1957-01-16

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this house and all Canadians of our generation who have vivid personal recollections of Canada's all-out war effort during the first half of the forties were grieved to hear this morning of the death of the right hon. the Earl of Athlone.
As governor general of Canada through the most hazardous years of the war, the Earl of Athlone won the confidence and the affection of the Canadian people from coast to coast. The Earl of Athlone entered on his high office in the dark days of 1940 when the future of civilization might seem to have been at stake. Throughout the following anxious years until his departure in the spring of 1946 His Excellency performed the complex and difficult duties of governor general with tact, with zeal and with distinction. From the first the Earl and the Princess Alice threw themselves wholeheartedly into the life and problems of our country. By their wide travels over Canada, by the warm-hearted way in which they greeted thousands upon thousands of Canadians and by the active interest which they took in every phase of Canadian life in wartime, in our armed forces, in munitions plants, in hospitals and in countless other directions, they did all that was in their power to help promote the feeling of national unity so essential to a total war effort.
The Earl of Athlone had had a long and admirable career of public service before he came to Canada. As a young officer, he had served with distinction in the campaigns both in Matabeleland and in South Africa. It was indeed his devotion to his duty as a soldier which prevented him from coming to Canada as governor general in 1914, when he was appointed to that office by His Majesty King George the Fifth. Instead, he went to France, again to serve with distinction in Britain's armed forces.
Throughout his long career, and particularly as governor general of Canada, he showed an exceptional appreciation of the
82715-19J
manner in which the commonwealth of nations was developing as a free association of independent nations, bound together by a common loyalty. In his speeches he frequently interpreted that development with sympathy and skill.
No one could have shown greater pride in the part which Canada played in the war, and in the place which Canada had earned by her efforts among the united nations, than did the Earl of Athlone in his many public addresses as governor general of this country.
Each time I have had the pleasure of meeting the Earl of Athlone and Princess Alice since 1946, and I have had the privilege of doing so on several occasions, they never failed to show continued interest in Canadian events and developments. I know too that many other Canadians who have had the privilege of meeting them have had the same experience.
The passing of the Earl of Athlone will be widely mourned throughout Canada, as throughout all the commonwealth. He will long be remembered for the ability and devotion with which he performed the duties of his high office at a most critical time in the history of our country and of the civilized world.
I would like, supported by the Leader of the Opposition, to suggest that as a tribute to the memory of this great public servant of his sovereign, of Canada, and of the commonwealth, and as a mark of our deep sympathy with Her Royal Highness the Princess Alice, with our beloved Queen and with all the members of the royal family we stand together for a moment of silence and mournful reflection on their bereavement.
(Whereupon the members rose and observed a period of silence.)



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) with regard to the much discussed and all-important, though I must admit somewhat technical, question of interest rates. I wish to ask him

Inquiries of the Ministry a question based on what he said on November 27 last, and I read briefly from what he then said, as reported at page 47 of Hansard:
It is not the action of the Bank of Canada which is causing the rise in interest rates, it is the demand on the money supply both in business and in government circles; and the Bank of Canada interest rate is only a reflection of the increased interest rates in the money market.
And again:


Some hon, Members:: Question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will ask the question in due course. Then he said:
When it is said that the Bank of Canada rate was increased and thereby other rates were increased, it is just merely putting the cart before the horse because it is the reverse.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There seem to be many speakers in this house, Mr. Speaker.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: And this is a time when it is not proper for speeches to be made.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, having laid the foundation for my question, does the Minister of Finance not think-


An hon. Member:: You have laid a foundation for a 10-storey building.


Mr. Rowe:: If hon. members across the way kept quiet they would understand the question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the minister not agree that the interest rates in the money market, of which he says the Bank of Canada rate is only a reflection, are themselves affected by the Bank of Canada's own action in buying and selling bonds in the open market, and that therefore the Bank of Canada does influence interest rates?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for repeating what I said; it is very seldom that I find myself an authority on anything. But it is only just what he said, Mr. Speaker; it seems to me that most members of the Tory party start with the foundation of the Liberal party and then see whether they cannot get somewhere after that.


Mr. Ferguson:: If we used the foundations of your party we would never get anywhere.


Walter Edward Harris: I think I can answer the question very simply by saying that I have no change to make in the statement I made then, though it was in answer to a question during the question period. I would be glad to discuss it in greater detail later at the appropriate time. However, since it is a matter of interest and since my hon. friend has


gone to some trouble to look for my remarks on the subject, may I say there is no question at all that the interest rate, the rediscount rate, of the Bank of Canada, which was increased, my recollection is, in August 1955, followed after a steady increase in interest rates which had extended over six months prior to that. To that extent and for that reason I gave the answer in November that the increased discount rate is merely a reflection of the increased demand for money in the money market which led to an increased interest rate.
Now then, it may be that when the Bank of Canada increases its interest rate certain persons may ascribe to it-that is, the increase in rate-reasons why they in turn should increase their interest rates. That does not at the same time admit that there is any validity for certain interest increases for that reason alone and I think that probably is what my hon. friend had in mind.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I like to use moderate language but I think the minister, as he did last autumn, is simply not answering. I would like to refer the minister to what the governor of the Bank of Canada said at page 383 of the proceedings of last year-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -and I think the minister will find that it is entirely in disagreement with what he said. I would also like to remind the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. gentleman has had time enough to lay a long foundation and frame a long question and unless he wants to ask a supplementary question at this time I do not think he should do so by laying down another long foundation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, to return to my previous question, may I ask the Minister of Finance this question. Is the minister persisting in his previous statement that the Bank of Canada has no influence on interest rates?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have never said that the Bank of Canada had no influence on interest rates. My recollection is that that question was asked of me in a different form by the hon. member for Greenwood a month or so ago and that I did not make any answer which would indicate that the Bank of Canada could not influence interest rates. As a matter of fact, it could do so. He knows that and I think everyone else knows it.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of ihe Opposilion):: In that connection, would the minister outline what powers the Bank of Canada has to do other than control the quantity of credit? What power has it to allocate credit? What power has it to give advice and to apply pressure to private business, if that course is being followed? I ask the minister whether the government has abdicated to the Bank of Canada its rights, its authority, and its responsibility to do things that are not justified by the Bank of Canada Act.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have said already this afternoon that I intended to make some rather extended remarks about this matter. But in anticipation of doing that, I think I should answer my hon. friend by reminding him that I told his acting leader, in answer to a similar question some months ago, that if he would only read the Bank of Canada Act he would get the answer to his question.


William Earl Rowe: In
view of the advice I received from the Minister of Finance on that occasion, Mr. Speaker, I might ask a supplementary question. Does the government approve of the Bank of Canada's decision to restrict credit independent of collateral and, as my leader has suggested, thereby more or less controlling business generally?


Walter Edward Harris: I am afraid I do not quite understand that question, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Have you read the Bank of Canada Act?


Walter Edward Harris: I have read the Bank of Canada Act several times.


William Earl Rowe: May I suggest to the Minister of Finance that he might read the Bank of Canada Act.


Walter Edward Harris: I have done so.
[Later: ]


Mr. Roland Michener (Si. Paul's):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Greenwood. If the minister wishes the house to understand that the Bank of Canada is a follower rather than a leader, what steps is the government taking to meet the inflationary trend at this time?


Walter Edward Harris: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I must say I am gratified that hon. members of the opposition are now agreeing that we have an inflationary problem. There was a time not so long ago when they questioned the things that were being done. I can only assure my hon. friend that to the best of my ability in the course of this session I shall deliver quite
Inquiries of the Ministry a long speech on this particular subject in order to try to tell them the answer to that question.
[Later: ]


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Are the chartered banks of Canada authorized or advised by the Bank of Canada to charge different rates of interest to different borrowers?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Speaker.



REPORTED DIFFICULTY RESPECTING MUNICIPAL DEBENTURE ISSUES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware of the difficulties that municipalities are experiencing in their endeavour to sell debentures, and the high rate of interest that they are forced to pay on the sale of these debentures which are issued for the purpose of necessary construction of schools, water works and other municipal projects?
If so, is the government considering making money more readily available to municipalities at a low rate of interest?


Walter Edward Harris: My recollection is that the municipal governments of Canada borrowed more money in 1956 than they did in any previous year. That fact does not lead one to conclude that they are having difficulty in getting money. It is true, however, that they had to pay the high interest rate for raising the money already discussed this afternoon.


Michael Starr: Is the minister aware of the fact that certain municipalities in the Ottawa area have been trying to sell debentures and have been willing to pay the 5 per cent interest but have not been able to sell them yet, and that the same situation is being experienced by other municipalities throughout the country at the present time?


Walter Edward Harris: I do not get communications from the municipalities telling me all their particular difficulties. If there are some which cannot borrow money unless they pay 5 per cent, I presume that what I said on November 27 still obtains, namely that if the elected representatives feel that the work they are undertaking is necessary and essential and therefore one which should be gone ahead with despite interest rates, no doubt they will take the step of borrowing at that rate. If, on the other hand, they feel that they can postpone it because of the cost, they

Inquiries of the Ministry will do so. That is one manner in which we are trying to prolong the present boom.


Michael Starr: May I just point out to the minister that the works-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Michael Starr: -which the municipal governments have in contemplation are absolutely necessary. Such things as schools and projects in connection with water supplies are necessary. Does not the minister think that the extra interest is an overburden to municipal home owners if they could have made available by this government loans with a low interest rate?


An hon. Member:: No answer.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris)? Perhaps I would direct it to the Minister of Finance even if the Minister of Public Works were here. In view of the continuing need of money for housing and the already high cost of interest payments, and in the light of the Canadian Press report this morning-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -will the government take steps to see that National Housing Act money is made available for housing construction without an increase in the interest rate?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the house would expect me to leave that question to be answered by the Minister of Public Works.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of Finance not feel that this question of money being made available for housing rather than for some other projects is a matter of over-all government financial policy on which he as the Minister of Finance should have something to say?


Walter Edward Harris: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I will have something to say about it, but in consultation with the Minister of Public Works and my colleagues.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and in his absence perhaps the parliamentary assistant could answer. In fact, there are two questions. Can the minister inform the house as to the date when it is now expected that the Trans-Canada pipe line will be completed to Winnipeg and Emerson? Has consideration been given to any extension of the date of repayment of the $8 million loan


Some hon. Members:: Eighty million.


George Hugh Castleden: -yes, the $80 million loan to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines beyond April 1, 1957?


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister the question will be taken as notice.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resligouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. What is the attitude of the government in regard to the Gordon commission's recommendations that the government pay the cost of relocation for people who wish to move away from the neglected maritime provinces?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: My impression of some of the reports made by several newspapers with respect to that aspect of the Gordon commission report is that they are quite inaccurate. The suggestion, as I read it in the report, is that everything possible should be done to bring the economic activity of the Atlantic region up to a point where the standards of living there will be very much nearer those of the most favoured regions in Canada. If after doing so it should appear that the resources of the area are not sufficient to accomplish that for all those who are in the area, and some of them wish to remove for that reason to other areas, I take it that the suggestion is that there should be consideration given to assisting them in making that move. But that is only in the event that all possible ways of making the best possible use of the resources of the area and to the fullest possible extent have proved insufficient to raise the standards of living of the people in the area

close enough to those of the people of the most favoured regions in the country.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Ralph Byron Horner: A supplementary question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Two leaders.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that everybody in the government seems to deny the paternity of this report and is running away from it, would the government consider giving us a revised statement as to the portions with which they agree?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, when this government appoints a commission to inquire into and report on a certain situation it makes no effort whatsoever to dictate to the commission what its recommendations shall be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We are
claiming the paternity of the idea of establishing the commission and the commission itself is entitled to the paternity of all recommendations in its report.


Ralph Byron Horner: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. When will his government start to move and do something for the maritime provinces?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government has been moving at such a pace that no other party in this country has been able to keep up with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



GORDON COMMISSION REPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the widespread clamour in his own province for the South Saskatchewan dam, does the minister agree with the specific recommendation in the Gordon report, and I quote these words:
. . . cautions the government against proceeding with the construction of substantial irrigation projects, as these tend to result in overproduction of agricultural products.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I have never associated the building of the South Saskatchewan dam with only irrigation projects. I think other objectives are much more important even than that.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question. Since the tabling of the Gordon commission report, has the minister made any representations to his colleagues that the South Saskatchewan dam be proceeded with?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the members of the government will agree that if I were to recite to this house all the representations I make to members of the government and the government with regard to the South Saskatchewan, it would take up most of the session.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister tell the house how effective the representations have been, and whether there is any intention to go ahead this year?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been given serious consideration, and I can only repeat what I have said a number of times. As soon as I can, with conviction, come to the house and say I feel that the expenditure is a proper expenditure of the taxpayers' money in the interests of Canada generally, I will do so. It is, I think, quite a borderline case. There are a great many projects that would be beneficial projects, but there is the responsibility on the government of determining and then recommending to parliament that we honestly believe the expenditure we propose is an expenditure that will add more to the Canadian economy than the interest and amortization charges will take out of the Canadian economy, and we have not yet arrived at that conclusion about the South Saskatchewan dam.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question? Has he considered this matter further since the tabling of the royal commission report?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Not in any
special way; but the matter is one that, because of what my colleague has said, is ever present in the considerations of the members of this government.


Hazen Robert Argue: We would like some action.



SAINT JOHN RIVER DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. As part of the government's program to assist the maritime provinces to help themselves and increase their standards of living, does the Prime Minister
296	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry intend to assist the premier of New Brunswick by backing his power development bonds so that he can develop power on the Saint John river which is urgently needed in that area?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The premier of New Brunswick and the people of New Brunswick will require no backing of their bonds for the Beechwood development. With respect to other developments, there have been no reports submitted that would establish that there is prepared a project that would have economic possibilities and economic result's. That is being carefully considered and when it is demonstrated that' there can be use made of water power if sufficient can be obtained to make it an economic proposition or that there can be thermoelectric power produced with the use of coal in the Atlantic region, then if the province of New Brunswick requires assistance to bring that about their request for assistance will be given very sympathetic consideration because I think it is in the interests of the economy of the whole of Canada to have no depressed areas in Canada.


George Harris Hees: I should like to ask a supplementary question. What excuse has the government for refusing over the past two years to accede to Premier Hugh John Flemming's request for assistance to back his power development?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think I am better informed of the attitude of the government of Canada and of the government of New Brunswick than is my hon. friend. I have been having conferences with the prime minister of New Brunswick ever since he became prime minister.


George Harris Hees: And you turned him down flat.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have not turned him down flat. As soon as they bring forward a scheme which can be studied to determine whether it has economic possibilities and which is apt really to stimulate the economy of the region it will receive careful consideration, and that matter is still being studied by the advisers of the government of New Brunswick.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: May I ask a supplementary question? May we expect a decision on this before the next election?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: You can
expect a decision on it just as soon as there is put before us by the government and people of New Brunswick a scheme that can be studied as to its economic merits.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the Prime Minister deny the fact that on at least three occasions we have put forward such schemes?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do most positively deny that there has ever been put forward the kind of scheme that could be implemented along the lines I have mentioned. There have been general suggestions that they should get aid, and with those general suggestions we agree, but there has never been put forward any specific proposition that could be recommended to parliament as one that would really stimulate the economy of the Atlantic region in a fashion that would be beneficial to the whole economy of Canada.


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleion):: May I put a supplementary question? Do I understand the Prime Minister to say that the development of the Beechwood proposition on the Saint John river is not a sound and economic proposition, and one that does not stimulate the growth and prosperity of Canada?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: On the contrary, it has been found sufficiently sound to be financed without assistance from the federal treasury.


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Oni.):: Are
the Prime Minister and his government going back to the days of the thirties when Mackenzie King made the statement that there would not be a single nickel given to the provinces?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not
know of anyone unless it be the hon. member himself-and I do not think he is doing so- who is asking for a nickel.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: May I ask a question of the Prime Minister. Dispatches published in the Ottawa newspapers yesterday afternoon contained reports of statements attributed to United States Secretary of State Dulles made, I think, before a committee of the United States Senate. He is reported as having said the United States could not go into partnership with Britain and France in any Middle East plan. Then follows this quotation, which appears to be a verbatim report:
I cannot think of anything that would more surely turn the area over to international communism than to go in there hand in hand with Britain and France.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether that amazing statement is also the viewpoint of the Canadian government and, if not, whether the Prime Minister will dissociate Canada from any such statement.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister):	Canada does not have to be dissociated from statements made by foreign ministers of other nations, and if that were the viewpoint of Canada it would be stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Does the Prime Minister not
think Canada should take some stand on this question, if for no other reason than to further co-operation among the United Kingdom, France and the United States?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Canada
is not required to take a stand on every newspaper report, that aims to be sensational, of things said outside Canada by the statesmen of other countries.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the Minister of Justice for the statement which, since he is on his feet, he is probably now going to make.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, namely the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, asked me the following question:
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?
By way of reply to that question may I say that since it is the practice of the director under the Combines Investigation Act to consider notable price changes with a view to making sure that they are not the product of collusion, it is not necessary for me as minister to ask the director to investigate the price changes in newsprint to which my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has referred in his question. If there is any reason to suspect collusion, the director conducts an inquiry, but as the hon. members know, it is contrary to the usual practice to disclose whether such an inquiry is being conducted until the report is presented.
At this point I think I should emphasize the fact that the combines branch, of course, has no authority to regulate prices. Its function is to investigate those situations in which there is reason to believe that the firms in an industry are co-operating to keep prices above the level which current market forces 82715-20
Inquiries of the Ministry would support. In a time of stationary or falling costs and demand, a general and uniform price increase would be regarded with suspicion. In the present time of rising costs and strong demand, such increases may be explained on the basis of ordinary market behaviour and are not in themselves evidence of collusion. On the basis of these price changes, therefore, the director does not feel he would be warranted in conducting an investigation.
When the director does not see fit to begin an inquiry on his own initiative, I can, of course, direct him to do so; but for the same reasons that he has given, I see no justification for taking such a course.
I think I should also say that no requests for an inquiry have been received by my department from any United States authorities.



REFERENCE TO REPORTED INCREASE IN WHOLESALE PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Boivin (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Seeing that the wholesale price of sugar has risen sharply again in the last week, would the minister please inform the house whether this rise is the result of unfair practices or whether it should be due only to the world shortage?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In accordance with the practice to which I referred just a moment ago of noting price changes in various markets, the combines branch has been observing recent increases in the price of refined sugar. These price increases appear to be directly related to increases in the cost of raw sugar. It would appear that some variation exists in the degree to which the refiners in eastern Canada have increased their refined sugar prices. It would also appear that world raw sugar prices which started to advance in early November have advanced more rapidly and to a significantly greater degree than have the selling prices charged by the refiners. The combines branch does not, therefore, regard these present increases in refined sugar prices as significant in relation to the anti-combines legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister say whether a study has been made of the price changes, samples of which I sent across to him in the November session, showing a
298	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry strange coincidence as to time and amount of increases by various sugar companies across Canada?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I said on that previous occasion, Mr. Speaker, the information which my hon. friend sent across to us was no news at all to our department. We had had those figures probably before my hon. friend had them and have studied them as we do in all of these cases. When he refers to the strange coincidence in the prices, may I say that in this reply I have endeavoured not to draw too close attention to the inaccuracy of that assertion by my words:
. . . some variation exists in the degree to which the refiners in eastern Canada have increased their refined sugar prices.
In other words, they have not all reflected this increase to the same extent. But in order to give the house some impression, quantitatively, of the difference I might cite the case of one of the refineries. It is shown that the laid down cost of raw sugar in Montreal on November 1, 1956, was $5.04 per hundred pounds. On January 11, 1957, that had gone up $2.89 per hundred pounds to $7.93. This same concern has increased its net selling price of refined sugar during the same period by $2.42, or in other words some 46| cents less than the increase in the price of its raw sugar.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister another supplementary question? Is he aware of the fact that the Manitoba Sugar Company, whose raw supplies are sugar beets grown in Manitoba, which they had last fall, has also raised its price by a similar amount?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, and I presume my hon. friend will probably recall from his economics course in university, if he took one, that where the price of goods of this sort is fixed on the world market, and the cost at which the competitors of the Manitoba Sugar Company can lay down sugar in Canada rises to a certain level, then it is possible for Canadian companies, it seems to me, with complete propriety to charge the going price for their sugar, in the same way they would have to take a lower price if the world price went down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I also learned in university that the combines legislation of this country was effective, but I now discover it is not.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With regard to that, I think the animadversion which my hon. friend has just put forward is unwarranted. As I pointed out before, the combines investigation branch does not purport, and has not power, to regulate prices. My hon. friend knows


that in peacetime only a provincial legislature can authorize such a course. All the branch has power to do is to prevent collusion, and where there are market conditions which more than explain the increase in price it is quite difficult to suspect collusion.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lamblon West):: May I ask a supplementary question? Would the minister inform the house if the Manitoba refinery not only refines beet sugar but raw sugar?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I presume by that my hon. friend means raw cane sugar?


Joseph Warner Murphy: That is right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid I cannot accurately answer that. I know that at the time the company was organized it was entirely for the purpose of refining beet sugar. Whether or not the machinery could be adapted to the refining of cane sugar or whether they do, I do not know.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Warner Murphy: In the
absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary assistant and perhaps he would take it as notice. It is in connection with the international waters between the United States and Canada and the recent decision by the United States supreme court permitting an extra flow of some 8,000 cubic feet per second through the Chicago drainage system. I ask the question in view of the fact that only recently President Eisenhower made a statement that he would not permit more water to go through that drainage system. Perhaps in making a statement the minister would comment on how it became possible for the United States supreme court to determine the flow of water through that system since it was our understanding, from a statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that this was a matter for the international joint commission.
Will the minister also make a statement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps now that the hon. gentleman has asked several questions he could let the minister answer some of them soon.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Would the minister comment on this question. Would our supreme court or any judicial body in this country be empowered to permit an extra flow of water to any part of Canada from these international waters?


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I will be happy to take the hon. gentleman's question as notice and have an answer brought down as soon as possible.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Is the
Minister of Finance giving any consideration to changes in the Income Tax Act which would permit self-employed taxpayers to get the same deferment on personal contributions to retirement funds which now pertains to members of registered pension plans?


Walter Edward Harris: This has been the subject of consideration and discussion in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, for at least four years. I am sure that the answer should be that we are considering it.


John Borden Hamilton: May I ask a
supplementary question? Would the minister indicate whether it will be considered before the budget this year?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not indicate that one way or the other.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether or not the electronic sorting machine which his department designed, and on which a million dollars has already been spent, is now in regular service in the Ottawa post office?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: I may be wrong, Mr. Speaker, but my understanding from the last report I had just a few weeks ago was that it was installed in Toronto and was undergoing testing there.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: I have not given notice of this question, but perhaps the Minister of Transport would get me the information. Has the Department of Transport authorized any of its employees to make a charge to the public for admission to any part 82715-20J
Inquiries of the Ministry of its transport administration buildings-I mean the upper part of airport buildings, that sort of thing?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minisier of Transport):: I know there are some airports where there is a deck to which the public is admitted on the payment of a small charge, I think 10 cents. This is quite common at airports on this side of the Atlantic and also in Europe. 1 cannot say what is the situation, for example, at Saskatoon or any place in particular. I would have to investigate the question to be able to give my hon. friend an answer.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: On Monday the hon. member for Oxford asked a question concerning motor propelled craft on inland waters and I should like to give a reply to it now.
In order to obtain the opinions and suggestions of interested persons, a questionnaire was sent out to a large number of yacht clubs, power squadrons, canoe associations, fish and game clubs, provincial governments, manufacturers of boats, outboard motors, etc. and to editors of boating magazines, and to individuals who had expressed interest.
The replies to these questionnaires are now being analysed in the department, following which it is intended to call a meeting of representatives of organizations and other individuals who have expressed a wish to attend. It is hoped that as a result of this meeting it will be possible for the department to formulate the policy to be followed in the making of any new regulations.
In the meantime the minor waters navigation regulations, which provided a penalty for dangerous operation of motor vessels in the minor waters of Canada, have been amended to be effective in all Canadian waters and to increase the possible penalty from $200 to $500. The amended regulations cover the dangerous operation of any vessels or any water skis, surf boards, water sleds or other towed objects.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question arising out of the minister's answer. Is it expected that these regulations will be drawn up and be in effect for the coming spring and summer season?


George Carlyle Marler: I think that would be the expectation but I cannot at this time confirm it because it would depend on the result of the meetings with the organizations to which I have just referred.

The Address-Mr. Nesbitt



PILOT BOAT ACCIDENT, SAINT JOHN    INQUIRY AS TO DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Miller Bell: Has the minister any further information regarding his department's responsibility in connection with the unfortunate accident that occurred off Saint John harbour between a pilot vessel and a freighter on Monday which resulted in the loss of seven lives? Is an inquiry to be made and when will the results be made known?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to make any statement with regard to the responsibility of my department for this very unfortunate accident. I do not think anybody knows what are the facts; but I would like to tell the hon. gentleman that one of the senior officials of my department has gone to Saint John in order to make the necessary inquiry into the accident.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 15, 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.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested last Thursday to hear certain remarks made by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Enfield). On that occasion he made the following statement, as reported at page 100 of Hansard:
I know I can report very accurately that public opinion in my constituency, and I think everywhere in Canada, is enthusiastic in its acclaim of the stand taken by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs in this crisis.
The word "crisis" of course, Mr. Speaker, refers to the crisis and the situation in the Middle East. Now, while the hon. member for York-Scarborough may be very well satisfied as to the attitude of the people of Canada generally on this matter, I for one would like to tell him-and I am sure many hon. members will also tell him-that the people are by no means satisfied or content with the stand taken by the government on this matter. More than that, there are a great many questions in the public mind which remain unanswered. It is for this reason that during my time in this debate I wish to deal with three matters concerning the foreign policy of this country.


The first of these matters is, what is the keystone of our foreign policy? Second, we should have a clarification of certain attitudes of the Canadian government toward the United Kingdom and the commonwealth generally. The third matter has to do with certain matters relating to the United Nations emergency force.
As I say, the first matter is, what is the keystone of our foreign policy? The day before yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) pointed out that there are four factors that influence our foreign policy, and I think no hon. member in this house would disagree that these are certainly the four most important factors. They were, as I recall them, our relationship with the United Nations; our relationship with the commonwealth; our relationship with NATO; and our relationship with the United States of America.
The question that naturally arises is this: Which of these four cornerstones is the keystone of our foreign policy? In other words, on which stone does the security of Canada chiefly stand, since security is the aim of foreign policy? If the government has decided which of these factors is the strongest in effecting our national security, is it not foolish to pursue activities in other fields of foreign affairs that undermine the keystone of our security? For example, just recently we have had a conflict, an obvious conflict, of interests in our foreign policy. We have had the government taking a certain stand in the United Nations which had a very adverse effect on two of our chief NATO partners, namely, the United Kingdom and France. In any event, the government has not made it clear, I am quite sure, on which stone of these four cornerstones our security chiefly stands, and that is something which should be made very clear because it is bound to happen-it happened last October and November and is bound to happen again- that we are going to be faced with the dilemma of which horse to ride, on which base of our foreign policy we are going to rely. We are going to have to make a choice sooner or later. The making of the choice caused a great deal of trouble and embarrassment to the government last fall and may do so again.
While it is quite true that all four of these factors are important, there must be one of these factors, or a combination of one and another, on which our foreign policy must chiefly rely for our own security. I think the government should make this very clear; I think the people of Canada want to know just what it is.

It is undoubtedly the view of many people in Canada that our foreign policy must have two aspects: the long run and the short run. With respect to the long run, we recognize the United Nations is a body designed to expand among all the nations of the world the rule of law, mutual understanding and trust, and we certainly agree that we should accept our responsibility in furthering the achievement of those ideals. But I think we all realize, Mr. Speaker, that at the moment the United Nations still leaves much to be desired with respect to effecting Canada's national security.
We have all seen what happened in the Hungarian situation. The Russian government has absolutely refused to obey the wishes of the United Nations, and certainly at the moment the United Nations has no permanent force with which to enforce its decisions, whether they be decisions of the security council or of the general assembly. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, in so far as the short run is concerned, we cannot rely at the moment for our immediate security on the United Nations. This is an ideal which we must work for in the long run. We must try to achieve the ideals of the United Nations but, for the short run, we must rely on other places for our national security, namely, NATO and the commonwealth. I for one, Mr. Speaker, do not feel that we should do anything in the United Nations or elsewhere which would undermine and destroy our partners in NATO and I think there is very little doubt about that because it is on these two organizations that our national security chiefly relies at the present time.
I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) who, unfortunately, is not in his seat at the moment, will reply to these remarks and say: We cannot have any broad principles; we have to deal with each situation as it arises. No doubt he will say that. That may well be the truth, Mr. Speaker, but we still must have guiding general principles and objectives on which to base our foreign policy.
The second matter that I should like to deal with is that of clarification of certain attitudes of this government toward the United Kingdom and the commonwealth generally. For some time the emphasis of Canadian foreign policy seems to have been on the United Nations, and I would almost say that the United Nations would seem to be the cornerstone of our foreign policy. Maybe it is. We will anxiously await an answer from the government. Then, we have heard, of course, a lot about NATO and our relationships with the United
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt States. We have heard very little for a long time about our relationship with the commonwealth except, Mr. Speaker, for the last few days, because I think the government has now realized that certain decisions that were made last fall, despite what the hon. member for York-Scarborough said about the activities of the government, are not popular in Canada generally with respect to the problem in the Near East and Middle East.
I bring this matter up because certain questions have arisen in the public mind as to what the attitude of this government really is to the commonwealth and the United Kingdom. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the January 14, 1957 issue of Life magazine. I might say that I do not always by any means agree with editorials that appear in Life magazine or Time magazine, but nevertheless these are very large publications, with great sources of information at their disposal, and they are considered by many to be very reputable and authoritative magazines.	.
The editorial in Life magazine is headed:
Who Stopped the Suez Invasion?
In other words, why did France and Britain withdraw? I quote from the editorial:
As for Eden's motives, one among many was conclusive: he received a concrete threat that the British Commonwealth would be dissolved within a matter of hours-and dissolved permanently- unless the fighting was stopped. India and Ceylon were particularly insistent; Canada only a little less explicitly threatening.
That is the kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, that cannot help but raise doubts in the minds of the people of Canada. When a publication such as Life magazine, with great sources of information, comes out flatly with a statement like that, I think it most certainly should be replied to by this government; otherwise the people of Canada cannot help but entertain the gravest doubts concerning just what are the government's policies. I am sorry to say it, Mr. Speaker, but this article in Life magazine cannot help but be given certain support by the attitude the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) took in the house last November 26. The remarks made by the Prime Minister on that date have been referred to by many hon. members in this house. At that time he categorized the activities of the British and French in the same way in which Russian activities can be categorized and his now famous remarks about the supermen of Europe revealed the Prime Minister's ill-concealed delight concerning the trouble in which Britain and France found themselves. Such attitudes cannot help but give rise to editorials such as the one carried by Life magazine.
302	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt
On November 26 last, the same date, in reply to a question which had been proposed by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) with respect to an exchange of correspondence between the Prime Minister and the then prime minister of Great Britain, the Right Hon. Sir Anthony Eden, the Prime Minister refused to disclose the content of his message. Finally as a result of questioning in the house the Prime Minister read the correspondence he had with the Right Hon. Sir Anthony Eden. The letter which was read into the record appears at page 23 of Hansard for November 26 last and I do not propose to take the time of the house by reading it now because hon. members can refer to it. It is quite clear from that letter, however, that the Prime Minister virtually requested Sir Anthony Eden not to give him permission to disclose the content of their exchange of correspondence. The reasons for this can best be judged by the people themselves when they read the record.
The reluctance of the Prime Minister concerning making public this exchange of correspondence is a very strange thing because President Eisenhower had no hesitation in making public the message he sent to the Right Hon. Sir Anthony Eden, but apparently the Canadian Prime Minister was not anxious to do so despite the fact that he denied there was a shred of truth in the alleged fact that he sent a stinging rebuke to Sir Anthony Eden over the activities of the British in the Suez area. For this reason one question must be uppermost in the minds of most people and it is this. Just what is Canada's position in relation to the commonwealth. Canada's support of the Asian bloc of the common-* wealth as against the United Kingdom, which is one of our principal allies in NATO and one of the principal cornerstones of our immediate security in the world, suggests a conflict of interests on the part of Canada which cannot help but arouse suspicion, doubt and wonder in the public mind.
I would also like to deal with the matter of the United Nations emergency force. This is going to consume a number of minutes and I hope I will be able to complete my remarks in the remaining time allotted to me. Since the government of Canada has accepted credit for establishing this United Nations emergency force, the government must also accept the responsibility in very large measure for the results that have been achieved by this force.
The first question I would like to ask is this. What are the objectives of this force?
I will briefly refer to the Canadian resolution of November 4 last which reads as follows:
Requests, as a matter of priority, the secretary general to submit to it within 48 hours, a plan


for the setting up, with the consent of the nations concerned, of an emergency international United Nations force to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities in accordance with all the terms of the aforementioned resolution.
The words "aforementioned resolution", of course, refer to the cease-fire resolution and to its proposal at the United Nations. Has this resolution achieved its purpose? I would say yes; in one sense of the word and to the extent that the hostilities have ceased in Egypt, the United Kingdom and French forces have been withdrawn and fighting, at least for the moment, has stopped. But, and there is a very large "but", has not the plan which was submitted by the secretary general tended to do three things in addition to that? These are as follows: (1) To humiliate, cause loss of prestige and injury to the United Kingdom and France, two of our most important NATO allies. (2) To place Egypt in a position to dictate to the United Nations and thus greatly enhanced the prestige and power of Nasser in the near East-Nasser being the avowed enemy of the West. (3) As a result of the first two items I have mentioned it has made the ultimate solution of the mid East and near East problems just as difficult as they were before and in fact has probably rendered them more difficult, thus increasing the danger to world peace.
In this regard I would like to refer very briefly to the remarks made by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) yesterday in this house. I do not intend to repeat them because they can be found in Hansard of Tuesday, January 15 at page 236. It was very well pointed out by the hon. member that the United Nations force had unquestionably been subject to dictation from Egypt. I do not intend to repeat the hon. member's remarks because they have already been placed on the record, but I would point out they have not as yet been denied. However, there is another matter which I think is just as important a reference as that made by the hon. member for Kamloops. In his remarks the hon. member for Kamloops referred to a recent editorial in the New York Times and I would like to refer to a publication which a great many hon. members of this house receive. I refer to the Commentary on Foreign Affairs which is issued by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I have in my hand the issue covering the period from September 15 to November 30, 1956. It refers to the situation in the Near East and at page 8 the following appears:
There followed Mr. Hammarskjold's visit to Cairo to make practical arrangements about the stationing of the police force (now styled U.N.E.F.) about communications and supplies-and to discuss with President Nasser its functions and the measures to be taken for clearing the blocked canal. The original resolution of 2nd November had specifically

stated that "upon the cease-fire being effective, steps be taken to reopen the Suez canal and restore secure freedom of navigation". In the proceedings on 7th November, however, when a further resolution was passed, the secretary-general committed himself to the idea that the general assembly "could not request the force to be stationed or operate on the territory of a given country without the consent of the government of that country", an idea for which there is no warrant in the U.N. charter. It meant, as indeed the secretary-general's report to the ordinary general assembly showed, that Colonel Nasser was virtually allowed to make his own conditions. Thus, first, Egypt laid down certain rules as to the composition of the force: no Canadian army regiments because their uniform and military appearance would look too much like British troops, no contingent from Pakistan as a signatory of the Baghdad Pact, and so on.
I cannot help but feel that this house and the people of Canada have been at least partially misled by the government with respect to the purpose of this force. I would like to refer to a speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on November 27, 1956 as reported at page 61 of Hansard. At that point the Secretary of State for External Affairs said:
The function of this force which is now in being is to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities, as I pointed out this morning, and carry out its task in accordance with directions received from the United Nations, not from any one member of the United Nations.
Further on he said:
The most important function is, of course, the policing of the zone between opposing forces in Egypt in order to prevent the recurrence, if possible, of the fighting.
He continued:
This force will stay in Egypt until the United Nations decides that its functions are discharged,-
And so on. Then the Secretary of State for External Affairs continues a little later, as found on page 61:
But that does not mean, as I understand it- and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, this has been made very clear in meetings of the advisory committee- that Egypt or any other government can determine by its own decision where the force is to operate, how it is to operate or when it must leave. Furthermore, the right of Egypt to consent to the admission of a United Nations force to its territory does not imply the necessity of consent to the admission of, or the right to reject, separate units or elements of that force. That is a stand, Mr. Speaker, which the Canadian representative on the advisory committee has taken.
Then the Secretary of State for External Affairs elaborates on that at some length. There is one thing that I think must be very clear to almost anyone and that is that the secretary general of the United Nations and apparently our Secretary of State for External Affairs have taken the attitude, and I think wrongly so as I will show in a moment, that the consent of Egypt had to be obtained to station troops there, that this consent was a mere something that just had to take place at one
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt moment of time and that if they once got consent they could put a force into the country, put it wherever they liked and do what they liked. That, Mr. Speaker, is plainly ridiculous.
Consent obviously implies a continuing state of affairs, not just one isolated consent obtained from Egypt. It is a continuing consent that is required. In other words, if, after certain troops had arrived, Egypt had said that she did not approve of them, would not have the United Nations force there any more and withdrew her consent, in view of what has been said by Mr. Hammarskjold and our Secretary of State for External Affairs the United Nations could not do anything else except withdraw the force if it did not continue to suit Egypt.
I repeat that consent is a continuing state of affairs, not just one isolated incident where you say to somebody that they can go ahead and do something. Clearly that is not what happened at all. It would be ridiculous to suggest that consent meant anything else. The secretary general of the United Nations, so far as can be seen, did misinterpret the purpose of the United Nations resolution of November 2 when setting up his plan, thus placing Egypt in a very favoured position. The plan devised by the secretary general and indeed the whole attitude of the United Nations seemed to sympathize with Egypt and thus placed the United Nations in a position of adjudicating upon the rights and wrongs of the situation, which it most certainly should not have done under the terms of the resolution.
The United Kingdom, France and Israel removed their troops and obeyed the United Nations, and these countries now have little or no voice with regard to the disposition, make-up or anything else concerning this special emergency force whereas in fact Egypt most certainly does. I should like you to inform me, Mr. Speaker, how much time I have left.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's
time will expire at 4.02.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
should like to show the members of the house in some detail how the secretary general of the United Nations has erred in his interpretation of the way in which this force was to be established and also how, as I have already mentioned, this house was more than slightly misled by the government as to the function and purpose of the force. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the original resolution passed by United Nations on the 2nd of November, 1956. I will not read the whole resolution. If any hon. members wish to get it, they
304	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt can obtain it in the same way I did. I will read the cogent parts of it. The general assembly, after expressing its grave concern over developments in the Near East, went on to say:
1.	Urges as a matter of priority that all parties now involved in hostilities in the area agree to an immediate cease-fire and, as part thereof, halt the movement of military forces and arms into the area;
2.	Urges the parties to the armistice agreements promptly to withdraw all forces behind the armistice lines, to desist from raids across the armistice lines into neighbouring territory, and to observe scrupulously the provisions of the armistice agreements.
The armistice agreements referred to are the armistice agreements between Egypt and Israel made in the past. Then it goes on:
Urges that upon the cease fire being effective steps be taken to re-open the Suez canal and restore and secure freedom of navigation.
As I have already mentioned, Mr. Speaker, a couple of days later Canada introduced a resolution which I have already read but I will read it again as it is very short:
Requests, as a matter of priority, the secretary general to submit to it within 48 hours a plan for the setting up, with the consent of the nations concerned, of an emergency international United Nations force to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities in accordance with all the terms of the aforementioned resolution.
Later on the secretary general of the United Nations submitted a report as to how the force would be made up, and I will refer to that in a moment. The final resolution which Canada supported is a rather lengthy one and it deals, of course, with the establishment of this force. There are two parts of it which I think are very cogent and should be referred to. They are found on page 2 of the resolution and this of course refers to the general assembly of the United Nations.
1.	Express its approval of the guiding principles for the organization and functioning of the emergency international United Nations force as expounded in paragraphs 6 to 9 of the secretary general's report;
2.	Concurs in the definition of the functions of the force as stated in paragraph 12 of the secretary general's report.
Then it goes on in more detail setting up the force, but the important parts are the two to which I have just referred. Let us see for a moment what paragraphs 6 to 9 and paragraph 12 of the secretary general's report contain. What they contain is very interesting indeed and certainly not what the people of Canada or hon. members of this house expected the function of the force would be. Paragraph 9 of the secretary general's report reads as follows:
Functioning, as it would, on the basis of a decision reached under the terms of the resolution "Uniting for Peace", the force, if established, would be limited in its operations to the extent that consent of the parties concerned is required under

The Address-Mr. Fairey United States and others to the detriment of the United Kingdom and France.
All these matters that I have raised have caused much concern and worry to the people of this country and I think they require an answer. I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he returns from the United Nations, or alternatively the Prime Minister himself will deal at an early date with the points I have raised because these are questions of great public concern.


Mr. F. T. Fairey (Victoria. B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, my first and pleasant task is to offer words of congratulation to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) and the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) on the competent job they did in moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. May I at the same time extend congratulations to the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Die-fenbaker) on his elevation to the important office of leader of Her Majesty's official opposition. I know what a tremendous task he has undertaken, and I wish him well.
Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to devote the greater part of my time to a report on the activities of the Canadian delegation to the UNESCO conference which was held in New Delhi, but before doing so there are one or two matters which have been mentioned in the speech from the throne and on which I would like to offer some comments. After all, we are supposed to be debating the speech and the amendments to the motion and perhaps it is necessary to justify one's time here by doing just that. I am grateful for what the speech contains and hopeful for what it does not contain.
First of all, the fact that we are to amend the Municipal Grants Act will bring some relief and help to at least two of the three municipalities in my riding. The city of Victoria itself and the municipality of Esquimalt will get considerable relief in their municipal expenditures.
Then the longed-for establishment of the Canada Council is something which pleased me greatly because one of its duties or that of one of its committees is to undertake the task of acting as a national commission for UNESCO. It might interest hon. members to know that of the 80 member states of the UNESCO organization, until a few months ago only three were without a national commission.
Another point mentioned in the speech from the throne is the proposal to grant federal aid to technical education. For me that is the most significant item in the address. On every possible occasion, I think

every time I have spoken in this house, I have urged that something be done for that class of workers who should comprise the skilled artisans. As I have pointed out on other occasions, in our training program there is a great gap between, on the one hand, general secondary education and, on the other hand, university education for those who are entering professional ranks. In between those two groups we have large numbers, in fact the vast bulk of our population, who ultimately are to provide the trained workers, the skilled workers, the artisans. The training facilities for them, up to now, have been extremely inadequate. I am therefore greatly pleased to note that the federal government is to increase the grants which formerly were given for this purpose.
While I rejoice that the universities are to be treated so generously, it is my hope that when the sum of money which is to be assigned to technical education is announced it will be equally generous, or at any rate generous enough to indicate that this problem is to receive significant attention. This perhaps might be a bombshell but it has always been my hope, and it still is, that some day the federal government will take over the complete responsibility for technical education, and that some day the federal government will build several technical colleges throughout this country so we may be given the opportunity to train the unskilled workers and make them into real artisans, and not be obliged to continue to rely on immigration for our trained supervisory personnel. Up to now that has been the rule in Canada. We need to give to our own Canadian people the opportunity to be trained to occupy those positions.
I know that in the preliminary report of the Gordon commission-and I know it is only a preliminary report-this subject is touched upon at pages 108 and 109, but there is not much there; it is treated rather casually. As a matter of fact, what is in it might just as well have been copied from any of the annual reports of the Department of Labour. In fact there is a fuller report in the latest issue which hon. members will have received, namely the annual report of the Department of Labour of March 31, 1956. It devotes several pages to this highly important matter. When the full report of the Gordon commission comes out I hope it will be found that they have given more adequate treatment to this subject and have made certain definite recommendations in that regard.
Since I mentioned immigration and the matter of immigrants, I think it is only fair that I should say a word about the activities

of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and commend him for his prompt action in going to Austria and making arrangements for the early entry into Canada of such a vast number of Hungarian refugees. It was something that I think the whole country applauded when our minister acted so promptly, and I hope he will receive the necessary recognition.
We assembled for this session, some of us with difficulty, at the time of the C.P.R. strike. Our transportation system throughout the country being disrupted as it was, the economy of the whole nation was affected. It is encouraging to know that this strike is over. I think that has come about owing to the wisdom and foresight of our Prime Minister who no doubt used his charm as well as his tact in bringing together the parties to the dispute, and who was not hurried into precipitate action. We are all highly gratified that the matter has been settled in a way which we hope will become permanent.
Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, I wish to spend the rest of my time talking about the ninth general conference of UNESCO which was held, as I said before, in New Delhi, India. It was my good fortune to be a delegate from Canada to this conference. The conference was held in November and part of December. I wish to thank the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs for giving me the opportunity to go there and increase my knowledge of other people, to widen my horizons and to join with my colleagues in making what I think was a significant contribution to the work of the association.
This association is one of the instruments of peace. UNESCO-the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization-is ten years old. It now includes 80 member states. At the conference, which opened with 77, three new ones joined, namely Finland, Morocco and Tunisia, so now there are 80 member states. That fact is rather significant, when delegates from practically every nation in the world meet together and join in friendly discussion. It exists because its members believe that the way to peace is by fostering a more complete understanding of one another, and that this objective can be achieved through education, science and culture. When one attempts to assess the value of this vast and sprawling organization-and that is what it is-and is inclined to be critical of its apparent slow progress, one should remember that the road to peace is rough and thorny, and that the nations of the world have different traditions, different religions, different backgrounds and
The Address-Mr. Fairey different customs; in fact, they are different. That fact is something to remember.
Here I want to say also that one of the important duties of the members of a delegation is to get to know the delegations from other countries. That is why so much importance is attributed to informal meetings, and we had many of them including group meetings at lunch time, in hotel rooms, at receptions, and informal consultations. That is where you get to know people. It is there that one gets to know that people have different approaches to the same problem, and learns to be tolerant. That is why I so greatly appreciated what the Prime Minister said in his speech on Wednesday last. You will find it Mr. Speaker, in Hansard of January 9 at page 33, at the top of the page in the left hand column:
I think this is something that we all have had to learn. Human nature and the essential aspirations of human nature are very much the same all over the world, but the background against which you have to place the attitudes of different people must be the background of their own civilization. . . .
That statement touched a responsive chord, because it took me back to New Delhi and reminded me of the different races and the different people we met there and the strange -to us-attitudes that some of them took on some of the problems we were discussing. The delegates-and I should name them, of course-were as follows. We had Leonard W. Brockington as chairman, and I wish to say something more about that fascinating gentleman in a moment or two. As deputy chairman we had His Excellency Mr. Morley Scott, the Canadian high commissioner to Pakistan; Senator Donald Cameron, former director of extension of the University of Alberta and still the director of the Banff school of fine arts; Mr. Lionel Bertrand, the hon. member for Terrebonne, Quebec, and my colleague in this house, and myself. Let me say that there was absolutely no difference between the delegates and the alternates with respect to the duties which were involved. We shared the duties quite fairly among us.
The alternate delegates, then, were Mrs. Florence Bird, whom everyone knows under the name of Anne Francis, the distinguished radio and press commentator; Dr. Leon Lortie, one of the distinguished chemists from the University of Montreal; Professor Jean C. Falardeau, head of the social science department, University of Laval; Mr. Freeman Stewart, executive secretary of the Canadian education association and Mr. John Parkin, a distinguished Toronto architect and president of the Canada arts council. So you see, Mr. Speaker, the delegates were chosen, with the exception of myself, of course, rather

The Address-Mr. Fairey wisely because they represented the various aspects of the work of UNESCO, the various sciences, arts and cultures.


Mr. Martin:: So does the hon. gentleman.


Francis Thrower Fairey: We also had with us Miss Mary Dench of the Department of External Affairs and Mr. Mel Clark, whom we called the financial watchdog from the Department of Trade and Commerce and who is now stationed in Geneva. Miss Dench has been responsible for some time for all UNESCO matters in the Department of External Affairs. She is a most competent person and an indefatigable worker. Sometimes I thought she should ease up and play a little bit but she would not do it. I would say this, that she contributed to a remarkable degree to whatever reputation for competence the Canadian delegation had. The same is true of Mel Clark. He knows his way about international conferences, and he had no hesitation in looking for new paths to information which would be of value to us. He is a very competent person.
Anyone who knows Morley Scott, who I am glad to say is a graduate of the University of British Columbia, will not expect me to say much more than that he was an admirable second in command. He was cool, shrewd and wise, and his advice was invaluable. Finally, we had that most charming person, the high commissioner to India, Mr. Escott Reid. He did everything imaginable for us to make our stay in India enjoyable. He saw to it by arranging luncheons, dinners and so on, that we met particular people, people from all over the world and particularly people from India; people we ought to get to know if we were going to do a good job. He finally gave a most illuminating briefing based upon his intimate knowledge of India and the Indian people. He is a great Canadian.
The government of India made splendid arrangements for the conference. They built, if you please, a special hall, a vast place called-I have to consult my notes to pronounce it-Vigyan Bhavan, which is in the form of a theatre with a large stage, a big proscenium arch and a vast sloping floor. Provision was made for simultaneous translation into the four official languages. In addition there were two large conference halls also equipped for simultaneous translation. There were also the committee rooms.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it was a fascinating experience, and one is tempted to continue with a description of the people, of the many things we saw and places we visited, the sights and sounds of New Delhi and the surrounding district; all the things they have, but mostly the things they have not. However, I must report on the conference itself. We


met as a delegation every morning and sometimes during the lunch hour to go over the agenda for the day, decide on the policy we would adopt, what was to be said and who would say it. We met frequently to report. We were all given special tasks; that is, the tasks of attending various meetings were divided amongst those whom we thought were most competent to attend particular discussions. For my sins I was allotted the exchange of persons, technical assistance and administration. Mr. Freeman Stewart, who is a distinguished educationist, was on elementary education; Mrs. Bird was on mass communication, and so on. We were dodging about from meeting to meeting as the various subjects came up for discussion.
First of all, at this conference there were a number of plenary sessions which all attended. Then after that the conference broke up into two main commissions, the administration commission of which I was a member along with several others, including Mr. Scott, Mr. Clark and others who came in as their subjects were called, and the program commission. You see, therefore, how simple the organization is; and it works simply, in that one group of people are discussing items which are proposed as projects for the ensuing two years and the other group are discussing how they are going to meet the expenditures. It is in these two commissions that the detailed work is done. I shall describe it, perhaps not fully but in a little more detail later.
I want to return now to the first plenary session and the first day or two. Here, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to give hon. members an idea of the atmosphere and the change of attitude one gets as one discusses various matters. The conference opened at the time of the Suez trouble, which has been discussed by the hon. gentleman who preceded me. It was not a happy time for us. We had practically no information. Every morning the Indian papers were full of scathing editorials condemning the British and the French. Everybody was rather tense, particularly when the conference opened with a speech by the Indian minister of education, who was not too kind in his remarks about what he called the aggressors. As hon. members know, at conferences of this kind the speeches of welcome are sometimes described as blah, blah, but these were not. They were rather nasty from our point of view, and particularly when member after member from the Latin American countries, Egypt, Brazil, the south Asian countries and Russia went one after the other to the podium and repeated the same stuff. We sat there and took it. It was not a very happy time for the United Kingdom delegation, for any of us for that matter. The point I am trying to make is that I am not



IS, 1957

[Stage Direction]
blaming them one little bit. It was a time of tension, and people were speaking without too much thought.
However, the atmosphere was charged with something that should not have been present at a conference on education. It was recognized by some that this was no place for discussing the Suez matter. The place for that was in the United Nations itself, not in a conference supposed to be devoted to greater understanding through science, education and culture. Therefore it was in that atmosphere that the delegate for Canada was called upon. Of course Canada enjoys a great reputation. I am sure every hon. member in this house will agree that we enjoy that reputation because of the magnificent work of our Secretary of State for External Affairs. Although I do not like to say it in his presence, the Minister of National Health and Welfare also has contributed to it to a degree. There is no doubt about it, wherever you go in this world the name of Mike Pearson is known. It was because of that fact, and because of the unique position of our country, that when the delegate for Canada was called upon he had added importance.
So Mr. Leonard W. Brockington rose. Most of you know him and know what a fine speaker he is, with a wonderful command of English and a knowledge of how to put it together. Of course he looks a little imposing, because everybody knows he is crippled. He was helped to the podium, and the place was hushed. He made a magnificent speech. Well, perhaps I was prejudiced, because I arrived at a close friendship with him. I am positive that all who were there will agree that he raised the tone of the conference and brought it back to where it should be. If I might I should like to read just a couple of extracts from what he said. He commenced by paying the usual compliments and reciting the purpose for which UNESCO existed. Then he said, speaking about the tensions that then existed:
Above all liberties, said one of the world's greatest voices, is the liberty to know, to utter and to argue freely according to conscience. Perhaps we can all take some comfort from the knowledge that even today no stronger criticism of the disputed policy of the British government, no freer or more vigorous denunciation of its dangers has anywhere been spoken or written than in famous British newspapers freely published in Britain itself, in public meetings freely assembled in Britain, in earnest debates freely held in a free British parliament and wherever men gather in Britain to hammer out the truth on the anvil of free discussion.
And I may say, and perhaps not without malice, that he emphasized the word "free" every time he used it. I have another extract and this will be the last although I had intended to read more. He said:
The Address-Mr. Fairey
We in Canada who are the beneflciaries of the gifts of so many other peoples believe that there is only one race in the world which is really important and that is the human race. We are determined to pay with reverence our debt to humanity.
While I pay this tribute to our leader, I do so because I am convinced that he prevented the conference from getting off to a bad start.
Because of our reputation much was expected of us, so much so that later, when the session was all over and it was decided to have a final plenary meeting, with one speaker to speak for each of the four groups of nations, all those who spoke English combined to request that Mr. Brockington be the speaker for the English-speaking peoples, and he then made another magnificent speech which was the envy of all and which has been demanded by the press of the world.
Another thing that perhaps stemmed from Canada's reputation, and perhaps from our own good work, was the fact that when they needed a rapporteur for the great and important program provision they asked Canada to supply one, and it was most competently dealt with by Senator Donald Cameron.
To give the house some idea of the importance of this and what our attitude to it should be, I should like to say something about the resolutions at one of the plenary sessions. The director general of the secretariat prepared a program which they proposed to put into effect in the succeeding two years, and alongside it they had the budget, which was an estimate of its cost. That was placed before the conference. It had already been circulated to member states, and we had the right either to amend it or to pass it. But then, out of the blue, came a resolution from the floor that the budget be increased by $1 million. It was already up to nearly $1 million, but the resolution from the floor was to the effect, just let us have another $1 million.
Now, we were astounded because we are not used to doing things that way. We usually want to know what it is for. By the way, France seconded it. The question was, why do this now? The secretary general has not asked for it. My attitude, as an old civil servant would be, no; let us decide whether we have something that is worth doing and then get the money for it, and not get the money first and try to find some way of spending it.
There was a long discussion, but it was passed. It was passed because of the principle of one nation, one vote. The vote of Monaco is just as strong as that of the United States, which pays 30 per cent of the total cost of the
310	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fairey budget. I think Mr. Clarke, who is our financial adviser, told me before I left that the votes of those who supported the resolution were by people who paid only 15 per cent of the cost of the UNESCO program. However, it was passed immediately. I think there were 130-odd resolutions from the floor, all pressing various projects which were not in the program, and most of which were passed.
I said I was going to say a word or two about the two commissions. First of all there was the administrative commission which deals with all questions relating to the budget, the staff of the secretariat, the salaries and the financial and business administration of UNESCO organization. Then there was the program commission, which deals with all the projects, technical assistance, fundamental education, mass communication, all these things, and the individual projects all over the world. They decide which are valuable and which are not, and they pass them. At the end of the conference these two commissions meet together to try to get some kind of agreement between the two, and I may say that we did not get much agreement because so many projects were passed that the budget just would not meet them. It was then left to the executive to decide. I shall come to that again in a moment.
There is a belief in Canada and elsewhere that UNESCO needs overhaul. The attitude of Canada was that the administration was slack, and we emphasized need for greater efficiency. We stated that in all our work here we are used to expecting a reasonable degree of efficiency and integrity in everything we do with public funds, and we would like to see that in the UNESCO organization, but we were not quibbling particularly about the cost. We were prepared to be reasonably generous but we insisted that what funds were voted be wisely spent. We suggested, as did others, that UNESCO should concentrate on a few large projects. That does not necessarily mean two or three but a few well thought out projects which were designed to further the aim of UNESCO, which is mutual understanding, and not to dissipate its energies on a variety of projects all over the world. And so we either presented appropriate resolutions in the appropriate commission, or we supported those that were made by others.
The main resolutions for which we were responsible were first of all-and here I was going to use a slang expression but I will not use it in Hansard-
Mr. Marlin:: It is a good one.


Francis Thrower Fairey: We did not get it through but we got a modification of it. We proposed that we call in a firm of business consultants


to examine the procedures in the secretariat itself. This was not in any way criticism, because we know the difficulties; when you try to harmonize the views of representatives of 80 member countries, you have a job on your hands. And so we said, "You have existed for 10 years and it might be that somebody from outside might be able to point out more efficient ways of doing things"; but the secretary general did not buy that. He would not accept a firm of business consultants at all.
What we finally passed was a watered-down resolution. I must say that Mr. Clarke was mainly responsible for this one, although I had to do some of the talking on it. We finally got it through in this form. A number of business experts would be borrowed from a number of member states, not too many, who were not connected with the organization of UNESCO, and they would do this survey job on the secretariat.
I neglected to mention that the next conference two years hence will be held in Paris, and in all likelihood all future conferences will be held there because they now have a permanent home. There was much criticism throughout the conference concerning the cost of the new building which is nearing completion in Paris. The building apparently cost more than was estimated. Mr. Parkin, who was the delegate responsible for this subject, offered a good deal of criticism of the methods used in granting contracts and paying commissions and in authorizing extras. We did not get very far, but at any rate we let them know there were people watching it.
I have already told you there were over 100 resolutions from the floor, many of which referred to projects which could not possibly have been discussed in detail in a large conference although the sponsors insisted that these be discussed. Senator Cameron I think was responsible for a change, as program rapporteur. The procedure in future will be that when any country wishes to suggest a project as being worth while in the interests of the objectives of UNESCO it will send notice to the secretary at least six months prior to the next conference. Then, in order to satisfy those who want to speak from the floor, it was decided that any projects proposed in the conference itself should be discussed but passed on to the next conference two years hence. Although there were many other points, these of course are just the main ones. We were deluged with paper. I think each of us must have had a stack several inches high. This cost a lot of money, because each paper was published in four languages. Some suggestions were made in the

program commission, if I may put it this way, to stop the avalanche of paper and simplify the procedure.
I have tried to build in your minds a certain attitude toward UNESCO in order to show that while we certainly believe its administration could be improved, we must also recognize the difficulties involved. These nations are scattered all over the world, and I might say we have a great deal to learn from those nations with which we are not too familiar. We can learn more from them than they can learn from us.
The question arises as to whether we wish to be considered as a country that is always critical, and as to whether we are too much concerned with efficiency. One gentleman with whom I spoke and whose name I shall not reveal said to me, "You Canadians are always talkings about efficiency and integrity. I am more concerned with good will and good relations". It occurs to me that perhaps he is right, and certainly you get that impression while attending one of these conferences. Is it not worth while that we and the other western nations tolerate some things we do not like very much for the sake of good will and improved relations?
Canada, I think, must decide between giving guarded support-I was going to say reluctant support but I do not mean quite that- and admitting that there are practices we cannot accept, agree to go along with them in the cause of ultimate peace. We must try to more fully understand the special problems of the poorer nations and recognize their attitudes toward them, which come as a result of their differing religious and cultural backgrounds; and we must go a little way in co-operating with them. To do this it would be necessary to publicize more fully the aims, objectives and methods of this loosely organized body which is UNESCO, and endeavour to have our people know more and understand more about it. It is therefore our duty to speak about it and support it on all occasions.
I do not know whether I should do this, but I am going to close on what might perhaps be considered an emotional note but one which I think is fundamental to our attitude in the continued and more enthusiastic support which we must give to UNESCO. It is to turn to that portion of the Bible where our Saviour summarizes the ten commandments into the well-known exhortation when he says.
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
The Address-Mr. Bryce
And this is significant;
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
There have been good men, the Christian missionaries, who have gone out from our western countries and done the best they could with the limited funds and materials at their disposal. Perhaps we as western nations, the have nations, might now consider ourselves lay missionaries and by our actions and our attitudes try to live up to the second portion of the exhortation, "Love thy neighbour as thyself".
Somewhere in the Bible, I think in Proverbs, there is a passage which goes something like this, "Wisdom is the principal thing, therefore get wisdom. But with all thy getting get understanding." And so we complete the circle. That is what UNESCO is, an organization for mutual understanding.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I would like to congratulate the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud). I am sure the constituents who sent them here will be pleased to see that they were honoured in this way by the present government.
The speech from the throne this year does not offer very much to debate or to pass an opinion on which points to an early election. However, I would like to take this opportunity of bringing before the government certain things in the Selkirk constituency which could be corrected.
One great problem that farmers have today is that of getting sufficient cash with which to carry on. This situation has been made worse by the recent railway strike. Many farms still have grain lying out in the fields gradually deteriorating. I know of one farmer in my constituency who has oats lying in piles out in his fields. When he threshed and sold some of that grain it was graded 3CW; they were Rodney oats. They have been lying out in the fields since threshing time, and the only grade the crop could be given now would be No. 1 feed grain. The difference in price between the two grades I have mentioned is a matter of only a few cents per bushel, but this represents a great loss when you have a few thousand bushels to sell.
There are also certain points where the quota still is one bushel per acre. The farmers on whose behalf I am speaking are people who had no crop last year, or practically none. They are now facing a loss for a second year. At the beginning of the crop

The Address-Mr. Bryce year the constituency did not have the grades that were required. The Department of Trade and Commerce or the wheat board wanted No. 3 wheat or malting barley, and we had practically none of those grades in the constituency. Therefore I hope the minister will not forget the interlake country, as the people there did not sell any grain last year and they should have the opportunity now to unload some grain. They have lots of No. 5 wheat and coarse grains. I was assured by the minister the other day that with the settlement of the railway strike these grains would move steadily. We have both the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. running through the interlake country, and they should be able to help put some money in the pockets of these farmers.
In parts of the interlake country the farmers derive their living raising cattle, and they complain bitterly about the fluctuations that take place in cattle prices from time to time. There is no guarantee that the farmer is not going to take a loss on his cattle, and I think some system of guaranteed prices is therefore required.
The same can be said of hogs. For instance, in October, 1953, hogs on the Winnipeg market were $30.44, which was a pretty good price. In 1954 they were down to $20.81, a drop of $10 in about ten months. In 1955 they were about the same, $20.54; in fact in December of 1955 they dropped as low as $19.72. On today's market in Winnipeg they are up again to $29. These fluctuations in price are not good for the producer, the packer or the consumer, and if some arrangement could be made whereby the farmers, through a system of guaranteed prices, could be protected against loss I think we would have a far more regular supply of hogs and cattle coming on the market.
On different occasions when the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture have been considered I have talked about some form of marketing agency. When I came here in 1943 I talked about a livestock marketing board. Then I talked about a board of livestock commissioners. However, there always seemed to be some objection to that type of thing. Then there was the problem that such a plan would have to originate in the provinces. I think that is right; it has to start in the provinces. However, after raising cattle and a few hogs for 40 years in this country I am still convinced that we should have a livestock marketing organization, because it would have a steadying influence on the prices of livestock.
I admit that there are a lot of people against such a plan. However, I have turned the matter over in my mind, I have read

about it and made inquiries about it, and I still think something has to be done to stabilize the livestock industry. Auction sales have been tried in different parts of the west but they do not appear to be too successful, and the results have not been what the farmers were trying to achieve.
I was a member of a committee in Manitoba that gave considerable study to the livestock marketing situation. The Manitoba livestock committee, under the chairmanship of the late Gordon Allison, put the reasons for a livestock marketing policy before the Manitoba farmers but, as I have already said, to be successful it would have to take in a very large territory. One province alone would not make it a success. At the very least you would have to have the three prairie provinces.
I would put forward these reasons in support of a livestock marketing policy. There should be such a policy in order to get more security and stability in the marketing of livestock. With a more stable livestock policy more people would raise livestock on the farms; hence there would be more consumption of grasses and legumes, which in turn would tie in with the conservation program in order that our soil might be built up with humus and organic matter. Erosion would also be checked. In this way we would keep the soil on our farms at home and not have it blow away.
Such a policy would in time build up our soil and enrich the country so we could turn it over to our heirs or those who follow us in as good or better shape than when we took over its care. This soil is a sacred trust. It is also our livelihood. If properly instituted, a sound livestock policy would better the position of the producer, the consumer and the packer; in fact it would increase the amount of livestock that would be processed. Breeders would stand to gain too, as they would have an expanded market for their livestock right at home. In fact we would have everything to gain and nothing to loose. Forty years' experience in the purebred livestock game has taught some of us that when commercial prices drop purebred prices drop accordingly, so if we can through a little effort get a more stable policy we will gain by what we have to sell commercially.
We are tied to a different economy today than in the horse and buggy days. We depend on tractors and power machinery to do the job, and the gas bills have to be met. It is a different story from when you could bring in your power in the form of horseflesh from the straw stack a week or two before seeding, when you had your power right there.

Such a policy would also expand our farming operations so we could use our young people on the farms, instead of forcing them to go to the cities to find work for the entire year.
When the St. Lawrence seaway is completed we will have refrigeration right on our doorstep at the head of the lakes, where ocean-going liners can pick up these products and distribute them anywhere in the world, for it is much cheaper to ship by water than by rail. We have airplanes now that can deliver goods in 24 hours anywhere in the world. We would be able to distribute these products more rapidly wherever people wanted them. Remember, two-thirds of the people in the world never go to bed at night feeling that they have had enough to eat, and in some countries there are always people who are starving for food.
I appeal to the minister again to give this matter further consideration; to see if it would not be possible to set up a small commission to look into it and decide whether it is possible to institute a livestock marketing system so that prices will be maintained and we will not have these fluctuations that sometimes take place from day to day. You may have a snowstorm on Monday and the price will go up, and then on Wednesday the price is away down. Fluctuations like that should not take place.
I wonder whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who was here a minute ago, has any information to give the house regarding the Disabled Persons Act. I have spoken to the minister at different times and asked him if he was sure that every province was administering the act in the same way. I said that some provinces were very strict in their administration of the act while others seemed more human, although the minister had previously explained that the regulations were drawn up in co-operation with the provinces.
He also stated that a conference was to be held last October. I am wondering if that conference took place, and if he could tell us anything about the discussion; whether any new amendments have been proposed or arrangements made to improve the act. As it is today a man or woman has to be confined to bed or unable to put on their own clothes before deriving benefit under this act. I wish the minister would give more consideration to this problem, as there are many disabled people who cannot earn their bread and butter and who are unable to receive any benefit from the act. I voted for the act when it was brought in; I thought then we were getting an act which was going to help take care of people who could not earn their own living.
The Address-Mr. Bryce
I do not wish to take the time of the house by dwelling further on the subject of old age pensions as most hon. members have already drawn the attention of the government to the need for an increase in the pension rate. I think that feeling is widespread in this house; people everywhere have been getting up and asking for increased old age pensions. When everybody is agreed, and the attention of the government has been drawn to this matter, then I think a reform is long overdue. The $40 which an aged citizen gets today has the value of only $20 compared with purchasing power in the past, and in the light of the continual rise in the cost of living which is taking place it is essential that the government should give immediate consideration to providing a decent living for those people who have helped to build the Canada that we inherit today.
Equally important is the subject of blind persons' pensions. A single blind person receives a pension of only $40 a month and, moreover, he is allowed to earn only another $40 before having the extra money deducted from his pension. These blind people are subject to the high cost of present day living in the same manner as those of us who are fortunate enough to have full sight, yet they do not receive any extra allowance for the extra cost that blindness imposes. Once again I appeal to the Minister of National Health and Welfare to give serious consideration to the plight of the disabled person, the blind person and the old age pensioner. It appears that in our efforts to build a better Canada we are inclined to forget the people who need help most.
I would like also to take the opportunity at this time to draw the attention of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to the problem of Indians leaving the reserves and finding work around the towns. This is a development which I am sure everyone is delighted to see, but it does present problems which I think the minister should straighten out before they develop into a major difficulty. I know the minister is aware of the situation because I have talked to him about it, with particular regard to its effect upon the town of Selkirk.
This is what happens. The Indian comes to town and finds work. Naturally, he gets along all right while work is plentiful. However, there comes a time when work is scarce and he cannot find funds on which to keep going. Usually he applies to the Indian agent and gets rations with which to carry on until he finds another job. This job may last a month or six weeks, after which he draws rations again. The process can carry on for one year, at the end of which time he is directed to


The Address-Mr. Bryce the town lor relief because he has been in residence in the town-Selkirk, for example -for one year.
This is where the main problem arises. Does he cease to be the responsibility of the Indian affairs branch at this stage? Remember, he is still a treaty Indian. Will the Indian affairs branch reimburse the town for the rations they supply to the Indian while he is a resident, say, of Selkirk? The same problem arises in other directions, and I am still talking about the treaty Indian. Should he fall sick after his 12 months' residence in town, will the Indian affairs branch pay any hospital or doctors' bills incurred by him during his sickness, or is the town expected to assume this responsibility? There is also the problem presented when an Indian falls sick while he is away from the reserve or when he is working away from home. Only recently we had some discussion as to who was responsible for hospital bills incurred by Indians in the Selkirk constituency. In my way of reading the Indian Act the treaty Indian is a ward of the Canadian government and is the responsibility of the government.
I would think that an Indian who belongs to a band and who has a band number would be a treaty Indian and, as such, would be the responsibility of the Indian affairs branch. In the recommendations made to the house by the Indian committee of both houses, which sat for three years, it was suggested that all phases of the Indian affairs branch should fall under one head and not be divided up as at the present time. The recommendation reads as follows:
. . . administrative improvements which could be effected without the revision of existing legislation and which, when put into effect, would remove some of the causes out of which arise grievances and complaints of many Indians. There are still some "administrative improvements" which your committee deems advisable. Your committee, therefore, again recommends that the administration of all aspects of Indian affairs be placed under one ministerial head.
I do not think that recommendation has ever been given any consideration. The minister, when he speaks on his estimates, will I am sure be able to answer these questions. The committee went even further and suggested that the director of the Indian affairs branch should be named a commissioner who should have the rank of deputy minister, and should have at least two assistant commissioners of whom one should be a Canadian of Indian descent. Perhaps in the near future the minister will have an opportunity of telling the house just how many of these recommendations have been acted upon, and what progress is being made to incorporate them into the Indian Act.

There is another question which presents considerable worry to the Indians, and that is the question of treaty rights and obligations. I talked about this on a previous occasion, because I think it is something that should be settled once and for all. This is something which was recommended by the Indian committee, and I quote the recommendation they made:
That a commission in the nature of a claims commission be set up with the least possible delay, to inquire into the terms of all Indian treaties in order to discover and determine, definitely and finally, such rights and obligations as are therein involved and, further, to assess and settle finally and in a just and equitable manner all claims or grievances which have arisen thereunder.
I hope the minister will be able to do something about these various problems to which I have drawn his attention. At the time of my first trip to the north country in 1943, that is up to Norway House, the conditions of the Indians were in a deplorable state, but there has since then been remarkable improvement in many ways. The new hospital is a wonderful achievement, and I hope the improvement will continue.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that one of the major domestic problems facing parliament this session is inflation. I also think some method must be found of bringing it under control. I look forward to hearing the statement which the Minister of Finance today promised to make on the subject at a later date.
There are many Canadians who are not particularly concerned about inflation, possibly because they do not realize the dangers inherent in the present situation, and also, probably, because the kind of inflation we have in Canada today is not of the extreme variety such as that which Germany experienced after world war I. Rather what we have in this country today is a sort of creeping inflation. But even though it is combined with rising standards of living and with widening opportunities in some cases, it is month by month gradually and insidiously eroding the value of our Canadian dollar.
Every hon. member realizes, I know, that in the past year Canada experienced one of her best years economically. When the final figures of production, consumption and prosperity are compiled I suppose they will show that, materially, Canada did better than any other nation in the world. Employment reached new levels in 1956. Our gross national product went up by leaps and bounds. Trade improved, wages increased and so on. In short, Canada has been literally bursting at the seams economically. Yet authorities who

should know tell us that the very vigour of the economic boom has given rise to factors which, if not controlled, could wipe out many of the economic gains which we have experienced since the end of the war.
With such prosperity prevalent throughout the country, I suppose it is natural that the average man in the street does not worry too much about inflation. As a matter of fact, in the early years of an inflationary spiral most people rather like it. It offers jobs for everyone at steadily increasing wages. It offers increasing dollar values for property. It offers opportunities to make easy money by speculating in things of real value. Yet, Mr. Speaker, inflation is like a thief in the night. It hurts most those who can least afford to be hurt. It takes a substantial bite today out of the wages of every workingman in this country. It works great hardship on those who are trying to live on fixed incomes, because the value of their savings is gradually decreasing.
In the past 50 years many nations have travelled the road to inflation, and most of them have travelled it to disaster. It seems to me that this parliament should take every possible action at this session to make sure that Canada does not travel the same road to recession or to depression.
One of the most obvious danger signals is our cost of living index increase. The last figure I saw was for October, when the cost of living index was 120.3 as compared with 100 in 1949. It showed an increase of 3.4 points in the eleven months preceding October.
What is even more alarming, I think, is the prospect for the next six months. There are some who hope that the inflationary fires will burn out before any additional government action is necessary. Personally I think that hope is wishful thinking. Last year our investment program was roughly $8 billion. If I understand the situation correctly, the figure will be substantially higher during the current year. I think that fact will inevitably increase the demand for labour and materials, and will bring additional pressure on our general price levels.
I know that for many months, Mr. Speaker, our government has recognized the dangers, and that it has taken some action. In cooperation with the Bank of Canada it has adopted what is known or has come to be known as a tight money policy. I certainly do not set myself up as an economist but, as I understand it, the present tight money policy does not arise from a contraction of money or of bank credit. The supply of money is about the same as it was about a year ago. Central bank policy, in co-operation
The Address-Mr. Thatcher with our banks, has been directed toward maintaining the volume of money at the same level as that of a year ago, and restraining any further expansion of credit. With the supply of money limited and with the demand for it practically insatiable, naturally the law of supply and demand has come into effect and interest rates have gone up. I think hon. members on all sides of the house would agree that the higher interest rates have been at least partially effective in discouraging additional business expansion financed by bank credit.
Personally I support wholeheartedly the steps which have been taken so far by the government to deal with these inflationary tendencies. Every country in the western world, I think, has taken similar steps. I am quite sure that if my hon. friends in' the Conservative party were sitting on the government side, they would take the same kind of action.
The primary purpose of the monetary measures taken by the Bank of Canada has been to extend the period of our boom and to protect the Canadian people against any economic bust. The rapidly rising interest rates, of course, have hurt in some quarters, but the hardships which they have inflicted are as nothing compared to what the hardships would be if this government adopted an easy money policy.
There are some fields which have been adversely affected. Housing and municipal finance have been mentioned. Perhaps there will have to be some adjustments in these fields. Naturally there have been complaints about this tight money policy from companies whose plans for expansion are hampered, but I think the government has put the over-all welfare of the nation ahead of political expediency in this particular instance. As a matter of fact it seems to me that there are indications today, and a good many of them, that the tight money policy of this government may have to be extended.
When the original Bank of Canada Act was formulated and designed, commercial banks extended most commercial credit. Today that is no longer the case in many instances. There are many other companies today which extend credit in large volume. I refer to finance companies, small loan companies, insurance companies, mortgage companies, credit unions and even government agencies.
It is quite true that an appeal has been made to these various organizations to restrict credit voluntarily, but I do not think such an appeal is adequate. Today there are many companies of the nature I have described which are still extending credit almost without limit. If inflation in Canada is

The Address-Mr. Thatcher to be controlled, I believe the government should set up a co-ordinated set of policies, principles and regulations which would govern all the various components of our financial system, and not the banks alone. Such a policy should be aimed at making our entire financial situation responsive to the actions of the Bank of Canada.
Perhaps I am wrong, Mr. Speaker, but it seems to me that there is another step which should be taken at the present time. Unless retail prices show some indication of stopping their upward spiral I believe the government must consider taking steps to curb credit at the retail level. A requirement of 25 per cent or 33J per cent down on all credit sales would not be popular, but I think it would be effective in temporarily postponing the demand for automobiles, appliances, furniture and the like. It could help to curb consumer demand with a minimum of hardship to anyone.
There is yet another step I should like to see the government take. I cannot help feeling today, as I have felt for 10 years, that parliament is sometimes prone to spend money too easily. How can we expect Canadian businessmen and Canadian industry in this period of emergency to use restraint in spending if we in this parliament, on all sides, allow the expenses which we should control to increase by several hundreds of millions of dollars each year? I think it is obvious, that government demands for manpower, government demands for materials, are just as responsible for pushing up prices as are the demands of industry. It seems to me, therefore, that governments at all three levels, federal, provincial and municipal, during the next few months should set an example to industry and private citizens by keeping their spending at a practical minimum.


Mr. Nicholson:: What about family allowances? What should we do about them?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am always amazed at the ability of socialist theorists to offer destructive criticism.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Should we cut down family allowances?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Most economists, I think, would agree that one of the major contributing factors to inflation today is a shortage of manpower. Parliament would be accentuating that shortage of manpower if it adds to the number of civil servants unnecessarily. Perhaps no one in the house will agree with me, but I think during the present emergency the Minister of Finance might be wise to freeze the number of civil servants at its present level.

What about tax policy? For many years in this house, as hon. members know, I have urged the Minister of Finance to bring about tax reductions, and I continue to believe that such a policy is desirable and urgent. I would be the first to admit that in this inflationary period perhaps this shortterm picture has altered. Last March the minister budgeted, I think, for a surplus of $113 million. It seems now that the surplus will reach $300 million. Surely a large and substantial part of that surplus should be used for debt reduction, and I commend such a policy to the minister as being anti-inflationary.
What of the remainder of the surplus? Personally I say this with respect, I would rather the minister did not leave the balance of this surplus lying around because there are too many hon. members who can find ways of spending it. I should like to see, as I say-


An hon. Member:: Too many old age pensioners now?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I shall tell my hon. friend that so far as the old age pensioners are concerned, they may be taken care of sooner than my hon. friend wishes.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What about the means test for old age pensions?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am glad to talk about the means test. For 10 years now I have listened to C.C.F. members advocate the removal of the means test down here in Ottawa, yet out in Saskatchewan they have the most rigid means test in the whole world, on their supplementary allowance to pensioners.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Do you favour abolishing the means test?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, I said that I favoured tax reduction if it is feasible at the moment. If economists tell us it is too dangerous to put this extra purchasing power into the hands of consumers at the present time, then I believe some method should be found to give the public the benefit of tax reduction on a postponed basis. Perhaps some kind of deferred savings certificate could be issued by the government which would not be redeemable for three years or five years.
I say that inflationary tendencies are not out of control in this country, but there are danger signals on the horizon. The Minister of Finance knows better than anyone that combating inflation is neither an easy task nor a popular one, but every Canadian will be adversely affected if parliament ignores the problem. In the period ahead we must

look to the Minister of Finance for leadership, yet others must also accept their responsibilities. Industrialists and merchants must be moderate in their pricing policies; labour must be moderate in its demands for wage increases, and members of parliament must be moderate in the demands they make on the Minister of Finance for increased expenditures. If we give the minister that kind of co-operation I think we can hold inflation within bounds, reasonable bounds, during 1957. I hope the minister will consider the suggestions I have made, and I hope he may find some of them feasible.


Daniel Roland Michener: I listened with great interest, Mr. Speaker, to the excellent speech we have just heard. I wonder if the hon. member who has just taken his seat, and who appears to identify the government of Canada with the Bank of Canada, could point out any action which the government of Canada, as distinguished from the Bank of Canada, has taken to deal with any inflationary trend about which he has talked?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am a backbench member, and I would not suggest policy.


Mr. G. S. White (Hastings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Hanna) and seconder (Mr. Robi-chaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. This year the speech from the throne dealt mainly with foreign affairs, and the two speeches made in this house on Monday last by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Health and Welfare emphasized the importance of this subject.
There has been so much said during the emergency session and this session about the United Nations police force in Egypt that one wonders what magic wand the United Nations is going to use now to accomplish in the Middle East what the United Nations has dismally failed to accomplish in the past 10 years of its existence. If one is brutally frank he is forced to admit that the United Nations has been a dismal failure to date. It has not had any effective policy for dealing with the various problems that have affected the Middle East for many years. The problems of the Middle East are not new and they are not going to be solved overnight. This powder keg has been in existence for years. Various matters affecting the Middle East have been before the United Nations for years. The score to date is just nil.
I shall cite one instance, and that is the plight of the hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees. These people became refugees on the day the state of Israel came into being.
The Address-Mr. G. S. White Years after this event took place we still find hundreds of thousands of these unfortunate people who are not re-established or resettled. You will find them in the Arab states of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. These refugees, with their families, are living under the most deplorable conditions of utter poverty. From time to time every member in this house has received pamphlets and literature outlining the plight of these unfortunate people. This matter has been before the United Nations time and time again, and nothing has been done.
In the three Arab countries you will find large settlements of these refugees living in the most squalid conditions in large camps along the road between Baalbeck and Damascus; you will find them scattered along the highway from Damascus to Amman and in the vicinity of Jericho, Jerusalem, and in other parts of the Arab states. This one problem has been a festering sore for years, well known to all members of the United Nations, yet no action has been taken.
There have also been the old questions of the Gaza strip, the boundary line, the right of Egypt to block and to prevent Israeli ships going through the canal. As I said, these problems affecting this part of the world have been before the United Nations for years and little if anything has been done. It seems to me that the United Nations has proved itself utterly incapable of dealing with these problems which have simply screamed to be settled; and today, after years of senseless and useless debate and passing resolutions that would stretch around the world, but taking no action, we are asked to base the hope for peace in the world on the action of the United Nations in sending a small police force to the Middle East.
The present force, we are told, is composed of about 5,500 men, of whom only some 1,100 are Canadians. To me, 20 per cent of the entire force seems rather a large percentage for Canada. If you take from these 5,500 men the administrative staff, the medical, the army service corps, the signallers, the engineers and all the other services that go to make up a modern army brigade today, you will have very few men left to carry out the so-called police duties.
At page 174 of Hansard the Secretary of State for External Affairs said:
This has led to a demand in some quarters that somehow or other United Nations assembly should take action to enforce effectively its own recommendations. This of course ignores the fact that such compulsory enforcement procedure through the assembly is not in accordance with the terms of the charter as drafted.
That very clearly indicates that this small police force in Egypt has no authority to
318	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. G. S. White enforce anything. I would have liked very much if the Secretary of State for External Affairs had explained to the house in detail just what are the duties of this police force and what it has accomplished to date, if anything; and what military equipment this force has. I take it, if it is a police force, it is not to fight. What is it to do if it is attacked? What is it to do if fighting breaks out again between Israel and Egypt, or one of the other Arab states? How long is the force to remain there? I think the hon. member for Oxford clearly showed today that it is going to stay there just as long as Colonel Nasser will permit it to stay there.
What are the duties of this force as far as the canal is concerned? Can it be ordered out of Egypt at any time? And, of some importance to the Canadian taxpayers, what proportion of the entire cost of the more than 1,100 Canadian troops in Egypt is to be paid by Canada? The Secretary of State for External Affairs made very clear during the emergency session, and in his speech on Monday, that the police force is very restricted in its actions. He spoke on Monday. At page 175 of Hansard he tried to give the impression that the force had accomplished a great deal, and at page 176 he made this very significant statement:
But even within these limitations the United Nations force can, I think, play an important part in bringing about an honourable and enduring political settlement in the Palestine and Suez area.
Well, it would have been more interesting if the minister had only enlarged upon that and shown how this police force, with its limited powers, is able to bring about a settlement of any kind.
There are many people in Canada who believe that if Britain and France had not acted in the Suez, Russia would have moved in and today Russia would have been in complete control of the canal and the Middle East. Many people feel that the action of France and Britain was necessary to preserve their very existence, an action necessary in view of the previous feeble actions of the United Nations and the United States.
What happened? The Canadian government turned its back on France and Britain, and was described by some as being very bitter and severe. The true feeling of the Canadian government was well expressed by the Prime Minister on page 20 of Hansard of the emergency session, when he made that statement and by the manner in which he made it. The statement is as follows:
The era when the supermen of Europe could govern the whole world has and is coming pretty close to an end.
Well, I would like to tell the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External


Affairs that in the part of eastern Ontario where I reside the vast majority of Canadian people do not agree with or approve of the sentiment expressed in the words uttered by the Prime Minister; nor do they agree with the action of the Canadian government in not supporting France and Britain. I had hoped that at some time either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs would tell the house and the country what, in their opinion, would have happened to the Suez canal and the Middle East if France and Britain had not acted. If the policy that the President of the United States recently submitted to congress had been declared earlier there would not, in my opinion, have been any crisis in the Middle East. Press despatches of today report the appearance of Secretary of State Dulles before a Senate committee, in which he said: State Secretary Dulles said today there would be "a very great likelihood" of United States troops fighting in the Middle East if congress rejects President Eisenhower's Middle East manifesto.
What they are pressing for is exactly the same action that France and Britain took. From the two speeches made on Monday by the two ministers one can judge that they have apparently seen the commonwealth in a new light, because it has been a long time, prior to Monday last, since anyone in this house has heard any minister of the crown make any complimentary remarks about the commonwealth. In fact it has been the usual practice of ministers to avoid any reference of any kind to the commonwealth, or to mention any of the benefits of the commonwealth to the entire world.
The speeches of the two ministers were remarkable in that they made some attempt to repair the damage done by the remarks of the Prime Minister in the emergency session. I do not think anybody is going to disagree with the remarks made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He spoke in most glowing terms about the commonwealth, what Britain had done in granting independence and self-government to former colonies. He mentioned the names of certain nations which will soon be members of the commonwealth. In my opinion these remarks were a well-deserved tribute to the statesmen of the United Kingdom, who only such a short time ago were described and classified by the Prime Minister as aggressors and the supermen of Europe.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare, not to be outdone by his colleague, also praised the commonwealth and several times during his speech lauded the work of the commonwealth in every way. I should like to read two passages from his speech, at page

186 of Hansard. In referring to various countries in Asia the minister said:
I also told them that, as a member of the commonwealth, Canada felt that that instrument had in its very concept the opportunity of providing not only for the good of its constituents but for the welfare of all nations in the world, in Asia as well as elsewhere, who are prepared to understand its good intentions and purposes.
I congratulate the minister on having a view of that kind. He went on to say:
But my judgment would be that, for the most part, those who at the present time have to do with the conduct of government in those great countries recognized that in the consultations of prime ministers, in the consultations of commonwealth foreign ministers and in the collaboration that takes place in the United Nations, the commonwealth serves as a valuable instrument in a world that needs to move closer and closer together rather than diverge on an increasing scale.
I also congratulate the minister on those sentiments; but both ministers in their glowing words about the commonwealth overlooked one certain factor that was aptly pointed out yesterday by the hon. member for Kamloops, who indicated that not once in all the glowing references they made to the commonwealth did they mention the vital factor of the centre of commonwealth unity, loyalty to the crown.
In the speech from the throne there was no reference to any amendment to the Succession Duty Act, unless that reference was contained in the last few words where it mentioned that amendments to certain other acts would be submitted. I sincerely hope this act will be amended. It was mentioned last year in the speech from the throne, but no amendments were brought forward. In my opinion the present act should be revised in the light of changing economic conditions.
Conditions have changed considerably since the act was first introduced a long time ago. At the present time an estate of up to $50,000 is exempt from tax, but if the estate exceeds $50,000 it is taxable in its entirety. That appears most unfair to me, and I feel the exemption should be raised to at least $75,000 and this amount should be exempt from duty in any event. Every hon. member of this house who is a member of the legal profession knows from his own knowledge and has seen from his personal experience many instances of the effect of income tax and succession duties on income under wills or trusts, pensions, lump sum payments and other similar payments received by a surviving dependent, and are well aware of the hardship created.
One other matter in connection with succession duties is that of charitable bequests and charitable donations made within three years of the date of death, as well as unpaid
The Address-Mr. G. S. White subscriptions to charitable organizations. Many people feel that these should not be included in arriving at the value of an estate for the purpose of determining the initial rate of duty.
In regard to income tax, despite what has been said by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, I for one hope the Minister of Finance is going to raise the exemption of a married man to at least $3,000 and the exemption of a single person to at least $1,500, and consider a reasonable increase in exemptions for children. Everyone knows that inflation has greatly raised the cost of living, that municipal taxes have increased and that the price of everything the taxpayer has to buy is following an upward trend. The taxpayer is subject to many taxes which are hidden in the sale price tag.
The present exemption for children is only $150 in the case of a child in receipt of family allowance and $400 in the case of a child not receiving family allowance. How far will $400 a year go toward the support of a child over 16 years of age who is attending school or college? Even a casual examination of the prices of goods advertised in the newspapers today, including the prices of clothing, footwear and the other necessities of life, will indicate that an exemption of $400 is a small exemption indeed.
There is also the situation of many taxpayers who are living on fixed incomes. In many cases the income was fixed years ago when the dollar was worth a great deal more than it is worth today. The present rate of taxation and scale of exemption works a hardship on this type of taxpayer, and I suggest to the minister that he might well consider allowing an exemption of more than $500 to all taxpayers over the age of 65 years.
There was a short reference to agriculture in the speech from the throne which will not greatly encourage the Canadian farmer. The hon. member for Middlesex East very well placed the position of the farmer before the house in his remarks as recorded at page 85 of Hansard, when he showed that the Canadian farm economy is being exploited to provide markets for manufactured goods. Although Canada is a great producing nation many of our agricultural products are imported from abroad. Each year several million pounds of cheese are imported into Canada, fruit and vegetables are imported from the United States, tomatoes and tomato pulp are hauled across the ocean from Europe and then go by rail to marketing points where they compete with local products, although it is true we have certain tariffs that operate only on a seasonal basis.

The Address-Mr. G. S. White For instance, last year many hon. members received representations from turkey producers concerning the importation of turkeys from the United States which undersell the local market. I have a large number of turkey producers in my district, and I have received letters concerning this situation. Representations were made to the Minister of Agriculture last year by turkey producers.
Ask any farmer in Ontario today who is engaged in mixed farming concerning the great increase in the cost of every article he must purchase for the operation of his farm, including the increases in labour costs and municipal taxes, and compare these increases with the prices of the products he has for sale. Every rural newspaper carries notices and reports of meetings of the fast-growing farmers' union held in every county throughout Ontario. No doubt many hon. members have attended these meetings and discovered that in many cases they could not find much fault with the arguments put forth by the farmers. The farmers want only their fair share of the income of the nation. As many hon. members have already observed, because this is an election year something may be done for Canadian farmers.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word or two in support of those hon. members who have spoken on behalf of the Canadian veteran. I have in my hand the brief presented to the government by the Legion, and there are one or two matters I would like to mention. The Legion has made extremely reasonable requests the granting of which in many cases would not increase government expenditure in any way. For instance, they ask for an increase in the permissible ceiling, which is not going to cost the federal treasury one cent. They simply ask that the ceilings on total permissible incomes under the War Veterans' Allowance Act be increased to $1,200 per year for the single recipient and $2,000 per year for the married recipient. They further ask that the married rate of the war veterans' allowance be increased from $108 per month to $120 per month. They also ask that Canadian veterans of world war I whose overseas service was restricted to the United Kingdom be eligible for war veterans' allowance. This request is also most reasonable and one that has been submitted to the minister on many occasions.
The only other request I wish to mention is that respecting the present equity value of the home in which a war veterans allowance recipient resides. Such a veteran is now permitted to have an equity of up to $6,000. Every hon. member knows, from his knowledge of the value of property in his own


community, that $6,000 is a very low figure. The Legion asks that the figure be increased to $9,000. This again will not entail the outlay of one cent of public funds.
I realize that these requests have been made repeatedly to the minister, but I would point out to him that the present very cold spell means for many pensioners and veterans in receipt of war veterans allowance extra fuel, food and clothing which in many cases they can ill afford. The number of veterans who will receive a pension, if the pension is granted to veterans of world war I who served in England, is very small, and the amount of extra funds from the public treasury will not be very great. I sincerely hope that the Minister of Veterans Affairs and his parliamentary assistant will take some action at this session of parliament to implement the very fair and reasonable recommendations contained in the brief presented to the government by the Legion last fall.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we call it 5.45?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: By virtue of the provisions of standing order 38, paragraph 3, I must put the question forthwith on the amendment to the amendment to the main motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment to the main motion lost.


Mr. Shaw:: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Shaw the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
322
[Stage Direction]
Questions