1957-01-15

Mr. Fernand Girard (Lapointe) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 10, to amend the Civil Service Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Fernand Girard: The purpose of this bill is to grant a certain preference to bilingual competitors for appointment as the result of civil service examinations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REPRESENTATION ACT


Fernand Girard: for leave to introduce Bill No. 11, to amend the Representation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.
(Translation):


Fernand Girard: The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to change the electoral designation of Lapointe to that of Jonquiere-Kenogami-Arvida.
(Text):
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does he agree with the suggestion of the Gordon commission respecting the need for the establishment of a national energy authority as set out on page 57 of the report? Will he also say whether in his view there is any probability at this time, in view of the strong recommendation made by the commission in that regard, of the implementation of that section of the report?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have never 82715-15i
considered the matter. The decision would be a matter for the government rather than for one minister, and I do not care to express an opinion at this time.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, of which I have given him notice. Will the minister comment on the statement in the Financial Post issue of January 12 that the Canadian visa office in Vienna is now handling only "sponsored" or "special" cases of the Hungarian refugees?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, that statement is substantially correct. Late in December I gave instructions that only sponsored cases should be handled in the office in Vienna and that the selection of other people to come to Canada should be made by teams going into the camps. If you will permit me to give an explanation, sir, I think perhaps hon. members would be interested to know why I gave that instruction. About that time it was beginning to be apparent that some of the latest arrivals in Austria from Hungary, by coming direct to the office in Vienna, were getting ahead of others in the queue. It seemed to me that those who had been waiting longest in the camps should have at least an equal opportunity to come. I thought it was much better to have the general selection done in the camps, and that is what is being done now for the movement in February.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister advise whether, during the year 1957, contractors and builders will be able to secure loans for the purpose of building homes in groups of, say, 20 to 25? If so, from what source?
228	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that the facilities under the National Housing Act will be in operation in 1957 just as heretofore. There will be some difference in the matter of degree but the facilities of the act will be available.


Michael Starr: Am I to understand that the minister advises the house that these builders will be able to secure loans during 1957 for the building of homes in groups of, say, 20 to 25?


Robert Henry Winters: I anticipate that they will. It is a matter of selective credit. The banks and lending institutions will determine to whom credit will be awarded. But as I say, the facilities of the act will be available throughout 1957.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. . Marler (Minister of Transport): On Thursday last the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) directed some questions to me concerning the Canadian government railway employees' relief and insurance association.
I have made inquiries of the management of the Canadian National Railways and all I can say is that the railway company is continuing to make the payroll deductions that it made formerly, but any questions regarding the status of the association would have to be directed to the association, which is, of course, an organization of the employees.
Mrs. Fairclough:: May I ask the minister a supplementary question? From that statement am I to understand that the deductions arb continuing to be made for both the health and the insurance angles of the scheme or just for insurance alone?


Mr. Marler:: My understanding is that the deductions are in respect of payments to be made by the employees to the association.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The same as previously?


George Carlyle Marler: The same as before.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to, the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received, since the end of the


regular session of last year, representations on behalf of the retired employees of the Canadian National Railways, whose pensions are limited to the $25 a month, for an increase in the amount of the pension? Has further consideration been given to this matter or will such further consideration be given by the minister or by the government?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that, offhand, I am unable to say whether or not written representations have been received. I shall have to look into my files and see whether any have come to hand.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resiigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister been successful in negotiating with the state of Maine a reciprocal agreement with regard to unemployment insurance benefits?


Hon. Millon F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker, not yet, but progress is being made.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In the press this morning it is reported that Canada will participate in an international fishing gear conference in Hamburg next October. Is that report correct? If so, would the minister explain to the house just what is the main purpose of that conference?


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: I am sorry I did not see the press account and I am also sorry I did not know about the conference, but I will find out.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice? In view of the recent increases in the price of newsprint will the minister ask the restrictive trade

practices commission to investigate the circumstances of these increases and determine whether there are any elements of price fixing or restraint of trade?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I shall be glad to make a statement upon that subject tomorrow.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 14, 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. Coldwell.
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: I am happy to join members on both sides of the house, Mr. Speaker, in congratulating the mover (Mr. Hanna) and seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Apart from the interesting subject matter and the eloquent delivery of the speeches, I was particularly struck by the fact that Canadians from different ethnic groups addressed the house in both official languages. In my opinion the effort made by these hon. members, as well as by many hon, members on both sides of the house, to master both the official languages of our country, is the best guarantee and the best proof that Canada can and will become truly bilingual. I feel also, Mr. Speaker, that if we use all the means at our disposal for keeping the respective languages and cultures and traditions in their purest possible form, then a richer and more profound Canadian culture embodying the best of both ethnic groups can and will evolve.
For almost a year now, Mr. Speaker, it has been my great privilege to work relatively closely with the Department of External Affairs and to study and observe, perhaps more closely than I would otherwise have done, the extraordinary evolution that has taken place in the world over the last half century. As a result of this evolution, there has arisen a greater interdependence amongst states and from this has equally arisen a totally new concept of what international relations must be if the world is to continue to exist and world peace is to be achieved. This concept of modern international relationships has been clearly written in the charter of the United Nations which, as you know, has been signed and ratified by some 80 nations in the world.
The Address-Mr. Cardin
Personally, I am convinced that in spite of the weaknesses that are attributed to the United Nations, international conflicts even at this time can best be resolved and world peace accomplished through the medium of a body which is relatively independent and collectively free of any particular interest in the different international issues at stake. As hon. members know the United Nations charter prevents it from using the authority and the power that it might require to solve international problems effectively and quickly. The granting of much greater power and much greater authority to the United Nations could be interpreted as a step towards world government. Perhaps the time has not yet come to take such a step, and yet perhaps the time is rapidly approaching when such a step will have to be taken.
Two things strike me very forcibly in looking back over the events of late 1956, and in which perhaps we can foresee things to come. The first of these is the unprecedented power and strength of world opinion, so forcibly expressed at the United Nations not so long ago. The second is the accompanying general feeling of despair and indignation because the world was made to witness, and is still being made to witness, horrible crimes committed by the U.S.S.R. in Hungary without being able to lift a finger to stop the atrocious crime of genocide against the Hungarians. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, 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.
As you know, the formulation and expression of world opinion are the direct result of the functioning of United Nations as a world forum. The interest and the solicitude of states to what is happening in other parts of the world, replacing the indifference and the isolationism of other generations, are also a direct result of the remarkable but unfortunately largely unpublicized achievements of the United Nations in the economic, social, humanitarian and cultural fields, which are certainly the true, solid infrastructure, not only of the United Nations, but of world peace as well.
I cannot help but feel, Mr. Speaker, that the Hungarian tragedy, as witnessed and judged by the United Nations, has eloquently revealed the shocking dangers of the United Nations' fundamental weakness. It has brought into clear and proper focus the fact that if the United Nations is to continue to survive, then it shall have to take the necessary steps and the necessary measures to avoid a repetition of acts which are not only contrary to the charter of the United Nations but are contrary to the elementary and basic principles

The Address-Mr. Cardin of humanity and justice. More than ever before the world looks toward the United Nations to solve efficiently international conflicts, and it expresses very bitter disappointment and disapproval whenever the United Nations fails to act quickly and promptly; and yet the very people who deplore the weaknesses of the United Nations are the very ones who are the most hesitant to give to the United Nations the power and the authority it requires to act decisively.
At the present time the United Nations is in an intolerable position. It will have to move either forward or backward. If it moves backward and the United Nations collapses, then to my mind it is world suicide. If it moves forward and acquires the necessary authority and power to act decisively, then it entails a loss of some part of our conception of national sovereignty. The question that the peoples of the world have to answer even at this time is what price they are willing to pay for world peace, and for the maximum amount of international justice and security for all nations, large and small.
I do not propose at this time, Mr. Speaker, to go into any details of the current international situation. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), in the emergency session, made a complete report on that situation and yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I believe, brought the house up to date on developments since that time; but I should like to say a few words on the Department of External Affairs. In order not to be accused of grossly lacking in modesty, may I remind hon. members that a parliamentary assistant is not a bona fide member of the department to which he is attached. I cannot therefore claim any credit for the excellent work that is now being done by the department.
During the past year I have had the privilege of attending several international gatherings and I feel quite convinced that very few Canadians indeed realize the esteem in which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the Department of External Affairs are held abroad, nor do Canadians generally realize the extent to which nations from all parts of the world look to Canada for guidance and support in international affairs. Surely this fact can be interpreted as a very nice compliment to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and to his department, but from this fact we must also infer a great and growing responsibility for Canada.
The Department of External Affairs, as you know, is a relatively young one and it is now in the throes of rapid expansion. The

demands that have been made for foreign service officers to fill necessary posts abroad, for the several truce commissions where Canadian participation could not be refused and more particularly to fill the ranks of the numerous divisions in the department, are so great that there is a danger the department may become understaffed. In spite of the fact that efforts have been made to encourage young men to enter the department, it has been extremely difficult if not impossible to get them in sufficient numbers and of sufficient quality to maintain the high standards of representation for which Canada is noted.
Fortunately it is not too difficult to find the reason for the present shortage of qualified candidates. To my mind the remuneration being offered is not commensurate with the training, the capacity and even the sacrifices that are demanded of a foreign service officer. Without labouring the point, I would suggest that if the government wishes to maintain its high standard of foreign service officers first of all by retaining the service officers they now have in the department and by acquiring additional qualified candidates, then I believe the government shall have to bring the remuneration now being offered into line with what is being paid to people of equal capacity and equal training working in other fields of our economy.
One of the first problems I encountered upon entering the department was a very abnormal delay in the translation of important speeches and documents arising in the department. On making inquiry it was found that the translation staff in the department was severely undermanned. Since then the Secretary of State has authorized additional translators for the department but as yet it has been impossible to find additional translators. Not because there are no translators available in Canada but rather because the remuneration that is being offered is not sufficient to encourage persons to apply for the position. What is true in the Department of External Affairs may be equally true in other fields and in other departments, and I would suggest that an inquiry into this field might be useful and timely if we wish to maintain the high standard of personnel we now have in government services.
Mr. Speaker, there is one last subject upon which I would like to say a few words. Just recently the preliminary report of the Gordon commission was published. This, of course, is a study of the numerous suggestions made over the years as to which way the government might go in order to achieve

Canada's lull economic potential. In conjunction with this report I should like to make a few very general remarks which could be interpreted as being a different aspect of the same thing.
It appears to me somehow that although Canadians generally realize that the economic, social and political changes which are taking place in the world today have a direct and important bearing upon our economy they sometimes act individually as though Canada were a self-sufficient island completely independent and secure from world economic trends. They seem to think also that although foreign economic policy may be an interesting academic exercise it really cannot affect our economic potential as guaranteed by our incalculable natural resources. I am afraid the bitter truth is that if Canadians generally do not have the moral strength or the moral courage to adapt our economy to world economic trends and if we are not prepared to face present and future economic problems in an energetic, imaginative and selfless effort to solve them, then we are not going to achieve the economic potential on which we are counting so much even now.
I presume I shall be accused in many quarters of being a pessimist, but this again is relatively unimportant if sufficient public attention can be paid to the warning signs that are now beginning to appear on our economic front. Among some of those warning signs I think we should certainly count the increasing foreign competition which is already beginning to be felt in our country, particularly from West Germany and Japan. I think it would be most unwise indeed not to envisage greater competition from a greater number of countries abroad in the future.
As we all know, the imposition of higher tariffs to protect particular industry and prices is not the answer to the problem of competition simply because we are not a self-sufficient country and must count on imports and exports as an integral part of our economy. As we know, the imposition of higher tariffs in Canada would result immediately in the imposition of higher tariffs by other countries and the subsequent decrease in our exports would seriously affect our national economy.
The solution of this problem has to be sought elsewhere and it seems to me that in accepting the advantages of a free enterprise system one must also be ready to accept the responsibilities that go with it. The problem of competition facing particular industries should be seen, studied and solved by the industries themselves as part of that responsibility. Industry in Canada has grown to its present importance by standing on its
The Address-Mr. Cardin own two feet and solving its own problems. To my mind that is not only the best, but it is the only way of solving these problems if we are to continue enjoying the free enterprise system in Canada.
Another aspect of the problem of our expanding economy is the difficulty in maintaining a balance between our increasing national production and our population. In certain quarters of this country immigration is looked upon as a source of dislocation of personnel if not of unemployment in Canada. However I feel sure that Canadians generally have the moral strength and conviction to understand and to endure the local and temporary discomforts created by immigration simply because our expanding economy demands a greater labour force and a greater home market.
Inflation is another economic problem that must be faced squarely by the Canadian public, as Mr. Muir has pointed out in the report of the Royal Bank of Canada. Methods of controlling inflation such as increasing the interest rate of bank loans, restriction of credit and any other methods of maintaining a healthy balance between available goods and the Canadian purchasing power are bound to be unpopular and give rise to a great deal of criticism and complaint. Yet everyone knows that without these economic disciplinary measures our promising Canadian future can very well be seriously jeopardized.
In the present economic situation, where there is a strong tendency toward inflation and where there is at the same time a large budgetary surplus, I feel that the best way of continuing to combat inflation and of continuing to help the general economy of the country is by engaging in the construction of essential national projects such as the St. Lawrence seaway. While I am on this subject, I should very much like to congratulate the government, the Hon. Lionel Chevrier and the St. Lawrence seaway authority on the very efficient manner in which they are carrying out what is certainly one of the greatest projects in the world.
As an important corollary to the St. Lawrence seaway, I would suggest that the project proposed by my predecessor in 1937, authorized and even started by the government, and subsequently postponed because of the second world war, be now continued. As hon. members will recall, this project called for the building of a seaway from the St. Lawrence river at Sorel along the Richelieu river to lake Champlain and across lake Champlain and down the Hudson river to New York. The United States would, of course, look after the American side of the particular project. I do not believe I need insist very much on the importance of this
232	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Cardin seaway, and although I am merely mentioning the project at this time I should like to give fair warning that I at least will do all I can to see the project put into effect as soon as possible because I believe sincerely that not only is it justified but to my mind it is an essential economic development for Canada as well as for the Richelieu river area.
Mr. Speaker, as you can see I am not really a pessimist. On the contrary, I have the greatest hopes for Canada's future. However, I do feel that if we are to reach our objective all Canadians, individually and collectively, will have to face and assume their respective responsibilities. Among these responsibilities there is one which is fundamental and yet which is sometimes ignored. It is this, that no particular interest of any one particular group of our economic life can justify endangering the common good.
As an example of what I mean, may I say that in settling the recent C.P.R. strike the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was the true champion of the common good, but I firmly believe that the fundamental responsibility was not the Prime Minister's. The common good in that particular instance was the direct responsibility of the C.P.R. and the firemen's union. They should have been able to solve their problem and come to some settlement by themselves on the strength of the responsibility that they both have to the Canadian people.
Perhaps I can make my point a little more forcibly by reminding hon. members that the persistent danger of communism is an economic one arising from ideologies which are the antithesis of our democratic form of life and our free enterprise system. If communism does not soon crumble, as we all hope it will, then sooner or later we shall have to compete economically with a form of government which recognizes no rights of individuals or groups of individuals but which channels all the energy, all the labour, all the genius, all the wealth to the exclusive use of a state which is not responsible to the people of that state. We shall also have to compete equally with state monopolies which are geared to the highest capacity of production and in which the only labour code that exists is maximum working hours for the least possible pay.
I think it would be a disastrous mistake to underestimate the dangers of an economic war with communism under those conditions. It may not be very pleasant but I think that perhaps it might be a very useful exercise to reflect seriously on these considerations in order to stop what I am afraid is a growing tendency toward materialism and toward self-centredness in the different fields


of our economic, social and political life. God has been extremely generous to Canada. He has given Canada everything we possibly need to make our country a strong, prosperous and happy country in which to live. But what we do with these God-given gifts is to my mind the direct and personal responsibility of each Canadian and each group of Canadians as well as that of the government.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the address in reply to the speeech from the throne and the amendment moved thereto by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the light of the fact that we are approaching a general election in the Dominion of Canada, and everything that has been said in the course of the debate so far has been, I think it is fair to say, said in the light of that fact. We were reminded of the fact that an election is imminent in the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself in which he replied to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and in which the right hon. gentleman left no doubt that an election would shortly be upon us. We were reminded of it by, amongst other speakers, the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) in what I think I may fairly call a rather ungenerous and certainly very over-optimistic speech in which he made certain forecasts as to the results of that election, particularly in western Canada.
I do not wish to criticize the hon. member for being optimistic with respect to the fortunes of his own party but I think it is necessary to say that his forecasts will not be realized. It was significant that, in making his forecasts of success, he confined his attention exclusively to western Canada. I suppose that the reason is obvious in that to date his party has had some limited success in the provincial sphere in that part of the country, but the fact was very conspicuous that he did not make any forecast east of the great lakes. The hon. gentleman based his forecasts on the statement, as he put it, that his party was a party of principle.
I base my forecast of the lack of success of the Social Credit party on the fact that the people of Canada will realize that the situation that led to the success of that party in the provincial field is not duplicated in any sense in the national field. I also base it on the fact that Social Credit principles most certainly are not being applied by the provincial governments which bear that name. Inasmuch as the hon. gentleman has made it clear that the appeal of the party nationally

will be on the basis of Social Credit principles, I forecast that the appeal will be rejected because the people of Canada are not interested in Social Credit principles as enunciated by Social Credit spokesmen.
I make my forecast also on the basis that the Conservative party is a party founded on principles which established this nation, which are valid today and which are being restated and given fresh meaning under the dynamic leadership of the new Leader of the Opposition who is himself a western Canadian who knows and understands the true application of those principles to western Canada as well as to the whole of the nation. Under that leadership, with that dynamic reassertion of Conservative principles, the people of Canada will respond from west to east and will turn in increasing numbers to the Conservative party, rejecting the principles which the Social Credit party put forward.
I base my approach, however, to the fact of an election much more on the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) than on that of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). It is with respect to government policies and actions that we have phrased the motion of non-confidence that was moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) on January 9. It is with some aspects of that motion of non-confidence and the contrasting position of the two parties-I refer to the government party and the Conservative party-that I wish to deal today.
The motion of non-confidence reads as follows:
We respectfully represent that Your Excellency's advisers, by reason of their indifference, inertia and lack of leadership in the face of serious national and international problems and their disregard of the rights of parliament, are not entitled to the confidence of this house, and have lost the confidence of the people of Canada.
There are two particular things I want to mention as being issues in an election and as being facts which this house and this country will never lose sight of. The first is the conduct of the government over the years, culminating in its actions during the pipeline debate last year, when not only the supremacy of parliament but the very continuance of parliament itself as an effective instrument in our democratic process, and the very principle of responsible parliamentary government, were threatened with extinction.
The second thing that the house and the country will never forget-and should never forget-is the unsatisfactory record and attitude of this government over the years with respect to the British commonwealth of nations, culminating in the casting of a vote in the United Nations General Assembly lsftt 82715-16
The Address-Mr. Fulton November on the side of the United States and Soviet Russia and against our oldest friends, France and the United Kingdom.
The attitude of the government is also mirrored in the words of the Prime Minister on November 26 when he described the government of the United Kingdom as amongst the "supermen of Europe" and when by his words, he placed that government and the government of France in the same category as that of the communist aggressors.
Mr. Speaker, not all the honeyed words used by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) yesterday, in an obvious attempt to restore the situation and to persuade the people of Canada to forget that attitude on the part of the government, can ever remove the impression created with respect to the attitude of this government or remove from the minds of the Canadian people proof of where this government stands with respect to the British commonwealth of nations.
On the first point-with respect to the conduct and attitude of this government towards the supremacy of parliament and responsible parliamentary government-not much more needs to be done than merely to remind ourselves of the facts and the issues involved. Over the years we have seen a constant process of attack by erosion on the principles of the supremacy of parliament. It is not the supermen of Europe in this field that should concern us but rather the would-be supermen of Canada who would supplant responsible parliamentary government by cabinet dictatorship.
We saw the process brought to a peak in the defence production bill of 1955 when the rule and dictatorship of one man would have been substituted for parliamentary government. That attempt was not successful but it was carried forward and culminated in the conduct of the government during the pipe-line debate of 1956 where, for the first time in the history of a free parliament under our system, we saw an attempt to throttle debate before debate had even begun. We saw an attack on the principle of responsible parliamentary government to which the members of the government will pay lip service. They will tell the people of Canada, "Of course we believe in the principle of the supremacy of parliament and responsible parliamentary government." But the people of Canada realize that you can have responsible parliamentary government-that is that a government can be held responsible by and to parliament-only when parliament has the opportunity to examine and to discuss the government's proposals

The Address-Mr. Fulton and actions. Here we saw a deliberate move, supported by the Liberal majority and the Social Credit party in this house-and supported by the Social Credit unanimously on every occasion but one-to prevent parliament from discharging its function and duty of examining the government's proposals.


Mr. Siuder:: Mr. Speaker, might I ask
the hon. member a question?


An hon. Member:: Wait till he has finished.


Irvin William Studer: Did not the socialists introduce right at the beginning of that debate a resolution to prevent the matter from coming before this House of Commons? Did they not do that right after the beginning of the debate?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Irvin William Studer: I think you will find that
they did, if you will look at the record.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Today we see the same attitude reflected in the words of the Prime Minister, namely the attitude that discussion counts for nothing, that parliament has no right to discuss because, after all, all that matters is the will of the majority, a majority subservient to the government and doing exactly what the government tells it to do.
The government's position is that the merits of an issue are irrelevant, immaterial and should not be discussed. Everything will be decided by the vote. Why bother to discuss it? Let us have the vote now: that is exactly what the government said last session and it is what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said the other day. After the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) had in a masterful speech exposed some of the issues before this house, issues which will be before the people of the country, what was the Prime Minister's answer? He said, oh, you may criticize but that does not matter because shortly we shall go through the process of "counting noses" and then all the issues will be decided.
The constitution, the rules of parliament, precedents, unwritten laws and even written laws, the merits of the situation count for nothing, and the only thing that counts in the minds of this government is the noses of the majority.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman think the minority should decide?


Mr. Bell:: You wanted the minority to decide on the strike.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You see, Mr. Speaker, it is by remarks such as that that it is made so clear that the government, and especially the

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill), do not have the faintest understanding of the essence of parliamentary government. Of course we do not say the minority should decide, but we do say the minority has rights. We say the minority has the right of discussion. The minister and the government say there is no right of discussion; all that matters is the number of noses that are going to be evident on the side of the government. Of course, one can understand how they would arrive at that line of action because you see over there supporting them, unfortunately, so many members who are content to be deprived of the right of discussion and who are content apparently to abide by whatever the government says should be done.
The moment the government has said what it wants, they say: let us have a vote. We hear the chant: "question, question. Let us have a vote. There is no right of discussion. Discussion is irrelevant and unimportant, because if the government says it should be so, then of course it should be so and we are content to vote without discussion." All that matters, therefore, is the process of counting noses.
That process has been carried on and the rights of parliament denied and overridden to such an extent, Mr. Speaker, that we have now very nearly reached the point of no return beyond which it will be difficult indeed, if not impossible, to restore the principle of the supremacy of parliament and of responsible parliamentary government. The people of Canada here face a very serious issue, a domestic crisis every bit as important as the international crises which have occupied so much of our attention. There is only one solution to that crisis and that is to remove from office a government which denies the supremacy of parliament, is not willing to accept the principle of responsible parliamentary government, and to replace it by a government which is dedicated to the preservation of this principle as the Conservative party and its leader are dedicated.
The second issue which is before the country is the attitude of this government with regard to the British commonwealth. It was interesting to observe yesterday, on what I might almost call commonwealth day, the attempts by government spokesmen to remove the unfortunate, indeed the disastrous, impressions created by their conduct and their words last November. We see a picture of a government desperately trying to make amends; a government as aware as we are that an election is facing them shortly, and trying to remove that impression. It is no wonder they do so because they know all tile damage that their conduct and their words

have done to their support in the country. We saw the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) praise the commonwealth, praise the United Kingdom and tell the house how there may have been temporary differences of opinion but these really only strengthened the bond; how they knew all along the government of the United Kingdom, however its individual actions may be judged, is nevertheless dedicated to peace.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), after he had finished his travelogue, was at pains to impress upon the house how everywhere he went in Asia, with every government representative with whom he had discussions and in the villages where he went, he was at pains to impress upon the people the dedication of the United Kingdom government to peace, and the progress that had been made under the aegis of the government of that country.
Unfortunately, from the government's point of view, from Canada's point of view and the world's point of view, you cannot turn on the stream of unity and co-operation and then turn if off again like a tap. The stream is based on continuous understanding, continuous sympathy and the continued maintenance of mutual interests and must be kept flowing or it will dry up. It cannot be turned off and on again like a tap.
This government cannot thus easily repair the damage done by their actions and by the Prime Minister's words last year when he lumped together the governments of the United Kingdom and France in the same category of aggressors as the communist governments of Russia and the other socialist soviet republics. Remember the Prime Minister's words in that regard on November 26. Having referred to the governments of the United Kingdom and France, he went on to say, as recorded at page 20 of Hansard for that date:
I have been scandalized more than once by the attitude of the larger powers, the big powers as we call them, who have all too frequently treated the charter of the United Nations as an instrument with which to regiment smaller nations-
Including in those words the governments of the United Kingdom and of France,-


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the United States.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -one of them a government which the Secretary of State for External Affairs was at pains yesterday to point out had built for itself a glorious tradition- that is what he called it-of bringing to a state of independence, self-government and autonomy, nations which have never known that condition before. That is the government which the Prime Minister on November 26 categorized with the aggressors of Europe, "the supermen of Europe." 82715-161
The Address-Mr. Fulton
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to observe that in all of the reasons given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and by the Minister of National Health and Welfare yesterday, as to the things which now mean so much to Canada in the commonwealth and the things which should unite us in the commonwealth, it was interesting that in all this panegyric which they sang yesterday, there was not one mention of that factor which we always understood to be at the centre of commonwealth unity, and that is, loyalty to the crown. There was no mention in either of those speeches yesterday of the principle of loyalty to the crown, to the monarchy which, as I understand it, is the central theme and uniting factor of the commonwealth.
The government's action against the United Kingdom and France was previously justified on the basis that there was danger in the Suez situation of the commonwealth splitting; that it could not stand the pressures created by the action then taken. Later on that was denied by Mr. Casey in Australia. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) then modified his statement as to what he had meant. He said that he had referred exclusively to the Asian members of the commonwealth. Well, now, unfortunately, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has shown himself to be prone to rather loose terminology in this connection. It will be recalled that at one stage, after the fighting had begun, he said, referring to the commonwealth, that it was on the verge of dissolution and he further said that "was not an exaggerated observation". He is guilty of several contradictions in this matter.
Since that time, after being contradicted himself by the Australian spokesman, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said he was referring exclusively to the Asian members of the commonwealth. Shortly thereafter the prime minister of Ceylon, who was interviewed at the United Nations where he was while all these discussions were going on, said, as reported in the Ottawa Journal of December 3, that he thought Mr. Pearson's commons statement was "rather an exaggeration".
Then it will be recalled that yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs repeated in this house the same thing, namely, that the separatist pressures were tremendous and that he felt it had been quite possible that the commonwealth might split up. He was asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) whether that had not been denied by the governments of

The Address-Mr. Fulton Ceylon and India and he replied that it had been denied by the prime minister of Ceylon, but that he had been informed by the very highest authority in the government of India that there had been danger of India leaving the commonwealth. Well, sir, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is contradicted there by no less a person than the prime minister of India himself who, speaking in Ottawa, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of December 24, said-and the reporter, Mr. Hume, says that these are Mr. Nehru's own words:
India wishes, quite clearly, to have her commonwealth association continued; there are so many disruptive tendencies in the world that I am not prepared to break up any kind of association or bridge that there is. I never thought India's commonwealth association should be broken, despite grave differences of opinion.
He went on to say that some important people in India suggested the commonwealth association was doing no good. He continued:
We discussed the question in our congress recently and we are firmly of the opinion that we wish our association with the commonwealth to continue. In spite of differences within the commonwealth, we felt that it is a helpful association in the larger causes of peace in the world.
Now, there is the prime minister of India speaking and saying that he never thought they should get out of the commonwealth. And yet, the Secretary of State for External Affairs only yesterday told us that he was informed by the highest authority in the government of India that they had been in danger of withdrawing. What have we? Have we a completely inaccurate statement, or does the Secretary of State for External Affairs suggest that there is a higher authority than the prime minister? Can it possibly be, Mr. Speaker, that the eulogy given to him by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. LaUrent) in this house the other day has already gone to his head? Does he think there are higher authorities in government than the prime minister? For that is the only inference we can draw from his statement, unless we are to believe that notwithstanding having been corrected, he still persists in a deliberate inaccuracy and misrepresentation.
Other unfortunate effects which flowed from the government's action last November, and which are now obvious to the Canadian people, in addition to the damage that it did to the principle of commonwealth solidarity, have been, of course, to place Canada in a position where she must accept dictation from Nasser in Egypt. This the government still persists in denying in spite of the most obvious facts which prove it, such as that Canada's original intention as to the type of troops she should send was not allowed to be

fulfilled, and also by the comments made by authoritative sources elsewhere. I have here the New York Sunday Times of January 13, which contains an article by Thomas J. Hamilton. The article is headed:
United Nations Suez Intervention Restores Status Quo
Nasser Is Still In Full Control Of The Canal With His Future Terms For Operation Unchanged
The correspondent is reporting on the discussion at the United Nations and says as follows:
But the friends of Britain, France and Israel insist that practically every decision has been in accord with Egyptian demands.
He is referring to the decision with regard to the clearing of the canal and the role of United Nations emergency force. He continues:
This, they say, is illustrated both by the handling of the United Nations emergency force and the salvage operation. Egypt, despite denials, is exerting her veto on the countries participating in the emergency force, as witness the fact that Canada, which sponsored the idea, has been allowed to contribute only non-combat troops.
As Egypt demanded, the force has been withdrawn from the Suez canal zone, permitting the complete establishment of Egyptian control. Egyptian troops are advancing into the Sinai peninsula behind the United Nations force, and will soon re-establish Colonel Nasser's control there, leaving the United Nations force to act only as a buffer between the Egyptian and Israeli troops.
According to a spokesman for Mr. Hammarskjold, the general assembly, not Egypt, will decide when the United Nations force is to be withdrawn. But Mr. Hammarskj old's insistence upon respecting the "sovereign rights" of Egypt increases the probability that the assembly will tell the force to leave whenever Egypt says so.
So it is undeniable, Mr. Speaker, if one faces facts, that the result of the government's action has been to place Canada, along with other countries, in the position of having to accept the dictation of Egypt, thus making it very unlikely that there will be a satisfactory over-all settlement of the dispute which gave rise to this whole situation.
That, then, is the damage that has been done,-damage to the commonwealth, damage to the possibility of an over-all satisfactory solution to the Middle East question-done by the unfortunate acts of this government. But the damage has been done; and although it is essential that we understand the basis upon which we now rest, it is still more important to look forward and to discuss ways and means of repairing that damage. This is going to involve work, not more pious platitudes such as we heard yesterday from the two government spokesmen who were concerned not so much to tell us what they were going to do, as to try to pretend that no damage had been caused by the government's unfortunate action.

To repair the damage is going to require work. Why should we not have the Quebec conference that was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition last November? The Prime Minister has not given a single reason why it should not be held. He dismissed it with another series of generalities. Unfortunately, we have not heard from the government any positive proposals in this respect. We are back where we have been for many years because, of course, our quarrel with the government with regard to its attitude to the commonwealth does not stem only from the time of the Suez crisis; it antedates it by many years.
Our quarrel with the government is that they have done nothing for years beyond paying lip service to the idea of the commonwealth. They have indulged in vague generalities, they have made no positive contribution and they have made no earnest or consistent attempt to institute a series of commonwealth discussions which would be designed to arrive at common objectives and a common understanding and common approaches to these world problems, and especially to arrive at these common approaches before the problems reach disaster proportions. It is no wonder therefore that the Suez explosion caught us all unawares.
There had been a conference not very long before that, the last commonwealth prime ministers' conference. You will remember the strenuous effort we on this side made, first of all to get the Prime Minister at least to see to it that there was an agenda and that Canada was going over there prepared to engage in serious discussions in regard to the matters that would come before the conference, but this was not done. No such thing occurred to the Prime Minister's mind. He was going over there for a nice trip. That was at the time when Cyprus was in danger of becoming an explosive area; it was at a time when the whole Middle Eastern situation was brewing.
The Prime Minister returned from the conference and you will remember how strenuously we pressed him to give us a report concerning what was discussed and what was decided. We were interested in knowing if anything at all had been said about Cyprus or about the Middle East. No. He reported he had lunch with Mr. Nehru and they had a pleasant time at the conference. They had issued a nice communique and there had been a feeling of good will and good relations had been established. That is all we got out of the Prime Minister because that is all the Prime Minister went over there to do.
We have pointed out for years that no international association will mean anything
The Address-Mr. Fulton nor can it mean anything unless the members of the association and particularly the senior members such as Canada intend that it'i should mean something and intend to make it work. This business of saying the commonwealth is a force for world peace and that Canada's position in foreign affairs and in international relationships is influenced in large measure by the fact that she is a member of the commonwealth and her membership in the commonwealth is something desirable to maintain, is simply to voice meaningless platitudes unless the government does something, first to decide what it is the commonwealth should mean in world affairs and in our own national interest, and then does some work to make it realize those things.
In our view the preservation of the commonwealth is a matter of interest to all of Canada and not just something to which we have a sentimental attachment. It is a matter of vital national concern to all parts of Canada and to all peoples in Canada to an equal degree because it is based upon and has at its centre the monarch, the crown. This is the very centre and core of our national existence and our form of government as a constitutional and monarchial democracy. It is essential to us also because as a member of the commonwealth we can have a wider influence in international affairs, a fuller being if you like, than we would ever have as a separate nation.
It is important to us, Mr. Speaker, also because it is more than ever essential that there should be a strong and united commonwealth as a factor in the preservation of world peace. I was not at all satisfied and I am sure many hon. members were not fully satisfied, indeed they must have been deeply disturbed, by the readiness yesterday of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to write off the commonwealth as a factor in the preservation of world peace, when he Said in effect there is only one country in the western world in a position to discharge truly worldwide responsibilities today, the United States. Sir, we believe that the commonwealth, if recreated and built into that force which it could and should be, is also in a position to discharge worldwide responsibilities and is also in a position to exercise worldwide influence. As Mr. Menzies of Australia said when discussing the last commonwealth prime ministers' conference and his dissatisfaction with what had been done and particularly his dissatisfaction with the communique that had been issued, "A state- '-rhent' of that kind should and could carry the moral authority * that the commonwealth

The Address-Mr. Fulton should possess. I think the world needs the force of judgment that the commonwealth has."
We are in complete agreement with those words. The commonwealth will not possess that moral authority and certainly will not possess that physical authority unless some work is done to recreate it and to give to it the meaning which it should have. This certainly will not be accomplished by the words and attitudes of the Prime Minister of last November and the actions of the government at that time. It certainly will not be achieved by the inaction and pious platitudes which is all we can get from the government today.
We are therefore left with certain questions which emerge from this whole situation. First, what is the government's policy with regard to the United Nations emergency force? We were told yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he believed we should work toward the creation of a permanent United Nations force; but the country was told by the other secretary of state for external affairs who is presently officially the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) that it is impractical to have a permanent United Nations force. He did admit to an honest difference of opinion with the Prime Minister on that score but we did not realize that, having just returned from this tour he undertook, he would so deliberately and definitely state a view contrary to that expressed officially on behalf of the government in the house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Who is the Secretary of State for External Affairs? What is the policy of the government?


Mr. Rowe:: You had better get together.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Surely the people of Canada are entitled to know that and the people of Canada are particularly entitled to know what is the policy of this government with respect to Canada's component in the present United Nations emergency force in Egypt. Is it to be just what Nasser says? Is it to be withdrawn just when Nasser says it is to be withdrawn? Is it to do only that which Nasser says it is to do? What does the government of Canada feel about that? And if they reply that these things should be decided by the United Nations, what recommendations are they going to make to the United Nations on the basis of which a decision will be taken? Are we to accept the fact that not only the Canadian government but the United Nations general assembly with the consent of the Canadian government is to have its decisions made by the dictator of Egypt?
The next question, and it is really the larger question, is this. What does this

government propose to do to restore and maintain commonwealth unity? Yesterday we heard the words of the government ministers telling us what importance they attach to the recreation of commonwealth unity but we heard nothing except words. We have heard nothing but words for years; we have seen no action. We made a concrete suggestion in November with a view to the restoration of both commonwealth unity and the Atlantic alliance-the holding of a conference in Quebec. That was only one suggestion, but even that suggestion has been rejected, and nothing, absolutely nothing, has been offered in its stead.
Mr. Speaker, we are left in the position that, with respect to this whole question of the most vital and fundamental of Canada's interests in world affairs, the government has nothing to offer. Its actions and the words of its Prime Minister have been a disaster and have weakened our position. On this issue, as on the issue of parliamentary supremacy, I have no doubt what will be the verdict of the Canadian people in the next election.
(Translation):


Mr. Joseph Fontaine (St. Hyacinthe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish at the outset to extend my warmest congratulations to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robi-chaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I congratulate them particularly for having spoken with such eloquence a tongue which is not their mother tongue. We have there an example of good understanding and of bilingualism which should be appreciated and practiced more often.
I wish also to extend my congratulations to the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) on the high position which has been bestowed upon him after so many efforts on his part and in spite of the little support he got from the delegates of my province. It is not every party leader who can get a unanimous vote on a first try, it is not everybody who can be elected by acclamation. Be that as it may, I extend to him my most sincere wishes and I hope he may remain for a long time the leader of his party and the Leader of the Opposition.
I would like now, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words on the social security legislation which the Canadian people enjoy thanks to the initiative and the concern of the Liberal

government, and more particularly on the subject of old age pensions. Canadians everywhere have asked that the old age pension now enjoyed by people 70 years old and over be increased by $10 to $20.
We must realize that this old age security legislation has not been enacted to take care of all the needs of the recipient, but rather to help and assist our older citizens in general. However there is nothing to prevent our provincial government, as it is done in other provinces, from adding $10 or $20 to the $40 now granted by the federal government.
It is clear that we must do all we can to help those unfortunates who, having toiled all their lives, find themselves without any means of support.
I realize, as do all hon. members, that this amount of $40 is not sufficient and that, were it possible to increase it, it would provide our older people with greater comfort and security. On the other hand, though I am not opposed to this increase, I do think that it would be preferable to extend the scope of the legislation by extending its benefits to a greater number of old people.
I have often noticed in my constituency, that many people aged 60 and over who, for reasons of health or physical disability, are obliged to quit work, of their own volition or at the request of their employers, are, in most cases, in a very poor financial situation, they have difficulty in meeting their vital obligations during the period extending between 60 and 65, with regard to which our social security legislation provides no security at all. Briefly, this is the plan I suggest. At the present time, the federal government is, without a means test, paying the full amount of the old age pension from the age of 70 on. From 65 to 70, the pension is paid to those who can meet the means test, half the required sum being provided by the federal government and the other half by the provinces concerned. I suggest that those old age pensions entirely provided by the federal government be paid from the age of 65 years on, while pensions paid to the poor old people by the federal government and the provinces be paid when these people reach the age of 60. By extending in this way the scope of the legislation, instead of by increasing the pension, we would be doing service to a larger number of people. In other words, by lowering the
The Address-Mr. Fontaine age of eligibility by five years the present legislation would be made more efficient than would be the case were the amount of pension merely increased, an increase which by the way could be met by the provinces.
With regard to family allowances, I am of the opinion that the time has come for the government to make a serious study of the possibility of increasing them. This increase, a necessary one, would be such as to improve the standard of living of Canadian families and more particularly of larger families. As was pointed out the other day by the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon) the cost of living has gone up tremendously over the past ten years, but the needs have not diminished. We should increase the means of providing for the needs of our children in proportion to the increased expense involved. For my part, I suggest that these allowances be increased in proportion to the increase in the cost of living, that is for example by paying $6, $9 and $12.
From the field of social security I now pass to that of agriculture. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of representing a constituency which has been particularly blessed by Providence, because of the fact that it is situated in the richest area of the province of Quebec, an area which is well suited to all types of farming and which is called the Richelieu valley.
By far the greatest number of farmers of my constituency carry out specialized farming, more particularly sugar beet production which, in the course of the last year, has brought in a revenue of over half a million dollars in my district. They have also carried on tomato-growing on a large scale, the produce being shipped to metropolitan markets as well as to rural canning plants.
May I be allowed by the way to congratulate the co-operative canneries on the excellence of their organization which has greatly contributed to the improvement of the lot of our farmers. In this regard, I would feel remiss in my duty were I not to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) most sincerely for the precious aid which he has provided the poultry farmers of my district. A poultry experimental station constructed at St. Damase in 1945 has just undergone considerable changes. The extension of the building and the construction of immense refrigerating rooms allow that co-operative to improve its commercial position, not only on the local market but also on the inter-
240	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fontaine national market. The poultry co-operative of St. Damase is considered by experts to be one of the largest and most modern in the country. That achievement was made possible by the co-operation of the federal Department of Agriculture. Besides being a monument to the credit of our agricultural class, it will contribute greatly to the constant improvement of the agricultural economy of our area.
Before passing on to another subject, I should like to say a few words on butter. The price support given us by the federal government for a number of years was highly advantageous to us of the dairy industry.
Having always considered agriculture as the basis of a successful economy, the federal government took the initiative of authorizing the Minister of Agriculture to help our agricultural class by means of grants and price support enactments, being convinced that such legislation would primarily promote the interests of the country at large.
Indeed, experience has shown us that when agriculture is prosperous in a country, all classes of society benefit from it. The dairy industry in general and, in particular, the milk producers shipping their milk to creameries and cheese factories were saved from bankruptcy by the act on the support of the price of butter. That act is unquestionably the one that rendered the greatest service to our agricultural class and particularly, I might add, to the farmers of my province, because the dairy industry remains the main source of income of the Quebec farmers.
According to our legislation, Canadian farmers can benefit from the act until its expiration in May, 1958. I urge the Minister of Agriculture to extend the duration of this act for an indefinite period, because I dare say our dairy industry was saved by the price support enactment and it is most important that it be maintained in force. I would even say that this act protects not only the producer but also the consumer. It has the dual effect of preventing the exaggerated speculation that was carried on in connection with our dairy products. It is not surprising that the speculators should have focussed their attention on butter in particular. Everybody remembers that, before the enactment of that measure, producers during the season of plenty, were paid ridiculous prices for their products which brought them no profit and, most of the time, left them with a deficit. On the other hand, in winter time


when production slows down, the price of butter was going up every day and the consumers had to pay excessive prices for that product. Speculators were thus in a position to gain unlimited profits on a product which, after all, brought no profit at all to the producers in most cases.
Mr. Speaker, this problem has been solved by our act on the support of butter prices and it is very important, in fact essential, that our farmers should never again have to put up with situations such as that.
The need for this beneficial measure continues to be felt; therefore, I can only wish, -I know beforehand that this wish will be met,-that the government will go on with that policy which has been so profitable and which is more and more appreciated by our farmers.
Mr. Speaker, another subject dealing with agriculture and also of a vital importance for our specialized farmers is the question of the great metropolitan market of Montreal. This matter concerns more particularly the producers specialized in horticulture who live around the city of Montreal. The development of the metropolitan market is at present underway. Construction was begun last spring and this project will soon be completed if all the authorities concerned give their support and the necessary financial assistance to those in charge of that undertaking. The city of Montreal considers this project as most important and it has already paid a generous contribution. An amount of one million dollars has also been granted by the government of my province. I wish here to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture for his generous co-operation. Since this market will not be exclusively a local market but also an interprovincial market, I feel that the federal government should contribute to such an undertaking which, I repeat, is of vital importance for agriculture, and especially for the producers specialized in horticulture.
Mr. Speaker, horticulturists are the victims of undue speculation; it is essential that federal authorities should help this category of producers as they have done for the dairy farmers. Otherwise, we will be faced with the disappearance of these specialists in horticulture. I do believe that the federal authorities should act and make a substantial grant for this project, a grant at least matching the amount the province of Quebec has agreed to pay to this organization.

Mr. Speaker, as the time allotted to me does not permit my informing this house in detail of the record I have before me, and which proves that the federal authorities would be well advised in helping to carry out this plan, I shall just advance a few arguments that will justify my remarks at this time. The Montreal market is a receiving and distributing centre for the fruit and vegetable trade, not only on a local and provincial basis, but on a national and even international scale. The Montreal market is the main distribution centre for fruit and vegetables in Canada. In 1952, arrivals of these commodities on the Montreal market by rail only amounted to 18,951 carloads, coming from eight Canadian provinces, eleven foreign countries and thirty-four American states. These figures are taken from a report on arrivals of fruit and vegetables on Canadian markets, published in 1952 by the marketing division of the federal Department of Agriculture in Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne mentions a proposed amendment extending the scope of the Municipal Grants Act to authorize the payment of grants in lieu of taxes on federal property in municipalities where such property benefits from municipal services. The government deserves congratulations for including this project in the speech from the throne. The grants will, in most cases, be of great help to the municipalities, and bring some relief to taxpayers. Due to the rapid expansion of house construction in Canada since the war, our municipalities have been faced with serious problems which in most cases they cannot solve without the help of the federal and provincial governments. As far as I am concerned, I am glad that this project will be submitted to the hon. members for approval during this session.
May I say just a few words about grants to universities? I will merely state that I share the view of the hon. member from Hull (Mr. Caron). An unconditional grant to all the universities is not in itself undue interference in the field of education. If foreign millionaires are allowed to make a gift to our universities and to our classical colleges, why should we not grant the same privilege to the federal government? It is sheer demagogy to hold the opposite view. Besides, our people from Quebec, just as the people of other provinces, have contributed to the consolidated revenue fund from which those amounts are drawn. Why should we not benefit from
The Address-Mr. C. Cameron
it, as others do, rather than seek to keep to ourselves, in a special reserve, for the sake of so-called autonomy? Are not the people of Quebec Canadians just like the people of the other provinces?
I am just about through with the few remarks I had planned to make. However I would not like to sit down without telling the hon. Prime Minister of the satisfaction of our people concerning the excellent administration of the affairs of his government -our government-and because of what he has himself contributed to the country since he has become our leader. But what is still more admirable is the fact that not only is our prime minister respected and admired by his opponents but the leaders of foreign countries look upon him as a first-rate statesman, one worthy of their confidence.
It is not my business to discuss foreign affairs, but since the world seems to be unanimous about the excellent part played by Canada in the United Nations and in NATO through our minister for external affairs (Mr. Pearson), I can only join the members who spoke before me, to offer him sincere and well deserved compliments and to wish that Providence will long preserve men of such value.
If I had the time, I could analyse the moral and economic condition in which people of other countries are living-and I could even say people of all countries-and I am convinced, in the present situation, that there could be, in any case, only one conclusion, which is that today, in 1957, it is rewarding to be able to call ourselves Canadians. (Text):


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I almost hesitate to say so but it is twenty years this year since I first sat in a legislative assembly. During those years I think it is perhaps safe to say that I have always taken somewhat of a relish in being able to heave as sharply pointed bricks as possible at the various governments opposite whom I have sat during that time. But periodically during that time the governments which I have opposed have-inadvertently, of course-done something of which I have approved; and always, when they have done that, I have found myself hesitant in attack, a still small voice, as someone said, crying "fiddlesticks". This morning, as I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), that still small voice was extremely vocal within me.

The Address-Mr. C. Cameron
This government has done in the past and undoubtedly will do in the future many things for which they merit severe criticism and attack. But in order to make our attacks effective when we make them, I think we should be careful not to attack on the wrong occasion or for the wrong thing. During the special session of parliament I did not take part in the debate because there appeared no necessity for my doing so. The government's actions were those I thought were in the interest of Canada, and I imagined that they would have plenty of people to support those actions in the house.
I listened at that time with great interest to the speeches of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). In the past I have not always agreed with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Sometimes I think he has fallen far short of what we should expect of Canada's principal international spokesman. However, I think it is only fair to say that on that occasion I think no intelligent Canadian could really have quarrelled with what he had to tell us. He spoke obviously as a man deeply anxious over a critical and dangerous situation, not in any boastful manner, recounting the efforts of himself and his colleagues to deal with an appalling world situation. I also think it is fair to say that he expressed at that time a deep concern over the tragic cleavage that had taken place between Canada and her two oldest allies.
I think those things should be said because this morning and during the special session suggestions were made that, in the course followed by the government at that time, Canada had in some way betrayed the commonwealth that Canada had in some way scorned and affronted our oldest allies. It seems to me to be an extraordinary situation that Canadians can stand up in this parliament and suggest that, because a strain was put upon the relationship within the commonwealth-not by Canada or not by any action of Canada's-we are to blame for that strain.
I found the speech made by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) this morning most interesting. As a matter of fact I felt as though it had great anthropological interest, I might even say biological interest, because it struck me that it was the same sort of interest that would have been aroused if one were to encounter on the streets of Ottawa mastodons or dinosaurs from the dim and distant past. In the course of the hon. member's remarks it became quite obvious

that in the view of the official opposition there is only one nation in the world which has the right to sovereignty and that is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that he deplored the actions of Mr. Dag Hammarskjold in insisting that the sovereign rights of Egypt should be respected. Apparently that is outrageous. Because we do not like Mr. Nasser, because we do not like some of the things he has done, because we consider-probably quite rightly-that he is a rather hardboiled dictator, we are to take the position that the sovereign rights of the country that he happens to rule can be flouted at will.
We were told this morning that the main strains were placed on the commonwealth by the action taken by the Canadian government. In the first place I think perhaps we are flattering ourselves in thinking that the Canadian government was quite such a decisive factor in the situation. In the second place, I could not help feeling this morning- as I felt on an earlier occasion during the special session-that there are members of the official opposition whose conception of the commonwealth of nations is rigidly confined to members of the nations of European stock, and that the idea that such new members as India, Pakistan and Ceylon should be consulted, that their views should be considered, is something entirely foreign to that concept.
During the special session I was interested not only to hear what the Prime Minister of Canada had to say with regard to the world situation but also in the extraordinary reactions that were aroused by his statements. His statements were repeated again or quoted this morning by the hon. member for Kamloops in an extremely deprecatory manner, as I recall it. On one occasion the Prime Minister remarked that he had often been scandalized by the actions of the great powers in the United Nations. My criticism of the Prime Minister would be that he then said something that should have been said long before, that he waited until he was exasperated to say something that should have been said earlier in measured and more magisterial terms. There is not an intelligent student of public affairs in the world today who has not been painfully conscious of that scandalous attitude and action of the great powers to which the Prime Minister referred.
He also had a remark to make with regard to the supermen of Europe. That apparently is something that should not be said, but all history supports that statement. The sooner we of the Caucasian races remember that the last 300 years carry an almost unbroken history of pillage, rapine, and bloody

suppression of all non-European people with whom we came in contact, the sooner we shall be prepared to live at peace with the human race. While we may want to forget that nasty skeleton in our cupboard or clothe it with the myth of the white man's burden, let us not make any mistake about this fact: the peoples of Asia and of Africa have not forgotten. An attitude of humility with regard to the deplorable record of our ancestors and, indeed, of some of our contemporaries of the European races would be in order today.
Again, my criticism of the Prime Minister would be that he said this in a moment of exasperation when it should have been said again and again by the spokesman of such countries of Canada, which, while inhabited by people of European stock, had itself to break loose from that control and rule by the supermen of Europe.
No, Mr. Speaker; I do not think those are things for which either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs is to be blamed or criticized. Nor are they statements for which I think any Canadian should feel the need to apologize.
But I have noted, sir, in this present session that apparently we are beginning to move away from that rather forthright position. I think that is a tragedy because I am sure there are many Canadians, like myself, who feel that during those critical days in November of last year Canada, for the first time, emerged from the shadows and became a definite international entity with clearly defined features rather than remaining, as we had hitherto, a rather vague, shadowy figure, obscured in the mists of a sort of general amiability. I am sorry to note by the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and indeed by that of the Prime Minister also in this session, that they appear to be retreating from that firm position. I suppose it is a case of coming events casting their shadows before them.
It may be true, as the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) suggested, that government spokesmen feel there has been an antagonism to the attitude taken by this government during the world crisis last fall. Undoubtedly there has been some antagonism. I suppose that in the constituency I represent there are more people of immediately British origin than in any other part of the Dominion of Canada. There are, moreover, amongst those people probably a larger proportion of people coming from those social brackets in Britain which would normally adopt an extremely conservative and rather imperialistic point of view. It is true that amongst my constituents there are a number who would wax just as indignant as the
The Address-Mr. C. Cameron hon. member for Kamloops and his colleagues in this house. There are also a significant number of others who, like myself, feel sorry and grieved that the nation of which we are natives should have been betrayed in that particular instance, betrayed from the position of international probity which had been built up over the last decade or two.
I would suggest to the members of this government that it would be better to run the risk of losing a certain measure of support throughout the country and to maintain that solid, unequivocal attitude which was presented to us during the special session of the house. We should remember also that we should not confuse the people of Britain with a small group which, for the time being, happens to be in control of the destinies of that country. Not for nothing did two ministers of the crown resign in the face of the incalculable follies committed their government. Not for nothing did every responsible organ of public opinion in Great Britain condemn and deplore what was being done. We in Canada shall not be discharging the responsibility of friendship for the people of Britain unless we speak with an unequivocal voice in support of this element in Britain, the most intelligent, the best informed, who have deplored the train of events which took place last fall and which will have in the future incalculable results for the unfortunate people of Great Britain. I should like to see our government, as I say, maintain that solid position which it assumed during the crisis of last fall at the United Nations, and not pay attention to the possible unpopularity in certain quarters that will be coming because of that position.
I think we must be careful not to condone follies when the fool is a beloved fool; not to condone evil on the doctrine that good might have come out of evil. Good never comes out of evil. Men, women and children were killed; their lives destroyed and their homes broken. No matter what the purpose may have been, that in itself was an evil action. If we are going to assume a position in the world commensurate with our material power, then we have to be prepared to continue condemning evil, reprobating folly whoever may commit it.
I think, sir, while these events of the past have been important in two regards, one in placing Canada firmly before the world in a certain posture and the other in revealing to us the political thinking of the various sections of the Canadian community, what is more important is what is to take place in the future. I was interested yesterday to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs suggesting that we must work towards

The Address-Mr. C. Cameron a permanent United Nations force. I hope when that proposal is carried into effect that perhaps the procedure that was followed in the setting up of the emergency force may be borne in mind, because to me one of the most significant aspects of the establishment of the United Nations emergency force was that it was action on the part of the small, medium-sized nations of this world, behaving I think somewhat in the spirit of the Prime Minister's condemnation of the great powers of the world, in a spirit of impatience with these great powers who can never refrain from grinding their own axes.
I should like to see such a permanent force remain as a force contributed to by the small and medium sized powers of the world because then it could be a force that would not be embroiled in the power politics of one or the other of the larger powers in the world today. I think there is something else we can do now as a result of recent events. I think there can be no question that the appalling series of events in Hungary has struck a blow at the Soviet union that perhaps no one can as yet assess. In my opinion it has completely altered the military picture of the world because not only can the Soviet union now no longer rely on the peoples and the armed forces of satellite nations in the event of a conflict, they have been informed in unmistakable terms that these will be enemies within their gates. I think we should take advantage of that situation. It seems to me that here is a case where some hard-hearted bargaining could be done with the communist world. I cannot believe that the men in the Kremlin today are very anxious to continue to have these potential enemies ready to stab them in the back if they got involved in a war. It seems to me that the part of wisdom for them would be, and I do not think you should consider they are without wisdom, to relinquish their hold over these satellite states under an agreement whereby they become a neutral belt between the west and the east. I think that will have possibilities also of solving one of the sore spots in the world today, one of the trouble spots that may well cause great concern to the rest of the world, and that is divided Germany.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, When the house rose at one o'clock I was in the middle of discussing some of the possible after effects in Hungary, pointing out that the events there dealt a shattering blow to

the position of the Soviet union, and might well have altered the military realities on the continent of Europe and, as a consequence, may have provided us with an opportunity- and when I say "us" I am speaking of the west-for some hard bargaining with our communist opponents. I suggested it was hardly likely that the rulers of the Soviet union would care very much longer to maintain their control, with great difficulty, over populations which they now realize they could not trust in time of international war and that, therefore, they might be prepared to relinquish that control in return for some mutual guarantee of a neutralized area; and. that included in this opportunity was one of the difficult and dangerous spots in the world, namely, the divided German nation.
Most observers from Germany seem to be of the opinion that after the next election, which I believe takes place this fall, the social party of Germany will undoubtedly assume office in Western Germany. They have been committed for many years now to a neutralist position as a means of achieving what is the great desire of all the German people, namely, the reunification of Germany.
I believe that here again is a possibility for some hard bargaining with our communist opponents, because, if Hungary were the tough spot for them, East Germany will be a much tougher spot and sooner or later they are going to face the same sort of thing in East Germany that they faced in Hungary, Now is the time for us to be making these; proposals of withdrawal of forces from central Europe by both sides and mutual guarantees of neutrality to that area as ,a, means of building some sort of cordon sanitaire between the two great blocs in the. world today. I think also that the United Nations has a much more significant role; to play in the Middle East than it has been; able to play hitherto. It is well enough that, we have the United Nations force there now, from which we may hope to develop some; sort of stability, from a military point of view, in that area; but I believe that pre-, cisely the same argument should apply to the United Nations that one often hears applied to NATO; that the military commit-' ments of the United Nations are not nearly, enough, and that the economic functions of, the world today should gradually supersede the. purely military functions of that organization, and that the Middle East is the area that most cryingly needs some sort of organization and leadership for the develop-, ment of the area for the benefit of the inhabitants of that part of the world.
It is a tragic circumstance that much of; the potential wealth of the world in the form: of the oil deposits of the Middle East, the oil!

deposits upon which the wealth of almost the whole of western Europe depends, and on which indeed our own economy depends to a like degree, should come from an area in which the local inhabitants have heretofore * had no chance whatever to share in the wealth. It seems to me that one of the tasks that lie before the United Nations is to give offers of economic aid, offers of skilled assistance, in return for certain commitments on the part of the authorities in those areas so that the revenues derived from the sales of the oil shall be devoted to the raising of the living standards of those people and not merely to be ostentatiously displayed by some of the ruling group. There, I think, is an area in which the United Nations should be playing a very decisive role, which will require perhaps some rethinking with regard to sovereignty. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think very soon the world is going to have to take another look at this question of sovereignty, as to just how far any people are to be allowed to conduct their affairs without regard to the rest of the world, rethinking as to the possibility of relinquishing certain aspects of our sovereignty to a greater degree, and as to the value that might well accrue from some world authority to have control of oil surpluses, of food surpluses, of uranium material supplies in such a manner that their use can be directed throughout the world where they are badly needed today.
I know that that is a theory that does not meet with much approval from those perhaps whose feeling of nationalism is beginning to rise; perhaps even our own feeling of rising nationalism may be in opposition to such a view, but I would hope that in Canada at least we realize the necessity for some cooperation with the rest of the world, even at the expense of what we have in the past considered our own personal sovereignty over our wealth and our resources.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn for just a moment to the question of the railway strike which, although it is settled for the time being, is, of course, in the issues involved, not finally settled yet. I think there is perhaps a symptom of a situation which may well become much more general in the near future. I am not in a position to judge the rights or the wrongs of that particular dispute. I do not know anything about the safety factors involved; I do not know anything about the economic gains to accrue to the company by following the policy they wish to follow; but I do suggest that it is probably part and parcel of a serious development in industry with which we are going to have to cope in the near future.
This morning the Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs
The Address-Mr. C. Cameron (Mr. Cardin) mentioned some of the possible economic problems that we may be going to face, and I think this is one of them. There will be no question about it, a market controlled economy, plus an automated industry, spells, without any doubt whatever, serious difficulties in the near future, and we are going to have to cope with it. I would suggest, of course, that we have a certain leeway; that even the vast productive potential of modern industry can be utilized for some time in satisfying the needs of areas of the world that need development; but sooner or later the problem is going to be on our doorstep, and it is time we were thinking about it. We are not going to be able to solve it merely by slogans about freedom of enterprise, property rights, and so on. It is going to be hard facts of human life, and we shall have to deal with them in conjunction with peoples in the rest of the world who start off ideologically, perhaps, where we finish. In the future that, I think, is going to be perhaps the most important role that we as Canadians can play in a new developing world, leading away peacefully and easily from the old rigid style of market economy to the new cooperative outlook which must prevail throughout the world if we are to avoid disasters in the future.
(Translation):
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the subject of bilingualism in this house and in Canada. We were told last week that national unity would be strengthened by the hon. member's efforts to speak French in the house. It may be, Mr. Speaker, but I doubt it.
In listening to some of my colleagues' attempts to speak French, Mr. Speaker, I thought we might paraphrase a well known saying: "It's wonderful, but it is not French". I can recall, Mr. Speaker, my very first attempt to speak French, more than forty years ago. My comrades and I had attempted to speak French to some French people but, to our surprise what we thought was French, they thought was English. All the same, Mr. Speaker, we did find school ma'ams who possibly helped us learn the language- even several languages-while we were counting bottles in the cellar in the company of Gabrielle, Cecile, or whatever their names were. In circumstances such as these, Mr. Speaker, one learns the language, and other things too. But I assure you that-


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the other things.


Colin Cameron: -I have forgotten all I had learned.

The Address-Mr. Bertrand
I have said enough, Mr. Speaker, to prove to you that national unity will never be built on the abominable French 1 am speaking at this time.
(Text):


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: You are doing
well.


An hon. Member:: Very well.


Colin Cameron: Seriously,
though, I do want to suggest to our Frenchspeaking colleagues that they should not consider, when those of us who do not speak French fail to make the effort, that we are in any way being disrespectful to the French language or to the rights of our fellow French-speaking Canadians.


Mr. Dufresne:: I do not think any one
ever thought that.


Colin Cameron: It is diffidence on our part and I am afraid that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and others who have expressed the hope that eventually this will become a bilingual chamber will have to rest content with the fact that the majority of their non-French-speaking colleagues are inescapably uncivilized and barbaric and that we shall never learn to use the French language effectively.


Mr. Lionel Bertrand (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments in the discussion in order to fulfil a task entrusted to me by the blind of the province of Quebec and which 1 accepted willingly because for several years I have been associated with their group, namely the Friendly Society for the Blind, Societe Amicale des Aveugles, which has its headquarters in Montreal. The honorary patrons and directors of this society are well known in philanthropic circles and the group is also proud of its sound executive. Its managing director, Mr. H. A. Meilleur, who is well seconded by his wife, lost his sight in an accident when still young. He is for the society a living inspiration of courage and perseverance.
For several years I have been placing on the order paper of the House of Commons a resolution recommending the abolition of the means test in the case of blind persons, but it has not had the honour of being thoroughly discussed. As have some other members, I have often called the government's attention to this matter and although many welcome amendments have been made to the act in the last few years, the blind still consider that the means test should be abolished for the simple reason that it paralyses their productive possibilities and greatly limits their initiative.

I have before me booklets containing the signatures of 1,289 members of the Friendly Society for the Blind, all of them blind persons, from nearly 500 cities and villages of the province and which I intend to pass on to the government. These booklets, prepared by the blind themselves, need no further explanation than their title, "A petition from the blind to the federal government of Canada for the abolition of the means test in the case of blind persons".
The blind of Quebec have gone further. They have tried to show that on the provincial level public opinion endorses their request and each one has agreed to obtain in his own locality the signatures of at least 25 people, including those of the parish priest and the mayor. They have achieved the difficult task of gathering in the other volumes which are before me the signatures of 40,000 people, which represent a clearly expressed opinion. If the blind had set out to obtain a million signatures, they would easily have succeeded, for no one can remain indifferent to the physical and moral hardships of the blind; most of us recognize that sound health and a good eyesight are among the greatest blessings of life.
The signatories of the petition declare that the means test has the following adverse effects: (a) It reduces the blind's desire to work and makes them increasingly idle, (b) It forces the blind and their families to adopt a lower standard of living than any other group in Canada. (c) It interferes with the family life of the blind because it encourages husband and wife to live under separate roofs in the fear of seeing their pension reduced. (d) The blind man becomes a permanent burden on the state notwithstanding the fact that, being normally gifted and capable, he could, if he were granted blindness compensation, earn a greater part of his own living as well as contribute to the welfare of his country.
I believe, as so many people have said before me, that there is no greater disability for a human being than blindness. Indeed, at least 80 per cent of human activity depends upon the precious gift of sight. Work normally requires sight, as do reading and travel to perfect oneself. There is not one moment of the day when to move about, to make a living, to amuse ourselves as well as to protect ourselves against the danger of modern life, we do not count upon the so strong and yet so delicate organ of sight which gives us light instead of darkness.
True, blindness does not deprive the individual of all his faculties or productive possibilities, but only too often it paralyses or neutralises them. Precisely because his

life is spent in darkness the blind must always rely on the help of someone. No wonder that, in this endless night, he should sometimes give in to discouragement. That is why it is so important not to snuff out the human ideal in his heart, but on the contrary to revive it constantly.
I am proud that my country looks after the blind. I say with great pleasure that my country is taking care of the blind by increasing allowances which enable them to meet their basic needs. The blind are certainly satisfied with that, but the means test is becoming in their view, and I feel that they are right, an injustice which they think should be corrected.
Personally, I do not like the word "pension"; I would rather have used in the case of the blind the words "blindness compensation" which, I think, would be much more appropriate. So it is important that the blind do not suffer from an inferiority complex toward those who can see. It is important to raise their sense of human dignity, to give them a social rank, and to free them from the unbearable thought that they are a burden for their families and society.
The blind person is a human being: like every one of us he has a family and his home obligations are heavier than ours because of his blindness. His cost of living is higher than ours. His normal living expenses are much higher. He cannot benefit from sales because he cannot be aware of them and when he goes shopping he needs a helper whom he must pay. If he wants to commute, to go to church or to see a doctor, or even to earn a living by soliciting or by selling certain articles, he has to have a guide to whom he must pay a salary. Being sightless he finds himself more than others involved in mishaps which entail higher expenses for his clothing and the maintenance of his home. Because he is blind he will even be abused in some quarters. And since blindness is often a cause of ill health he has to pay higher bills for medical supplies and services.
As far as family life is concerned there is no doubt that blindness is the cause of higher expenses. There are very few blind people in Canada who earn enough to take care of themselves. Most blind people cannot live on the monthly allowance they receive, and they must of necessity do some other paying work. Do not think that by abolishing the means test you would make the life of the blind much easier. No, sir. Because nowadays, even if in some cases industry employs blind people, the blind person is not normally expected to work in a factory. He can only perform certain manual tasks which involve no accident hazards, inside duties which are
The Address-Mr. Bertrand mostly routine or certain work of canvassing which he cannot do without the help of a guide or a companion. That is what he does, not the year round but during certain periods depending on whether the kind of article he deals in or from which he draws an income can be marketed. If he is in receipt of the pension he must always make sure not to earn more than the few hundred dollars allowed under the act, for if he goes over the maximum amount of allowable income his pension is lowered and often withdrawn altogether. The few hundred dollars that a blind person' may earn annually only means the difference between want and comfort.
It seems inconceivable that a blind single person is able to live on a total of $18.45 a week-$480 he is allowed to earn and his pension of $480. It is inconceivable that the wife of a blind man, who is the mother of several children and who is working to feed her family, should see the pension of her husband lowered as soon as she is earning $21 weekly and totally cancelled as soon as she earns $30 weekly. It is inconceivable that a man whose wife is blind should see her pension lowered as soon as he is earning $21 weekly and totally cancelled as soon as he is earning $30 weekly. It is even more difficult to understand when you consider that in such a case the law makes it compulsory for this husband to pay from his own salary wages to someone who can see to take care of his wife and his home while he is away.
Thus the blind person has continually some cause for concern. If he has worries about his pension we will not even be in a position to defend his cause by himself. And inspection will always be for him a perpetual nightmare, something awful to bear. I have in this respect statements which leave no doubt.
I can see only one solution: the abolition of the means test. This might result in a few hundred thousand dollars of additional compensation. Nowadays, as soon as he is 70 years old, the blind can draw his old age pension and then he is not subject to any investigation whatsoever. I am told that some 400 blind people pass every year from one law to the other. According to statistical figures, in 1955 some 8,000 blind persons were receiving a blindness pension, which meant an expense of $3 million for the federal treasury and of $1 million for the provinces.
There are in this country some 10,000 blind persons who could benefit from a national law or on whose behalf could be made the helpful gesture of giving them a full life. No more restraint. The blind would have ahead of him a wide open road

The Address-Mr. Bertrand to his endeavours. He can produce, He would no longer be a useless piece of machinery with limited activity. He would earn more, which would be one worry less. His earnings would be better, which would mean comfort for his family and for himself a revenue producing hobby. He would thus contribute to the progress of his country and the remuneration which he would receive could be considered to be a tribute paid by the nation in order to enable him to be useful to his country like every other citizen, in spite of his handicap.
At the international workers conference held at Oxford in 1949 and at which were represented all the countries in the world except those from behind the iron curtain, and notably competent representatives from the United Nations and UNESCO, the following resolution was adopted:
Special economic provisions should be made for blind people in order to give them work and to allow them to contribute in every way to the economic and social life of the community. Every nation should provide its blind citizens with at least a minimum subsistence standard, equal in every case, so as to compensate for the increased cost of living brought about by blindness.
In November 1956 the Canadian Catholic conference, of which all archbishops and bishops in Canada are members, made the following statement:
In so far as material prosperity is concerned the state must not be expected to continue forever the payment of various subsidies or grants. Rather it should be expected to create those economic conditions whereby every citizen could be assured of an opportunity to provide for his own needs and those of his family.
I therefore think that the state should provide the blind people with a blindness compensation, leaving them entirely free to earn their own living and to become useful citizens. When the government notices that the mining industry, agriculture or any other segment of the national economy is in danger it provides for grants and subsidies to set matters right. In the case of blind people the state should provide them with an opportunity of producing, of contributing in this way to the progress of the nation instead of leaving them in depressed circumstances. This situation is so distressing that they are asking the authorities to put an end to it by putting an end to the means test which, in the case of the blind, is almost condemnable.
I know that the present government has done everything to help the low salaried classes, the poor and forsaken members of our society. It is proud of its record, and justly so. Another opportunity is provided now for the government to help one class of people which, to my mind, is the most unhappy of all. The representations which I have just made on behalf of the blind people

of the province of Quebec are similar to those which other groups in other provinces and even in the national field have made, I am told, directly to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). All I am asking him to do is to look once more upon this side of the question. Everybody in this country knows how fair the Minister of National Health and Welfare is in dealing with problems of social security and how anxious he is to complement what is already being done in this field. Here is another opportunity along that line. I have confidence in him. I have confidence in the government and I know that these recommendations will not fall on deaf ears.
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to join with previous speakers in extending heartiest congratulations to the mover and to the seconder of the address in reply for the manner in which they have acquitted themselves of their tasks.
(Text):
The member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) certainly deserves special congratulations on the magnificent effort he made during his speech when he spoke in my mother tongue for several minutes. He made himself perfectly clear and would with a little practice no doubt become fully bilingual.
(Translation):
As for the member from Gloucester, who, with the greatest of ease, switched from one of Canada's official languages to the other, he certainly proved to the house and to the whole country the importance of bilingualism for all Canadians, and perhaps more particularly for members of parliament, its absolute necessity. I offer him my sincerest congratulations.
(Text):
It is now my duty, Mr. Speaker, and a most pleasant one at that, to pay my respects to my new leader, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and to offer him my respectful congratulations upon his elevation to the leadership of the Conservative party to which I have the honour to belong. I sincerely hope that with the help of Providence he will long retain the strength, the health and the vitality for which he is known. His undeniable talents, his forceful personality, his recognized experience, his deep sincerity and love of work which have characterized his already fruitful public career have led him to the position of great responsibility which he is now assuming with the dignity and efficiency that all members

of this house have long since recognized. In short, he is well qualified for the heavy task entrusted to him.
As leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition for the last few days and leader of the great Conservative party for about a month, he has already asserted himself before the Canadian people as a statesman of great stature, as a national and international figure respected by all and one who will no doubt become the next prime minister of Canada after the forthcoming general election.
I wish to express to him publicly my deep admiration and to congratulate him ardently on the excellent manner in which he expresses himself when he speaks in my native tongue. Now that he has overcome his timidity and in view of the success he has achieved when speaking in French-


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: I never thought he was timid.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: -he can without fear converse with my French-speaking fellow citizens who I am sure will give him a hearty welcome and strong support.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I do not at all propose to deal today with all the subjects contained in the speech from the throne. I shall therefore confine my comments to the international situation, to the strike of the C.P.R. employees, certain parts of our social legislation and the desire expressed in the speech from the throne, to increase grants to universities. In regard to university grants, I shall have the privilege of discussing them when the bill is before us.
The free world horizon, Mr. Speaker, is still heavy with dark clouds which may at any moment give off a destructive and deadly rain. International communism has not given up its infamous schemes for subduing, by the most revolting means, those who still believe, and rightly so, in liberty and democracy. The recent tragic happenings in Hungary, which have struck horror in the hearts of all Canadians without exception, and all peoples of the free world prove to what extent world freedom is threatened by communist imperialism. The nameless atrocities wrought upon the Hungarian people, and its tenacious and heroic stand against a powerful aggressor, we should take as a salutary lesson. It is our duty to resort to every legal and democratic means at our disposal to stop, in our own country, the expansion of a fiendish ideology which means the slow but certain death of all freedom.
If there is a steady increase of applications to enter Canada from people imprisoned behind the iron curtain, it is because Canada
The Address-Mr. Dufresne is being recognized as the promised land, the country of the future, where until now the words freedom and democracy have kept their real meaning.
It is absolutely necessary that we legislate in such a way as to preserve, before the other nations of the world, the enviable reputation we have acquired. The present apparent difficulties in Canada's communist party are a mere pretext for the reorganization of that nefarious movement. It seems evident that this reorganization will lead to a more extensive and efficient propaganda. Those traitors to their country will be more active than ever; they will try to introduce, right here in Canada, the improved methods of the Kremlin, to overthrow the democratic regime which has been set up by the will of the people.
In the face of the ever-threatening danger that lies in wait for us, efficient measures must be taken and the lawmakers whose responsibility it is to protect the people whom they represent should do all that is required to provide for all contingencies.
We have no right, in the face of that very real danger, to indulge in apathy or indifference. We owe it to ourselves to take action.
Therefore, I suggest to this government to enact, at this session, even before going to the people to solicit a renewal of their term of office, an act to prevent the spread of the subversive doctrine which is called communism.
In my opinion, there is only one real and efficient way to deal with this constant threat and to check Moscow's fiendish ambition to conquer the whole world and reduce it to slavery, and that is to outlaw communism. When all countries which still honour the democratic way of life have understood their duty in this respect, Moscow will have to change its attitude, and no longer will we have to pity the lot of those who, every day, are victims of those traitors, those turncoats, and I will even say of those murderers.
Our main concern should be to prepare Canada's future by guaranteeing to those who will come after us that priceless heritage which is freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I should like now to make a few suggestions and recommendations regarding the recent strike in the Canadian Pacific Railway, which, over a period of ten days, has cost to thousands of workers a loss of more than seven million dollars in wages, and to the company itself about 14 million dollars in revenue.
I believe that the government did not discharge its duty when it failed to establish, in its Department of Labour, an organization

The Address-Mr. Dufresne designed to devise appropriate methods to meet that modern trend which is called automation, and to protect workers against the loss of their jobs.
The problem of automation did not come up only two weeks ago, for diesel engines did not suddenly appear from a clear sky in yards or on trains.
Little by little a change has been taking place, and for several years we have seen the old steam engines disappear to be replaced by diesels.
About 800 diesel engines are operated today by the Canadian Pacific and three or four years from now, according to experts in this field, the 2,500-odd old steam engines will have completely vanished.
Progress cannot be fought or halted, I am sure; but what has the government done in order to avoid the disastrous consequences that have been felt during the recent strike of the Canadian Pacific, which has fortunately been stopped, though it is far from being finally settled.
It is high time that the government consider this serious problem of automation, which has also come up on the National Railways. As a matter of fact, I read a few days ago in a Montreal paper that 112 employees of the Canadian National Railways in Newfoundland would be laid off because of the change-over from steam to diesel engines.
So, Mr. Speaker, these so-called experts of the department concerned should be put to work without delay, and these out-of-date methods which have been used for every problem which has cropped up in the last 15 years should be set aside. The time has come for a reform in the Department of Labour. Times have changed. Machines have been improved and modernized, and it is time too, that the government modernize its negotiation and conciliation machinery in order to do justice to all concerned.
A policy of wait-and-see and non-interference such as that followed by this government is out of place in a country like Canada which is advancing with giant strides.
Mr. Speaker, last November the cost of living index in Canada reached an all-time high for this country. And, at a time when the Canadian people are still hard-pressed to balance the family budget, the government is piling up huge surpluses. There is something wrong there indeed. In his forthcoming statement the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) will most likely tell us that not only has the government managed to balance its budget, but that it even has a surplus of several hundred millions. This will be indeed an optimistic statement on the eve of a general election.

Everyone will recognize however that if the government is able to announce surpluses of several hundred millions, it can only mean that it has been levying on the people of Canada, in other words on the taxpayers, so many more millions than were actually needed for the administration of the affairs of our country. If, as some rumours have it, the government has no intention of relieving the taxpayer from the heavy taxes that are imposed on him, it is its duty to return to the people, in some manner, those amounts it has overcharged in the form of taxes.
It is said that taxes are levied upon the people to be returned in some other form, which is a very fundamental of a true democracy. A government is not a business which has to pile up profits.
Indeed, in the face of such a situation, and on the eve of general elections, the Liberal government will no doubt want to attract the vote of the electorate.
It is more than ever time that the government pity the lot of what we have closest at heart in Canada, our human capital.
Since I have been sitting in this house, Mr. Speaker, I have not let a session go by without advocating a substantial increase in old age pensions and family allowances. Unlike the members who sit on the other side of the house, I did not wait for the last session of parliament to make those requests.
I wish to say again that the amount of $40 paid to our senior citizens who have no other income, is clearly insufficient in view of the high cost of living. It is quite impossible for a person eligible for this pension and who has to manage with nothing else but that meager allowance, to get shelter, clothing, and food, and to avail himself of the medical care which is usually needed at that age. This contention is true not only in the case of those whom death has not yet separated, but also in the case of those men and women who, because they have no relatives, seek shelter in our religious institutions which so generously devote themselves to the safeguard and upkeep of the older people who are homeless or who have no relatives. For those religious institutions, as well as for every Canadian citizen, the cost of living has been ever increasing, and it is only through numerous privations and sacrifices that they manage to avoid bankruptcy. This disaster would have certainly occurred in the case of several of them, without the generous grants made by our provincial government.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that by drawing from those huge surpluses, it will be possible to alleviate the burden of our older citizens,

who have so largely contributed during their lives, to the expansion and prosperity of Canada.
The same thing applies to family allowances. I repeat what I have said so many times, either in this house or outside. At their present level, and in view of the fact the cost of living has been increasing ever since they were set up, family allowances no longer perform the function for which they were created, and it is more than ever time to proceed to a just and fair adjustment.
In asking for these adjustments I voice more particularly the wishes of those who elected me as their representative in this house and who, for the most part, are members of large families. I say that by protecting the family, which is a sacred institution, we will be protecting the whole community.
Mr. Speaker, there is not a member of this house who does not know that, due to the increasingly centralizing policy of the federal government, our municipal governments, especially in these last few years, have been facing great financial difficulties.
As a rule, I am against a system of grants from the federal government in exchange for services rendered by the municipalities. I believe that the government should set an example and discharge its responsibilities in the same way as any other taxpayer living in a municipality. I am therefore opposed to grants. I favour especially the payment of taxes by the federal government to municipalities on the basis of the municipal assessment. Besides, that is the law which applies to all the ratepayers of my municipality, and those of all municipalities in Canada.
I should thus like to underline the situation of the city of Quebec which comprises the constituency I have the honour to represent here. During the financial year 19531954, whereas any ratepayer paid $1.50 per hundred dollars of assessment, the federal government held buildings and properties in Quebec city which were assessed by the municipality at $26,158,584.
In other words if, at that time, the government had paid at the same rate as every other taxpayer, it would have remitted an amount of $392,378.76 by way of municipal taxes.
However, until this year, the city of Quebec has received only the sum of $47,000 from the federal government by way of municipal taxes, or grants, as they are called by the federal government. Some time later, a block on the site of which I hope the new post office of Quebec will shortly be erected, was destroyed by a fire, and the town thereby lost the $45,000 in municipal taxes it had received until then. In other words between
The Address-Mr. Dujresne the $47,000 paid in grants by the federal government to the city of Quebec, and this sum of $45,000 which has been a total loss to the municipality, there was just $2,000 left for the city treasury.
Mr. Speaker, the amounts I have just mentioned cover only the municipal assessment, that is the tax that any other citizen has to pay; they do not at all include services such as snow removal and water-works. The federal government still owes the city of Quebec a sum of $200,000 for snow removal, that is $1.60 per $100 of municipal assessment.
How is it that the federal government puts itself in a privileged situation when it should be setting an example to the citizens of this country? How is it that religious institutions and church councils pay the snow removal tax to the city of Quebec while the federal government consistently refuses to discharge that obligation. In fact last December-at the end of December if I remember correctly-the Quebec municipal council decided to take proceedings against the federal government to recover the said amount of $200,000 to which it is entitled.
The strangest thing about it, 'however, is that for many years the city of Quebec has been providing federal government buildings with regular municipal services and supplying water to the National Harbours Board. The National Harbours Board resells that water to different maritime companies, in Quebec harbour, at 50 cents a thousand gallons. Yet, it is said that the National Harbours Board, another government institution, owes more than $900,000 to the city of Quebec (almost one million dollars in water rates) a sum which it consistently refuses to pay. Moreover, everybody-at least everybody living in Quebec-knows that proceedings have been instituted for the collection of that sum.
That is the fine example given by the federal government to the rest of the country. It is supplied with water for its own buildings in Quebec city; the National Harbours Board uses the water of the city of Quebec, for which it refuses to pay and, even worse, it resells that water to navigation companies whose ships come into our port. And the National Harbours Board loses no time in taking proceedings against navigation companies which do not pay.
I can hardly understand such an attitude on the part of the federal government when the government of the province of Quebec, which also has buildings in the city, pays taxes and pays for waterworks and snow removal. In fact, I believe that the last bill

The Address-Mr. Dufresne paid by the provincial government to the city of Quebec for snow removal amounted, for this year, to $108,000.
This condition is not limited to the city of Quebec; the same situation exists in the little town of Quebec West, which I have the honour of representing. They have tried, by every means at their disposal, to get paid for snow removal and for other services offered by the city to the federal government but the federal government has consistently refused to pay. Today, probably for the purpose of compensating this heavy debt owing to the city of Quebec and to Quebec West, the federal government speaks about increasing the grants already given.
I want to be fair and I should say that for the past two years, as of 1954, federal grants to the city of Quebec, which formerly amounted to $47,000, were increased to $80,000, but that amount hardly represents a fifth of the municipal assessment of the various buildings belonging to the federal government in the city of Quebec. If the federal government was assessed on the same basis as any other ratepayer of the city, it would pay more than $400,000, because the assessment has gone up since 1954 and, according to the assessment roll for the financial year 1956-1957, its buildings and properties have a total value of $27,775,000.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the government will realize the need for helping the city of Quebec, the capital of my province, and at the same time all municipalities which, as a result of that system of grants invented by the federal government, are faced with dire financial difficulties.
The Quebec government recently made a yearly $250,000 grant to the city of Quebec in order to help it to balance its budget over the next ten years. To this grant must be added the taxes which it pays to the city of Quebec, plus the cost of snow removal, plus the water tax, which it also pays. By way of comparison let us point out that the federal government has been paying about $80,000 for the past two years whereas, to be exactly on the same footing as every other taxpayer in Quebec, it should be paying over $400,000 yearly.
Those are the few observations that I wanted to offer today, Mr. Speaker. I have done so in all sincerity and I hope that the government which is still presiding over the
[Mr. Dulresne.l

destinies of this country will understand the need for helping the municipalities to the extent that they must be helped.
Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for the particular attention they have paid me, and I hope that the government will receive in the spirit in which they have been given the representations and recommendations which I have had the honour of presenting to the house today.
(Text):


Mr. A. R. Lusby (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks I wish to join so many others who have extended felicitations to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne upon the very excellent manner in which they discharged their duties. I know it is more or less a recognized custom, followed, I think, generally by all parties, thus to congratulate the mover and seconder of this address; but I base my congratulations, Mr. Speaker, not upon any custom or tradition that may attach to the matter but upon the fact that each of those hon. members acquitted himself admirably and made a very real contribution to this debate. Since they come from widely separated parts of the country, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona from the west, and the hon. member for Gloucester from the east, they have shown clearly by the excellence of their addresses that there is an amplitude of talent among the younger Canadians-I use the term comparatively, of course-in public life today who will be the leaders tomorrow. I think that is something that augurs well for the future of this country.
It is, I know, Mr. Speaker, a matter of real regret to all of us that the Hon. George Drew, after years of arduous public service, has been compelled for reasons of health to retire from the leadership of his party and from his membership in this house. I should like to wish him well in the future and I think we shall all join in that wish.
I take this opportunity, however, to offer my congratulations to the new leader of the official opposition upon his elevation to that responsible post. Whether he is, as his new followers proclaim, and as the previous speaker in effect so confidently asserted a few moments ago, the long awaited genuine Moses who will lead the party out of the

political wilderness into the promised land is, of course, quite another matter and I am afraid that that is very much dependent upon whether he has the ability of the original Moses to work miracles. I know he will undoubtedly attempt some vigorous smiting upon the rock of Canadian public opinion which has proved so singularly obdurate to the efforts of his predecessors; but I gather from the latest Tory platform he will be using very much the same old rod.
One feature of the speech from the throne, it seems to me, is that it demonstrates that we are advancing steadily along the path of full national maturity. The establishment of a Canada Council for the arts, humanities and social sciences, to give a new impetus to the development of Canadian-and I hope distinctively Canadian-scholarship and culture is a strong indication of this. And I approve wholeheartedly the proposed substantial increase in grants to Canadian universities. In this day a country which neglects its institutions of higher learning will inevitably consign itself to national weakness and obscurity, and it may well be to national ruin.
In this connection I should like to make just two observations. First, I hope that the system of allocating these grants according to the respective provincial populations will be abandoned in favour of an allocation based upon the number of university students in each province. In my own province of Nova Scotia a widespread regard for learning and a deep appreciation of its worth bring a relatively high percentage of our population to our universities. In addition, however, the fine reputation which those universities enjoy draws large numbers of enrolments from beyond our borders, so that the proportion of students to the total provincial population becomes, of course, correspondingly greater and in effect, therefore, the current system of allocation of grants among the provinces, based, as it is, upon the total populations of those provinces rather than upon their relative student population, it seems to me, has the effect of penalizing our Nova Scotia universities for those very standards of excellence which are their pride and which they should be most strongly encouraged to maintain.
My second observation in this field ought properly to be addressed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) who is absent at the moment. In fact, it arises indirectly out of a speech delivered by him at my alma mater, Acadia University, some months ago. Although I was not present I am informed that the minister very eloquently stressed the
The Address-Mr. Lusby value of higher education and pointed out the need to foster its pursuit.
The high level of employment opportunity obtaining in this country under the beneficent policies of the present government enables many young Canadians, whose parents would otherwise find it difficult or impossible to meet the expense, to attend college by working during their vacations and in numerous cases by taking part time employment during the term. By and large students with the ambition and energy to do this are of the most desirable type and deserve every encouragement in their efforts.
The student is subject to taxation upon his earned income in exactly the same manner as anybody else but in addition, if he earns $750 or very slightly more in any one year, a modest enough sum today, a parent assisting him through college loses the benefit of even the small taxation exemption of $400 of income allowed that parent in respect of the student.
A friend of mine who is engaged in assisting his sons through college happened to hear the minister speak at Acadia and suggested to me at a much later date that the tax situation I have outlined calls for a generous revision to provide a stronger incentive for such young people to attend college and for their parents to send them. My friend added that it gave the minister an excellent chance to practise what he had been preaching. I accordingly recommend this matter to the careful and I hope sympathetic consideration of the Minister of Finance.
The proposal contained in the speech from the throne to renew on a revised and increased basis the federal program of grants to provincial governments in aid of technical and vocational training is a thoroughly commendable one. The training of skilled workmen is essential for the continuing development of this country and indeed it is forecast in the preliminary report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects to which I shall make further reference that the present shortage in this connection is likely to continue indefinitely. Thus the recipient of such training stands in a strong position with regard to employment opportunity, a position infinitely stronger than that of the unskilled labourer.
Let me say here, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion there is a very real need for a vocational training school in my home town of Amherst, a leading industrial centre of the maritimes. If such a school were located there it would serve not only that town but all the

The Address-Mr. Lusby other communities in my constituency. Although the location of these schools is primarily a matter for the provincial government I hope the proposed increase in federal aid for technical and vocational training may in some measure hasten the establishment of such a school in Amherst.
As the speech from the throne noted, parliament met under the shadow, now removed, of the railway strike. I shall say nothing more concerning this than that its speedy settlement with no element of compulsion is a signal tribute to the tact, patience and fair-mindedness of the Prime Minister in pursuing, successfully as it has turned out, every reasonable avenue toward a peaceful and voluntary solution. It is unfortunate, of course, that now we on the government side of the house shall never know what the members of the official opposition really wanted by way of that direct governmental action for which they so stridently clamoured at the beginning of the session. However, I do not think they know either.
The speech from the throne stated that the preliminary report of the royal commission on the economic prospects of Canada, the Gordon commission, would shortly be laid before us, and it is now in our hands. In general it forecasts for Canada as a whole that great and brilliant future which we all hope and pray she will enjoy. The prophecies for 1980 including a population of over 26J millions, a gross national product triple that of today, an average individual income two-thirds again as much as at present, must gladden the heart of every Canadian. However, I need hardly say that the section of the report to which I turned with most interest is that dealing with the Atlantic provinces and their special problems.
I gather from what certain speakers have let fall in this debate that they consider the report, in so far as it deals with the Atlantic provinces, unexpectedly pessimistic. I do not regard it in that light; I think rather that it is a frank recognition and preliminary appraisal of problems and difficulties which we all know, or certainly all of us from the Atlantic provinces know, have confronted our section of the country for many years.
It is not news, for example, that although real income per capita in the maritimes over the past 30 years has increased at a higher rate than the average for the other provinces of Canada, the average income in the Atlantic provinces remains less than it is in the other six provinces. It is not news that the Nova Scotia coal industry so vital in the economy of the province in spite of a degree of improvement during the last two years faces a

difficult and uncertain future; that our agriculture, as indeed agriculture elsewhere in Canada and abroad, has failed to attain the level of prosperity enjoyed by other sectors of the economy; that for the Atlantic provinces the problem of freight rates and transportation is a thorny and formidable one. None of these things is news. But I think the report by implication at least places squarely before us and clearly emphasizes the fact that the problems of the Atlantic provinces are not merely the concern of those provinces only; they are properly the concern of all Canada to be grappled with accordingly. How bright can the whole Canadian picture be if a substantial part remains in shadow?
At the time of confederation and for a considerable period thereafter, the maritime provinces were fully as prosperous as Ontario and Quebec. For this reason, perhaps, the founding fathers failed to envisage a situation in which the general economy of any one region would begin to lag substantially behind that of the remainder of the country, and failed to devise and embody in the British North America Act any specific provisions to cope with such a situation if it should occur. When it did occur, as it began to do well before the turn of the century, it was only slowly and fitfully that the realization dawned that there was a definite responsibility upon the Canadian nation as a whole to try to correct, in some substantial degree at least, any serious economic imbalance of its various segments.
Such measures as the Maritime Freight Rates Act, the coal subventions, the assistance in moving feed grains from west to east, the adjustments in provincial grants-these were and are indications of a gradually awakening sense of that responsibility; but it cannot yet be said that that responsibility has been elevated, as it should be, to the status of a comprehensive and permanent national policy. This preliminary report of the Gordon commission, in its discussion of the Atlantic provinces and their peculiar problems, indicates, to my mind, that the time has come for the adoption of precisely such a broad national policy. Without a wider measure of federal participation in the solving of their problems, the Atlantic provinces can hardly hope to launch any really satisfactory offensive against those problems.
Does not the report in its optimism with regard to the rest of Canada and its future show clearly that now, far more than ever before, the economic, financial, and industrial resources of the country as a whole are or are imminently becoming entirely adequate for the task, admittedly not a light one, of implementing such a broad policy as I have

mentioned? I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), that pre-eminent and much maligned architect of Canadian economic expansion, a man who never thinks in small terms, if, having read this report, they do not believe that the resources of the Canadian nation are fully equal to this task, without undue strain upon or injustice to any of the more favoured provinces.
If Canada is to achieve a true and balanced greatness that task must be not only undertaken but accomplished. It must be undertaken in the light of the statement on page 99 of the report, that what is required for the reduction in the differential between living standards in the Atlantic provinces and those in the rest of Canada-the report points out that it is in everyone's interest to reduce this differential-is not ad hoc projects and handouts but a positive and comprehensive approach to the problem of the Atlantic region. With that statement I agree, subject to the reservation that there are numerous specific projects in the Atlantic provinces which although their benefits might not extend equally to all parts of the region or might even affect only a small area could and should properly be undertaken as part of a sweeping program of improvement for the whole region.
I think the tenor of the report regarding the approach to the problems of the Atlantic provinces is consonant with certain remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to the Canadian Congress of Labour in April last, I believe in Toronto. On that occasion the Prime Minister said:
In some areas, particularly in the Atlantic provinces, efforts on what we might call economic redevelopment seem to be desirable. During this past year in meeting with provincial governments I have been impressed with the readiness of representatives from other parts of the country to realize that special measures should perhaps be taken to improve the economy of the Atlantic provinces.
This merits and is receiving attention from many of us; however, the initiative and the ideas, the energies and determination to accomplish this redevelopment cannot originate in other parts of Canada, they must come from the Atlantic area itself. It will then be for us elsewhere to co-operate and help to make such ideas and efforts fruitful in providing better opportunities for workers in those areas.
I believe that those statements of the Prime Minister if properly considered and acted upon can be taken as a first brief draft of a new economic Magna Carta for the Atlantic provinces. That the initiative, the ideas, the energy and the determination should come from those provinces themselves is entirely reasonable, but I suggest that the various provincial governments should not be regarded as the only channels for proposing
The Address-Mr. husby action. Such a body as the Atlantic provinces economic council, which is already showing itself capable of rendering signal services to the Atlantic region, might well be made, perhaps with federal representation added for the purpose, an official clearing house for the appraisal and evaluation of projects laid before it from any source and the recommendation or otherwise of such projects for attention in the proper operative quarter. Any broad program such as I have mentioned for the strengthening of the economy of the Atlantic region must certainly have among its major objectives the improvement and stabilization of the Nova Scotia coal industry and of agriculture.
When I speak of the Nova Scotia coal industry it is with the realization that our national life consists of far more than the stolid economic facts which reports such as the one I have been mentioning necessarily make their chief concern. My thoughts turn to the great and tragic calamity which befell the town of Springhill in my constituency at the beginning of last November when a shattering and fiery explosion in one of the two coal mines which are the chief and only important industry of the town brought on a disaster ranking among the worst in Canadian mining history. The story is well known across the country because it received great publicity, but nonetheless I think it is only fitting that in my first speech in this chamber during this session I should make reference to it and express the emotions of shock, horror, sorrow and sympathy which I shared in common with everyone in Cumberland county and Nova Scotia and, I am sure, with all other Canadians at the news of the disaster and ultimately the loss of some two score lives.
Very vividly I remember those days, first when it seemed that not a miner of all those in the pit would emerge alive and later when, through the desperate, death-scorning exertions of the rescue crews and the resourcefulness of the trapped men themselves, the greater number of those below finally reached the surface in safety.
Courage was the common attribute, among rescued and rescuer alike. I have had the honour, as have others, of making representations to the Department of the Secretary of State concerning the recognition of outstanding feats of leadership, daring and determination during those dreadful hours. It is my sincere hope and expectation that fitting awards will be made. They will honour, not only those on whom they may be personally bestowed but the many others who took part in the stirring rescue, and indeed all the citizens of the stricken and valiant town who
256	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Lusby so uniformly revealed in the face of catastrophe and grief the most admirable qualities of composure and unwavering fortitude. I add only that these people are Canadians, the finest of Canadians, who, in the struggle to maintain that industry upon which their livelihood depends, merit fully the attention and assistance of the government of this vast, rich and rapidly developing country, which is their country also.
The special study on the Nova Scotia coal industry, which is to be published separately for the Gordon commission, I assume will set forth in much greater detail than is done in the preliminary report the difficulties facing the industry as well as all the available and feasible means of combatting them. Later in the session there will no doubt be an opportunity to discuss the subject at length in this chamber, presumably on the estimates of the dominion coal board. At the present time I wish to pursue it only to the extent of placing on record my approval of the recommendation in the preliminary report that special subsidies be made available for Nova Scotia coal used to generate thermal power in the Atlantic region. This is not a new proposition; it has been vigorously advocated in the maritimes. In my opinion a reasonable scheme of subsidization for Nova Scotia coal so used would mean a substantial increase in the available market for such coal as well as cheaper electric power for the whole region, which is an urgent need.
I realize of course that even the maximum possible enlargement of this outlet for Nova Scotia coal would by no means provide the complete answer to the industry's marketing needs. Obviously it would not, and there must be no relaxation of efforts to assist the industry to maintain or increase its outlets beyond the Atlantic region, whether in central Canada or elsewhere. Nonetheless, a significant expansion of the market for Nova Scotia coal for the generation of thermal power in the Atlantic region would be of substantial assistance to the industry.
I am the more interested in the recommendation I have mentioned because if it were carried out in conjunction with the proposal contained in the Christie report, published a couple of years back, for an interprovincial grid system covering most of the maritimes, the town of Springhill, being near the geographical centre of the whole area concerned and producing steam coal of excellent quality would, it seems to me, be a natural site for a central pithead power station.
With regard to agriculture, Mr. Speaker, the Senate committee which was envisaged in the speech from the throne to consider


what should be done to make better use of land for agriculture ought to accomplish distinctly valuable results. I assume that its inquiry will include not only the question of making better use of land for agriculture but also the question of taking entirely out of agricultural production marginal and submarginal lands which are fundamentally unfit for efficient farming. I recall that in the budget debate of last year I raised this point with regard to the maritime provinces, stating that the logical course there would be in most instances to apply such lands to reforestation, and I suggested joint federal-provincial participation in a program directed to that end. I should like to say now that I think my suggestion is worthy of serious consideration by the proposed Senate committee.
I wish to make one more point regarding agriculture, Mr. Speaker, before I resume my seat. I should like to submit, as I have done frequently in the past, that the assistance afforded by this government in the movement of feed grains from the west to eastern Canada, and particularly to the Atlantic region, should be given the status of a permanent national policy. I should like further to submit that in view of the rise in freight rates the assistance provided should be made such as to restore in full the benefit it originally gave.
(Translation):


Mr. J. A. Menard (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I would like to join with other honourable members in offering my congratulations to the members for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) and Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) who have respectively moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Their views were expressed objectively and brilliantly, and we must congratulate them on having spoken in both official languages of this country.
Now, I would first like to offer my respectful compliments to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). As a Canadian, I express the wish that for many years to come he retain his health, an assurance of peace and happiness not only to the Canadian people but to every nation in the world who owe so much to the eminent part he has played on the international scene.
It is with great pleasure that I take this first opportunity to congratulate the Prime Minister on the success obtained by him in helping to solve the Canadian Pacific strike. I must also congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on the great part he has played at the United Nations during the Suez canal crisis. Can-

ada's intervention on this occasion will go down in history. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is also entitled to his share of congratulations for the goodwill journey he has just accomplished in Asia.
Looking upon Canada's ever growing prestige throughout the world one cannot help noticing that this prestige has been increased by the extremely wise foreign policy followed by the present government. In the event of a crisis such as the Suez canal crisis of last fall, it is comforting for the whole people to be able to count on the devotion and statesmanlike qualities of those who are at the head of the Canadian Liberal party.
I must say that I am happy to be a supporter of such a dynamic and enterprising government, a government which is desirous of favouring, by every means at its disposal, the perfect development of our natural resources which, at this time, still have an unlimited value.
In my own constituency, which comprises the counties of St. Jean, Iberville and Napier-ville, I think that we have widely benefited from the prosperity which our country generally enjoys at this time. If the gross national product now exceeds 29 billion dollars I am happy to say that everybody in my constituency, producers, manufacturers, tradesmen, farmers and workers have contributed more than their share in attaining this very high figure which is the envy of every other nation in. the world. Mr. Speaker, at this time the construction of a new post office which will be named the Alcide Cote building is well under way. I hope that the opening or blessing of this building will provide an opportunity for members of the cabinet and other honourable members to visit my constituents who, I am sure, would be greatly honoured by such a token of consideration.
Since the opening of the College Militaire Royal at St. Johns by His Excellency the Governor General, great progress has been accomplished.
At this establishment a number of new buildings are almost completed. I am also aware that other improvements and additions no less important will be carried out in the near future.
Ever since my election to this house, I have endeavoured-and still do-to make this new bilingual school for officers of all arms an institution which will be a credit to the whole of Canada, by the quality of its training as well as by its material aspects.
Aware of the rich military record of the St. Johns area, and wishing to maintain that 82715-17
The Address-Mr. Menard special character to the area, our government acted wisely in establishing there the preliminary training school for all establishments of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Thus, all young people of both sexes enlisting in the R.C.A.F., must make a stay of at least five weeks at the St. Johns station before being posted to other Canadian training or service bases. That training school has its own airport where a private company is entrusted at the present time with the repairs of motor aircraft. Because of the adoption of the turbo-jet aircraft, whose number increases constantly and which in the not too distant future will replace the ordinary piston engine aircraft, I believe that the extension of the runways at St. Johns airport is now a must, in order to allow that company to continue carrying out repairs and maintenance of the latest aircraft models in St. Johns. Incidentally, I wish to point out that we have in my constituency expert and skilled labour. That progress is illustrated by the fact that in the past ten years this important company, one of the best equipped in the country for that type of work, has increased its staff from 40 to 460 employees.
Moreover, from a strategic point of view, military authorities recognize St. Johns airport, because of its proximity to the city of Montreal, like the base at St. Hubert, as indispensable to better protect the island of Montreal. All the more reason then to carry out the extension of the runways so that aircraft of all types may have access to St. Johns airport.
I am pleased to point out that the property sold to the city of St. Johns by the federal government about ten years ago, is already occupied by two industries employing more than 350 people. Part of the property is taken up by the arts and trades school. A municipal stadium has also been built there and a large area reserved for a civic centre.
I therefore thank sincerely those who have co-operated directly or indirectly to all this progress in my constituency; they have all my gratitude.
Mr. Speaker, among several important projects, there are two in my constituency which I have particularly at heart. One concerns the dredging of the Richelieu river channel to a depth of 14 feet. That project was put under way back in 1938 through the building of the dam at Fryer island, which was carried out that same year. It seems that the last war was the main cause of the interruption of the works, but I believe that it is time now to continue and complete this important undertaking.

The Address-Mr. Menard
As regards the other project which I favour, it has to do with the building of a canal of a total length of about 14 miles to connect St. Johns and Laprairie as well as the St. Lawrence seaway with the Richelieu river.
This new waterway would allow ships to travel between New York and Montreal, or the great lakes, and thus avoid a distance of more than a thousand miles. I am convinced that the construction and maintenance costs of such a canal would be perfectly justified since heavy shipments of all kinds of goods could be carried through that new waterway.
At the national level, I believe that the two greatest achievements of this government have been the construction of the trans-Canada pipe line and the St. Lawrence seaway project. By themselves, these two undertakings show in no uncertain way that our present leaders are eager to achieve national economic unity.
In all fields, Canada is asserting itself more and more among other older and more populated nations. One cannot emphasize too much the creditable achievements of Canadian delegations throughout the world, for the enhancement of Canada's prestige.
This country, which certain people were pleased to refer to as "a few acres of snow", has had a phenomenal expansion through the unceasing work of our hardy pioneers, explorers, technicians and enlightened businessmen. Let us thank Providence for so many blessings.
From the Atlantic to the Pacific, throughout our country, and even up to the confines of the Arctic, this intense development has been made possible through a systematic organization of transport and communications by land, sea and air. Very few countries, in proportion to their population, can boast of such achievements. The economic future of our country is now secure thanks precisely to the efficient policies advocated by the Liberal government, strengthened by the confidence and the sincere support of all classes of society.
Thanks to the efficient leadership of our Right Hon. Prime Minister, the St. Lawrence Seaway project will very soon become a reality. This gigantic masterpiece of engineering will bring us a new potential of electrical energy which will promote the development of the surrounding districts. Navigation facilities on the rivers and the ocean will now be extended right to the heart of our country.
Is not our Prime Minister himself, by his dynamic personality and his sense of organization, a true symbol of energy? His personal energy could well be compared to that

new source of energy made possible by and resulting from the St. Lawrence Seaway project. One can rightly give him a large part of the credit, since he is responsible for this undertaking.
Let us rejoice at having as leader of the Canadian government a man so eminently qualified to guide the destinies of this country. May God give him long life so that Canada may benefit for a long time from his broad experience. I also wish that he will be able to keep counting upon his present valuable and devoted colleagues, in the best interests of the Canadian nation.
When listening to the speech from the throne, I have been very happy to see, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian government which has done much for our farmers in eastern Canada, proposes to establish a senate committee for the purpose of increasing, through scientific means, the agricultural output of this area.
I wish to assure my friends, the farmers of St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, that I am going to follow very closely the most important work of this committee, so as to make all possible benefits available to them, because no one has a keener desire than I have of seeing them happier and more prosperous.
I also wish to join the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon) who, in his speech of January 10 last, urged the government to increase family allowances. The young people we are helping today are the men of tomorrow.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, let me once again express my sincere thanks to my electors for the honour they have conferred upon me by choosing me as their representative in this Canadian parliament. (Text):


Mr. Ambrose Holowach (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) and the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) who initiated this debate by moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Representing as I do a constituency adjoining that of the mover, I was naturally glad to hear him make favourable reference to and acknowledgment of the accomplishments in our community of Edmonton and in the province of Alberta generally.
Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by saying what an inspiring task it is for us to be able to rise in our places in this chamber and, without any fear or hindrance, conscientiously express our opinions. That is something I intend to do. I think it is good that we should contemplate this freedom, because

it sums up very well the purpose of parliament and the history and destiny of this nation. There is conclusive evidence that in the world struggle between our way of life and the regimented way of life the greatest advantage we have is our political freedom. This advantage, I am sure, has restrained many of the uncommitted people in the world from giving credence to the charge that our democracy acts only for the few and that parliament does not represent the will of the people.
This consideration leads me to conclude that we as members have an outstanding task ahead of us. A complete awareness of our responsibilities as members means more than giving lip service to humanity. It means showing our practical concern for the advancement of those political concepts held by our people, and providing our country and all sectors of our society with well-being. Unfortunately this is not the case today.
Perhaps all this sounds like the obvious, but I say it for this reason. It seems to me that much of what has been said thus far by government supporters consists of complimentary remarks with respect to the past accomplishments and record of this government. Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada are not interested in platitudes. Of that fact I am sure. They are too greatly concerned with the bread and butter issues which dominate their daily life. That being so, they insist that we, their representatives, do something and come to grips with these problems.
I am not accusing individuals or this government of being indifferent to this concept, but why have we not read in the speech from the throne or heard from government spokesmen what policies this government proposes in order to resolve the acute problems of burdensome taxation which the people of Canada have been carrying for such a long time; inflation; the ever-increasing costs of living; the insecurity and frustration which face our aged, the handicapped, the blind and the veterans? What about our debt, personal, municipal and national? What about the problem of the municipalities pressed to the wall by acute financial problems? What about the discriminatory freight rates which hit hardest at the province from which I come and which inflict hardship on everyone located there? What about the dilemma in which the working man finds himself in his efforts to provide security for his family in the face of ever-mounting costs of living? How about the farmer's problem and the dilemma of the small businessman?
82715-17J
The Address-Mr. Holowach
Of course, limitation of time will prevent me from discussing all these problems in detail. However, I am sure that many of my colleagues will elaborate on them. I therefore propose to speak on the need for solutions to those problems that are upon us at this time with terrible urgency. We live in challenging times, and there are very serious problems that face this nation and our people. What about the heavy tax levies with which the people of Canada are burdened? Our present taxation polices make it virtually impossible for people to save. Our present taxation policies make it impossible for people to pay cash for the things they need in order to sustain a proper standard of living. Our present taxation policies are paralysing the incentive and the initiative of our people.
Is it any wonder that instalment credit buying in our country has reached an alltime high? What is instalment credit buying if not a symptom of insufficient purchasing power in the hands of our people, much of which has been arbitrarily removed by the taxation policies of the Liberal government, necessitating the people plunging themselves into debt when they buy. At a time when there is every evidence that some tax relief is essential to offset the credit squeeze the present government persists in denying such tax relief.
The point I make is simple. The continuation of high taxation will result in decreased production and a continuation of inflation. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we all know that when taxes become burdensome, as they are today, they become inflationary. The heavy load of the various taxes incorporated into the prices of goods has raised those prices to an all-time high. In my opinion hidden taxes are a major source of our inflationary problems. In this connection may I quote from an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune of June 12, 1956. It is entitled, "Hidden Taxes Rob us Blind".
Loudest wails by the taxpayers are usually reserved for the amounts they have to cough up in personal income tax, but the truth is that indirect taxes take nearly twice as much from them during the course of a year.
The 1955-56 breakdown on federal revenues showed a total of $1,180 millions from personal income tax, and a return to the government of $2,028,400,000 from all indirect taxes.
Writing in the current issue of Liberty magazine, Fred Edge, a Toronto newspaper man who sometimes corresponds for the Tribune, points out that Ottawa's tax bite goes on everything from diaper pins to coffins. He gives some examples including $450 excise and sales taxes on a $2,600 automobile; $3.16 for provincial and dominion governments on a bottle of Canadian-made rye that is worth 84 cents; $87 on a $350 electric range and 17 cents on each package of cigarettes, or $62.05 a year at the rate of a package a day. In his article Mr. Edge makes a number of points that the Tribune has hammered home for several years-for example,

The Address-Mr. Holowach he advises retailers to show the amount of hidden taxes concealed in a selling price so that the blame may be assigned to the government rather than to the merchants, and he complains about the viciousness of tax on tax and cites the case of a new suit made of imported material on which there is a $5 customs duty. As the suit passes through various hands in reaching the customer, there is a 10 per cent retail sales tax on a 10 per cent wholesale sales tax on a 10 per cent excise tax on the $5 customs duty charged on $30 worth of imported material. Mr. Edge comments: "Besides this pyramiding of the original customs duty, each successive sales tax pyramids similarly on preceding sales taxes."
The statement is made that hidden tax revenue is higher now than ever before in Canada's history, and one of the most revealing statements with which most taxpayers are familiar by now is that the automobile industry in Canada turned over $172 million to the dominion government in sales and excise taxes on new cars-taxes paid by the customers-and yet the total payroll of the automobile industry was $154 million, which is $18 million less than the taxes total.
All this is going on, Mr. Speaker, at a time when the federal government is raking in a huge budgetary surplus. The article goes on:
Under the present Liberal-socialist government there is no escaping these heavy taxes, direct and indirect, and there is certainly no demonstrated application of economy by a government that is heavy with 20 years of power. As Mr. Edge wound up his article: "The government last year pocketed roughly $1 million on the hidden sales tax on coffins."
No fair-minded Canadian resents paying a fair share of taxes to enable the government to function properly, but taxing all of the people all of the time has become a habit of the Liberal government. Tax, spend and be re-elected; get in and stay in; never mind the little taxpayer. That is the motto of this government today. The jungle of taxation has invaded every single field of human endeavour and resulted in the greatest centralization of power the people of Canada have ever had. Income tax, corporate tax, excise tax, sales tax, direct taxes and indirect taxes-the ruthlessness of this taxation system is seen in the fact that last year the government hauled in hidden sales taxes on coffins a sum totalling $1 million.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that every single Canadian, every labourer in Canada, works several months each year to sustain our oversized government. Of course, the question arises, but where are we going to get the money to pay for the expenditures of the federal government? The answer is simple; by economizing and instituting stringency and frugality into every government department. Is it morally right that the experts in the financial department of this government should cry to the high heavens that it is immoral for people to spend more than they earn, yet this government does nothing about

trimming its own colossal spending spree? One of the most fallacious arguments of the orthodox financiers is that the government can obtain high revenues only if it has high taxation. A law of economics provides, and there are many examples, that as long as there is improved consumer demand for goods and services in our country, and this is the case today, the government can obtain high revenues with reasonable taxation by reason of the turnover created by this very consumer demand.
Let me just illustrate my point. In 1954 the United States government slashed taxes by some $7 billion. Did that result in a depression? Did that result in insufficient revenues to the government so it could not function properly? On the contrary, it resulted in the greatest spurt in the economy of that country. It resulted in added revenues to the government. Incidentally, much of that prosperity in the United States spilled over into our economy by way of capital investment in our natural resources development. Suffice it to mention the remarkable recovery of the republic of West Germany. A few years ago she stood among the bankrupt nations of the world, amidst the rubble of bankruptcy. Today West Germany stands as an example of economic stability. The lesson to be learned is that by economizing and making drastic cuts in the taxation laws Germany has achieved this enviable position. The need for substantial tax reductions is widespread and acknowledged.
In a news letter issued by the department of economic development of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in December reference is made to a poll conducted by the Canadian institute of public opinion. I quote:
To check on the mood of the people In a preelection period the Canadian institute of public opinion asked this question on taxes:
"Do you consider the amount of federal income tax which you have, or your husband has, to pay as too high, about right or too low?"
The answers showed that across the country 62 per cent of Canadians felt that federal income taxes were too high at this time. Thirty-three per cent said they were about right and 5 per cent were noncommittal.
Sir, we Social Crediters in parliament have consistently advocated and we shall continue to propose that a complete overhaul of our taxation system and its laws be undertaken immediately. We urge clarification of the interpretation of many of our existing laws respecting taxation. We urge that those taxes which are restrictive to consumption and productive free enterprise be reduced or abolished as a stimulus to greater consumption and production.
What about the mounting debt of our nation? Canada's gross national debt stood at

$3,710,610,592 as of March 31, 1939. It rose to the colossal figure of $17 billion as of March 31, 1952. In 1956 it reached the staggering figure of over $19 billion. Mr. Speaker, is this not a matter of serious concern to every Canadian and to the members of parliament? If we add to this gross national debt the personal debt of our people, the municipality and provincial debts, we have a debt picture such as no other nation of 16 million has ever had in its history.
In all fairness, the people of Canada ask, is this an example of the businesslike efficient management which the people are entitled to have in their senior government? It is a situation, I believe, which should alarm even the most unwary. Clearly it is a situation which alarms every thoughtful Canadian, when he learns that between the fiscal years 1868 and 1953, $8,045,608,184.29 of his taxes went to pay the interest charges on the national debt. The source of my information is page 1067 of Hansard of January 13, 1954, where a question appearing on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) was answered officially. To comprehend the implication of such a huge debt is to consider that approximately $500 million of the taxpayers' money is required yearly to pay the interest charges alone. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if any private enterprise, any private business in Canada, imitated even remotely the fiscal policies of this government, it could not very long survive.
Well, what should we do? We have not to look very far for an answer. Look at what is being accomplished in the province of Alberta under a Social Credit administration. In 1935 Alberta stood in the midst of a depression and was actually economically bankrupt. The treasury was empty. Previous Liberal and U.F.A. governments left us an inheritance of $167 million of debt. A population of fewer than a million was left with that debt. At that time it took 51 cents out of every dollar collected by our treasury to pay the interest on the debt; and to add insult to injury Ottawa declared our province credit unworthy. We were financially boycotted.
What were we to do? We started putting our affairs in order by implementing the Social Credit principle that a nation cannot tax or borrow itself into prosperity. We accepted the precept that the establishment and preservation of justice and equity for all men calls for a stop to the strangling power of debt. Armed with this belief, and with the most careful type of economizing, we overcame the difficult situation. Today
The Address-Mr. Holowach Albertans point with pride to the fact that we are the only province in Canada that in 21 years has not borrowed one cent. In addition we have repaid the major bulk of that debt, and for all practical purposes today we are virtually debt-free, another first for Alberta.
Sir, Social Credit members have consistently pointed to the need for a progressive reduction and eventual liquidation of the public debt. There are, of course, many other areas of national importance in which progressive thinking is required at the federal level. What is the present government doing to alleviate the precarious financial position of municipal governments throughout the country?


Mr. Byrne:: What is Alberta doing?


Ambrose A. Holowach: I will tell you right away. On November 23, 1956, the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities urged the federal government to call a federal-provincial-municipal conference to discuss acute problems in municipal finance. In their brief of 25 pages they pointed out the financial plight of municipalities as being, and I quote-
-a matter of national concern and as such should be regarded as a matter of national importance.
Are we to take it that the proposed legislation outlined in the speech from the throne is the Liberal answer to this serious problem, a proposal which says that the Liberal government has finally agreed to pay municipal taxes on crown property in certain municipalities?
One of the most erroneous concepts that is being spread is that the financial problems of municipalities are local problems or provincial problems. Let the provinces solve them. That is passing the buck. That is a concept from the dark ages. Inasmuch as the federal government constitutionally has jurisdiction over monetary policies, the problem connected with municipal finances can only be resolved by a realistic monetary policy at the national level.
During the discussion on the tax rental agreement we fought for a more generous return to the provinces of their own money not only in order to restore stability to them but to enable them to give municipal aid, ensure a proper balance among the three levels of government, to promote decentralization; but no, the federal government is not happy unless it retains 75 cents out of every dollar collected in taxes. I referred to the need for a more equitable distribution of the national revenue. In The Ensign of

The Address-Mr. Holowach
March 24, 1956, there appears a reprint of an article from the Toronto Telegram. I quote:
The plain fact is that while the federal government's needs and costs have increased, provincial and municipal governments have been receiving less and less of the tax dollar. In 1930 the dominion government took 40.5 per cent, while provincial governments received 20.2 per cent and municipal governments 39.3 per cent. Compare this with 70.9 per cent for the dominion in 1951, 17.2 per cent for the provinces, and 11.9 per cent for the municipalities.
Today the Liberal government at Ottawa collects over 75 cents of every tax dollar in our country, leaving only 25 cents of that tax dollar for the provincial and municipal governments. We Social Crediters resent these problems, not only because there is no valid excuse for their existence in our wealthy country but also because we are concerned that if they are left unresolved they will whittle away the independence and incentive of our people. Because they have been left unresolved, these problems little by little are undermining confidence in our way of life. They are forcing our citizenry more and more to accept dependence on an all-powerful central government here at Ottawa.
In spite of these serious problems, Mr. Speaker, the government continues to drum to the country the theme of unprecedented prosperity. "You never had it so good," they say to the people. "Why look at the gross national product; it has reached the $30 billion mark". So what? Naturally we are glad that production is on the increase in Canada, but what difference does it make whether our gross national product reaches the $30 billion, $50 billion or $100 billion mark? The acid test of real prosperity and an enlightened civilization is the financial distribution of that increased wealth. The government has not succeeded in doing this.
What about the aged, the blind, the veterans and the handicapped? Are they sharing in this increased wealth? I refer to these people because if there is any element in our population deserving of special consideration it is our aged, our handicapped and our veterans. In 1951 when their security pension became operative, our gross national product was over $21 billion, and in 1955 it rose to over $26 billion. Today it is close to the $30 billion mark. Why have these people not shared in the increased wealth? What about the dilemma which faces our farmers, who are penalized by uncertainty and reduced incomes for having produced great abundance? What does the government intend to do to correct this basic ill?

What about the small businessman in our communities? The present tight money squeeze deliberately designed by the government to curb expansion has hit him the hardest. This credit squeeze, the hoisting of bank interest rates, has dried up the last available source of bank credit to small businessmen. Previously a small businessman could not borrow all he needed even at high rates of interest, but at the present time with credit slammed shut his case becomes practically hopeless. Canada needs to expand and requires capital with which to do so. We urge that aid to the small businessmen be increased, not destroyed or entirely removed.
What about the coal miners of Nova Scotia and the textile workers who have been suffering chronic unemployment? What about the lumbermen who are facing a similar problem? Are they sharing in our increased prosperity? The truth is that a difference exists between progress and real prosperity. Our present prosperity is artificial; real prosperity results only when the now splendidly rising trend of production is made financially available to all those who need it within our country and abroad.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I wish also to call attention to a situation which has aroused the people of my constituency and every fair-minded Canadian in the country. I refer to the fact that treaty Indians are now being ordered off the Hobbema reserve in Alberta. This has occurred elsewhere as well, and can result only in untold hardship for these native people. Last session I had occasion during consideration of the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to speak of Indian affairs, and at that time I emphasized the fact that Indians should be given a new deal and that this government should do something new and live up to its obligations to the Indians. We all know the Canadian Indians are not only the most poorly fed, poorly housed and poorly clothed of any people in Canada but as demonstrated by the evictions to which I referred they are also the most insecure even on their own reservation. It is time for the minister and his department to show responsibility and take substantial action to amend or change the present laws which permit the expulsion of Indians from their sanctuaries.
Does it make sense that innocent men, women and children are asked to pay the penalty for acts committed by their fathers

or grandfathers? What we have demonstrated in these heartless expulsions is nothing less than a blind insensibility to the human needs of these Indian people. Is it not thought-provoking that on the one hand we welcome Hungarian refugees to this country -and may I add that we are glad to have them with us, because Canada can absorb many people-yet on the other hand evict these native people from their reservations? We welcome the newcomer but evict the old comer, as it were. It is my sincere hope that the minister will recognize this injustice and will act favourably to change the law in order to prohibit further evictions.
Before concluding my remarks I wish to make a brief comment concerning the subamendment moved by the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) and seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). That amendment reads as follows:
That the amendment be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the words "the rights of parliament'' the following words:
"and by reason of their failure to announce legislation establishing a comprehensive and nationwide program of health insurance, with provision for provincial participation."
We intend to support this amendment. We do so because of the importance of the subject with which it deals. On many occasions Social Crediters have emphasized their conviction that there is no greater asset to any nation than the health of its people. This being so, every effort must be made individually by our citizens and collectively through government programs to achieve the highest national standards of health and wellbeing.	[DOT]
As we see it, the national health program should have as its objective making it possible for every citizen of Canada, irrespective of means, to obtain hospitalization, dental and optical services, coupled with a sound health education emphasizing preventive measures. Such a health scheme would develop rapidly and become broader as production and national development make it possible to widen its scope in order to avoid an avalanche of taxes, and without plaguing the nation with embarrassments which would arise from the implementation of such a scheme before adequate trained personnel, hospital and clinical facilities were available.
On the basis of what we read and hear respecting a national health insurance program as envisioned by the C.C.F. party, let me emphasize that the Social Crediters differ
The Address-Mr. Simmons on the basic fundamental approach to this vital undertaking. We oppose the centralization of control. Our approach and our program recognizes (1) a fair share of individual responsibility; (2) that emphasis must be placed on preventive medicine, that is keeping people well; (3) that patients should have a choice of doctors and the program should guarantee no regimentation of medical personnel or hospitals; (4) that the program must be devised by joint co-operation of the municipal, provincial and federal governments; (5) that the administration should rest with the provincial and municipal governments and (6) that adequate federal subsidies must be available in order to keep costs down.


Mr. J. A. Simmons (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to congratulate both the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the motion upon which this debate is based. They both carried out their responsibilities with distinction to themselves and with credit to their respective constituencies. May I just add the comment that the excellent address of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona might have been improved to an even greater extent if he had referred to that land of greater opportunity on which the future prospects, prosperity and growth of Edmonton will largely depend, namely the Canadian north.
I know that hon. members of this house regardless of party are glad to join in welcoming back the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who has just returned from a most successful tour of 15 countries in Asia and Australasia. Accompanied by Mrs. Martin and a capable staff the minister accomplished a strenuous and challenging diplomatic mission in masterful fashion. All must agree that the minister's conduct everywhere reflected great credit on Canada and on what this nation represents in world affairs. I am sure also that Canadians appreciated the very able press coverage of the entire journey provided by the Southam news service through its correspondent Douglas Leiterman.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare upon his arrival in Ottawa was quick to admit that his good-will mission was made much easier by the visits made to Asian countries by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries. Canadians are respected everywhere, not only because of the high calibre of public men who travel to these important parts of the world but also because it is realized that Canada has no selfish ambitions, that Canadians want peace and have shown

The Address-Mr. Simmons themselves to be trusted mediators in disputes between large nations or powers.
I wish to commend also the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for his tireless humanitarian efforts to find sanctuary in this country for as many valiant Hungarians as this country can absorb. His mission to Austria by air before Christmas caught the imagination of all Canadians, and impressed the country with the energy and ability of this young cabinet minister. In this connection I want to draw attention to the splendid work of the officials of his department in welcoming and placing in employment those Hungarians who have been transported thus far to Canada. In particular I wish to pay tribute to Mr.. Bird, the district superintendent of immigration at Vancouver, and his assistants who worked night and day, faithfully and diligently, to encourage and rehabilitate these deserving newcomers to our country.
I want to take advantage of this opening debate of the session to deal with some of the pressing transportation problems in the Yukon. Before I do so I think it would be appropriate to say something about the transportation situation nationally. I am sure all hon. members of the house rejoiced that a formula had been found by which the Canadian Pacific Railway strike was brought to an end. The Prime Minister and Minister of Labour are to be commended upon their mediation efforts to bring about a settlement without having to resort to any kind of compulsory arbitration.
At this critical time in the opening up of the Canadian north the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects has chosen to ignore in its preliminary report the very existence of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. No mention whatever is made by the Gordon commission of any transportation problem, whether it be railway extensions from British Columbia or Alberta, additional highway facilities, or other assistance to the mining industry in the north. Even in the case of national population figures the two northern territories are definitely excluded, just as their problems and possibilities are excluded from the report itself.
Surely no Canadian can look upon this preliminary report and feel otherwise than that the commission has failed to discharge its primary duty and obligation. With the eyes of the world fastened at the present time on the potential greatness of our northern areas it is obvious that the Gordon commission by its silence on this subject has shown a wilful lack of that sort of vision and understanding which made possible the creation and growth of Canada itself. May we still

cherish the hope that the commission's report in its final form will remedy this fundamental weakness and correct what appears to be a total disregard of an area which may well be the future economic salvation of the continent.
In any event the federal government should not hesitate to prove to the rest of the world that Canada does not neglect her northern areas and her northern heritage. I might say that the people of the Yukon have the utmost confidence in the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I want to commend him for his constructive and understanding approach to the many and varied problems which come under his jurisdiction.
I know the minister realizes that the people residing in the north are pioneering the country and paving the way for additional development, and are entitled to the best service, assistance and encouragement the federal government can provide.
To get back to this matter of northern transportation, a glance at the map of northern Canada will serve to show the great benefit and value of an all-weather road from the Yukon across to the Mackenzie river delta and the site of the new Aklavik. I propose to dwell upon the subject of roads in the north, because if the resources of the territories are to be developed it is surely the duty of the federal government to use all possible means to build and maintain proper road communications. Up to the present time the federal government road program in the north has been far from adequate, and has been steadily lacking in awareness of the vital necessity for the accelerated construction of roads which will assist in opening up this important part of Canada.
In this connection I may say that the federal government has seen fit to establish a new road policy in the Yukon to take effect from April 1, 1957. I understand that under this new policy the entire cost of construction of development roads in the territory will be borne by the federal government, and in addition 85 per cent of the cost of the maintenance of those roads will be the responsibility of the federal government, the other 15 per cent to be borne by the territorial government.
Just at this point I might say that the previous financial agreement between the federal government and the territorial government will expire on March 31 of this year. A new agreement will then come into effect. The agreement presently in force has most certainly failed to meet the present needs of this fast-developing territory because of the

shortsighted, penny-pinching attitude of those people in the department who formulated the policy contained in the agreement when it was drawn up about five years ago. It is to be hoped that improved vision and better understanding will be displayed in connection with the drafting of the new fiscal arrangements.
It is imperative that this new arrangement be not passed strictly on population figures, as is the case with similar agreements with the provinces. In the case of the Yukon it should be based on a different formula, one more applicable to the special conditions in that area.
It is obvious that in a part of Canada where the land area is so large and the population is so small and scattered as in the Yukon it is neither a sound nor fair basis for these payments to be measured by the population yardstick only. Undoubtedly it should be the sole responsibility of the federal government, not the territorial government, to provide all capital expenditures required to maintain and advance our economic position in the north, when one considers that the federal government receives all the revenue now derived from the exploitation of the natural resources in the territory. The territorial government has its hands full to take care of its own administrative problems with the revenue it now receives. One thing is certain. The federal government will eventually reap the future benefits of any investments they make in the north at this time.
Again on the subject of road transportation in the north, Mr. Speaker, in the Yukon Territory we have seen how the Alaska highway, the Haines cut-off road, the Atlin road, the roads to Mayo and Dawson and the Canol road have made the southern half of the territory accessible to prospectors and developers. As a result many important deposits of nickel-copper, silver-lead-zinc and asbestos and other minerals have been discovered, which undoubtedly will add greatly to the wealth of the Yukon Territory and of Canada and provide a livelihood for many workers in the future. In the last few years the prospector and the exploration companies have advanced into the northern half of the territory with most encouraging results. I might add that the northern part of the Yukon Territory and the adjoining part of the Northwest Territories are considered by those people who know these things to be very favourable for the deposition of oil and gas as well as other minerals.
It should be remembered that the first oil field in Canada, apart from the pioneer production in southwestern Ontario, was discovered at Norman Wells, which is in this 82715-18
The Address-Mr. Simmons favourable area adjoining the northern part of the Yukon Territory. I have no doubt that the persistence which these oil explorers are known to possess, their skill and the money which they are willing to venture will lead to the discovery of further oil fields in this area.
This all leads to the point of my talk, which is that we should do everything possible to assist this northern development and exploratory work. The essential way in which this can be done is by improving the transportation facilities. In recent months we have heard much about the distant early warning line and what an important part the Arctic areas of Canada are playing and are going to play in the defence of North America. Judging from stories which have been published in the press, I think it is safe to say that a considerable tonnage of freight is being and will be required in the construction and maintenance of these defence facilities.
At present freight can be taken into the Arctic only by water during the very short navigation season, either down the Mackenzie river or around Alaska by the Bering sea. Much of it has been taken in by airlift, and this is very expensive. Some can be taken in overland when the ground is frozen. The latter two methods are very expensive or more difficult than would be the case if we had an all-weather road to the Arctic coast.
Aklavik on the delta of the Mackenzie river in the Northwest Territories is only about 750 miles by road from tidewater and a 12-month port on the Pacific coast at Skagway, Alaska, or Haines, Alaska. About 350 miles of this road are already built. The first 110 miles is covered by the White Pass railway from Skagway to Whitehorse, or it is 259 miles from Haines, Alaska, to Whitehorse via the Haines cut-off and the Alaska highway. The next 260 miles is covered by the all-weather road from Whitehorse to Mayo or Dawson.
A further glance at the map will show that Aklavik is almost due north of Skagway, Haines, Whitehorse, Dawson, and Mayo, and that the Peel river which rises in the northern part of the Yukon Territory cuts through the Mackenzie mountains before it joins the Mackenzie river at the delta near Aklavik. We thus are provided with a natural pass from the Yukon Territory to the Mackenzie river delta by means of the valley of the Peel river. Once through the Mackenzie mountains the road might swing over to Arctic Red river where it could cross the Mackenzie river and thence on to the new site of Aklavik.

The Address-Mr. Simmons
A road starting from a suitable point on the Whitehorse-Mayo-Dawson road at or near Dawson City or Mayo, depending on the results of a survey to determine the feasibility of these routes, and proceeding to Aklavik via the Peel river would assist materially in the exploration and development of the mineral resources of this part of Canada and in providing the quickest, cheapest and most dependable all-weather transportation route to the western Arctic coast.
I think the government of Canada should take note of this fact and begin to assemble further detailed information on this route at once. I strongly advocate that a sufficient sum of money be placed in the estimates of the northern affairs department to cover the cost of a location survey to enable early commencement of actual construction to be made without wasting any more precious time. A preliminary aerial survey should be undertaken as early next spring as weather conditions permit.
According to my information, the proposed route of the road starting at or near Dawson City or Mayo would traverse one of the most highly mineralized areas on the North American continent including oil and gas. Several years ago a geologist working in the north gave me his opinion that the greatest reservoir of oil on this continent is to be found in the area stretching between Dawson and Aklavik. In his view the major producing oil fields in Alberta of Pembina, Leduc and Redwater were merely fringe or marginal pools compared to the possibilities of this northern reservoir.
It is obvious what great benefit such a road would bring to the people residing in the Mackenzie river delta, as well as providing the necessary facilities for the maintenance of the distant early warning line. In addition, such a road would afford the people of that area year-round access to a port at tidewater on the Pacific at or near Skagway or Haines, Alaska.
The peoples of the delta naturally need to stockpile their food, provisions and other material for many months each year, and to provide heated storage and so forth to carry them through the long winters. As every hon. member will realize, this means an added burden inasmuch as it increases substantially the cost of living in that area. The proposed all-weather road would enable merchants and others to bring in necessary provisions regularly, and would largely do away with the need to stockpile. The road would be one of the most important projects that could be undertaken to promote the economic

welfare and stability of the northern Mackenzie river district, as well as the northern Yukon areas. In fact it would be nothing less than culpable neglect on the part of the government to sidestep further this highly significant and very practical measure.
During the past few years a considerable sum of money has been spent on oil exploratory work by the Peel Plateau Exploration Company in the Eagle Plain area north of Dawson City in the vicinity of the Porcupine river. Supplies are taken into this area by tractor train from Dawson City during the winter months, following the proposed route of an all-weather road through the valley of the Peel river to Aklavik, Northwest Territories. To foster and encourage mineral exploration along the route suggested, I think it is only fair and reasonable to expect that the federal government will assist the exploration company in maintaining a winter tractor road to Eagle Plain. If our north country is to be opened and developed in the way it should be, the federal government should assist the companies and individuals who are willing to risk capital in such ventures, especially in areas which are favourable to mineral development.
The new policy of the federal government to provide development roads to promising mineral areas is a good step forward, but all depends upon how such a policy works out in practice. Heretofore the federal slogan has been, "You show us that you have a producing operation and we will provide a road". Properly to open the Yukon, road development in the territory is of prime importance. Development of its mineral resources has been retarded throughout the years by the lack of roads, the result of a lack of administrative vision.
In the case of the Vangorda creek base metal deposits along the Pelly river, Prospectors Airways Company alone has expended approximately $900,000 on developing this project in the initial stages. During the past three years the federal government has expended about $5,000 for the maintenance of the Canol road from Johnsons crossing to the Pelly river, and approximately $50,000 for the survey of a projected road from Carmacks to the Prospectors Airways Company property and on to Ross river. I am told that a portion of this $50,000 was spent in an unsuccessful attempt to provide temporary access roads from the property to Ross river, a tributary of the Pelly river. The road provided was useless for the purposes intended because a temporary road was not completed, and the project appears to have been shelved.

I would therefore suggest to the minister that early consideration be given by his department to the commencement of construction of this vitally important road as soon as possible, as I firmly believe that the Pelly river-Canol road sector has reached this stage. The initial development gamble has been taken by Prospectors Airways Company and Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company. Developments of sufficient magnitude as to be classed as ore bodies elsewhere have been found, and it is now up to the federal government to encourage the continuous exploration of this area, as well as other areas, by providing adequate development roads. If advantage of this opportunity is not taken at once while hope runs high in this promising area, new ventures may not develop because of strangling transportation costs. Timing is extremely important in any financial venture, and it is especially pertinent to mine financing.
It might be well to point out at this stage to those not too familiar with mineral exploration that the most difficult money to raise in any development program is the initial expenditure to test a promising geological speculation. A high element of risk is involved, and most financiers want some tangible proof before they enter the picture. If the showing proves to have promise as a mineralized deposit, no lack of development capital exists nowadays to turn the potential into profit.
The arrangement with the federal government on the Canol road promised a maximum of $2,500 a year for maintenance, provided the company expended $2,500 a year. When it is considered that this sum was to provide for the maintenance of 150 miles of gravel road, including 21 timber bridges and 40 culverts, it can be seen how niggardly this assistance is. The Canol road is considered by company geologists and mining companies to be one of the most important mining exploration roads in the Yukon Territory. It not only provides the only eastern access to the large Pelly-MacMillan-Hess river systems, but is the only road that cross-cuts from east to west the large northwest trending mountain belts which contain the most potential mineral and fuel resources in the Yukon.
During the past three years, five important mineral finds have been located at Vangorda creek, Big Salmon lake, Ketza river, Quiet lake and the Northwest Territories-Yukon boundary. It is doubtful if any of those deposits would have been located if it had not been for the access provided by the Canol road. The rehabilitation of this road is a must for the mining development of the eastern Yukon. The indifference of those responsible for the maintenance of this asset 82715-184
The Address-Mr. Simmons is difficult to understand. Here is an invaluable development road built at a cost, I understand, of $30 million, which was presented free to the Canadian people by the American government 11 years ago. As far as is known, no maintenance has been provided by the federal or territorial governments during that time with the exception of the paltry sum I have previously mentioned. For the lack of a few thousand dollars a year spent in upkeep during the period, large sections have been rendered useless to wheeled traffic by water damage to bridges and culverts. Prospectors Airways Company has kept the first 150 miles from the Alaska highway to the Canol road barely passable to wheeled vehicles by the expenditure of approximately $10,000 during the past two years. All this amount was spent on bridges and culverts. The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has reimbursed the company for half this sum.
It is reported that a recent estimate was prepared at the instigation of the present Yukon commissioner for the rehabilitation of this section of the road, and the sum of $100,000 was recommended. This and similar sums for its continued maintenance should be a charge on the people of Canada as a whole for the development of their natural resources. It should not be a stop-gap or emergency measure doled out as a sop to this or that mining company. It should form part of a long-range program for the development of the north. It is useless to argue, as has been done in the past, that the road is a territorial responsibility. The territory's meager funds are not sufficient for such work and are urgently needed elsewhere.
The people of the Yukon would like to know why the federal government has refused in the past to recognize the existence of the Canol road, if only to correct the impression that it was a wartime mistake, that it came from nowhere and goes nowhere, and that it should best be officially buried. A quick glance at a map of Canada should convince anyone of the strategic importance of the road as well. It is the only road that connects two of the largest river systems in Canada, namely the Mackenzie and the Yukon. With the accent on northern hemispherical defence it might serve as an important supply line to D.E.W. line stations as well.
I wish to refer for a few minutes to the important matter of the Haines cut-off road. This road was built at the cost of many millions of dollars by the United States during the second world war and was handed over to Canada at the conclusion of hostilities. The road is 159 miles in length and extends
268	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Simmons from Haines, Alaska, at tidewater to Haines Junction, Yukon, where it connects with the Alaska highway at mile 1,016. This is a first-class gravel road with the exception of 40 miles on the Alaska side, which is black-topped. The Canadian portion of the highway is maintained in excellent condition for approximately seven months each year by the northwest highway system. This particular road is of vital importance to the future development of certain sections of the Yukon and Alaska.
My understanding is that representations have been made to this government to keep the road open during the winter months. From what I have gathered it is estimated that the cost of capital equipment required to maintain the road in winter months would be approximately $300,000. It seems to be the opinion of those responsible for keeping the road closed during part of the year that it would be difficult to keep it open. To me this seems utter nonsense. Heavy snow conditions along this road actually obtain for a stretch of between 14 and 16 miles only. This portion extends from mile post 40 as far as mile post 56. On the Valdez road in Alaska the snowfall is about twice as heavy as that along the Haines cut-off road, yet no great difficulty has been experienced in keeping open the Valdez road. I have talked with officials in charge of this operation and they feel that, in comparison, the Haines road is a minor snow removal problem.
If the resources of the north are to be developed it is surely the duty of the federal government to employ all possible means to construct and maintain proper road communications. Official thinking here in Ottawa has in the past fallen far short of meeting the real problem. There has not been the necessary vision on the part of officials to grasp the requirements of the situation. I realize there has been some opposition from certain quarters, but it is opposition that is dictated entirely by selfinterest. The only way to open up this north country is by competitive routes which will be conducive to development.
I should like to ask the minister now-I am sorry he is not in his seat-why is the government ignoring the wishes of the people whom this important road will serve? Surely both governments can get together to solve this pressing problem by assuming their respective shares of the costs involved. The costs are not large, but the returns eventually will be great, as it will be as much to the advantage of the Yukon as to Alaska.
On this same subject of transportation I want to say something about air freight rates


and their application to the Yukon and to the north generally. This age in which we live is the air age, and no country in the world stands to gain as much as Canada from efficient and economical air transport. In Canada no part stands to benefit so much from air transport as the Yukon and Northwest Territories. But what is the actual story? In 1937 Canada was carrying more air cargo than any other nation in the world, and most of this was carried in the north. By 1951, however, Canada accounted for no more than 1 per cent of the world's total volume of airborne freight.
What is the reason for this tremendous decline? In my view the main answer is that air freight rates are prohibitive. As stated in an article appearing in the Globe and Mail last year:
Canada's air cargo is a service designed more for carrying small and precious merchandise like cut flowers, caviar and mink.
We can never hope to fully develop a country by imposing air freight rates that are exorbitant. This fact has been amply demonstrated in other parts of Canada, and in other countries as well. It is evident that what we need is more competition for the available air traffic dollar. We need more men who are air minded, opportunity minded and competition minded.
Canadian Pacific Airlines, I may say, has given good service into the Yukon and is anparently prepared to lower rates between Whitehorse, Mayo and Dawson provided that landing facilities at Mayo and Dawson are improved to provide for the operation of heavier aircraft. By making use of larger aircraft the company reasons that air freight rates into the Yukon can be lowered substantially. In spite of the fact that I have brought this matter to the attention of the appropriate government departments here on many occasions, practically nothing has happened. The present landing fields at Mayo and Dawson are hazardous to use, and only good fortune has prevented the occurrence thus far of a disaster to planes using these fields. Several years ago sites for new airfields were surveyed at Mayo and in the neighbourhood of Dawson, but this represents all the progress that can be reported to date.
I have devoted some time to this matter of air and road transportation. Important as these factors are to the fullest development of the north country I want to emphasize, nevertheless, that there cannot be completely satisfactory results without railways and other improved communications. I have mentioned on various occasions that the ferries along the Whitehorse-Mayo-Dawson road operating over the Yukon river, Pelly river and Stewart

The Address

Mr. Simmons
river should be replaced by permanent bridges as soon as possible. The existing ferry services are clearly inadequate and form a distinct bottleneck for traffic along this route.
I am convinced that the construction and maintenance of highways and bridges in the Yukon territory most definitely should be the sole responsibility of the federal government. Heretofore the policy has been that the territorial government, as well as the mining companies, were required to participate in these costs. In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, this was a ridiculous situation. It was nonsense to expect anybody other than the federal government to assume these capital outlays. I am pleased that the minister took cognizance of this fact when the policy relating to highway and bridge construction was recently formulated. This was, most certainly, a step forward in the right direction.
While on the subject of bridges, I trust the minister will give favourable consideration to placing in the estimates a sufficient sum to finance the replacement of the Crooked creek bridge at mile 209 on the Whitehorse-Dawson-Mayo road, so that actual construction can commence this spring or early summer. Surveys and investigations should be instituted at once to determine suitable sites for permanent bridges over the Yukon, Pelly and Stewart rivers along the Whitehorse-Mayo-Dawson road to expedite early construction of these most urgent projects without undue delay. The 60-mile road from Dawson to the Alaska-Yukon border is of the utmost importance to the Dawson district. Can the minister tell me whether or not this road will be constructed according to the same standards as those which apply to the Whitehorse-Dawson road? This road connects with the Taylor highway at the Alaska boundary which highway, in turn, connects with the Alaska highway at Forty Mile, Alaska.
I travelled over this highway last fall and found it to be very scenic. If this road were constructed according to the same standards as the Whitehorse-Mayo-Dawson road I am sure it would attract many tourists to Dawson City, one of the most historic and interesting spots on this continent. This project should receive every consideration from this government, as it is a tourist attraction of the first order.
I also wish to say something, Mr. Speaker, about the Alaska highway. One of the great hazards on this road is the dust problem. This hazard has resulted in a considerable loss of life. The highway is maintained in
excellent condition by the northwest highway system at a substantial cost. I believe the time has come now for the immediate black-topping of this road, especially in places where the road does not need to be rerouted. Such action would result in a great increase in road traffic and reduce the cost of maintenance to a point where the government would get a return on its investment.
There is another matter of great economic significance to the mining industry of the Yukon to which I wish to draw the attention of the government, particularly the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I 'refer to the unnecessary and unjustified gold export tax in its application to the Placer gold mining industry of the Yukon. This is an imposition that at its present rate fastens a heavy and unfair burden on this important northern industry. At one time, about the turn of the present century, there may have been some sensible basis for imposing such a tax, but conditions since those days have drastically changed. Gold output is down, costs of mining have greatly increased, while the price of gold has remained for years at $35 per ounce in U.S. funds. I am not asking that this tax be abolished. As I pointed out in my remarks to the house on this same subject last June 11, the gold export tax should be reduced in line with the royalty rates obtaining under the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. In this connection I want to bring out the following points:
1.	The change in this tax rate that I am proposing should be made will not require any legislative enactment but merely a change in the regulations under the act.
2.	If the tax rate is maintained it is liable to result in a serious curtailment of placer gold mining in the Yukon.
3.	By bringing the placer gold export tax into line with the levy on quartz mining, the government would be giving practical encouragement to an industry which provides important employment to Canadians in our most northerly communities.
Once again I urge upon the government that remedial action be taken on this matter at the first opportunity.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that if the federal government gives leadership and assistance along the lines I have mentioned the Yukon Territory will offer a vast area of challenge to pioneering enterprise seeking new mining frontiers in Canada. Other and older nations may be ahead of Canada in the matter of population and economic development, but there is one fundamental difference distinguishing their

The Address-Mr. Nicholson present position from that of this country. It is that we in Canada still have frontiers to roll back as well as untouched areas to develop. Nothing gives such a dynamic drive to national progress anywhere as the prospect of new land to be opened up to settlement and development.
In Canada our great remaining frontier is in the north. We who are particularly close to the north, who have lived and grown with its people and its problems, are convinced of its wonderful opportunities and of the fact that the Canadian north is a vast storehouse of energy sources and mineral wealth. There can be no finer career for any young Canadian today than to take an active part in the development of our northern territories.
At one time the lure of the north was the special attraction felt by some for faraway and lonely places where life could be lived close to nature, free from many of the problems and distractions connected with living in large centres of population. To some it was an opportunity to get away from it all. That is not so today. In these times the lure of the north is something quite different. It is the lure of discovering new mineral assets in one of the few remaining unexplored areas of the free world. The lure of creating new communications, new communities, of building roads and industries and working cheerfully and constructively with fellow Canadians to bring into being not only a new land but a new way of life is a work that will add immeasurably to Canada's resources and to its greatness as a nation.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to express my sympathy to the hon. members for Edmon-ton-Strathcona and Gloucester for being confronted with a speech about which so little could be said. It ignores the basic problems of such a large percentage of the Canadian people that it is not easy to understand why we have to be confronted with such a speech in this important year. However, the hon. members were honoured by the Prime Minister in being selected to move and second the address in reply, and I am sure both of them did the very best they could under the circumstances.
I would like to confine my remarks to the problems confronting our farm people in Canada. The Gordon commission preliminary report points up the problem which has been developing for some years, but which has been ignored by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce in particular. This report indicates that since 1946 our farm population has dropped from 25 per cent of the total population to just over 15 per cent, and the forecast is that
IMr. Simmons.]
during the next 25 years the farm percentage of the population of Canada will drop to 7.6 per cent of the total.
Although I have a farm background, I am prepared to accept the fact that fewer people can produce more food, but I think it is very disturbing that in this day and age, with one billion people in the world who have never had one good meal, it is proposed that we should place a fence around Canada. We will allow in only a trickle of immigrants, and we will refuse to produce additional food for starving people throughout the world.
The commission assumes that the present government is going to continue in office for some time; that there is not likely to be any change in the policies of this government regarding responsibility for hungry people throughout the world. Since there is not to be any change in the policy, it is proposed that we are not going to do anything about the building of the Saskatchewan river dam. The commission suggests there is no point in producing more food if we are not going to dispose of it. Apparently it is not expected that any real effort is going to be made to move Canadian foodstuffs into other countries where people are going hungry, where they are willing to accept Canadian foodstuffs in return for goods which they can supply. Therefore I say it is disturbing that in the year 1957 we apparently have a government that is ignoring the needs of a very large sector of our people, except for the fact that they are going to be starved off our farms and people from the maritimes might get a little help in coming to central areas of Canada. The farmers in the other parts of Canada will just have to stay and starve it out.
We have had a good deal of discussion in this house from time to time regarding the general position of agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have argued that the Canadian farmer is very prosperous. The Minister of Trade and Commerce gives the impression that any farmer who wants to can drive a new car; he can have all his debts paid; he can have a year's supply of grain on his farm without worrying about cash advances. But the opinion of Liberals throughout the country is not unanimous. I notice that the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) was at a convention at Viscount last fall, and the farmers who were at that convention apparently did not accept the point of view of the Minister of Agriculture. The hon. member for Rosthern gave them some pretty foolish advice, as follows:
Walter Tucker, M.P. for Rosthern, who addressed the meeting, said that he believed the resolutions,

to be submitted to the provincial convention in Regina, would prove much more effective if they adhered to established Liberal principles.
But the advice of the hon. member for Rosthern apparently did not have any effect on the people who were there, because immediately they proceeded to pass a resolution asking that an interim payment of at least 10 cents a bushel on the 1955-56 crop be made to the farmers at the earliest possible date. That was last October. It was not in keeping with traditional Liberal policy. Here we are into January, and still no action has been taken. The next resolution was significant:
The convention also urged the federal government to seriously consider adopting and enforcing policies to give the farmers a fair share of the national income.
Well, certainly the farmers out in the Rosthern constituency were not convinced that they were getting a fair share of the national income.


Mr. Blackmore:: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Did they ask for advance payments on the grain stored on the farms?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No, they just wanted to have an interim payment on the 1955-56 grain crop. This was an interim payment.


John Horne Blackmore: On grain already delivered?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On grain already delivered; they wanted an interim payment immediately. This was last October. They have not been given a cent. The Minister of Agriculture was at this convention in Regina. Here is a story from the Star-Phoenix of November 5, 1956. The heading reads:
Farmers Getting Parity Now, Gardiner Tells Liberal Confab	.
Canadian farmers are receiving parity prices now, Agriculture Minister James G. Gardiner told delegates to the Saskatchewan Liberal association convention in the hotel Saskatchewan Saturday.
Well, apparently he did not share the views of the farmers out there, but by the time the minister came back to Ottawa to meet the delegates to the federal-provincial convention he must have met a good deal of criticism in the west, because he did change his tune considerably. He told the delegates here about an interesting conversation he had had at a meeting in Saskatchewan. He said a woman came up to him and said:
"I have not slept for three nights, I have been worrying. We did not need a bank loan last year, but we do need one this year."
"I have been worrying about how we were going to meet our accounts which come due in November" and this was the latter part of October. She said "Now I am going to go to sleep tonight and we will get the money in due course." And I said to her "Well, you know some people have been
The Address-Mr. Nicholson doing some talking about interest. I would not be too sure that you will be able to get the money at 5 per cent." She said "I do not care whether the interest is 5 per cent, 7 per cent or 8 per cent. We need the money for two or three months. By that time we can deliver a little wheat, we will be able to pay it back and whatever we have to pay, we are ready to pay it. It is money we need at present."
Does the minister realize how many people are in the same position as this woman at this time? I submit that when a farm woman says she does not care whether she is required to pay 5 per cent, 7 per cent or 8 per cent she is in the same position as those unfortunate Canadians who go to the small loan companies and pay 26 per cent, 36 per cent or even 56 per cent because they are desperate. The fact that the minister told this important conference that the situation was not as it was some time ago is quite significant. The minister also said:
This desire for cash is one of the greatest desires there is among farmers and the difficulty to get cash is one of the greatest problems particularly among wheat farmers in the west.
Well, I wish the Minister of Agriculture would say those things in the house, and I wish he would say them to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I would like hon. members to listen to this statement. The Minister of Agriculture said:
I know there was a great deal of criticism of the old plan we had prior to the last war of paying the farmer $5 to take a man and pay a man $5 to take the job, but we did have a plan of that kind at one time, and I think that one of the things that would make young people more anxious to stay on the farm than anything else, would be to do something that would get labour into the farming communities wherever we have to bring it from.
Perhaps the people we are bringing in from Hungary would be considered, as well as people we could bring from the Netherlands and other places. The plan formulated a few years ago by the Minister of Agriculture under which young men and women were recruited to work on farms for $5 a month and the farmers received $5 a month is apparently being considered by him now, but I submit that the farmers of this country do not want charity. They want their industry to receive the consideration it deserves.
When the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Masse) spoke the other evening he had something to say about the opinions that have been expressed outside of the house from time to time concerning the problems confronting agriculture. I recommend that hon. members read his remarks. He pointed out that the position of farmers in Quebec is improving a great deal. In 1954 some 860 farmers in Quebec were able to pay income tax, compared with 750 the year before.

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
Interestingly enough I intended to use the same statistics, but in a slightly different connection. I am now going to quote from this same book my hon. friend had, entitled "Taxation Statistics-1956". This is published by the Minister of National Revenue and on page 9 you will find that in the year 1954 some 39,480 farmers in Canada paid income tax.
I suggest that hon. members reflect on these figures. Out of a total of 601,622 farm families in Canada, 39,480 paid income tax in 1954. The disturbing feature of this is that the number of farmers who paid income tax dropped from 69,200 the previous year. While our economy is so buoyant that the speech from the throne devoted two paragraphs to describing the prosperity of Canada, this most ancient and important industry has deteriorated to the point that the number of farmers who pay income tax in Canada dropped in one year's time from 69,200 to 39,480.
The percentage of the total income tax paid by the farmers also dropped from 2.06 per cent to 1.05 per cent. The Gordon commission reports that our farm population is dropping; whereas it was formerly 25 per cent of the total, this year it is down to 15 per cent. I do not have the exact figure for 1954, but it would be somewhere between 15 and 20 per cent. I submit there is something radically wrong with an industry when the people engaged in that industry are able to pay only 1.5 per cent of the total income tax of the nation.
I find that the highest paid group in the country were the consulting engineers. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is well acquainted with this classification. The average income for consulting engineers has risen to $12,059, the lawyers are a close second with an average income of $11,925, and the medical doctors are third with an average income of $11,891. For the last two or three years these three groups have been very close. The lawyers come first one year, and then the doctors and then the engineers. Apparently the order in which they occur this year is engineers, lawyers and doctors. The farmer, of course, is away down near the bottom of the list. Even the farmers who were able to pay income tax had an average income of only $3,525. This is based on the figure I mentioned before, the 39,480 farmers who paid income tax.
Let us have a look at the picture across Canada. I am going to use the figures that appear in the book on taxation statistics, and also some figures which the bureau supplied to the agriculture committee last year regarding the number of cars on Canadian farms,

according to the 1951 census. In Newfoundland there were less than 100 farmers who were able to pay income tax, and the total number of farmers residing there and owning cars was not reported. In Prince Edward Island less than 100 farmers paid income tax out of a total of 10,243 farmers reported to be living there, and, only 4,100 had cars. I submit that the owning of a car and the ability to pay income tax are two important criteria in determining whether or not people are prosperous, in view of the fact that today you can go to practically any used car lot in Ottawa and for $10 down drive away a reasonably good used car.


Mr. Knight:: That is not the end of it.


Mr. Argue:: The rest is paid on credit.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is not the end of it, but $10 will take it away and the fact is that farmers are so poor they cannot even get the $10 required in order to take it home. That is an indication of their situation.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Some dealers might pay them $10 to take the cars home.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In Nova Scotia 210 farmers paid income tax out of a possible total of
24.000	farmers, and only 6,900 of those farmers owned cars. The farmers in New Brunswick were not paying much income tax a year ago; out of a possible total of
28.000	farmers 210 paid income tax and only 7,900 owned cars. In Quebec, as my hon. friend said, 860 farmers paid income tax out of a possible total of 133,000. How can any farm member from Quebec stand up and say farm conditions are improving when only 860 farmers out of a total of 133,000 paid income tax and only 41,600 cars were on Quebec farms?
In Ontario out of a total of 159,000 farmers only 11,600 paid income tax, and 114,000 Ontario farmers had cars. In Manitoba 2,070 paid income tax out of 47,000, and there were 32,000 who had automobiles. In the province of Saskatchewan there were 12,500 who paid income tax in 1954 compared with
31.000	the previous year out of 90,000, with
62.000	having automobiles. In Alberta 9,650 paid income tax out of 76,216, and 46,000 were driving automobiles. In British Columbia there were 2,120 farmers paying income tax out of 26,530, and there were 12,500 with automobiles.
With one-half of one per cent to 8 per cent of the farmers in Canada in the different provinces able to pay income tax, it is suggested to me that here is an industry which is sick. The only proposal offered is that it be put out of business, to get the farmers off the farms in the maritime,

provinces and bring them up to central Canada to increase the hazards there. It is suggested that those provinces with histories of which every Canadian should be proud should be abandoned. Our farming people in the west are up against the same proposition.
The arrears of taxes also indicate what is happening. There are some 14 rural municipalities either partly or entirely within my constituency. The arrears of taxes during the past three years have gone up from $805,000 to $1,308,000 to $1,773,000. These municipalities are managed by very efficient citizens who have been selected by their neighbours on a non-partisan basis. They are doing their very best to maintain local services, roads, bridges and schools, but when arrears are rolling up in this way it is not surprising that a woman should come to the Minister of Agriculture at a meeting and point out that a year ago they were not so desperate but this year they are in very bad shape.
If all the other sectors of our economy were in trouble we might accept this. During the thirties our farm people did tighten their belts. They knew we had a depression, and they accepted the fact that the depression was world-wide. But we are not prepared to accept this situation now and do nothing as the hon. member for Rosthern suggested to farmers at Viscount. We are going to stand up and insist that the farmers at Viscount were expressing the opinions of farmers in all parts of Canada when they said they wanted a fair share of the national income.
The bureau of statistics weekly bulletin of January 11 has just reached me, and I find on page 3 that labour income in Canada has reached new peaks. I am all for that, because I realize that if the farmer is to sell his products there must be a working force in Canada that is able to get a fair share of the national income. As the people in the country through their organizations have been able to get a little larger piece of the national pie I for one have no desire to complain about their position. Although they are getting a larger share than they ever had before they are not getting their fair share.
I have two releases from the united automobile workers, one of which deals with what happens when an increase is granted in the price of steel. When an increase of $7.50 per ton was granted the increase in wages would have warranted an increase of only $2.50 per ton, but the steel companies took advantage of the fact that they were giving an increase in wages. This release states:
The Address-Mr. Nicholson When U.S. Steel signed its 1955 wage contract, its prices were already so high that it was making profits one-third larger than in 1953, the best previous year in its history, and 73 per cent above its average profits ol the 7 post-war years (excluding 1952, the year of the long strike). U.S. Steel's profits after taxes when it signed the contract were double the average of the post-war years.
It goes on to say that U.S. Steel could have cut their price by $7.50 per ton and still had a better balance sheet than they ever had prior to the war. In its weekly bulletins the bureau of statistics brings us most disturbing information regarding how corporation profits are rolling up larger and larger. Here are the figures with regard to the increase in corporation profits after taxes of some of the better known companies. Back in 1946 Imperial Oil had net profits after taxes of something over $17 million; by 1954 those profits had jumped to $49 million, an increase of 184 per cent. Last year they took another jump of 25 per cent to bring the profits up to $62 million at the end of 1955.
In 1946 the Aluminum Company of Canada were satisfied with profits after taxes of $11,581,000, but those profits had increased to $33,155,000 by 1954, and to $48,193,000 by 1955. British American Oil Company satisfied their stockholders in 1946 with net profits of $3,319,000, but by 1954 those profits were up to $18,159,000 and by 1955 to $20,613,000. Industrial Acceptance Corporation indicates where the real money is being made. In 1946 their profits were $253,542; in 1954 those profits had increased to $6,837,000; and in 1955 to $7,394,000. Loblaw Groceterias showed an increase in profits from $4 million to $5 million.
Canada Packers and Silverwood Dairies, both of which companies are a little closer to the grass roots farmer, showed considerable increases from 1946. MacMillan and Bloedel showed an increase from $12,400,000 to $18,738,000. Western Plywood showed an increase from $473,892 in 1954 to $1,112,000 in 1955; Canadian Industries Limited from $2,041,000 to $6,455,000; Goodyear Tire from $2,476,000 to $4,398,000; Atlas Steel from $226,409 to $2,091,000; Ford Motor from $14,243,000 to $20,729,000; Dominion Foundries, $3,068,000 to $5,471,000; Steel Company of Canada, $13,231,000 to $21,819,000; St. Lawrence Corporation, from $4,451,000 to $7,063,000; Dominion Tar and Chemical from $1,875,000 to $3,802,000; C.P.R. from $29,826,000 to $44,032,000. These last figures are profits in 1954 and 1955, after taxes.
Is it any wonder that our 600,000 farm families in Canada are discouraged and annoyed when they see their position in our
274	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nicholson economy deteriorating from year to year, and also see the profits of these larger corporations increasing year by year?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, before dinner I was trying to establish the fact that the farmers, who have comprised such an important sector of our economy since confederation, have been receiving an unfair share of our national income, and I mentioned that from my point of view immediate consideration must be given to this problem. I think I should admit that farmers all over the world have had difficulty in organizing themselves so they could claim a fair share of the wealth in the various countries, but when the Canadian Federation of Agriculture appeared before the banking and commerce committee last year this organization, which is very sympathetic to the present administration, was asked what was being done in other countries. Dr. Hope, their economist, was asked this question by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue):
In your study of agricultural policy in other nations do you know of any advanced nations which do less in the way of support prices and other policies for agriculture than is done by our country?
Dr. Hope replied:
No, I do not know of any country that does less.
When I spoke about conditions in other countries last year I made some critical remarks about the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce for their failure to make available up to date information regarding what is happening in other countries. I must pay a compliment to the Minister of Agriculture for seeing to it that his officials paid some attention to my critical comments. The issue for December, 1956, of Agriculture Abroad has some very interesting articles on agricultural policy in Argentina, Egypt, France, Germany, Mexico, Poland and a number of other countries.
I am sorry that time will not allow extensive references to what is happening in other countries, but in Argentina apparently they are providing for a subsidy of about 36 cents per bushel for wheat. In France they are facing up to the problem of the small farmer being squeezed out of existence. There is a very interesting section on France. It points out that they made a profit of about 78 cents a bushel on wheat imported into


France compared with a loss of $1.40 to $1.48 sustained by France a year ago. They also point out that the price for wheat in France this year is to be $2.93 a bushel. Then there is a substantial subsidy for barley of 43 to 49 cents a bushel. I think anyone reading the reports on agriculture in these different countries must recognize the fact that our farmers cannot possibly survive in a world where all these important countries are doing so much for their farmers.
I have here the soil bank program of the United States, and I find that on a typical 200 acre farm there-their farms are much smaller-the farmer is encouraged to take 30 acres of land out of wheat, and if he will co-operate he will be paid $23 an acre for every acre he does not plant to wheat. I know a great many farmers in the west who would be very glad to settle for $23 an acre for every acre they did not plant to wheat. The United States supplies information regarding the decreasing share of the consumer dollar that the farmer receives. Back in 1946 the farmer received 52 per cent of the consumer dollar spent for food. That figure dropped to 51 per cent, 50 per cent, 46 per cent, until now it is down to 45 per cent. But in the United States, as in Canada, I think it is pretty obvious that the farmers themselves are going to have a look at the diminishing share of the national income that is received.
I do not want to make these critical comments without telling the government how to solve the problem, and here is the solution in seven very simple stages. First, a system of parity prices should be provided. I cannot take time to explain the details, but I think every member has received from Jake Schultz a memorandum entitled "Parity Prices, The Basic Solution for Agriculture." Mr. Schultz is a former president of the interprovincial farm union council. I suggest that every member should read this very carefully prepared submission.
Second, national marketing boards should be established to provide stability in the assembling, processing and marketing of our main agricultural products. Third, a board of livestock commissioners should be established to provide scientific grading standards and to prevent the ruinous fluctuations in livestock prices. Fourth, export-import boards should be established to expand the sale of agricultural products through international commodity agreements. Fifth, a system of box car allocation should be provided so that farmers would be permitted to deliver their grain to the elevator of their choice.
May I say in passing that while I was home we received cheques from the wheat pool at

the rate of 2J cents a bushel by way of dividends for the wheat we had delivered to our own organization. At the annual meeting of the local wheat pool committee I asked the director how much additional could have been paid to the farmers if they had handled their fair share of all the wheat that was drawn to the elevators in Saskatchewan. After a minute's reflection he said they would have had the same cost for taxes, the same salaries for the elevator agents and the same payments for insurance, so their overhead would have remained about the same, and that they would have been able to pay about 5 cents per bushel if they could have handled all the grain which normally would have come to their elevators provided the farmers had been able to deliver their grain to their own elevator rather than to the elevator of the opposition. I think anyone who considers the matter will agree that it is reasonable to give the farmer the privilege of hauling his own grain to the elevator of his choice.
My sixth point is very important and I am sorry I do not have time to develop it. I suggest that we should double the pensions for the aged, blind and totally disabled and also the family allowances, so more Canadians would be able to purchase additional food, food which we have and which they require if they are to live as they should live. I hope every member of parliament will read the letter which came in the mail this morning from Mr. Guy Jean of Montreal, who represents the institute of political action. He was prompted to write this letter after a member for one of the Quebec ridings suggested in his speech the other day that family allowances should be increased.
I think we should not forget that the prime minister we had when family allowances were introduced was a bachelor who had no idea of the cost of raising a family. He was also the prime minister when we had long discussions about increasing old age pensions. I think in this day and age, the fact having been established that family allowances are politically popular and economically feasible, we should be prepared to give to the children of Canada the same percentage of our total national income in 1957 that we did in the '40's when we first passed this popular legislation. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned the other day, if we will provide the same percentage of our gross national product to the old age pensioners we will be able to double, without any strain on our economy, the present pensions which are being paid.
My seventh point calls for the establishment of a world food bank with a view to
The Address-Mr. Nicholson raising the low levels of food production and consumption and fighting chronic malnutrition; relieving famine and other emergency situations; counteracting excessive price fluctuations, and promoting the rational disposal of intermittent agricultural surpluses.
I am sorry I have not time in which to develop this last point. I was greatly disappointed to read in the report of the economic and social council of the United Nations that the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs took such a reactionary view when this matter was before the economic and social council. We have been spending fabulous amounts in trying to fight the threat of communism. The amount we are spending for FAO is a pitiful performance. I find that we are reducing our expenditures from $323,000 to $297,000. We are giving 2 cents per person per year as part of our contribution to fight the challenge contained in the fact that two-thirds of the world's people are facing starvation, and here the parliamentary assistant makes a long speech pointing out how unreasonable are these proposals made by FAO in connection with the establishment of a world food bank.
I submit that it is not good enough for us to spend $34 million as our contribution to the Colombo plan and 2 cents per person per year as our contribution to FAO when we are spending these other large amounts. The Minister of Trade and Commerce and of Defence Production is buying on a cost-plus basis everything that goes into our defence production, and no one is losing anything. Yet he is trying to keep our farmers producing food on a cost-minus basis. I think we are losing friends all over the world by our policy of refusing to cultivate our land and refusing to produce food in order to try to get it to the hungry people in other parts of the world.
It is true enough that we give 2 cents per person per year to FAO and that we spend $34 million as part of our Colombo plan contribution. But the Colombo plan contribution is a small percentage of Canada's gross national product. I do not think we can adopt the point of view suggested in the report of the Gordon commission, namely that the people of Canada can expect to increase their standards of living by 75 per cent in the next 25 years, and yet refuse to face the fact that two-thirds of the world's people are going to be left in poverty and are going to be obliged to live without assistance in fighting ignorance, disease and hunger.
I suggest that Canada should reverse its program and should send to these international conferences someone other than representatives who are going to speak against the establishment of a world food bank.

The Address-Mr. Poulin (Translation):


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to join the previous speakers in extending sincere congratulations to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. There is no doubt, at least as far as I am concerned, that the respective electors of these hon. members will have every reason to be proud of their representatives.
The speech from the throne deals with many subjects which are all interesting. There is one however which seems to be of prime importance in the eyes of the government since nearly half of that important document has been devoted to it. I refer to the position of Canada with respect to world conditions.
Since I wish to limit my remarks to a single question, for the time being at least, I thought I would deal with a question related to that problem and which I consider very important. I mean the eventual representation of Canada at the Holy See in Rome.
Besides, for a good many years a great number of the electors I have the pleasure and the privilege of representing in this house have been good enough to let me know their views on that subject. Now it so happens that all were in favour of such representation. It is indeed a pleasure for me to lay their views before this house.
I do not think that there is one Canadian province where certain individuals, certain patriotic, religious or other groups have not expressed a similar opinion. On the other hand, I know that in those same provinces other individuals and other similar groups have expressed an opposite view. Which means of course that we have there a much debated and debatable problem whose solution is not self-evident but must be looked for in a cool and objective way, according to the best interests of the Canadian nation.
In foreign countries, Canada maintains 46 diplomatic posts filled either by an ambassador, a minister or a high commissioner, together with a great number of consuls, attaches, commercial representatives, various officers, and so on. For the year 1956-57, according to the estimates voted in this house last year, the cost of maintaining these posts, alone, including salaries, amounted to $7,210,961.
On the other hand, 46 foreign countries maintain here a similar diplomatic representation whose cost is likely just as high. These figures, reporting the number of


countries as well as the expenses, give us an idea of the importance attached by various states, Canada included, to their diplomatic representation.
Besides, especially in recent years our policy, domestic as well as foreign, is established with due regard for the international situation. It is no doubt with this in mind that the Canadian government, besides maintaining permanent diplomatic representatives, very often sends itinerant diplomats, in most cases a member of the cabinet, to some remote corner of the world. It thus once again emphasizes the importance of going abroad to gather useful information, to make known what we believe should be known and also no doubt to disguise what we want to keep to ourselves.
There are in the world posts of superior strategic value where information of vital importance is concentrated or which constitute a source of such information. Such posts are just as so many cross-roads where the diplomats of almost every country come into contact. It so happens that one of these posts is in the Vatican state of Rome. Here are some facts and figures which show the importance of this post. The Holy See sends diplomatic representatives to 41 countries among which are France, Germany, India, Italy and Spain, plus several apostolic delegates of which one is here, in Canada.
On the other hand there are in the Vatican state 45 diplomatic missions among which are to be found missions from some of the greatest countries in the world such as Great Britain, France, Germany, India and Spain. Certain countries which do not even deem it necessary to send representatives to Canada have representatives to the Holy See. And even the most powerful of all countries, the United States had personal representatives under three successive presidents, who felt this to be a most pressing need after diplomatic relations had been severed with the Vatican state.
Still Canada has not as yet thought it necessary to have its own representative in this world centre of a diplomacy of the highest standards.
I hope that no one will suggest that we cannot have a diplomatic representative there because the Pope happens to be the religious head of the church. In that case we could hardly maintain diplomatic representation in the United Kingdom where the supreme head of the nation is also the supreme head of the

established church. In any event, no impartial person has ever suggested that the Pope, even when he was unjustly dispossessed, has not always been and still is not the uncontested sovereign of a temporal state, small of course, but quite real and which has its own autonomous and sovereign government. It is precisely because this state is very small in area and because its leader has no territorial ambition whatever that the other states should feel reassured with regard to the objectivity of the information they may gather there as well as to the impartiality and independence with which would be greeted suggestions or proposals they might wish to submit. We are thus protected against certain interested manoeuvres which may have been quite common in the Middle Ages or during the Renaissance, when the popes not only had to manage the church but also had the duty, like the leaders of other states of that time, to protect and defend the temporal kingdom committed to their care.
Furthermore, if it is feared in some quarters, that if we have a representative at the Vatican, we must share the religious belief of the Holy Father, does it mean that we necessarily share the beliefs of the leaders of communist countries where we do have representatives? Why then the double standard? A narrow, inconsiderate one with regard to a sovereign who, beyond any doubt, wants peace and order in the world, and a generous and broad-minded one in dealing with the leaders of countries, which, no less surely, for they themselves say it and prove it- want trouble, discord, and misery in the world, the better to establish their barbaric domination and their godless materialism, destructive of the freedom and happiness of peoples.
Thirty-two of our 46 missions abroad are headed by ambassadors, two of them being in iron curtain countries, i.e., in the U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia. We have also ministers in two other communist countries, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Until last year, we maintained for years an embassy in the Argentine, while the president of that country was trying hard, and sometimes by ignoble means, to foil the legitimate religious or national aspirations of the Argentine people.
To follow through a comparison between the leaders of those countries I just mentioned and the admirable man who is now presiding over the destinies of Vatican City, would be an insult to the intelligence of honourable members, and I do not want to press it any further.
It might be enough to say that Canada should not be deprived of the great advantage of having a representative in such a highly
The Address-Mr. Poulin accredited place. In support of this case, I shall quote the views of a member of this house who was then an ordinary representative-though, please the Lord, he was far from ordinary-and who is now a minister in the present government. Moreover, he is a man of superior intellect, in whom the government had the greatest confidence and who is therefore often entrusted with most delicate missions abroad. I mean the honourable minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) and shall to this effect, quote an issue of The Ensign published in 1950.
(Text):
Canada is losing information by not having a diplomatic representative at the Vatican, says James Sinclair, parliamentary assistant to Finance Minister Abbott and Liberal member of parliament for Coast-Capilano, B.C. Mr. Sinclair expressed his views in a letter of support to a Catholic Women's League subdivision in Vancouver and to various Protestant groups who oppose the appointment.
Following is the text of Mr. Sinclair's letter:
The Catholic church is fighting communism wherever it exists, and it has no hesitation in accrediting representatives to even the communist governments, so that they may have all possible information. I met the Vatican's representative in Yugoslavia, and learned more from him - about the country than I did from any other diplomatic representative in Belgrade.
This, and other experiences, have led me to the belief that Canada is losing information by not having a diplomatic representative at the Vatican. Almost every European nation, Protestant and Catholic, has such representation.
In Canada, where we are comparatively new to the necessity for diplomatic representation, the problem has been discussed almost entirely on religious grounds, and if an appointment were made at this present time, a large proportion of our people would regard it as a religious appointment, and so be strongly opposed to it. Public discussion of this situation, however, will bring about a better understanding, which might eventually lead us to have a representation in the Vatican, as does Protestant England.
(Translation):
If the minister has changed his mind, I have no doubt that he will want to inform the house about it.
For those who closely follow international events, there is no doubt that the last three or four sovereigns of the Vatican were diplomats of a high order, dedicated to the welfare and happiness of peoples, irrespective of their religious beliefs. It should be noted those great leaders, fearless and blameless, have on many occasions condemned false or dangerous principles and denounced unjust or nefarious attitudes while carefully avoiding to direct their attacks against the countries or their leaders in particular.
What about the special qualities of the great statesman who, for the past 18 years, has been presiding over the destinies of that
278	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Poulin city? Severe and demanding when he, himself, is concerned, he is full of compassion and indulgence for others. Placed on neutral ground between two clans of opposite ideological concepts, he does not fear from time to time to raise his serene voice to tell the ones that atheism, under whatever form it appears, is a baneful doctrine for humanity and, to the others, that there can be no compromise with evil. In these troubled times, how gratifying it would be, not only to listen to that voice from the centre of St. Peter square, but also to hear its repercussions in the very sumptuous halls of NATO and UNO. To the list of the most influential statesmen of the world which the Prime Minister gave us in this house last Wednesday, the 9th of January, I would gladly add the name of His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, and I would even place it at the head of the list. One cannot help but have a deep feeling of admiration on reading the speech made by Pope Pius XII in September, 1954, on the problem of A.B.C. warfare, as well as his Christmas speech of 1955 on peace, not to mention the one he made last Christmas. Where, anywhere in the world, could one find a more enlightened, more objective, more sincere and disinterested propagandist? I can understand how, on March 1, 1955, the Ottawa Journal could write the following in its editorial page:
(Text):
A Great Pope
Tomorrow in Rome Eugenio Pacelli, Pius XII, will observe his 79th birthday and his 16th year as Pope.	.
The whole free world, all at any rate in the tradition of Christian-Judaeo civilization, will send congratulations.
For Pius XII has been more than a great Pontiff of Rome: his character and moral and intellectual leadership have undoubtedly influenced all areas of the earth where spiritual values remain.
There are those who hold that Pope Pius has been the greatest Roman Pontiff since Gregory the Great. Certainly no other pope since the year when Leo went out to meet Atilla has faced more difficulties courageously, and none won more respect from men of different faiths.
"The Pope-how many divisions has he"? asked Stalin. Yet Stalin was to learn that spiritual and moral forces exist mightier in the long run than divisions of steel.
(Translation):
I cannot refrain from mentioning here a news item published in he Devoir of March 12, 1956, reporting a statement by senator Barkley, former vice-president of the United States, who had this to say about His Holiness Pope Pius XII:
I do not believe that there has been a greater force working for peace and democracy in the world than he has been.
Such testimonies tell us why the majority of the great statesmen of the world are proud


and honoured to visit him and seek his advice.
Indeed I have collected at random, in newspapers, a few pictures showing statesmen who seem proud and happy to have been photographed with our Holy Father the Pope on the occasion of a visit at the Vatican. For example, in the Montreal Gazette of April 11, 1956, there is a picture of none other than the secretary general of the United Nations Mr. Dag Hammarskjold, who is photographed with His Holiness Pope Pius XII. The legend read as follows:
(Text):
United Nations Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold visits Pope Pius XII at the Vatican during the diplomat's Rome stopover on the way to seek a peaceful settlement of Middle East hostilities. The Pontiff gave his blessing to Ham-marskj old's mission complicated by renewed Israel-Arab border fighting.
(Translation):
And at the bottom of another photograph reproduced in Le Droit of October 4, 1956, I read the following:
Received by the Holy Father: Senator Wishart McLea Robertson, Speaker of the Senate of Canada, and Mrs. Robertson, have been received on September 25, in a private audience granted by His Holiness Pope Pius XII, at his pontifical villa of Castelgandolfo.
Opinions have been expressed to the effect that the diplomatic channels that we are now using in our relations with the Vatican, that is the British embassy of Whitehall, were suitable and sufficient. Why should we proceed in such a way? Are we not a full grown nation since the statute of Westminster? Why allow a country which is our equal and our competitor in many fields, to look after our affairs while our prestige and our interests are at stake? If such a procedure is advisable in the case of the Vatican, it should also be proper in relation to the other countries. Let us then do away with our embassies, let us stop sending our ministers around the world, and let us limit their trips to visits to the British Isles.
Would it be a matter of money? If so, we certainly should remember that there are moral and spiritual values for which we are never paying too high a price, because they are priceless.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I would like the Anglo Protestant element of our population to realize, once and for all, that if the reiterated request for a representative of Canada to the Vatican is coming mainly from the Catholic and French province this does not mean that this province wants absolutely this representative to be a Catholic French Canadian.

We understand very well that this diplomat would represent Canada as a whole, as a country, and I would have no objection to his being either from French or English extraction, either Catholic or Protestant. He would only have to be a worthy citizen, well qualified, of irreproachable public character, and he should be able to do credit to our beautiful and great country, and to serve it well.
I would not like to conclude these few remarks without mentioning a matter, on which I have come back every year since I have had the advantage to sit in this house, I mean the raising of family allowances.
It would probably be appropriate to recall first of all that family allowances are and must remain an addition to family income. As a matter of fact, I believe this was the spirit of the legislation when it was voted in 1944. Nevertheless, this additional contribution was considered a minimum at that time, we are admittedly today far from this minimum, since to all practical purposes, the value of the dollar is scarcely more than half of what it was twelve years ago. My colleague for Lapointe (Mr. Girard) yesterday rightly called to our mind the essential part played by the family in the community.
On more than one occasion, in this house and elsewhere, I have attempted to establish the truth of the old saying "a community is only as good as the families in it". And if it is true that an individual needs to have a minimum of earthly goods to practise virtue, it is equally true that a family needs a minimum of revenue and adequate material conditions, for it is the source from which the individual must draw during the most important years of his life. The individual will never be but what his family made him.
I know that strong pressures are exerted in order that all social allowances be increased. It seems to me however that the case of families is more tragic and more urgent than all others. Indeed, if in the case of other assisted people difficulties due to the increase in the cost of living have increased twofold, these difficulties have been multiplied by 4, 6, 8 and even 10 on account of the number of children.
That is why it is most urgent to increase the rate of assistance in this field first, and to find out later what can be done in the other fields.
I urge therefore the hon. minister of National Health and Welfare and the government, to restore, during this session, the original value of this excellent social measure that was adopted in 1944, by doubling, or by increasing substantially the rate of family allowances.
The Address-Mr. Stanton
(Text):


Mr. Hayden Stanton (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, first let me congratulate the mover, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna), and the seconder, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud), on their excellent addresses made in reply to the speech from the throne. They certainly did a splendid job considering what they had to work with. I took particular notice of and listened very attentively to the remarks made by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. He gave an extremely vivid account of the growth of the city of Edmonton, and he may well be proud of the constituency he has the honour to represent. I believe it is one of the fastest growing cities in Canada, if not the fastest growing. Not only is it surrounded by a multitude of oil wells but it serves as a springboard for travel both by road and air to the far north.
I hope I am not yet too ancient, Mr. Speaker, but I can well remember visiting Edmonton with my parents in 1909. At that time Edmonton and Strathcona were separate towns and there were only two high level bridges crossing the river. One was the C.P.R. bridge and the other was for vehicles. Most crossings at that time were made by ferries pulled with a chain. I say again the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona can be justifiably proud of representing a riding which is an example for other Canadian cities to emulate.
I wish to express at this time how surprised and deeply grieved I was when informed of the resignation of Hon. George Drew, leader of the great national Conservative party. I am sure the contributions he has made here will be greatly missed, and the House of Commons will be the poorer for his absence. When we look back and realize the number of our colleagues in this house who have passed on in the not too distant past we are reminded again of the intense strain of public life.
Perhaps nothing could be more illustrative of this than the recent resignation of Sir Anthony Eden. Though criticized by many people in the past in his own country of Great Britain and within his own party, Sir Anthony has proven from time to time that he was right; and I believe when history is written the historians will agree that he was again right in regard to the Middle East. Perhaps it will not be long until the people of the free world will be slapping Sir Anthony on the back for the action he took in regard to the Suez crisis.

The Address-Mr. Stanton
Casting aside our personal thoughts or feelings, I think we must all admit that the action taken by the British and French governments in the Middle East has awakened the United Nations from a talking assembly, which no doubt it would have continued to be, to an active body truly representative of the free world. Too often in the past its members have sat idly by while the Russian communist regime spread its propaganda and influence all across the Middle East.
I am indeed happy, Mr. Speaker, to have as my leader at this time John Diefenbaker, a man who is internationally as well as nationally known, a man who enjoys the respect of nearly all the people of Canada, a man who has contributed much to the debates in this house and who will, I am sure, contribute much to government policy in future years, and I trust those years will extend far into the future.
This has been a very quiet session so far; indeed, how could it be otherwise? If you examine the throne speech mathematically it is obvious that nothing from nothing leaves nothing. It tells nothing of the past, offers no suggestions for the present and holds nothing for the future. Because the throne speech is so vague it is necessary for most hon. members to speak concerning the constituencies they represent, and I propose to do the same.
I am proud to be the representative of that grand old constituency of Leeds. On the south it is bounded by the great waterway of the St. Lawrence river, and contains within its boundaries all the Thousand islands. On the west and north it is bounded by the Rideau waterway. During the past summer I visited the St. Lawrence seaway development. It is tremendous in magnitude and the engineering skill involved is most wonderful, but I would like tonight to take the minds of my listeners back to the time when the Rideau waterway was constructed, between 1827 and 1832.
I believe it was a much more difficult task to construct the Rideau waterway than to build the St. Lawrence seaway. We must realize that the waterway was built by Colonel By through absolute wilderness. No means of communication of any kind had been established, and the project was completed in the unbelievably short period of six years. It was 123 miles in length and consisted of 47 locks. It may surprise some hon. members to know that this waterway cost only $2,500,000. This amount would barely cover the construction at Jones Falls today. Jones Falls is in my own constituency, and there is a dam there which is 60 feet

high. How was it constructed? They did not have derricks nor cranes. Those stones were put in place by hand labour. The canal was dug and constructed not with the modern steam shovels we have today, not with the huge tractor trailers that are now available, but by manual labour employing the wheelbarrow and the ox.
I speak of the Rideau waterway because approximately half its total length of 123 miles is in my constituency. I notice according to Hansard that some years ago certain hon. members of this house, who I am sure were not from eastern Ontario, seemed to be of the opinion that the Rideau canal should be discontinued. What a foolish idea. I may say that there are 53 lakes connected by the Rideau waterway located in the counties of Frontenac, Leeds and Lanark. This is a tremendous tourist attraction. You may talk about the Rocky mountains, Jasper park and so on, but I say to hon. members they should come down to Leeds county and they will see something practically as good for tired eyes to look at.
At this time I should like to deal with some of the problems we are facing in Brockville, my county town. During the past 15 years the population of Brockville has increased by 50 per cent. I feel that we are entitled to more consideration from the federal government, because we have had very little in past years. The population is 15,000 at the present time, with another 3,000 in the adjoining township which is in the process of being annexed. Yet we have a railway station which is not adequate in any sense for a town of that size.
The industrial development of the area is increasing by leaps and bounds. Parke Davis opened a large plant in the north of the city; Automatic Electric have increased their plant; Phillips Electric have increased their plant materially; Du Pont to the east have spent several millions of dollars and are planning another project which will cost in the neighbourhood of $8 million or $9 million. Surely we are entitled to more consideration.
Our post office is outdated, and federal offices are scattered all over the town. The excuse of the government for not starting and completing a federal building is that they want to wait until the town has been rezoned so they will know where to place the building. I may tell the house and the Minister of Public Works-I am sorry he is not in his seat-that the city has been rezoned, which rezoning has been approved by the municipal board. The city fathers are ready to cooperate with the government and the Department of Public Works. I am sure their representative would be welcomed by the

city council if he came down to lay out the work. I hope the minister will provide for this building in his estimates this session. Let us get on with the job. There is no excuse now that the city has been rezoned. Everything is in readiness for a start on the building.
I should like to say a few words in regard to our veterans. I listened to what the hon. member for Lanark had to say about some of these veterans. I believe he is right, as this is something which has been advocated by branches of the Legion across this country.
I agree with the submission that no veteran who served in Great Britain in the first world war for a year or more should be refused the same consideration as those who served in a theatre of war. It was through no fault of their own that these men did not see active service. They were held in Great Britain for other purposes. Their intentions when they enlisted were good, and they should receive the same consideration as other veterans.
I should like also to -bring up the question of veterans who have received aid under the Veterans' Land Act. There are very few of these veterans left. Some of these men have been paying on their mortgages for many years but have been unable to pay them off because of sickness and misfortune. Many of these men are in their late sixties or early seventies and, as I say, there are only a few of them left. Surely the department could now give them a clean sheet, a clear deed to their property, so that in the sunset of their lives they may live in peace without having this debt staring them in the face. Surely they have earned that consideration.
As far as old age pensions are concerned, it would appear that many government supporters are advocating an increase this session. If $40 a month is enough at the present time, then $40 a month was too much when the act was first put into force. If $40 was enough then, it is inadequate at the present time with the increased cost of living. Now that an increase has been advocated by many Liberal members I would not be surprised- I believe my colleagues agree with me-if the minister brought down an increase in old age security payments, this being an election year.
Then a word with regard to pensions for the blind. I know we all have sympathy for these people. Because of their blindness it costs these people more to live than it costs the average man or woman. I submit that they should have more consideration from the minister. They should be allowed to earn what they can without it interfering in any way with the small pensions they are receiving.
The Address-Mr. Stanton As for health insurance, we all know the stand this party takes on that. The Liberal party took their stand in 1919, and they have taken their stand again in every election since that time. Apparently after the election this matter goes unheeded. It would appear that the only way the people of Canada can receive any consideration in the matter of health insurance is to have a change of government.
As my constituency is 50 per cent rural I would be remiss in my duty if I did not take up this evening some of the problems that confront our farmers at the present time. We hear a great deal from members to our left concerning the problems of the west with respect to wheat, but I can assure the house that we have problems in the east. When the committee on agriculture met last session I was dismayed that the request of the concentrated milk producers to put their case before that committee was refused. The chairman of the committee said the terms of reference of the committee did not permit them to present their brief. The hon. member for Brant-Haldimand and I argued very strenuously that they should be permitted to present their brief on that occasion, but we were overruled. I know that some of the Liberal members who represent agricultural constituencies felt very keenly about the matter, but apparently because the problems of the concentrated milk producers did not pertain to wheat they were barred from entering the committee room.
There was an announcement in the speech from the throne of the setting up of a Senate committee to study the benefits that would be derived from an extension of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to include all Canada, so the residents of many submarginal farms might be moved to better locations where their incomes could be much increased. All I can say about the dairy farmers of eastern Ontario is that they are nearly all submarginal as far as their net income is concerned.
I have noticed that the Minister of Agriculture, together with many of his colleagues, has persistently said that the income of farmers has increased, but you never hear him say a word about net income. He never says a word about expenditure increasing much faster than the prices of the products that are produced. In fact the prices of the products produced have decreased very much since 1951 and 1952. During the war our farmers accepted the government's statements in good faith when they told the farmers to go easy, not to say a word then, to take what was offered them and the government would be good to them after the war. The farmers

The Address-Mr. Stanton of eastern Canada know just how good the government has been when it has allowed dairy products to come into our markets from New Zealand, and have not protected us from the actions of the United States.
You know, Mr. Speaker, our good friends to the south do not hesitate to impose tariffs, quotas and what have you when there is an overabundance of agricultural products in that country. But no, we must be friendly; we must be good children. We must accept everything they do and not make any reply whatsoever. I can tell you that our farmers are getting tired of the situation and fed up with the prices they are receiving at the present time. They are not being asked to move off their farms to better farms. In fact there are many 100, 200 and 300 acre farms in my own constituency at the present time, hundreds of them, where the land is lying idle. Why? Because many of these farmers can obtain higher remuneration by working in industrial plants. Many of them are getting too old to carry on their agricultural activities any longer, and with the present level of prices they cannot ask their sons to stay at home.
In my county, which traditionally has been a cheese producing district for many years, production decreased in 1955 by nearly 1 million pounds. Some may say that perhaps the milk has gone into other channels but that is not so, because one of our concentrated milk plants which enjoyed a patronage of around 800 a short time ago is now down to less than 500 patrons. Why? Simply because farms are idle. Most of the farmers are living on these farms because it would take all they would receive for their farms, machinery and cattle to buy a house in a town or city.
I was much impressed by the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton when he spoke about the farm loan act. When that act was amended last year we were all hopeful that it would be easier for farmers and prospective buyers of farms to obtain more money on farm mortgages. I can assure you that it is hard for a farmer to borrow more money on a farm mortgage at the present time. Money which was formerly available to farmers by way of loans has completely dried up. Thirty or forty years ago people were looking for places to invest their money. That is not so today.
I cannot understand how it is that any person working in an industry, any civil servant or what have you, who is receiving a fair income, can borrow money on a home to the extent of 90 per cent of its appraised value while the farmer can only borrow up to 65 per cent, and even at that it seems to have been difficult for the farmer to do so 

during the past year. I have instances in my own constituency, just as the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton has in his, in which loans on farms I knew were well worth far more than the appraised value were turned down by the farm loan board. Why I do not know.	.
The excuse has been offered to me that their revenue was not high enough. In some instances the money that farmers in my constituency were seeking was simply for the purpose of making their farms more remunerative. If the farm loan board officials and the government consider that a man working in industry with his two hands and who has no capital investment is a security risk much superior to the man with a farm worth $10,000 or $15,000 and having another $10,000 worth of cattle and equipment, there is something wrong and it is high time the government did something about it.
I am not going to take too long this evening, but during his speech the hon. member for Macleod made some prophecies regarding the Conservative party west of the great lakes. He made the prophecy that the Conservative party would come back after the next election with fewer members west of the great lakes than they have at the present time. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few prophecies, and I do not believe that I will have to go too far out on the limb in doing so. I prophesy that the Social Credit party will not elect a member east of the Manitoba border, and that nearly all their candidates will lose their deposits. I will also make a prophecy that they will not elect a member east of the Alberta border. I am not saying that they will not do so west of that border, but I am sure their representation there will be decreased.
I should like to draw the attention of hon. members of this house to the constituency of Prince Albert. Sir Wilfrid Laurier represented that famed constituency in the year 1896. Right Hon. Mackenzie King represented it in the years 1926, 1930, 1935 and 1940.


Mr. Ellis:: And he was beaten by the C.C.F. in 1945.


Hayden Stanton: I will make one more prediction and it is this. The good people of the constituency of Prince Albert will 'have a third prime minister of Canada as their representative after the next election.
(Translation):


Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I associate myself with the previous speakers in congratulating

the mover and the seconder of the address in reply. The honourable members for Ed-monton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) and for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) made excellent speeches which justify the honour bestowed upon them by the Prime Minister and the members of the cabinet.
Then too, I should feel remiss if, at the beginning of my remarks, I failed to congratulate the new leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), for the confidence shown in him by the members and supporters of his party, and by reason of which he now bears the heavy responsibility of leading the forces of the official opposition in this house.
Under our parliamentary system we are allowed to disagree on the means of achieving the greatness of our country and the welfare of our fellow citizens. However the relations I have had with my colleagues in this house ever since I have come to it have been such as to convince me that each and everyone of us here, of whatever political persuasion he may be, is resolved to work towards the greatness of this country and to discharge his responsibilities to the best of his ability.
I would also like to avail myself of this opportunity, at the beginning of the new year, to offer my best wishes to all my colleagues and to the people of the constituency of Dollard, whom I have the honour to represent.
A great many of the opposition speakers who have spoken before me have stated that the speech from the throne read by His Excellency the Governor General of Canada at the opening of the session contained nothing or almost nothing. I cannot but think, when I hear that statement, that there are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear and none so blind as those who do not want to see. For my part, I have heard the speech from the throne in the other house and, later on, I took the trouble of reading it very carefully. I do not hesitate to say that this speech was very rich in proposals of national interest and that when its contents have been adopted by this house, it will promote an ever greater well-being for the population of Canada, ensure the maintenance of our economic and cultural development and be highly beneficial to the population which we represent. At the very beginning of the speech from the throne, we find that the government is eager to maintain the basic unity of the commonwealth and the reality of the western alliance. The Prime Minister, as well as the members of his cabinet, have proven and still prove to us that these words are not empty words. The close ties which link the Prime Minister to the prime minis-
The Address-Mr. Rouleau ters of the other member nations of the commonwealth, and the visits which have been exchanged during the last few years, and more particularly the last few weeks, when the prime minister of India came here to meet the Prime Minister of our country, prove this fact beyond the shadow of a doubt. While in certain cases they may have slight differences of opinion, they all agree on the goal which must be pursued by the association within the commonwealth. That goal is to safeguard the freedom of people, as well as the economic freedom of the member countries of the commonwealth.
The commonwealth association is made up of nations which are free, which enjoy full sovereignty, but have decided from their own free will, to unite in pursuing the goal I have just mentioned. The tour of Asia which the minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has just accomplished, is further evidence of the view I just stated, and I take this opportunity to offer hearty congratulations to the Minister of National Health and Welfare for having been such a good ambassador for our country, as well as an agent of peace and freedom for the commonwealth partnership.
The speech from the throne also mentions that Canadian military personnel is participating in the United Nations Emergency Force, which was suggested by Canada at the General Assembly of the United Nations, and here I would like, not only in my own name, but on behalf of my constituents of Dollard county, whose reaction was unanimous, to proffer our most sincere thanks and congratulations to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) who, at one of the most crucial moments for world peace, took upon himself to suggest what, to my mind, silenced the guns in the Middle East and prevented disaster from spreading to the whole world.
We remember with emotion that, when nearly everybody was saying that war was unavoidable, the Canadian representative at the United Nations devised a formula agreeable to all concerned, and that within a few days his suggestion had not only brought hostilities to an end in that part of the world but had removed the risk of another world war which had been hanging over us for several weeks. The Secretary of State for External Affairs had long been known as a great politician and a great diplomat, and he showed himself on that occasion the champion of peace.
At the very moment when trouble was brewing in the Middle East something still more terrible was happening behind the iron curtain, when a courageous and stout-hearted

The Address-Mr. Rouleau
people, in a united effort, decided to cast off for himself the needs of the refugees and con-the yoke of dictatorship, barbarism and sider the most appropriate and quickest way godlessness. This spontaneous gesture of a to help them and to facilitate their entry into freedom-loving people will have world-wide Canada.
consequences which can perhaps hardly be properly assessed at this time but will be felt perhaps sooner than we think. As mentioned in Time magazine of January 7, only later will it be possible to appraise the consequences of the action taken by the people. However the effects of this action on European politics and military forces are extraordinary. That people, unarmed and lacking practically everything, immobilized almost 80 Russian divisions, thus proving to the world that in a world-wide conflict the masters of the Kremlin cannot rely entirely upon an army reduced by them to slavery.
The action taken by the Hungarian people is the cause of all the waverings evidenced at the present time by the masters of the Kremlin. It also brought the world to the realization that the smiles by Khrushchev and Bulganin in the last few months were nothing but hypocrisy and humbug. By their barbarian military repression of this uprising for freedom on the part of the Hungarian people, the Russian communists and their leaders in particular have lost immense prestige throughout the world and among the partisans of the communist ideology. Thus since the barbarian repression of innocents with the help of Russian tanks, we have seen throughout the world thousands and thousands of communist militants leave the ranks of that movement. That action has also demonstrated that it is impossible for the Russian communist party to suppress liberty entirely and to brainwash youths to make them into machines of the state believing in no spiritual or moral values. That action equally demonstrated to the world that peoples and individuals have a deep-rooted need of truth that no method whatever can suppress and that is why all the nations of the world should be thankful to that people and should take every means possible to help those who left their family and their country to flee the vengeance of the masters of the communist party in the Kremlin.
The speech from the throne shows that Canada played its part and continues to do so to prove its gratitude to that people, by assisting through the Red Cross or otherwise those who still suffer in Hungary and the others who have come to establish themselves in our vast and rich country. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) went in person to Austria to see 
Already thousands of Hungarian refugees have reached our country and we shall welcome thousands of others in the near future. Each and every one of us in Canada who have enjoyed for generations living in a free and prosperous country, which has not experienced the anguish of war and the yoke of dictature, must warmly welcome those who so gallantly fought for the freedom and the safeguard of their faith.
When Christ came on earth, he taught us the great principle of love and charity. He urged us to practise charity, saying: "Love one another, give drink to those who thirst, and food to those who hunger." The Hungarian refugees who are coming to this country not only are our brothers, but they are also the champions of our way of life since they have fought for freedom, which we cherish so much. They are entitled to our respect, and I am convinced that, like the Canadian government, each and every one of the citizens of our country will take pleasure in welcoming them and assisting them. While I was speaking about the Hungarian refugees, I happened to mention our country which is so prosperous, so large, and so endowed with natural resources. The fact is even mentioned in the speech from the throne in these words. I quote:
Excellent progress is being made in our national economic development. Expansion is evident in every part of Canada . . . employment has reached unprecedented levels.
To sum up, Canadian production as well as national revenue are reaching unprecedented heights, a fact which is not without worrying the government because of the danger of inflation which seems to follow upon the overly rapid development we are undergoing. To overcome this danger of inflation which threatens to bring about serious economic consequences, the government is of the opinion that we continue to take some steps designed to check inflation by restricting credit in this country. It is because of this that I would like to make a request on behalf of my constituents from Dollard. In my constituency there are hundreds of industries and an even larger number of tradesmen and contractors, and I would like to ask the government to continue to protect them in every possible way. This protection is especially necessary to small tradesmen and manufacturers as a safeguard against calamitous inflation. I have no doubt that the members

of the Canadian government have no wish to see these people discontinue their activities and that they will see to it that necessary steps are taken to prevent them from undergoing too serious difficulties in the conduct of their business. In his speech on the address in reply, the leader of the opposition obviously made reference to the strike which was at that time paralysing one of the two large railways in this country, a strike which threatened to provoke serious trouble. However, instead of putting forward a solution, the leader of the opposition contented himself with saying, as is recorded in Hansard, volume 100, No. 3, page 26:
What does the government do? It continues its policy of being resolute in irresolution.
The Prime Minister answered then and I am quoting again from the same volume, page 36:
I can assure the hon. gentleman that my colleagues and I have not been inactive and that the remaining stumbling block has been narrowed very considerably.
Then the Prime Minister expressed what he believed to be acceptable to all, while not interfering with the democratic rights of each of the parties involved.
Time has shown that he was right as he was able to announce to the great satisfaction of the house and of the country that the strike had ended and that both parties to the dispute had accepted his proposal. In fact, one cannot more adequately express the feelings of the house and of Canada than was done by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) after the Prime Minister had announced the end of the strike, when he said:
We, too, express satisfaction that there has been no compulsion; free men in a free society, bargaining freely, have achieved the result. I am glad there was no compulsion exercised against either party in this dispute. I am sure the people of Canada will welcome the announcement made by the Prime Minister. I wish to congratulate all those who have participated in bringing about this satisfactory result.
If the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, who sits on the opposition side, saw fit to express such feelings I can, with all the more reason, sitting as I do on the government side, rejoice with the people of Canada which placed its confidence in the attitude of the Prime Minister throughout this crisis. I wish to congratulate him for his reasonable stand in the settlement of this strike and for the remarkable results he has achieved.
Through the voice of the governor general, the government has announced in the speech
The Address-Mr. Rouleau from the throne an amendment extending the scope of the Municipal Grants Act to authorize the payment of grants in lieu of taxes on federal property in all municipalities where such property receives normal municipal services.
I had the opportunity to read several editorials published by various papers throughout the country, and everybody will agree with me that the legislation was welcomed by the people and the municipalities who will benefit thereby. With the expansion experienced by most municipalities in the past few years, in the industrial, commercial and housing fields, the municipal councils had to face growing needs which had to be paid for in a short period of years. The municipalities had to build sewers, streets, sidewalks, and finally guarantee all the relevant services. Most municipalities who have known such developments have a real need of money and this measure announced by the government will greatly help the municipalities that have federal buildings on their territory. In the county which I have the honour to represent, and more particularly in the city of St. Laurent, the government has erected public buildings and I know that this legislation will be welcomed by the municipal authorities of this town which is one of the most progressive in this country.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to a part of the speech from the throne which, if it cannot but be of some concern for the Canadian people, is something to be enthusiastic over for a man of my generation who has the advantage of representing a county where the average age is young. I refer to the measure for the establishment of a Canada council for the arts, humanities and social sciences, which will certainly give a new impetus to the development of Canadian scholarship and culture.
Speaking of Canadian culture, I would like to mention an article published in the January 1957 issue of Esquire and written by one of the contributors to that magazine, Mr. Gerald Kersh. Like many others, I was surprised to read in that magazine, which usually gives good publicity to our country, that article by Mr. Kersh which suggests that an important part of the Canadian people, namely the French Canadians, have no culture and are all but uncivilized.
I would not mention it, if it was not that this magazine is read by millions of people, in Canada as well as in the United States.
28S

The Address-Mr. Rouleau I was told, too, that the manager of this magazine has apologized to the authorities of the province I. come from, and I appreciate it, but since these apologies have not been as widely publicized as the article, I fear that I would not be fulfilling my duty, not as a French Canadian, but as a Canadian, if X failed to call attention to this matter.
In his article, Mr. Kersh infers that we have no culture at all, that we Canadian citizens of French origin have produced nothing in the field of literature, music, painting or any other field. He holds also that, in the field of culinary art, the only dish that we have succeeded in inventing is pea-soup. He insinuates also that our language is very poor and he seems bent on describing us as a group of cave-dwellers. That article goes so far, Mr. Speaker, that when I started reading it I thought that it was a formidable joke; I thought that its author was trying to caricature us. If it is a joke, Mr. Speaker, it is in very bad taste, and if it is a caricature, it is badly done for it bears no resemblance to those it attempts to describe.
Mr. Kersh goes further and strikes at the very foundation of society, the family. He tells us that if we shut in for the winter a couple of Canadians of French origin, we shall find the following spring two or three little Canadians. Nothing could be viler. Our society, as I said, is based precisely on the family. Nothing is more sacred. I cannot understand a man like Mr. Kersh jeering at it. We are rightly proud of our large families. They constitute one of the greatest values and riches of the Canadian nation. When Mr. Kersh tells us that there is no cuisine in the province of Quebec, the facts belie that because it is recognized, not only throughout Canada, but also in the United States and even abroad that in the province of Quebec, and in the cities of Montreal and Quebec in particular, there are numerous places where dishes are the best and the most varied.
As regards our culture, it is easy to prove that, while we are a young nation, our culture is in full development. We are proud of the men the nation has produced in the fields of literature, arts, sciences or politics. Among the latter there are few Canadians more completely and thoroughly cultured than the present Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent whose mother was a great Canadian woman of Irish origin and whose father was a French Canadian. He was also so fortunate as to be brought up in Canada, in the province where I was born. At the beginning of my remarks concerning Mr. Kersh's article, I 

stated that I was moved to criticize these remarks which, to say the least, are quite unkind not so much because 1 am a Canadian of French origin but because I am a Canadian citizen. In attacking French culture he was also attacking Canadian culture since the people of Canada, even though its members may differ as to origin, and even though each group may have retained its own traditions, nonetheless forms one people. In spite of this diversity and because of it we have acquired a distinctly Canadian culture which, if it is allowed to come to fruition is called upon to be rich and to be capable not only of identifying a nation, but of serving it and of being also of service to the peoples of the world because of the development of our country and of the increasing influence which we wield in the councils of nations. It is up to us to enrich that purely Canadian culture in order to be worthy of our mission and so to be able fully to avail ourselves of the spiritual and even of the material values which Providence has dispensed to us. In that sense, I am firmly convinced that the bill for the establishment of a Canadian council for the arts, humanities and social sciences will mean an important progress. That is why I congratulate the Prime Minister who conceived this project as well as the members of the government for their contribution to its inception.
(Text):


Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent. N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me particular pleasure at this time to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) on the brilliant manner in which he discharged his duty in moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
(Translation):
I congratulate also the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the honourable member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud). He has discharged himself of his task with a distinction which honours the constituency he represents, as well as his province. I have been much impressed by his remarks about higher education in Acadia. There will never be enough praise for the heroism of those who, until today, have been mainly responsible for the maintenance of the cause of the Acadians in their small country. Today, the federal government wants to increase its assistance to the Canadian universities. Our Acadian educational institutions will accept these grants from the government, confident that this new contribution will hasten in our part of the country a greater cultural development, and a wider influence of our Acadian ethnical group. The French fact in Canada

has a right to exist throughout the country. However, experience has shown that it is in the federal charter that the minorities of the country have most often found a guarantee of that right. Instead of considering the influence of a central government as a threat to their rights, the minorities have many times had cause to rejoice in having turned towards it. Such was the case for instance in connection with radio broadcasting. Such will be the case in connection with television. I am therefore happy at this time to congratulate this government for wanting to increase the grants to the universities of this country.
Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to point out the seriousness of the situation which until a few days ago was of great concern to all Canadians. By this I mean the strike which brought to a standstill the operations of one of our great railways. If it is true that this strike has now ended because of the spirit of co-operation shown by all interested parties, I believe that it is well to mention more particularly the conciliatory role played by the Prime Minister of Canada during these talks which brought about a solution to the strike.
I believe that all Canadians appreciate the outstanding part taken by the Prime Minister in these serious circumstances.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it would be appropriate, I think, to mention here the satisfaction felt by all the members of this house at the return of the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). The message of good will which he has carried throughout the world, in the name of the people and of the government of Canada, will no doubt contribute to enhance, in the eyes of the other nations of the world, the already enviable prestige of Canada. We are therefore happy to express to the hon. minister our feeling of high appreciation for his distinguished services to his country.
I should also mention the part played by the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) who acted on behalf of our country in order to help the unfortunate Hungarian people. There was a humanitarian deed in the best Christian spirit. Canada has been enhanced by this action. The Canadian people must express all its gratitude to the man who represented this country so well in this circumstance.
(Text):
On January 8 I was pleased to hear during the reading of the speech from the throne of the government's proposals to recommend in the Senate the establishment of a committee- ... to consider what should be done to make better use of land for agriculture and thus to
The Address-Mr. Michaud contribute more effectively to the improvement of agricultural production and the incomes of those engaged in it.
I know that all are conscious of the present condition, whereby farmers today are not receiving their proportionate share of the national revenue. I listened with interest the other day to the remarks made in this house by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, and I want to commend at this time the interest the hon. member has always shown in agriculture, particularly in regard to agricultural conditions in our own province of New Brunswick. At all times he has proven to be a strong advocate of more government assistance and support to New Brunswick farmers, and I have often shared his views in this respect. In his speech the other day, however, I felt the hon. member was being inconsistent when he took a critical view of the government's proposal to recommend the establishment of an agricultural study committee.
We are all aware that the farming population of our province, together with the farming population of the rest of the country, is not receiving an equitable return for its efforts. I am sure everyone, including the members of the government, will agree with the hon. member's contention that our farmers are hard-working people, that they are clever and no less backward than the rest of their fellow citizens, and that many of them are most successful in their undertakings; but we must not forget that agriculture is also a science and as such is open to a scientific approach in both the fields of production and marketing. I have no doubt that this is the thought the government has in mind when seeking plans which will assure our farming people a fair and equitable return for the job performed.
The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton further stated that what farmers in New Brunswick need is a market for their produce. I am quite in agreement with him on this matter, but might I be permitted to make another suggestion in this regard. Would not the readiest market available to maritime farmers be the maritime market itself? When we consider that we import between 60 and 65 per cent of the foodstuffs for our own local requirements this would appear to be the logical goal we should strive to achieve.
Pursuant to that matter I would like to express a view which I have already expressed in this house. This agriculture committee could properly seek ways and means to establish freezing and processing plants at points in farming areas, thus enabling the maritime farmers themselves to secure this ready market, for most of the food commodities we need can be produced at home.

The Address-Mr. Michaud
I am not of the opinion that the main source of our difficulties in relation to the maritime farm economy lies in the lack of soil fertility. I believe, on the contrary, that when properly cultivated our land is generally good, fertile land which can yield all the vital things we need for our own sustenance. 1 feel, therefore, there is a definite need for a committee such as was proposed in the speech from the throne on January 8, and I am looking forward with great hope that the task it will perform will mark a turning point in the farm economy of our country and more particularly in the maritime farm economy.
Again referring to the remarks made by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton in this house last week, there is one point on which I might say that I am in some agreement with him. I am now speaking of his reference to the inefficiency of the Canadian farm loan board to cope fully with the credit needs of the Canadian farmers. There is a growing feeling of dissatisfaction toward the rigid attitude of this board in its appraisal of the credit requirements and actual assets of farm properties. It is no longer being considered by the majority of farmers as a farm loan institution, but merely as just another loan institution. Statistics could be produced to bear out that tendency. Between March 31, 1956, and December 31, 1956, the Canadian farm loan board received 64 applications from New Brunswick, 39 of which were approved, for a total of $149,700.
If we consider that farming is New Brunswick's chief industry, and if we also consider the number of farms in the province and the necessity of rehabilitating many of them, we must admit that these figures are not very impressive. I would suggest to the Department of Finance that they reconsider the terms and regulations now governing the operations of the Canadian farm loan board with a view to rendering them more flexible and more adequate to meet the requirements of those farmers who rely upon the facilities of this board for financial assistance.
However, we should not assume that the federal Department of Agriculture is solely responsible for the welfare of our farm population, and I would like to point out that under our constitution the welfare of our farmers is also the responsibility of the provincial authorities. In recognizing this responsibility I would hope that our provincial governments across Canada, including the government of New Brunswick, would realize they are not relieved of the responsibility of giving some assistance in matters of loan financing.
Referring to the fishing industry, I should like to say that in relation to the maritime

economy it is next in importance to the farming industry. In a general way I think it is right to say that our fishermen had a comparatively good year in 1956. This is particularly true of lobster fishermen, who form the majority of the fishermen in my own constituency of Kent. In this regard I should like to quote from a Moncton Times editorial dated December 8, 1956, concerning this matter:
Nature evidently beamed with favour on the lobster fishermen of New Brunswick during the respective open seasons around this province's coastlines in 1956. For this became known when the reports were submitted to the conference of federal fisheries officers just concluded in Moncton. "A decided increase" in the lobster catch is how district protection officer A. A. Robichaud summarized the over-all outcome of the various lobster-ing seasons this year.
For the fishermen of Westmorland and Kent counties, as well as others actively associated with or interested in this lucrative branch of the fisheries industry, the season, both in regard to catch and landed values, was one that again reflected increases. The crustaceans garnered from the fishing grounds in the Northumberland strait between Point Sapin, N.B., and River Phillip, N.S., totalled in volume 5,919,700 pounds and brought the fishermen a total revenue of $1,810,193.
This is the fourth successive year that an improvement in both catch and value has been recorded. It compared with the respective figures for 1955 of 5,299,000 pounds valued at $1,657,245; of those for 1954 of 3,067,700 pounds valued at $1,306,272, and those of 1953 of 4,133,200 pounds valued at $1,243,603.
And again:
From the standpoint of volume, it would appear that the stricter surveillance of the lobster grounds by augmented numbers of fisheries protection officers these past few years has had some effect in reducing the depredations of poachers as well as other illegal fishing methods. And the education program stressing conservation measures, which has been carried on during the past four years, has also had a beneficial effect in nurturing the valuable lobster population off the shores of this province.
The lobster fishery forms an important part of the economy of the eastern, northern and southern coastal areas of New Brunswick. It provides the fishermen with a considerable part of their annual income, and it is a matter of much satisfaction to see this increasing.
In my estimation that editorial gives a fairly comprehensive account of the situation inasmuch as it applies to the Kent county lobster industry. There seems to exist sufficient evidence of a healthful note of optimism for the future of that industry. Apart from that encouraging factor is also the prospect for many fishermen of unemployment insurance benefits which will become available next year to the fishing industry. This should prove of valuable assistance during the winter months, when the income of fishermen in my district is at its lowest level.
I was interested in reading on January 8 a press report stating that the Department of Fisheries plans to reseed the oyster fishing

grounds in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. In regard to this matter I should like to refer to an editorial which appeared in the Moncton Transcript of January 10, and which very adequately sums up the situation. It relates the history of the disease which depleted our oyster grounds during the course of the past few years. It states:
In fact the experts have estimated that 90 per cent of the oyster stocks in the affected waters have been destroyed by natural mortalities over that comparatively short period of 1955 and 1956. This devastation, of course, caused not only a decided reduction in the volume of the shellfish garnered but also in the landed values.
The biologists found the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia oyster grounds had been swept by a disease similar to that which all but ruined the long-famed beds in Prince Edward Island between 35 and 40 years ago. So it is from the island's now prolific producing waters that disease-resistant bivalves will be transplanted to bring about the rehabilitation of the depleted oyster fishing grounds of the mainland provinces.
There seems no doubt but the method of rehabilitation will prove equally as successful in the present instances as was the case in restoring the Prince Edward Island beds some years ago. It will, of course, take several years before the process shall have completely eradicated the disease which has been depleting the oysters. In all, the plan will see 10,000 barrels of P.E.I. disease-resistant bivalves planted in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia
The Address-Mr. Michaud
fishing grounds over the ensuing three years, with the 1957 transplant totalling 1,500 barrels to be made in. May and June.
The federal government officials merit commendation in taking timely action towards the restoration of this fishery which in past years has been a valuable one to the fishermen of this and the other maritime provinces. Research has dictated that the oyster beds would rehabilitate themselves naturally within a period of 10 to 15 years, but the department's action gives recognition to the fact that it is unnecessary to deprive fishermen of this source of income for so long a period.
I wish to associate myself with the concluding words of that article, and also congratulate the Department of Fisheries for the active action being taken in this matter. I express the hope also that as a result of these activities we shall see the oyster beds of Kent county brought back to their former production which meant so much to the income of our local fishermen.
On motion of Mr. Weir the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: We shall continue with this debate tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
290
[Stage Direction]
Questions