1957-01-09

LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to a question addressed yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). In accordance with that request I tabled at noon five copies of the conciliation board's report covering the dispute between the locomotive engineers and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, as well as five copies of the minority report.
Then as to the other part of the hon. member's question, he asked if we could table all the correspondence with the parties concerned dealing with the matter. On looking this up I find that the correspondence is quite sketchy, consisting mainly of copies of telegrams. In order to give a better picture I have undertaken to prepare a factual report covering the background of the dispute leading up to yesterday. This will contain summaries of telephone conversations as well as copies of telegrams. I am in your hands as to whether this should be tabled with the Clerk or included in Hansard.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this subject I wonder if not only the statement which the minister has prepared but also the report of the conciliation board and the minority report could be included as an appendix to Hansard?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The report of the conciliation board and the minority report are very long documents and they have been tabled. If any hon. member would like to have a copy for study I would be happy to provide one. I think that would be better than including it in Hansard. This other document includes summaries of the reports and the correspondence we have had with the parties concerned, but it does not include a large number of wires, resolutions, summaries of telephone calls on this topic with parties who are not involved in the dispute.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the need for the government to appoint a controller to take over the temporary management of the Canadian Pacific Railway so that its operation on the former basis might be resumed immediately pending an agreement between the company and its employees on all matters now in dispute. I think it is obvious to the house that this is a definite matter of urgent public importance and I am therefore moving this motion.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out yesterday to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), it is a fact that this strike is referred to in the speech from the throne and the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne which is to proceed as soon as we reach orders of the day will permit hon. gentlemen to make any suggestions they wish to make in connection with this strike which they think are in the public interest. It is not only the urgency of a matter which determines whether you allow the regular procedure of the house to be interrupted; there is also the urgency of debate to be considered. There can be just as full a debate on the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne as there could be under the motion which has been submitted by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell).
I think there have been several occasions when Your Honour has decided that that being the case there were no grounds for interrupting the course of the regular procedure of the house as it had been arranged, and in this case as it had been acquiesced in yesterday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word on the point raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as to whether there is urgency of debate in connection with this matter. According to the authorities-and on previous occasions Your Honour has made the same
22	HOUSE OF
Labour Conditions-C.P.R. Strike point-what you have to consider is not just the urgency of a matter but the urgency of debate. All of us recognize the urgency of the matter.


Mr. Fulfon:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I submit that it is out of order for either the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to discuss the question of urgency until you yourself have given your ruling on that point. The standing order reads:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order, and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house. If objection is taken, Mr. Speaker requests those members who support the motion to rise in their places . . .
I submit no discussion can take place and no objection can be taken until after Your Honour has decided whether it is in order and of urgent public importance, and that a discussion between the mover of the motion and the Prime Minister or any member of the government is out of order until that ruling is made, at which time all members may have the right to speak on the matter if they so desire.


Mr. Speaker:: Technically the hon. member is quite correct, but if I were to go further I could say that we are still under the order "motions" and I have not yet called orders of the day. At that time, just before proceeding with the question period, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar could have risen and presented his motion. However, I did not want to be technical about the matter and I listened to the Prime Minister and I was prepared to listen to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre because I find I need some help.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My purpose is to direct myself to the one point, namely, whether there is urgency of debate. The Prime Minister suggests that this matter can be discussed during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne because the matter is mentioned in the speech from the throne. I would point out to you, sir, that under the new rules the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne can continue, and probably will continue, until Tuesday, January 22. That is another 13 days.
If the government is going to wait another 13 days to collect the opinions of the members of the house as expressed hit and miss in the debate on the address, that is hardly coming to grips with the issue. Because of the urgency of the issue itself, I suggest that there is urgency of debate and that it is urgent for


the government to wait not 13 days to collect the opinions of the members of the house but it is urgent for the government to have today the opinions of members in all parties as to what should be done in connection with this matter.
My leader has laid before the house not only the matter itself but a specific, concrete proposal to which members can address themselves. I suggest that in view of what the present situation is doing to the economy of the country and in view of the rights of the men involved there is urgency of debate and urgency of having this matter discussed by parliament today rather than having it drag out for another 13 days.


Mr. Speaker:: In the first place the Minister of Labour, in tabling a certain document, has made a suggestion that one document containing correspondence be printed as an appendix to Hansard. Is there unanimous consent to that effect? Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of document referred to, see appendix, pages 51-56.)


Mr. Speaker:: Is there any other business to be transacted under the heading of motions? If not, we are at the stage just before orders of the day are called.


Major James William Coldwell: I regret that I did not realize that you, Mr. Speaker, were about to call orders of the day. I was waiting for the appropriate place.


Mr. Speaker:: We are now at the appropriate place. Mr. Coldwell has moved for leave to introduce a motion adjourning the house under standing order 26, and the purpose of it is to discuss a matter which is well defined and no doubt of urgent public importance. I listened to the remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and also to those made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I also looked at standing order 38 which defines the order in which the debate on the address in reply is to be taken. If this motion were moved, let us say, tomorrow and if this evening the acting leader of the house announced, as is provided for in standing order 38, that we were not to proceed with the debate on the address in reply tomorrow but to skip a day or two, I would be inclined to allow the motion. The session opened yesterday. In the speech from the throne there is reference to this matter which is of extreme importance; and today, traditionally, after the mover and the seconder of the address have made their speeches, it is leaders' day. In view of the importance of the question I would greatly doubt that the leaders in their

speeches today would not deal with the matter, although perhaps not along the lines of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). But as he knows, as soon as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has made his speech, he will be given the floor as is customary-


Major James William Coldwell: After the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes; after the Prime Minister. Then the leader of the C.C.F. party will be given the floor. I have always had certain difficulty with respect to this standing order 26 especially when the matter mentioned under it obviously is of urgent public importance. Not only in this case but in many others hon. members have moved a motion of importance similar to this one; and when I have had to decide whether there is urgency of debate it has been customary for me- and not only for me but for my predecessors ever since the standing order has existed- not to grant the motion when there is opportunity for a debate involving great latitude such as that on the address in reply, the budget debate or a motion to go into supply. The matter presents difficulty. As I told hon. members last year, I have been studying the matter and the Clerk and I have had discussions about it. I should not like to be called upon today to change the practice which has been so consistently followed in the past. I am still considering the matter. As I say, it presents difficulties. I should like the house to bear with me at this moment. I would ask the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to understand that I do not at the moment wish to change the practice which has been so consistently followed in the past. I shall give the matter some further thought. I do not say that he should not be permitted to make his motion again. I do not make any commitments but I would say that unless opportunity of discussion not only of the various matters mentioned in the speech from the throne but of this matter of urgency as well is given in the debate on the address in reply -if it is skipped for a day or two and not enough opportunities have been given for the house to express their views-I should be inclined to go along with the hon. member. I therefore do not accept the motion.
[Later:!
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Irvin Studer (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour to this effect. Have any arrangements or agreements been made to provide the necessities of
Inquiries of the Ministry
life, food, fuel, and so forth, to those areas suffering a shortage owing to the railway strike?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, no agreements have been made to that effect, but in discussions with the two parties concerned those matters were discussed and I have already brought instances of pending hardship to their attention. If there are any that my hon. friend has in mind I would be glad to do what I can to bring them to the attention of both parties.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Michael Slarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister giving consideration to a further reduction of excise tax on automobiles manufactured in Canada?
Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance':
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could remember the precise answer I made to the same question asked by the same member about a year ago. All I can say is that we consider everything.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: In order that
automobile dealers may arrange their car inventories, can the minister advise when he expects to bring down the budget?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker, it has been customary to give sometimes one week's and sometimes two weeks' notice of that date, but I am not in a position to give a date at the present time.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Can
the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources tell the house when conversations between representatives of the government of Canada and the government of the United States with respect to problems concerning the development of the Columbia and other international rivers will commence?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: No definite date has been set as yet.

Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



INQUIRY AS TO INTERIM PAYMENT ON

[Stage Direction]
1955 CROP
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce say whether an interim payment on the 1955 wheat crop can soon be made in order to improve the cash position on the prairies and avert any precipitous drop in farm income?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Under the terms of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, such a payment cannot be made until it is recommended by the Canadian wheat board, and I have received no recommendation to date.


Hazen Robert Argue: Under the special circumstances, I wonder whether the minister would consider communicating with the wheat board in order to see whether such a payment could in fact be made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to look into the matter.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport this question. Is the Canadian National Railways permitted to use Canadian Pacific Railway refrigerator cars for the movement of perishable goods, such as potatoes, during the period in which the C.P.R. is closed down as a result of the present strike?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: The hon. member was good enough,
Mr. Speaker, to send me notice of his question and I have made some inquiries from the Canadian National. They advise me that such C.P.R. refrigerator cars as were on the Canadian National system at the time of the strike will continue to be used by Canadian National in the usual manner, but they will not move onto their own lines refrigerator cars at points not ordinarily served by the Canadian National.



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF CONTROLLER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: In view of the termination of the duties of the former transport controller at the conclusion of navigation last December 17, can the minister make an announcement that an appointment has been made to fill this important post?


George Carlyle Marler: Regardless of the impression of the
hon. member, the resignations of the transport controller and of the deputy transport controller were received only in the last week of December. These resignations have not yet been acted upon by the government; consequently, I am not in a position to make any statement concerning their successors.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Am I to assume that there will be an appointment made at a very early date?


George Carlyle Marler: I think I should say this,
that the transport controller carried out his duties with outstanding success in the face of very substantial criticism from the hon. gentleman opposite. In the first place, I think it is going to be exceedingly difficult for the government to find a transport controller of the calibre of Mr. Milner. In the second place, I think in view of the criticism expressed by my hon. friend it will be very difficult for us to find someone who will be willing to accept the duties.


Hazen Robert Argue: Nonsense.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: What am I to
conclude from that? Am I to conclude the government is not planning on making an appointment to this post?



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Smith (Baffle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Would the minister give a statement as to the future plans of his department for many Indian families living on the Hobbema reserve in Alberta who have allegedly been deprived of their treaty rights and the privilege of residing on that reserve?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the minister does not admit for one second the accuracy of the allegation made by the hon. gentleman, and therefore there is no occasion for any kind of statement.


James Alexander Smith: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not aware of the fact that over 100 Indians have been requested to leave that particular reserve within the next few weeks?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is quite well aware of what actually has happened on the reserve, yes.

The Address-Mr. DiefenbaJcer


Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Balllefords):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. What is done or what happens when a group of Indians are voted out of an Indian band? What becomes of them? Is anything done by the department to see that they And a new home or get on a different reserve? What are the plans?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is under a slight misapprehension. No Indian can be voted out of a band; no Indian can be deprived of his Indian status. But, as the hon. gentleman knows, since he participated in the revision of the Indian Act, which I did not, the Indian Act does provide legal procedure for the determination of who is or is not an Indian. When the status of an alleged Indian is challenged by another, that legal procedure, which was laid down by this parliament, is followed, and I think every hon. member, and certainly the Leader of the Opposition, would insist that the government should carry out the law as laid down by parliament. That is precisely what we are doing.


Mr. Ferguson:: They join the C.C.F., don't they?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with regard to reception arrangements being made for Hungarian refugees arriving in Canada, and particularly whether the dominion government has arranged to provide any additional reception and health facilities of its own for their accommodation and instruction until such time as they can be fitted into the employment picture in Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, as the hon. gentleman very well knows, all the arrangements that have been made so far for the reception of the Hungarian refugees, over and above the normal facilities existing in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, have been on an ad hoc basis, in an effort to meet the problems as they have developed. I believe that up to the present we in Canada have been able to provide adequate reception for everyone who has arrived, perhaps not quite as nice as we sometimes would have liked it, but it has been pretty satisfactory, thanks, not nearly so much to the government as to the great
generosity of the Canadian people, for which I am sure everyone in the house is grateful; and I have no doubt that if more facilities are needed in one way or another they will be provided either by the federal government or by provincial and local authorities, and I hope in large part by voluntary agencies. Up to the present the facilities have been adequate to meet the flow but this present week is going to see the biggest flow yet of Hungarian refugees across the country.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Despite the omission of the subject from the speech from the throne, can the Prime Minister say whether the government is still considering asking parliament at this session to raise the amount of the old age pension?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If there is any announcement to be made in that respect it will not require a question from the hon. member to have the announcement made.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 8, 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.
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I first through you extend to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, not only my congratulations on the outstanding manner in which they discharged their responsibilities-and I say that not in a routine manner

but also may I add my personal appreciation and thanks for the warm references they so kindly made regarding myself. I deeply appreciate what they said and I may add, sir, that I appreciate the attitude in general of my colleagues on both sides of the house who in their attitude toward me have revealed that understanding which becomes of the essence of our parliamentary system. As the years go by and as we face one another across the house, we develop that regard and respect for those who do not agree with us without which our parliamentary system would be meaningless and ineffectual.

The Address-Mr. DiefenbaJcer
I also want to add a word of personal regret concerning the circumstances which made necessary the resignation of the Hon. George Drew and to say through you, sir, to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that we on this side of the house wish to thank him and his colleagues for the words spoken by him regarding the outstanding contribution made by Mr. Drew to the public service and to Canada both in war and in peace. We couple therewith the hope that it will not be long before he will be restored to his former vitality and health and again able to take his place in the public affairs of our country.
Having said that, I am going to step immediately into a discussion of the speech from the throne. It is a somewhat lengthy document containing a rather extended reference to Canada's external affairs, to the Canada Council and federal grants, to the intention to amend the Municipal Grants Act which we in the opposition have advocated for so long, and to the necessity of certain statutes being amended. One is struck by the fact, however, that regarding an important issue facing Canada at this hour there is but a short and uncertain reference. I refer of course to the paragraph dealing with the strike in which the following words appear:
In the last few days a serious industrial dispute has led to a stoppage of work on one of the major railways of Canada despite the use of the normal processes of conciliation. Special efforts have been made and are continuing to be made by my ministers to assist the parties to reach an agreed settlement.
That is a casual reference which calls apparently for cavalier contemplation of a situation which is dangerous, critical and crippling in its economic effects. This strike has now been in continuance for one week and with the exception of periodical statements which are more or less hopeful in their import there has been no declaration made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) or by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) regarding this very serious matter.
Across the country we find ourselves in this position today. In various parts of the maritimes which are served only by the Canadian Pacific railway a situation exists which is detrimental to the areas affected. Because of the tremendous glut of wheat, areas on the prairies served by the Canadian Pacific railway are faced with a critical situation. Yet all that parliament is vouchsafed is a pious declaration that special efforts have been made and are continuing to be made.
The motion introduced today by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is one which we had considered. We felt that under the rules it would not have been possible to move such a motion successfully.


Indeed if it had been accepted the adjournment would have been only for today, but now there is an opportunity available-not only today but in the days ahead as changes take place-to discuss this matter which vitally affects the Canadian people.
Warehouses and docks are piled high with cargo. Unemployment is occurring because of necessary layoffs of men in industries directly affected by the strike. The common council of Saint John, New Brunswick, on Saturday declared a state of emergency. Prayers were offered in the Roman Catholic churches for a settlement. That is a summary of the press reference I have here and I do not intend to go into further detail.
What does the government do? It continues its policy of being resolute in irresolution. What has it done? This is not a new problem. This matter has been before the government for months. There has been postponement and procrastination, there have been promises that something is going to turn up. We have had daily repetition of promises for the future.
What does the government intend to do? That is a question which the Prime Minister must answer this afternoon. Across this country people are asking, "What do you intend to do?" Remember that the results flowing from automation are not of recent development. One year ago Mr. Jodoin suggested the setting up of a commission on the problems of automation. He stated the other day that if his suggestions in that regard had been met the strike might very well have been avoided.
Let us go back to 1950. In 1950 the situation of course was more general than it is today. In 1950 the strike was outlawed. In 1953 the Prime Minister indicated that if a strike then threatening was carried into effect action similar to that taken in 1950 would be taken.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition does not want to go further than I went. I advised them that parliament would be called immediately.


John George Diefenbaker: Parliament would be
called to act. That is what the promise was. Then in 1956, a few days before Christmas, the press reported that the Prime Minister had stated-I know that he has since said in a rather uncertain way that he was not properly reported-that-


Mr.   Si. Laureni@Quebec Easi: If the hon. member wants to know what happened let me say that from half-past eleven o'clock of the night before I was getting continuous calls. I told everyone that if there was any statement to be made it would be made from

Ottawa by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg). One gentleman of the press said, "Two or three years ago you made a statement that there could be no strike." I said, "I hope there will not be one this time." That is as far as the conversation went. I got considerable criticism from the local paper in Sherbrooke because of the report which was made.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister seems to be a little touchy on that point. If that represents the extent of the Prime Minister's statesmanship on a problem like this it indicates a curious lack of any plan to settle a matter as serious as this.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What would the great Tory party do?


Mr.   Rows@: It could not do less anyway.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister has given his interpretation of what he said but the Canadian people have a right to expect something more than that from a government which over the years has governed this country. Yes, there should be something more than that. One reason no doubt for that action was political expediency, and there was no other.
Let me go on from there. I said a moment ago that the present situation is not one which has occurred overnight, it has been developing for months. In 1950 we in this party advocated a revision of the conciliation methods and procedures in the interests of flexibility and the prompt settlement of industrial disputes, but not the slightest attention was paid by the government to our proposal. These matters ought to have been calmly considered under normal conditions instead of waiting now until a major work stoppage has taken place. The government, by its attitude and conduct in 1950 and subsequently in 1953, has misled both management and employees. They have been misled by the government, by the uncertainty of the course followed by the government through the years. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) smiles regarding a problem that affects the hearts and purses of Canadians everywhere, that effects the economy of this country.
Over and over again there has been reference to the fact that negotiations have taken place between management and representatives of labour. Will the Prime Minister state to the house this afternoon what took place at these various meetings? Will my right hon. friend, that conciliator, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), tell the house what took place at
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker these several meetings at which he and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) dealt with this problem?
I ask the Prime Minister to declare this afternoon what the government is going to do. What is its plan? To sit? To think? To contemplate and to issue daily statements? I ask the Prime Minister to say this afternoon what the government is going to do, what course it will follow, what leadership it will give to the House of Commons, what plans it has in mind.
Those are the questions that are being asked today across this country, for after all with the vast majority enjoyed by the government it is indeed in a position to indicate its plans and also to ask parliament to provide the means whereby those plans will be carried into effect. One week has gone by. I ask the Prime Minister this. Have you not got a plan? Is this thing to continue on and on?


An hon. Member:: Have you got a plan?


John George Diefenbaker: When the Prime Minister has placed that plan before the house, it will be the first time there will be any indication of leadership on the part of the government in this matter that affects vitally the people of Canada and all the people of Canada.
I pass on now to the question of international affairs.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What is your plan?


An hon. Member:: What is your solution?


John George Diefenbaker: In 1950, having regard to the circumstances which then existed, we indicated our stand and that stand was voted down. In the light of experience since, the recommendations then made would have avoided the possibility of future tie-ups of this kind, particularly if the recommendations made from this side of the house with reference to improvement and modernization of the machinery for conciliation has been considered and implemented.
I pass on to the major question dealt with in the speech from the throne. It is interesting to note over the years the degree to which external affairs have more and more taken up the time of and received consideration by parliament. If one looks back over the years one finds in the debates of parliament that there was a time when little of the operative time of parliament was taken in the discussion of external affairs. But in the speech from the throne approximately two pages are devoted to the subject of foreign affairs, and there are one or two matters in connection therewith that I wish to bring to the attention of the house.
When one thinks of external affairs one cannot lose sight of the fact that one who

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker throughout the years has given devoted service to the British people, the British commonwealth and to freedom has resigned today because of ill health. Whether one may agree or disagree with all of the stands he has taken throughout the years, no one can deny his devotion to freedom and the lengths to which Sir Anthony Eden was prepared to go in support of the principles in which he believed and to give of his best to the solution of problems affecting freedom loving people everywhere in the world.
I should like the Prime Minister, if he will, to review some of the events that have taken place in connection with international affairs since we last met in the short session of parliament. At that time we pointed out the degree to which Canada had joined with others in criticism of the stand taken by Britain and France and we indicated that there would be encouragement to Nasser to act in a way contrary to international principles. Indeed, the division among the nations of the free world was such that it brought about a cleavage serious to the preservation and maintenance of freedom. Since then Nasser has succeeded beyond, I would say, even his fondest dreams. He placed obstacles iri the way of the clearance of the canal. He gave notice he would no longer recognize the six principles of the United Nations for the future of the canal. He first refused to permit British and French crews to work in the clearing operations and then finally said he would allow them if they handed over their equipment to the United Nations. Britain and France acted in good faith to quit Egypt and the canal was to be cleared on a non-political basis.
All these things took place and the situation today seems as serious as it did on the occasion of the short session of parliament, if not more so. At that time I had the honour to suggest that something be done by Canada to bring together the leaders of Britain, France and the United States. In the last few days there has been some suggestion that at an early date there will be such a conference. I ask the Prime Minister whether or not he is in agreement that Canada should be the country to act as host in bringing together these three nations iri order to achieve that degree of unity, co-operation and united effort that has characterized these three powers over the years. What has been done in that connection? What course is being followed in order to bring about a restoration of better relations between these nation's?
I realize that since we met the council of NATO has met. What took place there? The

report of the council indicates that progress was made. There were some of us who were surprised that, in the choice of the Secretary General, one who had the qualifications of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) had not accepted the appointment. I think it was suggested that he would do so. There were many who expected it. Indeed, I think some of his colleagues sitting not too far from him had hoped that he would do so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest it was hon. gentlemen opposite.


John George Diefenbaker: I was not referring to my hon. friend. Would the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) indicate what took place at the NATO conference in so far as changes were brought into being which will unite once more the freedom-loving powers to which I have referred? What is being done? After all, there is a reference to NATO. The Prime Minister indicates that he was not there. In the speech from the throne we find this paragraph:
An encouraging advance is being made, as evidenced by the latest ministerial meeting of the council, in the development of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the non-military as well as in the military field. My ministers remain strongly convinced of the need to maintain the North Atlantic Treaty as the keystone of the defence of the western nations.
Would the Prime Minister say what is being done? Would he say whether or not even now, if an invitation has not been previously extended, he would feel like extending that invitation on behalf of the people of Canada to the leaders of the three powers to meet here to the end that in an atmosphere of goodwill within this country the leaders of these nations might come together and once more restore the strength of the alliances between them.
Then there was a reference to the United Nations and the degree to which the United Nations is achieving a new importance in the world. There is a reference to the heroic stand of the Hungarian people, and with that there can be no disagreement; for so long as freedom lives in the hearts of men the stand of those Hungarian people will be an epic, and a heroic one, in the history of freedom regardless of what stands may be taken in the future.
But what of the United Nations in connection with Hungary? When resolutions were passed with regard to Britain and France, action was taken by those countries. What is the intention of Canada with reference to the attitude taken by the Hungarian government in refusing in any way except, in the most qualified manner, to carry out the wishes and the directions of the United

Nations? What is going to be done on the part of Canada in order to show that the laws of morality and justice cannot be defied and that the authority of the United Nations cannot be flouted in the manner in which it has been done by Hungary in recent days. For after all law, however beneficial, becomes ineffective and in fact an incitement to lawlessness, unless it is enforced.
I want to ask the Prime Minister what views he has with regard to the recent declaration of President Eisenhower relative to the policy for the Middle East in so far as the military end of it is concerned. With the exception that there are reservations in large measure, it represents a step forward to the attitude taken by Britain and France a few weeks ago, subject to only two reservations and no other. What stand is Canada going to take? What attitude does Canada take with reference to this matter? Does she intend to join with the United States in support of the action contemplated by the United States? After all, that is a problem that today must be faced; for had the United States taken a similar attitude six months ago or even three months ago, what took place in the Middle East might never have occurred and the unity of the free world might not have been impaired. These things are not dealt with in the speech from the throne. These things deserve amplification and explanation by the Prime Minister on this occasion.
I am now going to refer to one or two other matters and then I am going to leave to my colleagues a discussion of the various subjects inherent in the various paragraphs in the speech from the throne. There are many things with which we agree. We agree as to the need for assistance to the municipalities across this country. Today the municipalities find themselves in a position in which they are unable to carry on with their sources of taxation removed, their responsibilities amplified, their condition aggravated by the fact that in many cities and towns government buildings and government institutions, even under the present legislation, have been almost entirely freed from any responsibility for the payment of taxation. I make a suggestion because of the fact that the municipal field has never been seriously considered. Casual consideration was given to it at the time of the Sirois report. I suggest that a study should be made of the problem of municipal governments in relation to thieir present financial resources and that it should be instituted by the federal authority in cooperation with the provinces-for the present condition of affairs cannot continue-if the
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker municipalities, faced as they are with increasing expenditures, are to be enabled to meet the responsibilities that are theirs.
I intend now to make a reference to agriculture, and in particular arising out of the promise made in the speech from the throne to have a committee of the Senate look into the question of submarginal land and the uses of submarginal land. I think the step in this regard is a good one. It is one that is long overdue. We in the western provinces over the years have seen the tremendous contribution that the prairie farm rehabilitation administration has made to the removal of those areas subject to erosion and to the restoration of productivity in areas that under normal circumstances would have become waste land with the expiry of years. I hope that the legislation-I refer to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act which incidentally is a monument to the foresight of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett and of his minister of agriculture the Hon. Robert Weir-will be extended in the days ahead to include all areas of Canada and in particular to meet the serious problem that faces the maritime provinces.
I do not want to go into local matters affecting western Canada. They will be dealt with by other members on this side of the house. But I do feel that consideration should be given to a very serious readjustment of the detrimental position in which the United States, by its give away program, has placed the industry of wheat production in Canada, a major industry under government control. What is the government going to do about it? This problem has been up for the last several years. When we first brought this before the house the attitude taken by the government was: Well, just trust us; there is really nothing to worry about; what is being done will not interfere in any way with Canada's markets for its fast accumulating surplus of wheat. Formal protests were made, but merely formal ones. Two of them were made two years ago, and when the question was asked of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), what reply did you receive, in effect he said that there was no need for a reply. We did not expect a reply.
Well, Mr. Speaker, letters such as that complaining against an illegal interference with the marketing of farm products in another country-action which was in contravention of the agreement under GATT and also of the regulations passed under FAO-should have been made not by pusillanimous and puerile notes but by language that can be understood. I should like the Prime Minister to say when he speaks, when he was recently in the United States and met with the president face to face, did he bring to his attention
30	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker the very serious result that will flow from the United States disposal program whereby, on a bargain counter and with extended credit over the years, not only is the United States appropriating markets for today but also markets for three, four or even more years ahead. What the United States is doing and what it did in connection with the Brazil agreement was a contravention of international agreement. Brazil will purchase 18,000 tons of wheat over a three year period.
What happens to Canada's markets when Brazil is bound under the agreement, because of its beneficial nature, to continue to purchase. That is not fair international competition, but illegal. The Prime Minister was not averse to strong words of criticism of Britain and France a few weeks ago when he referred to these supermen. I ask the Prime Minister, what did he say to the President of the United States? Did he get any assurance from him that this serious condition brought about through improper means and in derogation of trading relationships shall be discontinued?
What about Brazil? In 1952-53, Brazil purchased from Canada 11,089,000 bushels and that was some 7,200,000 bushels more than the year before. In 1953-54 Brazil bought 7,706,000 bushels, and now we are practically out of the market. The same condition prevails in 12 other countries. The United States, by its policy, is securing a greater proportion of the world market than is justified by proper means. Canada cannot meet this type of unfair competition. We have not the resources. In addition to that the fact that we import, as we do, all our commodity requirements from the United States that could be purchased elsewhere is no incentive for nations to purchase agricultural products from us.
Two years have gone by since the United States started this system of disposing of surpluses by local currency and give away deals. In the last two crop years Canada has fallen behind the United States and has lost her place as the leading wheat exporter to the United States. What about the deal with India? The hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is over there now. Is he endeavouring to secure markets, while the United States has cornered the market there for the future-in part by a deal that is unjust and a denial of all the principles of fair international trading recognized under GATT and also under FAO?
According to the press it was not until September, 1956, that the government finally found out these give away deals carried with them an undertaking on the part of the recipient country to continue to deal with


the United States for a set number of bushels to be imported in the years ahead. What is the government going to do about it? India takes $400 million worth of agricultural products on terms so dangerous as to constitute a gift. If this goes on and the United States extends similar offers to West Germany and Japan and some of our other good customers, Canada will suffer irreparable damage. I say to the Prime Minister that a policy of sit tight and contemplate and sending simple messages is not sufficient. The president of the United States must be made to realize that conduct such as this is not advisable for the maintenance of the strength of the free nations and is a denial of the undertakings of the United States under the international agreements to which I have made reference.
As far back as September 17, 1952, the agricultural attache to the United States embassy at Ottawa stated that there was no danger in this and that surpluses would only be sold abroad by the United States competitively and always fairly. What is the Prime Minister going to do? What attitude is being taken by this government? An attitude similar to that taken in the last few weeks in connection with the potential railway strike and since is not the kind of action that will secure for Canada her markets and the markets to which she will be entitled provided she is able to meet fair competition-which is all that Canada expects and all that she has a right to expect.
Now, sir, the other questions in the speech from the throne will be dealt with by other members on this side of the house. All I have tried to do today is to place before the house two or three instances of resolute inaction on the part of the government. For some reason the attitude of the ministers individually and collectively is this, that action is not necessary; that we can hope and expect and ultimately something will happen. This applies in the international field and applies in the national field in the examples I have already given. It applies in many places to which reference will be made during the progress of this debate.
Having regard to these circumstances, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), that the following be added to the address:
We respectfully represent that Your Excellency's advisers, by reason of their indifference, inertia and lack of leadership in the face of serious national and international problems and their disregard of the rights of parliament, are not entitled to the confidence of this house and have lost the confidence of the people of Canada.

Right Hon. L. S. SI. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in extending warm congratulations to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address. Since I follow the Leader of the Opposition I wish to extend some congratulations to him, perhaps especially on the fact that he left the most violent of his impeachments of the government to the terms of his motion rather than stating them publicly in the house. But the motion ends in this way: Your Excellency's advisers, for the reasons stated: . . . are not entitled to the confidence of this house and have lost the confidence of the people of Canada.
Well, as to the confidence of the house, there will be an early test of that assertion of the new Leader of the Opposition, and we shall then count noses and see whether his appreciation of the temper of the house is any more accurate than that of some of his predecessors in past years. There is also the impression throughout the country, which I am not going to attempt to dispel this afternoon, that there may be before very many months an opportunity for the people of Canada to say whether or not they agree with his statement that the government has lost the confidence of the people of Canada.
Now, perhaps my answer to the hon. gentleman might sound more appropriate if I began with the last items he dealt with and then gradually moved up toward the first. At the end of his speech he was dealing with agriculture, about which he seemed to say that this horrible conduct of the United States must in some way be stopped. Well, it reminded me of an assertion of one of his predecessors that Canada was going to blast her way into world markets. This was a suggestion that Canada, in the view of the hon. gentleman, should blast the United States out of the policies decided on by its congress. Well, I do not think that his suggestion would be more successful in achieving the objective, which is the very desirable objective of having competition on the normal basis which existed in the years gone by, than the other was. I do not think that it would be any more successful in blasting the United States out of that kind of conduct than were the attempts to blast Canada's way into world markets by an imperial conference held here in Ottawa and other measures which were perhaps intended to be covered by the expression "blast"; but the detonation of which was not very loud, not very resounding, throughout the world.
The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent
With respect to agriculture, it might be of some interest to the house if I were to put on the record just a few statistical figures of what has been happening in the past year. During the crop year of 1955-56 August 1 to December 28 the marketings of all grains, were 161.7 million bushels. During the same period of this year they happened to have been 239.8 million bushels, an increase of 78 million bushels over the preceding year. The shipments from country points in 1955 were 133.3 million bushels. In the crop year 1956-57 they were 248.2 million bushels, an increase of 84.9 million bushels. The cars loaded during the same period in the 1955-56 crop year were 96,000. The cars loaded in the crop year 1956-57 were 132,000. The lake and rail shipments for the 1955-56 were 122 million bushels. In 1956-57 they were 173 million bushels, an increase of 51 million bushels. The shipments from the Pacific coast in 1955-56 amounted to 32.8 million bushels, and in 1956-57 it was 53.7 million bushels, a difference of 20.9 million bushels, and that has resulted in a difference in cash distributed to the western producers of some $150 million. In Manitoba in 1955 it was $48,270,000; in 1956 it was $70,692,000 for the first nine months of the years 1955 and 1956. In Saskatchewan, instead of $215 million-I am leaving off the hundreds of thousands, but in some cases they are important-it was $322,700,000. In Alberta, instead of $111 million, it was $132,800,000, or a total for those nine months of the two last years of $374,681,000 in 1955 and $526,248,000 in 1956. Well, we would all have been happy had it been more, but it does not show that there have been, because of this "give-away" problem, any greater difficulties in marketing Canadian wheat than there had been before.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what the wheat board says.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: But notwithstanding that, I was very happy when, toward the end of my short holiday in Florida, I received a telephone call from the White House that the president would be glad if I would drop off at Augusta, Georgia, on my way back, have lunch with him and have a game of golf. Well I found in fact, you know, that a game of golf with one of those electric go-carts was about the best way to have an international conference because you are getting off the go-cart quite frequently for only a couple of minutes but for time enough to reflect on what has been said up to that moment and to reflect on what is going to be said when you get back on the seat of the go-cart. I can assure the
32	HOUSE OF
The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent hon. gentleman that the tone of our conversation and the character of the relationship was somewhat better than would have resulted from any blasting that might have occurred.
I can assure the hon. gentleman first of all that I expressed some considerable gratification at the fact that he had been able to turn down the recommendation of the tariff board there that there be such an increase in tariff on fish from our Canadian fisheries as would seriously interfere with the continuance of that trade which is very vital to a substantial portion of the population of the Atlantic area. I was very glad to find that the President agreed with the suggestion that had been made to me that the difficulties of the New England fishermen were not due so much to the fact that there was fish coming in from Canada and there was also some coming in from Iceland but were due to the fact that they had rather exhausted their fisheries and therefore their costs of producing fish in their own boats had considerably increased and had got beyond what both the Icelandic fishermen and the Canadian fishermen could supply fish for in that market even with the tariff that was already in existence.
I was very glad to receive the impression that the President was quite conscious of the importance of the Canadian market to the United States trading nation and I must confess that he was rather surprised when I said to him that in the course of the present year it looked as if we were going to import from the United States almost a billion dollars' worth of goods more than they were going to buy from us and that was a figure that seemed to astound him. I also told him I was not saying it in any plaintive way because we were getting that large volume of additional commodities because most of them were being built into productive facilities that were going up in our own country but that that was a situation which of course he realized could not continue. It was being balanced at the present time by the attractiveness of industrial development in Canada to United States capital; but that there was going to be, as a result of the investment of American capital in Canada, a very substantial increase in production and that we were buying more than we were selling at the present time just as it sometimes happens to a farmer that he buys more in the spring than he sells in the spring. But it is because he is going to use the fertilizer and seed which occasion the additional buying to have a crop that is going to be larger in the fall; and that we were going to have a crop of production in our country a portion of which


was going to be the crop resulting from the investment of his own fellow citizens in the industries of our country and that there would have to be at that time a much fairer balance of trade because it could not be expected that trade with them-of course it is not a one-way street-would be so predominantly moving more northward than the volume that was moving southward.
Well, I came away with the impression that the golf game had been very enjoyable but also that there had been other aspects of the half day I spent with him that were quite more important in what I was going to remember than the golf score on the splendid golf links of Augusta.
There was another reason for which I was very happy to have this confidential chat with the President which occurred on the eve of Mr. Nehru's visit. I said to the President quite frankly that I believed he and Mr. Nehru at the present time were probably the two most influential statesmen in the world, the two statesmen whose influence radiated the most widely in the free world at this time. I said, "Of course, I am not saying anything about China because I have never been behind the bamboo curtain and I do not know Mr. Chou En-lai, but I do know, or at least I think I know from my own personal observation, that Mr. Nehru is a statesman of whom, whether or not they will admit it openly, all Asians are proud. They are proud of his stature in the world at this time, and his attitudes, even for those who will not state that they fully agree with them, are attitudes which have an influence on their thinking." I believe the same is true of the President of the United States. The personal attitudes of the President of the United States are attitudes that radiate throughout the free world, and whether or not we always agree with all of them our thinking is always influenced to a degree by the attitudes which are adopted by him.
I asserted with conviction that Mr. Nehru was just as anti-communist as Mr. Eisenhower was, although in India there was not the same fear of dangers imminent from communism that Senator McCarthy had in the United States; that there might not always be the same approaches to the proper methods of counteracting what influences might be exercised by communism; but that it should not be forgotten that the background of the United States or the North American continent was not the only background against which we should appraise the attitudes of other people throughout the world outside of the North American continent.

The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent
I think this is something that we all have had to learn. Human nature and the essential aspirations of human nature are very much the same all over the world, but the background against which you have to place the attitudes of different people must be the background of their own civilization, of their own tradition and ancestral habits and ways of thinking and of acting. I am quite happy to report to the house that I got the very distinct impression, when Mr. Nehru visited us after his visit to the United States, that he was very much better satisfied with his last visit than he had been with the visit he made in 1949.
The hon. member speaks of a conference of France, the United States and the United Kingdom. It would be important and it is important that their actions be conducive to the same general results for the benefits of free people all over the world as they have to such a great degree in the past years and perhaps even in the past century. But there are other peoples in the world, and if we want to have peace in the world there must not be strife, there must not be misgivings, and there must not be mistrust or suspicion among the leaders of any of the other nations.
We have to try to behave in such a way that we will not be looked upon with suspicion and misgiving. Many hon. gentlemen saw and heard Mr. Nehru being interviewed by Mr. Mclnnes on the Sunday afternoon preceding his departure from Ottawa. I had the privilege of seeing him almost immediately afterward at the reception at the home of the high commissioner for India and I complimented him and told him that I hoped a lot of people in the United States enjoyed seeing him on the screen and of having the opportunity of appreciating his discussion with Mr. Mclnnes.
I told him that I must remind him that he had reminded me that the terrestrial globe might look different to one sitting on the north pole than it would to someone sitting at the equator. I told him that I had accepted that as a reason for his, and his people's, approaching some problems somewhat differently from our own people. I said that the aspect of the international situation at the present time might appear somewhat different to us in Ottawa and to Mr. Eisenhower and his colleagues in Washington than it would to Mr. Nehru and his colleagues in New Delhi.
I said that there did not seem to be any suggestion that India was going to be the ultimate target of any aggression which might be undertaken, but that so long as there were these terrible agents of destruction at the disposal of us in the free world 82715-3
and of those behind the iron curtain we had to be sure that those behind the iron curtain who might be-I do not think they are apt to be for a very long period-actual aggressors should be convinced that if there was aggression there would be inevitable retaliation which would do to the aggressor at least as much damage as they might do to the nation attacked.
If there was to be that kind of aggression it did not seem improbable that the ultimate target would be the United States and that the way to the United States would be on a path which led through Canada and that we intended to have that path in such condition that it could not be used for aggression without serious damage to those using it and that if it was used, no matter how rapid or how unexpected the aggression was, there would still be inevitable retaliation which would do as great damage to the aggressor as he might have caused.
We agreed that the likelihood of going to war with these terrible implements of destruction was not great, but that there was still a possibility. Because of that possibility we felt that the free nations must remain in such a position that possible aggressors would realize that retaliation would be inevitable and the result would unfortunately be a great degree of mutual destruction.
Mr. Nehru had suggested that military alliances appeared to him to be adding to the international tension because they appeared to denote a warlike attitude. I told him that unfortunately for us we were in such a position that we had to maintain military alliances as long as there was any possibility of aggression with the use of these new weapons because we ourselves did not have them. In our military alliances the tasks had been distributed and we could count, and possible aggressors knew this, upon the fact that these weapons were at the disposition of the United States.
I was saying all this to him, not to criticize his attitude but to ask him to feel that we also could rationalize our conduct, that we had what appeared to us to be very good reasons for maintaining these alliances and not adopting the view taken by him that there might be less international tension. We felt that the tension which existed was necessary as a deterrent against the use of any of these terrible instruments.
I have got quite a distance away from the agricultural problem that my hon. friend was discussing. With respect to that I can assure him that we are anxious to conserve that confidence we have had from the Canadian electorate for a number of years and that we are not going to omit doing anything we can

The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent do, anything which in the lights that providence has given us we would estimate to be beneficial, to enable us to conserve that confidence.
We realize, as do the hon. gentleman and his friends, the importance to the economy of this nation of our agricultural population. We know, as he knows, that the P.F.R.A. has produced very beneficial results in the western provinces. We know, as he knows-perhaps I know this a little more intimately- that in my own province of Quebec there are people who are doing back-breaking work on land which does not yield them a proper income. I do not think that that is really inevitable in our country. I think that intelligent industry properly applied can yield in this country an income sufficient for a man and his family to live upon.
That happens, not only in the maritime provinces where it exists to quite an extent but in Quebec and in some portions of Ontario. Over a considerable period of time there have been large numbers of farmers in eastern Canada who have been making ends meet only because we have been buying butter from them at 58 cents a pound and have been buying rather more than has been actually consumed up to the present time.
But the population of Canada is increasing and my colleague here does not think that the problem of surplus butter is going to be of very long duration. I know I am eating more than my doctor thinks I should, but I am not making very great inroads into the surpluses that have accumulated. But our population is increasing by means of very satisfactory immigration and also by very satisfactory natural increases.
I was at one of the parishes in my constituency just before New Year's and the parish priest told me that there had been 550-odd baptisms and less than 100 burials in his parish during 1956. I think that was a most satisfactory situation. I cannot give that as an example of what is going on throughout the whole province because this is a new parish in which a lot of young people have purchased home lots. The proportion of home owners in that parish is larger than in any other parish of the city of Quebec and that young population is doing its best to increase our over-all population.
Our over-all population is going to have to be fed. This means that with probably something less than the present area of land under cultivation in eastern Canada, very much more has to be produced. This population is not going to remain at 16 million. I do not know what the figure will be a couple of decades from now but there will be very

many more than there are at the present time, and I think the fertility of the soil fit for agriculture in eastern Canada can produce enough even for a doubling of the population in eastern Canada. But that is something which requires some attention from all the authorities. The jurisdiction in respect of this matter is generally looked upon as being the jurisdiction and responsibility of the provinces, but there is also the provision in the British North America Act that there is joint legislative jurisdiction in the federal parliament and in the provincial legislatures.
The investigation by the Senate committee will not be completed during the present session of parliament. It is something that will probably go on for much more than one session, but it will focus the attention of the public on the problem and will afford a forum to which those who know much better than I do how the problem can be dealt with and cured may come and state their views and have them publicized throughout the country. I think it will bring about an atmosphere in which the Canadian public in their threefold capacity of municipal electors, provincial electors and federal electors are going to want to have something done to bring about an improved situation. I know from some things that have happened in my own lifetime that when our farming population is shown how to do a thing better and shown that it is profitable to do it in the better way, they do come around and do it in the better way.
The maple product is a typical example of that. It took a certain number of years, but now the product of practically everyone who goes to the trouble of tapping maple trees is of prime quality and commands high prices. I know of tree fruit and small fruit growing. I know of the production of sunflower seeds, of alfalfa hay and things of that kind which have been used in certain parts but have not yet become general throughout the whole locality, and which do bring about an increase in production and an increase in income that will make life more attractive than it has been on those farms where young people see their parents doing very much more hard work than is compensated for by the returns they get from their farms.
I think that matter can be studied in the Senate to the great advantage of the Canadian public, and it will be a good thing for the status of the Senate to have the public of Canada realize what a useful job they will be doing in investigating that problem.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hear some laughter. I am one of those who believe that the Senate is a useful institution in our parliamentary set-up. I will admit there have been times when I have felt, like many others, that they could be doing more useful work than was being done, but that is not something inherent to the system.
The hon. gentleman speaks about a study of the problems of municipal government to be instituted by the federal government. Well, before his predecessor became leader of the opposition and while he was still premier of Ontario, I heard him deprecate at the 1945 federal-provincial conference anything being dealt with on a national scale that was already being dealt with by the provincial authorities. I know that in that regard the premier of my own province is, shall I say, more sensitive and has a more tender skin than Hon. George Drew had when he was premier of Ontario.
Now, national unity is very important to this country. We have to be careful to keep a majority of the reasonably-minded Canadians on our side and not have them feel that we are trying to centralize and sabotage the work of the fathers of confederation. There will be some who will make that assertion no matter what we do. No matter what precautions we try to take to avoid it being done there will be some who would affirm, if we were going to do something about municipal government, that we were aiming at destroying the Catholic religion and the French language in the province of Quebec. Could anything be more silly, more groundless than that?
I remember there were some, not many, who were scandalized when, sitting not in this seat but in the one next to it, I ventured to suggest that the day would come when the ability to use both official languages would be required of all those who wanted to sit on the front benches either on this side or on the other side of the house. At the time it was a scandal to make that kind of suggestion. To how many hon. gentlemen should I now extend my congratulations for the serious efforts they have made to indicate that they would like to speak the French language as well as they speak the English language?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They have taken considerable pains to do that because they came to feel it was something that was going to be helpful toward bringing about a feeling of national unity from one ocean to the other in this country. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is good citizenship always to be just as careful as we can to avoid
82715-3i
offending even the tenderest skin in the suggestions we make about the activities of the federal government in fields which are enumerated as being within provincial jurisdiction under section 92 of the British North America Act.
This does not mean that we should not be tending toward a Canadian nationhood. The fathers of confederation intended Canada to be a nation and we all intend Canada to be a nation. But they recognized that the way to make a fruitful start in that respect was along the lines of the British North America Act. Some changes have been made in the act by agreement. Sometimes there has not been agreement and the changes have been made notwithstanding. So far I think we are in a position where we do feel that there is a more widespread feeling of Canadianism than there has been in the past. I hope that will continue and that we can do those things, but do them in such a way that we will not frighten anyone with the bugaboo that the religion and the language of the people of my own race in the province of Quebec are going to be taken away from them.
The hon. gentleman made some comments about external affairs. I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) will give a fuller report of what took place at the NATO council meeting than I could give secondhand from the reports I got, and I think it would be unnecessary duplication for me to attempt to say very much about it. But there is one thing I want to say to the hon. gentleman. I have known the Secretary of State for External Affairs for a number of years, and for a number of years I have felt that he was dedicating his life to the service of his country. I have felt-and I have said this to him on more than one occasion that anyone who was dedicating his life to the service of his country had the right to select where he thought his services would be the most useful to his country. Since I have become Prime Minister, on more than one occasion when there were other possible attractions or things that I felt might be possible attractions I have said to him that it was of course his responsibility to decide whether, in being thus attracted, he could be of greater service to his country than he could in continuing to head a Department of External Affairs which has acquired a reputation throughout the world that is quite creditable to a nation of 16 million people.
The maintenance of world peace and the establishment of multilateral trade, these things which are international in character, are extremely important to the well-being of the Canadian nation. But I have ventured
36	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent
to say to him that while of course he had to make his own decision about that matter I felt that the possibilities of his exercising the right kind of influence for the maintenance of world peace, for the restoration of normal trading conditions throughout the world and for the restoration of good feeling and proper cultural exchanges throughout the world were greater in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada than they might be even in the extremely important post of Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The hon. gentleman need have no illusions about that matter. My colleagues were quite as delighted as I was when we were informed that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was going to decline the suggestions that were being made to him that he should be a candidate for the office of Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We shall have to have an individual poll.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@Quebec East: I know that all members on this side of the house will agree-and I hope most members on the other side of the house will do so-that he is apt to be of greater service to Canada in the role he has occupied with such distinction for the last eight years than he would be even as Secretary General of the NATO organization.
The hon. gentleman said he would like me to say something about the railway strike. There are some things-and this applies not only to international relations-that are not best served by blasting. I can assure the hon. gentleman that my colleagues and I have not been inactive and that the remaining stumbling block has been narrowed very considerably. If I am not mistaken-and I do not think I am, because I have had the kind of contacts which satisfy me that I am not mistaken in that regard-the only thing that remains now to be resolved is whether or not a determination as to what is required for proper safety in the use of diesel engines would be automatically binding on the union and on the company or would be just something that the union and the company would be obliged to take into account and to pay great respect to in renegotiating any agreement reached at the present time.
The union say, "If you ask us to sign an agreement that we will be bound by the finding, that is the equivalent of compulsory arbitration". I am not at all sure that their abhorrence of compulsory arbitration has not been stimulated by the attitude of the oppositions in 1950. However, it is an extremely real and sensitive matter with them. They tell me that they just cannot enter into an agreement that what would be determined

after investigation as to proper safety requirements in the operation of diesel engines would automatically become part of or an amendment to the agreement they would sign to carry on in the meantime under practically the same conditions as those prevailing on the C.N.K.
The company have been equally adamant. They say, "If that is not agreed to, the thing will all have to start over again when the determination has been made by a proper judicial or semi-judicial body, and one strike is enough". My experience has been that when there has been one strike, those who have been parties to it are not anxious to have another one at an early date.
The conciliation board held public sittings, but the public was not concerned. Nobody paid any attention to what was going on before the conciliation board. If an investigation were made at the present time into the question of proper safety measures in the handling of diesel engines and proper measures to serve all the humane considerations that must be observed, I think the public would be vitally interested in that investigation. If, after that investigation, there was a finding-whichever way it went-that appeared to the majority of the Canadian people to be a proper finding on the investigation that they would be reading about, no one could withstand the effect. That would have become, by that kind of finding, the law of the country.
The members of the trade unions are good, loyal Canadians like the rest of Canadians and they would not go up against what had become, by general consent, the law of the country. The railway company has quite a creditable record since its establishment in this country. Even if it felt that the decision did not agree with its views, its experience and its knowledge of conditions, the railway company would not attempt to hold out against what had thus been established as a proper situation for the operation of diesel engines. No individual man would be obliged to work on a diesel engine if he felt that occupation was too dangerous. No attractive Canadian young lady must become a hostess on an aeroplane if she feels that this occupation involves risks that she should not take. But our attractive Canadian young ladies are not going to attempt to organize any union to force a different way of operating aeroplanes in Canada from the way accepted by the public as being the proper way. I am therefore not at all fearful that this strike is not going to become fairly soon a matter of industrial life history, and that there will not soon be a resumption of services. The less compulsion that has to be exercised in order to

bring about that kind of situation, the more fruitful, I think, the results are going to be.
Now, I do not think I should say any more about that. I enjoy pretty good personal relations with the labour leaders and with the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I think both sides feel that I am trying to bring about the best kind of an outcome. I may have to come to the conclusion that it is not possible to agree to what I am suggesting, that they sign a temporary agreement to carry on under the same conditions as the Canadian National and await some other determination than the one that has been made by the board of conciliation as to the proper safety measures in operating diesel engines. But I think it is still just a little bit premature to resort to compulsory measures, and I hope we will not have to resort to them at all.
I do wish to join with the Leader of the Opposition in expressing deep regret that Right Hon. Sir Anthony Eden felt he had to ask our beloved sovereign to relieve him of his responsibilities as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Of course the affairs that have to be dealt with and that become the responsibility of those who are in office, and I include the office of the Leader of the Opposition in that, are heavy responsibilities and do take quite a toll of those who have to carry them. We thought Sir Anthony had made a wonderful recovery after his serious condition of two and a half years ago when he had to undergo such a grave surgical operation. We thought his health had been fully restored. We also thought the health of the former leader of the opposition had been fully restored when he returned to this chamber after the serious attack of meningitis with which he had been afflicted.
I think this is an example to us all that we must do everything required of us in order to have the personal satisfaction that we have done our best, but having done that we should not feel that we should have been able to manage the affairs of the world. There is a course of events that no one human individual can change. When he has done his best to perform his duty toward what he would consider a proper course of human events I think he should, without allowing it to undermine his vitality, be prepared to accept the results that most of us believe are part of a general design for the affairs of the world that is attributable to a power infinitely greater and wiser than any one of us.
It sometimes happens that these conditions, without any fault of our own, do develop. We all share with, I am sure, the people of the United Kingdom, regrets at what seems to be I hope not an end but a serious alteration in the kind of service Sir Anthony Eden
The Address-Mr. Coldwell can render to his fellow citizens. We hope for him, as we hope for my hon. friend's predecessor, that before long Sir Anthony's health will be such that he can resume service which has been so outstanding and so distinguished over so many years to the people of the United Kingdom, and because of its value to the people of the United Kingdom, so valuable to all the other nations of the commonwealth.


Major James William Coldwell: May I join in congratulating both the mover (Mr. Hanna) and seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address. I think generally the house has been very fortunate over a number of years in having the address moved and seconded in a very satisfactory manner, and this year was no exception.
Before commenting at any length on the speech from the throne I should like to indicate what my objective is in making the comments that I am going to make. Some mention has been made, both in the House of Commons and outside it, regarding the responsibility of an opposition party. Some suggestion has been made that when the government has apparently abdicated its responsibility and refused to reveal its policies on particular matters, especially when those matters affect the national well-being, the opposition should adopt exactly the same kind of method. This, I noted, was the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) outside the house last night, and I noticed that it was the position taken again today in parliament.
Now, I could not disagree more with that position than I do. We in this group do not intend to remain silent until the government has announced its policy. We do not intend to be in the position of merely criticizing without having some positive proposals of our own to meet that kind of situation. Of course, the industrial disputes act could be amended, or new methods could be adopted by a conciliation board, and these points are worthy of our lengthy consideration. But they would not meet the immediate situation that confronts the Canadian people and the economy of Canada today. We believe that an opposition party worthy of the name must present to the Canadian people not only an alternative government, but it must present alternative policies that such a government would pursue. Anything less than that does not provide opportunities for the people of the country to make a real choice. We in this group have sought throughout the years to present real alternatives on any policy, that requires it, and

The Address-Mr. Coldwell this I believe to be the traditional parliamentary attitude generally wherever parliaments like ours exist, and is consistent with the tradition in this Canadian House of Commons.
Having said that, let me turn immediately to the railway strike. There is no doubt that any dislocation caused by a shut-down of traffic on the Canadian Pacific Railway will become increasingly serious as time goes on if the present situation is allowed to continue. There is no doubt, therefore, that it is in the national interest that railway operations should be recommenced as expeditiously as possible while another attempt is made to settle the differences between management and the employees.
That, it seems to me, was the desire of the Prime Minister in his closing remarks this afternoon. But I think we should go farther than waiting, as he suggested. A request should be made to both parties to recommence railway operations immediately on the basis previously existing, without prejudice to the rights of either side, and such a proposal is indeed reasonable. I believe that the C.P.R. employees will agree to this proposal. Indeed, they have already indicated that they would do so in a statement they issued two or three days ago, on January 7 to be precise. So far the C.P.R. management has refused, and if that refusal is continued-indeed I think the time has come now-the only alternative is for the federal government to appoint a controller to take temporary management of the C.P.R. and direct the immediate resumption of operations while further negotiations are continuing. I reiterate that this should be done without delay.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that the principal issue involved is the question of the management's desire to cease the employment of firemen on diesel engines in freight and yard services. On that issue the main disagreement between the company and the union, or its employees, is the question of safety. Now, the safety factor cannot be ignored either by this house, by the company, by the union or by the country. We in this House of Commons have a definite responsibility to the nation to make certain that any change which may subsequently be put into effect should completely safeguard the interests of the public in every particular.
Because the determination of this factor is really a technical question, it is a matter that should be investigated by an impartial board of inquiry comprised of experts and technicians that would hear and study representations concerning the safety and other factors involved in the removal of firemen from diesel freight and yard locomotives. Indeed, the


report of the conciliation board itself suggested some sort of survey after the proposed change had been made and in the light of experience gained. I believe it is the part of wisdom to conduct this inquiry first, particularly because the majority and minority reports disagreed on this point, and because of an obvious doubt even in the majority report which suggested that there might be reconsideration of the matter after a year's trial. I think we must take the doubts in the minds of the majority and the definite opinion of the minority into account.
The report of a board of inquiry such as we suggest should go to the mediation board thereafter appointed by the federal government, which would seek to mediate all issues remaining in dispute between the two parties, and seek to reach an agreement on the part of both parties. In the meantime, let me reiterate, the public interest requires the immediate resumption of the services over the C.P.R., and I believe it is the duty of this parliament to serve the public interest and to do indeed what we are suggesting.
Another important but separate problem never far from the minds of the employees of practically any industry you may name is the problem of automation. I am not saying that the problem of automation is specifically involved in the present railway dispute, but no government can stand idly by while the advent of this revolution in productive techniques creates certain crises in industry. There is no doubt that these new developments in production can be of great benefit to the community as a whole, but only if there is over-all planning to smoothly adjust the economy to the changes that are taking place or are anticipated. It is of little satisfaction to the worker if a magnificent new and technologically superior machine deprives him of his job and there is no other job to be found; nor is automation of much advantage to workers in industries, whether in factories, on the farms or in mines, if it deprives them of their means of life and of their markets.
Accordingly we think this is an opportunity for the federal government to consider this problem and no longer delay the appointment of a council comprised of representative employers, of trade unions, of government, of technical experts and other interests, to study and advise this house on the impact of automation, and to make sure that the new wealth that automation will make possible will be shared by all groups in the community. Intelligent approaches to all these problems should give authoritative advice on how best to promote the industrial, transportation and other changes involved in

new techniques without inconveniencing the community, as strikes do, or disrupting the community, which they also do, yet continuing the right of free men and women in a free society to give or to withhold their labour; for compulsion in this respect would destroy a fundamental principle of our democracy.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, may I turn to other matters which should receive consideration in this debate on the speech from the throne, even if some of them are not mentioned in that speech. There is one overall assessment which we must immediately make, and that is the revelation in the speech from the throne of the refusal, or the incapacity, of the government to deal with the needs of the common man and the common woman in our country. Economic expansion in Canada is pointed to, and there has been great economic expansion, but there is no awareness that large groups of Canadians do not share in the benefits of this great expansion. Take the case of the old age pensioner. There is no indication that old age pensions will be increased, in spite of the continued rise in the cost of living. No responsible person today would claim that the present old age pension is anywhere near adequate. Bearing in mind the substantial surplus which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) is indicating he expects to be able to report to this house when he brings down the budget, the refusal of the government to do anything for the old age and other pensioners can be described as nothing less than callous.
The same judgment applies to the failure of the government to indicate improvements in social welfare generally. The steady processes of inflation, for which the government must assume its share of responsibility, have filched away the real value of the social welfare programs that have been announced with fanfare from time to time by the government and put into effect unanimously by members in this house, or indeed so almost unanimously that one can say unanimously. Therefore, although the speech from the throne refers to what it calls the excellent program of economic development in Canada, there is no doubt that those who are ill, those who are unable to work any longer because of age, are not sharing in this prosperity, but instead find that as the statistics of production climb, their lot by relativity becomes more and more unhappy.
Nor is there a single mention of health insurance in the speech from the throne. By the rigid limitations the government has set on its hospitalization program it has made the proposals it offered last year into
The Address-Mr. Coldwell a political football, and has even further postponed the carrying out of a pledge first made by the Liberal party 38 years ago. The failure of the government to act with resolution in this matter is, I think, unsupportable.
May I say to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) that while at the moment because of conditions that exist in certain countries we are able to bring to this country large numbers of desirable immigrants, yet one of the barriers hitherto against immigration to this country from the Scandinavian countries, the United Kingdom and other countries like them has been the lack of a comprehensive national health plan in Canada. I was told that authoritatively on several occasions when I was in northwest Europe during the autumn. When I suggested that we would like more people from the countries there I was told there were two reasons why we would not get them. One reason was, of course, that there was full employment, and the other was that the people understood that Canada had not social security measures which were sufficiently attractive to cause the people to emigrate to our country. In Britain I saw references to the lack of such measures here by people who had returned and who on one or two occasions gave their reasons for returning. After having been happy in Canada for two or three years illness came along and wiped out all their savings, and they had returned in order to get the benefits of the protection of the social security measures which they have there.
Health is one of the measures concerning which I felt there should have been discussion in this parliament even during the special session last November following the disposition of the international matters. I cannot adequately express my own disappointment that the government adjourned the session, thus preventing discussion on that occasion, nor can I adequately express my disappointment that when the speech from the throne came in there was no mention in it of national health insurance. I must say I expected it; in fact I was almost confident that something would be done in this regard at this session of parliament to at least bring proposals before the house so that when the provinces were willing and able to come under such a plan the plan would be available to them.
The speech from the throne also ignores the continuing chronic crisis in Canadian agriculture. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) gave some interesting figures this afternoon but they do not meet the situation nor do they meet the criticism that there is

The Address-Mr. Coldwell a chronic crisis in our agricultural economy. I have not ceased to deal with this in the house whenever the opportunity arose, but the government has rigidly refused to take the action necessary to enable agriculture to participate equitably in the benefits that the improvements in technology and other developments generally are bringing to Canada as a whole.
I know that even outside of the agricultural sector the gains in the economy are shared inequitably and unfairly but in agriculture, of course, the problem is more lasting and severe. I have only to read the financial sections of the daily newspapers to find concrete indications of the large increases in the profits of various corporations and the dividends that are being paid, increases that are not matched by the people who are, after all, the real and continuing producers of wealth whether they work in offices, in mines, in factories, on the farms or go down to the sea and fish. There is no doubt but that the cream of the so-called prosperity is being skimmed off by privileged groups in this country. I say to the Minister of Finance that there is something fundamentally wrong in the Canadian economy when in the midst of relative prosperity one of the basic industries of this country continues in a chronically depressed state.
Agriculture has suffered a severe and prolonged decline in its income, but it has not been as the result of lower production. This afternoon the Prime Minister produced some figures which I do not have but in 1955, the latest year for which complete statistics are available, the physical volume of agricultural production was actually higher than that of eight out of the 12 years between 1941 and 1954 and, indeed, as much as 30 per cent higher than in some years. A preliminary estimate indicates another increase in the index of farm production in 1956 as was suggested this afternoon; yet the real net income to the farmer in 1955 was lower than in any year since 1941 except 1954. I have the dominion bureau of statistics table before me which substantiates the statement I have just made. Indications are that the real net income in 1956 may be better, but not substantially better and certainly not better than in many of the years between 1941 and 1955.
It is a tragedy that in many cases the more successful a Canadian farmer is in giving the best of his talents to the production of food the lower becomes his income, his real return. As I have said, frequently the more successful a farmer is in increasing production and the more generous climatic factors are, the more serious the crisis he faces as far as income is concerned. Abundance in this economy is punished and scarcity is rewarded.


That, I submit, is a sense of values which indicates an outmoded economy. It is the sense of values of great monopolistic concerns which derive their profits from the economy of scarcity rather than the economy of abundance. I think we in this house do not immediately share that conception of such an economy; yet it is the economy that we permit to continue existing. So from time to time we find shivers of apprehension running through even my hon. friends of the Liberal government whenever reports come in of a big crop in western Canada or a heavy yield of apples in Nova Scotia or British Columbia, more potatoes in Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick or more cattle in some other parts of Canada. When Providence has been generous there is a crisis in the air; there is worry and concern instead of rejoicing; there is inaction instead of programs designed to distribute the bountiful gifts of Providence to the people who need them.
In other words the farmer is suffering a depression because in a world where many children-yes, even in some parts of Canada -do not get enough milk, there has been too much milk; because in a world where two-thirds of the people go to bed hungry every night, there is too much bread; because where many old age pensioners have not enough income to buy all they would like in the way of changes of diet there have been on occasion too many peaches, too many apples and indeed too many potatoes. We in the C.C.F. say that a society which is unable to turn abundance to the service of the people is morally bankrupt and the government that stands idly by deserves the strongest censure. I cannot for a moment accept the dictum of some so-called private enterprisers that an economy of scarcity is better than one of abundance, and that two loaves of bread can be of less real value than one.
We have suggested many changes in policy that should be made. Precious years have been lost when the government instead of opposing the world food bank at United Nations could have been fostering it. If they had done so and if that bank had come into existence, we would then have had an effective international program for the disposal of our so-called agricultural surpluses.
The government's price support program initially was a measure to ensure that farm prices would bear an equitable relationship to the cost of things which the farmer had to buy, but this has proved to be a sham and a deception in many cases. It is certainly better than nothing, but it has not even begun to meet the promise made by a Liberal prime minister in 1944. At that time our farmers were expending their energies to produce but

were taking perhaps lower prices than they might have got for the products they were producing, and Mr. Mackenzie King made this statement:
If, to help win the war, the farmers are asked to accept a ceiling on prices, we believe they are entitled to a floor under prices to ensure them against an agricultural depression after the war.
I am not contending that we have the world-wide depression which was foreshadowed at the United Nations in 1945, or that that is what Mr. Mackenzie King had in mind, although it may have been. In any event he made that promise, and the fact is that today agriculture is a depressed industry. The agricultural depression is here and has oeen here for some time. We know now how quickly that solemn promise was forgotten.
Vigorous government action is needed to establish a parity price program for agricultural products to ensure a fair and adequate return for the produce of the farm, for the produce of our agricultural industry. A comprehensive plan of crop insurance is required. The P.F.A.A. is a good start, but I should like to see a comprehensive plan such as we have been advocating for the last 25 years.
Cash advances on farm-stored grain are needed and are warranted under the circumstances which now exist. National marketing boards should be established where requested by producers for all farm products entering into interprovincial and export trade. I am not advocating interference with provincial rights when I suggest that. Long-term commodity agreements and the acceptance of sterling in part payment for Canadian produce sold in sterling area countries are necessary. We could not accept full payment in sterling but we could accept part payment in sterling.
The Canadian government should announce a permanent national food and fibre policy which would have the objective of ensuring that the means of obtaining sufficient food and clothing for basic adequate standards would be placed within the reach of every Canadian, and that wherever possible temporary surpluses of agricultural commodities should be used as an important step toward feeding the hungry people of the world. I believe that by feeding the hungry people of the world, and by enabling them to feed themselves by the provision of machines and other aids, we can meet the threat of communism better than in any other way.
These are some of the elements of a dynamic policy to deal with Canada's agricultural crisis. There should be in effect a national farm policy which would attempt to integrate 82715-4
The Address-Mr. Coldwell the production, price and distribution problems more effectively into the rest of the economy.
Other questions are of immediate concern to this house at this time. I have referred to the effect that inflation has had upon the purchasing power of the dollar since the end of the war. These forces are again reasserting themselves. All of us are aware that inflation benefits large corporations the most because profits rise more than anything else. On the other hand those who are on fixed incomes, like pensioners, find their financial position severely affected. The farmers' plight too is made even more severe by inflation. The farm price-cost squeeze is made even more evident and apparent. The government claims to be adopting certain measures to deal with these forces. It is asserted that certain monetary measures have been taken to influence the flow of credit in this country. How effective they are remains to be seen, but certainly the government is not exercising the positive role which is necessary.
It has long been felt that one of the prime functions of the Bank of Canada when it was originally set up by the Bennett government-incidentally, at the strong urging of the C.C.F. and those who organized this movement-it has only finally won the reluctant support of the Liberal government-was to perform just that function, in part at least. We have been told that one of the means by which the central bank can affect the flow of credit in the country is through the use of the rediscount rate. Yet we had the admission of the Minister of Finance during the special session that the rediscount rate is being determined practically automatically by the chartered banks.


Walter Edward Harris: I am sure I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but I understood him to say "by the chartered banks".


Major James William Coldwell: I did say "by the chartered banks," but perhaps it would be better to say by the situation which the chartered banks reflect in the country.


Walter Edward Harris: It is automatic with respect to the treasury bill rate.


Major James William Coldwell: If it is automatic with regard to the treasury bill rate then I do not think the statement made in the special session by the Minister of Finance was correct. I do not think it was correct and I believe he is saying something different at the present time. However, that is something we can check when I look up again what he said during the special session.


Mr. Macdonnell:: He is saying the same
thing, but he is wrong both times.

The Address-Mr. Coldwell


Major James William Coldwell: In any event the central bank was supposed to do what is not being done by the government at this time. I do not think any other conclusion can be reached but that the government is permitting the banks to determine the monetary policy of this country. Surely this has made of the Bank of Canada something of a shadow of what it was intended to be when this parliament passed legislation to establish it some years ago.
Let us see what have been some of the results of the policy which has been pursued. An increase in the interest rate bears most heavily on those sectors of the population least able to afford it. It has not restricted investment generally, but it has had the effect of sharply curtailing the funds available for housing and of sharply increasing the cost to thousands of people throughout Canada who had hoped to obtain the homes they needed.
The provinces and municipalities, too, faced with the heavy burden of extending public utilities and building more schools and hospitals, have found that a sharply increased interest rate has drastically increased their costs and their commitments. Many years ago we saw provinces inviting investors to invest in bonds yielding 5 per cent or better, and many municipalities were paying rates of 5 per cent or better. That is true again of many of the larger municipalities and some provinces, and I do not know what the smaller municipalities are going to do. These provinces and municipalities face an increasingly serious crisis.
Clearly what is called for is a series of selective controls directing investment into those fields most socially useful, and certainly housing, hospitals and schools should have the top priority in this field. We have long advocated, and it was in the Liberal platform for several elections, that we should establish a national investment board to achieve what I have just suggested. We should not permit the planning of development of this country to be done on the basis of the ability of people to pay a high interest rate. I do not think that is a proper or fair method to employ.
There is another problem that has been completely ignored by the government and which was touched upon this afternoon by both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. That is the phenomenally large deficit on current account of $1,002 million that Canada has in its trade balance for the first three quarters of 1956, as compared with $437 million for the same period in 1955. This deficit has been met-and again the Prime Minister indicated this this

afternoon-only by the heavy inflow of United States funds for investment in this country. We are put in a dangerous position by this situation. The government may think we now have little to fear. It may be inclined in its complacency to postpone taking the decisions that must inevitably be taken. Canada's trade cannot forever be balanced by this import of capital. The time will inevitably come when the inflow will decrease or the payment of interest and dividends on these investment funds will exceed the amount coming in. That is the time, possibly some years hence, perhaps sooner than we think, when the people of Canada will regret the failure of its government at an earlier time to take the steps necessary to place Canada's trade in a more stable position.
Our failure to develop better trading relationships with the commonwealth countries will, I believe, bring serious results. It is one of the factors, I am sure, that is causing Britain to look for closer association in the new system of trade which has been talked about a great deal in western Europe. That development, if Canada does not enter into special relationships with it-and we should make efforts at this early stage to ensure that we do-may very well leave our trade even more concentrated in the United States market with all the implications that threaten the independence of action of the Canadian nation even in political affairs as well as development. I realize that this European system will take some time to put into effect, but I feel that Canada should now be considering the possibilities by which we can be associated with it when it comes into effect.
I have always regretted that the Canadian government did not press more strongly for the establishment of a permanent international trading agency within the United Nations after the war. The international trade organization envisaged then was to bring to reality the vision of practical planning on the international level. The international trade organization was to deal with tariffs. It was to deal with commercial policy, economic development, commodity policy and, of course, cartels and agreements of a similar sort. Had Canada and other countries pressed more strongly for some such agency I believe Canada's trading position would be healthier. Canada should continue to work for some such system, but in the meantime there is no excuse for not having adopted such planning in our trading policies as has from time to time been suggested from this corner of the house.

Lest I forget it before I conclude what I wish to say, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis):
That the amendment be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the words "the rights of parliament'', the following words:
"and by reason of their failure to announce legislation establishing a comprehensive and nationwide program of health insurance, with provision for provincial participation."
I have been critical of what the speech from the throne contains and perhaps more particularly of what it does not contain. However, in conclusion I want to change the tune a little and commend the government for some of the things that are in the speech from the throne. I am glad indeed to see that it foreshadows financial aid through the provinces to the municipalities. I am very glad to see that aid is to be given to the universities that will participate in the plan, and like others in the house I regret that one of our great provinces has not seen fit to accept what I think is a proper offer of assistance to our universities from the government of Canada.
I think it is being more clearly shown from day to day and, indeed, was indicated in the example the Prime Minister gave in his speech this afternoon of the co-operation between the two language groups, that there is no desire to interfere with the control under the constitution of those matters that are placed within the right of the provinces.
I was very happy indeed to see this provision in the speech from the throne and to note that at last something is going to be done for our universities.
I am also glad to note that a Canada Council is to be established. I have long felt that we could do much in this country through a Canada Council to promote scholarships. However, I do not think that what is suggested is in any way adequate, nor will the grants to the universities provide adequate funds to do what is needed for our young people in order to provide them with the opportunities that I found-I say "I found"- are afforded to young people in the United Kingdom and some other western European countries to achieve the educational training and standing that will enable them to play a decisive part in their countries.
I was happy to see, too, that a committee is to be set up in the other place to study land utilization. I hope they will not overlook irrigation, and I hope they will not overlook flood areas that need to be drained. Particularly do I hope they will not overlook the South Saskatchewan river plan, which I believe would be of a great benefit to a large area within one of our prairie provinces.
82715-4i
The Address-Mr. Low
Having said these things, Mr. Speaker, I see that my time has just expired. I hope I have made at least some contribution to the discussion, and with that I am going to leave it at this time.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments on His Excellency's address I should like to offer my sincere congratulations to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I commend particularly the hon. member for Edmonton South, whose speech in my judgment was informative, moderate in tone and statesmanlike in quality.
In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne is almost barren of any proposals offering relief for the average Canadian from the harassing problems which have been hounding him during the past several years. The little man has been almost completely forgotten by the government, unless it can be argued that providing him with culture is an achievement worthy of being called relief. I can hardly appreciate the government's concern about providing culture to the Canadian people while those same people are allowed to languish under a dog eat dog policy that keeps them worried stiff and in the grip of fear from one week to another, fear lest their incomes may not be stretched over the needs of food, clothing and shelter. I believe, I think as much as does anyone in the house, in encouraging cultural pursuits for all Canadians, but there are such things as priorities. First I think we should do something to bring old age pensions, war veterans allowances and like social security measures into line with prices as they have risen in this country.
I very much commend the government for its decision to appropriate a further amount of money to be distributed by the Canada Council for assisting our Canadian universities in some of their construction projects. The Canadian universities have been having a fairly hard time. It is also worthy of commendation that the government is preparing to double the annual grants to the Canadian universities, and that these increased funds will be paid to the National Conference of Canadian Universities to be divided by them amongst the recognized institutions of higher learning. That is something it seems to me can be classed as a worthy project and one which, if the appropriations are substantial enough, will bring much-needed relief to the universities that are overcrowded and understaffed at a time when enrolments are rising swiftly.

The Address-Mr. Low
However, if this provision to help the universities could be accompanied by some substantial measure of help to worthy students through scholarships and bursaries, and extended into the high school area, then it would seem to me that we would be making the kind of progress in higher education that is so much needed to meet the challenge of these times. In the judgment of any Social Crediter, no monetary consideration should be allowed to stand between any capable and determined student and the greatest measure of higher learning that he wishes to attain. Our country is always richer and better off every time our universities and high schools turn out a truly educated and skilled Canadian.
I must also commend the government for the proposal to increase the federal grants to provincial governments in aid of technical and vocational training. I support all these proposals wholeheartedly, and I urge the government to be generous in the amounts they provide in each case.
I should like to say just a word about that section of His Excellency's address which deals with the entrance into Canada of Hungarian refugees. I think the government did well to send the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration over to Europe to study the situation at first hand so he would know exactly what to do about relieving Austria of the extremely heavy burden of looking after the refugees who had gone across the border into that country. His personal appearance on the scene in Europe will also help decide how far Canada can go in helping to relieve the suffering of these patriots who have demonstrated that they love liberty even more than they love life.
Canada is short of labour. That is one of the reasons given for rising costs of living and of materials. We in this country need skills of every kind. It would therefore seem to me to be foolish in the extreme to be too selective at a time like this about our immigration. We should receive into Canada as many of these patriots as we can possibly integrate into our society, using care only to screen out any possible subversives. In addition to that, since many thousands of Britons are now making application for permanent entry into this country, we should do everything we can to provide them with transportation to Canada on an equal basis with the Hungarians, and to provide employment for them when they get here.
I hope the government is stretching every resource in both of these worthy projects. I know that it is going to tax our housing accommodation to the very limit temporarily, but I am also sure that the Canadian people

from one end of this country to the other will respond wholeheartedly to the government's appeal for assistance in providing the new immigrants with homes. Canada needs to increase her population as rapidly as it is safe to do so. Some of our problems will never be solved until Canada has 25 million, 30 million or 35 million people.
Having said those things I now return to something I said to begin with, namely that the speech from the throne hardly mentions any one of a dozen or more serious problems that are besetting the Canadian people and have been giving them trouble for quite a long time. To be specific, may I say that I was amazed that the speech gives only passing reference to one of the worst tragedies that has struck our country for a long time.
I refer, of course, to the Canadian Pacific Railway strike. A great deal has been said this afternoon about it. I was not at all satisfied with either the contribution made by the Leader of the Opposition or that made by the leader of the government. It is tragic in the extreme, it seems to me, that at this time of year, in the dead of winter, the wheels of the great Canadian Pacific Railway should be brought to a full stop.
It must be remembered that in many important parts of our country the Canadian Pacific Railway has had almost a total monopoly on transportation for many years. The whole of the southern part of my province from Calgary south to the international border is served by only one railroad, namely the Canadian Pacific. There are a good many communities in that area and in other areas in Canada, including the maritime provinces, that are running dangerously low in their supplies of fuel and food. Wheat and livestock are not being moved. Hence the farmer's chance of getting even a small supply of cash with which to meet his living costs has been utterly destroyed. The farmer has already had to carry a much heavier burden than he ought to have been called upon to carry, considering the tremendous contribution he has made to the economy of this country for so many years.
I think the grounds on which the strike was called were rather slim, and certainly not important enough to justify the complete tie-up of the whole Canadian Pacific system. I am not trying to direct the blame against either the labour unions or the railway company. Undoubtedly the union people fear the results of automation. This alone should indicate to the government how important it is that some new policy be adopted which will guarantee the distribution amongst the consumers of Canada of an adequate supply of purchasing power in spite

of any rapid extension of mechanization and industry. The government has not done anything whatever to modify its policy to meet this growing trend toward automation which is bound to dislocate the labour forces of Canada, at least in its first stages. In the long run automation, in my judgment, will be a blessing to mankind; but for some years it could easily be a grave threat to security and a cause of fear unless steps are taken to make up for the lack of consumer purchasing power which will result from the process-that is, to make up that shortage- by a direct issue to the consumers of this country.
It is absolutely imperative, in my judgment and in our judgment here, that the railway start running again as quickly as possible. The first responsibility of this parliament should be, by whatever means lies in its power, to get the C.P.R. into operation. At the same time the outstanding matter of dispute between the railway and the firemen and engineers should be referred to a commission for study. That commission should, as quickly as possible, investigate every angle of the situation, and particularly the safety factor in the operation of freight trains and yard engines; and when the commission's decision is handed down it should be considered as binding on both parties. It seems to me that there is too much inclination to try to maintain the status quo at all costs. In matters of this kind there must be a disposition to find the right answer even if it means some compromise.
In the United States I understand that they have a board or commission that is called the presidential fact-finding board. I understand that board can be used for just such cases as we now have in our country. When the board is named, I understand that no strike is permitted. In other words, let the men go back to work. Then, the board must get busy at once and complete its investigation within a specified period of time. If I am not mistaken the board's decisions, when handed down, are considered final and binding upon both parties. I only point that out to indicate that there is a precedent in other countries for such a commission or board as has been suggested. I am certain that something will have to be done as soon as possible to get this railway running, even if it means the appointment of such a board.
I think the railway are to be commended for trying to discover ways of cutting down costs and effecting savings wherever they can. They are placed in a most difficult position. On the one hand the Canadian people, especially those in the western provinces that stand at the very peak of the
The Address-Mr. Low freight rate structure, are demanding a reduction in the heavy and discriminatory freight rates that exist. They point out that since 1945 these freight rates have more than doubled. The farmers, especially in western Canada, are forced to pay freight costs both ways, on the goods they buy that come from eastern Canada and on the goods they sell that go to the head of the lakes or to the seaboard. You cannot blame them, therefore, for demanding lower freight rates, and in turn if they demand lower freight rates the railway must effect savings. Who is to say, therefore, that the railway is wrong in trying to effect these savings?
According to western Canadian thinking the government has been seriously lacking in courage in connection with this whole strike from the beginning. Certainly the government has not shown very much disposition to get the railway running again; that is clear. It is clear also that the nearness to a general election has made them timid and diffident in dealing with a situation like this. This is a time for courage and vision. I am positively certain that there were ways and means during the past few weeks by which the: disastrous work stoppage on the Canadian Pacific could have been avoided, but it was not avoided and somebody has to take the responsibility for it. As I said, the important thing now is to get the railway running again, and Social Crediters are prepared to back the government in whatever measures may be taken to accomplish that end and to provide for a thorough study of the dispute outstanding between the two sides. Let me also say that when a mutually satisfactory commission does hand down a decision, that decision should be binding on both parties.
We must not follow any policy, Mr. Speaker, that will deny to industry the opportunity to improve its processes and give better service to the Canadian people at lower cost; that is fundamental to our thinking. The future and its needs are going to demand improvements in all our industrial processes and lower costs. Certainly it can be said with perfect truth that the technological advances that have been made over the years, and that are now being made, are not resulting in the reduction of costs to the Canadian consumer. There is a reason for that, and we ought to find that reason and correct it. Automation is fast replacing labour in many fields. It is going to be necessary for labour to find employment in other fields. This in itself gives rise to considerable fear on the part of the working man. There is a fear that the Canadian Pacific Railway, for example, may be inclined to place the names of presently unneeded workmen on the call board along with many

The Address-Mr. Low other names, and that it will become a stagnant board with a great many names and few calls for some of the persons whose names are on that board. That is a real fear on the part of railwaymen.
There is a fear also lest they be cut off with no jobs at all. A suggestion has been made that in cases of this kind, and for those who may be affected in the future, certain financial assistance should be extended for a period of six months or until such time as the displaced workmen can be absorbed into some other industry. Perhaps though, with a provision of that kind, some effort should be made to provide training for the displaced workmen so they can readily find employment in some other field. Those are suggestions that can be considered and will have to be considered as the months wear on and more mechanization comes into our industry.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to turn for a few minutes to some of those problems I mentioned that have been harassing Canadian people for a long time and from which little or no relief appears to be indicated in government policy in the speech from the throne. I think the one which most plagues the Canadian people as a whole and which causes them more distress than anything else is the continuously rising cost of living. Recent announcements from the bureau of statistics show that the cost of living index stands at 120.4 in terms of the new method of expressing it. This is an all-time high. When it is converted into terms of the pre-1949 index, in December it would have stood at 193.4, that is in relation to 100 for the 1935-39 period. The speed with which the index rose during the autumn months of 1956 startled the Canadian people. Most of the people with whom I came into contact in travelling across the country expressed alarm at the prospect that they feared we would have to expect for the next six months. There seems to be every evidence now that nothing we can do will prevent a further rise of several points in the cost of living index between now and July of this year.
There is not a single word, however, to be found about that situation in the speech from the throne. You would think the government would have something to say about a matter as important as that, impinging as it does very heavily upon the welfare of the people.
I do not wish to attempt, by any means, to throw all the blame for the situation on the government. I know there are many factors entering into this increasing price and cost of living structure. But the people of Canada will judge the government on its policies, and of course they will do that within the next few months when the government goes


to the country in a general election. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that government policy has not only failed to come to grips with the problem of the rising cost of living and provide relief for the Canadian consumer, but actually government policy has contributed to a great extent to the spiralling of costs. The government is inclined, of course, to shrug off the whole nasty situation by saying we are suffering from inflation caused by an unprecedented rate of capital expansion. There is some truth to that, of course, but only some.
It is generally conceded, Mr. Speaker, that inflation means too much money chasing after too few goods. Now, in the light of that is the present situation in Canada real inflation? I want to examine that for just a moment or two. First let us take a look at the supply of goods available to the consumers of this country. The September, 1956, statement of inventories, shipments and orders in the manufacturing industries issued by the dominion bureau of statistics contains some very interesting tables. I want first of all to look at this table found on page 4 of the report, where one finds estimated the stocks on hand for every month from January, 1952, to September, 1956. The table shows that the total of all inventory held by manufacturing industries in Canada as of September, 1956, was $4,578,805,000. That was the highest total inventory of any month certainly since 1952, and I am satisfied that if I could get all the facts going back over the years I could venture to say the highest in Canada's history.
Of this total inventory held by the manufacturing industries there are three divisions; raw materials, goods in process of manufacture, and finished products.


Mr. Blackmore:: May I ask what month that is for?


Solon Earl Low: I said September, 1956. In every one of these three divisions the total at September, 1956, was considerably in excess of the total in any preceding month except for a $5 million decline in raw materials from August to September of 1956, but that is a negligible amount and it can be attributed to the seasonal changes in arrangements. There is also a slight decline in the goods in process from June, 1956, to September of the same year, which again is negligible. Both of these can be attributed, as I said, to seasonal fluctuations, which are only natural. The general trend has been continuously upward, and we now have on hand in Canada over $4J billion worth of goods held by the manufacturing industries of this country.

Now, in the consumer goods industries the total inventory at the end of September of 1956 reached $1,093,138,000, a total that is higher than at any other time since 1952, and very likely higher than at any previous time in our history. A similar statement can be made of perishable goods. In petroleum and coal products the inventory at September last was the highest in history. In electrical supplies, although there was a slight decline in the three months from July, 1956, to September, yet the inventory at September, 1956, was $15 million over that for December, 1955, and $133 million over that for January, 1952.
Even in the iron and steel products industries the total inventory at September was $841,666,000, a figure greater than at any time since 1952. There was some decline in the finished products division of this particular industry, but both goods in process and raw materials on hand were greater in value than at any time since 1952. And this is the particular division where this country is supposed to have the serious shortages. The figures successfully dispute that claim.
I will not weary the house with many more figures, but I think I should say just a word about the capital goods industries lest someone here finds reason in that section to claim that we are actually suffering a shortage of goods. The total inventory in the capital goods industries at September, 1956, was $391,335,000, which is greater than at any time since 1952, and very likely the greatest of all time.
Let us turn for a moment to the money supply of our country, which is the other angle to the situation. The total money supply in 1954 was $11,276,900,000, while at September of 1956 it was $12 billion, in round figures. This shows a very small increase in the total money supply available to the public with which to buy a very greatly increased production. Let us not forget that at September, 1956, our gross national production was running at the rate of $29 billion a year, while in 1954 it reached only about $25 billion.


Walter Edward Harris: Twenty-six and a quarter billion for the year.


Solon Earl Low: That was 1955.


Walter Edward Harris: I beg your pardon; yes, it was 1955.


Solon Earl Low: It was running at approximately $25 billion in 1954. I think I am quite right. In the light of these facts it is perfectly clear to me that the present high cost of living cannot be blamed on real inflation, too many dollars chasing far too few goods. Especially is this conclusion given real backing when we consider that there has been a slackening off in production in certain much-wanted
The Address-Mr. Low goods in this country. That slackening off has reached quite serious proportions in the last six months.
I was attracted to an article that appeared recently in the Calgary Herald concerning a great industry in this country. It appeared in the issue dated October 25, 1956. The heading of the article is "Lay-Offs Hit B.C. Lumbering". This is the pertinent story:
Labour and management officials in the British Columbia timber industry have forecast widespread unemployment in the industry this winter.
Both groups agreed it would be "the worst winter since the war" and some said unemployment might spread to other industries.
International Woodworkers of America expect to have 1,200 men out of work by mid-November. Already nearly 800 have been laid off.
That was back in October. There are more than that now. The article goes on to say:
"I cannot remember losing 1,200 men in such a short time", an I.W.A. official said.
"In nine years experience I have never seen so many men looking for work as there are now."
Further on in the article, Mr. Speaker, we find the following:
Officials agreed that sawmill workers will be hit first.
Two reasons given for the expected slump are:
Attempts by the government to control inflation by clamping down on new home mortgages, thus reducing the demand for new houses.
High shipping costs which have caused the United Kingdom to reduce orders from Canada and start buying more common grade timber from Russia and the Baltic countries.
A spokesman said the industry will have to consider asking Ottawa to lift the mortgage restrictions.
I point that out only to indicate the truth of what I said a moment ago and to give backing to it. At a time when we are actually slackening off production in the country, not only in the lumber industry but in certain others, how in the name of common sense anyone can cling to the old story that we are suffering real inflation I cannot understand.
There is another fact, Mr. Speaker, which I think we all ought to take into account as we consider this particular subject of the cost of living and what to do about it. The dominion bureau of statistics figures indicate clearly that in 1955 the Canadian people piled up a total of $26,600 million worth of goods and services. I think that was the figure mentioned a moment ago by the Minister of Finance. In that same year, 1955, the distribution of purchasing power amongst the consumers of this country fell so far short of being enough to enable the Canadian people to buy and consume what they had produced, if they wanted it, that they were forced to run charge accounts, to buy on instalment credit and to borrow in the form of cash personal loans from the

The Address-Mr. Low banks and small loan companies the staggering total of $2,600 million. These are the facts as supplied by the dominion bureau of statistics. In other words, the Canadian people in 1955 had to mortgage future incomes to the extent of more than $2J billion in order to be able to consume the goods they had produced. Does that indicate, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, too much money chasing after too few goods? I maintain that it shows just the opposite and the situation for 1956, when all the facts are in, will indicate a similar picture, if not one that is worse.
What, then, is causing the continuous increases in prices and in the cost of living? It certainly is not inflation, according to the accepted meaning of the term. Economists are finding it necessary to coin new phrases and terms to describe it. They are calling it a wage-price spiral. This spiral was set in motion on the one hand by the government itself in its demands for manpower and materials. It is competing with private industry for both manpower and materials that are available. It is true that the one real shortage we find in this country is in certain types of labour, unless one calls a lack of brains and vision on the other side of the house a shortage. I think perhaps that will have to be considered, brains and vision to meet the situation as we face it today.


An hon. Member:: And courage.


Solon Earl Low: And courage. We in the opposition for quite a number of years now have been urging the government to take swift and sure action to guard against the contingency that is now arising. In fact it is getting worse from day to day. We have advocated a far more realistic immigration policy that would increase the labour supply in those divisions where a shortage was indicated, or was developing; but the government did nothing about our proposals, or very little. The people of Canada will undoubtedly have this in mind when they weigh the government in balance in the next few months. There is no doubt that if courage and vision had been exercised since the war the present wage-price spiral would not have developed.
When that spiral began to assume serious proportions it appears that the government became panicky; they budgeted for a revenue surplus for this year to restrict the money supply. That surplus will likely reach more than $300 million by the end of this fiscal year. Moreover, the government and its agencies together took monetary action to bring about a blanket restriction of credit. The government have been exceedingly evasive about what they have done in this


field thus far. They have refused to give the house the information that it requires to properly assess the situation.
The fact is, however, that this government has established a short term treasury bill rate of around 3J per cent, which unquestionably has been the snake in the grass in this whole rise in the interest rate which has had such undesirable effects upon our whole economy. The Bank of Canada quite properly felt it could not maintain a rediscount rate lower than the government's own short term treasury bill rate. The chartered banks then used this rediscount rate as an excuse for increasing the general interest rate to borrowers, and as a matter of fact they were encouraged to do so by the central bank and the government. In addition they were required by the central bank to maintain a special 7 per cent cash reserve over and above the 8 per cent normally required by the Bank of Canada.
This over-all credit restriction in itself has contributed to the wage-price spiral, in that it has imposed much heavier costs upon producers who have had to borrow for production purposes. It has been highly discriminatory right from the beginning. The big industry has had no trouble whatever getting the money it needed, and it is not having too much trouble today. However, the smaller industries, the little men, have been hardest hit and many of them have been forced out of business. Those Canadian people who have been trying to get homes for themselves-the little people again-have found it impossible during the past six months to borrow in order to get roofs over their heads. The home situation in Canada is serious and will likely be much more serious as the days go by and we bring in more immigrants. The small merchant, the individual enterpriser who has actually been the banker for many of the communities in Canada, has been forced into a desperate position as a consequence of the credit squeeze. The farmer has also been put in a very bad position.
I am sure that with enough time at my disposal it would be easy to prove that the over-all credit control effort by this government through the use of the discount rate and restriction of loans has been unjustified, has been wrong in principle and most ineffective. What the government has done in this respect has been likened to burning down the barn to kill the rat. Selective credit controls under the circumstances would have been perfectly justified and far more effective, selected in those areas wherein the trouble lay. Why in the world make everyone suffer because of those particular difficulties? But the government has not looked at it that way. The

The Address-Mr. Low
blanket credit control program put into effect by the governor of the Bank of Canada has discriminated against the little man, the individual enterpriser and the municipalities and provinces that have been so seriously affected by the government's policy.
The government ought to have learned that the mere tightening or loosening of the total volume of credit is not a cure-all for economic fluctuations. Over the years it should have been clear from our experience that the disastrous business cycle can be levelled out only through interrelation of government spending, taxes, savings, and investments, income, employment and money supply. If we are going to try to operate a full employment policy, then we must begin to bring our whole money system under the most careful and scientific management, not to leave it to Joe over in the Bank of Canada to set the policy and then follow along like a blind turkey. If we are going to try to operate with that full employment policy then we must bring our entire money system under close scrutiny and careful and scientific management.
I believe we now face the absolute necessity of the early appointment of a national finance and economic commission answerable directly to this parliament. Then this parliament should lay down for it a policy in specific terms and clothe it with authority to manage that policy. Nothing points out more strongly the real need for such a commission than the events of the past 14 or 15 years. In his state of the nation address last Saturday President Eisenhower suggested that he would ask congress to set up a similar commission for the United States. We Social Crediters have been advocating for many years the necessity of having a finance and economic commission clothed with the responsibilities I have mentioned. It seems to me it is time we did so in order that our efforts may be properly co-ordinated.
Nobody likes credit restrictions, that is true. I do not like them. However, it might be necessary under certain combinations of circumstances to apply selective credit controls in those particular branches of our economy where the trouble actually exists. I oppose most strongly the government's blanket credit control policy because it simply is not working, and it hits hardest the small business, the little fellow, the best and steadiest taxpayer we have in this country.
I think there is a lesson for all in the experience we are having at the present time. It is true that total volume of corporation profits looks big; percentage-wise it may not be so impressive. However, when we
see those swollen profits, rather than immediately demanding higher wages and salaries which can benefit only one section of the Canadian people at the expense of the others and at the same time force costs and therefore prices to go higher, would it not be better for us all to take the position that a fair share of those profits should be used to bring down costs and prices for everybody? It can be done. After all, it is not the level of wages and salaries that counts; it is the purchasing power we take home that matters. Our present inclination as a people seems to be to follow too eagerly the dog eat dog policy when for the sake of security and happiness we should follow the policy of live and help to live.
The rise in the cost of living can be successfully stopped without any serious interference with individual freedom, and it ought to be stopped; and the government must take immediate and strong action in this regard. However, the rest of us must be prepared to help; it is not a matter requiring only the effort of the government. I believe the federal government should allow a moderate increase in the money supply so as to bring down interest rates. That is indicated in every single aspect of our whole financial and economic situation. This moderate increase in the money supply could be used at this time to buy lower prices for the Canadian people through the use of the compensated price discount system which we have advocated for many years. Such a system will prevent increases in consumer prices but will not interfere in any way with adequate producer income.
I think, too, the government will have to be prepared to arrange for loans from the Bank of Canada to the provincial and municipal governments for those public works projects that are considered to be essential to the development of the provinces and their resources. These loans could be arranged at a rate of interest which would act as a stimulus for the downward interest trend that is so essential at this time.
I see, Mr. Speaker, my time is up. I have indicated only one of the harassing problems facing the Canadian people and with which the government is not coming to grips. I should have liked to deal with external affairs, agriculture and other important matters; there are at least 12 or 13 more. However, I am going to ask my colleagues to deal with them in the course of their contributions to this debate. They will be outlining the policies and program advocated by the Social Credit Association of Canada, and they will not be afraid to say positively what they would do in specific circumstances.

The Address-Mr. Low Let me say in conclusion that as a political organization in this country we place ourselves squarely and firmly on the side of the little fellow, the private enterpriser, the farmer, the small businessman, the Canadian consumer, and the home owner in the struggle for a better way of life, a freer way of life, under a policy of live and help to live that should apply within Canada as well as in our relations with other countries.

On motion of Mr. Cauchon the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we will be going on with this debate tomorrow and Friday.


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

Labour Conditions-C.P.R. Strike


[Stage Direction]
Statement by Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker:: ,
In view of the widespread interest in the causes and effects of the work stoppage on the Canadian Pacific Railway Company system, not only in this house but in all parts of Canada, I think I should place on record a statement of the events leading up to the cessation of work at 4 p.m. on January 2 last.
The collective agreements between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (eastern, prairie and Pacific regions including the Quebec Central Railway and Dominion Atlantic Railway) and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, effective April 1, 1954, expired on March 31, 1956. Two months earlier, on February 1, the brotherhood served letters of notice on the managements of the eastern, prairie and Pacific regions of the railway and upon its subsidiaries for the revision of these agreements. On February 6 and 7, the company served similar notice on the brotherhood.
Representatives of the parties met in Toronto on February 21 and in Calgary on February 29 and negotiations between them continued up to April 18. On that date, the company requested me to establish a conciliation board to deal with the dispute and at the same time stated in detail its proposals for the revision of the collective agreements. On April 19, the brotherhood made the same request and likewise outlined its proposals for the revision of the agreement.
On the following day, April 20, 1956, I authorized a board of conciliation to be established and it was constituted as follows: His Honour Judge J. C. Anderson, Belleville, Ontario, chairman; Mr. Emmett M. Hall, Q.C., Saskatoon, and the honourable Senator Arthur W. Roebuck, Q.C., Toronto, nominees of the company and brotherhood respectively.
The brotherhood's proposals for changes in the collective agreement were as follows:
1.	Increase basic rates of pay in all classes of service by 25 per cent. All arbitraries, differentials and special allowances to be maintained and increased accordingly. Increased rates to be effective April 1, 1956.
2.	One full day's pay for each statutory holiday not worked. When service is performed during any part of a statutory holiday the entire day will be compensated for on the basis of time and one half the basic daily rate for the class of service concerned.
3.	Allowable service for pension purposes will accrue on the basis of all time in service.
The words "allowable service" will mean continuous relationships; absences for furlough or other reasons when seniority is unimpaired not to be deducted.
4.	A fireman or helper taken from the seniority ranks of locomotive firemen shall be employed on all motor cars used in road service and propelled by diesel, electric, gasoline, electricity or other power, and operated under the uniform code of operating rules by an engineer.
5.	Add to "mileage regulations": When a fireman is called for additional service out of his home terminal after he has attained the maximum mileage of 4,800 in passenger service or 3,800 in other service he will be paid at one and one half times the regular rate, double time where overtime is involved.
6.	Revise article 5, clause b (2) eastern region, article 5, clause b (5) prairie and Pacific regions as follows:
In the event of a fireman being deadheaded to an assignment at a station auxiliary to the main terminal, he is to be paid deadhead mileage in both directions to and from the main terminal. When assignments or runs are bulletined and no bids are received for positions at auxiliary terminals the junior firemen on the spare board at the main terminal will be required to man the assignment and will be paid deadhead mileage going to and returning from the assignment or run. The provisions of article 29 (q) will not be applicable to firemen who are required to deadhead from their home terminal to fill assignments or runs at points which are auxiliary to their divisional home terminal.
The company's proposals were as fohows: Firemen-System
1.	Eliminate all agreements, rules, regulations, interpretations or practices, however established, which require the employment or use of firemen (helpers) on other than steam power, and establish a rule to provide that the company shall have the unrestricted right to determine when and if a fireman (helper) shall be used on other than steam power.
2.	Eliminate all agreements, rules, regulations, interpretations or practices, however established, which provide rates of pay and daily earnings minima for firemen (helpers) on other than steam power, and establish a rule to provide that in instances where fireman (helper) is used on other than steam power a minimum rate of $7 per day of 100 miles shall apply.
3.	Eliminate preparatory and inspection time arbitraries and provide that firemen

Labour Conditions-C.P.R. Strike when employed will be paid for all time required to report for duty until released.
4.	Provide for initial terminal time payments in road service to be used to make up a short day on the same basis as final terminal time is now applied.
5.	Eliminate mountain and valley differentials.
The board held approximately 30 meetings between June 9, 1956, and November 25, 1956, all necessary adjournments in that period being made with the consent of the parties. The board's report submitted by His Honour Judge Anderson and Mr. Hall was received by me on December 18, 1956. A minority report submitted by Hon. Mr. Roebuck was received on the same date.
In summary, the report of the board contained the following recommendations:
1.	That the diesel rules be amended to permit the company to operate diesel engines in yard and freight service without firemen, with the understanding that if as a result of actual operating experience it appears that in some circumstances the services of the firemen might again be required, a modification of the rule might again be necessary and would then become the subject of further bargaining at a time when another agreement is being negotiated.
2.	That the company continue to employ all firemen who are at the date of the new agreement on the firemen's roster and who have passed their engineer's qualifications and/or attained three years of seniority as firemen.
3.	That the company give an undertaking to the brotherhood not to seek, when future contracts are open, the right to release these firemen from employment or to transfer them to other employment with the company where their direct line of promotion would not be to engineer, provided that the brotherhood at the same time gives an undertaking to the company which would provide that if at any time in the future it should agree to allow the Canadian National Railways to release from employment any or all of its firemen or to allow that railway to transfer to other employment any or all of its firemen, where the direct promotion is not to engineer, it would allow the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to do likewise.
4.	That the parties to the dispute agree to set up a joint committee to discuss, decide and put into effect all plans, rules, details and procedures necessary to enable the company to carry out the new diesel rule.
5.	That the parties themselves discuss revisions of the present rules governing arbitra-ries relating to preparatory and inspection time and initial terminal time and that all mountain differentials be reduced to the
amount of the valley differentials but that the valley differentials be continued.
6.	That all wage rates applicable to miles, hours, overtime, arbitraries and special allowances be increased by 7 per cent effective April 1, 1956, and by a further 5 per cent effective June 1, 1957, and that the $4.25 per month per employee included in these increases subsequent to January 1, 1957, be in lieu of health and welfare benefits.
7.	That firemen in yard service be granted six statutory holidays with pay.
8.	That the pension proposal was clearly beyond the board's terms of reference.
9.	That the present rule relating to the operation of Budd cars remain unchanged.
10.	That the present rule governing mileage regulations remain unchanged.
In summary, the minority report recommended:
1.	That the present diesel rule in the collective agreements be not changed.
2.	That the company withdraw its proposal that firemen's pay on passenger diesel locomotive be reduced.
3.	That all present arbitraries be continued and that firemen be granted statutory holidays with pay on the same basis as now applying to trainmen.
4.	That a wage increase be granted as recommended in the report of the majority of the board.
5.	That the mileage regulations proposals be negotiated by the parties on the withdrawal by the company of its major proposal,
i.e., the removal of firemen on diesels in freight and yard service.
On December 20, my department was advised by the brotherhood that the recommendations of the board were not acceptable and on the following day, December 21, the company advised that it was prepared to accept and implement the recommendations of the board.
On the evening of Wednesday, December 26, a telegram (copy attached-Appendix "A") was received from Mr. W. E. Gamble, vice president of the brotherhood, advising that a strike vote by telegraph of the joint grievance committees of the brotherhood on the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Quebec Central Railway and Dominion Atlantic Railway, was unanimously in favour of strike action and that a withdrawal from railway service had been authorized, effective 4.00 p.m., January 2.
On Thursday, December 27, I discussed the whole matter with the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Howe, and by telegram, I invited Mr. N. R. Crump, president of the company, and Mr. Gamble, Canadian vice

president of the brotherhood, to meet in Ottawa at 11.30 Saturday morning, December 29. (Copies attached-Appendix "B")
On Saturday morning and afternoon, December 29, the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Howe, and I discussed the issues in dispute and methods of settlement with Mr. Crump and Mr. Gamble. The discussions revealed that the parties were adamant in their positions with respect to the employment of firemen on diesel locomotive in freight and yard service of the company. The company took the position that such employment was no longer necessary and the brotherhood was equally firm in holding that such employment was necessary both from the viewpoint of duties involved and the safety factor. The first meeting held on Saturday, was in the main exploratory in nature. No definite proposals were advanced by Mr. Howe or myself but the suggestion was made that the parties should consider a formula which would involve: (1) the union calling off the strike and the company withholding action on the removal of diesel firemen until:	(2) a joint union-company
committee with an independent chairman had given consideration to all aspects of the diesel issue: (3) in the meantime negotiations on other factors to continue. The parties were requested to consider this formula over Sunday and be prepared to discuss it more fully at the next meeting which was scheduled for Monday, Dec. 31.
The talks resumed at 10.00 a.m. on December 31 and, following morning and afternoon sessions, the Acting Prime Minister and myself announced that our efforts to obtain a settlement between the railway and the brotherhood had not succeeded. The discussions broke down on the diesel issue and both parties were unable to agree on the method by which this question should be resolved.	Mr. Gamble stated that the
brotherhood was willing to call off the strike and submit the diesel issue to a tribunal composed of company and union representatives, with an impartial chairman, the recommendations of such a body not to be binding on either party. Mr. Crump, for the company, on the other hand, desired that all issues in dispute be put before an impartial tribunal, for final determination binding on both parties.
Before dispersing, the parties were asked to give earnest consideration to the far-reaching and serious effects of the railway strike, more particularly in certain areas of Canada and on a large number of railway and other employees not directly affected by the dispute. At the same time they were advised that further mediation services would
Labour Conditions-C.P.R. Strike be made available if they were to reconsider their positions in the dispute.
On January 1, I telephoned both Mr. Gamble and Mr. Crump in order to see if they had altered their positions in any way and if the Department of Labour could be of further assistance to them but found no change in attitudes.
On January 2, the Acting Prime Minister addressed a telegram to Mr. Gamble and Mr. Crump (copies attached-Appendix "C") and received replies on January 3.
It had been made clear to both the parties to the dispute that the Department of Labour would be available if their services were required or in conveying any point of view from one side to the other, or for anything that might provide the basis of further negotiations.
The strike went into effect on 2nd January at 4 p.m.
On the afternoon of Friday, 4th January, I had a phone call from the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Claude Jodoin, asking me where I might be reached the following day, Saturday. I told him I would be at my office.
Late in the morning Saturday, 5th January,
I had a further phone call from Mr. Jodoin saying he had been having a meeting at his headquarters during the morning attended by his senior congress officials and by railway brotherhood officials. He asked if he and his two senior congress officers could come up to my office at once. I invited them to do so.
On arrival Mr. Jodoin told me that he was authorized to present a new proposal for settling the dispute.
Upon hearing this proposal I realized that it visualized a tribunal or commission of broader representation and scope than any that had been discussed by the two parties on the weekend before.
I reported this proposal to the Prime Minister and to the Right Hon. Mr. Howe on Saturday, 5th January.
The Prime Minister discussed the proposal by long distance with Mr. Crump in Montreal on Saturday evening.
Mr. Jodoin stated that he would ask the union leaders to remain in Ottawa over the week end or for as long as may be useful.
On Monday, 7th January, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress announced the Saturday proposals to the press, and sent me a copy of his press release thereon from which the proposal is set out attached in Appendix "D". On the same day the president of the C.P.R. announced that this proposal was not acceptable to the management.
54	HOUSE OF
Labour Conditions-C.P.R. Strike On Monday 7th January Mr. Crump made his reply known through the press. (Citizen report of that date attached-Appendix "E").
This summary deals exclusively with communication with or between the two parties to the actual dispute.



APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;


[Stage Direction]
MOA 269 32 FD Montreal Que 26 546 P 1956 Dec 26 PM 6 26
Bernard Wilson, Director of Industrial Relations Dept of Labour Ottawa
Telegraphic strike vote of general grievances committees BLFE on CPR QCR DAR unanimously in favor of strike action in current dispute with company. Withdrawal from service authorize effective four PM January Second


[Stage Direction]
CANADIAN PACIFIC TELEGRAPHS Ottawa, December 27, 1956. Mr. N. R. Crump,
President,
Canadian Pacific Railway Company,
Windsor Street Station,
Montreal, Que.
Due to urgency of railway dispute situation I am inviting Mr. Gamble and you to meet with me at my office Confederation Building at eleven thirty Saturday morning December twenty-ninth. Please confirm. I do not propose to give publicity to this invitation.

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, December 27, 1956.
Mr. W. E. Gamble,
Vice-President,
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Engineers,
802 Castle Bldg., 1410 Stanley St.,
Montreal, Que.
Due to urgency of railway dispute situation I am inviting Mr. Crump and you to meet with me at my office Confederation Building at eleven thirty Saturday morning December twenty-ninth. Please confirm. I do not propose to give publicity to this invitation.

[Stage Direction]
Following replies received:

[Stage Direction]
Montreal Que
December 28, 1956.
Hon. Milton F. Gregg,
Minister of Labor,
Ottawa, Ont.
C/) GTC RUSH
Will be glad to attend meeting your office 11.30 tomorrow morning (stop) from your wire I presume Mr. Gamble will not be accompanied by his negotiating committee


[Stage Direction]
Montreal Que
December 27, 1956.
Milton F Gregg Ministry of Labor Confederation Bldg Ottawa
Your wire today I am pleased to accept your invitation to meet with you and Mr. Crump at your office at 11.30 Saturday morning December twenty ninth
W E GAMBLE B OF LF & E

[Stage Direction]
The following wire was sent to the two parties Jan. 2 by Mr. Howe:
"Although Mr. Gregg and I are being inundated this morning with demands that the strike be stopped we know it is not necessary to emphasize again to you that the cessation of train service on the Canadian Pacific Railway Lines resulting from the withdrawal from service of the locomotive firemen scheduled to take effect this afternoon will give rise to very serious inconvenience and hardship to many Canadian communities serviced by Canadian Pacific Railway lines as well as serious disruption in movement of grain, fuel and other essential commodities. The action will also affect the employment of many thousands of railway workers not directly involved in the strike as well as of workers in other industries. In all the circumstances we strongly urge you to give favourable consideration to the proposal explored during our discussions namely that strike action be cancelled forthwith and that the diesel issue be separated from the other matters in dispute and submitted to an independent tribunal for disposition and that the parties continue negotiations for settlement of other issues involved in the contract dispute. Same wire sent to Mr. Crump (Mr. Gamble). I would be glad to have your reply."

The following reply was received from Mr. Gamble Jan. 3:
"Re your telegram today the brotherhood appreciates the gravity of the situation arising from strike action and gave careful consideration to its many serious implications before reaching decision to withdraw from service of the Canadian Pacific Railway stop Further it continues to bear in mind all the adverse effects that may result stop But in view of the several facts among them that the Canadian Pacific Railway is the only important railway of the North American continent refusing to withdraw those demands in the diesel issue and also refusing to grant locomotive firemen deserved wage increases the brotherhood cannot conclude otherwise than that the primary responsibility rests with the company stop May we restate our position: that the important wage issue be settled on a basis such as granted other railway employees stop We believe that an independent tribunal such as we discussed could render a valuable report on the diesel issue and we continue to be ready to work with such a tribunal in a thorough study of firemen duties and universal acceptance of them by others than the employer in this case."
The following reply was received from Mr. Crump Jan. 3:
"Refering to your joint wire date to Mr. Gamble and me regarding dispute between locomotive firemen and enginemen and Canadian Pacific Railway stop As you realise from our discussions in Ottawa Canadian Pacific is keenly aware of the hardship and loss that will be suffered not only by other Canadian Pacific employees but by the many communities served by Canadian Pacific as well stop To prevent this calamity Canadian Pacific is still agreeable that the diesel issue be submitted to an independent tribunal for final disposition and that other issues be settled by negotiations between the parties stop Operations could be resumed forthwith on this basis."

[Stage Direction]
January 7, 1957.
On Saturday morning a delegation from the negotiating committee of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen met with the three executive officers of the Canadian Labour Congress-President Claude Jodoin, executive vice president Gordon Cushing, and secretary treasurer Donald MacDonald. As a result of these discussions a proposal was developed by the C.L.C. with Labour Minister Gregg shortly before noon Saturday.
Mr. Gregg, in turn, conveyed the plan to Prime Minister St. Laurent who placed it
Labour Conditions-C.P.R. Strike before the company. The proposal was acceptable to the brotherhood. Since Saturday afternoon union representatives have been standing by in the hope that the company would accept and so enable the issuance of an immediate back to work order by the union. No such reply has been received.
The suggestion was:
1.	The establishment of a commission to conduct a public investigation of all the effects of transferring firemen's work and responsibilities to other employees on all railways in Canada.
2.	The commission would be composed of seven members. Two would represent the company's viewpoint; two the union's; and three impartial public members, one of whom would be chairman.
3.	The commission would hold public hearings with full power to make on the scene study of actual operations and working conditions on all railways.
4.	The commission would have until December 31, 1957, to make its report to the government.
5.	The pattern of adjustments applied during 1956 to other railway employees in Canada would be offered to the B.L.F.&E. All other conditions of employment would remain unchanged.
The view was expressed by representatives of both the congress and the brotherhood that the type of commission and enquiry proposed would meet the need for further investigation. This need would not be served by an arbitration procedure. It would be highly improper to arbitrate matters of public safety, safety of other railway employees, and issues which have implications which will inevitably extend into the operation of all other railways. The universal nature of these issues is shown by the fact that the same demands made by C.P.R. were also voiced by the C.N.R. and all major railroads in the United States, but were subsequently withdrawn by all these railroads including subsidiaries of the C.P.R. in the United States.
Claude Jodoin, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, commenting on the proposal, said: "We have discussed this matter thoroughly with the brotherhood and they are quite in agreement with us that it offers a fair and reasonable solution to the current work stoppage. The union feels that the public is not now familiar with the actual facts and these could be brought out by a public enquiry of the broad and comprehensive scope contemplated in this suggestion. Acceptance of this proposal by the railway would mean that the way is immediately cleared for the resumption of railway operations. The hesitation of the company in accepting such a proposal is incomprehensible
[Stage Direction]
Labour Conditions-C.P.R. Strike in the face of the inevitable disruption which stoppage of railway operations is causing and on which the Canadian Pacific Railway has placed great emphasis in the past few days."
W. E. Gamble, vice president of the B.L.F. &E., expressed the brotherhood's gratitude to the Prime Minister, labour minister Gregg, and the officers of the Canadian Labour Congress for their efforts to develop a quick settlement of the dispute.
With Mr. Gamble were: John Graham, Montreal, B.L.F.&E. chief bargaining representative on the C.P.R., a member of the negotiating committee; A. E. Matthews, Parry Sound, Ont., B.L.F.&E. bargaining agent on the central region of the C.N.R., also a member of the national negotiating committee; and Arthur Garmaise, Montreal, counsel for the union.

[Stage Direction]
"The solution suggested by Mr. Jodoin (Claude Jodoin, C.L.C. president) would not solve the diesel issue. It would merely postpone coming to grips with that issue and leave the country subject to renewal of the strike.
"Every question the union has raised on the diesel issue was considered by the conciliation board in public hearings. There is no new question to be dealt with.
"Mr. Jodoin's plan is not a solution of the diesel issue because:
"1. It fails to provide for final disposition.
"2. It would delay any possible settlement of the issue, to the detriment of the public, the railway and all Canadian Pacific employees.
"3. It would leave the country subject to renewal of the strike at such time as the Cleveland, Ohio, headquarters of the firemen's union might dictate.
"Sugar-Coated Version ..."
"4. The C.L.C. plan is a sugar-coated version of the position taken by the firemen's union ever since the diesel proposal of Canadian Pacific was approved by the conciliation board.
"The essence of the C.L.C. plan was conveyed to me last Saturday. That evening I indicated to the Prime Minister in a telephone conversation such a plan was unsound because it did not provide for final disposition of the diesel issue. The plan was, therefore, unacceptable to Canadian Pacific and would be contrary to the best interests of Canada. I further indicated to the Prime Minister I would be willing to go to Ottawa to meet with him and other parties concerned in this dispute.
"However, in view of the adamant stand of the firemen's union, and my steadfast position as to the necessity for final disposition of the diesel issue, we agreed that such a meeting would not be useful under existing circumstances."
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, January 10, 1957