the time this matter has been in dispute. It has not been sufficiently appreciated by the Canadian Pacific Railway; indeed, we think it was not sufficiently appreciated by the conciliation board. In our view, it should not have been thrown into these negotiations at all. If the Canadian Pacific Railway had not come along after the negotiations were started and thrown in this issue I am sure that the other matters that were being negotiated by the parties could have been settled and we would not have had a strike at all.
The day has to come, Mr. Speaker, when an organization such as the Canadian Pacific Railway must realize its responsibility in matters of labour relations. Parliament does its best to regulate labour relations by legislation such as the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act; but even after the legislation has been passed, even after the best possible legislation has been passed, harmonious labour relations will depend on good will on the part of both sides. This whole story of the relations between the Canadian Pacific Railway and its firemen is an example, in our view, of a high-handed attitude toward labour, of a disregard for the safety factor and a willingness to trifle with the safety of workers and the public in order to try to beat down the wage and other demands of the union. We think the Canadian Pacific Railway must yet learn the lesson that in addition to good labour legislation we need the type of management that recognizes its responsibility to all sections of the public, including its responsibility to the employees who work for a company such as the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Others have already spoken on this matter on behalf of this group, and all of us who speak are expressing the views of all members of this group. In the remarks that have been made it has been pointed out-but perhaps it

The Address-Mr. Knowles should be pointed out again-that the attempt of the Canadian Pacific Railway and particularly the attempt of its president, Mr. N. R. Crump, to rely on the fact that the conciliation board agreed to the elimination of firemen from yard and freight diesels is really not justified. After all, that board consisted of three members. The majority recommendation, signed by two members, was qualified by certain doubts. The third member, Senator Roebuck, made a very strong recommendation, a very strongly worded report, which he submitted to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), opposing outright the proposal to eliminate firemen from its locomotives. He went so far as to call upon the Canadian Pacific Railway to withdraw its ill-conceived proposal. He said that he was fortified in his position by what had been done by the Canadian National Railways and by what had been done by all the railways in the United States. He also cited his experience as a lawyer when on occasions he had had to defend engineers against charges of manslaughter. On the basis of that experience, he pointed out that it is an extremely onerous responsibility that is placed on engineers, and, in his view, no engineer should be asked to operate any locomotive, passenger, freight or yard, without having a co-engineer, or a fireman, as the second person in the cab.
There has been some discussion about the time when the head trainman rides in the cab, and it has been said that he provides the second person but, as Senator Roebuck and others have pointed out, the responsibilities of the head brakeman or the head trainman are of a totally different nature. He is concerned with the train itself, and the work that he has to do when the train is stopped. His whole responsibility, and his whole training, detract from the possibility of his taking care of the safety factors which the fireman is in a position to assume. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we feel satisfied the time has come when the public has begun to get a little different picture of this from what was the case at the start. First, it was thought by many just that here was a group of people trying to hold on to their jobs. Any of us who have had connections with trade unions know that the trade union movement accepts and welcomes technological changes. It does its best to protect the rights of workers as changes take place; but to suggest that this is only an attempt to stop progress on the part of the union is to be completely false to the approach of the trade union movement generally. Indeed, the very thing that we are talking

about, namely, dieselization has already displaced many other workers, machinists, and so on, across this country. There has not been any strike over that, much as it has done by way of dislocating many people because, in the other instances, the safety factor was not involved, as it is in this situation.
We are glad of one other thing, Mr. Speaker, in this whole story. So far there has been no attempt on the part of the government to repeat the performance of 1950. There have been those who have spoken in this debate who have come pretty close to the suggestion that the government should use its power-I was not sure of what the last speaker had in mind-to get the railways running again, even if it meant forcing the men back to work. We feel that real damage was done to collective bargaining and to labour-management relations on the railways when, in 1950, the government called upon parliament to pass a bill which we opposed, that included compulsory arbitration. To the extent that that has not been done at this time-and I hope the government will stay with its refusal to resort to compulsory arbitration-to that extent some of the damage that was done in 1950 is being undone. As a matter of fact, I think Mr. Crump assumed right from the start he had nothing to worry about, that the government which had put the men back to work by act of parliament in 1950 would do it again, that the government would not permit a railway strike to go on and so all he had to do was take his position, unreasonable as it was, and the government would bail him out.
I am glad the government has not asked parliament to do that and I hope other steps will be taken to reinstate the collective bargaining position that obtained on the railways prior to the strike of 1950. I say again, Mr. Speaker, not only is it necessary to have good labour legislation, not only is it necessary to have the good offices of the Department of Labour to mediate in situations like this, not only is it necessary to have well chosen conciliation boards, but harmonious labour relations depend upon goodwill and good faith on both sides and it is our feeling that the Canadian Pacific Railway management in this whole piece has been oblivious to the rights of the men concerned, has been oblivious to the safety factor not just as it affects the general public but as it affects even a few of its employees. We feel, as Senator Roebuck says, that the whole proposal should be withdrawn and that there should be no further attempt to reduce the safety of railway operation by eliminating

The Address-Mr. Knowles
the firemen from locomotives on any operation be it passenger, freight or yard service. That is our position on this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, there are one or two other matters about which I would like to say a few words at this time. First of all, I wish to refer once again to the question of the old age pension. I am delighted that this subject has been mentioned by hon. members who have spoken in this debate in all parts of the house. The tragedy is that it was not mentioned in the speech from the throne.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if it had been possible to take a poll of public opinion prior to the reading of the speech from the throne it would have been pretty generally agreed that that speech would include a forecast of an increase in the old age pension. Certainly last year when the government was under fire during the pipe line debate, under fire not only here but in the press and suffering considerable discredit across the country, there were strong rumours to the effect that one of the ways in which the government would attempt to retrieve its position would be by bringing in improvements in social legislation at this session, one of them to be an increase in the old age pension.
Lo and behold, this year the government apparently thinks it has nothing to worry about, that it has the election in the bag. It may have another think coming. But because it thinks that way the government has brought down a speech from the throne with a few things contained in it that are acceptable and uncontentious but which contains nothing at all that comes to grips with the basic problems facing our people, such as the plight of our senior citizens.
It is well and good, Mr. Speaker, to boast about our buoyant economy and it is fine to talk about the great prosperity that exists in the country but the more our economy is buoyed up and the more prosperous the country is as a whole, the more tragic becomes the position of those who are on fixed incomes and particularly those who are on low fixed incomes.
This figure of $40 a month which is presently being paid under federal legislation both to those in receipt of old age security and those in receipt of old age assistance, as well as to the blind and the totally disabled, was set back in 1949. At that time the gross national production of this country was $16.4 billion a year. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if we have been able to increase our gross national production since 1949 it is only decent and proper that we should give to our old age pensioners an increase in what we pay them proportionate to the increase in our gross national production.
This year the gross national product may be $29 or $30 billion a year. If it is $29 billion that will be an increase of 77 per cent over what it was in 1949. If it is $30 billion that will be an increase of 82 per cent over what it was in 1949. The 77 per cent increase would call for an increase in the old age pension to $70 a month. The 82 per cent increase would call for an increase in the pension to $72 a month.
There was a time when to speak of figures like that for old age pension would have seemed outlandish but what the government does not seem to know is that Canadians generally have moved forward to the position that an old age pension should no longer be just an amount of money to keep a person barely alive but rather that an old age pension should be one of the rights of citizenship, should be one way of enabling our older people who have helped to build up the country to live in dignified and decent retirement and enjoy some of the wealth that the country is then producing because of what they have done.
We need-the country has it, it is the government that needs it-a new concept of the old age pension. The government should realize that it should be not just an existence allowance but rather the right to share in the wealth of the country at any given time. This party at its last national convention held in Winnipeg last August went on record urging that the old age pension be increased to not less than $65 a month and that it be payable without a means test from age 65.
I noticed that one Liberal across the way went out on a limb in expressing the opinion that the old age pension should be increased by $10 to $50 a month. In the light of the increase in our gross national product an increase of $10 a month would surely be very niggardly. We say that in the light of Canada's present increased prosperity and in the light of the suffering and needs of these people the pension should be increased to not less than $65 a month, and that these other figures I have given should be borne in mind for surely all Canadians are entitled to share in our gross national product.
Speaking of the gross national product it seems to be the popular thing today to refer to the Gordon report, preliminary copies of which reached us yesterday. I note in the report that if the conditions the board indicates are met it is expected that by 1980 the gross national product of Canada will reach the figure of $76 billion a year. I think it would not be improper for me to carry forward the percentage figuring I was doing a moment ago. If we do achieve a gross national product of $76 billion a year
134	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knowles by 1980 that will represent an increase of 360 per cent over the $16.4 billion that obtained in 1949. If the old age pension were to be increased in proportion thereto it should be raised by 1980 to $184 a month.
Now I say again to hon. members, do not laugh at this kind of figure just because some hon. members were brought up in the days when the old age pension was $20 a month, barely enough to keep body and soul together. The old age pension has a purpose different from mere existence. Its purpose is to recognize what older people have done for the country and to give them their share of a decent life as we would do in any ordinary decent family.
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to reconsider this whole question. It seems to me that what we need in relation to old age pensions is not only the universal plan we have that pays a flat amount to all our people but in addition to that we need something in the nature of the national industrial pension plan which has been proposed by the Canadian Labour Congress and the sooner we come to grips with this issue at the parliamentary level the better it will be for this country as a whole. There is really not very much in the speech from the throne for this session. I suppose that after the debate on the address is over a couple of weeks would be sufficient to clean up all the legislation set out in the speech from the throne. Maybe that is what the government intends, that we will be here for a couple of weeks and then go home for the election, but there are indications that we are going to stay here until close to Easter.
Therefore I suggest that if the government is not prepared on its own to bring in a substantial increase in the old age pension it should do what was done in 1950 and appoint immediately a special committee of this house to consider the whole question of old age pensions to see if what some of us are saying is not the proper course, namely that the universal pension now paid under old age security should be increased to a figure of $65 a month or more and made payable at age 65 years, and that in addition to that there should be established a comprehensive national industrial pension plan so that all pension plans of workers and others in the country could be integrated on a contributory basis, so the funds invested in that way could be controlled for the good of the country, and so we might look forward to the provision of decent and dignified retirement for our senior citizens instead of the mere pittance that they now have to keep themselves alive.

This issue is one of deep importance. I feel, as do many members of this group, that it is a matter of great regret that the government has shown by its barren speech from the throne that it thinks it has the election won so why disturb it; that they just have to sit back and let things go their own way. They may have to have another thought about that, but even if it were true that the government stands to win the next election, what sort of leadership is it to sit back and do nothing because you are not being pressed by political considerations. If that is what the government wants, if it wants pressure and prodding and the fear of defeat in order to provide action on this issue we will do our best to give that to them because we believe the people of Canada are entitled at this time to a substantial increase in the old age pension that is now paid and that they are entitled at this time to a consideration of this whole question proposed by Mr. Jodoin and the Canadian Labour Congress of a national pension plan which my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), and others of us have been proposing in this house for many years.
I urge this question of old age pensions as strongly as I can because it seems to me that the lethargy of the government, feeling that it did something back in 1950 and 1951, does not meet the wishes or the thinking of the Canadian people. This concerns not onlj the senior citizens themselves but younger people who have concern for them and who are thinking about their own futures. They realize that when a country can boast of a $29 billion or $30 billion gross national production, when a country is pictured in the Gordon report as going to have a production of $76 billion by 1980, it is not being decent, it is not being sensible, it is not being humane when it gives such a short end of the stick to our senior citizens.
Not only is the government showing its indifference to the wishes and needs of the people by its failure to act in this field of old age pensions, it is also highly noticeable, as my leader and others have pointed out, that there is no reference in the speech from the throne to the question of health insurance. Hon. members will recall the great fanfare we had last year. Of course the leader of that fanfare is not here at the moment to keep it going but I understand he will be back in a few days. I refer to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). A year ago we had a conference attended by the provincial representatives which the minister said was one of the finest conferences they had ever had.

He sat back for a while and then a proposition was made but attached to the proposition was a condition that it would be put into effect only if a substantial majority of the provinces representing a substantial majority of the population of Canada agreed to it.
That meant that there had to be agreement by six provinces, and that either Ontario or Quebec had to be included in those six. We pointed out at the time that the plan, although a step in the right direction, and despite of the shortcomings of its coverage, did not make a sufficiently attractive offer to the provinces to ensure that six would agree. We have had a year and only three, namely the three western provinces, have agreed to the plan. My own province of Manitoba, which has the only Liberal government in the country west of those which border on the Atlantic ocean, has virtually said that it will not have anything to do with the plan. No Liberal government in Canada has shown any interest in it to the point of indicating it would agree. No other governments have come in and it begins to look as though the plan is virtually dead.
I say to the government that if they were acting in good faith a year ago when they were talking about health insurance they should realize that a year having gone by with only three provinces agreeing the time has come when they should review the proposition and improve and revise the offer so that they can get six provinces to agree. In fact, that is what I looked for in the speech from the throne. After all an election is coming and a pre-election speech from the throne usually pays some attention to the wishes and needs of the Canadian people.
Here is a field, like that of old age pensions, where the needs of the Canadian people are very great, particularly so just now when hospital and medical costs are going up and when increases are reflected in increases in the Blue Cross and other medical plan payments. Things are getting to the point where despite our prosperity, of which the government of this country boasts, the basic care of health is something that is being rationed to our people by their purse. We are not getting the full advantage of medical science or of the money being spent on hospital construction and in other ways.
It all awaits a plan to make these things financially possible for the Canadian people. It all awaits a plan of health insurance. We feel that any plan of health insurance should be comprehensive and include not only hospitalization but medical, dental and optical care. It should include sickness benefits when the bread-winner is out of work. That is our
The Address-Mr. Knowles objective. Nevertheless, we admit that it is a good thing to get started. On that basis we admit that the proposal made by the government last year for national hospitalization insurance was a step in the right direction.
I am sure that the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) who is paying me the honour of listening to what I am saying, will agree with me that it is now obvious that the terms of last year's proposal were not attractive enough. A sufficient number of provinces have not agreed. If there is any sincerity and validity to the 38-year old interest in health insurance evinced by the Liberal party that should be indicated now by increasing the offer to the provinces so that six of them will come in and we can get health insurance started.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe my 40 minutes had just about expired when the house rose for lunch. I had hoped that by this time the government would be in a position to announce the settlement of the strike. No minister has risen in his place to make such an announcement and I assume that the government is not yet ready to do so. I am sure we all hope such an announcement will be made before the house rises at six o'clock. Indeed, if a settlement is not reached very soon on what I might call the basis of the first point in our proposal of the other day, namely, a request to both parties that they resume operations leaving the diesel question to be settled later, the government may have to consider the second point of our proposal, namely taking over the C.P.R. and running it pending a settlement of that issue. Nevertheless, it is our hope that an announcement of a settlement can, as I said before, be made by the government before the house rises at six o'clock tonight.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just one further word on the two other subjects which I raised before lunch. It is our view and, we believe it is the opinion of a vast number of Canadian people, that action should be taken by the government at this session of parliament on the old age pension question and on the matter of national health insurance. We believe that the old age pension should be raised substantially now. We believe a national health insurance plan with provision for provincial participation should be put on the statute books now. We

The Address-Mr. Batten contend, indeed, that if the government fails in its responsibility in these two matters it should be dealt with by the people of Canada at election time giving it the treatment which such an irresponsible government should be given.


Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset join with the others who have preceded me in extending heartiest congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They have ably discharged their duties with, I am sure, credit to themselves and to the constituencies which they represent.
There are in the speech from the throne a number of items in which I am particularly interested but on this occasion I am going to confine my remarks to just one. May I refer to that section of the speech from the throne which deals with agriculture? It is proposed to recommend in the Senate the establishment of a committee to consider what should be done to make better use of land for agriculture and thus to contribute more effectively to the improvement of agricultural production and the incomes of those connected with it. I would hope that any such committee would take the view that the approach in any region should be made not only with a view to the percentage importance to the national income but also with regard to the value of the industry as a source of employment and to its importance in the economy of the region under study. I say that for this reason: the farm income of Newfoundland would be a very small percentage of the total farm income of all the provinces of Canada and the result is that if we were to approach the problem of agriculture in Newfoundland and to give it only the importance, percentagewise, that it has in the total national economy it would not receive the attention it deserves in the general economy of the province of Newfoundland and, in particular, the importance of the industry to the various regions where agriculture is carried out in Newfoundland.
As everybody knows, Newfoundland is not an agricultural province. We, like other parts of Canada, have our limitations; for example, we have a limitation of climate- our climate may in some respects not be such as to enable us to produce certain agricultural products which are produced in other parts of Canada. Nevertheless the limitation placed upon agriculture in Newfoundland is not such as to prevent, for example, poultry enterprises, livestock farming and root vegetable growing being carried out successfully.


We also have limitations with regard to soil. Our soil is mainly of the mineral variety. It has a high acid content and a low content of organic material. We do have some alluvial soil, found mostly in the areas surrounding the mouths of the rivers, particularly those flowing into the gulf of St. Lawrence. We have no large areas of heavy clay such as are found in some of the other provinces of Canada but there are, nevertheless, considerable areas, usually consisting of small acreages, where farming is being carried out very successfully, and these limitations of climate and soil to which I have referred are not such as would prohibit poultry enterprises, livestock farming and root vegetable farming. I believe the potential is such as to warrant sufficient attention to make it play a more important part in' the economy of the province than it has in the past or does now at the present time in its expanded state.
The growth of agriculture in Newfoundland has been very slow. In the early days following colonization, I believe I may say, no encouragement was given to (farming; it might even be more correct to say that settlement and the cultivation of the land were actually prohibited. It was not until 1813- over two centuries after the first days of colonization-that permission to lease land for agricultural purposes was granted, and it was only granted then on 30-year leases and on payment of an annual rent. Nine years later these rents were abolished and in 1825 Governor Cochrane, the first resident governor of Newfoundland, gave some impetus to agriculture within the province. However, it was not until 1878 that the government of Newfoundland formally identified itself with the development of agriculture.
There were other factors too which hindered the growth of agriculture in the island. First, the early settlers were fishermen accustomed to the ways of the sea. They were not farmers. Secondly, fishing was a very attractive industry while farming was a very unattractive industry. Lack of roads and large rivers on the coast where most of the settlement took place meant that most of the interior was inaccessible. Thus, for those who came to settle there it was necessary to have as soon as possible a stable export commodity. That stable export commodity could be found in the fishing industry very easily; it was unlikely to be found in the farming industry as it existed in Newfoundland at that time. Fishermen gradually recognized the importance of farming in their own economy and gradually a system of supplementary farming was developed. This means, of course, that attention was

The Address-Mr. Batten
given to the farming industry when the returns from the fishing industry were poor. No attention was given to the farming industry when the returns from the fishing industry were good. The history of supplementary farming has been that it is not a very consistent effort. In more recent times the development of other industries within the province has taken labour from not only the farming industry but also the fishing industry.
In the report of the royal commission on farming published in 1955 it is pointed out on page 29 that in 1921 there were 38,206 people engaged in some form of farming but only 3,227 of those were full-time farmers. In 1935 there were 39,808 people engaged in farming but only 4,226 were engaged in farming as a full-time occupation. In 1945 35,574 people were engaged in cultivating the land but only 2,809 of those could be considered as full-time farmers.
Since 1949 there has been a very marked and pronounced expansion in some types of farming and particularly in the poultry enterprise. I would say there are many reasons for this. One would be first of all the small amount of land required by this particular industry. Second, there was the growth of larger areas which served as markets for the produce from the poultry enterprise. Third, there was the improvement in the general welfare which enabled people to buy the produce of the poultry industry.
But one thing that had a very great effect upon the development of the poultry enterprise in Newfoundland was the feed grain freight assistance policy initiated by this government in 1941. If I may digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, over the last few years we have experienced successive increases in freight rates and these successive increases in freight rates are beginning to be felt very keenly both in the commercial and industrial life in Newfoundland. We, because we live on the fringe of this great country, have a long haul, and when there is an increase in freight rate based percentagewise it means that because we have a longer haul and therefore a larger amount of freight to be paid the people of Newfoundland will pay a higher increase than anybody else east of Ottawa.
On the other hand, we do not, for example, have the road systems and the trucking concerns that would enable us to offer any alternative to the present carriers now operating in Newfoundland which are, of course, the C.N.R. operating their rail line from Port aux Basques to St. John's and also operating the steamship services around the coast of Newfoundland. We have no alternative to these 82715-10
carriers and therefore whatever increase there happens to be in freight rates we just have to pay the shot.
I should like for a moment to look at the freight rates from, for example, the lakehead to one or two rail points in Newfoundland, and I take this particular route because I want to return to feed grains. Before January 30, 1956, a hundred-weight of freight shipped from the lakehead to Toronto cost 55 cents. On January 1 of this year, owing to the increase amounting to 11 per cent, people in Toronto are now paying 61 cents or an increase of 6 cents. This, as I said before, results from the 7 per cent increase authorized on June 18, 1956 by the board of transport commissioners which came into effect on July 3, and also by reason of the authority given by the board to the railways on December 17 for a further increase of 4 per cent, thus bringing freight rates to a level 11 per cent above those which prevailed on June 30, 1956. As a result of this, as I have just said, there is an increase of 6 cents per hundredweight or $1.20 per ton from the lakehead to Toronto.
Coming down to Corner Brook, Newfoundland, the increase is from $1.17 to $1.30 per hundredweight or 13 cents. Per ton the increase is from $23.40 to $26, or an increase of $2,60. In other words, the increase in the freight rate for a ton of freight from the lakehead to Corner Brook, Newfoundland, is three times as much as the increase in the case of the province of Ontario or near rail points in the province of Quebec.
These increases in freight rates become more significant when we are dealing with commodities which have been given some freight assistance as in the case of feed grains, for then the consignee must not only pay the increase in the freight rates based upon the freight but must also pay the increase based upon the percentage of the assistance. Let me give an example of exactly what I mean. Because of the feed grain freight assistance policy of the Department of Agriculture, all the maritime provinces, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, prior to June 30, 1956 received feed grains at a freight rate of $5 per ton to the consignee. The difference between the $5 and the actual cost of the freight was made up by this assistance policy.
But now with an 11 percent increase in the freight rate the freight rate on a ton of feed from the lakehead to Corner Brook, for example, has now been increased by $2.60 which means that we are now paying $7.60 where previously we paid $5. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the increase of 11 per



X38 HOUSE OF

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Nowlan cent in the freight rate has resulted in a 52 per cent increase in the actual freight paid by the consignee in Corner Brook. If we go farther along and take the town of St. John's we find that the recent increase of 11 per cent in freight rates has resulted in an actual increase to the consignee of 64 per cent.
I should like to say at this time that these feed grains are very important to Newfoundland not only in the poultry enterprise but also in the livestock industry and the lumber industry. May I respectfully suggest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) at this time that consideration be given to some form of corrective adjustment so that the inequalities now existing will not retard expansion in the industries concerned and so that they may continue to enjoy the advantages which they have received as a result of this policy.
Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, as usual at the commencement of a new speech in this debate one pays tribute to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Such tributes may sometimes be conventional but they are usually and almost always sincere. They certainly are in this case because I am sure the two hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the address in this debate acquitted themselves with distinction and deserve the congratulations of all members of the house.
This has been a rather unique session. In the few short days that we have been here, overhanging the atmosphere of the house, of course, has been the paramount national question of the settlement of the railway strike. In addition, we have seen certain historical events moving before us. We have seen the resignation as a member of this house of the leader of the political party to which I belong, one who I am sure all members will agree has served this house and his country with distinction, and the house is the poorer because of his resignation.
We have also read of the resignation of the prime minister of the United Kingdom. Within the last 48 hours we have seen unveiled here a memorial to a former Conservative leader, a former prime minister of this country. Hence, in the few short hours in which we have been sitting here much of political history has been enacted or dramatized before our eyes. Personally, I am extremely happy to have seen this memorial unveiled. It is something which I had advocated for some years in the past as, shall I say, the political descendant of


the gentleman in question. In the days in which he represented a Nova Scotia constituency redistribution had not taken the toll of the constituency which it since has taken and he was the member for Kings county which is part of my own constituency today.
I am sure all the people of Nova Scotia, particularly those of that county, appreciate the tributes which were paid to his memory and the memorial which has been erected to him on the grounds of this parliament building, where the services which he rendered to this country with such great distinction will be memorialized and, we trust, perpetuated, subject to atomic bombs, at least within the memory and the lifetime of any of us who are now serving in parliament or have any connection with the government of Canada.
As I said a moment ago, the one matter which is uppermost in our minds is the question of the strike. If it were not for that matter I do not think I would have trespassed on the time of the house on this occasion. There are many things which one could discuss. Perhaps it is rather discouraging, Mr. Speaker, when one goes back to the speeches that one has made on a similar occasion during the last six or seven years, to find how many matters one has suggested and to note that some of those problems are still before us.
However, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has stated, we are all hopeful that the strike will be settled within the next few hours. We have been waiting in anticipation of an announcement to that effect. The hon. member suggested that there was a great deal of intransigence on one side, namely, on the side of the management of the C.P.R. Naturally, we would not expect him to attribute any intransigence to the firemen. I think one can say quite fairly that his speech was, to a large extent, an apologia for the firemen's union or brotherhood. I have had the privilege and the pleasure of knowing many of those members personally. I come from a constituency which is served entirely by a wholly-owned subsidiary of the C.P.R. I know many of those firemen. No finer citizens live in this country than the firemen in the employment of the Dominion Atlantic Railway and, I presume, generally in the employment of the C.P.R. We know that they are not the type who would wilfully promote trouble or wilfully attempt to wreck the economy of this country. Yet there is at stake a larger issue than that. We have that constituency today,

The Address-Mr. Nowlan
as I said, which is wholly served by this C.P.R. subsidiary, with the exception of one station, completely tied up, with not a wheel moving on the railroads except in the town of Middleton where a branch of the Canadian National runs from the constituency of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) right across into the valley and possibly as a last resort fuel and supplies could be brought in there to avert a disaster.
But at the moment we are dependent to a substantial extent on the apple industry. Having harvested the apple crop, having had it packed, having had negotiations with the government of Great Britain, many of our shipments having been made to Great Britain but many to be made in January and February and that is the situation now. We have tens of thousands of boxes of apples headed to the British market which we cannot move. I can understand the complaints, the worries of our friends from the west where a similar situation confronts the wheat grower; but at least wheat will keep. Under the aegis of this government they have had to keep the wheat for a long while now and they will probably have to keep it for a while longer yet. But you cannot keep apples indefinitely. Steamship space has been bought. Steamers have been coming into Halifax with space booked which we could not fill.
You cannot truck those apples because, with subzero temperatures, it is impossible to transport them in that way at this time of year. They must go in reefer cars. The reefer cars are immobilized. The whole fruit industry of the valley is affected, I was going to say, but of course not all of it is affected because substantial marketings were made in October, November and December. However, a substantial part of it is now completely tied up. If these apples cannot be moved within the next few days the fruit industry will suffer as bad a blow as it suffered last year because of the glut, when the market went completely to pieces and apples could not be sold. Hence our people down there feel that this government must exercise leadership in this matter and must achieve a solution and do so rapidly.
If my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is correct when he says there is intransigence on the one side, may I say in parenthesis that I have been involved in litigation and in disputes for a period of thirty years and I have never seen any one side have a monopoly on intransigence. Usually it is divided between the two sides to a certain extent. But if there is intransigence it is the duty of this government to solve the problem and to deal with it and 82715-10i
not to wait idly by piously hoping that something will happen whereby it will be unnecessary to take any action whatsoever.
I was brought up in a pioneering economy. I was born away out in the rural area of Digby county. As a little boy I used to go out to the sugar grove with my mother where they were boiling maple sap and making it into maple sugar. I remember her instructing me as to how it should be done. You had to get the syrup to a certain temperature. You had to get it hot enough and yet you had to have the snow cold enough so that when you brought the two together you could get a fusion of some kind and thereby you could manufacture maple sugar. I sometimes think this government has been waiting idly by, hoping that the temperature would get hot enough on the outside with public opinion and yet get cold enough on the inside so that by simply standing by and waiting they may jell something into maple syrup or maple sugar and thereby achieve settlement of the strike. That, Mr. Speaker, is not national leadership.
At least in so far as the part of the country from which I come is concerned, I could bring to this house and could read them to you, if you would permit me to do so, a stack of telegrams-forty or fifty of them- from boards of trade, mayors of towns, gentlemen who are well known to the Minister of Public Works, all saying one thing. They did not say what the hon. member for Charlotte read. Apparently they have more confidence in him as a member than my constituents have in me because he told us this morning that the telegrams told him to do something. My telegrams said: Tell the government to do something; we want the government to do something and that is what we need. If the prognostications are correct, and if within the next few hours a settlement can be negotiated, well and good. But if it cannot be negotiated, the economy of this country, at least that of the part of the country from which I come, will be injured. I have spoken particularly of the apple industry and the same thing could be said of the scallop fishermen. This is their season. This is the season in which scallops are being brought ashore every day. What can they do with them? Under normal circumstances they could perhaps run them across the bay of Fundy in their boats and ship them from Saint John. But as the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) pointed out yesterday, Saint John is tied up. If they are going to ship them out of there, they have got to send them on ships to Saint John, Moncton and around a circuitous

The Address-Mr. Nowlan route into the markets of New England, Quebec or Ontario. The whole industry of that area has been brought to a full stop. The gypsum plant just outside my constituency had 800 men laid off because gypsum is moved by rail to the shipping point and there is no rail transportation. One could go on and on. I know this is the common story in many constituencies in this country, but I think perhaps we are harder hit because of our dependence upon this one railroad.
Wherever the fault may be, I have found the management of that company has always been considerate and has been desirous of serving the public interest. I know, too, that the employees are amongst the better citizens we have in this country. You cannot tell me, sir, that with action, with leadership, and if necessary some pressure, you could not achieve a result whereby this railroad could be put back into operation in the very near future. If it is not, then we are going to suffer an economic blow which will have repercussions for many years to come, and certainly it is going to have repercussions in the political field within the next few months.
In the particular area from which I come-[DOT] perhaps that is why we are more impatient in these matters-for weeks and months last summer and last fall we suffered a strike tying up the steamship system of the C.P.R. Wherever the intransigence may be now, there was no intransigence on the part of management in connection with that strike. Management was ready and willing at all times to start operation of that ship, but it could not be done. We have suffered two of these economic blows within the last nine months. In both of these cases it is felt that the government of this country has not given the leadership and the direction which is required. The people are asking for it, and I am urging it now. I say that the time has come when you had better stop waiting for the maple syrup to jell. You have to do some stirring yourself and not wait for the pot to boil over naturally as this government has been doing for the last eight or nine days. The sands have run out of the hourglass in so far as that thing is concerned.
Speaking of transportation, Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of another matter that the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) was discussing a few moments ago, the feed grain subvention policy of this government and the effect of freight rates upon that. I subscribe to all that he said. I have urged for years that this government make a permanent part of its policy the maintenance of the freight rate subvention on the movement of feed grains. Even up to today

our farmers do not know from one six-months period to another whether or not that is going to be maintained or be discontinued. Surely, the time has come when it should be made a permanent part of our economy. It should be written into the statutes. We should not be dependent upon the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) bringing into his main estimates a vote for the first six months of the year and then having to wait for the supplementary estimates at the end of the year to find out whether or not we are going to pay for what went on from July to the end of the year. The party to which I belong, in a convention the other day, passed as one of its planks a resolution to the effect this policy should be made a permanent part of our economy.
I raise this matter in connection with the hon. member for Humber-St. George's for another reason and that is that we have before us today this preliminary report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. In this report there is a reference to the Maritime Freight Rates Act. I am reading from page 101 where at the bottom of the page we find this:
The commission suggests that this should be the subject of a special inquiry which should also include in its terms of reference a re-examination of the present effects of the Maritime Freight Rates Act.
One does not have to stress this matter of freight rates in this chamber, and certainly those of us from the maritime provinces do not have to do it. I believe I have spoken on this subject on every occasion on the address in reply to the speech from the throne since I first came into this house in 1949. Up to the present time, nothing has been done with respect to this matter. During recent months the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said, I am waiting for recommendations from the premiers of the maritime provinces. When they make specific recommendations, we will be prepared to deal with them. Personally I think, not speaking critically, that is evasive action. You have four premiers, and if they cannot agree then the Prime Minister can say we will wait until you get unanimity. Along comes an election and you can always be waiting for reports from the premier; then you get by that election and you do not have to worry any more about the matter for four years. This matter has been treated in that way. The government has said, we are waiting for specific recommendations and when we get them we are prepared to deal with them.
The premier of New Brunswick has made a specific recommendation, and that is that the maritime freight rates be considered and

that the act be redrafted and brought up to date. The former premier of Nova Scotia, Mr. Hicks, urged the same thing. He came up in July to see the Prime Minister about this, or so he said during the election and I have no reason to doubt that he did. The Prime Minister said that of course we have to wait until we get the report of the Gordon commission. Now, you have got it. The present premier of Nova Scotia has made the same recommendation. I have urged it year in and year out in this house. The hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) and every other maritime member of the House of Commons, regardless of his party, has urged it. Now, you have this report. Let us not have any more delay on the subject of these maritime freight rates. The time for excuses has gone by in so far as this government is concerned. They have to take action with respect to it.
You know the story of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, which was passed thirty years ago. Why was it passed? It was passed because the situation in the maritimes with respect to freight rates was so serious, so disastrous, the government of the day said something had to be done about it. They appointed a commission which made an investigation and as a result we have the act. Naturally, it did not remove all the difficulties. One cannot expect legislation to do that, but it was of material assistance to the economy of the maritime provinces. As the years have gone by, with increasing horizontal freight rate adjustments, with all the incidence of truck transportation and the rest of it every benefit-at least let us say this, Mr. Speaker, 98 per cent of benefits we receive from the Maritime Freight Rates Act have been wiped out. This situation has been in existence for some years and has been aggravated by the recent increases, as I have said. We have urged that some action be taken. We have been referred to the premiers; we have been referred to the Gordon commission; we have been told to wait and see, as Asquith said in Britain many years ago, and you know what happened to Mr. Asquith, Mr. Speaker. The time for waiting and seeing has gone by. You have definite recommendations from this commission that the Maritime Freight Rates Act be dealt with and that it is vital to our economy that that be done. I do not think it involves even the appointment of a royal commission.
We in the maritime provinces have the maritime transportation commission, financed by the provincial governments and employing experts, men who know their work and know
The Address-Mr. Nowlan the problems. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) has expert officials in his department. I have not any doubt if these two groups got together for a period of two weeks or ten days, no longer than it has taken us to settle the strike, if it is settled, these parties could agree on the terms of a bill which would, in large measure, restore the economy of the maritime provinces in so far as it is affected and prejudiced by freight rates. I urge this government to do that, and do it now, not wait until after the elections or wait and see what the premiers of those provinces may do. Let us get action on it and get action in the very near future.
Now, so much for matters in which I urge action. Perhaps in fairness one should comment on this as well. I have been very happy during the last few weeks to see the Minister of Transport has inaugurated a system whereby he is imposing lower rates on truck transportation on the motor vessel Bluenose crossing from Yarmouth to Bar Harbor. I have been urging this for the last two years, and I am glad to see that the government has brought that into effect. I hope that the results which will be achieved by that will be such as to encourage the government to carry on that practice in the future. I am glad to see that the Prime Minister noted the recommendation made in this house with respect to university grants. Although it is only an approach to the problem, although as we all realize much more must be done, it is a start. I think the problem of the universities, like the problem of the maritime provinces, is one which is going to be before this house for many years to come. These problems have to be solved, but at least the government in making the grants available direct to the universities-I am not speaking now of the capital grants but the reallocation of the per capita grant per student-will have gone a considerable distance in alleviating the discrimination from which the maritime universities have suffered under the inflexible system which was in effect before. I commend the government for that. As I said, it is only a beginning in the right direction.
The other day the Prime Minister spoke of his conversation with the president of the United States when he had the humpty-dumpty ride over the golf course, the rickshaw ride, and he told us of the progress which was made with respect to fisheries, and that the president of the United States had decided not to impose a tariff on Canadian fish. I wish he would tell us now of his conversation with the president, or whether he had a conversation, with respect to the 12-mile limit and the recommendation which our government has made. We on this side of the house

The Address-Mr. Nowlan have urged in the eight years that I have been in the house that the 12-mile limit be extended for the benefit of the fishermen. We know that representations have been made through the United Nations; we know we need the support of the United States if it is to be carried into effect. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair intimated when his estimates were before the house last spring that he was a little bit doubtful as to the support that the proposal might get from the government of the United States, and I had hoped that the Prime Minister would be able to tell us that he also had time when he was getting on and off that go-cart during the day to talk to the president of the United States about the 12-mile limit, and that we can be told before this session is over that we can have legislation with respect to it, and that the matter will be settled once and for all.
Although the speech from the throne makes reference to some assistance to fishermen- and that is necessary-I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that on the east coast at least, and it is the only coast I know, there is no assistance that is more material to our inshore fishermen that can possibly be given than the inauguration of the 12-mile limit. Time for action has come with respect to this matter. The hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) this morning talked about the Passamaquoddy and said that he had urged the development of the Passamaquoddy. No doubt he has. What has the government done about it? He said it was the solution of our problems. We have talked about the Passamaquoddy in this House of Commons, Mr. Speaker. It was talked about 50 years before I came here and I fear that it will be talked about for another 50 years. In the maritimes we want some action. You can have pious platitudes; you can have the laying on of hands and the kissing of children; you can have all of these things for a long while, but in the end you need to get something done. In the maritimes we have had too many pious platitudes and too little action. The time has come when we must get action in that respect.
Since I speak of the maritimes, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to a doleful report. This report refers euphemistically to the Atlantic provinces. Those from the Atlantic provinces who read this report, Mr. Speaker, will thank God that it came after Christmas rather than before because if it had come before Christmas it certainly would have spoiled the Christmas atmosphere and their appetites for Christmas dinner. What is the solution of the problems of the maritime


provinces as foreseen by this report? They refer to the difficulties and they say:
But despite these qualifications, the fact remains that living standards are lower in the Atlantic provinces than they are in the rest of Canada, and that it is in everyone's interest to reduce this differential if it is at all possible to do so.
Did you ever see a greater atmosphere of resignation or discouragement, Mr. Speaker? "If it is possible to do so" we are going to do something for these poor people down there to raise their standard of living and, if we cannot, what do they say, Mr. Speaker? They say:
If it should turn out that there is not the necessary combination of resources in sufficient quantities to permit a substantial rise in living standards in the Atlantic region, generous assistance should be given to those people who might wish to move to other parts of Canada where there may be greater opportunities.
In other words, we are going to have our travelling expenses paid, Mr. Speaker, out of the maritimes and be sent to some other place where we can settle down to greater opportunities. At least they are going to treat us as well as the Hungarians have been treated in getting us out of the maritime provinces. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that that would have a disastrous effect upon the rest of Canada. Where has Canada got its leadership throughout the years but from the maritime provinces where they have come for the heads of churches, state, banks and universities. If you move us out of the maritime provinces-


An hon. Member:: What about the west?


George Clyde Nowlan: Of course, in the meantime, we created the west and provided for the Diefenbakers and a few more. We started it. If you move us out of the maritimes, where are you going to get the men through whom the rest of Canada can develop? If for no other reason than that, you have to find a better solution of the problem.
I am told there are 65,000 words in the report, and of that number there are about 12J words of comfort for the maritime provinces. This is what we have been waiting for; this is the economic bible for which we have been waiting for years. Let us stop waiting; let us get some action. As I said, there is one solution suggested here. Dozens of other recommendations can be made and will be made during this session, Mr. Speaker.
I started to speak very briefly with respect to freight rates. The other afternoon I got the impression when the Prime Minister was taking his buggy ride and looking at the clock that he was waiting for four-thirty o'clock; that he was waiting for the zero hour, when he would announce that the strike

was settled. We received the impression that he was stalling in order to make the announcement. Probably we were over optimistic. I am not going to stall any longer. I cannot make the announcement. The announcement has to come from the other side of the house. They are probably working on it now. I say, if we get the announcement, well and good. If not, this government has got to give leadership and see that the matter is resolved within the next few hours.
(Translation):


Mr. Arthur Masse (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on the address, I have to inform my colleagues that I shall not delay the passing of the address, but as the speech from the throne contains a paragraph on agriculture, and as my county consists almost entirely of farmers, it is my duty to thank, and to give credit to, the government for its position with regard to them.
May I first be permitted to tender my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Ever since I have had the honour to represent the county of Kamouraska in this house, I have heard only criticism from the members opposite, or from the opposing parties. Yet, this government has been in power for more than twenty-one years and, if there is any truth in the saying vox populi vox dei, I believe the government still enjoys the confidence of the majority of our people.
I am not one of those who believe that everything is perfect in the administration of a country such as ours, but rather one of those who know that little mistakes will happen here and there. I am convinced that those who have been entrusted with the management of Canada have given of their best for the good of this country.
Today, I would like to give an outline, as accurate as possible, of the conditions in which the farmers of my constituency find themselves. They realize the merits of the efforts made by the government of this country to improve their condition through the enactment of such legislation as price support, subsidy on the transportation of feed grain and subsidies paid to farmers.
However the price of fertilizers bears no relation to the return our farmers get on certain products. In some parts of my constituency, agriculture alone does not provide sufficient income to enable a man to support his family and give his children an adequate education. Until now, the wood-lot has provided the needed supplement to agriculture to cover the purchase of mechanized farm equipment.
The Address-Mr. Masse To prove that all is not so bad in the field of agriculture, I shall quote figures taken from a book entitled "Taxation Statistics", published by the Department of National Revenue, Income Tax Division. Here are the
figures:		Farmers Paying
Report	Year	Income Tax1952	1950	3601953	1951	4301954	1952	5201955	1953	7501956	1954	860
The number of farmers paying income tax may seem small compared to those of other provinces but I do want to put on record a few figures showing the average income of the farmers of my constituency, particularly those who carry on farming operations as a family undertaking. The figures I shall quote are based on the average for 31 farmers who take part in agricultural contests and who keep books in perfect order. However the average applies to only 27 of them, data for the four others being incomplete. The income of each of these 27 farmers amounts to $1,454.15 in cash and $501.70 from products derived from the farm, making a total of $1,955.85.
These farmers are not necessarily those in the highest or lowest income brackets, but they make up a group fairly representative of the present situation.
These farms average 76 arpents in area and most of them are located in the estuary of the St. Lawrence. Some distance away from this plateau whose soil is rather rich, are the higher lands where the soil is poor. In that area the figures I have just mentioned should be reduced by 20 or 40 per cent. The revenue which I have just quoted is made up of family earnings, including the work of the mother and children.
It is therefore not surprising that the residents of our rural areas emigrate to the city where salaries are higher and hours of work shorter. On the other hand it is comforting to note that the Canadian government wishes to improve matters.
Here is what is said about this matter in the speech from the throne, I quote:
It is proposed to recommend in the Senate the establishment of a committee to consider what should be done to make better use of land for agriculture and thus to contribute more effectively to the improvement of agricultural production and the incomes of those engaged in it.
I would also like to read an article published by the Quebec Evenement-Journal of November 21, 1956. In this article may be found words said by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) at the Toronto Catholic social life conference. He said, with regard to the state of farms in Eastern Quebec:

The Address-Mr. Masse
I say that should not he continued because we are blessed by Providence in this country with such great and valuable resources that any man's consistent arduous work could and should provide him with adequate returns . . .
I am convinced that some of the land in Eastern Canada that hard working Canadians are trying to use as farms should go back to forest and water conservation uses and those attempting to live on them resettled in more rewarding surroundings.
I therefore suggest that it should be the urgent business of all levels of government as well as private enterprise, both individual and co-operative to see to it that agricultural production keeps up with our increase in population and thus provides the farming population with a fair share of the national income.
Two days later, the newspaper Le Soleil gave a more elaborate account of the Prime Minister's conference and added:
Under this scheme, the federal government would share with the provinces the cost of programs of irrigation, of soil conservation, of land clearing and of the settlement of farmers living on submarginal lands.
A little further on, the article added:
Mr. St. Laurent stated his conviction that a certain proportion of eastern lands which Canadians have attempted to farm should be reforested or used in water conservation projects. People who are trying to make a living on those farms, he added, should seek work in industries where their efforts would be more adequately rewarded.
For my part, I have repeatedly brought up this matter in the house, as I consider it of utmost importance for our farmers whose revenue would be inadequate if they could not make up for their agricultural deficits with income from their wood-lots. In my opinion, governments should seek the improvement of wood-lots.
There can be no doubt about the fact that our farmers' income is inadequate considering the amount of work they have to do. Up to now, the money required to wipe out agricultural deficits has come from wood-lots. Here is exactly what I said in this house on March 2, 1950, page 417 of Hansard. Speaking about the agricultural organizations of my constituency and more particularly about the experimental farm at Ste. Anne de la Poca-tiere, I said:
It seems to me that some wood lots should be added to the federal experimental farm and subjected to continuous study, in order that the forests which are adjuncts of the farms in my constituency, may be taken care of by our governments in the same way as agriculture.
Then I added:
May I make a recommendation? Federal and provincial authorities should co-operate in bringing wood lots under a forestry program so that all profitable wood lots may be used economically.
Also on January 13, 1955, I had this to say in this house:
To realize how much our forests contribute to agriculture in the lower Quebec area, one need only read publication No. 890 of the federal

Department of Agriculture. This pamphlet deals with wood lots on Ontario farms and, at page 22, it is indicated that on the 162 farms which were thoroughly investigated, production reached a total value of $516 per farm.
That is an indisputable proof that lumbering plays a capital role together with agriculture in regions such as ours, where forests cover about 75 per cent of the land, only 22 per cent being suitable for cultivation.
Those experiments have been conducted in the province of Ontario with the co-operation of the federal Department of Agriculture and of the Ontario government. I hope similar experiments will be undertaken in my province to show how necessary it is to complement farming through the use of a wood lot in most regions.
Mr. Speaker, our farms in eastern Quebec need the shelter of wind-breaks. Our steep slopes should be reforested against disastrous gullying and erosion. Trees are also needed to prevent water from running too fast down steep slopes which separate the various high lands. Could not the government of Canada supply the experimental farm of Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere with facilities for innovating in this field, because experimentation is not a matter for private enterprise but for governments, through their institutions, and our experimental farms are the sources of new achievements.
There is no better teaching than that acquired by looking at nature with our own eyes. Life is but the experience of others.
The establishment of a Senate committee to consider ways and means of making better use of land in eastern Quebec is an appropriate and courageous initiative on the part of the Prime Minister of Canada.
There is no doubt that certain areas should never have been farmed, for they could have yielded a higher return if they had been put to some other use.
A study of the development of agriculture in the lower St. Lawrence area indicates that the land was first cleared on the lower plateaux near the river, and then, with the increase in population, it was thought, with no idea of doing the wrong thing, that certain districts should be opened up which should have been left as they were or kept as wood lots. And conditions were made more difficult when parishes were founded and when certain institutions had been in existence for a long time. That is why I admire the spirited approach of the Canadian government in putting forward a program such as this.
Let us also keep in mind that a small bare rock on a farm presents a deplorable aspect to the traveller. On the other hand, a clump of variegated trees offers that same thirsty traveller a resting-place and brings revenue to the landowner.
It was I believe a prime minister of Canada, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said: "the heart

The Address-Mr. Hansell
of a nation is in the depth of its forests; a people without forests is a dying people."
I believe that the initiative rests with the Prime Minister of Canada to implement Sir Wilfrid Laurier's words and to give back to the forests the parts which were removed from them temporarily.
That is why we should seek to improve the conditions of lumber production on the Quebec farms, specially because the forest protects the tillable land, regulates the flow of rivers and constitutes a water reserve in times of drought.
In the early days of the colony, the tree was an enemy because room had to be made for the vigorous pioneers. Today, when a tree is felled, two other trees should be planted to restore the balance between forests and tillable land.
I hope that the committee to be set by the government will succeed in drawing people's attention to this matter so that the responsibilities of each and everyone of us may be well distributed.
Mr. Speaker, I trust I may be allowed to say a few words on behalf of our large families, with regard to income tax. If we look at the exemption allowed a childless married couple, we see that both are entitled to one thousand dollars. A man and a woman with one child aged less than sixteen years are entitled to an exemption of $2,150, to which we must add family allowance, that is $80 to obtain a total of $2,230, that is $743 per person. A man and woman with ten children aged less than sixteen years enjoy an exemption of $3,500. The family allowance being added to this figure, we obtain the total sum of $4,460, that is $372 per person.
It seems to me that departmental experts should look into the matter in order to protect our large families. Care and education generally require large sums of money. I respectfully submit these comments to the attention of the hon. Minister of National Revenue and the hon. Minister of Finance.
The few remarks I made were not intended as a criticism, but rather as a loyal service to those who asked me to represent them in this house and to all our fellow-citizens. (Text):


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words, and at the commencement of my speech I intend to follow the tradition of offering congratulations. While we may not always agree with the material contained in the speeches given by the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address, yet we do congratulate them upon having been the ones
chosen by the government party to move and second what we consider as His Excellency's most gracious speech.
I wish also at this time to congratulate the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) upon his election to the leadership of his party. I of course had no summons from the party, so I was not a registered delegate at their recent conference; but in quite a real sense I was there because we live now in a day when conventions can be brought right into our homes through the medium of television and radio. I sat and listened to part of the proceedings of that convention. Of course it was at first debatable who might get the leadership of the Conservative party, and the reason I am mentioning this is that one does not sit in this house for as long as some of us have, especially if we hold some little responsibility in the parties to which we belong, without being interested in any progress that might be made or any changes that might be made in the other political parties in the country.
I was, therefore, naturally interested as to who might lead the Conservative party. My opinion all along was that the hon. member for Prince Albert would be that gentleman. As I listened to the radio and as I viewed part of the convention by means of television I could not help but feel that there was a good deal of showmanship in respect to the convention; that it was, in reality, quite a circus. That is quite natural, I suppose. Whether or not the results of the convention will accomplish very much for Canada still remains to be seen. I remember reading an article in connection with that convention the title of which rather fascinated me. It was, "The Conservatives Whoop it Up- Tories Let Down Their Hair at Leadership Meeting." This, Mr. Speaker was from the Calgary Herald, which has always been a Conservative paper. The article told how the Conservative supporters rallied round Mr. Diefenbaker, and here is a paragraph which I would like to read because it does show that a certain showmanship is characteristic of these functions. They would not, of course, be interesting if there were not some element of that kind present. The article reads:
Led by a group of troubadours providing an accompaniment of accordion music Mr. Diefenbaker's supporters marched into the hall singing the Diefenbaker song to the tune of "Coming Through the Rye". This is the way it went:
Diefenbaker, Diefenbaker, Diefenbaker, yea,
He will lead us on to victory on election day.


Mr. Fulton:: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: John's the man who'll get them swinging, swinging back our way,
It's Diefenbaker, Diefenbaker, Diefenbaker, yea.
146	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hansell


An hon. Member:: You should sing it.


Ernest George Hansell: I congratulate the hon. gentleman on his election. He is a good man; he is an honest man; he is a man, I think, of undisputed integrity. We would all agree that he is a man of some considerable ability in his profession and that he is also a man of some considerable ability in this house, but I wish to repeat what the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) said yesterday. He is, in reality, in a most unenviable position.
I have sometimes said that one of the easiest ways to destroy a political leader is to make him leader of the official opposition. Some of us have sat here a good many years; some of us in this corner of the house are now in our twenty-second year. We have watched leaders come and we have watched them go by the process of destruction. We sat here during part of the leadership of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, perhaps one of the most capable parliamentarians who ever came to the House of Commons in Canada. He is gone. He resigned the party leadership. He was followed by another capable man, a very respected man, Hon. Mr. Manion, who was defeated at the polls. Mr. Manion was followed, not in the party leadership but in the house leadership by another capable man, Mr. Hanson, and Mr. Hanson was followed in turn by a further very capable man, Mr. Graydon. Both led the party in this house, but the party was leaderless as far as a national leader was concerned, and they searched the four corners of the earth to find a man who could lead the Conservatives back to victory.
The lot fell upon another very able and hon. gentleman, Mr. Bracken by name, who had been Premier of Manitoba for many years. He came to the party with one proviso, that they should put the word "Progressive" in front of their name. He came into this house with high hopes of steering the party through to victory in an election, but eventually he resigned. They searched the four quarters of the earth again for someone who was honourable and capable enough to lead them back to a glorious victory. This time they chose none other than the gentleman who had been the premier of the province of Ontario, Mr. Drew. He came into this house with high hopes, and he contributed considerably to the value of debate. But Mr. Drew also went the way of all Conservative flesh and eventually had to resign.
I say once again that we who have sat in this corner of the house have seen six house leaders come and go. Now there is a seventh. I say once again that the present 

Leader of the Opposition is a good man, an honest man, a man of great integrity, a man of ability in his profession. I sound as though I am preaching a funeral sermon. We usually attempt to eulogize the dead. The present leader of the Conservative party is a 'long, long way from being dead.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is the atmosphere you breathe in your party that gives you that outlook.


Ernest George Hansell: I am accustomed to burying people and I should like to bury a few more. However, I say that he is in a most unenviable position. A man came to me on the streets of my own village when all the hullabaloo was taking place with respect to the leadership and he said, "What do you think of this man Diefenbaker?" "O," I said, "he is a very fine and excellent gentleman."
I do not know what atmosphere I breathe, but I will tell my hon. friend that when I am out in the country I never ridicule one of my colleagues. I never try to destroy him. I am telling my hon. friend what the picture is and what to expect.


Mr. Dufresne:: That is what you think.


Ernest George Hansell: I said to my friend who stopped me on the street, "He is a very honourable and capable man, why do you ask me that question? Where did this man come from? For all that I have heard in the recent past you would think he came from some other world. Has it never occurred to you that he has been here all the time, that he has been one of the most capable men in the Conservative party, that the Conservative party has always had at its disposal the advice of this man? The thing I would like to know is whether he is bringing any new policies with him. Can he present any concrete alternative that the people can grasp and go forward to something bigger and greater, something that will give the people of this country greater contentment and satisfaction?"
That is the thing that makes political parties successful. Unless a political party has concrete policies, unless it can present alternative policies that will appeal to the people as something new and better than what they have today, then all the individuals rolled into one will not lead this country on to greater things. I would not say too much about this except for the fact that I have heard a good deal lately about the possibility of some sort of coalition between the Conservatives and Social Crediters. The word has been modified. It is said that certain statements have been misunderstood, that all the new 'leader of the Conservative party is doing is to appeal to the supporters of splinter groups to come over to them and

lend them their support. To do what? To put this government out. They say, "Come to us; support us in putting this government out, because we are the only other party in the country who can possibly form a new government."


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That is right.


Ernest George Hansell: Let me point out two errors in that sort of reasoning. Who said they were the only other party in this country that could possibly form a government? Nobody knows that. Any party that can nominate and elect enough candidates can form a new government in Canada. That is one error. What I would call the second error in that reasoning is this. Are we to be told that the objective of the Conservative party is to put the government out?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: And form a better one.


Ernest George Hansell: That is not what was said when they were talking about coalition, when they were bidding for the support of those who support the splinter parties. If the objective is to put this government out then it is a negative objective. Of course you cannot form a new government without putting the old one out but we do not go throughout this country with that sort of objective. When we go across this country we do so with an alternative suggestion. We attempt to enlighten the people with respect to what we believe is a way of life, a change in basic policies; and presenting this in constructive fashion we say, "Is this what you want?"
I am going to make a prediction, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps someone will read back to me what 1 have said after the next election. They may pick up Hansard, read it back to me and say that my predictions were all wrong. Somebody is bound to if they are wrong. If they are right perhaps we will hear nothing about them. I predict that the result of the next election will not see the Conservative party sitting on the government side of the house. I go further than that. I will particularize my prediction. I predict that the Conservative party will come back here with fewer members west of the great lakes.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The best joke we ever heard.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Canada's No. 1 wishful
thinker.


Ernest George Hansell: If this best joke is in Hansard I may pick up Hansard in 1957 and read it back to see if it is a joke.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You will find that it is.


Ernest George Hansell: I will predict this, if I may
The Address-Mr. Hansell particularize. Let us take a look at the province of Saskatchewan from which the Leader of the Opposition comes. I will make this prediction. If he is elected-and he might be elected; it is conceivable to think that he might be elected-he will ne the only Conservative member coming back here from Saskatchewan after the next election. I will go to my own province of Alberta, where the Conservatives now have two seats. It is conceivable that they may return two members. It is also conceivable that their membership will be cut in half, because all they need to do is lose one member in order to achieve that result. However, I shall be a bit magnanimous in my prediction there. I will predict that after the next election they will not come back with any more than two members from Alberta. I will go to British Columbia and I will make this prediction. I will predict that they come back here with fewer members from British Columbia than they have now. I am not prepared to predict too much about Manitoba. However, I will predict that they will not come back with any greater number from the province of Manitoba. If my predictions prove to be correct and if they come back here with fewer members from west of the great lakes, then how on earth do they ever think they will form a government from the rest of Canada?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Your predictions are not
correct.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, once again I wish to say that I have the greatest respect for the new leader of the Conservative party. A little while ago I said that one of the best ways to destroy a political leader was to make him leader of the official opposition. Politics sometimes plays tricks. As to our own party, let me say this. I should like to see-and perhaps I shall-a little game of leap-frog that we sometimes play, whereby we leap over all the rest of the parties and leap from a third party to the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ernest George Hansell: Of course I knew that somebody would smile at that statement, but let me tell hon. members that it has happened twice in Canada in recent years. In 1935 in the province of Alberta we did not have one legislator sitting in the legislature. We jumped from nothing. We leap-frogged over all the other parties and formed a government.
A few years later almost the same thing happened in British Columbia. We started with a nucleus of Social Credit support. When the campaign started out the C.C.F., the Liberals and the Conservatives were

The Address

Mr. Hansell fighting one another. The campaign got under way and they began to discover that there was quite a surge toward us, about three weeks to a month into the election campaign-a few weeks on-until about two weeks before election day, when they stopped fighting one another and trained their guns on us. Why should they do that if we were so inconsequential? However, they did it. We played leap-frog again and we jumped from nothing into the government. My friends can smile but it happened twice before. It is conceivable that it could happen once again.
I say that the leader of any opposition in any parliament in Canada is just like the proverbial coconut at the country fair: three chances for a dime or eight for a quarter. There he sits, the object of attack. Unless he can come clean with some definite alternative that can be presented to the people and that will capture their imagination, unless he has something to propose that will eclipse anything else, he goes down as a failure and the party remains in opposition.
One thing about which we are extremely proud in our party, Mr. Speaker, is that we have an alternative. Oh, you may not believe in it. You may say that it is all haywire. You may say that we are a lot of crackpots. But be that as it may, one thing you will not say is that we have not the ability to present an alternative in basic and fundamental policy; and when I speak of an alternative policy I do not mean a paint shop or a repair job. If something is fundamentally wrong with the combustion engine there is no use in saying we will change the tires. That procedure is no good, but that is the game our Conservative friends are playing. They say, "We will pursue a taxation policy, all right, but we will tax somebody else instead of somebody else. We will readjust the taxation. Oh, yes; we will pay bigger old age pensions, bigger this or bigger that." But if you ask them the question, "Where are you going to get the money from?" the answer you get is, "We will reduce our taxation."
Let us look at that picture. It is as plain as day. You must get the money if you are going to spend it. If it comes from taxation, then you must get more in taxation if you spend more money. It does not take even a grade 3 schoolboy to figure out that proposition. Have they any alternative suggestion? Have they any alternative basic policy?
The Social Credit organization for real political and economic democracy is, I may say, on the rise in Canada today. Two

provincial governments-those of Alberta and British Columbia-are Social Credit governments. These two governments have so administered the affairs of those provinces that they are two of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest, provinces in Canada today. The people of the other provinces have taken note of this progress and have set up Social Credit organizations right across this country.


Mr. Campbell:: How did the wealth get there, in those two provinces?


Ernest George Hansell: The wealth has been there all the time, even with previous administrations. It is for that reason I say that when the Social Credit government took over in the hungry thirties things began to move because of wise policies.


Mr. Blackmore:: Honest policies.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, honest policies. Another reason for the spread of Social Credit throughout Canada is that once people realize the basic principles for which we stand they are gripped with a conviction that in Social Credit lies the great hope for a greater Canada with a happy and free people living in the economic security which our vast productive resources are able to give. Social Credit has developed in Canada into an active movement to free Canadians from the strangling dictatorship of the money power and political party machine rule, and to make the Canadian economy function in such a way as to give all people the economic justice which the enormous natural wealth of Canada is able to give. Social Credit is founded upon powerful and enduring principles which can never be destroyed.


Mr. Siuder:: We will settle for $25.


Ernest George Hansell: That old chestnut has been-


Irvin William Studer: Roasted.


Ernest George Hansell: -bandied around a great deal. It has been roasted by old age. Don't ever believe that the old, old story of $25 per month cannot be answered. We have answered it over and over again.


Irvin William Studer: The federal government can answer it, but not Social Credit.


John Horne Blackmore: Why doesn't it do it?


Ernest George Hansell: One of the great principles of Social Credit is that mankind was created to be free; that is an enduring principle. We claim that people are not to be regarded as the common herd to be pushed around at the whim of the masters. The very moment you do that you reduce mankind to the status of the beasts of the field.

The Address-Mr. Hansell


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why did you allow parliament to be pushed around during the session last spring? Why did you help push parliament around?


Ernest George Hansell: I should like to know why some people pushed Mr. Speaker around.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Ask the Minister of Finance; he is the man who did it.


John Horne Blackmore: Shame.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Supported by you.


Mr. Thomas:: The Tories do not like to be pushed around, that is the trouble.


Ernest George Hansell: Social Credit is based upon great moral principles and must not be regarded-this is one thing I want to point out-as it might be by some Canadian people who have a common conception that we are merely another political party.


Irvin William Studer: Hear, hear.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Have you a monopoly on that principle?


Ernest George Hansell: Social Credit is a way of life.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So is bigamy.


Ernest George Hansell: It is more than merely a political party. If there had been a party in Canada that would have formulated great basic principles and brought into operation the monetary reform policies which we are advocating and which would solve the problems of Canada, there would have been no need for a Social Credit party. The reason we exist is that other parties refuse to bring about these monetary reform policies that we claim will be the means of solving the economic problems which face Canada today.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: What Social Credit policies have you introduced in Alberta and British Columbia?


Ernest George Hansell: Oh, shut up.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the new way of life.


Ernest George Hansell: In the Social Credit movement we believe that all things were created for the benefit and progress of all mankind. We believe that man was given dominion over the whole earth, and that as he subdues it and through his expanding genius makes the earth yield an abundance of those good things of life, they should be distributed and made to bless all mankind.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me dwell on that for a moment. Is it not the strangest thing in the world that an abundance in Canada today produces a problem for this government? That is a problem for which Social Credit has the answer, because our monetary policies are applied to the distribution of abundance. We have been advocating that for many, many years. It is one thing to which this present administration blind their eyes and regard abundances as catastrophes.


Mr. Lesage:: No, no.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, they are not dealing
with them, anyway. Now, say "no, no" to that. They are frightened by an abundance; that is the strange thing. They fear some things that are good and proper.


Jean Lesage: We consider we are blessed with abundance.


Ernest George Hansell: I am going to say this, that the present administration fears peace.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean Lesage: That is ridiculous; you do not know what you are talking about.


Ernest George Hansell: It is not ridiculous. The one thing that is keeping the economy of this country going today is the cold war which necessitates the bolstering of our defences. If defence spending were to stop tomorrow we would be plunged into an abject depression. In that regard, this administration fear peace. This administration fear expansion, so they cut back credit and impose credit restrictions, thus preventing expansion.


Jean Lesage: Inflation.


Ernest George Hansell: My leader gave an answer to that the other day. Read his speech; that is all you have to do. This present government fear progress. I will tell you what they fear. They fear automation. They have not the answer to automation.


Mr. Eyre:: Nobody has.


Ernest George Hansell: That is the very thing for which we do have the answer because all our active proposals are designed to meet a power age where men and women who labour are displaced by the machines.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Too bad we
could not turn this thing off.


Ernest George Hansell: These good things we do not fear; these good things this present government fear, for which they have no answer. There are some things we in this group fear, Mr. Speaker. We fear the centralization of power that somehow or other does gradually by stealth take charge of the people of Canada. In order to keep men free the principle of decentralization must be adopted. We have to get back to the place where there is decentralization of power, with more
150	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Montgomery power put into the hands of local governments rather than centralized governments, and particularly a centralized government sitting here in Ottawa. I believe that is a principle which should be heeded throughout all our legislation, no matter what it is. For instance, the municipalities in this country are suffering.


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


Ernest George Hansell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was not aware that time was slipping by so quickly. I shall pursue the matter at some future time. Thank you very much.


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I am capable of doing it, but since the hon. member who has just folded his wings and sat down took us on a trip through the clouds, I should like to try to bring us back to earth.
Before I proceed with my main remarks I should like to join the other hon. members of my party in extending congratulations to my new leader. While it was a tragedy to lose a great Canadian, as Hon. George Drew, our former leader, was, nevertheless it was very interesting to learn that out of that tragedy and the events that followed one certain thing emerged, namely that the great Progressive Conservative party is a fighting and vital force in this country. It is on the march again; it is a national party. Regardless of what the last speaker said, Mr. Speaker, it is quite within the realm of possibility that it will form the next government of Canada under our new leader.
I also wish to join with my leader and other hon. members and express my sincere regrets at the loss of Hon. George Drew. Like other hon. members, I hope for his sake and that of Mrs. Drew that he shall have a full and complete restoration to health, because he is a great Canadian. Because of his experience, his knowledge and ability, with a complete restoration to health I am sure he will have a great contribution to make to the building of this nation and the country which he certainly loves.
Since I last spoke in this house and since the last general session we have lost two members of this party. I refer to the late Miss Sybil Bennett and Dr. Trainor. These two people contributed much not only to parliament but to the public service in general and also to their own communities, and we all regret their untimely passing. If I 

might be permitted to mention one other individual, I should like to pay my respects to a man who was born and lived all his life in my constituency. I refer to the late Senator Pirie, who passed on since parliament closed last year. He was a man who throughout his life gave a great many of his years to public service, first in our legislature where he *sat as an ordinary member and later on held the important portfolio of minister of lands and mines. He was one of the outstanding successful businessmen of the maritime provinces. If he was not the largest potato grower in the maritime provinces he was certainly one of them. He built up a great reputation for being a reliable shipper of seed stock potatoes; he was interested in manufacturing as well, and I know I speak for a large number of the citizens of my constituency when I say we certainly regret his passing at the early age at which he died.
Since it is the custom-but I should like to make it a little more sincere than that- I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Hanna) on his address. It was very interesting to listen to him and to learn that he comes from a province and city which are among the richest and fastest growing in Canada. After listening to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) one would almost think that all this rapid growth and richness came to the province and the city of the mover of the address as a result of their happening to have a Social Credit government. That is something I shall have to look into a little further to see which one of them deserves the most credit.
However, I would like to extend congratulations particularly to the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud), one of our own provincial representatives, who seconded the address. I think his remarks were well delivered and they will be well received. He acquitted himself well. He mentioned one or two things, and I certainly have no quarrel with him about them. In that connection I might say I was rather well pleased that the Prime Minister realized that in his large family he had a supporter from New Brunswick, because it has been quite a long time since we have been remembered. It may be that the Prime Minister also realizes it is just possible this is the last opportunity he will have of doing honour to a member from New Brunswick, at least for a while.

I now come to the speech from the throne. It is not a long document. There is not very much in it with which I intend to deal. A great deal of it has to do with foreign affairs, national and international policy, with which I would be incapable of dealing anyway. But there are one or two things in it to which I feel I can give my full support. The first one I should like to mention is the increased grants to universities. We shall have a bill coming before us which we shall be able to study to understand the method by which those grants will be administered. When this government, or any other government, is prepared to improve the educational system of this country it can depend on me for what little support I can give it. Our institutions of learning, the people in charge of them, our teachers, professors, and so on, who have charge of the youth of our land, are possibly the most important institutions and people to whom we can give consideration. They have a great deal to do with the moulding of the youth of our nation. This contact takes place in the formative years, when young people commence to consider what their outlook in life should be and prepare to make the important choices which will confront them. They should be taught in the educational institutions by the finest minds in the country in order to lead them into wise consideration of what would be the best form of government and administration in order to maintain in the country a great free democracy such as we enjoy today. Any support for universities and those connected with them is a thing for which this or any other government should receive applause.
I notice that another bill will be brought before us concerning the renewing on a revised and enlarged basis the federal program of grants to provincial governments in aid of technical and vocational training. This is something about which I have been talking for two years, and I am extremely pleased to see that the government is going to bring before the house this session a bill to revise and increase these grants.
I happen to have in my constituency a vocational school. Although it is not large it is one of the older schools in this country and the staff is very proud of it; indeed, all of us are proud of the graduates of that school. There is also an agricultural department connected with it, and graduates from
The Address-Mr. Montgomery the school are filling important positions today all across Canada. I do not have a list of them and I could not begin to name them all, but a few months ago the director named for me a group of young men who have graduated from the agricultural department of that vocational school and are holding important and challenging posts all across Canada in work dealing with agriculture in one or another of its aspects.
I would like to confine the main body of my remarks to my own province and constituency. Agriculture is the chief industry not only in my own constituency but in the province of New Brunswick, and lumbering comes next. These two industries affect our economic life more than any others, and I would like first to say a word about lumbering.
I was recently speaking to a young man who had been in the lumbering business with his father and later carried on the business in partnership with his brothers. In order to keep the record straight let me point out that he is not of the same political faith as I am, but he came to me because I am a member of parliament. In discussing the lumbering business he said to me, "This tight money policy, the restriction of credit and the actions of the Bank of Canada are making it very difficult for lumbermen". He continued, "When you get to Ottawa look into this matter, and waste no time in trying to impress upon those people down there that this tight money policy may be all right for Ontario or some of the other provinces but it is actually hurting us in New Brunswick, and especially those who operate small businesses".
I am passing that along through you, Mr. Speaker, to the government to show that complaints are being made concerning the restriction of credit and the high interest rates that have been imposed by the Bank of Canada, and that these are actually harming some of our small industries.
As I have said, agriculture is our prime industry in the province of New Brunswick, but as was pointed out by the hon. member for Gloucester when he was speaking the other day, mining is rapidly emerging as an important aspect of the industrial development of our province. This has come about through the expansion of our power resources which we launched upon in the last few years, and this expansion must be continued.

The Address-Mr. Montgomery
When the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) spoke he implied that many people in the province are opposing such developments as the Passamaquoddy project. I want to assure him and other hon. members that those members from New Brunswick with whom I have spoken are just as much interested in this project as is the hon. member for Charlotte. V7e are sincerely hoping that the surveys will indicate that it is a feasible project. I found it interesting that he should tell us in plain terms that if it was found to be feasible the federal government would back us in the development.
That came as good news to me. I do not know how much authority the hon. member has, but I will say this. The federal authorities could back us on this and similar power developments without it costing them a cent. We could then finance some of our bigger projects and save our people a great deal of money. In addition we would be able to sell our power at a more attractive price and thereby attract more small industry to the province.
In spite of all the things I have mentioned I think the people of New Brunswick generally have had a very good year. The spirit which now exists in the province is different from the spirit which prevailed a few years ago, and although our economy is not forging ahead it is more than holding its own among the other provinces of Canada. At the risk of being accused of boasting I am going to suggest that much of this has been brought about because of the fact that we have been assisted and encouraged and given new leadership by an able provincial administration which works as much as it can in full co-operation with the federal authorities.
I might point out that the federal government will never lose anything by giving fuller co-operation to the present administration in New Brunswick. I challenge any hon. member from New Brunswick to stand up in this house and say that the money which goes to New Brunswick is being used for political purposes. Such statements could not be supported because they are without truth or foundation; I know what I am talking about.
Our province like some other parts of the maritimes did lag behind for a number of years. We did not have the revenue to meet the demands which piled up, and the requirements are enormous in the fields of education, hospitalization and health. The province


can do only so much by itself. We have a province containing many roads and bridges, many of which have deteriorated or are in bad shape. These must be restored, repaired and replaced by new ones, and all this construction will take a tremendous toll of the revenue available to the province.
I wish now to pass on to another matter referred to in the speech from the throne. I refer to the establishment of a committee to consider what should be done to make better use of land for agriculture and thus to contribute more effectively to the improvement of agricultural production and the incomes of those engaged in it. I have no quarrel with this and I offer no particular criticism of it, but in listening to the Prime Minister's speech on this matter the other day I could not help but feel that at best this is a longterm project. From that standpoint I have no criticism to make, but the farmers of the maritimes are looking for results which will come a little faster than that. They should have had assistance in 1956, and they are looking for assistance in 1957.
After listening to the Prime Minister and reading that statement in the speech from the throne it would appear to me that apparently this government have the feeling that our farmers are backward, are more or less ignorant and have very little knowledge of farming, where to farm or how to select land. That seems to me a mistaken idea. I want to say to hon. members of this house that some of the cleverest men are farmers. Some of the most successful men in our province are farmers.
I do not see any need to set up a committee which will cost this country hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to run around the country to find out if farmers know where to get land on which to farm, how to select land, or what crops to grow. All you have to do is assist the agriculturist by providing markets in which he can sell the products he raises at a reasonable profit. If that is done he will produce the goods. I challenge anyone to take issue with that statement. The farmers are able to pick out land, and they will move from place to place if it is profitable to do so. In other words they will be able to find out what are the best crops to grow on their land, and there is no need of a committee running around the country telling them to do that. What our farmers need are markets in which to sell their produce at a reasonable return.
There are other ways in which our farmers can be assisted. At the moment the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) is not in his seat but no doubt what I am about to say will be

The Address-Mr. Montgomery
called to his attention, because I believe his department is responsible for the administration of the Canadian Farm Loan Act. It will be recalled that when an amendment to this act was being considered last session it was pointed out that the farmers were not getting the type of assistance to which they felt they were entitled and which the framers of this legislation intended they should get.
I am sure almost every hon. member has had cases brought to his attention, and as a matter of fact the hon. member for Gloucester mentioned this legislation in his remarks the other day.
One case came to my attention which was so ridiculous that I cannot refrain from bringing it to the attention of the house and the Minister of Finance. A young man in his twenties, raised on a farm, married and with a family, owns one parcel of land consisting of 150 acres on which is a fairly good house which could not be built today for less than $5,000. In addition he owns another parcel of 100 acres on which is a much better house. Against that parcel of land there is an obligation of not more than $1,500, and there is nothing against the 150 acres. The two parcels of land are situated side by side. This man has a good deal of machinery, and as he lives quite close to his father they are able to exchange labour. He raised 5,000 barrels of potatoes this year, of which he still has 2,000 barrels in his potato house, a good portion of which he will have for sale.
He went to the Canadian farm loan for a loan of $3,000 because he wanted to build a stock barn which would cost him at least $6,000. He wanted to put up a modern barn on the 150 acres, but his request for a loan of $3,000 was turned down. I understand he was told that his buildings were not of sufficient value to warrant a loan under the Canadian Farm Loan Act. As I say, his request for a loan was turned down.
But that is not going to stop him. This young man was born and brought up in this particular community. He is a successful farmer, as his family have been before him. He is going to get help, but the burden will be greater because his payments will be more and the interest rate greater than if he could get a loan from the Canadian farm loan board. In my opinion he should have been able to get that loan if this legislation is on our statute books to assist good farmers.
The necessary lumber for this barn is already at the mill ready to be processed into boards. This young man is going to go ahead with that barn but, as I say, he should not have been turned down when he presented a proposition like that. I am
afraid that the department has set up this Canadian farm loan board as a type of bank where a man must be able to put up two or three dollars in order to borrow one dollar as a loan. Other applications have come to my attention which I admit were not so glaring; therefore I am saying nothing about them. But there is a happy medium, and that is why I bring this case to the attention of the Minister of Finance. I hope they will see that the administration of the Canadian Farm Loan Act is loosened up some. I know the people will appreciate that.
A farmer must sell his produce on fluctuating markets and he must depend upon the weather in order to carry on his harvesting and so on. All these things make farming hazardous. As you all know I am interested in the potato industry, as a great many of my people depend upon the growing of potatoes for their livelihood. Some of our young farmers are seeing what they can do to overcome the transportation problem and the fact that their markets are so far from home.
This brings me to another matter which I hope will be brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance. In raising potatoes the grower is faced with high freight rates and the fact that he has no protection. Then to add insult to injury as far as the growers of potatoes are concerned, they are faced with a 4 per cent premium on the Canadian dollar. Neighbours of ours within 14 miles, just across the border, are able to ship their potatoes into Montreal and other cities and towns in Quebec and Ontario and lay them down at a lower price than can our farmers.
The one item of 4 cents on the dollar amounts to considerable on a carload of potatoes. A car will hold 240 to 250 barrels, and that premium represents a profit of about 10 to 11 cents a barrel. That is what our farmers are up against. There are three young men in our community, men who were brought up on the farm, men who are potato growers and who have shown that they are good businessmen. They have launched a new frozen fruit and vegetable industry and propose to freeze French fried potatoes, and in so doing to handle several thousand barrels of potatoes. Those potatoes would be brought into the plant from within 20 or 25 miles, processed and then shipped in smaller bulk to the markets of Canada. By this means an opportunity will be given to the small farmer who can grow a few potatoes or strawberries or small vegetables and whose produce can be sent to the factory by truck or car.
I notice that neither the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) nor the Minister of
154	HOUSE OF
Labour Conditions-C.P.R. Strike Labour (Mr. Gregg) is present in the house, but perhaps some other member would convey this to them, because it is, maybe, the first time I have wished to pass them a bouquet. I want to thank the Minister of Labour and the right hon. Minister of Agriculture for the consideration they showed toward these young men in co-operation with the province of New Brunswick in the erection of this plant. When he was approached the Minister of Agriculture told me last spring they would do what they could to help, and I wish now to say that we are pleased with what they did.
Since this plant was put in operation it has been found that the cottonseed oil which is imported in order to process these farm products has to carry a tariff of 20 per cent or more, which means a considerable burden on the cost of processing. In the letter I have it is stated that from 20 to 30 per cent of the cost is due to this oil. The operators find that the reason a tariff has been placed on it is because the same oil is imported for the manufacture of margarine. I am not surprised. I am glad there is a tariff on the importation of a substance for use in the manufacture of margarine because margarine, when manufactured, goes on the market in competition with an agricultural product. Therefore, I say, we should protect our agricultural product and put on a tariff when necessary. However, there is a point which I would like to ask the Minister of Finance to take into consideration.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would like to ask the consent of the house to revert to motions in order that I may make a brief announcement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well. The remaining time of the hon. member for Vic-toria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery) will be protected.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have here a proposal to terminate the interruption of transportation services on the Canadian Pacific Railway lines which has just been signed by Mr. Crump for the company and Mr. Gamble for the union.
A commission consisting of three judges to be constituted under the Inquiries Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, chapter 154, 

and to have the benefit of any technical advice it requires from the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada and from any other public body it deems advisable. This act provides that the commission may engage the services of technical advisers or other experts to aid and assist the commission in its inquiry.
In view of the establishment of this commission, an agreement shall be entered into by the parties, including the present diesel rule, arbitraries and mountain differential, which diesel rule, arbitraries and mountain differential shall be subject to amendment by renegotiation in the light of the advisory report of the commission.
The terms and conditions of the agreement in respect of all outstanding matters other than the diesel rule, arbitraries and mountain differential shall be in accordance with the report of the conciliation board.
Transportation services will be resumed forthwith.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is suggested that the commission begin its inquiry as soon as possible and that it report not later than October 1, 1957. The understanding is that immediate notices are going out to all concerned, and that work to get the transportation services into operation will start not later than daylight tomorrow morning.
I think hon. members will wish me to express on their behalf and on behalf of all the Canadian people appreciation for the serious and genuine efforts which have been made by those representing both parties to this dispute to eliminate the differences which occasioned the interruption of transportation services; and that the parties will realize that in bringing about a speedy resumption of transportation services they will be rendering not only to those people they represent but to the whole Canadian people a very much appreciated service and one for which all will, I think, be grateful. I think the gratitude and good will which will radiate from this short document will help to restore good will between the company and its employees, a good will that means so much to the successful service of the public by the transportation system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, who has had to leave this afternoon, has asked me to express on his behalf and on behalf of the official opposition our gratification at the fact that the Prime Minister has been able to announce

the resumption of operations by the Canadian Pacific Railway. I know we all wish to be associated with what he has just said with regard to the pleasure it will give to hear that the men have been able to go back to work, that operations are to be resumed, and that this has been done under the processes of free collective bargaining.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: We
certainly welcome the announcement made by the Prime Minister. The very fact that three judges have been allotted to this important inquiry and that they can obtain all the technical assistance they require should be the means of bringing down a report which I hope will settle this problem. We are happy to know, too, that the problem of the diesels will be separated from the other problems that will be dealt with by the parties concerned. We, too, express satisfaction that there has been no compulsion; free men in a free society, bargaining freely, have achieved the result, and that is very much to the good. I am glad there was no compulsion exercised against either party in this dispute, and I am sure the people of Canada will welcome the announcement made by the Prime Minister. I wish to congratulate all those who have participated in bringing about this satisfactory result.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, we, too, are very gratified that the service of the C.P.R. will resume very soon. That was the main point in our urging the government to do everything it could to bring about an early end to the strike. We also are gratified that the agreement to resume work has been possible without resorting to compulsory arbitration, and we hope that when the commission's work is finished and their report is handed down public opinion will be strong enough behind what it discloses that its findings will be accepted by both sides and good will will be shown by both parties.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: May I
express my gratitude to the hon. member who had the floor when I came in for allowing me to make this announcement at this time. I know and he knows that it was anxiously awaited by many Canadians in many parts of Canada, and perhaps nowhere more anxiously awaited than in the maritime provinces, which have been rather sorely tried by the fact that under winter conditions there were not the transportation services that were essential to the functioning of their economy.
The Address-Mr. Montgomery


Gage Workman Montgomery: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his kind words. I felt that something important was impending when I saw him come in, and certainly it was a great pleasure for me to give way to hear his announcement and to learn that the strike was settled. A good part of my constituency has been tied up by the strike. We are served by the C.P.R. and, as a matter of fact, in order for me to get here on time I had to travel for three days instead of a little over a day and a half. We are all very grateful.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. R. F. L. Hanna for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Gage Workman Montgomery: Mr. Speaker, I had been making a few remarks concerning the importation of cottonseed oil, which is a matter of interest to a young industry in my constituency. I want to impress upon the Minister of Finance and his department that we would appreciate it very much if, at the request of this young industry, they would do anything within their power to grant relief. My chief argument is that while there could be a tariff against the oil when it is brought in and processed with other materials to make a manufactured product which is on the market in competition with agricultural products, I think when the oil is brought in to process an agricultural product itself in order to put that product on the market there could be some way in which the oil could be reclassified, in the same way that soy bean oil brought in for the processing or canning of fish is allowed to come in free. I leave that with the hope that the Minister of Finance and his officials will give every consideration to the matter.
There is another matter I should like to mention, and my plea in this instance is also made to the Minister of Finance. I want to assure him briefly that the greatest complaint of the potato producers of New Brunswick is that regardless of what the tariff board found they do want a tariff or some arrangement made whereby Canadian potatoes may enter the United States market on the same terms as potatoes from that country enter the Canadian market. I am instructed to impress that very strongly on the government.

The Address-Mr. Montgomery
I am not going to say much about freight rates at this time except to say, as the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) said, that it is time a new look was taken at the Maritime Freight Rates Act. In the light of the increases in freight rates that have taken place, the act should be revamped so we will get the benefits that it was originally intended that the east would get.
I should also like to say a word or two about veterans affairs. I am not going to spend very much time on the matter, not because it is not an important subject but because there are other veterans in the house who as a rule can present the subject much better than I can. But I support the brief the Canadian Legion submitted to the government wherein they ask in particular that the ceilings on total permissible incomes under the War Veterans Allowance Act be increased to $1,200 and $2,000. I also feel very strongly that Canadian veterans of world war I whose overseas service was restricted to the United Kingdom should be eligible for the war veterans allowance, provided that their service in the United Kingdom was of at least one year's duration.
There is another submission by the Legion that I certainly think deserves serious consideration, namely that the widows of allied ex-servicemen be granted the war veterans allowance in cases where the husband died before completing 20 years' residence in Canada, provided that the effective date of her eligibility be 20 years after the husband's arrival to take up permanent residence in Canada, that the widow herself has completed 20 years' residence in Canada, and that both the husband and wife under all other circumstances would be entitled to the pension.
There is one other thing that seems to me to be rather unfair, and it is something I did not know existed. Section 8 of the War Veterans Allowance Act reads:
No allowance shall be paid in respect of any orphan who is in receipt of a pension under the Pension Act.
This section has the effect of refusing to children of men who died in action, or as the result of service disabilities, the same level of income as that provided to orphans under the War Veterans Allowance Act. An orphan under the War Veterans Allowance Act can be financially assisted up to a maximum of $720 per year, but because of this restrictive section, that is section 8 of the War Veterans Allowance Act, an orphan under the Canadian Pension Act, even where there is no other income, is limited to $480 per year. This appears to be a very unjust situation.
I strongly support the Legion in these demands. There are some others which may


not be so necessary, such as the one respecting the permissive equity value in a home, although it must be said that values have gone up greatly since the provision was originally enacted. They also ask in their brief for an increase in general disability pensions. I am not going to say anything about that, but I do say that I support particularly the requests to which I have referred, and I support generally the brief of the Canadian Legion.
As I said a minute ago, I do not have much to say about the strike. I did not intend to say very much because others have spoken fully. My area is going to be very pleased at the settlement, because it was very badly tied up. However, I do want to refer to one assertion made by the hon. member for Charlotte that we from the maritimes do not come to the federal authorities with any sound ideas. I do not agree with him. I do not think it is a fair statement to make.
I want to tell the house, Mr. Speaker, that in the Atlantic provinces economic council, ordinarily referred to as APEC, I think we have a group of sincere men working together and when their ideas are submitted they should not be called cockeyed, as the hon. member did in referring to them this morning. I think it is unfair. I have a lot of faith in APEC. I am satisfied they are doing a good job and are going to do a better job for the maritime provinces. I am satisfied, regardless of what was said this morning, that the federal government will pay some attention and give a good hearing to the ideas brought forth by the Atlantic provinces economic council.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to devote any time to congratulating the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It has been done so often that I think it can be taken for granted that we all echo the sentiments of our leaders who tendered congratulations in the first instance.
I am going to try to be specific in what I say. I listened with a great deal of attention this afternoon to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). While we may not agree with all he had to say, I think we can agree that he livened the house up and put the situation in its proper perspective. This is an election session. Many of us will not be here next session, and it is well that we pay our respects to each other before we leave. But I think it is particularly necessary that, before leaving here, we make ourselves clear as to why we may want to come back. The hon. member for Macleod rather paved the way. Of

The Address-Mr. Gillis
course, as far as he is concerned, no one is coming back next session except Social Credit members.
This year the throne speech is a rather puzzling one. The fact of the matter is that, when I read it over, my opinion was that this being an election year, the government are being extremely careful in anything they may propose by way of legislation. They are not sure what is best to do so far as the country is concerned. Hence they figured that if they brought in a speech from the throne with nothing in it that was controversial, the members of the house when discussing it for the next 10 days would give the government an idea as to what they should do this session by way of legislation to supplement the speech from the throne. In other words, in my judgment it is just a trial balloon. There is not anything to disagree with; there is not anything to agree with, very much. We shall just be obliged to tell the government what we think is best for the Minister of Finance to do in his budget and what they should bring in by way of legislation at this session, as we see it, if they want to get elected again in the country.
I think the puzzler for the government at this time is the question whether the Minister of Finance should use his present surplus for the purpose of reducing taxes or whether he should use it for the purpose of building up social security payments right along the line. Before I get through I am going to tell him in no uncertain terms what I think he should do. I believe that is what the government want us to do.
For a start, let me say this. The throne speech does one thing that is necessary, though I do not think it goes far enough and I do not think it is equal as between province and province. I refer to federal aid to education. There is a great disparity between the disbursements in the maritime provinces and in the rest of Canada. I have here a clipping reporting the speech of a learned professor who was making an analysis of the subject. It is quite lengthy. He goes into the matter rather fully. However, he makes this observation dealing with the proposal to double the amount of money available for university aid:
Assuming the announced doubling of last year's amount of federal grant to universities a university in Alberta will receive $300 per student and one in Ontario, $275. A university in Nova Scotia, however, will receive $160 for rendering the same service to the nation, Dr. Kerr said.
While we all believe that making available that additional money is a step in the right direction, I believe the equalization of those
payments as between province and province is something that should be taken under consideration. There is no reason why the amount per student should vary so greatly as between universities in the maritimes and the other universities across the country. Of course another provision forecast in the throne speech is to boost the aid to technical high schools and trade centres. The money had run out. New agreements are now available which provide for much more money. It is a development that is badly needed across the country. That is another thing for which this throne speech has provided. Of course the details will have to be worked out as between the provinces and the federal government.
There is another good thing that was in the throne speech-I picked out all that was good in it, and there were only three things- was the increased aid for disabled seamen. The federal compensation act is being revised and brought into line with the compensation acts in the provinces, and the pension to the widow of a seaman who may have lost his life is now being equalized as it is paid from province to province. These are the three things that were of value in the throne speech. In view of the fact that I consider it to be a trial balloon and that the government are looking for advice as to what they might bring down, I am going to try to tell them from there on in.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Am I right in thinking that the reason the grant per student in the maritime provinces is so much lower than it is elsewhere is that there is a higher percentage of students there to the whole population, and that the grant is made per head of population?


Clarence Gillis: That is exactly right, and it is an extremely easy matter to iron out. It is merely a matter of a little bit of arithmetic.
I should like to say just one or two words about the announcement made by the Prime Minister a few moments ago. I am not going to hold any post mortem on the matter, but I should just like to say this. This country today is going through a process of industrialization that is a new industrial revolution. I view that strike on the C.P.R. as one of the reflex pains of automation. It happens not only on the C.P.R.; it is happening in every industry in the country. Technological advance-and we must accept it-brings about these things. We had it in the mining industry. We had it in the automobile industry. Now we have it on the railways.
158	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gillis
I think the government will be obliged to provide certain machinery, and I think it is simple to provide it. We have been advocating it for years. I believe the government should set up industrial councils by means of which representatives from every industry in the country would be able to meet with the government, with representatives of management, and the unions called in whenever there was a threatened disturbance because of technological advance. The matter is not going to stop there. That machinery is today necessary so the Department of Labour at least would have a ready contact with people in the industry who know the repercussions of any changes that may be taking place.
The building industry has had that machinery for years. You never hear of any trouble in the building industry. They have had their own industrial council for many years and they come in here and meet with the minister and his officials, both management and employees, and iron out their difficulties before they get started. That is prevention. In these matters, as with disease, prevention is better than a cure. It is better to prevent an appendix eruption than to have an operation. If you had had an industrial council of the railway industry, with competent people who had seen that strike developing, and if they had met together before the eruption, I am reasonably sure that it would not have taken place.
I just say that now in passing because I think the government should take advantage of that kind of machinery. It does not cost them anything. It is merely a matter of having the personnel appointed from each industry and from the railroads so that when something like what has happened occurs they have someone to whom to go rather than being left to get out in the street and fight it out among themselves, and disrupt either that industry or the economy of the country, as happened in this case. I hope the Minister of Labour particularly and the government will give some thought to that, because we have been preaching it for 10 years. The example of the building trades is a good one, because any friction is ironed out before there are any difficulties.
I said a moment ago that if we are leaving here to go back for an election we should be quite clear in our own minds where we stand and for what we stand. This morning-and I am not saying this to be mean-I listened to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) speak. I always enjoy his speeches. He took the Gordon report-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Just parts of it; I did not read it in detail.


Clarence Gillis: But it is like the Bible; you cannot take just one parable, you have to take the whole thing. The hon. member said the Gordon report was a wonderful document. In fact he said he believed these people were looking down the neck of George Drew when they wrote that report.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In connection with the items to which I referred.


Clarence Gillis: If anyone wants to accept that report as an election manifesto he is quite welcome to it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Just on the items to which I referred. I had not time to read the whole thing.


Clarence Gillis: They are not going to take this bit by bit, taking the good and leaving out the bad. I just want to warn my hon. friend, because that will be held against him at the right time and in the right place, not by me but by people sitting not very far from him. If I were living close to the hon. member I would make full use of it, too, and I know he would if the positions were reversed.
I know this is an interim report of the Gordon commission and the final report may be much different. I hope it is. There is not anything new in it. I am going to deal particularly with the maritime sections of it. He pretty well writes off the maritimes. I am dealing particularly with the coal industry now, because he made a special study of the coal industry. On page 51 of the report there is a table headed, "The Estimated Sources or Types of Energy Used in Canada". This table shows how the coal industry has declined and will decline by 1980. It shows coal, including coal for electrical energy, as a percentage of the total energy consumed. In 1926 it was 69 per cent; in 1953, 39 per cent; and by 1980 it will only be 16 per cent. That is not a very bright picture.
Then, again, over on page 103 of the report, in the first paragraph on the page he dealt with the mechanization taking place in the mines. He said:
This means, according to estimates contained in our study on the Nova Scotia coal industry, that if there were no reduction in employment an additional two million tons of coal would be produced each year. On the other hand, if production is not increased the services of some 4,000 of the 11,000 mine workers presently employed will not be required.
Knowing the industry as I do, he is practically telling me there will be 4,000 more

people go out of that industry. There has been a heavy exodus from it in the last five years.
Over in another section of this report on the maritimes he tells us that he sees the future of Nova Scotia coal marketing as being backed up into the maritime provinces only. Of course he advocates the development of thermal power to supplement the power at Gagetown through the use of coal from Nova Scotia. Well, that is not a new story; that is the Christie report. We have heard all that over the years. So far as I am concerned there is nothing in the report with respect to the maritime provinces except a reiteration of the policies that have been in effect for the last 50 years. He says to move out. We have been moving out for the last 50 years, and there is nothing in the report that would suggest that there is any future development for the maritime provinces.
He makes one recommendation here with which I agree, although the mechanics are not exactly as I would like to see them. Over the years I have advocated a national energy policy. In this report he recommends a national energy board which would replace the present coal board. It is not necessary to replace that coal board. All you need to do is amend the act under which that board is set up, broaden the powers of the board and give it the necessary technical personnel to examine coal, gas, electricity and any other fuel that may develop in the future. He says the board should supervise imports, exports and so forth, but I would add "regulation", because if you have no power to regulate you have no power to direct. If it were merely a matter of advising as between the provinces and federal government and the industry, then it would not be a very effective board. At least he has taken a step in the direction that I have been advocating for some considerable time.
I hope before a final report is written the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys will have some consultations with Mr. Gordon in order to enable Mr. Gordon to understand the problem as it really is. You have to have a board with the proper personnel, but you do not have to replace the coal board. If you broadened the board and added to it, then you could give it the power of regulation to make it effective.
According to press reports, coal is far from dead. It is one of the main problems of the Russians today. I have a newspaper report written by Victor Riesel, the correspondent who writes for the New York Mirror and who was blinded not so long ago by gangsters of the labour movement in the United States. I am not going to read the
The Address-Mr. Gillis full report, but according to it the great difficulty Russia is having today, and one of the main reasons for the uprisings in the satellite countries, is that the miners are not producing coal. He says it was the miners in Hungary who spearheaded that revolution. The interesting part of the story to me is that there is a tremendous market in West Germany and in France for coal from this continent. He says:
You get a picture of just what the Hungarian mines mean to Moscow if you look at the needs of the Germans and French. The western Germans, for example, would be happy if they could increase their purchase of 8 million tons of coal annually to 15 million. They've flown over some of their top industrialists to see John L. and coal industry leaders here. They'll get the tonnage if we can put ships to sea.
The French have had their people here too, seeking an increase from 3 million tons to 7 million tons a year. Compare these figures-which the French and Germans reckon can keep their industries alive-with what the Russians are losing just in Hungary.
It is a good story and points out the fact that coal is far from dead. In this Gordon report there is the observation that there is a tremendous market for coal in Europe, provided we can get the proper subsidy understanding with the federal government. I am saying this just as a warning; we do not want to close out our coal industry in this country too fast. I am reasonably sure also that if a competent examination is made by this Gordon commission of the economics of laying a pipe line to bring natural gas from Alberta to Quebec and Montreal and changing your equipment over to use that gas, and compare that with the economics of coal in that area, coal will stay in that area. I am reasonably sure that would happen. I hope that before the final report is written something will be done on that particular matter.
I hear everybody talking about an increase in population. That increase is taking place in almost every section of Canada except the maritimes. I was looking at some figures on urban centres issued in 1956. I note that in the province of Nova Scotia, instead of there being an increase from 1951 to 1956, there has been a decrease of 11,000. I know in my own particular area, in two or three towns, we have lost around 1,840 people, and the trend is in that direction.
In his report Mr. Gordon has said very little about the rehabilitation of agriculture in the maritimes. One of the main reasons why agriculture is not developing in that province in the way it should is the cost of fertilizer. We are dragging fertilizer all the way down from Ontario. The government, of course, is subsidizing the freight rate on it, but even after it gets there it is very expensive. A few

The Address-Mr. Gillis days ago I was interested in picking up another report which shows that there is a complete lack of thinking in our part of the country with respect to the use of our own resources. This article has a startling headline, as follows: "Charges Fertilizer Source Neglected". The article says:
Some 100,000 tons of material that should be going on Nova Scotia farm soil is being wasted every year at the steel industry in Sydney, Dr. G. R. Smith, chairman of the soils and fertilizer committee at the Truro agricultural college, told the Nova Scotia agricultural conference here yesterday.
This is quite a lengthy article. The 100,000 tons referred to consist of slag, waste from the steel plant. I remember an estimate going through this house in 1942 that gave the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation a substantial sum of money for research into the possibilities of using that slag for fertilizer or whether it should be treated, and so forth. Evidently its possibilities were proven, and according to this article by this man, who is an expert, it is an excellent fertilizer, as good as any they are hauling from Ontario. Well, that is the kind of thing Mr. Gordon should look into.
I believe that the agricultural industry in that part of the country should be stepped up. I do not think any country can survive long whose main basis is not agriculture, because people have to eat. You can make as many automobiles and steel plants as you like; you can produce as much manufactured goods as you like, but you still have to come back to the farmers of the country in order to feed the people.
This report also indicates that on a national scale our farm population is going to decline terrifically by 1980. This is something the federal government should definitely take a look at, because we just cannot afford to keep on crowding people into urban centres, building skyscrapers, putting children into those buildings and cooping them up like chickens where they have no fresh air and no place to play or to do anything else. I believe a country that neglects its agriculture and does not maintain it as its main base will pay for it before very long. That was the forecast of the economists who assisted in compiling the report.
If we have 100,000 tons of good fertilizer which has been thrown away in that part of the country, then I ask this question. Why could it not be utilized and given to the farmers? It could be given to them at very low cost, and it might encourage them if they do not have to pay $90 or $100 a ton for fertilizer, as they are doing today. I mention that because I think it is something the federal government should take a look at.

The federal government has already put money into the project in the research stage, and according to the report I read it has proved practicable. It was good fertilizer but it has been thrown away.
Of course one could go on and on with the Gordon report, but I am not going to do that. There are many things I would like to say about it, but I should like to save them until I see the final report. This is only a sketchy thing, but it definitely pinpoints the mari-times. They made a special examination of the coal industry and other resources, but they certainly did not come up with anything. The recommendations in the report with respect to the kind of public investment fund for the purpose of assisting industry are quite all right. It is quite all right to set up a fund of that kind. That has already been done in the maritimes. There is a provincial public investment fund today, but in addition to that we have the Atlantic provinces economic council which is doing the research, and then we have industrial development boards in many sections of the province.
Some of these boards are bringing small industry into certain sections. I know that right in my own area a plant was recently established with local capital by the local industrial development board. This plant will employ some 300 people. This is the kind of development I like to see. If a plant locates in the province, the investment fund in the province will grant a dollar for every dollar invested by the plant itself. They will be assisted by the provincial government advancing dollar for dollar.
The economic council shows me, at least, that there is no need to appoint a new body to come in to do that kind of work. They are doing it themselves. The men who are doing that work are men who are living in the province and know the needs of the province and the marketing possibilities of the province, and have an idea as to how much interprovincial marketing can be done, because this is one of the main objectives of the organization. As I said before, they have their own industrial boards in different sections which are raising funds locally and are trying to bring in small industries.
If the federal government goes along with the Gordon recommendation that a fund should be set up by the federal government to assist in the rehabilitation of those areas, it should be done in co-operation with the province to supplement work already being done by those boards. Full advantage should be taken of the Atlantic provinces economic council and the facilities they can supply locally in all four provinces. It would be the best machinery that could be set up.

I am glad to see the Minister of Finance entering the chamber. Before he came in I was telling the house that the throne speech, with very few exceptions, was a trial balloon. I did not see much in it. It leaves a lot for the members to say. The suggestion is, let the members talk on this speech and by the time the minister is ready to write his budget he will have a fairly good idea as to whether he should reduce taxes because of his surplus, or whether he should step up social security payments all along the line. Of course other legislation can be brought in despite the fact that there is not much in the speech from the throne.
Well, I would like to tell the minister that as far as I am concerned there are many people in this country who would get no relief from a tax cut. The last time the minister of finance, now Mr. Justice Abbott, presented his budget speech, he pointed out that there were 137,000 families in the country living on incomes below the income tax level, and they received no relief from a tax cut. If the minister was considering using that surplus I would suggest the way he could get the greatest political value from it across the country would be, as a start, to step up the old age pension to the figure of $60 a month, I would say, because that is needed. These people are living on the borderline of charity, and those who do not have relatives or friends who will assist them are in a worse position than borderline charity cases.
It would be a good gesture on the part of the minister if he would step up the old age security pension, and I believe the second thing he could do would be to remove the means test from the blind pension. These people are already penalized as it is; they are living in darkness. Those who are able to go out and supplement that pension by some income should not be further penalized and the income should not militate against their right to retain the $40 a month, as it does today. It would be a good idea to bring the blind pension up to a par with the old age security pension.
A third step would be to modify the regulations of the Old Age Assistance Act. I believe the qualification age of 65 is too high. In large part these people are disabled through sickness or by some other means and have no income. I believe the qualification age should be lowered to 60 in the case of men and 50 in the case of women. The most pathetic figure in our midst is the woman of 50 years of age who has raised a family, now broken in health, whose children are away, who is without a home and who lives with friends and neighbours. Any hon. member who has done any work in his riding must 82715-11
The Address-Mr. Gillis know of many cases like that which come to his attention, and there is nothing one can tell these women. It is a very sad thing to have to tell a woman in those circumstances that there is nothing one can do because there is no legislation.
A fourth step would be a modification of the Disabled Persons Act, and we have been hammering at this now for a couple of years. Today you can live in a wheel chair, but if you are able to wheel yourself to the table and eat you cannot qualify for a pension under this act. You may even be mentally and physically incapacitated from birth and now 50 years of age. I know of some cases like that. Some of the people I know in this situation have never earned a dollar in their lives but they are able to walk, and therefore cannot qualify under the act. I am convinced there should be some modification in the administration of the act.
Of course all the things I have mentioned cost money, and the minister may not have enough money in the surplus to meet these needs. Nevertheless, another piece of social security that is a must is a national health plan. At some time in some way during this session an effort should be made to enable people across this country to secure medical attention at a nominal cost. The standards of medicine are high in this country, and we have many centres across Canada which are just as good as the Mayo clinic or other institutions in the United States. Personally if I required an operation of any kind I would not leave Halifax to have it performed, but thousands and thousands of Canadian people are unable to reach medical centres.
In my own community we maintain local medical institutions and on a panel basis we pay doctors in our hospitals, and this is true of many centres across Canada. It sometimes happens in small communities that one cannot get the attention which one requires, and some people must pay $1,000 to receive some attention in Halifax or elsewhere. Local hospitals today are going further and further into debt and their equipment is becoming more and more out of date. These hospitals expect that something will be done on a national basis, and they are not going out on drives to build up their resources because they believe a national health program will come into being, and I think it is essential at this time.
I believe the greatest relief the people of Canada could receive at this time would come if the government took the bit in its teeth and established a national health plan. I do not think it could be done under the formula laid down at the last dominion-provincial conference, which stipulated that

The Address-Mr. H. J. Murphy six provinces must consent and Ontario and Quebec must join. It will not be done on such a basis. With the exception of the western provinces the other provinces have not indicated their willingness to come in, and I think another formula must be devised. Realizing the need for this type of legislation, the federal government should take it upon itself to work out a formula that would perhaps make it easier for the provinces to accept such a plan, and something should be done at this session of parliament.
If the minister will accept my advice he will bring about the social security measures I have mentioned rather than reduce taxes, which gives very little relief except to those who are in the brackets where greater taxation must be paid. Those who are earning $5,000 and more per year do not require relief to the extent that it is required by those in the lower brackets. After all, it is not the amount of tax you pay but what you have left that counts.
If the minister could find his way clear to using some of that surplus in the various ways I have described, in stepping up the social security measures and bringing about a national health program, then he would be doing something for which I personally, and I am convinced people right across this country, would commend him.
I believe my time has expired, Mr. Speaker, and I will close by saying I trust that when the minister brings in his budget 1 will be able to stand up and vote for it.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member just one question. My recollection is that the party he belongs to has on other occasions advocated that we should increase the basic exemptions for married and single people to an extent which would more than dispose of my surplus. At this time I would like to ask him which he wants.


Clarence Gillis: I thought I was quite clear, Mr. Speaker, when I said that as far as I am concerned if the minister will use his surplus for the purposes I enumerated in my address I would be quite satisfied to leave the tax structure as it is.


Walter Edward Harris: All right.


Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to take part in this debate, and like many hon. members who have spoken previously I wish to congratulate the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna), who is my seat mate, and the seconder, the hon. member for Gloucester

(Mr. Robichaud) who is a colleague of mine from my home province, New Brunswick.
I am pleased to hear the news that the C.P.R. strike has ended and the men are returning to work. Coming as I do from a railway city, in this case a Canadian National Railways city, where we have about 5,000 railway employees working in and out of the locality, you will understand my concern and interest in this matter. I know the employees of the C.N.R. in Moncton will be pleased to hear that their fellow workmen are returning to their jobs.
Unlike the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery), who expressed his sympathy over the loss of a senator from his county, I wish to express my happiness on the appointment of a new senator from the county of Westmorland. We now have a colleague in Ottawa, although he is in the other place, who is an expert on agriculture. Mr. Taylor served as minister of agriculture in the province of New Brunswick for a period of approximately 17 years. I will feel more confident now when matters relating to agriculture come up. We have listened to many people from other parts of the country bringing up agricultural problems pertaining to the west, of which they had expert knowledge, and I feel now that we have someone from the east who will be of assistance to us.
Nearly every time I have spoken in the House of Commons I have talked about the Chignecto canal. It did not seem to arouse very much interest, but I am not going to let the opportunity offered today go by without mentioning it. I hope that with the continual repetitious reference to this matter the canal will some day come into being.
As hon. members know, the proposed Chignecto canal would be 18 miles long, connecting Northumberland strait with the bay of Fundy and crossing the isthmus which now connects New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. This canal has been a subject of discussion in this house for many years and was actively under discussion long before I came to the chamber. With the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway ships will still have to go around the province of Nova Scotia when headed for the United States, Mexico or South America.
I believe that some day the government of the United States, as well as the government of this country, will consider the building of this canal to be a security measure, as it would afford a sheltered route from ports on the east coast of the United States such as New York and Boston to United States ports on the great lakes. Ships would be able to go from New York, Portland and Boston

to Chicago and other lake ports and take on and discharge cargo both coming and going. I feel that some day this matter probably will be better presented and more publicity given to it nationally.
All hon. members from New Brunswick at some time or other have indicated in the house their support of this project. I believe the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) expressed it at a public meeting held in Saint John, but I have heard the rest of the hon. members express their support of this proposal in this house. This project was implied at the time of confederation, and was considered to be a confederation promise. I hope the promise will be honoured some day. If the hon. members from the maritime provinces would be as consistently insistent as western hon. members are in presenting their problems, I feel that this matter would receive the publicity and attention it deserves. I am not going to go into the matter at great length, but I do hope someone else will bring it up and tell the house more about it, and perhaps be more persuasive in putting the matter before the house.
I should like now to bring up a few matters concerning my constituency. Recently the Department of Fisheries announced that between $150,000 and $200,000 would be spent over a three-year period to restock and rehabilitate the oyster fishing beds of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. It is my earnest hope that some of this work will take place in the Northumberland strait, or parts of the Northumberland strait adjoining Westmorland county, and in that part of Kent county which adjoins Westmorland county. I appreciate that as far as coastal waters are concerned there is no real boundary between counties. A few years ago this area produced many good oysters, and I would be pleased if the Minister of Fisheries could give details of the work to be done in the rehabilitation and seeding of the oyster beds, as this would be of benefit to the different districts in the province of New Brunswick.
In connection with the fishing industry I should like to refer briefly to the conveniences and facilities for fishermen in the way of
The Address-Mr. H. J. Murphy wharves and dredging which have been provided, and to express my appreciation to the Minister of Public Works and the department for the new wharf recently completed at Emily's point at Shemogue. This project has been needed for some time and was built during the summer and fall of last year. It will fill a great need of the fishermen in that area.
Last year I referred to the need of extensions to certain existing wharves. Representations have been made to me on many occasions by fishermen along the coast of Westmorland county from Barachois to Cape Tormentine, setting out the need for wharf extensions in that area in order that they may be better able to land their fish. During the summer a great amount of dredging was done in many small harbours, and this enables fishermen to bring their boats in to unload at the wharves.
However, there are a few wharves which still require to be extended because of the increased fishing industry, and I would ask the Minister of Public Works to consider carefully the representations made by fishermen for increased wharf facilities at cape Bald, Dupuis Corner, Robichaud and Kouchi-bouguac river. These extensions are necessary because of the increased volume of business.
While I am speaking of wharves, I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the need for improvements to the wharf at Point du Chene. Years ago this was the terminal for the ferry operating between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, before the Cape Tormentine-Borden ferry was started. Besides being used by fishing boats, this wharf is used by sea-going vessels engaged in the pulpwood export trade.
On motion of Mr. Murphy (Westmorland) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: We shall continue with this debate on Monday and Tuesday.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
165
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 14, 1957