1957-01-21

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform hon. members of the decision to increase the maximum interest rate on insured loans under part I of the National Housing Act from 5J per cent to 6 per cent. A similar increase of one-half of 1 per cent will take place with respect to the rates applicable to other types of loans under the act.
The statute authorizes the governor in council to fix the maximum rate of interest that may be charged for various types of loans. In respect of insured mortgage loans, the interest rate cannot exceed the yield on long-term government securities, plus 2J per cent as of the time the rate is fixed.
The National Housing Act maximum rate was increased from 5| per cent to 5] per cent in March last year. During 1956, and particularly in the later months, the large capital investment program has increased the competition for investable funds and general interest rates have risen. In face of this exceedingly great demand for funds, the flow of mortgage moneys to housing particularly under the National Housing Act has diminished in the last quarter of 1956 and the rate of house building has reflected this. The program for the year 1956 was nevertheless impressive. There was a new record of 135,000 completions. More than 125,000 homes were started and there were 70,000 houses under construction on January 1, 1957.
The present increase in the National Housing Act interest rate is designed to place would-be borrowers under the act in a better position to compete for a fair share of available mortgage funds in the year ahead.
The new rates will have application to all undertakings to insure that will be issued by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on and after tomorrow, January 22, 1957.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. What effect does the minister expect from the announcement he has just
made with regard to the construction of houses in Canada this year? What number of starts and what number of completions does the department expect this year?


Mr. Winters:: Mr. Speaker, it is a little early in the year to give a specific forecast but I do anticipate that funds will be encouraged to enter the field of housing which were not being made available for borrowers, particularly under the National Housing Act. I anticipate that banks and other lending institutions will now be encouraged to make more loans under that act.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. Has the minister's department not made an estimate of the number of starts and completions in the housing field which will take place this year?


Robert Henry Winters: We try to ensure that there will be a high level of house building activity.. That is part of government policy and this step is designed to ensure that there will be a high level of house building activity through 1957.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: should like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. Are we entitled to assume, in view of the increase of almost 10 per cent in mortgage interest rates, that this is the government method of helping low income groups to own their own homes?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, it is an attempt on the part of the government to make it easier for people of modest income to acquire cheaper money than is available to them in the conventional lending markets and, moreover, to acquire houses with lower down payments.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if he has any further report to give the house regarding the appeal of Christian G. Hanna to become domiciled in this country?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the appeal has yet been dealt with, and I cannot give a statement today.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
direct a supplementary question to the minister. Does he not consider that in this case humanitarian considerations should have priority over departmental adherence to the letter of the law being stubbornly upheld? This is the type of question in which I submit the minister might well give consideration to those humanitarian things that affect mankind. I should like to suggest further that in view of the United Nations having taken this matter under advisement-according to the press of today which reports an interview with Dr. Humphrey-and regardless of any decision that is made, this man should not be moved out of Canada until the United Nations has had an opportunity to consider the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I had always understood that the hon. gentlemen objected to government by order in council. We are carrying out the law made by this parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has power under the act to do by order in council that which is sought. When the minister talks about adhering to the law of the land, let me tell him that two courts have decided in other cases that he has not done that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister has no power; the power resides in the governor in council. The hon. gentleman knows that as well as anyone else.


John George Diefenbaker: Is not that an order in council?


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Does not the minister have the power or the right-he has exercised it on other occasions-to submit to the governor in council an order for their consideration and approval?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, sir. I quite frequently do that when I consider there is real merit in a case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister mean that he has decided there is no merit in this case?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said that an appeal is before the department and to the best of my knowledge it has not been decided. I think it would be quite improper for me to say anything more until a decision has been rendered.


John George Diefenbaker: You are prejudging the case.


George Randolph Pearkes: Can the minister indicate when the appeal is likely to be heard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I presume today.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. F. L. Hanna (Edmonlon-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Will the minister please explain to the house why over 100 persons who have lived all their lives on the Hobbema Indian reserve south of Edmonton have now been notified that they must leave that reservation? If they must leave, what is being done to ensure that these unfortunate families will have homes to live in and incomes to sustain them in the future? Is the minister prepared to recommend to parliament an amendment to the Indian Act to prevent such expulsions in the future?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I
recognize that there has been an extraordinary amount of interest in this case, particularly in Alberta, and I hope hon. members will bear with me if I give a somewhat lengthy explanation of the circumstances surrounding it.
It will be recalled that at the time the Indian Act was amended in 1951 this parliament saw fit to make provision for the establishment of band lists and for a procedure which would settle once and for all who were Indians and therefore entitled to live on the reserves which had been set aside for Indians. There were a number of long standing disputes as to the status of individuals who had been living on Indian reserves.
I believe that this case in the Samson band at Hobbema is the last of the outstanding cases to be settled. My information is that 27 protests, as is provided for under the act, were made by Indians living on the reserve who were questioning the right of other persons living on that reserve to remain there on the ground that those persons were not Indians within the meaning of the act. One hundred and seven individuals were involved.
The matter was considered by a commissioner, who made a report. The registrar examined the report and all the other relevant information and came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that those persons were not Indians within the meaning of the act, and never had been Indians within the meaning of the act, and were therefore not entitled to live on this reserve which was set up exclusively for Indians within the meaning of the act, and which belonged to those Indians, and for whom the minister was acting in trust.

Now, there is a provision in the act for an appeal to the courts against the decision of the registrar. I have found it somewhat difficult to understand why this appeal was not entered immediately the decision of the registrar was made known because, if it had been, the department would have continued to treat these people as Indians until such time at least as the appeal had been disposed of. Because an appeal was not entered we had no choice but to assume that the decision of the registrar had been accepted.
In fact, the department has not taken any steps to have these people moved from the reserve; it has not denied them relief or anything normally given to Indians. The only thing which has been done has been to withhold the share of any payments of moneys belonging to the band for distribution among members of the band and I think this was the only course we could possibly have taken unless and until the case is brought before the courts.
It does seem to me it would be a very extraordinary procedure for the government to recommend, or for parliament to take, action now while there is a provision in the law for a decision to be made by the courts, or to legislate before an appeal has been taken and a final decision reached. After all, what is involved here is not something which belongs to the government or to the people of Canada generally; it is something that belongs to a particular band of Indians, and for this parliament or for anybody else to say, in an arbitrary manner, that a certain number of people should or should not be considered to belong to that band, when a procedure is already laid down by statute for the purpose of making this determination, would appear to me to be an extraordinary course of action.
It seems to me the only thing we can do is to wait until February 6. If an appeal has not been entered for that date, we can then give consideration to what course it may be desirable to take. I sincerely hope that an appeal will be entered. Unfortunately, that question does not lie within the power of the minister to decide; it is solely a matter for the aggrieved parties to decide for themselves.
The second question asked by the hon. gentleman was whether I could say what would be done for these people should they have to leave the reserve. That seems to be a hypothetical question, and it will certainly remain one at least until the 6th of February and, if an appeal is entered, for some considerable time after that. I do not think it would be proper at this time to try to give a definite answer with regard to a situation that may never arise. As to
Inquiries of the Ministry whether there would require to be some kind of legislation in certain eventualities, I feel the same answer must apply. I should like to repeat, I sincerely hope that an appeal will be entered against the decision of the registrar, that this matter will be determined before a judge, and that the law will be allowed to operate in the manner laid down by parliament.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask
the minister a supplementary question? In view of the important issues involved in this and possibly-I only say "possibly"-in similar cases, would the department consider providing counsel for the Indians if they should indicate a desire to appeal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In this particular case
the Indians have retained a lawyer in Calgary who has made certain representations not only to the minister but to the Prime Minister and, for all I know, to other members of the government as well. I would be very happy to make that correspondence public if anyone would like to see it. I believe that there is no question but that they have counsel and the counsel they chose. I do not think there is any difficulty in that regard at all.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister comment on week-end news reports to the effect that Ontario is giving consideration to the government's hospital insurance program? Can the minister say whether the current interest is in the proposals as outlined a year ago or whether changes in those plans are being proposed?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend asked a somewhat similar question in general terms last Monday. I would direct his attention to my reply of that date. I believe that at this time I can say no more.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Balllefords):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is it the intention of his department to proceed with the building of the post office in the city of North Battle-ford this summer?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, do you wish me to answer a question of that nature now?


Mr. Speaker:: I am always put on the spot when a minister asks me if I wish him to answer a question. He has full right to answer whatever he pleases or not to answer at all. Under past practice a question of this type is not put at this time because it is not of an urgent or national character and, in addition, can be asked when the estimates of the Department of Public Works are before the committee of supply.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It might have a bearing on the election date.


Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East):: Isn't that clever!



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the government intend to assist the universities in providing the greatly enlarged training facilities that will be needed to train the greatly increased numbers of scientists, engineers, doctors and dentists, of which this country is so critically short today, so that we may avoid a continuance of that shortage?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the government's intentions so far as they have been crystallized in decisions have already been announced to the house, and that procedure will be followed when other decisions are reached.


George Harris Hees: Was not the government's decision in this regard announced on Friday by the Prime Minister when he announced there would be no assistance given to the universities except to provide extra training facilities for the arts and humanities?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If my hon. friend is of the opinion that he was given on Friday the answer to the question put this morning, I cannot see why he repeats it.


George Harris Hees: In reply to the Prime Minister's answer may I say this. It was my impression that he said that no extra facilities would be provided except for the humanities. I am trying to clear up the question as to the sciences and engineering.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope my hon. friend will not lose too much sleep over his wrong impression.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand that the matter to which the hon. gentleman refers is one which is under consideration in the committee of the whole. When the matter is debated there again he may stand up and speak as often as he wishes for thirty minutes at a time.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is it correct that, by a recent order in council, the Bank of Canada has been ordered to revalue its bond portfolios on an amortized cost basis instead of a market value basis as formerly? If so, will the chartered banks be forced to do the same thing with respect to their portfolios of dominion and provincial bonds?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question in view of his answer. Can the minister give an opinion as to the effect on Canada's monetary policy?


Walter Edward Harris: Offhand, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what effect it will have on the monetary policy. I shall be glad to look at it and give an answer on my estimates if we reach that
point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask
the Minister of Finance a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, arising out of his last answer. With respect to monetary policy does the government pass orders in council of which the Minister of Finance does not know the effect? I find it difficult to believe that it does so. Would the minister care to reconsider his last answer and now tell us what the effect is?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, of course we do not take action without being aware of the general implications involved. Perhaps my answer to the hon. member for Oxford might have been a little bit more forthcoming than it was. The effect on monetary policy, if any, was so little that it was not a factor in the decision. If my answer was not that clear, I must apologize for it. But I am quite sure that the effect on the monetary policy was such that, as I say, it was not a factor in the decision which was made for other reasons.



POSSIBLE CONFLICT BETWEEN CREDIT RESTRICTIONS AND HOUSING LOANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Does the minister not consider that there is a conflict between the government policy, announced this morning by the Minister of Public Works, of encouraging the banks to make long-term loans in connection with housing, and the policy of the Bank of Canada to persuade the chartered banks to curtail their term loans?


Walter Edward Harris: The policy of the Bank of Canada with respect to term credit has been, for over a year I think, to restrict the growth of credit at the rate that it was then proceeding. This has been the policy since October, or a little earlier, in 1955. That does not mean that it is a straight curtailment of credit. It is a curtailment of the rate of growth at that time. I think that we have been successful in restraining that growth to the point where credit is still growing though at a more modest rate. Therefore, I do not see any particular conflict.


Colin Cameron: Is the minister aware that the governor of the Bank of Canada informed the banking and commerce committee a few months ago that he made representations to the chartered banks to curtail a particular form of credit which was long-term credit.


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


Colin Cameron: Does he not consider that the National Housing Act loans come under that category?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I do not have in mind the particular phraseology used by the governor of the Bank of Canada but I agree that although the purpose was to apply credit restrictions to long-term loaning, nevertheless I think that the governor of the Bank of Canada would not want the application of any policy to be such that one could say there was rank discrimination in any particular form of credit granting.



TABLING OF ESTIMATES AND DELIVERY OF BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the
reference made a moment ago by the Minister of Finance to his estimates, is he in a position to tell the house when the estimates for the next fiscal year will be tabled? Can he also tell the house when he intends to bring down his budget?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Edward Harris: These are, of course, questions which should not be answered, but I propose to do so by saying that the estimates will be tabled either tomorrow or Wednesday and the budget I hope will be delivered some time before dissolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that another of those forthcoming answers the minister sometimes makes?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Albert Lavigne (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has any consideration been given to service for municipalities affected by the abandonment of the New York Central railway line between Cornwall and Ottawa?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: The hon. member was good
enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question, Mr. Speaker, but I have been unable to ascertain all the facts necessary in order to reply to it. I shall therefore hope to do so tomorrow.



FLAX AND RYE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the government given serious consideration to including the marketing of flax and rye under the complete jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board in view of the fact that farm organizations continue to press for this being done?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the government has given serious consideration to this question. It is obvious that any action by this government would have to be preceded by action in each of the provinces concerned for the same reason that similar concurrent legislation was required in the marketing of oats and barley. Wheat is the only grain that moves to export markets in sufficient volume to give the government complete jurisdiction over its marketing. Whether it would be wise to attempt to take the step suggested by my hon. friend is debatable. There are opinions on both sides. In the light

The Address-Mr. Green of the information the government has at this time it does not propose to take action now.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the pilot boat disaster in Saint John harbour. A question was asked on Friday as to what consideration had been given by the government to an inquiry. I ask him whether he is now in a position to answer, and in particular whether in view of the circumstances this is not one case in which there ought to be of necessity an open inquiry so that all the matters in issue, and the circumstances, could be fully considered and known and brought to the attention of the public.


George Carlyle Marler: I thought that I had made it clear the other day in answer to a question that I thought a public inquiry would be necessary and would be held. Unfortunately I have not received a report from the officer of the department who went to Saint John. I understand that the report now has come to hand and I hope to have its contents later today. However, I am not in a position to say more than I said when the question was asked on Friday.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, January 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. R. F. L. Hanna for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Shaw.
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, in many of the Liberal speeches during this session it has been easy to detect an attempt on their part to portray themselves as great admirers of the United Kingdom and of the commonwealth. Obviously the actions of the government during the Suez crisis last fall, in which Canada was one of the leaders in the attack on the United Kingdom and on France, have received criticism from Canadians from coast to coast. It would appear that the government and its


supporters are now attempting so hard to escape from the consequences of this earlier stand.
Of course, the leadership in the adoption of such a stand was taken by the Prime Minister of Canada. His attitude is very accurately summed up by an editorial in the Chicago Tribune, that paper which for many years has been the leader in bitter, unfair and malicious attacks on the United Kingdom. I have here a report dated December 6,	1956 in which the Chicago
Tribune, concerning the attitude of the Canadian Prime Minister on the Suez crisis, has this to say:
The Chicago Tribune, commenting on Prime Minister St. Laurent's statement in the House of Commons on the Middle East crisis, says editorially it represents an "encouraging growth of the isolationist spirit in . . . unexpected quarters."
This dispatch goes on to say:
The Tribune in a November 29 editorial quotes the Prime Minister's remarks that "the era when the supermen of Europe could govern the whold world is coming pretty close to the end."
The editorial concludes with this comment:
An American official could not have put the case better.
In January of 1957 we have had this great conversion on the other side of the house. There are no more sneers at proposals on this side and no more statements like "ready aye ready" such as were used by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in November and at least in talk the government is now showing some concern for the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We always did.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that it would be far more impressive if the government took some practical steps to turn such talk into deeds. For example, why could not the government bring in a bill right away to waive the interest on the United Kingdom loan? The Prime Minister was asked about this on January 11 as reported at page 120 of Hansard. The question was:
Could he tell the house If the government has made any undertaking with regard to the proposed waiver of $22 million in interest charges due by the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister in his reply pointed out that under the agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom the United Kingdom was entitled to a waiver of the interest on this loan under three conditions. One was that it was found necessary, having regard to the gold and foreign exchange reserves of the United Kingdom; second, that the international monetary fund certified to certain

specified conditions regarding United Kingdom balance of payments statistics; and the third, that any other country which has made a loan with similar conditions is also waiving the interest agreement which of course referred to a loan made about the same time by the United States. The Prime Minister went on to say:
Early in December of last year the United Kingdom formally requested a waiver of the interest which would be due on the 31st of December, 1956.
He intimated that the question was under consideration by the government but concluded his answer with these words:
In the meantime the United Kingdom has paid the instalment of principal amounting to ?15J million which was due on December 31 and has, I understand, set aside in an account in the Bank of Canada the amount of interest, this to be held by the Bank of Canada until a decision has been reached whether or not there will be a waiver of interest granted by all those who have similar loans.
Now, the United States have found that there is some defect in the agreement they have with the United Kingdom, as a result of which that government must get further authority from congress before a waiver of interest on the United States loan can be put into effect, and apparently Canada is once again just tagging along behind the United States. There is no reason why Canada could not act independently. The government could bring in a measure to waive the payment of this interest if it saw fit to do so. Probably there is little doubt that eventually the United States will take such action and then the Canadian government will have to act and will waive the interest under the agreement. Why on earth could not a step of this kind be taken right now without waiting for a lead from Washington? Such action would be the sort of thing that would encourage the United Kingdom. It would encourage not only the government but also the people and it would give some hope to the people of Canada that this government is not pursuing its policy of criticism of the United Kingdom.
The Vancouver Province carried an excellent editorial concerning this very question on December 6 and I am going to quote the final paragraphs because they sum up the situation very clearly:
Twenty-two million extra Canadian dollars in the British treasury would not, by themselves be enough to stave off bankruptcy.
But if Ottawa were to leave them there, by waiving the interest payment off its own hook, without waiting to see what Washington was going to do, there would be other benefits.
One would be a boost for British confidence,- and there is psychology involved in every financial crisis as well as economics.
The Address-Mr. Green
Another would be to set an example to the United States Congress, which is all too likely, in the present mood of American opinion, to be reluctant to do anything for the British, even when it is in the clear interest of the United States.
The editorial concludes:
In fact, why shouldn't Ottawa lead instead of follow?
Other actions that the government could take would be to express openly some concern and a degree of understanding with respect to Britain's difficulties in such places as Cyprus and Aden. The Canadian government failed to do that over the seizure of the Suez last summer, taking the position that what happened in the Suez was none of our business. One direct result is that today about one-fifth of the troops actually in that area are Canadians. Canada was very directly concerned last summer but the government refused to acknowledge it.
Then when the British and French moved into the Suez the blow that hurt the most came from Canada. When I refer to a blow I mean the statements made by government leaders and the actions of Canada in the United Nations and the speech made by the Prime Minister in this house at the emergency session. The Canadian people would have acted very differently, Mr. Speaker, and would have at least withheld judgment. The Canadian people were and they are today entitled to have a stand taken by their government on questions like this, just as on other questions, which reflects their beliefs and their aspirations. This government has been in office for so long and is so arrogant that the ministers think they know best what Canadians should believe.
The ministers pursue their own pet ideas. Let me give an example; the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs rushing to side with the Asian members of the commonwealth on the Suez issue. The Canadian people would not have done that, although having the most friendly feelings for these fellow nations of the commonwealth. Had the Canadian people been making the decision at that time they would not have rushed to side with the Asian nations.
Just the other day the Secretary of State for External Affairs again tried to leave the impression that such action had saved the commonwealth. I was rather surprised that he should take that stand again because I think it shows he has a guilty conscience and is trying to justify the actions taken last fall by making the claim that they helped to save the commonwealth. Prime Minister Nehru was here last month and had something


The Address-Mr. Green to say about the suggestion that the commonwealth was in danger of breaking up. I quote from a dispatch of December 5, 1956 as follows:
The commonwealth, Mr. Nehru emphasized, had suffered a severe shock in the Middle East crisis and has survived it.
"This," he said, "did not lead us to think that the commonwealth association was not good enough or should be broken. I never thought so in spite of the grave differences of opinion."
The prime minister of Ceylon was quoted on December 2, 1956 as having said at the United Nations:
Prime Minister Solomon Bandaranaike of Ceylon, Interviewed at the UN, said he thought Mr. Pearson's commons statement was "rather an exaggeration." He said that there is more than mere sentiment linking the commonwealth countries together, as they were linked by a common way of life, the democratic way.
There has never been any doubt as to where Pakistan stands in the commonwealth. I point out to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), his Secretary of State for External Affairs, and other members of the cabinet that these Asian members of the commonwealth would have far more respect for Canada if Canada had taken a stand such as would have been taken by the Canadian people themselves rather than to try to curry favour with the Asian nations by running along with them. So much for that particular subject.
I should like now to say a word about the speech from the throne, more particularly about what we do not find in that speech. It mentions about ten measures which are to be brought in and apparently they are the only ones the government considers to be of importance at this session; at any rate the only ones the government feels must be dealt with by the house this spring. I think all will agree with me when I say that it is a very light legislative program. In the 21 years I have been here I do not remember any program which was as light as the one we now have before us. It is evident that the government is coasting instead of endeavouring to deal with difficult problems.
This would seem to be another sign of their arrogance. It shows the low value they place on parliament. It shows that the ministers believe they are the masters of the Canadian people rather than their servants. As an example, I would mention four prob [DOT] lems which should be dealt with.
In the first place, a policy should be adopted and legislation brought down to enable the government to co-operate with the provinces in the development of power and other resources which might be considered as self-liquidating projects. This

could be described as a joint investment program. One example is the development of power on the Saint John river. For a long time New Brunswick has been suggesting to the dominion government that it should back the provincial bonds or give similar financial support in order that this project might proceed on a large scale rather than the small scale which has been undertaken by the province alone.
The Saint John river is an international river, as is the Columbia. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) will be expecting me to refer to the Columbia later on. Two years ago the government took a licensing control over international rivers and I believe it has some responsibility for helping to bring about development on these rivers.
The Gordon commission report contains a recommendation along these lines. I am not going to read the extract in full, but it commences at the foot of page 103 and is to be found in the section dealing with the Atlantic provinces. The commission point out that there are a number of problems which require substantial capital expenditures, and the report continues.
These include the provision of additional power resources in New Brunswick and the various suggestions for improving transportation facilities which have been referred to previously. In part at least, some of these might be self-liquidating.
Mr. Gordon and his fellow commissioners go on to say:
. . . the desirability of granting some measure of capital assistance towards the construction of public projects, including improved transportation facilities, in the Atlantic provinces is apparent. Specifically it is suggested that the federal government should agree to contribute a fixed sum per annum for capital assistance for a term of years, on the understanding that the initiative in the actual allocation of these funds, including the determination of priorities should come from the Atlantic provinces themselves. Under this proposal, some kind of joint capital projects commission would be established with an appropriate staff.
There are plans for large developments on the Columbia river in British Columbia and, as the minister knows, the ultimate cost of these undertakings will be about $1,000 million. The main development consisting of a dam and power plant at Mica Creek could be commenced if it were known just how that work is to be done.


Mr. Lesage:: The engineering studies will take at least another year.


Howard Charles Green: The engineering studies may take at least a year to complete but something must be done to bring about finality as to how the work is to be completed, and the situation today is that nobody knows.
Several proposals have been made. One is that the Puget Sound utilities council,

The Address-Mr. Green
which is a United States organization, should come in and do at least part of the work, but this would give a foreign country considerable control over the river in Canada. Another is that a private company should do the work. This would mean additional cost and if that company were the British Columbia Electric it would mean a monopoly over quite an area in the province. The third suggestion is that the province of British Columbia should do it, but that province is not in a position to finance projects to the extent of $1,000 million. The final suggestion is that there should be a joint undertaking by the dominion and the province, co-operating much along the lines of the suggestion with regard to the Saint John river. Now the minister himself conferred with Premier Bennett last summer concerning Columbia river developments, and I have here the press release which followed. We find these words.
It was agreed that in the circumstances it is of the utmost importance for the future development of the province to ensure that the largest possible amount of power is derived from the hydro electric possibilities that are present, and that this be done at the lowest possible cost.
There can be no doubt that the cheapest way in which this work could be done would be by co-operation between the dominion and the province. In this way money could be raised at a lower rate of interest, and I do urge upon the government that this policy should be adopted; that there should be finality now and legislation brought down which would make it possible for the dominion government to participate.
In connection with the Columbia river may I point out to the minister that fears have been expressed in British Columbia that in the negotiations which are about to take place with the United States government Canada will be prepared to bargain away some of the rights which we now have under article 2 of the boundary waters treaty of 1909. There has already been a great delay in connection with this matter. The announcement that these negotiations were to take place was made by the minister on May 23 of last year but just the other day, on January 9, he told a questioner in the house that no definite date had been settled. Someone, either here or in Washington, is dragging his feet in connection with these negotiations.
However, under the boundary waters treaty Canada has the right to divert water from the Kootenay to the Columbia and from the Columbia to the Fraser without the United States government being entitled to protest. That right only comes to us because the United States itself insisted on including
a provision to this effect in the treaty of 1909, when it favoured the United States, and I hope the minister and his advisers are not prepared now to go down to Washington and bargain away the rights which belong to us under that treaty.
The second problem which I suggest should be faced this session is Canada's lack of a deep-sea fleet. I am not going to discuss this question in any detail today; I will just say this: the government has allowed the deep-sea fleet under the Canadian flag to disintegrate. There are still only 17 deep-sea cargo vessels, which represent a total tonnage of less than 100,000 tons, and out of this number eight are Canadian National Steamships. It is true there are some 90 wartime vessels on the United Kingdom registry, but I understand that about 20 of these have been sold this year, so that in a matter of a few months that number will be down to about seventy. These vessels are under United Kingdom control; they are not manned by Canadians. Some of them were requisitioned for service in connection with the Suez canal by the United Kingdom government.
Canadian-registered ships are practically off the high seas at the present time. One result is that supplies and equipment for Canada's forces in the Middle East have to be carried in foreign bottoms; there are no Canadian ships available to carry them. In order to carry Canadian troops and their equipment to the Middle East, what do we do? We strip the Magnificent, Canada's principal naval vessel, built at a cost of millions of dollars. That vessel had to be stripped-I presume at a cost of more millions of dollars-in order that she could act as a troop carrier.
Next year or, at the latest, by the opening of navigation in 1959 the St. Lawrence seaway will be ready for use. There will not be one Canadian deep-sea vessel to use it unless some policy is quickly adopted by the Canadian government. Other nations are preparing for this opening. Germany has been building vessels for that service. But at the present time there are no Canadian or American vessels available. The Americans have moved to meet the situation. I have here the year-end summary of the federal maritime board. The chairman of that board, Mr. Clarence G. Morse, had this to say with regard to shipping through the seaway:
Additional ocean transportation service on essential U.S. foreign trade routes is expected under operating-differential subsidy agreements. In February 1956 the ocean routes between the great lakes and St. Lawrence river ports of the United States and ports of western Europe were declared essential to the trade and economy of the nation.

The Address-Mr. Green and the size and type of ships and frequency of service required was determined by the maritime administration.
Mr. Morse goes on to point out that three American shipping companies are taking advantage of that provision, also that the route through the great lakes to the Caribbean is to be declared essential. Thus, when the seaway is opened there will be American -vessels to use it, but all Canadian freight through great lakes ports will have to be carried by foreign vessels.


George Carlyle Marler: I suppose the hon. member means overseas traffic?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, deep-sea traffic. The present position illustrates so clearly the folly of delay. I point out once again to the minister and to the government that there must be a policy and legislation which will ensure a nucleus of modern deep-sea cargo vessels owned and manned by Canadian citizens and [DOT]operated under Canadian registry.
The third and fourth questions which in my opinion should be dealt with at this session affect the Canadian people directly, and for that reason they are even more important than the subjects I have already mentioned. One is legislation for veterans and the other is welfare legislation, including old age security, old age assistance and pensions for the blind.
With regard to the veterans there was practically no legislation last session. At that time we were given the excuse that the government was waiting for the resolutions from the dominion convention of the Canadian Legion which was held in Vancouver in June. Those resolutions have, of course, been available now for many months. Furthermore, the cabinet met the dominion executive of the Legion in November, and once again recommendations were made for improvements in veterans legislation. Nevertheless, there is not one word in the speech from the throne about any such legislation being introduced.
Some of these particular matters are of great importance to the veterans of Canada. Let us consider, for example, the subject of pensions. The Legion have asked that there should be an increase in pension rates to correspond with the increase in the cost of living. Then they ask, once again, that where a disability has not been recorded on enlistment there should be a presumption that, should it develop subsequently, it did arise while the veteran was in the service even though the doctors may suggest a pre-enlistment origin.
Another point which should be dealt with this session is the removal of the provision which affects marriages by veterans of the first war. Any who were married since May 1, 1954,


can receive no payment for their wives. This deadline should have been wiped out long ago. The practice has been to lift it from time to time, that is, to put it ahead, but evidently there is to be no such action this year.
Turning to war veterans allowances, the Legion has asked again that the ceilings on permissive income be raised to $1,200 for a single man and $2,000 for a married man and that the married rate be raised from $108 to $120. These again are changes which should have been made a long time ago, and I cannot understand the attitude of the government in failing to take some step to meet this need at the present time. The equity in a home allowed to a recipient of war veterans allowance should be increased from $6,000 to $8,000 or $9,000 to be in line with the values of homes at the present time. These are all changes which should not have to wait but apparently there is to be no legislation until 1958.
I believe that parliament is shirking its duty in not dealing with these veterans' problems now. We are all at fault. Members on all sides of the house will be criticized for the failure to bring down legislation along these lines, and I hope that the government will change its mind and see that something is done before dissolution.
The final question I wish to place before the house as calling for action this year is the matter of welfare legislation involving, for example, our senior citizens and those Canadians who have the misfortune to be blind. I believe that very real hardship is being suffered by thousands of such Canadians across this land. Their pensions have never been sufficient to enable them to live decently. Their pensions have represented merely an existence. Now, with the great decrease in the value of money, these payments have fallen far below the existence level.
In a few provinces some help is given by the provincial governments. I know that is true in my own province of British Columbia. But obviously the time has come for a general increase. Someone may say: Well, how is it going to be paid? I believe that these increases could be paid out of the large surplus. Apparently the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) is expecting a surplus of from $300 million to $400 million. Such increases could also be paid by means of a larger levy. I believe the people of Canada would be perfectly willing to pay more taxes in order to increase the payments going to these worthy Canadians.
Unless action is taken this session there can be no improvement until the fall or

perhaps 1958. Meanwhile these older Canadians and the blind will continue to suffer. In my opinion that will be tragic and a very direct result of the failure of the government to act now.
It is not going to be good enough for the Minister of Finance to make an announcement in March or early in April that something is to be done about old age and blind pensions at a later date. Action should be taken now. Legislation should be placed on the statute books during the present session.
On these four questions, the joint development of power projects, re-establishing the Canadian deep sea fleet, legislation for veterans and welfare legislation, the government as yet is offering no leadership. On these questions the speech from the throne is just one big blank. Evidently this session is going to last for another two and a half lo three months.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, oh!


Walter Edward Harris: Why look at me?


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) laughs. I do not know whether that means it will last for a longer or shorter time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will not do anything to lengthen it.


Howard Charles Green: In any event, it is generally understood that we will be here for another two and a half to three months. I suggest that the government bestir itself and deal with these problems. There is no reason why these and other problems should be shelved. They should be dealt with this spring, and I can assure you that if they are not the new government which will take over this fall will deal with them promptly and effectively.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why do you want them settled in the meantime?


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker,
in rising to take part in the resumption of this debate I want to congratulate most sincerely the two hon. gentlemen who initiated the debate by moving and seconding the address in reply. It is pleasant to welcome these two hon. members to the ranks of those who in past sessions have had the privilege of performing this important duty. I assure both hon. gentlemen that in the opinion of their colleagues in the house they each performed their duties in the highest traditions of this house.
This session opened, Mr. Speaker, under the shadow of very serious events in the international field. The so-called Suez situation is only one of the serious matters of international importance facing the free
The Address-Mr. Dickey world today. On the domestic scene there was also the shadow of the stoppage of work on the Canadian Pacific railway. Fortunately the international situation has not developed as adversely as very well might have happened, and while matters of international policy are still of extreme concern we can at least take heart from the fact that since the brief special session of parliament last fall the situation has improved considerably rather than the reverse.
The situation with respect to the Canadian Pacific railway strike is, of course, even more favourable. That strike has become, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) predicted it would become, a part of the industrial history of this country. We are now discussing the traditional address in reply with the more serious aspects of that work stoppage attended to.
The amendment to the address in reply moved by the official opposition calls, I believe, for at least some passing reference, particularly the strange choice of words adopted in framing that amendment. As it appears on page 30 of Hansard of January 9, it respectfully represents to His Excellency that his advisers, by reason of their indifference, inertia and lack of leadership in the face of serious national and international problems, have lost the confidence of the house and of the country.
Let us look at the record very briefly to see whether or not hon. members opposite have tried to suggest any real reason why they should select such words as "indifference", "inertia" and "lack of leadership". Take, for example, the question of the Suez problem and the international situation generally.
Has any hon. gentleman opposite suggested that the Canadian representatives at the United Nations showed an indifference to these problems or showed any inertia in dealing with them? Canada's initiative is recognized by every other country in the world, friend or foe, but the official opposition chooses to suggest-contrary to the clear record-that the government has been indifferent and inert.
Only this morning it was said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), somewhat in criticism of the government, that at the present time one-fifth of the membership of the United Nations emergency force is made up of Canadian soldiers. I ask the hon. gentleman this question: are those Canadian soldiers there because of indifference and inertia on the part of the Canadian government? I suggest that the opposite is the case. I suggest that the hon. member must be either in favour of the government's

The Address-Mr. Dickey policy or against it. I suggest that a reading of his speech will justify the presumption by the people of Canada that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the party of which he is a distinguished member in this house are against the present policy of the Canadian government in attempting to participate in United Nations action to maintain peace and order in the Middle East and throughout the world.
Let us now look at the record in so far as the Canadian Pacific Railway strike is concerned. That strike was a matter of tremendous importance to practically every section of this country. It was of importance to business men, to farmers and to all those engaged in productive activity in this country. Have hon. members of the official opposition suggested that there was any inertia or indifference in the government's handling of this problem?


Mr. Montgomery:: Yes; they have.


Mr. Hodgson:: Yes, indeed.


Gage Workman Montgomery: There certainly was
inertia.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: If the Prime Minister had done in the first place, before the strike happened, the very thing he did in the end there would have been no strike at all.


John Horace Dickey: I am glad to hear the hon. members opposite take that attitude. Let us look at the record. I do not know whether or not hon. members who have been interrupting me believe in the principle of collective bargaining in this country.


Gage Workman Montgomery: We certainly do.


John Horace Dickey: What happened was that the process of collective bargaining was followed and it was found to be impossible for the two sides to reach a settlement of their differences, even with the active assistance of the Department of Labour and the government represented by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). The strike was called and it took place. The government took action to try to get the parties together and to narrow the differences that were separating them. This action was taken in order to get a resumption of railway service under way at the earliest possible date. Do hon. members opposite suggest that the days of conferences and negotiation which brought about a resumption of rail service and a submission of the remaining points of difference to a board of inquiry to be set up by the government came about because of indifference and inertia? If that is so, they certainly are showing a real lack of appreciation of the activities that went on.
	,

The settlement of the differences in so far as they could be settled and the agreement to have the remaining differences submitted to a tribunal for study and report came about solely as a result of the initiative of the Prime Minister. The result that was achieved is a tribute to his understanding of the position of both sides and to his policy of bringing them together and reducing the area of difference to a point where each side could agree upon a cessation of the strike and resumption of rail service on grounds that were satisfactory to each of them. This result will go down in the industrial history of Canada as a great achievement on the part of the Prime Minister and the government, and one which was brought about by hard, patient and excellent work on the part of those who were engaged in the negotiations, including management, labour and government.
One of the extraordinary things about this choice of language-"indifference, inertia and lack of leadership"-is that in fact the only group in this house to which those words can be properly ascribed is the official opposition. The leading members of the other two opposition groups have pointed that fact out to their colleagues in opposition in no uncertain terms. It has not been left to the members on this side of the house to bring this matter to public attention.
The official opposition in this session has clearly shown sings of most marked indifference, inertia and lack of leadership. They have always been waiting for the government to announce its policy with regard to this or that, and then they would say what was in their minds. That was said clearly, Mr. Speaker, by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) both inside and outside of this house with respect to the Canadian Pacific Railway strike. He said: "When the government acts, we will then let our position be known". The government has acted and the strike has come to an end. Has the Leader of the Opposition or any member of the official opposition mentioned that fact since the settlement? Not at all. We and the Canadian people are still completely in the dark as to what the position of the official opposition was with respect to that important matter or what they would or could have done about it.
An excellent example of the attitude that the members of the official opposition are taking is the speech of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) in this debate on Thursday. It was the same kind of hodge podge that the hon. member gives to this house whenever he rises in his place to speak. He repeated the old song that he sang so

often inside and outside this house last year, namely that the government was an old and tired gang. As reported at page 340 of Hansard, he said this:
It is high time that this old gang this tired, worn-out old gang, this group who are ready to move to that rest home down the hall . . . were permitted to go there; . . .
I would have thought the hon. member for Broadview and his colleagues in the official opposition, in the light of recent history of their party and also in the light of recent events in this house, would have given up that particular line of argument because everyone knows which party has been showing signs of fatigue, being old and tired, and with members who are looking for somewhere else to go.
Now, Hr. Speaker, we in Ottawa have been experiencing over the last 10 days or so very severe winter weather. That has been true of other parts of the country. In my province of Nova Scotia there have been, since the last days of December, a succession of very severe and damaging storms. These storms have interfered with transportation services and have caused great difficulties for a number of people. The portion of the population which has particularly suffered has been the shore fishermen who, in order to carry out their work, have to maintain wharves and fish houses right along the shore and have to keep stored in exposed locations their lobster traps, boats, nets, and other equipment. These storms, most exceptional in their character, have caused a great deal of damage in the fishing villages of Halifax county and other counties along the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia.
As hon. members know, we in this parliament, as a result of the initiative of the government, have provided means whereby certain of the gear and other accoutrements of the fishermen can be insured against losses of this nature at very favourable rates. Unfortunately many of the fishermen have not taken full advantage of these insurance procedures. In addition the losses which have recently been sustained, particularly in villages such as Prospect and east and west Dover and other villages in Halifax county, have been of such a nature that they would not all have been covered by this insurance in any event. That situation has created a good deal of hardship and a great deal of difficulty for the fishermen who have suffered such severe reverses.
The Department of Public Works which provides public wharves, breakwaters and other facilities for the fishing industry will, of course, study the situation, will repair damage to protective works and wharves wherever public structures have suffered
The Address-Mr. Dickey damage and will be prepared to provide wherever possible and where required additional protection, the need for which has been made obvious by these recent storms. The question of some relief or assistance for those who have suffered losses in this connection is a matter which must first of all be dealt with by the provincial authorities. I have received a number of inquiries from interested people in my constituency about this matter. I have had to reply to them that applications for relief or assistance for the repair and replacement of damaged wharves, fish houses, lobster traps and the like must go in the first instance to the provincial authorities. Then, if the provincial authorities find that the amount of damage and its widespread character is such that it is an emergency beyond the capacity of the province to cope with adequately, the province could, if it saw fit, take the step of applying to the federal government for assistance.
The provincial government, having responsibility for property and civil rights within the province, is the sole judge of the extent of damage and the kind of disaster which has taken place. If they, in the exercise of their constitutional responsibilities, find that there is a disaster which requires and justifies national participation then I am sure their official application to the government on that basis would receive consideration on its merits.
That has been the pattern which has been established over the years for dealing with like matters and the normal pattern would, I am sure, be faithfully carried out in this respect.
Turning to something which is a little more hopeful, I wish to make some reference to the extent of winter port activity through the port of Halifax. The expansion of both import and export trade which has gone on under the policies of this government over the past few years has resulted in a very satisfactory and heartening expansion of the trade through the port of Halifax both in summer and in winter. Of course our winter traffic is particularly heavy. This is the season of the year when our facilities are taxed to their utmost. The harbours board and the Department of Transport have over the years taken a great interest in providing as rapidly as they can the facilities which are required in the port of Halifax. We are very happy with the important construction activities which have been going on in the port of Halifax over the years and at the present time. However, one aspect of the provision of facilities which has not kept pace with the expanding business by any means is the grain handling capacity. The

The Address-Mr. Dickey provision of the extra belts for more rapid loading of ships at the grain berths which are now provided is essential. The harbours board had made provision for funds to provide these belts and it had been hoped that they would be in operation for this shipping season. Unfortunately the steel strike and other matters delayed installation of these belts and this has had to be put off until next spring.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that consideration should be given and favourable action speedSy taken to provide additional grain berths through the construction of new galleries so that there will be at least three additional grain berths available for grain boats entering Halifax during the next winter.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to a question which is of considerable interest to Halifax and Dartmouth and one that is of national interest as well. That is the question of housing and the redevelopment of urban areas. The record of house building in Canada since the second world war is, I think, an excellent one indeed. We were faced at the end of the war with a very severe post-war shortage of housing and priority naturally had to be given to the provision as rapidly as possible of new homes to meet the demands of returning servicemen and the demands of the ordinary civilian population who had been forced to put up with shared accommodation and the like during the war years.
In recent weeks there has been some criticism by hon. members opposite on the matter of the provision of housing and the operation of the National Housing Act. I do not quite know how they would expect to have the preceding records of completion that have been made over the past few years continued uninterrupted particularly at a time when the economy of this country is straining in every direction and when it is not to be expected that we can do all the things we want to do or all the things that need to be done at the same time. However, in spite of the suggestions from hon. gentlemen opposite that we are facing an extremely difficult problem in this regard, I am sure that the eventual housing record for this year and succeeding years will be a highly satisfactory and creditable one indeed. In the next year or so we may not make as much progress as we have in the last couple of years in overcoming the backlog, but I am sure we will have almost total success in keeping up with new demands.
I suggest this is a time, Mr. Speaker, when those in charge of our cities and towns should take the opportunity of having a look at the
[Mr. Dickey.l

extremely important question of urban redevelopment and renewal; in other words community planning. We have all seen the excellent attractive new sections that have been added both within the borders of our cities and towns and immediately outside of them in post-war years. These have been priority projects because they provided new housing without any complications for the rehousing of people who had already been accommodated, but I feel that now the emphasis should be shifted and under the leadership of the provincial authorities and with the co-operation of the federal authorities the municipal governments should take a very careful look at community planning and should make arrangements to participate to the ultimate of their abilities in redevelopment and rehousing.
The redevelopment of cities is made necessary not only by the houses and other buildings that have been caught up with by deterioriation and obsolescence; I believe we have a tendency to pay too much attention to that side of the problem. The necessity also comes from our requirements to meet new demands that are being made upon the hearts of our urban areas and by the changes and increases in automobile traffic, the growing needs of business and industry and the changing patterns of living within our cities. Private owners in the normal course will make their own individual decisions as to improvement of properties and changes in the use of those properties, but with the changing pattern of life in cities there often arise circumstances where unfavourable conditions in an area or the unfavourable nature of surrounding properties discourage individual initiative and as a result an entire area can be condemned to a gradual and slow process of deterioration until it reaches the ultimate status of a slum. The economic losses to the owners of these properties, the loss of tax revenue and the staggering cost in terms of the waste of human resources which accompanies this result is becoming more and more obvious even in the cities and towns of Canada which are relatively new and which by European standards are certainly very young indeed. The only answer to this problem is action by public authority for the redevelopment of areas which have come to experience this degeneration.
The machinery for this redevelopment exists but I think that too little use of it has been made up until now. The legislation passed by this parliament in this field is far-reaching and I believe it provides excellent means whereby municipal governments can tackle this task with resultant advantage to themselves as municipalities and to the great

benefit of their citizens generally. The obstacles to be overcome are local resistance which arises out of short-sightedness and ideas of false economy. We are all too prone to recognize the immediate expenditures involved in projects of this nature and to lose sight of the very real economic and human benefits that can be achieved over a period of years. The National Housing Act as it was amended at the last session provides first of all for the planning of redevelopment and renewal in any urban area in Canada. Under the act Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation may make grants for the purpose of carrying out surveys of housing conditions and urban studies. These studies may be of a general nature or they may be related to specific conditions or problems. Out of these studies can be produced a basic plan for community development in any municipality.
While there has been a growing interest in redevelopment on the part of the municipalities of Canada, the full advantages available have not been recognized. I am glad to say that Halifax is one Canadian city that has participated in one of these studies which has not yet been completed. The Halifax study which should be completed this spring provides for a survey by Professor Gordon Stevenson of the rehousing requirements of residents of blighted areas which require clearance and the re-use of the cleared lands.
Seventy-five per cent of the estimated cost up to a maximum of $12,000 is borne by this government, with the city being responsible for the remaining 25 per cent.


Mr. Nicholson:: What about the provinces? Is there a cost sharing arrangement? Does the province share in the profit?


John Horace Dickey: The province would have no share of the cost, but under this particular study the province could have an important share in the redevelopment and re-use of the land after the site is cleared.
The same type of study is being conducted in Saint John, New Brunswick with a more extensive study being undertaken in Toronto. Two separate studies are being performed in Winnipeg. All of these studies receive similar assistance from this government. A study is also being carried on in Vancouver. I suggest that many other cities and towns in Canada could obtain valuable assistance from studies of this kind and I suggest that they give serious thought to participating in such studies.
While a study of this nature is an essential first step, the real difficulty arises when consideration is given to implementing the recommendations of a study. Action in this
The Address-Mr. Dickey connection is provided by the act by way of a partnership between the federal and provincial governments or, alternatively, between the federal government and the municipality with provincial agreement in that kind of arrangement. Under this partnership the federal government may pay one-half of the gross cost of acquiring and clearing the area selected as a result of a study. The land can then be used by the municipality for its highest and best use. That is to say, it can be used for a low-rental project, for medium rental projects, for high rental, for public, commercial or industrial use, or the best combination of them. This is the change in the act which was brought about last year and I believe it makes these redevelopment proposals much more attractive to municipalities. It is a sensible change in that it makes land available for its highest and best use.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation can participate in redevelopment under any one of these plans provided for by the act through the joint financing of low-rental housing projects, limited dividend projects and the like. It is also possible that private enterprise can be welcomed to participate in one of these redevelopment plans in an appropriate way.
Redevelopment does not simply mean the demolition and rebuilding of an area. It means first of all the making of a plan, second, the demolition and clearing of the area selected; third, the taking of measures to prevent further blighting of the area and surrounding areas; and, fourth, the re-use of the land for its best use as decided by the municipality.
The advantages of these proposals are well summarized in a study made by the city of Toronto in 1956 of urban renewal. It points out that to the resident the advantages are the removal of overcrowded and unsanitary accommodation and its replacement by a wide range of dwellings in houses and apartments within or beyond the city limits and at prices or rents which are reasonable, or re-housing in the same area.
To the industrialist it provides sites to suit industries that need a central location, with adequate parking and loading facilities, efficient transportation of materials and products and good transit service for employees.
To the businessman it offers commercial districts expanded at logical locations, with ample parking facilities laid out for customers', clients', and office workers' convenience.
To the individual affected it offers areas where clearance and rebuilding or improvement projects are sponsored by the city, equitable treatment and fair prices to property owners.

The Address-Mr. MacLean
Then to the city council and all citizens it otters economy through the re-use of valuable but blighted areas, with an orderly plan of civic spending.
I have just caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, and I realize that my time is up. I want to conclude by saying that I hope the city of Halifax will take advantage of this study which I have mentioned and go forward to a sensible project for the re-use of land which may be selected by the city. I hope the town of Dartmouth and other cities and towns right across Canada will take advantage of these facilities for civic improvement.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise at this time to take part in the debate on the subamendment now before the house I should like to call your attention to a paragraph which appears in the speech from the throne and which reads:
Excellent progress Is being made in our national economic development. Expansion is evident in every part of Canada. Rapid strides are being made in opening up and utilizing our natural resources and in our industrial and urban growth. Employment has reached unprecedented levels. Once again we have been blessed with good crops. External trade was considerably greater last year than during any previous year. Canadians in almost every part of the country have been enjoying the benefits of this invigorating economic climate.
The only trouble is that anyone living in the maritimes would not recognize that as an outline of the economic situation in the part of the country in which he is living. As a matter of fact when I read it I was almost led to believe that somewhere in the government there must be an official of the type that used to exist in czarist Russia and whose job it was to go in advance when the czar was making a trip to brighten up the villages along the route so that the czar would be led to believe that everything was fine in his kingdom. In this case it is not the monarch who is being fooled: if anyone is being fooled it is the general public.
At best there appears to be a lack of understanding of the situation in which the four Atlantic provinces find themselves. At the very worst it may be that the government has concluded that the voice of the maritimes in the affairs of the nation has decreased to a low point and that politically the Atlantic provinces are no longer important and no government needs to seek their support. Reading this over I notice that the only reference in which they indicate that every prospect is not rosy is where they say: "Canadians in almost every part of the country have been enjoying the benefits of this invigorating economic climate." It is the one word "almost". Ten per cent of our population and four of our provinces have been passed over with that reference-"almost".

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, further on in the speech from the throne this statement is found:
The preliminary report of the royal commission on economic prospects has been received and will shortly be laid before you.
As hon. members know, we now have this preliminary report and I would like to refer to it briefly. I think the report of the Gordon commission will serve a very useful purpose in focussing the attention of, I hope, all the Canadian people on the urgent need for a complete new deal for the Atlantic provinces. In this connection I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Inverness-Rich-mond (Mr. MacEachen) on the very excellent and astute observations he made with regard to this subject during the course of his speech in this debate a few days ago. My nature is to be generous and I regret, therefore, that my generosity cannot be strained to the point of congratulating the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Dickey) with regard to his references to the Gordon commission and the plight of the maritimes generally. I regret that shortness of time did not allow him to reach that point: I expect he would have done so had he not reached the limit of the period allotted to him.
When the Atlantic provinces entered confederation they entered it in the belief that they would retain most of the many benefits which they had already built up for themselves as colonies. They were led to believe that in addition the colonies, by uniting together, would receive further mutual benefits. One of the chief advantages which were to accrue from confederation was the greater ease of defence of British North America. They were also led to believe that the larger unit would prove to be a more efficient economy, providing a higher standard of living for all its members.
What did the Atlantic provinces find on entering confederation-when it was too late? They found that tariffs for the whole country seemed to be set with only rare consideration for the effect such tariffs would have,on the Atlantic provinces. As a result the Atlantic provinces found that their normal channels of trade north and south had virtually been completely cut off and that their trade and commerce had been forced into an unnatural channel east and west.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman
speaking for the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees)?


John Angus MacLean: No, I am speaking for myself and the people I represent. The hon. member for Broadview is quite able to represent his own constituency.


Walter Edward Harris: I was asked about inconsistency this morning.


Gage Workman Montgomery: You don't have to go
further than your own government to find it.


John Angus MacLean: The Atlantic provinces, after entering confederation, find that the cost of transportation services from and to markets in central Canada from which they were supposed to benefit has become so prohibitively high that most of the industries of the maritimes are unable to carry the load.
Incidentally, when this family got together the maritime provinces were astonished to find that one of the ambitions of the two biggest members of the family was, shortly afterwards, to make vast land grabs from the rich northern lands, acquisitions which were bought and paid for by all the members of the family, without making any reasonable compensation in respect of the maritimes' share of those lands. I was astonished to find, sometime ago, that since confederation-since the time when Upper and Lower Canada-New Brunswick and Nova Scotia joined this partnership,-Quebec and Ontario have taken unto themselves a land mass greater in extent than all the territory in eastern Europe which came into Russian hands during and after the second world war. Of course I am not suggesting for one moment that the two situations are comparable. Nevertheless, it is a fact that this great territory containing many rich natural resources has contributed greatly to the wealth of the provinces concerned since it has been taken over, while the increasing population accruing to the provinces concerned has also given them a much greater voice in the affairs of the nation.
It should be remembered that at the time of confederation the Atlantic provinces were perhaps the most prosperous of any in British North America. Their population was growing, their industries were multiplying and their influence increasing. Since that time, however, the progress they were making has not continued. If one were to construct a graph of almost any activity in the maritimes-industrial production, trade, increase of population or anything else-one would find that there had been a sharp falling off after confederation.
Mr. Speaker, I see it is one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, when proceedings were interrupted for lunch at one o'clock I was pointing out that the economy 82715-29
The Address-Mr. MacLean . of the maritimes before confederation had been improving constantly and that in almost all fields there was a marked falling off in these activities coincidental with confederation. In another regard the maritime provinces find themselves in a less advantageous position, and increasingly so as the years go by. I refer to the weight of their voice in the affairs of the nation. At the time of confederation the maritime provinces were represented in this chamber by 43 members out of a total of 206, or more than 20 per cent of the total. At the present time these same three provinces are represented by 26 members out of a total membership of 265 or just under 10 per cent. The political influence of the maritime provinces has, therefore, declined more than half from what it was at the time of confederation.
The Gordon commission studied carefully,
I think, conditions as ttiey found them in the maritimes and have made a fairly objective report on what they discovered. To my way of thinking the report is not intended to be a forecast of what the potentialities of the maritimes are in reality but rather an observation on the facts as they are and have been over the last number of years. They project that state of affairs into the future pointing out the conditions that the maritime provinces may find themselves faced with by 1980, and their forecast is a gloomy one indeed.
It is not, as I said, a forecast of our real potentialities but rather a matter of pointing out and turning the spotlight on the neglect which the maritime provinces have suffered at the hand of every government since confederation in varying degree. I do not suggest that the ills we find ourselves undergoing at the present time are solely the responsibility of the present government. That is not the case. But nevertheless the fact cannot be denied that here and now this government is responsible and has been responsible for more than 20 years. They will be responsible for a few more months at least. Time is running out both for the economy of the maritime provinces and for the government. I believe the people of the maritime provinces are rapidly realizing that it is not in their interests to support continuously any government of any party that persists in ignoring the problems of the maritimes which are for the most part artificial ones and in my opinion almost wholly curable.
We in the maritimes think it is only fair to expect that certain things should be done and done promptly. We feel we should demand that they be done at the earliest possible moment. One injustice from which
450	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. MacLean the maritime provinces are suffering at the present time arises from the fact that the benefits to which they were entitled under the Maritime Freight Rates Act have been almost entirely nullified by the horizontal increases in freight rates which have taken place over the years. It is essential that the government take action immediately to amend the Martime Freight Rates Act to restore the benefits which the act originally contained.
We also feel that consideration should be given immediately and action taken to correct some of the injustices we are suffering as the result of the Canadian tariff at the present time. In this connection the Gordon commission recommends that the tariff should be studied continuously and adjustments made as circumstances require. To quote briefly, they say as found at page 73 of their report:
In fact we would advocate a continuing reexamination of the tariff Aaving in mind continually changing industrial renditions, products and technology.
In that regard there is an anomaly in the tariff structure which is of vital interest to the maritime provinces, especially Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. I refer to the tariff on potatoes entering the United States from Canada and the tariff on United States potatoes entering Canada. When the present tariff was set up the tariff on United States potatoes was pretty much an academic question because in those days the trade was almost entirely from north to south. But now the situation has changed and we find a condition under which maritime potatoes have to find markets in the United States over a tariff of 35 cents a hundred-weight, and that on a quota. When the quota is reached the duty is doubled on any potatoes allowed to enter that country. On the other hand, United States potatoes come into Canada duty free except during six weeks each year. That is a situation which should, I strongly believe, be rectified immediately.
I have made a few suggestions and I intend to make more. In my opinion encouragement should be given to the fishing industry in the maritime provinces. Medical research at the present time seems to indicate that marine foods have a beneficial effect on one's diet, especially in relation to certain degenerative diseases, including heart disease. If it should be proven that this is an actual fact, it would be an opportunity for great stimulation of the fisheries so that the people of the country would have the benefit of including a greater amount of the products of the sea in their diets to the advantage not only of the fishing industry but of the health of the Canadian people as well.
Again, in this country there is a continual process of cannibalization of small industries


by larger industries. We in the maritimes suffer especially from this procedure whereby large corporations buy out small competitors for the express purpose of closing them down. That is a process from which we in the maritimes have suffered for years. We have very few large corporations which are in a position to turn the tables on their competitors in the rest of Canada. I believe that a study of the situation should be made with the idea of finding means of preventing this procedure which I think runs contrary to our belief in free competition and free enterprise. For the most part these industries that have been bought up in the maritimes and closed down are, for their own size and their own area, healthy businesses which would continue to grow indefinitely if merely left to themselves to do so.
I also think that greater attention should be given to finding markets for the products of the maritimes, especially markets in other parts of the world. We are by nature a marine people. Before confederation we were an important marine area, taking an important part in the shipping business of the world. This business disappeared completely. But if markets were found in other parts of the world for more of our maritime products, this action might not only stimulate the business of the maritimes but it might create a new industry, that of the merchant marine again, for maritime enterprise.
These are modest requests. I sincerely believe that all reasonable Canadians would think that they are not extravagant, especially if they had the opportunity of going to the maritimes and seeing the situation for themselves. I should like to think that every member of this house, in the course of a parliament, would take the opportunity of travelling as widely as possible in this country so that he might see for himself the problems that face certain segments of our economy. I think that statement is applicable to all members. I should like to see a member from Newfoundland take the opportunity of coming to Ottawa via the Yukon on some occasions, and vice versa.
The Gordon commission has done great service to the maritimes in pointing out the difficulties under which we labour. It makes a great number of what I consider to be sound recommendations in many other fields to which I do not wish to refer specifically at the present time. But I believe it has done a disservice to the maritimes-the four Atlantic provinces-in that it grossly underestimates the potential of that area.
We have great possibilities in the Atlantic provinces. We have great mineral wealth which has not yet been exploited or explored.

It must be realized that the Atlantic provinces include not only the three maritime provinces but Newfoundland and Labrador as well. We have great reserves of coal. We have a good climate most of the time. There is a possibility-though it is only a possibility-that oil may be discovered in the maritimes in the near future. We have a fisheries industry that could be greatly expanded under favourable conditions. We are a "natural" as far as merchant shipping is concerned. Our agricultural potential has not been exploited to the extent of half of its possibilities. The agricultural production of the maritimes could be at least doubled merely by increasing production under favourable marketing conditions which would allow farmers to operate in a more efficient manner, giving them the funds wherewith they could further mechanize their operations and buy an optimum amount of commercial fertilizer and other such things.
We have still a considerable potential of hydroelectric power which might be developed. There again Newfoundland and Labrador should not be forgotten. There is also a possibility of generating electric power from the tides, as has already been done in France. In the maritimes the tides are even higher than they are in the part of France where this development is under way.
To maritimers it would seem reasonable that a greater percentage of the iron ore from Labrador should be processed in Sydney rather than in Pittsburgh. We feel that there is a future for heavy industry in the maritimes. We know that many European countries which are well managed and which have less in the way of resources than have we enjoy at least as high a standard of living as and, in many regards, a much higher standard of living than that which now exists in the maritime provinces.
We have an integrated population. We have a tradition of higher education. We have built up a culture which is peculiar to ourselves and of which we are extremely proud. It is a culture that we in the maritimes feel that the rest of Canada cannot obtain even for $100 million.
It seems to me that we have two choices. We can either bring our needs to the attention of the government so forcibly that they will be no longer neglected or we can go on unquestioningly and everlastingly supporting this government. If we do that, I should like to warn that we might get to the place- although I do not believe so-where the only thing we could look forward to would be a one-way ticket from the maritimes to some other part of Canada. In that connection I should like to warn that only a very few 82715-29J
The Address-Mr. Macnaughton
maritimers receiving such free transportation would find that their destination was the red chamber.
This government has been proud of the record it has set in many matters. I should like to point out that in the last year and a half it has created a new record. It has exceeded Rip Van Winkle's record by about a year and a half. It seems completely oblivious of the problems under which we in the maritimes are labouring.
I feel strongly that we have a great future if given the opportunity, and I think all maritimers and Newfoundlanders will agree with me in that sentiment. We may realize that future even in spite of present government policies if they are not rectified. We are trying our best to lift ourselves up by the bootstraps by such endeavours as APEC, the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. But if these conditions are not rectified and if we fail, there may come a time when we must resort to the suggestion that is often hinted at by the premier of Newfoundland, namely that we might consider secession from the union.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Rubbish.


John Angus MacLean: I do not think that time will ever come. I have enough faith in the maritimes and in the Atlantic provinces to believe that we have a great future and that we shall realize that future. But the task will be much easier if we are given reasonable assistance by this government, if our problems are recognized as problems which concern the nation as a whole and if it is recognized that our demands are reasonable ones. If that is done I see for the maritimers a great future, a future which will accommodate the natural increase in our population, a future which will give us a standard of living comparable to the rest of Canada.
In closing I remind you, Mr. Speaker, and through you the government, that we in the maritimes feel that we have built up our own way of life which economic conditions should not be allowed to destroy. We do not wish to emigrate again.


Mr. Alan Macnaughton (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, in the tradition of this house I would like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
May I take this opportunity of extending congratulations to the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) both on his appointment as leader of the opposition and on his election as chief of the Conservative party. Long may he reign in those two respective capacities.

The Address-Mr. Macnaughton
I have had, Mr. Speaker, the advantage of hearing and reading several of the interesting addresses from different members of the house on the subject of foreign affairs. I thought this afternoon I might advance a few ideas on that subject.
Last September I had the opportunity of visiting Europe and a few countries therein, in particular Greece and Israel. On another occasion I should like to discuss Greece and the Cyprus problem.
I admit that a short visit does not make one an expert, but at least it does indicate interest in the Middle East.
Today I would like to make a few remarks about the commonwealth and its relations, the question of the Middle East, and to advance certain considerations which I think may properly be reconsidered when we are talking about a solution for the Middle East and its problems.
The crisis in world affairs has been a long time in the making. The breakup of the nineteenth century followed the great events of the first world war and the Russian revolution. I think it is fair to say that since these two events we can hardly say we have had the advantage of peace because from these experiences have come two grave issues. The first is the rise of nationalism in the Afro-Asian world; the second, I think, is the rejection of leadership by the white and by the western nations which have up until now played a great stabilizing role in that area.
New political systems are replacing old. Certainly among the most important, on the one hand, we have the Soviet union, China and its satellites; on the other hand, the American-Anglo-French alliance. But during all these vast changes throughout the past 50 years it seems to me the most important and the most interesting thing to note is the emergence of the commonwealth as we know it today. The commonwealth as we know it today is unique because it alone bridges the gulf between the old empires of the west and the new nationalisms of the east. It is also unique because it has brought together in a form of unity the whites and those whom we like to call non-whites. Indians, Pakistanis, Australians and Canadians find the commonwealth a remarkable instrument for maintaining intimate relations that the normal contact with nations might not provide.
It seems to me that the Canadian contribution to the growth of the commonwealth has been pre-eminent. Indeed we could argue that if the commonwealth is preserved today as a continuing political fact it is because Canadian leaders in the past 50 years have been working towards greater and greater

national independence from imperial decisions. There might have been no commonwealth in 1956 if those great ex-prime ministers, such as the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, leader of the Conservative party during his time, and the late prime minister Mackenzie King, leader of the Liberal party during his time, and other leaders of Canadian political parties had not realized that the success of the commonwealth depended upon obtaining the right to decide questions for ourselves. Had we adopted the extreme Conservative viewpoint of imperial relations, about which we hear so much today, there might not have been a commonwealth today.
In that connection it seems to me also that Liberal policy may be expressed in the fact that it reflects the day to day changes in the world and could be put in these words: that the members of the commonwealth desired in modern terms to maintain unity without subordination and co-ordination only by consent and in association under the crown. Again I say that the extreme Conservative doctrine of commonwealth relations would ultimately defeat itself. Such arguments might have won a debate only to have lost a system.
What bearing does all this have on recent events in the Middle East? I think it means that Canadians find themselves in the present-day world subject to pressures from many different directions, such as the cold war, commonwealth loyalties and interests, relations with the United States, the security system of NATO and, let us face it, an over-all interest in human welfare.
All these things make Canadians think of their place in the world and of their obligations to other states. It is because these influences are so complex that no single explanation can describe the important decision we took a few weeks ago. To be definite, we abstained from the resolution demanding British and French withdrawal from the Suez because we felt that we had to state a moral position with respect to Anglo-French action, while at the same time we did not and could not condemn a fellow member of the commonwealth for actions which were the result of deep and understandable provocation.
Moreover, Canadian initiative in helping to establish the United Nations emergency force provided a timely face-saving device by which the United Kingdom and France were able to change their minds at the very moment that the United Nations offered some machinery to help resolve the problem that gave rise to the action in the first place.
To say that Canada was anti-British in those critical days is either naive or perverse, because as a result of Canada's action we

now have the moral and political right to ask those states, which regard the Anglo-French action as tragic, to accept our plan for an emergency force along with its objectives.
I will accept the interpretation of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) when he says there was a moment in November when the differences between certain members of the commonwealth and the United Kingdom were so grave as to bring the commonwealth into some kind of short-run jeopardy.


Mr. Churchill:: Nonsense.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: At the same time I should say I have always considered the commonwealth sufficiently elastic to suffer shocks of this magnitude and even greater. The commonwealth could not be great if it could not sustain great troubles.
I should like to spend a moment, with your permission, on the Israeli action in the Sinai peninsula and consider possible future solutions of the Suez trouble and the trouble with Israel-Egypt and the other Arab states.
Perhaps at this time a word of history might be of use. Israel came into being in 1948. The British government withdrew as a mandatory power at that time. The existing population consisting of Jews and Arabs in Palestine, upon the withdrawal of the British mandate, had to determine what form of jurisdiction would persist. The 1947 resolution of the United Nations in effect proposed partition into two sections, a section with a Jewish majority and a section with an Arab majority. The Arabs rejected in toto this idea of partition. On May 14, 1948 the British withdrew and on May 15 the state of Israel was declared by the Jews residing in that section of Palestine.
I do not think any serious person will deny that the Jews of Palestine could not sit idly by in the face of the fact that the Arabs would not tolerate the creation of the Jewish state. Israel was declared a state in
1948	and the result has been that since that time a state of war existed during 1948 and
1949	until the armistice agreements were signed with Israel by all the Arab nations, with the exception of Iraq. From these events has devolved a long train of contention in Arab-Israeli relations since 1949.
On the human side of this situation there are tragic consequences. We have the flight of the Arab refugees, and since that question alone remains the largest single difficulty in the way of settlement between the Arab states and Israel perhaps you would allow me to spend a few moments on it. The record
The Address-Mr. Macnaughton shows that in 1948 there were 800,000 Arabs living in Palestine. At the time of the creation of the new state of Israel there remained 200,000 Arabs; 650,000 Arabs left Palestine, or the state of Israel as we know it today, and became so-called refugees in the Gaza strip, in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. I think we should ask the question why these Arabs left. The evidence is there to show that the Israeli authorities urged them to stay and as a matter of fact there are 213,000 Arabs inside the state of Israel at the present time who "never had it so good." In other words, 25 per cent, in effect, did stay within the state. The others were induced to leave by the fear of war, by panic, by propaganda and by the promises of the Arab leaders themselves in the different Arab states that if they would leave the state of Israel for a matter of two weeks it would be only a short time until the Israeli were thrown into the sea, and that after that had taken place the Arab refugees could then return and take over their lands and properties. In fact, their leaders said, "Flee for your lives and return as victors". Unfortunately for the refugees that did not happen, and far from being defeated, the Israeli defeated the Arab states. One strip which was not captured at the time of the signing of the armistice was the Gaza strip and this marked the beginning of the creation of this problem.
Since 1948 all the inducements of Great Britain, France and the United States to resettle these Arab refugees have amounted to nothing; all the funds which have been raised by way of capital grants to assist in the resettlement, restoration and rehabilitation of these refugees have amounted to nothing. Only the United Nations relief organizations have been of material help in maintaining the existence of these poor people. In the last seven years the Arab refugees have continually insisted on returning to that section of the Middle East heretofore called Palestine, but we are apt to forget that during the past seven years Israel has taken within its borders over 800,000 Jewish refugees who left everything behind them including their assets and property and came penniless to the new state. Israel on more than one occasion has declared for compensation and the resettlement of these refugees. It would appear that the Arabs refused because so long as the refugees are unabsorbed they remain a political leverage to gain the sympathy of the world and a means of preventing peace with Israel.
I would like to deal briefly with Israel's action in the Sinai peninsula two months ago.
I think it is public knowledge that for the last seven years there have been a series of

The Address-Mr. Macnaughton raids, reprisals, killings, propaganda statements and counter-statements. Although I do not wish to sit in judgment on either side I believe there are certain facts which should be brought to the attention of the house. These facts, I admit, are advanced by the Israelis and they carry considerable weight with me.
In the first place the Arab states have been preparing for the day when they could jointly destroy Israel and throw its people into the sea. The evidence for this is to be found in the radio broadcasts and in the book recently published by Nasser himself. In the second place, during the month of September 1955 we in this country heard of the sale of large quantities of arms by the Soviet union to Egypt, obviously for use against the state of Israel. In 1956 we saw the decline of British power and influence in the state of Jordan with the expulsion of Glubb Pasha, and I may say in passing that Glubb Pasha did his best to keep a state of peace existing between the state of Jordan and the state of Israel. Nasser's subsequent success in creating a unified military command along with Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, thereby hemming in Israel with the object of destroying Israel, has created great concern in that area. We will recall that the difficulty of the Israeli government in securing arms to counteract the weight of Soviet gifts and sales of arms to Egypt and Syria was another source of discord. And last but not least, the training by ex-Nazi and Soviet advisers in the art of massacre and annihilation pushed matters forward to such an extent that Israeli statesmen had to take a definite step.
I ask the question, therefore, what should a responsible Israeli statesman have done in the face of the open threats that had been made by every Arab leader over a period of years and that were now backed up by Soviet arms and by a new Egyptian-Jordanian-Syrian joint command?
The Egyptians have openly stated that the armistice agreement of 1948 did not end the state of war. On these grounds the Egyptians barred Israeli ships from the Suez canal and fortified the straits of Aqaba to prevent Israeli ships reaching its only port on the Red sea, namely Elath.
In that connection it might be of interest to examine the legality of Egypt's possession of the islands at the entrance to the Red sea. I think you will find they were leased by Saudi-Arabia to Egypt and the legal title of Saudi-Arabia to them is open to serious doubt.
All of these facts are public knowledge and I do not need to repeat them in order to make my point. Again I would ask the

question, what should Israel have done? She is the only state in the Middle East unable to get a treaty of friendship and alliance with any great power. She has good friends, but in the game of power politics neither the United Nations nor the great powers are ready to apply measures for the protection of Israel's security.
It seems to me that these are some of the reasons why Israel moved into Sinai during October last. I think it is axiomatic that no prospective victim, whether an individual or a state, need sit and wait until the enemy is upon him.
It is not worth winning the sympathy of the world by an act of extreme forbearance at the risk of losing your life. It seems to me that this is an act which reasonable men under similar circumstances would have committed.
All of this is now past history and we have practical problems to solve. We must help to solve them as Canadians, as members of the United Nations, as the senior partner in the commonwealth and as a friend of the United States.
Already we have made a major contribution in the leadership of a program to establish and to operate the United Nations emergency force. Our view of that force, as expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), a view that appears in the November 2 resolution of the general assembly, is that the cease fire would be accompanied by a program of settlement.
Perhaps I might digress for just a moment. It seems to me that the problem in the Middle East is this: First, we had to stop the fighting; second, we have to clear the Suez; third, we have to bring a solution to the over-all general problems. We have stopped the fighting and I hope we are in the process of clearing the Suez although I have grave doubts about it.
But the third sphere of influence still persists, the need of an over-all settlement. I do not see how you can divide these three sections; they have to be taken together. If there is no over-all settlement negotiated, and I submit this will be difficult, it must be imposed by the great powers. Without an overall settlement, anything else that we might do would not amount to very much.
Any other conception of United Nations activity would, it seems to me, be hard to accept. As a Canadian I could not tolerate the tragic humiliation of Anglo-French power and interests unless there were a lasting compensation of satisfaction for their vital interests in that area, namely some suitable machinery to protect the Suez from unilateral Egyptian control, and reasonable assurance

that British and western interests in the Persian gulf are not going to be the subject of perpetual Arab cold and hot warfare.
Equally it would be a sad day for Canadian responsibility for the emergency force if its tasks were over the moment the Israeli were thrown back to the 1949 armistice line. This could never have been the intention of wiser heads in the general assembly. It must have been foreseen at that time that the status quo which caused all these troubles could never be reasserted and that instead some new ideas must be accepted by the assembly and supported by the great powers to bring a lasting peace with justice to all peoples in that region.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does not the resolution most recently passed by the United Nations restore the status quo by urging the army of Israel to withdraw from the Gaza strip?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: I only know what I have read in the reports in the press as of Saturday and this morning. I have not had an opportunity to see the actual resolution and decide whether it does or does not. My position is that there can be no settlement of the Middle East situation until the great powers enforce an over-all solution. They have the power to do it and I think the time has come for them to do it. As you probably know, at the United Nations 5 per cent for it is better than no per cent at all.
It is true that long-term settlements are difficult to plan and envisage, but there are some very important and immediate problems with which it seems to me the United Nations and the great powers should deal in relation to Israel, Egypt and the Arab states. I should like to list these for analysis.
I maintain that the necessity for the recognition of Israel as a state and working part of the Middle East should now be decided. I maintain that we must give recognition to the state of Israel and remove therefrom the threats to her security. By that I mean the elimination of border raids, the stopping or calling off of the economic blockade by the Arab states, the refusal of passage to Israeli ships through the Suez and a guarantee of open access through the Red sea and the gulf of Aqaba.
Since so much contention surrounds the future of the Gaza strip I maintain that it should not be returned to Egypt. It never was a part of Egyptian sovereignty. It points at the heart of Israel and in the past has been the location of raids against that country. It forms no part of the Egyptian economy and it is not needed for the security of Egypt.
I maintain also that the refugee problem should be broached in the spirit of construc-
The Address-Mr. Macnaughton five statesmanship. The cost of resettlement of those refugees in the Gaza strip and in other Arab states could be shared by the United Nations and the great powers as well as by Israel itself. There is plenty of land in the surrounding Arab states, as a short visit to the area would indicate clearly, on which these refugees could be settled to their benefit as well as the future benefit of the countries in which they are settled.
There is another point of important economic consequence and I refer of course to the Johnston plan for the settlement of the Jordanian water dispute. It is hard for us who live in a country like Canada to realize the importance of water to other countries. Water is the lifeblood of the economy of this area. Water is going to waste in the Jordan river and the Jordan lakes because of a refusal to use it and distribute it among the countries that need it. There is no reason why a settlement of the Jordanian water dispute, which is so important to Israel and Jordan, should not be included in an over-all settlement.
This is a time of trouble not only for the Arabs but for all of us. The Middle East is caught in serious pressure moves and plays which makes it all the more important'for the United Nations and countries with experience in the Middle East to urge the Arab people to consider their long-range needs and the great burdens they bear, by refusing to use their energies to resolve their real problems, rather than to dissipate their energies in hatred of a neighbouring state.
Israel can offer a great deal to its neighbours in the way of technical skill, idealism and standards of public responsibility. The Arab nations can offer Israel a sense of kinship with the Middle East, for after all the Jewish people have been in existence for some 5,000 years and originally came from that part of the world. The Arab nations can offer Israel a market for its products and they can also contribute part of their culture from the Levant to the culture which is rapidly rising in the new Hebrew society.
In the Middle East the level of economic development is far behind the rate required for adequate living standards for the majority of the people. A regional capital and technical assistance plan would be a contribution of the first magnitude to the development of stability in the Middle East. I am sure that Israel could contribute to this plan its share by way of brains, experience and devotion which would form a counterpart to the capital to be provided Dy the western and other nations of the United Nations.
Some students of the British mandate and its future in Palestine had hoped that one day

The Address-Mr. Argue British Palestine would form another dominion in our commonwealth.
I think it is obvious that this hope is now gone, but this does not mean that the commonwealth should now abandon Israel.
Canada, as the senior partner in that commonwealth, may And itself performing a great historic function in its present role of influence between Israel and her Arab neighbours-a function that could bring deep and lasting benefit not only to Israel but to the Middle East and to all mankind.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with some urgent problems which face a great many citizens of Canada at this time. A little later, I wish to make some references affecting the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). It seems to me that at this time the parliament of Canada should initiate legislation to increase old age pensions, to increase the family allowances, to provide for a system of health insurance for Canadians, to provide legislation to improve the position of veterans in this country, to provide legislation to enable the municipalities to discharge their important responsibilities, and to provide legislation which would enable the agriculture industry to share in the great wealth that is being produced in this nation.


Mr. Mclvor:: And reduce taxes.


Hazen Robert Argue: There can be no question but that Canada today is producing tremendous wealth. The gross national product, which stood at some $12 billion in 1946, had increased to nearly $30 billion by 1956, an increase of roughly two and a half times in ten years. In the light of this tremendous production of wealth it seems to me that the government should no longer hesitate to provide legislation such as would enable all Canadians to share in this production.
We already have some important social security legislation on the statute books of this nation. A Liberal government has been in power for many years and it has been the lot of the Liberal government to introduce such legislation as old age pensions, family allowances, grants to hospitals, legislation to continue the Canadian wheat board and so on, and I give the government every credit that is due to it for having presented such legislation to the House of Commons. To the extent that the Liberal party can take credit for these measures I give them credit too, but I feel that members of the C.C.F. party have also over many years played an important part pioneering in this field and in building up public opinion to demand such legislation. The

government, while presenting legislation at different times to improve the lot of certain Canadians, has, I am afraid, not been doing so primarily with the object of helping the people affected. The overriding consideration which guides the Liberal party today is to do those things that it hopes will bring votes when election day comes around; anything that may be done to help the old age pensioners or improve family allowances or assist in any of these important matters is done as a secondary consideration. I think this contention can readily be proved.
The last time old age pensions were increased in this country was in April 1949 when they were increased to the present figure of $40 a month. Since 1949, inflation and the ever-increasing cost of living have taken away a substantial part of the pension in terms of the 1949 dollar. What has happened to the old age pension because of inflation, because of policies followed by this government, has happened to the family allowance legislation. I believe the Family Allowances Act is one of the best pieces of legislation that has been placed on the statute books of this country. But every month since that legislation came into effect the government has stood idly by while inflation, the rising cost of living, has eaten away a considerable part of the purchasing power of that allowance until today the purchasing power of the allowance cheque is probably 40 per cent less than it was in 1944 when the act was first brought in. Thus the government, while bringing forward legislation from time to time to help certain people of this country, has stood aside while inflation, like a thief in the night, has robbed them of something that should be there and which should be protected. The very government that brought in family allowance legislation has demonstrated to the people of Canada since 1944 that its overriding purpose, its guiding purpose, at that time was not to help Canadian families- though it did do that-but to endeavour to win the 1945 election.
They won that election, albeit by a very narrow margin, since when the government has been content not only to do nothing about improving the family allowances but to allow them to deteriorate and wither away.
Today there is a great deal of talk about a health program. Well, talk of a health program is no novelty in the Liberal party. They have been talking about it in this country since 1919 and since that time successive Liberal governments have used the hope of a health insurance plan as a means of garnering votes. But they have so far done very little about it, and today parliament is in an unhappy position because of the

government's policy. The government has said to Premier Frost of Ontario: "We are voluntarily giving you the power of veto; we are giving you the power to prevent Canadians in other provinces getting a health insurance plan because we will not give the plan to Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia until Ontario and some other provinces agree to come in." The conclusion seems unavoidable that there seems little hope at this moment of any provincial Liberal government in this country agreeing to participate in this plan. If and when the people of Canada ever have a health insurance program it will only be because public opinion has put pressure on the Liberal party both here in the federal parliament and in the various provinces to agree at long last to do something about their promises and pledges of 1919.
We hear a lot of talk about an election now. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) announced this morning that the election would definitely be held this year and that his budget will be brought in, he expects, just before the dissolution. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the government is mentioning dissolution from time to time and the possibility of an election at an early date for one main reason-to condition the mass of Canadians to the prospect of an early election, because this government is just as fearful of an election campaign today as it has been in past election years. They would like to have an election date early so that the rural constituencies, who are important in numbers even if they are no longer considered by the government to be important economically, will not have a chance to participate by way of attending public meetings and taking a full part in the election -an opportunity which would be open to them if the election were held at a more convenient time.
So the government is hoping now, with public opinion running against it, to sandwich in an election at an early date in order that opposition parties generally will not have the advantage oi a strenuous campaign during which they could take the issues adequately before the public in the constituencies to which I have referred.
The government is apparently doing nothing or very little to solve the problems affecting municipalities. As a matter of fact, the general policies of the government are designed to make it harder for municipal governments to provide adequate services. Municipalities find it more difficult now to finance the construction of public buildings and streets and providing sewer and water works. Almost weekly the cost of financing municipal ventures goes 82715-30
The Address-Mr. Argue up. The government's so-called tight money policy is a policy that is hurting the ordinary Canadian. It is hurting the municipalities, it is hurting the people who want to build homes, but it is not hurting the great corporations of this country that have adequate finances within their corporations to undertake most of their capital expenditures or which are in a monopoly position and are able to pass on to the consumer through higher retail prices any additional cost that may now be entailed in financing capital expenditures.
I submit that the Liberal party by its record is no longer a liberal party. It is a party of the status quo. It is a party of vested interests. It is a party which gives something to the ordinary Canadian most reluctantly. It amuses me when Liberal speakers get up and embrace the C.C.F. Winnipeg declaration of principles adopted at our national convention last year and assert that the C.C.F. has abandoned its principles and has become a liberal party. I venture to say that not a single Liberal member who has made such a statement has read the Winnipeg declaration because in it they will find the greatest castigation possible of the Liberal party and the policies it follows. I quote one short paragraph from page 1:
In spite of great economic expansion, large sections of our people do not benefit adequately from the increased wealth produced. Greater wealth and economic power continue to be concentrated in the hands of a relatively few private corporations.
Listen to this.
The gap between those at the bottom and those at the top of the economic scale has widened.
It is interesting to hear Liberal members stand up and agree that their policies have been such a dismal failure and that the gap between the people at the bottom of the ladder and those at the top is widening at this time.
There is a whole industry in this nation that is sick and almost in danger of dying because of the policies followed at times by the government and because at other times of lack of policies and adequate action. I refer, of course, to the agricultural industry. It is true there has been some improvement in recent months. It is true that recently there has been some increase in farm cash income. That increase has been brought about mainly because of increased exports of grain. But before hon. members opposite conclude too hastily that all is well with the agricultural industry, I suggest that they read the statements being made by prominent agricultural people, people associated with the farmers' union, the interprovincial farm union council and the wheat pool organization. I
458	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Argue should like them to read some of the statements made recently by J. H. Wesson, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. In such statements they will find that agricultural leaders across the nation are more concerned with the plight of the agricultural industry at this time than they have ever been at any time since the end of the war, and well they might be.
I have here the Economic Annalist published by the marketing service of the Department of Agriculture. It takes as the base period for the cost of production index for farmers and as the base period for the prices of agricultural products the years 1935 to 1939 as equalling 100. Since that time the economists have plotted the changes in the index of prices of agricultural products and the changes in the index of the farmers' cost of production.
In 1946, with a gross national product of $12 billion, the index of farm products was 204 and the index for the cost of production was 157. In other words, in 1946 prices for agricultural products had a 30 per cent greater purchasing power in terms of the farmers' cost of production than they had in the late 1930's. In 1956 there is an entirely different picture. Prices for agricultural products have gone up little in the ten year period. They have gone up to 232.5 while the cost of production index has gone up to 254, that is now beyond the index of prices of agricultural commodities. Therefore, according to the economists in the Department of Agriculture who publish the Economic Annalist, the purchasing power of agricultural commodities today is 9 per cent lower than the purchasing power in the years 1935 to 1939.
What a condemnation that is of the Minister of Agriculture and the Liberal government, which took office in 1935, that since that time over a period of 22 years have allowed agriculture to drift into a position where the purchasing power of agricultural commodities today is worth less than it was in the dark depression days of 1935 to 1939! Our farmers did not expect this to happen. The government presented the Agricultural Prices Support Act to the House of Commons toward the end of the war and they wrote into the act these words:
The board shall endeavour ... to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
They promptly forgot their many promises to the farmers and the people of Canada generally and allowed agriculture to drift into its present very sorry state. We have a Minister of Agriculture all right, and I see by the public accounts that he is quite a traveller.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a generous remark.


Hazen Robert Argue: He travelled to such an extent that his expenses were twice as high as those [DOT]of any other cabinet minister. With all this travelling I do not know where he went because he seemed to spend nearly all his time in Ottawa or the province of Saskatchewan. However, in spite of his travelling apparently he has failed to discover that Canada's agricultural policies are among the poorest of any nation anywhere in the world. Only Canada fails to provide a system of adequate support prices. Where was the Minister of Agriculture last fall? I do not think he was in Ottawa too often.


An hon. Member:: In Alberta.


Hazen Robert Argue: In Alberta, yes, and in Saskatchewan, tramping around western Canada.


Mr. Hansell:: Mending fences.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mending broken Liberal fences, and there are lots of them. They are breaking down all over western Canada. The minister was out there lining up the old Jimmy Gardiner political machine. It is pretty rusty and in a bad state of repair in many places, but the minister says it is good for one more run and he is going to make the best use of it he can. If a stranger had come to Saskatchewan last fall not knowing who the Minister of Agriculture was, I am sure that from looking at the Leader-Post and other daily newspapers he would have thought that the minister was a paid organizer for the Saskatchewan Liberal party and had never been east of Fort William.
The minister said a lot of things about agricultural problems. When he was asked what the farmers should do about the tremendous surplus that some of them had on their farms, his general attitude was: Do not worry, fellows; I have been through the United States and they have got a big drought down there. Apparently he has taken to sun-gazing because he has been saying that sooner or later a drought is going to come to western Canada. His attitude to the surplus grain problem is this. He says to the farmers: Do not worry; I know you are broke because you have got too much wheat but sooner or later there will be a couple of dry years and you will sell your wheat and you will then be broke because you no longer have any wheat. In the meantime he goes along, as I say, oiling up his defunct and discredited political machine.
I have in my hand the very excellent brief presented by the interprovincial farm union council and the Canadian Labour Congress to the government of Canada on December 5, 1956 expressing coneem at the state of the

The Address-Mr. Argue
agricultural industry and the substantial unemployment in the farm implement industry. I think this brief demonstrates that farm organizations and labour organizations can co-operate with each other and that they should do so; that their interests are not opposed one to the other but rather that they have a common interest in securing a decent standard of living for the working people of this nation, whether they work on the farms or in the industries.
We had some extremely interesting information given to us about this conference. It was given to the hon. member for Hum-boldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson), the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) and me by Chris. Hansen, the president of the Saskatchewan Farmers Union. He told of the interview they had had with the cabinet when they were presenting this brief. It was a committee of the cabinet meeting the Canadian Labour Congress and the Interprovincial Farm Union Council. The meeting was presided over by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in the chair. Mr. Hansen informed us that they had had what they felt was a very good hearing, that the hearing seemed to be about over and that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was about ready to adjourn the meeting when the Minister of Agriculture pipes up and says, "Well, I heard a lot this afternoon about falling farm income, but I have just come back from western Canada and I saw no sign out there of a falling in farm income". He said, "I had no complaint from any farmer in the west about a drop in farm income except from one who said his income had now fallen off to the point that he had to sell his aeroplane". That from the Minister of Agriculture! The Minister of Agriculture makes such a ridiculous statement to a conference discussing an extremely important matter.
We have heard a great deal in this house about the western farmers going to Florida and California for the winter. If one or two per cent should get there, why not? It seems to me that the Liberals opposite think it is a crime if a farmer should ever get the chance to take a holiday. They like to create the impression in eastern Canada, apparently, that the farmers out west all leave the farm in the winter. The Minister of Agriculture now is determined to create the impression that at the present time the farmers in the west have lots of money, that they are hopping around from one piece of land to another in an aeroplane. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that illustration shows just how low this government has fallen in its attitude toward the farmers of this nation.
82715-30i
I was invited to take part in a panel discussion that was to take place at the Saskatchewan Farmers Union convention in Saskatoon in mid-December last. There was to be representation from each political party. I was glad to accept. However, a few days after I had accepted the invitation, I received a telegram from the president saying that the panel was off and that he would send me a letter of explanation which would follow. I have the letter here. I am not going to read all of it but it says in part as follows:
However, in order for the panel to be of value it was necessary that we have a representation from the Liberal party present to speak on behalf of the present government. Since originally contacting you we have made several attempts to have a representative of the government take part in the panel but in each case they have refused.
I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture no longer has the courage to confront a meeting sponsored by a bona fide farm organization in western Canada to discuss in public, with representatives of other political parties, his discredited agricultural program. Apparently he does not dare to come to such a meeting. I should be quite happy, Mr. Speaker, to discuss with the Minister of Agriculture on a public platform anywhere in this nation, at a meeting sponsored by a farm organization, the way his policies and those of his government are undermining and destroying the agricultural industry of this nation and forcing thousands of farmers to leave their homes in discouragement because they are unable to make ends meet.
The Minister of Agriculture was in Saskatchewan. He did not spend all his time in his home constituency. He came down into Assiniboia constituency and to other constituencies in western Canada. The Jimmy Gardiner political machine was prepared to go into Assiniboia and to take things over in an important way, because the Minister of Agriculture was quite happy to come to a convention where they chose as their political candidate somebody who has acquired a reputation for transferring from one political party to another. I would not call him a second-hand candidate. He has become a third-hand political candidate. Prior to that convention there was a great deal of speculation as to where the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) would run. Many constituencies in this country were mentioned as possibilities. But I notice there seemed to be unanimous agreement of opinion that there was one constituency in this country above all others that hon. member would never contest, namely his own constituency

The Address-Mr. Argue of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. Rather than stand there for election, he would leave that constituency.
If the Liberal party think, as they may, that they have found a new recruit who has embraced Liberal principles, they should never forget the timing of his leaving the independent group and going across the floor. It was not during or before the last Saskatchewan provincial election. It was after the election. It was after the political demise of the independent provincial candidate, one Dick Lillicoe in the constituency of Moose Jaw. He was not able to make the grade and so the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre felt that there was no hope in that constituency as an independent and that therefore he would be obliged to look elsewhere. Apparently the Social Credit party had taken such a shellacking in that election that he found it impossible to adopt their principles. So he has gone into the Liberal party.
He has made a speech in this house already this session. In it did he deal with the things about which the Liberals are talking in this house at this time such as improvement in social security legislation? Did he ask for measures to help the farmers of western Canada and the people of Saskatchewan? No; he did not do that. He said that anybody who has not enough money now, in this inflationary time, to make a substantial payment when he is getting something on credit should be forced to pay at least one-quarter or one-third down. Then he said that if the Minister of Finance should decide on a tax reduction for the people of this country, they should not be given it now; in other words, they should be given a glance at the carrot and perhaps a little whiff of the aroma but in order to taste the carrot he would force them to wait a three-year or a five-year period, presumably so that the carrot could be used all over again for the same purpose in another election. I do not believe the people of Canada will fall for that political bait.
I notice that the hon. member was out to Vancouver not too long ago. He made a speech out there or at least he had a press interview, parts of which he has denied subsequently; but I am not going to refer to any of the parts that have been amended and changed. According to the press report he had this to say about the Prime Minister:
Mr. Thatcher predicted Prime Minister St. Laurent will "ride the election and retire six months after" . . .
There we have, from a Liberal member, a statement that the Prime Minister is going into this election under what are patently false colours, that his intentions are

camouflaged and that he is hiding from the people of Canada his intention to resign as leader of the Liberal party within six months after the election.
I do not believe that the Prime Minister has those intentions. I believe if he heads the Liberal party in this election that in his own mind he will sincerely intend to stay in office a sufficient length of time to see the proposals which he makes placed in legislative form. But according to the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre the Prime Minister of this country will face the Canadian people in an act of deceit and deception. The hon. member can explain that.
Then the article goes on to state that the hon. member predicted after the Prime Minister retires he will leave the government in the hands of the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Fisheries. Then listen to this: ". . . whom he described as the most brilliant man in the house." Well, now apparently the Prime Minister is a second rater and is playing second fiddle to the most brilliant member in the House of Commons, the Minister of Fisheries. We have heard nothing previously about his ability from the government side of the house, but according to the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre the most brilliant man is now sitting in the second row.
Then as to the leadership of the Liberal party, the hon. member says that the Minister of Fisheries will be the Prime Minister within 10 years anyway. I know the Minister of National Health and Welfare probably has aspirations in that direction. The name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has been mentioned in that connection as one who might make a suitable Prime Minister. The name of the Minister of Finance has been mentioned often by those who say he is an excellent political strategist. The name of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration used to be mentioned but I have not heard it mentioned lately. However, I have not seen the name of the Minister of Fisheries mentioned at all, but according to the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre if the Minister of Finance should become leader of the Liberal party, and some day the prime minister, he will not hold the position long because the Minister of Fisheries will be breathing on his neck and it will not be long until he becomes prime minister and takes over from the Minister of Finance.
Then, to further ridicule in a somewhat indirect way the Prime Minister and government of this country, the hon. member had this to say in relation to Premier Bennett of British Columbia. He said that he had met Mr. Bennett twice and was impressed with his obvious ability. The hon. member said

Premier Bennett struck him as being a pretty able Canadian. He said that in British Columbia the Social Credit have been doing some rather sensible things and seemed to be giving a good business government. Every time the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre stands up in this house he tries to tell us why this government is not following good business practices. He has found a good business government in British Columbia but not here. I wonder why he has been cuddling up to Social Credit out in British Columbia. He says he has been offered the leadership of the Social Credit party in Saskatchewan on a number of occasions. I have heard conflicting reports about that. Apparently he wants to remain in the good graces of the Social Credit party so that if he needs another escape route at any time he will have it open and he can apply for admission to the Social Credit party.
In order to show that no Social Credit member would be fooled by these reports the leader of the Social Credit group, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), had to set the record straight. In a report in the Western Producer dated October 25, 1956 the leader of the Social Credit group said that the Social Credit leadership in Saskatchewan never was offered to Ross Thatcher, Moose Jaw M.P.
I noticed that the Prime Minister, in his speech at the opening of the house, defended the government's support price under butter. I have often said, and I repeat, that I believe the government support price on butter is one of the best pieces of agricultural legislation the government has in effect and the only support price that works adequately. There is one person in this house, however, who does not like the support price on butter. Only one member of parliament has ever said that the farmers who milk cows, who ship cream to get a few dollars to pay the grocery bills, to send the children to school, to buy clothing for the family, are getting too much for a can of cream. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre said on February 10 last as recorded at page 1076 of Hansard:
I think the government's butter policy Is shortsighted and economically unwise.
I am pleased that the Prime Minister has defended this policy against someone who now sits with his own party. I am afraid that from the record the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre is just as much a misfit today as he has ever been, that his ideas are just about as far removed from those of Liberalism as the ox cart is from the atomic age.
The Address-Mr. Argue
I believe that agriculture needs legislation at this time to improve its position. I suggest that this is the time, at this session, for the government to introduce a system of parity prices for agricultural products; and the interim and final payments on the 1955 crop should be announced at a very early date. I suggest that advance payments and farm storage for grain should be made part of the permanent legislation of this country, and that the government should inaugurate a system of crop insurance for agriculture. The prairie farm assistance maximum payment of $500 in 1939 is today worth only about $200 because of inflation. Now is the time to at least double the prairie farm assistance.
I suggest that in the field of social security payments the government should increase old age pensions to at least $65 to everyone reaching the age of 65; that family allowances should be increased to at least the point of restoring their 1944 value which would require an increase of 60 per cent. I believe the government should announce naw a health program which can be implemented by all those provinces presently willing to adopt such a program. I suggest further that in order to alleviate the position of the municipalities the government should change its financial policy and its credit restrictions to enable the municipality to borrow money to finance essential works, and at a rate not greater than 4 per cent. The government should provide assistance for an adequate road program in this country.
These are some of the things Canadians need. We can afford them. Our wealth production is 2J times that of 1946. Instead of being content with the social security program and a farm program which is much worse than it was in 1946, I suggest that legislation should be advanced to improve the position even beyond the level of 1946. I suggest that at this time Canada should be doing more in international affairs to help the underprivileged of the world. I think we are in an excellent position to promote democracy and to help stem the advancing tide of communism by providing a greater number of technicians to underdeveloped countries; by providing more support for the Colombo plan and the United Nations organization; by at times taking whatever quantity of food may be necessary from our great surplus to prevent famine in the countries of Asia and Africa and other distressed areas of the world. I suggest the people of Canada are generous and that they are prepared to play a more important part in providing assistance to the underprivileged people of the world. I suggest that Canadians generally would agree with the statement, which

The Address-Mr. Weselak I paraphrase, made by the C.C.F. national convention in 1956, namely, that we will not rest content until every person in this land and in all other lands is able to enjoy equality and freedom, a sense of human dignity and an opportunity to live a rich and meaningful life as a citizen of a free and peaceful world. I suggest that is an objective for 1957 to which every Canadian might direct his energy and ability.


Mr. A. B. Weselak (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, may I, like those hon. members who have preceded me in this debate, extend my heartiest congratulations to the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna), and to the seconder, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) for the splendid and capable manner in which they discharged the respective duties assigned to them. May I also extend my heartiest congratulations to the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) on his elevation to the position of leader of the official opposition. We in western Canada take pride in that one of our number has been selected to fill this high post.
The speech from the throne reflects the conditions under which parliament met for this current session. Serious problems faced the world in the international sphere, and at home we were in the midst of a serious railway strike which had thrown 67,000 people out of work and had tied up thousands of miles of railway track.
The greater part of the constituency of Springfield, which I have the honour to represent, is served by the Canadian Pacific Railway; and while alternative service is generally available by trucks and buses, nevertheless the strike did result in the complete stoppage of grain deliveries to elevators which now are practically always filled. It probably would not have been so serious to us if the farmers in that particular area had had reasonably good crops over the last three years, and if they had received a reasonable amount of cash over that period. This, however, was not the case. The financial position of these farmers can be readily appreciated when it is noted that the average yield in my immediate area for the 1954-55 crop year was 91 bushels per acre as compared with a long-term average yield of 19.7 bushels.
In the crop year 1955-56, on a quota of 3 bushels to an acre, practically all the grain in the district was cleared out. This year a reasonably good crop was harvested, though considerable difficulty was experienced in gathering it in due to wet weather and frost,

which resulted in increased expense, loss of yield and also deterioration of grade due to moisture and frost; therefore the prospect of a lengthy tie-up of rail facilities did not appeal to the people in that area.
I think we all appreciate the struggle labour has had in the past century to achieve the right to organize and also to obtain the right to strike, which is its most effective weapon when all other mediums fail. If one has this appreciation it is difficult to state that this right which has been earned through suffering and privation should be arbitrarily taken away from any group in our labour force. On the other hand the right to strike, particularly when the strike is of the nature of the recent railway strike, must be exercised with responsibility by the leaders of union groups and by the rank and file and therefore, as I have said, it must be carefully exercised. Abuse of this right could very well result in public opinion becoming such that in certain spheres of activity within the country the right would be restricted or in fact taken away, as it has been in some jurisdictions, in the public interest. We certainly hope this will never be necessary in relation to the railroads, and it will not be necessary if organized labour continues to face up to its responsibility.
Management, too, has an overriding responsibility to the public to negotiate in good faith, particularly since where railways are involved there exists the responsibility to take into consideration the public interest and welfare. We in western Canada are particularly affected when events such as the recent strike occur. We are dependent solely upon rail transportation in many areas; and even in areas with alternative service we depend upon rail transportation for manufactured goods from the industrial areas of the east to meet our needs and we depend almost wholly upon rail transportation for the export of our production both of grain and of animals.
Our farmers and local businessmen are having a difficult enough time at present without being subjected to the further losses which naturally flow from such an event. It was therefore reasonable to expect that farm and political leaders of western Canada did not take kindly to the strike and expressed opinions which were critical of it. The people of western Canada, however, were not prepared to settle this matter and have trains operating at any price. Since 1945, according to the Gordon report, the railways have been granted permission to introduce horizontal increases in freight rates on eight separate occasions in order to offset increases in their operating costs. The adjustments which have

been allowed total an increase of somewhat more than 100 per cent over the rates prevailing in 1945.
It is common knowledge that these increases do not affect Ontario and Quebec, where alternative transportation facilities exist, to the extent that they affect the economies of the maritimes and the western provinces. Any increase in freight rates increases the cost of production and the cost of living on the prairies, since prairie consumers must pay the freight on incoming goods. Increases in freight rates also reduce the gross income of western producers, since the cost of freight on produce shipped to eastern markets or ports of export are also deducted from the prices paid to producers for their product. The net result is that costs are increased, revenues reduced and net incomes seriously affected.
Representatives of farm organizations and of provincial governments appearing before the board of transport commissioners in freight rate hearings have insisted on economies in railway operation, and have insisted upon proof from the railway in justification of increased costs. Therefore the attitude of many people in western Canada is that if economies can be effected without prejudice to the general public, the railways should be required and permitted to effect such economies.
As we all know, the issue over which the strike was called was the question of whether firemen should be retained in yard and freight diesels. The railways contended that on diesel engines firemen were not required for their operation, and therefore their services should be dispensed with in all except passenger locomotives. The union on the other hand contended that firemen in the cabs of these engines were essential to public safety. The matter of public safety is one in which the general public of Canada has a definite interest; therefore there appeared to be some merit in the firemen's case.
If firemen are not needed for these purposes it would be ridiculous for the railways to keep these men in the cab. On the other hand, if the safety of the public is endangered the price to be paid for this safety factor is inconsequential compared to the possible loss of life, equipment and freight. The issue had to be resolved, and resolved it was, through the mediation and untiring efforts of the right hon. Prime Minister, who was able to bring the parties together and bring them to common ground, where finally both parties agreed to submit the issue to an investigating body for analysis and determination. The findings of this board should determine the matter as between the parties, and should remove from
The Address-Mr. Weselak the public mind the doubt which exists there as to whether, from a safety point of view, firemen should be removed from the cabs of these locomotives or retained.
The Conservative amendment accuses the government of indifference, inertia and lack of leadership. The settlement of this strike by the right hon. Prime Minister in my view, and I think in the view of most Canadians, refutes this charge and shows that the leader of this government is not indifferent to the welfare of the people of Canada; shows not inertia but aggressiveness; not lack of leadership but outstanding leadership in times of considerable difficulty.
Before leaving the question of railways and freight rates I should like to make one more point. The preliminary report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, commonly known as the Gordon report, suggests among other things that additional revenues to meet rising costs of railway operation might be obtained in the future by increasing the statutory rates on grain.
Obviously the reference is to the Crows-nest pass agreement of 1897, in which the C.P.R. agreed, in return for a cash subsidy of $3,404,702 and a grant by the British Columbia government of 3,602,000 acres of land, to reduce the rate on grain and flour by 3 cents per hundredweight from the prairies to the head of the lakes. Subsequently, in 1927, this rate was extended to Pacific coast ports. As an alternative the Gordon report suggests that the railways be paid a subsidy in lieu of increased rates on grain being transported to the lakehead or Pacific coast ports.
There is no suggestion by the government that it has any intention of repealing the legislation which incorporates the Crowsnest pass agreement rates; nevertheless there seems to be some public support for this as the result of certain statements made in the past by railway officials and others that these rates are responsible for some of the financial difficulties experienced by the railways. The mere fact that these rates were set approximately 60 years ago does not necessarily imply that they are not still profitable, and there is plenty of reliable evidence to show that these rates are profitable to the railways.
We have only to go to the report of the Turgeon royal commission of 1950-51, where a detailed study was made of these rates, to find authoritative evidence in support of the statement that they are profitable. The report of the commission reads in part:
Much time has been taken to consider whether it has been established that the Crowsnest pass rates hitherto exempt from the burden of general freight rate increases, should now be made subject to them. As above stated the removal of this exemption is asked for principally on the ground

The Address-Mr. Weselak that it casts an unfair burden on shippers of other commodities. This argument seems plausible in theory but an examination of all the facts involved shows that it is not well founded. There is really not much to be said against these rates in respect of their effect upon the railways.
We must remember that when the agreement was entered into, production of grain on the prairie provinces was about 35 million bushels per year. Today it is about one billion bushels, and naturally the unit cost of transportation falls with increased volume. In addition, technical advances in railroading since 1897 have resulted in an increase in the capacity of box cars from 60,000 to 120,000 pounds; handling of cars is automatic; trains are longer and motive power much more efficient, all resulting in lower cost of operation per unit bushel transported.
Apart from the Turgeon report we have only to go to the C.P.R. itself for further evidence, for early in 1956 in sworn testimony given before the board of transport commissioners Mr. Kenneth H. Brink, research officer of the C.P.R. stated "normally we depend on a good grain year for good net earnings". If a good grain year contributes to good net earnings, obviously such grains are not hauled at a loss but at a good profit under the Crowsnest rates; therefore no change in rates or subsidy in lieu thereof is justified.
If one examines the accounts of the C.P.R. as contained in their annual report he finds under the heading of land surplus account a cumulative surplus of $101,685,263, and finds that in the year 1954 net revenues from this account amounted to $9,406,406. In its recent campaign for higher freight rates and the abrogation of the Crowsnest pass agreement the C.P.R. has constantly sought to withhold from the railway end of its business the other income and land surplus accounts, and contrary to the statutes creating and endowing the C.P.R. it has arbitrarily divided its accounts in this manner since 1946.
When the railway was built through western Canada, by an agreement in December of 1880 the C.P.R. was given a cash grant of $25 million and 25 million acres of land fairly fit for settlement. The money in the land surplus account of the C.P.R., in violation of the statute, is kept apart by the railway from its operating accounts. This money is income derived in one form or another from land given to the C.P.R. by this parliament and the province of British Columbia. The purpose for which the land was given, as stated in the law, is to complete, equip, maintain and operate the railway in perpetuity.
To summarize, all available evidence indicates that the Crowsnest rates are profitable; that increasing, substantial revenues are received by the railway from lands granted in

western Canada, and therefore charges that these rates undermine the operations of the railway are unfounded and unfair and should be ignored. The railways feel that if they could abrogate this agreement and raise the rates on grain and flour by 100 per cent as they have been raised on many other commodities they would gain from $70 million to $80 million a year at the expense of the western farmer.
Members from other parts of Canada may wonder at the strong and determined resistance of the west towards any change in these rates. This resistance is fully justified, and I hope my remarks here today will contribute toward a better understanding of this problem. The Canadian Pacific Railway through its propaganda has confused the thinking of many Canadians in this respect, and one has only to read the editorials of many leading eastern papers to see the extent to which it has succeeded. The Canadian National Railways to my knowledge have never complained of any losses accruing to them as a result of the Crowsnest pass rates.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) almost wholly embraces and speaks with general approval of the Gordon commission's recommendations.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of personal privilege, if the hon. member will read my speech he will see that there were five specific topics only, so let there be no sweeping generalizations, please.


Anton Bernard Weselak: In April of 1954 his party colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), spoke strongly in this house in favour of Crowsnest pass rates on grain and flour, and the Winnipeg Free Press on April 14, 1954, had this to say editorially regarding the remarks of the Winnipeg member:
Mr. Churchill's unqualified commitment in favour of Crowsnest rates is welcome. However he should realize that in so speaking he was in so far as the Liberal party is concerned preaching to the converted.
Only one political party has opposed Crowsnest pass rates and presented itself to the electorate on a policy of repealing the statute and nullifying the agreement. That party is Mr. Churchill's party- the Conservative party. The Conservative party did so in 1925 and 1926. Mr. Meighen, then Conservative leader, declared that the Crowsnest pass agreement is a "special privilege". Likewise under Conservative direction an attempt was made to abolish Crowsnest pass rates at the 1919 special session called to deal with railway legislation.
In 1919, the Crowsnest pass agreement was saved by the Liberal party through the instrumentality of the late Senator Robert "Bob" Watson of Portage la Prairie. In 1925 and 1926 the electorate at large saved the Crowsnest pass rates by rejecting the Conservative party and electing the Liberal party.
Mr. Churchill will make a real contribution if he undertakes missionary work in behalf of the agreement in his own party.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Gordon commission's suggestion that statutory rates on grain could be increased, or that the government could provide in lieu thereof a form of subsidy, can only be based upon an assumption, which in fact does not exist, that the statutory rates are not profitable to the railways, when in fact they are, as shown not only by the findings of the Turgeon commission but by the evidence of one of their own research officers.
I hope I have made it clear that the existence of these rates does not constitute a hand-out to the western grain growers at the expense of other sectors of the economy. In this respect grain growers are paying their own way and in fact providing a profitable source of revenue to the railways.
A substantial part of the speech from the throne is devoted to Canada's participation in international affairs. This is as it should be, for while the official opposition may state that the government is not entitled to the confidence of the Canadian people by reason of its indifference, inertia and lack of leadership in serious international problems, the record of the government shows that the contrary is true in actual fact. We have only to examine the work done since the last war in connection with the formation and promotion of NATO by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs to find an excellent example of co-operation and leadership in international matters. Is it likely that Canada's foreign minister would have been selected as one of the "three wise men" of NATO, to review its policies, if Canada had not in the past shown leadership in these matters?
In the sphere of international trade Canada has been a staunch supporter of the principles of GATT, and has constantly led in the fight toward the reduction and removal of trade barriers.
I had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of attending the pre-Christmas session of the United Nations, and as a result of my experience I can certainly agree with Grant Dexter who, writing from New York on November 26, 1956, to the Winnipeg Free Press, states that his first impression on coming to United Nations headquarters and mixing with peoples of all nationalities was one of surprise and pleasure, and that Canada is almost a magic word at the United Nations. He reports that Canadian prestige is very high there because of the part Canada had played in halting the fighting in the Middle East and in creating a United Nations police force.
He goes on to point out that there is more to it than just this; that this was not Canada's
The Address-Mr. Weselak first major contribution; that over the past 11 years Canada has made innumerable outstanding contributions to the constitution and development of the United Nations. He cites as examples the fact that three Canadians-Norman Robertson, presently high commissioner at London; Louis Rasminsky, now of the Bank of Canada, and the late Hume Wrong, for some years Canadian ambassador at Washington, rewrote the economic sections of the United Nations charter at San Francisco at the time the charter was born.
He further mentions that in 1947 and 1948, when Israel was created and the first conflict with the Arab states broke out, the Canadian government was one of the leading peacemakers. The present Secretary of State for External Affairs, then undersecretary of state, was on the committee which brought about the settlement which endured until just recently. It was partly in recognition of his outstanding service in this regard that Mr. Pearson became president of the United Nations, after becoming minister for external affairs.
He also cites the fact that last year the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as head of the Canadian delegation while the minister for external affairs was engaged on NATO business succeeded in breaking down the antagonism which had prevented admission of new members to the United Nations. As a result of his efforts 16 new members, including Ireland and Italy, were added. Four new members were accepted this year, proving that once broken the old rigidity is unlikely to return.
Mr. Dexter goes on to point out, Mr. Speaker, that veteran delegates to the United Nations said there have been few such occasions in the history of that organization as that when our minister reversed the headlong course of the Middle East debate, turning it from destructive to constructive purposes; and he adds that when President Eisenhower took the time on election day to telephone the Prime Minister at Ottawa to thank him for what Canada had done at the United Nations he was reflecting the feelings of all United Nations members outside the Soviet bloc.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that Canada's resolution has not solved the basic problems which caused the Middle East explosion, but it helped to stem the deterioration of a highly dangerous situation, brought about a cessation of hostilities and created a more favourable atmosphere in which to set in motion the peacemaking powers of the United Nations.
Apart from Canada's leadership in and contribution to NATO and the United Nations,

The Address-Mr. Weselak the Prime Minister during the life of this parliament made a world tour in an effort to create a better understanding of Canada among the nations of the world. This has been followed by the recent commonwealth tour of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, which will also contribute a great deal toward a better understanding of one another by the commonwealth peoples.
Reports indicate, Mr. Speaker, that there are now 8,500 Hungarian refugees in Canada; that by the end of February this number will be increased to 14,000, and that in the spring when employment opportunities are better another 10,000 will arrive in this country. In this humanitarian work Canada has a creditable record, and a great deal of credit is to be given to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for his personal attention and concern in this regard when he himself went to Austria to supervise the removal of these unfortunate people and the simplification of immigration processes.
It is encouraging to note that estimates of immigration for the year 1956 will exceed the 1955 figure, and that a very substantial rise in immigration is forecast for 1957. It is my opinion, and the opinion of many people in this country, that immigration should be encouraged; therefore the expected rise in these projected figures is welcome.
The speech from the throne makes reference to the excellent progress which is being made in our national development and this, sir, is not an exaggeration. I am pleased to say that we in Manitoba have shared in this development. Preliminary reports indicate that Manitoba manufacturers in 1956 produced a record of $625 million, as compared with $527 million in 1955. Retail sales increased by 7 to 10 per cent; carload-ings in the western division by 37.7 per cent; mineral and oil production from $61 million to $65 million, and farm cash income for the first nine months of the year from $120 million in 1954 and 1955 to $143 million in 1956, attributable in great part to increased loadings of wheat.
One of the most dramatic events in the developing economy of Manitoba has been the decision of the International Nickel Company to start on the $175 million nickel project in the Mystery lake and Moak lake areas of Northern Manitoba. This mine is scheduled to go into production in 1960 and will be the world's second largest nickel operation, second only to International Nickel's operations in the Sudbury area. This project brings along with it development of the Grand Rapids power site, which will add to the energy sources of the province. In my own constituency the Lithium Corporation of Canada has begun operation of a


lithium mine in the Cat lake area, and has plans for a mill in the vicinity. In the same area a copper mine is also in the early phases of development.
In connection with the Moak and Mystery lakes development, I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the government of Manitoba for their part in bringing this matter to a favourable conclusion, and in particular to the premier of Manitoba, the minister of mines and the former provincial treasurer, Mr. R. D. Turner. These men worked unceasingly with officials of the company in the interests of the province to make this project become a reality.
We are pleased, Mr. Speaker, in my province to see developments such as I have described both provincially and nationally, but our pleasure is dampened when we recognize that a certain sector of our economy which, while recently showing some improvement, is not fully sharing the prosperity of the country. I refer to the agricultural people of Canada.
The speech from the throne recognizes this problem, and recognizes the need for longterm planning and bold imaginative measures to establish Canadian agriculture on a sound economic basis. The establishment of a committee to consider what should be done to make better use of land for agriculture in the light of the benefits we have obtained from the operation of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act is a welcome step in this direction and should contribute toward a solution of the problem.
This, however, is not the complete answer, and unfortunately the Gordon report does not contribute a great deal toward a solution of the problem.
The solution certainly does not lie in curbing and discouraging production. It does not lie, as suggested in the Gordon report, in a negative approach such as the curtailment of prairie farm assistance payments to discourage use of lands where there has been a high record of crop failure, an indirect way of squeezing farmers off farms. It lies in a positive approach to the problem as suggested in the speech from the throne, through such things as relocation of farm population from submarginal lands with government assistance, encouraged diversification of farm production, extension of farm credit for capital purposes, and a more extended use of the Agricultural Prices Support Act to guarantee the farmer a reasonable return pricewise for the goods he produces. The recommendations in the report are worthy of study, but should be scrutinized very carefully before any attempt is made to implement some of them.

I should like to say a few words about the reference in the speech from the throne to continuation of the Canadian wheat board as the sole marketing agency for western wheat, oats and barley. As stated in the Gordon report, this method of marketing wheat and coarse grains is generally accepted by the grain growers of western Canada, and its establishment was the result of many years of consistent effort on the part of the farmers to obtain orderly and stable marketing of their grains. This system of marketing, not surprisingly, has been the subject of some attack by certain groups in western Canada, and this can be expected when periods of congestion exist such as we have recently experienced. In 1955 the Canadian Chamber of Commerce went so far as to pass a resolution condemning agricultural marketing through government agencies. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that such a resolution is not in accord with a great weight of farm thinking, particularly in so far as the marketing of wheat, oats and barley is concerned.
The continuance of this legislation is a must. Its importance can best be illustrated by the fact that economists estimate that if today marketing of wheat were to be taken from the jurisdiction of the wheat board and turned over to the trade the market price of No. 1 Northern would not be $1.69 at Fort William and $1.71 at Vancouver, but likely somewhere between 80 and 90 cents per bushel. It is true that the grain trade would take the grain off the farms, but at half its present price. This legislation should be continued, and no doubt will receive the unanimous support of the house.
A great deal has been said recently in the house and in the press regarding the needs of our senior citizens, who in times of difficulty and hardship did so much to make this country what it is today. My concern, Mr. Speaker, is not so much for those who have other sources of income or for those whose financial position is such that with the present pension they can get along quite well. My concern is for those who for a variety of reasons, many beyond their own control, find themselves, particularly in our towns and cities, trying to maintain themselves on $40 per month. It would be a very nice thing to give an across the board increase to all pensioners, but if this is not feasible or practical I would certainly urge the government, either with or without the assistance of the provinces, to make further allowances at least to our old age and blind pensioners who need such assistance.
It is hardly necessary to point out that with the increased cost of living in Canada the present pensions, in those cases where
The Address-Mr. Patterson individuals are solely dependent upon them, are inadequate and do not meet present day needs. In this respect I might also point out that the regulations governing disability pensions should be reviewed by federal and provincial authorities, as there is considerable doubt in my mind whether these regulations reflect the intention and the mood of parliament at the time the act was passed.
The proposal contained in the speech from the throne to authorize the payment of grants in lieu of taxes on federal property in all municipalities where such property receives normal municipal services will be most welcome to municipal councils, and will help to relieve some of the financial difficulties in municipalities affected.
In this house last session I urged the Minister of Finance to give consideration to removal of the sales tax on repairs and replacements for heavy equipment used by municipalities. These expenditures by municipalities run into substantial sums. I hope he is keeping this matter in mind as he works on his present budget.
The establishment of the Canada Council is in keeping with the growth of Canada, and more extended assistance to university students and to the universities themselves through increased grants will help fill a need which is seriously felt at the present time by all universities.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, one has only to compare statements made by the leader of the official opposition in and out of the house in recent days with those of members of the government on current issues, both national and international to determine whether the allegations of indifference, inertia and lack of leadership apply to the government or to the official opposition. In my opinion these words neatly describe the official opposition, and my vote on the amendment will so indicate.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I find myself in the position of having to choose a few subjects from a rather lengthy list of what I consider to be very important issues now before us. The fact that I direct attention to these specific problems does not necessarily mean that the others are of a lesser importance, nor does it imply that they will be neglected. It is my hope that we will have the opportunity in other debates to make observations in connection with these problems that are facing various parts of our country and various groups of our Canadian citizens.
Last month I received a very kind invitation to attend the annual Christmas dinner of one of the senior citizens' associations in

The Address-Mr. Patterson my riding. There were possibly 200 people in attendance, representing a considerable part of our population, a group that has given of its strength and abilities in the building of our great nation. As I looked at the audience on that occasion I thought of the sacrifices that had been made as they endeavoured to make their contribution to this country. I thought of the labours performed, the hardships that had been endured, the tears and the sorrows and the joys which had been theirs as they paved the way for succeeding generations. Then I thought of the conditions under which many of those whom they represented are required to live, and I must confess that I felt ashamed.
In the speech from the throne there is a very interesting paragraph which I should like to read. It is in these words:
Indeed our economic expansion has been so rapid that it has put a serious strain upon the supply of various types of labour and materials needed for the many projects which are being put in hand. The corresponding competition to borrow savings to finance all these projects has brought about an increase in interest rates. Increases in the volume of money and credit have had to be carefully limited in order to check inflationary tendencies and the financial policies of my government have also been directed to counteract these same tendencies.
The previous paragraph refers as well to the expansion of our economy and to the prosperity we are enjoying at the present time. But I wonder whether we should not ask the recipients of old age pensions whether they are in agreement with the statement in the speech from the throne which I have just read. When they are required to live as they are on a very meagre pittance, I do not think they would be overly impressed with statements regarding the wonderful expansion of our economy and the high degree of prosperity that the Canadian people are enjoying.
Nor do I think the recipients of the war veterans allowance would be overly impressed with that same statement when they as well, especially those who have not the opportunity of supplementing their income in any other way, are required to live on the present rates that obtain in this particular category.
I would ask the blind citizens of Canada whether' they can appreciate the splendid development that is taking place in our economy and the high degree of prosperity we enjoy. I would ask them if they are sharing in it. I think they would be in a position in which they would be forced to say that they did not know anything about it, that they hardly knew what we were talking about in this particular instance.
We think of the disabled. Yes, we even think of the man who was once considered to be in the middle income brackets. No

matter which of these people we might talk to, I think they would all join in saying they could not appreciate statements such as those, because they themselves were not able to enjoy these good things that should be provided for every citizen of this great country of ours.
In his speech in this debate my leader, the hon. member for Peace River, gave the definition of inflation as too many dollars chasing too few goods. If we asked these people whether they had too many dollars I think they would be constrained to say that, as far as they were concerned, they did not have enough dollars to buy even the necessities of life, let alone those things which possibly would contribute to their welfare and bring a more abundant and easier life for them.
Is $40 per month the best we can do for the senior citizens of Canada? I do not think it is necessary to remind ourselves in this house of the constantly increasing costs of living. That reminder has been given. It should not be necessary to refer to the decreased value of the dollar in terms of purchasing power. That fact as well has been brought to the attention of the house. Yet with the increased national production, the increasing wages and salaries, these people to whom I have referred remain on an extremely low plane as far as living is concerned. They are not privileged to enjoy these things that others are able to secure.
I should like to refer to a resolution that, was passed at the annual British Columbia Social Credit convention in regard to this particular matter, namely the old age pension. The resolution is as follows.
Whereas the national government has implemented an old age pension plan that pays $40 monthly to all Canadians at age seventy years; and
Whereas the present pension payments are inadequate and provincial governments are compelled to augment these payments;
Therefore be it resolved that the national pensions be increased by at least $20 per month.
In advocating the increase in pensions, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the provincial government of British Columbia has also indicated its willingness and readiness to continue with the supplementary payments it has been making to the recipients of old age pension and to others in that category.
When we consider these representations and also the voices that have been raised in this house-not only those of opposition members but of government supporters as well-I think this government should give immediate consideration to increasing the pensions in order to bring them more into line with the present cost of living. As I say, with all the government supporters calling so loudly, and with

the publicity that is being given to their requests, I think possibly the government should be ready to accede to these requests and demands even though it may be that, as some have said, the matter could become one of political expediency because of the forthcoming election.
I wonder whether as many government supporters as have done so would have spoken on this matter and would have made those recommendations if they had not, somehow, had an idea or an inkling that something would be forthcoming before the conclusion of this session. Over the week end the Prime Minister was reported over the radio as saying that the government supporters had not been tipped off at all in connection with anything along this line. Be that as it may, I would suggest that they would hardly all go in opposition to government policy, in view of the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce warned them all to toe the party line and said that if they were willing to do so the Liberal party would be in power for a good many years to come. We hope the government will give consideration to these requests that have been made.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Red Deer puts before us a motion of censure of this government for its unwillingness to meet the challenge and bring in legislation which would take care of many of these important matters. I should like to speak on other matters in connection with health and welfare and these other problems, but I just mention them now; then later on we shall have the opportunity of referring to them more adequately.
The brief presented to the government by the Canadian Legion again calls attention to some of those problems that are very real to the veterans of Canada. Among the recommendations we find those dealing with war veterans allowance and pensions. Right now I should like to express my wholehearted support of those recommendations, and the support of this group in connection with these matters that are so vital to the veterans of Canada. I think the government should deal with them. I think they should stop this process of procrastination and should take a realistic look at these matters and bring them into line with the demands of the present day.
I am also reminded of requests that have been made on behalf of the blind citizens of Canada for a special allowance, free of means test, to pay for those services which are essential for the blind such as guiding services, etc. These matters have been brought to the attention of the government and the minister in other days. I trust they
The Address-Mr. Patterson will be receiving the sympathetic consideration of the department. What I say for those I could say for the others, such as those who are on superannuation and whose income at the present time is far less than that which is necessary to maintain a respectable standard of living.
I should now like to turn to the matter of agriculture. The problems of the farmers in central and eastern Canada can best be discussed, I believe, by the representatives of those sectors. I have the privilege of representing one of the main agricultural areas in British Columbia. Because of that fact I intend to concern myself in this discussion with problems peculiar to hay own province. I think they are problems to which this government is giving scant attention, if any. However, along with what I say with regard to the agricultural problems of British Columbia, I should also like to emphasize the need for agricultural policies generally applicable to all parts of Canada, wherever the need may arise. I suggest that this government have failed to appreciate the necessity for such a program of agricultural policies. They seem to be content with more or less a piecemeal set-up. I would suggest today that a policy should be drafted which would be applicable right across this nation of ours.
We have made a request for the extension of the P.F.R.A. benefits to the province of British Columbia. I believe it was last year that my colleague the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke recommended that it be changed from the prairie farm rehabilitation program to the national farm rehabilitation program. I believe if that were to be done it would increase the scope and expand the benefits of this program so it would be of assistance to farmers right across the country.
The government of the province of British Columbia has sought to obtain from the government consideration of these problems on a national scale. Farm organizations have called for such a program. However, the Minister of Agriculture still insists that this cannot be expanded, that it cannot be changed into a national rehabilitation program, but that if we have projects which we believe are worthy of consideration they should be submitted individually and judged on their own merits. Here again I would suggest that rather than have a piecemeal proposition we should have an over-all program which could be applied in any part of the country where such need arose. The extension of the P.F.R.A. to include British Columbia would be of incalculable value to the farmers of that province.

The Address-Mr. Patterson
I would also like to call attention to the matter of river bank erosion. This to me seems to be a very serious problem. It is a problem which is always with us in the Fraser valley because conditions are not improving very much. This is a problem which is continuing to be of very serious concern to those who live in Fraser valley. We think of the great Fraser river and its tremendous importance to the economy of British Columbia. Besides being of special value in connection with the fishing industry, being the greatest salmon river on the continent, it is designed to be a major factor in the development of industry all the way from Hope to the sea. In addition, if ways and means can be found to protect the salmon industry, the Fraser could also be a vast source of power.
This same mighty Fraser is a source of concern as well, for not only has the Fraser valley suffered serious floods but in addition hundreds of acres of the very best agricultural land have been lost through the process of erosion. I have in my hand the interim report of the investigation into measures for flood control in the Fraser river basin. This report makes reference to this particular situation, but I do not think it presents a very full picture. On page 60 of this interim report we find these words:
There are considerable areas of river bank throughout the lower Fraser valley which are subject to erosion. Some of these areas have been protected in part by rock riprap. The channel of the Fraser river from Hope to the sea is unstable and the main thread of the stream changes position from time to time.
In addition bank erosion is aggravated by navigation in certain reaches of the river particularly where small high-powered craft travel close to the banks. Further study of bank erosion is warranted.
I say that does not do justice to the problems, because they are of greater magnitude than would be indicated by a reading of this report. There was, however, one matter in which I was interested; that is the reference to bank erosion being aggravated by navigation. I remember in other days when I was dealing with this matter, and brought it to the attention of the minister, the report of the engineers was to the effect that this did not enter into the picture at all. However, it is being recognized in this interim report.
Until approximately 25 years ago the federal government apparently assumed full responsibility in this particular matter. During that period they diked the slough mouths, did river clearance and rocked the river banks. However, following that period they began to pay one-third of the cost of similar works together with the province of British Columbia, the municipality, or the district in which the work was done. It was
being shared equally. Following the disastrous flood in 1948, due to an agreement between the federal and provincial governments, after completion of work done by the Fraser valley diking board and dissolution of the board in 1950 the federal government would not share any additional cost for any section of the diking and rock work which had been done by the Fraser valley diking board.
Now we are in the position where the federal Department of Public Works have made it clear that they will not be prepared to contribute anything to the maintenance of work which has already been done. They will still give consideration to new work, but I believe this is a shortsighted policy because we have here an investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars; I suppose actually it would run into several millions. Now the federal government is not going to contribute anything to the maintenance of that work, thereby jeopardizing the entire investment in river bank protection. Here again I think a national policy is essential.
If the farmers of these areas are to go forward with their work with confidence they are going to have to be assured that some assistance will be given in these circumstances. In order to assist in a plan for this type of work I believe it is essential that the provincial and municipal governments know exactly what the federal government is willing to do in the way of assistance. It might be possible that the P.F.R.A. could be expanded to include this type of operation. Here again all attempts on the part of the provincial authorities to obtain any commitment have failed.
I would suggest, in view of the jurisdiction granted the federal government under the terms of the Navigable Waters Protection Act and Fisheries Act, it seems only reasonable that the responsibility in connection with these problems should be fully recognized and accepted by this government. It has been suggested, and I think this suggestion is fair, that this kind of work should be shared possibly on a 60-30-10 basis, 60 per cent being paid by the federal government, 30 per cent by the provincial authorities and 10 per cent by the district or municipality involved. I think this is a major problem to our farmers, and one of those problems which has been plaguing those who seek to produce the food for the nation.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that there are many other problems involving the farming communities of our province. Possibly I could mention some of them to indicate that there is still a great deal to be done in the matter

of legislation which will assist our farmers in facing their great problems.
Let us consider the matter of continually rising freight rates. We all know that during the past several months interim increases have been granted to the railways, and these seriously affect those who have to obtain feed grains in my province. We all remember that freight rate assistance was reduced by approximately 50 per cent, bringing it down to about $5.50 per ton. With increasing freight rates the farmers of my area and other districts are being faced with problems and obstacles that appear almost insurmountable.
A resolution was passed by the British Columbia federation of agriculture at their twenty-third annual convention held in November, 1956. This has to do with feed freight assistance, and I would like to direct the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to this resolution just in case he has any idea in mind of further reducing freight assistance. The resolution is as follows:
Whereas the freight assistance policy of the government of Canada amounting to $5.50 per ton basis Vancouver, New Westminster points is of great value to the stock and poultry feeders of British Columbia and eastern Canada; and
Whereas the livestock feeding industry needs to procure its feed requirements at the lowest possible cost, and
Whereas the livestock feeders in the prairie provinces are able to procure their feed grains at a much lower price than the feeders in British Columbia or eastern Canada due to the abundance of grain that moves outside of the Canadian wheat board;
Therefore be it resolved that this 23rd annual convention of the British Columbia federation of agriculture petition the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to request the freight assistance policy of the government of Canada be continued and made permanent.
This was the recommendation of the British Columbia federation of agriculture, and I trust it will be kept in mind by the Minister of Agriculture in the event that he has any thought of further reducing freight assistance. There is also the problem posed by the lopsided tariff structure that we have at the present time. I am not going to deal with this matter at length, except to point out that it is high time the government took a serious look at this particular situation which is most unfair to the producers in my province and other provinces as well. The matter of dressed poultry and the matter of the tariff on potatoes are problems which the government should review thoroughly with a view to bringing in measures that are more in keeping with what is right and fair for Canadian producers.
On a number of occasions requests have been made for parity prices for agricultural products. I would like to refer just briefly to a resolution which was passed at the second annual convention of the farmers'
The Address-Mr. Patterson union of British Columbia. This convention was held in Mission City late last fall. In the preamble the resolution calls attention to the fact that prices for Canadian industry generally have been protected for a great many years, whereas the agricultural industry has never had price protection. The resolution then goes on to state:
. . . the farm unions are taking the stand that as long as industry has price protection, farmers are justified in expecting the same treatment and are asking the government of Canada to implement the following proposals to gain equality for farmers:
(1)	To institute a price support program for agricultural products, as has been done in many other countries, and thus establish a fair or parity relationship between farm prices and other prices, and eliminate the existing economic inequality between unprotected agriculture and protected industry;
(2)	That such parity price system apply to all farm products sold on the home market, and the portion that has to be exported should be protected by floor prices and sold at world prices;
(3)	That such a price support program for agriculture be established by raising the price of farm products to a parity level through federal government deficiency payments, rather than by raising tariffs on imported products;
Those are three of the recommendations contained in this particular resolution. I am not going to take time to read the others, but I would just like to call attention to these and to state that I give my support to them on behalf of the agricultural industry. British Columbia agriculture has been completely neglected as far as this government is concerned, and the amendment to the amendment presented by the hon. member for Red Deer calls attention to this glaring inconsistency. I would say that this amendment should receive the wholehearted support of this house.
I have a very few minutes left at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to make a few observations with regard to external affairs. As has been pointed out, this subject received considerable attention in the speech from the throne. There are many aspects of Canada's foreign policy with which I would like to deal, but of course time will not permit my doing so. Although some may agree with the policies followed by the government, there are many who are greatly perturbed at the course of international events over the past several months, especially with regard to the recent crisis in the United Nations and the question as to the adequacy of the United Nations to courageously and impartially deal with the various situations confronting it.
The Suez situation has been rather fully discussed during the course of this debate. The stand taken by the British and French has been criticized by some and supported by other hon members, while others have taken what might be described as a middle of the

The Address-Mr. Patterson road position; but it would seem to me the more light that is shed on this particular matter the greater will be our understanding of the British and French position.
I have in my hand reports of speeches that have been made by different individuals which support the British and French stand, and state that the action taken by the British and French governments in relation to the Suez -canal will be thoroughly vindicated by historians in the future.
I have here the report of a speech by James Cromwell, former United States ambassador to Canada, who referred to the British-French intervention. He said that by so doing they blocked Russia's program for conquest in the Middle East, and also revealed to the world Russia's plans to gain control in the east. Many other statements have been made, but I have not time to place them all on the record.
We now find that even though the United States took the stand it did, at the present time it is stating that it is prepared to take almost the identical position in case of certain eventualities in the future. I know that was denied by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who said they were prepared to move only when they had been requested by the nations concerned. The January 14 issue of Newsweek, dealing with policy briefing in the United States, stated that Mr. Dulles went on to make certain points, one being:
That if such an outbreak threatened, the administration would go to the United Nations, but that Mr. Eisenhower wants "freedom to act unilaterally if necessary".
That would indicate that the United States is prepared to take the very same action in certain eventualities as the British and French took back in the critical days of last fall. The statement has been made that the Canadian people are much in favour of the stand taken by this federal government and by our own delegation to the United Nations, indicating that public opinion is in opposition to the position taken by the British and French governments. The same issue of Newsweek contains this paragraph:
The American people overwhelmingly support President Eisenhower's request that congress immediately vote him stand-by powers to send U.S. troops into the Middle East. For Americans believe, in the main, that such a big stick policy will help preserve peace by putting Russia on notice that the U.S. will tolerate no red expansion into the Arab states.
So we find that in the United States there is the recognition of a certain situation which may arise, when action comparable to that taken by the British and French would be advisable on the part of their own government.

Much has been said about Canadian action at the United Nations relative to this particular matter, and it has been stated that the position of the Canadian delegation was that they wanted to save the commonwealth. In view of certain statements which were made in this house not too long ago by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, one wonders to what extent they are desirous of saving the commonwealth. It will be noticed that they do not refer very often to the British commonwealth, possibly following the course set by Madam Pandit when she said that they do not refer to the British commonwealth but to the commonwealth. Perhaps that is the concept of this government in regard to this matter at the present time.
The over-all situation has brought me to a position where I must back up, as it were, from the position I took some time ago when I commended the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Health and Welfare for their work at the United Nations. I must register a protest now, which will somehow take the edge off the complimentary remarks I made on a previous occasion.
I do not believe the people of Canada can go along with the position taken by our delegation at the United Nations on some of these very serious matters. Therefore I would suggest that our foreign policy be reviewed in the light of these situations. Underneath our whole foreign policy there must be not only a recognition of exterior influences, there must be a recognition of underlying principles. I would suggest that we must press for the adoption of these basic principles in international affairs, that each nation must be recognized as sovereign within its own territory, and must be ready to respect the sovereignty of all other nations. There must also be organized international co-operation to enforce these obligations. We believe that Canada can make its most effective contribution toward the implementation of that principle while within the British commonwealth of nations. We should resist any and all efforts to weaken or sever those ties.
We believe as well in the concept of foreign trade. Canada should be ready to trade with all nations of the world on the basis of a mutually satisfactory exchange of goods and services, provided each nation will open up its ports to export-import traders and provided that in those countries where all production is under government monopoly the foreign importer shall be allowed to buy any product on the same terms as the government concerned.

In conclusion, we would encourage a worldwide program of tariff reduction, and urge that Canada work with all other nations for the achievement of convertibility of currencies by each nation stabilizing its own currency, so that at all times there may be a balance between effective purchasing power and the aggregate of prices and goods available for sale; and that the volume of money in each country be expanded only at the rate at which production and trade expand. I submit these observations for the consideration of the house. There are other observations I wanted to make, but I shall have to reserve them for another occasion.
(Translation):


Mr. Georges Villeneuve (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) and the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud). Not only did they deal in a masterly way with the problems of our times, and present a realistic picture of their respective constituencies, one in Alberta and the other in New Brunswick, but they did not fail to speak in support of national unity, in accordance with Liberal party policy, and as had been done by great leaders such as Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King and the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. I was proud to hear my good friend, the hon. member from Edmonton-Strathcona, speak French because, as he sits beside me in this house, I have often had the opportunity to help him practise that language which he now speaks with an ease worthy of the efforts he made. I have no doubt that the electors of Edmonton-Strathcona are proud to be so well represented by their member.
The Prime Minister was particularly fortunate in his choice of a true Acadian as seconder of the address in reply. Here we have a member of that race which "knows not how to die" because it remains conscious of its role in a greater and more varied Canada, moulded in mutual respect based on mutual understanding, a perfect factor of national unity.
Mr. Speaker, as did many other hon. members, I would now like to speak of social security and more particularly of family allowances. These are so welcome to the large families of my constituency that I have been asked to make representations to have the basic rate increased. I would like however, before I do so, to go back
The Address-Mr. Villeneuve for a moment on the history of the legislation enacted in this regard, originating from the statutes of 1944-1945, chapter 40, entitled "an act to provide for family allowances", providing for the paying of allowances for each child residing in Canada as follows: from birth to 6 years of age: $5.00 a month; from 6 to 10 years: $6.00 a month; from 10 to 13 years: $7.00 a month; from 13 to 16 years: $8.00 a month.
The above-mentioned act, which was passed during the 1944-45 session contained, however, under clause 3, a reservation to the effect that the allowance rate be reduced by $1 for the fifth child; by $2 for the sixth and seventh, and by $3 for the eighth and every following child. This proviso which was prejudicial to large families was probably the result of the insidious and unfair campaign launched by a group of people who, over the years, have dwindled to nothing and who, at that time, referred to family allowances as the "Quebec baby bonus". Future events were to show those people that they were behind the times in their social thinking for, in 1957, we find that Ontario is the province with the greatest number of children eligible for family allowances and that, due allowance being made for the population of the different provinces, Newfoundland is the province with the highest amount in family allowances.
In its 1949 legislation, chapter 17 of the statutes for that year, this government amended the act in repealing the proviso I mentioned, which had the effect of putting on an equal footing all Canadian children, whether they were from families of five children or of fifteen children. The large family had won its case. If the Liberal government of 1944-45, under the leadership of the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, can take credit for initiating family allowances, that great social legislation, in the highest sense of the word, the Liberal government of 1949, under the leadership of the present Prime Minister, deserves the congratulations of the Canadian people for dealing fairly with the large family. With regard to this point, I do not think that quantity is prejudicial to quality, otherwise the member now speaking could not be proud to be the tenth of a family of twelve, several of whom are now efficiently pursuing the object pursued by their old mother now 72 years old, who is still living in the contentment of duty done with regard to her country, the greatest asset of which always remains its human capital.
The budget for the fiscal year 1945 appropriated for family allowances the large amount of $190 million. It was the first time

The Address

Mr. Villeneuve in the history of this country that the Canadian mother was getting these allowances. In the fiscal year 1949, which saw the repeal of that proviso and of the decreasing rate, the amount of $284 million was set aside in the budget for family allowances. In the budget of the current 1956 fiscal year the amount of $399,240,000 is set aside for that purpose. Those who claim that family allowances have remained what they were in 1945 do not take into account the adjustment made in 1949 with the repeal of the proviso which was in the 1944-45 act nor the above figures which show the increase in the amount paid under family allowances, with due allowance for the increase in the Canadian population.
In the light of actual facts, I think the subamendment introduced on January 17 by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) moving a vote of non-confidence with regard to the Government, mainly in respect of social security legislation, is hardly logical, especially so when I think that during the 1944-45 session at the opening of which the Liberal government of the day had announced the institution of family allowances in the speech from the throne, his political group voted against this very government. In fact, the speech from the throne read by His Excellency the Earl of Athlone, then governor general of Canada, on January 29, 1944, contained as can be seen on page 2 of Hansard the following passage:
The family and the home are the foundation of national life. To aid in ensuring a minimum of well-being to the children of the nation and to help gain for them a closer approach to equality of opportunity in the battle of life, you will be asked to approve the establishment of a measure introducing family allowances.
On January 28, 1944, the then hon. member for Dorchester, Mr. Leonard Tremblay, moved the adoption of the address which contained the aforementioned paragraph about family allowances. On February 10, 1954, Mr. Tremblay's motion on the address was put to a vote and, among the 21 members who then voted against that motion, I find, at page 380 of Hansard, the name of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) alongside the names of the other members of his political party who joined hands, for the occasion, with the members of the C.C.F. party, these same good Samaritans who would like today to wrest from the Liberal party the credit for being the first to advocate family allowances.
I see in the subamendment a sign of that habit of plagiarism prevalent among many members of the opposition who, frustrated by their failure to understand the needs of the

population as early as the many Liberal governments which have been in power since confederation and especially since the advent of social security for Canadians of all ages and all classes, indulge in barren criticisms and take no account of the various aspects of that question. For a long time Canadians from all parts of this country have shown that they reject the tenets of an abject socialism or those of a retrograde and backward conservatism. They look upon the Liberal party as a middle-of-the-road party, having regard to the anticipated results of those various tendencies and that is why they have given that party their confidence, and rightly so, and will do so again, I hope, at the next opportunity.
I have always said and, I go on saying to my electors, especially to those who have a tendency to minimize the achievements of the Liberal administration in the field of social security that it was the Liberal party which enacted our social security legislation in Canada, which later improved that legislation and will continue to do so when the time comes and the opportunity arises.
Mr. Speaker, I believe, as do my electors of Roberval constituency, that the time has come, in 1957, to appropriate more money for social security benefits, particularly in the matter of family allowances. Twelve years have gone by since the enactment of that legislation and eight years since the last adjustment in 1949. Since then the cost of living has constantly increased so that family allowance benefits have correspondingly suffered a loss in buying power. I would therefore humbly ask the government to give the matter particular attention. I will be so bold as to express the hope that it will see to it that family allowance benefits be revised upward to as high a figure as possible. I am expecting a pleasant surprise in this regard when the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) brings down his budget following a special recommendation from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin).
Mr. Speaker, before going on to another matter, I would like to ask the government to set at $400, instead of $150 as is the case at present, the income tax exemption provided for in the case of each child receiving family allowances. In so doing the government would put everybody in the same position, from the point of view of income tax and once again would prove the very great importance it attaches to human capital, the most valuable form of our wealth, the greatest of all,

that which, providing it is accompanied by a modicum of material goods, has made Canada a country where life is particularly pleasant because of the security it provides.
I would not like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, without putting to the government a suggestion which it might find far-fetched but which, in my humble opinion, would be of very great assistance to the future development of this country. This suggestion relates to the personal income tax.
Income tax has meant tapping hitherto unused savings. The economy of this country has benefited from this use of hitherto unproductive money, money which is now at the service of progress, thanks to the distribution which is carried out by the government throughout Canada, to mention only that aspect of the matter.
Canadians who, formerly approved the selfish principle of holding back while hoping to receive, have now learned to give something in order to get something. The transition between those two states of mind was achieved in the course of fifteen years, so that now Canadians agree at least to consider the income tax as a necessary evil. Since 1940, the year when this federal tax was restored, many citizens did not file any income tax reports and many now have to perpetuate the errors, originally made in their favor, which now prevents them from expanding their undertakings as they should. That has given rise to secret hoarding of money which does not contribute to the economy of the country and which prevents the establishment of many undertakings. This initial tax evasion, besides causing worries and giving rise to other frauds in order to justify the first one, affects a great number of Canadians who would like to make a better contribution to the development of their country. Add to that the fear of income tax investigators, unnecessary borrowings at the bank for the sole purpose of better concealing the facts-which has the effect of paralysing the credit of many Canadians who would greatly need it to maintain their business, or to expand it, or to set up new business undertakings, and you have an idea of the problem caused by the haunting obsession of the original false return. Thus, the economy of the country is partly paralysed, because I do not think I am wrong in stating that the gross figure of the national business would be increased by 2 billion a year if the government declared a general amnesty for all Canadians who have filed income tax reports prior to 1957. In this way, everyone would begin from scratch without worrying about the past, but they would feel the need of
The Address-Mr. Harkness making their reports in the future knowing what the consequences could be. I think that in so doing the government would lose on current claims but would gain very much in the future in revenue accruing from personal income tax.
There is a "maquis", a secret resistance movement against income tax. This movement undermines our national economy and is a major obstacle in the way of capital formation for small industries which would be likely to develop our smaller communities, and even our rural communities. Highly satisfactory manpower can be found there, but at the present time there are few openings save for common labourers who live from day to day since in their community there are no small industries capable of absorbing them.
A general amnesty of this type, by freeing so much hidden or unproductive capital, might prove the starting point of wide development of small industries in our smaller communities and, especially in semirural districts, would ensure progress and prosperity. This thawing out of capital in these areas will bring about a development which will make for decentralization of industry and population in this country. I am convinced, being in the confidence of a large number of business men, that such an amnesty would touch off a general economic expansion in every part of this country.
(Text):


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my congratulations to the many which have already been preferred to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am particularly pleased to do this as the mover, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, comes from my own province and took advantage of his opportunity to say something about the great developments taking place in the province of Alberta.
I was very relieved when the firemen's strike on the C.P.R. ended during the first week end of the present session. The dislocation and the economic loss caused by the strike were particularly evident in southern Alberta, and in that area there was almost universal indignation that the strike had been allowed to take place. It is a matter of astonishment to me that the government did not take the action it eventually did some 10 days before, and stop the strike before it began. It could have taken such action just as well before January 2 as 10 days later, and thus have saved railway and

The Address-Mr. Harkness other workers millions in lost wages and the C.P.R. and the general economy a great many more millions.
The only reasons I can see why the government did not take action before the strike started were irresolution, weakness and timidity. The government failed to face up to its responsibility to ensure that a large part of this country should continue to have vital transportation facilities. Instead of leading the country, as is its responsibility, it quite evidently waited to follow public opinion, and follow it at a great distance. Thus I think the government is directly responsible for the loss which has taken place as a result of the strike.
On several occasions in past years I have made a plea in the house for the blind people of Canada. I have said and would like to repeat that of all our social security measures, those to help the blind are the most niggardly, considering the magnitude of the disability from which these people suffer. This year the Canadian council of the blind and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind have a one-point program for improved legislation. It is for a special allowance free of the means test to help cover the day to day cost of blindness. I urge the government most strongly to institute such an allowance at the present session.
The need for such an allowance is selfevident. There are unavoidable expenses accompanying blindness, expenses for guiding, for taxis to and from work and anywhere else that a blind person may have to go. All this places the blind person at a great disadvantage economically compared with his sighted fellow citizen. That, of course, is apart altogether from the fact that the blind person's disability bars him from employment in most fields of activity.
The matter to which I wish to devote most of my time is that of the expulsion of Indians from their reserves. I spoke at some length on it last year when amendments to the Indian Act were under consideration. At that time the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration denied that any Indians were being expelled from their reserves. He said that if anyone was being expelled he was not an Indian and thus had no right to be on the reserve. His remarks are to be found at page 5178 of Hansard of June 17 of last year, when replying to some remarks I had made. I will not take the time of the house to read them.
This is nothing more than a form of evasion as far as this matter is concerned. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona asked some questions this morning in connection with a large expulsion now taking place in Alberta


at the Hobbema reserve. He asked this question: "Will the minister please explain to the house why over 100 persons who have lived all their lives on the Hobbema Indian reserve... have now been notified that they must leave that reservation?"
To that question the minister replied that everything that is being done is being done under the Indian Act, thereby apparently implying that he had no responsibility. Then he went on to say that an appeal to the courts is provided for, and that the government should not take any action until the appeal is heard. Once more this is evading the question and evading the responsibility of the government in connection with the matter.
As a matter of fact, for some considerable time past the minister has been referring to the act as an excuse for not taking any action with regard to this matter. He said he was not on the committee which considered this legislation, and that he was not a member of the parliament which passed it. He said those who were on the committee and were in that parliament are the ones responsible, thus seeking to give to the Indians and to the people of Canada as a whole the general idea that any responsibility there may be for the inhumane expulsions which are now taking place is not on his shoulders, at any rate, but is in fact on other people, presumably those of us in the opposition as well as the other members of the house. He does this in spite of the fact that many of us fought vigorously to prevent the sections being written into the act under which the Indians are being expelled from the reserves.
The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys is doing the same thing, only I would say that he is doing this even more unfairly than is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I find that he was out in Alberta not very long ago and was questioned in connection with the expulsion of these Indians from their reserves. After following the same line as that which I have indicated, saying that everything was done under the act and blaming the Indians themselves, in fact, this is what he says as reported in the Calgary Herald of January 19:
"In the first place, the government is not forcing these 118 Indians off the reserve," said the minister.
That is the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
"The initiative was taken by a group of Indians themselves ..."
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has followed that same line, namely that if there is any responsibility it is on the Indians, that they are at fault and that the government is not at fault. He completely neglects to say that while the action may

have been started because of protests from Indians, to begin with, it is the government which carries it through, which brings the matter up before the registrar, which signs the order expelling them and so forth.
Then in this interview the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys went on to say this, as reported in the Calgary Herald:
The minister pointed out that from 1946 to 1948 the need for changes in the Indian Act and a clear definition of the term "Indian", was studied by a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. Two of the Alberta members were J. H. Blackmore, Social Credit, Lethbridge, and D. S. Harkness, . . . Conservative, Calgary North.
In other words what the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys was trying to convey to the people of Alberta and the Indians was that if anybody was responsible, the hon. member for Lethbridge and myself were responsible for their plight. As I say, that is not only unfair but it is dishonest. I was going to say that I am surprised that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys should be employing tactics of that kind, but I am not too much surprised at it because they are in keeping with the sort of tactics he has employed frequently in the past.
Som hon. Members: Oh, no.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: So far from my having any responsibility for the present section of the Indian Act under which these expulsions from the reserves are taking place, as the Minister of Finance well knows-he was the minister of citizenship and immigration at the time-both in the committee and in the house I fought vigorously to prevent the insertion of the definition which is in the Indian Act defining Indians and the provision with regard to deletions from band lists. I would think that ministers of the crown could at least be a little bit more honest in their presentations than to try to ascribe the opposite to the members on this side of the house.
The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona this morning went on to ask what would be done for these Indians if they left the reserve. He asked, "If they leave, what is being done to ensure that they will have homes to live in and incomes with which to sustain them in the future?" What is the answer of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to that question? He said it was a hypothetical question and that there was no call on him to answer hypothetical questions. In other words he apparently completely refuses to take any responsibility for the plight of these people, or to do anything to ensure that a great injustice is not done to them.
The Address-Mr. Harkness
This whole matter has become a question of wide public concern in Alberta. Numerous newspaper articles and editorials have been written, all of them condemning the action being taken, and the government for taking it, in extremely strong terms. The general public in Alberta does not like the sort of thing that is going on there with regard to this expulsion matter and it does not like the attitude the government has taken, the evasion, the refusal to take any action and so on.
Briefly the situation is this. There are 118 Indians on the Hobbema reserve, which is about 40 miles south of Edmonton, who have been ordered to leave that reserve on which they or their ancestors have lived for upwards of 60 years and in some cases longer. This action is being taken under the Indian Act of 1951, the act upon which the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration places all the onus, if in his opinion there is any onus. The Indian Act of 1951 provides for an Indian register and that the names of all Indians entitled to receive treaty payments and so forth and to be looked upon as Indians must be on this register. It also provides for additions to and deletions from the register. There is a further provision that any 10 Indians may protest the inclusion of any person's name on their band list.
That is a bad provision, to begin with. Everyone knows how easy it is to get a petition signed. In the present case at the Hobbema reserve, where these 118 Indians are being excluded, one of the 10 Indians upon whose protest the government initiated that action was protesting against his own mother and therefore protesting against himself being a member of the band. The thing was just as ridiculous as that. He did not know what he was signing.
We had the same sort of thing in connection with another band, namely the Blackfoot band east of Calgary, where a petition of this sort was signed. Ten Indians signed it, and then they found that they were signing against themselves. Later 8 of the 10 insisted that their signatures be withdrawn, and they had a great deal of difficulty in getting the department to accept the fact that they had signed not knowing what they were signing, and so forth. But as I say, in this particular case you have a man apparently protesting against his own inclusion on the list. Of course he did not know what he was doing.
The propriety of instituting proceedings to expel Indians from a reserve under circumstances of that sort is questionable. I think it is quite apparent that such proceedings are not fair and are not just, considering the fact that the people are still largely
478	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Harkness illiterate, and frequently do not know what they are doing when they put their names to a piece of paper.
In addition to that, of course, this whole provision for having a certain number of Indians protest other Indians on the band list, thus starting the government to make moves to put those people off the band list, just invites difficulties and bad feeling of all kinds. It is a ready-made way of paying off grudges. If one Indian has a grudge against another he goes around with a petition and says, "Sign this, John" and "Sign this, Joe". He gets his petition signed, and then you have proceedings started to get rid of the particular Indian. It is a perfect way of causing trouble on a reserve, of dividing Indians one against another, and paying off grudges.
It is also a great way to encourage greed. In this particular case, on the Hobbema reserve oil was discovered. I think the estimated value of the oil in terms of the money which will come to the Indians is in the neighbourhood of $20 million; that is, the share of the 118 Indians would be upwards of $2 million. If the 118 are expelled there is $2 million more for the people remaining on the reserve, eventually to be divided up amongst them. At the present time they are receiving $25 a month each from oil revenue.
The act as it stands is an invitation for greedy people to try to force other people off the reserve and have more money for themselves. In other words it offends against what you might call real Christian ethics. The minister said, in answering these questions this morning, that this probably would be the last case. As a matter of fact it will be just the first of many cases. I am quite sure there is no provision in the act to make it the last case, and as a matter of fact the act lays down that any child born on the reserve can be protested for any period up to a year after its birth. There is also nothing to prevent any group of Indians protesting another group.
As far as this particular reserve is concerned, if this expulsion takes place the relatives of the people expelled will immediately protest against the persons who signed the petition and who got rid of their relatives on the reserve. Then you would have a sort of war of extermination on that reserve, and of course on other reserves, if a similar situation were to arise in which considerable assets were involved.
These provisions for deleting names from the band membership, taken in conjunction with the definition of an Indian found in sections 11 and 12 of the Indian Act, create


a situation of complete unfairness, inequity and inhumanity, and the government has to initiate action to put an end to that situation immediately. The act refuses to recognize as an Indian four general classes of people; first, any one who, or whose ancestors, took scrip; second, certain cases of alleged illegitimacy; third, certain cases of alleged white blood; and fourth, for other technical reasons concerning band membership.
As long as those provisions remain in the Indian Act you will not have the Indian population of this country satisfied. They will be in a situation where they may never know when they will be forced off the reserve, and you will not have the white population believing a square deal is being given the aboriginal population.
The Indians on the Hobbema reserve are being expelled because it is alleged that three common ancestors of the 118 took scrip. Scrip was issued to the half-breeds or metis at the end of the first Riel rebellion and following the second rebellion; it was a payment of $120 or 120 acres of land, whichever was wished, and the scrip could be exchanged for land. Very frequently if a white man wanted certain lands he would go to an Indian and say "If you would like a bottle of whiskey or $10, put your name here". Then he would go to the authorities with this man, knowing he was an Indian, half-breed or metis, and the scrip was issued. The white man immediately took it over and went and got the land. That is what happened in a large number of cases.
When Sir John A. Macdonald issued scrip following the first Riel rebellion and found what had happened to most of it, he authorized its issuance a second time to the people who had been given it in the first place because they had lost their scrip, land, or whatever it was. In this particular case there is no clear proof that these three men actually did take scrip to begin with. The records on the matter are extremely confused and mixed. Whilst the government says the action taken against these 118 persons is as a result of Indian protest, the great majority of the people in that band of around 1,100 or 1,200 and the chief, all except a very small number of people, do not want these 118 people expelled; they want to keep them there.
In addition to that it was the government that produced the alleged case that scrip was issued, and they produced it first of all in the form of a document with a certain name on it. But when the matter first came up in 1954 they were not able to establish that the name here was the name of one of the ancestors; they dropped it, and then the

government, not the Indians, revived it. They said they had found more proof, and brought this in the form of photostatic copies of documents showing the alleged issuance of scrip or certificates.
No matter how flimsy the evidence, once these actions are started the government- because it has a policy of decreasing the Indian population on the reserves by a policy of integration-proceeds to throw out as many Indians as it can from the reserves. As long as that policy is followed, and as long as the act exists in its present form, we are going to have these difficulties.
I have a good deal more to say on this subject. May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, before the
dinner recess I had been dealing with the expulsion of Indians from reserves, and I referred in particular to the case of the threatened eviction of 118 Indians from the Hobbema reserve in Alberta. I had pointed out that these Indians are being expelled because it is alleged that three of their common ancestors took scrip, a certificate which entitled metis or halfbreeds in the period prior to 1900 to a money grant or in lieu of that to a grant of land. I had also pointed out that the business of scrip had proved to be a fiasco.


Walter Edward Harris: Just a question, if I may. Does that apply to all those who are involved?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, so I understand. The great majority of the lands which were granted to these people of mixed Indian blood found their way into the hands of white men chiefly for very small payments, whisky or something of that sort. As a result of the recognition of the fact that the idea of scrip. was a fiasco, an order in council was passed in 1901 which returned to Indian status any person whom the Indians of a particular band were willing to have back in the band, whether or not he had taken scrip.
That should have cleared the entire issue, and there should be no effort at this time to expel persons who have been on reservations since that time and have enjoyed Indian status. Their position should certainly be clear, but under the amendments made to the Indian Act in 1951 that is not the case. The action that was taken in 1901 to reinstate people with Indian status whether or not they had taken scrip is now being overturned
The Address-Mr. Harkness and negatived, by the amendments made to the act in 1951. As has been well said, the sins-if they were sins-of the father are being visited on the children even unto the third and fourth generation.
The whole matter of scrip is one which at the present time is practically incapable of proof. Not one in a thousand or ten thousand of these people could read and write; therefore the scrip certificates bore nothing more than an X and a man's name. Many of these people of mixed blood and many Indians had two or three Indian names; some of them were possibly known by two or three different names which various white settlers had given to them. Now at this stage of the game, some 60 years later, it is virtually impossible to prove definitely that a man whose name is Johnson had an ancestor by the name of Johnny Johnson who took scrip. Nevertheless on extremely flimsy ground and the allegation that their ancestors took scrip, these people are being expelled.
The minister said this morning when he was answering certain questions with regard to this matter that he hoped the people concerned would appeal. He did not say in what way he hoped the appeal would turn out, and I would be inclined to suspect that he would hope the appeal would go against them. Thus he would have the excuse of a court decision for not taking any action in connection with these Indians.
In any event I can assure him that an appeal will be lodged. As a matter of fact funds are now being raised among certain white people and various Indian bands in order to finance the cost of an appeal. One reason an appeal was not launched sooner, as I think the minister well knows, is that requests had been made to him to make government or Indian band funds available to finance this appeal. This request was refused, and as a result this general appeal for funds is now proceeding. As a result of this an appeal will be launched.
I might say, however, that in view of the amendments that were made to the Indian Act last year the position of this appeal becomes much more difficult than previously was the case. Last year section 9 of the Indian Act was amended. This section is the part of the act which defines what an Indian is, and it was amended by adding the following as subsection 6:
Where a decision of the registrar has been referred to a judge for review under this section, the burden of establishing that the decision of the registrar is erroneous is on the person who requested that the decision be so referred.
In other words the onus of proof is placed on the Indian, who has practically no means

The Address-Mr. Harkness at his disposal to refute the allegation. For example, how can an Indian prove that his grandfather was not a white man, or that he did not have some white blood in him? How can he prove that his grandfather did not accept scrip, when all this confusion exists concerning the matter? Instead of the onus being placed on the department to prove that the person concerned is not an Indian, this amendment to the act places that onus on the poor Indian, who has little or no means of determining the facts. The position of the person being expelled from the reserve is rendered that much more difficult, and it is practically impossible for him to establish his case when it is taken on appeal to the district court.
As I said earlier, a great deal of public concern and indignation has been stirred up over this Hobbema case in the province of Alberta. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and other members of the government have received numerous letters of protest and petitions signed by members of church groups, farm unions and other organizations requesting that immediate action be taken to amend the Indian Act by deleting the present section dealing with the definition of an Indian, and preventing this apparent injustice taking place.
As the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration indicated this morning, both he and his government have refused to take any action whatever. They seem content to continue following the so-called policy of integration, which apparently was decided on when the present Minister of Finance was the minister of this department. In effect it amounts to a policy of getting rid of as many people as possible from the Indian reserves, no matter what the consequences may be to the individuals concerned in terms of suffering and hardship.
The widespread indignation aroused by this particular case is reflected in many articles and editorials in the Calgary newspapers. The Calgary Herald during the past week has had a series of front page articles dealing with this matter, from one of which I have quoted. These have served to apprise the general public of what was happening, and as a result more and more letters are pouring in to me and I am sure to the government asking that we prevent this completely unjustified action from taking place.
In addition the Calgary Albertan, which has been a steady and strong supporter of the federal Liberal government and party ever since I can remember, had an extremely strong editorial on the matter in its issue of

Thursday, December 27, 1956. This was entitled "The Beam in Thine Own Eye" and reads:
Canadians are given to righteous condemnation of racial persecution, particularly of the negro, as it happens in the southern United States and in South Africa. They continually thank God that they are not as other people, given to discrimination against human beings because of accident of birth or colour of skin.
In this editorial we intend to show that Canadians in fact do discriminate, not only in their actions but in their laws, against a racial minority in their midst, and in a most brutal and unjustified manner which is different only in degree from that in South Africa.
This long editorial goes on to outline the apartheid policy in South Africa and points out that we have the same thing, perhaps to a lesser degree, in Canada as far as the treatment of Indians on reserves are concerned, particularly the Hobbema Indians. The editorial then continues:
Now look at Canada.
Late in the last century the Queen, through her Canadian government, entered into solemn treaty with the plains Indians. They surrendered their claims to this land, and in return she promised them that they and their heirs could live for all time on certain reserves and would receive certain annual benefits.
As in South Africa, there had been considerable mixing of the races, and there was a sizeable metis or mixed blood population. As usually happens, the proud whites tended to ostracize these halfbreeds but the Indians took them in.
They go on to point out that even if the ancestors of the people concerned were in this class, the people of Canada still have a responsibility toward them. Certainly as far as the treaties entered into with the Indians are concerned, they say those people shall be considered as Indians who have followed the Indian way of life. These people, even if they took scrip, whether or not they are of mixed blood, are entitled to be considered as Indians, and in fact have been considered as Indians for some 60 years. Now they are told they are not Indians and have to leave the only life they know, the only homes they have. They must give up the equity they have in their reserve which now amounts to a considerable figure. The editorial then ends up by saying:
The Queen has broken her word given in solemn treaty. The Canadian government, instead of implementing constructive policies for the gradual emancipation of the Indians so they can take an honourable place in Canadian society, has a policy only of inspecting their ancestors for traces of illegitimacy, "white blood" or scrip, and then visiting its punishment on the third and fourth generation.
Have Canadians a right to condemn what is going on in South Africa? Certainly they have, because it is wrong. Wrong should always be condemned, even at home.
It would be bad if the welfare of Canada's Indians became a subject of political controversy. Yet the Liberal government's brutal attitude, its

inability to appreciate and respect the public conscience in this matter, is one of those things which may incline some people to wonder whether it is not time for a change.
That is not a Conservative paper; that is a strong Liberal paper which speaks, I think very accurately, for the people of Alberta. They use the word "brutal" which I do not think is too strong a word to use; I think it is the right word. The treatment being given these people is brutal, it is inhuman, and it is the responsibility of the government to see that it is not continued. I call upon the government to cease immediately these expulsions and to provide amendments to the Indian Act at this present session to ensure that this state of affairs will end and that expulsions of this sort cannot and will not take place in the future.


Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to follow the tradition set by many of my colleagues and congratulate the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address. I would add to those congratulations a fact that I know all hon. members realize, that these two young men are among the hardest working members of parliament.
I come from a place called Burnaby in British Columbia. Most of you have heard of it over the years, and you are going to continue to hear about it until the people I represent get what I have been asking for in this house over the years I have been here. Many times I have stood in my place and said to the government that the Burnaby area was the second largest area of population in my province. During those years I presented to this house one of the largest petitions ever brought to this House of Commons. Many of my people have written to the government and to members of parliament asking for the recognition which I think is their due. Each one of you knows that I am asking again for an independent television station in Burnaby.
On many occasions I have taken up the time of committees of this house in arguing against C.B.C. specialists and the chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, with what little ability I have, in regard to this matter. I have continually been brought up against the argument that no satellite or independent station was to be built within the A-contour of a C.B.C. station until the government changed its policy. Actually it was not government policy at all; the government were following out the views of the experts of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. That is what they employ those experts for.
The Address-Mr. Goode
Mr. Dunton has said to me dozens and dozens of times that I could not obtain this television station for my people because Burnaby was within the perimeter of CBUT. Then immediately after leaving the last television committee Mr. Dunton advised the government, and I say this with all respect to my colleague the hon. member for Victoria, that an independent satellite station of C.B.C. would be constructed in Victoria. Again with all respect to my colleague I must say that there can be no comparison between the two places of Burnaby and Victoria. Today Burnaby has almost 90,000 people, and I would be distressed to give the population of Victoria.


Walter Edward Harris: But it is so beautiful.


Tom Goode: We have the second largest area of population in my province. It seems hard for members from British Columbia-I include the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, who has fought for me and with me on this matter-to convince civil servants in Ottawa that here are almost 90,000 people wanting something which they consider is their due. With the help of the chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation we are met with excuses and more excuses. In conversation with the chairman in Vancouver I was told that we would have to wait for the Fowler commission report. How long did we wait for the Fowler commission report in regard to increasing the power of CKWX at the last meeting of the board of governors? How long did we wait for the Fowler commission report in regard to an independent television station in Victoria?
Of course we did not wait for it. It suited the C.B.C. at that time, as it would suit them at all times, to take these matters under their own consideration, disregarding the people of any province in doing things exactly in the way they wish to do them.
It is just about time, Mr. Speaker, that this great organization changed its policy. I do not argue with the organization itself and never have, or with the way in which they do business. I argue against their policy. Everything is not wrong with the
C.B.C.; they do a lot of good things. In this case, though, I again stand in my place and demand that the C.B.C. give permission for a number of companies who reside both in Vancouver and in Burnaby to be allowed to spend their own money-and by money I mean something over a million dollars-to put into operation a station which almost every person in my riding desires.
I hope I do not have to rise in my place again and mention this matter. The idea of waiting for the Fowler report goes out the
482	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Goode window, because the C.B.C. do everything they want to do except when somebody wants something they do not desire. Then and only then have we to wait for the Fowler report. In this case they say we must not have an independent station within the perimeter or A-contour of CBUT Vancouver, despite the fact that anyone with a television set on the lower mainland can watch channel 6 every night because it comes in just as strongly as CBUT.
If there was an effective reply to the argument I have tried to put up over the years, surely it is now going to fall down the drain, because the C.B.C. have been shown that the policy they have conducted over the years has turned against them. I have no argument with my colleague from Victoria, who has done so much to get a station for Victoria, but I in turn must speak up for my own people. We have put forward a petition in the house, as I have mentioned; I have stood on my feet in this place many times and asked for this station on behalf of my contituency. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam will support me, I am sure, when I say the majority of the people in Burnaby desire this service, and I ask the government once again if they will overrule this gentleman from the C.B.C. and allow Canadians to spend their own money in Canadian cities.
I have said many times-hon. members have heard me advance this argument on a dozen occasions-that if the C.B.C. service to the lower mainland were the only one we could get we could, I suppose, talk on the lines the hon. gentleman from Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) followed the other night, but we cannot argue in that way. In my own home in Burnaby I can receive sometimes three and often four stations from the United States and, as I have told this house so many times, Canadians in my province are going to KVOS in Bellingham and spending good Canadian money in order to impress the quality of Canadian goods upon Canadians. That is the situation, and there is no one either in this house or in C.B.C. who can argue against it.
In the last provincial election some gentlemen who were running for office spent many thousands of dollars buying time over KVOS, Bellingham, to explain their ideas to Canadians voting in a Canadian election, because they could not get time on CBUT. Perhaps it is proper that I should give notice, not only because I look terrible on television, but I give my word to this house now that I will never try to get a Canadian vote over a United States television station.

I do not want to prolong discussion of a subject which I have gone over so many times, but I would just say that the amount of Canadian money going into KVOS, Bellingham at the moment is something like $750,000 a year. That money would make rather a good profit for Canadian investors. There has been some talk at home-I think perhaps political talk.-that I have represented certain interests in setting out the contentions I have presented in this chamber. I say that now because I heard "Hear, hear" from the C.C.F. benches. I say now that all I want as far as my riding is concerned is the right to have a licence for an independent television station, and then the four or five companies who wish to put up the station can have the government decide who is going to finance the undertaking. I do not have any idea who should get the licence for the station, and never have.
Turning to another subject, Mr. Speaker, may I support some of my colleagues in this house who have asked the government to consider an increase in pensions for senior citizens. I have about 7,000 of them in my riding, and I do not think for a moment that this subject should be put on a political basis. I do not think I should go home and say that the Liberals were the only people who asked for an increase, and I do not think C.C.F. members should start an auction sale at home with the object of influencing senior citizens' votes. I do not think any party in this house can either take credit, or discredit any other party, in regard to what we think about the amount of money paid to senior citizens in this country. I will make a wager now that there is not one member in this house who will say they are getting a sufficient monthly income; and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that when the session is finished each of us can go home and say, "We put through a raise for old age pensions. All of us did it, not just a few."
It seems there are a number of members on both sides of the house who have also supported an increase in family allowances. I do not know exactly if, as some hon. gentlemen have suggested, we put through a national health insurance scheme across the country and if we are going to increase old age pensions in addition whether all these things can be done at the same time. I frankly do not know; but I hope, Mr. Speaker, that if the money is available one of the things we should study is an increase in the family allowance for the young people in our constituencies. I do not think any party has the right to take credit for an increase, if there is an increase, when


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate now under way I should like first of all through you, sir, to thank the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the management of Trans-Canada Air Lines for their kind cooperation in enabling me to get home speedily on the death of my father. I appreciate their help very much. In the same vein, sir, to you, to the Prime Minister, certain members of the cabinet and a great many members of the House of Commons, may I express on behalf of my mother and family our great appreciation of the telegrams and letters sent to us on that very sad occasion. They were most welcome, and the expressions of sympathy and understanding were of great assistance to all members of our family.
At this stage of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne it may seem rather difficult to believe that there are still some things that have not yet been said and which we feel should be said. It is not my intention to emphasize or repeat in any way the requests made by other members with regard to the changes they feel are required in government policy and legislation. In only one way do I wish to add my voice to those of members of all parties who have asked the government to bring in at this session improvements in the legislation respecting allowances paid our senior citizens, our blind, our disabled and our veterans.
A great deal has been said already on this subject and, as I said, I am not going to go beyond what has been said except to add that I was most interested in the remarks made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. I want to say to him that if what he said is correct, if the Liberal

The Address-Mr. Winch party is a democracy and not a cabinet dictatorship, then why do they not bring in increased allowances? In the opinion of every member on this and the other side of the house the time is past when these allowances should have been increased.
There is one matter having to do with those of the low income groups about which I want to speak. I refer to the question of housing. There is still a very serious shortage of low rental housing for our aged citizens and those in the same income category. Until about eight years ago nothing whatsoever was being done on their behalf, but a start was made at that time. Some municipalities were interested and made land contributions. Some governments were interested and made grants up to one-third of the capital cost of nonprofit housing on a low rental basis for our aged citizens.
Unfortunately there has never been any major effort made by the federal government to interest itself in this most serious problem. I want to give commendation where commendation is due. There is legislation which enables the Minister of Public Works to make a contribution through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to housing for our senior citizens by way of mortgage at an interest rate not greater than 1 per cent more than the rate paid by the government on its own borrowings. However, I feel we have now reached a point with respect to the serious problem of supplying low rental housing for our old age pensioners and others in the same category when there is not only a request but an insistent demand that the federal government show greater interest in the problem and make a greater contribution to its solution than providing mortgage facilities.
Some seven or eight years ago, with a grant of land from a municipality for the nominal sum of $1 and a capital grant of one-third from a provincial government, it was possible to provide good housing for a couple for approximately $22 a month. With the increased costs of construction I can say with authority that now, even with the land free from the municipality, a one-third grant from a provincial government and a mortgage loan from the federal government at 3J per cent, it is not possible to make a good home available for a couple for under $35 a month. I know whereof I speak in that regard.
At the pension rates we have in Canada people cannot afford to pay even $35 a month. The low income groups cannot do so. I believe it is only fair that the entire responsibility should not be left on the municipality and the provincial government. Instead, I think the federal government should give
[Mr. Winch.l

most serious consideration to matching the grants of the provincial governments in order that we can take care, on an increased scale, of the housing needs of our senior citizens. I hope the government will give some thought to the matter. But if they will not do so, Mr. Speaker, I would most certainly request that they do not put obstacles in the way of those who want to do something about the situation.
Unfortunately this government puts obstacles in the way of those who want to do something about giving good houses to our old age pensioners. Under the acts of the provincial legislature in their making of grants, and under the terms under which money can be borrowed from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, first of all it must be done by an incorporated company; it must be a non-profit company, and it must put up a certain amount of cash. But when you have churches such as the United Church in British Columbia, an organization such as the Swedish association in British Columbia, an organization such as New Vista in Burnaby and a fraternal organization like the Rotary club at Kelowna interested in this problem, the cash required must come through donations, and we find that as a general rule donations mostly come from the same source.
Those who are willing and able to give also expect that under the Income Tax Act the donations shall be allowable as charitable donations. Mr. Speaker, this government does not allow, under the Income Tax Act, deduction for purposes of income tax of donations to any non-profit, incorporated organization trying to meet the government's responsibility in supplying homes to old age pensioners and those in the same low income category. We know that. We have the ruling of the legal department of the Minister of National Revenue that such donations are not covered and cannot be covered.
That being the case, Mr. Speaker, surely it is not asking too much of the government that, if an amendment is required, they introduce at this session the required amendment in order to take care of the church and fraternal organizations that are trying to do the job that should be the responsibility of government. At least do not put obstacles in their way.
I would also ask you to note this fact, Mr. Speaker. The reason we are turned down by the legal department of the Minister of National Revenue is that we are operating a business. Mr. Speaker, I think there would be a revolution in this country if you tried to tell those who donate to the Y.M.C.A., the Y.W.C.A., or the Salvation Army that they

could not have exemption under the act because they are operating a business. They are all operating a business in connection with hotels and hostels, the renting of rooms, and doing a wonderful job; and they are sustained to a great extent by charitable donations, directly or indirectly, through the community chests and the red feather drives. Yet, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the provision of homes for the aged on a low rental basis, the government says, "You cannot have any exemption".
Just the other day we heard the Prime Minister tell us about the new Canada Council -that is a wonderful thing and something which is long overdue-and he emphasized the fact that provision would be made that donations given to this council for the advancement of culture and the arts would be exempt as charitable donations. Mr. Speaker, I agree with that course. But I say it is a confounded shame that the government should boast that they are going to make provision for the exemption of gifts for the advancement of culture and the arts, and refuse the same right for the building of homes for the aged of the Dominion of Canada. I certainly hope that something will be done about the situation. I am interested in the advancement of culture and the arts. Maybe I need some myself. But I am interested first of all in decent homes for those who have built our country, and the government should have the same interest.
To go on from that point, there is another matter I desire to raise. It may seem small, but to many it is important. I am extremely grateful that the Minister of Labour is in his seat, because I am certain he will take note of it. Under the British North America Act there are divisions of jurisdiction as between the federal government and the provincial governments. One of the responsibilities and jurisdictions of a provincial government is the enactment of legislation on hours of work. Legislation varies in the different provinces of Canada, but most of the provinces are interested in hours of work and they make laws as to how many hours it is lawful to work in a day and how many hours it is lawful to work in a week.
It always happens that law is behind what has become general practice and what is the demand of organized labour. But it seems to me onlv reasonable to suppose that any activities of the federal government or of any department under the federal government would be in line with the laws of the province, or would be of such a nature as not to discriminate against people if they want to live up to the laws of the province. Therefore through you, Mr. Speaker, I want
The Address-Mr. Winch to say to the Minister of Labour that I think it is wrong that the attitude of the unemployment insurance commission should be that if a person becomes tired of working too much overtime, finally rebels against working too much overtime, even above the trade union agreement and the law of the province, and quits the job because of the overtime, then when he makes application for unemployment insurance he should be told, "You are not eligible because you did not have a legitimate reason for quitting the job".
I know this applies in particular to one phase of operations. If a woman is single, works overtime and does not complain, then after being married if she does not want to work excessive overtime but wants to go home after work she is denied lawful hours. The unemployment insurance commission says "You are now married. You did not object to this overtime when you were single, so you have now no reason for quitting your job. You are not eligible for unemployment insurance".
Mr. Speaker, I assure the Minister of Labour that I am not talking through my hat. I have cases; I have decisions. I have on my desk one decision of the appeal board that such is the rule and such is the policy. I just want to say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Labour that it is definitely wrong, and I sincerely hope he will interest himself in that one little phase of a large operation; because it is not only wrong in principle but is placing a burden on people who do not wish to work overtime but are forced to do so. If they quit their jobs they are not eligible for unemployment insurance. Surely in our country, in our provincial and our federal policies, our goal should be that everybody should work reasonable hours. As long as we have immigrants who want to come here and are told they cannot because we have no employment, then we should have a federal policy which coincides with provincial law on hours of work in a day or a week.
There is another subject which I will not discuss at any length because, as I said, I do not wish to take up too much time in this debate. It is an important subject. I merely wish to ask if and when this government is going to give at this session some information to the people of Canada and in particular to the people of British Columbia as to what government policy is going to be on major developments in regard to international rivers. It is not enough to read in the papers about surveys and studies. They may extend over many years, and the developments about which I have read recently perhaps will not be undertaken for 25 years. The problem of the Columbia river is of such a nature that

The Address-Mr. Winch there should be some indication by the government now as to government policy and co-operation between governments as to development of that great resource of British Columbia.
One of the great regrets in my years in public life is that we have to wait until the last moment to find out what a government has in mind. The speech from the throne was one of the most barren documents I have ever heard or read in my life. It gave no indication whatsoever to the common people as to what they might expect. We all know there is going to be an election this year, and the major guessing game which is going on across Canada today is trying to find out what is government strategy. To me it appears that the government strategy is to wait until we have been here a few weeks; then perhaps have the Minister of Finance bring down the budget; then ask for six months' interim supply, and then dissolve the house, when the members of parliament will have no right to discuss the people's business or to interrogate on government policy.
It will be a marvellous thing when we have true democracy in this country. That will be when we have a government that operates on principle and not on political election expediency. It has always been that way in the past but there is no reason why it should be that way in the future. There is no reason why a government should have to use a strategy for election purposes. In the same light there is no reason why an opposition should have to use parliament for election strategy purposes. Sometimes, however, the hands of the opposition are forced in trying to force the hands of the government.
Mr. Speaker, I opened by giving you the thanks of our family for your expression of sympathy on the death of my father. May I conclude with the final words that man, who was for 24 years in the British Columbia legislature, left as his epitaph. I think if we will guide ourselves, as government members or as opposition members, by these four lines we will have a greater Canada, more democratic and more honest elections:
Not as a ladder from earth to heaven;
Not as a witness to any creed.
But simple service, simply given,
To his own kind in their common need.
When parliament follows that rule we will have democracy.


Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):: The mover (Mr. Hanna) and seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne deserve our sincere congratulations. Both these hon. members delivered

very interesting speeches, and in so doing brought credit upon themselves and honour to their constituents. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona lived up to the trust placed in him by the Prime Minister. Although I was not present when the hon. member spoke I read his speech in Hansard and found it very interesting. I should like to congratulate him for having spoken in French as well. This is a mark of good will that is deeply appreciated by all Canadians of French descent. The hon. member for Gloucester is also deserving of my felicitations. His talent as a good speaker was already known in this house, and on this occasion his words were carefully chosen and were most interesting to read.
May I digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to tell the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska, although he is not in the house and no member can ever be sure when he will be in the house-


Mr. Dufresne:: We never know when you are in the house, either, because this is the first time you have spoken.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Speak for yourself. In answer to the hon. member for Quebec West I would only say this much, Mr. Speaker. We have had to listen to his ballyhoo for three or four years, but most likely after the next election we will not see him any more.
I was going to say, for the benefit of the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska-I hope he will have occasion to read my words-that had he understood the speech of the hon. member who seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne he could have learned a lesson in politeness and reasoning. This lesson would have been very useful not only to the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska, but would have been of great benefit to the Conservative members who are so uneasy when the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska indulges in petty politics, trying to belittle not only hon. members in this house but even the ministers of the crown.
I know that some will cry, "Heavens, we are in a democracy". With that I fully agree; but we will have democracy only as long as opposition party members will criticize loyally the policies of the government, rather than trying to belittle men who enjoy the confidence not only of the electors they represent in this house but also of the majority of the people of this country. After all, what achieved the election of the great number of Liberal members who were returned to this house in 1953 if not the policies and the integrity of the right hon. Prime Minister and his cabinet? It is normal indeed that

the opposition may differ in its opinion on ways and means, and it is the duty of the opposition to criticize where it is felt better things could be done; but why not suggest constructively rather than criticize destructively, as does the hon. member for Resti-gouche-Madawaska?
I think also of the hon. member for Broadview, a young man who appears to have had rather a fair schooling but who cannot participate in any debate without rehashing his old song "Tired Old Men" when he refers to the ministers. He seems to forget that the Tory party and government of Great Britain was led by a man much older than our Prime Minister but who on many occasions showed that he had more brains than many young would-be politicians like the hon. member for Broadview, who also appears to have forgotten that his father was born before him, and how lucky he is that this was so.
Mr. Speaker, if I mention these two hon. gentlemen it is not because I want this house to think for a moment that I hold a similar opinion of all members of the opposition. I have great respect for all hon. members in this house whatever party they belong to; and moreover, with regard to some who may have a slip of the tongue in the heat of a discussion, it is soon forgotten. But to a very few, and especially the two hon. members I have mentioned, I would say beware; for in the long run you will notice that you are not helping your own party by belittling men like those in the cabinet today. They have proven by deeds and not simply by mere words that the confidence placed in them in five elections has been justified; and should there be an election early this summer I am sure the Canadian people will return the same men to office.
You have a new leader, and I congratulate him on his appointment as such. Would it not be better for Conservatives to try to build up their party to be worthy of more confidence on the part of the Canadian public, rather than attempt to undermine men who have served so faithfully and so well not only the party to which they belong but the whole of Canada; and I would say even outside of Canada, for it is no secret that all the ministers who have represented us in other countries have been a credit to this nation. Please notice I said "nation" rather than referring to the party to which they belong, because when they are abroad they think and act on behalf of the nation.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of posing as a master in democracy but I did feel it my duty to make those few remarks in the hope
The Address-Mr. Habel that they might be useful. After all democracy will survive as long as public men respect authority, truth and justice and even the electorate.
Opposition parties seem to find the speech from the throne lacking in a sufficient number of new measures. I feel sure that, before the end of this session, we shall hear them say that what new legislation or changes are suggested will be only brought in because of a forthcoming general election. This of course, as I have said, is rather normal. Nevertheless, if I am any judge of public opinion, when the people of this country will be called upon to judge between actions and promises, it will give the government another vote of confidence. This vote of confidence will go to a government which possibly did not do all that was requested of it . . .


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Certainly not.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: . . . but which, I am convinced has done a lot and for the general good of everybody.
Mr. Speaker, the people I have the honour to represent here include farmers, settlers, professional men, merchants and all kinds of workers. The extent of the constituency of Cochrane is such that it is more an empire than a county. A rather extraordinary fact is that, from one end of the county of Cochrane to the other, various groups, whatever their origin, live in perfect harmony. The various classes of people live together in one happy family. When I see that happening in my constituency, I wonder why it cannot be the same the world over.
My constituents are appreciative of the work done by the present government to maintain peace in the world. They have the greatest respect for the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) who plays such an important part on behalf of the government of Canada in international affairs.
Like many other Canadians, they would welcome a reduction in our national defence budget but they fully understand that, as long as communist Russia nourishes the same ambitious designs, we owe it to ourselves, and to future generations, to maintain a moral and spiritual force and even an armed force to provide for all emergencies.
In a speech I delivered before a social club, early last October, I stated my conviction that the majority of the people now behind the iron curtain are not communists, and I am still convinced this is so. A few weeks

The Address-Mr. Hahel after that speech, Hungary was in a turmoil and this gallant nation would be today a free nation if Russian tanks and machine guns had not interfered with her freedom. How courageous this nation was to try to overcome such an intolerable situation. We must therefore welcome with open arms these refugees who suffered so much and whose only dream is to gain freedom.
There has been a spontaneous response to the appeal of the hon. minister of immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) just about everywhere in Canada. And I am proud to say that in the town of Kapuskasing, where I live, a committee has already been formed, which includes various religious confessions, to take care of the Hungarian families who might want to come there. His Excellency Mgr. Louis Levesque, Bishop of the diocese of Hearst, asked that each parish manage to receive at least one family. This organization is doing fine and should the opportunity arise, these families will be welcomed with the best of attention.
The Spruce Falls Power and Paper Company, of Kapuskasing expressed its willingness to hire Hungarian workers. I imagine that those men will want to bring their families along with them. So although housing is at a premium in our town, the committee is busy finding dwellings for them.
It may be that, in a country as prosperous as Canada, there had to arise such tragic circumstances to make us realize and appreciate our security properly, from the spiritual as well as from the material point of view.
There may be people, though not many, who believe that we are doing more than our share in admitting all these refugees, but I hope that, when they understand what a blow these patriots dealt the Russian bear and communism, not only in Hungary, but in France, in Italy, as well as in all the countries where the devotees of communism have been a constant menace, they soon will change their minds.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a point on which I would like to say a few words. I shall do so by reviewing a situation that might be forgotten in times of prosperity, even with the best of intentions. I am speaking of taxation, of the income tax.
The opposition parties claim that the income tax is far too high, and that we must cut down expenses. Curiously enough, however, they dare not say where and how to cut them down.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: We have told you already.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Would they agree to a decrease in the national defence appropriation? I doubt it. Would they agree to a curtailment of social legislation benefits? Again I doubt it, especially before an election. Would they welcome a decrease in the amounts voted for public works? Judging by the requests made even by the opposition parties when the estimates of the public works department are before the house, those appropriations should be increased to satisfy them. Would they agree to cut the salaries of the civil servants who are surely not overpaid? Again I doubt it since they seem to take such an interest in them, especially before an election.
They talk about a surplus, as if we ought to be ashamed of it, forgetting that a surplus means that our country is even more prosperous than we could foresee.
Mr. Speaker, I am no socialist but I find that we are very fortunate to have a planned economy in Canada. Is not all this outcry about a possible surplus as well as about income tax simply a political shenanigan? For my part and I speak, I think, in the name of the majority of my electors, I would rather be in a position to pay income tax rather than go back to a depression such as we experienced under the Bennett administration.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Brought on by the previous administration.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I did not understand the hon. member's interruption.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: A depression brought on by the former regime.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: By people like you, opportunists who know not where to go. Yet, Mr. Bennett had promised . . .


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It is not very convincing!


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: ... a full lunch pail and at least $5 a day. Paying taxes when there is full employment, when we are enjoying as we do today a booming economy is not the worse of all evils.
During the economic depression, that is the years 1930 and 1937, the constituency I have the honour to represent today was nothing more than a pioneer settlement, and having then the honour and the task of representing that county at the provincial legislature in Toronto, I had there an experience that I would not want to go through again. Rather than suffer the misery of those years, the people of the constituency of Cochrane prefer

by far to be subject to income tax when their income warrants it. During the last election campaign, some of the speakers who were supporting my conservative adversary, tried to discredit income tax. But the electors, particularly those who had known the depression years, still remembered what they had been through, and they did not refrain from interrupting those speakers to tell them that they would much rather pay income tax than go back to the unemployment relief or pittances of 20 cents a day.
No, Mr. Speaker, Canadians enjoy social laws and the administration of a democracy which serves the people. Therefore people understand too that the money for national defence, for social laws and family allowances, for old age pensions and pensions for the blind, the disabled, and the veterans; and the grants for hospital construction, and so on, has to come from taxes. And since he enjoys the benefits of a democracy with truly Christian social laws, the citizen of Canada also understands his obligations. And those who have to pay income tax do it, as a rule, willingly.
I would not have to dwell on this matter, except perhaps to say, incidentally, that it would be appropriate to study the situation as it is today, and with due regard to the high cost of living. For families and individuals alike, there may be reasons in favour of raising the basic exemption. Even if families receive children's allowances, the price of food, rent, clothing and our Canadian standard of living have increased to such extent that the present exemption must seem obsolete if it is not balanced by a quite considerable increase in social security benefits.
I would ask the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), on behalf of all those I represent here, if there is no way of increasing the basic exemption for bachelors to $1,500 and for a married couple to at least $2,500 and perhaps $3,000 if possible. It is true that we are speaking of health insurance, which, if voted, would mean further expense. But, until the provinces show enough interest in this project, such increase of basic exemptions would seem feasible to me.
As regards the possible surplus at the end of the fiscal year, part of it might be used to increase old age pensions, which would be a great help to a great number of my fellow citizens. On that point, Mr. Speaker, I would add that the provinces are very slow to give our older citizens the additional amount they might need. Yet, when the federal government undertook to pay $40 a month, the province of Ontario was thereby saved a very large sum of money which it could easily have used, at least in part, to pay an addi-82715-32
The Address-Mr. Hahel tional amount in case of need. For our older citizens who have no other means of support $40 a month is indeed insufficient. Provinces which are not as rich as Ontario pay such additional amounts, and it is hard to understand why that province shows such reluctance to do so.
For my part, Mr. Speaker, I would like the government to increase not only these pensions but also family allowances, as suggested in many requests from my constituents. Since their inception these allowances have contributed to raise the standard of living of many families of modest means. An adjustment which would take into account a rise in the cost of living would have great moral value in a number of homes. I will even go so far as to say that it is absolutely necessary, because of the constant rise in the cost of living.
Another point on which I would like to touch, Mr. Speaker, if I have time, is the delicate matter of a truly distinctive Canadian national flag. There is nothing new in this as far as I am concerned. In 1939, when Their Majesties the King and Queen were visiting this country, I spoke in the legislative assembly in Toronto and deplored the fact that we were the only nation in the commonwealth that had no distinctive flag with which to greet its sovereigns. On this point, Mr. Speaker, I think that the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier) is very valuable. His suggestion is that the leaders of the various parties here arrange for consultations in order to arrive at a solution so that this matter of a choice of the flag will not be a political bone of contention. After all, Mr. Speaker, this problem of a flag which is symbolic of the very heart of a nation, should be resolved by the various party leaders, and the Canadian people would foe all the better for it.
I should also like to say a few words about the trans-Canada highway. In my constituency, the highway connecting the east and west boundaries is the only true trans-Canada highway at the present time. In 1941, the Ontario government, a Liberal government at the time, opened to traffic the 153-mile highway connecting Hearst and Gerald-ton, which gave us then a fully Canadian highway. Since then, that highway has brought in tourists and has been used for transportation generally. In fact, I would like a survey made of the number of heavy trucks using that highway. I am sure the government would be surprised at the ever growing number of its users. Who knows, such a survey might lead to an agreement with the provincial government whereby that high-
490	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. W. Murphy way would be considered as part of the trans-Canada highway, not only because of its importance from the commercial and touristic point of view, but specially from the point of view of national defence. Highway No. 11 is already in existence and useful; no one can ignore its importance from the point of view of national defence as well as for trade and tourism.
In this same connection, I wish to join with the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Gourd) to ask the Department of National Defence as well as the Department of Public Works to consider the possibility of connecting northwestern Quebec with northeastern Ontario. To connect Norembega, in Ontario, to La Reine, in Quebec, there remains only a distance of about 40 miles to complete that road. The soil is well suited for road construction. There would be perhaps a few bridges to build but, if the federal and provincial governments came to an agreement, the cost would be rather insignificant when one considers the usefulness of a road which would shorten considerably distances between Quebec, Montreal and western Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by thanking the house for its forbearance and by assuring the government that the population of my constituency has the greatest confidence in the future of our part of the country, especially now that we are sure to get natural gas, a most essential product to the early development of an area filled with prospects and minerals of high value. Owing to natural gas, we look to the future with hope. In a few years the constituency of Cochrane will be among the most prosperous constituencies in our province as well as in the country.
Now Mr. Speaker, the subamendment and the amendment constitute a non-confidence motion in the government; so, I don't have to tell you that, on behalf of my constituents,
I will vote against those two motions. I trust that the present government, conscious of its responsibilities, will go on improving our social legislation every time the opportunity arises.
So Mr. Speaker, I believe that, should there be an election this year, the constituency will keep faith with the government which, for more than 20 years, has been leading our country with a touch that is envied by so many other nations as well as other political parties in our own country.
(Text):


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, there is no problem which concerns the Canadian people so much at the present
[Mr. Habel.l

time as that of the value of their dollars. To the man on the street the exercises of the Bank of Canada in tampering with the bank rate and the apparently fuzzy money policy are bewildering. The government's tight money policy, supposedly intended to control inflation, has only aggravated a serious situation. This is altogether too evident when one considers the difficulties of Canadian municipalities in financing their debenture issues. The whole unhappy business filters through the house construction industry and injures enterprises large and small all across the country.
It is being reflected not only in the decrease in the number of houses being built, but in its adverse effect on the small businessman who is experiencing difficulty in obtaining loans for his month to month operations. To cut a long story short, it is getting to the point where it is being reflected in higher prices all across the board. The rising cost of living is now exerting a real pressure on Canadian family budgets, and the house will await with real concern the statement promised by the Minister of Finance on this subject.
While on this subject of rising food prices I might mention that the Minister of Justice has not yet, I understand, declared his position with regard to the latest curse in merchandising, the gold bond stamp, the blue chip stamp or, in other words, the premium stamp. Retailers and retail organizations across the country are definitely opposed to this new gimmick which was introduced by one retail organization to beat the competition of all others in the same line of merchandising. It may rest with individual crown attorneys or with the provincial attorneys general to take action in this situation, but it would appear nevertheless that some leadership might be forthcoming from the federal government and the Minister of Justice.
These stamps by their very nature contribute to inflation, which is something that should concern the Minister of Finance as well as the Minister of Justice. The retail organization or association of Canada contends that the use of these stamps in a so-called give-away program only adds to the cost of doing business. The chain stores and others in competition operate on a very narrow margin of profit and depend entirely upon a vast volume of sales. Because of this narrow margin of profit these retail stores cannot afford to give away something for nothing. Consequently housewives are being duped day in and day out into believing they are gaining valuable premiums for nothing as they purchase family supplies.
Actually the contrary is the case. Ever since this stamp business was introduced the

prices of many staple items of food have been edging higher and higher; in other words, prices have been increased to take care of the cost of the stamps and of the premiums that are given away when the shopper accumulates a sufficient number of stamps.
Before this merchandising curse spreads to the extent that it has spread in the United States and fastens itself upon the economy as a multi-million dollar leech, some government action should be taken to eradicate it altogether.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that action should be taken without delay. This is a most deceptive practice, but unfortunately many shoppers cannot see through the idea and have been sold on the notion that by obtaining these stamps when they purchase their grocery requirements they are actually getting something for nothing. I do not think any hon. member of this house, regardless of the party to which he belongs, would not agree that this is a practice which should be stopped, and I think it must be stopped at the highest government level without delay.
Mr. Speaker, since coming to this house in 1945 I, like many other members of the official opposition and others, have made proposals to the government concerning the plight of the municipalities across this country. As an illustration, we have urged that crown companies should be subject to taxation in the same way as any other industries in a municipality. The government through one of its senior ministers opposed that idea for several years and it was not until 1949 that a formula giving effect to our views was adopted, the same formula that was prescribed by me in the five years prior to its announcement.
It took repetition to have this idea accepted by the government and, Mr. Speaker, I make no apology tonight for again bringing to the attention of the government the plight of the municipalities. If the matter is as serious as we claim it is, and I am sure government members must know how serious it is, it bears repetition. We have advocated in the house that crown property in any municipality be subject to taxation. Some few years ago after considerable argument a 4 per cent fringe, so to speak, was put on, and if crown property amounted to that percentage of the total assessment there was payment in lieu of taxes. That was later reduced to 2 per cent, and I am happy that this year the 2 per cent has been removed so that crown property is wholly subject to taxation.
That is one very minor form of relief to which the municipalities are entitled, but it 82715-32J
The Address

Mr. J. W. Murphy is still not enough because, as we have said over the years, the senior government is getting such a high proportion of the tax dollar that it is squeezing the junior governments to such an extent that municipal bodies find themselves today in a strait-jacket, hardly able to raise enough revenue to do the necessary financing to take care of administration, schools, sewage disposal and all the services required by the people living in the municipality.
According to the dominion bureau of statistics, in 1939 the federal government received 48 cents of the tax dollar, the provincial governments 22.3 cents and the municipal governments 29.7 cents. At the present time the federal government has increased its share to 77 cents of the tax dollar while the provincial governments have been reduced to 12 cents and the poor cousins of the senior government, the municipal governments, have had their share reduced to 11 cents.
I think everyone will agree that it is actually at the municipal level that you get the most for the taxpayer's dollar, and it is most unfortunate that in our growing cities today home owners find their taxes are so high that they almost wonder whether or not they should have bought a home. Certainly in this day and age we do not find, as we did years ago, homes being constructed for rental purposes. That time has gone, and I do not expect it will ever come again.
I would urge the government to consider the idea we have advocated for several years, one that several members have put forward much more forcefully than I have ever been able to, namely that the sales tax that municipal governments have to pay should be abolished. No provincial government pays a sales tax. The municipal governments are in a more serious situation than even the provincial governments, and I submit in all fairness that is all the more reason why the sales tax on their purchases should be removed.
I had a telegram today from our city manager in the city of Sarnia containing the information that sales tax paid by the city in 1956 and by contractors working for the municipality amounted to $150,000. For a city the size of Sarnia that means less than $4 per head, but after all is said and done it is no small amount inasmuch as it is the home owner who has to bear the burden of all the financing that is necessary in a municipality. I hope this principle can be adopted during the present session and made applicable to every municipality throughout the country, because I do not know of a municipality that would not be very grateful
4S2

The Address-Mr. J. W. Murphy for this much relief per capita by way of exemption from sales tax.
As hon. members are aware, in the United States municipal taxes on a home, for instance, are deductible from a person's income for income tax purposes. We have suggested before in the house that this principle be applied in Canada, and I urge that the government follow suit or at least consider the necessity for taking such action. It has worked out fairly well in the United States, and I think it is one measure we could adopt with profit and a great deal of satisfaction to the home owners of Canada.
I am going to speak for a moment about the Sarnia Indian reserve, inasmuch as I had a question on the order paper recently asking the amount of money paid to the city of Sarnia in the year 1956. My question was: What amount, if any, was paid by the federal government to the city of Sarnia for work or services of any kind in connection with the Sarnia Indian reserve for the year 1956?
This was the answer given by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration:
Water supplied to council house, etc. ..$ 113.37
Fire calls	 375.00
Sarnia board of education (tuition) _ 1,862.22
Sarnia separate school board (tuition) .	280.00

I feel that this matter must be brought to the attention of the house and the government again, because we understand that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration now has the responsibility of determining what amount will be paid by the government for services to any Indian reserve. In a letter to me of October 31, 1955, concerning this matter and in reply to a letter I had written to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said:
My colleague, the Hon. Mr. Harris, has referred to me your letter of August 29 in connection with a request from the city of Sarnia for payment for services provided to the Indian reserve within the limits of the city.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, it will be of interest to hon. members to learn that this particular reserve is now actually in the process of being sold at a consideration of some $7 million, though it may take some time before the transaction is completed. Therefore you can appreciate that we are not dealing with a very small project. If the deal goes through it will be one of the largest real estate deals that has ever taken place, in fact I think the largest in Canada. This is Indian property, and it is within the confines of the city of Sarnia. The minister goes on to say:
The June 15, 1955, amendment of the Municipal Grants Act excluded Indian reserves from the definition of "federal property" and consequently it has been necessary to consider an alternative

arrangement to enable payment for services provided by municipalities to Indian reserves. It is hoped that shortly we will be able to deal with claims from municipalities for such services, at which time the matter will be taken up with the clerk or the manager of the city of Sarnia.
The return I received showed that the amount paid to the city of Sarnia was $2,630.59 for 1956, but the telegram I had today from the city manager indicates that only $375 was paid to the Sarnia city treasury by the federal government in connection with the Sarnia Indian reserve. As a matter of fact the amount asked for by the city of Sarnia was in the neighbourhood of $27,000 per year for services rendered to the reserve, and the city contended that amount was rightfully owing to the city for such services.
I submit that in all fairness there is no reason whatsoever why veterans, young people and our older people should be obligated to pay for services amounting to $27,000 provided to this reserve, when realty sales have been made over the last two years at the rate of some $2,000 per acre and considerable acreage has been sold. Hence it is not working any hardship to those who are living on the reserve. I therefore think the government, in all fairness, should make it a policy across this country that where a municipality services an Indian reservation, that municipality should be reimbursed for any amount it has been required to spend for that purpose.
There is another matter, Mr. Speaker, with which I should like to deal for just a moment. Down in our section of western Ontario we have an extremely high-grade agricultural area specializing in cash crops in order to give a return commensurate with the capital investment in the property. We have farms in many areas down in western Ontario where land values are $200, $300 and $400 an acre.
The point I am making is this. Where these people must engage in specialized farming, it is necessary that these growers or producers obtain the necessary help at the necessary time. Down there we have early vegetable growers, sugar beet growers, fruit growers and so on. I know that last year the acreage in sugar beets was small and that the canners could have taken in a good deal more fruit and vegetables had the producers had available to them the necessary labour. However, it was not available.
In connection with the government's immigration policy, I think they will agree with me that a small portion of 1 per cent of the immigrants are capable of doing this sort of work, but there are people from various countries in Europe who can readily be trained. I would suggest that it should

be the policy of the federal government to see that those in these specialized industries, such as the fruit and vegetable growers in Essex, the sugar beet growers and the tobacco growers, get the required help at the time they actually need it. It is no good to have this help coming in a week or two after it should have been there.
I hope and expect that the government's immigration policy, through the minister, will be such that the necessary labour to take care of the proper cultivating and harvesting of these crops will be made available in co-operation with organizations requiring this specialized help. I have, as I am sure have other members, a petition or resolution from the flue-cured tobacco growers and from other organizations sent to the government asking for specialized help to harvest their respective crops. I therefore hope the government will not handicap these producers and processors, but will do what is necessary so they may continue to survive as an important segment of our agricultural economy. They must not be handicapped by any policy or lack of policy of the government.
Another matter with which I wish to deal just briefly, Mr. Speaker, is this, and I think that every hon. member will agree with me that it has considerable merit. I refer now to the cases of war veterans who are petitioning the pension board for pensions. I say this because I want to relate one particular experience which causes me to bring this matter before the house. We have the case of a young chap who was on the Murmansk run, who prior to his enlistment, had been active athletically and who, for some four or five years or a little longer, I believe, was attempting to get a pension because of a certain disease which caused the loss of a leg and a couple of fingers. He had not been successful in obtaining any pension. As does every other hon. member, I appreciate the fact that it is not the responsibility of the pension board to produce the evidence that is to come before that board. They are a tribunal. However, I say this. I say that advocates or those in charge of producing the particular evidence in a particular case should be well versed as to what is necessary in order that the man's case gets a fair hearing.
This particular individual was not able to get a pension of any kind. It happened to be my good fortune to talk to a couple of senior members of my party, one of whom is now in tile house. Through their co-operation we were able to give this matter a little more thought, with the result that we got in touch with some of the authorities in the London
The Address-Mr. J. W. Murphy area. They were kind enough to come up to my house, and we discussed this man's case.
In this particular instance, Mr. Speaker, I am extremely happy to say that they had carefully prepared the evidence. In fact they had three top-class police officers from the Sarnia police department and two young lads who had been in service and who were able to corroborate the fact that this man had complained of his illness while he was in service. I happen to have had the pleasure of going down to London to hear the evidence when it was placed before the tribunal, and at the conclusion I could not help but feel that the man would be entitled to his pension.
I must pay a tribute of respect to those in that area who prepared the evidence in this case. It could not have been prepared better. The result was that the man received a 100 per cent pension. He also received a clothing allowance of $6 a month, I believe, and he gets another $720 a year as a helplessness allowance.
My point in bringing this matter to the attention of the house is simply this. This unfortunate young man who enlisted in His Majesty's service to serve his king and country waited five years for justice. He did not know what evidence was required in order to entitle him to a pension. When the proper evidence was submitted he obtained it without any hesitation. In all fairness to advocates in any place in Canada, and in fairness to the war veterans to whom we owe so much, I submit that the cases should be prepared, with all the available evidence, at the earliest opportunity, in order that the particular veteran may get what he is entitled to without being obliged to wait for four or five years.
In this particular case the man waited for five years. He had the evidence, and it could have been available. Had the evidence been presented some four or five years ago this war veteran would have had the same entitlement that he is getting today, or at least that he obtained beginning on October 1, 1955.
I do not make any apology for bringing this matter before the house, because I feel that undoubtedly there are many other cases in Canada where the same situation exists. If there is entitlement to a pension I hope that in the future those who are charged with the responsibility of presenting evidence on behalf of the veteran will see that the proper evidence is produced at the first hearing, and will not wait until four or five years have passed to produce it in order that, at that particular hearing, he may get the justice to which he was entitled a long time previously.
494	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dupuis
Now, Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to say that our party have always felt that this 20-year requirement for old age assistance should be reduced to 10 years. I think the government should give consideration to that idea. I believe it was suggested at a recent provincial-federal welfare conference convened by the federal government that we have many new residents in this country who are making their contribution to Canada. There should be no quarrel with the idea that these people should be entitled to old age assistance without having to wait 20 years. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that 10 years is sufficient.
I do hope that during this session the government will take whatever action is necessary without delay to see that measures are introduced which will effectively curb inflation.
(Translation):


Mr. Hector Dupuis (St. Mary):: I want to extend my hearty congratulations to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and seconder (Mr. Robi-chaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, not only because it is customary, but because they well deserve it. They admirably carried out a task which is less easy than it may seem, because not only does it require some knowledge of Canadian politics, but those who are chosen for this part generally get little advance information on the matters which are to be submitted to the house during the session. The mover and seconder are therefore to be commended because they have shown their ability to read the future, if I may say so, by their serious and profound description of certain aspects of the projects to be drawn to the attention of hon. members.
I also want to congratulate the government on the legislation mentioned in the speech from the throne, which will be considered during this session. I congratulate it not as a supporter but as a representative of a working class constituency, comprising also people of all classes.
It is not my intention to analyse all proposals that will be submitted to us but, on the other hand, it is my duty to underline some of them, more particularly those concerning the advancement of arts in our province and the subsidies granted to the universities of the various provinces.
The Canada Council for the encouragement of the arts, humanities and social sciences will no doubt have a difficult task to accomplish. That task will consist of setting up an organization which will give our artists the opportunity to develop their talents on the national level. It should be admitted that 25 or 40 years ago our artists would

not have been able to avail themselves of the advantages that the government is offering them now, because there were not enough of them at that time. However, at the present time we have a very great number of artists, French or English speaking, musicians, stage or motion picture actors.
While we are on the subject of motion pictures, and even though I am not sure I will have an opportunity of appearing before this future committee, I feel I should take this opportunity of putting forward the following suggestion. May I point out first that with regard to motion pictures, I was told recently that in Great Britain they are not allowed to import American pictures over and above a certain quota determined by the production of British films.
I do not know that we could establish a quota in this country. Our motion picture industry is developing, and I am told that steps are being taken to give considerable expansion to this very remunerative activity. Under those circumstances, I wonder whether it would be proper to limit the importation of American films to the number we would be allowed to export across the 45th parallel. That is a suggestion which comes at the appropriate moment since, I repeat, in certain quarters, we are getting ready to develop more fully our movie industry; it would be beneficial to us to find on the American market an outlet which would give that industry an opportunity to be on its own.
In the fields of music and drama, I believe that the only way to help our artists with due respect as usual for provincial autonomy, is to grant some subsidies to recognized institutions, which could distribute them to young artists in order to help them to create for themselves a career which would provide them with sufficient income so that they can devote all their time to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


Hector Dupuis: Already ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.
(Text):
On motion of Mr. Dupuis the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Howard Charles Green: Where is the business for tomorrow?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker just announced the adjournment until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.


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

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

Mr. Balcom: What were the expenditures on land reclamation, and where, in Nova Scotia, either during the fiscal year 1955-56, or calendar year 1956?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):



APRIL 1, 1956 TO NOVEMBER 30, 1956

[Stage Direction]
Project
Location
Amount
Armstrong	 Athol			$ cts. 	 265.59 726 86
Bishop Beckwith			95 494 20
Belcher Street'			85* 87.2 88
Central Onslow			
Chignecto			
Converse			
Elderkin			
Falmouth Great Dyke			2 071 89!
Falmouth Village			
Grand Pre			
Goose Bay			
Isgonish			7 201 77
John Lusby			
Kentville			
M asst own			66 608 02
Maccan			9! 10Q 21
Minudie			
Mantua Poplar Grove			
New Minas			
Newport Town			
Noel Shore			
Onslow-North River			
Queen Anne			
Round			
River Herbert			
St. Croix			
Starr's Point			
Truro Dykeland Park			
Tregothic			
Upper Nappan			1 10Q 99
Victoria Diamond Jubilee			892 68
Wellington			94 89Q Q0
Windemere				 4,134.81
[Stage Direction]
Question
APRIL 1, 1956 to NOVEMBER 30, 1956-Concluded
Project	Location	Amount
		$ cts
			 4,110.44
			 6,328.53
			 1,188.11
			 1,283.58
			 3.87
			 4,326.90
		 Hants " 			 4.50
			 185.15
			 65.70
			 1,346.55
			 220.32
			 4,790.25
			 296.46
			 115.00
			 1,659.01
			 735.55
			 34.51
			 1,531.70
			 171.90
			 388.80
		 Kings " 			 525.52
			 239.08
			 380.49
			 941.21
			 4,694.22
			 878.94
			 1,875.94
			 367.11
Mill			 127.50
			 1,141.16
			 401.85
			 1,032.67
		 Kings " 			 2,450.25
			 482.40
			 3,533.07
			 40.95
			 21.25
			 8.00
			 4,725.33
			 303.10
			 217.40
			 220.38
Wnllror			 471.60
			 439.25
			 505.55
			 420.38
589,348.15		
N.B.-Administration, survey and engineering costs not included.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, January 22, 1957