1957-01-22

Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave, pursuant to standing order 26, to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the gross abuse of natural justice constituted by the methods followed at the hearing of the appeal of Christian George Hanna by an immigration appeal board in Vancouver, British Columbia, and the urgent necessity of suspending action in connection with the deportation of Mr. Hanna until his case has been fully considered and disposed of in accordance with proper and just procedures.
If I may, as to the urgency-


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I think the other day the hon. gentleman objected to anything being said after such a motion had been submitted to the Speaker for his opinion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And I recall that on that occasion the Speaker said the matter of urgency might properly be the subject of reference, and there was in fact a reference to that question by the right hon. gentleman.


Mr. Speaker:: I will first read the motion and see if I need any assistance. If I do, no doubt I will call upon the hon. gentleman. It strikes me on reading over the subject matter of the motion which the hon. member for Kamloops has submitted that, as a ground for the urgency of debate in this matter, he talks about the suspension of an action which is about to be taken with respect to the gentleman mentioned in the motion. Perhaps the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) could state whether or not there is an action contemplated having to do with the deportation of Mr. Hanna.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, all I can state is what I hear on the radio and read in the press: that a gentleman who purports to be the solicitor for this person has applied to the supreme court of British Columbia, from which it would seem to me
that the case is before the courts and, therefore, hardly an appropriate subject for debate in this house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I could say what I was told by the solicitor?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That following the process, which was called a hearing, before the immigration appeal board yesterday morning, the man was ordered to leave and was, according to my information at the time of the telephone call, in the process of being transported back to Port Alberni where the boat is lying in harbour and from which it is due to sail, I believe, tonight. Knowing the practice of the department in the past of disregarding notices of applications for writs of certiorari and their practice of trying to get people out of the country notwithstanding those notices having been served, unless the minister is able to state positively that this man will not be deported until after the case is heard, I submit there are grounds established by the wording of the motion for urgency of discussion and decision.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. gentleman talks about urgency of discussion and decision. The only decision we can arrive at is that we adjourn the house, and the debate is over. That is the only decision we can arrive at today. The overriding practice, of course, is that while the debate on the address is currently proceeding, motions under standing order 26 are not accepted, and that has been the case, as the hon. gentleman knows, for many years.
There is no doubt that the matter referred to in this motion is one which many members regard with a great deal of sympathy, but as for putting aside the debate on the address today in order to discuss this matter-one which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has alleged may be before the courts -I hesitate to do so.
One must not forget that there has been moved a subamendment to the amendment on the main motion, and that today and tomorrow, if we go on with the debate on the address, members who have spoken on the main motion or on the amendment may speak again on the subamendment which was moved a few days ago.

Immigration-C. G. Hanna


Edmund Davie Fulton: On that particular question, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the purpose of a motion such as this is to enable the house to deal in a substantive manner with the subject matter complained of or brought to its attention. The only way that effective action can be taken in this instance is if we obtain from the minister, as a result of that process and discussion, an assurance that this man will not be sent out of Canada pending full and proper disposition of his case.
There is no way in the course of the speech from the throne debate in which that issue can be brought to a head. It can, I submit, only be brought to a head if you allow me to present this motion so that discussion can be directed towards that specific subject matter and the house can express its opinion and get a positive reaction and assurance from the minister on that basis. There is no way in the throne speech debate to bring about such a result. That is why it is urgent that that debate be adjourned.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Without purporting to give an opinion on the rules, are we not in danger of forgetting that this is the high court of parliament and are there not occasions when we may take such action as will try to ensure that natural justice will be done and that a department of this government, which after all is subject to this house, shall not be allowed to disregard the procedures of the law of the land?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be no other means whereby a measure of justice can be secured for this man than through a motion such as has been moved by the hon. member for Kamloops. The situation is simply this. If discussion takes place on the speech from the throne debate there is no means whereby the minister may be required to answer in any way and whereby parliament can act in order to prevent anything in the nature of a tyrannical use of absolute power.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I suggest that whatever the merits of the Hanna case may be there is no other recourse. Unless this motion is allowed, then, whatever the courts may subsequently decide, this man may be spirited away and may be out of the jurisdiction and an injustice will have been done. Indeed, to a great degree this is similar to the Archer Shee case. Parliament must necessarily act in order to assure justice.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In view of the interventions of so many gentlemen on the other side, I think possibly the hon. member for Kamloops will feel that the suggestion he made the other day is not of


universal application. There seems to be one question about which it would be quite important to know what the facts are. It is suggested that the solicitor who has been giving information to the hon. member for Kamloops so that it might be used on the floor of the house has made an application to the supreme court of British Columbia for some kind of writ. I do not know whether or not that is a fact. I did not hear the radio reports this morning because I was still on a railway car. But if that is the case then though this may be the highest court of the land there is a positive rule that this highest court of the land has adopted and that is that matters sub judice before the ordinary courts of the land will not be debated here while they are before those courts.
When this is likened to other cases, it seems to me that the suggestion being made is that the department of immigration might be about to do something which was done by the Department of Justice presided over by Hon. Mr. Doherty in 1911 when Harry K. Thaw happened to be within the confines of this country and Mr. Doherty gave instructions, in spite of the proceedings that were before the court, to have him picked up like a chip and just tossed over the border. Nothing of that kind is contemplated here at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: There is not very much similarity between the Harry Thaw case and the present one.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It has never appealed to this government to follow the effective but extraordinary procedures that were adopted in 1911. Proceedings have been taking place in the manner prescribed by the statute and there is the suggestion-and perhaps the hon. member for Kamloops would be in a position to say whether or not this is so-that the solicitor who has been briefing him about this extraordinary case was applying to the courts of justice in the province of British Columbia where I assume that, if there are rights, they can be asserted and will get consideration from the judicial authority in the hon. gentleman's own province.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that I think we are losing sight of what this resolution really asks. I refer to "the urgent necessity of suspending action in connection with the deportation of Mr. Hanna until his case has been fully considered and disposed of in accordance with proper and just procedures". We have before us no information as to what is happening in the supreme court of British

Columbia. However, we have before us information that this man is likely to be deported.
With regard to the matter of urgency may I say this, Mr. Speaker. The other day, when objection was taken to a motion that I made in this house, you were good enough to say that you would look into the matter because there was some doubt in your mind as to whether the debate on the address which is now proceeding ruled out the possibility of a debate on a matter of great urgency. I submit that this is a matter of urgency. I can understand the legal position of the department but I also understand that the final authority with regard to these cases rests with the minister. Here we are, as has already been said by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), sitting here as it were as the high court of parliament, the last court of appeal. We do not know what is happening in British Columbia. We do not know whether the supreme court has allowed the case to be made before it. We know nothing of these things except the word given us by the hon. member for Kamloops. I think the hon. member for Kamloops has a. right to receive information on matters of any kind brought to him by anybody who approaches him with authentic information. I feel keenly and strongly that the minister and the government will make a serious mistake and will be looked upon as interfering with something touching human rights and fundamental freedoms if this debate is denied. Many members of the house have exhausted their right to speak in the debate on the speech from the throne and they may be vitally interested in speaking. I refer to such members as my friend the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw). I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this request is in order and that it should be allowed.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minisier of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, may I just add one word on the subject that the leader of the C.C.F. has mentioned, namely the attempt the other day to do what is being attempted today. I did not mention the matter at the time because of the answer which you gave to him. However, I want to stress what has always been the understanding of the house since I came here and, from what I can read, has been the understanding on all other occasions. On those occasions when we are in general debates, as on the address and the budget at least, if not others, and perhaps even motions to go into supply, if these particular items for discussion are before the house there is then an opportunity to debate any matter that any hon. member wishes to bring before the house. I admit that the question of
Immigration-C. G. Hanna relevancy sometimes enters into the matter with respect to a particular amendment. Nevertheless, I think it has been the ruling of every successive Speaker in this house that on those general occasions anything can be said by an hon. member and any particular matter can be debated. In other words, any person speaking this morning or this afternoon could advert to this subject and say what he wished with respect to what the government is doing. Since that is the case, I think the rule has always been interpreted in the matter of urgency with respect to a particular matter as a matter of urgency of debate. I am quite sure any member can take part this afternoon and speak on this subject. I feel that any other ruling by Your Honour, if I may say so with respect, would be almost a complete reversal of our previous understanding.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Before your decision is rendered, I should like to make a few observations on the argument advanced by the Minister of Finance. I thought the argument advanced by the Prime Minister was flimsy, but the flimsiest argument of all has been that put up by the Minister of Finance. Never has a debate on the speech from the throne or a budget debate been interrupted more often by the government itself than in the last few years. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) has said, a score of members on this side of the house had expressed their opinions on the speech from the throne before this matter arose. It is either a matter of urgency or it is not.


An hon. Member:: National emergency?


William Earl Rowe: It may not be to you, but it is to a lot of people throughout this country. The national honour of this country is at stake.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: Hon. members may laugh. You have a great country, but you like to keep it to yourself and just let in the persons you like. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should make a decision on this subject. The hon. member for Kamloops is quite within his rights in raising the matter. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said, there are members who had exhausted their time on the speech from the throne before this emergency arose. The Prime Minister has chided the hon. member for Kamloops for obtaining information from the solicitor. If we in the official opposition did not obtain information from the press or from friends we would never get it because the government does not

Immigration-C. G. Hanna give us information. Never since confederation has there been a government that has hidden the facts more than this government has. All the way down the line there has been excuse after excuse. What have you to hide?
Why does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration sit so smug and look so pale when he fears this matter is coming before parliament? Tell us why. It is either a matter of urgency or it is not. If you and I, Mr. Speaker, were in Mr. Hanna's place- God forbid we should be-we have both been embarrassed before but not to that extent-*


Mr. Garson:: Is this a discussion on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, or is it a stump speech?


William Earl Rowe: I would not like to take your judgment on that because I have heard your stump speeches and I never thought much of them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe has provided me with ample assistance. I want to say that if the hon. gentleman and I were in Mr. Hanna's place, I am sure he would find a way of talking both of us out of it.


William Earl Rowe: I am not sure with this government in power.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the serious remarks made by various hon. members. One of these days I will suggest that standing order No. 26 be amended so that it will leave the entire responsibility for the decision as to urgency in the hands of the house and not put it upon one individual, namely the Speaker. Some hon. members have stressed the fact that the purpose of standing order No. 26 is to have decisions taken. My own interpretation of standing order No. 26 is that it is the one which replaced the old motion for adjournment which was moved in the middle of a debate whenever some member wanted to discuss a matter which had nothing to do with the motion proposed at the beginning of a sitting. Those who have read the old debates will recall that as a debate was proceeding on a certain specific motion and a member would go beyond the field of relevancy of that motion, someone would say you need a motion for adjournment. He would stand up and move it, and the hon. gentleman who had the floor could carry on speaking about a subject which had nothing to do with the motion which had been the subject of discussion at the beginning of that debate. Therefore, because of the abuses brought about by this system, they brought in standing order 26, which used to be standing order 31.


This house now has a vehicle to discuss matters of actuality, some things that arise which hon. members feel should be debated. The net result of it is after the debate has taken place and is concluded the house has to adjourn. It is not a substantive motion although it has been amended once; but the amendment was not voted on. At the end of the sitting the adjournment takes place.
Here is my difficulty. Hon. members will agree that whenever there was a motion to go into supply in the offing or a motion to go into ways and means-they were debatable in sessions prior to last session- whenever the debate on the budget was currently going on, whenever the address in reply was currently going on, I do not think any hon. members can state one specific case where a motion under standing order 26 has ever been allowed by my predecessors or by myself. If there is one I would like to have it cited to me.
The other day when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar moved this type of motion it was a matter of great importance. I then told him that since we were entering the debate, if the Minister of Finance or any other minister had, under standing order 38(2), stood up on the first day or the second day and said, "Well, tomorrow we shall take up some other business", thereby postponing the continuance of the debate on the address to three, four, five or six days later than the next day-this is what I said on January 9, 1957, as recorded at page 23 of Hansard:
I do not say that he should not be permitted to make his motion again.
I would have allowed the hon. gentleman's motion the following day if the minister on the eve of that day had announced by virtue of standing order 38(2) that he would postpone the debate on the address. Since that did not occur, and we were carrying on the debate on the address, full opportunity was given for a debate on the matter of urgency which was contained in the motion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.
We have two more days for the debate on the address. Some hon. members claim they have exhausted their right to speak. Well, I have the list here before me of those who have spoken on the amendment, the subamendment and the main motion and there is no doubt that there is still a great deal of freedom for the purpose of discussing this matter.
Something has been said about obtaining information. Information may be obtained at question time. As a matter of fact I:

think the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saa-nich (Mr. Pearkes) asked some questions of the minister yesterday and the day before. The Leader of the Opposition has done so as well.
Now, if I do depart today from the previous practice of not allowing a motion under standing order 26 when the debate on the address is currently going on or a similar debate which affords great latitude I will not have justification for having refused the motion' made the other day by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. What would prevent us from having a motion tomorrow on a subject which may be different? I have to oppose my own personal opinion as to the urgency of debate in this case but standing order 26 is so construed as to leave that responsibility upon myself. Because of the past practice, as I say, of previous Speakers and because of my own' previous rulings 1 regret that I cannot accept the motion.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, may I point out that you have dealt with one matter of urgency, but is there not another matter of urgency before this house? This house has knowledge that a minister is proposing to take action which would defeat the course of justice. Do we have to sit here-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of
personal privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There has been a
question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Greenwood and the minister wishes to rise on a question of privilege himself. I think that we ought to rally ourselves around the decision which I have just made. It may not be a decision which is satisfactory, but nevertheless it is one which I feel I have to make. It may be much more painful to myself perhaps than to any other members in this house. However, I feel that I should not depart from the previous practice which has been established over a period of many years. One of these days I may depart from it, but when I do I wish to be sure that I have had full opportunity to study the implications of a change in the practice.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, if this comes to a vote-


Mr. Speaker:: There is no vote. I have made my ruling and there is no appeal.



C. G. HANNA    REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT DEPORTATION WILL BE POSTPONED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalf-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister give the
Inquiries of the Ministry house assurance that Christian G. Hanna will not be deported from Canada until after the date of the application for the hearing of the writ which I understand is on February 1.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any other assurance than the assurance that there will be no departure from the law established by parliament and that every opportunity for the consideration of what should be the proper application of that law will be given.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that undertaking does not go anywhere at all. I wish to ask the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: There is an application before the court, according to-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -the information I have. Will the Prime Minister give the undertaking that, until the courts decide, arbitrary practices will be discontinued in this case and this man will not be spirited out of the country so that he will be gone in any event and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration will be victorious.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There will be no arbitrary action. The hon. gentleman overlooks, or perhaps does not overlook, the fact that this man could not be deported otherwise than by being placed back on the ship from which he disembarked. I do not know what procedures we could take to hold that ship pending a decision by the courts as to whether or not the man could remain in Canada. I do not know what the facts are.
The hon. member for Kamloops has suggested that the ship is going to depart from Canada this evening. It may very well be that advantage is attempted to be taken of the fact that if the ship gets away without this man, whether the courts decide he can stay in Canada or not, there would be no physical possibility of having him leave Canada because I understand the ship has already visited many ports and at each one there has been a refusal to allow him to land because of the fact that he is not one who could be admitted according to the entry laws of the countries of those various ports.
There is no desire to spirit him away. There is no greater obligation on Canada to take this man who apparently asserts that he was born at sea. I do not know on what ship or under which flag he says he was born. That seems to be the difficulty. I personally have not gone into the facts of this case, but I have been told that there

Inquiries of the Ministry are no special grounds for the recommendation that he should be admitted into Canada except the ground that nobody else wants to take him in anywhere else. It may be that we have more vacant space in this country than in most other countries; it may be that could be urged as a reason why we should do what nobody else wants to do; but these are matters which I do not think should become a contest between political parties.
There can be varying views as to whether we should in this country take on that which nobody else wishes to have elsewhere. That may be the opinion of some but it would not be the opinion of all, I am quite sure, because this parliament has enacted immigration legislation. If the legislation were to be wide open and everybody who could put his foot on Canadian soil would be entitled to stay here because that had happened, then there would be no need for that legislation. I am sure that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is giving and has given consideration to all the alleged facts.
However, I have not personally gone into those facts and there certainly will be no attempt to spirit him away in order to avoid the consequences of any court decision. On the other hand, there should not be the sanction by opinion of hon. members of this house to the effect that he will have to stay here because the only place where he could have been put back would be no longer in Canadian waters. That is a consideration which must have some bearing on the proceedings and I would like to know, if the hon. member for Kamloops does know, whether or not there has been an application to the supreme court of British Columbia as was announced over the radio this morning.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister, since I must do this by way of a question, if he is aware that the objection taken is not to the refusal to admit this man but that the refusal was based on an improper hearing which was not a hearing at all? No one is alleging, now, that the man is entitled to remain permanently; what is being alleged is that he is entitled to a proper hearing to determine whether or not he is admissible, and it is to determine that issue that an application for a writ of certiorari has been made. The application is returnable on the 1st of February, and the assurance asked for is that the man would remain in Canada until then so that the finding of the court on the 1st of February would have some effect with respect to his right of a hearing as to his admissibility.
I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister a further question. Can he say


whether, if, as I understand, assurances have been given that even though the ship may have left Canadian waters in the meantime, should Mr. Hanna be here and found to be non-admissible by judicial process, he will be returned at no cost to the ship, the right hon. gentleman would give an assurance in turn that this man will not be sent out of Canada before the courts can deal with his application?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps the hon. gentleman has different views, but I do not see how any arrangement could be made to return that man to the ship if the ship were not in Canadian waters.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He could be sent on another ship.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We might perhaps charter a ship to go and meet the other ship in some port, but I do not think that is a proper procedure to suggest.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Prime Minister has misunderstood my question; I would hesitate to suggest he has done so deliberately. Can he say whether if an assurance has been given, as I understand it has been given to the immigration officials of Vancouver, that if Hanna should be found to be nonadmissible then those interested in his application will see that he is returned to the ship at their expense, wherever it may be-they do not need to charter a ship to do that either-whether, if that undertaking has been given, it is not fair and reasonable to ask that the other undertaking I have mentioned should also be given?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If that kind of undertaking were given by persons who are interested in this case and who are in a position to implement that undertaking, it would be a matter which should receive serious consideration, but the first appearance would be that efforts are being made to keep this man in Canada by one means or another until there would be no possibility of his not remaining in Canada no matter what the findings of the court might be.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: May
I address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration? Does the minister consider that we in Canada have less of an obligation to admit this man than we had, some years ago, to admit a United States citizen with a criminal record who entered the country illegally, committed a crime after he had entered and was nevertheless allowed to remain here as a landed immigrant by virtue of an order in council?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not suppose, Mr. Speaker, that that rhetorical question was meant to be answered at all, but on the assumption that possibly it was, I would say, as I said the other day, that I can find no ground under the law which would permit the minister or any of his officials to admit this man to Canada at all. That is under the law made by this parliament.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why wouldn't you give him a proper hearing?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman would just possess himself in peace till I have finished I would be delighted to answer his question. As I said, no one has been able to find any ground on which this man could satisfy the requirements of the immigration law, but I am told by my department since this debate began in the house that we have information that a summons has been served on the chief immigration officer in British Columbia. That means that this case is definitely before the courts, and therefore I do not think it would be proper for me to say anything further about it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister give the house an assurance that this summons having been served and the matter being sub judice his department will regard itself as legally bound to take no steps in this matter until the question is disposed of, and undertake not to return Hanna to the ship?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will not give the house any legal opinion whatsoever.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister assure the house that he will abide by the law? No one has asked for a legal opinion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly, I will give an unqualified assurance that I will abide by the law.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister give an assurance that he will make no attempt to evade the consequences or the application of the law by having this man sent out of Canada before the law can be applied?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister's record is not a record of evasion at any time, and every hon. member of this house knows it.


Mr. Howe (Wellingfon-Huron):: That is an evasion in itself.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if he would inform the house of the composition of the appeal board which heard this case?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot do so offhand, but I will be glad to answer that question tomorrow.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and a question of the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. The two questions are related. My first question is directed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. If the ship sails tonight and takes Mr. Hanna, will the reference to the supreme court of British Columbia be proceeded with and a decision handed down?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think that is a question that it would be in any way proper for me to answer, having regard to the fact that the case has already been taken before the courts. It is a hypothetical question in any case.


Solon Earl Low: My second question is directed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Hanna case is apparently a case of a stateless person. Is there not some way of referring the case to some agency of the United Nations to deal with a matter of this kind so that this person will not have to be confined to a ship for the rest of his life? Is there anything we can do to have the reference made?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 assure my friend that I will be glad to give careful consideration to the implications of his question.


Major James William Coldwell: May
I ask one question? Does not the United Nations rule apply only to people in refugee camps? If this man cannot get into a refugee camp to be treated as a stateless person, where is he to go?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Statelessness is a problem that has been before the legal committee of the United Nations from time to time, but I would not want to give a ready answer to something to which I have not had a chance to give full consideration.


Solon Earl Low: What I wanted to find out was whether or not, since Canada is now involved up to the ears in this whole matter, somebody in the government might not be prepared to refer it to some agency of the United Nations in order to get the problem solved. It is a humanitarian question and all of us ought to be concerned about it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the government is as concerned about it as anyone. My hon. friend will remember that Professor Humphrey, head of the human rights division of the United Nations, has already given some indication of interest in this matter, on behalf of the secretariat of the United Nations. However, I have not had a chance to really

Inquiries of the Ministry grasp the full implications of my hon. friend's question and I would not want to say any more now. I assure him the matter will be looked into, consistent with all the facts and our own obligations.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, can the minister of external affairs say whether enough nations have as yet ratified the statute of the international atomic energy agency to make it operative? Second, is the government considering bringing forward a motion for ratification on the part of Canada before this session of parliament has come to a conclusion? I ask this question because of press reports of a discussion of a somewhat similar nature at the United Nations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question. In respect of the first part, my reply on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is that the international atomic energy agency will become operative when 18 of the signatory nations have deposited instruments of ratification. Among these 18 signatories must figure at least three of the following countries: France, United Kingdom, United States, the Soviet union, Canada. The United States, which is the depository government, has not advised us of the deposit of any instruments of ratification as yet. The government has no information that any of the signatories have as yet ratified the statute.
With respect to the second part of the question, as I indicated to my hon. friend before today's sitting, I am not in a position to give an answer. I have not yet had an opportunity on behalf of my colleague to discuss this matter with my colleagues. I shall ask that that part of the question be allowed to stand until I am in a position to give a definite reply.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: On Friday the hon. member for
Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) and yesterday the

hon. leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked whether it was my intention to order a public inquiry in connection with the loss of the pilot boat in Saint John harbour.
I should like to inform the house that I have now received the report of the preliminary investigation made by Captain Graves of my department, and that I am taking the steps necessary in order to hold a formal investigation pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of the statement he has just made with respect to the public inquiry at Saint John and also with reference to my question on January 16 regarding that matter and also the department's responsibilities? Is the minister now prepared to say what immediate steps will be taken to replace the lost pilot vessel and what immediate precautions may be necessary to prevent in future any such sad accident?


George Carlyle Marler: In my understanding of the facts of the matter and of the shipping orders, there is no need for further precautions to be taken with regard to the operation of a pilot boat. With respect to the replacement of the pilot boat, I should like to tell the hon. gentleman that we are making arrangements to secure another and hope to have it available very shortly.


Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Will the Minister of Transport inform the house why members of the families of those lost on the vessel in the pilot service at Saint John were denied counsel at the preliminary closed hearing while the steamship company was represented by counsel, lawyer J. Paul Barry?


George Carlyle Marler: The purpose of the inquiry which was held in Saint John was purely and simply to determine what were the facts of the accident in order that it would be possible to decide whether or not a public inquiry should be held. I believe that counsel representing the pilots was present and I believe one other counsel was present, although I do not know whom he represented. But it was not a'public inquiry. It was not an inquiry for the purpose of determining responsibility or guilt, and in point of fact there was no reason why anybody should have been represented at that inquiry.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Yesterday the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Lavigne) asked if consideration had been given to the question of transportation services to the municipalities affected by the abandonment of the New York Central line between Ottawa and Cornwall.
I find that by its order No. 90648, dated January 10, 1957, the board of transport commissioners on the application of the New York Central Railroad Company approved the abandonment of the line between Ottawa and Cornwall, provided that the abandonment would not take place earlier than February 15, 1957. This application was considered by the board at a public hearing held in Ottawa on December 12, 1956, at which interested parties were present or represented. In its judgment the board quotes textually the statement made at the public hearing by counsel for the railway company, which reads as follows:
No provincial highway runs directly through the territory of the line, but the district and communities in question are well served by adequate all-weather roads which connect with provincial highway No. 31 which runs from Ottawa to Morrisburg and there meets provincial highway No. 2 to Cornwall. Daily truck service is provided between Cornwall and the villages of Crysler, Newington, Finch and Ottawa. Berwick is served by Taggart Trucking of Ottawa, Ontario, and Glengarry Transport of Alexandria. Crysler, Russell and Embrun are served by Taggart Trucking and Glengarry Transport. Crysler, Berwick, Newington, Finch and Cornwall are also served by Earner Daye Transport Ltd. of Cornwall.
The judgment also notes that the freight handled on the line was negligible and, as the hon. member knows, there has been no passenger service on the line since the spring of 1954.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked if since the end of the regular session of last year I had received representations on behalf of the retired employees of the Canadian National Railways in receipt of pensions of $25 per month for an increase in the amount of the pension. The answer to that question is that I have received no such representations. The hon. member also asked if further consideration has been given to this
Inquiries of the Ministry matter or if it will be given by the minister or the government. Representations were made recently to the management of the Canadian National Railways that any smaller pension now payable by it should be increased to $60 per month, but no action has been taken and the matter has not been considered by the Minister of Transport or the government itself.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Slanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Are press reports correct that the government of Manitoba has offered to come into the federal government's health or hospital insurance plan provided coverage is extended to include cases of mental illness and tuberculosis?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the press reports to which my hon. friend directs my attention. I would want to see them first.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a supplementary question? Can he say whether the government is considering extending the coverage provided in its plan so as to encourage more provinces to agree to it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government has not considered any modification in that particular or in any other particular. The proposal made by the federal government was a generous and comprehensive proposal, as was formerly acknowledged by the hon. gentleman. The government does not intend to include patients in tuberculosis and mental hospitals within the compass of its proposals for the simple reason that these are responsibilities now assumed by the provinces. In that particular we are following precisely the practice followed under the hospital insurance acts of Saskatchewan and British Columbia. With regard to tubercular and mental patients who receive treatment for their illness in general hospitals, they are included within the terms of the federal proposal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a further supplementary question? Is the government afraid that by amending its proposals six provinces might agree and the federal government would then have to deliver the goods with respect to health insurance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker, the government is not afraid. My hon. friend's persistence in asking these questions reminds me,

Inquiries of the Ministry as I told him on another occasion, of a cheer leader who considers that every time a touchdown is scored he is the one who has scored the touchdown.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are in a position to score.


Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: May I
ask a supplementary question? With respect to the offer made by the government to which the minister has referred, does the government propose to bring that offer to parliament to get the authority to make it and, if so, when?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend possibly has forgotten the terms of the proposal itself. The proposal contained a number of offers and with respect to those offers the federal government said that when six provinces representing a majority of the people of Canada had expressed their concurrence the federal government would take the necessary legislative steps to carry out its end of the matter. The federal government is not in any way retreating from these proposals. It stands by these proposals. When six provinces representing a majority of the people express their readiness to proceed, the federal government will act in accordance with the proposal it made last January as announced by the Prime Minister in the house and by myself when we were meeting with the provinces in another room in this building.


Daniel Roland Michener: Perhaps I understand the offer better than the minister understood my question. I asked the minister whether or not the government proposed to ask parliament for authority to make any such offers to the provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot say any more than what I have said. I think if my hon. friend reads what I have said he will find that the question has been amply answered.


Mr. Fleming:: The question is not answered. Another evasion.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Would the minister indicate what provinces have accepted the proposal and whether any of the provinces with Liberal governments have accepted the proposal?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The provinces of British
Columbia and Alberta, in that order, and the province of Saskatchewan have accepted the proposal. I may say that the proposal is being actively considered by all provinces. I had a visit this morning from the premier of one province who discussed certain aspects of the problem.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to ask a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government given any consideration to amending its own proposal so that the people of those provinces whose governments are prepared to go along with and accept the health program may be able to obtain the benefits of it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already answered that question, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat my answer. The government has no intention of modifying the proposal that is made because, on analysis, that proposal will be found to be a most generous one. To my hon. friend who has asked this question I may say this. In view of the repetitious character of the question I have a suspicion that he would be most unhappy if we made any progress in this matter.
Mr. Cold well: Oh, no. You know better than that. You know that we have plugged for this measure for 20 years.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister why he continues to give the province of Ontario and others the veto over the policies of his own department.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not believe that is a fair observation, Mr. Speaker. I think all the provinces which are examining this proposal are doing so conscientiously and responsibly without exception, and that includes the province of Ontario.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask
the minister whether negotiations are now under way between this government and one or more of the provinces, not with regard to modifications as to the general area of coverage but as to the proportion of the population which it will be necessary to include under the scheme before it will be acceptable to the province?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that discussions have been under way between the federal government and some provinces and are under way now between the federal government and some provinces on matters which these provinces at this stage would prefer to be regarded as the subject of negotiation between the two governments.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In other words, the minister is not able to say any more.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I rather felt that we used considerable time in asking questions yesterday

and today, but I want to ask one question of the Minister of Transport. Is the airport at London, Ontario, to be equipped with airport and airways surveillance radar as are the other main airports in Canada? If so, when will this radar be in operation?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot answer that question without inquiring and verifying the 15 stations at which the installation is to be made.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. R. F. L. Hanna for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Shaw.
(Translation):
Mr. Hector Dupuis (Si. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, the house came very near missing the pleasure-or misfortune-of hearing me deal with a matter which, in the circumstances, should not be discussed at all in this house. I do not know the gentleman in question, nor am I acquainted with the facts which prevent him from entering Canada. One thing I do know, however, is that, as was stated on the other side of the house, the honour of our country is at stake. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the honour of six or seven countries is at stake, considering that those countries, for reasons unknown to me, refused to admit this man. I have always understood, even though I am not overly conversant with the rules of the house, that no question which is still sub judice can be discussed in the house. Though you do not need my official approval, Mr. Speaker, I might say that I fully share the opinion you expressed a moment ago and which, in the present circumstances, is certainly the most appropriate.
I would now like to continue the few remarks which I had intended to make with regard to the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
1 was dealing with the government's decision to establish a Canada Council for the encouragement of the arts, humanities and social sciences. I will dwell at length on this topic. It goes without saying that I do not intend to launch here into a detailed study of the matter, especially since my time is limited. Besides, I do not claim to have sufficient knowledge of all matters relating to the arts to justify my dealing with them at great
The Address-Mr. Dupuis length. However, I am sure that our artists will derive much benefit from the study which is to be made of the situation of the arts in this country. It should make for considerable progress in this field, it should allow our great Canadian artists to attain a very high standing in the fields of music, drama, motion pictures and others.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks I said that, like most Canadians, I am sure, I am appreciative of the legislation the government intends to submit to the house at this session, more particularly with regard to the increase in university grants.
Again because I have but little time at my disposal, I do not intend to take part in the controversy touched off by this liberality, this generosity on the part of the present government. On the other hand, it does appear evident, to me at least, that as regards provincial autonomy, the good faith of the government cannot be questioned. I am not aware that the universities which were able to accept those grants in the past have ever been obliged to change one solitary item in their curricula, to replace any professor or to make the smallest change in their educational system.
I take this opportunity of repeating here that I would support no political party whatever which would attempt to infringe on the autonomy of any province; I will go further and say that I would fight it with all my strength. The provinces enjoy certain rights which have been guaranteed by confederation. We want every one of them to be perfectly free to exercise those rights. I repeat that no government, no political party, will ever have my support, or that of most members of this house, if it were to infringe upon provincial autonomy.
This year the government proposes to increase grants to provincial governments, to help technical and vocational training in schools under their immediate jurisdiction. No one, I believe, sounded the alarm in the name of autonomy because of the acceptance of this money which contributed to the equipment and in many other ways to the teaching given in those institutions. So far no one has refused, neither in wartime nor since the end of the war, the grants paid to technical schools for the training of tradesmen who wanted to increase their knowledge in the various trades.
I also congratulate the government upon the establishment of a Senate committee to study the means of improving the use of lands for agricultural purposes in order to

The Address-Mr. Dupuis contribute more efficiently to the expansion of agricultural production and of the income of those engaged in agriculture. We should not be surprised at that proposal.
There are two classes of people for which the government, and more particularly the Liberal party, has done something. I am thinking of the working class and the agricultural class, so that this decision comes as no surprise to me.
The other day the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) pointed out that we are not holding aloof from agriculture. He quoted figures showing the considerable expansion shown by agriculture in the past three or four years. Moreover, the price support of butter, which enables producers to sell that commodity at a reasonable price, is already evidence that the agricultural class is receiving particular consideration from this government. The government continues to prove it by entrusting the Senate with a special study designed to determine how best we can help farmers to develop the land, especially submarginal land.
As far as we, city dwellers, are concerned, we are equally grateful, as municipal authorities are bound to be also for the decision made by this government to submit to this house at this session a bill to amend and extend the scope of the Municipal Grants Act, with a view to authorizing the payment of grants in lieu of taxes on federal property in all municipalities where such property receives normal municipal services.
By this measure, the federal government proposes to give more to the municipalities, thus making it easier for them to solve some of their problems. No one will accuse this government of infringing upon the autonomy of municipalities because it helps them financially.
It is true also that this government has been thinking about all classes of society, as can be seen from the proposals to be made to this house. For instance, it proposes to improve again the situation of merchant seamen, of wheat producers and of people who depend on the production of furs in the far north. In the speech from the throne, several other advantageous measures are mentioned, to wit:
Amendments of detail to a number of other acts will also be introduced.
Well, that opens the door to possibly a considerable number of sound and wise measures such as were always submitted by
fMr. Dupuis.]
this government, and by the Liberal party, possibly to correct certain wrongs or at last to increase the benefits granted by these various acts now in effect.
Aware of all these achievements of the Liberal party, of everything that we have done in the past and of what probably will be done-even though I do not know exactly what parliament will do at this session-and, taking into account the legislation that will be enacted as well as all previous achievements, we are not afraid to face public opinion.
The other day I heard the leader of the opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker)-I wish to congratulate him for his nomination to that post even though his electoral prospects may not be very bright, not so much because of himself personally but because of the backward policies of the party he is leading-move an amendment in which he said that public opinion has turned against us and that the majority of Canadians will vote against this government at the next election. I wonder if the people of Canada will support a conservative program which does not contain a single constructive item. Will they hesitate to make a choice between a government which has brought prosperity to this country and another party-I mean the Conservative party-under whose regime we have known failure, hardship, depression and unemployment.
We are not surprised either by the generous attitude of this government towards Hungarian refugees. It has understood that charity knows no frontier, and has practised it wherever possible. When the fate of human beings is at stake, the Liberal party and this government have shown their eagerness to relieve the burden of the victims of pitiful situations such as the one experienced recently by Hungarians.
Canada also largely contributed financially to the Colombo plan, and she has given substantial assistance to all the distressed countries in the world. This is something we can be proud of. I do not think that anybody on the other side of the house could reproach us with what we have done in this field, and I do not believe that any well-meaning citizen could blame us for the assistance we have given to those various countries which know nothing but extreme poverty, and disasters of all kinds.
Nevertheless, while fully endorsing the many steps taken by this government to help

other countries, I think that now, as we have always done, we should more than ever welcome the requests which are now made by a large number of our citizens who in the past, have served our country, have contributed to its progress, and I mean particularly our needy older people. We have been told about a surplus of hundreds of millions, and we are shown that the future holds the promise of an expansion still greater than in the past. I feel therefore that the government should give serious consideration to the request which is now addressed to them by a large number of citizens, by the various members of all parties sitting in this house, with whom I join, to increase substantially the pension now being paid to our old people.
I wonder if it would not also be time to study thoroughly the matter of the help and assistance which should be given to that class of people who have passed 60 years of age. Because, as everyone knows, it is very hard for a man of 40, and even more so for a man of 50, to get a new job when he has lost the one he had. The economic pattern has changed. The days are no more when a man of 50 could actually get employment, when his services were required because of his experience. Nowadays things are different; it is quite a problem for a man of 50 or more to find a job. Therefore it seems to me that, in view of existing conditions, of the difficulties besetting the middle-aged worker when he is looking for an occupation yielding enough to live on, and considering this country's era of prosperity, it might be proper to amend the present act so as to grant our elderly people a pension when they are 60. Well, I shall be told, this will will cost additional millions of dollars. I am not blaming this government. It was this government, this party, which initiated all the social legislation from which the nation benefits, in spite of opposition from the other side of the house, and more particularly on the part of the Conservatives who thought family allowances absolutely anti social and opposed or tried to obstruct the passing of the old age pension; and lastly, every social security legislation we introduced was at first attacked by the party which today, with elections in the offing, want it improved.
I know that the present government and all successive Liberal administrations have given our people all they could. We also know that this government will put at our
The Address-Mr. Dupuis disposal all improvements we have the right to expect for those who are obliged to rely on these allowances. I am not finding fault with anybody but it seems to me that certain requests which are being made should be granted, taking into account-in the light of the forecasts of the author of the Gordon plan and of the great American economists, as well as those of our own prominent businessmen in the country-that we may be on the threshold of a decade of continued increased prosperity, and it is during such a period that we ought to help our people.
No doubt that this government will agree to increase old age pensions and, at the same time, family allowances. There is no need to tell you that heads of families could put those increases to good use by giving an education to their children and meeting certain family needs.
I am no prophet but I am optimistic enough to think that this government, when the next budget is brought down, will give us, not so much a surprise-for we are so used to fine gestures on their part-but, at all events, great pleasure by granting those requests which are being made to them by people in various parts of the country.
I would like now to touch lightly on the question of bilingualism, which has been brought before this house. I have no time to discuss all its implications and all its details, but, nevertheless, we will unquestionably have to recognize that there is a French achievement in Canada and that French is going to be spoken more and more.
It will be claimed in some quarters that that may be the cause of misunderstanding, of national disunity. Far from it. There are other countries with two official languages. In another country, Belgium, even three languages, Flemish, Walloon and French, are used to about the same extent. I do not think that Flemish seeks to dominate Walloon or that Walloon tries to displace French.
We are not interested in gaining the upper hand over those who speak only English. There is no question of our imposing French upon our English-speaking fellow citizens or upon those who speak nothing but English. The French language is not imposed, it asserts itself, for it is one of the two universal languages. For instance, a man who comes from any country, providing he speaks French and English, is sure to be understood all over the world. There is, therefore, no question, I repeat, of imposing French, because French

The Address-Mr. Dupuis asserts itself. But it should be understood that when France lost her colony in 1763, our forefathers, the pioneers of this land, fought to preserve their language and that we also are determined to defend it against all attacks.
But I would point out to my English-speaking fellow citizens that from the standpoints of industry, trade, personal advancement and even of the exchanges they may have with other countries, it is in their own interest to know both languages. Once those who are particularly opposed to our language understand that it is in their own interest to speak French-even though they may not care to do so through sentiment-if they are realistic and I believe they are, they will come to speak both languages, and this will be of great help to them in business as well as in their relations with individuals of Canada and elsewhere.
In concluding my remarks on that subject may I assure those who might entertain some doubts on that point that nobody in the province of Quebec, where most Frenchspeaking Canadians are to be found, wants to hurt or to offend the feelings of those who do not speak our tongue. We want that clearly understood. I repeat that we want them to consider that it is in their own interest to speak French just as it is in our own interest to speak English. When they come to realize that this country is and will remain a bilingual country, we will have complete national unity. We will then be able to call ourselves Canadians from one end of the country to the other and we will be proud to speak both languages outside our country, to speak the languages of the pioneers, the language of the people who founded this country and the language of the people who gave it such an extraordinary economic development, I mean the English people and the French people, who kept on living and increasing in numbers in Canada.
A speech from the member for St. Mary would not be complete without a word about the Jacques Cartier bridge. Apparently I did not get the results I had expected, and that is why I again make to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) a request I have made time and time again, the abolition of tolls on that bridge. It is said that it cannot be done, in view of the fabulous sum of money derived from that source and the large expenses which are expected to be made. Besides, the consent of the provincial authorities would be required, and no request to that effect has
'Mr. Dupuis.]
been received so far from the provincial government, while the city of Montreal, which is the third party, has not yet expressed an official opinion on the matter. Therefore it might be difficult to get these tolls abolished before the three parties concerned come to an agreement. However something might be done for those who use that road, which should not be the responsibility of the federal government, as it comes under the municipal and provincial jurisdictions. That road serves a thickly populated area, if we take into account the thousands of people who live on the south shore. In the interest of those who come from Montreal and who have to cross to the south shore, because of this huge population, I believe that we should at least agree to abolish the toll now charged to the passengers in the various vehicles, and private cars. This would relieve to that extent the budget of workers, especially the thousands who are employed in Montreal. This would be only fair to the users of that bridge, and even to visiting strangers.


Mr. Dufresne:: Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


Hector Dupuis: Yes.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Is the amount charged on the bridge he is referring to fully turned over to the federal treasury?


Hector Dupuis: It is not turned over to the federal treasury as such, but it goes into the till of the National Harbours Board. Then, if there is a deficit larger than such and such an amount, the city of Montreal and the provincial government contribute to make up that deficit at the rate of $150,000 a year. We could perhaps find means to turn back a substantial part of the revenue to the citizens of the city of Montreal as was done already on numerous occasions, and as the hon. member for Quebec West has been able to find out in connection with grants to the universities and in other fields.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: No, it cannot be said that this money is given to the universities.


Hector Dupuis: After all, it comes from the pocket of the same suit. Anyway, the Liberal party always shows generosity and understands the various needs of this country. Its generosity is not surprising.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It uses the taxpayers' money.


Hector Dupuis: The hon. member for Quebec West may rest assured that the remainder of the profits from the Jacques Cartier bridge, after the deduction of administrative costs, is put to useful purposes.

The Address-Mr. McBain
Now I have no intention, obviously, of speaking on behalf of the Minister of Transport, nor of making any promise I would be unable to keep, nor of saying anything which I would be unable to prove. Still, I would like to close my remarks on this subject by saying that I was informed that the toll gates are to be placed at the south end of the bridge so that those people who cross it to go to the island of Sainte-Helene will not have to pay to reach their own property. I will renew this request later, if need be.
At the request of those hon. members who represent south shore constituencies as well as constituencies on the island of Montreal itself a new lane has been built to speed traffic on the Jacques Cartier bridge. We are told that the National Harbours Board will soon add another.
I shall conclude now as my time is up. Again I congratulate the government upon its proposals at this time. Far be it from me to approve any policy which would tend to destroy the autonomy of the various provinces. I strongly support bilingualism in this country and I conclude by expressing the hope, which is more local in nature, that my request concerning the Jacques Cartier bridge particularly, will be well received. Oh! I was forgetting a matter of primary importance and that is the question of increasing old age pensions and family allowances. I hope the requests I have made on behalf of those I represent in this house will be heeded.
(Text):


Mr. James A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, as it has been the age-old custom on the part of members of this house, I also wish to express my congratulations to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) and the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) on their remarks and their contribution in moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Considering the emptiness of the speech from the throne I feel they have done a very fine job in making something out of practically nothing. As it also has been the custom for members when speaking in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne to bring to the attention of this house matters concerning their own particular constituency,
I intend also to direct part of my remarks to my constituency.
It has been a great privilege for me to represent the historic riding of Elgin since March 22, 1954. This constituency received
its name from a former governor general of Canada, Earl Elgin. As I have pointed out before to members in this chamber, my constituency is approximately 50 per cent urban and 50 per cent rural, with the city of St. Thomas being the major urban centre. St. Thomas for many years was and is still known as the railroad city of Canada. It was and still is to my knowledge the only city in Canada which has six railroads running through it. Due to many changes in railroading during the past number of years the railroad repair shops in this city have practically disappeared and at the present time they are almost non-existent. During this change in railroading many former employees of the railroad shops have had to seek employment elsewhere. Due to our city council who had a vision to the future and progressive boards of trade headed by one of the top industrial commissioners in Canada, St. Thomas has been able to offset this change in industrial employment by attracting a large number of industries and many United States subsidiary firms.
To attract this type of industry a city must have among other things adequate housing accommodation. The city of St. Thomas never has gone all out in a large scale housing program at any time. However, it has endeavoured to provide housing accommodation to meet the demands of industry as industry required housing. In April 1956 the city made application to have erected some 35 rental housing units. This application was made to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and at that time a survey was made in the city of St. Thomas to determine the needs. It was shown that the needs were definite at the time of the original application. Mr. Speaker, it took from April last year until the first part of January this year to obtain the final approval from the Department of Public Works and from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This means that it will be well on in the summer months before the housing units can be completed to the point where they can be occupied. It would appear to me that a project of this kind could have been processed in much less time and in fact could have been processed in time to give much needed employment to our local contractors during the slack winter months.
I am sure that the people of the city of St. Thomas and of the surrounding area are at last, after having received promises over a period of ten years, pleased to see the start of construction on the new federal building. There are many people who may regret to see that the old landmark of the present

The Address-Mr. McBain post office is being razed. However, we anticipate that the new building will bring beauty along with additional accommodation to the city and the surrounding area.
In offering suggestions to the Department of Public Works there are two more on which I wish to comment at this time. One is the method employed in letting the smaller public works contracts. I am speaking of contracts in the range of from $1,000 to $10,000. I have been given to understand that the method used is to ask at least two contractors to submit a price on the project. Then what usually happens is that these two contractors get their heads together and they both bid on the project. Possibly one says to the other, "I had the last public works contract, I am busy now, you take this one, and I will make my tender a little higher." If this method were practised generally all across Canada the cost to Canadian taxpayers would be many thousands of dollars. It would cost them much more than if these small projects were locally advertised and the local contractors given equal opportunity to bid on the contracts on a competitive basis.
Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) himself is guilty of party patronage in letting these contracts. I know through my direct dealings with him that he is sincerely endeavouring to run his department on a nonpartisan basis. For the major public works needs those needs are considered on a merit basis, but when this authority is delegated to someone else down the party line it gets out of hand and some place, somewhere, somebody plays favouritism at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer.
My second suggestion to the Minister of Public Works is in connection with the letting of dredging contracts for the harbours of Port Stanley and Port Burwell. These two ports usually silt very badly during the winter and early spring, and on many occasions shipping is delayed for many days on the opening of the navigation season. The shipping is delayed because no contract has been let for harbour dredging and it is necessary to wait upon the Public Works Department to dredge a channel to let the boats come in. As this is an annual works project I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that contracts should be called earlier in the year so that the successful contractor would be in a position to start dredging as soon as the ice is out of the harbour.
In the 1955-56 season, when the dredging contracts were carried over, I believe there was less delay in spring dredging than in
[Mr. McBain.f
previous seasons when contracts were called for after spring soundings had been made and calculated.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to turn now to the subject of agriculture and bring to the attention of the house something of which we as agriculturists are very proud in our constituency.
I may say that Elgin county is proud of the fact that it has within its boundaries a cooperative that has expanded in recent years to be the largest farmer owned co-operative of its kind in Ontario and possibly in Canada. It was in 1944 that a number of progressive farmers in the county got behind the idea of a co-operative movement for the buying and selling of their grain crops, feeds, fertilizers, eggs, lumber and building supplies, fuel, etc.
In mentioning the distinction which has been gained through having the largest co-operative of its kind, I would point out the great importance of what its growth has meant to St. Thomas and Elgin county in services for and by the farmers. A business turnover of nearly $4J million each year for the last two years reflects the progress this industry has made. This growth can be translated into thousands and thousands of bushels of corn, soya beans, white beans, yellow eye beans, wheat, oats, barley seeds in variety, tens of thousands of tons of fertilizer and mixed feeds.
In 1955 over 900,000 bushels of corn were bought and sold through this co-op. This corn went mainly on the market as feed in competition with subsidized western feed grains. This co-operative is one of the few that returns all its patronage dividends to its farmer member shareholders as cash returns. In March of 1956, patronage dividends were returned to over 2,400 members to the amount of $88,000, and a total of over $500,000 has been returned as patronage dividends in 11 years of operation. This is a kind of farm service which has made Elgin Co-operative Services the largest farmer-owned buying and selling co-operative of its kind. With such a record of service its future would appear to be unlimited so long as Elgin county continues to have farmers and farm families of the type and calibre who have brought about this great development.
I bring this matter to the attention of this chamber and the government because I feel there are many other communities all across Canada which could benefit immensely by the government showing more initiative in lending support to assist co-operative organizations to become established on a sound financial basis. This would help in some measure to offset the increased cost of production.

I wish to turn now to another agricultural item which is very important in my riding, along the shores of lake Erie, and in other areas in Canada where people are able to grow tobacco. Tobacco is a very important item in the nation's economy at the present time. The Canadian government derives, on an average, $233 million a year in revenue from the industry if one includes property taxes, income taxes and excise tax on cigarettes, cigars and so on.
When cultivation of tobacco was first started in the early twenties, 1,000 acres was produced. The average yield per acre was 800 pounds. This has blossomed to an allocated acreage last year of 113,000 acres yielding between 160 and 170 million pounds with a market value around $70 million.
In keeping with this growth in the industry itself, the value of tobacco farm land has increased tremendously in recent years. Land which was worth between $30 and $40 an acre back in the twenties before tobacco was grown on it has increased in value in some areas to as much as $1,000 per acre. The increase in production which I have mentioned has also seen the average yield increase to about 1,400 pounds per acre. For the last two years the industry seems to have been undergoing a levelling-off process; the get-rich-quick day is gone. The price of land makes it unwise to invest between $100,000 and $150,000 in a first class tobacco farm, for it would take a lifetime to get the original investment back as things stand at present. Banking credit restrictions are "putting the squeeze" on the tobacco grower.
One thing that would improve the industry would be the lowering of the excise tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products. At the present time the farmer's return for every pack of cigarettes is about three cents. Manufacturers and distributors take about 12.5 cents and government revenues account for over 17.5 cents on every package selling to the consumer for 33 cents.
I wish to bring the attention of the house to the system under which tobacco is purchased at the present time. The tobacco market opens on a set day, but before that date the tobacco company graders have been to every tobacco farm and have looked over the tobacco each grower has to sell. The crops are graded, so the companies know exactly what tobacco is available before any pricesetting meeting takes place. Since these companies know what a grower has to sell, they set a price before the buyer drives up the farmer's lane. The buyer offers his price, take it or leave it. He could be on the farm less than 10 minutes and then is gone. There is no time for the grower to make up his 82715-33
The Address-Mr. McBain mind and no time to discuss what he himself thinks his crop is worth. If the grower wants an hour or so to think it over he stands to lose, for when the buyer returns he often offers from half a cent to three cents less than his original offer an hour before. No matter what happens, under the present setup the grower stands to lose.
I should like to read into the record a letter published in the Rodney Mercury of January 16, 1957. I believe the writer of the letter expresses the feelings of the many hundreds of flue-cured tobacco growers under the present system. The letter was addressed to the editor of the paper and the writer signs himself, "A New Canadian Grower". The letter reads:
In the past you showed great understanding of problems facing all the tobacco growers. Your editorials concerning tobacco buying practices were true voice of the growers. For this you deserve our sincere thanks. We hope in the future your paper will take the same stand in regard to our efforts to correct the present rotten situation.
I am positive the people who helped to organize the Ontario flue-cured tobacco marketing association had the best intentions to protect the rights of both growers and buying companies. Unfortunately, it turned out to be of great service to the buying companies in cheating the grower.
In our bylaws there are many restrictions, fines, obligations and fees imposed upon the grower members. Nothing of this kind is for the buyers. If there were any it would be disregarded by them anyway because they are the masters of the situation they created.
The present grading and buying practices turned into a shameless situation robbing the grower of his hard-earned profit. Humiliation of the grower by the buyers during so-called marketing time reached its peak. God help the farmer who dares to show his dissatisfaction about the cheating he gets or refuses to sell his crop for the price the first buyer offers.
No wonder the press representatives are not allowed to attend the meetings of the board. No wonder the grower members are kept in the dark in all the dealings of the board. No wonder the grower members are not informed about the findings of the federal government's investigation committee and its recommendations. Something is really wrong with the board.
I am a new Canadian and I work hard to earn my living. I do not enjoy too many of those long hours of hard work, as an Elgin tobacco grower stated a few weeks ago in his letter to the editor. I would rather be in some resort with our chairman of the association vacationing. Unfortunately, I consider hard work as my obligation to my family and the community I have chosen.
I believe the present situation in the marketing association would not exist if all the tobacco growers were Canadians of old standing, but I do not think only the new Canadians are to blame. In my opinion those of long standing should take the lead in correcting the present situation. I assure you new Canadians will gladly follow them. After all it would not be too polite for a new Canadian to reorganize in the country where he just warmed up his feet. Let's forget all the differences between us and unite in the efforts to do something about this association of ours.
Our hopes are raised by the suggestions of the federal government for the changes in marketing control: the recent secret meetings of the growers in various parts of the country and the news that

The Address-Mr. Kickham the petition asking the government to set up the marketing legislation will be circulated among us, are most welcome. I assure you my signature under this petition will be among thousands of others who feel that time has come for changes.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask the fellow growers to express their views in this paper. Let's write about our problem. Let's show the buyers how much we hate the present rotten business. I do not think they will be too happy reading it. And when the petition comes in to our district asking our government to step in, let's everyone sign it.
That letter is signed, as I said before, by "A New Canadian Grower". We know that the supreme court is still considering the merits of our farm products marketing act and as yet has not rendered its decision as to the validity of the act. Regardless of what the decision may be, I hope that the government, if it is still in power and not dissolved by that time, will give every assistance possible to the flue-cured tobacco growers to form a marketing association under farm products marketing legislation should they so wish and decide to do so.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1958, was presented by Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting further supplementary estimates (2) for the financial year ending March 31, 1957, was presented by Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. R. F. L. Hanna for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Shaw.
Mr. T. J. Kickham (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with hon. members who have preceded me in this debate in extending my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) for the [Mr. McBain.}
splendid contributions they have made in opening the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I wish first to express my thanks on behalf of the people of my county for the public works program carried on in my county and to thank the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) for the new construction of the Georgetown railway wharf, and the construction of a new frost-proof potato warehouse on the wharf, replacing the now obsolete warehouse this coming season.
A great deal has been accomplished in the dredging of harbours, thus deepening the waterways to give sufficient draft for fishing boats to reach the wharves and also in new construction on breakwaters and wharves. All this work was necessary in order to assist fishermen and farmers in carrying on successfully their respective industries. There still remain numerous requests for similar work to be carried out at many fishing centres, and I am always fervently hoping and asking that those requests will be met through sufficient money appropriations. I realize, however, that we cannot expect to have everything done all at once, as a government can only spend money in keeping with their annual revenue from year to year. I can say to the minister that we are thankful for the recognition and the appreciation he has acknowledged of our need in regard to assisting fishermen and farmers in the prosecution of their daily pursuits.
Our farmers and fishermen suffer greatly because of the continuous freight rate tariff increases, and of course this applies to the four Atlantic provinces particularly because of our geographical location in Canada. Long hauls mean that we are without the truck transport competition enjoyed by the central provinces, with accompanying lower freight tariff rates to remedy this discrimination. I would suggest to the government that if they compensated the railways for the increases in freight tariff rates, amounting to over 100 per cent since 1945, especially on our major products such as coal, potatoes and fish, this action would assist the economy of the Atlantic provinces greatly.
As each of those three are bulky products and as the present freight rates bear heavily on those industries, I would also urge that the feed grain freight assistance as well as the Maritime Freight Rates Act be restored to its former effectiveness before the horizontal increase in freight rates took place. To my mind there is no better measure that the government could decide upon to assist the economy of the Atlantic provinces than to absorb a large portion of freight rate tariffs on our products going to central Canada. This

would give us the most direct and immediate relief and the greatest encouragement, and would be equal to a blood transfusion to our economy. The ever-increasing freight rates are a terrific burden on us and do not allow us to compete on equal terms.
It has been said that any depressed area in Canada reflects itself on the whole economy of Canada. I believe this statement to be true. I believe I have suggested one obvious way of mitigating our economic difficulties, at least to some extent.
Many farmers in our province in need of funds to finance their farm operations find it most difficult to procure a loan through the Canadian farm loan board because of the high level of security required before a loan is approved. The Canadian Farm Loan Act has been in operation for the past 27 years and provides for only 14 per cent of all farm loans in Canada. The losses sustained since its inception have been insignificant. To assist farmers in acquiring loans the security required should be reduced by 25 per cent. If this were done, many applicants who are now ineligible could become qualified and could take advantage of the interest rates and amortization provisions for which the act provides. A decrease in the amount of security required, in line with my suggestion, would permit greater latitude to be exercised by the district supervisors and would give the act more flexibility. At present it is far too restrictive in character. It would seem that the length of time which elapses from the date of application until appraisals are made on the farm properties is entirely too long. Apparently some district offices are understaffed and, through no fault of the district supervisor, the applicant becomes frustrated because of the extremely long waiting period.
This Canadian farm loan board could be made the best loan agency in Canada, but it must cast off much of its security requirements. I trust that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) will broaden out this legislation and make its lending facilities reach out to supply the borrowing needs of many more farmers than it does at the present time.
I should like to say a word on veterans pensions. Many veterans who served in the first world war but who did not go beyond England are not eligible for the war veterans allowance. The same thing applies in the second world war in respect of veterans who did not serve outside of Canada and Newfoundland. Some of those veterans voluntarily would have gone overseas but, because of special qualifications, they were retained in Canada. They are now denied war veterans allowance by our legislation.
82715-33i
The Address-Mr. J. A. Smith
My suggestion to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) is to grant to all veterans reaching the age of 60 years $40 per month, in the same way as all citizens reaching the age of 70 automatically receive $40 per month. Forty dollars per month should be of great assistance to many veterans who find themselves in distressing financial circumstances.
Our fishing industry is most important in my province. The provincial and federal departments concerned are co-operating in splendid work in research and applying scientific methods to the catching of fish and also to the manner of processing the fish.
I should like to see the cold storage and refrigeration legislation broadened so that packers and processors would become eligible to receive subsidies for the construction of refrigeration plants. Refrigeration is now an absolute necessity and if the packers and processors were given assistance they would be able to provide this necessity. Often they are unable to provide refrigeration out of their own resources, and any assistance granted is of benefit to each individual fisherman.
Before concluding my remarks I wish to thank the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) and his parliamentary assistant (Mr. Mac-Naught) for the splendid work they did at my request in allowing quahaugs to be removed from polluted waters in Queen's county, transferred to the beaches of King's county for cleansing purposes and reclaimed for processing in King's county. I am not going into detail about the difficulties the minister met, but I do know there were many barriers to hurdle because of health regulations both in Canada and the United States. In this respect we had the fullest co-operation from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I shall defer any further remarks on fisheries until the minister's estimates are before the committee.


Mr. J. A. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: am very happy to have the privilege of taking part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, particularly at the present time when I am given the opportunity of supporting the subamendment which was so capably presented to this house last Thursday by my colleague the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw). This subamendment criticized the government for failing to take effective action to stop the continuous rise in the cost of living; secondly, the failure of the government to lay down and follow policies under which the Canadian farmers and other primary producers can enjoy an equitable share of the prosperity

The Address-Mr. J. A. Smith which Canada can achieve; thirdly, the failure of the government to bring old age pensions and other social security payments into line with the present cost of living.
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I propose to deal with a few of the many problems which are confronting men and women engaged in our basic industry, agriculture, and to suggest to the government a few steps which, if the government is truly interested in the wellbeing of this industry, can be taken to relieve the situation in which farmers across Canada now find themselves. Since coming down here we have been made very conscious of the fact we are going to ask the people across Canada very soon to again choose the government they wish to manage the affairs of our great country for another four or five years. Since that is the case, now is the time for each and every one of us in this house to do a little reflecting. We should ask ourselves a few very simple questions such as these: Have we in the past years done our best to serve our constituents and the people across Canada as they deserve to be served? Have we seen to it that all phases of our economy have been fairly treated or have we permitted some sectors of our economy to suffer?
As to the last question, Mr. Speaker, we in this group feel that many segments of our economy have been badly treated. It is interesting to read the glowing accounts of our national prosperity but it is very difficult to reconcile this rosy picture with the true state of affairs found in the agricultural industry, especially when we find approximately 18 per cent of the people who are engaged in agriculture in Canada receiving less than 7 per cent of the national income. However, we cannot find any evidence in the speech from the throne that it is the intention of the present government to do anything about this situation. It is true that this matter has been causing great concern throughout Canada. In fact, the supporters of the present government, the delegates who attended the Alberta Liberal association convention at Calgary in November of last year, expressed their dissatisfaction with the federal agriculture policy, if it could be called a policy, which has been followed over the years. According to press reports this convention asked for a system of parity prices on farm products, and also urged the government towards greater efforts to find markets for our grain and other agriculture products.
This convention passed a resolution urging the government to provide long-term loans to young farmers. Another resolution which was passed at this particular convention


deals with the equalization of floor prices for hogs as between the eastern and Pacific coast markets. I am given to understand that a good percentage of the delegates attending the convention represented the agriculture industry of Alberta and one delegate used these words in describing his position. "Farmers are clinched; they cannot move. The government tells us we are prospering but everyone is in debt." In order to prove my statement that these delegates who are supporting the Liberal party are concerned and are unhappy about the situation as it now exists may I cite the fact they said "that something must be done about agriculture policy if we wish to elect Liberal members in the west".
Now, Mr. Speaker, these requests I have mentioned have been a part of the agriculture program of the Social Credit party down through the years. Even though we have advocated these policies in this house, the government has not seen fit to do anything about them. Last summer, for example, to give you one illustration, we received the assurance of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that after the end of the crop year, July 31, he would see to it that attempts would be made to ensure that those points in the west which were on a low quota basis would be given a preference in the new crop year. I wish to be fair in this matter. I do not wish to blame the Canadian wheat board at all for the chaotic conditions that exist in the marketing of wheat in the west. Even though the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is reported to have made this statement while attending a meeting in southern Alberta: that the Canadian wheat board was the sole control of the marketing of wheat I am not prepared to accept that statement. The Minister of Agriculture knows full well that the Canadian wheat board can market our wheat only within the confines of the faulty marketing policies of the present Liberal government and the financial policies adopted by the government as well.
Last summer we had the privilege of sitting in on the hearings of the agricultural committee at which the Canadian Pacific Railway was in attendance. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Pacific Railway must stand condemned for a part of the situation which now exists on the western prairies as far as grain marketing is concerned. I feel that the Canadian Pacific Railway deliberately failed to co-operate last spring with the then transport controller. I can find little evidence, Mr. Speaker, that the same railway has tried very seriously to do anything about relieving the

situation that is found on the Canadian Pacific lines in western Canada at the present time.
I have followed the marketing of grain in my riding very closely and I have found many points which were on a 5-bushel quota had not completed their 2-bushel quota at the end of the crop year, July 31, 1956. On the other hand, I know of points in western Canada which were on an 8-bushel quota on July 31 of last year and have now achieved a completed 3-bushel quota. I have been in constant touch with the Canadian wheat board with regard to this situation, since it affects farmers in my riding, and I just wish to read briefly from a letter which I received in November from a leading official of the Canadian wheat board. He had this to say:
I would point out that both railways have materially increased their car supply in the shipping of grain during the period from August 1 up to present. From August 1 to October 31, the C.P.R. has supplied 43,830 cars as compared to 28,415 last year; the C.N.R. has supplied 41,598 cars as compared to 29,278 last year. However, notwithstanding the fact that the C.P.R. have increased their supply by approximately 15,000, the C.N.R. have increased their cars by approximately 12,000, but the total number of cars supplied by each road is just about equal when you take into consideration that about 57 per cent of the grain that we have for shipment is located on the C.P.R., with about 43 per cent on the C.N.R. You will appreciate that, as long as the C.N.R. continues to match the C.P.R. supply the stations on the C.N.R. will be in better shape than those on the C.P.R.
In other words, just as long as this government refuses to appoint a new transport controller with the power to direct orderly and equitable marketing of grain in the west this situation will continue and the farmers living along the C.P.R. lines will continue to be discriminated against.
I know that some attempts have been made to justify this situation. Several reasons have been advanced. Most of the reasons which have been advanced have been decidedly weak. Perhaps one of the most prevalent reasons is the need of wheat of a particular quality; that shipping orders are given for a certain grade of wheat. That argument does not stand up when you look at two points not more than 10 miles apart. The wheat marketed at these two points is in most instances of the same quality and grade. Therefore, that argument must necessarily fall down.
In closing this matter, Mr. Speaker, may I say I do feel that the government should do something immediately to see that the Canadian Pacific Railway takes immediate steps to put into the west the same percentage of cars as the C.N.R. They should do something about trying to catch up with the manmade lapse of six weeks last spring. As I pointed out a moment or so ago, the situation
The Address-Mr. J. A. Smith
in the west continues to be serious. In the west low quotas mean that the farmers are unable to market their grain. It means that they are unable to get cash money to pay their taxes and to do other things. We are told that one of the reasons that there is such a glut of wheat in the west is that there is a surplus of grain throughout the world. At this time I wish to refer to a short article which is entitled, "How Big Is The Surplus?" It deals with the surplus of wheat as it exists in the world today and reads as follows:
The present large stocks of wheat are a serious impediment to the ready marketing of new production. They are regarded gloomily by governments, farmers and business people in the export countries. The Canadian Bank of Commerce recently termed the wheat carryover as "astronomical".
There is no doubt that under our pattern of trade and distribution the situation is serious but the volume is inclined to impress us beyond its real proportions. We see the 11 billion bushel world carryover as almost the equivalent to the entire normal export figure for a one and a-half year period.
We overlook the fact that the world's population is also astronomical. There are over 2J billion people and in terms of food reserves we have only 36 pounds of wheat per person. In the United States, where flour consumption is moderate, 190 pounds of wheat a year per person is consumed.
For much of the world population wheat is unobtainable but the annual consumption is in the neighbourhood of 6 billion bushels. A 11 billion bushel surplus is the equivalent to a three-months supply for this wheat-eating section.
Awkward as carryovers may be to world trade, a 90-day reserve supply of such an important food commodity does not seem unreasonable.
I say, Mr. Speaker, few livestock men would care to operate on a narrower basis as far as basic food reserves are concerned. The article goes on to say:
The human race should be able to design an economy that would permit it to carry some assurance against emergency food depletion without causing a marketing breakdown and penalizing the producer.
I mentioned a short while ago that 18 per cent of the people of Canada are engaged in the basic industry of agriculture and they receive less than 7 per cent of the national income. There are many reasons for this. Perhaps one of the reasons for the present condition in which farmers find themselves is that the farmers of Canada are perhaps the only major wheat exporting people in the world who are operating in a purely unprotected market as far as the selling of their products is concerned. The farmers of Canada are finding themselves entwined in a terrific cost-price squeeze. That is perhaps true to some extent of farmers throughout the whole world.
Here I have a short article which gives the over-all position of the farmers throughout some of the major countries of the world. I find that in the period from January 1, 1953 to the end of the first three months of

The Address-Mr. J. A. Smith 1956 the over-all position of the farmers in these countries followed a pattern. In Australia the over-all position of farmers declined 15 per cent; in Canada in that period the position of farmers declined 19 per cent; in Finland the over-all position was up 23 per cent; in West Germany, up 11 per cent; Japan, up 4 per cent; in the Netherlands down 5 per cent; and in the United States down 16 per cent.
I wish to point out that as far as the farmers in Canada are concerned their position declined 19 per cent, more than in any other country shown in this set of figures. This is a sad picture, but it is true. I have never heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) get up on the floor of this house and give a convincing argument against the statement that agriculture in Canada is in a deplorable condition. I am looking forward with interest to his doing so at some time during the present session. I would like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) why he has permitted our basic industry to dip down to such low economic levels. This situation, if allowed to continue, will eventually lead to the complete collapse of our food producing industry. I know that in our own area local government bodies along with businessmen and others who are associated with the farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to carry on as a result of this ever-decreasing income.
In my own municipality of Vermilion river arrears of taxes have risen to the startling figure of $609,715. This means that 36 per cent of all the parcels of land in that municipal district are in arrears of taxes. In the municipal district of Wainwright, which is south of my municipality, a similar condition exists. Arrears of taxes in 1955 had accumulated in that municipality to $267,077 with 108 parcels of land under tax recovery.


Mr. Byrne:: Provincial taxes are too high.


James Alexander Smith: Forget . about that. You do not know about that or you would not speak that way. The reason for the great increase in tax arrears in these two municipal districts must be obvious to all, even to my hon. friend the member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne). It simply means that the farmers of these districts do not have the cash with which to pay their taxes. I know of many farmers who for the first time since the depression years have had to forgo the payment of their annual taxes.
I now wish to spend a few moments on a matter which is of concern in this house. It is the unfairness of the present existing floor prices on hogs. When one considers that 90 per cent of the hogs exported from Alberta in 1955 found their way to markets
[Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose) .1

in British Columbia and that it costs only $1 per hundredweight to ship a hog from Edmonton to Vancouver, how can the Minister of Agriculture justify the wide spread in the floor prices on hogs that exists between the Edmonton and the eastern markets of Toronto and Montreal? The floor price for Edmonton is $18.50 per hundredweight and $23 per hundredweight on the Toronto-Montreal market. Surely if there is any justice at all in the differential of floor prices for hogs across Canada or any justice at all for this spread the minister would establish a floor of $22 per hundredweight on the Edmonton market.
The farmers of Alberta raise good hogs. They would raise more if they were assured of a fair return for their labours. The drastic reduction in the number of hogs raised in Alberta last year was a direct consequence of the unstable markets that existed the previous year. At one time Great Britain was a large importer of Canadian pork products, but for reasons best known to the present administration the market has presently disappeared.
I wish to go back to the year 1935 when this present administration took over. That year we exported to Great Britain over one million hogs. In 1940, just at the beginning of the war, we were exporting to Great Britain over 2,800,000 hogs. I am prepared to admit that during the war period there was some increase in the demand for Canadian hogs. At the end of 1945 we exported to Great Britain 3,600,000 hogs. By 1950, five years after the close of the war, the British market had slipped from a high of 3,600,000 to just slightly over 600,000 hogs. Five years later in 1955 we exported to Great Britain 53 hogs. Up until the end of July last year we had not sold Britain one pound of pork products. Surely there is something wrong with the marketing policies of a government which allows such a situation to develop.
I would like to comment briefly on the operation of the agricultural prices support board. The story has been spread across Canada that the operation of this board has cost the taxpayers of Canada a tremendous amount of money. The board was established in 1946. Since 1946 the administration of the agricultural prices support board has cost the people of Canada $89 million. The greatest part of this amount, $70 million, was spent in paying the loss to the farmers of Saskatchewan by reason of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in 1952.
The remainder over a ten-year period was allocated in this manner:	$8.5 million for
cost of butter support since 1949; $6.7 million

for apples; and $2 million for potatoes. The other support items are relatively small, not including the foot-and-mouth crisis. In the ten-year period price supports have cost the treasury of Canada less than $2 million per year or about 15 cents per person in Canada per year. That certainly is not an extravagant amount to guarantee to the farmers of Canada support prices.
I turn now to the figures of the bureau of statistics, using as a base the period 1943 to 1945. The estimated parity price on butter in 1956 is 71.6 cents per pound. The average marketing price of first grade butter during the past year was 58.6 cents. As far as hogs are concerned, using the same period, the average market price for B-l hogs across Canada was $25.98, parity $28.87 per cwt. Grade "A" (large) eggs, per dozen in Montreal parity 71.4 cents; the average market price only 58 cents.
I think, Mr. Speaker, it is high time the Minister of Agriculture gave serious consideration to bringing the Agricultural Prices Support Act in line with the parity established for the base period 1943-1945.
At the commencement of this address I suggested that I would request the government to give very serious consideration to certain proposals which I feel would help relieve the crushing burden now borne by Canadian agriculture. I would like to see the present government take immediate action with regard to certain proposals:
1.	A system of cash advances on farm-stored grain, payment of these advances to be administered by some agency other than the Canadian wheat board, and the cost of administration to be borne by the government.
2.	Immediate action to be taken toward the extension of permanent government-owned storage facilities and the renewal of the policy of encouraging the use of temporary off-site storage facilities to enable farmers to deliver their grain.
3.	Introduction of an aggressive and realistic foreign sales policy as far as our agricultural products are concerned.
4.	Opening of a thorough investigation into the merits of the two-price system of marketing our agricultural products with a view to establishing a parity price for all agricultural products.
5.	The marketing of flax and rye to be handled by the Canadian wheat board.
6.	Equalization of the floor prices paid on hogs all across Canada and a raising of these prices to bring them in line with estimated parity using the period 1943-1945 as the base period.
The Address-Mr. Robichaud
7.	Amendments to be introduced to the Farm Loan Act to make this act of some use to young men wishing to enter the agriculture industry.
8.	The enactment of an all-risk insurance plan which will assure the farmers of Canada a just income in case of crop failure or some other disaster.
9.	The acceptance of sterling and the currency of other lands to stimulate trade with those countries, and
10.	The immediate appointment of a transport controller with power to see that there is an equitable distribution of box cars in the west at all times.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the remarks of my colleague for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) and other members of this group in support of their plea for further assistance to the senior citizens of this country, and to make one observation concerning the C.P.R. strike.
This strike meant a nine-day delay with regard to the movement of grain along the C.P.R. lines. I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) to use whatever influence they may have toward seeing that grain movement along the C.P.R. system be accelerated as much as possible so that farmers delivering grain at C.P.R. points will not have to suffer any more than necessary as a consequence of this strike.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I understand it is not customary for the mover or seconder of the address to speak again during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am informed, however, that as a vote on the first subamendment has been taken, and as a second subamendment has been moved and is presently before us for consideration, it is in order for me to speak again.
Two major problems directly affecting the province of New Brunswick and, I could say, the Atlantic provinces, have been a topic of important discussion during the present debate. One was the recently published preliminary report of the Gordon commission and the other was the question of power development in New Brunswick.
It is not my intention to review what has been said by opposition members with regard to the Gordon commission's preliminary report on the Atlantic provinces. As expected, the report devoted a special section to the problems and difficulties with which people living in the Atlantic provinces must contend.
520	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Robichaud
Notwithstanding the fact that our average incomes continue to lag behind the average for the rest of Canada, we cannot deny that in the maritimes per capita net incomes have increased by 94 per cent between 1926 and 1955, as compared with an average increase of 80 per cent for the six other provinces.
We all admit that living standards in the Atlantic provinces are lower than in the rest of Canada, and it is our duty as representatives of that region to make a positive and comprehensive approach to our problems. It is not, Mr. Speaker, by painting gloomy pictures of our situation, by crying havoc or despair and by destructive criticism such as we have heard from opposition members that we will contribute to improving our condition or overcome our difficulties.
A number of newspapers and even some men in public life have passed a quick judgment or have expressed their disappointment with respect to certain recommendations contained in this preliminary report of the Gordon commission. Some have been expert enough to extract single sentences and deduce from these their own conclusions. Some have been insulted, scandalized by the suggestion that the government pay the cost of relocation for people who may wish to move away from the maritimes to other areas, and a few, I am sorry to say, must have expressed their opinion without even reading the report.
Constructive suggestions are being made which, I am sure, will receive serious consideration from this government and, I could also add, from provincial and municipal levels. It is a well-recognized fact that inadequacies do exist in our transportation facilities, and appropriate measures should be taken in order to provide solutions. The Gordon report suggests that the "whole question of an improved but integrated system of transportation in the Atlantic region should be examined carefully and in detail, proper consideration being given to the cost involved in providing any new facilities and to the losses being incurred in the operation of existing services". The commission goes further and suggests that "this should be the subject of a special inquiry which will also include in its terms of reference reexamination of the present effects of the Maritime Freight Rates Act". The report urges that this proposed inquiry be undertaken promptly and, upon its completion, that the measures required to improve the present situation should be taken without delay.
Among other suggestions is that of an expanded program of geological surveys, and


that of a land use classification scheme coupled with the provision of assistance to people who may be willing to move to other areas and re-establish themselves in other industries. Suggestions are also being made with reference to our coal industry, and I wish to quote from page 103 of the report, paragraph 13:
We suggest therefore that the emphasis of the present subsidy arrangements should be modified in order to give priority to the greatest possible use of Nova Scotia coal in this region.
We believe that changes in the present subsidy arrangements should include incentives designed to encourage the use of Nova Scotia coal in the generation of thermal power in the Atlantic region.
The use of coal for thermal power should in the future prove to be the main solution to our maritime problems. It will provide work for our miners and power for our industries. Let us be logical. Let us be realistic in our thinking and in our admission of problems and facts with which we must contend. Can we in reality expect the same living standards to prevail throughout our country from coast to coast? Are the living standards in the states of Maine and Vermont comparable to those of California or some of the most industrialized states of our American neighbours? Are the living standards of the Normandy coast of France comparable to the existing conditions along the Mediterranean shores?
What we require, Mr. Speaker, as I have said earlier, is a positive and comprehensive approach to the problem facing us in the Atlantic provinces. We have heard remarks expressed in the house by some opposition members which, if taken seriously, would lead every one of us to leave at once our maritime regions for other parts of Canada.
Let us face facts. We do have in many areas many sections of our Atantic provinces, certain settlements, certain groups, which should never have been allowed to establish themselves in those remote regions where no government assistance, not even substantial hand-outs, could provide the type of living standards which would bring these groups up to a fair basis with other people in the most favoured regions in the country.
What is the actual situation in New Brunswick? I should like to quote a few paragraphs from the annual New Year's message to his people of the premier of New Brunswick, as taken from the Telegraph-Journal of December 31, 1956.
Premier Hugh John Flemming expressed confidence in his annual New Year's message to the people of New Brunswick that 1957 will be "a year of outstanding achievement" for the province.
Further on there are these words:
I see no reason why I should qualify or subtract from that prediction in any way since, month by

month and week by week, everyone in this province has been conscious of living in a new and vigorous atmosphere of enterprise and well-being. This feeling of ours has been strongly supported by statistics. For instance, the index figure for employment in the province was 111.4 in September, 1955. In September, 1956, the figure had risen to 116.7.
Again he says:
Upon the basis of statistics for the first three quarters of 1956 we are entitled to predict that 1957 will be a year of outstanding achievement.
He goes on further and enumerates some of the industries which have started in New Brunswick. He says:
Private industry has invested many millions of dollars in new plant capacity in our province. One of the largest long lumber mills in our history is about to go into production in the Saint John area. Expansion of pulp and paper capacity has also gone forward. All major manufacturing industries have been very active. Smaller plants and new industries have, perhaps, shown the greatest expansion of all. The frozen foods processing industry, new to our province, will soon have two new units in production.
In this case, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize the fact that if these two new plants will soon be in existence it is due to assistance from the federal treasury. Speaking about Camp Gagetown, he says:
Another favourable factor has been the progress made at Camp Gagetown by the Department of National Defence. This great project will provide further support to the economy of the province during 1957. The addition of a new community at Oromocto is proceeding satisfactorily with the cooperation of defence, provincial and local authorities.
What a contrast, Mr. Speaker, with the gloomy and depressed picture presented to the house only a few days ago by some opposition members. The hon. member for Digby-Anna-polis-Kings has described the Gordon commission report as a doleful report. Let us hear what his premier, Premier Stanfield of Nova Scotia, has to say about it. I quote from an article appearing in the Ottawa Journal under date of January 19, 1957. The article is headed, "Stanfield Sees Value for N.S. in Gordon Report." Listen to this:
Premier Stanfield said yesterday it would be "unfortunate" if Nova Scotians "summarily dismissed" Gordon commission recommendations because of suggestions that under certain conditions maritimers be assisted to leave the area.
In a prepared statement outlining his reaction to commission findings, he said Nova Scotians do not consider "shipment of maritimers" westward is the answer, but some of the suggestions "may prove valuable and should be examined on their merits".
"The report calls the attention of the whole of Canada to our problems", he said. "Living standards are lower here than they are in the rest of Canada. Some Nova Scotians think this statement shows us in a poor light, but I think it is the simple truth. Most of us have been saying it for a long time."
He said the commission is to be commended for "seeking answers to our problems".
Statements have been made in the house with regard to power developments in New 82715-34
The Address-Mr. Robichaud Brunswick. I feel that the people of New Brunswick and the people of Canada as a whole are entitled to have placed before them all the facts regarding federal and provincial exchange of views in connection with this power development so essential to New Brunswick's economy.
On September 28, 1950, the governments of Canada and the United States made a joint reference to the international joint commission under the boundary waters treaty of 1909. The purpose of the reference was (a) to determine whether the waters of the Saint John could be more beneficially conserved and regulated; (b) to recommend projects to this end; and (c) to indicate how various interests may be affected and what should be done.
Under date of April 6, 1953 the engineering board made an interim report and the commission itself transmitted this report to the governments on January 27, 1954, and the report was made public on October 28 of the same year. The board's report indicates that the early steps are required to increase the generating facilities in New Brunswick and Maine. It suggested a solution valid to 1961, namely, interconnection of existing power systems in the area, development of Beech-wood and provision of about 600,000 acre-feet of storage in the Saint John river basin above Grand Falls.
As agreed between the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the premier of New Brunswick, on December 14 and 15, 1954, senior federal officials, in conjunction with the New Brunswick commissioners and their advisers, made an on the spot investigation of the proposed hydro developments on the Saint John river. Almost a year later, in October, 1955, I will admit that the premier of New Brunswick sought to ascertain whether federal financial assistance could be made available to New Brunswick for a ten year program of power development.
On January 26, 1956, as reported at page 558 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Northern Affairs and Natural Resources (Mr. Lesage) the following question:
Has the government given consideration to the possibility of co-operating in the over-all power development of the Saint John river system in New Brunswick?
The minister, in answering my question, advised the house that ever since the early plans for further development of power on the upper Saint John river began about ten years ago the federal government had been in close touch with the situation. In concluding his remarks the minister stated that in letters to him and the Prime Minister under date of October 20, 1955, the premier of New Brunswick said, and I quote again from page

The Address-Mr. Robichaud 558 of Hansard, that "New Brunswick would like to submit a suitable memorandum in connection with the matter mentioned at an early date."
On November 1, 1955, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources replied that "such a supplementary memorandum from you covering the specific matters you have in mind would be of great assistance to me." We all know, and this has been made public, that on January 30, 1956, Premier Flemming's proposals were received in Ottawa. They were alternative proposals suggesting that (a) the federal government advance funds for the hydro developments of the Saint John at the prevailing rate of interest of long term government of Canada bonds, the amount required being $89 million in 11 years plus $30 million to develop the Canadian share of the river, or that the federal government advance on the same terms $211 million for hydro and thermal developments in New Brunswick. Following receipt of this proposal the federal government asked the government of New Brunswick for certain data with regard to certain difficulties in ascertaining whether 600,000 acre feet of essential storage can be made available for the further development of Beechwood. It has been made very clear that this storage is essential for the development amounting to $119 million on the Saint John river as suggested in Premier Flemming's first proposal.
Most of us have listened to charge after charge against this government by members of the opposition to the effect that Ottawa has refused to endorse New Brunswick's note for Beechwood, that Ottawa has turned us down flat and a number of similar accusations to that effect.
These two alternative proposals, Mr. Speaker, make it clear that Premier Flemming is not asking the federal government to endorse New Brunswick's note for the construction of Beechwood. The premier of New Brunswick wants more than an endorsement for Beechwood, but he is asking the federal government for financial assistance for the total capital requirements of the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission amounting to $211 million.
Following receipt of these proposals, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, knowing that no agreements or arrangements had been made for storage with the province of Quebec and the state of Maine, and realizing that the developments suggested were not feasible without the assurance of a provision for 600,000 acre feet of water storage, wrote to Premier Flemming pointing out whether such storage

could be provided on the Tobique river for further development of Beechwood as suggested in his proposal.
On January 17, last week, as reported at page 338 of Hansard the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, in a question to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees), clarified the situation by saying this:
Is the hon. member aware that we are still waiting for the data on the possible storage on the Tobique river that we were promised by the government of New Brunswick some months ago in order to be in a position to make a decision on the request of that government?
This, Mr. Speaker, is the situation. These are the facts which should be made known to the people of New Brunswick and to the people of Canada. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), as reported at page 296 of Hansard of January 16, said this:
I do most positively deny that there has ever been put forward the kind of scheme that could be implemented along the lines I have mentioned. There have been general suggestions, that they should get aid, and with those general suggestions we agree, but there has never been put forward any specific proposition that could be recommended to parliament as one that would really stimulate the economy of the Atlantic region in a fashion that would be beneficial to the whole economy of Canada.
As stated in Premier Flemming's New Year's message, there has been notable and continuous progress in the mining industry of the province during the past year. I have more confidence in the present premier of New Brunswick than have most of New Brunswick's opposition members, if we are to judge them by their statements regarding the miserable and depressed condition of our population. As long as New Brunswick's premier recognizes that another factor most favourable to our provincial economy has been the progress made at Camp Gagetown by the Department of National Defence, and as long as our premier admits with all frankness that this great project will provide further support to the economy of the province during 1957, unlike the opposition members I have enough confidence in the sincerity of our premier to believe that he will assist the growth of mining in New Brunswick to secure for our people a maximum of benefit.
I have enough confidence and faith in the future of New Brunswick to believe that the lack of electrical power will not be detrimental to our advancement and to the proper development of our natural resources. Federal authorities in co-operation with the provincial government will see to it that everything possible is done to derive the full benefits from the resources placed at our disposal by Divine Providence. But the federal government must have the information they have requested before they can

give further consideration to the proposals from the province of New Brunswick.
I have now reached the third point of my remarks, Mr. Speaker. During the third session of this parliament I chose to ignore the vicious and false accusations made against me in this house and on the radio by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne). On January 14 the same hon. member, in a speech again noted for substituting abuse for argument and exaggeration for emphasis, saw fit to carry on with new accusations in language not worthy of a member of this parliament. Again I had decided to ignore those attacks and charges. The hon. member may accuse me of being a baby-sitter and an untrue representative of my people but, Mr. Speaker, I want him to know that I am not ashamed of having to baby-sit for my family of nine children. My sincere hope is that I can bring them up to be good citizens of Canada and that they at all times will be polite to their neighbours and never use the type of language and tactics so familiar to the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska.
As a representative of my people, I am not ashamed of my actions in this house and at home. My electors know that I have at heart the welfare and well-being of all my constituents. The charges made by the hon. member reflect not only on individual members but on all members of this house, irrespective of their party. I want to quote from an article entitled "Report from Parliament Hill-J. C. Van Horne, Member Parliament" which appeared in the Camp-bellton Graphic of January 17, 1957. I shall read part of it:
To begin with, I am vexed and put out to see what is going on in Ottawa this week. Here we are with thousands of people, not only in my riding but all over the country, out of work, and here we are with a crippling transportation strike on our hands, and what does the government do: it puts on cocktail parties and receptions. When will this government realize that the people did not put it in office to have fun and parties, but to render good government to the people. With our problems mounting day by day, with suffering and hardship and want the lot of far too many of our people, our government knocks off work-
Listen to this.
-to have fun. What a set-up! Apart from the Governor General's reception Tuesday night I have refused all other invitations in protest against a government which cares too little for the people and too much for frivolity.


An hon. Member:: Who invited him.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I do not know whether any other members of this house have received such invitations to cocktail parties and receptions from this government. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, a special invitation was sent to the hon. member because the government knows 82715-34J
The Address-Mr. Robichaud of his close connection with places where cocktails are served. After all, his statement is that he refused all other invitations than that to the Governor General's reception on Tuesday night. From what we know in this house the reception was on Monday night, the day before the house opened.


Mr. Sinclair:: He must have had his cocktails first.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Listen to this. The article farther on continues as follows:
This week I placed upon the table of the house my resolution to build the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge. I am determined to get a yes or no answer, and I hope to force this matter to a vote at the earliest date. I want to know, and I am sure all our people feel the same way, just where the government fits. The Conservative party fellows are behind the bridge 100 per cent, so are the Social Crediters and the C.C.F.ers, but the Liberals just don't want to get off the fence and say yes or no. And this is why they will do this year, as they did last year,-
Listen to this.
-everything possible to postpone a vote and the debate on this resolution.
Well, after having been in this house for over one session the hon. member does not even know that the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge is an interprovincial bridge and both the province of Quebec and the province of New Brunswick refused to co-operate when the federal government made the announcement that they were prepared to go ahead with their share of the bridge.
Farther on he deals with the C.P.R. strike and I should like to quote one part:
I wish I had time to explain fully the firemen's case in this article but you may be assured that in my opinion, as in the opinion of our party, the C.P.R. management is alone responsible for this strike, and they are the ones who should be blamed, and not the unions who have acted, and are acting in good faith all along.
At last we know the Tory policy on the C.P.R. strike. Now, we have it wide open and I hope that the leader of the party will make a declaration supporting what has been said by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska .
I have here the Campbellton Tribune for January 16, 1957 which carries the heading, "M.P. Flays Government; Asks New Deal for New Brunswick." This article reads in part as follows:
Few people were in the house when he started his speech, but within minutes the Liberal members moved cautiously to their seats.
I know that quite a few members on the opposite side moved out because there were only nine Tory members in the house when he spoke, including the hon. member.
Then, this article states:
His speech comprised an overall new deal plan for the maritimes, and for justice and social

The Address-Mr. Churchill
security and welfare plans for the people of Canada as a whole. Among the first to congratulate Mr. Van Horne was John Diefenbaker, the new leader, who praised the speech as "outstanding in every respect".
Well, Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to make a statement in this house that he approved the speech made by the hon. member in every respect. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to make a statement in this house to confirm what the member has said about the C.P.R. management.


Mr. Van Horne:: Are you still against increasing family allowances?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, sit down.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are indeed the baby sitter of the Liberal party.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind hon. members that the member who has the floor may not be interrupted without his consent.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am sorry, but I could not hear the objections raised by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska. If I had I would be glad to reply to them. I feel that, as representatives in this house, it is our duty to have an apology made by the hon. member for the charges which he has made and which are a reflection upon every member. If he does not see fit to make it on the floor of this house, at least he should write to these two newspapers and apologize for the misstatements.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I apologize for nothing.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I hope, Mr. Speaker, it will now be in order for me to direct the attention of the house to the speech from the throne which is the subject of the debate before us. I notice that this year special emphasis was placed on the subject of external affairs in the speech from the throne. Half of the subject matter of that speech is devoted to Canadian foreign relations. To underline the importance of the subject the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) and the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Cardin) have all participated in the debate and have dealt with matters concerning the department. No other cabinet ministers have taken part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is obvious therefore, that the government is paying particular attention to the subject of external affairs this year because of the critical world situation or because of the closeness of an election and the


great dissatisfaction in Canada with the government's action at the time of the Suez crisis.
I think the latter is the correct explanation for this extraordinary state of affairs. I note also that the speech from the throne and the addresses of the two ministers whom I have mentioned have placed special emphasis on the commonwealth of nations. The speech from the throne uses this sentence, and I quote:
My ministers remain convinced of the need to maintain the basic unity of the commonwealth . . .
This is indeed an unusual sentence. No such reference to the commonwealth appears in any speech from the throne from 1949 to the present time. Here and there in the preceding sessions casual reference was made to the commonwealth in those years in which commonwealth conferences were being held but this is the first occasion since 1949 on which the commonwealth has received special attention in the speech from the throne. Hon. members will note the phraseology.
My ministers remain convinced of the need to maintain the basic unity of the commonwealth . . .
The sentence should read as follows: My ministers, and particularly the minister of external affairs, have suddenly discovered the British commonwealth of nations. Heretofore they have been only half conscious of its existence and have made little or no effort to maintain the basic unity of the commonwealth or even mention the subject. Now, in this year of 1957, the Secretary of State for External Affairs devoted a great portion of his speech on January 14 to the commonwealth. He sang its praises; he acknowledged its importance in the world. He considered that it is the first of four factors that influence Canada's foreign policy. He emphasized the necessity of strengthening the commonwealth. Of course, this gave him an opportunity of referring to the alleged break in the commonwealth that he keeps telling us almost occurred at the time of the Suez crisis. This has been one of the major propaganda efforts of the minister. He has placed himself in the position of the saviour of the commonwealth and has implied that, as a result of Canada's action at the United Nations in November under his direction, the Asian members of the commonwealth were retained within this great organization.
Although sufficient evidence has been produced from the statements of the Prime Ministers of Ceylon and India that they did not entertain any idea of withdrawing from the commonwealth, nevertheless the minister and some of his followers on the government side persist in proclaiming him as the man

who saved the commonwealth. I was interested in noting that the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the course of his speech, in which he also emphasized the value of the commonwealth, failed to pay any tribute to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This was an unfortunate oversight because the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his speech expressed his gratitude to the Minister of National Health and Welfare for his activities in strengthening the commonwealth among the Asian members, during the course of his tour of the Far East. I judge from this that the Minister of National Health and Welfare found no evidence of the alleged disruption of the commonwealth which has so possessed the mind of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I note that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in his discussions with our friends in the Far East, told them something about the history of Canada and its relations with the United States, and fell into the same error that the Minister of National Defence did last year, an inaccuracy with regard to our history. The Minister of National Health and Welfare told the people whom he met in the Far East that with respect to the United States-and these are his words-we have "side by side over 140 years lived in peace". Well, I think he is overlooking the fact that during the period from the war of 1812-14 to 1870 relations between Canada and the United States and between Great Britain and the United States were often very strained; that there was considerable difficulty in maintaining the peace; that armed forays were made into Canada by Fenian raiders; that the militia was called out on several occasions to resist them and that the last raid was made in 1870. During the course of those earlier years strenuous efforts were made by the Canadian government to retain in Canada formations of the British army to give us protection. For the benefit of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I shall read to him a small portion of a letter addressed by the Prime Minister of Canada in 1870 to the appropriate cabinet minister in England. Sir John A. Macdonald wrote as follows:
The withdrawal of the troops from Canada is, I think with you, a most unwise and shortsighted proceeding. At this moment we are in daily expectation of a formidable Fenian invasion, unrepressed by the United States government, and connived at by their subordinate officials.
Therefore let us put the date for the peaceful relations between our country and our great neighbour to the south at 1870, which is not 140 years.
In his remarks the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated that it was necessary,
The Address-Mr. Churchill because of recent events, to make a reassessment of the principles which have underlined our policy and the factors that influence them. He then went on to list the four principal factors of Canadian foreign policy and he placed them in this order: the commonwealth, the United Nations, NATO and the United States of America. He placed his greatest emphasis upon the United Nations and, strangely enough, I thought that his discussion of the United Nations was really the swan song of that organization. He mentioned the gap between responsible and irresponsible membership, the impossibility of compulsory enforcement of United Nations proposals, the growing tendency to force through the assembly impractical and unreasonable resolutions merely by voting power and the development of the group or bloc veto in the assembly which may result, as he said, in that body becoming as ineffective as the security council; and, Anally, that the United Nations provides no substitute for the national policies of its members.
This leads me to wonder whether, with these doubts in his mind, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is wise in attempting to create the impression that Canada's foreign policy depends to such a great extent on the United Nations. If that body is no more effective than the minister has pointed out, it is indeed a slender reed on which Canada is leaning in the difficult task of attempting to provide national security and a stable and enduring peace throughout the world.
I think the time has come when we should examine the value of the United Nations as it is constituted at the present time. I think it is the height of folly to place so much dependence on an organization which in the last 10 years has failed to keep the peace, which is its main purpose, and which recently has been shown to be unable to enforce its will as expressed by resolutions of the assembly.
I think it is just nonsense to suggest that the cease-Are which was procured at the Suez canal was the result of resolutions passed by the United Nations. I think that that cease-Are and the withdrawal of the British and French forces were brought about chieAy by the pressure exerted upon Britain and France by the United States.
The United Nations has recently passed a resolution requiring the state of Israel to withdraw its armed forces from the areas formerly held by Egypt, the Gaza strip and the gulf of Aqaba. If the state of Israel does withdraw her forces from those areas it will be because of the economic sanctions applied to Israel by the United States. I draw the

The Address-Mr. Churchill attention of the house to an article appearing in the New York Times of January 20, which reads in part as follows:
Israel was expecting from $25 million to $30 million in grants in aid from the United States this year. She was also planning a $75 million loan from the export-import bank. After the Sinai campaign grants in aid were stopped and there is no word yet that they will be resumed. There is also no commitment on the loan.
I just wonder whether that would have a greater effect on the state of Israel than a resolution passed by the United Nations.
We have recently heard a great deal about the effectiveness of the United Nations in marshalling public opinion. The parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke in the house on January 15 and expressed, I judge, the point of view of the department and of the minister. He said that he was impressed by the unprecedented power and strength of world opinion which was so forcibly expressed at the United Nations not so long ago. He then went on to say, as recorded at page 229 of Hansard:
World opinion has become more than ever before an extremely important factor in the relationship of states, to which no state, no matter how powerful, can afford now to be indifferent.
If world opinion is as powerful a force as this, why was it so ineffective with regard to the disaster that befell the people in Hungary? What effect did world opinion have on Russia during that terrible crisis? The answer is absolutely none at all. If world opinion is such a powerful force, why has it been necessary during the last few years to establish such military alliances as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Baghdad pact? If it is so powerful, why do we have to spend half of our annual budget for military defence? Why does the United States have to maintain the largest strategic bombing force in the world, with air bases on every continent? Why must we have a stockpile of atom and hydrogen bombs? Why must we spend millions in providing great radar lines in northern Canada? If world opinion is such a powerful force to maintain peace, why is it necessary periodically for the United States to enunciate such policies as containment and massive retaliation? Why is it necessary for the proclamation of the Eisenhower doctrine with regard to the Middle East? If world opinion, as expressed through the United Nations, is such a powerful force, as so many people are telling us, why are all these defensive preparations necessary, why not just another resolution of the United Nations? The answer, of course, is that the belief in the power of world opinion is merely a delusion. The United Nations, as constituted at the present time, can exert only moral suasion. Each nation
IMr. Churchill.]
is a sovereign body. No nation is bound by international law except on its own consent. There is no effective sanction, either military or economic, at the disposal of the United Nations to apply to members who fail to abide by decisions of that organization. Now being tried is an experiment in the use of a method more effective than a resolution made by the United Nations. This is being done by means of the emergency force which is operating on the boundary between Egypt and Israel.
A United Nations police force has been the subject of discussion in many circles for the last ten years. Of course when the minister for external affairs proposed such a force at the United Nations assembly in November it was hailed as a stroke of inventive genius. The Canadian propaganda machine which functions at the United Nations made the most of this opportunity by impressing upon Canadians by means of television, radio and newspaper articles that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was a statesman unparalleled in the history of the world. Disillusionment followed very closely after this momentous discovery, when it became evident that Colonel Nasser had the final word as to the nature of the force, its disposition and the length of its stay on Egyptian soil. Even now, when opinion is in favour of the United Nations police force occupying the Gaza strip and other disputed territories on the border of Israel, Egypt objects to this use of the emergency force.
The latest resolution passed by the United Nations and therefore, so we are led to believe, expressing the power of world opinion, simply insists that Israel withdraw entirely from the disputed area and that a return be made to the status quo. No permanent solution between Israel and her neighbours is in sight. Although this represents a very unpropitious beginning for a United Nations military force, the minister of external affairs is now advocating the provision by members of the United Nations of forces which would be available when the necessity arose to institute international police action. This is what he said on page 177 of Hansard of January 14:
The kind of force we have in mind would be designed to meet situations calling for action, intermediate if you like, between the passing of resolutions and the fighting of a war, and which might incidentally have the effect of reducing the risks of the latter. It would not, however, as I see it, be expected to operate in an area where fighting was actually in progress; it would be preventive and restoratory rather than punitive or belligerent.
The minister is fond of adjectives, uses them skilfully and bemuses us by his use of them. I find it difficult to visualize forces

of this nature being used in the intermediate period between the passing of resolutions by the United Nations and the actual outbreak of war. If the United Nations police force, which is now in the mind of the minister, is no better equipped for offensive or defensive action than the present force now serving in the Middle East, I would think that any member of the United Nations which committed troops abroad under such circumstances would simply be giving hostages to fortune. Without effective support from air, armour and artillery, an infantry police force armed only with rifles, machine guns and mortars is not much more than an enlarged observer corps.
I would like to ask the minister in what area of the world he would see such an international police force stationed. If this is an effective way of dealing with threats to western democracy from Russia would he suggest that a United Nations police force be stationed in Germany, and that the United States and British divisions be recalled, along with the Canadian forces? If we believe all the propaganda to which we have been subjected during the last few months the NATO alliance is obviously unnecessary, and we should place our reliance upon the great power of public opinion expressed by resolutions supported by a majority vote in the United Nations assembly and assisted by a lightly armed infantry force on the borders between hostile states.
I suggest that to base Canada's foreign policy upon the United Nations as our main shield and our main defence against war is nothing short of folly. Until the United Nations has become a much more powerful body than it is at the present time; until the nations of the world are prepared to submit to the rule of law, and until the United Nations is able effectively to enforce its decisions, we are making a great mistake in placing too much reliance on this organization for the preservation of peace.
I submit that the minister must reappraise Canada's foreign policies and rearrange in his thinking the four factors on which he states our policy is based. I am of the opinion that the four factors should be arranged in this order:	first, the commonwealth;
second, NATO; third, the United States of America; and fourth, the United Nations. This, of course, means relying upon military alliances, the age-old method of protection for states which in themselves are not powerful enough to resist any foreign threat. Military alliances have not brought about lasting peace, but have served from time to time to postpone war and on the outbreak of conflict to provide collective security for the members of the alliance.
The Address-Mr. Churchill
There is no immediate prospect of establishing permanent peace in the world. This will only be achieved when some sort of world government is established. No possibility of world government exists at the present time because of the lack of uniformity among the systems of government in the various nations of the world. Dictatorships, oligarchies and democracies can find no common basis for agreement. That leaves us with no alternative except the maintenance of military alliances among the democracies, with the hope perhaps of establishing closer political ties among those nations whose philosophies of life and whose systems of government are similar.
Therefore it is obvious that for the security of Canada-and that is the main function of the Department of External Affairs-our greatest reliance should be placed upon our membership in the British commonwealth, our association with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and our close ties with our powerful neighbour to the south. Every effort should be made by Canada to strengthen the commonwealth and to strengthen the bond between the commonwealth and the United States.
Had this conception of Canada's foreign policy been uppermost in the mind of the minister of external affairs last November I doubt very much if he would have abstained from voting at the United Nations assembly. Abstaining from a vote is an important action in the United Nations assembly. One of the senior civil servants in the Department of External Affairs a few years ago explained the meaning of abstention in the following words'.
To abstain is not a neutral act with no policy implications, not a simple statement of lack of knowledge; it is a definite political act with definable political connotations.
The minister's abstention on the occasion of the vote in November was a definite political act which made a choice between making common cause with the commonwealth and becoming a satellite of the United States. I would direct your attention to a very interesting book entitled "Canada in World Affairs" by B. S. Keirstead, which examines Canada's external relations during the period 1951-53. He deals with the subject which I am now discussing, and on page 44 points out that with regard to Canadian interests abroad the first thing in which we are interested is stable and enduring peace with, as a corollary, security against attack, provision for security directed toward a strong bargaining position for the negotiation of a settlement.
Later, on pages 239 and 240, he deals with the subject of the commonwealth, and is not altogether sympathetic with the policies of

The Address-Mr. Churchill the Department of External Affairs which were pursued in those years and which, as far as I can gather, are being followed at the present time. There is a short quotation here which I think may be of interest. The writer says:
The countries of the commonwealth have a unique organization. With different languages, religions, and national cultures, they share a common political tradition, a common set of moral and political values, and a common habit of mind in the face of political problems. This common habit of mind is one of moderation, of compromise, of negotiation, of give and take. While no common foreign policy is possible, if one means by that an agreed course of action on every issue, anything that might strengthen the presentation of the commonwealth habit of thought would surely be a contribution to world peace. If this is what is meant by closer commonwealth collaboration in foreign policy, and it is all that it is possible to mean, then it does make sense to ask if the extreme official caution in Canada and the sensitivity to anything that might even appear to make Canadian policy depend on London has been justified. After all, if the choice is between making common cause with London occasionally (and New Delhi, Canberra, Colombo, and others) and becoming a satellite of the United States, anyone who values, or even has valued, Canadian independence ought not to have difficulty in seeing where the danger lies.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have suggested the order of the factors upon which I think Canada should place its reliance, dealing with the factors originally enunciated by the minister for external affairs, I should think now that he has seen the light, we would be in agreement concerning the commonwealth. After all, why should there ever have been any separation from the commonwealth on the part of Canada? Our roots have never been cut from the homelands from which the two great races of this country have sprung, and in those difficult periods of the twentieth century when vital decisions had to be made, in 1914 and 1939, there was no serious difference of opinion among the Canadian people as to what should be their decisions. We were not disturbed, or waiting to see what Washington would say with regard to what action we should take. Nor was it a question simply of saying "Ready, aye ready" as the minister tries to imply. It was because of our common background of thought and belief that we faced the problems that confronted the world in those two wars in the way we did, and were ready to defend the cause of freedom and democracy.
The second factor, Mr. Speaker, is our relation with NATO. It is a military alliance, but what is the alternative to a military alliance in so far as we are able to discover at this stage of world development? It is a strong military alliance in which we place our greatest hope. If we did not have the benefit of that alliance we would be in grave danger. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the

minister of external affairs should place much more emphasis in this house on the subject of NATO than he does.
The propaganda machinery which is consistently telling us about the minister's speeches at the United Nations does not seem to operate at all with regard to NATO conferences, with the result that NATO is a relatively unknown quantity among Canadians. This is true to such an extent that in the last two years, when representatives of this House of Commons and of the other house have gone to a conference attended by representatives from all the other members of the NATO alliance, certain people have poked fun at the expedition and called it a junket and a joyride at the expense of the people of Canada.
On the contrary, that type of consultation and conference is, I think, essential. If the NATO alliance is to be maintained there must be understanding among the members of NATO and exchanges of opinion from time to time. I am one of those, Mr. Speaker, who willingly look forward to a broader basis for NATO, and I have spoken in this house with regard to the suggestion that an Atlantic alliance might be established as the next step forward in the development of relations among the nations, an alliance which would comprise those nations bordering on the Atlantic who have similar systems of government, a similar background and the capacity for joining together much more closely than in the past in order to make themselves secure in a very insecure world.
The third factor on which we must place our reliance is of course, Mr. Speaker, the United States of America; not in the position of a blind follower of the United States but as a partner in our own right, with the power to influence United States opinion. We have to be extremely careful at the present time about our relationship with the United States. We have been reading in the papers recently about the new policy announced there, and it is interesting to note that Mr. Dulles has been telling us what might happen in the event of trouble. The Globe and Mail of Saturday, January 19, reports what Mr. Dulles said before a Senate committee, and I quote his words:
If we got into war we'd expect to get help from 42 nations with whom we have collective security agreements.
Then he went on to say with regard to consultation:
The United States ought not to have its polices fixed by consultations and agreements with other nations.

Well, Mr. Speaker, much was said in November about the lack of consultation. Now we are informed by this great power that consultation is perhaps not necessary. What position is Canada in? We have United States troops living in our country; we have United States air bases on the soil of Canada. Are we immediately committed in the event the United States takes some action? The closest relationship with the United States is naturally essential to our safety; but, Mr. Speaker, it must be a relationship entered into with ourselves as a partner.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that consideration should be given to these factors in the order in which I have presented them, and I think it would be wise for the House of Commons and the minister for external affairs to take a second look at the policy which was placed before us for consideration the other day. Where does the United Nations come in? I place it at the bottom of the list, not because I think it is completely ineffective; that is not so. The United Nations is an essential part of man's struggle toward securing peace and order in the world. It is at present ineffective, as we know, as an instrument for ensuring and maintaining peace but it has, nevertheless, to be maintained as an organization; indeed, it has to be strengthened in the light of recent events. The weakness of that body should surely be known to all, and it is because we recognize that weakness, I maintain, that we should not place our full reliance upon the United Nations alone.
We must regard these things in the proper order, the commonwealth, NATO, the United States of America, and after that we should play our full part in the United Nations in order to make it an effective force for the peace we would like to see in the world. But to establish it as the basis of our foreign policy would be, I think, to delude our people. We cannot expect to have peace in the world simply by way of resolutions passed at the United Nations. In this difficult twentieth century, in this period in which we are living in fear of a very destructive war, we must place our reliance upon our known friends, upon our known means of protecting ourselves. It is only as we do that and emphasize these aspects first that we can safely go on to deal with the United Nations and endeavour through that body to reach the solution that everybody in the world hopes for, with the exception perhaps of some of the communist countries.
I do not think there is any doubt in anybody's mind that the average man in the world wants peace. He does not want to be shot at or killed. He is not interested in the destruction of war. He wants peace. But how
The Address-Mr. Churchill is it to be obtained? Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that it can be obtained by an organization whose only effective function at the present time is to determine by a majority vote what resolutions shall be passed at that assembly. The marshalling of public opinion that we hear so much about these days has not been an effective factor in maintaining peace. It is all to the good. We want public opinion marshalled. We want these things brought out into the open. Nations that are oppressed or suffering should be heard.
It is a good thing that in the United Nations all nations of the world there assembled can talk about the disaster that befell the Hungarian people. That shows to them and to all of us everywhere the evil in the world that is represented by communist Russia. But to base our foreign policy on the United Nations as our mainstay is, I think, wholly wrong. We must revise our thinking and start with these other factors in our minds. We must strengthen the commonwealth, strengthen NATO, strengthen the tie with the United States of America, and then from that point use our influence in the United Nations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question before he sits down?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre feel that if Canada were to place the United Nations at the bottom of the list that that would be an effective way of making the United Nations a more effective instrument in the achievement of world peace?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps I have used an inappropriate term in speaking of the bottom of the list. I should have said that every attention should be given to the United Nations. However, it is a question of emphasis; and in our anxiety to make the United Nations an effective force in the world we should not neglect our connection with the commonwealth, the effectiveness of the military NATO alliance and our close relation with the United States.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend permit a question? Would he not agree that perhaps none, in any case certainly few others, have worked harder for the strength and the usefulness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization than my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Secretary of State for External Affairs may have worked to the

The Address-Mr. Breton limit of his ability for NATO. I was not suggesting that he had not. I was suggesting that our propaganda machinery was emphasizing more the work of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and, on occasion, of the Minister of National Health and Welfare at the United Nations, and neglecting to give us information with regard to NATO.


Mr. Maurice Breton (Jolieile-L'Assomplion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join hon. members of the house in congratulating the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I do not intend to be very long, because my conviction is that Liberal legislation is very good.
Such testimony from a Liberal member will not surprise anyone, but if I mention it I do so because of the obvious approval of the official opposition, the Progressive Conservative party. Indeed, I have read carefully the program of the Conservative party at its last convention, and I have found that as a whole it constitutes the best appraisement of Liberal legislation in this country. The biggest difference is that the Progressive Conservative party will need about $7 billion or $8 billion to realize their program, instead of $5 billion which is the present budget. One may hope that by 1965 or before the Liberal party will be able to fulfil such an ideal social program.
As there is nothing very controversial in present politics, I should like to say a few words on a subject that should appeal to all members of the house without regard to party lines. I refer to the project of simultaneous translation of speeches in the House of Commons in both official languages of this country. I am sure of finding a sympathetic reception for such a proposal which will please greatly nearly one-third of the members of the house and as many as 5 million people of French descent in this country. We all know that at the United Nations and in many private organizations simultaneous translation is widely used. On May 22, 1956, the Junior Chamber of Commerce of Canada, embracing almost 25,000 members, presented a brief to the Speaker of this house recommending such a system for the House of Commons.
May I add that on the east side of the Ottawa river 4 million people speak French, and the great majority of them are unable to follow the debates of the house when they come here to visit us. Two years ago, Mr. Speaker, I received in Ottawa 200 farmers and their wives from my constituency, and I was sorry that they were unable to follow the debates from their seats in the galleries. My conviction is that the most important


way to promote national unity is to permit a good understanding of the other language. The United Nations organization would have been impossible without simultaneous translation, and all French Canadians going to New York to attend the United Nations meetings come back with the idea that such a system should be in use in the House of Commons.
We should admit that the present system of acoustics is far from being perfect. It is maintained at great cost but it could be replaced with better results so far as hearing is concerned by one system of individual earphones. These earphones could be utilized for both acoustics and simultaneous translation purposes. Here are a few figures on the cost of the present sound system in the
chamber:
Original cost of installation .... $33,529
Annual rental of equipment	 7,500
Operation and maintenance yearly ..	20,000
The wiring was done by public works personnel, and the cost is. not readily available. In the brief of the Canadian Junior Chamber of Commerce already mentioned I see that the cost of installation of a simultaneous translation system in the House of Commons is estimated at $6,272. This means that the installation and operating cost of such a system would be less than for the one we already have and it would give much better results and satisfaction to members in general as well as to the public.
I have in my hand some information about the cost of earphones for public seats at the United Nations. It is approximately $15 per seat. As there are 626 seats in the galleries of this chamber, the total cost for earphones for all the public seats would be $9,390. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I know this parliament is very sensitive to the prerogatives and rights of parliament. I personally feel that parliament is right in defending those rights, because parliament is the means by which good democracy may function. But I think the first condition for a good parliament is that all speakers be understood in their own language when it is possible. I think it is not very good for a parliament that a third of the members speak for the ceilings, for the walls, or just for the press. I believe it should be the right of everyone to be understood in his own language and to hear and speak in his own language.
We feel here that when we speak French this house is not interested. I do not think I will be disagreeable to my English speaking colleagues when I say this. If the situation were reversed and they were in our position, with a third of this house speaking English and we, two-thirds, speaking only

French, I feel sure that the third you would represent would ask strongly for simultaneous translation.
One day I heard a minister say that the members from the province of Quebec did not seem much interested in the legislation of this country outside the province of Quebec. I admit that there seems to be some truth in that observation. However, I think one of the main reasons is the fact that 75 members are obliged to follow the speeches in another language. As we live in a democracy, under a democratic system in which we believe, and which we want to defend, with a parliament that we want to protect, I believe we should have a system that permits everybody to hear and to speak in his own language and not be obliged to speak just for the walls, for the ceilings or for the press. I think we have a right to have that opportunity. When I say that I assure you that it is not from a nationalistic point of view; it is simply on the basis of a democratic system which we want to preserve and which we cherish.
This year I intend to present a resolution on this matter. If I speak on this question in the debate on the speech from the throne it is simply because I want to direct the minds of hon. members to this question which, for us, is extremely important. I have heard the comments made by French speaking members of this house. If you want to be fair to this important minority, I think something should be done. Actually 25 or 30 years after the invention of this system of sound reproduction and simultaneous translation which was used at the first United Nations meetings, I think it is time something should be done in this house. I was told that the actual system of sound reproduction could be installed at small cost, and could be so organized that it would provide simultaneous translation.
On the day I come back with a resolution on simultaneous translation in this house I hope I shall receive approval and sympathy from all sides of this house. Starting from the principle that varied cultures constitute a national enrichment, I think there is no better place than the House of Commons to demonstrate the value of such a principle.


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldt-Melforl):: Mr. Speaker, as this debate progresses it becomes increasingly more diflicult to discuss a problem that has not already had some degree of consideration. But because I come from a part of the country which is almost solely dependent on agriculture, and also because I am interested in and concerned about the general agricultural picture in this country, I feel that at this time I have no alternative
The Address-Mr. Bryson but to take this opportunity to bring before this house and this government once again, as I have attempted to do on previous occasions, the serious situation and the unfortunate position in which Canadian agriculture and in particular western agriculture finds itself at the moment, even at the risk of repeating many of the arguments that have already been made.
Certainly since I have been in this house, Mr. Speaker, and for many years prior to my coming here, innumerable speeches have been made by members of this party and others not only in pointing out to the government the serious deterioration that is steadily taking place in this unfortunate industry, but repeatedly warning this government of the inevitable and serious consequences that will result unless the government accepts its share of the responsibility for bringing about a solution of this extremely distressing problem. As a matter of fact, agricultural producers in the part of the country from which I come are suspicious that, because of the inaction on the part of the government to implement an agricultural policy, this government has in effect abandoned agriculture, that they have written it off as being something that is unnecessary in so far as the economic welfare of this country is concerned.
I say that in all seriousness. We have the refusal of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce to attend meetings of western farm organizations called especially to discuss current agricultural problems, after special requests had been made of these two responsible members of the government to attend. The fact that they refused to attend and, as a matter of fact, on one occasion refused to allow any other responsible member of this government to attend and speak on behalf of Liberal agricultural policies in this country, only strengthens and adds to that suspicion. I suggest that the government has some responsibility in respect to the over-all agriculture policy of this country, and I am going to say quite frankly that the farmers are not blameless. In all fairness I must say that the farmers themselves also have some responsibility for trying to bring about a solution of their own problems.
I want to say to this house, and to this government in particular, that we must bear this point in mind. Farmers are unable to discharge their responsibilities outside of the framework of a comprehensive and realistic federal agriculture policy. I think the time is long overdue for the government to take a realistic view of this whole situation. They have to get down and grapple with this situation. The time is overdue when they can

The Address-Mr. Bryson pass the buck, as they have done over the past number of years. The time is past when they are able to say to the farmer that the reason he is not getting his fair share of the national income is that he has failed to accept his responsibility for the situation in which he finds himself today.
I hope, before I am finished, to be able to shed a little light on this subject and discredit a few of the fallacious arguments this government has been able to sell to Canadian agriculture. In spite of the government's pronouncements to the contrary; in spite of the very optimistic and irresponsible speeches that have been made throughout the country, especially in western Canada, by the Minister of Agriculture, to the effect that agriculture is not experiencing any distress, agriculture is declining at an alarming rate.
It is not my intention on this occasion to repeat all the arguments proving that contention, but I should like to draw the attention of the government to a statement made on January 2 last by Mr. Jack Wesson, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, and a man whom I am sure has the confidence not only of everyone in this house but of everyone connected with western agriculture. He said the farmer had reached the point, because of the so-called cost-price squeeze, where he is placed in an impossible position. Then again I should like to quote very briefly from a publication of the Searle Grain Company, a publication which by no stretch of the imagination could be considered a friend of the farmer. They had this to say in an issue of last fall, at a time when they were talking about the farmers' position regarding the disparity between his cost of production and the price which he receives for the products he markets:
... it now costs the prairie farmer $2.31.3 to buy what one dollar would buy in 1935-39. This means, therefore, that the $1.40 initial wheat payment is worth only 60.5 cents in 1935-39 value of money, basis No. 1 Northern Fort William, or at the average country elevator point it is worth approximately 521 cents a bushel.
I am not going to belabour the house with more statistics, but I should like to produce one more bit of significant evidence in regard to the position of agriculture in the west. It is a statement of tax accounts in a larger school unit in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I can say without boasting that I represent possibly one of the best agricultural areas in western Canada in so far as agricultural revenue is concerned. I feel it is a deplorable state of affairs that out of the total tax levy in that school unit, amounting to some $368,000, some $246,000 was still outstanding as of December 31.
Here again we have a clear indication of the economic stress that is being imposed on

agriculture producers in that area because of the shortcomings of federal agricultural policy. What I have quoted is indeed significant, because it is a well known fact that farmers will pay their taxes if at all possible since they know they cannot put off indefinitely the day of retribution if these taxes are not paid.
Yet rather than recognize the seriousness of the situation by facing the fact that the Canadian economy is composed of one large unit, and all phases must be geared to the general welfare and prosperity of the whole economy, the best the government can do is advocate a do nothing policy. They carelessly disregard the distress, both economic and social, that results from such an attitude. The best they can do is say if the farmer cannot make a go of it on the farm, let him quit and move to town. It seems to me the best that could be said for the present agricultural policy of this government is that it is a series of unintelligent ad hoc pieces of mumbo-jumbo designed to avert, from week to week, chaos in the agriculture industry. In other words, they believe in the survival of the fittest to the extent that they would sacrifice the farmer, and possibly more important they would sacrifice the family farm, to a system of centrally-owned corporate farms. It is a rather cold and heartless approach, because as I said a moment ago it disregards completely not only the economic implications but, equally important, the social and moral implications of the matter.
Rather than attempt to get at the root of the problem; rather than attempt to take some responsibility for the situation, they simply say that the farmer is unable to maintain his position because of several very obvious reasons. I think, by and large the farmers are getting sick and tired of being told by this government that the reason they cannot make good on the land is that they are inefficient; that they must operate a more economic unit, that they must diversify their agricultural operations. Then, when these arguments have been exhausted, the farmer is told he is unable to maintain his position in the industry because labour is asking for too much money, and the wages which labour is receiving in those industries on which the farmer depends for his production needs are driving up the costs of production beyond all reasonable levels.
Then, Mr. Speaker, in order to clinch the argument once and for all, in the face of the clamour from agriculture for a system of parity prices that would give agriculture a parity income with other groups in this country, the government then says that people

would never agree because a higher support price, or a parity price, would only victimize the consumer; and so the government does nothing.
I think we should take a look at some of these fallacious arguments that are being put forward as the reasons the farmer finds himself in his present position. I should like to ask the house this question. Is it true that the farmer is inefficient? What do you mean by "efficiency"? In 1950 the agricultural industry of this country received 11 per cent of the national income. Since 1950, in the span of six short years, we in the agricultural industry have lost 150,000 farm operators. But in the last six years the farmers of Canada have been condemned for producing surpluses. Apparently, if you carry this argument to its logical conclusion, the more efficient agriculture becomes the poorer it becomes, because in 1956, in spite of the fact that agriculture had lost 150,000 workers, the farmers received only 6 per cent of the national income. Therefore I think we have to look farther than the question of efficiency to find the answer to the farmer's problem.
On the other hand, it is a question of what is meant by efficiency. There is not too much inefficiency in the manner and the methods by which farmers are carrying on their operations today, but I think efficiency means something else. I think an agricultural program can be more efficient if it is diversified. If we are to solve our problems in this country it is right and proper for farmers to diversify their operations, especially in western Canada. There is no question about it, Mr. Speaker; the people of this country and elsewhere eat things other than wheat. Therefore I am sure most farmers will agree that it would be advantageous to them if they did undertake a greater degree of diversification in their agricultural operations.
What is this government doing to further diversification and to help the farmer to diversify? Recently and over the years we in Saskatchewan have been clamouring for the building of the South Saskatchewan river dam. If this government really wants to see the farmers diversify their operations, if the government really thinks it is a desirable goal to be reached, I can think of nothing it could do that would assist that diversification in a very large sector of Saskatchewan than the building of the South Saskatchewan river dam, or giving assistance to the building of it.
We have the Minister of Agriculture again stating that the best he can do is to warn this government and the people of Saskatchewan that there is going to be a series of
The Address-Mr. Bryson drought years. At the same time when there is something concrete this government could do, namely build the South Saskatchewan river dam that would irrigate a large area, nothing is done. In other words, apparently they would like to see the farmers suffer as they did back in the 1930's rather than assist them to combat those disastrous conditions. That is why we in this party have advocated a system of parity prices to enable the farmers to enter into a program of capital expenditure leading to diversification.
To diversify means that you must spend a great deal of money, not only in capital expansion but in costly operational changes. Therefore we are asking the government to implement a system of parity prices so that if diversification takes place necessitating a shift in the methods of farming, at least the cost of production will bear a fair relationship to the returns farmers get for the things they offer for sale, and in addition the farmer would be assured that his capital expenditure would not be in jeopardy. No other industry in this country would think of going into any kind of business unless it was assured that its capital investment was going to be protected.
Certainly we were all quite amazed at the submission of the Canadian Pacific Railway, this greatest of all advocates of free enterprise, which admitted publicly that there is no longer any place in our economy for risk. They said in effect that they honestly believed the taxpayers of Canada should underwrite the capital expenditure of that company. Not only should the people of this country guarantee the company a minimum return on their capital investment, but they also want the people of this country to guarantee a return of 4.71 per cent on their investment. Therefore we in the agricultural industry now feel more justified than ever in making the modest request that all we want is to be assured that we will get back only our costs of production.
May I say something about the argument put forward that the consumer would be victimized by a system of parity prices. Again I am going to quote Mr. Jack Wesson and other wheat pool officials, who told this country that if today the farmers of Canada gave their wheat to the millers of this country for nothing it would decrease the price of bread by only 3 cents a loaf. I do not think anybody can seriously contend that by giving the farmer a fair return on what he produces it would unduly victimize the consumer.
Possibly something should be said about the argument that high wages in industry is one of the reasons the farmers are being

The Address-Mr. Bryson deprived of a fair standard of living. I am not going to stand here and say that labour is blameless. I will be one of the first to admit that possibly labour has rather limited objectives because of misunderstandings in many instances and in other instances because of circumstances. I think it is shameful, Mr. Speaker, that this government should use the misunderstandings that exist between labour and the farmer as a wedge to drive these two segments of our population farther and farther apart, when there is no foundation for those tactics.
I would like to place on record a few figures which I have in connection with labour's part in pushing up the prices of farm machinery. In 1946 the value of farm machinery produced in Canada was $65 million. In that same year labour received for the production of that machinery $25 million. I admit that in 1955, nine or ten years later, the labour bill had jumped to $50 million from $25 million, but in that same year the production which came off the end of the assembly lines, for which labour received $50 million, had jumped from $65 million to $171 million. In other words, in 1946 labour received 40 per cent of the value of the machinery produced, while in 1955 it only received 29.4 per cent.
Let me put it this way. In 1946 one worker in a given time produced one combine, but in 1955 the same labourer in the same period of time was able to produce one and a half combines. In really simple terms it means that for making one combine in 1946 he received $1,456, and in 1955 for making one and a half combines he only received $1,740, when in reality, equated against what he received in 1946, he should have received $2,176.
There is another aspect to this question which I should like to bring to the attention of the house. Just recently we were told that farm machinery had gone up in price because steel had gone up $5 a ton. I have made a few calculations as to how many tons of steel are in an ordinary combine. There are about three or three and a half tons of steel. You do not have to be much of a mathematician to multiply three by five; it comes to $15. When a farmer buys the machine after the increase of $5 a ton for steel he pays for it at a rate of increase of 7 per cent. If you calculate 7 per cent of $6,000, which is the price of the combine, it does not come to $15; it comes to $420. Let no one say that the wage earner is responsible for the distress in which we find the agricultural industry today.
Well, then, what is the trouble? Certainly it is not because we are not selling wheat, because over and over again in the last year the Minister of Trade and Commerce informed everybody in this country that we


are selling more wheat than we have ever sold in recent years. Therefore the farmer cannot place the blame for his position on the fact that we are not selling grain. I will have to agree that we are selling more grain. As a matter of fact last year we sold 85 million bushels more wheat than we did in any of the last 35 years, with the exception of five years.
No; that is not the problem which is causing the farmer such distress. Then we must ask ourselves what is the problem. The problem seems to be this, that there is a wide disparity between the farmer's cost of production on the one hand and the price he receives for what he produces on the other. This is what is commonly known as the cost-price squeeze. There is no other answer.
I think I have pointed out, in quoting the story about the combine, one of the reasons for this cost-price squeeze. The latest statistics available show that the^25 companies on whom farmers depend for their production needs have had their profits increased in the last seven years by over 400 per cent. Profits go up and up and the farmer's income goes down and down. That is why we have asked for parity prices. I was rather amazed, as were also a great many people in my part of the country, to read the account of the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture just before Christmas at the Liberal convention in the city of Regina. He said at that convention, if you mean by parity a fair relationship between production costs and what you receive for the products you grow, then we already have it. He started in to compute his kind of parity on the basis of 65 per cent to 85 per cent.
I wonder what the Minister of Agriculture is trying to tell the farmers. Is he trying to tell them that they are not deserving of 100 per cent parity? He is in effect saying that they are second-class citizens; that they do not deserve anything better than 65 per cent of justice. I would not be very much surprised if before long we in Saskatchewan or in western Canada find ourselves walking into a restaurant and being told to go to the back, where we will find a sign "Authorized by the Minister of Agriculture" and stating "This room reserved for farmers, who are to receive just 65 per cent of what everybody else is served out in front." I expect that some day the minister will be advocating that they put a car on the back of the train with another sign saying "For farmers only; 65 per cent service."


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I should like to tell the hon. member who is interjecting that those are the kind of statements that prompted a great

many people to walk out of the convention of the Liberal party in the city of Regina in absolute disgust at what the minister had told them.
I am glad there is one responsible member of the government who seems to take a different view of this question of agriculture. I hold in my hand a statement made by none other than the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. McCubbin), speaking to a farmers' union meeting in the province of Ontario last November 8. From the article it would appear that the farmers at that meeting had the parliamentary assistant on the griddle, because he admitted that while he had not voted for the parity price resolution presented in this house last year, if it ever was presented again he would vote for it. Then to make those farmers really feel good he volunteered the information that if anybody moved a motion to increase the premium on grade A hogs to $4 he would support that as well. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he should immediately replace the Minister of Agriculture by handing over that portfolio to the parliamentary assistant.
For a few moments I should like to direct the attention of this house to another conspiracy this government is carrying on against the western farmer. I refer of course to the increase in the interest rates that we find occurring all across the country. In the handling of grain and the marketing of grain the elevator companies are obliged to borrow tremendous sums of money. Now, because of the increase in interest rates, it is going to cost many more millions of dollars in handling charges than it did last year. Those handling charges are going to be paid by the wheat board and, in turn, they will be handed back to the farmer to pay; there is no one else to whom they can be passed.
I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, how the Minister of Finance can believe that raising the interest charges on money borrowed for the production of new wealth in this country necessarily lends itself to inflation. The other day the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Mang) was very anxious to inform this house about all the things the government had done for farmers, and he mentioned in particular the large amount of money the government had paid on behalf of the farmers by way of storage charges. But he did not tell this house that though they paid the farmers several million dollars in lieu of storage charges, they immediately increased interest rates and took most of the money away from them.
Mr. Speaker, I had intended to say something about box car allocation, because that
The Address-Mr. H. B. McCulloch issue has become so confused of late that no one really knows what is the situation, but I am going to leave that subject until another occasion. In conclusion I would just like to say this. It is going to take more than dry weather to solve the farmers' problems, and the quicker the government gets that kind of thinking out of its head the better. I implore this government to immediately accept its duties and responsibilities toward agriculture in this country, and I can give the assurance that if that is done it will have the wholehearted support of every farmer in Canada.


Walter Edward Harris: I think I understood the hon. member to say that having granted a subsidy -around $33 million, I believe it was-for the storage of grain at a certain time of the year the government "turned round and took it away". Would the hon. member please tell me in what manner we did that?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, I was making reference to the raising of the interest rates.


Hazen Robert Argue: It costs the wheat board more money to finance the crop.


Walter Edward Harris: What rates are raised to the western farmer?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: The interest rates are raised, which means that the grain handling companies in western Canada have to pay more in interest on the money they have to borrow to handle and market farmers' grain.


Hazen Robert Argue: And the farmer gets less per bushel for his wheat.


Walter Edward Harris: When was that raise effective?


Hazen Robert Argue: During this crop season.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are doing it all the time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. H. B. McCulloch (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, the town of Westville, in Pictou county, Nova Scotia, was incorporated in 1894. It has a population of 4,300 as shown in the last census. Since its founding by miners of Scottish and Irish descent who were the forefathers of its present people the town was built and developed, and is solely dependent on the operation of its mines to maintain and stabilize its economy.
The miners of Westville have long been noted for many sterling qualities, the main one being that throughout the years Westville mines have consistently operated without strikes or tie-ups. The highest production was maintained consistent with operating conditions, and labour relations between management and the men was always of the highest order. These desirable features do not just happen, and the very valid reason

The Address-Mr. H. B. McCulloch for them is the stability of the men, the thriftiness of their families, pride in the ownership of their own homes and active participation in church and community life in general, all of which qualities have been handed down to them from past generations. It is a known fact that the percentage of miners who own their homes in the town of Westville exceeds 80 per cent, which is probably double or more than that of any other mining town in eastern Canada.
Today, with the mines closed except for minor operations of removing pillars from existing slopes, these people who saved their money and built their own homes, primarily without government assistance of any kind, now find their town bankrupt because they have no work and they are unable to pay their taxes. They are faced with the closing of their schools, which will result in uneducated children, the deterioration of their water, impaired sanitary facilities and other services, and the loss of their homes and churches.
The town of Westville has underneath its limits a proven quantity of at least eight million tons of the best coal in Pictou county, if not in the province of Nova Scotia. Unfortunately, to mine this deposit economically requires an estimated expenditure of approximately $2,500,000. If such an expenditure were made, not only would a highly mechanized and modern mine be available if required for a national emergency, but also the Canadian citizens of Westville could look forward to the future feeling secure that they could maintain their homes and town.
In view of world conditions today it is felt that development of this mine is necessary to help guarantee the full use of our production facilities should a major war break out. This in itself would warrant government action now. In addition, it is a known fact that two other Pictou county mines, now active in a small way, will be depleted and closed within the next three years. A new mine development would absorb these men when their present jobs are closed out.
It is presently contemplated to double the size of the existing power plant at Trenton and, in fact, materials have been ordered for this purpose. When this installation is completed its daily coal requirements will exceed the entire output of the only remaining mine in the county which can carry on operations for an indefinite period. This alone would warrant a new development now to ensure our other plants of continued operations.
On behalf of the people of Westville I urge the government of Nova Scotia to assist in the opening of a new mine in that town. I feel that the government of Canada should


be prepared to assist, too, if so requested by the operating company and the government of Nova Scotia. Money made available for this purpose would not be a gift or donation; it would be a sound investment in the good people of Westville for the benefit of all Canada.
Furthermore, my request is substantiated by the Gordon commission report, which states that only modern mechanized mines can hope to remain in operation, and that government assistance to maritime industry is most essential. In view of these facts, and the bankrupt position of the town of Westville today, I urge that immediate action be taken to assure these people that their present position is of a temporary nature, and that the governments of Nova Scotia and bf Canada are prepared to lend temporary aid as I have just suggested.


Mr. John B. Hamilion (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne is the product of a lazy, complacent, smug government. The speech from the throne is the product of a man convinced of the effectiveness of the Uncle Louis legend, so convinced that the old black magic spell can be weaved over the electors again in June of 1957 that he can treat the house and the people of the country with contempt. Not a single major problem has been offensively attacked in the speech from the throne. It is quite apparent, Mr. Speaker, that it is the intention of the government, if at all possible, to ensure that this is the quietest session on record, so that when they dip into their magic bag and bring forth the biggest election bribe in history there will be nothing to detract from the screaming headlines from coast to coast.
What are the problems that face us today? What are the problems they ignore in the hope that they will not have to answer? First, at home a large group comprising our elder citizens, the veterans and the blind, all dependent upon fixed incomes, are facing an ever-increasing cost of living. Second, the municipalities are placed in a taxation strait-jacket and find themselves squeezed between the demands for services of an ever-increasing population and an airtight tax formula devised by the government in order to ensure centralization of power here in Ottawa. Third, there is the tremendous threat from without to be faced by a Canadian government tied to the apron strings of a floundering giant in Washington.
What does the government offer in the speech from the throne? To the old age pensioners, to the veterans, to the blind, they offer arts and culture. To the municipalities they offer a few measly dollars in the form

of taxation on government buildings across the country. To the cause of world peace they offer a phony kind of conviction of the need to maintain the basic unity of the commonwealth, and their sympathy for the poor Hungarians.
Are these the answers of a government seized with the vision of the next 25 years set out for us in the Gordon report? I am afraid not, Mr. Speaker; and I am sure the people of Canada will give the answer to the ignoring of these salient facts of life during this year. Here was a golden opportunity to take care of great and growing needs without sacrificing a campaign against inflation.
Everyone knows that the $40 a month paid to an old age pensioner has a purchasing power of about $25 today. These people are in real need. Here is an opportunity to put the plan on a sound actuarial basis. Up to the moment we have taken increasing amounts from the general fund in addition to the percentage levy against personal income and corporation income. Here is a chance to fix an amount which will finally take care of this plan for the future, a chance to fix a percentage without taking any greater amount from the individual taxpayer's pocket.
Yet to date the government has failed to recognize the dire need of these people. If there is a real and inherent desire to help old age pensioners, the veterans and the blind, surely without waiting for this grand health plan about which we have been hearing since 1919, I believe, the government could institute at this time without financial assistance from the provinces a plan which would ensure that adequate medical and hospital care was available to those in receipt of old age, veterans and blind pensions. This would be a step which would prove sincerity on the part of the government with respect to its desire to implement protection for all.
The veterans have submitted a brief to the government which indicates that since 1925 the ratio of payment of pensions in disability cases as compared with wages has fallen behind at least 25 per cent. Surely this is also an indication of need. Their request for an increase of one-third would only place these people in the same position they were at the time they were granted the privileges they now have. Perhaps I should not have used the word "privileges"; perhaps I should have said the rights for which they so gallantly fought.
Then we come to the problem of the municipalities. Perhaps I might refer to page 6394 of Hansard of July 24, 1956, where I quoted from a brief prepared by the
The Address-Mr. J. B. Hamilton Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities covering the period 1930 to 1951 which, at pages 31 and 32, has this to say:
Between 1939 and 1951, federal government revenues per capita rose from $45.33 to $270.68. In the same Interval, provincial government revenues per capita in Canada rose from $21.10 to $65.68, while municipal government revenues rose by a lesser amount from $28.07 to $45.49.
During the period from 1939 to 1951 the federal government has been able to increase its take on a per capita basis nine times, while the municipalities have only been able to increase their take by 50 per cent. The brief went on to say:
Municipal governments, relying upon less flexible revenue sources than the federal and provincial governments, have become increasingly dependent on grants and subsidies of other governments; otherwise they will be unable to finance the local services and responsibilities traditionally falling within their jurisdiction.
There seems to be a complete lack of understanding by the government of the problems facing the municipalities. There is a great deal of publicity about the wonderful job the government has been doing in bringing people to Canada, but there has been a complete failure to realize that for each person arriving here government on the lower level must immediately provide all the services and facilities required for streets, water, sewers and education. Yet the revenue agency which dips its hand in the pocket of the newcomer when he receives his first pay cheque is the federal treasury.
I would remind hon. members opposite that Mr. Frost of Ontario has pointed out very strongly that the revenue sources of this government could not exist without millions and millions of dollars being spent in development costs within his province. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in this case as well if it is intended to indicate sincerity in connection with this problem, there are avenues of approach still open for this government.
We hear a great deal about education. When we talk about it we are told that we must be careful about what we say because of course that is a provincial matter, and that if we are going to deal with it we must set up some type of council in order to namby-pamby over the matter or we must see that the money is placed in trust somewhere where it will be available at a proper time for some provincial authority to take. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that if that is not bribery of the electors of a province, I have never seen it. But if there is true sincerity about the question of education, there is really no great problem, Mr. Speaker.
If this government is prepared to sit around the table with the provincial authorities and see that the tax base is adjusted
538	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. B. Hamilton so that additional amounts will be placed in the hands of provincial governments, then I say we can trust Mr. Frost to see that the schools of Ontario get the money. If they would like to add a little percentage abatement to their income tax plan for the province of Quebec, I am quite sure Mr. Duplessis will see that the schools get the money. This is again an indication that here is a government that must extract every last bit of favourable publicity out of every dollar, regardless of the consequence.
I might say that there must be other ways in which to assist the municipalities and still ensure that problems of provincial and federal jurisdiction are recognized. The problem they face is a demand for ever higher interest rates on their debentures in order to build facilities that are required for this increasing population. Yet I heard what was said by the Minister of Finance the other day. He answered a question by saying this: If the proposition is important enough I expect they will agree to pay the additional amount and get the money, but if they decide that it is not important enough I guess they will postpone it. Mr. Speaker, how do you postpone the building of necessary educational facilities? How do you postpone the necessary services that are required for houses from coast to coast for the hundreds of thousands of people who are coming to this country? What a facetious answer for the minister to give.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if this government really wanted to do something it could do so. Maybe the Minister of Public Works might have some ideas to suggest. He is increasing the interest rate on C.M.H.C. loans and he thinks there is going to be a great deal more money available to get that nice little increase. We have seen the Minister of Finance by remote control affect interest rates from one end of the country to the other. I am wondering if those two ministers could not get together and suggest to the financial institutions-just suggest, you know; it has been an effective method so far-that perhaps they might balance their portfolios; that if they are going to get X dollars out of our guaranteed C.M.H.C. funds they might be obliged to advance X dollars at 4 per cent or 4| per cent on the debentures backed by the people who constitute the backbone of the country and the municipalities.
It might only be a suggestion, but suggestions apparently have been taken in the past and they have worked out not too badly. It could work out just in the way the municipalities are trying to solve their own problems. When it comes time to build


a new subdivision of homes they have had to say to the developers: We want the homes, but if you want the permits to build the homes you will be obliged to bring us X number of dollars of industrial building to our community. I think there are other methods this government could use if they really had the sincere purpose of solving this problem.
I wonder what we are going to do about the threat from without. I wonder what we are going to do about re-establishing-I think that was the word used-the commonwealth and all it has meant to this country. I am reminded that the Prime Minister went to a prime ministers' conference last year. When he was questioned in the house about what he thought about commonwealth prime ministers' conferences, as reported at page 7325 of Hansard of August 9, 1956, he said this:
I have never felt that time was wasted. While there are no specific agreements reached I have always felt that the time was well spent and did serve to keep us as close as possible together.
I wonder how successful he feels he has been now that we have had the episode at Suez, Mr. Speaker. I wonder how well he understood the problems that were being created at the very time he was taking part in the conference. We have had here, Mr. Speaker, indications that the Secretary of State for External Affairs feels that his country has a great role to play in reestablishing this connection. But the other day when I asked the Prime Minister in the house whether he might consider taking the initiative in having a conference convened he said this:
No, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not feel that this country should take the initiative to try to determine what should be the policy of the United Kingdom government.
That quotation is to be found at page 323 of Hansard. We are not asking that the Prime Minister take over the policy of the United Kingdom government. I am going to use again the term I used previously. If there is sincerity in this government, if there is a true desire to re-establish this relationship, then it is about time this country took the initiative. If we have grown up-and for the last 20 years we have been told that the whole evolution of commonwealth relations as far as we are concerned has been part of our growing up-it is time we called a conference. It is time we held one down in Quebec city. It is time we gave some indication that we are prepared to play a leading role in maintaining what was the greatest agency for the promotion of peace in the world.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we over here still believe in it, notwithstanding

anything that has taken place in the last few months. I believe the vast majority of the people who support the party to your right, Mr. Speaker, believe in it too. I can only ask them, does their government believe in it, and has it practised it for the last 20 years?
No, Mr. Speaker; this speech from the throne has come in like the lamb and I am sure the whole plan is that the government, after the budget presentation, will go out like the lion. However, I believe we should give them fair warning that the people of this country have been bribed once too often before election day. This year there will be no effective overtime appeal; it will take more than that.


Mr. John Decore (Vegreville):: May I join with other hon. members, Mr. Speaker, in congratulating the mover (Mr. Hanna) and seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The way in which these two gentlemen acquitted themselves has brought credit not only to them and to this house but also to the constituencies which they represent.
I am very well acquainted with the mover, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, whose constituency is adjacent to that of mine and with whom I share the same office in this House of Commons. The other day someone said that he is one of the hardest working members in this house, and I wish to assure you that this is correct. I wish also to give him credit for having made an attempt to speak in the French language. It is difficult for some members from the west, who may not have the same opportunity as eastern members to learn the two languages, but we do hope that all the members of the house will endeavour to master French since it is one of the official languages. If we cannot do that we can hope that at least our children, who will one day represent Canada, will be able to do so.
I should like also to congratulate the new leader of the Progressive Conservative party. The responsibility which faces him is great. He has the responsibility not only of being the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition and criticizing the government, but also of offering alternatives. At the same time he is expected to revitalize his party. Although I am a Liberal, I wish him well in his task of building up the Conservative party in Canada, because I am one of those who believe in the two party system if democracy is to work.
With reference to these splinter groups, at least you can say that the C.C.F. party is socialist, has a certain program and endeavours to follow it. However, since the
The Address-Mr. Decore Winnipeg convention, at which time they chucked out the Regina manifesto, I do not know whether they are any longer necessary in Canada, because I feel they are getting closer to the Liberals. In any event, one thing you can say about the socialists is that they have a certain definite platform and they endeavour to follow it.
When it comes to the other splinter group, the Social Crediters, it is a different matter. They will do anything; they will twist and turn; they will rock and roll; they will offer $25; they will endeavour to muzzle the press if they can, and whenever it suits their convenience, to put something across. As I say, I do sincerely believe, and I am sure a lot of other members who belong to the same political party I do believe, that the best way in which democracy can work in Canada is through the two party system. It is for that reason I do, in all sincerity, wish the new leader of the Conservative party every success-not too much success

in building up a strong Conservative party in this country.
During the course of this debate there have been a considerable number of references to the desire for an increase in social security payments. Reference was made to the desirability of increasing old age pensions as well as pensions for the blind. I think we should recognize this because it is quite clear that the buying power of these payments, especially with reference to old age pensions, has decreased very considerably in recent years. An increased pension to our old-timers contributes to the support and self respect of these pioneers and at the same time gives relief to the younger Canadians who have elderly dependents. I realize we are being confronted with huge expenditures, especially in the field of national defence. We all realize that social security without national security would be meaningless, especially where freedom was affected, but I do hope the government will be able to see its way clear to granting some increase, especially for the blind and for our older citizens.
Now I should like to draw to the attention of this house, Mr. Speaker, what I consider to be an injustice to the province of Alberta from which I come. I am, of course, referring to freight rates. I have spoken about this matter before, I am doing so now, and I shall continue to do so as long as I am a member representing the people of Alberta. I feel that Alberta is being discriminated against by the railway companies. We in Alberta do appreciate, and I appreciate, the fact that the geography of our country is such that it raises difficult problems with

The Address-Mr. Decore regard to rail transportation. Some of these problems are difficult to overcome, and it is not easy to eliminate the discrimination. However, I believe that with regard to freight rates, Alberta is a clear example of injustice.
Hon. members will recall that in 1951 a royal commission, after having studied the problem for some two years and after receiving a great deal of evidence with regard to the problems of transportation, issued a voluminous report. I believe it contains some 200,000 words. Certain recommendations were made. One of the main purposes in setting up this commission to study the problem of rail transportation was to endeavour to equalize freight rates across Canada. As I say there are problems, and will forever be problems, in such a vast country as ours, especially at this time when our population is relatively small. The commission endeavoured, however, to listen very carefully to the representations made on behalf of Saskatchewan and Alberta in particular. I think the house will appreciate the fact that because Alberta and Saskatchewan are so far removed from the markets, and we have not a self-sustaining population, if agriculture is to survive it is necessary that the cost of production be kept as low as possible.
One very important complaint that has been raised time and time again over the years by the province of Alberta in particular has been the cost of moving many classes of goods that are shipped from the east to our province. It costs less to transport goods from Toronto to Vancouver than it does to transport them from Toronto to Edmonton, though there are an additional 600 miles of very difficult terrain that the railways have to go over.
The reason the railways gave the special concessions or low rates was ostensibly to meet water transportation competition. However, the Turgeon royal commission, after having heard representations made by Alberta in this regard, recommended that parliament amend the Railway Act to provide that when the railways inaugurated low rates from eastern Canada to the west coast and from the west coast to eastern Canada to compete with water transportation, then the rates at intermediary points should not exceed the rate to the coast by more than one-third. In other words it was known as the one and one-third rule. It was felt that the one and one-third rule recommended by the Turgeon royal commission on transportation brought real relief from what we in Alberta felt was a long-suffered discrimination against our

manufacturing and processing industries, as well as our distributors and consumers as a whole.
Although the finding of the Turgeon royal commission, that is the one and one-third rule, was incorporated into statute by this parliament, the railways were determined to prevent its operation, with the result that this rule was destined to be shortlived. There appears to be a conflict between the Railway Act containing the one and one-third provisions and the Transport Act, under which the rate-making system of agreed charges was established in 1938.
The railways took advantage of the situation and the practice of making competitive rates on transcontinental traffic, for example between Montreal and Vancouver, was abandoned in favour of the agreed charges, and once again Alberta and western Saskatchewan were restored to the long and short haul discrimination against which these areas fought for many years. In fact a new royal commission was set up known as the royal commission on agreed charges. The finding of this commission was to refuse to recommend the enactment of legislation which would make agreed charges subject to the one and one-third rule, and that of course is the situation today.
Let me bring out, Mr. Speaker, by quoting certain figures just to what extent we in Alberta are being discriminated against with regard to freight rates. If you were to take commodities such as plate or sheet steel and ship them to Vancouver from Hamilton the cost per hundredweight, provided you shipped 100,000 pounds, would be $1.10. The cost of the shipment from Hamilton to Calgary would be $2.46 per hundredweight, or more than twice as much. In other words it would be cheaper in this case to haul the plate or sheet from Hamilton to Vancouver and from Vancouver back to Calgary than to ship it direct from Hamilton to Calgary.
Let me give you another example of canned goods from southern Ontario. The cost per hundredweight to Vancouver is $1.80. The cost to Calgary is $2.30. The cost of shipping anti-freeze from Montreal to Vancouver is $2; the cost of shipping it from Montreal to Calgary is $2.70. The cost of shipping wire rope from Toronto or Montreal to Vancouver is $1.30 per hundredweight. The cost of shipping it from Toronto or Montreal to Calgary is $2.80, or more than twice as much. Do not forget that there are 600 miles between Calgary and Vancouver. The cost of shipping paints from Toronto or Montreal to Vancouver is $2.25. The cost of shipping them to Calgary from those points is $3.35.

Take margarine. The cost of shipping margarine from Toronto to Vancouver is $2.85 per hundredweight. The cost of shipping it from Toronto to Calgary is $3.77 per hundredweight. The cost of shipping cheese from southern Ontario to Vancouver is $2.90 per hundredweight. The cost of shipping it to Calgary is $3.50 per hundredweight. The cost of shipping corn oil and syrup from Port Credit to Vancouver is $1.90 per hundredweight. The cost of shipping it to Calgary is $3.56 per hundredweight. The cost of shipping steel piles from Sault Ste. Marie to Vancouver is $1.25 per hundredweight. The cost of shipping it to Calgary is $2.51 per hundredweight, more than double.
Will you call it six o'clock now, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
John Decore: Mr. Speaker, just before six o'clock I was endeavouring to point out to the house the great difference in freight rates from Quebec and Ontario to Vancouver as compared with the rates to Calgary and Edmonton. In many cases the freight rate on certain commodities is more than double between Edmonton or Calgary and Montreal as compared with the Montreal-Vancouver rate. We do not begrudge this advantage being given to Vancouver, but it is quite clear that agreed charges, to which I have made reference, are simply a new type of discrimination by the railway companies, especially against Alberta and western Canada. This affects the movement of materials, goods and manufactures, and it certainly has hampered the development of industry in that area and its competition with eastern Canada, more especially any effort it might make to obtain access to the large British Columbia market.
The fact is that these rates have tended to discourage a number of firms opening up new plants in that part of the west. As an example I can cite the case of a certain company in Vancouver manufacturing steel drums and tanks for the Alberta oil industry. This company bought a plant site in Edmonton on the strength of the reduction in the cost of steel plate brought about by the application of the one and one-third rule to which I made reference. However, the application of the agreed charge method of rate-making caused this project to be abandoned.
There has been a recent increase in freight rates, but this increase does not affect the
The Address-Mr. Decore agreed charges though it does affect Alberta and western Saskatchewan. Those parts of the country will have to bear the brunt of the new hoist in freight rates. As one observer has pointed out, agreed charges discriminate by wiping out competition, yet they were introduced to meet competition. It is felt that agreed charges should depend on actual and not potential competition. I submit that the cost of railway transportation should be such as to enable all parts of Canada to develop industrially. At the present time Alberta is being penalized, especially as far as the establishment of secondary industries is concerned.
The house will probably remember that the Turgeon commission made a recommendation, which was implemented by statute, that the railways be granted $7 million to reduce the cost of the long haul by way of the great lakes. This bridge subsidy now appears to be merely a lump payment to the railroads and has no effect upon Alberta and Saskatchewan. People will point to the Crowsnest pass rates and argue that those were to benefit the Alberta farmers. The Crowsnest pass rates are not affected by freight rate increases, but the whole purpose of those rates was to hold down the cost of transportation in order to help Canadian wheat compete in world markets. Those rates benefit the whole Canadian economy by their effect on the balance of trade, not just the grain farmer in western Canada.
Having said that in connection with freight rates and what I consider to be an injustice to the province of Alberta, I should like now to deal with another matter. There exists in Canada today certain abusive practices which I feel should be looked into, and I refer to the sending of parcels of food and clothing to people behind the iron curtain in the U.S.S.R. Hon. members will realize that after the second world war many people from behind the iron curtain entered Canada as political refugees, leaving behind them mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters or close friends. They were happy to come to this land of freedom and opportunity, and realizing the condition and plight of their relatives and friends behind the iron curtain in the U.S.S.R. they were anxious to give them some assistance by way of food and clothing.
During the last number of months certain so-called legal agencies have been established across Canada with the primary purpose of sending such parcels of food and clothing from Canada to the U.S.S.R. What I want to do is point out just what it costs to send these parcels to the Soviet union through

The Address-Mr. E. G. McCullough these so-called legal agencies. I have information that if merchandise to the value of $12 is sent from Canada the following costs
are incurred:
Merchandise cost	 $12.00
U.S.S.R. fee, 10 per cent	 1.20
U.S.S.R. customs duty	 7.40
U.S.S.R. inspection fee	 1.51
U.S.S.R. invoice fee	66

Fee 1 per cent	23
Service charge	 7.50
Fumigation	 1.00
Parcel post	 5.00

Guarantee fee	 1.79
Notification fee	18
Total	 $38.47
The practice is to deduct the cost of the parcel in order to show that it is a gift of these agencies. On examining these figures we find that from this parcel the needy person will receive goods to the value of $12, the U.S.S.R. will receive $10.77, the agency in Canada will receive $12.70 and the post office will get $3, not $5 as charged.
I am one who takes exception to this type of benevolence. I am not opposed to the sending of these gifts to needy people behind the iron curtain, but I feel that in the first instance the U.S.S.R. should not charge the customs duties and other charges which they impose. If they do, why should these charges and duties be collected on Canadian soil? It is clear from the figures I have just quoted that the misery of the people in the Soviet union, brought about by communist policies, is being exploited by these so-called agencies in Canada, not only to fatten themselves but at the same time to finance the resources of the U.S.S.R.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter the government should look into. As I pointed out, I am not opposed to the sending of these parcels to these unfortunate people in the U.S.S.R., but I am opposed to the Canadian people being exploited and, at the same time, directly assisting the government of the Soviet union.


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I feel very honoured to once again take the opportunity of speaking in this house on behalf of the people whom I represent. I like to feel, sir, that I speak for the common people who cannot be here to speak for themselves. Sir, whether I am correct or not I feel that this chamber has been shrouded by a cloud ever since last year, when the pipe-line debate was in progress. I feel that something has been done to democracy which it is going to take a lifetime to correct. I

feel that this all-powerful party across the way has, in one fell swoop, done to democracy what the communists could never do to a free parliament; I think that is the sort of atmosphere which prevails is this house.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Edward George McCullough: I can
only come to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal party tried to do what Macbeth suggested when, according to Shakespeare, he said: "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly." I feel that this Liberal party, Mr. Speaker, has caused an injury to parliament which it will take a lifetime to heal. I speak for myself, and I can only say this; that in parliament I have great respect for the rules and also for the privileges affecting hon. members of this house. I can only say, sir, that I want each and every privilege afforded me according to the rights and customary procedures of parliament. I want that, and nothing less.
Having said that I would like to turn to the remarks made by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) before the dinner hour. He was commenting on our declaration of principle as a C.C.F. party at the national C.C.F. convention in Winnipeg, and I need only say this. Neither he nor anyone else need worry about the C.C.F. party changing its policies in order to bring justice and equality into the political and economic life of the people of this country. We have not deviated from our first program early in the thirties. In this country we have a political democracy, but it was suspended in the pipe-line debate-


An hon. Member:: By your party.


Edward George McCullough: -but
not an economic democracy which is the right of free people. Whether or not it is going to be the privilege of the C.C.F. party to bring to the Canadian people an economic system under which they will share equally and fairly in the progress made in this country, I can assure the hon. member for Vegreville that rather than the Liberal party filling the need in Canada to give these things to the Canadian people, we have had a growing gap between the rich and the strong and the weak and the underprivileged in this country. The monopolists in this country today have taken away any kind of competition in sales and prices to the consumer.
Equally the little people, the farmers, white-collar workers and people in the street, the common people, are finding it more difficult to share in the prosperity of this country. The prosperity which has been talked about

is going to swell the profits of the big corporations. I say to the hon. member for Vegreville and to those in the Liberal party who think the C.C.F. has deviated from its program, that there will be in the membership of this party many dedicated men and women who will come to parliament in order to secure for the people of Canada what is their just due in this rich and prosperous country of ours.
I followed closely what the hon. member for Vegreville said in respect of freight rates, and he used very excellent arguments in respect of the load with which western residents, and farmers in particular, will be saddled by reason of the new rates allowed by the transport board. I wish to point out that this is another case of the cost of living rising higher and higher. Of course the common people, the wage earners and the farmers, do not share in the prosperity afforded to the big corporations of this country.
The Canadian consumer debt is increasing at an alarming rate. I have here a clipping from a recent newspaper headed "Consumer Debt in Canada Hits New Peak Level". The quotation reads:
The amount of money owing by Canadian consumers for the things they bought on time rose to a record $2,395,000,000.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, it can make nobody in this country happy to learn that the common people have increasingly to go out and buy on credit in order to have a decent standard of living. It must be a heyday in these prosperous times-so-called by the Liberal party-for those people who charge enormous rates of interest in respect of goods bought by consumers on time.
Dr. Mutchmor, writing in an article I read the other day, said that it is a continual rat race by the common people of this country to keep pace with the increase in the cost of living. Yet at the same time many of the prices paid to the farmers and those who produce foodstuffs for our consumption bear no relation at all to what the consumer has to pay. I quote from the issue of the Toronto Star of January 7: "Farm Product Index Declines by 2-1 Per Cent". On the other hand net corporation profits-I do not want to list them; they can be found anywhere in the financial reports of these companies-have continued to increase. The Gazette of September 3, 1956, had this to say;
Net earnings of Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, after taxes, for the first hah of this year showed an increase to 62 per cent over the comparable 1955 figure at an estimated $12,030,686, the company reveals in an interim report.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, there is in this country need for a political party such as the C.C.F.
The Address-Mr. E. G. McCullough I do not think you can play on both sides of the game; either you fight for the common people in order that they may share in the country's prosperity by way of improved wages and better farm returns, or you give your support to these profiteering companies as the Liberal party has seen fit to do.
I want to point out that it is rumoured in the corridors of this chamber that the Liberals, generally speaking, want an early election. They feel this all-powerful government has the next election in the bag, and that may well be. Then we have the fact that the pockets of the government are filled with about half a billion dollars with which they can play Santa Claus to the people of the country. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, it only means that the government has seen fit to overtax many people and, furthermore, that little has been done to help the people who need help. I do not forget and I do not think the people of Canada forget that this government is largely responsible for the increased cost of living, and they have been aided and abetted by other parties in this house. They took off price controls early in the post-war years. Since that time we have seen the cost of living go up and up.
Nothing has been done to help our old age pensioners during this period of inflation. So today I say I will join with others in the house if the government see fit to increase old age pensions so these older people can live in decency and security. I believe the old age pension should be increased to $65 and be payable at the age of 65, so these people may live in some kind of decency in the face of the present cost of living.
I hope, too, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal government, even if it is a deathbed repentance before the next general election, will see fit to increase blind pensions. There came to my desk today a brief from the blind pensioners' association asking that something be done for them, and I feel the government should do something in that regard.
I also want to say something with respect to the veterans of the first and second great wars. As I understand it, under section 227 of the Pension Act regulations there is provision that the pension commission should rule in favour of the veteran, and that the onus should not be on him to prove his disability in order to get a pension. Therefore I hope the government, now that it has all this money available, will see to it that the veterans of our first and second great wars are given the pensions that are their just due. In this respect it seems to me that the government has been pretty niggardly in not

The Address-Mr. E. G. McCullough giving such pensions when there is real justification for them. In my opinion the fact that veterans have gone into the services, have been examined by five or six medical specialists and classed as A-l, have then come out of the services with a P-5 category and have had no entitlement to pension is a disgrace to this country. Many of these veterans can do nothing else than look up their case histories. Therefore I hope the government will give due consideration to my words in this regard.
I want to turn now to agriculture, the segment of our economy with which I am most familiar and which, of course, is predominant in my constituency. The farmers of western Canada and, indeed, throughout Canada are in a cost-price squeeze today. The freight rates mentioned by the hon. member for Vegreville apply to the farmers in my constituency, and indeed to all western people. The farmers have to pay for machinery manufactured in eastern Canada and then shipped to the western provinces. They have to pay for everything they need to produce what they sell, and they are caught both ways.
When the board of transport commissioners allowed the first interim increase in freight rates it was to me a blow to western agriculture. They then allowed on top of that a subsequent 4 per cent increase, and I understand that the total increase of 15 per cent requested is probably going to be granted. But when one looks at the record of the Canadian Pacific Railway I cannot see how the government can justify the pyramiding of freight rates, particularly when the load is mainly on western Canada.
I have here Canadian Pacific Railway figures taken from their annual report. They show that in the year 1939 the railway had a debt of $228 million and a reserve of $39 million. In 1950 it had a debt of $86 million and a reserve of $525 million, in 1953 a debt of $75 million and a reserve of $576,657,000, in 1954 a debt of $72 million and a reserve of $608,789,000. By 1955 it had reduced its debt from a high of $228 million in 1939 to $89,795,283, and had a reserve of $640,061,081. On the basis of these figures I cannot see how the board of transport commissioners was justified in placing additional freight costs on the western farmer when he is already overburdened with such costs.
I notice that some of the cabinet ministers have expressed different viewpoints with respect to agriculture. Those of us in the house who try to fight for a fair deal for agriculture through the establishment of parity prices for the main farm commodities cannot understand why there should be such


a diversity of opinion on the part of government officials. However, I am led to believe that there is perhaps a reason for this situation. It may well be that members of the government are trying to confuse the minds of the farmers with respect to the fight for parity. I have here a report that appeared in the Leader-Post of November 5, 1956. It is headed, "Gardiner Says Parity Received", and it quotes him as saying:
We ought to have parity, you say. It you mean by that costs of production in relation to returns, we have it now.
That was on November 5,	1956. On
December 4, 1956, an article appeared in the Globe and Mail headed, "Canada Shuns Farm Price Parity, Gardiner Reveals to Conference." Then I have a report that appeared in the Ottawa Journal of November 7, 1956, headed, "Harris Opposed to Permanent Price Supports." I have another that appeared in the Producer of November 8, 1956, headed, "McCubbin Promises Support Parity Prices Motion if Presented Again."
Here we have the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture all taking different viewpoints on parity prices. At one time the Minister of Agriculture says we have it, and at another time he says the government shuns it. The truth is that we have never had parity prices for agriculture in Canada, and I have never seen such a conglomeration of misrepresentation and confusion. I can only say it is the worst witches' brew I have ever seen.
I do not believe the government has any intention of implementing parity prices for agriculture. The situation is serious because of the cost-price squeeze facing western agriculture. From figures taken from the bureau of statistics Canadian statistical review of the past year we find that in the year 1955 the net income of farmers from farm operations was $1,454 million. It dropped to that figure from a high in 1951 of $2,155 million. The portion of the national income which the farmers received in 1951 was 12.6 per cent, and it had dropped to a low of 7.1 per cent in 1955. Equally, net income in terms of 1946 constant dollars dropped from $2,306 real income in 1951 to $1,674 in 1955.
This may not mean too much to some members of the house, but it means that western farmers are in such a cost-price squeeze today that hundreds of them are leaving their farms. They cannot see any way out, because unless this government is prepared to institute some type of parity prices for agriculture, they cannot meet the cost-price squeeze that is facing them.

I should like now, Mr. Speaker, to turn to the Gordon commission and its report, and say something with respect to its suggestions with regard to agriculture. I can only believe that the report of the Gordon commission in respect of some aspects of the future for agriculture in Canada and its recommendations were made only after the most cursory of investigations into the problems of agriculture and its future. To me some of them are silly, undesirable and completely unworkable.
I refer now to the recommendations the commission made with respect to the handling of wheat. The commission apparently recommends that the Canadian wheat board should set quotas on individual farm production in western Canada. I heartily disagree with this recommendation, for these reasons. First, it would be quite impractical, if not completely impossible, to make any reliable estimates of what the farmers are going to grow. The vagaries of the weather have such an effect on production of the western wheat crop that I do not think it would be possible for the Canadian wheat board to make any reliable estimate of what would be produced. In the second place-and I believe this is much more important-by setting the quotas for western wheat production it would give to our competitors abroad and to possible purchasers abroad of Canadian wheat some idea as to whether or not Canada was under pressure in having to sell her wheat crop.
I believe the policy I have advocated since 1945 would be a more realistic policy for this government to follow. It seems to me there are too many inconsistencies in what has been proposed by the Gordon commission. I believe the government should undertake, as I have advocated since 1945, to set up in Canada the principle of the ever-normal granary. By that I mean this government would see to it that there possibly be stored in this country, under proper long-term storage, a billion bushels of wheat for any emergency that might arise.
If that kind of program were followed I believe we then could have, under Canadian wheat board marketing policy which we have today, real and genuine orderly marketing of the western wheat crop. I believe it would encourage long-term trading agreements with potential purchasers of Canadian wheat. It would add stability to the western wheat agriculture economy. Hence I most sincerely recommend that suggestion to the government. As I understand it now, we have about half a billion bushels or a little better of storage capacity today.
I would therefore make three definite recommendations to the government in respect 82715-35
The Address-Mr. E. G. McCullough of agriculture. First, I recommend the establishment of guaranteed parity prices to producers for the main farm commodities. My second recommendation is that they set up a dominion-provincial drainage and conservation authority in order to undertake far-reaching drainage and land utilization schemes, such schemes to have adequate federal financial participation. My third recommendation is storage payments on government-approved farm-stored grain, such a plan to be co-ordinated with an ever-normal granary plan to provide for total storage of one billion bushels of grain if necessary. I believe the implementation of these recommendations I have made is necessary if we are to protect the family farm in western Canada.
I should now like to turn for a moment or two to my own constituency of Moose Mountain. I have never before in this house availed myself of the opportunity to speak in particular about my constituency, which I am extremely proud to represent. I believe it is one of the finest constituencies in Canada, if not the finest. I understand that the largest centre, the former town of Estevan, is just now being incorporated into a city. We have there, of course, the tremendous oil growth and the population growth of that city. I want to give thanks to the former postmaster general for the fact that the federal government is building a post office in Estevan. When the former postmaster general, Mr. Cote, was minister, I had occasion to rise in the house and make the recommendation that a new federal building be constructed in the city of Estevan. After the minister had recovered and was convalescing he was kind enough to write to me and say that he would take my representations into consideration. I am happy to say that the government have seen fit to build that post office, and I wish to thank them for doing so.
Located in the centre of my constituency we have the beautiful Moose Mountain provincial park, abounding in game and wildlife of all kinds. In the lakes there is extremely attractive fishing. It is the delight of sportsmen from all over the world, and many American people come up there to enjoy a holiday.
We have also the Bienfait coal mines. About one-fifth of all the coal mined in Canada comes from that area. We also have a brick plant, which is a crown corporation, producing beautiful brick for all that area. As a matter of fact they are shipping to all points in Canada. There is also being built a large electric power generating plant. Already it is the site of a large generating plant to serve the southern part of the

The Address-Mr. Schneider province, but a new one is being built at Souris river which will cost in the neighbourhood of $40 million.
I am equally proud to say that my constituency is the centre of perhaps one of the largest purebred beef cattle sections of Canada. In that area some of the finest cattle in the world are bred. Last, but not least, it is the centre of the tremendous oil boom in that province. Almost from one end of my constituency to the other an oil play is taking place. Many press reports have described this oil play as fabulous and incredible, comparing it with what took place in Texas some years ago. This has meant {hat we have many new people who are welcome in my constituency. It has also meant new industries for my constituency. But equally, it has brought new problems and it has intensified some of the old ones.
1	refer particularly to the urban and municipal financing of services.
In the villages of Bienfait and Oxbow, in the city of Estevan and in many other villages and towns in my constituency we have found that with the influx of increased population and with the very narrow base of taxation which these urban and municipal governments have, it is increasingly difficult for these municipalities to give services to the new population or to the people that were there before. I would therefore suggest to the government that they undertake to set up some form of fund by means of which these municipalities can get loans at
2	per cent or 2J per cent interest on longterm amortization plans. I think this is one of the crucial problems facing all small governments throughout the country. I therefore make that suggestion to the government.
As I say, the other main problem facing my constituency is the cost-price squeeze facing my farmers. I hope the government will not turn a deaf ear to some of the representations I have made. I hope they will take into consideration the program which I have suggested should be implemented for agriculture. Unless this is done I am convinced that the family farm in western Canada is going into liquidation. I am convinced that more and more people will leave the farms. I therefore plead with this government to try to implement the program I have outlined here tonight.


Mr. N. C. Schneider (Waterloo North):: wish to avail myself of this opportunity in the debate on the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, to mention a few matters of special concern to my constituents in the riding of Waterloo North. I am here to present their views and opinions, and this I propose to do in as few words as possible.

I am pleased to report general prosperity in Waterloo North. The twin cities of Kitchener-Waterloo and the town of Elmira are enjoying a high degree of employment, with figures showing a slight improvement over last year. These cities are highly industrialized, and Kitchener has become the rubber centre of Canada. My first duty in presenting the problems of my people is to report the continued deterioration of the rubber footwear industry.
While it is true that I have reported high employment in my riding, it is also true that a serious loss is being inflicted on Canada's economy by the laying off of hundreds, or I should say thousands, of skilled footwear makers, including workers at the four additional factories in the province of Quebec at Granby, St. Jerome, Lachine and Acton Vale. The three large plants which for many years manufactured rubber footwear in my riding have been reduced to two as a result of the closing of the Goodrich footwear division, which was moved to Quebec and has since closed operations there. The two remaining footwear plants are operating on a reduced basis, and one of these has added a foam rubber plant so the extensive steam plant may be kept in use. The other remaining plant is geared almost entirely to footwear, and the inroads of Asiatic imports is slowly but surely robbing these two remaining plants of their Canadian outlet.
I do not believe in endless repetition of this complaint regarding the unfair competition of Hong Kong and other Asiatic low wage products, but 7 cents to 15 cents per hour as compared to standard wages prevailing in Canada is unfair, and if continued will surely eliminate Canadian production. It would be a sad day indeed for Canadians if, in the event of war, we were forced to depend on an Asiatic or any other country for such highly essential articles as rubber footwear. With a high priority in wartime, rubber footwear is a necessity to farmers, miners, fishermen, lumbermen, the armed forces and every citizen.
In early December the tariff board held a hearing in Ottawa at which seven submissions were presented by manufacturers, labour organizations, a consumers' association, importers and foreign producers. I attended this hearing, and I feel that it accomplished its purpose by bringing out all the facts, and should be a great help in solving this ever-increasing problem.
Another problem presented to my constituents is the continued deterioration of our Canadian button industry. The inroads of Puerto Rican imports have almost eliminated this once important and busy industry in Canada.

Of the three button factories in Kitchener, one has recently declared its bankruptcy and the other two are in difficulties because the large volume lines, the plastics, are being imported from Puerto Rico at prices below Canadian costs. Puerto Rico, as a part of the United States, is classed as a most-favoured nation, but we feel that wage rates in that country gives those producers an unfair advantage. In addition, I understand that the operators in that country pay no income tax. I again appeal to the Department of Finance and the Department of Trade and Commerce to place some much-needed control on these imports, either by a reduced quota or a fair value for duty purposes based on Canadian costs plus a fair profit, so these two Canadian secondary industries will not be entirely eliminated.
To do my full duty in representing my people I must also bring to this house the appeals of many of the old age pensioners. In this debate we have heard no denial by anyone of the fact that the present pension of $40 per month is insufficient to supply the bare necessities of life today. Many suggestions involving the means test are offered regarding this national service to our senior citizens. It is most desirable that the means test be avoided in old age pensions, and the plan should not place any indignity on the deserving applicant. My own people feel that our province of Ontario has failed them in not paying a supplemental allowance. Though the wealthiest province in Canada, Ontario has done very little compared to British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Ontario's assistance involves a voluntary contribution by the municipality, and everyone agrees that municipalities are already overburdened.
I must present also the appeals of our blind citizens, and their requests for the elimination of the means test as applied to payments to our sightless handicapped citizens. It costs money to be blind, and I feel that the means test as presently applied definitely discourages the blind from making greater efforts to support themselves.
Speaking for my agricultural constituents, I wish to remind the Department of Agriculture of the excellent brief submitted last week by the dairy groups of Waterloo county asking for consideration of the continuance of the butter support plan, with the costs of handling and storage added when government stocks of butter are released to the trade. They also requested the development of high standards for grades of butter and other dairy products, a protective device or a floor price under skim milk powder, and the placing of the product under the Export 82715-35}
The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton and Import Permits Act. They ask also for legislation that will facilitate producers' organizations in co-operating in the orderly marketing of products on an interprovincial basis, and for assistance to the cheese producers to meet unfavourable trends that may occur in their present markets.
. I see no indication that Canadians have changed their habit of eating three meals each day. Most Canadian families offer a prayer of thanks and gratitude for each meal. Do we think also of the lonely hours spent by the farmer who plowed the land to grow the wheat to produce our daily bread? When we enjoy a glass of refreshing, healthbuilding milk or a serving of cream or cheese do we think of the regularly scheduled hours of milking which face the dairy farmer twice each day, and not five days per week but seven days per week? When we spread a serving of good dairy or creamery butter, do we think of the long hours required in the care of a good herd of dairy cows? I mention these things in the hope that the farmer-producer may receive proper recognition of his important place in our economy, and be given a fair return for his labour,
In conclusion I wish to associate myself with those who have congratulated the mover (Mr. Hanna) and seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and the hon. member for Gloucester well deserved the praise of this house on their sensible and well-considered speeches.


William McLean Hamilton: In preparing my thoughts for what I was going to say tonight, Mr. Speaker, I was reminded of a little tribute which I have wanted to pay in this house almost since the day I came to Ottawa. I think I should do so now. I wish to remark on the unusual courtesy and kindness of the Ottawa taxi drivers.
As one who has been in most of the cities of Canada and many of those of the United States, and used taxicabs in each one of them, I have found that while they may be a very efficient method of transportation, the drivers do not go out of their way to look after one as an individual. I have been tremendously impressed with the difference here in Ottawa. They meet us at the station; they carry our bags up the stairs at home, and this last is an unusual factor which I do think deserves recognition from those of us who come to this city from outside. Incidentally, I may say it is probably a very profitable operation for the taxi driver, because the tips one gives here in Ottawa are considerably larger



S48 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton in proportion to those one is tempted to give in any other city of which I know.
The Gordon commission report on the economic prospects of Canada over the next 25 years contains some interesting statistics for all of us who live in the cities of Canada. The commission found:
Canada has been becoming an increasingly urban country and this trend will continue. In 1951, 62 per cent of the population lived in metropolitan areas or in other cities, towns or villages with more than 1,000 people. By 1980 that proportion may rise to 80 per cent. Over the same period the proportion of the population living in metropolitan and urban areas of more than 100,000 people may rise from 36 per cent to 56 per cent.
Translated into actual population figures, the commission estimated that by 1980 the population of Canada's 15 metropolitan areas will be some 12 million people, as compared with 5.2 million at our last census. When we turn to Montreal, with which perhaps I am more familiar than with the other metropolitan areas of Canada, we find that while the Gordon commission has not published a particular estimate for that city, other authoritative figures place our population by 1980 at over 3| million, which is an increase of more than l\ million above the present figure.
Let me turn again to the Gordon report to obtain further background for what I am going to say. It forecasts that there will be a steady decrease in the number of hours we will work each week, so the present average of just over 41 hours will be reduced by 1980 to just over 34 working hours per week. It is probable, too, that we shall have a good deal more money to spend because, to quote the report:
By 1980 the average Canadian, after paying income tax, will have about two-thirds again as much net income for his own use as he had in 1955.
I would say in parenthesis, Mr. Speaker, that the Gordon commission is apparently forecasting a Conservative government, because we certainly have indication that the attitude of the present administration is to do nothing except follow up increased income with increased income taxes.
Encouraging as these estimates may be, they foreshadow the further growth of a problem which is already a major one in most of our cities in Canada, and nowhere more so than in our city of Montreal. I refer to the problem of traffic. The figures forecast a tremendous increase in the nature and the extent of that problem over the next 25 years. That is because, first, we have an increasing concentration of our population in and around the major urban centres of Canada. Second, we have an absolute growth in the number of people who are living in those areas.

Third, we have an increase in their spare time, which will be reflected in additional travelling and additional movement around the city itself. Fourth and finally, I think we can expect that the increased income which is forecast will be reflected in increased automobile ownership, as people move from no car to one car and as our families become more and more two-car families where now they operate only a single automobile.
Take as one example Montreal, which is Canada's largest city-and by all indications it is destined to remain so

situated on an island contiguous to other islands. It faces across the St. Lawrence river another area promising, upon the completion of the seaway, to be one of the most prosperous urban areas in Canada if not in the world. The free circulation of traffic, its smooth movement without delay not only throughout the city but across the water barrier which surrounds the city, becomes not only a municipal concern, not only a provincial concern, but a problem of national importance in which, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, the federal government should have a very direct and immediate interest.
While I have used Montreal as an example, Mr. Speaker, I make these observations on traffic not only in respect of our city but in respect of all the other metropolitan areas across this country which are faced with this problem and which are going to have to solve it, if it is to be solved, through the expenditure of immense amounts of money.
Let me turn to the area which I am using as an example. We find ourselves in Montreal in the midst of a mighty and dynamic metropolitan region which stretches southward to the United States border, westward to the Ontario border, northward in to the Lauren-tians and eastward to the Richelieu river and beyond. Like all the other major cities of Canada, all this surrounding area which is contiguous to the city itself is a part of its region. The city lives, breathes and has its being only as it engages in commerce and interchange of people and business with the metropolitan region surrounding it. As this great heartland of ours grows and flourishes -and I think that future is destined for it- there is going to be an ever greater and more difficult traffic problem throughout the entire area. The co-ordination of this traffic will be the first concern, obviously, of any municipal government or any metropolitan regional government which is established. Once established it will, with the financial help of the provincial government, probably be competent to deal with the arterial roads which run through it and which bind its economic

activities to the rest of the region. But even with a full measure of provincial help no local authority can cope with the many water crossings which this network of arterial roads would require. What demands are likely to be made in the future, and what are the requirements at the present time?
Engineering experts have calculated that it will take a tunnel perhaps seven or eight miles in length to take trains as well as automobiles under the St. Lawrence river, and that this would cost approximately $175 million. I do not propose to quarrel with the cost, though it does seem rather high at this point. I do not even propose to quarrel with the proposed length of the tunnel, though I think we should remember when considering a problem such as this the experience of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the Rockies, where they found that spiral tunnels in which the railroad mounted around and above itself enabled them to bring the road out at a point almost immediately above that at which it entered the mountain. I think that is something which might well be considered by those who are giving this problem engineering study.
Be that as it may, we have a cost estimate of some $175 million in order to provide a tunnel to allow train traffic to go underneath the St. Lawrence river and thus remove it from continued interference with the seaway. That in turn would enable the Victoria and the C.P.R. bridges to be converted to traffic use alone.	Since the
gradient for autos could be much steeper the ends could be raised, especially the south end, to enable it to clear the seaway and thus eliminate another problem which currently is facing us in that area. We also have the promise of the Minister of Transport to deliver a new bridge to Montreal called the Nuns' island bridge, and I shall deal with this subsequently.
With the situation as presently outlined, and with another proposed bridge to the north upon which it is expected the provincial government will embark in the spring, we would still require two additional bridges to the east and west ends of the island, and these might be constructed with the help of the province. On the basis of present-day automobile ownership and traffic count, with these extra bridges and tunnels we would then be almost competent to handle today's traffic. I think I should underline and mark well that I am referring to today's requirements and not those of the future.
Let us look a little into the future. As I have pointed out before, it is estimated that there will be a population increase of about
The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton 1J million in that area by 1980. It is estimated also that motor car registration will increase by about 20,000 a year. This means that in addition to today's traffic, by 1981 there will be an additional 500,000 cars to contend with. We can add to that the increase in the surrounding areas which will rise as the seaway is completed and as industry moves in with its buildings and plans.
This is a clear indication that unless we build well beyond today's requirements we are going to be facing bridge congestion and the blocking of traffic circulation on an even greater scale than at the present time. In order to deal with future requirements we would need at least four more bridges across the St. Lawrence, elevated to clear the seaway traffic, as well as other bridges to the north connecting with the arterial roads.
The cost of such a program is stupendous. Taking the cost of the seven or eight mile tunnel at $175 million, and $90 million each for four elevated bridges which would total $360 million, we arrive at a grand total of $535 million. Then there would be another $300 million to pay for the bridges to connect with the expressways, which would make a grand total of $835 million or close to $1 billion as Montreal's share in providing what would be necessary to deal with the expanding problem of Canadian traffic.
This figure of $835 million to cover the bridges and their immediate connections is obviously impossible of attainment even by such a great metropolis as the city of Montreal. Viewing provincial finances for as short a period as 20 years, it would appear to be even beyond the capacity of the province. If these problems are to be solved it means that they must be considered a responsibility of the federal government. I think I have outlined previously some of the reasons why traffic should be the concern of the federal government as well as the provinces and the municipalities.
In order to arrive at a basis of comparison as to how the federal government might deal with a situation like this we could perhaps turn to the experience of the United States, where at the last session of congress there was created a federal highway administration charged with the building of some 41,000 miles of roads and crossroads to be free of traffic intersections and devoted only to the fast and efficient movement of traffic in the area. They propose to spend some $50 billion in the next 13 years, or approximately $4 billion a year.
One of the major goals of this program is the elimination of traffic congestion in and around big cities by taking the traffic
S50	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton over, under or around the cities by means of bridges, tunnels and underpasses. On the basis of this $50 billion being spread over some 13 years it is expected the United States government will be contributing some $3.2 billion annually by 1965.
Let us relate that to the Canadian picture. On the basis of the relationship between the gross national product of Canada, which is approximately $28.5 billion, and that of the United States, which is about $409 billion, the proportionate amount for us to spend on highways would be some $223 million a year. On the basis of the relationship between our populations, about 16 million in Canada and 167 million in the United States, the proportionate amount would be some $317.5 million a year. Averaging these two figures, which would perhaps give us the truest comparison, we find that the amount would be approximately $270 million if we were to equal the present program of the United States government in highway construction in proportion to our gross national product and our population.
Now let us take a look at just what this government has actually done, and is doing, in this field. The government has acknowledged its responsibility to provide at least some measure of assistance for highway construction across the country by its contribution under the trans-Canada highway plan. In 1955-56 the contributions under this plan were just over $16 million. In the current year they amount to some $30 million. I noticed in the estimates today that another $30 million is proposed for the coming year. To this we must add the construction expenditures by the government itself in connection with providing links in the trans-Canada highway in its own parks. This comes to about $11 million in the current year.
Thus we arrive at a total expenditure for this highway program on the part of the present federal government of about $41 million, and we can use that as a basis of comparison with the $270 million which would be the logical expenditure by this government if it wished to institute a national program of highway development comparable for our country with that undertaken in the United States, and which they feel they can successfully underwrite.
Obviously not even a major part of that amount would be spent in the Montreal area, but if we take our fair share along with Dogberry and Tumbletown, wherever they may be-I use those names so nobody will accuse me of comparing our city with any other-we would receive approximately $38 million a year were such a program instituted.
Mr. Lesage:: The premier of your province would not allow you to take it.


William McLean Hamilton: I am
dealing, Mr. Speaker, with the federal house, and I have not yet reached the point where I receive any instructions from the premier of my province.


Jean Lesage: Yes, but he would not take the money.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I would just love to see any one of the gentlemen on the treasury bench really get down to this question and deal honestly with the premiers of our Canadian provinces and, more particularly, with the premier of Quebec, respecting their views, taking cognizance of local conditions and making a sincere attempt to co-operate with them. They would be very surprised, Mr. Speaker, at just how quickly their money would be taken if they had any sincere desire to give it without an abundance of strings attached.


Jean Lesage: There are no strings attached to trans-Canada highway money.


William McLean Hamilton: have set this plan forward, Mr. Speaker, as an example of the imaginative thinking which I believe is required by the government at the present time in this field of national development. One could go ahead and use many other illustrations; one could find many other fields in which similar action is necessary, but I think this suggestion which I have put forward parallels the attitude of governments which existed in the past, and which helped us to build this country and bring it forward with great strides in a short period of time. I refer, of course, to the time when we were building railroads and canals and when, with federal government assistance, projects which could never have been envisaged either as private or even as provincial projects came into being.
We have reached a point at which traffic in our major cities is strangling the commerce of those cities in a way we have not known before. The federal government, with its tendency to grasp for itself such a large proportion of the tax dollar, has left neither the municipalities nor the provinces with sufficient revenue to deal unaided with this particular problem and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is high time this government proceeded to do something adequate about the situation.
Let us ask ourselves for a moment what this Liberal government has done or what it is proposing to do. How much money has been contributed, for example, toward the situation in Montreal, which I have outlined,

to help in the construction of arterial roads, tunnels and bridges? It has agreed to compensate us for the impairment of traffic caused by the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway by raising one end of the Mercier bridge and the Jacques Cartier bridge, and installing alternate lift bridges at the end of the Victoria bridge. This so-called generosity on the part of the government is intended to restore us to the position in which we were, and we know what that means; choked bridges, highways blocked for miles, helicopters reporting minute by minute news of the blockage, waste of gasoline and waste of time.
It is true we have been promised an additional bridge at Nuns' island at a cost of some $80 million in view of the additional circulation of traffic which is expected to result from activity alongside the seaway, but this project, again, is related to immediate traffic, and it is going to leave us, when completed, in much the position that we are in now.
I wonder, too, Mr. Speaker, whether there is not some contingency in connection with this promised bridge. Before the federal election in 1949 this Liberal government promised a rail and traffic tunnel under the St. Lawrence which was at that time to have cost $80 million or $90 million; the present figure is $175 million. And this present Liberal government was to have paid two-thirds of the cost of this tunnel. There were big headlines in the Montreal newspapers-I read some of them to the Minister of Transport last year -about this statement, this promise of the government. But once the elections were over it was explained that the building of this tunnel was contingent upon the province of Quebec going ahead with power development in the vicinity of the Victoria bridge. We still have not got the tunnel, and last year when it was drawn to the minister's attention he spoke in such a way that we have not even got the promise any more.
When we turn to the promised Nuns' island bridge I think we are right in being a little disturbed. About a year ago we were left with the impression that the construction of the bridge was imminent. We proceeded to a point where the Minister of Transport issued, under date of August 17, 1955, a statement on the development of facilities for the movement of motor traffic between the island of Montreal and the south shore. In that statement the minister said:
. . . the government has decided that it would be in the general interest if the building of a new bridge, with four traffic lanes, connecting the Montreal north shore with the mainland on the south shore were to be undertaken forthwith. Accordingly, instructions have been given to the national harbours board to retain the services of competent engineers to design a bridge to cross the St. Lawrence river over Nuns' island and to
The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton
take, in co-operation with the provincial government and with the municipal authorities concerned, such further steps as are necessary for the building of this bridge. Legislation for these purposes will be recommended to parliament at its next session.
Let me repeat that last sentence.
Legislation for these purposes will be recommended to parliament at its next session.
I have studied with great care the proceedings of the last session of parliament. I have gone through the index, I have searched in every possible place, and there is no legislation whatsoever relating directly to this proposed bridge. There is no specific indication whatsoever that the government has any intention of proceeding with the construction of the bridge.
I think we should realize that the last major project of this kind, the Jacques Cartier bridge in Montreal, was authorized by legislation in this house because it was a matter of joint municipal, provincial and federal concern, and that therefore it would be expected that legislation would be introduced in the house if the government planned to proceed with this project. The fact that they have not introduced such legislation, as so clearly promised in the words of the minister's own statement on August 17, 1955, seems to me to indicate that this also is a project which is contingent upon some other matter.
Only a day or two ago I asked the Minister of Transport when he planned to begin construction of this bridge, and in effect his answer was that he did not quite know, that they hoped to begin some of the approaches this spring. But he cannot begin the approaches and he cannot proceed, as I understand it, until such time as he has got legislation through the house. I suggest most strongly that even if it is a year late, he now make good the promise contained in his statement that he would take action.
I should like finally to touch for a moment on a project which I think might be considered by the government that would be of some considerable benefit to the national development of Canada. I refer to the taking of a national inventory of our natural resources right across the country from coast to coast and the correlation of this information in one particular department where it can be kept up to date. The members of the Gordon commission in their own way have taken an inventory of our economic resources, but we find that we have throughout the country, as we all know, immense natural resources which have been assessed by the provinces but the information on which has not been brought together at one central point.

++NAYS
Messrs:
The Address-Division
The federal government have made a start in that connection with their inventory of forest resources under which, in co-operation with the provinces on a fifty-fifty basis, they are taking a complete inventory of the forest resources of our country, but I think that could be extended. As we proceed with the development of the country and as we ask industry, commerce and business to put their money on the line for development, I think we could assist them in making their plans and assist in the development of the country if we were to provide for them such a centralized inventory and study of the great natural resources of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we call it 9.30?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Nine twenty-nine and a half.


Mr. Speaker:: The Clerk tells me that according to his watch it is now 9.30. Therefore it is my duty, by virtue of the provisions of standing order 38, paragraph 4, to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on the amendment to the amendment and on the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment to the main motion lost. The question now is on the amendment to the

The Address-Division
 NAYS Messrs:
main motion. All those who are in favour of the amendment to the main motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed to the amendment to the main motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members. I note that the whip of the party to my right and the whip of the party to my left, of the official opposition, indicate to me they consider that their members are called in for the purpose of this division. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore I will put the question now. The question is on the amendment to the main motion.



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Murphy (Lambion West): 1.	Were any paintings purchased by or for the national art gallery in the year 1956?
2.	If so, who were the artists and what were the amounts paid in each case?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	Yes.
2.	See table below.

St. Stephen's, Pulham Road	
The Coal Tip	
Coster Woman	
Head, 1951	
Rowlstone Carving with Hanging Lamp ....
Flower Group, 1944	
Painting, 1947	
Whitefield Street Baths	
Chiswick Mall, 1955	
Les Bienfaits de la Paix	
Oat Harvest	
A Cook	
A Mother's Advice	
St. Catherine	
Deposition of Christ	
Grace Lake	
The Survivors	
Antwerp	
Canal Boat, France	
Still Life in Front of a Window	
The Eiffel Tower	
Froissements Delicats	
The Black Cat	
Early Canadian Portrait	
Early Canadian Portrait	
In the Rockies	
Mauza-Pau-Kan	
Nicolet, Fete-Dieu	
Norbert Doucet	
Sunny Sandown, Isle of Wight	
A Breezy Day at Limehouse	
Rue des Jardins, Quebec	
The Mill Stream: Moret	
October: Twin Butte Alberta	
Farm at Thornhill	
Poplar and Pine	
The Gate	
Still Life	
La Fete au Couvent	
Twilight, St. John's Nfld	
Prairie Towers	
Indien	
Composition	
Portrait	
Premiere Neige	
Femme se Coiffant	
Le Peintre Emerveille devant le monde ....
Seven Immortals	
Kuang-Wu Tu-Ho T'U	
ARTIST	PRICE
Robert Medley	 $	280.00
Robert Medley	 280.00
Cere Richards	 75.00
Graham Sutherland	 250.00
John Piper	 100.00
Ivon Hitchens	 100.00
Barbara Hepworth	 125.00
Graham Bell	 350.00
W. Brooker	 238.00
Purvis de Chavannes	 3,920.00
Lucius O'Brien	  400.00
Chardin	
Chardin	   885,000.00
Simone Martini	 for 4
Rubens	
Franch Carmichael	 100.00
John Minton	 500.40
James W. Morrice	 2,500.00
Gagnon	 100.00
Andre Derain	 22,000.00
Marc Chagall	 16,000.00
Borduas	 850.00
Gino Severini	 7,000.00
Unknown	   75.00
Unknown	 75.00
John A. Fraser	 1,750.00
Paul Kane	 1,500.00
Legare	 2 for
Dulongpre	 2,000.00
F. M. Bell-Smith	 300.00
F. M. Bell-Smith	 300.00
R. W. Pilot	 700.00
Maurice Cullen	 450.00
A. Y. Jackson	 850.00
J. E. H. MacDonald	 115.00
J. E. H. MacDonald	 150.00
William Armstrong	 200.00
Maxwell Bates	 125.00
Jean-Paul Lemieux	 700.00
Robert Pilot	 750.00
Kazuo Nakamura	 600.00
J. P. Mousseau	 400.00
Jean-Paul Riopelle	 600.00
Maurice Cullen	 100.00
Horatio Walker	 100.00
Camille Pissarro	 4,002.00
Joseph F. Plasket	 400.00
Li Kung-lin	 16,000.00
Ch'iu Ying ____	___ 7,200.00


Quince and Poem	
Newfoundland Coast	
Milkweed at Oak Lake	
Landscape with Figures	
Blue and Yellow	
Beekeeper, No. 1	
Sea-Gull	
Tree Tufts	
Yellow Landscape with Cliffs and Boats . ...
Les Diaphanes	
Noeud-Papillon	
Le Front a Catastrophe	
Le Visiteur du Soir	
Street Scene	
Niagara Falls	
Summer Afternoon	
La Petite Place	
Le Chasseur	
Fete d'Assomption	
The Loggers	
Rossi	
Self Portrait	
Two Miners	
Mountains Back of Taomina	
Still Life, Blue	
The Green Settee	
Port en Sicile	
Facade No. 8	
The Artist Painting Queen Victoria	
Questions
ARTIST	PRICE
Chu Ta	 3,600.00
Ernest Lawson	 900.00
Bruno Bobak	 125.00
John Minton	 87.04
Terry Frost	 428.40
Ceri Richards	 476.00
Paul-Emile Borduas	 1,000.00
F. H. Varley	 150.00
D.	H. Fraser	 680.00
Leon Bellefleur	 300.00
Fernand Leduc	 125.00
Alfred Pellan	 400.00
Jean-Paul Lemieux	 350.00
F. Brownell	 100.00
Wishaw	 350.00
W. A. Ogilvie	 160.00
A. Marquet	 4,870.25
O.	Leduc	
40.00O.	Leduc	
50.00Suzor-Cote	
1,250.00Edward Burra	
365.85Joseph Wright	
2,176.00Josef Herman	
542.00Stephen Andrews	
542.00W. Scott	
975.60E.	Brooker	
542.00Nicolas de Stael	
8,600.00Marian Scott	
185.00F.	M. Bell-Smith	
150.00


SESSIONAL PAPER 107 B
Mr. Hees: What was the total cost in connection with sessional paper number 107B, tabled in pursuance of an order of the house passed on June 20, 1956?
Answer by: Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises that this cost is estimated at $1,750.00.


GORDON COMMISSION COSTS
Mr. Hees: 1.	What is the total cost in connection with the Gordon commission up to January 1, 1957?
2.	What civil servants, if any, were seconded by the government to work for the commission, and for what length of time has each of them worked?
3.	Is the remuneration of such civil servants being paid as part of the Gordon commission inquiry expenses for such time as they were working for the commission?
4.	What annual salary as civil servants is paid to each of the said civil servants?
Answer by: Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of
Finance):
1.	$712,549.73.
2,	3 and 4. The annual salaries of civil servants seconded to work for the commission were paid from their departmental appropriations and were not charged to the expenses of the commission except in the case of Mr. P. Garceau whose salary was charged to the commission. The cost of terminable allowances was charged to the expenses of the commission.
Date	Date Struck	Terminable	AnnualName	Seconded	off strength	Allowance	SalaryD. V. LePan	1 July 1955	Still serving	
$4,000.00	$10,500.00J. Davis	1 June 1955	Still serving	
2,000.00	9,500.00S. Reisman	1 June 1955	Still serving	
1,000.00	9,500.00W. A. Mackay	15 Aug. 1955	Still serving	
1,000.00	4,920.00B. M. Erb	1 Jan. 1956	Still serving	
1,980.00	5,760.00H. A. Hampson	29 Aug. 1955	Still serving	
500.00	5,160.00G. McColm	17 Sept. 1956	Still serving	
nil	8,100.00A. L. Best	1 Oct. 1955	Still serving	
600.00	7,380.001. B. Rutherford	22 May 1956	31 Dec. 1956	
900.00	8,100.00A Garceau	1 July 1955	30 Nov. 1956	
nil	4,080.00A. MacRitchie	25 May 1955	6 July 1956	
nil	4,380.00J. Shaw	1 July 1955	Still serving	
nil	3,720.00
557

Wednesday, January 23, 1957


IMMIGRATION
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave, pursuant to standing order 26, to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the gross abuse of natural justice constituted by the methods followed at the hearing of the appeal of Christian George Hanna by an immigration appeal board in Vancouver, British Columbia, and the urgent necessity of suspending action in connection with the deportation of Mr. Hanna until his case has been fully considered and disposed of in accordance with proper and just procedures.
If I may, as to the urgency-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think the other day the hon. gentleman objected to anything being said after such a motion had been submitted to the Speaker for his opinion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And I recall that on that occasion the Speaker said the matter of urgency might properly be the subject of reference, and there was in fact a reference to that question by the right hon. gentleman.


Mr. Speaker:: I will first read the motion and see if I need any assistance. If I do, no doubt I will call upon the hon. gentleman. It strikes me on reading over the subject matter of the motion which the hon. member for Kamloops has submitted that, as a ground for the urgency of debate in this matter, he talks about the suspension of an action which is about to be taken with respect to the gentleman mentioned in the motion. Perhaps the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) could state whether or not there is an action contemplated having to do with the deportation of Mr. Hanna.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, all I can state is what I hear on the radio and read in the press: that a gentleman who purports to be the solicitor for this person has applied to the supreme court of British Columbia, from which it would seem to me
that the case is before the courts and, therefore, hardly an appropriate subject for debate in this house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I could say what I was told by the solicitor?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That following the process, which was called a hearing, before the immigration appeal board yesterday morning, the man was ordered to leave and was, according to my information at the time of the telephone call, in the process of being transported back to Port Alberni where the boat is lying in harbour and from which it is due to sail, I believe, tonight. Knowing the practice of the department in the past of disregarding notices of applications for writs of certiorari and their practice of trying to get people out of the country notwithstanding those notices having been served, unless the minister is able to state positively that this man will not be deported until after the case is heard, I submit there are grounds established by the wording of the motion for urgency of discussion and decision.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. gentleman talks about urgency of discussion and decision. The only decision we can arrive at is that we adjourn the house, and the debate is over. That is the only decision we can arrive at today. The overriding practice, of course, is that while the debate on the address is currently proceeding, motions under standing order 26 are not accepted, and that has been the case, as the hon. gentleman knows, for many years.
There is no doubt that the matter referred to in this motion is one which many members regard with a great deal of sympathy, but as for putting aside the debate on the address today in order to discuss this matter-one which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has alleged may be before the courts -I hesitate to do so.
One must not forget that there has been moved a subamendment to the amendment on the main motion, and that today and tomorrow, if we go on with the debate on the address, members who have spoken on the main motion or on the amendment may speak again on the subamendment which was moved a few days ago.

Immigration-C. G. Hanna


Edmund Davie Fulton: On that particular question, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the purpose of a motion such as this is to enable the house to deal in a substantive manner with the subject matter complained of or brought to its attention. The only way that effective action can be taken in this instance is if we obtain from the minister, as a result of that process and discussion, an assurance that this man will not be sent out of Canada pending full and proper disposition of his case.
There is no way in the course of the speech from the throne debate in which that issue can be brought to a head. It can, I submit, only be brought to a head if you allow me to present this motion so that discussion can be directed towards that specific subject matter and the house can express its opinion and get a positive reaction and assurance from the minister on that basis. There is no way in the throne speech debate to bring about such a result. That is why it is urgent that that debate be adjourned.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Without purporting to give an opinion on the rules, are we not in danger of forgetting that this is the high court of parliament and are there not occasions when we may take such action as will try to ensure that natural justice will be done and that a department of this government, which after all is subject to this house, shall not be allowed to disregard the procedures of the law of the land?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be no other means whereby a measure of justice can be secured for this man than through a motion such as has been moved by the hon. member for Kamloops. The situation is simply this. If discussion takes place on the speech from the throne debate there is no means whereby the minister may be required to answer in any way and whereby parliament can act in order to prevent anything in the nature of a tyrannical use of absolute power.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I suggest that whatever the merits of the Hanna case may be there is no other recourse. Unless this motion is allowed, then, whatever the courts may subsequently decide, this man may be spirited away and may be out of the jurisdiction and an injustice will have been done. Indeed, to a great degree this is similar to the Archer Shee case. Parliament must necessarily act in order to assure justice.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In view of the interventions of so many gentlemen on the other side, I think possibly the hon. member for Kamloops will feel that the suggestion he made the other day is not of


universal application. There seems to be one question about which it would be quite important to know what the facts are. It is suggested that the solicitor who has been giving information to the hon. member for Kamloops so that it might be used on the floor of the house has made an application to the supreme court of British Columbia for some kind of writ. I do not know whether or not that is a fact. I did not hear the radio reports this morning because I was still on a railway car. But if that is the case then though this may be the highest court of the land there is a positive rule that this highest court of the land has adopted and that is that matters sub judice before the ordinary courts of the land will not be debated here while they are before those courts.
When this is likened to other cases, it seems to me that the suggestion being made is that the department of immigration might be about to do something which was done by the Department of Justice presided over by Hon. Mr. Doherty in 1911 when Harry K. Thaw happened to be within the confines of this country and Mr. Doherty gave instructions, in spite of the proceedings that were before the court, to have him picked up like a chip and just tossed over the border. Nothing of that kind is contemplated here at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: There is not very much similarity between the Harry Thaw case and the present one.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It has never appealed to this government to follow the effective but extraordinary procedures that were adopted in 1911. Proceedings have been taking place in the manner prescribed by the statute and there is the suggestion-and perhaps the hon. member for Kamloops would be in a position to say whether or not this is so-that the solicitor who has been briefing him about this extraordinary case was applying to the courts of justice in the province of British Columbia where I assume that, if there are rights, they can be asserted and will get consideration from the judicial authority in the hon. gentleman's own province.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that I think we are losing sight of what this resolution really asks. I refer to "the urgent necessity of suspending action in connection with the deportation of Mr. Hanna until his case has been fully considered and disposed of in accordance with proper and just procedures". We have before us no information as to what is happening in the supreme court of British

Columbia. However, we have before us information that this man is likely to be deported.
With regard to the matter of urgency may I say this, Mr. Speaker. The other day, when objection was taken to a motion that I made in this house, you were good enough to say that you would look into the matter because there was some doubt in your mind as to whether the debate on the address which is now proceeding ruled out the possibility of a debate on a matter of great urgency. I submit that this is a matter of urgency. I can understand the legal position of the department but I also understand that the final authority with regard to these cases rests with the minister. Here we are, as has already been said by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), sitting here as it were as the high court of parliament, the last court of appeal. We do not know what is happening in British Columbia. We do not know whether the supreme court has allowed the case to be made before it. We know nothing of these things except the word given us by the hon. member for Kamloops. I think the hon. member for Kamloops has a. right to receive information on matters of any kind brought to him by anybody who approaches him with authentic information. I feel keenly and strongly that the minister and the government will make a serious mistake and will be looked upon as interfering with something touching human rights and fundamental freedoms if this debate is denied. Many members of the house have exhausted their right to speak in the debate on the speech from the throne and they may be vitally interested in speaking. I refer to such members as my friend the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw). I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this request is in order and that it should be allowed.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, may I just add one word on the subject that the leader of the C.C.F. has mentioned, namely the attempt the other day to do what is being attempted today. I did not mention the matter at the time because of the answer which you gave to him. However, I want to stress what has always been the understanding of the house since I came here and, from what I can read, has been the understanding on all other occasions. On those occasions when we are in general debates, as on the address and the budget at least, if not others, and perhaps even motions to go into supply, if these particular items for discussion are before the house there is then an opportunity to debate any matter that any hon. member wishes to bring before the house. I admit that the question of
Immigration-C. G. Hanna relevancy sometimes enters into the matter with respect to a particular amendment. Nevertheless, I think it has been the ruling of every successive Speaker in this house that on those general occasions anything can be said by an hon. member and any particular matter can be debated. In other words, any person speaking this morning or this afternoon could advert to this subject and say what he wished with respect to what the government is doing. Since that is the case, I think the rule has always been interpreted in the matter of urgency with respect to a particular matter as a matter of urgency of debate. I am quite sure any member can take part this afternoon and speak on this subject. I feel that any other ruling by Your Honour, if I may say so with respect, would be almost a complete reversal of our previous understanding.


William Earl Rowe: Before your decision is rendered, I should like to make a few observations on the argument advanced by the Minister of Finance. I thought the argument advanced by the Prime Minister was flimsy, but the flimsiest argument of all has been that put up by the Minister of Finance. Never has a debate on the speech from the throne or a budget debate been interrupted more often by the government itself than in the last few years. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) has said, a score of members on this side of the house had expressed their opinions on the speech from the throne before this matter arose. It is either a matter of urgency or it is not.


An hon. Member:: National emergency?


William Earl Rowe: It may not be to you, but it is to a lot of people throughout this country. The national honour of this country is at stake.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: Hon. members may laugh. You have a great country, but you like to keep it to yourself and just let in the persons you like. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should make a decision on this subject. The hon. member for Kamloops is quite within his rights in raising the matter. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said, there are members who had exhausted their time on the speech from the throne before this emergency arose. The Prime Minister has chided the hon. member for Kamloops for obtaining information from the solicitor. If we in the official opposition did not obtain information from the press or from friends we would never get it because the government does not

Immigration-C. G. Hanna give us information. Never since confederation has there been a government that has hidden the facts more than this government has. All the way down the line there has been excuse after excuse. What have you to hide?
Why does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration sit so smug and look so pale when he fears this matter is coming before parliament? Tell us why. It is either a matter of urgency or it is not. If you and I, Mr. Speaker, were in Mr. Hanna's place- God forbid we should be-we have both been embarrassed before but not to that extent-*


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Is this a discussion on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, or is it a stump speech?


William Earl Rowe: I would not like to take your judgment on that because I have heard your stump speeches and I never thought much of them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe has provided me with ample assistance. I want to say that if the hon. gentleman and I were in Mr. Hanna's place, I am sure he would find a way of talking both of us out of it.


William Earl Rowe: I am not sure with this government in power.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the serious remarks made by various hon. members. One of these days I will suggest that standing order No. 26 be amended so that it will leave the entire responsibility for the decision as to urgency in the hands of the house and not put it upon one individual, namely the Speaker. Some hon. members have stressed the fact that the purpose of standing order No. 26 is to have decisions taken. My own interpretation of standing order No. 26 is that it is the one which replaced the old motion for adjournment which was moved in the middle of a debate whenever some member wanted to discuss a matter which had nothing to do with the motion proposed at the beginning of a sitting. Those who have read the old debates will recall that as a debate was proceeding on a certain specific motion and a member would go beyond the field of relevancy of that motion, someone would say you need a motion for adjournment. He would stand up and move it, and the hon. gentleman who had the floor could carry on speaking about a subject which had nothing to do with the motion which had been the subject of discussion at the beginning of that debate. Therefore, because of the abuses brought about by this system, they brought in standing order 26, which used to be standing order 31.


This house now has a vehicle to discuss matters of actuality, some things that arise which hon. members feel should be debated. The net result of it is after the debate has taken place and is concluded the house has to adjourn. It is not a substantive motion although it has been amended once; but the amendment was not voted on. At the end of the sitting the adjournment takes place.
Here is my difficulty. Hon. members will agree that whenever there was a motion to go into supply in the offing or a motion to go into ways and means-they were debatable in sessions prior to last session- whenever the debate on the budget was currently going on, whenever the address in reply was currently going on, I do not think any hon. members can state one specific case where a motion under standing order 26 has ever been allowed by my predecessors or by myself. If there is one I would like to have it cited to me.
The other day when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar moved this type of motion it was a matter of great importance. I then told him that since we were entering the debate, if the Minister of Finance or any other minister had, under standing order 38(2), stood up on the first day or the second day and said, "Well, tomorrow we shall take up some other business", thereby postponing the continuance of the debate on the address to three, four, five or six days later than the next day-this is what I said on January 9, 1957, as recorded at page 23 of Hansard:
I do not say that he should not be permitted to make his motion again.
I would have allowed the hon. gentleman's motion the following day if the minister on the eve of that day had announced by virtue of standing order 38(2) that he would postpone the debate on the address. Since that did not occur, and we were carrying on the debate on the address, full opportunity was given for a debate on the matter of urgency which was contained in the motion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.
We have two more days for the debate on the address. Some hon. members claim they have exhausted their right to speak. Well, I have the list here before me of those who have spoken on the amendment, the subamendment and the main motion and there is no doubt that there is still a great deal of freedom for the purpose of discussing this matter.
Something has been said about obtaining information. Information may be obtained at question time. As a matter of fact I:

think the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saa-nich (Mr. Pearkes) asked some questions of the minister yesterday and the day before. The Leader of the Opposition has done so as well.
Now, if I do depart today from the previous practice of not allowing a motion under standing order 26 when the debate on the address is currently going on or a similar debate which affords great latitude I will not have justification for having refused the motion' made the other day by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. What would prevent us from having a motion tomorrow on a subject which may be different? I have to oppose my own personal opinion as to the urgency of debate in this case but standing order 26 is so construed as to leave that responsibility upon myself. Because of the past practice, as I say, of previous Speakers and because of my own' previous rulings 1 regret that I cannot accept the motion.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, may I point out that you have dealt with one matter of urgency, but is there not another matter of urgency before this house? This house has knowledge that a minister is proposing to take action which would defeat the course of justice. Do we have to sit here-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of
personal privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There has been a
question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Greenwood and the minister wishes to rise on a question of privilege himself. I think that we ought to rally ourselves around the decision which I have just made. It may not be a decision which is satisfactory, but nevertheless it is one which I feel I have to make. It may be much more painful to myself perhaps than to any other members in this house. However, I feel that I should not depart from the previous practice which has been established over a period of many years. One of these days I may depart from it, but when I do I wish to be sure that I have had full opportunity to study the implications of a change in the practice.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, if this comes to a vote-


Mr. Speaker:: There is no vote. I have made my ruling and there is no appeal.


C. G. HANNA    REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT DEPORTATION WILL BE POSTPONED
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister give the
Inquiries of the Ministry house assurance that Christian G. Hanna will not be deported from Canada until after the date of the application for the hearing of the writ which I understand is on February 1.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any other assurance than the assurance that there will be no departure from the law established by parliament and that every opportunity for the consideration of what should be the proper application of that law will be given.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that undertaking does not go anywhere at all. I wish to ask the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: There is an application before the court, according to-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -the information I have. Will the Prime Minister give the undertaking that, until the courts decide, arbitrary practices will be discontinued in this case and this man will not be spirited out of the country so that he will be gone in any event and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration will be victorious.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There will be no arbitrary action. The hon. gentleman overlooks, or perhaps does not overlook, the fact that this man could not be deported otherwise than by being placed back on the ship from which he disembarked. I do not know what procedures we could take to hold that ship pending a decision by the courts as to whether or not the man could remain in Canada. I do not know what the facts are.
The hon. member for Kamloops has suggested that the ship is going to depart from Canada this evening. It may very well be that advantage is attempted to be taken of the fact that if the ship gets away without this man, whether the courts decide he can stay in Canada or not, there would be no physical possibility of having him leave Canada because I understand the ship has already visited many ports and at each one there has been a refusal to allow him to land because of the fact that he is not one who could be admitted according to the entry laws of the countries of those various ports.
There is no desire to spirit him away. There is no greater obligation on Canada to take this man who apparently asserts that he was born at sea. I do not know on what ship or under which flag he says he was born. That seems to be the difficulty. I personally have not gone into the facts of this case, but I have been told that there

Inquiries of the Ministry are no special grounds for the recommendation that he should be admitted into Canada except the ground that nobody else wants to take him in anywhere else. It may be that we have more vacant space in this country than in most other countries; it may be that could be urged as a reason why we should do what nobody else wants to do; but these are matters which I do not think should become a contest between political parties.
There can be varying views as to whether we should in this country take on that which nobody else wishes to have elsewhere. That may be the opinion of some but it would not be the opinion of all, I am quite sure, because this parliament has enacted immigration legislation. If the legislation were to be wide open and everybody who could put his foot on Canadian soil would be entitled to stay here because that had happened, then there would be no need for that legislation. I am sure that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is giving and has given consideration to all the alleged facts.
However, I have not personally gone into those facts and there certainly will be no attempt to spirit him away in order to avoid the consequences of any court decision. On the other hand, there should not be the sanction by opinion of hon. members of this house to the effect that he will have to stay here because the only place where he could have been put back would be no longer in Canadian waters. That is a consideration which must have some bearing on the proceedings and I would like to know, if the hon. member for Kamloops does know, whether or not there has been an application to the supreme court of British Columbia as was announced over the radio this morning.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister, since I must do this by way of a question, if he is aware that the objection taken is not to the refusal to admit this man but that the refusal was based on an improper hearing which was not a hearing at all? No one is alleging, now, that the man is entitled to remain permanently; what is being alleged is that he is entitled to a proper hearing to determine whether or not he is admissible, and it is to determine that issue that an application for a writ of certiorari has been made. The application is returnable on the 1st of February, and the assurance asked for is that the man would remain in Canada until then so that the finding of the court on the 1st of February would have some effect with respect to his right of a hearing as to his admissibility.
I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister a further question. Can he say


whether, if, as I understand, assurances have been given that even though the ship may have left Canadian waters in the meantime, should Mr. Hanna be here and found to be non-admissible by judicial process, he will be returned at no cost to the ship, the right hon. gentleman would give an assurance in turn that this man will not be sent out of Canada before the courts can deal with his application?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps the hon. gentleman has different views, but I do not see how any arrangement could be made to return that man to the ship if the ship were not in Canadian waters.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He could be sent on another ship.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We might perhaps charter a ship to go and meet the other ship in some port, but I do not think that is a proper procedure to suggest.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Prime Minister has misunderstood my question; I would hesitate to suggest he has done so deliberately. Can he say whether if an assurance has been given, as I understand it has been given to the immigration officials of Vancouver, that if Hanna should be found to be nonadmissible then those interested in his application will see that he is returned to the ship at their expense, wherever it may be-they do not need to charter a ship to do that either-whether, if that undertaking has been given, it is not fair and reasonable to ask that the other undertaking I have mentioned should also be given?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If that kind of undertaking were given by persons who are interested in this case and who are in a position to implement that undertaking, it would be a matter which should receive serious consideration, but the first appearance would be that efforts are being made to keep this man in Canada by one means or another until there would be no possibility of his not remaining in Canada no matter what the findings of the court might be.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May
I address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration? Does the minister consider that we in Canada have less of an obligation to admit this man than we had, some years ago, to admit a United States citizen with a criminal record who entered the country illegally, committed a crime after he had entered and was nevertheless allowed to remain here as a landed immigrant by virtue of an order in council?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not suppose, Mr. Speaker, that that rhetorical question was meant to be answered at all, but on the assumption that possibly it was, I would say, as I said the other day, that I can find no ground under the law which would permit the minister or any of his officials to admit this man to Canada at all. That is under the law made by this parliament.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why wouldn't you give him a proper hearing?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman would just possess himself in peace till I have finished I would be delighted to answer his question. As I said, no one has been able to find any ground on which this man could satisfy the requirements of the immigration law, but I am told by my department since this debate began in the house that we have information that a summons has been served on the chief immigration officer in British Columbia. That means that this case is definitely before the courts, and therefore I do not think it would be proper for me to say anything further about it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister give the house an assurance that this summons having been served and the matter being sub judice his department will regard itself as legally bound to take no steps in this matter until the question is disposed of, and undertake not to return Hanna to the ship?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will not give the house any legal opinion whatsoever.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister assure the house that he will abide by the law? No one has asked for a legal opinion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly, I will give an unqualified assurance that I will abide by the law.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister give an assurance that he will make no attempt to evade the consequences or the application of the law by having this man sent out of Canada before the law can be applied?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister's record is not a record of evasion at any time, and every hon. member of this house knows it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is an evasion in itself.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if he would inform the house of the composition of the appeal board which heard this case?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot do so offhand, but I will be glad to answer that question tomorrow.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Solon Earl Low: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and a question of the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. The two questions are related. My first question is directed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. If the ship sails tonight and takes Mr. Hanna, will the reference to the supreme court of British Columbia be proceeded with and a decision handed down?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think that is a question that it would be in any way proper for me to answer, having regard to the fact that the case has already been taken before the courts. It is a hypothetical question in any case.


Solon Earl Low: My second question is directed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Hanna case is apparently a case of a stateless person. Is there not some way of referring the case to some agency of the United Nations to deal with a matter of this kind so that this person will not have to be confined to a ship for the rest of his life? Is there anything we can do to have the reference made?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, 1 assure my friend that I will be glad to give careful consideration to the implications of his question.


Major James William Coldwell: May
I ask one question? Does not the United Nations rule apply only to people in refugee camps? If this man cannot get into a refugee camp to be treated as a stateless person, where is he to go?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Statelessness is a problem that has been before the legal committee of the United Nations from time to time, but I would not want to give a ready answer to something to which I have not had a chance to give full consideration.


Solon Earl Low: What I wanted to find out was whether or not, since Canada is now involved up to the ears in this whole matter, somebody in the government might not be prepared to refer it to some agency of the United Nations in order to get the problem solved. It is a humanitarian question and all of us ought to be concerned about it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the government is as concerned about it as anyone. My hon. friend will remember that Professor Humphrey, head of the human rights division of the United Nations, has already given some indication of interest in this matter, on behalf of the secretariat of the United Nations. However, I have not had a chance to really

Inquiries of the Ministry grasp the full implications of my hon. friend's question and I would not want to say any more now. I assure him the matter will be looked into, consistent with all the facts and our own obligations.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, can the minister of external affairs say whether enough nations have as yet ratified the statute of the international atomic energy agency to make it operative? Second, is the government considering bringing forward a motion for ratification on the part of Canada before this session of parliament has come to a conclusion? I ask this question because of press reports of a discussion of a somewhat similar nature at the United Nations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question. In respect of the first part, my reply on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is that the international atomic energy agency will become operative when 18 of the signatory nations have deposited instruments of ratification. Among these 18 signatories must figure at least three of the following countries: France, United Kingdom, United States, the Soviet union, Canada. The United States, which is the depository government, has not advised us of the deposit of any instruments of ratification as yet. The government has no information that any of the signatories have as yet ratified the statute.
With respect to the second part of the question, as I indicated to my hon. friend before today's sitting, I am not in a position to give an answer. I have not yet had an opportunity on behalf of my colleague to discuss this matter with my colleagues. I shall ask that that part of the question be allowed to stand until I am in a position to give a definite reply.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: On Friday the hon. member for
Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) and yesterday the

hon. leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked whether it was my intention to order a public inquiry in connection with the loss of the pilot boat in Saint John harbour.
I should like to inform the house that I have now received the report of the preliminary investigation made by Captain Graves of my department, and that I am taking the steps necessary in order to hold a formal investigation pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of the statement he has just made with respect to the public inquiry at Saint John and also with reference to my question on January 16 regarding that matter and also the department's responsibilities? Is the minister now prepared to say what immediate steps will be taken to replace the lost pilot vessel and what immediate precautions may be necessary to prevent in future any such sad accident?


George Carlyle Marler: In my understanding of the facts of the matter and of the shipping orders, there is no need for further precautions to be taken with regard to the operation of a pilot boat. With respect to the replacement of the pilot boat, I should like to tell the hon. gentleman that we are making arrangements to secure another and hope to have it available very shortly.


William McLean Hamilton: Will the Minister of Transport inform the house why members of the families of those lost on the vessel in the pilot service at Saint John were denied counsel at the preliminary closed hearing while the steamship company was represented by counsel, lawyer J. Paul Barry?


George Carlyle Marler: The purpose of the inquiry which was held in Saint John was purely and simply to determine what were the facts of the accident in order that it would be possible to decide whether or not a public inquiry should be held. I believe that counsel representing the pilots was present and I believe one other counsel was present, although I do not know whom he represented. But it was not a'public inquiry. It was not an inquiry for the purpose of determining responsibility or guilt, and in point of fact there was no reason why anybody should have been represented at that inquiry.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Yesterday the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Lavigne) asked if consideration had been given to the question of transportation services to the municipalities affected by the abandonment of the New York Central line between Ottawa and Cornwall.
I find that by its order No. 90648, dated January 10, 1957, the board of transport commissioners on the application of the New York Central Railroad Company approved the abandonment of the line between Ottawa and Cornwall, provided that the abandonment would not take place earlier than February 15, 1957. This application was considered by the board at a public hearing held in Ottawa on December 12, 1956, at which interested parties were present or represented. In its judgment the board quotes textually the statement made at the public hearing by counsel for the railway company, which reads as follows:
No provincial highway runs directly through the territory of the line, but the district and communities in question are well served by adequate all-weather roads which connect with provincial highway No. 31 which runs from Ottawa to Morrisburg and there meets provincial highway No. 2 to Cornwall. Daily truck service is provided between Cornwall and the villages of Crysler, Newington, Finch and Ottawa. Berwick is served by Taggart Trucking of Ottawa, Ontario, and Glengarry Transport of Alexandria. Crysler, Russell and Embrun are served by Taggart Trucking and Glengarry Transport. Crysler, Berwick, Newington, Finch and Cornwall are also served by Earner Daye Transport Ltd. of Cornwall.
The judgment also notes that the freight handled on the line was negligible and, as the hon. member knows, there has been no passenger service on the line since the spring of 1954.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked if since the end of the regular session of last year I had received representations on behalf of the retired employees of the Canadian National Railways in receipt of pensions of $25 per month for an increase in the amount of the pension. The answer to that question is that I have received no such representations. The hon. member also asked if further consideration has been given to this
Inquiries of the Ministry matter or if it will be given by the minister or the government. Representations were made recently to the management of the Canadian National Railways that any smaller pension now payable by it should be increased to $60 per month, but no action has been taken and the matter has not been considered by the Minister of Transport or the government itself.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Are press reports correct that the government of Manitoba has offered to come into the federal government's health or hospital insurance plan provided coverage is extended to include cases of mental illness and tuberculosis?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the press reports to which my hon. friend directs my attention. I would want to see them first.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a supplementary question? Can he say whether the government is considering extending the coverage provided in its plan so as to encourage more provinces to agree to it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government has not considered any modification in that particular or in any other particular. The proposal made by the federal government was a generous and comprehensive proposal, as was formerly acknowledged by the hon. gentleman. The government does not intend to include patients in tuberculosis and mental hospitals within the compass of its proposals for the simple reason that these are responsibilities now assumed by the provinces. In that particular we are following precisely the practice followed under the hospital insurance acts of Saskatchewan and British Columbia. With regard to tubercular and mental patients who receive treatment for their illness in general hospitals, they are included within the terms of the federal proposal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a further supplementary question? Is the government afraid that by amending its proposals six provinces might agree and the federal government would then have to deliver the goods with respect to health insurance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker, the government is not afraid. My hon. friend's persistence in asking these questions reminds me,

Inquiries of the Ministry as I told him on another occasion, of a cheer leader who considers that every time a touchdown is scored he is the one who has scored the touchdown.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are in a position to score.


Daniel Roland Michener: May I
ask a supplementary question? With respect to the offer made by the government to which the minister has referred, does the government propose to bring that offer to parliament to get the authority to make it and, if so, when?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend possibly has forgotten the terms of the proposal itself. The proposal contained a number of offers and with respect to those offers the federal government said that when six provinces representing a majority of the people of Canada had expressed their concurrence the federal government would take the necessary legislative steps to carry out its end of the matter. The federal government is not in any way retreating from these proposals. It stands by these proposals. When six provinces representing a majority of the people express their readiness to proceed, the federal government will act in accordance with the proposal it made last January as announced by the Prime Minister in the house and by myself when we were meeting with the provinces in another room in this building.


Daniel Roland Michener: Perhaps I understand the offer better than the minister understood my question. I asked the minister whether or not the government proposed to ask parliament for authority to make any such offers to the provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot say any more than what I have said. I think if my hon. friend reads what I have said he will find that the question has been amply answered.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The question is not answered. Another evasion.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Would the minister indicate what provinces have accepted the proposal and whether any of the provinces with Liberal governments have accepted the proposal?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The provinces of British
Columbia and Alberta, in that order, and the province of Saskatchewan have accepted the proposal. I may say that the proposal is being actively considered by all provinces. I had a visit this morning from the premier of one province who discussed certain aspects of the problem.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government given any consideration to amending its own proposal so that the people of those provinces whose governments are prepared to go along with and accept the health program may be able to obtain the benefits of it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already answered that question, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat my answer. The government has no intention of modifying the proposal that is made because, on analysis, that proposal will be found to be a most generous one. To my hon. friend who has asked this question I may say this. In view of the repetitious character of the question I have a suspicion that he would be most unhappy if we made any progress in this matter.
Mr. Cold well: Oh, no. You know better than that. You know that we have plugged for this measure for 20 years.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister why he continues to give the province of Ontario and others the veto over the policies of his own department.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not believe that is a fair observation, Mr. Speaker. I think all the provinces which are examining this proposal are doing so conscientiously and responsibly without exception, and that includes the province of Ontario.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask
the minister whether negotiations are now under way between this government and one or more of the provinces, not with regard to modifications as to the general area of coverage but as to the proportion of the population which it will be necessary to include under the scheme before it will be acceptable to the province?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that discussions have been under way between the federal government and some provinces and are under way now between the federal government and some provinces on matters which these provinces at this stage would prefer to be regarded as the subject of negotiation between the two governments.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In other words, the minister is not able to say any more.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry Oliver White: Mr. Speaker, I rather felt that we used considerable time in asking questions yesterday

and today, but I want to ask one question of the Minister of Transport. Is the airport at London, Ontario, to be equipped with airport and airways surveillance radar as are the other main airports in Canada? If so, when will this radar be in operation?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot answer that question without inquiring and verifying the 15 stations at which the installation is to be made.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. R. F. L. Hanna for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Shaw.
(Translation):
Hector Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, the house came very near missing the pleasure-or misfortune-of hearing me deal with a matter which, in the circumstances, should not be discussed at all in this house. I do not know the gentleman in question, nor am I acquainted with the facts which prevent him from entering Canada. One thing I do know, however, is that, as was stated on the other side of the house, the honour of our country is at stake. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the honour of six or seven countries is at stake, considering that those countries, for reasons unknown to me, refused to admit this man. I have always understood, even though I am not overly conversant with the rules of the house, that no question which is still sub judice can be discussed in the house. Though you do not need my official approval, Mr. Speaker, I might say that I fully share the opinion you expressed a moment ago and which, in the present circumstances, is certainly the most appropriate.
I would now like to continue the few remarks which I had intended to make with regard to the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
1 was dealing with the government's decision to establish a Canada Council for the encouragement of the arts, humanities and social sciences. I will dwell at length on this topic. It goes without saying that I do not intend to launch here into a detailed study of the matter, especially since my time is limited. Besides, I do not claim to have sufficient knowledge of all matters relating to the arts to justify my dealing with them at great
The Address-Mr. Dupuis length. However, I am sure that our artists will derive much benefit from the study which is to be made of the situation of the arts in this country. It should make for considerable progress in this field, it should allow our great Canadian artists to attain a very high standing in the fields of music, drama, motion pictures and others.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks I said that, like most Canadians, I am sure, I am appreciative of the legislation the government intends to submit to the house at this session, more particularly with regard to the increase in university grants.
Again because I have but little time at my disposal, I do not intend to take part in the controversy touched off by this liberality, this generosity on the part of the present government. On the other hand, it does appear evident, to me at least, that as regards provincial autonomy, the good faith of the government cannot be questioned. I am not aware that the universities which were able to accept those grants in the past have ever been obliged to change one solitary item in their curricula, to replace any professor or to make the smallest change in their educational system.
I take this opportunity of repeating here that I would support no political party whatever which would attempt to infringe on the autonomy of any province; I will go further and say that I would fight it with all my strength. The provinces enjoy certain rights which have been guaranteed by confederation. We want every one of them to be perfectly free to exercise those rights. I repeat that no government, no political party, will ever have my support, or that of most members of this house, if it were to infringe upon provincial autonomy.
This year the government proposes to increase grants to provincial governments, to help technical and vocational training in schools under their immediate jurisdiction. No one, I believe, sounded the alarm in the name of autonomy because of the acceptance of this money which contributed to the equipment and in many other ways to the teaching given in those institutions. So far no one has refused, neither in wartime nor since the end of the war, the grants paid to technical schools for the training of tradesmen who wanted to increase their knowledge in the various trades.
I also congratulate the government upon the establishment of a Senate committee to study the means of improving the use of lands for agricultural purposes in order to

The Address-Mr. Dupuis contribute more efficiently to the expansion of agricultural production and of the income of those engaged in agriculture. We should not be surprised at that proposal.
There are two classes of people for which the government, and more particularly the Liberal party, has done something. I am thinking of the working class and the agricultural class, so that this decision comes as no surprise to me.
The other day the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) pointed out that we are not holding aloof from agriculture. He quoted figures showing the considerable expansion shown by agriculture in the past three or four years. Moreover, the price support of butter, which enables producers to sell that commodity at a reasonable price, is already evidence that the agricultural class is receiving particular consideration from this government. The government continues to prove it by entrusting the Senate with a special study designed to determine how best we can help farmers to develop the land, especially submarginal land.
As far as we, city dwellers, are concerned, we are equally grateful, as municipal authorities are bound to be also for the decision made by this government to submit to this house at this session a bill to amend and extend the scope of the Municipal Grants Act, with a view to authorizing the payment of grants in lieu of taxes on federal property in all municipalities where such property receives normal municipal services.
By this measure, the federal government proposes to give more to the municipalities, thus making it easier for them to solve some of their problems. No one will accuse this government of infringing upon the autonomy of municipalities because it helps them financially.
It is true also that this government has been thinking about all classes of society, as can be seen from the proposals to be made to this house. For instance, it proposes to improve again the situation of merchant seamen, of wheat producers and of people who depend on the production of furs in the far north. In the speech from the throne, several other advantageous measures are mentioned, to wit:
Amendments of detail to a number of other acts will also be introduced.
Well, that opens the door to possibly a considerable number of sound and wise measures such as were always submitted by
fMr. Dupuis.]
this government, and by the Liberal party, possibly to correct certain wrongs or at last to increase the benefits granted by these various acts now in effect.
Aware of all these achievements of the Liberal party, of everything that we have done in the past and of what probably will be done-even though I do not know exactly what parliament will do at this session-and, taking into account the legislation that will be enacted as well as all previous achievements, we are not afraid to face public opinion.
The other day I heard the leader of the opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker)-I wish to congratulate him for his nomination to that post even though his electoral prospects may not be very bright, not so much because of himself personally but because of the backward policies of the party he is leading-move an amendment in which he said that public opinion has turned against us and that the majority of Canadians will vote against this government at the next election. I wonder if the people of Canada will support a conservative program which does not contain a single constructive item. Will they hesitate to make a choice between a government which has brought prosperity to this country and another party-I mean the Conservative party-under whose regime we have known failure, hardship, depression and unemployment.
We are not surprised either by the generous attitude of this government towards Hungarian refugees. It has understood that charity knows no frontier, and has practised it wherever possible. When the fate of human beings is at stake, the Liberal party and this government have shown their eagerness to relieve the burden of the victims of pitiful situations such as the one experienced recently by Hungarians.
Canada also largely contributed financially to the Colombo plan, and she has given substantial assistance to all the distressed countries in the world. This is something we can be proud of. I do not think that anybody on the other side of the house could reproach us with what we have done in this field, and I do not believe that any well-meaning citizen could blame us for the assistance we have given to those various countries which know nothing but extreme poverty, and disasters of all kinds.
Nevertheless, while fully endorsing the many steps taken by this government to help

other countries, I think that now, as we have always done, we should more than ever welcome the requests which are now made by a large number of our citizens who in the past, have served our country, have contributed to its progress, and I mean particularly our needy older people. We have been told about a surplus of hundreds of millions, and we are shown that the future holds the promise of an expansion still greater than in the past. I feel therefore that the government should give serious consideration to the request which is now addressed to them by a large number of citizens, by the various members of all parties sitting in this house, with whom I join, to increase substantially the pension now being paid to our old people.
I wonder if it would not also be time to study thoroughly the matter of the help and assistance which should be given to that class of people who have passed 60 years of age. Because, as everyone knows, it is very hard for a man of 40, and even more so for a man of 50, to get a new job when he has lost the one he had. The economic pattern has changed. The days are no more when a man of 50 could actually get employment, when his services were required because of his experience. Nowadays things are different; it is quite a problem for a man of 50 or more to find a job. Therefore it seems to me that, in view of existing conditions, of the difficulties besetting the middle-aged worker when he is looking for an occupation yielding enough to live on, and considering this country's era of prosperity, it might be proper to amend the present act so as to grant our elderly people a pension when they are 60. Well, I shall be told, this will will cost additional millions of dollars. I am not blaming this government. It was this government, this party, which initiated all the social legislation from which the nation benefits, in spite of opposition from the other side of the house, and more particularly on the part of the Conservatives who thought family allowances absolutely anti social and opposed or tried to obstruct the passing of the old age pension; and lastly, every social security legislation we introduced was at first attacked by the party which today, with elections in the offing, want it improved.
I know that the present government and all successive Liberal administrations have given our people all they could. We also know that this government will put at our
The Address-Mr. Dupuis disposal all improvements we have the right to expect for those who are obliged to rely on these allowances. I am not finding fault with anybody but it seems to me that certain requests which are being made should be granted, taking into account-in the light of the forecasts of the author of the Gordon plan and of the great American economists, as well as those of our own prominent businessmen in the country-that we may be on the threshold of a decade of continued increased prosperity, and it is during such a period that we ought to help our people.
No doubt that this government will agree to increase old age pensions and, at the same time, family allowances. There is no need to tell you that heads of families could put those increases to good use by giving an education to their children and meeting certain family needs.
I am no prophet but I am optimistic enough to think that this government, when the next budget is brought down, will give us, not so much a surprise-for we are so used to fine gestures on their part-but, at all events, great pleasure by granting those requests which are being made to them by people in various parts of the country.
I would like now to touch lightly on the question of bilingualism, which has been brought before this house. I have no time to discuss all its implications and all its details, but, nevertheless, we will unquestionably have to recognize that there is a French achievement in Canada and that French is going to be spoken more and more.
It will be claimed in some quarters that that may be the cause of misunderstanding, of national disunity. Far from it. There are other countries with two official languages. In another country, Belgium, even three languages, Flemish, Walloon and French, are used to about the same extent. I do not think that Flemish seeks to dominate Walloon or that Walloon tries to displace French.
We are not interested in gaining the upper hand over those who speak only English. There is no question of our imposing French upon our English-speaking fellow citizens or upon those who speak nothing but English. The French language is not imposed, it asserts itself, for it is one of the two universal languages. For instance, a man who comes from any country, providing he speaks French and English, is sure to be understood all over the world. There is, therefore, no question, I repeat, of imposing French, because French

The Address-Mr. Dupuis asserts itself. But it should be understood that when France lost her colony in 1763, our forefathers, the pioneers of this land, fought to preserve their language and that we also are determined to defend it against all attacks.
But I would point out to my English-speaking fellow citizens that from the standpoints of industry, trade, personal advancement and even of the exchanges they may have with other countries, it is in their own interest to know both languages. Once those who are particularly opposed to our language understand that it is in their own interest to speak French-even though they may not care to do so through sentiment-if they are realistic and I believe they are, they will come to speak both languages, and this will be of great help to them in business as well as in their relations with individuals of Canada and elsewhere.
In concluding my remarks on that subject may I assure those who might entertain some doubts on that point that nobody in the province of Quebec, where most Frenchspeaking Canadians are to be found, wants to hurt or to offend the feelings of those who do not speak our tongue. We want that clearly understood. I repeat that we want them to consider that it is in their own interest to speak French just as it is in our own interest to speak English. When they come to realize that this country is and will remain a bilingual country, we will have complete national unity. We will then be able to call ourselves Canadians from one end of the country to the other and we will be proud to speak both languages outside our country, to speak the languages of the pioneers, the language of the people who founded this country and the language of the people who gave it such an extraordinary economic development, I mean the English people and the French people, who kept on living and increasing in numbers in Canada.
A speech from the member for St. Mary would not be complete without a word about the Jacques Cartier bridge. Apparently I did not get the results I had expected, and that is why I again make to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) a request I have made time and time again, the abolition of tolls on that bridge. It is said that it cannot be done, in view of the fabulous sum of money derived from that source and the large expenses which are expected to be made. Besides, the consent of the provincial authorities would be required, and no request to that effect has
'Mr. Dupuis.]
been received so far from the provincial government, while the city of Montreal, which is the third party, has not yet expressed an official opinion on the matter. Therefore it might be difficult to get these tolls abolished before the three parties concerned come to an agreement. However something might be done for those who use that road, which should not be the responsibility of the federal government, as it comes under the municipal and provincial jurisdictions. That road serves a thickly populated area, if we take into account the thousands of people who live on the south shore. In the interest of those who come from Montreal and who have to cross to the south shore, because of this huge population, I believe that we should at least agree to abolish the toll now charged to the passengers in the various vehicles, and private cars. This would relieve to that extent the budget of workers, especially the thousands who are employed in Montreal. This would be only fair to the users of that bridge, and even to visiting strangers.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


Hector Dupuis: Yes.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Is the amount charged on the bridge he is referring to fully turned over to the federal treasury?


Hector Dupuis: It is not turned over to the federal treasury as such, but it goes into the till of the National Harbours Board. Then, if there is a deficit larger than such and such an amount, the city of Montreal and the provincial government contribute to make up that deficit at the rate of $150,000 a year. We could perhaps find means to turn back a substantial part of the revenue to the citizens of the city of Montreal as was done already on numerous occasions, and as the hon. member for Quebec West has been able to find out in connection with grants to the universities and in other fields.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: No, it cannot be said that this money is given to the universities.


Hector Dupuis: After all, it comes from the pocket of the same suit. Anyway, the Liberal party always shows generosity and understands the various needs of this country. Its generosity is not surprising.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It uses the taxpayers' money.


Hector Dupuis: The hon. member for Quebec West may rest assured that the remainder of the profits from the Jacques Cartier bridge, after the deduction of administrative costs, is put to useful purposes.

The Address-Mr. McBain
Now I have no intention, obviously, of speaking on behalf of the Minister of Transport, nor of making any promise I would be unable to keep, nor of saying anything which I would be unable to prove. Still, I would like to close my remarks on this subject by saying that I was informed that the toll gates are to be placed at the south end of the bridge so that those people who cross it to go to the island of Sainte-Helene will not have to pay to reach their own property. I will renew this request later, if need be.
At the request of those hon. members who represent south shore constituencies as well as constituencies on the island of Montreal itself a new lane has been built to speed traffic on the Jacques Cartier bridge. We are told that the National Harbours Board will soon add another.
I shall conclude now as my time is up. Again I congratulate the government upon its proposals at this time. Far be it from me to approve any policy which would tend to destroy the autonomy of the various provinces. I strongly support bilingualism in this country and I conclude by expressing the hope, which is more local in nature, that my request concerning the Jacques Cartier bridge particularly, will be well received. Oh! I was forgetting a matter of primary importance and that is the question of increasing old age pensions and family allowances. I hope the requests I have made on behalf of those I represent in this house will be heeded.
(Text):


James Alexander McBain: Mr. Speaker, as it has been the age-old custom on the part of members of this house, I also wish to express my congratulations to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) and the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) on their remarks and their contribution in moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Considering the emptiness of the speech from the throne I feel they have done a very fine job in making something out of practically nothing. As it also has been the custom for members when speaking in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne to bring to the attention of this house matters concerning their own particular constituency,
I intend also to direct part of my remarks to my constituency.
It has been a great privilege for me to represent the historic riding of Elgin since March 22, 1954. This constituency received
its name from a former governor general of Canada, Earl Elgin. As I have pointed out before to members in this chamber, my constituency is approximately 50 per cent urban and 50 per cent rural, with the city of St. Thomas being the major urban centre. St. Thomas for many years was and is still known as the railroad city of Canada. It was and still is to my knowledge the only city in Canada which has six railroads running through it. Due to many changes in railroading during the past number of years the railroad repair shops in this city have practically disappeared and at the present time they are almost non-existent. During this change in railroading many former employees of the railroad shops have had to seek employment elsewhere. Due to our city council who had a vision to the future and progressive boards of trade headed by one of the top industrial commissioners in Canada, St. Thomas has been able to offset this change in industrial employment by attracting a large number of industries and many United States subsidiary firms.
To attract this type of industry a city must have among other things adequate housing accommodation. The city of St. Thomas never has gone all out in a large scale housing program at any time. However, it has endeavoured to provide housing accommodation to meet the demands of industry as industry required housing. In April 1956 the city made application to have erected some 35 rental housing units. This application was made to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and at that time a survey was made in the city of St. Thomas to determine the needs. It was shown that the needs were definite at the time of the original application. Mr. Speaker, it took from April last year until the first part of January this year to obtain the final approval from the Department of Public Works and from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This means that it will be well on in the summer months before the housing units can be completed to the point where they can be occupied. It would appear to me that a project of this kind could have been processed in much less time and in fact could have been processed in time to give much needed employment to our local contractors during the slack winter months.
I am sure that the people of the city of St. Thomas and of the surrounding area are at last, after having received promises over a period of ten years, pleased to see the start of construction on the new federal building. There are many people who may regret to see that the old landmark of the present

The Address-Mr. McBain post office is being razed. However, we anticipate that the new building will bring beauty along with additional accommodation to the city and the surrounding area.
In offering suggestions to the Department of Public Works there are two more on which I wish to comment at this time. One is the method employed in letting the smaller public works contracts. I am speaking of contracts in the range of from $1,000 to $10,000. I have been given to understand that the method used is to ask at least two contractors to submit a price on the project. Then what usually happens is that these two contractors get their heads together and they both bid on the project. Possibly one says to the other, "I had the last public works contract, I am busy now, you take this one, and I will make my tender a little higher." If this method were practised generally all across Canada the cost to Canadian taxpayers would be many thousands of dollars. It would cost them much more than if these small projects were locally advertised and the local contractors given equal opportunity to bid on the contracts on a competitive basis.
Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) himself is guilty of party patronage in letting these contracts. I know through my direct dealings with him that he is sincerely endeavouring to run his department on a nonpartisan basis. For the major public works needs those needs are considered on a merit basis, but when this authority is delegated to someone else down the party line it gets out of hand and some place, somewhere, somebody plays favouritism at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer.
My second suggestion to the Minister of Public Works is in connection with the letting of dredging contracts for the harbours of Port Stanley and Port Burwell. These two ports usually silt very badly during the winter and early spring, and on many occasions shipping is delayed for many days on the opening of the navigation season. The shipping is delayed because no contract has been let for harbour dredging and it is necessary to wait upon the Public Works Department to dredge a channel to let the boats come in. As this is an annual works project I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that contracts should be called earlier in the year so that the successful contractor would be in a position to start dredging as soon as the ice is out of the harbour.
In the 1955-56 season, when the dredging contracts were carried over, I believe there was less delay in spring dredging than in
[Mr. McBain.f
previous seasons when contracts were called for after spring soundings had been made and calculated.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to turn now to the subject of agriculture and bring to the attention of the house something of which we as agriculturists are very proud in our constituency.
I may say that Elgin county is proud of the fact that it has within its boundaries a cooperative that has expanded in recent years to be the largest farmer owned co-operative of its kind in Ontario and possibly in Canada. It was in 1944 that a number of progressive farmers in the county got behind the idea of a co-operative movement for the buying and selling of their grain crops, feeds, fertilizers, eggs, lumber and building supplies, fuel, etc.
In mentioning the distinction which has been gained through having the largest co-operative of its kind, I would point out the great importance of what its growth has meant to St. Thomas and Elgin county in services for and by the farmers. A business turnover of nearly $4J million each year for the last two years reflects the progress this industry has made. This growth can be translated into thousands and thousands of bushels of corn, soya beans, white beans, yellow eye beans, wheat, oats, barley seeds in variety, tens of thousands of tons of fertilizer and mixed feeds.
In 1955 over 900,000 bushels of corn were bought and sold through this co-op. This corn went mainly on the market as feed in competition with subsidized western feed grains. This co-operative is one of the few that returns all its patronage dividends to its farmer member shareholders as cash returns. In March of 1956, patronage dividends were returned to over 2,400 members to the amount of $88,000, and a total of over $500,000 has been returned as patronage dividends in 11 years of operation. This is a kind of farm service which has made Elgin Co-operative Services the largest farmer-owned buying and selling co-operative of its kind. With such a record of service its future would appear to be unlimited so long as Elgin county continues to have farmers and farm families of the type and calibre who have brought about this great development.
I bring this matter to the attention of this chamber and the government because I feel there are many other communities all across Canada which could benefit immensely by the government showing more initiative in lending support to assist co-operative organizations to become established on a sound financial basis. This would help in some measure to offset the increased cost of production.

I wish to turn now to another agricultural item which is very important in my riding, along the shores of lake Erie, and in other areas in Canada where people are able to grow tobacco. Tobacco is a very important item in the nation's economy at the present time. The Canadian government derives, on an average, $233 million a year in revenue from the industry if one includes property taxes, income taxes and excise tax on cigarettes, cigars and so on.
When cultivation of tobacco was first started in the early twenties, 1,000 acres was produced. The average yield per acre was 800 pounds. This has blossomed to an allocated acreage last year of 113,000 acres yielding between 160 and 170 million pounds with a market value around $70 million.
In keeping with this growth in the industry itself, the value of tobacco farm land has increased tremendously in recent years. Land which was worth between $30 and $40 an acre back in the twenties before tobacco was grown on it has increased in value in some areas to as much as $1,000 per acre. The increase in production which I have mentioned has also seen the average yield increase to about 1,400 pounds per acre. For the last two years the industry seems to have been undergoing a levelling-off process; the get-rich-quick day is gone. The price of land makes it unwise to invest between $100,000 and $150,000 in a first class tobacco farm, for it would take a lifetime to get the original investment back as things stand at present. Banking credit restrictions are "putting the squeeze" on the tobacco grower.
One thing that would improve the industry would be the lowering of the excise tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products. At the present time the farmer's return for every pack of cigarettes is about three cents. Manufacturers and distributors take about 12.5 cents and government revenues account for over 17.5 cents on every package selling to the consumer for 33 cents.
I wish to bring the attention of the house to the system under which tobacco is purchased at the present time. The tobacco market opens on a set day, but before that date the tobacco company graders have been to every tobacco farm and have looked over the tobacco each grower has to sell. The crops are graded, so the companies know exactly what tobacco is available before any pricesetting meeting takes place. Since these companies know what a grower has to sell, they set a price before the buyer drives up the farmer's lane. The buyer offers his price, take it or leave it. He could be on the farm less than 10 minutes and then is gone. There is no time for the grower to make up his 82715-33
The Address-Mr. McBain mind and no time to discuss what he himself thinks his crop is worth. If the grower wants an hour or so to think it over he stands to lose, for when the buyer returns he often offers from half a cent to three cents less than his original offer an hour before. No matter what happens, under the present setup the grower stands to lose.
I should like to read into the record a letter published in the Rodney Mercury of January 16, 1957. I believe the writer of the letter expresses the feelings of the many hundreds of flue-cured tobacco growers under the present system. The letter was addressed to the editor of the paper and the writer signs himself, "A New Canadian Grower". The letter reads:
In the past you showed great understanding of problems facing all the tobacco growers. Your editorials concerning tobacco buying practices were true voice of the growers. For this you deserve our sincere thanks. We hope in the future your paper will take the same stand in regard to our efforts to correct the present rotten situation.
I am positive the people who helped to organize the Ontario flue-cured tobacco marketing association had the best intentions to protect the rights of both growers and buying companies. Unfortunately, it turned out to be of great service to the buying companies in cheating the grower.
In our bylaws there are many restrictions, fines, obligations and fees imposed upon the grower members. Nothing of this kind is for the buyers. If there were any it would be disregarded by them anyway because they are the masters of the situation they created.
The present grading and buying practices turned into a shameless situation robbing the grower of his hard-earned profit. Humiliation of the grower by the buyers during so-called marketing time reached its peak. God help the farmer who dares to show his dissatisfaction about the cheating he gets or refuses to sell his crop for the price the first buyer offers.
No wonder the press representatives are not allowed to attend the meetings of the board. No wonder the grower members are kept in the dark in all the dealings of the board. No wonder the grower members are not informed about the findings of the federal government's investigation committee and its recommendations. Something is really wrong with the board.
I am a new Canadian and I work hard to earn my living. I do not enjoy too many of those long hours of hard work, as an Elgin tobacco grower stated a few weeks ago in his letter to the editor. I would rather be in some resort with our chairman of the association vacationing. Unfortunately, I consider hard work as my obligation to my family and the community I have chosen.
I believe the present situation in the marketing association would not exist if all the tobacco growers were Canadians of old standing, but I do not think only the new Canadians are to blame. In my opinion those of long standing should take the lead in correcting the present situation. I assure you new Canadians will gladly follow them. After all it would not be too polite for a new Canadian to reorganize in the country where he just warmed up his feet. Let's forget all the differences between us and unite in the efforts to do something about this association of ours.
Our hopes are raised by the suggestions of the federal government for the changes in marketing control: the recent secret meetings of the growers in various parts of the country and the news that

The Address-Mr. Kickham the petition asking the government to set up the marketing legislation will be circulated among us, are most welcome. I assure you my signature under this petition will be among thousands of others who feel that time has come for changes.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask the fellow growers to express their views in this paper. Let's write about our problem. Let's show the buyers how much we hate the present rotten business. I do not think they will be too happy reading it. And when the petition comes in to our district asking our government to step in, let's everyone sign it.
That letter is signed, as I said before, by "A New Canadian Grower". We know that the supreme court is still considering the merits of our farm products marketing act and as yet has not rendered its decision as to the validity of the act. Regardless of what the decision may be, I hope that the government, if it is still in power and not dissolved by that time, will give every assistance possible to the flue-cured tobacco growers to form a marketing association under farm products marketing legislation should they so wish and decide to do so.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1958, was presented by Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting further supplementary estimates (2) for the financial year ending March 31, 1957, was presented by Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. R. F. L. Hanna for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Shaw.
Thomas Joseph Kickham: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with hon. members who have preceded me in this debate in extending my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) for the [Mr. McBain.}
splendid contributions they have made in opening the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I wish first to express my thanks on behalf of the people of my county for the public works program carried on in my county and to thank the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) for the new construction of the Georgetown railway wharf, and the construction of a new frost-proof potato warehouse on the wharf, replacing the now obsolete warehouse this coming season.
A great deal has been accomplished in the dredging of harbours, thus deepening the waterways to give sufficient draft for fishing boats to reach the wharves and also in new construction on breakwaters and wharves. All this work was necessary in order to assist fishermen and farmers in carrying on successfully their respective industries. There still remain numerous requests for similar work to be carried out at many fishing centres, and I am always fervently hoping and asking that those requests will be met through sufficient money appropriations. I realize, however, that we cannot expect to have everything done all at once, as a government can only spend money in keeping with their annual revenue from year to year. I can say to the minister that we are thankful for the recognition and the appreciation he has acknowledged of our need in regard to assisting fishermen and farmers in the prosecution of their daily pursuits.
Our farmers and fishermen suffer greatly because of the continuous freight rate tariff increases, and of course this applies to the four Atlantic provinces particularly because of our geographical location in Canada. Long hauls mean that we are without the truck transport competition enjoyed by the central provinces, with accompanying lower freight tariff rates to remedy this discrimination. I would suggest to the government that if they compensated the railways for the increases in freight tariff rates, amounting to over 100 per cent since 1945, especially on our major products such as coal, potatoes and fish, this action would assist the economy of the Atlantic provinces greatly.
As each of those three are bulky products and as the present freight rates bear heavily on those industries, I would also urge that the feed grain freight assistance as well as the Maritime Freight Rates Act be restored to its former effectiveness before the horizontal increase in freight rates took place. To my mind there is no better measure that the government could decide upon to assist the economy of the Atlantic provinces than to absorb a large portion of freight rate tariffs on our products going to central Canada. This

would give us the most direct and immediate relief and the greatest encouragement, and would be equal to a blood transfusion to our economy. The ever-increasing freight rates are a terrific burden on us and do not allow us to compete on equal terms.
It has been said that any depressed area in Canada reflects itself on the whole economy of Canada. I believe this statement to be true. I believe I have suggested one obvious way of mitigating our economic difficulties, at least to some extent.
Many farmers in our province in need of funds to finance their farm operations find it most difficult to procure a loan through the Canadian farm loan board because of the high level of security required before a loan is approved. The Canadian Farm Loan Act has been in operation for the past 27 years and provides for only 14 per cent of all farm loans in Canada. The losses sustained since its inception have been insignificant. To assist farmers in acquiring loans the security required should be reduced by 25 per cent. If this were done, many applicants who are now ineligible could become qualified and could take advantage of the interest rates and amortization provisions for which the act provides. A decrease in the amount of security required, in line with my suggestion, would permit greater latitude to be exercised by the district supervisors and would give the act more flexibility. At present it is far too restrictive in character. It would seem that the length of time which elapses from the date of application until appraisals are made on the farm properties is entirely too long. Apparently some district offices are understaffed and, through no fault of the district supervisor, the applicant becomes frustrated because of the extremely long waiting period.
This Canadian farm loan board could be made the best loan agency in Canada, but it must cast off much of its security requirements. I trust that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) will broaden out this legislation and make its lending facilities reach out to supply the borrowing needs of many more farmers than it does at the present time.
I should like to say a word on veterans pensions. Many veterans who served in the first world war but who did not go beyond England are not eligible for the war veterans allowance. The same thing applies in the second world war in respect of veterans who did not serve outside of Canada and Newfoundland. Some of those veterans voluntarily would have gone overseas but, because of special qualifications, they were retained in Canada. They are now denied war veterans allowance by our legislation.
82715-33i
The Address-Mr. J. A. Smith
My suggestion to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) is to grant to all veterans reaching the age of 60 years $40 per month, in the same way as all citizens reaching the age of 70 automatically receive $40 per month. Forty dollars per month should be of great assistance to many veterans who find themselves in distressing financial circumstances.
Our fishing industry is most important in my province. The provincial and federal departments concerned are co-operating in splendid work in research and applying scientific methods to the catching of fish and also to the manner of processing the fish.
I should like to see the cold storage and refrigeration legislation broadened so that packers and processors would become eligible to receive subsidies for the construction of refrigeration plants. Refrigeration is now an absolute necessity and if the packers and processors were given assistance they would be able to provide this necessity. Often they are unable to provide refrigeration out of their own resources, and any assistance granted is of benefit to each individual fisherman.
Before concluding my remarks I wish to thank the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) and his parliamentary assistant (Mr. Mac-Naught) for the splendid work they did at my request in allowing quahaugs to be removed from polluted waters in Queen's county, transferred to the beaches of King's county for cleansing purposes and reclaimed for processing in King's county. I am not going into detail about the difficulties the minister met, but I do know there were many barriers to hurdle because of health regulations both in Canada and the United States. In this respect we had the fullest co-operation from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I shall defer any further remarks on fisheries until the minister's estimates are before the committee.


James Alexander Smith: am very happy to have the privilege of taking part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, particularly at the present time when I am given the opportunity of supporting the subamendment which was so capably presented to this house last Thursday by my colleague the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw). This subamendment criticized the government for failing to take effective action to stop the continuous rise in the cost of living; secondly, the failure of the government to lay down and follow policies under which the Canadian farmers and other primary producers can enjoy an equitable share of the prosperity

The Address-Mr. J. A. Smith which Canada can achieve; thirdly, the failure of the government to bring old age pensions and other social security payments into line with the present cost of living.
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I propose to deal with a few of the many problems which are confronting men and women engaged in our basic industry, agriculture, and to suggest to the government a few steps which, if the government is truly interested in the wellbeing of this industry, can be taken to relieve the situation in which farmers across Canada now find themselves. Since coming down here we have been made very conscious of the fact we are going to ask the people across Canada very soon to again choose the government they wish to manage the affairs of our great country for another four or five years. Since that is the case, now is the time for each and every one of us in this house to do a little reflecting. We should ask ourselves a few very simple questions such as these: Have we in the past years done our best to serve our constituents and the people across Canada as they deserve to be served? Have we seen to it that all phases of our economy have been fairly treated or have we permitted some sectors of our economy to suffer?
As to the last question, Mr. Speaker, we in this group feel that many segments of our economy have been badly treated. It is interesting to read the glowing accounts of our national prosperity but it is very difficult to reconcile this rosy picture with the true state of affairs found in the agricultural industry, especially when we find approximately 18 per cent of the people who are engaged in agriculture in Canada receiving less than 7 per cent of the national income. However, we cannot find any evidence in the speech from the throne that it is the intention of the present government to do anything about this situation. It is true that this matter has been causing great concern throughout Canada. In fact, the supporters of the present government, the delegates who attended the Alberta Liberal association convention at Calgary in November of last year, expressed their dissatisfaction with the federal agriculture policy, if it could be called a policy, which has been followed over the years. According to press reports this convention asked for a system of parity prices on farm products, and also urged the government towards greater efforts to find markets for our grain and other agriculture products.
This convention passed a resolution urging the government to provide long-term loans to young farmers. Another resolution which was passed at this particular convention


deals with the equalization of floor prices for hogs as between the eastern and Pacific coast markets. I am given to understand that a good percentage of the delegates attending the convention represented the agriculture industry of Alberta and one delegate used these words in describing his position. "Farmers are clinched; they cannot move. The government tells us we are prospering but everyone is in debt." In order to prove my statement that these delegates who are supporting the Liberal party are concerned and are unhappy about the situation as it now exists may I cite the fact they said "that something must be done about agriculture policy if we wish to elect Liberal members in the west".
Now, Mr. Speaker, these requests I have mentioned have been a part of the agriculture program of the Social Credit party down through the years. Even though we have advocated these policies in this house, the government has not seen fit to do anything about them. Last summer, for example, to give you one illustration, we received the assurance of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that after the end of the crop year, July 31, he would see to it that attempts would be made to ensure that those points in the west which were on a low quota basis would be given a preference in the new crop year. I wish to be fair in this matter. I do not wish to blame the Canadian wheat board at all for the chaotic conditions that exist in the marketing of wheat in the west. Even though the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is reported to have made this statement while attending a meeting in southern Alberta: that the Canadian wheat board was the sole control of the marketing of wheat I am not prepared to accept that statement. The Minister of Agriculture knows full well that the Canadian wheat board can market our wheat only within the confines of the faulty marketing policies of the present Liberal government and the financial policies adopted by the government as well.
Last summer we had the privilege of sitting in on the hearings of the agricultural committee at which the Canadian Pacific Railway was in attendance. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Pacific Railway must stand condemned for a part of the situation which now exists on the western prairies as far as grain marketing is concerned. I feel that the Canadian Pacific Railway deliberately failed to co-operate last spring with the then transport controller. I can find little evidence, Mr. Speaker, that the same railway has tried very seriously to do anything about relieving the

situation that is found on the Canadian Pacific lines in western Canada at the present time.
I have followed the marketing of grain in my riding very closely and I have found many points which were on a 5-bushel quota had not completed their 2-bushel quota at the end of the crop year, July 31, 1956. On the other hand, I know of points in western Canada which were on an 8-bushel quota on July 31 of last year and have now achieved a completed 3-bushel quota. I have been in constant touch with the Canadian wheat board with regard to this situation, since it affects farmers in my riding, and I just wish to read briefly from a letter which I received in November from a leading official of the Canadian wheat board. He had this to say:
I would point out that both railways have materially increased their car supply in the shipping of grain during the period from August 1 up to present. From August 1 to October 31, the C.P.R. has supplied 43,830 cars as compared to 28,415 last year; the C.N.R. has supplied 41,598 cars as compared to 29,278 last year. However, notwithstanding the fact that the C.P.R. have increased their supply by approximately 15,000, the C.N.R. have increased their cars by approximately 12,000, but the total number of cars supplied by each road is just about equal when you take into consideration that about 57 per cent of the grain that we have for shipment is located on the C.P.R., with about 43 per cent on the C.N.R. You will appreciate that, as long as the C.N.R. continues to match the C.P.R. supply the stations on the C.N.R. will be in better shape than those on the C.P.R.
In other words, just as long as this government refuses to appoint a new transport controller with the power to direct orderly and equitable marketing of grain in the west this situation will continue and the farmers living along the C.P.R. lines will continue to be discriminated against.
I know that some attempts have been made to justify this situation. Several reasons have been advanced. Most of the reasons which have been advanced have been decidedly weak. Perhaps one of the most prevalent reasons is the need of wheat of a particular quality; that shipping orders are given for a certain grade of wheat. That argument does not stand up when you look at two points not more than 10 miles apart. The wheat marketed at these two points is in most instances of the same quality and grade. Therefore, that argument must necessarily fall down.
In closing this matter, Mr. Speaker, may I say I do feel that the government should do something immediately to see that the Canadian Pacific Railway takes immediate steps to put into the west the same percentage of cars as the C.N.R. They should do something about trying to catch up with the manmade lapse of six weeks last spring. As I pointed out a moment or so ago, the situation
The Address-Mr. J. A. Smith
in the west continues to be serious. In the west low quotas mean that the farmers are unable to market their grain. It means that they are unable to get cash money to pay their taxes and to do other things. We are told that one of the reasons that there is such a glut of wheat in the west is that there is a surplus of grain throughout the world. At this time I wish to refer to a short article which is entitled, "How Big Is The Surplus?" It deals with the surplus of wheat as it exists in the world today and reads as follows:
The present large stocks of wheat are a serious impediment to the ready marketing of new production. They are regarded gloomily by governments, farmers and business people in the export countries. The Canadian Bank of Commerce recently termed the wheat carryover as "astronomical".
There is no doubt that under our pattern of trade and distribution the situation is serious but the volume is inclined to impress us beyond its real proportions. We see the 11 billion bushel world carryover as almost the equivalent to the entire normal export figure for a one and a-half year period.
We overlook the fact that the world's population is also astronomical. There are over 2J billion people and in terms of food reserves we have only 36 pounds of wheat per person. In the United States, where flour consumption is moderate, 190 pounds of wheat a year per person is consumed.
For much of the world population wheat is unobtainable but the annual consumption is in the neighbourhood of 6 billion bushels. A 11 billion bushel surplus is the equivalent to a three-months supply for this wheat-eating section.
Awkward as carryovers may be to world trade, a 90-day reserve supply of such an important food commodity does not seem unreasonable.
I say, Mr. Speaker, few livestock men would care to operate on a narrower basis as far as basic food reserves are concerned. The article goes on to say:
The human race should be able to design an economy that would permit it to carry some assurance against emergency food depletion without causing a marketing breakdown and penalizing the producer.
I mentioned a short while ago that 18 per cent of the people of Canada are engaged in the basic industry of agriculture and they receive less than 7 per cent of the national income. There are many reasons for this. Perhaps one of the reasons for the present condition in which farmers find themselves is that the farmers of Canada are perhaps the only major wheat exporting people in the world who are operating in a purely unprotected market as far as the selling of their products is concerned. The farmers of Canada are finding themselves entwined in a terrific cost-price squeeze. That is perhaps true to some extent of farmers throughout the whole world.
Here I have a short article which gives the over-all position of the farmers throughout some of the major countries of the world. I find that in the period from January 1, 1953 to the end of the first three months of

The Address-Mr. J. A. Smith 1956 the over-all position of the farmers in these countries followed a pattern. In Australia the over-all position of farmers declined 15 per cent; in Canada in that period the position of farmers declined 19 per cent; in Finland the over-all position was up 23 per cent; in West Germany, up 11 per cent; Japan, up 4 per cent; in the Netherlands down 5 per cent; and in the United States down 16 per cent.
I wish to point out that as far as the farmers in Canada are concerned their position declined 19 per cent, more than in any other country shown in this set of figures. This is a sad picture, but it is true. I have never heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) get up on the floor of this house and give a convincing argument against the statement that agriculture in Canada is in a deplorable condition. I am looking forward with interest to his doing so at some time during the present session. I would like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) why he has permitted our basic industry to dip down to such low economic levels. This situation, if allowed to continue, will eventually lead to the complete collapse of our food producing industry. I know that in our own area local government bodies along with businessmen and others who are associated with the farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to carry on as a result of this ever-decreasing income.
In my own municipality of Vermilion river arrears of taxes have risen to the startling figure of $609,715. This means that 36 per cent of all the parcels of land in that municipal district are in arrears of taxes. In the municipal district of Wainwright, which is south of my municipality, a similar condition exists. Arrears of taxes in 1955 had accumulated in that municipality to $267,077 with 108 parcels of land under tax recovery.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Provincial taxes are too high.


James Alexander Smith: Forget . about that. You do not know about that or you would not speak that way. The reason for the great increase in tax arrears in these two municipal districts must be obvious to all, even to my hon. friend the member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne). It simply means that the farmers of these districts do not have the cash with which to pay their taxes. I know of many farmers who for the first time since the depression years have had to forgo the payment of their annual taxes.
I now wish to spend a few moments on a matter which is of concern in this house. It is the unfairness of the present existing floor prices on hogs. When one considers that 90 per cent of the hogs exported from Alberta in 1955 found their way to markets
[Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose) .1

in British Columbia and that it costs only $1 per hundredweight to ship a hog from Edmonton to Vancouver, how can the Minister of Agriculture justify the wide spread in the floor prices on hogs that exists between the Edmonton and the eastern markets of Toronto and Montreal? The floor price for Edmonton is $18.50 per hundredweight and $23 per hundredweight on the Toronto-Montreal market. Surely if there is any justice at all in the differential of floor prices for hogs across Canada or any justice at all for this spread the minister would establish a floor of $22 per hundredweight on the Edmonton market.
The farmers of Alberta raise good hogs. They would raise more if they were assured of a fair return for their labours. The drastic reduction in the number of hogs raised in Alberta last year was a direct consequence of the unstable markets that existed the previous year. At one time Great Britain was a large importer of Canadian pork products, but for reasons best known to the present administration the market has presently disappeared.
I wish to go back to the year 1935 when this present administration took over. That year we exported to Great Britain over one million hogs. In 1940, just at the beginning of the war, we were exporting to Great Britain over 2,800,000 hogs. I am prepared to admit that during the war period there was some increase in the demand for Canadian hogs. At the end of 1945 we exported to Great Britain 3,600,000 hogs. By 1950, five years after the close of the war, the British market had slipped from a high of 3,600,000 to just slightly over 600,000 hogs. Five years later in 1955 we exported to Great Britain 53 hogs. Up until the end of July last year we had not sold Britain one pound of pork products. Surely there is something wrong with the marketing policies of a government which allows such a situation to develop.
I would like to comment briefly on the operation of the agricultural prices support board. The story has been spread across Canada that the operation of this board has cost the taxpayers of Canada a tremendous amount of money. The board was established in 1946. Since 1946 the administration of the agricultural prices support board has cost the people of Canada $89 million. The greatest part of this amount, $70 million, was spent in paying the loss to the farmers of Saskatchewan by reason of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in 1952.
The remainder over a ten-year period was allocated in this manner:	$8.5 million for
cost of butter support since 1949; $6.7 million

for apples; and $2 million for potatoes. The other support items are relatively small, not including the foot-and-mouth crisis. In the ten-year period price supports have cost the treasury of Canada less than $2 million per year or about 15 cents per person in Canada per year. That certainly is not an extravagant amount to guarantee to the farmers of Canada support prices.
I turn now to the figures of the bureau of statistics, using as a base the period 1943 to 1945. The estimated parity price on butter in 1956 is 71.6 cents per pound. The average marketing price of first grade butter during the past year was 58.6 cents. As far as hogs are concerned, using the same period, the average market price for B-l hogs across Canada was $25.98, parity $28.87 per cwt. Grade "A" (large) eggs, per dozen in Montreal parity 71.4 cents; the average market price only 58 cents.
I think, Mr. Speaker, it is high time the Minister of Agriculture gave serious consideration to bringing the Agricultural Prices Support Act in line with the parity established for the base period 1943-1945.
At the commencement of this address I suggested that I would request the government to give very serious consideration to certain proposals which I feel would help relieve the crushing burden now borne by Canadian agriculture. I would like to see the present government take immediate action with regard to certain proposals:
1.	A system of cash advances on farm-stored grain, payment of these advances to be administered by some agency other than the Canadian wheat board, and the cost of administration to be borne by the government.
2.	Immediate action to be taken toward the extension of permanent government-owned storage facilities and the renewal of the policy of encouraging the use of temporary off-site storage facilities to enable farmers to deliver their grain.
3.	Introduction of an aggressive and realistic foreign sales policy as far as our agricultural products are concerned.
4.	Opening of a thorough investigation into the merits of the two-price system of marketing our agricultural products with a view to establishing a parity price for all agricultural products.
5.	The marketing of flax and rye to be handled by the Canadian wheat board.
6.	Equalization of the floor prices paid on hogs all across Canada and a raising of these prices to bring them in line with estimated parity using the period 1943-1945 as the base period.
The Address-Mr. Robichaud
7.	Amendments to be introduced to the Farm Loan Act to make this act of some use to young men wishing to enter the agriculture industry.
8.	The enactment of an all-risk insurance plan which will assure the farmers of Canada a just income in case of crop failure or some other disaster.
9.	The acceptance of sterling and the currency of other lands to stimulate trade with those countries, and
10.	The immediate appointment of a transport controller with power to see that there is an equitable distribution of box cars in the west at all times.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the remarks of my colleague for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) and other members of this group in support of their plea for further assistance to the senior citizens of this country, and to make one observation concerning the C.P.R. strike.
This strike meant a nine-day delay with regard to the movement of grain along the C.P.R. lines. I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) to use whatever influence they may have toward seeing that grain movement along the C.P.R. system be accelerated as much as possible so that farmers delivering grain at C.P.R. points will not have to suffer any more than necessary as a consequence of this strike.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I understand it is not customary for the mover or seconder of the address to speak again during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am informed, however, that as a vote on the first subamendment has been taken, and as a second subamendment has been moved and is presently before us for consideration, it is in order for me to speak again.
Two major problems directly affecting the province of New Brunswick and, I could say, the Atlantic provinces, have been a topic of important discussion during the present debate. One was the recently published preliminary report of the Gordon commission and the other was the question of power development in New Brunswick.
It is not my intention to review what has been said by opposition members with regard to the Gordon commission's preliminary report on the Atlantic provinces. As expected, the report devoted a special section to the problems and difficulties with which people living in the Atlantic provinces must contend.
520	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Robichaud
Notwithstanding the fact that our average incomes continue to lag behind the average for the rest of Canada, we cannot deny that in the maritimes per capita net incomes have increased by 94 per cent between 1926 and 1955, as compared with an average increase of 80 per cent for the six other provinces.
We all admit that living standards in the Atlantic provinces are lower than in the rest of Canada, and it is our duty as representatives of that region to make a positive and comprehensive approach to our problems. It is not, Mr. Speaker, by painting gloomy pictures of our situation, by crying havoc or despair and by destructive criticism such as we have heard from opposition members that we will contribute to improving our condition or overcome our difficulties.
A number of newspapers and even some men in public life have passed a quick judgment or have expressed their disappointment with respect to certain recommendations contained in this preliminary report of the Gordon commission. Some have been expert enough to extract single sentences and deduce from these their own conclusions. Some have been insulted, scandalized by the suggestion that the government pay the cost of relocation for people who may wish to move away from the maritimes to other areas, and a few, I am sorry to say, must have expressed their opinion without even reading the report.
Constructive suggestions are being made which, I am sure, will receive serious consideration from this government and, I could also add, from provincial and municipal levels. It is a well-recognized fact that inadequacies do exist in our transportation facilities, and appropriate measures should be taken in order to provide solutions. The Gordon report suggests that the "whole question of an improved but integrated system of transportation in the Atlantic region should be examined carefully and in detail, proper consideration being given to the cost involved in providing any new facilities and to the losses being incurred in the operation of existing services". The commission goes further and suggests that "this should be the subject of a special inquiry which will also include in its terms of reference reexamination of the present effects of the Maritime Freight Rates Act". The report urges that this proposed inquiry be undertaken promptly and, upon its completion, that the measures required to improve the present situation should be taken without delay.
Among other suggestions is that of an expanded program of geological surveys, and


that of a land use classification scheme coupled with the provision of assistance to people who may be willing to move to other areas and re-establish themselves in other industries. Suggestions are also being made with reference to our coal industry, and I wish to quote from page 103 of the report, paragraph 13:
We suggest therefore that the emphasis of the present subsidy arrangements should be modified in order to give priority to the greatest possible use of Nova Scotia coal in this region.
We believe that changes in the present subsidy arrangements should include incentives designed to encourage the use of Nova Scotia coal in the generation of thermal power in the Atlantic region.
The use of coal for thermal power should in the future prove to be the main solution to our maritime problems. It will provide work for our miners and power for our industries. Let us be logical. Let us be realistic in our thinking and in our admission of problems and facts with which we must contend. Can we in reality expect the same living standards to prevail throughout our country from coast to coast? Are the living standards in the states of Maine and Vermont comparable to those of California or some of the most industrialized states of our American neighbours? Are the living standards of the Normandy coast of France comparable to the existing conditions along the Mediterranean shores?
What we require, Mr. Speaker, as I have said earlier, is a positive and comprehensive approach to the problem facing us in the Atlantic provinces. We have heard remarks expressed in the house by some opposition members which, if taken seriously, would lead every one of us to leave at once our maritime regions for other parts of Canada.
Let us face facts. We do have in many areas many sections of our Atantic provinces, certain settlements, certain groups, which should never have been allowed to establish themselves in those remote regions where no government assistance, not even substantial hand-outs, could provide the type of living standards which would bring these groups up to a fair basis with other people in the most favoured regions in the country.
What is the actual situation in New Brunswick? I should like to quote a few paragraphs from the annual New Year's message to his people of the premier of New Brunswick, as taken from the Telegraph-Journal of December 31, 1956.
Premier Hugh John Flemming expressed confidence in his annual New Year's message to the people of New Brunswick that 1957 will be "a year of outstanding achievement" for the province.
Further on there are these words:
I see no reason why I should qualify or subtract from that prediction in any way since, month by

month and week by week, everyone in this province has been conscious of living in a new and vigorous atmosphere of enterprise and well-being. This feeling of ours has been strongly supported by statistics. For instance, the index figure for employment in the province was 111.4 in September, 1955. In September, 1956, the figure had risen to 116.7.
Again he says:
Upon the basis of statistics for the first three quarters of 1956 we are entitled to predict that 1957 will be a year of outstanding achievement.
He goes on further and enumerates some of the industries which have started in New Brunswick. He says:
Private industry has invested many millions of dollars in new plant capacity in our province. One of the largest long lumber mills in our history is about to go into production in the Saint John area. Expansion of pulp and paper capacity has also gone forward. All major manufacturing industries have been very active. Smaller plants and new industries have, perhaps, shown the greatest expansion of all. The frozen foods processing industry, new to our province, will soon have two new units in production.
In this case, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize the fact that if these two new plants will soon be in existence it is due to assistance from the federal treasury. Speaking about Camp Gagetown, he says:
Another favourable factor has been the progress made at Camp Gagetown by the Department of National Defence. This great project will provide further support to the economy of the province during 1957. The addition of a new community at Oromocto is proceeding satisfactorily with the cooperation of defence, provincial and local authorities.
What a contrast, Mr. Speaker, with the gloomy and depressed picture presented to the house only a few days ago by some opposition members. The hon. member for Digby-Anna-polis-Kings has described the Gordon commission report as a doleful report. Let us hear what his premier, Premier Stanfield of Nova Scotia, has to say about it. I quote from an article appearing in the Ottawa Journal under date of January 19, 1957. The article is headed, "Stanfield Sees Value for N.S. in Gordon Report." Listen to this:
Premier Stanfield said yesterday it would be "unfortunate" if Nova Scotians "summarily dismissed" Gordon commission recommendations because of suggestions that under certain conditions maritimers be assisted to leave the area.
In a prepared statement outlining his reaction to commission findings, he said Nova Scotians do not consider "shipment of maritimers" westward is the answer, but some of the suggestions "may prove valuable and should be examined on their merits".
"The report calls the attention of the whole of Canada to our problems", he said. "Living standards are lower here than they are in the rest of Canada. Some Nova Scotians think this statement shows us in a poor light, but I think it is the simple truth. Most of us have been saying it for a long time."
He said the commission is to be commended for "seeking answers to our problems".
Statements have been made in the house with regard to power developments in New 82715-34
The Address-Mr. Robichaud Brunswick. I feel that the people of New Brunswick and the people of Canada as a whole are entitled to have placed before them all the facts regarding federal and provincial exchange of views in connection with this power development so essential to New Brunswick's economy.
On September 28, 1950, the governments of Canada and the United States made a joint reference to the international joint commission under the boundary waters treaty of 1909. The purpose of the reference was (a) to determine whether the waters of the Saint John could be more beneficially conserved and regulated; (b) to recommend projects to this end; and (c) to indicate how various interests may be affected and what should be done.
Under date of April 6, 1953 the engineering board made an interim report and the commission itself transmitted this report to the governments on January 27, 1954, and the report was made public on October 28 of the same year. The board's report indicates that the early steps are required to increase the generating facilities in New Brunswick and Maine. It suggested a solution valid to 1961, namely, interconnection of existing power systems in the area, development of Beech-wood and provision of about 600,000 acre-feet of storage in the Saint John river basin above Grand Falls.
As agreed between the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the premier of New Brunswick, on December 14 and 15, 1954, senior federal officials, in conjunction with the New Brunswick commissioners and their advisers, made an on the spot investigation of the proposed hydro developments on the Saint John river. Almost a year later, in October, 1955, I will admit that the premier of New Brunswick sought to ascertain whether federal financial assistance could be made available to New Brunswick for a ten year program of power development.
On January 26, 1956, as reported at page 558 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Northern Affairs and Natural Resources (Mr. Lesage) the following question:
Has the government given consideration to the possibility of co-operating in the over-all power development of the Saint John river system in New Brunswick?
The minister, in answering my question, advised the house that ever since the early plans for further development of power on the upper Saint John river began about ten years ago the federal government had been in close touch with the situation. In concluding his remarks the minister stated that in letters to him and the Prime Minister under date of October 20, 1955, the premier of New Brunswick said, and I quote again from page

The Address-Mr. Robichaud 558 of Hansard, that "New Brunswick would like to submit a suitable memorandum in connection with the matter mentioned at an early date."
On November 1, 1955, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources replied that "such a supplementary memorandum from you covering the specific matters you have in mind would be of great assistance to me." We all know, and this has been made public, that on January 30, 1956, Premier Flemming's proposals were received in Ottawa. They were alternative proposals suggesting that (a) the federal government advance funds for the hydro developments of the Saint John at the prevailing rate of interest of long term government of Canada bonds, the amount required being $89 million in 11 years plus $30 million to develop the Canadian share of the river, or that the federal government advance on the same terms $211 million for hydro and thermal developments in New Brunswick. Following receipt of this proposal the federal government asked the government of New Brunswick for certain data with regard to certain difficulties in ascertaining whether 600,000 acre feet of essential storage can be made available for the further development of Beechwood. It has been made very clear that this storage is essential for the development amounting to $119 million on the Saint John river as suggested in Premier Flemming's first proposal.
Most of us have listened to charge after charge against this government by members of the opposition to the effect that Ottawa has refused to endorse New Brunswick's note for Beechwood, that Ottawa has turned us down flat and a number of similar accusations to that effect.
These two alternative proposals, Mr. Speaker, make it clear that Premier Flemming is not asking the federal government to endorse New Brunswick's note for the construction of Beechwood. The premier of New Brunswick wants more than an endorsement for Beechwood, but he is asking the federal government for financial assistance for the total capital requirements of the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission amounting to $211 million.
Following receipt of these proposals, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, knowing that no agreements or arrangements had been made for storage with the province of Quebec and the state of Maine, and realizing that the developments suggested were not feasible without the assurance of a provision for 600,000 acre feet of water storage, wrote to Premier Flemming pointing out whether such storage

could be provided on the Tobique river for further development of Beechwood as suggested in his proposal.
On January 17, last week, as reported at page 338 of Hansard the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, in a question to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees), clarified the situation by saying this:
Is the hon. member aware that we are still waiting for the data on the possible storage on the Tobique river that we were promised by the government of New Brunswick some months ago in order to be in a position to make a decision on the request of that government?
This, Mr. Speaker, is the situation. These are the facts which should be made known to the people of New Brunswick and to the people of Canada. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), as reported at page 296 of Hansard of January 16, said this:
I do most positively deny that there has ever been put forward the kind of scheme that could be implemented along the lines I have mentioned. There have been general suggestions, that they should get aid, and with those general suggestions we agree, but there has never been put forward any specific proposition that could be recommended to parliament as one that would really stimulate the economy of the Atlantic region in a fashion that would be beneficial to the whole economy of Canada.
As stated in Premier Flemming's New Year's message, there has been notable and continuous progress in the mining industry of the province during the past year. I have more confidence in the present premier of New Brunswick than have most of New Brunswick's opposition members, if we are to judge them by their statements regarding the miserable and depressed condition of our population. As long as New Brunswick's premier recognizes that another factor most favourable to our provincial economy has been the progress made at Camp Gagetown by the Department of National Defence, and as long as our premier admits with all frankness that this great project will provide further support to the economy of the province during 1957, unlike the opposition members I have enough confidence in the sincerity of our premier to believe that he will assist the growth of mining in New Brunswick to secure for our people a maximum of benefit.
I have enough confidence and faith in the future of New Brunswick to believe that the lack of electrical power will not be detrimental to our advancement and to the proper development of our natural resources. Federal authorities in co-operation with the provincial government will see to it that everything possible is done to derive the full benefits from the resources placed at our disposal by Divine Providence. But the federal government must have the information they have requested before they can

give further consideration to the proposals from the province of New Brunswick.
I have now reached the third point of my remarks, Mr. Speaker. During the third session of this parliament I chose to ignore the vicious and false accusations made against me in this house and on the radio by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne). On January 14 the same hon. member, in a speech again noted for substituting abuse for argument and exaggeration for emphasis, saw fit to carry on with new accusations in language not worthy of a member of this parliament. Again I had decided to ignore those attacks and charges. The hon. member may accuse me of being a baby-sitter and an untrue representative of my people but, Mr. Speaker, I want him to know that I am not ashamed of having to baby-sit for my family of nine children. My sincere hope is that I can bring them up to be good citizens of Canada and that they at all times will be polite to their neighbours and never use the type of language and tactics so familiar to the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska.
As a representative of my people, I am not ashamed of my actions in this house and at home. My electors know that I have at heart the welfare and well-being of all my constituents. The charges made by the hon. member reflect not only on individual members but on all members of this house, irrespective of their party. I want to quote from an article entitled "Report from Parliament Hill-J. C. Van Horne, Member Parliament" which appeared in the Camp-bellton Graphic of January 17, 1957. I shall read part of it:
To begin with, I am vexed and put out to see what is going on in Ottawa this week. Here we are with thousands of people, not only in my riding but all over the country, out of work, and here we are with a crippling transportation strike on our hands, and what does the government do: it puts on cocktail parties and receptions. When will this government realize that the people did not put it in office to have fun and parties, but to render good government to the people. With our problems mounting day by day, with suffering and hardship and want the lot of far too many of our people, our government knocks off work-
Listen to this.
-to have fun. What a set-up! Apart from the Governor General's reception Tuesday night I have refused all other invitations in protest against a government which cares too little for the people and too much for frivolity.


An hon. Member:: Who invited him.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I do not know whether any other members of this house have received such invitations to cocktail parties and receptions from this government. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, a special invitation was sent to the hon. member because the government knows 82715-34J
The Address-Mr. Robichaud of his close connection with places where cocktails are served. After all, his statement is that he refused all other invitations than that to the Governor General's reception on Tuesday night. From what we know in this house the reception was on Monday night, the day before the house opened.


James Sinclair: He must have had his cocktails first.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Listen to this. The article farther on continues as follows:
This week I placed upon the table of the house my resolution to build the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge. I am determined to get a yes or no answer, and I hope to force this matter to a vote at the earliest date. I want to know, and I am sure all our people feel the same way, just where the government fits. The Conservative party fellows are behind the bridge 100 per cent, so are the Social Crediters and the C.C.F.ers, but the Liberals just don't want to get off the fence and say yes or no. And this is why they will do this year, as they did last year,-
Listen to this.
-everything possible to postpone a vote and the debate on this resolution.
Well, after having been in this house for over one session the hon. member does not even know that the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge is an interprovincial bridge and both the province of Quebec and the province of New Brunswick refused to co-operate when the federal government made the announcement that they were prepared to go ahead with their share of the bridge.
Farther on he deals with the C.P.R. strike and I should like to quote one part:
I wish I had time to explain fully the firemen's case in this article but you may be assured that in my opinion, as in the opinion of our party, the C.P.R. management is alone responsible for this strike, and they are the ones who should be blamed, and not the unions who have acted, and are acting in good faith all along.
At last we know the Tory policy on the C.P.R. strike. Now, we have it wide open and I hope that the leader of the party will make a declaration supporting what has been said by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska .
I have here the Campbellton Tribune for January 16, 1957 which carries the heading, "M.P. Flays Government; Asks New Deal for New Brunswick." This article reads in part as follows:
Few people were in the house when he started his speech, but within minutes the Liberal members moved cautiously to their seats.
I know that quite a few members on the opposite side moved out because there were only nine Tory members in the house when he spoke, including the hon. member.
Then, this article states:
His speech comprised an overall new deal plan for the maritimes, and for justice and social

The Address-Mr. Churchill
security and welfare plans for the people of Canada as a whole. Among the first to congratulate Mr. Van Horne was John Diefenbaker, the new leader, who praised the speech as "outstanding in every respect".
Well, Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to make a statement in this house that he approved the speech made by the hon. member in every respect. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to make a statement in this house to confirm what the member has said about the C.P.R. management.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Are you still against increasing family allowances?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, sit down.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are indeed the baby sitter of the Liberal party.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind hon. members that the member who has the floor may not be interrupted without his consent.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am sorry, but I could not hear the objections raised by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska. If I had I would be glad to reply to them. I feel that, as representatives in this house, it is our duty to have an apology made by the hon. member for the charges which he has made and which are a reflection upon every member. If he does not see fit to make it on the floor of this house, at least he should write to these two newspapers and apologize for the misstatements.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I apologize for nothing.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope, Mr. Speaker, it will now be in order for me to direct the attention of the house to the speech from the throne which is the subject of the debate before us. I notice that this year special emphasis was placed on the subject of external affairs in the speech from the throne. Half of the subject matter of that speech is devoted to Canadian foreign relations. To underline the importance of the subject the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) and the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Cardin) have all participated in the debate and have dealt with matters concerning the department. No other cabinet ministers have taken part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is obvious therefore, that the government is paying particular attention to the subject of external affairs this year because of the critical world situation or because of the closeness of an election and the


great dissatisfaction in Canada with the government's action at the time of the Suez crisis.
I think the latter is the correct explanation for this extraordinary state of affairs. I note also that the speech from the throne and the addresses of the two ministers whom I have mentioned have placed special emphasis on the commonwealth of nations. The speech from the throne uses this sentence, and I quote:
My ministers remain convinced of the need to maintain the basic unity of the commonwealth . . .
This is indeed an unusual sentence. No such reference to the commonwealth appears in any speech from the throne from 1949 to the present time. Here and there in the preceding sessions casual reference was made to the commonwealth in those years in which commonwealth conferences were being held but this is the first occasion since 1949 on which the commonwealth has received special attention in the speech from the throne. Hon. members will note the phraseology.
My ministers remain convinced of the need to maintain the basic unity of the commonwealth . . .
The sentence should read as follows: My ministers, and particularly the minister of external affairs, have suddenly discovered the British commonwealth of nations. Heretofore they have been only half conscious of its existence and have made little or no effort to maintain the basic unity of the commonwealth or even mention the subject. Now, in this year of 1957, the Secretary of State for External Affairs devoted a great portion of his speech on January 14 to the commonwealth. He sang its praises; he acknowledged its importance in the world. He considered that it is the first of four factors that influence Canada's foreign policy. He emphasized the necessity of strengthening the commonwealth. Of course, this gave him an opportunity of referring to the alleged break in the commonwealth that he keeps telling us almost occurred at the time of the Suez crisis. This has been one of the major propaganda efforts of the minister. He has placed himself in the position of the saviour of the commonwealth and has implied that, as a result of Canada's action at the United Nations in November under his direction, the Asian members of the commonwealth were retained within this great organization.
Although sufficient evidence has been produced from the statements of the Prime Ministers of Ceylon and India that they did not entertain any idea of withdrawing from the commonwealth, nevertheless the minister and some of his followers on the government side persist in proclaiming him as the man

who saved the commonwealth. I was interested in noting that the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the course of his speech, in which he also emphasized the value of the commonwealth, failed to pay any tribute to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This was an unfortunate oversight because the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his speech expressed his gratitude to the Minister of National Health and Welfare for his activities in strengthening the commonwealth among the Asian members, during the course of his tour of the Far East. I judge from this that the Minister of National Health and Welfare found no evidence of the alleged disruption of the commonwealth which has so possessed the mind of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I note that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in his discussions with our friends in the Far East, told them something about the history of Canada and its relations with the United States, and fell into the same error that the Minister of National Defence did last year, an inaccuracy with regard to our history. The Minister of National Health and Welfare told the people whom he met in the Far East that with respect to the United States-and these are his words-we have "side by side over 140 years lived in peace". Well, I think he is overlooking the fact that during the period from the war of 1812-14 to 1870 relations between Canada and the United States and between Great Britain and the United States were often very strained; that there was considerable difficulty in maintaining the peace; that armed forays were made into Canada by Fenian raiders; that the militia was called out on several occasions to resist them and that the last raid was made in 1870. During the course of those earlier years strenuous efforts were made by the Canadian government to retain in Canada formations of the British army to give us protection. For the benefit of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I shall read to him a small portion of a letter addressed by the Prime Minister of Canada in 1870 to the appropriate cabinet minister in England. Sir John A. Macdonald wrote as follows:
The withdrawal of the troops from Canada is, I think with you, a most unwise and shortsighted proceeding. At this moment we are in daily expectation of a formidable Fenian invasion, unrepressed by the United States government, and connived at by their subordinate officials.
Therefore let us put the date for the peaceful relations between our country and our great neighbour to the south at 1870, which is not 140 years.
In his remarks the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated that it was necessary,
The Address-Mr. Churchill because of recent events, to make a reassessment of the principles which have underlined our policy and the factors that influence them. He then went on to list the four principal factors of Canadian foreign policy and he placed them in this order: the commonwealth, the United Nations, NATO and the United States of America. He placed his greatest emphasis upon the United Nations and, strangely enough, I thought that his discussion of the United Nations was really the swan song of that organization. He mentioned the gap between responsible and irresponsible membership, the impossibility of compulsory enforcement of United Nations proposals, the growing tendency to force through the assembly impractical and unreasonable resolutions merely by voting power and the development of the group or bloc veto in the assembly which may result, as he said, in that body becoming as ineffective as the security council; and, Anally, that the United Nations provides no substitute for the national policies of its members.
This leads me to wonder whether, with these doubts in his mind, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is wise in attempting to create the impression that Canada's foreign policy depends to such a great extent on the United Nations. If that body is no more effective than the minister has pointed out, it is indeed a slender reed on which Canada is leaning in the difficult task of attempting to provide national security and a stable and enduring peace throughout the world.
I think the time has come when we should examine the value of the United Nations as it is constituted at the present time. I think it is the height of folly to place so much dependence on an organization which in the last 10 years has failed to keep the peace, which is its main purpose, and which recently has been shown to be unable to enforce its will as expressed by resolutions of the assembly.
I think it is just nonsense to suggest that the cease-Are which was procured at the Suez canal was the result of resolutions passed by the United Nations. I think that that cease-Are and the withdrawal of the British and French forces were brought about chieAy by the pressure exerted upon Britain and France by the United States.
The United Nations has recently passed a resolution requiring the state of Israel to withdraw its armed forces from the areas formerly held by Egypt, the Gaza strip and the gulf of Aqaba. If the state of Israel does withdraw her forces from those areas it will be because of the economic sanctions applied to Israel by the United States. I draw the

The Address-Mr. Churchill attention of the house to an article appearing in the New York Times of January 20, which reads in part as follows:
Israel was expecting from $25 million to $30 million in grants in aid from the United States this year. She was also planning a $75 million loan from the export-import bank. After the Sinai campaign grants in aid were stopped and there is no word yet that they will be resumed. There is also no commitment on the loan.
I just wonder whether that would have a greater effect on the state of Israel than a resolution passed by the United Nations.
We have recently heard a great deal about the effectiveness of the United Nations in marshalling public opinion. The parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke in the house on January 15 and expressed, I judge, the point of view of the department and of the minister. He said that he was impressed by the unprecedented power and strength of world opinion which was so forcibly expressed at the United Nations not so long ago. He then went on to say, as recorded at page 229 of Hansard:
World opinion has become more than ever before an extremely important factor in the relationship of states, to which no state, no matter how powerful, can afford now to be indifferent.
If world opinion is as powerful a force as this, why was it so ineffective with regard to the disaster that befell the people in Hungary? What effect did world opinion have on Russia during that terrible crisis? The answer is absolutely none at all. If world opinion is such a powerful force, why has it been necessary during the last few years to establish such military alliances as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Baghdad pact? If it is so powerful, why do we have to spend half of our annual budget for military defence? Why does the United States have to maintain the largest strategic bombing force in the world, with air bases on every continent? Why must we have a stockpile of atom and hydrogen bombs? Why must we spend millions in providing great radar lines in northern Canada? If world opinion is such a powerful force to maintain peace, why is it necessary periodically for the United States to enunciate such policies as containment and massive retaliation? Why is it necessary for the proclamation of the Eisenhower doctrine with regard to the Middle East? If world opinion, as expressed through the United Nations, is such a powerful force, as so many people are telling us, why are all these defensive preparations necessary, why not just another resolution of the United Nations? The answer, of course, is that the belief in the power of world opinion is merely a delusion. The United Nations, as constituted at the present time, can exert only moral suasion. Each nation
IMr. Churchill.]
is a sovereign body. No nation is bound by international law except on its own consent. There is no effective sanction, either military or economic, at the disposal of the United Nations to apply to members who fail to abide by decisions of that organization. Now being tried is an experiment in the use of a method more effective than a resolution made by the United Nations. This is being done by means of the emergency force which is operating on the boundary between Egypt and Israel.
A United Nations police force has been the subject of discussion in many circles for the last ten years. Of course when the minister for external affairs proposed such a force at the United Nations assembly in November it was hailed as a stroke of inventive genius. The Canadian propaganda machine which functions at the United Nations made the most of this opportunity by impressing upon Canadians by means of television, radio and newspaper articles that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was a statesman unparalleled in the history of the world. Disillusionment followed very closely after this momentous discovery, when it became evident that Colonel Nasser had the final word as to the nature of the force, its disposition and the length of its stay on Egyptian soil. Even now, when opinion is in favour of the United Nations police force occupying the Gaza strip and other disputed territories on the border of Israel, Egypt objects to this use of the emergency force.
The latest resolution passed by the United Nations and therefore, so we are led to believe, expressing the power of world opinion, simply insists that Israel withdraw entirely from the disputed area and that a return be made to the status quo. No permanent solution between Israel and her neighbours is in sight. Although this represents a very unpropitious beginning for a United Nations military force, the minister of external affairs is now advocating the provision by members of the United Nations of forces which would be available when the necessity arose to institute international police action. This is what he said on page 177 of Hansard of January 14:
The kind of force we have in mind would be designed to meet situations calling for action, intermediate if you like, between the passing of resolutions and the fighting of a war, and which might incidentally have the effect of reducing the risks of the latter. It would not, however, as I see it, be expected to operate in an area where fighting was actually in progress; it would be preventive and restoratory rather than punitive or belligerent.
The minister is fond of adjectives, uses them skilfully and bemuses us by his use of them. I find it difficult to visualize forces

of this nature being used in the intermediate period between the passing of resolutions by the United Nations and the actual outbreak of war. If the United Nations police force, which is now in the mind of the minister, is no better equipped for offensive or defensive action than the present force now serving in the Middle East, I would think that any member of the United Nations which committed troops abroad under such circumstances would simply be giving hostages to fortune. Without effective support from air, armour and artillery, an infantry police force armed only with rifles, machine guns and mortars is not much more than an enlarged observer corps.
I would like to ask the minister in what area of the world he would see such an international police force stationed. If this is an effective way of dealing with threats to western democracy from Russia would he suggest that a United Nations police force be stationed in Germany, and that the United States and British divisions be recalled, along with the Canadian forces? If we believe all the propaganda to which we have been subjected during the last few months the NATO alliance is obviously unnecessary, and we should place our reliance upon the great power of public opinion expressed by resolutions supported by a majority vote in the United Nations assembly and assisted by a lightly armed infantry force on the borders between hostile states.
I suggest that to base Canada's foreign policy upon the United Nations as our main shield and our main defence against war is nothing short of folly. Until the United Nations has become a much more powerful body than it is at the present time; until the nations of the world are prepared to submit to the rule of law, and until the United Nations is able effectively to enforce its decisions, we are making a great mistake in placing too much reliance on this organization for the preservation of peace.
I submit that the minister must reappraise Canada's foreign policies and rearrange in his thinking the four factors on which he states our policy is based. I am of the opinion that the four factors should be arranged in this order:	first, the commonwealth;
second, NATO; third, the United States of America; and fourth, the United Nations. This, of course, means relying upon military alliances, the age-old method of protection for states which in themselves are not powerful enough to resist any foreign threat. Military alliances have not brought about lasting peace, but have served from time to time to postpone war and on the outbreak of conflict to provide collective security for the members of the alliance.
The Address-Mr. Churchill
There is no immediate prospect of establishing permanent peace in the world. This will only be achieved when some sort of world government is established. No possibility of world government exists at the present time because of the lack of uniformity among the systems of government in the various nations of the world. Dictatorships, oligarchies and democracies can find no common basis for agreement. That leaves us with no alternative except the maintenance of military alliances among the democracies, with the hope perhaps of establishing closer political ties among those nations whose philosophies of life and whose systems of government are similar.
Therefore it is obvious that for the security of Canada-and that is the main function of the Department of External Affairs-our greatest reliance should be placed upon our membership in the British commonwealth, our association with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and our close ties with our powerful neighbour to the south. Every effort should be made by Canada to strengthen the commonwealth and to strengthen the bond between the commonwealth and the United States.
Had this conception of Canada's foreign policy been uppermost in the mind of the minister of external affairs last November I doubt very much if he would have abstained from voting at the United Nations assembly. Abstaining from a vote is an important action in the United Nations assembly. One of the senior civil servants in the Department of External Affairs a few years ago explained the meaning of abstention in the following words'.
To abstain is not a neutral act with no policy implications, not a simple statement of lack of knowledge; it is a definite political act with definable political connotations.
The minister's abstention on the occasion of the vote in November was a definite political act which made a choice between making common cause with the commonwealth and becoming a satellite of the United States. I would direct your attention to a very interesting book entitled "Canada in World Affairs" by B. S. Keirstead, which examines Canada's external relations during the period 1951-53. He deals with the subject which I am now discussing, and on page 44 points out that with regard to Canadian interests abroad the first thing in which we are interested is stable and enduring peace with, as a corollary, security against attack, provision for security directed toward a strong bargaining position for the negotiation of a settlement.
Later, on pages 239 and 240, he deals with the subject of the commonwealth, and is not altogether sympathetic with the policies of

The Address-Mr. Churchill the Department of External Affairs which were pursued in those years and which, as far as I can gather, are being followed at the present time. There is a short quotation here which I think may be of interest. The writer says:
The countries of the commonwealth have a unique organization. With different languages, religions, and national cultures, they share a common political tradition, a common set of moral and political values, and a common habit of mind in the face of political problems. This common habit of mind is one of moderation, of compromise, of negotiation, of give and take. While no common foreign policy is possible, if one means by that an agreed course of action on every issue, anything that might strengthen the presentation of the commonwealth habit of thought would surely be a contribution to world peace. If this is what is meant by closer commonwealth collaboration in foreign policy, and it is all that it is possible to mean, then it does make sense to ask if the extreme official caution in Canada and the sensitivity to anything that might even appear to make Canadian policy depend on London has been justified. After all, if the choice is between making common cause with London occasionally (and New Delhi, Canberra, Colombo, and others) and becoming a satellite of the United States, anyone who values, or even has valued, Canadian independence ought not to have difficulty in seeing where the danger lies.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have suggested the order of the factors upon which I think Canada should place its reliance, dealing with the factors originally enunciated by the minister for external affairs, I should think now that he has seen the light, we would be in agreement concerning the commonwealth. After all, why should there ever have been any separation from the commonwealth on the part of Canada? Our roots have never been cut from the homelands from which the two great races of this country have sprung, and in those difficult periods of the twentieth century when vital decisions had to be made, in 1914 and 1939, there was no serious difference of opinion among the Canadian people as to what should be their decisions. We were not disturbed, or waiting to see what Washington would say with regard to what action we should take. Nor was it a question simply of saying "Ready, aye ready" as the minister tries to imply. It was because of our common background of thought and belief that we faced the problems that confronted the world in those two wars in the way we did, and were ready to defend the cause of freedom and democracy.
The second factor, Mr. Speaker, is our relation with NATO. It is a military alliance, but what is the alternative to a military alliance in so far as we are able to discover at this stage of world development? It is a strong military alliance in which we place our greatest hope. If we did not have the benefit of that alliance we would be in grave danger. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the

minister of external affairs should place much more emphasis in this house on the subject of NATO than he does.
The propaganda machinery which is consistently telling us about the minister's speeches at the United Nations does not seem to operate at all with regard to NATO conferences, with the result that NATO is a relatively unknown quantity among Canadians. This is true to such an extent that in the last two years, when representatives of this House of Commons and of the other house have gone to a conference attended by representatives from all the other members of the NATO alliance, certain people have poked fun at the expedition and called it a junket and a joyride at the expense of the people of Canada.
On the contrary, that type of consultation and conference is, I think, essential. If the NATO alliance is to be maintained there must be understanding among the members of NATO and exchanges of opinion from time to time. I am one of those, Mr. Speaker, who willingly look forward to a broader basis for NATO, and I have spoken in this house with regard to the suggestion that an Atlantic alliance might be established as the next step forward in the development of relations among the nations, an alliance which would comprise those nations bordering on the Atlantic who have similar systems of government, a similar background and the capacity for joining together much more closely than in the past in order to make themselves secure in a very insecure world.
The third factor on which we must place our reliance is of course, Mr. Speaker, the United States of America; not in the position of a blind follower of the United States but as a partner in our own right, with the power to influence United States opinion. We have to be extremely careful at the present time about our relationship with the United States. We have been reading in the papers recently about the new policy announced there, and it is interesting to note that Mr. Dulles has been telling us what might happen in the event of trouble. The Globe and Mail of Saturday, January 19, reports what Mr. Dulles said before a Senate committee, and I quote his words:
If we got into war we'd expect to get help from 42 nations with whom we have collective security agreements.
Then he went on to say with regard to consultation:
The United States ought not to have its polices fixed by consultations and agreements with other nations.

Well, Mr. Speaker, much was said in November about the lack of consultation. Now we are informed by this great power that consultation is perhaps not necessary. What position is Canada in? We have United States troops living in our country; we have United States air bases on the soil of Canada. Are we immediately committed in the event the United States takes some action? The closest relationship with the United States is naturally essential to our safety; but, Mr. Speaker, it must be a relationship entered into with ourselves as a partner.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that consideration should be given to these factors in the order in which I have presented them, and I think it would be wise for the House of Commons and the minister for external affairs to take a second look at the policy which was placed before us for consideration the other day. Where does the United Nations come in? I place it at the bottom of the list, not because I think it is completely ineffective; that is not so. The United Nations is an essential part of man's struggle toward securing peace and order in the world. It is at present ineffective, as we know, as an instrument for ensuring and maintaining peace but it has, nevertheless, to be maintained as an organization; indeed, it has to be strengthened in the light of recent events. The weakness of that body should surely be known to all, and it is because we recognize that weakness, I maintain, that we should not place our full reliance upon the United Nations alone.
We must regard these things in the proper order, the commonwealth, NATO, the United States of America, and after that we should play our full part in the United Nations in order to make it an effective force for the peace we would like to see in the world. But to establish it as the basis of our foreign policy would be, I think, to delude our people. We cannot expect to have peace in the world simply by way of resolutions passed at the United Nations. In this difficult twentieth century, in this period in which we are living in fear of a very destructive war, we must place our reliance upon our known friends, upon our known means of protecting ourselves. It is only as we do that and emphasize these aspects first that we can safely go on to deal with the United Nations and endeavour through that body to reach the solution that everybody in the world hopes for, with the exception perhaps of some of the communist countries.
I do not think there is any doubt in anybody's mind that the average man in the world wants peace. He does not want to be shot at or killed. He is not interested in the destruction of war. He wants peace. But how
The Address-Mr. Churchill is it to be obtained? Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that it can be obtained by an organization whose only effective function at the present time is to determine by a majority vote what resolutions shall be passed at that assembly. The marshalling of public opinion that we hear so much about these days has not been an effective factor in maintaining peace. It is all to the good. We want public opinion marshalled. We want these things brought out into the open. Nations that are oppressed or suffering should be heard.
It is a good thing that in the United Nations all nations of the world there assembled can talk about the disaster that befell the Hungarian people. That shows to them and to all of us everywhere the evil in the world that is represented by communist Russia. But to base our foreign policy on the United Nations as our mainstay is, I think, wholly wrong. We must revise our thinking and start with these other factors in our minds. We must strengthen the commonwealth, strengthen NATO, strengthen the tie with the United States of America, and then from that point use our influence in the United Nations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question before he sits down?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre feel that if Canada were to place the United Nations at the bottom of the list that that would be an effective way of making the United Nations a more effective instrument in the achievement of world peace?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps I have used an inappropriate term in speaking of the bottom of the list. I should have said that every attention should be given to the United Nations. However, it is a question of emphasis; and in our anxiety to make the United Nations an effective force in the world we should not neglect our connection with the commonwealth, the effectiveness of the military NATO alliance and our close relation with the United States.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend permit a question? Would he not agree that perhaps none, in any case certainly few others, have worked harder for the strength and the usefulness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization than my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Secretary of State for External Affairs may have worked to the

The Address-Mr. Breton limit of his ability for NATO. I was not suggesting that he had not. I was suggesting that our propaganda machinery was emphasizing more the work of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and, on occasion, of the Minister of National Health and Welfare at the United Nations, and neglecting to give us information with regard to NATO.


Maurice Breton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join hon. members of the house in congratulating the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I do not intend to be very long, because my conviction is that Liberal legislation is very good.
Such testimony from a Liberal member will not surprise anyone, but if I mention it I do so because of the obvious approval of the official opposition, the Progressive Conservative party. Indeed, I have read carefully the program of the Conservative party at its last convention, and I have found that as a whole it constitutes the best appraisement of Liberal legislation in this country. The biggest difference is that the Progressive Conservative party will need about $7 billion or $8 billion to realize their program, instead of $5 billion which is the present budget. One may hope that by 1965 or before the Liberal party will be able to fulfil such an ideal social program.
As there is nothing very controversial in present politics, I should like to say a few words on a subject that should appeal to all members of the house without regard to party lines. I refer to the project of simultaneous translation of speeches in the House of Commons in both official languages of this country. I am sure of finding a sympathetic reception for such a proposal which will please greatly nearly one-third of the members of the house and as many as 5 million people of French descent in this country. We all know that at the United Nations and in many private organizations simultaneous translation is widely used. On May 22, 1956, the Junior Chamber of Commerce of Canada, embracing almost 25,000 members, presented a brief to the Speaker of this house recommending such a system for the House of Commons.
May I add that on the east side of the Ottawa river 4 million people speak French, and the great majority of them are unable to follow the debates of the house when they come here to visit us. Two years ago, Mr. Speaker, I received in Ottawa 200 farmers and their wives from my constituency, and I was sorry that they were unable to follow the debates from their seats in the galleries. My conviction is that the most important


way to promote national unity is to permit a good understanding of the other language. The United Nations organization would have been impossible without simultaneous translation, and all French Canadians going to New York to attend the United Nations meetings come back with the idea that such a system should be in use in the House of Commons.
We should admit that the present system of acoustics is far from being perfect. It is maintained at great cost but it could be replaced with better results so far as hearing is concerned by one system of individual earphones. These earphones could be utilized for both acoustics and simultaneous translation purposes. Here are a few figures on the cost of the present sound system in the
chamber:
Original cost of installation .... $33,529
Annual rental of equipment	 7,500
Operation and maintenance yearly ..	20,000
The wiring was done by public works personnel, and the cost is. not readily available. In the brief of the Canadian Junior Chamber of Commerce already mentioned I see that the cost of installation of a simultaneous translation system in the House of Commons is estimated at $6,272. This means that the installation and operating cost of such a system would be less than for the one we already have and it would give much better results and satisfaction to members in general as well as to the public.
I have in my hand some information about the cost of earphones for public seats at the United Nations. It is approximately $15 per seat. As there are 626 seats in the galleries of this chamber, the total cost for earphones for all the public seats would be $9,390. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I know this parliament is very sensitive to the prerogatives and rights of parliament. I personally feel that parliament is right in defending those rights, because parliament is the means by which good democracy may function. But I think the first condition for a good parliament is that all speakers be understood in their own language when it is possible. I think it is not very good for a parliament that a third of the members speak for the ceilings, for the walls, or just for the press. I believe it should be the right of everyone to be understood in his own language and to hear and speak in his own language.
We feel here that when we speak French this house is not interested. I do not think I will be disagreeable to my English speaking colleagues when I say this. If the situation were reversed and they were in our position, with a third of this house speaking English and we, two-thirds, speaking only

French, I feel sure that the third you would represent would ask strongly for simultaneous translation.
One day I heard a minister say that the members from the province of Quebec did not seem much interested in the legislation of this country outside the province of Quebec. I admit that there seems to be some truth in that observation. However, I think one of the main reasons is the fact that 75 members are obliged to follow the speeches in another language. As we live in a democracy, under a democratic system in which we believe, and which we want to defend, with a parliament that we want to protect, I believe we should have a system that permits everybody to hear and to speak in his own language and not be obliged to speak just for the walls, for the ceilings or for the press. I think we have a right to have that opportunity. When I say that I assure you that it is not from a nationalistic point of view; it is simply on the basis of a democratic system which we want to preserve and which we cherish.
This year I intend to present a resolution on this matter. If I speak on this question in the debate on the speech from the throne it is simply because I want to direct the minds of hon. members to this question which, for us, is extremely important. I have heard the comments made by French speaking members of this house. If you want to be fair to this important minority, I think something should be done. Actually 25 or 30 years after the invention of this system of sound reproduction and simultaneous translation which was used at the first United Nations meetings, I think it is time something should be done in this house. I was told that the actual system of sound reproduction could be installed at small cost, and could be so organized that it would provide simultaneous translation.
On the day I come back with a resolution on simultaneous translation in this house I hope I shall receive approval and sympathy from all sides of this house. Starting from the principle that varied cultures constitute a national enrichment, I think there is no better place than the House of Commons to demonstrate the value of such a principle.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, as this debate progresses it becomes increasingly more diflicult to discuss a problem that has not already had some degree of consideration. But because I come from a part of the country which is almost solely dependent on agriculture, and also because I am interested in and concerned about the general agricultural picture in this country, I feel that at this time I have no alternative
The Address-Mr. Bryson but to take this opportunity to bring before this house and this government once again, as I have attempted to do on previous occasions, the serious situation and the unfortunate position in which Canadian agriculture and in particular western agriculture finds itself at the moment, even at the risk of repeating many of the arguments that have already been made.
Certainly since I have been in this house, Mr. Speaker, and for many years prior to my coming here, innumerable speeches have been made by members of this party and others not only in pointing out to the government the serious deterioration that is steadily taking place in this unfortunate industry, but repeatedly warning this government of the inevitable and serious consequences that will result unless the government accepts its share of the responsibility for bringing about a solution of this extremely distressing problem. As a matter of fact, agricultural producers in the part of the country from which I come are suspicious that, because of the inaction on the part of the government to implement an agricultural policy, this government has in effect abandoned agriculture, that they have written it off as being something that is unnecessary in so far as the economic welfare of this country is concerned.
I say that in all seriousness. We have the refusal of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce to attend meetings of western farm organizations called especially to discuss current agricultural problems, after special requests had been made of these two responsible members of the government to attend. The fact that they refused to attend and, as a matter of fact, on one occasion refused to allow any other responsible member of this government to attend and speak on behalf of Liberal agricultural policies in this country, only strengthens and adds to that suspicion. I suggest that the government has some responsibility in respect to the over-all agriculture policy of this country, and I am going to say quite frankly that the farmers are not blameless. In all fairness I must say that the farmers themselves also have some responsibility for trying to bring about a solution of their own problems.
I want to say to this house, and to this government in particular, that we must bear this point in mind. Farmers are unable to discharge their responsibilities outside of the framework of a comprehensive and realistic federal agriculture policy. I think the time is long overdue for the government to take a realistic view of this whole situation. They have to get down and grapple with this situation. The time is overdue when they can

The Address-Mr. Bryson pass the buck, as they have done over the past number of years. The time is past when they are able to say to the farmer that the reason he is not getting his fair share of the national income is that he has failed to accept his responsibility for the situation in which he finds himself today.
I hope, before I am finished, to be able to shed a little light on this subject and discredit a few of the fallacious arguments this government has been able to sell to Canadian agriculture. In spite of the government's pronouncements to the contrary; in spite of the very optimistic and irresponsible speeches that have been made throughout the country, especially in western Canada, by the Minister of Agriculture, to the effect that agriculture is not experiencing any distress, agriculture is declining at an alarming rate.
It is not my intention on this occasion to repeat all the arguments proving that contention, but I should like to draw the attention of the government to a statement made on January 2 last by Mr. Jack Wesson, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, and a man whom I am sure has the confidence not only of everyone in this house but of everyone connected with western agriculture. He said the farmer had reached the point, because of the so-called cost-price squeeze, where he is placed in an impossible position. Then again I should like to quote very briefly from a publication of the Searle Grain Company, a publication which by no stretch of the imagination could be considered a friend of the farmer. They had this to say in an issue of last fall, at a time when they were talking about the farmers' position regarding the disparity between his cost of production and the price which he receives for the products he markets:
... it now costs the prairie farmer $2.31.3 to buy what one dollar would buy in 1935-39. This means, therefore, that the $1.40 initial wheat payment is worth only 60.5 cents in 1935-39 value of money, basis No. 1 Northern Fort William, or at the average country elevator point it is worth approximately 521 cents a bushel.
I am not going to belabour the house with more statistics, but I should like to produce one more bit of significant evidence in regard to the position of agriculture in the west. It is a statement of tax accounts in a larger school unit in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I can say without boasting that I represent possibly one of the best agricultural areas in western Canada in so far as agricultural revenue is concerned. I feel it is a deplorable state of affairs that out of the total tax levy in that school unit, amounting to some $368,000, some $246,000 was still outstanding as of December 31.
Here again we have a clear indication of the economic stress that is being imposed on

agriculture producers in that area because of the shortcomings of federal agricultural policy. What I have quoted is indeed significant, because it is a well known fact that farmers will pay their taxes if at all possible since they know they cannot put off indefinitely the day of retribution if these taxes are not paid.
Yet rather than recognize the seriousness of the situation by facing the fact that the Canadian economy is composed of one large unit, and all phases must be geared to the general welfare and prosperity of the whole economy, the best the government can do is advocate a do nothing policy. They carelessly disregard the distress, both economic and social, that results from such an attitude. The best they can do is say if the farmer cannot make a go of it on the farm, let him quit and move to town. It seems to me the best that could be said for the present agricultural policy of this government is that it is a series of unintelligent ad hoc pieces of mumbo-jumbo designed to avert, from week to week, chaos in the agriculture industry. In other words, they believe in the survival of the fittest to the extent that they would sacrifice the farmer, and possibly more important they would sacrifice the family farm, to a system of centrally-owned corporate farms. It is a rather cold and heartless approach, because as I said a moment ago it disregards completely not only the economic implications but, equally important, the social and moral implications of the matter.
Rather than attempt to get at the root of the problem; rather than attempt to take some responsibility for the situation, they simply say that the farmer is unable to maintain his position because of several very obvious reasons. I think, by and large the farmers are getting sick and tired of being told by this government that the reason they cannot make good on the land is that they are inefficient; that they must operate a more economic unit, that they must diversify their agricultural operations. Then, when these arguments have been exhausted, the farmer is told he is unable to maintain his position in the industry because labour is asking for too much money, and the wages which labour is receiving in those industries on which the farmer depends for his production needs are driving up the costs of production beyond all reasonable levels.
Then, Mr. Speaker, in order to clinch the argument once and for all, in the face of the clamour from agriculture for a system of parity prices that would give agriculture a parity income with other groups in this country, the government then says that people

would never agree because a higher support price, or a parity price, would only victimize the consumer; and so the government does nothing.
I think we should take a look at some of these fallacious arguments that are being put forward as the reasons the farmer finds himself in his present position. I should like to ask the house this question. Is it true that the farmer is inefficient? What do you mean by "efficiency"? In 1950 the agricultural industry of this country received 11 per cent of the national income. Since 1950, in the span of six short years, we in the agricultural industry have lost 150,000 farm operators. But in the last six years the farmers of Canada have been condemned for producing surpluses. Apparently, if you carry this argument to its logical conclusion, the more efficient agriculture becomes the poorer it becomes, because in 1956, in spite of the fact that agriculture had lost 150,000 workers, the farmers received only 6 per cent of the national income. Therefore I think we have to look farther than the question of efficiency to find the answer to the farmer's problem.
On the other hand, it is a question of what is meant by efficiency. There is not too much inefficiency in the manner and the methods by which farmers are carrying on their operations today, but I think efficiency means something else. I think an agricultural program can be more efficient if it is diversified. If we are to solve our problems in this country it is right and proper for farmers to diversify their operations, especially in western Canada. There is no question about it, Mr. Speaker; the people of this country and elsewhere eat things other than wheat. Therefore I am sure most farmers will agree that it would be advantageous to them if they did undertake a greater degree of diversification in their agricultural operations.
What is this government doing to further diversification and to help the farmer to diversify? Recently and over the years we in Saskatchewan have been clamouring for the building of the South Saskatchewan river dam. If this government really wants to see the farmers diversify their operations, if the government really thinks it is a desirable goal to be reached, I can think of nothing it could do that would assist that diversification in a very large sector of Saskatchewan than the building of the South Saskatchewan river dam, or giving assistance to the building of it.
We have the Minister of Agriculture again stating that the best he can do is to warn this government and the people of Saskatchewan that there is going to be a series of
The Address-Mr. Bryson drought years. At the same time when there is something concrete this government could do, namely build the South Saskatchewan river dam that would irrigate a large area, nothing is done. In other words, apparently they would like to see the farmers suffer as they did back in the 1930's rather than assist them to combat those disastrous conditions. That is why we in this party have advocated a system of parity prices to enable the farmers to enter into a program of capital expenditure leading to diversification.
To diversify means that you must spend a great deal of money, not only in capital expansion but in costly operational changes. Therefore we are asking the government to implement a system of parity prices so that if diversification takes place necessitating a shift in the methods of farming, at least the cost of production will bear a fair relationship to the returns farmers get for the things they offer for sale, and in addition the farmer would be assured that his capital expenditure would not be in jeopardy. No other industry in this country would think of going into any kind of business unless it was assured that its capital investment was going to be protected.
Certainly we were all quite amazed at the submission of the Canadian Pacific Railway, this greatest of all advocates of free enterprise, which admitted publicly that there is no longer any place in our economy for risk. They said in effect that they honestly believed the taxpayers of Canada should underwrite the capital expenditure of that company. Not only should the people of this country guarantee the company a minimum return on their capital investment, but they also want the people of this country to guarantee a return of 4.71 per cent on their investment. Therefore we in the agricultural industry now feel more justified than ever in making the modest request that all we want is to be assured that we will get back only our costs of production.
May I say something about the argument put forward that the consumer would be victimized by a system of parity prices. Again I am going to quote Mr. Jack Wesson and other wheat pool officials, who told this country that if today the farmers of Canada gave their wheat to the millers of this country for nothing it would decrease the price of bread by only 3 cents a loaf. I do not think anybody can seriously contend that by giving the farmer a fair return on what he produces it would unduly victimize the consumer.
Possibly something should be said about the argument that high wages in industry is one of the reasons the farmers are being

The Address-Mr. Bryson deprived of a fair standard of living. I am not going to stand here and say that labour is blameless. I will be one of the first to admit that possibly labour has rather limited objectives because of misunderstandings in many instances and in other instances because of circumstances. I think it is shameful, Mr. Speaker, that this government should use the misunderstandings that exist between labour and the farmer as a wedge to drive these two segments of our population farther and farther apart, when there is no foundation for those tactics.
I would like to place on record a few figures which I have in connection with labour's part in pushing up the prices of farm machinery. In 1946 the value of farm machinery produced in Canada was $65 million. In that same year labour received for the production of that machinery $25 million. I admit that in 1955, nine or ten years later, the labour bill had jumped to $50 million from $25 million, but in that same year the production which came off the end of the assembly lines, for which labour received $50 million, had jumped from $65 million to $171 million. In other words, in 1946 labour received 40 per cent of the value of the machinery produced, while in 1955 it only received 29.4 per cent.
Let me put it this way. In 1946 one worker in a given time produced one combine, but in 1955 the same labourer in the same period of time was able to produce one and a half combines. In really simple terms it means that for making one combine in 1946 he received $1,456, and in 1955 for making one and a half combines he only received $1,740, when in reality, equated against what he received in 1946, he should have received $2,176.
There is another aspect to this question which I should like to bring to the attention of the house. Just recently we were told that farm machinery had gone up in price because steel had gone up $5 a ton. I have made a few calculations as to how many tons of steel are in an ordinary combine. There are about three or three and a half tons of steel. You do not have to be much of a mathematician to multiply three by five; it comes to $15. When a farmer buys the machine after the increase of $5 a ton for steel he pays for it at a rate of increase of 7 per cent. If you calculate 7 per cent of $6,000, which is the price of the combine, it does not come to $15; it comes to $420. Let no one say that the wage earner is responsible for the distress in which we find the agricultural industry today.
Well, then, what is the trouble? Certainly it is not because we are not selling wheat, because over and over again in the last year the Minister of Trade and Commerce informed everybody in this country that we


are selling more wheat than we have ever sold in recent years. Therefore the farmer cannot place the blame for his position on the fact that we are not selling grain. I will have to agree that we are selling more grain. As a matter of fact last year we sold 85 million bushels more wheat than we did in any of the last 35 years, with the exception of five years.
No; that is not the problem which is causing the farmer such distress. Then we must ask ourselves what is the problem. The problem seems to be this, that there is a wide disparity between the farmer's cost of production on the one hand and the price he receives for what he produces on the other. This is what is commonly known as the cost-price squeeze. There is no other answer.
I think I have pointed out, in quoting the story about the combine, one of the reasons for this cost-price squeeze. The latest statistics available show that the^25 companies on whom farmers depend for their production needs have had their profits increased in the last seven years by over 400 per cent. Profits go up and up and the farmer's income goes down and down. That is why we have asked for parity prices. I was rather amazed, as were also a great many people in my part of the country, to read the account of the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture just before Christmas at the Liberal convention in the city of Regina. He said at that convention, if you mean by parity a fair relationship between production costs and what you receive for the products you grow, then we already have it. He started in to compute his kind of parity on the basis of 65 per cent to 85 per cent.
I wonder what the Minister of Agriculture is trying to tell the farmers. Is he trying to tell them that they are not deserving of 100 per cent parity? He is in effect saying that they are second-class citizens; that they do not deserve anything better than 65 per cent of justice. I would not be very much surprised if before long we in Saskatchewan or in western Canada find ourselves walking into a restaurant and being told to go to the back, where we will find a sign "Authorized by the Minister of Agriculture" and stating "This room reserved for farmers, who are to receive just 65 per cent of what everybody else is served out in front." I expect that some day the minister will be advocating that they put a car on the back of the train with another sign saying "For farmers only; 65 per cent service."


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I should like to tell the hon. member who is interjecting that those are the kind of statements that prompted a great

many people to walk out of the convention of the Liberal party in the city of Regina in absolute disgust at what the minister had told them.
I am glad there is one responsible member of the government who seems to take a different view of this question of agriculture. I hold in my hand a statement made by none other than the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. McCubbin), speaking to a farmers' union meeting in the province of Ontario last November 8. From the article it would appear that the farmers at that meeting had the parliamentary assistant on the griddle, because he admitted that while he had not voted for the parity price resolution presented in this house last year, if it ever was presented again he would vote for it. Then to make those farmers really feel good he volunteered the information that if anybody moved a motion to increase the premium on grade A hogs to $4 he would support that as well. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he should immediately replace the Minister of Agriculture by handing over that portfolio to the parliamentary assistant.
For a few moments I should like to direct the attention of this house to another conspiracy this government is carrying on against the western farmer. I refer of course to the increase in the interest rates that we find occurring all across the country. In the handling of grain and the marketing of grain the elevator companies are obliged to borrow tremendous sums of money. Now, because of the increase in interest rates, it is going to cost many more millions of dollars in handling charges than it did last year. Those handling charges are going to be paid by the wheat board and, in turn, they will be handed back to the farmer to pay; there is no one else to whom they can be passed.
I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, how the Minister of Finance can believe that raising the interest charges on money borrowed for the production of new wealth in this country necessarily lends itself to inflation. The other day the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Mang) was very anxious to inform this house about all the things the government had done for farmers, and he mentioned in particular the large amount of money the government had paid on behalf of the farmers by way of storage charges. But he did not tell this house that though they paid the farmers several million dollars in lieu of storage charges, they immediately increased interest rates and took most of the money away from them.
Mr. Speaker, I had intended to say something about box car allocation, because that
The Address-Mr. H. B. McCulloch issue has become so confused of late that no one really knows what is the situation, but I am going to leave that subject until another occasion. In conclusion I would just like to say this. It is going to take more than dry weather to solve the farmers' problems, and the quicker the government gets that kind of thinking out of its head the better. I implore this government to immediately accept its duties and responsibilities toward agriculture in this country, and I can give the assurance that if that is done it will have the wholehearted support of every farmer in Canada.


Walter Edward Harris: I think I understood the hon. member to say that having granted a subsidy -around $33 million, I believe it was-for the storage of grain at a certain time of the year the government "turned round and took it away". Would the hon. member please tell me in what manner we did that?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, I was making reference to the raising of the interest rates.


Hazen Robert Argue: It costs the wheat board more money to finance the crop.


Walter Edward Harris: What rates are raised to the western farmer?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: The interest rates are raised, which means that the grain handling companies in western Canada have to pay more in interest on the money they have to borrow to handle and market farmers' grain.


Hazen Robert Argue: And the farmer gets less per bushel for his wheat.


Walter Edward Harris: When was that raise effective?


Hazen Robert Argue: During this crop season.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are doing it all the time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Henry Byron McCulloch: Mr. Speaker, the town of Westville, in Pictou county, Nova Scotia, was incorporated in 1894. It has a population of 4,300 as shown in the last census. Since its founding by miners of Scottish and Irish descent who were the forefathers of its present people the town was built and developed, and is solely dependent on the operation of its mines to maintain and stabilize its economy.
The miners of Westville have long been noted for many sterling qualities, the main one being that throughout the years Westville mines have consistently operated without strikes or tie-ups. The highest production was maintained consistent with operating conditions, and labour relations between management and the men was always of the highest order. These desirable features do not just happen, and the very valid reason

The Address-Mr. H. B. McCulloch for them is the stability of the men, the thriftiness of their families, pride in the ownership of their own homes and active participation in church and community life in general, all of which qualities have been handed down to them from past generations. It is a known fact that the percentage of miners who own their homes in the town of Westville exceeds 80 per cent, which is probably double or more than that of any other mining town in eastern Canada.
Today, with the mines closed except for minor operations of removing pillars from existing slopes, these people who saved their money and built their own homes, primarily without government assistance of any kind, now find their town bankrupt because they have no work and they are unable to pay their taxes. They are faced with the closing of their schools, which will result in uneducated children, the deterioration of their water, impaired sanitary facilities and other services, and the loss of their homes and churches.
The town of Westville has underneath its limits a proven quantity of at least eight million tons of the best coal in Pictou county, if not in the province of Nova Scotia. Unfortunately, to mine this deposit economically requires an estimated expenditure of approximately $2,500,000. If such an expenditure were made, not only would a highly mechanized and modern mine be available if required for a national emergency, but also the Canadian citizens of Westville could look forward to the future feeling secure that they could maintain their homes and town.
In view of world conditions today it is felt that development of this mine is necessary to help guarantee the full use of our production facilities should a major war break out. This in itself would warrant government action now. In addition, it is a known fact that two other Pictou county mines, now active in a small way, will be depleted and closed within the next three years. A new mine development would absorb these men when their present jobs are closed out.
It is presently contemplated to double the size of the existing power plant at Trenton and, in fact, materials have been ordered for this purpose. When this installation is completed its daily coal requirements will exceed the entire output of the only remaining mine in the county which can carry on operations for an indefinite period. This alone would warrant a new development now to ensure our other plants of continued operations.
On behalf of the people of Westville I urge the government of Nova Scotia to assist in the opening of a new mine in that town. I feel that the government of Canada should


be prepared to assist, too, if so requested by the operating company and the government of Nova Scotia. Money made available for this purpose would not be a gift or donation; it would be a sound investment in the good people of Westville for the benefit of all Canada.
Furthermore, my request is substantiated by the Gordon commission report, which states that only modern mechanized mines can hope to remain in operation, and that government assistance to maritime industry is most essential. In view of these facts, and the bankrupt position of the town of Westville today, I urge that immediate action be taken to assure these people that their present position is of a temporary nature, and that the governments of Nova Scotia and bf Canada are prepared to lend temporary aid as I have just suggested.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne is the product of a lazy, complacent, smug government. The speech from the throne is the product of a man convinced of the effectiveness of the Uncle Louis legend, so convinced that the old black magic spell can be weaved over the electors again in June of 1957 that he can treat the house and the people of the country with contempt. Not a single major problem has been offensively attacked in the speech from the throne. It is quite apparent, Mr. Speaker, that it is the intention of the government, if at all possible, to ensure that this is the quietest session on record, so that when they dip into their magic bag and bring forth the biggest election bribe in history there will be nothing to detract from the screaming headlines from coast to coast.
What are the problems that face us today? What are the problems they ignore in the hope that they will not have to answer? First, at home a large group comprising our elder citizens, the veterans and the blind, all dependent upon fixed incomes, are facing an ever-increasing cost of living. Second, the municipalities are placed in a taxation strait-jacket and find themselves squeezed between the demands for services of an ever-increasing population and an airtight tax formula devised by the government in order to ensure centralization of power here in Ottawa. Third, there is the tremendous threat from without to be faced by a Canadian government tied to the apron strings of a floundering giant in Washington.
What does the government offer in the speech from the throne? To the old age pensioners, to the veterans, to the blind, they offer arts and culture. To the municipalities they offer a few measly dollars in the form

of taxation on government buildings across the country. To the cause of world peace they offer a phony kind of conviction of the need to maintain the basic unity of the commonwealth, and their sympathy for the poor Hungarians.
Are these the answers of a government seized with the vision of the next 25 years set out for us in the Gordon report? I am afraid not, Mr. Speaker; and I am sure the people of Canada will give the answer to the ignoring of these salient facts of life during this year. Here was a golden opportunity to take care of great and growing needs without sacrificing a campaign against inflation.
Everyone knows that the $40 a month paid to an old age pensioner has a purchasing power of about $25 today. These people are in real need. Here is an opportunity to put the plan on a sound actuarial basis. Up to the moment we have taken increasing amounts from the general fund in addition to the percentage levy against personal income and corporation income. Here is a chance to fix an amount which will finally take care of this plan for the future, a chance to fix a percentage without taking any greater amount from the individual taxpayer's pocket.
Yet to date the government has failed to recognize the dire need of these people. If there is a real and inherent desire to help old age pensioners, the veterans and the blind, surely without waiting for this grand health plan about which we have been hearing since 1919, I believe, the government could institute at this time without financial assistance from the provinces a plan which would ensure that adequate medical and hospital care was available to those in receipt of old age, veterans and blind pensions. This would be a step which would prove sincerity on the part of the government with respect to its desire to implement protection for all.
The veterans have submitted a brief to the government which indicates that since 1925 the ratio of payment of pensions in disability cases as compared with wages has fallen behind at least 25 per cent. Surely this is also an indication of need. Their request for an increase of one-third would only place these people in the same position they were at the time they were granted the privileges they now have. Perhaps I should not have used the word "privileges"; perhaps I should have said the rights for which they so gallantly fought.
Then we come to the problem of the municipalities. Perhaps I might refer to page 6394 of Hansard of July 24, 1956, where I quoted from a brief prepared by the
The Address-Mr. J. B. Hamilton Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities covering the period 1930 to 1951 which, at pages 31 and 32, has this to say:
Between 1939 and 1951, federal government revenues per capita rose from $45.33 to $270.68. In the same Interval, provincial government revenues per capita in Canada rose from $21.10 to $65.68, while municipal government revenues rose by a lesser amount from $28.07 to $45.49.
During the period from 1939 to 1951 the federal government has been able to increase its take on a per capita basis nine times, while the municipalities have only been able to increase their take by 50 per cent. The brief went on to say:
Municipal governments, relying upon less flexible revenue sources than the federal and provincial governments, have become increasingly dependent on grants and subsidies of other governments; otherwise they will be unable to finance the local services and responsibilities traditionally falling within their jurisdiction.
There seems to be a complete lack of understanding by the government of the problems facing the municipalities. There is a great deal of publicity about the wonderful job the government has been doing in bringing people to Canada, but there has been a complete failure to realize that for each person arriving here government on the lower level must immediately provide all the services and facilities required for streets, water, sewers and education. Yet the revenue agency which dips its hand in the pocket of the newcomer when he receives his first pay cheque is the federal treasury.
I would remind hon. members opposite that Mr. Frost of Ontario has pointed out very strongly that the revenue sources of this government could not exist without millions and millions of dollars being spent in development costs within his province. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in this case as well if it is intended to indicate sincerity in connection with this problem, there are avenues of approach still open for this government.
We hear a great deal about education. When we talk about it we are told that we must be careful about what we say because of course that is a provincial matter, and that if we are going to deal with it we must set up some type of council in order to namby-pamby over the matter or we must see that the money is placed in trust somewhere where it will be available at a proper time for some provincial authority to take. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that if that is not bribery of the electors of a province, I have never seen it. But if there is true sincerity about the question of education, there is really no great problem, Mr. Speaker.
If this government is prepared to sit around the table with the provincial authorities and see that the tax base is adjusted
538	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. B. Hamilton so that additional amounts will be placed in the hands of provincial governments, then I say we can trust Mr. Frost to see that the schools of Ontario get the money. If they would like to add a little percentage abatement to their income tax plan for the province of Quebec, I am quite sure Mr. Duplessis will see that the schools get the money. This is again an indication that here is a government that must extract every last bit of favourable publicity out of every dollar, regardless of the consequence.
I might say that there must be other ways in which to assist the municipalities and still ensure that problems of provincial and federal jurisdiction are recognized. The problem they face is a demand for ever higher interest rates on their debentures in order to build facilities that are required for this increasing population. Yet I heard what was said by the Minister of Finance the other day. He answered a question by saying this: If the proposition is important enough I expect they will agree to pay the additional amount and get the money, but if they decide that it is not important enough I guess they will postpone it. Mr. Speaker, how do you postpone the building of necessary educational facilities? How do you postpone the necessary services that are required for houses from coast to coast for the hundreds of thousands of people who are coming to this country? What a facetious answer for the minister to give.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if this government really wanted to do something it could do so. Maybe the Minister of Public Works might have some ideas to suggest. He is increasing the interest rate on C.M.H.C. loans and he thinks there is going to be a great deal more money available to get that nice little increase. We have seen the Minister of Finance by remote control affect interest rates from one end of the country to the other. I am wondering if those two ministers could not get together and suggest to the financial institutions-just suggest, you know; it has been an effective method so far-that perhaps they might balance their portfolios; that if they are going to get X dollars out of our guaranteed C.M.H.C. funds they might be obliged to advance X dollars at 4 per cent or 4| per cent on the debentures backed by the people who constitute the backbone of the country and the municipalities.
It might only be a suggestion, but suggestions apparently have been taken in the past and they have worked out not too badly. It could work out just in the way the municipalities are trying to solve their own problems. When it comes time to build


a new subdivision of homes they have had to say to the developers: We want the homes, but if you want the permits to build the homes you will be obliged to bring us X number of dollars of industrial building to our community. I think there are other methods this government could use if they really had the sincere purpose of solving this problem.
I wonder what we are going to do about the threat from without. I wonder what we are going to do about re-establishing-I think that was the word used-the commonwealth and all it has meant to this country. I am reminded that the Prime Minister went to a prime ministers' conference last year. When he was questioned in the house about what he thought about commonwealth prime ministers' conferences, as reported at page 7325 of Hansard of August 9, 1956, he said this:
I have never felt that time was wasted. While there are no specific agreements reached I have always felt that the time was well spent and did serve to keep us as close as possible together.
I wonder how successful he feels he has been now that we have had the episode at Suez, Mr. Speaker. I wonder how well he understood the problems that were being created at the very time he was taking part in the conference. We have had here, Mr. Speaker, indications that the Secretary of State for External Affairs feels that his country has a great role to play in reestablishing this connection. But the other day when I asked the Prime Minister in the house whether he might consider taking the initiative in having a conference convened he said this:
No, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not feel that this country should take the initiative to try to determine what should be the policy of the United Kingdom government.
That quotation is to be found at page 323 of Hansard. We are not asking that the Prime Minister take over the policy of the United Kingdom government. I am going to use again the term I used previously. If there is sincerity in this government, if there is a true desire to re-establish this relationship, then it is about time this country took the initiative. If we have grown up-and for the last 20 years we have been told that the whole evolution of commonwealth relations as far as we are concerned has been part of our growing up-it is time we called a conference. It is time we held one down in Quebec city. It is time we gave some indication that we are prepared to play a leading role in maintaining what was the greatest agency for the promotion of peace in the world.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we over here still believe in it, notwithstanding

anything that has taken place in the last few months. I believe the vast majority of the people who support the party to your right, Mr. Speaker, believe in it too. I can only ask them, does their government believe in it, and has it practised it for the last 20 years?
No, Mr. Speaker; this speech from the throne has come in like the lamb and I am sure the whole plan is that the government, after the budget presentation, will go out like the lion. However, I believe we should give them fair warning that the people of this country have been bribed once too often before election day. This year there will be no effective overtime appeal; it will take more than that.


John Decore: May I join with other hon. members, Mr. Speaker, in congratulating the mover (Mr. Hanna) and seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The way in which these two gentlemen acquitted themselves has brought credit not only to them and to this house but also to the constituencies which they represent.
I am very well acquainted with the mover, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, whose constituency is adjacent to that of mine and with whom I share the same office in this House of Commons. The other day someone said that he is one of the hardest working members in this house, and I wish to assure you that this is correct. I wish also to give him credit for having made an attempt to speak in the French language. It is difficult for some members from the west, who may not have the same opportunity as eastern members to learn the two languages, but we do hope that all the members of the house will endeavour to master French since it is one of the official languages. If we cannot do that we can hope that at least our children, who will one day represent Canada, will be able to do so.
I should like also to congratulate the new leader of the Progressive Conservative party. The responsibility which faces him is great. He has the responsibility not only of being the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition and criticizing the government, but also of offering alternatives. At the same time he is expected to revitalize his party. Although I am a Liberal, I wish him well in his task of building up the Conservative party in Canada, because I am one of those who believe in the two party system if democracy is to work.
With reference to these splinter groups, at least you can say that the C.C.F. party is socialist, has a certain program and endeavours to follow it. However, since the
The Address-Mr. Decore Winnipeg convention, at which time they chucked out the Regina manifesto, I do not know whether they are any longer necessary in Canada, because I feel they are getting closer to the Liberals. In any event, one thing you can say about the socialists is that they have a certain definite platform and they endeavour to follow it.
When it comes to the other splinter group, the Social Crediters, it is a different matter. They will do anything; they will twist and turn; they will rock and roll; they will offer $25; they will endeavour to muzzle the press if they can, and whenever it suits their convenience, to put something across. As I say, I do sincerely believe, and I am sure a lot of other members who belong to the same political party I do believe, that the best way in which democracy can work in Canada is through the two party system. It is for that reason I do, in all sincerity, wish the new leader of the Conservative party every success-not too much success

in building up a strong Conservative party in this country.
During the course of this debate there have been a considerable number of references to the desire for an increase in social security payments. Reference was made to the desirability of increasing old age pensions as well as pensions for the blind. I think we should recognize this because it is quite clear that the buying power of these payments, especially with reference to old age pensions, has decreased very considerably in recent years. An increased pension to our old-timers contributes to the support and self respect of these pioneers and at the same time gives relief to the younger Canadians who have elderly dependents. I realize we are being confronted with huge expenditures, especially in the field of national defence. We all realize that social security without national security would be meaningless, especially where freedom was affected, but I do hope the government will be able to see its way clear to granting some increase, especially for the blind and for our older citizens.
Now I should like to draw to the attention of this house, Mr. Speaker, what I consider to be an injustice to the province of Alberta from which I come. I am, of course, referring to freight rates. I have spoken about this matter before, I am doing so now, and I shall continue to do so as long as I am a member representing the people of Alberta. I feel that Alberta is being discriminated against by the railway companies. We in Alberta do appreciate, and I appreciate, the fact that the geography of our country is such that it raises difficult problems with

The Address-Mr. Decore regard to rail transportation. Some of these problems are difficult to overcome, and it is not easy to eliminate the discrimination. However, I believe that with regard to freight rates, Alberta is a clear example of injustice.
Hon. members will recall that in 1951 a royal commission, after having studied the problem for some two years and after receiving a great deal of evidence with regard to the problems of transportation, issued a voluminous report. I believe it contains some 200,000 words. Certain recommendations were made. One of the main purposes in setting up this commission to study the problem of rail transportation was to endeavour to equalize freight rates across Canada. As I say there are problems, and will forever be problems, in such a vast country as ours, especially at this time when our population is relatively small. The commission endeavoured, however, to listen very carefully to the representations made on behalf of Saskatchewan and Alberta in particular. I think the house will appreciate the fact that because Alberta and Saskatchewan are so far removed from the markets, and we have not a self-sustaining population, if agriculture is to survive it is necessary that the cost of production be kept as low as possible.
One very important complaint that has been raised time and time again over the years by the province of Alberta in particular has been the cost of moving many classes of goods that are shipped from the east to our province. It costs less to transport goods from Toronto to Vancouver than it does to transport them from Toronto to Edmonton, though there are an additional 600 miles of very difficult terrain that the railways have to go over.
The reason the railways gave the special concessions or low rates was ostensibly to meet water transportation competition. However, the Turgeon royal commission, after having heard representations made by Alberta in this regard, recommended that parliament amend the Railway Act to provide that when the railways inaugurated low rates from eastern Canada to the west coast and from the west coast to eastern Canada to compete with water transportation, then the rates at intermediary points should not exceed the rate to the coast by more than one-third. In other words it was known as the one and one-third rule. It was felt that the one and one-third rule recommended by the Turgeon royal commission on transportation brought real relief from what we in Alberta felt was a long-suffered discrimination against our

manufacturing and processing industries, as well as our distributors and consumers as a whole.
Although the finding of the Turgeon royal commission, that is the one and one-third rule, was incorporated into statute by this parliament, the railways were determined to prevent its operation, with the result that this rule was destined to be shortlived. There appears to be a conflict between the Railway Act containing the one and one-third provisions and the Transport Act, under which the rate-making system of agreed charges was established in 1938.
The railways took advantage of the situation and the practice of making competitive rates on transcontinental traffic, for example between Montreal and Vancouver, was abandoned in favour of the agreed charges, and once again Alberta and western Saskatchewan were restored to the long and short haul discrimination against which these areas fought for many years. In fact a new royal commission was set up known as the royal commission on agreed charges. The finding of this commission was to refuse to recommend the enactment of legislation which would make agreed charges subject to the one and one-third rule, and that of course is the situation today.
Let me bring out, Mr. Speaker, by quoting certain figures just to what extent we in Alberta are being discriminated against with regard to freight rates. If you were to take commodities such as plate or sheet steel and ship them to Vancouver from Hamilton the cost per hundredweight, provided you shipped 100,000 pounds, would be $1.10. The cost of the shipment from Hamilton to Calgary would be $2.46 per hundredweight, or more than twice as much. In other words it would be cheaper in this case to haul the plate or sheet from Hamilton to Vancouver and from Vancouver back to Calgary than to ship it direct from Hamilton to Calgary.
Let me give you another example of canned goods from southern Ontario. The cost per hundredweight to Vancouver is $1.80. The cost to Calgary is $2.30. The cost of shipping anti-freeze from Montreal to Vancouver is $2; the cost of shipping it from Montreal to Calgary is $2.70. The cost of shipping wire rope from Toronto or Montreal to Vancouver is $1.30 per hundredweight. The cost of shipping it from Toronto or Montreal to Calgary is $2.80, or more than twice as much. Do not forget that there are 600 miles between Calgary and Vancouver. The cost of shipping paints from Toronto or Montreal to Vancouver is $2.25. The cost of shipping them to Calgary from those points is $3.35.

Take margarine. The cost of shipping margarine from Toronto to Vancouver is $2.85 per hundredweight. The cost of shipping it from Toronto to Calgary is $3.77 per hundredweight. The cost of shipping cheese from southern Ontario to Vancouver is $2.90 per hundredweight. The cost of shipping it to Calgary is $3.50 per hundredweight. The cost of shipping corn oil and syrup from Port Credit to Vancouver is $1.90 per hundredweight. The cost of shipping it to Calgary is $3.56 per hundredweight. The cost of shipping steel piles from Sault Ste. Marie to Vancouver is $1.25 per hundredweight. The cost of shipping it to Calgary is $2.51 per hundredweight, more than double.
Will you call it six o'clock now, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
John Decore: Mr. Speaker, just before six o'clock I was endeavouring to point out to the house the great difference in freight rates from Quebec and Ontario to Vancouver as compared with the rates to Calgary and Edmonton. In many cases the freight rate on certain commodities is more than double between Edmonton or Calgary and Montreal as compared with the Montreal-Vancouver rate. We do not begrudge this advantage being given to Vancouver, but it is quite clear that agreed charges, to which I have made reference, are simply a new type of discrimination by the railway companies, especially against Alberta and western Canada. This affects the movement of materials, goods and manufactures, and it certainly has hampered the development of industry in that area and its competition with eastern Canada, more especially any effort it might make to obtain access to the large British Columbia market.
The fact is that these rates have tended to discourage a number of firms opening up new plants in that part of the west. As an example I can cite the case of a certain company in Vancouver manufacturing steel drums and tanks for the Alberta oil industry. This company bought a plant site in Edmonton on the strength of the reduction in the cost of steel plate brought about by the application of the one and one-third rule to which I made reference. However, the application of the agreed charge method of rate-making caused this project to be abandoned.
There has been a recent increase in freight rates, but this increase does not affect the
The Address-Mr. Decore agreed charges though it does affect Alberta and western Saskatchewan. Those parts of the country will have to bear the brunt of the new hoist in freight rates. As one observer has pointed out, agreed charges discriminate by wiping out competition, yet they were introduced to meet competition. It is felt that agreed charges should depend on actual and not potential competition. I submit that the cost of railway transportation should be such as to enable all parts of Canada to develop industrially. At the present time Alberta is being penalized, especially as far as the establishment of secondary industries is concerned.
The house will probably remember that the Turgeon commission made a recommendation, which was implemented by statute, that the railways be granted $7 million to reduce the cost of the long haul by way of the great lakes. This bridge subsidy now appears to be merely a lump payment to the railroads and has no effect upon Alberta and Saskatchewan. People will point to the Crowsnest pass rates and argue that those were to benefit the Alberta farmers. The Crowsnest pass rates are not affected by freight rate increases, but the whole purpose of those rates was to hold down the cost of transportation in order to help Canadian wheat compete in world markets. Those rates benefit the whole Canadian economy by their effect on the balance of trade, not just the grain farmer in western Canada.
Having said that in connection with freight rates and what I consider to be an injustice to the province of Alberta, I should like now to deal with another matter. There exists in Canada today certain abusive practices which I feel should be looked into, and I refer to the sending of parcels of food and clothing to people behind the iron curtain in the U.S.S.R. Hon. members will realize that after the second world war many people from behind the iron curtain entered Canada as political refugees, leaving behind them mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters or close friends. They were happy to come to this land of freedom and opportunity, and realizing the condition and plight of their relatives and friends behind the iron curtain in the U.S.S.R. they were anxious to give them some assistance by way of food and clothing.
During the last number of months certain so-called legal agencies have been established across Canada with the primary purpose of sending such parcels of food and clothing from Canada to the U.S.S.R. What I want to do is point out just what it costs to send these parcels to the Soviet union through

The Address-Mr. E. G. McCullough these so-called legal agencies. I have information that if merchandise to the value of $12 is sent from Canada the following costs
are incurred:
Merchandise cost	 $12.00
U.S.S.R. fee, 10 per cent	 1.20
U.S.S.R. customs duty	 7.40
U.S.S.R. inspection fee	 1.51
U.S.S.R. invoice fee	66

Fee 1 per cent	23
Service charge	 7.50
Fumigation	 1.00
Parcel post	 5.00

Guarantee fee	 1.79
Notification fee	18
Total	 $38.47
The practice is to deduct the cost of the parcel in order to show that it is a gift of these agencies. On examining these figures we find that from this parcel the needy person will receive goods to the value of $12, the U.S.S.R. will receive $10.77, the agency in Canada will receive $12.70 and the post office will get $3, not $5 as charged.
I am one who takes exception to this type of benevolence. I am not opposed to the sending of these gifts to needy people behind the iron curtain, but I feel that in the first instance the U.S.S.R. should not charge the customs duties and other charges which they impose. If they do, why should these charges and duties be collected on Canadian soil? It is clear from the figures I have just quoted that the misery of the people in the Soviet union, brought about by communist policies, is being exploited by these so-called agencies in Canada, not only to fatten themselves but at the same time to finance the resources of the U.S.S.R.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter the government should look into. As I pointed out, I am not opposed to the sending of these parcels to these unfortunate people in the U.S.S.R., but I am opposed to the Canadian people being exploited and, at the same time, directly assisting the government of the Soviet union.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I feel very honoured to once again take the opportunity of speaking in this house on behalf of the people whom I represent. I like to feel, sir, that I speak for the common people who cannot be here to speak for themselves. Sir, whether I am correct or not I feel that this chamber has been shrouded by a cloud ever since last year, when the pipe-line debate was in progress. I feel that something has been done to democracy which it is going to take a lifetime to correct. I

feel that this all-powerful party across the way has, in one fell swoop, done to democracy what the communists could never do to a free parliament; I think that is the sort of atmosphere which prevails is this house.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Edward George McCullough: I can
only come to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal party tried to do what Macbeth suggested when, according to Shakespeare, he said: "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly." I feel that this Liberal party, Mr. Speaker, has caused an injury to parliament which it will take a lifetime to heal. I speak for myself, and I can only say this; that in parliament I have great respect for the rules and also for the privileges affecting hon. members of this house. I can only say, sir, that I want each and every privilege afforded me according to the rights and customary procedures of parliament. I want that, and nothing less.
Having said that I would like to turn to the remarks made by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) before the dinner hour. He was commenting on our declaration of principle as a C.C.F. party at the national C.C.F. convention in Winnipeg, and I need only say this. Neither he nor anyone else need worry about the C.C.F. party changing its policies in order to bring justice and equality into the political and economic life of the people of this country. We have not deviated from our first program early in the thirties. In this country we have a political democracy, but it was suspended in the pipe-line debate-


An hon. Member:: By your party.


Edward George McCullough: -but
not an economic democracy which is the right of free people. Whether or not it is going to be the privilege of the C.C.F. party to bring to the Canadian people an economic system under which they will share equally and fairly in the progress made in this country, I can assure the hon. member for Vegreville that rather than the Liberal party filling the need in Canada to give these things to the Canadian people, we have had a growing gap between the rich and the strong and the weak and the underprivileged in this country. The monopolists in this country today have taken away any kind of competition in sales and prices to the consumer.
Equally the little people, the farmers, white-collar workers and people in the street, the common people, are finding it more difficult to share in the prosperity of this country. The prosperity which has been talked about

is going to swell the profits of the big corporations. I say to the hon. member for Vegreville and to those in the Liberal party who think the C.C.F. has deviated from its program, that there will be in the membership of this party many dedicated men and women who will come to parliament in order to secure for the people of Canada what is their just due in this rich and prosperous country of ours.
I followed closely what the hon. member for Vegreville said in respect of freight rates, and he used very excellent arguments in respect of the load with which western residents, and farmers in particular, will be saddled by reason of the new rates allowed by the transport board. I wish to point out that this is another case of the cost of living rising higher and higher. Of course the common people, the wage earners and the farmers, do not share in the prosperity afforded to the big corporations of this country.
The Canadian consumer debt is increasing at an alarming rate. I have here a clipping from a recent newspaper headed "Consumer Debt in Canada Hits New Peak Level". The quotation reads:
The amount of money owing by Canadian consumers for the things they bought on time rose to a record $2,395,000,000.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, it can make nobody in this country happy to learn that the common people have increasingly to go out and buy on credit in order to have a decent standard of living. It must be a heyday in these prosperous times-so-called by the Liberal party-for those people who charge enormous rates of interest in respect of goods bought by consumers on time.
Dr. Mutchmor, writing in an article I read the other day, said that it is a continual rat race by the common people of this country to keep pace with the increase in the cost of living. Yet at the same time many of the prices paid to the farmers and those who produce foodstuffs for our consumption bear no relation at all to what the consumer has to pay. I quote from the issue of the Toronto Star of January 7: "Farm Product Index Declines by 2-1 Per Cent". On the other hand net corporation profits-I do not want to list them; they can be found anywhere in the financial reports of these companies-have continued to increase. The Gazette of September 3, 1956, had this to say;
Net earnings of Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, after taxes, for the first hah of this year showed an increase to 62 per cent over the comparable 1955 figure at an estimated $12,030,686, the company reveals in an interim report.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, there is in this country need for a political party such as the C.C.F.
The Address-Mr. E. G. McCullough I do not think you can play on both sides of the game; either you fight for the common people in order that they may share in the country's prosperity by way of improved wages and better farm returns, or you give your support to these profiteering companies as the Liberal party has seen fit to do.
I want to point out that it is rumoured in the corridors of this chamber that the Liberals, generally speaking, want an early election. They feel this all-powerful government has the next election in the bag, and that may well be. Then we have the fact that the pockets of the government are filled with about half a billion dollars with which they can play Santa Claus to the people of the country. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, it only means that the government has seen fit to overtax many people and, furthermore, that little has been done to help the people who need help. I do not forget and I do not think the people of Canada forget that this government is largely responsible for the increased cost of living, and they have been aided and abetted by other parties in this house. They took off price controls early in the post-war years. Since that time we have seen the cost of living go up and up.
Nothing has been done to help our old age pensioners during this period of inflation. So today I say I will join with others in the house if the government see fit to increase old age pensions so these older people can live in decency and security. I believe the old age pension should be increased to $65 and be payable at the age of 65, so these people may live in some kind of decency in the face of the present cost of living.
I hope, too, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal government, even if it is a deathbed repentance before the next general election, will see fit to increase blind pensions. There came to my desk today a brief from the blind pensioners' association asking that something be done for them, and I feel the government should do something in that regard.
I also want to say something with respect to the veterans of the first and second great wars. As I understand it, under section 227 of the Pension Act regulations there is provision that the pension commission should rule in favour of the veteran, and that the onus should not be on him to prove his disability in order to get a pension. Therefore I hope the government, now that it has all this money available, will see to it that the veterans of our first and second great wars are given the pensions that are their just due. In this respect it seems to me that the government has been pretty niggardly in not

The Address-Mr. E. G. McCullough giving such pensions when there is real justification for them. In my opinion the fact that veterans have gone into the services, have been examined by five or six medical specialists and classed as A-l, have then come out of the services with a P-5 category and have had no entitlement to pension is a disgrace to this country. Many of these veterans can do nothing else than look up their case histories. Therefore I hope the government will give due consideration to my words in this regard.
I want to turn now to agriculture, the segment of our economy with which I am most familiar and which, of course, is predominant in my constituency. The farmers of western Canada and, indeed, throughout Canada are in a cost-price squeeze today. The freight rates mentioned by the hon. member for Vegreville apply to the farmers in my constituency, and indeed to all western people. The farmers have to pay for machinery manufactured in eastern Canada and then shipped to the western provinces. They have to pay for everything they need to produce what they sell, and they are caught both ways.
When the board of transport commissioners allowed the first interim increase in freight rates it was to me a blow to western agriculture. They then allowed on top of that a subsequent 4 per cent increase, and I understand that the total increase of 15 per cent requested is probably going to be granted. But when one looks at the record of the Canadian Pacific Railway I cannot see how the government can justify the pyramiding of freight rates, particularly when the load is mainly on western Canada.
I have here Canadian Pacific Railway figures taken from their annual report. They show that in the year 1939 the railway had a debt of $228 million and a reserve of $39 million. In 1950 it had a debt of $86 million and a reserve of $525 million, in 1953 a debt of $75 million and a reserve of $576,657,000, in 1954 a debt of $72 million and a reserve of $608,789,000. By 1955 it had reduced its debt from a high of $228 million in 1939 to $89,795,283, and had a reserve of $640,061,081. On the basis of these figures I cannot see how the board of transport commissioners was justified in placing additional freight costs on the western farmer when he is already overburdened with such costs.
I notice that some of the cabinet ministers have expressed different viewpoints with respect to agriculture. Those of us in the house who try to fight for a fair deal for agriculture through the establishment of parity prices for the main farm commodities cannot understand why there should be such


a diversity of opinion on the part of government officials. However, I am led to believe that there is perhaps a reason for this situation. It may well be that members of the government are trying to confuse the minds of the farmers with respect to the fight for parity. I have here a report that appeared in the Leader-Post of November 5, 1956. It is headed, "Gardiner Says Parity Received", and it quotes him as saying:
We ought to have parity, you say. It you mean by that costs of production in relation to returns, we have it now.
That was on November 5,	1956. On
December 4, 1956, an article appeared in the Globe and Mail headed, "Canada Shuns Farm Price Parity, Gardiner Reveals to Conference." Then I have a report that appeared in the Ottawa Journal of November 7, 1956, headed, "Harris Opposed to Permanent Price Supports." I have another that appeared in the Producer of November 8, 1956, headed, "McCubbin Promises Support Parity Prices Motion if Presented Again."
Here we have the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture all taking different viewpoints on parity prices. At one time the Minister of Agriculture says we have it, and at another time he says the government shuns it. The truth is that we have never had parity prices for agriculture in Canada, and I have never seen such a conglomeration of misrepresentation and confusion. I can only say it is the worst witches' brew I have ever seen.
I do not believe the government has any intention of implementing parity prices for agriculture. The situation is serious because of the cost-price squeeze facing western agriculture. From figures taken from the bureau of statistics Canadian statistical review of the past year we find that in the year 1955 the net income of farmers from farm operations was $1,454 million. It dropped to that figure from a high in 1951 of $2,155 million. The portion of the national income which the farmers received in 1951 was 12.6 per cent, and it had dropped to a low of 7.1 per cent in 1955. Equally, net income in terms of 1946 constant dollars dropped from $2,306 real income in 1951 to $1,674 in 1955.
This may not mean too much to some members of the house, but it means that western farmers are in such a cost-price squeeze today that hundreds of them are leaving their farms. They cannot see any way out, because unless this government is prepared to institute some type of parity prices for agriculture, they cannot meet the cost-price squeeze that is facing them.

I should like now, Mr. Speaker, to turn to the Gordon commission and its report, and say something with respect to its suggestions with regard to agriculture. I can only believe that the report of the Gordon commission in respect of some aspects of the future for agriculture in Canada and its recommendations were made only after the most cursory of investigations into the problems of agriculture and its future. To me some of them are silly, undesirable and completely unworkable.
I refer now to the recommendations the commission made with respect to the handling of wheat. The commission apparently recommends that the Canadian wheat board should set quotas on individual farm production in western Canada. I heartily disagree with this recommendation, for these reasons. First, it would be quite impractical, if not completely impossible, to make any reliable estimates of what the farmers are going to grow. The vagaries of the weather have such an effect on production of the western wheat crop that I do not think it would be possible for the Canadian wheat board to make any reliable estimate of what would be produced. In the second place-and I believe this is much more important-by setting the quotas for western wheat production it would give to our competitors abroad and to possible purchasers abroad of Canadian wheat some idea as to whether or not Canada was under pressure in having to sell her wheat crop.
I believe the policy I have advocated since 1945 would be a more realistic policy for this government to follow. It seems to me there are too many inconsistencies in what has been proposed by the Gordon commission. I believe the government should undertake, as I have advocated since 1945, to set up in Canada the principle of the ever-normal granary. By that I mean this government would see to it that there possibly be stored in this country, under proper long-term storage, a billion bushels of wheat for any emergency that might arise.
If that kind of program were followed I believe we then could have, under Canadian wheat board marketing policy which we have today, real and genuine orderly marketing of the western wheat crop. I believe it would encourage long-term trading agreements with potential purchasers of Canadian wheat. It would add stability to the western wheat agriculture economy. Hence I most sincerely recommend that suggestion to the government. As I understand it now, we have about half a billion bushels or a little better of storage capacity today.
I would therefore make three definite recommendations to the government in respect 82715-35
The Address-Mr. E. G. McCullough of agriculture. First, I recommend the establishment of guaranteed parity prices to producers for the main farm commodities. My second recommendation is that they set up a dominion-provincial drainage and conservation authority in order to undertake far-reaching drainage and land utilization schemes, such schemes to have adequate federal financial participation. My third recommendation is storage payments on government-approved farm-stored grain, such a plan to be co-ordinated with an ever-normal granary plan to provide for total storage of one billion bushels of grain if necessary. I believe the implementation of these recommendations I have made is necessary if we are to protect the family farm in western Canada.
I should now like to turn for a moment or two to my own constituency of Moose Mountain. I have never before in this house availed myself of the opportunity to speak in particular about my constituency, which I am extremely proud to represent. I believe it is one of the finest constituencies in Canada, if not the finest. I understand that the largest centre, the former town of Estevan, is just now being incorporated into a city. We have there, of course, the tremendous oil growth and the population growth of that city. I want to give thanks to the former postmaster general for the fact that the federal government is building a post office in Estevan. When the former postmaster general, Mr. Cote, was minister, I had occasion to rise in the house and make the recommendation that a new federal building be constructed in the city of Estevan. After the minister had recovered and was convalescing he was kind enough to write to me and say that he would take my representations into consideration. I am happy to say that the government have seen fit to build that post office, and I wish to thank them for doing so.
Located in the centre of my constituency we have the beautiful Moose Mountain provincial park, abounding in game and wildlife of all kinds. In the lakes there is extremely attractive fishing. It is the delight of sportsmen from all over the world, and many American people come up there to enjoy a holiday.
We have also the Bienfait coal mines. About one-fifth of all the coal mined in Canada comes from that area. We also have a brick plant, which is a crown corporation, producing beautiful brick for all that area. As a matter of fact they are shipping to all points in Canada. There is also being built a large electric power generating plant. Already it is the site of a large generating plant to serve the southern part of the

The Address-Mr. Schneider province, but a new one is being built at Souris river which will cost in the neighbourhood of $40 million.
I am equally proud to say that my constituency is the centre of perhaps one of the largest purebred beef cattle sections of Canada. In that area some of the finest cattle in the world are bred. Last, but not least, it is the centre of the tremendous oil boom in that province. Almost from one end of my constituency to the other an oil play is taking place. Many press reports have described this oil play as fabulous and incredible, comparing it with what took place in Texas some years ago. This has meant {hat we have many new people who are welcome in my constituency. It has also meant new industries for my constituency. But equally, it has brought new problems and it has intensified some of the old ones.
1	refer particularly to the urban and municipal financing of services.
In the villages of Bienfait and Oxbow, in the city of Estevan and in many other villages and towns in my constituency we have found that with the influx of increased population and with the very narrow base of taxation which these urban and municipal governments have, it is increasingly difficult for these municipalities to give services to the new population or to the people that were there before. I would therefore suggest to the government that they undertake to set up some form of fund by means of which these municipalities can get loans at
2	per cent or 2J per cent interest on longterm amortization plans. I think this is one of the crucial problems facing all small governments throughout the country. I therefore make that suggestion to the government.
As I say, the other main problem facing my constituency is the cost-price squeeze facing my farmers. I hope the government will not turn a deaf ear to some of the representations I have made. I hope they will take into consideration the program which I have suggested should be implemented for agriculture. Unless this is done I am convinced that the family farm in western Canada is going into liquidation. I am convinced that more and more people will leave the farms. I therefore plead with this government to try to implement the program I have outlined here tonight.


Norman C. Schneider: wish to avail myself of this opportunity in the debate on the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, to mention a few matters of special concern to my constituents in the riding of Waterloo North. I am here to present their views and opinions, and this I propose to do in as few words as possible.

I am pleased to report general prosperity in Waterloo North. The twin cities of Kitchener-Waterloo and the town of Elmira are enjoying a high degree of employment, with figures showing a slight improvement over last year. These cities are highly industrialized, and Kitchener has become the rubber centre of Canada. My first duty in presenting the problems of my people is to report the continued deterioration of the rubber footwear industry.
While it is true that I have reported high employment in my riding, it is also true that a serious loss is being inflicted on Canada's economy by the laying off of hundreds, or I should say thousands, of skilled footwear makers, including workers at the four additional factories in the province of Quebec at Granby, St. Jerome, Lachine and Acton Vale. The three large plants which for many years manufactured rubber footwear in my riding have been reduced to two as a result of the closing of the Goodrich footwear division, which was moved to Quebec and has since closed operations there. The two remaining footwear plants are operating on a reduced basis, and one of these has added a foam rubber plant so the extensive steam plant may be kept in use. The other remaining plant is geared almost entirely to footwear, and the inroads of Asiatic imports is slowly but surely robbing these two remaining plants of their Canadian outlet.
I do not believe in endless repetition of this complaint regarding the unfair competition of Hong Kong and other Asiatic low wage products, but 7 cents to 15 cents per hour as compared to standard wages prevailing in Canada is unfair, and if continued will surely eliminate Canadian production. It would be a sad day indeed for Canadians if, in the event of war, we were forced to depend on an Asiatic or any other country for such highly essential articles as rubber footwear. With a high priority in wartime, rubber footwear is a necessity to farmers, miners, fishermen, lumbermen, the armed forces and every citizen.
In early December the tariff board held a hearing in Ottawa at which seven submissions were presented by manufacturers, labour organizations, a consumers' association, importers and foreign producers. I attended this hearing, and I feel that it accomplished its purpose by bringing out all the facts, and should be a great help in solving this ever-increasing problem.
Another problem presented to my constituents is the continued deterioration of our Canadian button industry. The inroads of Puerto Rican imports have almost eliminated this once important and busy industry in Canada.

Of the three button factories in Kitchener, one has recently declared its bankruptcy and the other two are in difficulties because the large volume lines, the plastics, are being imported from Puerto Rico at prices below Canadian costs. Puerto Rico, as a part of the United States, is classed as a most-favoured nation, but we feel that wage rates in that country gives those producers an unfair advantage. In addition, I understand that the operators in that country pay no income tax. I again appeal to the Department of Finance and the Department of Trade and Commerce to place some much-needed control on these imports, either by a reduced quota or a fair value for duty purposes based on Canadian costs plus a fair profit, so these two Canadian secondary industries will not be entirely eliminated.
To do my full duty in representing my people I must also bring to this house the appeals of many of the old age pensioners. In this debate we have heard no denial by anyone of the fact that the present pension of $40 per month is insufficient to supply the bare necessities of life today. Many suggestions involving the means test are offered regarding this national service to our senior citizens. It is most desirable that the means test be avoided in old age pensions, and the plan should not place any indignity on the deserving applicant. My own people feel that our province of Ontario has failed them in not paying a supplemental allowance. Though the wealthiest province in Canada, Ontario has done very little compared to British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Ontario's assistance involves a voluntary contribution by the municipality, and everyone agrees that municipalities are already overburdened.
I must present also the appeals of our blind citizens, and their requests for the elimination of the means test as applied to payments to our sightless handicapped citizens. It costs money to be blind, and I feel that the means test as presently applied definitely discourages the blind from making greater efforts to support themselves.
Speaking for my agricultural constituents, I wish to remind the Department of Agriculture of the excellent brief submitted last week by the dairy groups of Waterloo county asking for consideration of the continuance of the butter support plan, with the costs of handling and storage added when government stocks of butter are released to the trade. They also requested the development of high standards for grades of butter and other dairy products, a protective device or a floor price under skim milk powder, and the placing of the product under the Export 82715-35}
The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton and Import Permits Act. They ask also for legislation that will facilitate producers' organizations in co-operating in the orderly marketing of products on an interprovincial basis, and for assistance to the cheese producers to meet unfavourable trends that may occur in their present markets.
. I see no indication that Canadians have changed their habit of eating three meals each day. Most Canadian families offer a prayer of thanks and gratitude for each meal. Do we think also of the lonely hours spent by the farmer who plowed the land to grow the wheat to produce our daily bread? When we enjoy a glass of refreshing, healthbuilding milk or a serving of cream or cheese do we think of the regularly scheduled hours of milking which face the dairy farmer twice each day, and not five days per week but seven days per week? When we spread a serving of good dairy or creamery butter, do we think of the long hours required in the care of a good herd of dairy cows? I mention these things in the hope that the farmer-producer may receive proper recognition of his important place in our economy, and be given a fair return for his labour,
In conclusion I wish to associate myself with those who have congratulated the mover (Mr. Hanna) and seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and the hon. member for Gloucester well deserved the praise of this house on their sensible and well-considered speeches.


William McLean Hamilton: In preparing my thoughts for what I was going to say tonight, Mr. Speaker, I was reminded of a little tribute which I have wanted to pay in this house almost since the day I came to Ottawa. I think I should do so now. I wish to remark on the unusual courtesy and kindness of the Ottawa taxi drivers.
As one who has been in most of the cities of Canada and many of those of the United States, and used taxicabs in each one of them, I have found that while they may be a very efficient method of transportation, the drivers do not go out of their way to look after one as an individual. I have been tremendously impressed with the difference here in Ottawa. They meet us at the station; they carry our bags up the stairs at home, and this last is an unusual factor which I do think deserves recognition from those of us who come to this city from outside. Incidentally, I may say it is probably a very profitable operation for the taxi driver, because the tips one gives here in Ottawa are considerably larger



S48 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton in proportion to those one is tempted to give in any other city of which I know.
The Gordon commission report on the economic prospects of Canada over the next 25 years contains some interesting statistics for all of us who live in the cities of Canada. The commission found:
Canada has been becoming an increasingly urban country and this trend will continue. In 1951, 62 per cent of the population lived in metropolitan areas or in other cities, towns or villages with more than 1,000 people. By 1980 that proportion may rise to 80 per cent. Over the same period the proportion of the population living in metropolitan and urban areas of more than 100,000 people may rise from 36 per cent to 56 per cent.
Translated into actual population figures, the commission estimated that by 1980 the population of Canada's 15 metropolitan areas will be some 12 million people, as compared with 5.2 million at our last census. When we turn to Montreal, with which perhaps I am more familiar than with the other metropolitan areas of Canada, we find that while the Gordon commission has not published a particular estimate for that city, other authoritative figures place our population by 1980 at over 3| million, which is an increase of more than l\ million above the present figure.
Let me turn again to the Gordon report to obtain further background for what I am going to say. It forecasts that there will be a steady decrease in the number of hours we will work each week, so the present average of just over 41 hours will be reduced by 1980 to just over 34 working hours per week. It is probable, too, that we shall have a good deal more money to spend because, to quote the report:
By 1980 the average Canadian, after paying income tax, will have about two-thirds again as much net income for his own use as he had in 1955.
I would say in parenthesis, Mr. Speaker, that the Gordon commission is apparently forecasting a Conservative government, because we certainly have indication that the attitude of the present administration is to do nothing except follow up increased income with increased income taxes.
Encouraging as these estimates may be, they foreshadow the further growth of a problem which is already a major one in most of our cities in Canada, and nowhere more so than in our city of Montreal. I refer to the problem of traffic. The figures forecast a tremendous increase in the nature and the extent of that problem over the next 25 years. That is because, first, we have an increasing concentration of our population in and around the major urban centres of Canada. Second, we have an absolute growth in the number of people who are living in those areas.

Third, we have an increase in their spare time, which will be reflected in additional travelling and additional movement around the city itself. Fourth and finally, I think we can expect that the increased income which is forecast will be reflected in increased automobile ownership, as people move from no car to one car and as our families become more and more two-car families where now they operate only a single automobile.
Take as one example Montreal, which is Canada's largest city-and by all indications it is destined to remain so

situated on an island contiguous to other islands. It faces across the St. Lawrence river another area promising, upon the completion of the seaway, to be one of the most prosperous urban areas in Canada if not in the world. The free circulation of traffic, its smooth movement without delay not only throughout the city but across the water barrier which surrounds the city, becomes not only a municipal concern, not only a provincial concern, but a problem of national importance in which, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, the federal government should have a very direct and immediate interest.
While I have used Montreal as an example, Mr. Speaker, I make these observations on traffic not only in respect of our city but in respect of all the other metropolitan areas across this country which are faced with this problem and which are going to have to solve it, if it is to be solved, through the expenditure of immense amounts of money.
Let me turn to the area which I am using as an example. We find ourselves in Montreal in the midst of a mighty and dynamic metropolitan region which stretches southward to the United States border, westward to the Ontario border, northward in to the Lauren-tians and eastward to the Richelieu river and beyond. Like all the other major cities of Canada, all this surrounding area which is contiguous to the city itself is a part of its region. The city lives, breathes and has its being only as it engages in commerce and interchange of people and business with the metropolitan region surrounding it. As this great heartland of ours grows and flourishes -and I think that future is destined for it- there is going to be an ever greater and more difficult traffic problem throughout the entire area. The co-ordination of this traffic will be the first concern, obviously, of any municipal government or any metropolitan regional government which is established. Once established it will, with the financial help of the provincial government, probably be competent to deal with the arterial roads which run through it and which bind its economic

activities to the rest of the region. But even with a full measure of provincial help no local authority can cope with the many water crossings which this network of arterial roads would require. What demands are likely to be made in the future, and what are the requirements at the present time?
Engineering experts have calculated that it will take a tunnel perhaps seven or eight miles in length to take trains as well as automobiles under the St. Lawrence river, and that this would cost approximately $175 million. I do not propose to quarrel with the cost, though it does seem rather high at this point. I do not even propose to quarrel with the proposed length of the tunnel, though I think we should remember when considering a problem such as this the experience of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the Rockies, where they found that spiral tunnels in which the railroad mounted around and above itself enabled them to bring the road out at a point almost immediately above that at which it entered the mountain. I think that is something which might well be considered by those who are giving this problem engineering study.
Be that as it may, we have a cost estimate of some $175 million in order to provide a tunnel to allow train traffic to go underneath the St. Lawrence river and thus remove it from continued interference with the seaway. That in turn would enable the Victoria and the C.P.R. bridges to be converted to traffic use alone.	Since the
gradient for autos could be much steeper the ends could be raised, especially the south end, to enable it to clear the seaway and thus eliminate another problem which currently is facing us in that area. We also have the promise of the Minister of Transport to deliver a new bridge to Montreal called the Nuns' island bridge, and I shall deal with this subsequently.
With the situation as presently outlined, and with another proposed bridge to the north upon which it is expected the provincial government will embark in the spring, we would still require two additional bridges to the east and west ends of the island, and these might be constructed with the help of the province. On the basis of present-day automobile ownership and traffic count, with these extra bridges and tunnels we would then be almost competent to handle today's traffic. I think I should underline and mark well that I am referring to today's requirements and not those of the future.
Let us look a little into the future. As I have pointed out before, it is estimated that there will be a population increase of about
The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton 1J million in that area by 1980. It is estimated also that motor car registration will increase by about 20,000 a year. This means that in addition to today's traffic, by 1981 there will be an additional 500,000 cars to contend with. We can add to that the increase in the surrounding areas which will rise as the seaway is completed and as industry moves in with its buildings and plans.
This is a clear indication that unless we build well beyond today's requirements we are going to be facing bridge congestion and the blocking of traffic circulation on an even greater scale than at the present time. In order to deal with future requirements we would need at least four more bridges across the St. Lawrence, elevated to clear the seaway traffic, as well as other bridges to the north connecting with the arterial roads.
The cost of such a program is stupendous. Taking the cost of the seven or eight mile tunnel at $175 million, and $90 million each for four elevated bridges which would total $360 million, we arrive at a grand total of $535 million. Then there would be another $300 million to pay for the bridges to connect with the expressways, which would make a grand total of $835 million or close to $1 billion as Montreal's share in providing what would be necessary to deal with the expanding problem of Canadian traffic.
This figure of $835 million to cover the bridges and their immediate connections is obviously impossible of attainment even by such a great metropolis as the city of Montreal. Viewing provincial finances for as short a period as 20 years, it would appear to be even beyond the capacity of the province. If these problems are to be solved it means that they must be considered a responsibility of the federal government. I think I have outlined previously some of the reasons why traffic should be the concern of the federal government as well as the provinces and the municipalities.
In order to arrive at a basis of comparison as to how the federal government might deal with a situation like this we could perhaps turn to the experience of the United States, where at the last session of congress there was created a federal highway administration charged with the building of some 41,000 miles of roads and crossroads to be free of traffic intersections and devoted only to the fast and efficient movement of traffic in the area. They propose to spend some $50 billion in the next 13 years, or approximately $4 billion a year.
One of the major goals of this program is the elimination of traffic congestion in and around big cities by taking the traffic
S50	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton over, under or around the cities by means of bridges, tunnels and underpasses. On the basis of this $50 billion being spread over some 13 years it is expected the United States government will be contributing some $3.2 billion annually by 1965.
Let us relate that to the Canadian picture. On the basis of the relationship between the gross national product of Canada, which is approximately $28.5 billion, and that of the United States, which is about $409 billion, the proportionate amount for us to spend on highways would be some $223 million a year. On the basis of the relationship between our populations, about 16 million in Canada and 167 million in the United States, the proportionate amount would be some $317.5 million a year. Averaging these two figures, which would perhaps give us the truest comparison, we find that the amount would be approximately $270 million if we were to equal the present program of the United States government in highway construction in proportion to our gross national product and our population.
Now let us take a look at just what this government has actually done, and is doing, in this field. The government has acknowledged its responsibility to provide at least some measure of assistance for highway construction across the country by its contribution under the trans-Canada highway plan. In 1955-56 the contributions under this plan were just over $16 million. In the current year they amount to some $30 million. I noticed in the estimates today that another $30 million is proposed for the coming year. To this we must add the construction expenditures by the government itself in connection with providing links in the trans-Canada highway in its own parks. This comes to about $11 million in the current year.
Thus we arrive at a total expenditure for this highway program on the part of the present federal government of about $41 million, and we can use that as a basis of comparison with the $270 million which would be the logical expenditure by this government if it wished to institute a national program of highway development comparable for our country with that undertaken in the United States, and which they feel they can successfully underwrite.
Obviously not even a major part of that amount would be spent in the Montreal area, but if we take our fair share along with Dogberry and Tumbletown, wherever they may be-I use those names so nobody will accuse me of comparing our city with any other-we would receive approximately $38 million a year were such a program instituted.
Jean Lesage: The premier of your province would not allow you to take it.


William McLean Hamilton: I am
dealing, Mr. Speaker, with the federal house, and I have not yet reached the point where I receive any instructions from the premier of my province.


Jean Lesage: Yes, but he would not take the money.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I would just love to see any one of the gentlemen on the treasury bench really get down to this question and deal honestly with the premiers of our Canadian provinces and, more particularly, with the premier of Quebec, respecting their views, taking cognizance of local conditions and making a sincere attempt to co-operate with them. They would be very surprised, Mr. Speaker, at just how quickly their money would be taken if they had any sincere desire to give it without an abundance of strings attached.


Jean Lesage: There are no strings attached to trans-Canada highway money.


William McLean Hamilton: have set this plan forward, Mr. Speaker, as an example of the imaginative thinking which I believe is required by the government at the present time in this field of national development. One could go ahead and use many other illustrations; one could find many other fields in which similar action is necessary, but I think this suggestion which I have put forward parallels the attitude of governments which existed in the past, and which helped us to build this country and bring it forward with great strides in a short period of time. I refer, of course, to the time when we were building railroads and canals and when, with federal government assistance, projects which could never have been envisaged either as private or even as provincial projects came into being.
We have reached a point at which traffic in our major cities is strangling the commerce of those cities in a way we have not known before. The federal government, with its tendency to grasp for itself such a large proportion of the tax dollar, has left neither the municipalities nor the provinces with sufficient revenue to deal unaided with this particular problem and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is high time this government proceeded to do something adequate about the situation.
Let us ask ourselves for a moment what this Liberal government has done or what it is proposing to do. How much money has been contributed, for example, toward the situation in Montreal, which I have outlined,

to help in the construction of arterial roads, tunnels and bridges? It has agreed to compensate us for the impairment of traffic caused by the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway by raising one end of the Mercier bridge and the Jacques Cartier bridge, and installing alternate lift bridges at the end of the Victoria bridge. This so-called generosity on the part of the government is intended to restore us to the position in which we were, and we know what that means; choked bridges, highways blocked for miles, helicopters reporting minute by minute news of the blockage, waste of gasoline and waste of time.
It is true we have been promised an additional bridge at Nuns' island at a cost of some $80 million in view of the additional circulation of traffic which is expected to result from activity alongside the seaway, but this project, again, is related to immediate traffic, and it is going to leave us, when completed, in much the position that we are in now.
I wonder, too, Mr. Speaker, whether there is not some contingency in connection with this promised bridge. Before the federal election in 1949 this Liberal government promised a rail and traffic tunnel under the St. Lawrence which was at that time to have cost $80 million or $90 million; the present figure is $175 million. And this present Liberal government was to have paid two-thirds of the cost of this tunnel. There were big headlines in the Montreal newspapers-I read some of them to the Minister of Transport last year -about this statement, this promise of the government. But once the elections were over it was explained that the building of this tunnel was contingent upon the province of Quebec going ahead with power development in the vicinity of the Victoria bridge. We still have not got the tunnel, and last year when it was drawn to the minister's attention he spoke in such a way that we have not even got the promise any more.
When we turn to the promised Nuns' island bridge I think we are right in being a little disturbed. About a year ago we were left with the impression that the construction of the bridge was imminent. We proceeded to a point where the Minister of Transport issued, under date of August 17, 1955, a statement on the development of facilities for the movement of motor traffic between the island of Montreal and the south shore. In that statement the minister said:
. . . the government has decided that it would be in the general interest if the building of a new bridge, with four traffic lanes, connecting the Montreal north shore with the mainland on the south shore were to be undertaken forthwith. Accordingly, instructions have been given to the national harbours board to retain the services of competent engineers to design a bridge to cross the St. Lawrence river over Nuns' island and to
The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton
take, in co-operation with the provincial government and with the municipal authorities concerned, such further steps as are necessary for the building of this bridge. Legislation for these purposes will be recommended to parliament at its next session.
Let me repeat that last sentence.
Legislation for these purposes will be recommended to parliament at its next session.
I have studied with great care the proceedings of the last session of parliament. I have gone through the index, I have searched in every possible place, and there is no legislation whatsoever relating directly to this proposed bridge. There is no specific indication whatsoever that the government has any intention of proceeding with the construction of the bridge.
I think we should realize that the last major project of this kind, the Jacques Cartier bridge in Montreal, was authorized by legislation in this house because it was a matter of joint municipal, provincial and federal concern, and that therefore it would be expected that legislation would be introduced in the house if the government planned to proceed with this project. The fact that they have not introduced such legislation, as so clearly promised in the words of the minister's own statement on August 17, 1955, seems to me to indicate that this also is a project which is contingent upon some other matter.
Only a day or two ago I asked the Minister of Transport when he planned to begin construction of this bridge, and in effect his answer was that he did not quite know, that they hoped to begin some of the approaches this spring. But he cannot begin the approaches and he cannot proceed, as I understand it, until such time as he has got legislation through the house. I suggest most strongly that even if it is a year late, he now make good the promise contained in his statement that he would take action.
I should like finally to touch for a moment on a project which I think might be considered by the government that would be of some considerable benefit to the national development of Canada. I refer to the taking of a national inventory of our natural resources right across the country from coast to coast and the correlation of this information in one particular department where it can be kept up to date. The members of the Gordon commission in their own way have taken an inventory of our economic resources, but we find that we have throughout the country, as we all know, immense natural resources which have been assessed by the provinces but the information on which has not been brought together at one central point.

++NAYS
Messrs:
The Address-Division
The federal government have made a start in that connection with their inventory of forest resources under which, in co-operation with the provinces on a fifty-fifty basis, they are taking a complete inventory of the forest resources of our country, but I think that could be extended. As we proceed with the development of the country and as we ask industry, commerce and business to put their money on the line for development, I think we could assist them in making their plans and assist in the development of the country if we were to provide for them such a centralized inventory and study of the great natural resources of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we call it 9.30?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Nine twenty-nine and a half.


Mr. Speaker:: The Clerk tells me that according to his watch it is now 9.30. Therefore it is my duty, by virtue of the provisions of standing order 38, paragraph 4, to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on the amendment to the amendment and on the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment to the main motion lost. The question now is on the amendment to the

The Address-Division
 NAYS Messrs:
main motion. All those who are in favour of the amendment to the main motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed to the amendment to the main motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members. I note that the whip of the party to my right and the whip of the party to my left, of the official opposition, indicate to me they consider that their members are called in for the purpose of this division. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore I will put the question now. The question is on the amendment to the main motion.



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Murphy (Lambion West): 1.	Were any paintings purchased by or for the national art gallery in the year 1956?
2.	If so, who were the artists and what were the amounts paid in each case?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	Yes.
2.	See table below.

St. Stephen's, Pulham Road	
The Coal Tip	
Coster Woman	
Head, 1951	
Rowlstone Carving with Hanging Lamp ....
Flower Group, 1944	
Painting, 1947	
Whitefield Street Baths	
Chiswick Mall, 1955	
Les Bienfaits de la Paix	
Oat Harvest	
A Cook	
A Mother's Advice	
St. Catherine	
Deposition of Christ	
Grace Lake	
The Survivors	
Antwerp	
Canal Boat, France	
Still Life in Front of a Window	
The Eiffel Tower	
Froissements Delicats	
The Black Cat	
Early Canadian Portrait	
Early Canadian Portrait	
In the Rockies	
Mauza-Pau-Kan	
Nicolet, Fete-Dieu	
Norbert Doucet	
Sunny Sandown, Isle of Wight	
A Breezy Day at Limehouse	
Rue des Jardins, Quebec	
The Mill Stream: Moret	
October: Twin Butte Alberta	
Farm at Thornhill	
Poplar and Pine	
The Gate	
Still Life	
La Fete au Couvent	
Twilight, St. John's Nfld	
Prairie Towers	
Indien	
Composition	
Portrait	
Premiere Neige	
Femme se Coiffant	
Le Peintre Emerveille devant le monde ....
Seven Immortals	
Kuang-Wu Tu-Ho T'U	
ARTIST	PRICE
Robert Medley	 $	280.00
Robert Medley	 280.00
Cere Richards	 75.00
Graham Sutherland	 250.00
John Piper	 100.00
Ivon Hitchens	 100.00
Barbara Hepworth	 125.00
Graham Bell	 350.00
W. Brooker	 238.00
Purvis de Chavannes	 3,920.00
Lucius O'Brien	  400.00
Chardin	
Chardin	   885,000.00
Simone Martini	 for 4
Rubens	
Franch Carmichael	 100.00
John Minton	 500.40
James W. Morrice	 2,500.00
Gagnon	 100.00
Andre Derain	 22,000.00
Marc Chagall	 16,000.00
Borduas	 850.00
Gino Severini	 7,000.00
Unknown	   75.00
Unknown	 75.00
John A. Fraser	 1,750.00
Paul Kane	 1,500.00
Legare	 2 for
Dulongpre	 2,000.00
F. M. Bell-Smith	 300.00
F. M. Bell-Smith	 300.00
R. W. Pilot	 700.00
Maurice Cullen	 450.00
A. Y. Jackson	 850.00
J. E. H. MacDonald	 115.00
J. E. H. MacDonald	 150.00
William Armstrong	 200.00
Maxwell Bates	 125.00
Jean-Paul Lemieux	 700.00
Robert Pilot	 750.00
Kazuo Nakamura	 600.00
J. P. Mousseau	 400.00
Jean-Paul Riopelle	 600.00
Maurice Cullen	 100.00
Horatio Walker	 100.00
Camille Pissarro	 4,002.00
Joseph F. Plasket	 400.00
Li Kung-lin	 16,000.00
Ch'iu Ying ____	___ 7,200.00


Quince and Poem	
Newfoundland Coast	
Milkweed at Oak Lake	
Landscape with Figures	
Blue and Yellow	
Beekeeper, No. 1	
Sea-Gull	
Tree Tufts	
Yellow Landscape with Cliffs and Boats . ...
Les Diaphanes	
Noeud-Papillon	
Le Front a Catastrophe	
Le Visiteur du Soir	
Street Scene	
Niagara Falls	
Summer Afternoon	
La Petite Place	
Le Chasseur	
Fete d'Assomption	
The Loggers	
Rossi	
Self Portrait	
Two Miners	
Mountains Back of Taomina	
Still Life, Blue	
The Green Settee	
Port en Sicile	
Facade No. 8	
The Artist Painting Queen Victoria	
Questions
ARTIST	PRICE
Chu Ta	 3,600.00
Ernest Lawson	 900.00
Bruno Bobak	 125.00
John Minton	 87.04
Terry Frost	 428.40
Ceri Richards	 476.00
Paul-Emile Borduas	 1,000.00
F. H. Varley	 150.00
D.	H. Fraser	 680.00
Leon Bellefleur	 300.00
Fernand Leduc	 125.00
Alfred Pellan	 400.00
Jean-Paul Lemieux	 350.00
F. Brownell	 100.00
Wishaw	 350.00
W. A. Ogilvie	 160.00
A. Marquet	 4,870.25
O.	Leduc	 40.00
O. Leduc	 50.00
Suzor-Cote	 1,250.00
Edward Burra	 365.85
Joseph Wright	 2,176.00
Josef Herman	 542.00
Stephen Andrews	 542.00
W. Scott	 975.60
E.	Brooker	 542.00
Nicolas de Stael	 8,600.00
Marian Scott	 185.00
F.	M. Bell-Smith	 150.00


SESSIONAL PAPER 107 B
Mr. Hees: What was the total cost in connection with sessional paper number 107B, tabled in pursuance of an order of the house passed on June 20, 1956?
Answer by: Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises that this cost is estimated at $1,750.00.


GORDON COMMISSION COSTS
Mr. Hees: 1.	What is the total cost in connection with the Gordon commission up to January 1, 1957?
2.	What civil servants, if any, were seconded by the government to work for the commission, and for what length of time has each of them worked?
3.	Is the remuneration of such civil servants being paid as part of the Gordon commission inquiry expenses for such time as they were working for the commission?
4.	What annual salary as civil servants is paid to each of the said civil servants?
Answer by: Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of
Finance):
1.	$712,549.73.
2,	3 and 4. The annual salaries of civil servants seconded to work for the commission were paid from their departmental appropriations and were not charged to the expenses of the commission except in the case of Mr. P. Garceau whose salary was charged to the commission. The cost of terminable allowances was charged to the expenses of the commission.
Date	Date Struck	Terminable	AnnualName	Seconded	off strength	Allowance	SalaryD. V. LePan	1 July 1955	Still serving	
$4,000.00	$10,500.00J. Davis	1 June 1955	Still serving	
2,000.00	9,500.00S. Reisman	1 June 1955	Still serving	
1,000.00	9,500.00W. A. Mackay	15 Aug. 1955	Still serving	
1,000.00	4,920.00B. M. Erb	1 Jan. 1956	Still serving	
1,980.00	5,760.00H. A. Hampson	29 Aug. 1955	Still serving	
500.00	5,160.00G. McColm	17 Sept. 1956	Still serving	
nil	8,100.00A. L. Best	1 Oct. 1955	Still serving	
600.00	7,380.001. B. Rutherford	22 May 1956	31 Dec. 1956	
900.00	8,100.00A Garceau	1 July 1955	30 Nov. 1956	
nil	4,080.00A. MacRitchie	25 May 1955	6 July 1956	
nil	4,380.00J. Shaw	1 July 1955	Still serving	
nil	3,720.00
557

Wednesday, January 23, 1957