1957-10-21

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On Friday of last week the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett) in referring to me, said this, and I quote from page 159 of Hansard:
Perhaps, of course, his general remarks can be taken as being on the same basis of accuracy as those in which he congratulated the mover and the seconder of the address when he said that he shared the same experience on his first visit to the house. I took the liberty while he was speaking of checking Hansard and found his name did not appear in Hansard as either the mover or the seconder of the address. Maybe we should give the same attention to the rest of his remarks as is indicated by the index to Hansard with regard to that particular comment.
Mr. Speaker, on January 16, 1939, I had the honour of seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne in this house. That is a matter of record, and if the hon. member for Peel is the person I think he is, then he will do as a gentleman would in the circumstances.


Mr. John Pallett (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I
would point out that the hon. member for Laurier did not share exactly the same experience, as he implied in his remarks, because he first appeared in this house in 1936. It was in that light that I made my comment, and if the hon. member had read my remarks more closely he would have seen that I was referring to the first occasion when he entered the house.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, again on a
question of privilege, of course I understand the difficulty in which the hon. member found himself because I was speaking in French at the time. If the remarks are carefully followed there can be no doubt but that what I was referring to is exactly what was said at the time. If the hon. member wants to be fair to himself and to the house it seems to me he should at least take the position that the statement was made in accordance with the facts.


John Cameron Pallett: Mr. Speaker, the rules of this house say the house must accept what an hon. member says, and if the hon. member for Laurier says it, it must be accepted by the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the house accepts the statement of the hon. member standing in his place.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 12, to amend the Canada Elections Act (ballot papers).


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Explain.


Ray Thomas: Mr. Speaker, this bill is identical to one I introduced in this house on a previous occasion. The purpose is to provide that the political affiliation of candidates shall appear on ballot papers.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MEASURE TO PROVIDE CASH ADVANCES ON FARM-STORED GRAIN

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency.
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the making of advances on account of initial payments for grain produced in the designated area, as defined in the Canadian Wheat Board Act, prior to delivery thereof upon undertakings by the producers thereof to deliver the grain to the Canadian wheat board; and to provide for the costs, expenses and other financial obligations required in the making of such advances; such measure to include such further related and consequential provisions as are necessary to give effect to the foregoing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Algoma Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any comment to make on the reported announcement made at Bombay in India by the minister without portfolio, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne), that a large gift of Canadian wheat is to be made to India, presumably under the Colombo plan?
176	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report. I will examine the report and give the hon. member an answer alter having done so.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. James Sinclair (Coast-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that 1,830 plywood plant workers in British Columbia were laid off this week end with little prospect in view of employment; and if he is aware of this situation what plans has his department to provide these men with alternate employment?


Hon. Michael Slarr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, we have no information as to the number of men who have been laid off in the industry the hon. member mentioned. As to the plans, I wish to inform him that we will give this matter very serious consideration upon investigation.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Baitlefords):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a series of questions to the Prime Minister. Has the attention of the government been drawn to the repeated explosions which have taken place in the Trans-Canada pipe line in Manitoba? Is any form of inspection being made by any department of government before the pipe is buried? If not, will the government consider making such inspection? What is the thickness of the pipe being used in this project?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was kind enough to give me notice of the several questions he has asked.
The answer to the first question is that the government has had its attention drawn to one or two explosions that have taken place.
The answer to the second question is no. After the completion of a job, or a series of jobs, the inspection that is made is made by the board of transport commissioners. Once the pipe has been laid, then, under pressure, gas is put through the pipe and the inspection is made to determine whether there are any weaknesses. Indeed, my


information is that any other inspection, except under actual conditions, would not be effectual to reveal inherent or hidden defects. The responsibility for inspection has been placed by parliament on the board of transport commissioners.
The answer to the last question is that I have not been able to procure the information. I had a communication directed to the proper authorities but as yet I have not that information. When it is secured it will be given to the hon. gentleman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister say whether the board of transport commissioners has made any report on the explosions that have already taken place, as to their causes or as to anything that may be done to prevent further such explosions?


John George Diefenbaker: I have no information in that regard, but will communicate with the board in order to secure an answer.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Does the Prime Minister not think it might be desirable to have an inspection of this pipe by one of his departments before it is put under the ground?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the desirability, of course, would be determined by the results to be achieved. The information that has been given to me, based as it is on experience, indicates that any visual inspection or anything of that kind would not be effectual in revealing those defects which have brought about the explosions in question.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE AGRICULTURE    REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CANCELLATION OF ANNUAL MEETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister reconsider his decision to cancel the annual conference of federal-provincial agricultural officials with the representatives of organized farmers to discuss current farm problems?


Hon. Douglas S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: I do not think there is any need to reconsider this decision. The decision was made in view of the fact that the provincial ministers of agriculture were all here at a meeting with me. The advisory committee on agricultural matters met here for two days. The federation of agriculture and the farm

unions both presented briefs to the new cabinet during the course of the past several weeks; therefore it was felt that no good purpose would be served by having a further conference. I might say that the great majority of people concerned who were consulted in regard to this matter before any decision was taken took the position that it would be better not to have a conference this year in view of the numerous conferences which had already been held in connection with those agricultural matters which would be normally discussed at the annual conference.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Melville):: May
I ask the Minister of Agriculture a further question on the matter referred to a few moments ago. I am not sure that I am clear as to what conference it is that he has decided not to call. Is it some conference that was convened and has been dropped?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is the annual agricultural conference-


James Garfield Gardiner: The first week in December.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -which is normally held the first week in December in the railway committee room. I might say that a further reason why it was not felt that it would be wise to hold a conference at that time this year is that the dominion-provincial conference which has been announced will likely be in session around that time.



REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATIVES OF MUNICIPALITIES TO ATTEND FORTHCOMING MEETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It is in connection with the forthcoming dominion-provincial conference. Would the government consider extending to the municipalities invitations to send representatives to the dominion-provincial conference, at least as observers?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question of municipal representatives at a dominion-provincial conference would necessarily depend upon whether or not each of the provinces, which have set up those municipalities, so determines. That is not a matter for this government to give consideration to at this time, as I understand the constitutional position.
Inquiries of the Ministry WATER RESOURCES



RED DEER RIVER DIVERSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the federal government prepared to enter into an agreement with the government of Alberta in order that an early start may be made on the construction of the Red Deer river diversion project?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wish to thank the hon. member for Acadia for giving me notice of his question. The government of Alberta has not requested that discussions for the construction of this project be reopened. Furthermore, I am informed that the land classification report is only partially completed, and until this is finished the engineering, power development and economic reports cannot be satisfactorily compiled and completed.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is it the intention of the minister to bring forward at this session amendments to the National Housing Act to provide loans with low down payments to the great number of prospective home owners in Canada who now earn incomes below the $4,000 figure?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid it will not be possible to bring in legislation of this type during this fall session because of the other matters which are on the program.



PEACE RIVER AREA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of the proposals of the Wenner-Gren interests with respect to power development on the Peace river, is the government contemplating any power development survey of this area in order to safeguard national interests?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: In reply to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway,

Inquiries of the Ministry may I say that this matter is under study at the present time by our department with a view to protecting the interests of the territories and other provinces that may be concerned.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Deniset (Si. Boniface):: I should like to direct four questions to the Minister of National Defence. Is it a fact-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should point out to the hon. member that a series of questions is hardly in accordance with the rules, but I will allow him to ask the first one.


Louis Deniset: They are related questions of which I have given notice to the minister, and I would think that he would probably like to answer all four at the same time. The first question is: Is it a fact that there will be no summer camp training for the militia in 1958? Second, is it a fact that the training year for the militia has been reduced from 60 days to 40 days? Third, in the 60 day set-up there were 45 days for local headquarters training and 15 days for summer camp and other training. What is the breakdown, if any, of the new 40 day set-up?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Louis Deniset: Fourth-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think my first suggestion was the proper one. I would ask the hon. member to confine himself to the first question. It seems to me that a whole series of questions is not in order and should properly be put on the order paper. Would the hon. member mind repeating his first question?


Louis Deniset: The first question was: Is it a fact that there will be no summer camp training for the militia in 1958?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: As I announced in the house the other day in answer to questions from other hon. members, it is intended that personnel of the militia will train next summer in camps with the regular units rather than militia units as such proceeding to camps.


Louis Deniset: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it a fact that the training period for the militia has been reduced from 60 days to 40 days?


George Randolph Pearkes: I think this question should be placed on the order paper as you suggested, Mr. Speaker. The answer in brief is that the training period for the militia for the coming year is 40 days.



R.C.A.F.-REPORTED ABOLITION OF AUXILIARY SQUADRONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, based on an article in this morning's Globe and Mail.
Is it true, as is stated by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton), that the R.C.A.F. auxiliary squadrons will be abolished? If that is true, does he not think it would be better for him to announce it in this house rather than for the hon. member to announce it at a private gathering?


George Randolph Pearkes: As the hon. member knows, since the introduction of jet aircraft into the R.C.A.F. it has become increasingly difficult to maintain auxiliary fighter squadrons up to operational standards. When the supersonic interceptors are introduced these difficulties will be enhanced. The role of auxiliary squadrons will then have to be reviewed again. In the meantime the auxiliary squadrons are providing a reserve of partially trained personnel. However, emphasis must be placed on those forces that will provide the most effective deterrent to war. At this moment there is no intention of disbanding the R.C.A.F. auxiliary squadrons. If they are to be disbanded, an announcement will be made in this house if the house is in session.


James Sinclair: I thank the minister very much. Then we can take it that the hon. member was misinformed when he made that statement last Saturday night.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marfin (Essex East):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if it is his intention to make a report soon on the recent conference of commonwealth governments which he attended in London?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: On October 18, 1957, the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose asked me the following question:
Has the Minister of Transport given any thought to the appointment of a transport controller with

the authority and responsibility of seeing that there is an equitable distribution of box cars in western Canada at all times?
Co-operation between the Canadian wheat board and the railway companies appears to be the most satisfactory method of dealing with this situation at the present time, and accordingly no consideration has been given to any other steps, although the matter will be kept under review.



ALBERTA-NORTHWEST TERRITORIES  RAILROAD CONSTRUCTION SURVEY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: On Friday, October 18, the hon.
member for Mackenzie River asked me if surveys are going on at the present time in regard to the construction of a railway from the province of Alberta to the south shore of Great Slave lake in the Northwest Territories. My answer at that time was "No".
Since then I have had further information and I should like to explain my answer. The president of Canadian National Railways, appearing before the House of Commons sessional committee on railways and shipping on March 19, 1957, stated that the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National, because of their joint interest in the Northern Alberta Railways, were currently bringing up to date a study with respect to the advisability or otherwise of building this line. It is my understanding that they are looking into the best route for the line to follow, its probable cost, and the probable amount of traffic which might be generated by the line. This study is being undertaken by the railways entirely on their own account, and I understand that it has not yet been completed. The report is expected later in the year.


Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the answer given by the Minister of Transport this morning concerning the survey of a railroad to Great Slave lake. Am I to take it from his answer that these surveys are being carried on behind desks in the railroad offices in Montreal? If so, would the minister take the bull by the horns and have his own department do the survey?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, surveys cannot be carried on behind any desks; they have to be carried on in the field with regard to the particular situation. That is being done, I am confident, in a very efficient manner by the railways, and I feel sure that a thorough investigation is being carried out and that we will be advised as soon as possible of the results of the survey.
Inquiries of the Ministry SHIPPING



UNION STEAMSHIP LINES, B.C.  SUBVENTION PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Agreed.']
George Harris Hees: The hon. member for New Westminster asked me if there had been any change in policy with respect to payment of a subvention to Union Steamship lines to carry cargo to the northern part of British Columbia.
The coastal shipping subsidy to Union Steamship lines in British Columbia, along with certain other similar subsidies, is presently under review, but I am not in a position to make any statement on this matter at the present time.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Algoma East asked this question on October 18:
In view of what appears to be a tense and dangerous situation on the Syrian-Turkish border, would the government consider instructing their delegation at the United Nations assembly to ex-blore with other delegations, as a matter of urgency, the possibility of stationing elements of the United Nations emergency force on that border in the interests of greater security and the avoidance of aggression?
Mr. Speaker, the government has given consideration to the proposal that Canada take the initiative to explore the possibility of stationing elements of the United Nations emergency force on the Turko-Syrian frontier. In that connection I would refer my hon. friend to an answer he gave to me and the then member for Vancouver-Quadra on November 29, 1956, as recorded at page 136 of Hansard. On that occasion I had asked whether or not, in view of the situation in Syria and Jordan, consideration had been given by the secretary general to increasing the numbers of the emergency police force, and what requests, if any, had been received as to the allocation of members for that additional force.
I am not going to read the answers given to me and to the then member for Vancouver-Quadra. However, they set out the difficulties in connection with the setting up of such a force. In particular, if I understand the answer correctly, the reason no action was taken or

Inquiries of the Ministry was to be taken at that time was that a factfinding group was operating under the United Nations in that area. I proceed with the answer to my hon. friend's question:
As the hon. member knows, the United Nations general assembly is already seized of this matter. It seems to be making progress toward a United Nations solution. There are many ideas being considered, but the one best suited to the particular circumstances appears to be one which would involve the creation of an impartial fact-finding body to determine on the spot the causes of the present tension in that area.
I listened to my hon. friend last evening on his appearance on television. If I interpreted him correctly, his suggestion was that a UNEF force operating on the Turko-Syrian boundary would do so as observers and not as an armed force. That being so, the question seems no longer to be of importance because at this particular moment consideration is being given at the United Nations among the various representatives to the end of establishing a fact-finding body. The Canadian government will consider any proposal put forward by a fact-finding body including, if acceptable generally to the parties directly concerned, the possibility of setting up under the aegis of the United Nations a UNEF type force. Meanwhile one advantage of a United Nations fact-finding mission will be that its mere presence would have the desired tranquillizing effect.
In the light of the information now at the disposal of the government I do not consider it would be well advised to pursue at this stage the suggestion made.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to shorten the question period but I wonder, having regard to the fact that half an hour has gone by and the labour congress representatives numbering several hundred are waiting for members of the cabinet, whether any further questions could be postponed until tomorrow.
I merely suggest this. I am not asking for any special consideration, but merely pointing out that these representatives of labour from all parts of Canada are here and waiting.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to ask this question because it is one in which the labour representatives in my riding are interested. I wish to address the question to the Minister of National Revenue, who is so far away from me now that I almost need field glasses to see him.
In view of the fact that the royal commission on broadcasting reports there are still almost half a million Canadians without satisfactory radio reception, would the minister kindly inform the house what steps are being taken to correct this situation, naturally with particular reference to Kootenay West?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of his question, though in fact I only received it on my desk after I arrived here this morning. I want to assure him that I miss him, and I hope that one of his intelligence will find himself some time sitting nearer me than he is at the moment.
In so far as his question is concerned, the hon. member refers to the extension of broadcasting services in this country which, in the terms of his question, are obviously the responsibility of the C.B.C. I have discussed this matter on various occasions with the corporation, and I can assure the hon. gentleman that this problem is receiving active consideration and attention from the corporation. Of course, the degree to which these extensions can be created and the time within which they can be provided would depend to a substantial extent upon the moneys made available to the corporation by parliament.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister give the house any further information regarding the outbreak of hog cholera? Has it been checked, and have any public markets been closed?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, yes. There have been no further outbreaks of hog cholera, and it is now thought that the outbreak which took place in the southern part of Ontario was an isolated case. All the swine which

were at the auction market at the time of this particular outbreak are being checked, and the tests on them will be completed soon.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the Prime Minister tempt me to say that the representatives of organized labour have been waiting a long time for a lot of things, and I do not think a few more minutes of waiting would worry them very much. I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, and my question is this. In view of the minister's statement on Friday last that he has no authority under the Combines Investigation Act to direct the discontinuance of the investigation into the affairs of the united fishermen and allied workers' union, will he introduce amendments to clarify the intent of the act in order to ensure that trade unions in the future will not be subject to this sort of investigation?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, combines legislation generally is presently under consideration in my department and I can assure the hon. member that we will give very full consideration to the point of view he has just put forward.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to prolong this question session, but I directed a question to the Minister of Labour the other day. The minister did not have the information available at that time, and I wondered if it was available now.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for Skeena asked me a question regarding the steps being taken to establish offices of the unemployment insurance commission and the national employment service in the communities of Terrace, Smithers and Burns Lake, B.C. 1 understand, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member communicated with officials of the unemployment insurance commission, and that they replied to him on July 2 with regard to this subject. In the
The Address-Mr. Rea
circumstances, having read this letter, I do not think there is anything I can add to it at the moment.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What is the policy at the moment at ministerial level with respect to this question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Questions of that kind are not such as should be asked on orders of the day, and when the house has before it the request of the Prime Minister, for reasons which he has explained, to curtail these questions today, I find I must rule this one out of order.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, October 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South) for an address to Her Majesty the Queen in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Coldwell, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Low.
Mr. C. E. Rea (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to complete the speech I began on Friday may I recall that I was talking about the national character of the Conservative party and pointing out the number of people of various origins who belong to our party. I would like at this time to point out one more hon. member, the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Martini), who is the first Canadian of Italian origin to be elected a member of parliament by any party in Canada.
We have heard a lot from the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who was giving all sorts of advice here on Friday to new members, and I think I should tell those new members something about this hon. member for Laurier.
As hon. members know, he was minister of transport in the years between 1945 and 1954; and while he was minister of transport he was, of course, one of trade minister Howe's "sputniks" circling fitfully around the same Mr. Howe and emitting subservient beeps. On top of that he left a terrific job not too long ago to take up a $27,000 a year job, and now he ends up with a $10,000 a year job. Now, when a man does that I would not pay too much attention to his political sense.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Schneider:: Can't you be a little more mature?
182	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Rea


Charles Edward Rea: The leader of the Social Credit party in his speech on Friday spoke about chickens coming home to roost. I think what he really meant as to where the chickens were going to come home to roost would be when the Liberals hold their convention in January to elect someone to head the broken-down, unorganized remnants of what was once a great Liberal party.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: It still is.


Charles Edward Rea: Mr. Speaker, since the United Nations began meeting this fall it has been my privilege to be part of the Canadian delegation. I was present when the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoke to the general assembly, and I am sure that regardless of party affiliations all of us were proud not only of what the Prime Minister said but the way he said it. I might add that the comments made by other countries following the Prime Minister's speech were glowing and complimentary.
I would like to speak for a moment or two about Israel, as I represent a riding where there are many Jewish people who are extremely concerned about this problem. As we all know Israel was created through the United Nations, and it should be the work of all the members of that organization, especially as they all read the articles of the charter and agreed to live up to them before they were accepted as members, to attempt to adhere to the articles of the charter. Yet in this present session of the general assembly several of the representatives of Arab countries have risen and slandered Israel. They have actually come out and said that under no conditions will they attempt to come to an agreement with Israel, or even sit down and talk to her.
Something must be done to put an end to that chronic state of unrest in the Near East, because if matters are allowed to continue as they presently exist they can only become progressively worse. I would like to quote a few comments made by Mrs. Meir, minister for foreign affairs of Israel, in her speech at the general assembly:
Ten years ago on November 29, 1947, the general assembly passed an historic resolution providing for the establishment of a Jewish state. In May 1948 the Arab league states launched against Israel a war intended to destroy the new state. They failed in their attempt and a few months later Israel was admitted to the United Nations; and yet to this day these same states, despite their membership in the United Nations, refuse to accept the charter as the basis of their relations with Israel- a fellow member.
This long standing violation of the charter is a basic factor in the unrest and tension in our area.
It has expressed itself in the illegal continuance by these Arab countries of a declared state of war, of belligerency, blockade and organized acts of 

hostility. It was directly responsible for the crisis of last winter which in turn led to United Nations intervention. It continues unabated to this day.
Shipping is once more passing through the Suez canal, but the conditions of passage are by no means satisfactory. As long as Israeli shipping is prevented from using the canal, the provisions of the 1888 convention will not be fully carried out, and the international character of the waterway will be infringed.
This discrimination against Israeli shipping is a flagrant violation of the security council decision of 1951, and of the six principles adopted by the security council in October, 1956. It is a part of the continuing breach by the Arab league states of the charter and of their international obligations.
In its failure to meet this challenge to fundamental charter principles the United Nations has not lived up to its responsibilities. The standard for observance by United Nations members must be the same for all. Equality is indeed the first condition for justice. This is a question not only for Israel but for every nation, for action in respect to one sets a precedent for all.
The apparent soft attitude of the United Nations in the face of Arab political terrorism and obstruction is unfortunately also reflected in the regional activities of the United Nations. This is something many people do not realize. The ramified boycott operations of the Arab league against Israel extend into the fields of health, education, agriculture, science and economics. In this tireless campaign the Arab states seek even to involve the United Nations and its specialized agencies, despite the fact that their constitutions expressly or implicitly outlaw every form of discrimination.
As a result, on the economic side for example, the Middle East is today the only region in the world without a United Nations economic commission. The regional office of the world health organization in Alexandria is inaccessible to one of the members of that region. The international civil aviation organization, the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization and the food and agricultural organization are other examples of bodies whose work has likewise been detrimentally affected. One is driven to ask whether the United Nations really has to accommodate itself to Arab tactics so that even its regional agencies are paralysed or severely handicapped in their efforts to secure higher standards of economic and social progress, of health and education for all.
The basic problem in Israel has been aggravated since 1955, when symptoms of the world struggle were introduced into the Middle East. Since then the great power rivalry has resulted in an increase in the offensive armed strength of those very states

which openly and repeatedly express their intention of attacking and destroying Israel. For Israel there is a special and unique danger in the fact that while Egypt and Syria are being flooded with arms from the Soviet union, other Arab states, no less vigorous in their hostility to Israel, are receiving arms from other quarters. Mr. Dulles has said:
Those who feel an abnormal sense of power, as a result of the recent putting into their hands of large amounts of Soviet-bloc arms, are being incited against their neighbours by violent propaganda. And that, I say, is risky business.
Since 1948 Israel has received nearly one million immigrants, the great majority of whom are refugees, hailing from over 70 countries and from all corners of the world, including nearly 400,000 from Arab-speaking lands. Its population within nine and a half years has increased from 800,000 in the middle of 1948 to almost two million now, inclusive of some 200,000 Arabs living in Israel today. But above all, as Mrs. Meir has said, the state of Israel is proud of what has been done for the people. The great majority of those who came to Israel during these 10 years came either from the post-war camps in Germany and Italy or from Arab-speaking countries.
Practically each one from the camps reflected in his loneliness the destruction of all who were dear and close. These were the remnants of the six million, the Hitler slaughter of the Jews of Europe. Broken in body and spirit, they came to a country of hardship; yet at the meeting of desolate desert with victims of horror and destruction, both the land and the people have come to life. The desert has given way to cotton and wheat; forests and vineyards are covering barren hills, and with a new dignity and hope the settlers themselves bear witness to the unconquerable spirit of free man.
Just one more word on that point, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister talked about Turkey and Syria, and I think we have only to read the papers to know the seriousness of the situation. These are problems that are hard to solve, and I do hope that Canada will take a firmer hand to try to find a peaceful solution to those great problems that are facing the world. Perhaps we can do a lot in that direction.
While I am on this subject may I offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Al-goma East (Mr. Pearson) on winning the Nobel peace prize. I must say that at the United Nations the endearing terms used about the former minister of external affairs were very glowing, and I think justly so. Just to show how he endeared himself to the people of New York, when the Prime Minister was
The Address-Mr. W. Stuart down there he was staying at the Drake hotel. When someone wanted to meet him very badly he went up and rapped on the door and there was no answer. He said to the maid just coming down the hall, "Is the Prime Minister of Canada in?" She said, "Oh, is Mr. Pearson here?"


An hon. Member:: Next year she will be right.


Charles Edward Rea: I tried but I could not find out whether that maid had ever lived in the Windsor area. I doubt it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They all think that way there, too.


Charles Edward Rea: While at the United Nations it was a pleasure to be joined by the new minister of external affairs, Dr. Sidney Smith. His ability and charm, even without a bow tie, were immediately evident. I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on his excellent sales ability in making this important appointment possible.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I could go on with a lot of other things but there are other hon. members who want to talk. This is my first speech in the house from this side and after rereading the speech from the throne over the week end-and every time you read it you find something new in it-I think we shall be sitting on this side of the house for a long time to come.


Mr. Wesley Siuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks I should like to reply to a statement made by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Rea) just a few moments ago. He mentioned this broken-down Liberal party. Let me inform the hon. gentleman that the Toronto Telegram in a recent article said that the Liberal party was still the biggest party in Canada and that we polled half a million votes more than the Progressive Conservatives had received in the last election. We do not feel we are a broken-down party, and I believe those sitting on the other side of the house will be convinced that that statement is correct within a very few months.


Charles Edward Rea: Why don't you try it now?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: In the speech
from the throne we were informed that this government would give financial assistance to the Beechwood project in New Brunswick. We all regret, and I say this sincerely, that this government has reneged on the generous offer made by the Liberal government only in the last session. When the proposals were placed before the governments of the Atlantic provinces at that time they were much more generous than the offer suggested in the
184	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. W. Stuart speech from the throne at this session. The estimated cost of the proposal made to the Atlantic provinces by the former Liberal government was $210 million, and I can assure hon. members that it is much larger than the amount suggested by the Conservative party in the speech from the throne. I would also suggest to the government that they might do a little more investigating before they move too far in that direction, because there are still many people in the province of New Brunswick who are of the opinion that thermo power can be generated in the province of New Brunswick more cheaply than power can be developed at Beechwood.
The leader of the official opposition described very well on Wednesday last the offer by this government, and I should just like to quote his words.
I quote from page 44 of Hansard of Wednesday, October 16:
Evidently part of the burden of the wider program for producing and transmitting power in the Atlantic provinces which we felt should be financed entirely out of the federal treasury is being pushed back on the provinces. In the speech from the throne there was just the gentlest hint of tax changes. The language of the speech was in singular contrast to the vigorous and forthright language used by the Minister of Finance in June.
I believe the people of New Brunswick realize fully that the offer made to our province in so far as development of power is concerned was not really as generous as the offer made by the Liberal government last spring. The increase in old age pensions, which is suggested in the speech from the throne, will be welcomed by every person who is benefited by that service; but at the same time these people are well aware of the record of previous Tory governments in the field of social welfare. This government could well establish a record for all time by introducing for the first time in history some social benefit which would be welcomed by the Canadian people. As it now stands every single piece of social legislation on the statute books of this country was put there by a Liberal government. There is not a single piece of social legislation put on by anyone but a Liberal government.


Mr. Hodgson:: Always as election bait.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: If there is such a thing as election bait I think all you have to do is look at the speech from the throne which was read here a few days ago, and you will find all the election bait that it would be possible to find anywhere.
For a few minutes I wish to review the attitude of the Conservative party past and present toward the fishing industry. When I go back to 1935 I find that in the dying days 

of that session-it was just six days before parliament prorogued-a bill was introduced in the House of Commons by Hon. Grote Stirling. He moved second reading of Bill No. 120 for the purpose of establishing in Canada a system of long-term mortgage credit for fishermen. Immediately upon his introduction of the bill the late William Duff from Antigonish-Guysborough rose and spoke on the matter. He pointed out the fact the bill was to be administered under the farm loan act and not in any way to be dealt with by anyone connected with the fishing industry. He also pointed out that $1,500,000 would be made available to fishermen under this legislation whereas, during the same parliament, $90 million had been voted for agriculture.
This is the treatment the fishing industry has received from the Conservative party as far back as I can remember, and this bill was introduced 22 years ago. Several members spoke on the bill, and one who spoke during the latter part of the debate was our old friend T. L. Church from Toronto, who has passed away since. He had this to say at page 4031 of Hansard on June 27, 1935:
Part of the loan may be used to discharge liabilities already accumulated. The interest is not to exceed 8 per cent. It seems to me that is a very high rate of interest today, though I admit that so far as this industry is concerned, with the difficulty of getting loans, the overhead charges might be high. But 8 per cent is a very high rate of interest.
That is where the Conservative party left off in so far as the fishing industry was concerned in 1935. During the period they sat in the House of Commons, from 1930 to 1935, I was actively engaged in the fishing industry, and no one needs to tell me what the fishermen went through during that period. I had the sad experience myself.
I want to start by showing where the Conservative party make their start again in 1957. This is taken from a St. John's, Newfoundland paper. It is a Canadian Press report of July 8, 1957.
This is what was said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker):
Discussing Britain's participation in the proposed European free market, Mr. Diefenbaker said Canada would take a benevolent view of this so long as commonwealth farm products were not included. He added that Britain also is inclined this way though some of the continental countries are not, and that the U.K. realizes such inclusion would be serious not only for Canada but also for Australia and New Zealand. He was asked whether he would include fish in the commodities that should be excluded.
This was the answer of the Prime Minister:
"I don't think that's a very serious matter", he said.

That is the attitude of the Conservative government toward the fishing industry. I well remember the 1930's, when we were selling all the products of the sea for practically nothing, with no encouragement from the government of that time although other industries received some little encouragement. I well remember the position of the great canning industry in the county from which I come. We were purchasing cottonseed oil at that time from Great Britain. It was a commodity that was not manufactured or produced in Canada and came in duty free. When the Conservatives could find no other way to hurt that industry they placed a value for duty of $4 on the barrel in which the cottonseed oil was shipped. Everything was done to try to injure the fishing industry rather than to help it.
I remember when fish were delivered over the wharves for 20 cents a hundredweight. I sold sardines at that time for $1 a hogshead and may I point out that a hogshead contains 1,200 pounds. I worked nearly four years alone on the salt water because I was not able to take anyone along. I went through that period, and that was the encouragement that fishermen got from a Conservative government.
I can assure hon. members that the election promises that were made as to what would be done have been completely ignored. In the speech from the throne mention was made of the fishing industry, and I want to put the words on the record.
My government will strive to secure additional markets for the products of our fisheries and to promote the development of international rules to safeguard the living resources of the sea.
That sounds good, but I can assure hon. members that it is insignificant when compared with the promises made to agriculture. When I came here in 1945 a Conservative government had placed a duty on sardines and lobsters coming from the state of Maine or any of the New England states into Canada. For years and years we had been shipping sardines, lobsters, any product of the sea into the United States without any difficulty. Those duties have been removed.
At the present time in the county of Charlotte the sardine canners have all available storage filled with canned sardines. Our groundfish producers, who produce salt fish, have everything it is possible to use, filled with salt fish. They have an enormous investment and they realize it will be a long time before there is any hope of any return. But there has never been any suggestion from the government of giving financial assistance of any kind. An article appeared
The Address-Mr. W. Stuart in the Saint Croix Courier of Thursday, August 29, from which I should like to quote briefly. It is in these words:
The disheartening job of removing large quantities of large pollock from weirs and selling them for about $4 a hogshead takes the tuck out of even the thickest skinned fisherman, who may be accustomed to hard knocks but has had about enough of them.
I should like to point out to hon. members that it refers to 15 hogsheads, or in that particular sale 18,000 pounds of pollock, being sold for $60. Compare that with the prices agriculture is receiving today. In other words, these producers received one-third of a cent a pound for one of the finest fish that ever came out of water.
During the past year lobsters were at the lowest price they have been in 20 years, 30 cents a pound, and in many cases in the State of Maine the fishermen took up their traps. I was talking to a crew of the best fishermen to be found in the bay of Fundy area, who have a dragger which I would think cost $35,000. I talked to them before I came here, and I asked how things were going. Their answer was that if they wanted to work for the oil companies or the engine manufacturers it was o.k. but they could not make anything for themselves by fishing because although there were all kinds of fish to drag, they could only get 3 or 4 cents a pound.
During the past two months in the county from which I come thousands and thousands of tons of sardines were put into fertilizer at $4 a hogshead. That is $4 for 1,200 pounds. The sardine fishermen have waited four years to get a catch of sardines. There were four lean years, but when the sardines did come the price was $4 a hogshead, $4 for 1,200 pounds. Again I would ask hon. members to compare this price with the prices that are being received by agricultural producers at the present time.
The government has also informed us that there will be a complete investigation in connection with the price spreads on agricultural products. I should like to know why one single primary producer is singled out for this service and all other primary producers are completely ignored. Why should there not be a price spreads investigation with respect to every primary product? Why is there this discrimination?
The government has also informed us that legislation will be introduced to enable them to make cash advances on farm-stored wheat. I have been a member of the house for 12 years, and on every occasion I have supported every single piece of legislation that was of benefit to agriculture. I regret that I

The Address-Mr. W. Stuart will not be able to support this measure unless the government decides to place all primary producers in the same category and give them the same consideration.
In the few days we have been here in Ottawa many members from all parts of Canada have ably described economic conditions in their areas. They have referred to unemployment and lack of markets for pulp and paper products, base metals, fish and others. Yet the only primary producers in whom the government would seem to have any interest or concern are the farms of Canada. In fact the very existence of other primary producers is being jeopardized in order to satisfy agriculture.
I refer to the tariff increases imposed by the government at the request of those engaged in agriculture during recent months. This action could very well result in the ruination and elimination of several branches of the fishing industry. I can assure hon. members that I am not only expressing my own opinion. I should like to quote from a bulletin issued by the fisheries council of Canada, an organization with membership in every province. It is composed of the greatest men in the fishing industry today. They have done and are doing a magnificent job, and this is what they have to say in the bulletin of July 29, 1957, with respect to the United States market:
The Prime Minister of Canada has signified that his government will take a much firmer stand on trade matters with the United States in future and has already opened a barrage on the United States policy of disposing of surplus wheat and stated that efforts will be made to switch 15 per cent of our imports from the United States to Britain.
On increasing imports from the United Kingdom Mr. Diefenbaker will receive general support and from the fishing industry in particular. Indeed, this industry, on its own initiative, has gone to considerable trouble and expense to achieve this objective-and with good results.
However, on the question of a "farmer" stand on trade with the United States, the fishing industry has some definite reservations. Dollarwise, one-half of Canada's fisheries products are consumed in the United States market, amounting to sales of about $90 million annually. These sales are vital to the welfare of all sections of the Canadian fishing industry.
Efforts have been made on numerous occasions by various sections of the United States fishing industry to curtail fish imports. Since 1951 there have been three United States tariff commission investigations into the importation of groundfish fillets. Only the veto of the United States president prevented action being taken as the result of the last two investigations.
Current private bills in congress are aimed at a section of the Canadian lobster industry.
Mr. Diefenbaker's policy is disquieting, therefore, to the fishing industry. Will it maintain the friendly atmosphere in Washington which has been largely responsible for the fact that the U.S. market is still freely open to our products? May it not encourage the U.S. domestic producers to once again go after curbs on imports of fishery products?

Possible consequences to the fishing industry of such a policy should be carefully weighed before the government proceeds any further in this direction.
That is the feeling today on the Atlantic coast in so far as tariff changes by this government are concerned. I can assure hon. gentlemen that the views I am expressing here today would be endorsed by at least 85 per cent of the fishermen in the Atlantic provinces. Tariff protection, even in a small way, for agriculture could adversely affect every Atlantic coast fisherman. For 22 years we had a prime minister from either Ontario or Quebec, the two provinces which we would expect would be seeking tariff protection. We had ministers of national revenue from Nova Scotia and Ontario, but in all those years those men fought for the lowering of tariff barriers, not the raising of them. In fact, if you look back over the record you will find that Canada led the way, in so far as tariff moderation was concerned, at every international gathering where trade was discussed.
We now have a Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) from Nova Scotia and a Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) from Saskatchewan, two provinces which certainly would not benefit from high tariffs. In my opinion they are selling the maritime provinces down the river. I had expected the Minister of National Revenue would be the first maritimer to protest any increase in tariffs which would have a serious adverse effect on those fishermen whom he so ably defended when he sat on this side of the house. I had hoped also that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) from Prince Edward Island would protest any measure which might be harmful to the fishing industry of his province, and particularly the lobster fishermen whom he knows so well. Where was the minister without portfolio (Mr. Browne), from that grand old fishing area of Newfoundland, when these tariff changes were discussed? Did he have any idea they would benefit the citizens he represents? The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) from New Brunswick, while he was in opposition, was a great friend of the fishermen. Why did he sit silently by and allow the fishing industry in his own province to be sold down the river? The actions of these gentlemen as members of the government are so different from their talk while sitting in the opposition that apparently that talk was just lip service.
Did these maritimers stop to realize that over 90 per cent of the lobster produced in the Atlantic provinces is sold to the United States and less than 10 per cent of that enormous production finds markets in Canada? Do they realize, as was pointed out in the bulletin issued by the fisheries council, that

more than 50 per cent of the fish produced in the Atlantic provinces are sold in the United States without any tariff barrier? We have always had that market open to us. At this very moment there is a bill in congress which, if adopted, would greatly curb the importation of Canadian lobster. I can assure hon. members of this house that it is a most serious worry to the fishermen of the Atlantic provinces.
These gentlemen I have mentioned, who now sit on the cabinet benches across the way, were great maritimers while in opposition. Since June 10, however, their interest would seem to have moved farther inland. They are now just yes men, regardless of the serious implications which may follow as a result of their failure to protest. I do hope that some of the members from Nova Scotia, who represent these grand old fishing contituencies, will get to their feet and express their views on this serious matter. It would appear that those from the Atlantic provinces who now occupy the treasury benches have three leaders, the Prime Minister, Hon. Mr. Frost and Hon. Mr. Duplessis; that is the opinion of many in the area from which I come. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, this is a serious problem, because I have discussed it with the fishermen on both sides of the international border.
I live right at the border. Who could criticize the fishermen of the New England states for seeking protection from the importation of Canadian fish? No one could criticize them for that; because we are supplying the greater part of what is consumed in that part of the United States. However, the material to strengthen their argument for protection has been provided already by the government of this country. In other sessions we have heard statements from Progressive Conservative members concerning our trade and other activities with our friends in the United States. They had the answer to our trade deficit with that country. All they required was the opportunity to tell these Yankees where they fitted into the scheme of things. We listened to that line of talk on many occasions. We were told that the Liberal government was too easy going; they were taking too much from our friends to the south.
Only recently there were four musketeers selected to invade Washington for the very purpose I have mentioned. They left the capital city of Ottawa with great hope. It is not known if they took along some of the blasting powder that was left over from 1935. I have not been able to get that information. It is now quite apparent that their invasion was not a complete success. In fact
The Address-Mr. W. Stuart it has been described in some quarters as a complete flop. Their approach to our friends in the United States was directly contrary to the views they expressed in the House of Commons as members of the opposition. It is quite apparent that their great knowledge of international affairs did not make headlines in either the United States or Canada.
The whole affair has been surrounded with secrecy. These men who, when they sat in the opposition, were always so insistent upon having an immediate report from any delegation of the former government which left this country are not making any report now. Their capitulation was obviously viewed with great suspicion by their hosts in Washington. It did not seem to have that ring of sincerity when coming from those who talked so differently year after year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member had better confine himself to something about which he knows something, because he does not know anything about this.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I can tell my hon. friend that some members of the press in this country which have supported his party year after year have recently made disclosures which you do not like. One of them, the Financial Post, has aptly described this trip to Washington as the "brush-off". These hon. members sat on this side for years and told us what they would do to those south of the border if they were ever in the driver's seat. They did not want United States dollars to come into this country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am speaking
about the facts. These hon. members were greatly worried about United States investments in this country. Everything the people of the United States did was wrong, and these members wanted the privilege of telling them so. The four musketeers went to Washington for that purpose, and what did they accomplish? We are trying to find out what they accomplished.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We fixed them.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I believe if you went back over the records of this country you would be unable to find a more humble bunch returning from any mission since the time of confederation.
In the years gone by we heard a lot of criticism of our Liberal government from those who sit across the way over the loss of British markets. We listened to that time after time. The markets referred to could have been regained at any time had we been willing to accept the prices Britain was prepared to pay. Those men knew that,

The Address-Mr. W. Stuart and so did we, but still they hammered away at the loss of British markets. Well, the free trade proposal recently offered to Canada by Britain was the answer to everything these men had requested during the past 20 years. It was exactly what they had talked about during the last 20 years, yet how was it received when they had the opportunity to rectify this great injustice? There is a very good cartoon in this week's Maclean's magazine, which again is a magazine that has supported the Conservative party down through the years-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr.   Siuari@Charlotte: -It shows the Prime Minister holding the door against the British delegation, while the Ontario manufacturers are standing behind him and telling him "Hold on, John."
This is true to Tory philosophy. That is exactly what they have preached every session, and they can never change their spots. They believe in protection. As to this talk about trade with Britain, it was just Up service and did not mean a thing. The government had an opportunity to do something about it but what was done? Some day we may get an answer, but I feel that it will be a long time before we get an intelligent one.
It is quite obvious that when the delegation arrived in Ottawa no one here was prepared to talk with them. That is common knowledge today, and I think it was borne out to a great extent by the demonstration put on over television by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in his weak-kneed attempt to explain the situation in which he said nothing, as usual. It was the most dismal display of nothing that I have ever watched on television.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: He took quite a little bit of time to explain the thing and, when he was through, he had said nothing as usual.
The Atlantic provinces and the western provinces would welcome this trade with Britain. The premier of Prince Edward Island has endorsed the proposal. In fact he said, "Free trade is what we want in the mari-times". It is to be regretted that some of the other premiers down there on the Atlantic coast would not take exactly the same stand and express the same opinion. It was only last week that there appeared in the Financial Post an article under the heading "Ike's reciprocal trade act backing may set off battle". Here the Republican president of the United States is trying to ease world tension by lowering the trade barrier between

countries and making it less difficult for his people to understand the problems of others. I quote from the Financial Post of October 19:
There Is also a report that the president may ask for congressional authority to cut tariffs by 15 per cent over a certain number of years.
This is what he asked for and got in 1955, after a narrow squeak, through congress.
On the last renewal, however, Mr. Eisenhower had to agree to a crippling amendment tacked onto the law which opened a few more doors to protectionists by authorizing restrictions on imports for defence essentiality reasons.
I watched the manoeuvring in connection with tariffs. To me it has always been most amusing. As to these people who like to fly that flag of free enterprise and boast that they stand under it, the very minute they begin to feel the squeeze of competition they immediately run to the government for protection. I do not blame them for doing so. I blame them for calling themselves free enterprisers, because they are not.
If you people over there on the other side of the house would just stop and look at the situation and reason it out, you would see what I mean. What could be more disgusting or more unreasonable than for General Motors of Canada, the Ford Motor Company of Canada or the General Electric Company of Canada to come here to parliament seeking protection against General Motors of the United States, the Ford Motor Company of the United States or the General Electric Company of the United States? To me it does not make sense. That is what they asked for; yet still they fly that flag of free enterprise. But let them feel the squeeze, and the first thing they are looking for is protection.
At this point let me say, Mr. Speaker, that in the eyes of maritimers protection is nothing more or less than a subsidy. You are subsidizing an industry and there is no other description for that type of thing. So if we are going to be free enterprisers, let us be free enterprisers.
In closing I wish to say that there are just three sources of all wealth, the same old three sources, namely the land, the sea and the forest. One is of as great importance as another. All those who produce this wealth, from whatever source it may come, expect and should have the same consideration and the same protection. The program as outlined by this government completely ignores all those thousands engaged in the fishing industry, the pulp industry, the lumber industry and the base metals industry; and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that all those industries are passing through a period of depression at the present time. Unemployment is rapidly rising in all parts of Canada, more particularly perhaps in the Atlantic provinces. In the

meantime this government has increased the floor price on butter. It increased the duty on several products of the farm. It has promised to bring about parity prices.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are quite wrong. We lid not increase the support price on butter.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I can disagree.


An hon. Member:: The selling price.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I believe it was the
selling price. I will put it this way and it may sound better. The working man with a family is now obliged to pay more for butter than when a Liberal government was .n office. That may sound better.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A cent a pound.


James Sinclair: The farmer does not get any more but Canada Packers get more.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Free enterprise.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You do not know any more about it than the man who is speaking.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: What is that?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I say that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) does not know any more about butter than you do.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Let me tell the hon. member this. There are a great many working people in this country with large families who know more about paying for butter than does my hon. friend who interrupted me.
The government have also promised to make cash advances on farm-stored grain and to bring in other improvements for agriculture, including the building of the South Saskatchewan dam. At this point let me say this briefly. All these services have been provided for agriculture. The fisherman is producing a perishable article. You cannot store it in a fresh state. It cannot be done. Live lobsters can be held for only a very short time. Grain can be held not indefinitely but for a reasonable period. Why are all these services provided for agriculture while every other primary producer in this country is completely ignored? This gross discrimination by the government is, I believe, a complete betrayal of every other primary producer in Canada and a repudiation of all the promises they made prior to June 10.
In my province unemployment is rapidly rising.


Mr. Fraser:: Thanks to the former Liberal policy.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: We heard that in 1930 in the depression period.
The Address-Mr. W. Stuart


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That was thanks to the Liberals also. They left us holding the bag.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I can tell my hon. friend that in my experience there never has been a Tory government elected when exactly the same conditions did not appear. Then the bottom falls out of everything. The hon. member asked for that remark.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We had to clean up the mess the Liberals made.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Let me tell you that the mess the Liberals made was in leaving a surplus of $350 million which the Conservatives have to play with, and they do not even know how to play with it. The other day I asked a question of the Minister of Labour about unemployment in New Brunswick. He very kindly gave me the figures, which I appreciate. Unemployment in that province is three times greater than it was this time last year.


Mr. Brooks:: Greater in June than now.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Let me tell you that before the winter is over there is going to be a great deal more. I know it is coming. The figures indicate that the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) will need more stenographic help this session than he needed last year. Last year he was receiving hundreds of letters from the unemployed. With an increase of 300 per cent in unemployment next year I would imagine that two or three more girls will be necessary to take care of his dictation.


James Sinclair: But he has not said a word yet about unemployment in Canada.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Last year the hon. member carried a weekly advertisement in his local paper urging those who were unfortunately unemployed to write to him outlining their problems. I have looked for that advertisement this session, but so far he has never had it in any paper.


Mr. Van Horne:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order or a question of privilege. That is not what I said at all. I can give the hon. member a copy of that advertisement.


Mr.   Siuarl@Charlotte: Mr. Speaker, I think I have the floor. The hon. gentleman will have an opportunity to speak. I saw the advertisement he had inserted last session and I can quote from Hansard, if he wants me to do so, the portion where he said he was receiving hundreds of letters. At that time he had one girl. I would imagine that now he would have to have three or four.
I now want to speak just briefly on unemployment insurance for fishermen, which could have been of great benefit to the fishing
190	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. M. W. Martin industry. A grat deal of thought and effort was put into it by the hon. member from Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) and the former minister of labour and officers of his department. But in the election campaign every Tory candidate in New Brunswick condemned if from every standpoint when he spoke in a fishing community. They said this was election bait and that it could not work.
Now, if the Minister of Labour were given a little encouragement, it could work, but he has not yet been given that encouragement. Why? Because it would be of benefit to a primary producer who was not a farmer. I said at the outset that I have always supported every bit of legislation that has come forward in this house for the benefit of the farmer. I will say this, and resume my seat. This government should decide that there is more than one primary producer in Canada, and find some way to get away from this discrimination and assist those in the fishing industry, who are in a much more serious position than agriculture is at this time.


Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to pay my respects first of all to the former member for my constituency, Mr. Karl Eyre. Many hon. members who know him will recall that he suffered a very grievous loss just over a year ago in the death of his wife, a loss from which he did not completely recover and which, I feel sure, was in no small way responsible for the breakdown in his health which made it impossible for him to contest this last election on June 10.
Next I wish to pay tribute to the C.B.C. for their fine coverage of the opening of parliament this year. I had the opportunity to make a brief visit to my constituency this week end, and I can assure all hon. members that the impression left on people throughout Canada through viewing not only the visit of the Queen but also the opening of this house was such that they will remember it for a long time. I think it is a good thing for the future of this country that older people and children should have an opportunity to view the opening of parliament, for I feel they will take a much greater interest in the parliament of this country in the future as a result of that experience.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have watched with great interest, as I am sure most new members have done since the opening of this twenty-third parliament, particularly in view of the slogan "It is time for a change", to see in operation that change which the people of Canada voted for and which they have a right to expect. But I am afraid, from what I have seen so far, that about the only change we can see is that certain hon. members have

COMMONS moved from one side of the house to the other. As the former prime minister pointed out in his remarks last Wednesday-and he made his point very well-there is a similarity between the current government and the former one, and he was fully justified in pledging the support of the Liberals to the policy of the new government, because from all indications it will be no more and no less than we have had from the Liberal administration for the past 22 years.
This cozy atmosphere of mutual trust and co-operation is nothing new to the people of northern Ontario, and particularly to the two ridings of Timmins and Timiskaming. Just two short years ago we witnessed the experience of Liberal candidates being kept out of the race and prominent local Liberals supporting Conservative candidates. Since June 10 the grapevine has it that already the plotters are at work again, and are going to try to give me the same treatment they gave to Mr. Bill Grummett, who represented the riding of Cochrane South in the provincial house for so many years with such dignity, diligence and respect. But I would like to say this. The loss of the two ridings of Timmins and Timiskaming by the Liberals, who have held these ridings ever since they were formed, was a direct result of the shenanigans that went on two years ago, and any further demonstrations of this kind, even the ones we have witnessed in this house, are going to hasten the journey of one or other of the old parties down the road to oblivion.
As many hon. members know, my riding takes in the fabulous Porcupine gold mining camp, and is dependent almost entirely on the gold mining industry. Mr. Speaker, the problems of the gold mining industry have been well outlined in this house on earlier occasions. The gold mining industry has never lacked speakers willing to bring its difficulties to the fore in this House of Commons. My plea today, however, will be for the gold miners and the communities in which they live. In other words, I believe it is time we heard a little less about the poor gold mines and a little more about the poor gold miners and the towns and communities from which they come.
The people of Canada have subsidized gold mining to the extent of many millions of dollars since the enactment of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, but the gold miners are in the untenable position of subsidizing the industry twice. They subsidize it first of all in the same way as all other Canadians through their share of the taxes that go to make up the subsidy, and they subsidize it in the second place in the receipt of substandard wages, wages paid in the

gold mines being approximately one-half the wages paid in comparable industry. That is why we in the C.C.F. party say that the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act must make provision for an equitable portion of that subsidy to go to the miners. If the industry must be subsidized by Canadians, let all Canadians subsidize it equally.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, may I now say how I admire the magnificent battle fought by the workers of Murdochville (Quebec) during the last spring and summer.
By their courage under such unusual circumstances, and by the restraint they showed in fighting for their rights, they deserve to be commended by all workers' unions and all the people of Canada.
Never in the history of labour's struggle in Canada was there such attempt at intimidation. Every legal manoeuver was attempted. Countless numbers of rascals, several of whom had arrived here as poor immigrants, were hired by company agents as soon as they landed in this country.
And to top it all, in order to cow the strikers, a supposedly neutral police force was called in which later on let a group of well-organized and equipped bullies ransack the union's offices, upset cars and threaten the property and even the life of the union leaders.
And yet this was no ordinary strike for higher wages or better working conditions, not even one requiring the use of union members or non-members. Rev. Father Cousineau, a Jesuit, writing in Relations, explained very simply that the strike was one "for basic human freedoms: the right to a professional association".
The existence of such conditions in Canada is a disgrace, and, until all trace of them have disappeared, all hon. members of this parliament must assume their share of responsibility.
Two men died directly as a result of the strike, and their names will go down in labour history, with those of all heroes who devoted their time and their lives to the labour movement, so that we might live in a better world.
That is why, in Shawinigan Falls, Que., last week, after reading these exploits on posters, the Quebec workers changed the name of Murdochville to that of "Murder-ville", the city of murder.
The Address-Mr. M. W. Martin (Text):
The people of Timmins, Mr. Speaker, have watched very closely the battle which occurred in Murdochville this year, and the reason is this. Noranda Mines Limited, which own Murdochville, also own three of the local mines in the Timmins area, the Pamour, the Hallnor and the Aunor. In addition, five of the nine directors of Murdochville who are responsible for this black page in the history of the Canadian labour movement are also directors of Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines Limited, the largest mine in the Porcupine camp. The miners in Timmins owe a debt of gratitude to the gallant fighters in Murdochville who have stopped, at least temporarily, this attempt at dictatorship by the mining magnates.
I was pleased to see in the speech from the throne that the government has arranged a meeting with the provincial governments for the near future, and I hope top priority at this meeting will be given to the problem of education which has reached such terrifying proportions in Canada today. I am fully aware that in the past government policy was to shrug its shoulders at the very mention of the word education and say, "That is exclusively a matter of provincial jurisdiction". However, if we are going to face up to reality, if we are not going to bury our heads in the sand as the ostrich does, we will either take action in this field or wake up to find we have made our greatest and possibly our final blunder.
If the information I have received is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, at the present time in Canada we are graduating from university seven students per 1,000 pupils enrolled in our schools. The United States is graduating 22 per 1,000 and in Russia today they are graduating 70 per 1,000. This situation is monstrous. If we value our liberty and have any regard for democracy we dare not allow this situation to continue.
The argument has been used that possibly the standards of education behind the iron curtain are not on a par with ours, but in view of Russian developments in terms of atomic and hydrogen bombs, intercontinental ballistic missiles and the launching of a satellite into outer space, I am afraid that argument no longer stands. We in this country must change our whole basic concept of and attitude toward education. In the past education has been something an individual was encouraged to acquire in order to ensure and enhance his own economic future. Education has had a price tag attached to it that placed it beyond the reach of far too many of our young people. The waste in

The Address-Mr. M. W. Martin Canada over the past 100 years in terms of our natural resources makes a sickening story, but the waste of our human resources in this country has been far greater.
The price tag we have placed on higher education in the past has established in Canada a stupid form of segregation. Deserving pupils with brains but no money were excluded from universities, and at the same time in far too many cases our institutions of higher learning were cluttered with people with money and no brains. We can use no better example of this waste than that of the exceptionally gifted child. Surveys have shown that 2 per cent of our children fall into this category, those with IQ's of 135 or over. From this 2 per cent should come our future leaders, scientists, engineers, teachers and professors; but what is the picture? Surveys have also shown that less than 50 per cent of our gifted children are even able to complete high school. Our exceptionally intelligent children are a gift given to us by our Maker and cannot be bought or substituted in any way.
Frequently these young people leave school for economic reasons. As soon as they are old enough to be physically capable of accepting employment they are compelled to leave school to help support themselves and their families. The second major reason is much more complex, and is the fact that our present educational system is not geared to handle these exceptional children. We And they go through school with a group of other children not as talented as themselves. The gifted ones have no difficulty in learning and do not have to study, with the result that they have plenty of time on their hands which they frequently use to get into mischief and in far too many cases finally wind up as delinquents. This happens because of the inability of their teachers under the present educational system to maintain their interest, and they turn to the challenge of mischief through boredom. In other cases these bright children go through the lower grades never bothering to study. When they reach high school and are required to study they discover they have never learned how and so they become frustrated and discouraged and leave school to accept employment.
Some attempts have been made in the past to deal with this problem. One such method was advancing the pupil by having him skip grades. Contrary to the cartoonists' conception of the gifted child, usually depicted as a slight, undersized, myopic bookworm wearing heavy hornrimmed glasses, it has been revealed that the exceptional children are generally as advanced physically as they are mentally, with the result that they can skip

two or three grades in the first six or seven years without encountering any serious difficulty. However, if this practice is carried too far the situation develops where you have 10-year old children attending school with 15 and 16-year olds. This immediately creates a social problem, because the younger children are too small to compete in the games and other activities engaged in by their fellow students and thus are left by themselves. They come to think of themselves as different and set apart, and begin to develop all kinds of quirks and phobias.
Segregation, the grouping together of all gifted students in one class, again carries a social stigma. They become a group apart from the rest. Immediately they find all the other classes allied in a common front against them. The best solution offered by the experts so far is a combination of advancement and enrichment. Enrichment is a matter of broadening out the education, giving those clever students two, three or four extra subjects in order to keep them fully occupied and give them a challenge at all times. But this immediately raises another problem. In order to handle classes of this nature we must have teachers with special training. We are not beginning to meet our need for teachers now, ordinary teachers. How much less are we going to meet the need of teachers with initial special training?
In view of the problems I have mentioned today, Mr. Speaker, and in view of many more that I have not time to deal with, I feel it is the duty of this government, in conjunction with the provincial governments, to face up to this situation and do something without delay. If we are to survive, if we are to maintain what is so commonly referred to as our way of life, we cannot let the totalitarian powers outstrip us in the order of 10 to one. Every child in this great country of ours who has the ability and the initiative must be given the opportunity to further his education for the benefit of himself and of his country.
In the face of the scientific advancement that we see around us today; in fact, in the face of the spare moon that we have in the sky at the present time, I am reminded of the words of the song, "It's Later Than We Think". I pray, Mr. Speaker, that it is not already too late.


Mr. Hayden Stanton (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, first may I congratulate you on having been nominated and elected as Speaker of this house. I know you will uphold the dignity and decorum of the house, and at the same time you will be sympathetic to members of

all the political groups within this house, especially the new members who were elected on June 10, 1957.
I also wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Smith) and the seconder (Mr. Arsenault) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They did a magnificent job, and their task was made all the easier by the abundance of magnificent legislation which is forecast in the speech from the throne.
I am sure the official opening of the 23rd parliament is an event that will long be remembered, not only by the older members of parliament but also by those who are newly elected and are sitting in the House of Commons for the first time. Her Gracious Majesty's presence and participation in the official opening of this parliament, coupled with her four-day visit and many public appearances in our national capital, which was so well televised to the citizens of Canada, will I am sure interlace our loyalty and solidarity even more firmly with the motherland.
I intend to give rather an abbreviated address now and go more fully into the business of the session when the bills are presented. I must congratulate the Prime Minister and his cabinet on the legislation which they propose to bring to this parliament at this session. It is truly evident that they are doing their utmost to implement the promises they made to the people of Canada prior to June 10, and to do so immediately.
After listening to the Leader of the Opposition and his criticism of the legislation as proposed, and his query as to why the government have not implemented their promises to the people sooner, I am really amazed when we consider the immense amount of legislation that is coming before parliament this session, such as greater assistance to our older citizens who are in the sunset of life and in many cases find it very hard to exist, and assistance offered to provincial governments in relation to increased aid to the recipients of old age assistance, disabled and blind persons. No person in this wide, wide world is more entitled to adequate pensions than those afflicted with blindness. There is also an increased scale of war veterans allowances and the allowances to go to larger groups. This parliament will also be asked to enact measures to provide greater stability in the prices of farm products and advance payments for farm-stored grain, which will aid the hard-pressed western farmer.
The representatives of the various provinces are to be called together for a dominion-provincial conference, and there is to be 96698-13
The Address-Mr. Stanton a discussion with the province of Saskatchewan looking toward an early start on the South Saskatchewan dam. This is only a small part of the vast amount of legislation that this government proposes to enact this session. In fact, it is more useful legislation -legislation that will really help the common people-than the former government placed before parliament in the four years I have been a member of this house. And still the official opposition claim that this government is not carrying out its promises. I can tell them that with all the legislation that has been mentioned in the speech from the throne, along with much more that the Prime Minister has suggested, there will be a larger and much better bill of fare for the common citizen, more help to those engaged in agriculture, more help to the average person, than the previous government has given them in the past 22 years.
This government, Mr. Speaker, is a government of action, not a government of promises before an election. When we think of the health insurance plan, which was first suggested to the people by the Liberals in 1919 and before every election since that year as a political carrot, as bait, it makes us laugh. The people of Canada are apparently not taking their promises any more. As I look across the house-I am sorry the hon. gentleman is not in his seat-I wonder whether the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mc-Ivor) will say when he views the good work of this government, "Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister".
I would suggest to the government that I believe it would be a good idea, with the consent of the provinces, not only to have a conference of the dominion and the provinces but also of the municipalities. I realize that to have all the mayors and reeves would be too cumbersome, but surely representatives of the mayors and reeves associations of each province could sit in and present their problems, because they have problems in trying to finance the services they have to provide for their people by direct taxation. I believe that every member of this house agrees that municipal taxation has reached the saturation point.
I see it is one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Hayden Stanton: Mr. Speaker, as my constituency is approximately 50 per cent rural I wish to take a few minutes to discuss the problems affecting our farmers at the present


Mr. Byrne:: A short hope.


Mr. Argue:: He almost made it, too.


Hayden Stanton: I spoke in the same debate a few days later, and on page 282 of Hansard of January 15, 1957, it will be found that I said:
With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few prophecies, and I do not believe that I will have to go too far out on the limb in doing so. I prophesy that the Social Credit party will not elect a member east of the Manitoba border, and that nearly all their candidates will lose their deposits. I will also make a prophecy that they will not elect a member east of the Alberta border. ... I will make one more prediction and it is this. The good people of the constituency of Prince Albert will have a third prime minister of Canada as their representative after the next election.


Ernest George Hansell: You are a good prophet; much better than I am.


Hayden Stanton: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that before the hon. member for Macleod makes any more predictions perhaps he should change the lenses in his glasses so he will be able to look into the crystal ball a little more accurately, because his predictions were just as accurate as the Gallup 96698-13J
The Address-Mr. Mclvor poll or those found in the editorial in Maclean's magazine published the day after
the election.
I would also suggest to my hon. friends to my right that while they are all good fellows and we enjoy seeing them there, perhaps they had better change their political thinking. If they do not do so, then after the next election they will probably be moved across the way because there will be no desks left for them on this side of the house. They will all be occupied by Conservative members.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have not my notes before me, but no man should stand in this house unless he has sufficient to say that he can speak without notes. I congratulate you, Sir, because I am sure you will do your duty as Deputy Speaker. I shall defend both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, just as I was willing to defend the former Speaker from any incursions from any source. I congratulate the new members. They have a splendid opportunity to do something for Canada. I hope their eyes will not be blinded by narrow politics or selfishness.
I should like also to welcome the page boys, because they are very important to this house. I hope that this year, as in a former year under a Liberal administration, the page boys will get a trip to some place that is worthy of their responsibilities. I should like to congratulate the government whip. He was very kind to me. Generally when a man is told to go up higher it means a promotion. However, when he said to me, through our whip, "Stay where you are", that meant a promotion for old Dan. I appreciate it very much. I think the real reason I was left in that office was that the whip wanted a youth with red blood in his veins to pep up the old P.C.'s on that floor.
I congratulate the government upon two things that are contained in the speech from the throne. I feel the proposal to increase war veterans pensions is good. I feel this move is to be commended, and we should give honour to whom honour is due. However, there is something that has been omitted from the speech from the throne insofar as the veteran is concerned, namely old age pensions commencing at 60 years of age for those who served in an active theatre, without a means test. I spoke of this during the last four years. Last year I mentioned that one man had had four Christmas dinners, in the trenches. Another man was assigned to the trenches where there was not a dry spot on the ground, and he was kept there for 31 days without a dry sock on his foot.

The Address-Mr. Mclvor No one can tell me that this is not injurious to a man's health and to his chances of longevity. I am sure the Minister of Veterans Affairs will take this into consideration, because he has spoken of it before.
Another thing that is contained in the speech from the throne, and for which I commend the government, is the proposal to increase old age pensions. I spoke on this subject last year.
There are two good things that are not mentioned in the speech from the throne, and one is health insurance. In 1937 I introduced a resolution on this subject which received the support of the former member for St. Boniface, now Senator Howden. We had a full dress debate on health insurance then, and last year the former minister of national health and welfare got a bill through the house. I am sorry to find that the Conservative government apparently does not intend to implement this measure.
Another omission from the speech from the throne, and something which received the support of the present Minister of Veterans Affairs last year, is adequate pensions for retired civil servants. I said during the debate on my resolution that a man who has worked ten hours a day six days a week has the right to a pension as good as that of the man who works eight hours a day five days a week. This is one of the outstanding things, an increased pension for retired civil servants.
There is another matter about which I want to speak, but before I do so I want to say that the people at the head of the lakes felt that one of the reasons for the change on June 10 was the need for a stronger opposition. Well, if you have not got it now, you will never get it. We have a strong opposition on this side, and the Prime Minister knows it very well. The question that is in my mind is, how can a weak opposition make a strong government? That is a question hon. members opposite will have to consider. I wish them success in the way they deserve.
At the lakehead we have a large harbour in Thunder bay, perhaps the largest in Canada. Delegations have been coming from Manitoba and other areas outside of the lakehead to tell us that we should get the lakehead harbour ready to receive the big ships that will come from the ocean. I should like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the man who looked after the lakehead harbour knew what he was doing. He was one of the greatest men Canada produced, Right Hon. C. D. Howe. For 22 years he looked after that harbour and there was never any complaint. There are long docks for both railways, and

the area in front of them is now dredged to a depth of 27 feet. There are long docks in front of the elevators, and the area in front of these docks is dredged deeply enough to receive the big boats from the ocean. We have four paper mills, and the water in front of them is deep enough to receive oceangoing vessels. For 22 years boats have been coming in and going out from these dock facilities without objection from the railways, industries or even the labour unions.
I should like to add, Mr. Speaker, that any request that came through me from the city council of Fort William for more harbour facilities was considered favourably. We got a new harbour for the fishermen at Squaw bay, and that was greatly appreciated because it helped the fishermen in handling their fish. We have a new breakwater at Chippewa in order to protect an area for the children, tourists and others who come there. The last request sent to the former minister of trade and commerce and finally to the Minister of Public Works was for a large dock in the centre of the city, marine harbour. It was a 280-foot dock. I would say to those who are anxious about dock facilities at the lakehead that they were well looked after during the last 22 years.
When the present Minister of Transport called on us a little while ago, I toured the harbour with him. He did a god job. He told us he was not stating now what was going to be done, that he was merely on a fact-finding tour. I must say it gave me great pleasure to introduce my former baseball catcher to the lakehead aristocracy. I believe he appreciated it. Fort William harbour is well looked after.
Somebody from Winnipeg said that Duluth was spending $40 million. The chairman of our harbour board, who knows very well what our harbour contains, says that if you had to put in the present equipment it would cost you $300 million or more. I would therefore say that our harbour is in good shape. However, our city council has wisely advised that before any money is spent on our harbour a full investigation should be made. I am looking to the Minister of Transport to see that that investigation is carried out. The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) has asked for such an investigation. We are asking for it so we shall be fit to receive the big boats that come from overseas,
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word about the hub of Canada. It is agreed at the lakehead that Fort William is the hub oi Canada. The Prime Minister, when he sees more of it, will agree with me. Fort William is growing rapidly. Just imagine what has taken place. The Great Lakes Pulp anc

Paper Company, with its two large mills, has now doubled its capacity. Two new paper mills have been built at an expenditure of more than $40 million. It is the greatest paper manufacturing company in Canada today.
We therefore lift our heads high. We are proud of the new man who came from Quebec to take over the Great Lakes Pulp and Paper Company mill as superintendent. I refer to Mr. Fox. I pay my tribute to him as an outstanding businessman, well able to take care of the workers in a harmonious way. The Abitibi Power and Paper Company has also spent a large sum of money. But one of the things that pleases me best at the lakehead is the situation at the Canadian Car and Foundry Company. Last year we announced to the then minister of labour that they had had two million hours without an accident. They are now fairly well into the third million hours without an accident. I am extremely happy to represent the hub of Canada in this respect.
I think that is all I have to say. I should just like to conclude by saying that I am not looking forward tb an election this year. I am going to support the speech from the throne because I do not think the government yet has done enough for us to pass a vote of non-confidence. It is true that they promised to have a session of parliament in September, but any man who has a garden, as I have, would not like to have a session in September, so he changed the date. However, I was not so glad when I was criticized for saying so at the lakehead by the old age pensioners.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) did not agree with the reasons given by the Prime Minister for extending the date. I was glad that we were not called before October 14 for that selfish reason I have mentioned. I think the government should be given the opportunity to make good on its promises of cutting taxes and raising pensions all round. Let us give them a chance to make good. That is what I want. When I was engaged in the manly art, I remember that I liked to have a chance to show whether or not I could handle myself. I should like the government to have a chance to show whether or not they are able to handle themselves and to measure up to the task confronting them.


Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary I should like to congratulate you, as Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Speaker on being elevated to the positions which you now occupy. I am sure you will
The Address-Mr. Christian carry out the duties of your offices with every efficiency and dispatch. Coming into this house as, if I may say so, the tallest rookie, I am happy to see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) sitting in the seat he occupies and holding the position he now holds, as he hails from Vancouver-Quadra. In that particular area he is held in high esteem, as he is throughout the Dominion of Canada. I think it is only proper for a new member of the house to recognize the merit of other hon. members, no matter to what party they belong. I appreciate the fact that in this House of Commons today on both sides of the house are men of great ability. I think it is the duty of these men, as well as of all members of this house, to try to carry on the government of this country as efficiently and as ably as they possibly can.
The hon. member who preceded me mentioned Fort William and described it as the hub of Canada. I would say there is another hub of Canada known as the Okanagan Boundary area. It is sometimes called the California of Canada by many people. Nevertheless, like the rest of the people of this great Canada of ours, we have our problems there also. Basically our industries consist of farming, ranching, mining and logging. In addition there is also the tourist industry. The farmer complains because he is not getting a sufficiently high price for his products. Similarly the rancher complains because the price of beef has come down substantially. In our particular area a number of mines actually have been closed down. The small logger also is bitterly complaining because he cannot get a proper price for his logs. That is the situation which exists.
May I say this respectfully. Having been in this house for the short time I have been here, I feel that there should be less and less of politics in this House of Commons and that we should come as Canadians, trying to assist our government. I feel that we should try to rise above personalities and obstructionist methods. Let us try to get things done for the Canadian people.
I commend the government of this country for having the foresight and zeal to try to stabilize the prices of agricultural products. As to the matter of cash advances against the farm-stored grain, I think the principle is good and I personally am going to support it. However, I would say this. While cash advances to prairie farmers will be in the nature of an emergency measure, after all it is a temporary expedient. I think there is one danger, namely that sometimes these temporary expedients can develop into matters of a permanent nature. It may very well

The Address-Mr. Christian be that when some of the hon. members of this House of Commons later on go back to their respective constituencies the people there-as, for example, in my own constituency of Okanagan Boundary-will say, "When are we going to get cash advances on our apples?" or "When are we going to get cash advances on our various fruits?" However, in this particular case, so far as the prairie farmers are concerned, I think a definite case is made out and that we are dealing here with an emergency. But I certainly hope that this matter is and will be treated as being in the nature of a temporary expedient.
As to a national development policy, I again commend the government. It is about time, and I think the government saw this, that the Dominion of Canada and the provincial governments throughout this great Canada worked together to develop this nation. There is only one suggestion that I should like to make. As I came from the Okanagan valley down here to Ottawa I could not help being impressed for the first time by all the land that is idle and not being used in this great dominion.
I think it would be a good thing if we, the government and everyone concerned, tried to bring about decentralization of industry throughout this Canada of ours. Why, after all, should the industries of this country be concentrated in the large cities? Some day there may be an emergency, and we might be very sorry that industry is concentrated in this manner. Would it not be much wiser if industry were distributed more evenly over this land? If this were done the results would also be helpful to smaller communities such as the Okanagan valley, for example, where we can and do welcome new industries into our midst. Basically we are a fruit growing centre, but if we had industry established there the economy of the whole area would be improved.
Having mentioned the subject of farming I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers in the Okanagan valley are not happy, and I would like in particular to bring one matter of importance to the attention of this house. The fruit growers in the valley are keenly disappointed over the federal government's failure to establish a minimum fair market value for prunes to protect against distress quotations and imports. The tariff committee of the British Columbia fruit growers' association supplied to the Minister of Finance data published by the United States department of agriculture on the price of prunes in the three northwest prune-producing states, Idaho, Washington and Oregon, over an eight-year period from 1949 to 1956,

The Address-Mr. Christian this particular case, and I hope the governor in council, pursuant to section 656 of the Crimal Code, will give this matter earnest consideration.
I wish to conclude by briefly dealing with the question of the tight money policy. I noticed in the throne speech there was nothing whatever mentioned with regard to this policy. I heard the leader of the C.C.F., I believe yesterday, mention that he did not think a solution to our problems could be brought about by a change in monetary policy.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Speaker, might I say immediately that if the hon. member will read my speech he will find that I did not say that.


Frank Claus Christian: What did you say, may I ask?


Major James William Coldwell: I said a change in monetary policy was no solution to the general economic problem.


Frank Claus Christian: Well, that is basically how we differ. We say there must be a change in the monetary policy of this country, because as a result of the tight money policy we can see evidence today of things levelling off. Times are not as good as they have been, and this winter we can expect to see increased unemployment in Canada.


Mr. Winch:: Under the government you now support.


Frank Claus Christian: There is a beginning to
everything.


Harold Edward Winch: Also an end, thank God.


Frank Claus Christian: In the course of time the Canadian people will realize that the monetary policy of this country is not what it should be. What party in this house today is trying to improve our own monetary policy?


Harold Edward Winch: The C.C.F.


Frank Claus Christian: The Social Credit party is attempting to give leadership in that regard. Let me read to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) something that has been said by one of the greatest Liberals we ever had in Canada, Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, which appears in the September 1957 issue of The Canadian Social Creditor:
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, prior to the election of 1935 which returned the Liberal party to power said:	"I plead for a sweeping Liberal
majority in order to carry out my policy of public control of currency and credit. Until the control of currency and credit is restored to the government ... all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and democracy is idle and futile".

Those words were spoken by one of the greatest Liberals we have had in Canada. After all, it is the people of this country who are the supreme authority, and they should control the country's monetary policy. When that policy does not work to the satisfaction of the Canadian people then the Social Credit party, the Liberal party, the Conservative party and even the C.C.F. party should put their shoulders behind the wheel and examine our financial institutions to see if they are working for the benefit of the citizens of Canada. We cannot assume that any existing condition is working perfectly and in high order. Let us scrutinize our monetary policy and observe it in the future with a watchful eye to see that it meets the needs of the existing situation.
The leader of the C.C.F. party mentioned that a serious world problem today is underconsumption. We are able to produce ample goods in Canada, but unfortunately many Canadians cannot get the goods and services they require. This situation exists under the tight money policy. Is it not reasonable, therefore, to put the finest financial minds in Canada to work on the problem in order to bring about a solution that will benefit all Canadian people? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Arthur Maloney (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this distinguished house with the emotions that we are told inevitably accompany this event when it occurs for the first time in the life of a parliamentarian. I will be excused, I know, if at the outset I make what you may feel to be a personal reference when I refer to my late father, Dr. Martin James Maloney, who sat in this house from 1925 until 1935 and three of whose colleagues still remain, the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman), the hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor) and the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). If on leaving this place, Mr. Speaker, either voluntarily or by the settled design of my constituents, I can boast of having served this house, my constituents and my fellow Canadians with the same loyalty and devotion he did, and if I can boast of having earned the affectionate good will of all hon. members in this chamber regardless of their political affiliation, then I shall leave with the same feeling of satisfaction I know he enjoyed. It is rather significant that I should have taken my seat for the first time on October 14, 1957, 22 years to the day from October 14, 1935, when he was defeated as the representative for South Renfrew.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as someone whom my colleagues from Toronto will confirm has had in his professional career not a little to do

with the criminal law, naturally I scanned the faces of the hon. members opposite with a great deal of curiosity on opening day, and in fairness I must assure my colleagues on this side of the house that I have never encountered any of them in my professional capacity.
I want to thank the Prime Minister for the honour he conferred upon me when he invited me to be the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour. The duties of the office, I shall attempt to discharge to the very best of my ability, and I should like at this moment to say what pleasure it gives me to attempt to serve the Minister of Labour even in that humble capacity. The Minister of Labour, with a long background of experience has, in my opinion, a natural understanding of the problems with which his department is daily concerned; and in my observations of the operations of the department under his supervision I am satisfied that he will in a very short time be regarded as one of the finest incumbents that office has ever had.
I should like to join with the speakers who have preceded me, Mr. Speaker, in the congratulations that they extended to you and to the Deputy Speaker, and I should like also to add my congratulations to those that have already been extended to the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) for the addresses they gave at the commencement of this debate.
I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that on this occasion it is customary for members to discuss some of the particular features and, of course, the needs of their constituencies. In the case of my riding, Parkdale, I am sure it is well known to the members of this house through the efforts of the illustrious members who have preceded me. I should like to say a few words about the people of my riding. Parkdale is a fair cross section of Canada. In addition to a stalwart Anglo-Saxon group of slightly in excess of 50 per cent, virtually all of the ethnic groups of Europe are also represented, including the Baltic peoples, Byelorussians, Hungarians, Italians, Germans, Croatians, Serbs, Czechs, Slovaks and the largest groups the Poles and Ukrainians.
I would like to make just a few comments about these newcomers. These lately arrived people are proudly aware of the traditions of our country and are eager to participate in its forward movement. They make an invaluable contribution to Canada's future promise. In the same way as did many of our forefathers some came to this country for adventure, some for freedom, but freedom was the spur which drove most of them here. Having 96698-14
The Address-Mr. Maloney found freedom they have a strong determination not to give it up, and they have an abiding desire to assist the enslaved peoples in their own home lands to regain theirs. It is this devotion to freedom, Mr. Speaker, exemplified as it is by so many of the people in my riding, which in my opinion is the bedrock on which all our future hopes must necessarily be founded.
Recently, in a speech at McGill University, the Prime Minister referred to the challenge presented to the free world by the launching of the Soviet satellite which, according to the news reports, is now circling the world at the unimaginable velocity of 18,000 miles an hour. On the occasion of that address the Prime Minister said:
The free world will get nowhere by resorting to fear nor will it meet the challenge by the spirit of apathy based on defeatism.
I believe these are words, Mr. Speaker, with which every member in this house will agree. The Prime Minister's remarks on that occasion emphasized the great central defect of the Soviet system, a defect for which no number of satellites, no number of intercontinental missiles, no display of military or scientific achievement can compensate. That is, of course, the total and complete absence of freedom under its operation.
We know that under the Soviet system matters which we take for granted-free parliaments, free press, free trade unions, are unknown. The Soviet union is able to offer guns but not freedom. This is so in China, in Egypt, in the Philippines and now in Syria, where the Soviet union does not offer freedom, only arms. It is not unexpected, with its record of subornation of freedom, that the proudest scientific achievement of the Soviet union should have been the production of a satellite.
I commend to this house, Mr. Speaker, the United Nations report on the Soviet intervention in Hungary. There was Soviet freedom at its very finest. Another case is Poland, where the urge for freedom, the strongest urge of man, again is beginning to make itself increasingly evident. This, Mr. Speaker, is a great challenge to the Soviet monolith, the spirit of freedom which constantly manifests itself among the tragic peoples she oppresses and will continue to do so until, as we hope, it overcomes slavery and bondage.
The newcomers to Parkdale and the newcomers to Canada, besides helping to enrich our culture, bring to us a practical and often personal experience, and the experience as well of their friends and their relatives of days and nights of agony that are incomprehensible to us who have never felt the horror of the almighty state. Were I to bring

The Address-Mr. Maloney before this house the tribulations of the Polish people represented in my riding, the Hungarian people who are also represented, the Baltic peoples, the Ukrainian peoples, and the other peoples of the states of central and eastern Europe, peoples who have experienced at first hand the barbarities of the Soviet system, I am sure I would obtain the universal sympathy of this house.
The evil of communism feeds and fosters on disaster and decay. Excessive material hardship and moral decline are the breeding ground of communism. It is my hope that in international affairs our country will continue to raise its voice on the side of the weak and the oppressed1, and that in our own affairs we shall continually strive to provide our citizens with such a standard of living as will render ineffective what has elsewhere proven to be the sometimes attractive argument of the communists.
The people to whom I have been referring came variously from countries in Europe between which there often were traditionally historical animosities and hostilities. In this country these hostilities are beginning to disappear. One of the reasons that accounts for their disappearance is the mutual anxiety they entertain about their own oppressed fellow countrymen. This has served to create a bond between them which constitutes a firm foundation for friendship and harmony in this country. These people teach us that Russia, in order to achieve her ambitions, counts on the tolerance of the peoples of the western world and counts upon disunity among the free nations of the world. They would have us believe that understanding and co-operation with soviet Russia are mere illusions, and indeed many of them go the length of suggesting to us such a drastic measure as the breaking off of diplomatic relations between the democracies of the world and what they describe as "the criminal regime in Moscow".
Today the tragic peoples who are enslaved in Europe look forward out of their present darkness toward a future in which they will witness the removal from the face of their home lands every last vestige of the disfigurement which was wrought upon them by the bolshevik conqueror. After his release from confinement last October and during the course of his New Year's message to the Polish people, His Eminence Stephan Cardinal Wyszynsky said:
I wish to everyone patience as in patience you will be masters of your souls.
Those were words of hopeful advice to his own people and to the other peoples of central and eastern Europe. It was a tribute to this country that so many of these outstanding


people should have chosen Canada as the country of their adoption and yet, on reflection, Canada really furnishes a natural setting for people of diverse ethnic origins.
Almost 300 years ago there commenced the process of two diverse races, each with ancient and different cultures, each with different attitudes and outlooks, living side by side. Differences of race and of religion were duly recognized and we were able to find a common ground in respect of our system of government. This country, then, furnishes a natural setting for the people to whom I have been referring.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, it is most gratifying indeed to me to address a few words to this hon. house in its other official language.
It was a source of very great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, for me to observe, as a newly elected member, that differences of opinion in political matters do not prevent the formation of friendships among hon. members of this house even though they belong to opposing political parties. I should like at this stage to follow the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) who the other day paid tribute to the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent, Quebec East). It is a source of regret that the right hon. member proposes to resign from the leadership of his party after a new leader has been selected to replace him. For me, and I know for all newly elected members, it will be a proud boast always that we served as members of the house contemporaneously with the Leader of the Opposition.
Differences of political opinion on specific matters have not in any way minimized the esteem in which the distinguished right hon. gentleman is held. In serving now as Leader of the Opposition destiny is conferring upon him the same privilege it conferred upon two of his distinguished predecessors, Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
I am of the belief that our nation is a greater nation because of the historical association of two great races of people, the English and the French. They have lived side by side, more often than not, in harmony and good will. Out of this association has developed a nationality which not only makes us a more interesting country in the eyes of the world but an example in tolerance and understanding.
At the moment on this side of the house there are not as many representatives of my French Canadian friends as I should like to see, but in the expectation that when the first opportunity presents itself this situation will be corrected we are holding in reserve as

many as 50 places to accommodate the newcomers. In the meantime, it will be the proud privilege of all of us on this side of the house to see to it that the ancient rights and privileges of French Canada are jealously maintained and safeguarded.
(Text):
It was a source of very great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, for me to observe, as a newly elected member, that differences of opinion in political matters do not prevent the formation of friendships among hon. members of this house even though they belong to opposing political parties. I should like at this stage to follow the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) who the other day paid tribute to the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent). It is a source of regret that the right hon. member proposes to resign from the leadership of his party after a new leader has been selected to replace him. For me, and I know for all newly elected members, it will be a proud boast always that we served as members of the house contemporaneously with the Leader of the Opposition.
Differences of political opinion on specific matters have not in any way minimized the esteem in which the distinguished right hon. gentleman is held. In serving now as Leader of the Opposition destiny is conferring upon him the same privilege it conferred upon two of his distinguished predecessors, Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
I am of the belief that our nation is a greater nation because of the historical association of two great races of people, the English and the French. They have lived side by side, more often than not, in harmony and good will. Out of this association has developed a nationality which makes us, not only a more interesting country in the eyes of the world but an example in tolerance and understanding.
At the moment on this side of the house there are not as many representatives of my French Canadian friends as I should like to see, but, in the expectation that when the first opportunity presents itself this situation will be corrected we are holding in reserve as many as 50 places to accommodate the newcomers. In the meantime, it will be the proud privilege of all of us on this side of the house to see to it that the ancient rights and privileges of French Canada are jealously maintained and safeguarded.
In attempting to understand what is embodied in the concept "Canadianism", sometimes that can be done by means of an experiment. If you were to try to exclude from your understanding of Canadianism some of the glories of French Canada, the historic sites of Montreal, ancient Quebec, Ste. Anne de 96698-14J
The Address-Mr. Caron Beaupre, St. Joseph's Oratory, how sombre the result would be. By the same token, by the same process, if you were to exclude from the ambit of what you understand to be Canadianism British Columbia, the prairies, Toronto, the maritimes, the tenth province, the result would be equally disheartening.
Canadianism then is of necessity as well as of desire a concept from which neither can possibly be excluded.
I hope that, however long or short my career in this place may be, I shall never utter a single syllable that will in any way interfere with the steady progress of our march towards national unity.
I was impressed on June 10 with the national character of our party. I was impressed with the support it received from all quarters. The support we got knew no boundaries of race, of class or of creed. We were supported by the poor people; we were supported by the rich people. We were supported by workingmen; we were supported by the people who hire them. We were supported by the English; we were supported by the French. We were supported by the Protestant, the Catholic and the Jew. We were supported by every group, every race and every class, in other words, we proved ourselves to be what others might sometimes suggest we are not; we proved ourselves to be a truly national party, the party of all the people in this country.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to subscribe to the national development program initiated by my party and already foreshadowed in measures announced in the speech from the throne. The surveying and development of the Canadian north, the erection of projects to facilitate the extraction of our vast resources, the processing and control of these resources in Canada, are all projects which cannot but commend themselves to fellow Canadians. I may say, that it is with pride that as a member of my party I have witnessed the alacrity with which the Prime Minister and the new government have proceeded to translate these programs into effective measures.
The measures of social welfare too, Mr. Speaker, will greatly assist the aged and needy in my riding and throughout our nation. They are deeply welcomed and are prophetic of a successful administration which will bring together the conflicting forces of this country and all this, in a way that will best serve the interests of its people.
(Translation):


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: May I ask you, at the beginning of my remarks, to be so kind as to express on my behalf the usual congratulations to Mr. Speaker on this particular

The Address-Mr. Caron occasion. I saw him in this house at a time when all we heard was of trouble and difficulties; I saw him when some members trooped toward the Speaker shaking their fists; I saw him then remain seated and very calmly wait until the storm had died down. He therefore showed at that time that he had all the qualifications required to adequately fulfil the role which is given him today. I was glad also to note-I did not know it before-that he handles the French language with wonderful ease. This, in my opinion, is essential for a Speaker of the House of Commons in Ottawa, where both languages are official, and both races represented.
I should like also to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having been appointed chairman of the committees of the house. I feel the choice has been a very wise one, since you already have a good parliamentary training, having sat here for many years; moreover, you are known as a good lawyer, which will help you analyse and properly construe the rules and regulations; you are also conversant with both official languages of this country, and I am convinced that you will always be able to replace the Speaker with dignity, should he be absent from the house.
(Text):
I should like to offer my congratulations to the mover of the address, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith). He has spoken in this house with all the characteristics of a perfect orator. I was not a member of this house when his illustrious father was a member, but I am told he is following in the footsteps of that hon. member, and if that is so he will prove to be one of the best members of this house.
(Translation):
I also want to commend the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) who expressed himself admirably in both languages. A member's maiden speech in this house is always the hardest to deliver. However, he got along splendidly.
Of course, he will learn in time that issues discussed here are generally federal issues. Provincial rights can also be mentioned, but my hon. friend will soon realize that, in this house, we mostly discuss problems under federal jurisdiction. However, he has done wonderfully well, and I wish him the best of luck.
I also would like to congratulate the previous speaker on the magnificent way he spoke French. We noted that his was not French of the written sort, spoken by rote. He has a good command of French, and he proved it. Even if I do not share all his

views, I have to commend him and I trust that some other members will try to address this house in both our country's official languages.
I seize the opportunity of my first speech in this new parliament to thank the voters of my riding who were kind enough to return me to the house. In this last struggle, I had to cope with the united efforts of all those who dislike liberalism. A so-called independent Liberal candidate was put up, but this was done in the office of the Union Nationale in Quebec on February 7 last.
In spite of the concerted efforts of the supporters of this party and the money they spent, the people of Hull have recognized the services I had tried to render them ever since I have been their representative, and they gave me a substantial majority. I take this opportunity to thank them from the bottom of my heart.
(Text):
When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke last Wednesday he informed the house that the Liberal party would not move a motion of non-confidence, nor would the Liberal party support any motion of non-confidence. At that time the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) rose and seemed to blame the Liberal party for not offering a motion of non-confidence. I want to assure him that we are not following this course to be pleasant to the Conservative party. We are doing so because we recognize that even if the Conservatives did not receive a majority of the votes, they did get a majority of the seats and we therefore desire to respect the opinion expressed by the electorate of this country. If we had moved a motion of non-confidence the Conservatives would have been the first ones to say we were trying to prevent them from accomplishing the promises they made during the election campaign.
We reserve the right, however, to criticize what we feel should be criticized, and this is what we intend to do until the end of the present session. Last Friday the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) rose in this house and spoke of the attitude of the Conservative party towards national unity. He was rather severe in his expressions, but as a matter of fact he was right. Since the departure of Cartier and Macdonald the Conservatives have tried to run on a division of policy, one policy for one part of the country and another policy for another part of the country. While the hon. member was speaking some hon. members opposite stated he was working against national unity. Why is

the claiming of the rights of a minority said to be working against national unity? We have rights in this country because we were the first citizens to come from Europe. We have rights in this country because we form almost one-third of the population. When we claim those rights it cannot be said that we are working against national unity. We are making an appeal to the well balanced people of both races to recognize those rights, and that is what the hon. member for Laurier was doing and that is what I intend to do today.
Following the speech by the hon. member for Laurier I am told that some newspapers, the Toronto Telegram for one, said that if the Prime Minister had been in the house he might have called an election right away. I doubt that he would have done that because he would have had no reason to call an election unless he was afraid of not being able to fulfil the promises he made during the election. He would have no reason unless he is afraid he has no means of stopping inflation and unemployment which are increasing continually.
I really believe that, with the developments which have taken place since the opening of this session the Conservative party would not dare to go to the people before a certain time. As long as we do not place a motion of non-confidence before the house and as long as we do not approve any motions of non-confidence I think the Conservative party will be only too glad to keep power as long as they can do so.
The hon. member who preceded me said that they have 50 seats reserved for Frenchspeaking Canadians. May I say that they can keep them if they want to. However, they will be filled by French-speaking Canadians but they will almost all be Liberals because we did not receive the representation we were expecting when the present cabinet was formed. As I said before, we make up almost one-third of the population. But what did we get in the present cabinet? We received representation to the extent of forming one-tenth of the cabinet, two out of twenty. Why is that? Is it because the Prime Minister has no confidence in the ten French Canadians from all over Canada sitting on the other side of the house? I do not know. However, the first thing he did was to honour one of them. He called on the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer). What post did he offer to him? He offered him the least he could offer to any man, namely the post of Solicitor General which is generally used as a stepping stone for somebody coming into the cabinet or as a post for a member of the Senate put into the cabinet as a representative of the government.
The Address-Mr. Caron


Mr. Balcer:: You do not have to worry, you will never have such a post.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I am not worried about my hon. friend, but I believe he has a right to something better in view of those he represents. I believe that if he had done the right thing when he was offered such a job he would have either refused or resigned, in view of the fact that he was representing French Canadians of the province of Quebec. That is what he should have done. Today I want to give him a little bit of fatherly advice. He does not seem to realize the spot on which he has placed his French Canadian colleagues.


Léon Balcer: You had 67 members from Quebec and you never did anything for 22 years.


Alexis Pierre Caron: During the Liberal regime there were always four to five and sometimes six in the cabinet representing the minority in this country. If my friend the hon. member for Three Rivers is satisfied with the situation as it is, may I say that he is easily satisfied. Certainly we are not satisfied.


Léon Balcer: With six in the cabinet Quebec never received anything from you.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Even with ten, with the Conservative party in power I do not think we will receive much. At the present time we do not know what we are going to get. However, I know one thing, namely that we have not the representation that we should have.


An hon. Member:: Just like an old maid.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Like an old maid, did you say? You should look in the mirror and you would see what an old maid looks like. Then they came along again and they increased the number from one to two and they gave a post to the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Comtois); they gave him a portfolio. I agree that it is an extremely important one. However, they took a man who has spent all his life in agriculture, a man who possesses a smattering of knowledge on matters other than agriculture, and gave him the post of Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. What is the reason for that action? Is it because they were expecting that in a new post, dealing with a matter about which he does not know a great deal, he would be a flop? I do not know.
But one thing I do know is that the province of Quebec and the French Canadians of Canada are not satisfied with the way in which we have been treated and we shall not be satisfied until the Prime Minister

The Address-Mr. Caron changes his attitude toward us. I am wondering why he did not give us more representation. I am wondering whether it is because the hon. member for Three Rivers at the time of the Conservative convention worked against the Prime Minister in favour of the present Minister of Finance and was telling why he was working against him. At that time he was telling everyone in the province of Quebec that the French Canadians could not have confidence in the Prime Minister. That is what the hon. member for Three Rivers said before and during the convention.
Then when the choice was made, they walked out in protest against the action of the rest of Canada which made the decision. I do not know whether it is true that he was refused a better post in the cabinet because the Prime Minister believed he did not have the necessary qualifications. I do not know if it is because the Prime Minister, even after having been in the east for quite a while, has retained his opinions of the years of 1928 and 1930, when with the Anderson Conservative party he was working against the Gardiner government. I do not know why, but I know one thing, namely that we did not get the representation we had the right to get. We are going to claim that representation.
Even if he could not find in the province of Quebec all he wanted, there are available some English-speaking French Canadians from elsewhere. There is the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) whom I have known outside of this house. He is an able man and a good worker and is well qualified in many fields. He would have been a good representative of the French Canadians of the west. He was good enough to be called upon to be parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. He would have been a very good man.
Then there is yourself, Mr. Speaker, you are a good representative of the province of Quebec. You have had the qualifications to become the president of committees. I believe you have the qualifications to become a minister in the present cabinet.
Until the Prime Minister has decided to change his views and give to the province of Quebec and the French Canadians in the rest of Canada the representation we deserve I think we will not have any confidence in him. I believe that the right-thinking population in Quebec and in the rest of the country, both from the French-speaking ranks and from the English-speaking ranks, will look at the Prime Minister as a man who is working against national unity in this country.


An hon. Member:: Oh, bosh.
IMr. Caron.]


Alexis Pierre Caron: That is what I think and that is what the people think.


An hon. Member:: That is untrue.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Wait until the next election and you will see whether or not what I am saying now is true.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You do not want another election.


Mr. Cardiff:: If you make another speech like the one you have just finished you will not be back.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I heard a voice saying that I would not be back. If there is anyone who will not be back, it is the man who spoke just a while ago because I do not think he is here by anything else but plain charity.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Will you repeat that remark?


Lionel Chevrier: You heard him.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I said that from what I have known of the hon. member, if he is elected in this house it will be only as a result of plain charity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alexis Pierre Caron: If hon. members want to interrupt me I should like them to speak out in a way that I can understand them. Otherwise it is difficult for me to answer them. Did an hon. member want to put any questions?


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Now that I have said what I wanted to say about the representation of French Canadians in the government, I want to go to something else. There is an important problem as between the city of Hull and the city of Ottawa. The city of Ottawa, being the seat of the national capital, I really believe that the government should look forward to developing it in the way in which it has been developed, but a little bit faster.


Léon Balcer: How old is the problem?


Alexis Pierre Caron: The problem is much older than the hon. member who has spoken. But something has to be done. He, for one thing, is a good friend of Mr. Duplessis and I wonder if he could do something for the national capital and for the city of Hull. For a long time the former minister of public works (Mr. Winters) had been trying to secure the approval of Toronto and Quebec in order that a new bridge might be built as an alternative to the Alexandra bridge. The government in Toronto answered by sending experts to study the matter in order to ascertain what was possible. They made some proposals which were not acceptable at the time, but they did make proposals and that is something. But the government at Quebec consistently refused

to send anybody to study the matter, or to see whether anything could be done. The only answer Mr. Duplessis gave in Quebec was: Ottawa is the national capital, let the federal government build the bridge itself.
Mr. Speaker, it has been the practice in such matters for the cost of construction to be borne one-third by the federal government and one-third by each of the two provinces concerned, the approaches being the responsibility of the two municipalities. We have seen the minister of public works in the former government, and the present Minister of Public Works giving consideration to what could be done in the matter. There has been an acknowledgment by the provincial government in Toronto. What we need at the present time is the help of the Duplessis government. The Duplessis government did not want to speak with the Liberal government, but now that there is a Conservative government in power I think it should be very easy to obtain co-operation, and I suggest the hon. member for Three Rivers should speak to his friend Mr. Duplessis about the matter. Whether a new bridge comes from the Conservative party or the Liberal party the population will be equally glad to have it. If any hon. member had to cross from the city of Hull to Ottawa or from Ottawa to Hull at five o'clock in the afternoon he would find that under present conditions it takes between three-quarters of an hour and an hour and a quarter.
This is an undertaking that neither Ottawa nor Hull can carry out on their own; it is too expensive for municipal consideration, and can be done only by governments which have powers of taxation. I hope the hon. member for Three Rivers will look into the matter together with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works to see whether something can be done during the short time they will be in office.


Léon Balcer: Is that the new Liberal way, to insult, and afterwards come to ask for favours?


Alexis Pierre Caron: There is no insult. The hon. member, who is a lawyer should know the difference between a claim of right and an insult; if he does not, he should not be a lawyer at all. There is another thing-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I don't think the hon. member's judgment amounts to much.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I don't know that it amounts to much in the eyes of the Conservative party, but I think it does among the population which elected me.
Mr. Speaker, there is another question which I want to bring before the house. For
The Address-Mr. Caron over 50 years up to 1953 a succession of ministers of public works have assisted the municipalities in building protection walls. After 1953 the Department of Public Works decided that since most of the rivers were no longer navigated the federal government had nothing to do with the problem. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, under the British North America Act the waters spoken of are not "all navigated waters" but "all navigable waters"; whether they are navigated or not, if they are navigable they are the responsibility of the federal government. As I said, up to 1953, all the ministers, Liberal or Conservative, helped to build some of these protection walls. A while ago I asked in this house whether it was the intention of the present Minister of Public Works to continue this kind of work. He answered me in the same way as I was answered by the previous holder of his office.
I contend that either it is the responsibility of the federal government, because it is navigable water, or it is the responsibility of the provincial government because the bed of the river is the property of the province. We have been trying to reach an understanding about this with both the provincial government and the federal government. I know some cases where a river has cut into farmers' land for a distance up to 200 feet. The farmers are not responsible for that, and somebody should take the responsibility. If the present Minister of Public Works wishes to accept the view that "navigable" and "navigated" mean the same thing, I hope he will bring the question forward at the next dominion-provincial conference so that we may discuss once and for all where the responsibility in this matter lies. If the matter cannot be determined there, then let the matter be brought up before the supreme court so that everyone may know for certain to whom they must go to find a responsible body to look after this matter. It is a pressing problem and one which I hope the present government will consider.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude on a Canadian note. Some newspapers have been conducting quite a campaign suggesting that the next governor general should be the Queen Mother or another member of the royal family. I want it to be very clear that I have all the admiration for the royal family that any Canadian should have for that family. Three years ago at the end of 1954 when I was mayor of the city of Hull we had the honour to receive the Queen Mother, and at that time I said a few words. I would like to take advantage of the opportunity of reading what I said at that time just to prove that though I intend to speak on this matter it is not because I have anything against the

The Address-Mr. Caron royal family but because I only wish that a real Canadian should continue to be governor general of Canada. At that time I said this, speaking in French:
(Translation):
The city of Hull is very glad that Your Majesty thought it proper to pay us a visit on the occasion of your trip to the capital. We appreciate all the honour which this means to our city as well as to our province, and we wish to thank you.
It would be superfluous to welcome you, since our gracious Sovereign, being Queen of Canada, is everywhere at home, and the same is true for the Queen Mother.
We should like, however, to express our joy in having you here among us: I am voicing now, not only my personal feelings and those of the aldermen, but those of the whole people of Hull.
From time immemorial, alchemists have sought the philosopher's stone and the Fountain of Youth. If these men of science came back among us, "a miracle" would be their cry, if they could see, as we do, how intact, after 15 years-the date of your last visit to Canada-you have preserved your grace, your charms, your refinement, your enchanting smile which still continues to warm all hearts, your radiant beauty, and also how time seems to have suspended its course to keep you eternally young.
(Text):
As I said in French, we value highly the honour given to the city of Hull in having an official visit and I expressed the wish that she would have the kindness to tell Her Majesty the Queen of Canada that we all repeat again and again with great pride and sincerity the words of our national anthem, "God Save the Queen".
This is the way in which I dealt with the question at that time. With regard to having a representative of the royal family or anyone else from England as the next governor general of Canada I think this would be a step backward. For the past few years we have had as governor general a man who has been a perfect representative of the Queen. I do not think anyone could imply that the present governor general of Canada has not filled his high office with honour and distinction and I believe we will be able to find other Canadians to replace the present governor general when the time comes. Canada has attained its majority and, as some would say, we should not allow those who are more British than the British themselves to decide on this matter. Instead it should be one to be decided by Canadians for Canadians. I really believe Her Majesty the Queen would not consider it disrespectful to call upon her to name another representative from Canada as governor general. I hope the present government will look into the matter carefully before making a decision. In saying this I am convinced I am speaking for the

majority of Canadians, that the next governor general should be, as is the case now, Canadian-born.


Mr. Jacob Schulz (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, as a new member of this house I should first like to express my gratitude to those who have given me the opportunity to come here. I consider it a great privilege to have become a part of this most important institution, the Canadian parliament, and to belong to a group of people who have the responsibility of designing and instituting policies for the purpose of directing the affairs of this country in a proper and progressive manner.
Of course, since I came here I have noticed that some hon. members occasionally become rather noisy in going about their tasks, but I suppose this is permissible in a democracy. Her Majesty the Queen renewed the pledge that there shall be free speech. I hope during my term in this house I will be helpful, not in making noises but in doing something worthwhile, by conducting myself and directing my efforts in such a way that the result of my work shall be of the greatest good to the greatest number, and especially to those who have been neglected and forgotten and who are now suffering from privation and poverty in the midst of plenty.
The fact that I am somewhat acquainted with the surroundings on parliament hill should be of some assistance to me in performing my duties. I have been here on various occasions with farm delegations presenting briefs to the government and pointing out and explaining the gradual but constant process of deterioration that has taken place in the agricultural industry during the years and which since 1951 has gone from bad to worse.
I venture to think I have made some valuable acquaintances down here while on these missions, perhaps even some friends who will support me. I can think of one in particular, the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner), who at that time was minister of agriculture but who is now sitting with me in Her Majesty's loyal opposition to which is assigned the task of expressing the wishes of the people and impressing the government with the need of taking the necessary action to implement those wishes. I believe I have friends all over especially in my own province. By the way, I have enemies too.
When I left the farm union movement at the beginning of this year the Winnipeg Tribune published an editorial and declared that I am the most beloved and most hated man in Manitoba. Being a fairly young man

it is natural that I should have both friends and enemies because being without enemies is such a privileged position in life that it is perhaps enjoyed only by the very old.
For example, there is the case of the gentleman who celebrated his 100th birthday. It was a great occasion and even the press became interested in this fortunate man who lived to such a ripe age. As the reporters interviewed him at one point he said, "Gentlemen I am 100 years of age and I am proud to say I haven't an enemy on earth". The reporters looked at him rather curiously and one of them said, "That is a beautiful thought, sir". "Yep", said the old man, "the last one died about a year ago."
Well, as I said, I still have enemies and sometimes I even have trouble with my friends. For instance, I would single out the previous minister of agriculture. For years we have tried to impress upon him and his colleagues the need of doing something to alleviate the desperate conditions in agriculture which are slowly but surely spreading to other sections of the economy and will have far-reaching ill effects on the whole economy if nothing is done, but it was to no avail. I regret to say that most of our pleas fell on the deaf ears of the former government. Again and again we had to return home empty handed in spite of the fact that we brought with us volumes of proof of the need of agriculture, and we had to sit and watch the plight of our industry and pray that the day of judgment might come soon.


Hazen Robert Argue: It came, all right.


Jacob Schulz: Yes, it finally did come.


An hon. Member:: And how!


Jacob Schulz: The 10th of June was a great day not only for Canada but for democracy as a whole.


Mr. Pickersgill:: We hope you like your friends.


Jacob Schulz: Those who during their long years of office had become detached from reality to the point where they refused to listen to the truth have been cast into darkness and transformed into shadows of the past. I do hope they will be long shadows and that they will reach right across the floor of this house so that the ministers on the government side will always have a chance to look up and recognize them as a symbol of the pride that goes before a fall.
In certain sections of the country they do not even exist as shadows any more. This is proven by the fact that the group to which I belong is today the greatest political party in the four western provinces taken as a whole, and even in Ontario our vote has
The Address-Mr. Schulz increased by 26 per cent and in Quebec by 29 per cent. I do know, of course, that we are not the government yet but we are the party of the future because the good book says that John the Baptist was not selected by providence to save the world; he was there only to prepare the way for the one who came after. With the name of the government leader being the same as the apostle I just mentioned there could be some resemblance and they do claim that history always repeats itself.
In the circumstances I am glad we have a new government no matter by what name they are known. It was high time for a change. If the speech from the throne read by Her Majesty the Queen means what it says,-and I say this advisedly-then we must give credit to this government for at least recognizing one part of our problem, which is more than the previous government ever did. As a matter of fact, even at the very last minute they did not admit the problem existed.
We appreciate the fact that the present government is prepared to do something especially for the senior citizens of this country by increasing their pensions and those of others who are worthy of the same treatment. It was they who made this country what it is. They worked for it in peacetime and they fought for it in wartime and they deserve real consideration.
Advance payments on grain which farmers cannot sell, even though they can be regarded only as a stop-gap measure, are most important. During the last two days before I left home I made a trip around the constituency I have the honour to represent and I visited 10 delivery points trying to find out how many farmers have not delivered any grain in the new crop year.
Here is what I found. The percentage figures are as follows: Oak Bank, 50 per cent; Whitemouth, 50 per cent; Lac du Bonnet, 50 per cent; Beausejour, 65 per cent; Hazelridge, 65 per cent; Alma, 65 per cent; Cloverleaf, 75 per cent; Tyndall, 75 per cent; Stead, 75 per cent; St. Owens, 90 per cent. These people have not sold one single bushel of grain, even though we have progressed nine weeks into the new crop year. I put these percentages on the record mainly for the benefit of those hon. members who come from industrial centres and no doubt shall have difficulty in understanding our problem out there. This problem was often brought before the previous government.
Just about this time last year, as chairman of the interprovincial farm union council I sent a memorandum to the former prime minister on this particular problem. Do you
210	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Schulz know what happened? He did not even find it worth answering. This is what I received from his secretary:
Mr. St. Laurent wishes me to say that he is fully aware of the situation with respect to the marketing of the grain crop in the west and that he cannot but regard many of the assertions in your memorandum as exaggerated.


Hazen Robert Argue: He found out.


Jacob Schulz: To make it still more clear, I have decided to reveal the contents of a letter I received last week from a Manitoba farmer who asked me to use it in any way I saw fit in the hope that it will help. He states that the size of his farm is 709 acres, with 695 under cultivation. He goes on to give the income of this farm in the last five years. The figures are as follows: In 1952, a loss of $1,376.02; in 1953, a net income of $1,197.22; in 1954, a loss of $1,848.64; in 1955, a loss of $1,743.06; and in 1956, a net income of $674.89. He states that anyone wishing to challenge these figures may check them with the income tax department. Since this covers an average period of five years, he claims it was checked and counterchecked by the department.
This should complete the picture of the perplexing dilemma of an industry which for years has been subjected to a cost-price squeeze unprecedented in history and mercilessly driven to the bottom of the economic ladder. How far the destructive process has progressed is proven by a letter this farmer received from a mortgage company and which he enclosed. The letter is dated September 17, 1957, and is from the Great West Life Assurance Company. It is addressed to Mr. P.
A.	Schick, re account No. M. 42824. The contents of the letter are as follows:
Some time ago we wrote you regarding the outstanding arrears on this mortgage and you were in touch with us saying that you could not draw any grain out, but that you had been to see the wheat board about the situation.
Has anything developed since that time? As you know, these arrears are becoming acute and we cannot continue indefinitely without something more than just interest.
They are not even satisfied with interest. I think they are lucky to get that. Then they go on to say:
If some definite arrangement has not been made by November 1,	1957, regarding a substantial
payment, we might be forced to take other steps to collect.
This is the bankrupt position of Canada's basic industry in the midst of prosperity. This is not an isolated case; this is general. Nobody who knows anything about agriculture will dare deny it. We are desperate and helpless under the misfortune of several abundant crops. You can understand the situation in its full dimensions only when you


see it or, more accurately, feel it and immerse yourself in it. These people are driven from their homes like beggars. They are losing their homes by the thousands and are driven to seek work in industry where there is no room any more.
The big question now is: What will this government do about it? I suggest that first of all the government should sell wheat. I mean sell it by any possible means. To do that the old fashioned, outworn Liberal marketing policy must be discarded because this is what has driven us into the mess. But from what has transpired since the government took office it would seem that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) and the government as a whole are not yet ready to collect their wits and dig in. Speaking at Shellbrook, Saskatchewan, on the 19th of April, and reported in the Winnipeg Tribune of April 20, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made this statement:
The United States is actively trying to sell their agricultural products all the world over, and have been doing so for years. Canada has done nothing.
How much has been done since the government took office? I cannot see anything unless it is some place under cover. If it is, then I hope the government will bring it out soon because the farmers are getting desperate.
The next question is prices. This I think is our biggest problem. Rising costs created by inflation are the core of most of the troubles facing farmers and labour alike. In the last four years the farmers got it in the neck. I predict that in the next four labour will be hit. Living costs are climbing rapidly while the wheels of industry are gradually slowing down. As an example I want to mention the Manitoba Pulp and Paper mills at Pine Falls. For years this mill has been operating on a 7-day week. Now it is on a 5-day week and the rumour is that it will soon go on a 4-day week. The mill at Canora is already operating on a 4-day week.
I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that the government has proven in the speech from the throne that it is not ready to lift its eyes and look at our most fundamental problem, that of inflation. President Eisenhower, when speaking to the twelfth annual meeting of the international monetary fund, said:
The phenomenon of inflation must be curtailed before it spins into a depression.
What is our Prime Minister saying? He and his ministers did not even find this question important enough to mention it in the throne speech.

The assurance given in the speech from the throne that the government would introduce measures to stabilize farm prices in order to assure farmers a fair share of the national income will, of course, go a long way, if it means what it says or if it means what the Prime Minister said in the election campaign. Here is what he said at Shellbrook on the 19th of April as reported in the Tribune of the 20th of April:
I want to see the farmer protected. The parity we want to introduce would bring a level between prices and costs.
If this is true then I will not only give the government credit but will congratulate them on doing something worth while. But there is one thing I want to point out. No halfway measures will be good enough at this time. Millions and millions of dollars will have to be pumped into the bloodstream of this sick and dying industry to revive it, and there can be no more delay.
In the brief presented to the government by the interprovincial farm union council in August of this year it was clearly pointed out that in the last 18 months farm costs have increased by 16.7 per cent while at the same time the price of wheat went down by 23 cents a bushel. How can any farmer live in the face of these figures? Just last week it was pointed out in the Toronto Telegram that farm cash income turned sharply down in the second quarter of this year.
To stop this there must be prompt and immediate action. The dwindling buying power on the farm is today affecting not only every business establishment in every rural community but the whole business life of the country. Slowly but surely it is dragging down the entire economy.
The government was elected for the purpose of stopping this and to keep the economy on an even keel. It cannot be done by doing just something. There must be full-scale and purposeful action. It must be everything that is humanly possible, and we know what is humanly possible when the almost unlimited resources of this great, rich and wonderful country are put into action by a government. We have learned that during the war. If this is not done, then there is one thing that is certain in my mind and that is, this time there will not be any 22 years of grace.


Mr. R. C. Coates (Cumberland):: It is with deep humility that I rise for the first time to bring to the attention of this house a problem that is of grave concern, not only to my constituents but to all the people of Nova Scotia. May I first express the gratitude of the people of my constituency to this government for the deep concern and prompt action
The Address-Mr. Coates shown by the bringing forth of the $100,000 subvention covering coal from the No. 2 colliery in Springhill. This prompt action prevented what could have been an economic tragedy for 7,000 people in the town of Springhill who are completely dependent upon coal mined from this pit. Let me say further that this $100,000 subvention was not a solution but it was an action which provided the time for the finding of a solution to this problem. The failure to take such action could very easily have turned this progressive community into a ghost town. When I say that the government action was of a temporary nature, I mean just that. This action provided the time necessary for the finding of a solution.
It is my humble opinion that a coal marketing board is the solution to the ills that have befallen the coal industry of Nova Scotia. In Canada we have the Canadian wheat board whose principal job is the marketing of western wheat. As a result of the actions of this board we exported wheat to the tune of $338,216,000 in 1955 and $567,907,000 in 1953. This is a wonderful thing for Canada. We need this money coming into the country. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, is it not unfortunate that in 1955 we were forced to watch $74,453,000, and in 1953, $94,680,000 leave Canada for the United States in payment for bituminous coal, while in the province of Nova Scotia we saw coal mines being closed, whole areas in a depressed state, which were sitting upon millions of tons of the same type of bituminous coal as we imported from the United States. We imported greater quantities of coal than were mined in this country. In 1956 we mined 15,100,000 tons of bituminous coal and imported 19 million tons.
In 1946 a royal commission on coal recommended that the mines of Nova Scotia be mechanized in order to cut production costs. A further study of the coal situation was made by the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. This study indicated that the mechanization has reduced production costs but unfortunately other problems have arisen and are apparent today. With mechanization has come increased production and the owners of the coal mines, through necessity, have had to either sell more coal in order to maintain employment at the mechanization level or to retain production at the pre-mechanization level and employ fewer men. I do not believe I need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, what has happened. Dosco indicated very clearly the road it would take in both Cumberland and Pictou counties. If the commission data is

The Address-Mr. Coates correct, then by 1960, 4,000 miners in Nova Scotia will be thrown out of work and 40,000 people directly affected.
A coal marketing board would do three things. It would keep the mines at full production, thereby lowering production costs still further. It would market the coal, both in Canada and overseas, thereby stopping large sums of money from leaving Canada and bringing much needed money into Canada. This board could also make a close study of the prospects of the gasification of coal, and if feasible, establish such plants. It is my humble opinion that many of the problems facing our coal mining communities would be solved with the establishment of these plants. We would then have not only a use for our coal but the basis for the establishment of industries in communities now entirely dependent on coal.
May I turn now to the speech from the throne, and say how happy I am, as a member from the Atlantic provinces, to realize that at long last a federal government has felt that this area deserved something besides unfilled promises. We in the maritimes have had a great many promises since 1867. We have received promises in every election campaign that has been held, but let me tell you very few have ever been fulfilled. It was very gratifying to a young man from the east, like myself, to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) refer to the maritimes as "these provinces by the sea". It is wonderful to even hear these promises mentioned in the speech from the throne, and it is indeed gratifying to know that some of the things that were studied and pooh-poohed by the former government have come to be realities for the people of these provinces. This represents a new deal for the east. May I say that as a result of this new deal there is a possibility of a reappraisal of a project which in 1867 stood fourth on the list of public projects in Canada. I refer to the Chignecto canal. May I say that with the attention given the necessity for power in the east this Chignecto canal may now become a reality.
May I offer my sincere thanks to the government on behalf of the elder citizens, the blind, the disabled and the veterans. It is indeed gratifying to know that at long last their services have been recognized.
May I now refer to the speech made this morning by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart), who said that we in the maritimes could look forward to nothing except industries that were built on subsidies or dependent upon subventions. In the last house Nova Scotia was represented by only one Conservative, but let me say that today that province is represented by ten Conservatives.


The reason for this change is the fact that the former members from Nova Scotia all had that same idea, namely the idea that we in the maritimes must look to subsidies and subventions. We are not looking for something for nothing. We are not looking for a handout. What we are looking for is recognition to be given, just a little bit of recognition that we have always desired and never received. We have it now and you will see the maritimes come forward and become a part of Canada the equal of Ontario and Quebec.
May I say further to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) that as a young man, I am indeed impressionable and that the speech he made last Friday, under the guise of Canadianism, was one of the worst speeches that any man could make in this house and contained the worst kind of tripe. It was made under the guise of Canadianism but in fact all he was doing was rabble rousing in the province of Quebec and trying to disunite this wonderful, great country of ours that can go so far if united.


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with all the hon. members of the house in extending to the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Mich-ener) my heartiest felicitations and warmest wishes on his appointment as Speaker of the House of Commons in this twenty-third parliament. Everyone realizes, I am quite sure, perhaps even more so than ever before, just how important, how difficult, and sometimes how ungrateful, is the role of Speaker. I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) is to be commended for the excellent choice he made in assigning the hon. member for St. Paul's to this extremely important and responsible position.
The position of Speaker in the house has been referred to on many occasions as the foundation and the cornerstone of our democratic form of government, and the Speaker has been referred to as the guardian of the dignity and the prestige of this venerable house. Although I agree with both those statements, Mr. Speaker, I feel that they reveal only part of the true picture. In practice the dignity and the prestige of the House of Commons rests principally on the sincerity, the good will and the profound sense of responsibility of each member who has the honour of representing a section of the Canadian people in the House of Commons. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the Speaker alone cannot preserve the dignity, the prestige and the effectiveness of this house unless all the members are willing to recognize and to share that responsibility with him.

One of the essential facts which apparently is forgotten sometimes in this house is that the purpose of the house is to discuss and to transact the nation's business in the best interests of the people of Canada and that the House of Commons is not and should not be used as a political platform or stage to further the interests of any one political party by putting on displays on trumped-up or non-existing issues which, of course, always get a good deal of publicity but whose aim is not to enlighten but rather to confuse public opinion. It seems to me that the real problems that face Canada today, whether in the national field or in the wider international sphere, are sufficiently important and sufficiently complicated without confusing them further with small-time political strategies which have never solved a problem in the past but which have been known to destroy the very essence of good and responsible government.
One must read a little bit of history or even again keep in tune with current events in the world today in order to realize that it is actually frightening to see how conveniently there can be compromise for the sake of expedience, how easily liberty can degenerate into licence and how narrow a margin there is between democracy and anarchy. One of the basic responsibilities of your high office, Mr. Speaker, and that of each member of the house, is to assure Canadians of a sound and responsible form of government whose only aim is to serve the best interests of the Canadian people and not those of any one political party. For this reason may I assure you-and I am sure I am speaking for all members on the Liberal side of the house-that, while expressing our point of view as forcibly and as energetically as we can we will do all we can to co-operate with you in the exercise of your functions in your very difficult position and that under no practical considerations, whether political or otherwise, will we act in such a way as to undermine the prestige of the Speaker or jeopardize the dignity of this house.
I should also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) on the excellent manner in which he moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Of course, I am not expected to agree with all of what the hon. member said but at least I appreciate the fine manner in which he expressed himself. I hope we shall have the opportunity of hearing him often taking part in debates in the house.
(Translation):
I also want to commend the hon. member for Bonaventure for so ably seconding the motion on the address in reply to the speech
The Address-Mr. Cardin from the throne. I know that in this house, with its sometimes rather stiff atmosphere, it is somewhat difficult to give a first speech to one's own liking, but I can assure the hon. member that he carried his task out very well.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I also want to congratulate you on your appointment to this very responsible post. I am satisfied that you will carry out your responsibilities with your well-known dignity and talent.
(Text):
Although it is perhaps an established custom in the house to congratulate a newly elected prime minister and the members of his government, I cannot help feeling that it is premature at this time to offer congratulations. As a matter of fact, I would be ill at ease in doing so. Although I have great respect, esteem and even friendship for the Prime Minister and for the members of the government, I am afraid I disagree completely with the line of argument and the tactics used by the Progressive Conservative party in the last electoral campaign in order to win the election. Nor am I convinced that if the Prime Minister were to put into effect all the promises he has made the result would necessarily be a more stable economy or for the general welfare of the Canadian people. Before offering my congratulations I prefer to wait for the result of the government's legislation as reflected in the general economy and welfare of the country.
If the far-reaching and popular-sounding program of the government is successful I shall gladly take my hat off to the government and extend my congratulations. If, however, the Conservative program is not put into execution in a reasonable time or if the results of the program are not successful I shall be confirmed in my present opinion that the speeches and the promises made by the Progressive Conservatives were not made for the general welfare of the Canadian people but for the exclusive welfare of the Progressive Conservative party.
I do not think I will be surprising anyone who has been following politics within the past few years when I say that the plight of the Conservative party was for a long time the cause of great anxiety for many Canadians. The Conservatives had no real political policy or platform upon which they could campaign, and even today they are administering Canada with Liberal policies.
As members of the loyal opposition they offered no real alternative, no real solution to the pressing problems which faced Canada in the last parliament and, if you will recall,
214	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Cardin Mr. Speaker, in the previous parliament they could not find an issue on which to fight an election. So during the last parliament they decided in conjunction with other political parties to create an issue and staged the filibuster on the Emergency Powers Act. And they found that by doing theatricals they secured a great deal more publicity than they could have hoped to gain from their speeches.
In consequence, they were good enough to inform the Liberal government in the following year that on the Trans-Canada pipe line they intended to stage a filibuster such as the house had never previously seen, and they did just that. In the course of the 16 days during which they could have discussed the bill intelligently they in fact impeded discussion on the bill by-


An hon. Member:: By closure.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, by closure. Closure was applied and, if hon. members will recall, the purpose of the opposition at that time was not to discuss the pipe line bill but to stop it and to block it. I agree that the minority in this house has rights, but then so has the majority and if it should come to pass in this house that legislation considered by the majority to be in the interests of the country can be effectively blocked by the minority, then there will no longer be democracy in this chamber.
Even though closure would most likely be applied to us as members of the opposition, if the Prime Minister goes through with the promise he has made to strike the procedure of closure from the rule books he will be opening a wide door to the abuse of the rules and regulations of this house. It will cripple parliament and pave the way for anarchy and on his head will fall the responsibility.
During those black days of the pipe line debate, apart from the speeches and apart from the loud words, apart from the insults and the attacks which were made, there was also a great deal of theatricals. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), with all the pomp and indignation of an exaggerated Shakespearean actor, stalked from the house, according to the script, and on his desk flew a little Union Jack to mark the spot where the supposed hero was supposed to have fallen a victim of an allegedly tyrannical Speaker.
Then, shortly afterwards, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), who is considered to be a bright young man, saw the tremendous publicity potential there was in being a victim of parliament, and not wishing to be outdone by his rival in the race for leadership of the Progressive Conservative party decided he


was going to do things right. So before anything else he invited the members of the press gallery, the photographers, the television men to be in the hall outside the chamber with full lights blazing, so that they would not miss the hon. member for Kamloops as he came marching out of the house.
Some people may consider that to be pretty shrewd politics, Mr. Speaker, but I maintain it is not only unworthy of parliament but is dangerous. The hon. members who were the principal actors in this episode have been paying a great deal of lip service to the rights and prestige of this house. Their very acts not only contradict their words but also prove that they are willing to jeopardize the dignity of this house in order to achieve their aim.
Of course, the relative success of these shenanigans and political histrionics gained for the Conservatives the keynote of their entire political program, the keynote, in fact, of their entire campaign. That program may be summarized very simply: Sensationalism rather than soundness; fanfare rather than facts, and sophistication rather than solutions to national or international problems, with the result that Canada is now endowed with the greatest grandstand government of its history.
Hon. members opposite have been trying to make a very important point from the fact that the opposition will not move a want of confidence motion. Some of us regret that members of the government do not appreciate that the opposition is not only willing but actually anxious to have the government put down in legislative form this fine political manifesto it has been talking about. Of course, there are many reasons why the opposition should not move a motion of no confidence in the government and I daresay that any intelligent political observer knows those reasons. The reason I prefer-the reason I think is closest to the truth-is this: Canada and the Canadian people have been endowed with a generous and well-developed sense of humour and on June 10 they called the present government's bluff. Now we are all waiting to see how long the Conservative government can ride its bicycle with no hands.
Although the Conservative promises may have made very interesting speeches at the election, members of the government will soon find out that words are not enough and that the Canadian people have been accustomed in the past to expect from the government effective action and successful

results. We shall have the opportunity of discussing in great detail all the aspects of the government's program and activities during the months to come.
I would like to mention at least one of the activities which took place during the past few weeks and that, of course, was the commonwealth finance ministers conference at Mont Tremblant on which the Progressive Conservative hopes were so firmly fixed as a way of solving the very real problem of an unfavourable balance of trade with the United States. I can say that we were all very happy that the conference took place in Canada, and that we could be hosts to the finance ministers of the different countries of the commonwealth in the beautiful Canadian setting of Mont Tremblant. However, I have some very serious doubts as to whether we are any closer to a solution to this question of our unfavourable trade balance with the United States than we were before; in fact, I have the distinct feeling that we are further away from a solution, and it seems to me that it would have been perhaps much more successful, and certainly much more enjoyable as a get-together, if there had been no conference at all, and if the ministers had just sat around and had tea.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Or skied.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The United Kingdom proposal of establishing a free trade area with Canada came as somewhat of a shock, not only to the Canadian people but to the Minister of Finance as well. As a matter of fact I doubt very much if he has as yet completely recovered from that shock. The United Kingdom proposal of course certainly pushed the Prime Minister's rather striking suggestion of diverting 15 per cent of our trade from the United States to the United Kingdom right out of the limelight and perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it is just as well that it is so.
It is also perhaps fortunate that the discussion at Mont Tremblant centred around the United Kingdom proposal rather than around the Canadian proposal because now it gives the Prime Minister the opportunity of deciding exactly how he is going to go about diverting the 15 per cent of trade from the United States to the United Kingdom without becoming dictatorial about it and without having to subsidize either directly or indirectly the importers for the disparity in prices, in standardization differences, in costs of production, etc.
There is also no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the declaration of Lord Thorneycroft, who himself announced to the Canadian people the United Kingdom proposal of establishing
The Address-Mr. Cardin a free trade area with Canada, profoundly embarrassed our Minister of Finance. As a matter of fact the minister felt he had to give some explanation of his eloquent silence following Lord Thorneycroft's press release and more particularly, I think, after the minister had read some of the comments and opinions of our leading producers and workers. So, rather sheepishly, the minister made a statement which was reported by Mr. Blakely in the Montreal Gazette on October 10. Mr. Blakely refers to his interview with the Minister of Finance on the talks held at Mont Tremblant and the minister is quoted as saying:
In these talks we have, of course, been mindful at all times of the interests of the Canadian producers in the Canadian market ... I think this (free trade) proposal has been somewhat misunderstood in some quarters ... It will thus be seen that the interests of Canadian producers have not been overlooked and we have no intention of doing anything to prejudice the interest of our own Canadian producers and workmen.
I should certainly hope that the Minister of Finance of Canada would not intentionally do anything that might prejudice the interests of the workers and producers of Canada; and what interests could the minister have in mind other than those of the Canadian producers, the Canadian workers and the general Canadian economy? Surely the Minister of Finance would not jeopardize the economy of Canada to save the face of the Conservative party.


Mr. Stick:: I would not trust him too far.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: There is one last subject about which I feel very strongly and which I wish to bring to the attention of the house; it concerns national unity. The fathers of Confederation realized very early that no province could achieve the full potential of its natural resources and attain a stable economy by itself. Only through effective co-operation with the interdependent economies of the other provinces could the maximum of prosperity be realized by the provinces individually and collectively.
In spite of the fact that some of the wealthier provinces now feel more economically independent and more financially powerful than in 1867, the situation is still exactly the same today. Not one province could afford to be cut off from the economic and social advantages given to it by the British North America Act. On the other hand each province has contributed in making Canada what it is, a relatively prosperous country with an enviable future; but it will be a truly great country only if it is united. It must be united not only constitutionally but morally with a maximum of understanding, co-operation, patriotism, loyalty and kinship among Canadians of all provinces.
216	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Cardin
The greatest statesmen in our short history have striven to achieve this aim and indeed I am proud to state without fear of contradiction that one of the greatest champions of national unity has been and continues to be the leader of my party.
National unity is not only a possible goal but it is one which has been achieved to a very great sense during the last quarter century. There is no longer any real difference in the minds and hearts of true Canadians no matter what their ethnic origin may be. All have the same aspirations, all have the same patriotism and loyalty for Canada and for Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen. There are no second-class citizens in our country; all have equal rights and these are acknowledged and respected by all true Canadians.
The Prime Minister is certainly aware of all this and yet while paying lip service to national unity and pretending to be the great defender of human rights he did not hesitate for one moment for political purposes to play the nine provinces of Canada against the province of Quebec on grounds that had nothing to do with public administration. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister once again placed the interests of the Progressive Conservative party before the general interests and welfare of all Canadians.
Because of the great breadth of our country; because of its history, its economic, geographic and economic differences; because of its rapid industrial expansion which is not felt equally in all provinces, there are bound to be different points of view, different problems and different interests in the various areas of Canada. But none of these need be or are in fact obstacles to national unity as Her Majesty the Queen so eloquently stated in her talk to the Canadian people just about a week ago. In those very true words which the Queen spoke to the Canadian people there was more sound common sense than we have heard from members of the government for a very long time.
Canadians on the west coast are anxious to protect their salmon industry. In Alberta the problem is to exploit natural gas and oil as effectively as possible. In the prairie provinces the disposal of wheat is the major problem. The chief concern of the industrial provinces today is to protect both the producers and the workers. In the maritimes the problem is to protect the coal industry.


Mr. Maclnnis:: We will speak about the coal industry ourselves.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I beg your pardon?


Donald MacInnis: There are enough of us here from the maritimes to take care of a discussion of the problems of the coal industry. You stay in your own province.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, that is unity for you.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: No interference in Nova Scotia.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I think we have just had a classic example of the Progressive Conservative party's broad national outlook.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, these are the problems that face the people in the different provinces of Canada. In Quebec we wish to protect our culture and our rights, to worship as we see fit without being considered as different or apart from any other Canadian. It seems to me that that is not so much to ask. Just as it is in the interests of all Canadians, from an economic point of view, to see to it that the interests, the varied interests, of the various parts of Canada are protected and our respective problems solved, so too is it in the interests of all Canadians, from a democratic and from a human rights point of view, to respect and to protect the fundamental rights and freedom of culture, language and worship, not only of Canadians living in Quebec but of all minority groups living in Canada. Because, Mr. Speaker, without the former you cannot achieve economic stability in our country and without the latter we have not even got a real democracy in Canada. As I say, Mr. Speaker, anyone who disregards these fundamental principles and who is willing to jeopardize national unity for the sake of political advantage is rendering a very poor service indeed to Canada and to Canadians. I may say, also, Mr. Speaker, that in the long run he is not aiding but he is destroying his own political party.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help referring briefly to the visit to Canada of Her Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and of her worthy consort His Royal Highness Prince Philip. For the first time in the history of this country, the opening of parliament was presided over by the gracious Queen of Canada in person.
The opportunity afforded us, on this memorable occasion, of greeting the Queen, in whose person the governmental authority finds such a worthy representative, has been a very great honour for Canada. I am convinced that, throughout the various forms which our greetings took during those days, Her Majesty was conscious not only of the

loyalty of her Canadian people but also of their affection and of the love they were so anxious to show.
I was extremely gratified to be able to represent my constituents at those imposing ceremonies. As the member for Richelieu-Vercheres, I was extremely honoured to have been presented to her Gracious Majesty and I will cherish that memory as long as I live.
As I closely followed the traditional procedures of the opening of parliament and as I observed the innate dignity of the young Queen of Canada, I could not but feel once more that a tradition with its time-honoured splendours is an unappreciable source of cohesion, of strength, of legitimate national pride, of patriotism and of respect for constituted governmental authority.
As she spoke to the Canadian people, a week ago, Her Majesty showed herself to be really the Queen of Canada and of all Canadians.
The eloquent words of our sovereign have, to my mind, been another important step towards that national unity which strengthens the very real existence of this Canadian nation of ours, whose first principle is a deep respect for the culture, traditions and faith of every citizen of this country.
(Text):


Mr. Peter Stefura (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to extend to you my congratulations on being chosen as the first commoner. I would like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne who used words to the effect that the terror one has in making his maiden speech reduces itself to a straight fear when one rises to speak. I sympathize with him. I can assure him today that he has a lot of company in this house.
I also wish to congratulate the seconder, the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault). I shall also take the opportunity at this time to thank the people of the Vegreville constituency for the privilege and the honour they have bestowed upon me for making it possible for me to rise in this house to present their problems and perhaps offer possible solutions.
I am told the tradition has been that a new member usually goes to considerable length in his first speech to describe his constituency. I will try to do this to a lesser degree. The problems that the people are faced with are of prime importance and should be brought to the attention of this house for immediate remedial action. At this time I shall only bring in enough history and statistics so that one may understand more
The Address-Mr. Stefura clearly the problems of my constituents and their possible solution and also so that he may be able to see more clearly the errors, the lack of appreciation on the part of our former government and the injustices that some of those people have received.
The Vegreville constituency is an agricultural area. Its history is new. In the same way that Canada is a young nation among nations the history of the Vegreville constituency is young as compared with that of other parts of Canada. Before 1890 very few white people knew its terrain or very much about it. There was the odd cattle ranch in the area that grew grass but, however, the biggest portion was very heavily wooded with timber and bush and was of no commercial value. To this wilderness came the first settler. In many instances it was necessary to cut some of the bush to make room for a little eight by ten shack because the only clearing was a slough or a bog. There were no roads or bridges nor any of the modern tools or equipment that one would consider an absolute necessity before going into a wilderness today.
The first settlers were of Anglo-Saxon origin, the English, the Scots, the Irish; the hardy people first settled in the Beaver lake area and as more of them came in, they settled in the Vegreville, Lamont, Manville, Andrew, Mindburn areas. The odd one, of course, took scattered holdings throughout. We then had a few French and German settlers arrive in the territory. They took up holdings not too far away from those who were already settled.
When the immigration policies of this country were changed to encourage more settlement and development in the new territories there was an influx of immigrants mostly from the central European countries which began about 1897. The Ukrainian people came in, the Polish people and, of course, more German people. Practically every European country was represented. The first Ukrainian settler who came to this country, Mr. Wasyl Elenik, who lived practically all his life since coming to this country in the Vegreville constituency is today buried in a small village that I call my home town of Chipman.
Today about 80 per cent of the people are of Ukrainian origin, of which I am also a descendant. We have never had any integration problems. There appears to be an unwritten law that is followed by practically all the people, a law that says more or less: I am proud of my nationality, I am proud of my church but I honour and highly respect the other man's nationality and the other man's church.

The Address-Mr. Stefura
Perhaps with the conditions under which they first began they could not afford otherwise. Today they are all proud to be Canadians, proud of the fact that they can enjoy the freedom and the privileges of this country, proud also of the fact that they went into a wilderness not too long ago and within their own lifetime have developed that wilderness into an area that is as fine an agricultural area as we have in this country.
It was not an easy task. They had no capital and in many cases they had little more than a strong back and a couple of strong arms. The process was slow and tedious. Their health today is perhaps not what it would have been had they chosen an easier life, but then again this country might not have been as prosperous as it is today had they decided to do so. This does not apply only to the pioneers and senior citizens of Vegreville constituency but also applies to a greater or lesser degree to all our senior citizens. If it were not for their hard work, their courage, their clear thinking we might be doing business today in the terms in which this country was doing business at the turn of the century instead of having a gross national product of over $30 billion.
It is, therefore, only fitting and proper that our government should give our senior citizens the consideration they are entitled to. When the government brings before the house its proposed legislation on old age pensions we trust that the amount will be at least $60 per month per person and that where there is need there should be an additional $20 if it is matched by the provinces.
In 1949 when old age pensions were raised to $40 a month our gross national product was approximately $16J billion. Today it is over $30 billion. It would be no more difficult for the government to pay $60 today than it was to pay $40 per month in 1949. Our senior citizens should not live in want or anxiety.
The Vegreville constituency is an agricultural area. In it I believe we have as fine and as productive land as there is in the country, bar none. With the exception of the brown soils found in the southern part of the province, we have every other type of soil found in the province, all of different productive capacities. This, coupled with the fact that most of the holdings are small, makes it urgent that government policies be more flexible to meet and face conditions as they actually are, rather than to formulate policies that they believe or think should exist under these conditions.
We do not have the really large farms that we find in the southern part of the province or in Saskatchewan, but what we call the larger farmers in my constituency, are faced with problems very similar to those faced by


the large farmers of southern Alberta and Saskatchewan. Therefore I repeat, that the urgency is there.
I do not want to bore you with too many statistics at this time, but I should like to mention briefly what has happened to the agricultural industry. From 1951 to 1954 net farm income was cut almost in half, about 45 per cent. The situation since then has improved only slightly. In a lot of cases some of the farm people have been forced to live off depreciation. I would ask you, sir, what would the situation be in this country if other industries were forced to take a similar cut? What would be the situation if labour had been asked to take a 45 per cent cut in salary?
I would ask the ministers and the other members of the house to place themselves in a similar position and in similar circumstances where the prospects of improvement were not too bright and definitely very slow in coming. If there were a power above, that through its bungling and its policies or lack of policies, forced the ministers to take a 45 per cent cut in their salaries, if such a power were to force the members of the house who say the farmers want to be coddled or want hand-outs to take a cut in their salaries in similar proportions, I am sure that the heated accusations I heard thrown across the floor of the house by former ministers and some of the present ministers would seem like a Sunday school picnic. I am also certain that they would do enough hollering and raise enough of a ruckus to be heard in the high heavens. Yet a lot of people expect the farmers to accept such a condition and say nothing about it.
I am happy to see in the speech from the throne that the government has suggested it will introduce remedial legislation this session. To these measures we will be giving our support but we reserve the right to criticize constructively and, yes, to criticize severely if the legislation is too slow in bringing about action or is insufficient to assure the maximum stability of income to Canadian farmers and to re-establish their rightful place in our economy.
In the Vegreville constituency roughly 90 per cent of the people are dependent either directly or indirectly on the agricultural industry. When that industry was set back, through no fault of its own it affected every other business there. It affected the merchants, the fuel dealers, the implement dealers and so on right down the line. Some of these businessmen have told me that their sales have been reduced by about 20 per cent and in some instances by almost 30 per cent. They have extended credit to the limit and can go no further. In turn, they are being pressed by their creditors. It is not a healthy

situation, nor is it one that should exist when the rest of our economy is enjoying a much higher level of prosperity.
The tendency has been to lay the blame on the farmer. This is something I most heartily disagree with, and I again ask the house, Mr. Speaker, is it the fault of the farmer who has produced the food that the people of the world require or is it the fault of statesmen who have failed to keep pace with the scientific and technical knowledge of our age? Science has given the farmers knowledge, has given them more modern tools and equipment in order that they may be able to produce more efficiently, whereas our government's policies are still in the horse and buggy days.
The farm people have been told by the Food and Agricultural Organization founded at Hot Springs, in which Canada has representatives, that farmers must grow more food if the people of the world are to be fed. They must grow almost two blades of grass where one grew before. They must increase the production of cereals such as wheat, rice and the like by at least 50 per cent. They are also told that the world wheat supply on hand is only enough to last about three months if the people who so desperately need it were able to get it. Two out of three people go to bed hungry every day.
Our governments in the past have talked of surpluses. It has been said that the reason prices have dropped and the farmer finds himself in economic straits at this time is that he has overproduced. When the question was raised at the Food and Agricultural Organization, can modern agriculture supply the real need of human beings for food, the answer given them was yes, if the hobbles are taken off agriculture. What of the surpluses, it was asked. There are none, said the delegates. What had been called surpluses were surpluses only in relation to purchasing power and not in relation to the need of human beings.
Full production must be the goal so long as there are people anywhere in the world who are in need of food.
This idea did not have the support of the former government, as was made quite clear by the former prime minister in a speech at Regina some months ago. His message was quite clear. Wheat should not be produced, he said in effect, in excess of what could be sold in the ordinary course of business. If more were produced, then the farmer himself would be the chief offender. I have noted that according to the press there may be a slight inclination on the part of the present government to follow the same policy. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) stated a short time ago that farmers should produce less wheat or perhaps
The Address-Mr. Stefura convert it into livestock. This, in effect, would simply mean that the farmer would be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.
The farmers and businessmen are not the only ones who are adversely affected by a depressed agricultural industry. Farm people, and others as well, find it difficult to meet their everyday obligations. They find it difficult to meet their hospital bills and doctor bills, and the hospitals are also running into difficulties that should not exist. Some of these problems may mean the difference between life and death to some of our people, but I hope such a situation will never arise. Perhaps I should mention at this time that the first hospital was built in the Vegreville constituency through the kindness and generosity of the United Church and some of the local settlers shortly after the first settlers arrived. Today there are two hospitals, one of which has grown to be quite an institution. I am speaking, of course, of the Archer Memorial Hospital at Lamont. It is an institution of which the local people, as well as many outside the constituency, are very proud. I might mention that again, within the space of not too many years, the doctors of this country have seen fit to choose a fine man from this hospital, Dr. M. A. R. Young, as the president of the Canadian Medical Association.
We have some other fine hospitals that are being operated by the Catholic churches and nursing orders. Some are municipal hospitals, but all of them are doing a wonderful job. Practically all of them are running into financial difficulties because of the inflationary trend in our economy and the depressed position of our agricultural industry.
I regret very much that there was no mention in the speech from the throne of a health program. The highly flaunted national health scheme, proposed by the previous administration, apparently has been sidetracked by the present administration. Does this mean that the Canadian people must wait for several years before they have a workable health program?
There is mention in the speech from the throne of certain changes in some of the taxation statutes, and of a federal-provincial conference to discuss fiscal relations as well as to seek a better understanding or arrangement of many aspects of public finance. As a former reeve of a rural municipality and a councillor today, I can well appreciate the many problems that face the junior levels of government across Canada. Changes will indeed be welcome. When we find that people are taxed in some cases beyond their ability to pay their municipal taxes; when we find

The Address-Mr. Stefura the people paying six times the amount of their municipal taxes to the federal government through direct and hidden taxes, certain changes are long overdue. When we find that almost 25 cents out of every dollar the people earn must go to taxes, we begin to wonder how much farther we can go. The exorbitant amounts that the people of Canada pay to the federal treasury through hidden taxes is one of the major causes of the inflationary trend in our economy. I trust that the present administration will propose legislation at this session to rectify this unfair situation.
It was with a great deal of interest that I read the interprovincial farm union's brief of August 15, as presented to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and members of the cabinet, and found that Canada had lost approximately 48,000 farm units. It was with a great deal of interest also that I listened to the questions on the orders of the day and to the debate in committee of supply last week concerning the seriousness of our unemployment situation. It was most interesting because I found that Vegreville constituency, according to the 1956 census, had lost approximately 4,600 people as compared with the 1951 census figures. Last fall we lost a few more. This year a large portion of the Vegreville riding has had poor crops, and the result will be a loss of many more people. These figures do not include the many people who put in their crops and then were forced to supplement their farm income by seeking employment in other industries in Edmonton, Fort Saskatchewan or in the oil fields. Should the present condition of agriculture continue then the trend towards unemployment will become worse.
This brings to my mind the unfairness of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. In areas where there has been a crop failure-and as I said we will have a fair-sized area in this situation in my riding this year

and it becomes necessary for the farmer to seek other temporary employment to keep his family, we find he does not qualify for prairie farm assistance. Even though these conditions exist, nevertheless he must make his contributions under the act from every bushel of grain he sells. The inconsistency in the act is most unfair. There are other stipulations also which make the unfairness particularly noticeable where the farm units are small.
The interprovincial farm union council has brought out quite well the factors that have contributed to the present emergency. I trust that I may have the privilege of speaking on the subjects of cash advances, the two-price system for wheat and others as they are

brought before this house. I would ask that the government bring these forward at the first opportunity.
I have before me a clipping from the Toronto Globe and Mail. The headline reads, "P.C.'s Action to Match Party's Vote Pledges Says Confident Prime Minister". In one part of the article it is stated that he again made it abundantly clear he expected the cooperation of opposition parties during the session to carry out his government's legislative program for the benefit of all Canada. I have here as well a folder entitled "Progressive Conservative Agricultural Policy", with its thirteen points. On it there appears to be a reproduction of the Prime Minister's signature. I can say to the Prime Minister that I will be giving not only my fullest cooperation, but should the government forget these promises to the Canadian farmers to re-establish them to their rightful position in our economy I may remind him from time to time of those promises. Perhaps on some other day, Mr. Speaker, I shall be able to speak again.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in rising for the first time in this house to take part in the debates, may I congratulate the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) and seconder (Mr. Arsenault) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They acquitted themselves in a manner that speaks well for their constituencies and assures them of a healthy future in this house. May I also congratulate you, sir, on your elevation to your high office.
The constituency that I have the honour to represent lies in the southeastern part of Manitoba.
Its people are from almost every national origin, and they live and work together in the true spirit of Canadianism. Whether they be Mennonite or Ukrainian, French or British, Scandinavian or Polish, they have all made their contribution to the social, cultural and economic life of that part of Canada.
The progress that has been made in that constituency is characteristic of its people. The free enterprise philosophy that has built the town of Steinbach is in contrast to the co-operative philosophy of the people of Altona. Both are thriving communities, and both have developed industries that do business all over Canada.
The French-speaking Canadians have blended their culture and planning into such communities as St. Pierre, St. Malo, and St. Jean Baptiste while the people of hardy Ukrainian stock, despite many hardships, have thrived.

Although its products are varied, ranging from special crops to lumber, this is an agricultural constituency, and its economic destiny depends on the farm. The farmers in Provencher, like the farmers everywhere in Canada, have been caught in the giant squeeze, and recently many sad changes have taken place. Not since the thirties have we seen the awful spectacle of abandoned farms. But last year, they began to appear again. My constituency has suffered heavy losses due to excessive rains during the past few years, and some of the municipalities are in dire need of some form of assistance.
Having said this, and remembering the tragic flood of 1950, it may sound strange to say that one of the major drawbacks to the establishment of industry is the lack of a sufficient potable water supply. The people of this area are concerned to the extent that they have taken steps to plan for a water system throughout the area. This program, when it gets under way, will pay for itself, but assistance will be needed to get it started, and for that assistance I am sure we can depend upon the co-operation of the Department of Agriculture.
Being a farmer it is only natural that I am concerned about the future of agriculture, and I propose to deal with the problem in general terms because I feel that the situation is a general one. There are certain fundamental things that must be preserved, and I believe they could have been preserved had the necessary policies been implemented in time. I am afraid that some of the measures that must be taken now may conflict with a long-range policy. This is regrettable but, under the circumstances, necessary. Our objective should be to create an atmosphere that will enable the farmer to compete with the rest of the economy, and not to place him in the position where he becomes a permanent ward of the government.
The problem with regard to agriculture is many pronged. Frequently I feel that in talking of the "problem" there is a tendency to forget that we are talking about the lives and destinies of men and women and that instead we are talking about economic factors, about pawns in the broad sweep of the development of Canada's resources.
But then we have in the alternative those who talk about agriculture only with tears streaming down their faces, those who damage our case for an equitable deal by overselling. The very natural reaction to a speech that indicates that all farmers are desperate, and indeed hungry, is that the situation cannot be that bad. The reaction is to reject even the legitimate claims of our farming industry in both the east and the west.
The Address-Mr. Jorgenson
Mr. Speaker, I have not risen here in order to make extravagant demands for agriculture. But I will say soberly and sincerely that our farmers are missing out on the boom, that they are failing and, indeed, for a number of years have failed to share in the prosperity that has marked this nation.
I believe that I can say with the utmost confidence that the eyes of the farmers of Canada are turned toward this parliament. They know what we should know, namely that a depressed agriculture slows the economic heart beat of the nation. They know that the farms of any nation are the rearing grounds for those who go on to accomplish great things in their nation; and they know, as we must know, that if we allow the economic and social plant of this nation to wither we shall be responsible for the slowing of the cultural as well as the economic growth of Canada.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Speaker, when the house arose at six o'clock I was saying that this government could not allow the economic and social plant of our farmers to wither, for to do so would be to endanger the cultural and economic growth of Canada.
I do not wish to labour these points, but I do wish to make it clear that in my view there is an even higher claim than the claim of equity for agriculture which should dictate our policies here, and that is the claim that only in a truly secure and stable agriculture can the continuing growth of a great nation be assured.
Food surpluses, and especially wheat surpluses are very much discussed today. The system of cash advances on farm-stored grain that is being proposed to this assembly will take much of the sting from this surplus situation. And I believe that the long-run policies of this government and a measure of true leadership in agriculture will finally deal with this problem.
It is roundly predicted that some shift out of wheat acreage will serve merely to remove our surplus problem to other farm products. In part this may prove to be true. But I am quite satisfied that the problem of surpluses will never be solved without an effort, and if it does result in the need for some adjustments I am sure they can be made.
But surpluses are not a problem in all parts of Canada or, indeed, in all sections of the

The Address-Mr. Jorgenson prairie provinces. The one thing that farmers have in common across Canada is high production costs. Production costs are high only relatively to the prices of the products that a farmer has to sell. As far as the man on the land is concerned, this can be attacked from either end-prices can go up or production costs can come down. But as long as both continue at their present level the farmer is squeezed, and squeezed almost beyond economic endurance.
It should be clear by now that agriculture in this country has never been a prosperous industry. There have been short bursts of relative prosperity. For a short interval at the end of world war I the relationship of costs and returns was favourable to the farmer. After the end of world war II and especially around 1951, on the prairies at least, we knew a brief respite from economic pressure on our farms. But let us make no mistake: the normal destiny of a farmer in Canada is to know more of depression than of prosperity.
We have perhaps been prone to assume that this is inevitable. Certainly policies that now exist do not grapple with the fundamental sickness of the farm economy. Indeed one of the primary reasons we are in power as a government and the previous government is not is because the problem of the farmer has not been dealt with.
Why has it never been resolved? I believe I would be safe in saying that it has never really been confronted. It has never been grappled with because, in the counsels of government, the consumer point of view- the view that food should be cheap-has prevailed. The hard fact is that the people of Canada are buying their food for less than the cost of production; the people of Canada are being subsidized by the farmers of Canada, the one economic group that is least able to afford to subsidize anyone.
Where is this money for the subsidization of the consuming public coming from? Farmers are borrowing it from the brief spurt of prosperity they enjoyed in the early 1950's. For a short period farmers were able to invest rather heavily in capital goods. Indeed it was essential that they should replace the worn out machinery of the 1930's and during the war years and since millions of dollars have been invested in machinery alone. Now this investment has slumped; farmers are not purchasing capital goods to the same extent, nor are they setting money aside in a depreciation account to replace the machinery as it wears out.
Farmers are wearing out their capital assets without arranging for a capital fund to equal the wear, a process which the economists


would refer to as net disinvestment. Their farms, in effect, are becoming worth less. And they are doing this, unwittingly and unwillingly, in order that they may subsidize the Canadian consumers.
Is such a situation desirable? A case could be made in its favour; in my view it would be a false case, but there are those who might sincerely support it. The fact is that cheap food is a benefit to 85 per cent of the people in Canada, the non-farming public. I can very well see that a consumers' point of view might prevail; and I can certainly see where powerful production forces might well think it desirable from an economic viewpoint that food for the immense labour force in Canada should be cheap. In the final analysis, cheap food presumably means that the earnings of labour will go further in providing a decent standard of living, and the cost of production of many goods may be reduced.
The gain to the economy when that gain is based on a low standard of living for the farmers in the economy is an entirely false gain. The farmers cannot be expected to underwrite the prosperity of the nation; if we must have cheap food then it must be by design, not by exploitation.
Under a laissez faire government, the standard of living of the farm community will for most of the time be low. This lesson has been harshly learned in the past half century in Canada. The competitive position of agriculture is weak. There is free competition between farm producers. Farmers are numerically weak and small in number. I believe it can be categorically stated that if the government stands idly by the relative position of the farmer will deteriorate further rather than improve.
What, then, is the solution to the difficult and pressing needs of the farmers. The solution, ultimately, must be government intervention

policies that will weigh the economy slightly in the farmers' favour, that will correct the imbalance that now exists and equate the real farm income position with the income of other segments of our prosperous economy. Thinking will have to be in terms of short-run policies and long-run policies.
At the moment the need for cash in the farm communities is critical. I would hesitate to suggest that the net income position of the western farmer is worse than that of the eastern farmer, but the western farmer has been unable to convert a substantial part of his net income into cash income. In other words, bins are flooding with unsold grain. The cash advance policy that this government has introduced will convert, at least, part of

this net income into cash, and in this way the western farmer, in terms of spendable income, will be brought to a position parallel with that of farmers in other parts of Canada.
That is a short-run policy for the western prairie producer. But agriculture across Canada is in a strained position, and, as I have pointed out, farmers are subsidizing the remainder of the consuming public. I am confident that no consumer in Toronto or Vancouver, in Winnipeg or in Montreal, in Edmonton or in Halifax would knowingly visit a low standard of living upon the men and women who produce their milk and their bread, their butter and their eggs. They sincerely fail to realize that the price they pay falls short of covering the cost of producing this food. If they ever came to realize it fully I am sure they would willingly pay the real costs.
I believe price supports must be raised to the point that will, in the short run, give a farmer the cost of producing the food he sells, plus a reasonable return. I think that if this is done with adequate explanation to the consuming public they will agree that it is just.
Grains are, of course, a special case. A minimum floor price-the initial payment- must be maintained. But when we come to the perishable foods that are consumed primarily upon the domestic market, then clearly the full production cost must be met.
Hon. members may tell me that we will arrive at incentive prices; that great surpluses will appear in meat and butter and the other alternatives to the small grains. To this I can only reply that we must put our salesmen out and try to sell our production and try to find new uses for our land in the growing of new crops and produce and the selling of as diverse a package as is humanly possible. If in spite of all this some surpluses do appear we will have to deal with the problems as they arise.
We have problems now. The problems that some already visualize will simply be of another form and, presumably, will be at least as susceptible to solution as the difficulties that now exist with regard to small grains.
I also think I should point out that an increase in the production of livestock anywhere in Canada would be made at the expense of the small grains. Land resources are limited, and increased herds of cattle or hogs, or bigger flocks of sheep or poultry anywhere in Canada would be made at the expense of prairie wheat acres. So although we might face some possibility of an increase
The Address-Mr. Jorgenson in supplies of some of the protective foods, it would almost inevitably be made at the expense of some wheat acres.
The longer term policies for agriculture are the great challenge. May I quote from an article written by Mr. Ralph Hedlin, an agricultural economist which appeared in a recent issue of The Country Guide, a statement which I think sums up the needs of our industry:
Agriculture can never be legislated or subsidized into a position of secure economic equality, at least without fundamental changes in the national farm plan and in national consumer attitudes. In the long run, the land in Canada must produce the food that is wanted by the people of Canada, and the people of Canada must be prepared to pay a reasonable price for it.
Consumers must be prepared to pay a reasonable price for farm products, a price which at the same time will be economic. But farmers must be in a position where they can hold down the cost of producing through the use of the most effective and modem devices. At the moment many of us cannot use such devices because we lack the essential capital.
In the short run we need income assistance, but in the long run we need reasonable prices, good markets and capital resources that will permit us to help ourselves. In the interim this will mean creative government policies and assistance.
I do not propose today to deal with the long-term policies in exhaustive detail because I hope opportunities may exist for further discussion at a later date. However, I do wish to outline some of the policies that are of first importance.
A realistic credit policy is a pressing need. A program of the general type of the Veterans' Land Act would be of great assistance to Canadian farmers. I do not believe I am giving credit where it is not due when I say that this program has been eminently successful. It has provided the farmer with a qualified consultative service on his production problems and the organizing of his farm enterprises and has also provided him with the capital at reasonable interest rates for making his new projects efficient. An extensive credit program along these lines would be of immense value to Canadian agriculture.
Crop insurance should be examined in detail. Price supports will provide income for those who produce but an actuarially sound crop insurance program would meet the critical needs of those who through no fault of their own suffer a crop failure. Many such people find themselves in the position of needing relief. I believe that a well qualified royal commission should be named to

The Address-Mr. Jorgenson quickly and completely examine the economic possibilities of starting a farm production insurance program, perhaps initially with modest coverage and on a modest scale. With even modest assistance to production and prices the destitution prevalent in the agricultural industry today could be alleviated and perhaps eventually avoided.
Marketing research should also be increased. It is my earnest hope that when the commission on price spreads is named it will have something of value to say on this subject. Admittedly marketing research is not directly related to price spreads as such but the whole question of farm marketing might fall under their scrutiny; this certainly would be my hope.
This government must also consider new markets and new products. If necessary the agricultural attaches at our embassies should be increased in number and markets for our farm products should be sought in the four corners of the world. If we find any new markets for products that we do not grow, our market specialists and researchers should co-operate to devise strains that can be grown in Canada and marketed from our farms at advantageous prices.
This government should co-operate closely with extension agencies in the provinces. I fully realize that extension is under the authority of the provinces according to the provisions of the British North America Act but we can at least co-operate in helping farmers to combine their undertakings more effectively.
One point which should have been clear long ago is that a really effective farm extension policy will have to wait for the organization of larger local units of administration in a number of the provinces. In Manitoba and in Saskatchewan, for example, we have small nine-township municipalities. It is too small an area for most types of administration and much too small for the proper organization at the local level of a really effective farm program.
There are many points with which I have not dealt in any detail, if at all. Producermarketing boards should receive every encouragement from the government. Agricultural research and agricultural education are vital and co-operation with the provinces in these fields should be invited. The annual farm conference should be a real planning conference and farm leaders should return from it fully conversant with the production needs of their industry. Farm leaders and farm organizations both should be invited to co-operate with the government in designing farsighted policies.


The farm industry is essential to the health of this nation. It is not healthy itself at this time and therefore cannot transmit to the rest of the nation that which it lacks. I ask nothing for agriculture that I do not think is vital to the continued well-being of the entire nation. We cannot build a strong economy on a weak foundation. Agriculture is one of the cornerstones of our economy. A powerful structure cannot be built upon an ailing cornerstone.
The needs of agriculture should be of concern to every person in this country. I am not pleading only for the agriculturists of Canada, I am pleading for the well-being of the entire nation; therefore I say a farm policy which accomplishes the relative prosperity of our farm community is one of the really pressing needs of Canada and one of the grave responsibilities of this government.


Mr. Ovide Lailamme (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I would like to join with those hon. members who have preceded me in offering my sincere congratulations to the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) on his good performance in delivering his speech. I wish him good luck. I think his constituents must be happy about the able way he delivered his first speech in this chamber.
May I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I fully concur in what has been said by all hon. members who have extended congratulations to you on your election as Speaker of the House of Commons.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, at the outset of the few remarks I propose to make, I feel I should thank my constituents for the marvellous support they have once more given me and for the confidence they have shown in the Liberal party, at the general election, last June 10. Having been returned with close to 80 per cent of the vote in my county, I think I can say that my constituents have brought to the Liberal cause vigorous support and keen interest. This also means, I think, that they have approved the measures adopted by the last parliament.
During the sessions of the last parliament, of which I was a member, that is since January 10, 1956, I had occasion to raise a few problems with regard to which the people I represent would like some concrete action on the part of the government. I have already urged amendments to the personal income tax legislation for farmers who operate their farm on a family basis. I raise this problem once more, even though I now find myself sitting in opposition.

In my opinion the demands of the various local groups of the Catholic Farmers' Union throughout the province of Quebec, in this regard, are perfectly fair and reasonable. They should meet with favourable response from the government. I have more particularly in mind at this point the formula used for calculating the revenue of a farmer who operates his farm with his sons. This work done in common is such that, to my mind, the total revenue of a farm, under those conditions, cannot properly be charged to the head of the family alone, whether the children have been paid in money or otherwise since, in the final analysis, the farm becomes the property of the whole family.
At the last session of parliament I also raised in this house the question of decentralizing the unemployment insurance offices, and here I want to congratulate my colleagues the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Landry) and the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin) for their remarks in that sense. The purpose of such decentralization would be to put the offices within easier reach of the unemployed and to facilitate the quick processing of their claims. At that time I had pointed out, and I repeat it today, that the unemployed is in urgent need of money and should not be forced to cover great distances to reach the unemployment office in order to submit his claim.
The decentralization of unemployment insurance offices is closely related to the essential purpose of the act which created the commission, that is to say, assistance to the unemployed while seeking a new job, especially assistance to relieve seasonal unemployment which exists particularly in areas such as the one I represent. I am convinced that such improvements can be brought about without further increasing the burden of administrative costs of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I also wish to point out to the house the fact that there is at this time in my constituency, as in various centres throughout the country a considerable number of workers who will not be able to find sufficient work to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits, even seasonal benefits during the coming winter. In this regard I do wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) to this problem so that the regulations for the application of the act be amended in order to allow unemployed people greater facility in qualifying for seasonal benefits.
Mr. Speaker, under present regulations, an unemployed person cannot benefit unless he has fifteen weeks worth of stamps in his book since the month of March before his 96698-15
The Address-Mr. Laflamme application. At the present time there are -and this is something which has never happened before to my knowledge-a great number of people in my riding who have not worked for more than six months in a single year, and I doubt very much that they will be able to find work before next spring.
The Unemployment Insurance Act should, to my mind, be continually readjusted to meet the present needs and those of the immediate future. I therefore think I am speaking for many of my fellow citizens when I say that if seasonal benefits are not made more accessible, a large proportion of Canadian workers will, apart from being unemployed in winter -which is already the case of quite a number -be barred from all help.
About this very matter of unemployment, I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the motion of non-confidence tabled by the Socialist group of this house, upbraiding the present government for its failure to apply the necessary measures with regard to unemployment. Allow me to say, Mr. Speaker, that I consider this motion on the part of the Socialist group as mere publicity, at this stage, because it does not agree with the statement made by the leader of the Socialist group, on the day following the last elections, when he said that the Conservative party should be given the opportunity of running the country for a certain time.
Now, two days only after the opening of the present session, the Socialist party propose an amendment liable to involve the dissolution of parliament and consequently, a new general election. I would therefore ask the Socialists whether they are not actually bracing themselves for another electoral campaign or, at least, if they do not admit that their amendment would prevent the house from sitting and enacting the necessary legislation.
That is why I say that the statements made by the leader of the CCF party, in the wake of the last election, and his deeds and gestures are in fact contradictory and can but serve a publicity purpose.
Like all my colleagues in the opposition, Mr. Speaker, I have heard the numerous promises of the Conservative party concerning tax cuts; considering that it would be difficult for the Conservative party not to make good on at least some of these promises, I would like to suggest that all school and university fees be made deductible and that the law be amended so that school teachers, whose salary is below $3,000 in the case of bachelors and below $5,000 in the case of married people, be totally exempted from income tax. In my opinion, this would provide the government,

The Address-Mr. Laflamme under the constitution, with means to help the education and instruction of our youth and would also, on the one hand, encourage parents to give their children a higher education and, on the other hand, would promote the recruiting of teachers throughout the country.
I have followed with interest, Mr. Speaker, the last campaign of the Conservative party and I have also found that the spokesman of that political party expressed different opinions according to the place where the said opinions were voiced. We all know the result of the last general election which was, in my opinion, a direct consequence of that double thinking of the Conservative party which does destroy the very foundations of national unity, a goal which has always been and still is one of the fundamental objectives of the policies of the party I support.
I have been shocked, as were several others, by certain statements made by Mr. Alvin Hamilton, of Saskatoon, leader of the Conservative party of the province, when he said, during last election campaign-repeating by the way, what had been said by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) that the government of the country could be made up and did not need Quebec to govern. And while the Conservatives were boasting that they are the confederation party, which had as its essential aims the union of the two great racial groups composing the nation, they were jeopardizing this union which is essential to the development of our country. This conservative thinking was again exemplified in the political pamphlets distributed even in the province of Quebec, and representing 26 important figures of the Conservative party, among whom we cannot find one single Canadian of French origin belonging to a group which includes nevertheless one-third of the population of our country. This provocating attitude of the Conservative party is again confirmed by the formation of the present cabinet with only a token representation of French-speaking members.
It is an insult to five million Canadians, and all the flattering speeches made by Conservatives for Quebec consumption have nothing in common with reality.
I wish to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the hon. member from Parkdale (Mr. Maloney) to whom I listened carefully this afternoon, for the wonderful statements he made to this end, and, as all the hon. members in this house, I look forward to the time when the Conservative party translates all its fine ideas into action.

The best and finest years of harmony and economic expansion Canadians have known have been under the Liberal governments which have always based their fate upon the undeniable fact that Canada is a great country, because two important racial groups had decided in 1867, to work together to the composition and development of our country as a nation.
Those who, among French-speaking Conservatives, have accepted to play a token part in the present government, are acting detrimentally, to my mind, not only to their fellow citizens but to their own party, which is guilty of more than refusing to work for national unity. When in 1930 the Conservative party came into power, it was with the support of a good majority of the people of Quebec; but since 1935, the Liberal party has obtained majorities not only in Quebec but in nearly all provinces. The formation of the present cabinet constitutes a major insult to our whole history and a humiliating blow against a third of our population. This we will never forget.
I condemn the Conservative theory under which the Prime Minister himself (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) say to the province of Quebec: give us more members and you will have more ministers. Accepting such an understanding would be extremely humiliating and would go against our democratic freedoms, for, until now, all members of this house have been chosen by the will of the people, and whatever their number, no government may commit any grave discrimination with regard to a racial group in this country.
We must keep in mind that our country has a dual ethnical character and to put an end to proportional representation within the cabinet would gravely affect national unity. The present Conservative government had some members of French origin elected in other provinces of Canada, but none of them were actually asked to join the government. Moreover, supposing a larger Conservative representation from Quebec would bring about a more numerous representation within the cabinet, it must nevertheless be kept in mind that, as all ministerial posts are filled, what would the Prime Minister do in case of the re-election of all his ministers, if he wanted to find portfolios in order to give the French element a larger representation on the morrow of the next election? In any event, I repeat, every important post has been filled. My objections have regard both to the prominence of those posts and to the number of French-speaking Conservative representatives in the cabinet. The statements made by the Prime Minister and by his Minister of Justice

are very unfortunate indeed. This type of tactics can only be interpreted by the people of Quebec as meaning: "Vote Conservative and then we will recognize you."
Of the three Progressive Conservative members who were returned from the Prime Minister's own province, two have been appointed to the cabinet. Seven Progressive Conservative members were returned from British Columbia, of which three were appointed to the cabinet. I fail to see how the same argument cannot hold true for the province from which I come.
Mr. Speaker, in closing these few remarks I simply wish to say that I was quite impressed by the attitude taken by the member for Parkdale and the member for Timmins (Mr. Martin).


Léon Balcer: A good lesson for you.


Mr. Lallamme:: Mr. Speaker, the lesson has been taught the Conservatives for the past twenty years, that is to say the Liberals have been teaching the Conservatives a lesson in bilingualism for twenty years.
I merely wanted to tell the house how gratifying it was to me to see that two representatives of different parties in this house took the trouble of expressing themselves in both official languages of this country, and I congratulate them sincerely. Their gesture was a commendable one, which should be repeated. Such a gesture was started and stressed, as it will be in the future, by the party to which I belong, the Liberal party.
(Text) :


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, as the constituency of Prince Albert adjoins Mackenzie for about 150 miles I should like to say to my next door neighbour, congratulations on the splendid achievement of June 10. I have known the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) longer than most members of the house. When I knew him years ago he was a very well known criminal lawyer in Saskatchewan. During the time he has been interested in politics I have seen his party led by Messrs. Bennett, Manion, Hanson, Meighen, Bracken and Drew. The present Prime Minister is the seventh and had he not had long experience as a criminal lawyer I am sure it would not have been possible for him to take the leadership of the Conservative party and become Prime Minister. In my view he has performed a great public service 96698-15i
The Address-Mr. Nicholson in having demonstrated to the Canadian people that they could get rid of a government that had lost touch with the people.
After listening to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) the other day, it appears as if it has become established now that there is really no fundamental difference between the members on the government side now and the official opposition sitting on this side. We will look forward to establishing the right to become the alternative to the present government when, as the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schulz) said, the people will not be prepared to give them 22 years to look after the affairs of the country.
I was interested in the speeches delivered by the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) and the seconder (Mr. Arsenault) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I cannot recall any other first two speakers in such a debate admitting that Canada had a serious agricultural crisis. They should be commended for facing up to that fact at the very first opportunity. The hon. member for Calgary South comes to parliament with a name that is highly regarded here. During the time I have been here very few members have had as many good friends and as few enemies as his father had, and I am very glad to hear the hon. member speak out boldly at the first opportunity and say, as found at page 21 of Hansard of October 15:
In assessing farm income there appears to be only one real question of debate and that is the question of urgency. I would suggest that if you examine one province, as an example Alberta, you will recognize that this urgency is indeed verv real.
I must congratulate the hon. member for including this reference in his speech. Likewise, the hon. member for Bonaventure in rising for the first time referred to the fact that year after year the percentage of the rural population is declining. He went on to say that their agricultural organizations had hoped to prevent a second dispersal of their Acadian sons but that, alas, the exodus of young farmers and settlers who are forced to go elsewhere to earn a living is on the increase. As found in the English translation of his speech he said.
How many boys and girls of my constituency have scattered all across the country and even across the border! They have not definitely quit their native village for they still hope that better conditions may allow them to come back home.
Therefore I am very glad that at the beginning of the session the first two spokemen for the government have pointed up the fact

The Address

Mr. Nicholson that all across Canada we have a serious agricultural crisis. I intend to devote most of my time to discussing this matter but before dealing with it from my particular angle I should like to mention that since the election I have visited some of my Indian friends in my constituency. I have been honoured to represent over 3,000 Indians in the parliament of Canada. I think hon. members should remember that one of the highest honours conferred on the Prime Minister was his election as an honorary chief, and I am hopeful that he will never forget that the Indian people of Canada are looking to him to do something better than has ever been done before.
At Cumberland House, Pelican Narrows, Sandy Bay, Beaver Lake and Deschambault I find that the Indian people are facing new problems as the population increases. As the result of improved health services and family allowances the birthrate is increasing and infant mortality is decreasing. But we have forced the Indians farther and farther back and have made it more difficult for them to make a living. When I visited Pelican Narrows for the first time some years ago there was no school at all. For the first time in Canadian history the federal and the provincial governments reached agreement in connection with providing an education for Indian children, metis and whites and established a one-room school at Pelican Narrows. That school has grown to five rooms.
The principal of the school is a young girl, Stella Easton, who was selected by the superintendent during her last year at teachers' college. After one year in the north she was persuaded to take over the principal-ship of this five-room school. I wish hon. members could appreciate the tremendous responsibility we place on many of these young people. The Pelican Narrows hospital is managed by a young nurse who is employed by the federal department of health. When you consider that there are no doctors within several hundred miles of some of these centres, it becomes apparent that we must accept our responsibility and provide better medical and educational services for our native Indians in these northern communities.
At Cumberland House I met an old college mate of mine, the Rev. Mr. Parker. He married an Indian girl who taught school some years ago and he has given more than 30 of the best years of his life to looking

after the needs of the people at Cumberland House. There is a great contrast between his parishioners and the parishioners of some of the churches that hon. members attend in the city of Ottawa. I appeal, therefore, to the Prime Minister to keep faith with the Indian people of Canada who have conferred such a high honour upon him.
Coming to the problems confronting the majority of the people I represent, the farm people, I should like to tell the members of this house that the situation is even worse than that described by the hon. member for Springfield this afternoon. The conditions in my constituency are worse. As I mentioned previously, the Prime Minister's constituency and mine have a common boundary for about 150 miles. Before coming to Ottawa I visited some 15 rural municipalities and local improvement offices in the constituency to secure first-hand information regarding tax arrears. While these are only figures to many people, I should like, in a few minutes' time, to deal with a few cases which those figures represent.
As I said, there are 14 rural municipalities and one local improvement district. In the last five years the arrears of taxes have gone from $775,421 to $886,755, then to $1,439,612 and then to $1,810,343 and $1,873,957. There is one municipality that is partly in the Prime Minister's constituency and partly in mine, Moose Range. The arrears in that municipality have gone up from $89,526 to $306,205. I am sure the Prime Minister, as well as I, realizes that farmers in those areas have not allowed this situation to develop for fun.
I also visited the larger school unit offices such as Sturgis, Nipawin, Tisdale, Wadena, Canora, Kamsack and Hudson Bay. These school unit offices have owing from taxes $2,149,000 and they are paying on bank loans of $1,223,000. Let us look at the larger unit of Nipawin, which is chiefly in the Prime Minister's constituency but partly in mine. In 1952 the Nipawin school unit had owing from these municipalities $272,000. Last year Nipawin unit had owing $545,000, from the municipality and they are paying interest to the banks on loans which amounted at the end of last year to $226,000.
Hon. members might be interested in knowing that it is necessary to have posted in the elevators a list of farmers who have not been able to meet their taxes. The elevator agents are required to notify the farmers that they will have to make some adjustment for the payment of their taxes before they can have any cash for themselves from the sale of their wheat. You see in

all the elevators in Saskatchewan, and I presume the same thing applies in Manitoba and Alberta, these lists posted when the grain is ready for market.
Let us take as an example local improvement district No. 949 in northern Saskatchewan and I shall cite two examples from the list. I shall not mention any names. Here is a farmer who owes $1,637. This farmer fought to make the world safe for democracy between 1914 and 1918. He settled in northern Saskatchewan on the bushland in that area when they were able to get 160 acres of fine bushland for $10. Then when world war II broke out he still was not too old to do his bit and he spent four years in the second world war. He now owes $1,637. Mr. Speaker, if hon. members could visit the homes of these people and see what they are like they would realize something of what it is like to fight in two wars and then be in a position where your tax arrears have grown to such an extent you are forced to conclude that perhaps you had better walk out.
Here is another veteran. He also fought in world war I and in world war II. He owes $1,138. I saw him a few days before I came away and he said, "I will soon be 60; after fighting in two wars and after trying to build up an equity in a farm, I guess I had better pull out and take to the city or do something else."
Just today I wrote to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) about one of these veterans who is in the same position. He thought he could take some temporary work without losing his war veterans allowance. He wanted to do something about those tax arrears. When the Department of Veterans Affairs got word he had taken work at 80 cents an hour they cut off his war veterans allowance. I hope that these regulations can be changed so that a war veteran is not in that position. This particular war veteran was a sergeant with the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes). I am sure the Minister of National Defence will agree that the economy of Canada should not place an old veteran in a position where he cannot earn a few dollars to try to bring his taxes under control.
Hon. members who live in big cities like Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver find it difficult to place themselves in the position of these veterans. Before I leave these lists I mentioned, here is someone who is in arrears and who is living in London, Ontario; someone in Edmonton, someone in Brandon and someone in Field, British Columbia. These are farmers who have pulled up stakes and
The Address-Mr. Nicholson
gone elsewhere hoping that conditions will change and they may be able to come back some time and do something about it. Hon. members will find it difficult to believe that the 45,000 people living in Mackenzie now have not a dentist available to them. There was a time when we had five dentists to look after the needs of the population.
The first time I was in the penitentiary, some years ago-


Some hon. Members:: Oh. oh. The truth is out.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -I was there on a visit- I found that there was a qualified dentist being paid to look after the inmates of the penitentiary. Times have changed, and we do not have a full-time dentist on the staff now. However, we do provide excellent care for the people in the penitentiaries. For example, in the penitentiary in the Prime Minister's constituency we pay over $4,000 a year to a dentist to work part time to look after the needs of the inmates. I am not complaining about that; I am not suggesting that a country like Canada should ignore its responsibilities to the people in the penitentiaries, but I am saying that there is something radically wrong with an economy when it places 45,000 farm people in a position where there is no dentist to look after them.
We have ten medical doctors and most of them are there on contract with a municipality.
However, we have some real problems that are arising there. I visited one of the municipal councils when they had been notified by the provincial government that since their population had gone down from 3,400 to 2,500 they would get a smaller grant, that the provincial government could not pay as much to look after 2,500 people as to look after 3,400 people. They therefore went to the doctors to announce that from now on the doctors were going to get less pay. "Oh, no", the doctors said, "you are going to pay more. Everything is going up. We can go to the city and make a great deal more than we are making here." The doctors said, "According to our records we are looking after more people now than we ever did before. The people who are leaving are the young and strong who go east or north or south or west. The old and the invalids are staying behind and someone must care for them."
I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) who has taken over his portfolio is going to have to face this problem soon and to face it squarely. May I say in passing that I think the Prime Minister made the best possible

The Address-Mr. Nicholson choice in the selection of the Minister of Agriculture. I know of no one else on the other side of the house who would be as sympathetic toward farm problems and who would do a better job. But after saying that, I am going to stress what was said by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schulz), namely that the people are going to require action very soon.
The farm people are disturbed by what they read in the papers. I have here the Wheat Pool Budget from Alberta. When the people in Canada read that the price of bread ranged from twelve cents a pound in Canada to eighteen cents a pound in the Unite States they think it is time that some responsible organization got busy in Canada and found out why it is, when our labour costs are so much lower in Canada, the staff of life sells at a price which is so much lower than the price down in the United States. I think something about the monopolies would be of real interest.
Then in connection with the handling charges we read that the board of grain commissioners announced this week an increase of one-eighth of a cent per bushel in the maximum elevator charges. While the farmers are facing bankruptcy the powers-that-be do not seem to hesitate to boost freight rates or to increase handling charges.
I also read that in the United States about one in every ten is receiving free food from the government. According to a recent United States department of agriculture figure, the number of people in the United States who get free food is running up over 13 million, and 12 million are school children. If they are able in the United States to dispose of some of their surplus food by making it available to the school children, we in Canada should be able to do something.
Then we read figures like those which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) put on the record the other day; and may I say in passing that I am sure we are all delighted that the leader of this party is in such good health and that he was able to make such an outstanding contribution to this debate. But when they read that Frank McMahon, with an investment of $7,700, buying shares at a nickel apiece, was able to build up an equity of $4,000,000, it is not something which is easy for my veterans of world war I and world war II to contemplate. As I say, it is not easy for these veterans of two wars to contemplate that situation after serving their king and country in two wars and working to build up the roads, schools and other essential services, and who now, in the evening of 
life, are contemplating walking off without being able to pay their honest taxes.
The Saskatchewan wheat pool has supplied the government with an extremely interesting illustrated pamphlet entitled "The Farm Income Situation". Farm costs have gone up year by year, from a base of 100 in 1947, until they have reached nearly 150. Farm prices followed up until 1951, although not as rapidly as farm costs; but since 1951 they have gone down to 110, 100 and 90. In other words there is between 1955 and now a spread in farm costs of 140, with farm prices down below 90. The average farm price of wheat was away up to $1.65 in 1947; it kept coming down, with a little spurt in 1952, to about $1 or $1.25 at the present time. With the index of farm prices going up all the time our farm people are in an impossible position.
I am interested in noting that the Canadian Labour Congress has faced up to this problem and that it has come out with some interesting material showing how important it is for the whole economy of Canada that this problem be recognized. I submit to the present government across the way that two members of the previous cabinet were chiefly responsible for allowing this crisis to develop as far as it has gone. I refer to the former minister of trade and commerce and the former minister of agriculture. Those two senior members of the cabinet kept insisting year after year that the farmers never had it so good; that if a farmer was not successful he had no one to blame but himself. However, the Canadian Labour Congress comes out with this interesting research bulletin showing what the dwindling farm income is doing to our economy. The income of the workers has kept increasing as a result of the ability of the unions to bargain collectively. They are not quite able to keep pace with the increase in the cost of living and the profits that are being made but they consider it to be a serious national crisis for the farmers to be in this position.
Last year in the same debate I reviewed at considerable length the statistics which had been released a short time before in connection with the national income. There is an edition to be out shortly and I am sure that it will demonstrate that the farm position is even more serious at the present time. But according to the statistics last year, out of 601,000 farm families in Canada only 39,000 made enough to pay income tax. That would be less than seven farmers out of 100. I think most hon. members will agree that while that situation exists the buying power of the people involved is seriously reduced and we are not likely to have a recovery that is going to establish high levels of income.

I am glad that the new Minister of Agriculture is continuing such publications as "Agriculture Abroad". There was some fear that there would be some slashing in connection with publicity. However, it appears to me that Canada can afford to have a look at what is being done in other countries. In "Agriculture Abroad" for December I find that we get some information about the competition we are getting from some of these other countries. I should say in passing that the offer made by the British recently to wipe out tariffs really does not attack the fundamental problems of today when nearly every country in the world is supporting subsidy programs that take much more money than tariffs previously took. In this article in "Agriculture Abroad" I find that France paid between $1.40 and $1.48 per bushel for every bushel that went into the export market.
I ask hon. members this: who can expect to sell even the best quality of wheat in European markets if one of our competitors is putting wheat down at a price which carries with it a subsidy of $1.40 a bushel? There was a time when France was a major importer, but times have changed and France does not wish to be caught in a situation again when she must depend to such a large extent on overseas countries for her foodstuffs. So this policy in France is there to stay.
Also in this periodical are interesting articles about Argentina, Belgium and a number of other countries. Some interesting figures are given with regard to subsidies paid by Great Britain, and I am sure that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) when he comes to discuss these matters in Britain will ask what they propose to do about the $551 million paid in farm subsidies over there. The subsidy for cereals amounts to $69 million; for eggs, $75 million; for fatstock, $139 million; and in production grants to $190 million.
I find no fault with the British for carrying out policies of this sort to make it possible for their farmers to stay in business, but I do not think the Canadian government should ask the Canadian farmer to buy his machinery in the highest priced market in the world while he is carrying on and attempting to sell in competition with wheat carrying a subsidy of $1.40 a bushel or, in the British market, in competition with British farmers who are receiving subsidies running up to $551 million.
The United States has, of course, a very extensive program of subsidies. Last year they made arrangements for the soil bank to cost something over half a billion dollars;
The Address-Mr. Nicholson farmers who co-operate can expect to receive over a three-year period something over $27 an acre. I was interested to read in the Ottawa Journal of last April an article by a well known radio commentator James M. Minifie. Mr. Minifie is a Rhodes scholar from Saskatchewan who has had an interesting career as a commentator and writer. Apparently he still has his father's farm near Vanguard, Saskatchewan-he has 480 acres there-and this article, which appeared in the Journal on April 6 of this year, mentions a plan to set up a belt conveyor to load his farm and move it down into North Dakota. Along with that would go a binful of the 1955 crop which was sitting in what used to be his dad's living room. After he got that down there, he would cash in; he would be able to get twenty cents a bushel more for his barley.
Mr. Minifie points out that an important difference would be that when he grew his crop he would be able to get cash; he would not have to sit on the farm forever and dribble it in on a 2-bushel quota. "I would just take it into town and the government would have to sweat it out from then on", the writer says. Mr. Minifie pointed out that he would probably put the northeast quota out of cultivation; it was not very good land, containing quite a bit of alkali. If he would take 200 acres out of production and devote it to not growing wheat he would make $4,200 down in North Dakota.
How can farmers in Saskatchewan who were not able to sell more than a 5-bushel quota last year possibly compete on such terms, having to buy their equipment in a high-priced market and then sell in a low-priced market? They have not solved all their problems in the United States, but they are continuing to devote their best efforts toward a solution.
For the coming year the United States department of agriculture is very much back in the export business. The bill amending the agricultural trade development and assistance act became law on August 13 and provides an additional $1 billion for concessional sale of agricultural commodities abroad and an extra $300 million for relief and other "give-away programs", according to the October issue of "Agriculture Abroad".
I have here also, a very interesting article explaining how the government of Switzerland is giving very high priority to keeping farmers solvent and prosperous.
The Minister of Agriculture also publishes the Economic Annalist and I commend him for continuing to make this publication

The Address-Mr. Nicholson available. In the August issue there is a particularly interesting article on West Germany's plan for agriculture.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a country which is as rich in its resources as is Canada should study what other countries are doing. Here is a table compiled by the Department of Agriculture which shows that for the year 1957-58 Canada is paying producers on the basis of $1.40 per bushel. The price in France is $2.06; West Germany begins at $2.49 and rises each month until it reaches $2.77 to the farmer who holds his grain on the farm. Other figures are: Ireland, $2.09; Italy $3.61; Netherlands $1.92; Spain $4.20; Sweden, last year, $2.15; Switzerland, $3.92; Turkey, $3.73; the United Kingdom $2.01; the United States $1.93; Uruguay, $2.92.
Proposals now being mentioned in the press indicate a price of 50 cents a bushel for six bushels and a price of 30 cents for barley, 20 cents for oats and a maximum of $3,000 to a farmer who has 1,000 acres. This does not begin to meet the problem, so I hope the cabinet will give immediate consideration to the promises which were made to the Canadian people before the election that steps would be taken to see that those in Canada who produce food for this nation and other nations will receive a fair share of the wealth which is produced by all our people. I think it is very important that the government should give careful consideration to the submissions made recently by the interprovincial farm union council and the federation of agriculture.
I must urge that special consideration be given to the large markets available here in Canada. The bureau of statistics has made an interesting study of the distribution of nonfarm income which appears in its most recent reference paper No. 76. It is pointed out that the average income per family in Canada in 1954 was $3,654. At first glance this seems to be a fairly high average but we must not forget that, according to this study, 12 per cent of the families in Canada received less than $1,000 a year income and a very large group received less than $2,000. I would therefore suggest that the question of family income be considered and all the people in Canada be given an opportunity of receiving a decent income so no one will be short of foodstuffs and the necessities of life.
I hope we will not lose sight of the fact that it remains true that two-thirds of the people in the world have never enjoyed one good meal. In a booklet published by the Department of National Health and Welfare in connection with world health day it is pointed out that if all the people in the world

were to have enough of the right kind of food the production of cereals would have to be increased 50 per cent, the production of meat increased 90 per cent, dairy production increased 125 per cent, oil production increased 125 per cent and fruit and vegetable production increased 300 per cent.
Having established in Canada during the war that whatever is physically possible can be made financially possible I submit the time has now come when we should see to it that those who are producing food are given an incentive to produce all the food we can use, all we can sell and a large amount of food which we can give to the underdeveloped countries of the world to raise their standards to a much higher level.


Mr. E. L. Morris (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I can understand any difficulty hon. members on the other side of the house or at the far end of the chamber had just a moment ago in realizing that I was in fact standing in my place. My colleague from Halifax is a full foot taller than I am. On June 10 the people in my constituency voted for both the long and short ends of the Conservative ticket.


Mr. Studer:: And they got the short end, all right.


Edmund Leverett Morris: It is symptomatic of the change that came over Canada that day, Mr. Speaker, that in our two-seat constituency, one of two still remaining in Canada, we Conservatives now do not have a senior member for Halifax and a junior member for Halifax; we have simply a taller member and a shorter member.
Once upon a time I observed the goings on in this house from the gallery of the fourth estate above us. By all standards I have been subsequently exalted though it is permissible for me to wonder how I have gone up by coming down.
My first sense of gratitude at this time for being here is understandably to the people of my own constituency. My second, Mr. Speaker, is sincerely to the parliamentary press gallery wherein I spent the formative years of my political belief, wherein I received my first on-the-spot education in the labyrinth of government and from whence I watched with slow disenchantment the gradual decline of a once great political philosophy. I used to sit up there and think of Gilbert Keith Chesterton: "As much as I ever did, more than I ever did, I believe in liberalism, but there was once a rosy time when I also believed in Liberals."
The members of the parliamentary press gallery are indispensable to good representative government in this country. They are indeed the vital link between this house and

the people. Under your direction, sir, they enjoy-and quite properly so-certain facilities to assist them in their work. Over the years as their numbers have grown with the increase in government activity and the people's interest in it the tecilities allotted to them in this building have become crowded to the point where they are no longer conducive to the best effort on behalf of this house and, what is more important, they are not wholly conducive to the best interests of their readers, listeners and viewers. Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully ask your consideration in due course for the provision of improved facilities in this building for the membership of the parliamentary press gallery.
There is a second reason I ask your consideration which has to do with the honour and dignity of this house. It is no part of the intent of the press gallery, but its inevitable expansion into cramped quarters has necessarily involved the use of a corridor of this building, which cannot be as satisfactory as it might to those journalists who must work there and, Mr. Speaker, without their intent-indeed with no other choice-this constitutes in part a physical use of a small part of this building which is not in keeping with the use of the rest of the building.
As a new member I am sensible of the traditions of this house of assembly. We Nova Scotians have a long inheritance of representative government. Indeed we are preparing to celebrate a year hence, in October 1958, the 200th anniversary of our first house of assembly.
This building in which I stand represents to every Canadian the strength and glory of his self-government. I had walked many times the wide walk to this building but never before and perhaps never again with the same feeling with which I came to Ottawa soon after the election to take my oath as a member of parliament and to come quietly by myself to this house to which I had been sent in trust by my people. What did I encounter? A series of make-believe post offices, a stage at one end of the chamber, a congress of visiting persons-beyond doubt distinguished but not members of the Canadian parliament-with every seat taken, the aisle filled, the government lobby full of wires and box lunches and television receivers.
I do not question the worth of the organization that gathered here this summer but I do wish to object to the former government's allowing the use of this chamber for that or any gathering of a non-parliamentary nature and I do not think the government I have the honour to support would have allowed it.
The Address-Mr. Morris


Pierre Gauthier: Well, well.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, I do not want any post offices in this chamber and I do not want any strangers in my seat-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Leverett Morris: -whether we are in session or adjourned. This seat, or some seat, belongs to my electorate. I belong to them. I do not want any stranger in it; they have a right to a seat without let or hindrance. There are other places in the city where congresses may foregather. We are more than glad to have them among us, but not in this chamber which is the meeting house of Canada. It should be preserved for one purpose and one purpose only, to house the elected representatives who have the trust from time to time of the majority of their constituents.
To me, Mr. Speaker, as a fledgling member of parliament, trying my wings for the first time, the most important part of the speech from the throne I believe is appropriately at the very beginning. The Queen said:
Parliamentary government has been fashioned by the wisdom of many centuries. Its justice, authority and dignity are cherished by men of good will. It will be the high purpose of my ministers not only to preserve these qualities but to take steps to make both houses of this parliament more effective in the discharge of their responsibilities to the people of Canada.
This is essentially the ideal that motivated the people of Canada, especially those in my constituency, on June 10, Mr. Speaker. If members are indeed honourable in the sight of their fellow men, then all other reform of legislation will come in good time. If parliament is debased, then the processes of representative self-government are in jeopardy.
We come to this particular parliament in the midst of a period of danger that is likely to be as profound as any in the modern history of the human race. Its symptoms are disintegration and conflict. We inhabit a world confronted with ballistic missiles, hydrogen and atomic bombs and now manmade moons. We stand very literally at the crossing of the ways. When the first atomic bomb was detonated in the Nevada desert 13 years ago, one reporter who witnessed it wrote:
What I have just seen, the last man on earth, in the last milli-second, will see.
Another reporter who sat beside him saw a different light. He wrote:
I felt as if I had been present at the dawn of creation, when the Lord said, "Let there be light".
We have to choose, Mr. Speaker, whether we are to go forward into the future to greater light or backward into the ooze and slime of the beginning. Unless our world is

The Address-Mr. Morris to revert, to a chaos oi competing barbarisms, a new and a better spirit must soon preside over the destinies of mankind. It halts in coming externally only because one country, and its earthly sputniks, refuse to open their iron curtain to grasp the hand of mutual survival which is offered to them. Internally, our greatest task at this first session of a new parliament, in the presence of a new government, is to undo any harm that may have been done the good name of parliament and to restore it to the people as the fountain of their liberties and the shield of their faith in their country.
I do not presume to say what other hon. members are expected to do by their constituencies but I am certain that my constituents did not send me here to engage in a reciprocity of childish invective and thoughtless insult across the floor of this house. I happen to differ in my political philosophy from hon. members on the other side, and indeed at the far end of this house, now inhabited by Social Credit members. This is only to say that they differ with me. We are all Canadians. I am only a young man; I make mistakes. A parliamentarian who does not make at least one mistake a day is not working, but I hope never to impute to those across the floor motives which I think are meaner than my own. We can disagree and do disagree but it is honourable disagreement of opinion that makes horseracing a gamble, marriage risky-and democracy work.
I do not propose at this time to speak at great length of the constituency of Halifax which I and my colleague (Mr. McCleave) have the honour and the duty to represent. There will be a better time and place for that, though I shall refer to it briefly in a moment. I should like, however, to make one or two brief general observations. If in doing so I violate the good spirit which I have just bespoken, I hope hon. members across the floor of the house will do me the honour of upholding the usual parliamentary usage of understanding that I am not to engage them in any reciprocity and they do not interrupt me in my maiden speech.
I have been sent here, Mr. Speaker, not only by Conservatives but by Liberals and by C.C.F. supporters. I regard myself as the member for all the people of Halifax. The duty assigned me on June 10 is, I think, to represent all my people along Conservative principles of conduct and government. I think the most significant reason I am here is that it was felt that my predecessors represented only those who they thought had supported them.

Secondly, 10 of the 12 members of parliament from Nova Scotia sit on this side of the house. Most of us are young, 29, 33-my colleague and I 34-37 and 39. And who can call the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), aur provincial caucus leader, anything but a sprightly youngster? I think we are likely to be more idealistic; we are likely to be more open-minded, I suspect that we are likely to be much more aggressive, than our predecessors.
We were not sent here by our fellow Nova Scotians to whine; we were not sent here to set our faces against the rest of Canada. We were sent here to get fair play, nothing less but nothing more, individually if we can, together if we must. We intend to work tirelessly to achieve for our people a fairer share of the gross national product. In nothing we shall ever do shall we intend to set ourselves against any other part of Canada. As I trust that nothing I shall ever do or say in this house will deny me the prospect of mutual respect with any member, so in everything we do we shall hope to prosper our country as a whole.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, it is a tradition that a new member in his maiden speech will constrain himself to deal with the opposition lightly, if at all, and his opposition shall not interrupt him. I do not intend to violate this usage when I say sincerely that I regretted as a new member an observation which I believe was made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) was being "professorial" when he described to the house the procedure for the introduction and passage of interim supply. I personally was confronted for the first time in my life with the fact that I had a hand in the expenditure of $305 million and I was grateful for the minister's guidance. I would be surprised if new members on the back benches across the way did not appreciate the minister's consideration at a time when we were being asked for the first time to vote such large sums.
One of the two-twelfths of the Nova Scotia representation who do not sit on this side of the house, the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen), told this house just before the supper recess that he would withhold congratulations to my leader but, sir, I entertain no such patronizing reservation about his leader. It has been an honour to have come to this house and to have shared its duties and the high honours of the past week-


Mr. MacEachen:: May I rise on a question of privilege? I believe the hon. member for Halifax is sincerely mistaken in attributing remarks to me because I have not yet taken part in the debate.


Edmund Leverett Morris: I am sorry if I incorrectly addressed the remarks to the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond. The member on the other side of the house who spoke immediately prior to the recess made the remark that he would withhold congratulations to my leader. In any event, as I was saying, it was to me an honour to come to the house and to share what we have shared in the last week with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent). On behalf of my constituents, those who voted Conservative, those who voted C.C.F., those who voted Liberal, I join in extending to him and to Madame St. Laurent every good wish that their future years, after his announced resignation takes place, will be enriched with both peace and the honours his unquestioned service to his country have earned for them.
We have heard in the house in the last few days, Mr. Speaker, forecasts of gloom from the opposition benches. I should like to tell hon. members that they are not accurate as a description of the new government's support of my constituents. Since the 10th of June the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has undertaken to pay to the city of Halifax an annual sum equivalent to the business, or higher tax rate in the city on the vast bulk of federal government properties if the city will seek and secure remedial legislation to amend a technical phrase in the present city charter which requires the federal government to pay the residential, or lower, tax rate. This will mean an increase of $600,000 in the federal payment for the first year of its application, a payment which will rise in later years if the city tax rate rises.
Within 60 days of the election federal government agencies, through the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), announced contributions of $400,000, the largest single share, toward the removal of the notorious Fairview underpass which had been promised for more than 20 years. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) has publicly promised sympathetic consideration for any proposal by the city of Halifax and the province looking forward to the large-scale urban redevelopment recommended by the Stephenson report, most of the cost of which was in turn borne by the federal government.
The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) has visited my constituency and has talked with us about the very real problems of the 96698-16i
The Address-Mr. Morris fishing community. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) has toured defence installations in my constituency as recently as early this month and is considering a joint proposal with the town of Dartmouth and the county of Halifax which will provide improved water services, not only to H.M.C.S. Shearwater but also for residential and commercial development on the Dartmouth side of Halifax harbour. Canada's first wholly-owned aircraft carrier, H.M.C.S. Bonaventure, has arrived and is now based at Halifax, and a new jetty for her use will shortly be available full time at H.M.C.S. Shearwater.
A large-scale campaign of public works has been undertaken since June or is being recommended for the next 12 months at Indian Harbour, Prospect, Sambro, Portugese Cove, Herring Cove, McNab's Island, Three Fathom Harbour, Owl's Head, Murphy's Cove, Cooper Point, Carter Point, Petpeswick and Ecum Secum. A mammoth new international airport at Kelly Lake, just outside the Halifax-Dartmouth metropolitan area, which will be able to handle the largest airliners is well under way and is being pushed. A new $2-J million federal government building to accommodate most of the previously scattered federal government offices in Halifax will open next year in my city and, Mr. Speaker, it will be heated by Nova Scotia coal.
New postal services are being established or are in process at Spryfield, Rockingham, Birch Cove and Eastern Passage. Last Saturday we were able to announce that tenders would shortly be called for a post office in Bedford. The supplementary estimates introduced in the house last week include an additional item of $900,000 for pier A-l. We are asking for action on several other projects, including greatly improved postal facilities in Dartmouth and additional harbour projects in Halifax. We will seek assurance of a fair and just share of Canadian shipbuilding and repair contracts.
But these projects I have cited are only examples of the government's concern for Halifax and its willingness to listen to the members from Halifax. It has done more in 22 weeks than our predecessors did in 22 years.
What is more important than the recitation of these public works is the attitude of the government. No longer do we come hat in hand as poor relatives. We are given fair play, no more and no less.
All these projects, Mr. Speaker, are in addition to the pay increases granted the armed services, federal civil servants and the R.C.-M.P., increases which, in truth, were in part

The Address-Mr. Morris considered by the previous government and which are of great meaningfulness in my constituency. They are additional to the increased old age security, old age assistance, blind persons and disabled persons payments promised in the speech from the throne. They are additional to the increases in war veterans allowances.
The forecasts of gloom are a part of and about as accurate as a prognostication told in Nova Scotia about a representative of a Liberal candidate in one of the constituencies on Cape Breton Island. This gentleman went canvassing one day prior to the last election on the great man's behalf. In a field he spied a farmer spading his garden, so he stopped his car, reached into the glove compartment, took out his little black book and found the name "Angus MacDonald". I hasten to say that this is neither the hon. member for Anti-gonish-Guysborough (Mr. MacDonald), the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Macdonald) nor the late premier of Nova Scotia.
So he climbed over the fence and went up the field to the farmer. "MacDonald", he said, "I am canvassing for the Liberal candidate. If you could see your way clear to support him on the 10th of June he would appreciate it". "My friend", said MacDonald, "I knew his father. A bigger blackguard never watched the mist come up on Big Bras d'Or. I knew his brother. He was the laziest man from Dingwall to Judique and that sister of his, she talked more and said less than anyone I ever heard on the north side."


Irvin William Studer: Like a Conservative.


Edmund Leverett Morris: "I would not vote for your man," he said, "if he was the only candidate running on any ticket in the country." Mr. Speaker, the Liberal canvasser went back down the field, over the fence to his car and took up his little black book and opposite the name of MacDonald he wrote the one word "Doubtful".
No one in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, and I venture the judgment that no one in Canada expects miracles from a new government. Decent opinion in Nova Scotia is more than prepared to extend to the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet every loyal and patient understanding. Nova Scotians live today with a new hope. We hope for a greater justice from a new government. We trust that its measures for the Atlantic provinces' betterment will recommend themselves to the support of all members on all sides of the house.
On his way from Halifax to Ottawa for the opening of the first session of the first parliament of Canada Joseph Howe spoke words
'Mr. Morris.]
of his colleagues from Nova Scotia which are as appropriate for this day as they were when uttered by the great tribune 90 years ago. He said:
When myself and my friends from the lower province were leaving, we did not know how we would be received here; but I am glad to say that we have been shown nothing but kindness and attention from all classes and creeds since we came to the city, and X can only say that if at any future time it is in my power, I shall be glad to participate in your enjoyments and to be of any assistance that I can . . . whatever opinions I hold will be honestly and openly expressed. I only ask that they be weighed fairly, and that I may be judged without prejudice.
Mr. Speaker, when the roll is called I shall vote against the amendment to the amendment moved by the Social Credit group and I shall vote against the amendment moved by the C.C.F. I shall vote for the gracious address in reply to the speech from the throne, moved and seconded so eloquently by my colleagues, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault).
Mr. Louis Denise! (St. Boniface):	Mr. Speaker, I am a firm believer in traditions. One of them is that when a novice makes his maiden speech in this house he feels very much impressed; one might say that he feels as if squadrons of butterflies were reenacting the battle of Britain in his stomach. I am a follower of this tradition and believe me I feel the fluttering of each and every butterfly. However, I feel very much fortified by the realization of the fact that I do not speak for myself but for the thousands of Canadians who have sent me here. The Canadians of the constituency of St. Boniface have given me a mandate. It is my duty to act and speak on their behalf, and this I propose to do. I might add further that the results of the election were such that I acquired a further responsibility, that of representing the Liberals of the province of Manitoba in this house. There are many of them, young and experienced, women as well as men, farmers, craftsmen and labourers. They come from all walks of life and represent the very cream of the province. As a bit of further information regarding the present Liberal representation from Manitoba, it might be added that in the caucus for this province there is no discussion and all decisions are carried unanimously.
At this point I think it would be in order for me to congratulate Mr. Speaker and yourself on your appointments to your high offices. I wish also to congratulate the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) and seconder (Mr. Arsenault) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I trust that by now the butterflies have left them.

(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, there are others and very different traditions that are extremely important and affect us closely. I cannot ignore what everyone keeps repeating: the tremendous joy, the very natural pride and the sincere emotion stirred in our hearts by the visit of our Queen. We were captivated by her charm and loveliness, and perhaps that which touched us most was the statement that she was indeed Queen of Canada. It is true that she is also the Queen of other countries to which we are bound by tradition or otherwise. But it was verily our Queen to whom we were giving homage and acclaim, we were bowing to the symbol of authority in Canada. In fact, our homage went beyond her person to take her along with us to the altar of our own land, Canada. For our own country alone has a right to our full and ultimate loyalty. Our Queen not only recognized this fact, but guided us in that direction.
Other thoughts came to my mind during those memorable days. I asked myself what my country was, in actual fact, and I came to a conclusion which, in changing but a few words, would perhaps apply to all Canadians.
For me, it is Langevin street, the Red river and the Seine and the Assiniboine, La Salle and Rat rivers. It is the vast plains with their rippling expanse of golden wheat, where snow squalls start before winter sets in. It is the Rockies and the Laurentians, the gardens of Victoria and the tiny harbours of Newfoundland.
This is no attempt to be lyrical, Mr. Speaker; I only wish, above all, to stress this basic fact that Canada begins at home, for each and every one of us, and then extends to our relatives and friends, then to each of our communities, to our parishes and municipalities, to our provinces, the ten of them, and to the great North. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what is sometimes heard out west? "What's the use? What chance have we got? Two-thirds of the population live down east. They do not care two hoots for us." But we do know that, deep down, the eastern people are quite fond of westerners. Nevertheless we have been faced with examples of ignorance for things western which, to say the least, have been most disconcerting. For instance, you are speaking with an easterner and he says: "So, you are from Winnipeg! When you get back you might say hello to a friend of mine". So you inquire politely what street he lives on and the answer comes: "Well, I cannot remember, but I do know he lives in Calgary."
The Address-Mr. Deniset
The other day a lady from down east somewhere politely inquired if it was true that we had horses and cattle at the corner of Portage and Main. There is without a doubt greater ignorance of the west by eastern people than of the east by westerners. This is not good for Canadian unity and the harmonious understanding which should always be present when any decisions of a national nature are taken.
Mr. Speaker to return to what I was saying a moment ago, Canada begins in the home. If there is anything on which we can all be agreed here, it is that the greatest sacrifice a politician can make is to sacrifice, to some extent, his home life. Our duties and responsibilities are such, though, that we are far too often called away. It could be said of each and every one of us that the orbit of Canada is not its capital, but that our homes are the orbits of this country. Recognition of this fact should make us realize that all those homes, whether they be in the slums or in apartment homes, in the country or in modern cities:	Vancouver, St. Boniface,
Toronto or Saint John, are all equally important. All our decisions should have regard for this great truth. The family home is the basic unit of society and we must therefore, with the aid of Divine Providence, give it every opportunity for full development under this Canadian sun of ours, the sun of our country, Canada.
(Text):
Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is our Canada first. I said at the outset that I was very much impressed. I tried to describe my emotions. This leads me to understand the emotions of other members of this house, including not only the newcomers to parliament generally but the newcomers on the government front benches. They have given evident signs of anxiety at the magnitude of the job at hand. They surely realize the necessity for them to perform. To use the same words as those addressed to me by one of their members during the last election campaign, may I say: "I cannot wish you the best of luck but I wish you the very best". You will need all of it, even for what might be a comparatively short term of office.
Some of these gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, I know very well. I well remember, for instance, the then G.O.C. of the first Canadian division in England. I am sorry to say that he is not here in the house tonight. Undoubtedly he is busy with other duties. I think he would have liked to hear what I have to say. As I say, I remember him as

The Address-Mr. Deniset the G.O.C. of the first Canadian division in England under which I served as a platoon commander with the royal twenty-second regiment at the beginning of world war II. His enthusiasm was infectious. He would show officers personally how to conduct a reconnaissance. On one occasion, on one of the hectic days of some manoeuvres where the Van Doos happened to steal the show, I remember his exclaiming with pride, "My French Canadian regiment in Hitchen". He was no doubt expressing his admiration for the many Canadians of French origin who have served their country in the armed forces. I have no reason to believe that he still does not have the same respect for their admirable fighting qualities. One might be surprised that I speak in this fashion but I believe in giving unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. I also want to let the hon. gentleman know that when I rise again and at that time quite possibly disagree with him, I still have respect for one of Canada's finest soldiers.

I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, if at this stage, it being almost ten o'clock, I might move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Deniset the debate was
adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the government leader what is the business of the house for tomorrow. I also wonder whether he would not be good enough to outline in his remarks whether it is the intention during the course of the week to interrupt the debate on the address in order to discuss other matters of a government nature.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we plan to continue with this debate and also on Wednesday. However, on Thursday I think we shall interrupt the throne speech debate in order to deal with the resolution preceding a bill providing for cash advances on grain.
On motion of Mr. Green the house adjourned at 9.57 p.m.

Tuesday, October 22, 1957