1957-04-11

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question yesterday I undertook to communicate with Mr. Bennett about the question that had been asked of me, whether I was aware that he had been a director of Investors Mutual of Canada Limited. I communicated with him and I have this answer as to the facts:
I have been a director of Investors Mutual of Canada since its incorporation several years ago. On March 1 last I advised the president of the company of my desire to resign from the board, and it was understood that my resignation would be submitted formally at the next meeting of the board. I took this decision because the increase in my responsibilities as president of Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited and of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited made it quite apparent that I could devote no time to outside activities. Since the question of Investors Mutual holdings in uranium has been raised, I should point out that at no time have I been consulted about such investments for the simple reason that under an agreement between Investors Mutual of Canada and Investors Syndicate of Canada the latter company provides an investment service as well as a sales service for Investors Mutual. Accordingly, the board of directors of Investors Mutual has not been involved in the selection of that company's portfolio.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister which is related to the matter to which he has just given an answer. Is the Prime Minister aware that on the streets of Toronto at the present time there is an issue of the Toronto Telegram which carries a story to the effect that the Avro interests and McIntyre Porcupine are going to buy the Algoma Steel empire? If this report is correct, does the Prime Minister not feel that it is now even more serious than it was a few days ago that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had consultations with Mr. Tory concerning the appointment of Mr. Barrington to the board of McIntyre Porcupine?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a further question. In view of the report that McIntyre Porcupine is going to use $80 million of liquid assets which it has for this deal, does he not think a question should be asked concerning the fact they have been receiving subsidies from the federal treasury?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, if they have been receiving subsidies it has been under an act passed by this parliament to prevent towns dependent upon the operations of gold mines from becoming ghost towns.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a further question. In view of the occasions when the Prime Minister seems to lack information as to what is happening under the aegis of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, may I ask him to ascertain whether the three companies that have been named, Avro, McIntyre Porcupine and Algoma Steel, with which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has various connections, are making any contributions to the Liberal party for election purposes?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not
know anything about contributions. I have never endeavoured to ascertain anything about them. I do not think it would be a better practice for me to try to ascertain anything about contributions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not a matter of public interest as to whether or not firms which are receiving assistance or contributions from the federal treasury are making contributions to the party in power?


Mr. Si. Laurent (Quebec Easl):: That may be something of great interest to my hon. friend-


Stanley Howard Knowles: And to the people of Canada.


Mr. SI. Laurent (Quebec East):: -and possibly to the people of Canada, but I do not know of any contribution that has been made to any political party that has had any influence upon the conduct of public business in Canada.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS TAX RENTAL AGREEMENTS    OVERPAYMENT TO PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think a report in the Toronto Telegram has any bearing on the propriety or otherwise of the matter.
On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. Watson MacNaughl (Prince):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. As a result of the overpayment

Inquiries of the Ministry made to Prince Edward Island under the tax rental agreements, has the government given any consideration to changing the terms of that agreement?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the quarterly payments which were due under the tax rental agreements in the latter part of the fiscal year were in several cases considerably lower than the provincial governments concerned expected. In the case of Prince Edward Island they had been overpaid to the extent of $1,141,103.80 over the period of the five-year agreement. Consequently that amount was deducted from the final payment.
The government of the province of Prince Edward Island has made representations, with the result that it has been decided that we would pay the full amount of the quarterly payment that was expected and recover the deduction over the course of the term of the present agreement. That offer is, of course, open to any other provincial government which had a similar deduction.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
.Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that no mention is made in the green book on defence, which the minister tabled yesterday, of the three new fighter squadrons for the defence of Canada which the minister stated last year were to be constituted, can the minister tell us whether the plan for these three new fighter squadrons has now been abandoned? If not, what is the situation with regard to the matter?
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the plans to provide the three additional fighter squadrons to which my hon. friend has referred have not been abandoned, but they have had to be postponed for some time for a number of reasons, the principal one of which is that we have extended the NATO air training scheme for another year to take care of 360 West German pilots and certain other pilots from some of the smaller countries. The provision of these three fighter squadrons was tied up with the reorganization of the training scheme and there will be some delay, but they are not being abandoned.


Mr. Harkness:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate when

the constitution of these three fighter squadrons will be proceeded with?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, Mr. Speaker; at the
moment I cannot give definite dates.



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. With the approach of the end of this parliament, and having regard to the number of vacancies in the Senate, is it the Intention of the Prime Minister, under whose jurisdiction the appointments come, to make any appointments before the writs are issued or after the writs are issued but before election day?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): There is no intention to make any appointments before the writs are issued, because I hope the writs will be issued tomorrow, and it is not intended to have any appointments made in the meantime. As to whether or not there will be appointments made between the issue of the writs and the date of election, I would not like to make any commitment one way or the other. There is one particular possible appointment that has been under consideration for a number of months, and with respect to which I would not anticipate that it would be possible to proceed before the date of the election. There might be others. That will depend upon whether I should find it in the public interest that I should take the responsibility, not of making the appointments but of recommending the appointments, in accordance with constitutional practice.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a distinction without a difference. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has said that the writs are going to be issued tomorrow-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope.


John George Diefenbaker: -will he now let the
house in on the very open secret of the date of the election?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, it is not an open or closed secret. I have stated in the house, and it is still the situation, that I hope this session can be prorogued either today or tomorrow. It is then my intention to recommend dissolution immediately after the prorogation of parliament, and if dissolution can take place this week it will be possible to have the election on June 10.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the house when meetings of representatives of Canada and the United States on problems surrounding the development of the Columbia and other international rivers will commence in Washington?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Sir, the meeting has been arranged to take place in Washington on May 20.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, some days ago the hon. member for Lambton West asked a question concerning the fueling of diesel locomotives of the Canadian National Railways. I would like to say that I made inquiries of the management of the railway company, and am informed that Port Huron is used as a fueling point for diesel locomotives because facilities are available there to provide fuel direct to the locomotives when on the main track. Of course the hon. member would appreciate that no additional staff is required in connection with this servicing operation.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the other part of my question and I wonder if he would take notice of that. I have reference to the servicing or what they call "dieselizing" of these particular trains or units.


George Carlyle Marler: Well, Mr. Speaker, on April 2 the hon. member spoke about "tooling" and dieselizing" and then on the following day he corrected his question to make it read "fueling" rather than "tooling"; but for the life of me I do not know what he means by "dieselizing".


Joseph Warner Murphy: Well, perhaps I should make it a little less ambiguous. I suggest that the minister interpret the word "dieselizing" as meaning servicing.


George Carlyle Marler: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will try within the limited time here to see if I can "service" the hon. gentleman's question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Joseph Warner Murphy: That would be rather hopeless, I think.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Did the minister authorize the sending of the travel brochure I hold in my hand, printed in English and in French, to Canadian old age pensioners, containing pictures of a Viscount, an ocean liner, the Super Continental and a new car, inquiring if they plan a trip to Europe or the United States this year? If so, how does the minister think those in receipt of old age pensions could travel by these various means on the $46 a month they receive?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I know nothing about the so-called insert, which I will look into. As to whether or not individuals could take advantage of a voyage such as my hon. friend mentions, I can only point out that obviously that could not be done unless in addition to the provision by the federal government the provinces likewise recognized that they had responsibilities in this regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is any province that
"liberal"?



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister's attention been called to a report in this morning's Montreal Gazette which reads as follows:
Federal customs officers at Montreal airport at Dorval are enforcing a provincial ban on the circulation of certain United States magazines in the province of Quebec, despite the fact the magazines enter Canada freely by mail, and are sold in other provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the article in the Gazette, but after I have read it I will be in a position to bring the hon. gentleman an answer.
3404	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE



REPORTED DISQUALIFICATION OF BUSH WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Considering the fact that some 2,000 bush workers in eastern parts of Quebec, about 400 of whom are domiciled in Bonaventure county, have in recent months been disqualified from their unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that they had failed to apply for positions offered by the Quebec North Shore Company at Lake Ste. Anne in northern Quebec; and having excellent reasons to believe that in a great number of cases-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Bona Arsenault: -such positions offered to these men, especially during the month of March, were not suitable, in accordance with section 59 of the Unemployment Insurance Act would the minister authorize a complete investigation into this matter by an independent and reliable body, in the hope that all our bush workers who have suffered injustices may be reinstated in their right to unemployment insurance benefits?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, while I cannot commit myself as to the method, I can assure my hon. friend that the complaints he has made will be fully investigated.



INQUIRIES AS TO VISITS BY PRESIDENTS OF FRANCE AND WEST GERMANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to say whether Canada is to be honoured by a visit from the President of France in the next few weeks. Is he in a position to say whether that welcome event is about to take place?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, when we heard that the President of France was likely to be visiting North America shortly, an invitation was renewed to him to visit Canada. The answer was received that while he was very anxious to visit Canada he could not arrange to make a visit at the time he was visiting the United States, since he had a longstanding engagement for an official visit to, I believe, Luxembourg which had already had to be postponed once and he felt should not be postponed again. However, the President


of France did expect he would be able to make a special trip to Canada before long.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Some time ago I asked the Prime Minister a similar question with regard to the possibility of a visit by President Heuss of West Germany. The Prime Minister at that time indicated that there was a possibility that Dr. Heuss might be visiting Canada. I wonder if he could add anything to that statement.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, there have been no definite arrangements made although, of course, a very cordial invitation has been extended to the President of West Germany; and my recollection of the hospitality he extended to me is such that I would be very happy to see similar hospitality extended to that honourable gentleman in Canada.



REPORTED SALE OF ADDITIONAL WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I wonder if he could comment on the report carried in the Leader-Post the other day to the effect that Poland wished to buy another 6 million bushels of wheat. Would the minister indicate whether or not that report was correct?


Righi Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The wheat board has booked a purchase of 300,000 tons of wheat for Poland to move out before July 31, and also has made a commitment for half of that amount of wheat to be exported in 1957-1958.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, as I recall it the report indicated that this was in addition to the amount the minister mentioned previously in the house. Could he comment on that point?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I mentioned before that the wheat board was negotiating for the sale of 150,000 tons of wheat to Poland from the 1956-1957 crop and another 150,000 from the 1957-1958 crop. The situation is that the quantity for 1956-1957 has now been doubled, and that the wheat for the 1956-1957 crop has actually been booked with the wheat board.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

['What amounts have been paid out from the federal treasury in each fiscal or calendar year for the following:\t(a) old age pensions, from\ninception (i) in Canada; (ii) in Nova Scotia; (b) old age security, from inception (i) in Canada; (ii) in Nova Scotia; (c) old age assistance, from inception (i) in Canada; (ii) in Nova Scotia; (d) blind pensions, from inception (i) in Canada; (ii) in Nova Scotia; (e) disabled persons pensions, from inception (i) in Canada; (ii) in Nova Scotia?\nAnswer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of\nNational\tHealth and\tWelfare):\t\n(a) (i)-Total federal payments under the Old Age Pensions Act: Fiscal\t\t\t\nYear\tOld age\tBlind\tTotal$\t$\t$1927-28 ...\t. 131,452\t-\t131,4521928-29 ...\t. 832,687\t-\t832,6871929-30 ...\t. 1,537,174\t-\t1,537,1741930-31 ...\t. 5,658,143\t-\t5,658,1431931-32 ...\t. 10,032,410\t-\t10,032,4101932-33 ...\t. 11,512,543\t-\t11,512,5431933-34 ...\t. 12,313,595\t-\t12,313,5951934-35 ...\t. 14.942,459\t-\t14,942,4591935-36 ...\t. 16,764,484\t-\t16,764,4841936-37 ...\t. 21,149,352\t-\t21,149,3521937-38 ...\t. 28,524,587\t128,418\t28,653,0051938-39 ...\t. 28,283,284\t760,354\t29,043,6391939-40 ...\t. 29,080,631\t895,923\t29,976,5541940-41 ...\t. 28,901,933\t1,009,767\t29,911,7001941-42 ...\t. 28,530,908\t1,030,889\t29,611,7961942-43 ...\t. 28,861,186\t1,114,828\t29,976,0141943-44 ...\t. 32,195,592\t1,244,030\t33,439,6221944-45 ...\t. 39,503,028\t1,471,978\t40,975,0061945-46 ...\t. 41,291,227\t1,526,747\t42,817,9741946-47 ...\t. 43,829,580\t1,615,136\t45,444,7161947-48 ...\t. 56,978,389\t2,107,989\t59,086,3781948-49 ...\t. 64,232,211\t2,532,074\t66,764,2851949-50 ...\t. 89,652,203\t3,536,731\t93,188,9341950-51 ...\t. 99,268,006\t3,901,109\t103,169,1151951-52 ... (9 mos.)\t. 77,340,012\t2,996,115\t80,336,127(a)\t(ii)\nFederal payments to Nova Scotia under the Old Age Pensions Act:\nFiscal\nYear\tOld age\tBlind\tTotal', '1933-\t34 _______ 69,271\t-\t69,2711934-\t35 __ 1,479,899\t-\t1,479,8991935-\t36 __ 1,661,102\t-\t1,661,1021936-\t37 __ 1,764,915\t-\t1,764,9151937-\t38 ____ 1,836,704\t11,985\t1,848,6891938-\t39 ____ 1,866,724\t74,418\t1,941,1421939-\t40 ____ 1,913,181\t91,262\t2,004,4431940-\t41 ____ 1,941,172\t102,375\t2,043,5471941-\t42 ____ 1,936,832\t105,970\t2,042,8021942-\t43 ____ 1,948,075\t107,397\t2,055,4711943-\t44 ____ 2,137,242\t114,043\t2,251,2841944-\t45 ____ 2,807,890\t140,039\t2,947,9291945-\t46 ____ 2,913,972\t142,672\t3,056,6441946-\t47 ____ 3,093,204\t147,486\t3,240,6901947-\t48 ____ 3,943,563\t181,815\t4,125,3791948-\t49 ____ 4,658,580\t224,480\t4,883,0591949-\t50 ____ 6,056,998\t311,948\t6,368,9461950-\t51 ____ 6,572,267\t348,338\t6,920,6051951-\t52 ____ 5,030,881\t267,014\t5,297,895\n(9 mos.)\n(b)\t(i)\t(ii)1951- 52\t$ 76,086,835\t$ 4,124,0801952-\t53\t\n323,141,615\t17,259,2871953-\t54\t\n338,970,791\t17,702,4771954-\t55\t\n353,205,333\t18,149,5261955-\t56\t\n366,218,474\t18,411,3451956-\t57\t(estimated)\t379,118,000\t18,682,000(c)\t(i)\t(ii)1951-\t52\t(3\tmos.)\t..\t.$ 2,277,238\t$\t95,6731952-\t53\t\n19,128,837\t893,0601953-\t54\t\n20,288,153\t1,028,7561954-\t55\t\n20,869,126\t1,063,1651955-\t56\t\n20,918,186\t1,046,9271956-\t57\t\n17,131,764\t947,842(10 mos.)\t(11 mos.)(d)\t(if\t(ii)1951-\t52\t(3\tmos.)\t..\t.$\t721,449\t$\t64,1991952-\t53\t\n2,985,217\t253,7181953-\t54\t\n2,914,102\t250,5671954-\t55\t\n2,886,184\t247,7881955-\t56\t\n2,918,494\t254,6041956-\t57\t\n2,473,397\t237,222(10 mos.)\t(11 mos.)(e)\t(i)\t(ii)1954-\t55\t(3\tmos.)\t..\t.$\t419,379\t$\t12,1411955-\t56\t\n5,665,067\t254,3261956-\t57\t\n5,900,739\t263,753(10 mos.)\t(11 mos.)\nFriday, April 12, 1957']
Walter Edward Harris: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,651,674,050, being one-half of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal

year ending March 31, 1958, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; and in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $7,298,566.67, being one-third of the total of the amounts of items 52, 57, 116, 117, 131, 132, 156, 248, 281, 322, 324 , 328, 355, 399 and 460 of the said estimates; a sum not exceeding $697,069.25, being one-quarter of the total of the amounts of items 153, 158, 252 and 397 of the said estimates; a sum not exceeding $3,640,012.17, being one-sixth of the total of the amounts of items 16, 71, 134, 217, 218, 219, 227 , 361, 364, 391, 422, 428 and 432 of the said estimates; and a sum not exceeding $2,383,999.92, being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of items 28 , 69, 129, 221, 223, 224 , 233, 234 , 300, 321, 333, 424 , 425 , 430 and 503 of the said estimates;
ill addition thereto a sum not exceeding $9,635,679.50, being one-half of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958 laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; a sum not exceeding $16,166.67, being one-third of the total of the amounts of items 626 and 654 of the said estimates; and a sum not exceeding $208,333.34, being one-sixth of the total of the amounts of items 621 and 640 of the said estimates;
and in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $7,000,000, being two-sevenths of the total of the amount of item 663 set forth in the further supplementary estimates (1) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958 laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; a sum not exceeding $30,555,555.56, being four-ninths of the total of the amounts of items 664, 665, 666, 667, 669 and 670 of the said estimates; and a sum of $1,000,000, being two-thirds of the total of the amount of item 668 of the said estimates,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1958.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of discussing in general the unusual course of bringing before parliament in the last two days of a session a supply motion covering so many hundreds of millions of dollars, without any possibility of examination or critical consideration being given to such fabulous amounts which, indeed, represent as much as Canada expended in a whole year before the war.
As I look back over the records of parliament when parliament was discharging its responsibility and maintaining its prestige, when estimates were carefully examined and critically condemned if improperly included among those presented, and compare that situation with the situation today, I can only say that this method of placing so many hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditure before parliament is a further insult and humiliation to this institution and to its prestige.
Indeed, I say this. It is a contempt of parliament to deny consideration except as provided in this general manner. We in the opposition have been willing throughout to co-operate. We have done our part this session to facilitate the passage of necessary legislation, to permit an election to take place in the month of June.
Interim Supply
There are several matters included in the supplementary estimates, and I shall refer to them to begin with. They include increases in the family allowance, in old age security payments, in old age assistance, in aid to blind persons, in aid to the disabled, in veterans disability pensions and in the war veterans allowance. We favour the increases. We say that, generally speaking, Canadians realize that these increases are totally inadequate to meet the situation created by the failure of the government to take effective action to meet the tremendous inflationary gallop that is taking place in this country.
Indeed, the government is its own major contributor to inflation in this country. It has failed to take any action to reduce unnecessary and wasteful expenditures. These estimates this year exceed anything in the history of this country. Our effort to make a contribution by recommending the reduction of unnecessary expenditures has on every occasion been waved aside, when we have endeavoured to secure the setting up of a commission similar to the Hoover commission in the United States to make a careful, critical and complete examination of expenditures to the end that unnecessary ones shall be eliminated.
There is no adequate opportunity for discussion here. These pension increases deserve an opportunity for full discussion. They should have been placed before committees of the house in order to enable representatives of the people to attend here, give evidence and express their views with regard to the inadequacy of the increases. I say that the attitude taken by the government is a cynical disregard of the parliamentary function of careful and meticulous examination. We succeeded in having a committee set up to consider the estimates. I need not say anything as to the extent to which it has functioned this session. Indeed, there was no opportunity for an effective estimates committee to function unless that committee had the power to call witnesses and to secure the production of documents.
The expenditures today, even in this interim supply motion, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars might as well be passed without any discussion unless that discussion would draw the attention of the Canadian people to some of these overexpenditures. For after all, whatever stand we may take and whatever desire we may have to examine the expenditures carefully, we have been denied that opportunity at this session to a degree that has not taken place in years.
In other words parliament more and more is simply becoming an instrument for the

Interim Supply
purpose of passing supply and having brought before it such legislation as the government in its wisdom chooses to present. As to any other matter that comes before parliament, however beneficial the suggestion may be, if it emanates from the opposition it finds itself destroyed by an overwhelming and united vote on the part of members supporting the government, who are prepared to accept any legislation introduced so long as it is recommended by the cabinet.
We have had many recent examples of the bypassing of parliament culminating in the present instance, which I need not repeat is farcical, is parliament masquerading, is simply an echo and a shadow of what parliament should be. But this is merely a step along the road. The parliament now coming to an end has seen the most extraordinary efforts on the part of the cabinet to emasculate this institution. In 1955 the government endeavoured to make permanent in this country the wartime powers under the Defence Production Act. We fought that attempt. We opposed it and we were finally successful, by the mobilization of public opinion, in limiting the period of the operation of those extraordinary powers.
I am not going to relive 1956 and dwell on the degree to which parliament was reduced to a sham by the introduction of closure and the denial of discussion. In every case the same attitude was adopted by the government, upheld by its servile supporters who, realizing that what was being done was a denial of parliament, supported the action taken to the detriment of the preservation of this institution.
In the present session we have had some recent examples of the attitude of ministers. I have often wondered what would happen if men like Laurier, Fielding, Lapointe or the late Mackenzie King were able to return to this house and see the extent to which in the present session parliament has been denied information over and over again.
Then, too, the arrogance of the government was shown in two instances in the refusal of ministers to act. In one case it was the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who, with the support of the Prime Minister and other ministers, refused to give any humanitarian consideration to the admission into Canada of Hanna. They would have condemned him to a lifetime of going back and forth on the face of the waters. They would have refused him admission, as they did. We asked for some humanitarian action and the answer we received was a contemptuous one. Finally the courts came to the rescue of this man and gave to him that justice which an all-powerful government refused

to consider on his behalf. Only a few days ago I asked the minister whether or not Hanna would be permitted to remain in this country. It is not admitted that wrong has been done to this man: the date when he will finally ascertain whether he may remain here is to be conditional on his future conduct and is not to be decided at this time.
Then we had also the government's arrogance in connection with the Hobbema Indian case and the banishment of Indians from that reserve. What was being done made a brutal mockery of democratic freedom. We asked in this house for action. The government refused any action. Finally these wards of the Canadian people, having no votes that could possibly result in this government feeling that some action might be taken because of that fact, sought refuge in the courts; and the courts gave to them those rights and that consideration which never should have been denied them by a bureaucratic administration that places the letter of the law above any other consideration, humanitarian or otherwise.
I am not overstating the position when I say that parliament no longer governs. One of the best editorials on that subject appeared about a year ago in Maclean's magazine. I am not going to quote it in detail, although I accept every word of it. It says:
Anyone who has been glancing lately at Hansard or at a reasonably good newspaper must have been reminded that parliament has ceased to be the chief official critic of the nation's conduct and its conscience. Much worse, the parliament of Canada has ceased to be, in any real sense, the government of Canada. It still has the power to govern. Nevertheless, it continues to acquiesce blindly in all cabinet actions and pronouncements-voting almost as dependably on its party lines as that final horror of legislative horrors, the supreme soviet of the U.S.S.R.
Those are strong words, but they are the words of a national magazine of high repute pointing out the degree to which parliament has been degraded in recent years because of the overwhelming majority supporting the government. It goes on to say:
But it has also produced more than one example of the Liberal majority's willingness to be pushed around, led around and, when it suits the cabinet's convenience, ridiculously misled by the Liberal cabinet.
Finally it terminates with these words:
These remarks are not those of the habitual supporter or opponent of any particular party. Nevertheless, we are genuinely concerned-and invite others to share our concern-about what is happening in this country to the general process frequently described as good government. For our part, we are still reasonably sure it is good. We are not quite sure it is government in the sense originally intended.
We are again reminded of this fact by the submission, holus-bolus, of hundreds of millions of dollars of estimates to be examined

in a matter of two days, a task beyond any probability of achievement. This is one more example of the degree to which a great majority will abdicate from parliamentary procedure in the interests of a strong and powerful cabinet.
I am not going into particulars, because I do not intend to speak at length; but even at this session we have been denied over and over again information to which the Canadian people are entitled. Sometimes with a smirk, sometimes with a smile of triumph, ministers look upon our right to ask for information to which the Canadian people are entitled as though we are under their control when they decide it is not in their interests to reveal this information. I say again what I said a few moments ago, that one has only to read the debates in parliament during the days of Laurier, Borden, Meighen, Bennett and King to see how far parliament has departed from its traditional role and has become merely a puppet in the hands of a cabinet which today vouchsafes to parliament such information as, in its magnanimity, it desires to give.
A moment ago, sir, I mentioned some of the matters connected with pensions which should have been brought before the house. We believe that many of our senior citizens, who today are dependent upon old age security payments, are suffering untold hardships as a result of the increased cost of living. We believe the Canadian people as a whole demand that there be reasonable and proper increases; that the amount of the proposed increases does not meet the situation in any way, and does not meet the aroused conscience of the Canadian people. In saying that, I must add that I do not believe in promising tremendous increases such as have been suggested, of $35 per month. I do believe that the government of Saskatchewan, in its wisdom, placed a limitation on what old age pensions might reasonably become when they stated they were prepared to make the necessary contributions to raise old age assistance payments to $60 per month.
I will say, too, that the Disabled Persons Act needs to be reviewed. The interpretation of the qualifications under the regulations needs to be reconsidered. I know recent changes have been made or recommended, but I believe many hundreds, if not thousands, of citizens of this country who should be entitled to receive disabled pensions are being denied them today because of the degree to which the regulations have changed the qualifications which parliament intended should exist. The question of pensions will be further dealt with by my hon. friends, and I am not making extended reference to
Interim Supply
it. The same thing applies to war veterans pensions. The war veterans allowance should have been extended to provide for payments to those who, in the first great war, served for a period of at least one year in England. This recommendation was made by the Canadian Legion, and I think Canadians as a whole would have accepted with pleasure an increase to that extent.
I come now to one other matter dealing with national development. We are coming to the end of the session. Some slight changes were made in the general taxation situation in this country, but nothing has been done to remove the inequities and unfairness that today prevail, which give to United States people coming into Canada to engage in extractive industry an advantage over Canadian investors. Over and over again we have asked for action in that connection.
I am not going into particulars today concerning the extent to which some of our great extractive industries are becoming more and more the property of United States citizens. We have welcomed, and intend to welcome, foreign investment in this country. We believe, however, that foreign investment should not enjoy a taxation advantage over Canadians. If we allow an advantage to United States business over Canadians in this regard, we turn over to a foreign country the control of our vast resources which are so necessary to the world today. Our vast mineral resources, our oil resources and those things without which freedom cannot march have come and are coming, as a result of the policy of this government, under the control of another country.
We believe in foreign investment, but we also believe that investment in Canada should provide for Canadian considerations first.
We have had an example of that in the last few days. For the last several years we have been saying that Canada should take a firm stand in regard to the intrusion of the United States into Canadian affairs. I am not going to deal with the Norman case in that connection, but I point out that in 1951, when the allegations were first made by the subcommittee of the Senate of the United States, instead of the Canadian government standing up and asking for proof rather than suspicion it took the action of transferring Mr. Norman from the United Nations in New York to far-off New Zealand. That was not the course of courage; that was not the course that should have been taken, if the United States committee was to be made to realize that Canadians believe that the responsibility of looking after Canadians and their interests is for Canadians alone.
I mentioned those tax laws. Why they are not changed I cannot understand. They are

Interim Supply
restrictive in their application. We find ourselves in the position where, in so far as extractive industry is concerned, they are restrictive as compared with the United States, the United Kingdom and the legislation of the republic of France. At the rate we are going, unless action is taken in this regard we shall find ourselves very soon in a position where Canada's heritage of vast natural resources will become the reserve of another country.
Do not tell me that Canadians will not invest. What about the recent opportunity that was offered in the province of Alberta for investment in a local pipe-line proposition? Ninety thousand people in Alberta applied for the opportunity to invest. What about the degree to which interest was recently shown in the issue of Trans-Canada pipe line stock? Well, Canadians applied but did they get it? They got merely a very token share, because a large portion of the stock was made available to three United States companies under the option agreements which were in effect and which parliament did not see because the matter was not submitted to a committee of parliament.
In the last two days we have had the example of pulp and newsprint. We find very strong criticism being made in one of the congressional committees against Canadian pulp producers for having raised the price of newsprint by $4 a ton, which is a very small increase when compared with the percentage of increase on the part of industries producing steel and the like. Canadians are singled out for criticism. Their actions are condemned because Canadian industry endeavoured to protect its own integrity and to assure jobs in Canada for Canadians. We find that this committee of the United States Senate bitterly condemned what they called skyrocketing of prices by Canadians, and even suggested that the time would come when some alternative markets would be secured, thereby depriving Canada of markets in this regard.
That is the way Americans speak. As we have lost our markets throughout the world because of the give-away policies of the United States the Canadian government has protested in a voice that could not be heard. On the other hand we in Canada, with our vast forest resources, are being told by this committee that unless we act as they desire us to act alternatives will have to be found. Several of these companies are American-owned, and the increases that took place applied as well to companies in the United States. I think Canadians as a whole will not view with pleasure the condemnation by such a committee of Canada's economic right
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
and the right of Canadian industry to act as it pleases to provide for the benefit of that industry and of Canada.
Sir, yesterday, in the city of Montreal Mr. P. M. Fox, president of the St. Lawrence Corporation, referred to this criticism as doing great harm to Canadian-United States relations. I say it goes further than that; it indicates the degree to which we in Canada are more and more becoming subordinate in our extractive industries and in pulp production and the like to the demands and the whims of another country.
When we have pointed this out-and the former leader of the opposition dealt with this on a number of occasions-our criticisms were ridiculed. It was stated that there was no basis for them. I believe, sir, at this session action should have been taken to revamp the tax structure of our country, to overhaul it with a view to providing encouragement for the promotion of primary and secondary industries in this country.
We do not expect Canadian investors to enjoy special advantages over foreign investment, but we have the right to ask that Canadians be enabled to compete in extractive industry and in the development of our hidden resources on equal terms with foreign companies and corporations. We believe that promoters and investors in extractive enterprise and in risk enterprises in this country should have precisely the same advantageous treatment in regard to taxation that exists in the United States. To provide that will permit of a very considerable investment volume in our country being made available to Canadians. It will encourage the development of our hidden resources, and that encouragement will enable Canadians, out of the taxation that comes from the profits of successful enterprise and other taxation, to provide a social security program in keeping with modem concepts.
I said a moment ago that Mr. Drew dealt with this matter over and over again. He was ridiculed for the stand he took, but the events of the last few days have underlined once more the foresightedness and prevision he displayed in that regard. Finally, however, the Canadian government decided last fall to warn United States investment in Canada of the necessity of being for the benefit of Canadians first. The views expressed by the opposition were emphasized and re-emphasized in the Gordon report.
I have before me the Atlantic Monthly of March, 1957, which contains an article written by a Canadian, James H. Gray, who was editor of the Farm and Ranch Review and is today the editor and publisher of the Western Oil Examiner of Calgary.

After dealing with the extent to which the Canadian heritage is being maintained as the Canadian heritage, but not by Canada for Canadians, Mr. Gray refers to the speeches made last October by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in Milwaukee and Chicago, and says in part:
His speeches were appeals to Americans to try to understand Canada and Canadians. That he should have felt the need to make such speeches is an indication of the work that is required on Canadian-American relations.
Mr. Gray then speaks of the power vested in the Minister of Trade and Commerce and then quotes what he refers to as "Mr. Howe's appeal to American business".
Anyone who does business in Canada should reckon with the pride, and the legitimate pride, of Canadians in their country. In other words, they should reckon with the normal feeling of nationalism which is present in Canada, just as it is in the United States.
I wish to underline the word "nationalism". The minister was using it as I am using it, not in the sense of acute fanaticism but rather in the sense of pride in one's country that is common to citizens throughout the free world. Quoting the minister the article proceeds:
Canadians do not like to be excluded from an opportunity of participating in the fortunes, good or bad, of large-scale enterprise incorporated in Canada but owned abroad. They may not buy many shares, but they resent the exclusion. They do not like to see large-scale Canadian enterprises entirely dependent upon foreign parents for their research and top management.
I underline the last sentence I read. Many of my hon. friends sitting around me in this chamber have pointed out over and over again the need for United States corporations operating in Canada to provide research opportunities in this country for Canadians, instead of spending the major part if not all of their research expenditures in the United States. The minister's comments continue:
They do not like to see the financial results of large-scale Canadian enterprises treated as if they were the exclusive concern of the foreign owners.
Mr. Chairman, those words epitomize what we in the opposition have said time and time again in the last few years, while the government has blindly denied that this situation had any basis in fact. The minister is then reported as saying:
I make bold therefore to offer three suggestions for the consideration of United States corporations establishing branch plants in Canada or searching tor and developing Canadian natural resources:-
The minister's suggestions are then set out as follows:
X. Provide opportunities for financial participation by Canadians as minority shareholders in the equities of such corporations operating in Canada.
Interim Supply
Those are almost the exact words we in this party have used on numerous occasions during the past several years.
2.	Provide greater opportunities for advancement in United States-controlled corporations for Canadians technically competent to hold executive and professional positions.
We have said that numerous times, and in the last year or so there has been a commendable advance in that regard.
3.	Provide more and regular information about the operations of such corporations in Canada.
Sir, I cannot understand the government's attitude. These corporations of United States parentage operating in Canada deny Canadians the right to invest in Canadian industry. Take any of these large corporations of United States parentage and you will find that the profits from Canada are sent to the United States.


James Joseph McCann: Less 15 per cent.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, less 15 per cent. I was coming to that point, and I thank the minister very much for mentioning it. Is there any reason why the Canadian shareholders in any of these corporations operating in Canada with the parent company in the United States should be subject to a 15 per cent deduction on the dividends issued on the Canadian operation? That is one of the points that should have been met.
Returning to the article Mr. Gray, who has always been a warm admirer of this government, said:
Shortly after these speeches were made by Mr. Howe, I happened to attend a convention of one of the biggest American industries, which has a multi-billion-dollar investment in Canada. I asked the delegates for their reaction to the Howe speeches.
I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to listen to the answer:
In three days none was found who had heard of Mr. Howe, let alone the speeches.
The need for Canadians to realize our heritage and our destiny will not be achieved in a situation such as is revealed in the last words I read from that article. We want to see launched in this country a great development policy under which Canadians will not be denied as they are today the right to join on equal terms with foreign investors coming into our country. We want to ensure that in the days ahead Canadian development to a larger extent than ever before will be brought about through investment by Canadians and thereby maintaining in our country our economic sovereignty.
I say that in the last few days the government finally saw fit, as was revealed yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to point out something not in a spirit of


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I will not take the time to read the resolution which is now before the committee. If I did so it would greatly reduce my allotted time. The resolution, if I understand it correctly, will result in giving to the government at least seven-twelfths of all the items in the estimates

and in some instances as much as eleven-twelfths. I arrive at this calculation by recalling that before the end of March the house passed an interim supply bill granting one-twelfth of the estimates, and now we are asked to vote another six-twelfths of all the estimates, plus additional fractions which in some instances will bring the total up to eleven-twelfths.
I recognize that this is more or less standard procedure when we are on the eve of a general election, but I should point out that the government is today putting parliament in what might well be called an impossible position. The government is putting parliament in the position where it really does not matter what we do. If parliament passes this interim supply bill it will facilitate the holding of the election, which has already been indicated. It will facilitate it by making it possible for the government to draw on all the estimates from now until after the election is over, even though those estimates have not been individually debated and passed either in the committee of supply or in the House of Commons. If we were successful in opposing this bill, that would force an election. This confirms my statement, Mr. Chairman, that the government is putting parliament in the position where it does not matter what we do; either way brings on the election.
There is a third choice. Despite our being in a minority in this house and therefore unable to vote down this measure even if we wanted to, which we do not, we could keep on talking; we could delay the passing of the bill. In that event, if the government wants to hold the election on June 10- and we think it should have been held even sooner-all the government has to do is prorogue and dissolve parliament anyway, and rely on governor general's warrants until the election is held. Therefore, in terms of parliament making a decision, the decision has already been made. The election is to be held; the government needs money for the period until the election is over, and it is going to have that money one way or another no matter what parliament does.
Nevertheless, as I had occasion to indicate yesterday in another connection, parliament's job is not only to pass or defeat legislation. Parliament's job is to discuss matters which are brought before us and to reflect the views of the people of Canada whom we represent. I want to indicate a view which I feel is widespread in this country; that what the government is doing today, in presenting this measure and giving us literally no choice, is typical of the attitude of this government

toward parliament, particularly during the last four years. The government seems to think it has been in the saddle for so long that it really does not matter what parliament wishes to do; it gets its will in one way or another.
With regard to the interim supply proposal before us, may I point out that this is the only way the members of the House of Commons are being given an opportunity to vote on the proposed increases in old age pensions, family allowances, disability pensions, veterans benefits and so on. We are being given this opportunity by means of a proposal to approve, in an interim supply bill, of a fraction of the supplementary estimates which were tabled not long ago by the Minister of Finance.
Because we want to see even these very small increases in pensions come into effect as soon as possible we shall of course support the resolution before us. That is now the only way effect can be given, since parliament is soon to be dissolved, to the announced increases to which reference has already been made this morning. However, I want to register our very strong objection to the way the government has chosen to deal with this question of increases in old age pensions and similar benefits and also with respect to veterans pensions and allowances. I object to the method that is being followed because to us it is an insult to old age pensioners, veterans and others to have the important matter of their pensions dealt with by this type of legislation in this emergency and unsatisfactory method.
As I have said on other occasions there is nothing more important, in our view, that comes before parliament than social security. We think social legislation and veterans legislation should be fully and properly considered by parliament. We think the best jobs on social legislation and veterans legislation have been done when these matters have been referred to committees such as the special joint committee on old age security which met in 1950 or the several committees on veterans affairs which have met from time to time.
In those instances full study was given to these matters, and we think the results were good. But here we have a case where the government has refused to do anything about these important matters throughout the lifetime of this parliament, but on the eve of the election it decides to do just a little bit. It makes that decision so close to the time of the election that there is no opportunity to deal with it by amending legislation in the proper fashion, or by arranging for any discussion in the house or in committee. Instead,
Interim Supply
it manufactures a device which seldom if ever before has been used in the history of the parliament of Canada.
Not only is it an offence to those people who are affected; it is an offence to the importance of this legislation to deal with it in this way, and we feel that it is offensive to proper parliamentary practice. I refer especially, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that the government is using what is known as the device of legislating by items in the estimates. Items Nos. 663 to 670 in the further supplementary estimates tabled a few days ago by the Minister of Finance are items which purport to amend existing statutes. They purport to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act, the Disabled Persons Act, the Maritime Freight Rates Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Pension Act. I draw attention in particular to the fact that Mr. Watson Sellar, the Auditor General of Canada, has on more than one occasion expressed critical comments concerning the practice of legislating by putting items in the estimates.
I have before me a document from which I have had occasion to quote on previous occasions. It is a copy of a memorandum which the Auditor General used when he appeared some years ago before a committee of the other place. The material contained in this memorandum has also appeared at least once, if not more often, in the reports which the Auditor General makes annually to parliament. I draw particular attention to what appears in this memorandum under the heading, "Vote Texts That Legislate."
After making a reference to vote 352 of the main appropriation act for 1931, which happened to be the vote which authorized an annual motor car allowance to be paid to ministers, the Speakers of both houses, and the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Commons, Mr. Sellar points out that payments have been made every year since that time by relying on the text of the 1931 vote. He admits that legislation other than by means of an appropriation act is a convenience when a need is transitory. He goes on to say:
Furthermore, it avoids cluttering the statute books with expired legislation. But from the constitutional viewpoint it is open to the objection that it is, in fact, incomplete legislation because the mode employed circumscribes deliberations by the Senate.
I am not one who usually worries over much about Their Honours in the other place, but we do have a constitution under which we operate, and under that constitution parliament has three branches, the crown, the Senate and the House of Commons; and Mr. Sellar points out that when you legislate by

Interim Supply
putting an item in the estimates you do, in effect, circumscribe the deliberations of the other house. Mr. Sellar points out that this matter has been gone into at various times and that there has been a decision of the judicial committee of the privy council with reference to a comparable situation in Australia. He points out that as a result of that decision which, I admit, was to the effect that legally this can be done, certain decisions were nevertheless taken. Mr. Sellar says, for example:
Consequently, in 1908, the British public accounts committee abandoned its previous viewpoint but declared that:
"It is desirable in the interests of financial regularity and constitutional consistency that such a procedure should be resorted to as rarely as possible, and only to meet a temporary emergency."
I emphasize the fact that Mr. Sellar, by that quotation, lays down the proposition that to legislate by items in the estimates is a course which should be resorted to as rarely as possible, and only to meet a temporary emergency. This underlies my contention, Mr. Chairman, that an increase in old age pensions and in veterans benefits should not be regarded by the government as a temporary emergency but as a major matter of policy, which should be dealt with in the usual and proper way.
Mr. Sellar goes on to quote from the British public accounts committee, in this way:
The fact that a proposed vote overrides an existing statute should be clearly stated on the face of the estimate . . .
The Minister of Finance may tell me that that is done, in the sense that the supplementary estimates say clearly that they provide for amending the statutes concerned.


Walter Edward Harris: I proposed doing that because we had in mind the reference made by Mr. Sellar.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is fine. May I go on to read the rest of Mr. Sellar's reference, which the minister has overlooked. Perhaps I had better reread the portion of the sentence I have already quoted, so as to provide continuity.
The fact that a proposed vote overrides an existing statute should be clearly stated on the face of the estimate, with the reasons for adopting that course, so that no doubt can exist of the deliberate intention of parliament. The exceptional nature of the vote should also be indicated in the appropriation act.
Mr. Sellar makes it clear that you do this only in the case of an emergency, and that when you do you should state what the emergency is. But I see nothing in the supplementary estimates stating what is the fact, namely that the emergency is the election, and that the government feels that with an

election coming on it must do something for our old age pensioners and the recipients of other benefits and allowances.
Later on Mr. Sellar goes on to talk about some of these matters that are repeated annually, and says:
As to transitory cases, it is suggested that they should be brought together in a special schedule to the estimates and be supported by adequate explanations.
And then, as the final sentence under this section headed "Vote Texts That Legislate" Mr. Sellar states-and I draw this particularly to the attention of the Minister of Finance-
Of course, a vote text which deals with a matter which normally should be proceeded with by a bill should be handled as a bill.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in terms of procedure there is no question as to what the government ought to be doing with regard to these pension increases and other payments of this kind. They should be handled by means of seven different bills amending the seven different acts involved; and if you add the Maritime Freight Rates Act, which is included here, that would bring the total to eight. But, no; instead of bringing in the proper bills to amend these eight different statutes which the minister, on budget night, said the government wants to amend, it is done by means of these items in the estimates which, if they are passed, will make it unnecessary for parliament to consider these particular statutes at all.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether hon. members realize what could be the logical result of this course of procedure. Any government that found it embarrassing to be bringing too many pieces of legislation before parliament could some day, on the basis of this precedent, decide that it is a nuisance to be bringing in different bills at all. It could say, "Let us have everything in the estimates; let us have all the legislation that is required for a session in one big blue book of estimates and deal with them all in that way. Then, of course, if parliament gets a bit ornery about it we can always put on closure and thus shorten the session." I submit that it is a fantastic suggestion, but-


Walter Edward Harris: It is the kind of thing of which you are capable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit that we have had things just as fantastic done by this government and that what is being done right now is of this very nature, in that the government refuses to recognize the contention that the minister admits he has read in Mr. Sellar's memorandum. The minister has brought before us a vote that legislates in a way that

avoids amending those eight statutes separately, and he has done so without including in the wording of these particular estimates the reason for doing it in this way.
I hope this is not a transitory matter. It cannot be transitory, because if these estimates are passed they will have operative effect and amend the statutes that are mentioned. It is therefore not something that is transitory and hence excuseable on that ground. If there is an emergency it should be stated. We know what the emergency is, but of course that emergency is not spelled out in the estimates to which I have referred.
We protest most strongly against the way in which the government has played fast and loose with the importance of the subjects themselves. I refer to the subjects of old age pensions, veterans benefits and so on. We protest against the way in which the government is playing fast and loose with the proper procedures of parliament by getting around the normal way of amending the statutes of this country.
I say to the minister that when parliament reassembles in the fall, whatever government is in power, I hope these matters will not be dealt with by passing these supplementary estimates in their present form, but rather that, in their place proper legislation will be brought in amending the statutes individually, so parliament can discuss and deal with these important pieces of legislation in the proper way. I say to him also that we hope that when parliament reassembles in the fall its make-up will be such that the amendments to be made to these statutes can provide for a greater increase in the various pensions than is provided in the estimates now before us.
In that connection, I protest once again against an increase of only $6 a month in old age security, old age assistance, the blindness allowance and the allowance paid to disabled persons. In the light of today's cost of living and in the light of today's gross national product in this country, I think it is grossly unfair not only to the pensioners themselves but to the good name of Canada for us to be increasing these pensions by only 15 per cent. That figure must be set alongside the fact that since 1949, when $40 was arrived at as a pension for these categories, the gross national product has gone up by over 80 per cent.
In connection with these pensions there is one slight change which seems to have been made and which we welcome, although it does not amount to a great deal in terms of dollars. As the house will recall, when the Minister of National Health and Welfare
Interim Supply
spoke in the budget debate on March 22 he announced what were to be the new ceilings in the various acts that come under his jurisdiction where there are means tests. I refer in particular to the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act. I took down the figures as he gave them, and I questioned him at the end of his speech with respect to some of them. He repeated the same figures he had given in the body of his speech.
I then pointed out, as I pointed out more fully in a speech I made on April 2, that in the case of married couples where both husband and wife were on old age assistance or the blindness allowance or the disabled persons allowance-either both of them on the same one or the two of them on one or the other of those allowances-the increase in the ceiling of only $120 a year meant that some of those people would not get the full $144 a year-that is $6 each for twelve months-and I protested most strongly against that type of ceiling.
I am glad to note that in the text of the supplementary estimates which the Minister of Finance has tabled all those instances to which I referred on April 2 have been changed so that the ceiling is $60 higher than was announced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. That $60 increase means that those people who are entitled, by the generosity of the Minister of Finance, to $12 a month extra by way of pension have their ceiling raised by $15 a month, so they get the $12 whereas previously, according to the figures of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, they were to be allowed only $10 a month increase and in that way they were to lose $1 each of what the Minister of Finance had given.
I congratulate the government on paying attention to the criticism we made immediately after the speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare as well as on a later date.


Walter Edward Harris: Don't take yourself too seriously.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Finance, if he wishes to do so, can explain how it was that his colleague made a formal announcement on the basis of cabinet solidarity as to what these ceilings were to be, and how it is that a few days later, after protests had been made against such a low and despicable way of doing things, a change was made.
I want to repeat the insistence I have expressed on behalf of this group that when we come back in the fall, whatever the composition of this House of Commons may be,

Interim Supply
we must do a great deal better for our senior citizens and veterans and other recipients of social welfare benefits than is provided for in the estimates that are now before us.
I noted with interest that my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition is not quite sure as to the amount that his party feels the old age pension should be. He has not stated his party's figure. He has expressed some sort of approval of the figure of $60 which the government of Saskatchewan suggests as a total for those pensions which are paid in part by the province and in part by the dominion. We feel that the government of Saskatchewan is doing well to suggest that it would pay its share of the $60 in these cases. But so far as the movement of which we are a part is concerned, a movement which is in power in the province of Saskatchewan, I can say that we feel that old age pensions and these other benefits should-like family allowances-be paid entirely out of the federal treasury. On that basis, in the light of today's cost of living and in the light of today's gross national product, we contend that these pensions should be of the order of $75 a month.
It is all right for my hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party to say they do not want to promise too much. It is all right to say that it sounds like a tremendous increase over the present $40 a month. But, Mr. Chairman, for those who do not enjoy the standard of living that is enjoyed by those of us in this house who are debating these measures; for those who are trying to stay alive on $40 a month until July 31, when they will get the chance to try to stay alive on $46 a month, we suggest that $75 per month is by no means too much, and that we should be considering paying pensions of that amount right now in a Canada that is producing over $30 billion worth of wealth a year.
I say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker-in conclusion so far as this speech is concerned, because we are now in interim supply and I shall probably be back later-that we object most strongly to the position in which the government is putting parliament in so far as these estimates are concerned. Since it does not matter what we do, we are going to vote for them so as to get these miserly payments started as soon as possible. We say to this parliament and to the people of Canada, when we come back after the election is over-


An hon. Member:: Are you sure you will be back?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will be back, and there will be many more with us. That is on the record, and some of those who are interjecting may not be here to put things on the

record when we come back. But wherever we are in this house, we will continue to work for social justice, and that includes amongst other things a decent break for our senior citizens.


Mr. Blackmore:: In order that as great a number of members in this house as possible, who may have objections to make, may have an opportunity to do so, I propose to limit my remarks to a very short period. I do not do so because the matters which I propose to discuss are unimportant.
I have three grievances which I propose to raise rather briefly. The first of these has to do with the matter of quotas. In our constituency we feel we have been rather unfairly treated in the matter of wheat delivery quotas. May I read the quotas which are now in operation in respect of the various receiving points in the Lethbridge federal riding:
Station
Barnwell .... Broxburn ....
Cardston ....
Chin	
Coaldale ....
Coalhurst ....
Craddock ....
Diamond City Iron Springs .
Jefferson ...
Judson	
Lethbridge ...
McNab	
Monarch	
New Dayton . Nobleford ....
Pearce	
Picture Butte
Raley	
Raymond _____
Stirling ....
Tempest	
Turin	
Warner	
Welling	
Whiskey Gap
Whitney	
Wilson	
Woolford ....
Wrentham ...
Quota in Effect .	5	bushels.	4	".	4	".	4	".	4	".	5	".	4	".	5	".	4	".	5	".	3	".	3	".	4	".	4	".	4	".	4	".	4	".	4	".	3	".	3	".	4	".	4	".	4	".	4	".3	".	3	".	3	".5	",.3	",.4	"
It is important, Mr. Chairman, to bear in mind that the only means whereby these farmers who can deliver so little of their grain can carry on during this year and get ready to plant another crop is through the sale of their wheat. The low quotas prevailing in that area are a grievance of serious magnitude.


Mr. Hansell:: What is the date on those quotas?


John Horne Blackmore: Those are as of March 31, 1957. If the grain delivery situation in western Canada cannot be managed in any better manner than that, then it is obvious that some method must be considered and adopted

different from that which has hitherto been employed. Quotas of that size at this time of year are altogether inadequate.
On several occasions 1 have suggested in this house, as have other members of this group, that there should be advances paid on farm-stored grain. Obviously that is a solution in this case. People may say you cannot go on doing that kind of thing year after year. Perhaps the answer is the adoption of some other method such as arranging, in co-operation with the farmers, for a reduction in the production. But when grain has been produced all the expenses have been incurred, and the grain is there; the farmers have the land and are under the responsibility to produce in a food-hungry world, and manifestly the solutions to the difficulty is not the kind of thing we see exemplified in these quotas.
The next grievance we have pertains to our income tax office. Some hon. members will recall that last year I raised the question of the advisability of closing the income tax office at Lethbridge. I was unable to set forth any organized argument because the rules of the house at that late date in the session forbade such a thing. But I did indicate quite clearly to those who were following the questions I was asking that there were a great many reasons why Lethbridge ought to have an income tax office at least equal in size to the one we had had up to that time.
The minister saw fit to close our income tax office last year. It is the settled opinion of the people of Lethbridge, based upon a good many considerations, that we should have in Lethbridge at the earliest possible moment an income tax office comparable with the one which was opened in Penticton last year. I request that this be done. Whether or not the present government is returned to power, I request that those people who are in charge of the department, the officials who in the last analysis have to do the governing, will consider what I am here saying and will make provision for the early opening of a suitable income tax office in the city of Lethbridge.
The third grievance we have has to do with this government's neglect of the beet sugar industry. In a very large measure the economic activity of the farming area around Lethbridge is affected by the well-being of the beet sugar industry. On many occasions since I came here in 1935 I have pointed out how important the beet sugar industry is to the economy of Canada. I have pointed out what an absolute monstrosity of mismanagement it is to buy sugar from outside this country, pay United States dollars for it and go into debt as much as $28 million a year, when we can raise all our own sugar
Interim Supply
through the beet sugar industry in Canada. We can deliver sugar at a price so low that probably there are only two nations on the face of the earth in which people can obtain sugar at a more reasonable rate than can the people of Canada. I have pointed out that from the standpoint of the improvement of the soil, to maintain soil fertility, it is of the utmost importance that we have a beet sugar industry and that we take care of it, not prey on it or kick it around as has been done in the last half century.
I have pointed out that from the standpoint of the foods which can be produced as a result of the beet sugar industry, considering not only the beet sugar but the beet pulp left after the sugar is extracted; the beet tops, which are a by-product, and the beet molasses which is also a by-product; considering all these facts, the amount of food that can be produced from an acre of sugar beets is greater than the amount of food that can be produced from an acre of any other kind of crop that could possibly be grown in the Dominion of Canada.
For us to be disregarding the beet sugar industry, and producing the sugar which we are using in the main from raw cane, which benefits this nation not the slightest bit, is for us to manifest a lack of intelligence in managing the country.
I do not propose to go much further in respect of this matter at the present time, but I do urge upon those who have charge of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Finance after the election to give careful attention to this matter of the beet sugar industry in Canada. We simply cannot afford to go on incurring an adverse trade balance year after year after year, putting ourselves and our children and our children's children under the bondage of the United States. We simply cannot afford to do that. We cannot afford to allow the fertility of our soil to decrease. Surely we must realize that we have a responsibility to the generations following. We are doing practically nothing at the present time to increase the fertility of our soil.
Just to show what can be done, may I draw hon. members' attention to this most interesting fact. Germany, which found her soils greatly depleted in the 1870's, Germany which intended to become a great nation, decided that something must be done to improve her soils. Between the year 1870 and the year 1903 Germany paid $340 million in subsidies to the sugar beet industry, and in doing so she increased the yield of cereals on her lands from 14 bushels an acre to 39 bushels an acre. Surely, such a fact ought

Interim Supply
to lodge somewhere in the minds of enough Canadians to make them realize that they simply cannot go on drifting any longer. Something simply must be done, and the encouragement of the beet sugar industry is obviously one of the things which ought to be done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with the increases in the veterans pensions and the war veterans allowances which are provided in the further supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958.
We have already had some considerable mention of the general method of bringing in the increases in regard to old age pensions, veterans increases, and so forth. I think the manner of doing this is extremely unsatisfactory, and that is particularly so in the case of increases in veterans pensions and war veterans allowances. In every previous case in which there has been an increase in those veterans benefits the veterans affairs committee has been called together. The government has proposed its increase, generally has given a bill second reading and then referred it to the veterans affairs committee, where a full discussion of the proposals and a full investigation into all of the needs of the situation took place. I think that type of procedure is particularly necessary as far as dealing fairly with our veterans is concerned.
When you have a committee of that kind the veterans organizations are able to make representations and put the case of the veterans before the members of the committee, and thus before the House of Commons and the government. At every one of those committee meetings where proposed increases were brought forward, the Legion, the army, navy and air force veterans, the blind veterans association and numerous other veterans associations appeared to make representations and, as a result of the representations made, as a result of the discussions in that committee, on various occasions the legislation was considerably improved.
The case that comes to my mind most particularly is a proposal that was made by the government in 1947 for an increase in veterans pensions. The then prime minister, Right Hon. Mr. King, rose in the house and said it was proposed to increase pensions by 10 per cent; I think that was the figure mentioned at the beginning. Immediately there was a great outcry that this was not nearly enough. Subsequently Mr. King rose in the house and said the government had decided to increase the pensions by 15 per cent.

A bill was brought in on that basis and referred to the veterans affairs committee. A long discussion took place there. The committee eventually recommended that the increase should be 25 per cent. That was accepted by the government, and an increase of 25 per cent was given. That is an outstanding example of the value of referring matters of this sort to the veterans affairs committee, and of the necessity of doing so if the matter is to be gone into in anything like a reasonable way and the veterans are to get anything like justice. It is one o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
["Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with the increases in the veterans pensions and the war veterans allowances which are provided in the further supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958.\nWe have already had some considerable mention of the general method of bringing in the increases in regard to old age pensions, veterans increases, and so forth. I think the manner of doing this is extremely unsatisfactory, and that is particularly so in the case of increases in veterans pensions and war veterans allowances. In every previous case in which there has been an increase in those veterans benefits the veterans affairs committee has been called together. The government has proposed its increase, generally has given a bill second reading and then referred it to the veterans affairs committee, where a full discussion of the proposals and a full investigation into all of the needs of the situation took place. I think that type of procedure is particularly necessary as far as dealing fairly with our veterans is concerned.\nWhen you have a committee of that kind the veterans organizations are able to make representations and put the case of the veterans before the members of the committee, and thus before the House of Commons and the government. At every one of those committee meetings where proposed increases were brought forward, the Legion, the army, navy and air force veterans, the blind veterans association and numerous other veterans associations appeared to make representations and, as a result of the representations made, as a result of the discussions in that committee, on various occasions the legislation was considerably improved.\nThe case that comes to my mind most particularly is a proposal that was made by the government in 1947 for an increase in veterans pensions. The then prime minister, Right Hon. Mr. King, rose in the house and said it was proposed to increase pensions by 10 per cent; I think that was the figure mentioned at the beginning. Immediately there was a great outcry that this was not nearly enough. Subsequently Mr. King rose in the house and said the government had decided to increase the pensions by 15 per cent.\n\nA bill was brought in on that basis and referred to the veterans affairs committee. A long discussion took place there. The committee eventually recommended that the increase should be 25 per cent. That was accepted by the government, and an increase of 25 per cent was given. That is an outstanding example of the value of referring matters of this sort to the veterans affairs committee, and of the necessity of doing so if the matter is to be gone into in anything like a reasonable way and the veterans are to get anything like justice. It is one o'clock, Mr. Chairman.\nAt one o'clock the committee took recess."]
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, before the luncheon adjournment I had been speaking of the extremely unsatisfactory way in which the increases in war veterans allowances and veterans pensions had been handled at this session, and of the fact that we are now asked to vote a portion of the supplementary estimates. I pointed out in particular that matters relating to veterans affairs had always been handled through the veterans affairs committee, and the fact that this had not been done this year and the committee had not been convened meant that the veterans organizations had no opportunity to present the veteran's case.
I can see no reason why the matter could not have been handled in the regular manner this session. No doubt the government knew some considerable time ago that these increases were going to be put into effect; therefore there was no reason why they could not have brought in the increases in the form of an amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act and then referred the matter to the veterans affairs committee.
The fact that this was not done points up the necessity for a standing committee on veterans affairs, something for which all parties in the opposition have argued for a number of years. We have repeatedly called upon the government every year for some considerable time past to make this a standing committee of the house rather than leaving it as a special or select committee which is convened only when the government feels like convening it. The fact that the special veterans affairs committee was not called to meet this year and that these increases were not submitted to it makes it appear that the government deliberately avoided having the committee meet.

The Legion and other veterans organizations had of course called for a 33J per cent increase in pension rates. It seems to me quite apparent that the government did not want to give these veterans organizations an opportunity to present their case for the veterans, and particularly they sought to avoid the publicity which would have resulted from the convening of that committee and the presentation of the veterans case by the organizations concerned. In my opinion the government thought that by handling it in this hit and miss manner far less attention would be given to the small increases which have been provided in some cases and the fact that no increases were provided in relation to other veterans.
When we examine the actual increases provided we find that the largest increase is for a single veteran who receives a pension on the basis of total or 100 per cent disability. When these supplementary estimates are finally passed total disability pensioners will receive an increase of $25 a month. Their yearly rate will then increase from $1,500 a year to $1,800 a year. That is a 20 per cent increase and represents the highest increase granted. The increases range from that percentage down to nothing.
When speaking in the budget debate recently I pointed out that a cleaner and helper in the employ of the Department of Public Works receives a salary of $2,760 a year. There are various other categories of labourers in the civil service who receive the same rate. You might say their wages are on a level with those received by a labourer. When the Pension Act came into force following the first great war the theory upon which it was based and to which this government has always subscribed, and which is supposed to be operative at the present time, was that a 100 per cent disability pensioner should receive a pension based on the wages received by a common labourer.
That theory has gone by the board in practice as far as this government is concerned. As matters stand at the present moment the total disability pensioner is receiving just slightly more than half the wages paid to a common labourer employed in the government service, to say nothing of the even higher wages received in many instances by people in the same classification working outside the government service. When the increase comes into effect the total disability pensioner will receive $1,800 a year, which is less than two-thirds of the amount received by labourers in the government service. It is evident from this that the government has completely failed to increase veterans pensions sufficiently to meet the increase which
Interim Supply
has taken place in the cost of living and to maintain the relative position of the pensioner as compared to the common labourer.
When we come to consider the married pensioner we find that his increase amounts to 17.6 per cent. The widow of a veteran who was killed overseas receives a 15 per cent increase, from $100 to $115 a month. From this modest increase of 15 per cent we go to the single man in receipt of war veterans allowance, who receives no increase at all. This also applies to the widow of a man who had been in receipt of war veterans allowance and then died; she receives the same as a married veteran on war veterans allowance, $60 a month. It is these two groups of people who particularly need help, and they are the very ones for whom no help was provided as far as these increases are concerned.
Since speaking on this matter in the budget debate I have received a considerable number of letters from all across Canada, each of which tells a pitiful story of hardship and extreme difficulty because of the meagre amount of war veterans allowance these people are drawing. Most of the letters constitute a plea as to whether something can still be done at this session to meet their situation, a plea for an increase in the basic amount of the war veterans allowance.
Generally speaking I think there is no doubt that the government is not dealing fairly with our veterans. The Canadian people as a whole expect that adequate pensions and allowances will be paid to those men who have fought for their country.
The total amount of money involved in providing adequate pensions and adequate war veterans allowances would not be very considerable, particularly in relation to the total budget and the total expenditure for many other things.
As far as the increases provided in the supplementary estimates are concerned, they come to a total of $19,250,000. I would think that even at this late date, surely it might be possible for the Minister of Finance and the government to provide for some increase in the war veterans allowances to those people who are the worst off of all veterans, the single veteran, the widow of a veteran, the widower who perhaps is left with a child to look after.
I know this session is almost at an end; we expect or hope it will end today or tomorrow, or at the latest on Saturday. Even under those circumstances it would be quite possible, if the government should care to do so, to increase those allowances. I know all the members on this side of the house, and I am sure nearly all the members on

Interim Supply
the government side, would be willing to waive the ordinary rules in order to make it possible to put these increases into effect.
I would hope that matters of this sort, such as veterans allowances and pensions, when they are dealt with in future will be taken care of in a manner different from what has been the case this session. I hope the procedure which has been followed here for so many years will be followed again and that the matter will be referred to the veterans affairs committee. I further hope that no matter what government is in power next year, further increases will be provided for our veterans, both in the matter of pensions and war veterans allowances; and I am quite sure that if this party takes over, which I have every hope it will, these increases will be put into effect.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have hurriedly made a few notes, and I am not going to take the time of the house by repeating some of the excellent arguments already made by the member for Winnipeg North Centre and other members of this group on the importance of legislation with respect to the veterans, old age pensioners, blind pensioners and civilians who are disabled. I heartily support the remarks made by the member who has just taken his seat with particular respect to the necessity for improving the situation in some respects for the veterans and their dependents in this country.
I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the house one or two matters which are of very serious concern to some of my constituents. To date some 5,000 of my constituents have been denied satisfactory radio reception owing, in many cases, to the weakness of the signals. For this reason they cannot hear radio programs, Canadian or United States, at night. I have raised this matter repeatedly throughout the years in this house; I have taken it up with other members of the special committee established to study broadcasting in Canada; I have taken it up also with the chairman of the C.B.C. and with the district officers of the C.B.C. in Vancouver.
The chairman of the C.B.C. and his officials are fully aware of the situation, and they regret it exists. They have given me a most sympathetic hearing when I have attempted to put before them the views of my constituents with respect to the injustice they suffer. I have been told repeatedly that owing to the large requirements for television there are no funds available to see that these people have low-power relay stations that would provide all C.B.C. radio programs.

I was reading the report of the royal commission on broadcasting recently. I notice that the commission has dealt with this problem, and that it is not a problem which affects my constituency alone. A good number of people in various parts of Canada suffer this injustice, as I call it-and I say "injustice" because while others are able to obtain television they are still not able to obtain radio facilities-owing to some peculiar atmospheric condition or the topography of the country. I understand in the mountains it is very difficult to get strong signals over a great distance, so that there is a very shallow covering of earth over these rocks which also affects transmission.
On page 209 of the report the commission has this to say:
It came as something of a surprise to us that as much as 74 per cent of our total population is within reach of four or more radio stations during the daytime. At night, this percentage drops to about 43 per cent due to an increase in interference from distant co-channel and adjacent channel stations. The following table shows the percentages of population capable of hearing one, two, three or four or more Canadian radio stations.
At first glance, it would appear that radio coverage in Canada is very good. And indeed it is. Yet there are still almost half a million people in this country who cannot, except under freak atmospheric conditions, receive the signal of even one Canadian station.
I have quite a number of constituents in that group. The report continues.
After considering every aspect of this question with our financial advisers and C.B.C. management, we have come to the conclusion that a limited plan for the extension of radio coverage is desirable.
I am very pleased to see those recommendations. Then in another paragraph on page 210 the commission has this to say:
The most important single element in this plan is the erection of the 97 low-power relay transmitters and the four new transmitters which is contemplated in our six-year forecast at a total capital cost of nearly $2 million. These new facilities, particularly the low-power relay transmitters, are to be located in remote areas of every province except Prince Edward Island which, for obvious reasons, does not give rise to as difficult problems as her sister provinces. The over-all capital investment in the extension plan will be about $3.3 million including a contingency of $1 million to provide for future growth and shifts in population.
I do hope that as a result of this report the government will give relief to the half million Canadians who have been denied satisfactory radio reception to date by installing the necessary high-power transmitters or low-power relay stations that are required. In my district they are required at points on Kootenay lake, Slocan lake and the Arrow lakes.
This is a district which is producing, as a matter of fact, the highest family income per capita in Canada; and many of these

men in the woods and the mines, who are producing the wealth that is coming from that district are denied the opportunity to even listen to a radio program. Some can listen to United States stations at night, but none of them receive satisfactory reception from any Canadian station.
I hope the government will give consideration to that report, and that when we come back next session, Mr. Chairman, we will find the government will introduce a measure to remedy this long-standing grievance.
There are one or two other matters I wish to bring to the attention of the house. I do want to emphasize the need for a wing dam at the mouth of the Columbia river where it enters the North Arrow lakes. There was a wing dam at that point some 20 years ago, built at a relatively small cost. That dam diverted the main current well out into the lake, preventing silt forming in the docking area and, in winter, preventing ice forming at the approaches to the wharf. Owing to neglect during the war the dam became ineffective and was washed out by high water, with the result that there is now very heavy silting of the wharf area.	Moreover, in winter
icing conditions around the wharf are now causing considerable trouble. Ice forms to a depth of between six and eight feet, and it is quite difficult at times for vessels to get to the dock at Arrowhead.
I suggest that the expenditure of $25,000 for the building of a wing dam at the mouth of the Columbia where it enters the lakes would mean the saving of the considerable sums now required to be spent on dredging the channel through the lake to the wharf area, and I urge that consideration be given to this matter when next year's estimates are being prepared.
I also want to urge the necessity for continuous and increased dredging in the narrows between the upper and lower lakes. Traffic through the narrows is increasing. I notice the hon. member for Charlotte is listening; he always does when anything is mentioned concerning ships. In the early days the vessels using these waters were stern wheelers. Those have now been replaced by tugs towing rafts, barges and things of that sort. The tugs have a deeper draft, with the result that it is necessary to have continuous and increased dredging in the narrows, and I hope this matter will also receive consideration when the estimates are being prepared for next year.
In addition, I urge that an early start be made on the wharf at Nakusp. The present wharf is quite inadequate to meet the needs of the district, and everyone in
Interim Supply
that area is looking forward to an early start on the construction of a new one. We are very pleased indeed that money has been voted for the construction of this wharf and, as I say, we hope work will commence at an early date. The same observation applies to the Crawford Bay wharf in Crawford bay on the Kootenay lake.
Mr. Chairman, I have only one other matter I wish to mention, and that is a matter I have brought up repeatedly in this house over the last six years; the question of the necessity of calling a dominion-provincial conference with a view to establishing nationwide principles for the conservation of the land, soil, forest and water resources of this country. I mention this matter again bceause I want what may be my last remarks this session to be on this question. I intend to deal with the subject briefly, because I have repeated my arguments annually, so far with little effect but with growing hope on account of the widespread and increasing request for federal action along the lines I have suggested.
I acknowledge what the government has done under various enactments, the forestry act, the water conservation act, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and so on. But, as I have said on other occasions, I think it it a policy of bits and pieces, and we want a co-ordinated policy in connection with the conservation of renewable natural resources in this country at as early a date as possible. I urge that the need is pressing and demands action by the federal government without delay.
I suggest the federal government should forge the necessary link in the chain of responsibility in the administration of conservation measures in this country by calling a dominion-provincial conference to do the following things: first, to establish nationwide principles with regard to the conservation of soil, forest and water resources and land use in Canada; second, to focus attention on common objectives in the application of those principles.
Mr. Chairman, I would again urge the government to consider the desirability of a land use survey of Canada, which would comprise a survey of our soil, forest and water resources as a basis for really longterm planning. Such a survey, and the operations consequent upon it, would be of great value in planning future industrial development in this country, in addition to its obvious uses. We have undertaken surveys in Ceylon and Pakistan under the Colombo plan; surely we can apply this same common-sense approach to our own problems here in Canada.

Interim Supply
I suggest, also, that the application of those principles to which I have referred would provide for the development and co-ordination of research between the federal and provincial governments, between the universities and the private organizations in this country and the educational programs which have to do with conservation. It would provide, also, for a satisfactory division of financial responsibility as among the various groups concerned.
I have always maintained that the federal government has a definite interest in the development and conservation of our natural resources because of the large revenue it draws as a result of the utilization of these resources. I may say at this point that I am very glad the federal government has shown its interest in these matters by its offer of co-operation with the government of British Columbia in the building of dams on the Columbia river. Then again, if my suggestion is carried out, we could undertake over-all planning to avoid duplication of effort. At the present time there is some duplication of research, some duplication of educational effort and some duplication of expenditure in several directions which could be avoided if there were over-all planning among federal and provincial governments, private industry and other interested groups.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think if we had the type of conference I have suggested it would give rise to a national publicity with regard to the importance of this Question which is lacking at the present time, and an awareness of the situation which the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has said from time to time is lacking among the general public of this country. We would focus attention across the nation on the national nature of this problem; and the value of the attendant publicity. This is very necessary if we are going to interest large numbers of people in what at times appears to many of them to be quite an abstract question. That is all I have to say at this time but I do hope the government will give consideration to the representations I have made.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take very long in saying what I have to say, but I do want to mention something about the freight rate structure of this country. I notice in the supplementary estimates an item of $1,500,000 for assistance to the Atlantic provinces by way of concessions in regard to freight rates.
Let me say immediately, Mr. Chairman, that I am very pleased indeed that some action is being taken to give the maritimes an adjustment in their freight rate structure.
[Mr. Herridge.l
It is long overdue. One of the main things holding back the general development of this country is the unsatisfactory freight rate structure. This applies not only to the maritimes but also to western Canada, and I was amazed the other day when the Minister of Transport told me, while I was discussing this subject in the house, that he could not see any reason why consideration should be given at this time to investigating the freight rate structure of western Canada at the same time that we were doing something about it in the maritimes.
The inference, of course, was that western Canada had been doing rather well, and that therefore it did not need any assistance in this matter of the freight rate structure.
But the obvious thing should be clear even to the Minister of Transport, namely that since about 1945 there has been a continuous increase in freight rates. The Gordon commission pointed out the fact, I believe, that there had been increases in freight rates of 100 per cent, I think it was, since 1945. I am only speaking from memory now but I think my memory serves me right.
Every one of us in this house knows, or should know, that whenever a general freight rate increase is allowed by the board of transport commissioners, that increase is not applied evenly across the country. If it were applied evenly across the country then of course there would not be so much objection. But in the two central provinces-and they are the provinces that are considered to be in what they call a competitive area-the freight rates are not increased to the same extent as they are in those other provinces which are considered to be in the non-competitive area, namely the maritime provinces or the Atlantic provinces and the western provinces. Because of this continual increasing of the freight rates over and above the freight rate structure which exists in the central provinces, those two extremes of the country are put in a very difficult position. Whatever I say about western Canada applies equally to the maritimes. That is why I am pleased that some relief is being given to the maritime provinces in these estimates.
We out in western Canada find it difficult indeed to compete in the manufacture of those articles that are being produced here in Ontario. For instance, if we want to go into the furniture business, we find that to have the raw lumber shipped out to the province of Alberta, Saskatchewan or British Columbia, but to the two prairie provinces particularly, it costs us more than it does for the central provinces to ship out the manufactured product. As for the canning industry in connection with garden products such as peas, carrots, beets and things of that nature,

it costs us nearly as much to get empty cans out there as it does to have eastern Canada send the cans out filled. You just cannot progress in a nation of this size if you are going to have such an unequal freight rate structure in this country. It seems to me that the government would be well advised to have another look at this over-all freight rate structure in order to see whether they cannot bring it nearer to equality.
It was not so long ago that we gave the railways $7 million for this bridge in the northern part of Ontario. What for? In order to see whether they could not use it to reduce freight rates to western Canada. However, nothing was done. In fact the only thing that has been done, as every hon. member knows, is that we have increased freight rates in western Canada, and we have increased them on the movement of grain for domestic purposes. It is true that the Crowsnest pass rates have not been touched, but it is becoming a very touchy point now and every possible effort is being put forth by both railways to have the Crowsnest freight rates changed. It is odd that whenever they apply for a freight rate increase they bring up this question. It is equally odd that whenever the railways have had increased revenues you find that there has been an increased movement of grain. Hence they cannot be losing much money because of that movement, though they claim they are.
Seldom has there been an inquiry into the freight rate structure of this country, as a result of the railways making application to the board of transport commissioners for an increase, when the other eight provinces of Canada have not appeared before the transport board pointing out these various facts, namely the inequalities of the present freight rate structure and the discrimination as far as western Canada and the maritime provinces are concerned. We have had ministers from the maritime provinces and from western provinces appear before the transport board, but to no avail. The decision has always been to increase freight rates. Let me say again that if it is necessary to increase freight rates it should be done on an equal basis, and that the onus and the burden of the increase should not be placed on the maritimes and western Canada.
That is all I want to say on this point. I have spoken on it many times previously in this house. I hope the government will see fit to give this problem serious consideration. They have already undertaken the first step in the maritimes. Again may I say that I am pleased to see this happening, because goodness knows the maritimes need it. I was
Interim Supply
about to say, and I hope no one will misunderstand me when I say it, that when I visited the maritimes last year I found that they were probably as backward as any place in Canada in the development of their resources. That condition was not owing to the inertia of the people at all but was owing entirely to the fact that they have not had a square deal, particularly in the matter of freight rates.
This provision is going to give them some assistance. They will be able to develop their resources a little better. They will be able to raise their standard of living a little. Maybe the reason western Canada has progressed so rapidly is that they have rid themselves of the old line parties entirely. That might be the solution for the maritimes. They made a change but I do not see to what good purpose; at least some of them made a change. I hope this change tends to improve their position a little. However, they might do a great deal better if they would get rid of the old line parties and get on their own. Examples have proved what can be done out in western Canada. Seriously, I hope the minister will give consideration to a general overhaul of the freight rate structure in order to see whether it cannot be brought a little bit closer to equality.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, there are two matters with which I should like to deal with this afternoon, and I shall try to do so as briefly as possible. The first matter has to do with welfare services. The government's increase of $6 in the old age pension, which I understand takes into account the percentage rise in the cost of living since January 1, 1952, has certainly been a step that has caused a great deal of concern and anger in the country. It has done so not because the people are annoyed at having the old age pension raised, but rather because the amount most certainly was not enough.
Of course, I think occasionally there is a great deal of misunderstanding as to the purpose of the old age pension. I believe some people seem to have the idea that it is intended to maintain people without any other source of income. However, it is my understanding that the theory behind the old age pension was that it was not intended to do this but rather was intended to supplement the savings of elderly people, and to compensate elderly people for their loss of earning power because of age.
If we follow that principle through to its logical conclusion it would certainly seem that this $6 increase in the old age pension is not enough. You may ask, Mr. Chairman, why it is not enough. You may say it has taken into account the percentage increase in

Interim Supply
the cost of living since 1952; why is it not enough? I say it is not enough for this reason. The life savings of people, their insurance and other assets, have fallen in value greatly because of the decrease in the purchasing power of the dollar. As a result of this decrease in the purchasing power of the dollar, as hon. members know, the dollar today is worth just about half what it was worth 15 years ago.
Apparently the government failed to take this fact into consideration when it gave this $6 increase in the old age pension. I hope the party that forms the government after the coming election will review this matter and increase the amount. We have heard arguments put forward to the effect that the old age pension could not be increased because such an increase would increase inflation since it would increase spending. But as has been pointed out in this house on many occasions in the last few weeks, who is the biggest spender of all? The answer again, of course, is the government.
What would be a suitable figure to which to raise the old age pension, Mr. Chairman? There have been many opinions expressed on this. The members of the party to my left suggest $75 a month. I am afraid I could not agree with that because I feel it is too much out of line. My own personal view, and I repeat this is my personal view, is that the amount should be raised to $60 per month. I cannot see that this figure would be out of line in any way, and it would take into consideration the fall in the purchasing power of people's life savings since 1941 or 1942.
The other matter with respect to welfare services upon which I should like to touch is this question of the blind persons' allowance. If the old age pension is intended to supplement the lack of earning power because of a person's age, certainly the same principle should apply to blind persons. These people have lost one of their most valuable physical assets, their eyesight, and that certainly affects their earning power. I believe there should be no means test connected with the receipt of this pension. It should be a payment to compensate a person for the loss of one of his most valuable physical assets.
Another aspect of old age security and old age assistance is this question of the 20-year residence qualification. Since this country has embarked upon a very extensive immigration program, encouraging people from other countries to come here, it seems to me unfair and inconsistent to invite people to this country and then tell them they are

not going to get the welfare services Canadians get until they have been here for 20 years. It seems to me that is an inconsistent and unfair government policy.
There are many ways in which this particular regulation works hardship, and I refer particularly to people from the United Kingdom. I know of several cases in which people went to the United Kingdom just before the war in 1939. They were visiting friends or relatives, and they got caught there because they could not obtain return passage. There was a shortage of shipping space during the war. It is very difficult, of course, for them to prove that they applied for return passage. They would go to an office and be told, "No, we cannot give you any passage".
I have spoken to the Minister of National Health and Welfare about this and he has tried to be helpful, but as the regulations stand it is very difficult to prove that these people tried to get back. Now they have to suffer as a result. I would hope that some change could be made in these regulations at a future date.
Another aspect of welfare services concerns those who are in receipt of allowances because they are totally and permanently disabled. It is said that there are as many legal opinions as there are lawyers, and that may be true. I have found also that there are often as many medical opinions as there are doctors, and I say that with all respect to that profession. In many of these tricky, borderline cases, the question arises as to whether or not a person is permanently disabled. He may be totally disabled, but the question whether or not he is permanently disabled is one upon which we receive many opinions. For instance, in Ontario there are certain medical persons who decide whether or not a person is totally and permanently disabled. Well, that is all right. Then apparently because the federal government contributes to these pensions, the federal government have their own medical people who have to pass judgment on this question as well. If these medical people do not agree the person who requires assistance is the one who suffers. It should be one or the other. If the federal government are going to contribute they should have their own doctors do the examining, or else have it done by the province concerned.
I know of many cases in which the people concerned have asthma. Sometimes they have to go into hospital and are put into oxygen tents. They cannot work, and they are getting older all the time. Often they have to rely on the community for needed medical services, yet they cannot get this

allowance because the doctors say they are not permanently disabled. It is unlikely they will recover, but they might. I feel these people should receive the benefit of the doubt.
The next matter with which I should like to deal is pipe lines. I have in mind a specific company, the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company. At the moment it is going to construct a pipe line through western Ontario from Sarnia to Port Credit. There have been other pipe lines built in southwestern Ontario. Imperial Oil built one a few years ago and there were no difficulties at that time, but I shall deal with that in some detail later. This pipe line is supposed to go through my county, the county of Oxford, and through the counties of Halton, Peel, Wentworth, Brant, Middlesex and Lambton.
I have delayed saying anything about this matter until today in the hope that some satisfactory settlement might be arranged between the company and the land owners. Since none has been made, and the company has shown not the slightest inclination to compromise in any way, except in the most trivial details, I intend to bring the matter to the attention of the house. I hope that whatever government is in office in the fall will make the appropriate amendments to the Pipe Lines Act to prevent these big companies misusing their power against individuals who are not in nearly as good a position to look after themselves.
This company started out to construct this pipe line. The first thing they had to do was to obtain options on the land covering the route of the pipe line. I should like first to bring to the attention of the house the methods that were used by this company in obtaining these options. They used all sorts of high pressure methods. They went to people's houses, put their foot in the door, and often they would not get out of the house until the option had been signed. Another thing they did was to tell people they had the power to expropriate the land, and the people had to sign or the company would take the land. These representations were simply not the case. At the time the company were obtaining these options they did not, in fact, have the power to expropriate any land at all. Many options were obtained under false pretences, innocently or otherwise and I certainly think otherwise.
The agents of this company would go to a land owner and say, "This is our offer; take it or leave it". They would say they would not compromise, would not even discuss it. "You have to take our offer, and if you do not we will expropriate". They would say, "We will take you to court about it". The
82715-216J
Interim Supply
Pipe Lines Act provides for arbitration proceedings on the price of the land, so that of course is true. It is impossible for most small land owners to fight a big company like Interprovincial Pipe Line which, I understand, is largely controlled by the Imperial Oil Company. Most people do not like the idea of having to hire a lawyer, which is expensive, to fight a company like that with expert witnesses at its disposal and the ability to hire the best legal counsel. Even if they did win it would be a pyrrhic victory. They would say, "We might win a couple of hundred dollars and it would cost us $500 or $600 to win, if we won at all".
Since I practised law for some years in the county of Oxford, I have some idea of the value of land in that area. It usually sells for around $200 per acre. The company's offer was from $3.75 per running rod,-that is a strip 60 feet wide and a rod long,-to around $4.60. They said that was the company's offer and that was all they were getting. The lower figure covered land that was perhaps less fertile.
The land owners in the area wanted $5 a rod. All the farmers were asking was $5 for the use of a piece of land 60 feet wide and a rod long. That was all they were asking, plus $2 for subsoil damage. That, of course, referred to such matters as clay, gravel and rocks brought to the surface in the digging of the ditch for the pipe line, which certainly reduces the value of crops grown on that land in the future.
It must also be remembered that this pipe line interferes with the drains the people have put in. They are very expensive, and this interference causes a lot of trouble. It *must also be remembered that buildings naturally cannot be erected in the area where the pipe line runs, not to mention the fact that some people just do not like the idea of a pipe line going through their property. This is supposed to be a free country, and if they do not like pipe lines they are entitled to that view whether it is logical or not.
The farmers asked for only $5 plus $2 for subsoil damage. The company would not compromise. They said, "No, not a cent more; that is all we are going to give you."
I have in my hand a clipping from the London Free Press, dated Saturday, April 6, 1957, having regard to another pipe line that is intended to be put through western Ontario. It refers to a pipe line of the Union Gas Company that will go through Waterloo county, the county adjoining Oxford. The farmers there are asking $10 a rod instead of $5. Probably they will not have much more success than the farmers had in Oxford,

Interim Supply
but this is another example. The county of Waterloo is similar to the county of Oxford agriculturally. As I say, the farmers in Waterloo county are asking $10, and the land owners in Oxford county asked only $5. The company said no.
The cost to this company would have been only a few thousand dollars, but they have been absolutely adamant on the matter. It seems a very strange and unwise thing for a large company such as this, which is controlled largely by the Imperial Oil Company, to take this view, because it is very hard on public relations. These big companies are often open to public scrutiny and criticism, and this is one of the reasons I cannot understand why a large company such as Imperial Oil, which must spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and perhaps $1 million a year on public relations and good-will advertising, such as the hockey broadcasts which we all enjoy, should do such a foolish thing as this in order to save a few thousand dollars. Because of this action a lot of ill-will has been generated, not only in Oxford but in other counties as well.
I do not wish to go into the details of the manner in which the company gained its expropriation powers, or to take the time of the house to do it. If anybody is interested he can look it up. Under the Pipe Lines Act, after a company decides on the route it is going to take it has to go before the board of transport commissioners to get approval of the route; and land owners and others, of course, are allowed to make representations to the board as to the route of the pipe line. The members of the board in this case-and they may be technically right; I think there is some question about it-said, "We wash our hands of the whole affair", like the well-known gentleman in Biblical times. They said, "It is not for us to decide; we have only to approve the route or any alternative route that is proposed. We will have to allow this one".
Once the route is approved by the board of transport commissioners the powers of expropriation fall into the hands of the company under the terms of the act. A number of people made representations to the board of transport commissioners. For instance, in the case of the county of Oxford only half the land owners had signed the option, and some of the options had been obtained from them by false pretences. I know there were representations from the counties of Halton, Peel and elsewhere.
Most people agree that in this case it is to the economic good of the country as a whole for the pipe line to go through, but it was suggested that changes in the route

could be made. I myself submitted a brief to the board on behalf of the land owners.
I did not appear at the hearing, but I sent a brief. I submitted that I thought the board of transport commissioners should withhold their decision until such time as more of the land owners had signed up- only half of them had signed up-'and until such time as the company showed some indication of attempting to make some sort of compromise, some negotiated settlement with the land owners.
The board of transport commissioners said, "No, that is not our business; we will not do that". They allowed the application. I know of one case where a farmer objected to the route because it was going to go right down the middle of drains in his fields, which was a costly matter. Of course they said they would compensate him for that. I pointed out the difficulties in arbitration cases such as this. All this man requested was that the drain be moved from the middle of his field around to the edge of it along the fence line, which would not interfere with the route of the pipe line and would have caused little or no inconvenience to the company. I am told that the board of transport commissioners said to the company's representatives and this particular land owner, "You can work this all out, and we suggest you do"; but that did not prevent the board from approving the route without having the matter finally settled.
My contention, Mr. Chairman, as I have already said, is the board of transport commissioners could have withheld approval of the route of this pipe line and that, of course, would have withheld the powers of expropriation from the company until a settlement through negotiation had been reached. They did not do that. I also think they could have condemned some of the unethical actions of the company in obtaining those options, but they did not do that either.
There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the committee in this regard. I mentioned earlier that the Imperial Oil Company had built a pipe line in western Ontario some years ago. It was in the early 1950's. There was no difficulty at that time. I know from personal knowledge, in fact, that there was no difficulty. There were no powers of expropriation at all, but they got their pipe line through. Not having powers of expropriation they had to deal with the land owners, and they had to make some sort of compromise. In one or two instances I know we had land owners who did not want a pipe line to go through their land, and it went through the next farm. The pipe line went through, and it

did not cost the company a great deal of extra money. They negotiated and everybody was happy.
In this case, because of the terms of the Pipe Lines Act the power of expropriation is given to the company. It is bad enough, Mr. Chairman, to have to give the powers of expropriation to the government. It is tough enough to deal with the government on these matters such as highways. We all know that in certain cases it is necessary, but I certainly think powers of expropriation should not be given to big companies except as a last resort, and only as a last resort.
When big companies have powers of expropriation they do not make any attempt at negotiation. In this case you have a very good example of it. They said, "This is our price, take it or leave it. We will take it to court and arbitrate. We can fix you. We can hire expert witnesses, big lawyers and all the rest of it." This is an example of the misuse of the powers of expropriation. If this company did not have those powers but had to negotiate, as the Imperial Oil Company did a few years ago, a satisfactory solution would have been reached. It is true it is more expedient and easier for a big company to have these powers of expropriation, but it is kind of hard on small land owners who find it pretty tough to stand up to these companies.
I mentioned also that the powers of expropriation should be given only very sparingly to these companies because often it may not be the decision of the top executive; often they may not be aware of these matters, but some of the people occupying the position of fifth or sixth wheel down the line do these things. They bring big business and private enterprise into disrepute by carrying on in this way. Acts such as these are unhealthy for our economy and business in general.
In my submission, whatever party may form the government next year it should make appropriate amendments to the pipe line act and perhaps give further powers to the board of transport commissioners to prevent a situation such as this arising in the future. The damage has been done in this case and I suppose it cannot be repaired now but I certainly hope that provision will be made to prevent such activity taking place in the future.	There is no
doubt that there will be further oil or gas pipe lines passing through western Ontario, and the rest of the country too of course, and I think this kind of activity is something that should be discouraged.
Interim Supply


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, in this session of parliament we have not had much discussion on one of the major problems affecting most of the growing areas of Canada and especially affecting the people of the province of British Columbia. We have not had any amendments to the National Housing Act this year and we also have not had before us the estimates of the Minister of Public Works. I rather regret that he is not able to be here this afternoon but since most of what I have to say affects the responsibilities of the Minister of Finance perhaps even more than those of the Minister of Public Works, I am hoping that the former hon. gentleman who is in his seat will pay at least some measure of attention to what I and the group I represent consider one of the major problems in the country. If I am not mistaken in my calculation parliament in this session has met for some 70 days now. I have gone through the records and I find that on no less than 14 occasions hon. members in all sections of the house and even some on the government side have cast some doubt as to the wisdom of the present housing policy of this government and the effectiveness of the National Housing Act.
We began the year with some questions being directed to the minister concerned on orders of the day and for a considerable length of time we were faced with rather flat denials that Canada could expect a decline in housing this year. It took several weeks of questioning to wear down the resistance on the part of the government to the charge that was being rather widely made by various organizations from one end of Canada to the other to the effect that there was going to be a serious decline in the number of houses built this year. However, even though the government finally has admitted that there is going to be a decline in home building this year they have failed to admit as yet that the decline is a serious one and they have failed also to take any remedial action. We are now in interim supply which includes the estimates of the Minister of Public Works. We in this group regret that in his estimates there is not a larger sum of money allotted to the encouragement of the construction of more homes for our Canadian people.
Most of the remarks I have to make have to do with the subject of interest rates. Our position in the C.C.F. has always been that for most of the Canadian people the government should undertake measures that will make mortgage money for house construction available to prospective home owners at cost. We also realize that there are many

Interim Supply
The attitude of the government is a most interesting one. I have already placed on record the reply of the Minister of Finance to the hon. member for St. Paul's on February 6 when he expressed his pleasure that the anti-inflation measures which the government had undertaken were having some effect, as evidenced by the shortage of money available for housing. I thought that was a remarkable disclosure of attitude on the part of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Public Works has not yet expressed his attitude. I feel-and I mean this sincerely- that he knows the situation and believes that some action is necessary. However, when he is faced with the attitude of the Minister of Finance, the attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the attitude of the Prime Minister, he recognizes that he is sitting only in the second row of the cabinet benches and is afraid even to disclose his personal opinion to the house.
X have mentioned the attitude of the Prime Minister. It is a well known fact that several years ago the Prime Minister announced to the country that he was basically opposed to the subsidization of interest rates either for the construction of homes or for loans to municipalities. On February 7, replying to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni he explained his views to the house. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni asked him whether in view of the high earnings of capital in the industrial development of Canada at the present time the Prime Minister still claimed that such things as housing were able, or apt, to compete with industrial development for money on the money market. The Prime Minister's reply, as given on page 1055 of Hansard, was to the effect that those who needed money for the building of homes would simply have to compete with the needs of industrial development for the limited supply of money available on the Canadian market. So, the Prime Minister has not changed his attitude.
Of course, the attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce is the most reprehensible of all. His address to the Canadian Lumbermen's Association as reported, I believe, in the Gazette of the 13th of March, is simply incomprehensible to the people of my province. He told the Canadian Lumbermen's Association, in effect: "Boys, you have had many good years. From now on times are not going to be so good. Don't come to the government looking for help, because you are not going to get any help." I dare say the Minister of Trade and Commerce would never have the nerve to make such a speech to the farmers of the prairies, because

those farmers are too well organized politically. Yet he thinks he can do it where the lumbermen of British Columbia are concerned, and say, in effect, that the government of Canada is not very interested in their welfare.
The minister told the lumbermen's association that for several years we have been building more homes in Canada per annum than the rate of new family formation would appear to warrant. We have never contended that the housing needs of Canada will be met simply by matching new homes created with the number of new family units being formed. We ended the war with a shortage of between 500,000 and one million homes, and we have done very little since, except last year, to overcome that housing shortage. Now the Minister of Trade and Commerce seems to indicate that as long as we build enough homes to accommodate the new family units being formed, everything will be satisfactory.
I wish to spend some little time in discussing the remedies which this government might undertake. We in the C.C.F. group are always prepared to support the provision of subsidies for those who cannot afford the standard interest rate. However, if this government wished, it could well float a social development bond issue to provide the money needed on satisfactory terms. If the Minister of Finance were today to offer 4 per cent on a social development bond, I am sure he could get a billion dollars in one afternoon out of our nation. That money would be most useful in supplying low interest loans for home building and also in supplying low cost money to our municipal governments.
However, even if the government does not want to subsidize interest on money used for house building, even though it may not want to float a bond issue to obtain low cost money for this same purpose, it could at least do what it used to do, and make 25 per cent of the mortgage money available for all N.H.A. homes to whatever lending agency is supplying the funds. That system went a long way for a number of years in enabling mortgage companies in Canada to supply the necessary funds, but so far the government has not even seen fit to go back and employ this measure which, as I say, was so useful for a number of years shortly after the war.
I would like to say something with regard to housing those who cannot under any circumstances afford to own a home. I noticed by the reply obtained by my colleague the hon. member for Mackenzie on March 6 that since 1945 this government has spent only $14 million, in six provinces only, for the purpose of supplying low cost rental housing to

these people who cannot afford under any conditions to buy homes. I think that is regrettable, and so is the tendency on the part of this government to blame the other levels of government for lacking initiative in this respect.
I know that several government supporters have gone about the country blaming provincial and municipal governments for not taking the initiative. They have been saying that the National Housing Act is on the statute books, and asking why these other governments do not take the initiative and get a move on to supply subsidies for low rental housing production. I feel that the government fails to recognize that even under the best of terms these other levels of government are just not in a financial position to avail themselves, as I am sure they would wish, of the provisions of the National Housing Act.
I feel, in closing, that Canada-or some Canadians at least-are at present enjoying a prosperity unheard of in Canadian history. That prosperity is not shared, and I feel that in a year such as this when there is more investment money available in the Canadian economy than ever before, it is a crime that we should not have money available to meet our urgent social needs for homes, hospitals and schools.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, this debate on an interim supply resolution covers all phases of government activity, and for a few moments this afternoon I want to discuss some of these matters from the viewpoint of the maritime provinces.
These matters have received much attention during the past few weeks. We have had more references, I think, to maritime problems, and to solutions, or purported solutions, to those problems than at any other time within the period I recall as a member of this house, or, I would say within any period that anyone else can recall no matter how long he has been here. We are appreciative of the attention which has been paid to these problems.
The budget speech referred to the question of maritime freight rates and provided some interesting suggestions with respect to cheaper electrical power, the distribution of that power and other problems related thereto. Then in one of the bills dealing with the budget the other night, namely the bill dealing with the tariff we had at the last minute the Minister of Finance supplying typewritten copies of amendments to that act to provide some protection to the potato growers of the maritime provinces.
As I say, it is all very original, very new and very refreshing. A cynic might question
Interim Supply
this sudden interest in the problems of the maritimes. After all, they are not new. They have been referred to off and on in this house for many years. Some of them have existed almost since confederation. Some of us on this side of the house and possibly some of those on the other side of the house also have been urging the importance of these problems and their solution for as long as we have been here. For instance, in dealing with maritime freight rates, I have been one of those in company with others who have urged that that act had outlived its usefulness and that owing to truck competition and various other factors immediate amendments must be made to it. However, no action was apparently taken with respect to those suggestions until now.
Certainly something has happened. After all, we realize the advantage of conversion and of people seeing the great light. Even Saul on the road to Damascus kicked against the pricks and saw the great light. Possibly the government on the other side of the house has done likewise. Whether this action was due to representations such as those which have been made here or whether it has been due to the finding of the Gordon commission, I do not know. For instance, in its report that commission suggests that economic conditions in the maritime provinces have not kept pace. If you compare some paragraphs of the Gordon commission report with those of the Rowell-Sirois report of 15 years previously you will find that the language is almost identical. There has been an improvement in conditions there but relatively they had failed to keep pace with developments in the other part of the country.
My good friend the hon. member for Bow River a little while ago suggested that possibly if the maritimes got rid of the old line parties and adopted one of the splinter parties it might prove to be the solution to their problems. I do not think many in the maritimes would accept that suggestion as a solution. Although my knowledge of western political history is somewhat vague-


Charles Edward Johnston: It is a good thought, though.


George Clyde Nowlan: -I think my friend the hon. member for Bow River is a little bit vague in his memory because I suggest to him that there was a splinter party in the west, namely the United Farmers of Alberta which was as I recollect the political progenitor of his own party, and that when they were in power the bonds of Alberta were selling for less than 50 cents on the dollar and people were out on relief. I therefore do not think that the scrapping of the two major parties will solve all the problems of the maritimes. I do not think we in the maritimes would be

Interim Supply
prepared to swap the old line parties. Even it we could find oil wells in Nova Scotia, it might be a high price to pay.


Mr. Bell:: We would not swap even then.


Walter Edward Harris: Would you really take Social Credit?


George Clyde Nowlan: No; under no circumstances. But we might organize a maritime party of some kind and give credit to the maritime party for the oil wells which had been found in the province. But that is all just aside from the point. Be that as it may, as I said there have been problems there. With respect to the old line party which is at present in power here, I want to say that in the budget and in the speeches which have been made during the last weeks it at least recognizes that there are problems there and to that extent we appreciate it. I am somewhat reminded of the Scottish grace which I read the other day. It is not original with me. I read it in the Financial Post; I think it was in McGeachy's article. It ran something like this: We thank thee O Lord for these small mercies which alike are unworthy of thy bounty and of our deserts. To that extent, at any rate, I am sure we can echo that Scottish grace and recognize that whatever bounties there may be, they are certainly no more than in keeping with our deserts. A cynic, of course, might suggest that this recognition of the problem might have something to do with political developments-even old line political developments- in the maritime provinces. I have even heard some suggest that in so far as the maritimes are concerned this should not be called a Harris budget but rather a Hugh John Flemming-Stanfield budget because it was after the election in those provinces and after the Gallup poll showed a substantial increase-I think about 5 points-in the strength of the Conservative party in the maritime provinces that we now have these bounties to which I have made reference. But whatever may be the reason for it, we appreciate what is offered. However, I think it should be brought within some proper perspective.
A great deal has been said about the proposal with respect to electrical development and the fact that a 30 per cent saving in cost could be achieved by the construction of these government plants and the installation of a proper grid system. Of course, there is nothing original in this suggestion. The Christie report, which was produced on behalf of the provincial governments some years ago, recommended as a possible assistance or contribution to the solution of power problems the installation of a grid system. It was doubtful as to the actual savings which

could be achieved but it said that it was worthy of consideration and everyone in the maritime provinces knows that. But for anyone to suggest, as has been done by some newspapers and by some propagandists on behalf of this government, that the construction of these plants and the installation of a grid system would result in a saving of 30 per cent in cost of electrical energy in the maritime provinces is simply sheer nonsense. I challenge any person who has any knowledge of the electrical industry whatsoever to say that any such saving can be made.
The only savings that can possibly be made are of course those on capital costs, assuming that the government of Canada can borrow money more cheaply than can a provincial government or a private company. To the extent that it saves costs in the borrowing of that money, that cost can and should be passed on to the consumer. Similarly, in so far as the grid system is concerned if it will enable or permit companies, in order to maintain reserves of power for an emergency, to be able to draw from one to another, then to that extent it also adds a saving in cost. If you add those savings, even on the most generous terms, I suspect you would get a saving of something in the neighbourhood of 5 per cent or 10 per cent. To that extent it is appreciated and it is helpful. But to say that it is a solution of the problem of the maritimes and thereby provide cheap power is, in my opinion, simply a play on words which is at least exaggerated.
There is one way in which I think a direct saving can be made; and for the life of me I do not know why the government has not accepted this recommendation which some of us have made in the past and which would contribute a direct saving at the moment. The proposed construction of these power plants, if and when that takes place, and the proposed installation of a grid system, if and when it took place, and the possible saving as a result of those two things are something for the future, something years ahead. But something which could be done at the moment-and which should be done at the moment-is the provision of subventions on the movement of coal within the maritime provinces. These thermal stations, if they are built, we assume will burn Nova Scotia or New Brunswick coal. New Brunswick stations naturally will burn New Brunswick coal to the extent it is available; but quantities are limited there and they will be drawing, we hope and believe, on Nova Scotia coal.
If you have a system of subventions on freight rates for the movement of coal within

the maritime provinces, you achieve two immediate ends. You effect an immediate saving on the cost of the coal, and that saving can, in turn, be passed on by the power companies to the users of power. The second thing you do is to assist the coal industry which is, as I shall show in a moment, in desperate need of assistance. There are two immediate ends which could be accomplished by this government in the solution of one of the most critical problems which faces the maritimes. I have urged this in the house before, and I urge it again now, that some step such as that should be taken immediately.
I asked the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources the other morning when he made the statement if the government proposed a subvention on the movement of coal within the maritime provinces. He said, no, the government did not propose that because the cost of oil was now so high that it was economically necessary for the thermal stations, if and when they were built, to burn coal rather than oil. Well, the cost of oil may be a temporary matter. We all know the cost of oil has increased actually because of the Suez crisis. What the situation will be in 3 months or 10 months is an entirely different matter. In any event there are stations, many of them in the maritime provinces, which are consuming coal today.
I think the Nova Scotia Light and Power Company, for instance, is a good example. It is a privately owned company and has spent millions of dollars on the installation of coal burning plants in Halifax and proposes the installation of more. In the past, before this crisis, that company could have obtained oil from directly across the harbour at a lower cost than it was paying for coal but it did not do so because it wanted to support the Nova Scotia industry. Now, of course, it is cheaper to burn coal. If the company received subventions, it could pass on the savings in the cost of electrical power to the people of the maritime provinces who are buying that energy. As I said, that is one direct saving that could be made.
In the discussion the other morning with the hon. member for Cumberland the minister suggested that there was some uncertainty as to where the power station would be built. There were discussions with the New Brunswick government which was proposing to build a station at Saint John. A suggestion has been made that perhaps it would be cheaper to build the station near the coal mine and have the power flow from the mine to the consumer rather than have the coal transported from the mine to the location of the power station at the point of consumer demand. This problem was pretty well 82715-217J
Interim Supply
settled yesterday with the publication of a report of a subcommittee of the Gordon commission. Apparently the Gordon commission retained a firm of consultant engineers to make a direct study of the coal industry. The firm made a report the day before yesterday, and it is very interesting indeed. A reading of that report certainly minimizes greatly, if not entirely, the importance which may be attached to this so-called grid system. This firm of consultant engineers shows it is much cheaper to transport coal from the mines to the place where the power is in demand than it is to manufacture that power at the pithead and transport the power by wire. The report says the line loss is so great that there is no comparison between the economic cost of one or the other.
That is a report of a subcommittee of the Gordon commission made, I presume, by a most responsible firm. It is a very imposing looking report which was brought down yesterday and it appears almost in full in the Halifax Herald. If that is the case, there is going to be no direct saving in the construction of a grid system at all. In fact, there is going to be a loss. There is going to be a loss in so far as the cost of energy is concerned in the construction of a grid system vis-a-vis coal, but there could be a marked reduction in the cost of coal if it is to be transported, as this report says it has to be. If the report of Urwick, Currie Limited the firm of consultant engineers in Toronto is to be accepted, then coal has to be transported from the pithead to the power station. In view of that report, why does the government tarry any longer with respect to the inauguration of subventions on the movement of coal? I suggest that is a question that is even more pressing now than it was before. It would result in a reduction in the cost of energy in the maritimes and would help the coal industry. I do urge again, as we have before, that a system of subventions be inaugurated at once.
The question of cheaper power is dealt with in full, as I said, in that report. I am not quoting from it, but as I have said the report states there is no comparison between the cost of the transportation of power and the cost of the transportation of coal. The report also gives a rather pessimistic and foreboding picture of the future of the coal industry. It says that the present prospects are that the coal industry in the maritimes will have to be stabilized at a production level of 5 million tons or less, and that will result in the displacement from employment of over 4,000 miners, with dependents, amounting in all to over 30,000 people. These

Interim Supply
men will be thrown out of work unless something is done to assist in the maintenance of the present level of employment in the coal mining industry in Nova Scotia.
I do not need to tell this committee how important it is to the maritime provinces to maintain employment in the industrial centres of Cape Breton, Pictou county and Cumberland county. It is all right to come out at the last moment with these rosy pictures of the construction of power plants, grid systems and things of that kind.
But if in the meantime we are going to have 4,000 miners thrown out of work; if in the meantime we are going to have 30,000 people dependent upon those who have to seek employment elsewhere, and that in the largest industrial area in Nova Scotia, what is going to be the future of the agriculture industry? Agriculture found one of its largest markets in the industrial area of Cape Breton. Something must be done to avoid a situation such as that. This problem is brought dramatically to the fore because of the report which was brought down yesterday. There is over $100 million in payrolls and local purchases paid into the mining areas, and when you think of the way that money turns over and the sales taxes and other taxes which are imposed because of those purchases, one can establish very easily from a purely mathematical basis that subventions, or even subsidies which may have to be paid, to maintain the present level of employment in the coal mines would be far less than the loss of taxes which come from the revenue derived from that industry.
This is one of the most important questions with which we are confronted, and it is one to which no solution is offered at the moment. As a matter of fact, this subcommittee report says, speaking of this coal mining industry, and I am quoting now:
We suggest that this is a major social problem which demands the attention of both the provincial and federal governments. We believe the first practical step would be to examine what can be done to develop secondary industries in the area, since this would have the double effect of supplying alternative employment and further markets for coal.
The establishment of secondary industries in the maritimes-does that not have a familiar ring? Have you not heard members in this house urging the government for years to take such action? Now we have a committee appointed by a commission appointed by this government saying that the first practical step would be to examine what could be done. Apparently they do not even assume any examination has been made of this problem yet. Certainly that is one of the first steps which should be taken, an examination

into the establishment of further secondary industries in the maritime provinces.
I read another subcommittee report of the Gordon commission last week. What does it say? As a result of the establishment of the St. Lawrence seaway, and therefore the cheap importation of United States coal down the St. Lawrence seaway to Montreal, along with the bringing down of the iron ore from Labrador, you will have a new industry located in Montreal which will nullify and wipe out the steel industry now located in Sydney, Cape Breton. This is a problem of practical and immediate importance. We get a vision of the United States coal coming down the St. Lawrence seaway into a market now occupied for a century, by Nova Scotian coal and the iron ore coming down from Labrador, relegating the steel industry of the maritimes to a very minor position like the coal industry. Thousands of people will be displaced from employment because of that action. This is something which requires immediate attention also and it is not going to be met in any way by any suggestion of building a grid system or perhaps considering at some time in the future, important as it may be, thermal units in the maritimes.
Then, the Urwick Currie report goes on to say-and this, of course, is something which the government, we hope, intends to deal with;
The basis on which rail transportation rates are calculated is against the establishment of new secondary industry and the need to re-examine the basis on which they are set may assume greater importance if industry is to be attracted to the province.
That is a matter of course which is referred to in the Gordon commission report. They said there should be increases in the subventions payable under the Maritime Freight Rates Act, and that there should be a complete study of the transportation problems in the maritime provinces. We have increases under the Maritime Freight Rates Act given through the action of this government. To the extent that this increase exists we appreciate it. I doubt whether the increase is large enough to bring the act back to the level at which it was supposed to operate when it was inaugurated after the report of the Duncan commission on maritime claims; but it is at least a step in the right direction. So far as I have heard no action has been taken up to the present time with respect to the second recommendation of the Gordon commission that an immediate study should be made into the entire transportation problems of the maritime provinces.


Walter Edward Harris: I said so in my budget.


George Clyde Nowlan: We saw in the paper the other day that a subcommittee of the cabinet was

making some study of this matter. That is not sufficient. We have this reinforced by the report which was brought out yesterday. There must be a study of the transportation problems of the maritime provinces if we are to assist in the establishment of secondary industry there. So far we have seen no action, at any rate, with respect to that study. That is the situation in so far as the recommendations contained in the budget are concerned. We appreciate them as far as they go. They make some approach toward our problems, but the problems there are deep and fundamental and they are not going to be solved in any way at all by the approach already made.
I noticed the other day in the paper that A.P.E.C., the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, had waited upon the Prime Minister and had submitted a brief to him, the contents of which they were not allowed to divulge. It would be very interesting to see the brief because we know that most organizations that wait upon the government are only too willing to distribute copies of their briefs the next day; whether it be the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, or whatever it may be, their briefs are made available. In this particular case the briefs have not been made available, but those of us in the House of Commons have been emphasizing these matters for a long while. We have suggested some of the problems which I have no doubt are probably contained within the brief as well, but certainly those which need immediate attention.
There are other matters to which I should like to refer for a moment in addition to those which are mentioned in the budget. One action of this government which has prejudiced the situation in the maritimes is the universal restriction of credit across the country. We realize, of course, the inherent dangers of inflation; we realize that the government has a responsibility to deal with inflation and certainly this government has not dealt adequately with inflation. We certainly say that whatever the dangers of credit inflation may have been in other parts of the country, they have not existed in the maritime provinces. There we are suffering from a lack of credit rather than an overexpansion of credit.
I read the speech that the Minister of Agriculture delivered the other day in the province of Nova Scotia. He pointed out, for instance, that in the agricultural industry one farmer with adequate machinery can produce more than 19 farmers could have done 25 or 30 years ago; therefore, farmers had to modernize their farms, buy equipment and be effective productive units. He gave the
Interim Supply
number of farms in Nova Scotia. I have forgotten the number which he said existed there, but he did say-and I have no doubt he was well-informed by his own officials on the situation-that there were 10,000 farms in the province of Nova Scotia which required credit of at least $10,000 each to become effective units, and if they got that they would be contributing to the national income and would be raising the level of prosperity in the province of Nova Scotia. And yet under the Canadian farm loan board last year we borrowed a total amount of $263,000 as compared with immediate credit demands, as he points out, of $100 million. It is not contributing to the control of inflation when you control borrowing in a field such as that, because the granting of the credit would result in the production of more goods and an increase in the level of prosperity, and would therefore be of tremendous assistance all the way around.
Other phases of the maritime economy come to mind. Much has been said about the dominion-provincial relations payments, grants in aid, stabilization payments, equalization payments, and so on. It is true that the economy of the maritimes and the revenues of the provincial governments have benefited from these payments and, of course, it is right that they should. But when you have a system, under which the province of Nova Scotia does not receive sufficient with which, according to the provincial treasurer, to finance the ordinary fiscal needs of that province, and yet another province receives $1,500,000 more under the same fiscal arrangements than does the province of Nova Scotia and with that is able to pay out cash dividends of $12 million a year to its inhabitants, it is all very silly, to say the least, to talk about these being equalization payments or stabilization payments.
Then you have the province of Prince Edward Island, as was announced this morning by the Minister of Finance, getting amortization on over-payments. Instead of foreclosing the mortgage now the Minister of Finance renewed the note and is going to permit the province of Prince Edward Island to pay it off during the next five years, he hopes. We talk about grants in aid and stabilization payments. These payments have not been designed to achieve that purpose in so far as the fiscal demands of the maritime provinces are concerned, and they should be revised so that those provinces can receive a greater proportion of the national revenue than has been the case heretofore. With a budget surplus of $300 million, $400 million, $500 million, call it what you will, depending on where the minister buried it-

Interim Supply


Walter Edward Harris: I wish I could call it what I would like to, but I dare not.


George Clyde Nowlan: The minister has succeeded in calling it various amounts, always on a very small scale; some of us have made it slightly larger. Whatever the surplus was, a province such as Nova Scotia needs $6 million or $7 million more not according to the Conservative government, but according to the Liberal premier who was there before, to bring it up to the level of the government needs across the country, and we are denied it. As I said, some other province gets more than a million and a half more.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.


George Clyde Nowlan: I take it my 30 minutes are up, Mr. Chairman?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Yes. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, before this session prorogues and this parliament dissolves I would like to put on the record a few comments in respect to the very serious situation which exists in the coal mining industry of Canada and especially the coal mining industry of the Crowsnest pass which is in my constituency. I am happy to follow the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings because he has referred to the serious situation in respect to the coal mining industry of his province of Nova Scotia.
I usually speak on this subject every year and sometimes on more than one occasion during each session, but because this is a short session and because the estimates of some departments will not be brought before us I think we must take this opportunity of expressing ourselves in respect to this serious situation.
When I first came to parliament some years ago I tried to make a study of the Canadian coal mining industry realizing that a large portion of my constituency was affected. Ever since that time from this corner of the house we have been urging that the government adopt some sort of truly national coal mining policy under which our coal mining industry would know exactly what its situation was for the future. We did look with some anticipation and hope for a satisfactory solution when the Carroll coal mining commission was set up to study this problem. That commission devoted a lot of work to studying the problem, travelled throughout the country, heard numerous submissions and presented an interesting report to parliament which

was laid on the table of the house together with a small minority report, but despite all the work done by the commission and the suggestions that were made absolutely nothing came about as the result of their study of the problem. It seems to me that over the past number of years this government has closed its eyes and ears to the needs of the coal mining industry of Canada.
The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys comes from Alberta. He has travelled through the coal mining area of that part of the country and has registered by word of mouth some hope for the industry but these hopes have been seriously blasted in the past little while because the coal mining industry in this country today is in a worse condition than it has ever been in its entire history, and that in a day when Canada is going through a period of terrific expansion.
I think we have to ask one pertinent question which cannot possibly escape the government's notice. Does Canada need her coal mining industry or does she not? Now the answer must be yes or no and I believe the government should come clean in answering that question. They should not leave the coal mining unions comprising thousands of men throughout Canada, quite a large proportion of them in the Crowsnest pass, as well as the industry itself with the millions of dollars invested in it, facing a question mark concerning its future. I know that those involved in the industry have been encouraged from time to time and have been led to hope that something will turn up. It is no use leading them along with a false hope if the government has no idea as to what they are going to do with this industry and as to whether or not it is necessary in Canada.
If the government's answer is, "Yes, we need the coal mining industry of Canada," then the government has to come to its assistance in a more forceful way than they have in the past and do something about it in order to keep it in existence because it is a dying industry and is struggling now, as it were, with its last breath. I believe the government of this day has to be bold in its approach to the problem. I would go so far as to recommend that there should be an embargo on the importation of coal. Perhaps a less bold approach would be to put a tariff much higher than it is today on the importation of coal in order that the Canadian coal mining industry can sell a reasonable amount of coal, keep its head above water and continue to employ a reasonable number of men in the industry. If the government wants the industry to continue then

something will have to be done and the only group that can do anything by way of assistance in the present circumstances is the government.
I say the government should pass corrective legislation. I will even be bold enough to say that not a ton of coal should come into Canada while we have an abundance of it. If the government does not agree that the industry is needed in Canada then let them say so. In this case, of course, they must lend some encouragement to the development of other industries in these particular areas or else allow those areas to decline and then we will have a number of ghost towns and the people will move away. I do not like to think that is necessary or that it will happen but as sure as night follows day that is going to happen unless the government comes to the aid of the industry with boldness.
In my particular area we have quite a number of good-sized communities which for many years have been dependent upon the coal mining industry. When I was motoring through there last autumn I picked up a man, a stranger to me, who was walking up a hill, I thought rather briskly. I invited him to ride with me in my car and we chatted. I said, "It is hard work walking uphill, isn't it?" and he replied that it was. He told me his name and said he was 80 years of age. I said, "My goodness, you surely hold your age well; you don't look a day over 70." He told me that he came to the Crows-nest pass 50 years ago and became attached to a very small mine and that he had been there ever since. He said, "I suppose I will die here but I haven't any work to do now." This was a man who had spent the greater part of his life in that area and he was now 80 years of age. A few minutes later I was in a club where I met another man who told me he was over 80 and he had come to that area many years ago, too. I merely refer to these incidents to illustrate that the coal mining industry has been operating there for many years and it has been an extensive industry.
In the town of Coleman there are about 2,000 people or perhaps more and not far from Coleman, a distance of perhaps three or four miles, there is another town called Blairmore, about which most people in Canada have heard, which has a population of approximately 3,000 people. Then there is a town of Frank, which is well known because of the historical significance of the Frank slide; this is not a large community but it has a population of 200 or 300 people. Not far from that is the community of Bellevue with about 1,000 or 1,500 people and
Interim Supply
just across the way and up the hill a little further is the town of Hillcrest. Then there are other similar communities such as Maple Leaf, Burmis and others of that kind. Now there are all those towns packed in a distance of about ten miles and this is the hub of the coal mining industry of southern Alberta. I do not disregard the coal mining industry in Lethbridge although I am talking particularly about my own constituency; I realize that the same thing is true of the coal mining industry of Lethbridge. Now those towns are fast becoming ghost towns and nothing is being done. The people should know and the government should tell them-we either need the industry or we do not.
I know that some encouragement has been given to the thought that perhaps some day this coal will be needed, perhaps for the purpose of generating power. That is all right but one cannot wait until tomorrow to eat; one has to eat today for one may not be here tomorrow. It is perfectly all right to extend hope over the years, but the coal mining industry is almost dead now. Are we going to keep it in existence or are we not? This is the question the government will have to answer and as far as I am concerned the only solution I can see at the present time is to put an embargo on the importation of coal.
While I am dealing with this matter of coal mining there is just one other matter I would like to raise. I do not wish to delay the house, but there are some difficulties with respect to unemployment insurance arising because of some arrangement with regard to shifts. These people are only working about one day a week but because that day comes at a certain time each week there is some difficulty in the schedules of payment and there are claims that one or two days of benefits are lost thereby. I do not wish to be misunderstood in this respect; the people I refer to are satisfied with the administration of the unemployment insurance; it just seems to be a technicality in the regulations and we cannot expect the officials of the government to bypass or to disregard regulations.
A few weeks ago some outstanding coal mine union officials were in Ottawa for the purpose of an interview with the Minister of Labour. It just so happened that the Minister of Labour was not in Ottawa that day and so the officials spoke to his parliamentary assistant and another official from his department. They explained the difficulties and they were promised that the points they raised would be investigated. I have not heard the result but I am now putting on the record my request to the Minister of

Interim Supply
Labour to look into this matter and to check with his officials to see if the situation cannot be remedied.
I would mention that Mr. Lote an official of the unemployment insurance office in Blairmore is doing a good job; he is not only interested in unemployment insurance but he is certainly interested in trying to get employment for those who cannot find it in their present lines of work. He has been a good administrator over the years and I have never heard any complaints in respect to the operation of that office. Therefore what I am saying is not in respect to the administration of that office as much as the technicalities of the regulations governing the particular situation existing there.
There is just one further point I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance. Although this is a comparatively small matter it may have an effect on a good many people throughout Canada. I have had a communication from a source with respect to the depreciation permitted for income tax purpose on garage mechanics' tools. Tools are very expensive and year in and year out they have to replenish the stock of tools which wear out. I am told in some instances this amounts to nearly $1,000 a year, but there is no depreciation allowed in this respect although depreciation is allowed on tools for carpenter contractors. If this is the case in the building trade then it seems unfair to me if the same consideration is not given to mechanics, particularly those working in garages since the communications I received affected those individuals. If the minister replies to some of the speeches this afternoon on the interim supply motion I wonder if he would mind telling us whether or not these regulations can be changed to do away with this unfairness, so that all workers may be treated alike. I particularly want to stress that mechanics in garages have to buy a lot of tools and therefore they should be allowed depreciation therefor.
I do not think I have any more to say. My remarks have been intended just to clean up a few loose ends. I will say that we have appreciated being here over the years. I would like to say a word of appreciation to the ministers, whom I have found to be very kind in taking up individual cases with regard to which I have approached them. They may not all be back here again, and I want them to accept my thinks.
I will be back here looking at the ministerial benches, and I hope members of the government will show me the same consideration in the future as they have in the past. I do not wish them any bad luck, but politics

being as they are, we hope that some of them do not come back; and that some day in the not too distant future we ourselves may be on that side of the house. If we get there I am quite certain we will attend to their individual problems in the same gentlemanly and interested fashion as they have attended to ours.


Mr. Rowe:: Mr. Chairman, as this session draws to a close one cannot fail to observe the lack of interest there seems to be in the House of Commons.


Mr. Habel:: I saw a man sleeping there behind the curtain about a minute ago.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member says he saw a man sleeping. By the remarks he makes I often wonder if he has been awake at any time during the whole session.
Seriously it appears to me that often when a government has been in power for a long time it grows careless, smug, complacent and self-satisfied. I do not like to embarrass any hon. members who are packing their club-bags and their books and trying to take back home with them anything that is not nailed down in their offices, but it does appear to me that sometimes when a government has been in power for so long it seems to forget the most important part of its representation, that is, the people.
I have been here for some years, but the longer this government stays in power the more empty seats one sees on the government side.


An hon. Member:: Look at your own side.


William Earl Rowe: Well, look at it. A few minutes ago there were more Conservatives in the House of Commons than there were Liberals. You talk about having 150. There were only 22 when I counted a few minutes ago.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Look on your left; there is only one member of your party.


William Earl Rowe: I might also mention that it is a good thing there are a few of us here, because had it not been for those who are on this side I sometimes wonder what would have happened to the country. I wonder what would have happened had it not been for the appeals from this side of the house during the last several months and, indeed, for the last several years. You would not have seen an increase in old age pensions. We asked for more, but we thank the government for having given the old people at least two cups of coffee a day more than they could have had before. The government gave us a baby bonus, a piece of chewing gum every other day.


An hon. Member:: Bubble gum.


William Earl Rowe: Worth about four cents a day. If it were not for the opposition before an election the people of Canada would be the forgotten element as far as this government is concerned. Never since confederation has a government grown so smug, so complacent, so indolent and so careless, so self-satisfied and so sure that it was right as has this government. Their front benchers act like tired old men; their back benchers act like young, smug, happy hecklers afraid to say something in case it might be wrong, and usually interrupting for their own amusement.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: We are not used to acting like clowns.


William Earl Rowe: You have been very good at it. In fact, I can distinguish the hon. member by the nice, mild, ineffective tenor of his interruptions from time to time. He rarely rises to his feet, but certainly when he is on his seat he interrupts most eloquently.
The veterans of this country are not satisfied; the old age pensioners are not satisfied; the mothers with their babies are not satisfied-


An hon. Member:: And you are not satisfied.


William Earl Rowe: No, I am not satisfied. I have not been satisfied with you for a quarter of a century, and the people of Canada are not satisfied with you either. The blind of this country are not satisfied; the farmers of Canada are not satisfied. The government is asking us to vote interim supply. We do not propose to hold it up. I am not going to try to delay it, because the Minister of Finance has imposed tight money on everybody else and we, even at this late date before the election, are not going to withhold loose money from him.
I have watched quite a few ministers of finance during my time here. I think the present Minister of Finance and I know each other well. We don't live far apart, and I have great respect for him. I have watched finance ministers in parliament since the days of J. A. Robb but I have never known one in all that time who told everybody else what to do with their money yet handled our money so loosely. No other cabinet minister ever took so much from the people. No other Minister of Finance ever collected as much revenue from the people of Canada as the present Minister of Finance; no other minister told the people not to spend money in order that they might be able to pay these exorbitant taxes. Did any other cabinet minister since confederation ever spend so much money? Knowing something of his family background, I have always been amazed that a man with a steady Scots type of background
Interim Supply
would ever become such a reckless spendthrift as he has been since he came to office.
I can understand why the people of this country are getting disturbed. You hear it on the sidewalks; you hear it in the town councils; you hear it in the garages; you hear it in county councils; you hear it in every place and gathering which these cabinet ministers do not have time to attend. They are saying: "It is time for a change." You can hear them saying it in the barbershops. The Minister of Finance himself must have heard it-he looks pretty trim, and must have been in one lately. You will hear them on June 10 saying: "It is time for a change."
We are not giving undue credit to anyone, but you will hear them steadily say: "This fellow Diefenbaker will be the next Prime Minister of Canada." The reason for that is, not that he pretends to be a superman but the people of Canada are tired; the people of Canada are disgusted; the people of Canada are dissatisfied-dissatisfied and worried because some of the fundamentals that concern the lives of the people of this country in the future are not being given any consideration. I could not help feeling amazed when the Minister of Finance presented his budget. Some people have said that the Minister of Finance has no sense of humour. But he has. You will have noticed that when he was presenting the budget he even laughed at himself when he presented that four cents a day bonus for the babies,-


Walter Edward Harris: Oh, no.


William Earl Rowe: -and 20 cents a day for the old people. Somebody said, "What about June 10?" and he laughed heartily and the people of Canada laughed.


Walter Edward Harris: I think this is quite unfair. I laughed when you applauded my withdrawal of the soft drink tax. That was the only time I laughed.


William Earl Rowe: Why did you laugh when you withdrew the soft drink tax? I do not drink soft drinks myself.


Walter Edward Harris: I think that is unfair. That statement has already been made by another speaker in the opposition party and I thought I ought to put the record straight.


An hon. Member:: You laughed; you
laughed at yourself.


Walter Edward Harris: Certainly I laughed. I laughed at the time when I said I had considered the soft drink industry. At that point applause broke out on all sides of the house and from other parties. I laughed at that point because I knew they approved what I was going to do.


William Earl Rowe: I would not want to be unfair to the minister.

Interim Supply


Walter Edward Harris: I know that. That is why I corrected the statement.


William Earl Rowe: These smart reporters have
deleted it from Hansard; but if the Minister of Finance says that he should not have laughed and that he did laugh-


Walter Edward Harris: I did not laugh at the old
people as you said.


William Earl Rowe: No. I must be fair to the Minister of Finance. I would not charge that against him. Now that they are in the twilight of their career I would not want to say that they had laughed at old people or babies either. Nevertheless I would put it this way. He laughed in smug and complacent satisfaction that they will win the election anyway. I think the minister has been smug all down through the years.
It always puzzled me that a government which has such a large majority as this one has should do as it has done. Every time that an election is in prospect it has brought in something that should have been brought in long ago. We see what it is trying to do for the maritime provinces at the present time. I have listened to the debates in this house for many years and I must say that we have never had in parliament more able representatives of the maritime provinces than we have had on this side of the house. Had it not been for hon. members over on this side- and I am thinking particularly of my colleagues the hon. member for Royal, the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, and in fact the various members on this side of the house -we would not have had much consideration except in election year as the government now proposes. As has been said, it would be a good thing if we had an election almost every year because that is the only time that the people seem to hear much about it.
I listened to the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and the hon. member for Resti-gouche-Madawaska as well as the hon. member for Royal. For four years the government never thought about any duty on potatoes. Even the Minister of Finance must feel a kind of cringe in that he is obliged to adopt some of the protective policies that I have been enunciating in this house and to get away from that old, dusty free-trade doctrine which he has followed all his life and put a duty on potatoes coming into Canada. Had the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska and the hon. member for Royal not been pressing for it he would not have thought about this action in an election year. So the opposition, no matter how small it is, means something at election time.


An hon. Member:: It will be smaller again.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend says it will be smaller again. That is the type of interruption we have been listening to from the back benches. No group are better judges of smallness than they are. I realize what scares you people who have been heckling like that for some years. One of the elevator attendants said to me the other day that we will see more changes in this parliament than there have ever been before. I asked why. I should not like to say what he said because if you fellows found out who he was you would fire him and put a stronger supporter in his place. He said that the government is getting tired, old and smug and that the people are dissatisfied with it. I think some of the fundamentals have been overlooked.


Mr. Schneider:: We are tired of your wisecracks.


William Earl Rowe: The people of Waterloo North are getting on to your wisecracks. I was out there and I heard them talking about this great champion of free trade. He was talking about the great philanthropic trade policies of the Liberal party and of how we should trade with the people throughout the world. Then he came down here and in a loud voice wanted tariffs on bones, bottles and buttons because he said the button manufacturers in Waterloo North could not survive without it. He said that the rubber shoe people are getting for rubber shoes less than the cost of the rubber in the sole and that as for buttons, that were made out of bones, we must have tariffs on them. What a difference just a few months make. Never was there such a conglomeration of mixed-up policies as you see to your right, Mr. Chairman.


Norman C. Schneider: Wait until June 10 and we shall see.


William Earl Rowe: That is smug complacency. He says, "Even though I talked about free trade in Waterloo North, wait till June 10."


Walter Edward Harris: There will be nobody this year who will bet a shirt on the results in Waterloo North.


William Earl Rowe: I have no doubt about Waterloo North. The hon. member is just as fit as a free trader to represent the manufacturing industry as is any other Liberal that 1 know of because he is one Liberal who at least talks free trade at home and protection in parliament. Some of you do not know which way you are going. The Minister of Finance cannot rise and tell me that in future his policy is going to be the same for other people as it has been for the potato growers

in the riding of the hon. member for Vic-toria-Carleton. He could not be true to his tradition and say, "I am still a free trader but I just put into effect policies of protection when it is necessary". I would say to the government-and I think the farmers in your riding are saying the same thing-Why are you worried about the price of beef while you are importing millions of pounds of beef in cans? Why are you worried about the prices of farm products that are too low to meet the cost of production? Why are you allowing world products to fix the price? Why do you allow vegetable *oils to affect our dairy industry? Why do you import $5 million worth of turkeys into Canada when our turkey farmers are going out of business? If you can break away from that old, dusty doctrine of yours on potatoes, why can you not do it on turkeys?


Walter Edward Harris: We did it on turkeys last year.


William Earl Rowe: But you did not do it enough. Your policy has been one of tariff for revenue.


Walter Edward Harris: We did exactly what the farm industry asked us to do.


William Earl Rowe: I mentioned that matter the other night. Why do just what they ask you to do? Why not give the farmer some leadership? Why do you want to be led around by the farmers of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Joseph McCann: That is a bad break.


William Earl Rowe: Listen. You have been accustomed to being led around in international affairs. You are led around by the United States of America. You have had no farm policy yourselves for many years.
You have lost every valuable, worth-while overseas market for agriculture. You have lost those markets twice in the history of your party. You are losing them again now.


Walter Edward Harris: By reason of high prices in Canada, I suppose.


William Earl Rowe: Tell the farmers in your riding or come over into my riding and tell them you are getting prices that are too high.


Walter Edward Harris: I did not say too high prices, I said high prices.


William Earl Rowe: These high prices are still the lowest returns for any industry in Canada in view of the cost of production. Nobody knows that better than the Minister of Finance. If agricultural production is vital to this country in time of peace and most necessary in time of war, then the farmers of Canada should have a square deal. We do not need to be told that our prices are too high. The
Interim Supply
dairymen of Canada will not be satisfied by telling them that vegetable oils are produced by some people who do not even wear 50 cents worth of clothes, and are thus produced very cheaply. They do not need to be told that you can import cheese and butter from New Zealand and Australia very cheaply because you can put a $5 blanket over a cow in wet weather in those countries, whereas in Canada you have to build a $10,000 barn.
Canada is not the great agricultural country that some farmers like to boast about. Canada produces agricultural products at somewhat of a disadvantage. We are not a tropical country. If it is vital to us in time of peace, and even more vital in time of war, to keep a healthy agriculture then we should have a degree of protection for that industry. There is no industry in Canada that needs protection more than Canadian agriculture. There is no single industry in Canada that suffers as much. There are about one-third less farmers now than there were when this government took power. Even the Minister of Finance will agree with that. I am not going to go into all the reasons for that, but one of the reasons is that the young farmers of this country have lost hope. They say that so far as the government is concerned theirs is the forgotten industry. Agriculture never was more highly organized than it is today. We have our 4-H clubs, farmers' unions, federations of agriculture, so that agriculture is well organized, but wholly dissatisfied, disgruntled, discouraged, and discontented. The farmers are striving, struggling and doing their best in order to try and make this the great industry it was intended to be.
Why should agriculture be the lagging industry today when so many other industries are flourishing? The Minister of Finance says he imposed certain duties on vegetables, certain duties on turkeys and certain duties on poultry. When he looks at the list and sees what is happening surely he will agree that he has not put on enough. Hon. members who will be driving up and down the side roads during the election campaign will see old hen houses with broken windows and cobwebs around the windows.


Mr. Weir:: They will see a lot of good ones, too.


William Earl Rowe: You will not see many new ones. You will see turkey pens without any turkeys in them. You will see for sale signs on the farm gates. The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have been telling the farmers how prosperous they have been. Perhaps they will be more prosperous during the last two weeks of May before harvesting. They

Interim Supply
might have new revenue; they might be more prosperous than they have been at any time in the last four years, but they will not attribute that to the hens.


William Gilbert Weir: I ask my hon. friend what he means by that, that they are going to be more prosperous then? That is a rather significant statement to make.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend is an experienced politician. If he were not just a little guilty probably he would not ask that question.


William Gilbert Weir: Not as experienced as you are.


William Earl Rowe: My friend is an experienced politician. I hope it does not cost more in his riding than it did the last time to get re-elected. But about the last two weeks in May or the first week in June about the only revenue the down to earth farmer will have will be coming from the Grit campaign funds across Canada.


Walter Edward Harris: Haven't you any?


William Earl Rowe: I have heard your pork barrel is fuller than it has ever been before, and I expect things will be as usual. However I do not want to say anything that would embarrass my hon. friend because I know he will be interested in the farmers, for at least a month, just as much as any other candidate.
I am not going to delay the house on this issue. I would be glad to see it go through. I would be glad to see the house prorogue. I would be glad to see the date of the election set. I would be glad to see a change of government, just as I know the people of Canada would. The people of Canada would be glad to see a new government replace this tired government of today. I do say in all sincerity that we have a government today that has disregarded the fundamentals. Never since confederation has a government taken so much from the people in taxes; never have they asked the people to spend less and never before has the government spent more. We have increased our costs of government every year since the war. We are spending more now than we were in any year, except one year, in the war.


Mr. Monteith:: We are on top of that, now.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend says we are on top of that now; it is going so fast you cannot keep track of it. Never in the history of this country have we bought so much more than we sold as we are doing today. In the months of January, February and March our adverse balance of trade was far beyond anything that we have ever had

before. Last year we bought $1,300 million more from the United States. Never in the history of world trading nations have so few people bought so much more than they sold. The Minister of Finance must surely be concerned about that. If I were in his position, I could not rest at night and let this condition continue. He looks as though he sleeps just as well as he did when we had a favourable trade balance. In the year 1953 or 1954 we only had an unfavourable trade balance of between $300 million and $400 million, but today it is up to about $1,400 million.
The people to the south of us are friendly. We want to encourage them to invest in this country; we want to encourage them to build plants in Canada, but we do not want them to build plants in Canada and sell us the products of those plants. Thousands and thousands of textile workers are out of work today. The companies in the United States have a market of 160 million. Today our market is only 16 million. In textile products we have only about 60 per cent of our market requirements. The whole 100 per cent of their market is reserved to their own country. Canada's hope for the future is in industrial development. The farmers all across this dominion are hoping today that Canada will become industrialized. We are now using 95 per cent of most of our farm products right here in Canada. In some lines of meat we are using 98 per cent.


Walter Edward Harris: Hear, hear!


William Earl Rowe: The Minister of Finance applauds and says, "hear, hear"; but for fear that the farmer might get too much for his products he says, "Buy $5 million worth of turkeys in the United States so you will not get too much for your turkeys". I do not think he begrudges the price of his Christmas turkey but that is really what happens.
Why should we import $17 million worth of beef and canned products? My hon. friend and the government know that this country can produce, even in this cold climate, more meat than it is producing now. We can produce far more bacon and eggs than we are producing. We exported millions of pounds of those products years ago to the old land. No market is as good as the home market. There is no better hope for agriculture than the development of the home market. If the minister and the remainder of his colleagues are sincere why not apply the same principle that you have applied to potatoes all the way down the line? In fact you have made an awful schemozzle even of that.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is my duty to advise him that his time has expired.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I realize there will be further speeches but I feel that I *ought to make some references to what has been said already before the debate goes much farther. I do want to say at the outset that it is always interesting, not to say entertaining and amusing, to hear my hon. friend from Dufferin-Simcoe. It is not however, an exercise in consistency that anyone should study.
Earlier this morning his leader, in an effort to prove that the government was not properly exercising its duties with respect to certain Canadian matters, urged upon the government that we should have a tax system similar to that of the United States with respect to certain natural resources. That was a matter with which he dealt at great length. It seemed that if only we would imitate the Americans, if only we would have a tax system such as they had in Washington, we would then have the best of all worlds.
I was looking at my hon. friend from Dufferin-Simcoe about that time. I recalled the fact that in 1930, when the government of the party to which I belong went to the country at that time with a tariff which was known as a countervailing tariff, that is a tariff designed to help the farmers by saying to the Americans that we will put up our tariff against you if you put up your tariff against us, my hon. friend from Dufferin-Simcoe on the public platform said, "Why do we have to have our tariff made in Washington?"


William Earl Rowe: I still think that.


Walter Edward Harris: And you still say that; you just say to your leader the same thing with respect to a tax system. You say to him that the wheel has come full circle; that now, instead of having a complaint about our tariffs being made in Washington we are having the complaint that we ought to have our tax system made in Washington. That complaint comes from the party to which my hon. friend belongs.
I do want to answer very briefly some of the questions which have been raised by my hon. friend about farm matters. He has been trying to say that this government has done nothing about tariffs on farm products. I would be the first to admit, as he will remember, that this party, then the government, was defeated in 1911 because we felt at that time that the interests of farming in this country required certain tariff arrangements with the United States and that his party opposed those tariff arrangements on the grounds that they would be prejudicial to other interests in Canada.
Interim Supply
That is a long time ago but in the meantime what has happened? When my hon. friend's party was in office they had an attitude on tariffs which has been repudiated ever since by the Canadian people and indeed by all the people in the world. Every single trade treaty which has been made since 1935, either by this government or indeed by any other government, has been made for the purpose of facilitating the exchange of goods rather than restricting them. At the end of the war we entered into our general agreements on tariffs and trade, and I well recall hon. gentlemen of the party opposite, even as late as last year, saying that this was a very excellent document. Yet today my hon. friend asks, why have we not done more about raising tariffs against United States products of one kind or another, knowing full well that those products are covered by an agreement which binds us not to take this action except after a long period of negotiation and settlement with the United States.


Mr. Small:: We always get the short end of the deal on that.


Walter Edward Harris: Whether or not we do-


Robert Hardy Small: We do.


Walter Edward Harris: -is a matter of opinion. But I well recall when this matter was raised about two years ago by my colleague from Churchill, he said that the party to which my hon. friend belongs had some doubts about the general agreement on tariffs and trade. There was an indignant outburst by their representative who deals with this matter, namely the hon. member for Eglinton, followed by the hon. member for Greenwood, in which they reiterated the support of their party for the general agreement. They insisted in indignant terms that their party never deviated from support of the agreement. My hon. friend may have brought in a new version of the Tory party platform, I do not know. If so, let him speak.


Robert Hardy Small: I have spoken on it already.


Walter Edward Harris: Let us deal for a moment with these farm matters and let us see what has happened since the war. We entered into these agreements in 1946. I have a recollection that almost everyone supported them in the house in one form or another. If there were qualifications they were only minor ones expressed in the course of a speech.
With respect to potatoes, my hon. friend takes credit for members of his party for what has been brought about in recent weeks. I shall be the first to agree that all members from the maritimes have felt strongly on this subject in the last two years, but I repeat that this change has come about in that time; that up to that time it was an

Interim Supply
academic question in many instances; that the potato growers of the maritime provinces were in some doubts and disagreements as to what ought to be done with respect to tariffs at that time and whether or not we could negotiate a new tariff except on favourable terms. I do want to point out just precisely what has been said in the final words of my hon. friend, that times have changed in Canada, that the markets are different, and that when that change came about was the first time there was an opinion in favour of the action we have taken just recently. Indeed, I could point out inconsistencies in things that were said by my hon. friends opposite up to as late as last week about potato marketing.
But the plain fact of the matter is that a large portion of the potato industry in the maritime provinces until recently thought that the agreement under which we had been acting was more advantageous than any other agreement which might be made, and the change has come about, as I said, in the past two or three years by the realization that the Canadian market was more valuable to Canadian potato producers than was the United States market. When that time came about, and when the Canadian horticultural council for the first time had practically unanimously an opinion about this, this government took action under the general agreement on tariffs and trade and brought about the change at the earliest possible moment.
My hon. friend makes reference to turkeys. I presume he took some part in the debate the other evening. I am sorry I was not in the house when he spoke but he knows perfectly well that the producers of turkeys in this country a year ago last fall asked this government if we would negotiate a change in tariff with the United States so that there would be the same tariff on turkeys entering Canada as on those entering the United States and that is the only request this government has received from the turkey industry unless there has been one in recent days that I have not seen. We did that and brought it out in the budget last year and my hon. friends up to this moment do not seem to realize that although I have drawn it to their attention.
One other thing about which there may be some doubt is this. I have never understood the argument that the farmers of this country are somehow being deprived of their markets abroad by the actions of this government. I would not want to say that it would not be desirable to have markets abroad because indeed it would. Everyone knows full well that the more goods you sell the

more money you make. But every time I have gone to a farm meeting and every time this question has arisen I have asked the farmers for an explanation as to what they would like done; for example, with respect to butter.
I said the other night at a farm meeting,. "Well now, butter is selling in London, England at 30 cents a pound; is that market one that you want?" And the answer was, "No,, we want the Canadian market at 58 cents a pound".
So far as beef, hogs and the like are concerned when I interrupted my hon. friend a moment ago it was to say that the reason we-were not selling these abroad was for the same reason, that the prices obtained in Canada by the Canadian farmer were higher than they were abroad. I have listened attentively to every speech my hon. friend has made-


An hon. Member:: You had better.


Walter Edward Harris: -and not once has he followed through with the only possible argument he could make and be consistent and that is that this government or the taxpayer of Canada rather ought nevertheless to find out of the agricultural industry in Canada butter, shall we say, and sell it abroad at a subsidized price such as 30 cents. Yet, my hon. friend was the first to rise on his feet and raise some kind of question when we shipped butter abroad and sold it at 40' cents when it was in its third year of storage. If my hon. friend seriously insists that for some reason he cannot explain to us it is desirable that we should retain these markets the only possible way we can do it is for the Canadian taxpayer to say to the Canadian farmer, "Will you produce more than you are now producing? The government will take it from you and ship it abroad and subsidize you to the point where you can enter that market at the going price;" and this will be a publicly announced policy of the Conservative party; and up to the present time I have not heard them recommend that although some of my hon. friends in the C.C.F. have said it with respect to wheat at least but I don't think they have done it with respect to butter.
When I go to farm meetings and this question comes up and when I ask my farm friends, "Do you want to enter that market on those terms?" I find that the farming people of Canada say, "No, we do not. We like the Canadian market and we prefer the policy of your government to any policy we have heard advanced by the Tory party so far in our lifetime."

I would be the first to admit that there have been difficult times in the farming communities over the past few years. There have been some substantial changes in prices although some have been upward as well as downward. Farming in the last five years has been the same as farming has been over a great many years; namely there is always an uncertainty about it. There is always that constant worry about weather and markets, and farmers are doing their best to overcome the latter and of course we have to rely on Providence with regard to the former. But that is not unusual, sir.
What is unusual and what governments must always bear in mind is that demands for food change from day to day; that the little turkey coming in from the United States today is an element of trade that has developed in the last year and a half or two years; that the demand for small fowl of all kinds is a taste which the Canadian housewife has just developed over the last four or five years in most cases; and that farming has to be alive to these changes and must make the change in order to meet the competition and get the market. When there is a temporary adjustment of one kind or another there is bound to be a little difficulty over a period of months or even years until we find our way out of that particular problem.
To go back to basic factors. The only difference of opinion I find in the farm community with the policies we follow at the moment has to do generally with the argument about parity or non-parity. We have been through that already and I do not intend to cover the ground again. However, I find that farmers-at least in that part of the country I represent-have a very distinct recollection of two things; namely that in the over-all picture unless you imposed a complete ban on imports into Canada-and no one has recommended that, not even my friend the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe who asked so that it will appear on the record a question about importing some beef when he knows perfectly well that we import beef into Canada in cans because the Canadian housewife wants to buy it that way-and so I say no one has suggested to me that we should have a complete ban on imports. Therefore, the price of Canadian farm produce year after year is a reflection to some extent of competition on the United States side.
I have not looked at the figures lately- I was not in the chamber the other evening when the Minister of Agriculture spoke- but I would imagine that at the present time the record shows that in almost every case comparable prices show that the Canadian price is higher than the United States price.
Interim Supply
If that is so it seems to me that the policy that is best suited for the Canadian agriculturists at the moment is that we should have good support prices, that we should have a live active organization for the farm movement for the purposes of finding and improving their markets and that the best that the government can do-and in fact the best the government should do-is to maintain support prices at proper levels and where there has been a change in trade and where circumstances have been altered-as everyone, I think, admits they were altered-as in the potato market in the last few years, the government should take appropriate action when there seems to be almost unanimous consent by the producers as to what they want. This is the policy we have followed certainly in the last three or four years. I know that since I have been Minister of Finance we have made three changes in the tariff on farm products and I think everyone recognizes that this was done at the request of the farm organizations and I believe with the unanimous approval of this house.
With the greatest respect I would like to say to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe that when he looks at this side and speaks about tired old men I think he is just living back in the thirties and has never got over it since.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Dufferin-Simcoe always receives a very good hearing in the house. However, he was not quite able to repair the damage today which he did to his leader a few days ago when the hon. member asked the Prime Minister about plans for a future conference of commonwealth prime ministers. The Leader of the Opposition was red in the face when this very embarrassing question was asked by the senior member of the Progressive Conservative party. It was pretty obvious that it had not occurred to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe that the Leader of the Opposition by any stretch of the imagination might be the Prime Minister of Canada after the next election.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Oh, come on; get down to facts.


Mr. Lennard:: Stop wasting time.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think we wasted enough time when the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe was speaking.


Frank Exton Lennard: You wasted more than enough time on divorce bills during the last six weeks.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I suggest to the hon. member who is making these interruptions that he should get up on his feet and make some constructive suggestions. I submit that the

Interim Supply
nonsense we have heard today from the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe will convince the rank and file of the Canadian people that the Conservative party is a spent force in Canada. Never again can these hon. gentlemen ever expect to sit on the other side of the house. The Leader of the Opposition has suggested we should get back to the two party system in Canada and certainly there is no need in Canada-


Thomas Miller Bell: Read the Financial Post.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -for a party more conservative than the one on the other side. The member for Dufferin-Simcoe was talking about the plight of agriculture. A year ago, his leader while a private member, moved an amendment in this house to the effect that consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the current session legislation to create parity prices for agricultural products at levels which would ensure to the producers a fair price-cost relationship. This was at a time when he was identifying himself in the west as a friend of the farmers, but this year, when the member for Yorkton moved an amendment in almost the precise language of the amendment of a year ago, what happened? The member for Prince Albert, now the Leader of the Opposition, voted against the same proposition and this was so offensive to some of his party members in the rural ridings that five of them walked out.


An hon. Member:: That is not true; that is misrepresenting everything. Even in the House of Commons it is possible to misrepresent things.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member cannot deny that according to the press five walked out and four of them came back to vote, almost immediately, on the main motion; the fifth one apparently did not come back. Their names are available if anyone wishes to check the Votes and Proceedings. Four, however, who were not prepared to stand up against their leader on the question of parity prices did come back.


Mr. Green:: That is just plain rubbish.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I will put the names on the record the next time I stand up. They are available-


Thomas Miller Bell: You are not going to stand up again this session, are you?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If it is necessary. The member for Dufferin-Simcoe was concerned about old age pensions but the Leader of the Opposition said that he would be remiss if he were to hold out promises which could not and would not be met. He later said that

he submitted that the fixation of $75 at this time was something which he could not support, having an adequate sense of his responsibility.
With a gross national product of around $32 billion or an average of around $2,000 for every man, woman and child in the country, for a responsible member of parliament to say that-


Robert Hardy Small: What does the premier of Saskatchewan say?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I will discuss that but the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member who is interrupting me are suggesting that old age pensions are now the responsibilities of the provinces.


Robert Hardy Small: No, no.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That the province of Saskatchewan should make up that amount.


An hon. Member:: Take that back.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Old age pensions are now a federal responsibility and $75 a month certainly is not too much.


William Earl Rowe: Why do you not make it $100?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The province of Saskatchewan makes up to $60 a month, that is what he said. Our leader said the same thing. The Conservative party has not said anything. There is an election coming on and no member of the Conservative party has set out that their program calls for $48, $49, $50 or $60, or what have you. No one has said this is what our program calls for. I submit $75-


An hon. Member:: Our leader said today $60-what are you talking about?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No, he said something like Saskatchewan.


An hon. Member:: Well that is $60.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: He did not say that was his program. I have never heard any member of the Conservative party get up and say, "Here is our program in black and white; here is what we are going to do for the old age pensioners if we are elected." The member for Notre Dame de Grace said he could not speak for his party the other day but that he had to leave it for his leader. I submit that our old age pensioners want food; they want shelter; they want medical services. But it is suggested that the economy of Canada in the year 1957 would not stand for that. In the words of the Leader of the Opposition "I submit that the fixation of $75 at this time is something which I cannot support, having an adequate sense of my

responsibility." That reminds me of a discussion that took place in the Senate chamber when the first old age pension legislation was before parliament. This happened to be the last time we had a Conservative majority in the Senate and it came out in the evidence that in the election of 1925 two labour members were in the position where they had to decide whether Canada was to have a Liberal or a Conservative government.


An hon. Member:: Gad, what a choice!


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It turned out that these two labour members wanted two things: They wanted old age pensions and they wanted unemployment insurance. Mr. Meighen, the only former prime minister now living, who was the leader of the Conservative party at that time, was not at all interested in either of these propositions. Mr. King apparently was not able to sell the idea of unemployment insurance but he was able to sell to his supporters the idea of old age pensions:	So the
first old age pension legislation came into this house because the member for Winnipeg North Centre at that time, the late Mr. Woodsworth -later leader of our party-and Mr. Heaps, then Labour member for Winnipeg, stood up for the old people of Canada.


An hon. Member:: And that is the only reason, is it?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is how we happen to have it. There is another chapter which I think should be drawn to the attention of the house when there was a very heated debate in the Senate chamber. I have the Senate Hansard for the year 1926 and in June 8 of that year Senator McMeans, a Conservative senator, was criticizing the Liberals for the humiliating position in which they found themselves, where they were allowing two labour members to run the country and to force this very objectionable legislation on the taxpayers of Canada.


An hon. Member:: They are allowing one superman now.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have found there was a Liberal in the Senate who made a very good speech considering the thinking of that day. Senator Lewis said:
I do not regard the bill at all as a socialistic measure or as a measure of charity. I put it on precisely the same basis as I would put the pension to a judge or a soldier, because I regard a mechanic, a factory worker, or a labourer in the field as just as much a servant of the state and nation as the judge or a soldier, and just as much entitled to consideration at the hands of the nation.
I submit that that was quite a constructive contribution to come from a senator who was a Liberal, and who was trying to stand up in the Senate for this legislation. However,
Interim Supply
there was a senator from Prince Edward Island who was more critical-Senator McLean-and Senator Sir George Foster spoke as follows:
I am opposed to it, in the second place, because I do not think it is just or fair.
He was greatly concerned about what the cost was going to be and I find that this debate generated more heat, although not very much light, than any debate that has taken place for a long, long time.
When it was all over this first measure was killed because there were only 21 who stood up for it while 45 voted against it. That was a very large vote, taking into account the absenteeism in the other place.
I notice that one of the hon. senators who spoke against it was a Saskatchewan citizen, the late Senator Calder. After opposing this legislation he continued in the Senate and passed away recently at the age of 88. Checking the record in Hansard I find that for the last ten years his name did not appear in any of the reports. Of course he would have to appear here once a year in order to qualify for his indemnity-


Howard Charles Green: On a question of privilege. I do not think it is in order for an hon. member to attack a deceased senator in that way-a senator who served this country with great credit for many many years, first in the Northwest Territories, then in the province of Saskatchewan, and later in the dominion parliament, holding a very responsible position. And now the hon. member is making dirty, nasty, imputations against that senator's reputation. I think that is very much out of order.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I note the objection of the hon. member, and I will not pursue the matter. I was merely pointing out that he was one of the senators who blocked the passage of the old age pension legislation through this House of Commons. I think it is significant that this first legislation was blocked, and that the present official opposition of this country is on record as declaring that the economy of Canada will not stand the payment of $75 a month to pensioners.
I suggest that any hon. member may wish to try the experiment of seeking rented quarters in any centre in Canada-the cheapest accommodation available-and after securing the accommodation necessary to provide shelter from rain, snow and frost, he or she should try to get enough food, balance the budget and meet all commitments after providing for medical and hospital care, from the amount that is left over.
I do not think any reasonable person would suggest that this very buoyant economy which

Interim Supply
is setting all-time records in the field of production cannot afford to provide at least $75 for the people of Canada who are over 70 years of age and who have helped to build up this amazing country, people who have done their share of the world's work in making Canada the productive land it is.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Chairman, I suggest we call it six o'clock?


The Chairman:: Is it the wish of the committee we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
["Agreed.\nAt six o'clock the committee took recess."]
Harry Oliver White: Mr. Chairman, I rise to take part in this debate on the resolution in which the government is asking for supply. It seems to bring to my mind my boyhood days when my father used to say to me, "What did you do with the last five dollars I gave you?" That is fairly well the question we are going to ask the government, namely "What did you do with all the money we gave you last time?" We shall try to bring them to account.
I just wanted to comment on the speech made by the hon. member for Mackenzie who immediately preceded me. It was one of the type made by those who belong to a group which never in the foreseeable future will be called upon to form a government.


Mr. Barnett:: We shall be called upon before you will.


Harry Oliver White: They do not like it. Consequently they can make all kinds of statements and rash promises because they will never be expected to carry them out. I agree, however, on the question of pensions which many others have mentioned and which I have mentioned from time to time. In view of the tremendous increase in the cost of living it certainly seems to me that the $6 increase is not adequate. I have said before and I say again that if the pensions could be hooked to the cost of living, the government, the old age pensioners and Canadians generally would know just where they stood, and they would not be obliged to face, every once in a while, this question of increasing old age pensions and other pensions. According to the Gordon report-if the Gordon report is to be taken as gospel-it would look as though in the next 15, 20 or 25 years the

cost of living, if all these things are going to go on, would march on up and up. If that is the case, every four or five years the government are going to be faced with this recurring problem.
Some things have been said about trade. Trade is our economic lifeline. To me the disturbing feature is that we are employing people abroad in other countries to do and produce many of the things that we ourselves could do and produce. We are importing a large amount of agricultural products and we are exporting many of our raw materials in order to buy them back as finished products. I was greatly interested in what the Minister of Finance had to say this afternoon when he was dealing with the attitude of this government and of people generally toward the Geneva trade treaties known as GATT. I am one of those who have always been critical of the GATT because we have surrendered our authority to a group of civil servants sitting beyond our boundaries who decided whether my business or your business will sink or swim. They are so far removed from the people that you have not any opportunity to argue with them or deal with them. Yet when it came to a showdown and when it looked as though the maritimes were going to slip entirely out of the grasp of the government, all of a sudden they found a way in which they could circumvent these GATT treaties. It seemed to me that it was a bit of a deathbed repentance or a conversion at the last minute. No doubt within the next two months we shall see more of this sort of thing and we shall hear about some changes that are being made to fit the occasion. It is regrettable that it must come at a time when an election is near and not necessarily when it was needed. This need has been known for quite some time.
I was also interested to note that the minister agreed that agriculture was not receiving its just and fair share of the national income. However he went on and tried to justify the government's position by saying that in almost any other place in the world farm products are cheaper than they are here. However that does not solve the farmer's problem and he is not happy about it. I am rather of the opinion that farmers generally would have taken it with a great deal more grace if the government had tried to do something about it but they have not done so except with regard to potatoes.
I think that all groups within the country recognize the economic squeeze that is affecting the farmer because those industries that are supplying goods to the farmer are finding that business is dull. Many of

the machinery companies are being obliged to reduce their activities. Some are going broke. That situation only reflects the buying power in the hands of the farmer.
I was glad to see that the government had at last taken some action to bring to the maritimes some measure of help, late as it is and probably it is not too great. Some time ago the Minister of Public Works turned the sod for the Fanshawe dam at London, Ontario. We now have an investment there of several millions of dollars and the project is about half completed. But when delegations from the city of London and other Thames river valley municipalities waited on the minister two years ago the matter was going to be given some study. Then lately the project was turned down because he said they were not able to prove that the moneys spent would create enough saving to warrant the expenditure. Should floods occur on the upper Thames river, a sizeable area to the north and west of London could well be under water again as it was in 1937, I believe, and the property damage-to say nothing of the loss of lives-could run into many millions of dollars.
The part that I do not like about it is that we had $1 million with which to help Nasser clean up his canal, and that we have other millions to throw around the world in order to make good fellows of ourselves. Yet we have not any money to spend on our own people. The people of Saskatchewan have been asking for help in connection with a dam there. I do not think there is any doubt that the increased prosperity that could be brought to that area would pay far greater dividends than will the $1 million we spent in connection with the Suez and the money we have spent in other places abroad. I just want to put this question up to the government because one never knows what can happen on these rivers in the springtime.
As I said, many millions of dollars have been invested in the Fanshawe dam, in some reforestation projects along the watershed and the smaller auxiliary dams, and if this river should go on the rampage this spring or some other spring and a disaster occur, would the government be as quick to come to our assistance in the Thames valley as they were to spend millions of dollars on Suez or as they were to give assistance to Cabano and Rimouski at the time of the disastrous fire? I have not forgotten that, and I do not think a good many other Canadians have forgotten it.
There is another subject I want to discuss tonight. During this session and other sessions I have mentioned some things about
Interim Supply
agriculture. I am going to mention them tonight from an entirely different viewpoint. For many years Canadian agriculture provided not only food for this nation but was able to export food to the United Kingdom and other countries, especially during wartime. Today, except for wheat or grain, we are not self-supporting. We are spending over $2,000 million every year, and have been since Korea, on national defence. Let us hope a war never occurs, but if it is advisable and wise to spend that much money on national defence it would seem to me that all the money will be wasted if our communications are broken and we are without food. We are in a very serious situation in that regard. You will recall that Britain has struggled heroically to make her island self-sufficient so far as food is concerned. No one knows what might happen, but I say that if a war should occur there is no doubt in the world but what the United States would look after herself first. If the lines of communication were broken we would find ourselves with an army and a civilian population without sufficient food.
A lot has been said about civilian defence; how they are going to evacuate the cities and take the people out into the country. It seems to me like a wild idea. Where are you going to put them in the country, out in the barns? How are you going to feed them? The farmers of the country have been treated by this government in such a manner that they are daily leaving the soil and going to the cities because of shorter hours and higher pay. As I say, if a disaster should strike, the United States will take care of the D.E.W. line and their own country and we might find ourselves in a very serious situation. If the evacuation of our cities were to take place during the winter, I do not know what would happen. If it took place in the summer and the people were sent into the country areas, they would only be there about a month when they would be eating grass because we could not produce enough food to feed our own people. I feel it is a shortsighted policy to spend $2,000 million a year on national defence when the first essential for defence is food. The aim of German submarine warfare was to starve Europe, and we could find ourselves in a similar situation. I would say it was the folly of the century to let our agriculture deteriorate as it has during the last few years.
Just to give you some idea of the amount of food imported in 1956 into an agricultural country such as this. There were 3.5 million dozen eggs imported; 9 million pounds of cheese, in a country that used to export millions of pounds of cheese to the United

Interim Supply
Kingdom; 3 million pounds of powdered milk; 4 million pounds of canned corn; 26 million pounds of canned tomatoes; 3 million pounds of canned beans; 22 million pounds of dressed poultry. All this was imported into a country which throughout its history was an exporter of food products. I feel it is the duty of a government to protect the lives and livelihood of its people. This government seems to be worrying about the people in Egypt, Europe and Asia more than they are about our own people. I say, what good is an army, navy or air force if you have not any food to feed the people? The government is now asking us to vote them supply so the people can vote them confidence on June 10 next. I have an idea the people are not going to be quite as certain as the government seems to be that they are going to get that confidence.
I have in my hand a marketing service report from the Department of Agriculture. This is a weekly report, and it is amazing to see the amount of agricultural products that are brought into this country each week. This report refers to vegetable and fruit products, and I am only going to mention three or four of them. During the week ending March 1, there was imported into this country 107 carloads of tomatoes; 41 carloads of apples; 25 carloads of onions; 46 carloads of potatoes. I believe what I am saying about these products applies particularly to southwestern Ontario. When I think of the number of tomatoes that used to be grown, and could be grown, on the shores of lake Ontario and in the counties of Essex and Kent, I am surprised to find we are importing this amount. The minister shakes his head, and I know he will say these are fresh tomatoes.


Walter Edward Harris: I just shook my head because there are more tomatoes grown there today than ever before.


Harry Oliver White: That may
be, but there are not enough. We could still have more grown if we had more people.


Walter Edward Harris: Support our immigration
policy and we might have more people.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have a better immigration policy.


Walter Edward Harris: You could not work one; you do not know how.


Harry Oliver White: They used to grow onions on the farm occupied by the late Mr. Hepburn, but they are not growing onions now. They are not growing onions as they used to do in Erieau or on point

Pelee. They could not market their onions, and onions were being imported at that time.
During the week of February 15, there was imported 33 carloads of onions; 33 carloads of carrots. During the week of February 8, there was imported 56 carloads of potatoes] 22 carloads of apples. All this took place at a time when our farmers were finding it difficult to market some of their products. During the week of March 8, there was imported 119 carloads of vegetables; 48 carloads of onions and 30 carloads of carrots. This gives some idea of the large amount of food imported each week. During the week of March 22, there was imported 104 carloads of celery; 168 carloads of tomatoes; 41 carloads of onions; 76 carloads of potatoes; 5 carloads of pears and 14 carloads of apples. I am using these figures because I wish to show the situation in which this country could find itself in so far as food is concerned if disaster should strike.
I am just pointing that out because with that much food coming in every week how long would we last if our lines of communication with the United States were broken? Here we are spending, as I said, $2,000 million every year for national defence; we are exhorting our citizens to prepare for civil defence, and the mainstay of the people is food. If they have no food they soon perish. I think it is indicative of the lack of foresight on the part of the government that the agricultural producers are finding themselves in the position in which they are now.
I hold in my hand the new stamps that were issued yesterday depicting a loon. I wonder whether they are also indicative of things to come; I wonder whether they have any reference to coming events on June 10.


Mr. Zaplitny:: Mr. Chairman, this apparently is going to be the last opportunity to deal with matters of a general nature, and I wish this evening to raise a matter which I do not think has been raised at all in general debate in this house during this session. I believe it is a very important matter to a large number of Canadians. I refer to the position in which our retail merchants find themselves today. In my opinion the small businessman in this country is in danger of becoming the forgotten man. We hear a great deal in this house, and rightly so, at every session about all forms of primary production. We hear a great deal about labour and industry, but very little attention has been paid over the years to the position of the independent small merchant who for many years has served the community faithfully and, in more ways than one, is the backbone of the community.

At this time there is a real danger facing the small independent merchant of this country, a danger which may force him almost into extinction unless this parliament takes some action. I say that would be a terrible loss to the country because those of us who have had something to do with operating small businesses know that the small businessman, the independent merchant, is called upon to support every type of community enterprise in the community in which he lives and by and large he has done so very generously and without any protest or complaint.
But at this time a situation is developing in our country which, in my opinion, could force the small independent businessman entirely out of business. I wish to refer to Hansard of April 1, of this session. I raised this matter in the house in a question to the Prime Minister. I think I should repeat the question in order to set the background correctly. At that time I referred to a letter which had been sent, I understand, to all members of parliament by the retail merchants association and I asked the Prime Minister the following question, as reported at page 2910 of Hansard:
I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he has received a letter from the retail merchants' association of Canada, claiming that the situation is rapidly approaching "where a few large corporations are gaining a stranglehold on the retail trade of our country"? If so, will the government give consideration to appointment of a royal commission to investigate the retail practices and to recommend appropriate remedial action for this dangerous situation.
In reply to that the Prime Minister, first having commented on the fact that he had received the letter that day and had not had time to give it full consideration, said this:
The matter has not yet been considered by the government but from the looks of this circular I would imagine it has probably been addressed to all the members of this house.
I will read it, and after having done so I will see if there is any reason why the government, as a government, should give the matter consideration.
I failed at that time to understand, and I still am puzzled as to what is meant by that last line where the Prime Minister said:
... if there is any reason why the government, as a government, should give the matter consideration.
I do not know how else they would do it except by the government-


Walter Edward Harris: Obviously what the Prime Minister had in mind was whether the request made by the retail merchants' association was within the jurisdiction of this government.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Certainly the question that I addressed to the Prime Minister was squarely within the jurisdiction of this government.
Interim Supply
In fact, it is the only place where it could be done, because what I suggested to him I still think is the only practical step to take since what was contained in this letter is only part of the problem affecting the retail merchants. The only practical step that could be taken at this time to investigate this problem, and other problems affecting the retail merchants, would be to appoint a commission with the widest possible powers to make a complete investigation into the situation, and then the government would be in a position, as would parliament, to decide on what steps should be taken to remedy the situation.
I wish to remind the Minister of Finance that the last time at which such a wide investigation was made was back in 1934. It was started earlier than that, but the report was published in 1934. It was conducted under the direction of the minister of trade and commerce at that time, the Hon. H. H. Stevens, and the results of that investigation were a great shock to the Canadian people and apparently an even greater shock to the minister of trade and commerce of the day because, as is well known now, it was one of the things that led up to his resignation from the government and his attempt to start a new political movement in this country which apparently did not get very far. I draw attention to that because since that date nothing has been done to make a complete investigation into the merchandizing methods and into the trade practices which have been growing up in our economy in the retail trade.
Some of the things which have happened within the last 10 years particularly have caused the retail merchants' association to speak out in a very unusual manner, because if there has been one body or one organization which has always spoken with great modesty and a great deal of moderation it has been the retail merchants' association. But on this occasion, they felt that something was needed to shock this government and this parliament into action. I therefore propose to quote from part of the letter to which I referred on April 1 and which was sent to the members of this house under the date of March 30. This letter was sent by the retail merchants' association of Canada and was signed by David A. Gilbert, general manager. Here is what it has to say:
During the last 10 years a condition has been developing in Canada which is rapidly approaching the point where a few large corporations are gaining a stranglehold on the retail trade of our country. Unless there is fast legislative action

Interim Supply
to counteract this trend, small business, the mainstay of free enterprise and effective competition, may be elbowed out of existence.
The situation is serious. Within the next five to 10 years, unless action is taken now, these large corporate retailers may well control the supply and price of all retail goods to all Canadians. We have seen similar developments in the automobile industry, and in the gasoline business.
Further on the letter had this to say:
The results of this inequality-
That is, the inequality between large corporations and small businesses.
-are clearly visible in every Canadian city today. The corporate or chain outlet has vast, new, expensive buildings, parking lots and equipment. The independent merchant is found in old buildings, and with out of date equipment.
He concludes the letter with this paragraph:
Canadian retailing is a 14 billion dollar a year industry-one of the nation's largest. It is too important-too basic to our needs and way of life-to be allowed to fall into the monopolistic control of three or four large corporations.
Can we count on your help to support legislation which will correct this situation and keep Canadian retailing free and independent?
I think the writer of that letter was a little optimistic when he asked hon. members of this house for their support for legislation which would correct the situation because I suppose he had in mind that the government was going to bring some legislation before this house in order to do that. Judging from the reply of the Prime Minister on April 1 and the complete lack of any action since that time apparently it is not the intenion of the government to do anything about this situation.
I have made one proposal as to what could be done immediately, that a study be initiated now in order to be ready perhaps for the next parliament, but nothing has been done and nothing is being proposed. Since I raised that matter in the house I have received a certain amount of confirmation from other sources as to the seriousness of this situation. One of the sources is a letter dated April 8, 1957 written by one of the councillors of the city of Montreal by the name Valere Vachon who has quite a number of interesting things to say. I shall just pick out certain comments that are applicable to this question.
First of all he refers to the fact that the situation in Montreal is serious, in these words:
Such a situation is particularly bad in Montreal-
He is referring to this unfair competition which is developing between the large corporations and the small independent businesses. The letter continues:
-and the same abuse is spreading in the suburbs of Montreal and has already gained a foothold in Quebec city; the hardware, electric appliances and

retail furniture dealers are affected and in fact it threatens the very existence of the small and independent business.
Further down in his letter he refers to the fact that unless something is done it is his opinion that in a very short time 50 per cent of independent small businesses will close their doors. This is the opinion of a person who occupies a responsible position in Canada's largest city and who is in a position to know what is happening to the retail trade of our country.
I have done a little research along that line and came across a submission made to the Gordon commission on March 8, 1956 by a group of individuals whose names I shall list. The people in question are George E. Britnell, Vernon C. Fowke, Mabel F. Timlin and Kenneth A. H. Buckley, all of whom are members of the department of economic and political science of the University of Saskatchewan. I propose to read from their submission to the Gordon commission on the question of competition and monopoly.
Their submission, of course, dealt with the over-all philosophy of business, competition and monoply and it is a rather significant submission because for many years members of the party with which I am associated have warned the small independent merchant that he is in the same danger as a result of the monopolistic tendencies of this economic system as is the farmer, the labourer or anyone else in this country.
I must say that in many cases the independent merchants did not readily agree with that idea. Through the process of a great deal of expensive propaganda which is being dished out by the bushel every day and even more so now by the huge corporations, the independent merchant had been sold on the idea that after all he is a sort of small brother capitalist of the big capitalists and therefore he is nearly in the same boat, and what is good for big business is good for small business. That concept was repeated again and again and drummed into the ears of the small merchants until he almost began to believe it. In a way they are almost in the same position, just like the fishermen and the fish are almost in the same position. When a fishermen goes out fishing it can be truthfully said that both he and the fish are in the fish business but usually the fish ends up in the frying pan of the fisherman rather than the reverse and that is exactly what is beginning to happen to small business. They are beginning to realize that the whole tendency of this monopoly system is for collectivism and in that respect it is almost a brother of communism because both are collectivist, both are materialistic, both are ruthless in



[Stage Direction]
their methods and both are enemies of economic democracy and therefore of political democracy.
I was surprised how clearly that opinion was confirmed by this group of learned people in their submission to the Gordon commission. First of all they refer to a new type of thinking which seems to have permeated into the ranks of the government and I suspect that the Minister of Finance in particular must have read some of the theories of one modern economist whose name is Schumpeter who has come out flatfooted in recent years to claim that the collectivist idea of capitalism, or in other words monopoly and combine, is a good thing for our economy. He bases his theory on the fact that monopoly becomes a sort of "engine of progress", as he calls it, in that it favours not only innovation but investment. It is claimed that the only way you can accumulate capital is by allowing business to be monopolistic, to become so huge that it can accumulate large reserves of capital and that capital can be used for innovation, expansion and modernization.
This group of professors make reference to that theory and to the position that the state or the government occupies with regard to this situation and I want to quote their words as will be found on page 10 of their submission. This is what they say:
If the state, having created the legal framework within which the great corporation exists, connives at the accumulation of monopoly or oligopoly profits as a means of promoting innovation and accumulation generally, there is a danger that it may create conditions which threaten its own life.
Now is that not exactly what this government has been doing? I am not saying that this government has been doing it on account of the theory of Schumpeter but they may have reached the same conclusions by other channels. The action which this government took last year in creating one of the greatest private monopolies that exists in this country today, the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company, is an indication that the government is prepared to go along with this new theory, the opposite to the "trust busting" theory which was popular in the United States in the 1930's. They are now prepared to go along with the theory that big business is good business and the bigger the business the better it is for the country and that of course leaves the small business out in the cold.
This group continues their submission with these very important words:
The long-run implications of the idea-
That has reference to the Schumpeter idea that big business is good business-
Interim Supply
-that monopoly may be an engine of progress are not lost upon certain of its originators. For Schumpeter, the final outcome of innovation and accumulation through the hegemony of the large firm is the automatization of progress and the obsolescence of the entrepreneurial function.
Now, that type of language means that those who so believe think there is no room for the small businessman. And then he goes on:
The resemblances of his theory of economic development to Marxist ideology are plain. According to Karl Marx, the transformation of private property into "capitalist private property" through the same type of concentration in the hands of the few would bring into being the first phases of communism, with entrepreneurs transformed into hired managers.
Now is that not exactly what is taking place and is that not exactly what the retail merchants are complaining about? They are being put into the position where one by one they become the victims of these monopolies, this giant octopus. They are going to have to close their doors and hire themselves out as managers to run the business on a salary for the big groups.
This is a very, very serious situation and I want to say to the government in all sincerity that this may be a warning; this may be the writing on the wall because if the government will only think back I think they will realize that the small businessman, the independent merchant, has been the backbone and support of their party. This has been the sector of our economy upon which they have depended most heavily for consistent support. Now we And that the primary producers are discontented and if the government loses the support of the independent, small merchant class-which they appear to be in great danger of losing unless they pay heed to these warnings-they are going to find themselves without their chief support.
I would like to refer to another matter which affects the small independent merchant in a slightly different way. On March 26 last I addressed a question to the Minister of Justice, as reported on page 2691 of Hansard:
Has the Minister of Justice received a recent request from the Canadian association of consumers for an amendment to section 369 of the Criminal Code in order that effective action may be taken with regard to trading stamps? If so, is it the intention of the minister to recommend an amendment this session to this section of the act?
The Minister of Justice simply replied that he had not received any such request. Of course that was a complete evasion because he had received such a request although it had not been a recent request. So my hon. friend, the hon. member for Moose Mountain, immediately rose to ask the minister if he had ever received such a request from the
[Stage Direction]
Interim Supply
Canadian consumers association and then, of course, the minister went on to explain that he had received such a request, and here is the part of his reply which is significant. In giving the reason why the government was not prepared to take any action he said:
No court in Canada has held that this present law against trading stamps is either invalid or unenforceable. Indeed, there cannot be such a decision until there is an unsuccessful prosecution under the law. Pending such a prosecution we do not wish to ask parliament to amend the law until we shall have been informed in what respect the courts consider it to be invalid or unenforceable, that is until we know in what respect it should be amended.
Well now those are a lot of words which boil down to simply one thing which is that the government is not prepared to do anything, because the Canadian association of consumers had already taken up this matter, had tried to lay the information and initiate a prosecution under the Criminal Code with reference to trading stamps in the province of Ontario and had been told by the attorney general of that province that as the law now stands there was a loophole so great in it that no self-respecting prosecutor would even attempt to pin down a prosecution on it.
Mrs. Shipley:: Would the hon. gentleman be kind enough to tell the house what that loophole is; I have been trying to find out and would he mind telling me.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not have the act before me at the moment but if the hon. member will only look back at the circular letter sent out by the association of consumers that section of the act is quoted. There is reference therein to that part of the section which they find weak and which the attorney general has described as a loophole. I am not in a position, in view of the fact that I do not have the statute before me, to spell out the exact terms of that act.


Marie Ann Shipley: Would the hon. member permit another question. Having just read the act as quoted by the Minister of Justice and having read the article to which he refers and in which I cannot find any loophole, would my hon. friend tell us again what loophole he is talking about?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I do not know if the hon. member is setting herself up as a legal authority-


Marie Ann Shipley: No, I am not.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: -greater than that of the attorney general of Ontario; if she is then I will leave it to her to find out. I am not taking sides in that scrap.


Marie Ann Shipley: You are talking about a loophole.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am just pointing out a statement made by the Canadian association of consumers as a result of the information they had received from the attorney general of Ontario. Now I think this suggestion may be satisfactory to the hon. member for Timiskaming: If the Minister of Justice is of the opinion that the statute, as it now stands, is adequate there is nothing to prevent the government from initiating a test case. All that would be necessary to do would be to lay the information and have the matter taken to court, but apparently the government is not prepared to do anything.
This business of trading stamps and other gimmicks is being promoted chiefly by United States advertising agents who come to Canada to pick up some ready cash and this sort of thing is definitely going on. I have a letter before me dated April 9 from a Mr. H. Thomas addressed to the Minister of Justice. I am not going to read the whole of the letter but I would like to point out, for the satisfaction of the hon. member who raised this question, that the situation is serious and something should be done about it. The writer of this letter says:
I have had handed over to me a copy of the House of Commons debates (Hansard) for Monday, April 1st, in which I observe that Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin) strongly recommends the appointment of a royal commission to investigate retail practices of large corporations.
The appointment of this commission is long overdue with conditions now becoming unbearable. I have in mind the competition of the Loblaw Groceterias in which they featured an automobile very very prominently. The contest went on for 24 weeks, June 1956 to January 1957. This car has never been handed out and bitter complaints appear in the Toronto papers from time to time.
In view of the shortage of time I will have to skip a couple of paragraphs, but to get down to the meat of the letter he points out that over that period, on the basis of offering this glittering car to the consuming public, they have insisted on a purchase before they give anyone a card to participate in this so-called draw, which is nothing but a big gamble. They have already handed out four million purchase cards; in other words they have had four million purchases and a conservative estimate for the balance of the time this draw is in existence, indicates that they will hand out another six million cards. Therefore they would have ten million purchases before someone eventually wins this car. This whole proposition is being run by the Cross-Out Advertising Company Incorporated of St. Louis, Missouri. It is certainly crossing out the small businessman.
These are the things, the trading stamps, giveaway ideas and all the rest of it, run by these huge monopolies who have the capital and the total production, distribution and

wholesale business to handle them, which step by step are pushing the small independent retailer out of the way. What is the government doing about it?
The whole of the government's policy seems to be one of neglect and procrastination. They have apparently climbed into bed with big business so snugly that they are quite satisfied to have left the park bench to small business with a newspaper for a covering; they are satisfied to let things drift in the way they are going.
I think it is time a royal commission was set up to investigate this whole sorry mess and to expose these unfair practices and monopolistic tendencies which endanger our way of life.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, it was very interesting to hear the remarks of the hon. member of the C.C.F. party who has just resumed his seat. It would appear that the hon. member for Dauphin is on the side of the small businessman, and one could draw the conclusion from that that he has noted the return of the two-party system, and also the fact that there is a transformation in our midst which the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre made last night. Or perhaps he is just worried about the folks back home, as most of us are at this time.
I want to refer to two or three remarks with respect to the power proposals that were made in the budget, proposals which have recently been clarified in this house.
This afternoon, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings made an excellent speech bringing the matter up to date, and I think he set forth the position of the maritimes very clearly. First of all, I should like to refer to remarks contained in the Fredericton Gleaner of Thursday, April 4. That newspaper published a letter which was sent by the Prime Minister in reply to a letter which the premier of New Brunswick had sent to him requesting clarification of answers given in this house in reply to questions by the hon. member for Broadview and myself.
I do not refer to this in any critical way, so if I leave out some of the context it will be only because I wish to use this as the starting point of my theme. I can assure the house that these are the Prime Minister's words, contained in this letter in reply to the letter of Premier Flemming of February 26 of this year:
I can assure you that I had no intention of saying anything directly or by implication that could be taken to reflect unfavourably upon the good faith and initiative of your government. You will realize from the forms of the questions by Mr. Hees and Mr. Bell that I was called upon to answer that there was in their questions something more than implications reflecting unfavourably upon the good faith and initiative of our government.
Interim Supply
That is the end of that quotation from the Prime Minister's letter. I want to say that though I myself have often been critical of the lack of initiative shown by this government I would not wish to be associated with any great degree of criticism suggesting lack of good faith on the part of individuals and impugning their motives so far as assistance to the maritimes is concerned.
While we are on this point, since credit seems to be given to various quarters with regard to this assistance, I would like to refer to the fact that the New Brunswick government in its brief of January, 1956, offered as its second proposal a provision for thermal units provided a specific amount of federal assistance could be given to the province. Perhaps a quotation from this brief will explain this more clearly. The province in its second suggestion mentioned a figure and went on to say:
Federal financial assistance on this scale would be a major contribution to the growth of the Atlantic region and the Canadian economy as a whole. It is of great importance to note that the large thermal units which it is proposed to erect in New Brunswick could provide a substantial market for New Brunswick and Nova Scotia coal.
I mention this only to establish the fact that besides the Christie report and besides the other suggestions which have been made as to who originated this thermal unit scheme it was definitely a suggestion of the province of New Brunswick.
I wish to refer also to certain references to low cost power which have been made so far in respect to this proposal. When the original announcement was made in this house I described the proposal as nebulous, and this seemed to cause some consternation to some hon. members, particularly to the hon. member for Gloucester. If the hon. member knew the meaning of that word, or would take time to look it up in the dictionary he would find it means "hazy and vague", and I still suggest that description is valid in spite of the clarification which was made the other day by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. There are still aspects of this proposal which are hazy and vague, aspects which are nebulous and I refer particularly tonight to the fact that we have no idea what kind of low cost power is going to be provided by these units.


Mr. Robichaud:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Has he read the correspondence tabled by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources the day before yesterday? If he reads that letter from the chief engineer of the New Brunswick power commission I think he will find a reply to what he is suggesting now.

Interim Supply


Thomas Miller Bell: I can refer specifically to the words of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I do not have his statement as it appears in the records of this house, but it is in the Gleaner of April 10, and this is what he said:
Under this proposal, the transmission lines would be rented on a non-profit basis and the power would be sold at cost to provincial electric systems. The purpose would be that the plants and other facilities built under this program can be acquired by the provinces at any time on payment of their amortized cost.
I do not take exception to this at all. I merely suggest that at the present time the proposal is still hazy, and that we do not know whether it is going to provide low cost power or not.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It is 20 per cent cheaper than Beechwood.


Thomas Miller Bell: The point I am trying to make is simply this: there was no question about the province of New Brunswick being able to finance Beechwood. The fact is that we wanted to finance Beechwood at a low cost in order that we might be able to induce our new mineral resources development companies to come into New Brunswick and build up their enterprises there at this low cost rate. While there may be some hope of this-I am not throwing cold water on the prospect-we do not know whether this is really going to be cheap, low cost power. It is thermal power, and we know that it is expensive and that it does not compare, generally, with hydro power as far as cost is concerned; and in my mind this is still a nebulous feature of the proposal.
Thirdly, I would like to refer to the Saint John aspect of the proposal. Hon. members will recall that the other day when the minister was making a statement in the house he suggested that the new thermal unit might be located in Saint John or in Cumberland county, Nova Scotia. Under the New Brunswick government's original plan, the thermal unit had been announced as being intended for Saint John, New Brunswick. The provincial government has suggested that if the scheme should prove more economic and more feasible at another site it would forgo the rights or the interest which it had at Saint John and allow the commission to make an independent decision as to the location of this first thermal unit.
I respectfully suggest, without being too partisan, that there are many reasons why this first unit should still be built in Saint John. We have the fact that the maritimes largest industrial area is located in Saint John. We also have the fact that this thermal unit is to be dependent upon maritime coal, not particularly Nova Scotia coal and therefore

New Brunswick coal would be fairly close to this large city of Saint John and the sea facilities. If oil ever was to be a later consideration, it would be readily available at that seaport. More particularly I refer to this report that has recently been released with respect to the Nova Scotia coal industry, namely part of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. At page 21, in the fifth section, under the heading of "New Potential Uses for Coal" I should like to quote as follows:
The question as to whether it is more economical to produce electricity at a mine or to carry the coal to thermal plants at load centres is determined by the relative cost of transporting equivalent amounts of energy. Studies have been conducted by the economics branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce which conclude that the transmission of electricity from thermal plants at the mines to load centres in the maritimes would be the more costly method . . .
Mr. Chairman, from this expert opinion we are forced to conclude that it would be much better to locate a thermal unit in a place like Saint John even though it is quite a few miles distant from the actual coal mine because the cost of transporting the coal, whether it is by subvention or otherwise, would still not be as great as would be the cost of transmitting the power to the industrial market which in this case would be close at hand. I suggest that those are practical reasons. I suggest that while we are being fair about the decision, we feel that Saint John has a great deal to offer in this respect.
In closing I only want to say that the premier of New Brunswick-and I know the premier of Nova Scotia has also taken the same stand-has called for a non-partisan approach to this entire matter. It is what we have been waiting for. Unfortunately the matter is going to be beclouded by the federal election. As has been suggested, many solutions have been offered for the maritime problems by way of reports of commissions that date back many years. But probably the best would be to have a federal election every year. While there is to be an election this year and no doubt the proposals will be the subject of discussion I feel that all maritimers are taking a fair approach to the matter. We realize it is a great opportunity and we are waiting for the further proposals, and the clarification of the details that will be coming.
I cannot resist putting on the record this evening a reference that was made in the New Brunswick budget speech of a few days ago which dealt with a matter that I discussed with the Minister of Finance last year. A full year ago I said to the Minister of Finance that the new payments under the

tax-sharing arrangements with the province would put New Brunswick and the other maritime provinces in a position where the poor province would become poorer. At that time I had only a quotation by means of which to answer him. But since then the provincial government of my province has done considerable research on the matter and the words in the budget speech of March 13, 1957 of Hon. D. D. Patterson, provincial secretary-treasurer, explained the matter clearly. They read as follows:
Under the present tax rental agreement, and fpr the current fiscal year-the last under the old agreement-New Brunswick is shown as receiving $18,505,000 and Alberta $35,265,000. On a per capita basis this is $32.58 for New Brunswick and $31.51 for Alberta-in other words, New Brunswick receives about $1 more per capita than Alberta.
Under the new agreement, in the first year, the estimated revenue for New Brunswick is $22,645,000 and for Alberta $46,350,000-or, on a per capita basis, $39.18 for New Brunswick and $39.55 for Alberta. In other words, Alberta will now receive slightly more per capita than New Brunswick. Is it any wonder that we have used the phrase in regard to the new offer that it is a "rich stay rich and poor stay poor" proposal?
Mr. Chairman, I only want to say that I feel we are moving ahead in our consideration of some of the softer areas of our country. We regret that it has been so late but, like all maritimers, we are optimistic and hopeful. We are proud to be part of Canada. Therefore in a non-partisan way we appreciate these offers for the future. It is tied in with our tight economy. I feel that the tax-sharing arrangements will provide an answer if they are brought up to date. We have suggested that a fiscal arrangement factor of need is the best method. I still hope the Minister of Finance will consider this matter so that when we come back to this house, those of us who are fortunate enough to do so, whether the minister is on this side or whether he is perhaps lucky enough still to be retaining the responsibilities that he has now, serious thought may be given to a more long term solution. It is all very well to come up with two or three mild concessions on our power and transportation costs but we must have a plan for the future if the maritimes and the Atlantic provinces generally are to be able to take their place in this great nation.


Mr. Low:: Interim Supply
very heavy traffic that would be routed down over this road during the war in connection with defence projects in the north.
That traffic did come and it battered down the light grade; it destroyed the surface. Alberta got nothing out of that traffic except a small revenue from the gasoline tax. The large trucks which carried heavy loads, and they were exceedingly heavy loads, were largely United States army trucks and therefore no revenues were available from licences. By the time the war was over the road had to be rebuilt because it was pretty well battered to pieces. It was never designed in the first place as a highway to carry heavy truck traffic such as travelled over it from 1941, the year when the United States got into the war, until 1945.
Any fair mind would admit that for some years after the close of world war II machinery and materials, engineers and equipment were just not available and therefore no reconstruction of the road was possible up until a time when costs had increased very materially; in fact, until costs had increased two or three times over what they were when the project was built. It does seem only fair, in the light of all the circumstances in the case, that the federal government should share the cost of rebuilding the road. There is a great deal of complaint about the road, and as the hon. member for Mackenzie River indicated by his interpolation the other day, the road is in shocking condition in its northern portions. He blamed the province of Alberta for not having done something about it. I say it seems only fair, in the light of all the circumstances, that the federal government should share the cost of rebuilding the road.
I believe some attempt has been made of late by the province of Alberta to get such an agreement with the federal government, but thus far with no success whatever. Alberta did go ahead some years ago with a program of rebuilding the road and bringing it up to main highway specifications, beginning at Grimshaw in the south. The program is going along well and just as rapidly as money and equipment can be made available. The highway is now in good or fair shape as far north as High Level, which is about 110 miles from the boundary line between Alberta and the territories. Between High Level and the boundary there is very little settlement in Alberta, and in the foreseeable future perhaps very little will be made. However, between High Level and the boundary the vast bulk of the traffic on the road is traffic in connection with the opening up of the Northwest Territories. It runs, of course, over the whole length of the road, but in that last 110 miles

there is very little Alberta traffic that goes in or out of the territory. There is 110 miles of road which it seems necessary for the Alberta government to maintain and now to rebuild which will do them very little good, except perhaps for a small increase in business that will come to merchants in northern Alberta as a consequence of having a road built.
It would, therefore, seem nothing but fairness for this government to share the cost of rebuilding at least that section of 110 miles. I believe that is all the Alberta government would request. A claim has been made that Alberta business people will benefit from any increase in traffic into and out of the northern territories and to the extent that they do benefit, I suggest that Alberta does have a responsibility. They also have some responsibility for providing access roads to settlements in the area, that is access roads off the main highway. The federal government also has some responsibility and it seems to me the sooner they recognize it the sooner the northern territory is going to get the much needed development that has to come. Development cannot come without transportation and communication. Transportation and communication have to come first, not after the development gets well under way.
I should like to point out the cost involved in building a road of that kind, that is bringing the Mackenzie road up to highway specifications so that it will carry the heavy traffic which goes over it into the northern territory. Let me emphasize at this point that not much can be done until the road from High Level north to the boundary is rebuilt and brought up to highway specifications because if we are going to contribute anything to the development of the northern territories the heavy traffic necessary has to be able to travel easily over the whole length of the road, that is the 300 miles down to rail connections at Grimshaw.
Let us look at the cost. It is estimated that the minimum cost of rebuilding the highway will be not less than $25,000 per mile. That is approximately what it has been costing from Grimshaw north to High Level. This would mean a total outlay by the province of $2,750,000 unless the federal government takes a hand in helping to build it. This is only one phase of the matter. Let us look at maintenance for a moment. Unless the road is hard surfaced-to begin with it will be gravelled surface-everybody knows that the cost of maintaining a gravelled highway is very high. The fact is it is estimated that the maintenance cost of that highway after it is rebuilt will be no less than $1,500 per mile per year. When you calculate the cost over

110 miles from High Level north to the boundary line the total cost would be $165,000 per year for maintenance alone. Assuming that in any agreement between the two governments the provincial government would be saddled with the cost of maintenance it does seem to me that $165,000 per year for that 110 miles is a pretty heavy cost and will use up a lot more than any benefits that may come to the business people of Alberta from having that road connection with the northern territories.
We are quite ready to make some contribution to the development of the north, but we do think the federal government has to take its responsibility too, and not saddle the province with the total cost of building the highway itself, bringing it up to highway specifications, and then pegging the cost of maintenance at $165,000 a year at least. Therefore, I suggest that this government had better take a very careful look at this whole highway policy, and wherever highways are essential to the development of their territories in the north especially, in fact essential to the development of Canada as a whole, linking it together in unity, this government ought to be prepared quickly to take its responsibility.
I think this government ought to be ready to share the cost, on a 50-50 basis, of all arterial highways and the sooner they do this the sooner Canada can have a system of highways that will be a credit to a great country like this and not a shame, as it is today. I call on the government to do something, particularly about this highway in my own province, and arterial highways in general throughout the whole of this dominion. It is a shame for Canadians to have to go down across the boundary line into the United States to be able to travel comfortably and safely from eastern Canada to western Canada.	We ought to hang our
heads in shame, just as we do when we think of the $6 a month increase in old age pensions. It seems to me it is time that this government began to realize that it does have responsibilities that it cannot palm off on the provinces. This is my grievance tonight.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, I shall speak briefly, I want to make a few remarks on the budget, and then for a few minutes I want to seek to examine the title of the gentlemen who sit opposite to the use of the term "Liberal, Liberal party". It seems to me they have lost the last shred of title to the use of that word, and I shall spend a few minutes trying to satisfy you, Mr. Chairman, that that is so.
As to the budget, I wish to refer particularly to the fiscal aspect. We have heard a
Interim Supply
lot about the monetary aspect, tight money and high interest rates. I do not propose to speak about that but I do wish to speak about the other side, namely the pressure of large spending. I wish to read two or three authoritative pronouncements on that and then comment on it. The first pronouncement that I want to read is from the governor of the Bank of Canada. At page 14 of his report for the year 1956, he has this to say:
I believe that total spending of all kinds in 1956- the combination of capital expenditures, personal consumption expenditures and government expenditures, domestic expenditures, as well as expenditures for imports-was at least $1 billion greater than would have been desirable from the point of view of general stability and sound economic growth.
I want to emphasize that. That seems to me to bring out the point which needs to be remembered, particularly by governments; that it is the pressure of huge spending that drives up prices. I wish to say now lest I may forget it later, that unlike a good many other authorities in this matter, the governor of the Bank of Canada did not content himself with preaching; he practised what he preached in this respect. He stretched out his expenditures. He deferred his building operation in Toronto and he has been stretching it out and has been making it at a slower rate, thereby relieving the pressure.
Secondly, I wish to quote briefly from Mr. Donald Gordon at page 208 of the minutes and proceedings of the sessional committee on railways and shipping. He was a banker before he was a railway man and he knows what he is talking about when he talks about money. Speaking to the railway budget he said:
We budgeted for 7,600 units of equipment to take care of equipment of all kinds. But we cut that arbitrarily in half. We have not yet placed our orders for box cars because we are not satisfied with the prices quoted. We are now negotiating with the car companies telling them that we think their price is too high.
In other words, he is holding back, trying to keep the pressure off. Then, at the end of the quotation he says this:
We have just slowed the whole thing down on the basis that we are attempting to do too much and that the country is attempting to do too much having regard to its productive capacity.
There you have two men putting forward a theory and acting on it, practising what they preach. I also wish to quote briefly from Mr. Ball, president of the Bank of Montreal. He has this to say:
It goes without saying that governments at all levels should not press their claims on national resources at a time of excessive demand.

Interim Supply
This is what those people have done and I wish I could say that this is what governments have done, but I do not think so. I am interested to observe that so far as my reading of the press is concerned the universal reaction to the budget was the excessive amount of government spending. I have run across that in editorials and particularly in cartoons everywhere. It is not surprising, because hon. members will recall the figures of last year. The government spent $4,867 million, which was $434 million over the year before. The final provisional figure of receipts for the year just ended 1956-57 is $5,149 million; and for the year to come it is $5,225 million. I could go on, but I do not propose to.
I was rather surprised to find that the minister did not see fit to speak in the budget debate until this afternoon. At any rate, he did speak on certain aspects of the budget this afternoon, particularly with respect to agricultural tariffs.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I started to rise at the outset of this debate and out of courtesy to the Leader of the Opposition I took my seat because it was obvious he wanted to speak first, or I would have spoken at that time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have said that the minister spoke. I do not think it matters very much whether he spoke first or later. I referred to his speech, at any rate.


Walter Edward Harris: I will speak as soon as the hon. member is through.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I trust I gave a fair, though a very brief, account of it. Let me go back to the budget. As I recall it, the minister did rise actually in the closing minutes. There was some question of procedure then and the minister said there was nothing to answer, anyway, or words to that effect.
Now my comment on the budget is that there was a succession of failures, failure to curb high prices, failure to give any help to small businesses which are suffering. We had an eloquent reference tonight to the way some of the small businessmen are suffering. I was very interested to hear a socialist come to the rescue of small business. It was very encouraging to me. I hope he has inoculated some of the rest of his party and we may find that private enterprise will look a little different to them.
Then there was failure to do anything to help Canadians to own their own resources, which I think is a tremendous problem. I was talking to some senior civil servants the other night and I was interested and greatly impressed to find the deep concern they had over the fact that our natural

resources were being alienated at a furious rate and no prospect that they could see of stopping it.
Now my only further comment on the budget at the moment is that only a government which was drunk with self-satisfaction would have had the effrontery to produce such a budget for the Canadian people.
Now we go on to face the electors. The ministers will be launching themselves on the community. How well we can picture the scene. They will appear as superior beings "high and lifted up," and they will really seek to create the impression that it is slightly ridiculous for anyone to oppose them and to imagine that anyone could take their places. They will suggest that it is little short of impertinent. In their minds they have become indispensable; nobody can replace them. Nobody should attempt to do what they are doing; they think they are really the only people, and the people of Canada had better realize that.
I apply to them what I applied to them a year ago, the words of the Scottish minister who said, "O Lord, if it be possible, make us worthy in some measure of the high esteem in which we hold ourselves."
I have watched this government year by year. I have been here for nearly 12 years and election after election I have watched the government ride along during that period of time on the crest of a boom. They remind me of the little tailor in the fairy tale who was carried into the tree on the back of the giant and who cried to everyone as they went along, "Look at me; I am carrying the whole load!"
I have watched this process and it has seemed to me that the one-party state idea is getting more and more of a hold on the government but it was really left to the Minister of Finance to let the cat out of the bag and to make clear what the situation was.


Walter Edward Harris: A plain statement of fact.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is as it may be. The minister may regard it as a statement of fact and perhaps I should accept that. Perhaps I should agree that it is a statement of fact. At any rate I shall read what the minister is reported as having said in Toronto, not that that is of any great significance. The minister is reported as saying that the issue before the people in the coming election is "not that of one party or another but really one of a competent and capable form of government." Now that is an interesting statement. What does that say? That is saying something awfully like what has been said in other countries where they had a one-party state, "You are not to think of us

as a party at all, we are the government and we must not be regarded as going to the polls to appeal as a party."
I ask the minister and others here whether that is not exactly the kind of thing which the dictators said and thought? Didn't they say it was not one party or another? Didn't they say there must be only one party, as the minister says, "competent and capable"? Wasn't that their idea? And isn't that exactly what the minister is saying? Isn't it the old totalitarian idea? Surely that is what it is, the idea that a periodic change of parties is wrong; the thing to aim for is efficiency and once you get efficiency-or what the government calls efficiency because they want to be the judges-then you must not think of a change of any kind.
Of course I must admit it is rather odd to hear those words coming from a man who considers himself a liberal and no doubt the minister calls himself that. The only explanation one can give for that is the old explanation that has been given so often, that power does things to people; that they do come to believe they are indispensable, that they are better than others and they have to be practically permanent.
Liberals up and down the country-I am talking now about real liberals and not the federal variety-and there are lots of them around-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: They are not all written with a capital "L" though.


George Clyde Nowlan: If there are enough of them you are going to be defeated.


Mr. Philpolt:: By whom?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But true liberals throughout the country know that this government has been in power too long and some of them will decide to cast their first vote against the government in power. If all these people had been in this house about a year ago I think that a great many more of them would do so.
I am going to read a short statement written by Mr. Douglas Leiterman-I do not think anyone can suggest he is a supporter of this party-on the events that took place in this house almost a year ago. The following is taken from the June 2 issue of the Ottawa Citizen:
What happened in the commons Friday may have been inadvertent. It may even have been deserved. But it was not in the manner of democracy, and it sickened every thoughtful observer who witnessed it.
Whether you are for the pipe line or against it. Whether you vote Liberal or L.P.P. As a Canadian, as a believer in parliamentary institutions, you could not have been in that chamber without a feeling of profound regret.
Interim Supply
For you were witnessing not only the debasement of a proud and accomplished Speaker. Not only the irresponsibility of a sorely-tried opposition. Not only the indecent haste of a thoughtless government.
You were witnessing the axe flailing at the root of human rights, and fear wrapped around you as you watched.
If by some magic we could bring these things to the attention of every real liberal I would have no doubt in my mind as to what would happen in this election.
What causes this supreme and invulnerable self-satisfaction on the part of the government? What causes the Prime Minister to believe that he is not one man but two, so that he can write letters as an individual which as Prime Minister he could not write? What causes the Minister of Trade and Commerce to approve of officials of crown corporations who are virtually civil servants becoming directors of private companies? The feeling simply is that whatever the government does must be right; they are not bound by ordinary rules, they are making the rules.
As I said a moment ago, if we could have every Canadian citizen spend some time in this chamber and observe what is going on I would have no doubt about the results. What is worst of all is that if this government comes back it will feel that its actions have been approved. We may then expect this so-called Liberal party to carry things off with a higher hand than ever. Will they not be able to argue with themselves: The voters knew everything we did; they knew about the defence production debate and the way the Minister of Trade and Commerce sought to cling to the extraordinary powers that he had; they knew about the pipe lines; they knew about closure being applied; they knew about the singing of "Onward Christian Soldiers" and "What the Hell do we Care?" and they knew about the Prime Minister's letter to the C.B.C.
I wish I could put this up to every true liberal in this country; I wish I could put it to them personally. I believe that the true liberals, if they could get this picture right, would regard the issue as one wherein they were called upon to come to the rescue of free parliamentary government, an outstanding quality of which is recognition of the rights of the minority.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: I wonder who wrote this drivel?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish I could say to them, "You need not vote for us. Have as mean an opinion of us as you like, but vote for the parliamentary system. Vote to

Interim Supply
rescue the parliamentary system which is being degraded and diminished in its power and glory".


An hon. Member:: What about Ontario?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The principle of recognition of the rights of the minority is one which has been forgotten. It was forgotten in 1956 when closure was applied and it was forgotten last weekend when the Minister of Finance said that the issue before the people in the coming election is not that "of one party or another but really one of a competent and capable form of government."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, let the hon. gentlemen applaud. What they are applauding is the one-party state and the attempt to create a situation wherein the Liberal party says, "We are nothing so low or degraded as a party; we are the government; we are permanent."


Jean Lesage: Do you want us to give over by default?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This is what I think is the issue and I believe the people of Canada across the length and breadth of this land will remind themselves of the long and painful road we have come to establish parliamentary rights; and if they will reflect on what has happened in 22 years of power growing more and more arbitrary and more and more self satisfied I shall have no doubt as to the result.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, this is the third time since the budget debate began that some hon. gentleman has spoken of the expenditures of money in the manner in which the hon. member for Greenwood has now spoken. He has taken the opportunity to chide me for not answering his comments on the budget debate and has repeated some part of them in his opening remarks tonight.
Let me deal with it briefly by saying that I agree with everything he quoted from Mr. Donald Gordon and Mr. Gordon Ball. I believe that both these gentlemen did their best to restrict expenditures in their own particular fields and to draw to the attention of the public the necessity of doing so in order to fight the inflationary pressures that I myself have referred to on many occasions.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You preached.


Walter Edward Harris: My hon. friend says that I preached but I did not practice what I preached. I can recall at least three occasions during the course of this session on which I pointed out to him that the expenditures of this government on construction matters- and that is the real crux of inflation in

Canada at the present time-are lower this year than last year and this was done deliberately for that reason; but with that ability of my hon. friend's to overlook the essentials of a problem he has never mentioned it in any speech he has made since.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The British government has reduced over-all expenditures.


Walter Edward Harris: 
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not admit that.


Walter Edward Harris: Now $200 million is a great deal of money.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is not self-evident.


Walter Edward Harris: It may not be self-evident but I will let it ride until my hon. friend denies it, because every time we have had a discussion on defence by my hon. friends opposite, there has been no one who has spoken any more than he has in a general sense about saving money in this or that particular. However, every time my colleague the Minister of National Defence presents his estimates we have a good many complaints that we are not doing enough in this respect.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But one of the things that we wanted to do is to try to inform ourselves. I am well aware that the subject of national defence is a very very difficult one but we do want to try to understand the problems involved, to see whether any savings could be made there, as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich suggested there could.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, the hon. member for
Esquimalt-Saanich proposed a different form of contribution to the NATO forces than that which we have been making. I know that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, as well as other hon. members, over a period of the last eight or nine years have spent a great deal more time in investigating the affairs of national defence than has been true of any opposition in any commonwealth country.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: With limitations.


Walter Edward Harris: But in all that time they have not been able to come up with a better idea than the government policy nor have they been able to come up with any suggestion for saving very much money.

Now I want to refer briefly to the comments that I was supposed to have made in Toronto and which were quoted-I do not recall the exact words but I take my hon. friend's word for it. If I made the issue or, at least, stated the issue to be in that form, it may be that I was echoing to some extent the sentiments of my hon. friend himself as stated in this house. I can well recall my hon. friend as well as other members of the opposition constantly appealing to the public not to vote for party but to vote for principle; not to vote according to tradition -because of course that would mean they would vote Liberal in most cases-but to vote on the conduct of government. And this is what I was saying in Toronto. I was giving my hon. friend an opportunity to make some hay perhaps; I was suggesting "Don't let us just have Conservatives voting Conservative" because in any case there would not be enough of them to be of any use to my hon. friend. I was saying, "Let us forget all about partyism; let us see whether we have a competent and capable government or not." I was confident that if I could make that the issue we would be returned to power.
If these are the sentiments of someone who is urging a one party state, perhaps my hon. friends will take it as a reflection of their own conduct. It was only today that some member opposite complained that the hon. gentlemen on this side voted by party; the Leader of the Opposition himself used the words-I do not know if it was a quiescent minority or a quiescent group on the government side which voted according to party without any quibble or any thought whatever about the consequences.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well show us your real liberals and we will be content.


Walter Edward Harris: Well, real liberals long since left my hon. friend's party-if they ever belonged to it. Real liberals know that my friend's party over the years has followed a policy in trade and in many other respects including even finance, which if I were to call it reactionary would be describing it correctly. I say this without complaint about your conduct on other matters. Let me put it frankly: The real liberal today is a man who is concerned about the future of parliament; he is concerned about the future-


John George Diefenbaker: He would need to be.


Walter Edward Harris: He is concerned about the conduct of all political parties. They will uphold the traditions of democracy as we know it. My hon. friend has no real monopoly on this. There are hon. members on this side of the 82715-219
Interim Supply
house who think as deeply on these subjects as I know he does, and I believe he has spent a lot of time considering the subject-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: They are strangely silent, then.


Walter Edward Harris: This of course is just another indication of misunderstanding in my hon. friend's mind as to the difference between understanding and speech. We do not have to parade our sentiments on every occasion to remain loyal to them. They are in our hearts; they are there and will be brought out when needed and we do not have to be talking about them every day.
My hon. friend has made a point on the whole question of parliament and he has harked back to the pipe line debate. If necessary in the campaign we will deal with that matter but I have an idea that my hon. friends would not want it as an issue, because in a general way I think they will agree that if there were things that happened last May and June which are to be deplored, this party and this government cannot be held solely to blame. I would not want to attempt to admit any conduct on anyone's part should be deplored or magnified, but I do say this: If my hon. friend or his party want to make the pipe line or the conduct of the debate on the pipe line in this house an issue, it will suit the Liberal party just as well as it will any other party.
I come back for a moment to some of my hon. friend's other remarks about budgetary and finance matters. In every speech that has been made by the hon. gentlemen opposite they have talked about greater expenditures than ever before; today we had one speaker in the opposition compare expenditures, I believe in 1946 or 1947, with those of the present time, completely overlooking the fact that our population has increased by about 35 per cent in that time and that the government always lags behind in providing services for industry and the population generally. Industry goes ahead with its plans and its expenditures and government comes along behind to provide the services. It must inevitably be behind demand, because the demand must first arise and the result is that there comes a time when business may possibly be slowing up; expansion may not be as great. However, government is catching up with the demand and then it appears to be spending more money, relatively, than business may be in that particular year.
I am not suggesting that that is what is happening at the present time; on the contrary I suggested the opposite in my budget speech. I pointed out that the expected increased expenditure of this government

Interim Supply
this year is less percentage-wise than the investment program increase suggested by industry in February to the Department of Trade and Commerce. Therefore if my hon. friend is concerned only with the total expenditures of money he ought to complain about business expending greater sums this year as well as about the expenditures of this government. I know he would not do that; I know he feels the expansion of business is necessary and desirable and that he would not by any means restrict it. I have not suggested that they should be restricted, except in so far as a certain amount of restriction is necessary in those lines of endeavour in which there are signs that inflationary pressures may or probably would get out of hand.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I approve of what Mr. Gordon is doing.


Walter Edward Harris: And for that reason we cut expenditure on construction by $105 million in our estimates this year, although I admit that the total of our expenditure has risen. But in addition to the main estimates, we have placed these supplementary estimates before the house, and in other speeches they have made, hon. gentlemen opposite have been careful to say: "We are wholly in favour of all of these; in fact there should be more in them than there is."
If the hon. gentleman were to be consistent he would say I ought not to have brought in those supplementary estimates. Instead of that he says there ought to be more in them. I am not sure whether he had in mind total expenditure, or whether he spoke solely of those expenditures which would affect inflation as we understand it at the moment in Canada. Let me point out that what I said almost a month ago still holds true: that there are signs that in some lines of industry prices will rise, demand will increase, and labour may be scarce. In other lines there is an indication of a moderation, and we are now in the same position as we were then, namely that there may be a price rise later this year and for that reason both the government and industry have to be careful that they do not take too much from the limited supply of labour and material.
Now there may be other lines of business in which caution need not be as great, for the reasons I have indicated. I must say I was astonished to find the hon. gentleman making a campaign speech on what is purely a financial matter. I listened to him with a good deal of interest, and I think I appreciated the points he made. Most of them are stale; most of them have been rejected by the electors at successive elections on the past two occasions.

I have heard about this so-called contempt of parliament ever since I came to this house, but I have no way of knowing what it means, because having had some experience in these matters, having studied the records of other parliaments, I assert, in the confident expectation that no one on the benches opposite can refute it, that this government in this parliament has given greater opportunity, longer time, and greater consideration to an opposition than has been shown in any other parliament in the world.
The Leader of the Opposition used to talk at great length about orders in council, and this used to worry me a little, because orders in council have a somewhat secret and, perhaps, unusual connotation. When I was a boy in school I thought they were terrible things because they caused a war in 1812. As I say, this used to bother me until I went to a political meeting and somebody asked me about orders in council, wanting to understand what they were all about. And before I could answer, the municipal clerk got up and said: "Orders in council in Ottawa are the kind of thing we put through in minutes at our municipal council here." At which the issue ceased to be an issue in my county for all time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I suppose you know the clerk was wrong.


Walter Edward Harris: I did not hear the Leader of the Opposition take up the question of orders in council today. After four or five years he has changed to something else, because he knows that the public instinctively learns what it is all about.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no. You beat a definite retreat from orders in council.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You can thank the opposition for driving you into a retreat with regard to that.


Walter Edward Harris: The hon. gentleman from Greenwood has suggested that the ministers of the crown will go out in this campaign clad in shining armour, putting forward the horrible proposition that they can do no wrong; and he quoted a couplet, from the Scottish psalter I was going to say but I do not think he quite got it from that source.
The Canadian people are a very sensible group of people and if there were any sham or any pretence they would be the first to see through it and reject anyone who was foolish enough to try to put it over. In the last two elections the government after four years of doing its best to administer the affairs of the country-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Did not get a majority of votes cast.


Walter Edward Harris: -went to the country, and in no case that I recall was a cabinet minister defeated. If we took the hon. gentleman's suggestion seriously that we should try to make a pretence and try to tell the public that it would be improper to replace us, I suggest to him that the Canadian people would not stand for that very long.
The issues in the campaign will of course be fought out in the course of the next two months. I did not intend to take up this matter tonight; in fact, there are a great many questions which hon. members opposite have asked and which I intend to answer before we conclude this debate if I have an opportunity. But I can assure the hon. gentleman that having tried this speech out, and having heard my brief and impromptu comments on it, I do not want him to be scared of using it again because I think it is a most useful document and one which will come in handy for the Liberal candidate in Greenwood.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
Progress reported.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we will continue with this tomorrow, but I would point out to hon. members that it would be desirable if we could fairly early in the day make suitable arrangements for the prorogation of parliament by some hour which could at least be a target.
I might also say that there are two bills which would be based on the resolution before the committee, and when they have gone to the other place we might, if it meets the wishes of hon. members, take up the international atomic energy convention, if the house is prepared to discuss it, and also the taxation agreements with the three countries mentioned on the order paper. We might dispose of them, I would hope, in that interval. I say this not to suggest by any means that we should have a target, but merely to point out that some arrangements have to be made as a consequence of our decision to prorogue tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
82715-219J
[Stage Direction]
Question

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

Mr. Kirk (Aniigonish-Guysborough): What amounts have been paid out from the federal treasury in each fiscal or calendar year for the following:	(a) old age pensions, from
inception (i) in Canada; (ii) in Nova Scotia; (b) old age security, from inception (i) in Canada; (ii) in Nova Scotia; (c) old age assistance, from inception (i) in Canada; (ii) in Nova Scotia; (d) blind pensions, from inception (i) in Canada; (ii) in Nova Scotia; (e) disabled persons pensions, from inception (i) in Canada; (ii) in Nova Scotia?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of
National	Health and	Welfare):	
(a) (i)-Total federal payments under the Old Age Pensions Act: Fiscal			
Year	Old age	Blind	Total$	$	$1927-28 ...	. 131,452	-	131,4521928-29 ...	. 832,687	-	832,6871929-30 ...	. 1,537,174	-	1,537,1741930-31 ...	. 5,658,143	-	5,658,1431931-32 ...	. 10,032,410	-	10,032,4101932-33 ...	. 11,512,543	-	11,512,5431933-34 ...	. 12,313,595	-	12,313,5951934-35 ...	. 14.942,459	-	14,942,4591935-36 ...	. 16,764,484	-	16,764,4841936-37 ...	. 21,149,352	-	21,149,3521937-38 ...	. 28,524,587	128,418	28,653,0051938-39 ...	. 28,283,284	760,354	29,043,6391939-40 ...	. 29,080,631	895,923	29,976,5541940-41 ...	. 28,901,933	1,009,767	29,911,7001941-42 ...	. 28,530,908	1,030,889	29,611,7961942-43 ...	. 28,861,186	1,114,828	29,976,0141943-44 ...	. 32,195,592	1,244,030	33,439,6221944-45 ...	. 39,503,028	1,471,978	40,975,0061945-46 ...	. 41,291,227	1,526,747	42,817,9741946-47 ...	. 43,829,580	1,615,136	45,444,7161947-48 ...	. 56,978,389	2,107,989	59,086,3781948-49 ...	. 64,232,211	2,532,074	66,764,2851949-50 ...	. 89,652,203	3,536,731	93,188,9341950-51 ...	. 99,268,006	3,901,109	103,169,1151951-52 ... (9 mos.)	. 77,340,012	2,996,115	80,336,127(a)	(ii)
Federal payments to Nova Scotia under the Old Age Pensions Act:
Fiscal
Year	Old age	Blind	Total

1933-	34 _______ 69,271	-	69,2711934-	35 __ 1,479,899	-	1,479,8991935-	36 __ 1,661,102	-	1,661,1021936-	37 __ 1,764,915	-	1,764,9151937-	38 ____ 1,836,704	11,985	1,848,6891938-	39 ____ 1,866,724	74,418	1,941,1421939-	40 ____ 1,913,181	91,262	2,004,4431940-	41 ____ 1,941,172	102,375	2,043,5471941-	42 ____ 1,936,832	105,970	2,042,8021942-	43 ____ 1,948,075	107,397	2,055,4711943-	44 ____ 2,137,242	114,043	2,251,2841944-	45 ____ 2,807,890	140,039	2,947,9291945-	46 ____ 2,913,972	142,672	3,056,6441946-	47 ____ 3,093,204	147,486	3,240,6901947-	48 ____ 3,943,563	181,815	4,125,3791948-	49 ____ 4,658,580	224,480	4,883,0591949-	50 ____ 6,056,998	311,948	6,368,9461950-	51 ____ 6,572,267	348,338	6,920,6051951-	52 ____ 5,030,881	267,014	5,297,895
(9 mos.)
(b)	(i)	(ii)1951- 52	$ 76,086,835	$ 4,124,0801952-	53	
323,141,615	17,259,2871953-	54	
338,970,791	17,702,4771954-	55	
353,205,333	18,149,5261955-	56	
366,218,474	18,411,3451956-	57	(estimated)	379,118,000	18,682,000(c)	(i)	(ii)1951-	52	(3	mos.)	..	.$ 2,277,238	$	95,6731952-	53	
19,128,837	893,0601953-	54	
20,288,153	1,028,7561954-	55	
20,869,126	1,063,1651955-	56	
20,918,186	1,046,9271956-	57	
17,131,764	947,842(10 mos.)	(11 mos.)(d)	(if	(ii)1951-	52	(3	mos.)	..	.$	721,449	$	64,1991952-	53	
2,985,217	253,7181953-	54	
2,914,102	250,5671954-	55	
2,886,184	247,7881955-	56	
2,918,494	254,6041956-	57	
2,473,397	237,222(10 mos.)	(11 mos.)(e)	(i)	(ii)1954-	55	(3	mos.)	..	.$	419,379	$	12,1411955-	56	
5,665,067	254,3261956-	57	
5,900,739	263,753(10 mos.)	(11 mos.)
Friday, April 12, 1957