1957-01-10

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 2, to provide for annual vacations with pay for employees.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that all employees who come under federal labour jurisdiction shall have at least two weeks' annual vacation with pay after one year's service.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION OF STATUTORY HOLIDAYS WITH PAY FOR EMPLOYEES

Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No.
3,	to provide for pay for statutory holidays for employees and for pay for work performed on statutory holidays.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that all employees who come under federal labour jurisdiction shall have at least eight statutory holidays with pay each year.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 152, REVISED STATUTES OF 1952    VOLUNTARY REVOCABLE CHECK-OFF OF UNION DUES

Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No.
4,	to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to write the voluntary revocable check-off of trade union dues into the federal labour code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to amend the Canada Elections Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to extend the privilege of voting at advance polls in federal elections to any qualified voter who finds he must be away from his constituency on election day.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ADMIRALTY ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Admiralty Act to provide that the governor in council may authorize the payment of salaries out of the consolidated revenue fund, in lieu of fees, to certain surrogate judges, not exceeding three hundred dollars per annum and to certain registrars for admiralty districts, not exceeding two hundred dollars per annum.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it Is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources Act to provide for the establishment of two national museums in lieu of one, as at the present time, to be known as the Canadian museum of natural history and the Canadian museum of human history.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Proposed Legislation CANADA COUNCIL

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of a Canada Council for the encouragement of the arts, humanities and social sciences and further to provide inter alia that
(a)	the Minister of Finance may, out of the consolidated revenue fund, pay to the council the sum of fifty million dollars to constitute an endowment fund for the purposes of the act, and
(b)	the council shall establish a fund to be called the university capital grants fund, to which shall be credited the sum of fifty million dollars, to be paid to the council by the Minister of Finance out of the consolidated revenue fund.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Orx the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he would give the house and the country a statement as to the present position of negotiations as between the C.P.R. and the union officials and also an indication as to the nature of the plan which he submitted to them and which is now the subject of consideration.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I think it is preferable to say little at this time about the negotiations. They have been informal negotiations which I have found, not to my surprise at all but to my satisfaction, were perhaps more conducive to bringing about a feeling between the parties that an earnest effort should be made by them to overcome the narrow margin between their respective attitudes. The plan would be one to have the operations resumed at the earliest possible moment and to have them resumed on the terms of a contract that would be practically along the lines of the contract entered into between the same union and the Canadian National Railways last June for the period up to March 31, 1958, with a provision that the same diesel rule would be in that contract but would be subject to renegotiation in the light of the report of a board that would be set up by the government to investigate the aspects of the diesel rule that are not agreed

to by both parties. The details that I trust both parties will find it in the interests of Canada generally to agree to are being discussed and worked out, and there would not be a reference until there has been the greatest possible measure of agreement by the parties as to what the terms of reference should be.


John George Diefenbaker: If I might ask a supplementary question, when was the suggestion by the Prime Minister in order to bring these two groups together in agreement submitted? Was it suggested at the time the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Labour met with representatives of the C.P.R. and the union or was it submitted for the first time yesterday or the day before? Would the Prime Minister also say what he means, and what he meant yesterday, when he stated there was only a slight margin of difference between the parties? What is the margin of difference to which he referred?


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@Quebec East: It is the
same suggestion that was made at the first meeting of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as acting prime minister, and the Minister of Labour with the parties on the last Saturday of the year. It has been discussed and certain aspects of it have been the subject of suggestions by both parties that would imply some variation in the details. I feel convinced that the only point at issue now is whether there should be a contractual undertaking by both parties to accept and write into their modified agreement something that would be in conformity with the findings of the investigating board appointed by the government.
I am not sure whether or not I said it yesterday, but the objection of the union is that it is tantamount to their acceptance of compulsory arbitration. The objection of the railway company to that not being a contractual undertaking now is that if they do riot make it a contractual undertaking the dispute could start all over again. I have been urging that is not a realistic view to take. If there is a thorough investigation and report, neither side is going to attempt, after that, to hold out on a formula for safe operations that will have been recommended after a full investigation by a board that would be constituted in such a way as to have considerable prestige with Canadian public opinion.


John George Diefenbaker: I have one more question. As to the nature of the board, is that to be the board of transport commissioners or an independent board to be set up composed of representatives of the government, the railway and the union?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The possibilities with respect to the two kinds of board the hon. gentleman mentioned have been under consideration. There is such a volume of work before the board of transport commissioners that that has been one reason for not asking them to set everything else aside and devote quite a long period to this problem, because it will take some time to make a full investigation that will be such as to satisfy the public that it has been given every possible consideration before a recommendation is made.
There is more than one statute under which that kind of board could be set up. Under the Railway Act it could be a reference to the board of transport commissioners. Under the industrial disputes act it could be a board constituted by the Minister of Labour, under one of the sections of that act. There is also, of course, the general Inquiries Act, under which a royal commission could be set up. What is being pressed, I will say, by us is something that will be apt to be accepted without compulsion having to be resorted to.


John George Diefenbaker: And is the decision final?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There will not be any agreement accepted by the union of a contractual obligation to accept the decision, but Canadian citizens usually accept what properly constituted authority determines to be the right kind of law for the land.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: May
I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question? Would he not consider that in setting up such a board it is important to have members with some technical knowledge of the principal problem involved? What I have in mind is that the conciliation board consisted of three lawyers. While I have every respect for the legal profession-and we can tell by the volume of applause which greeted my remarks that there is an undue number of them in the house-nonetheless, I think in a case of this description rather than legal minds what we need are people who have some technical knowledge of the matter in view of the controversy over the safety factor.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, all these aspects have been very much in our minds. I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman that there is an undue number of lawyers in the House of Commons. I have great respect for all other avocations but I believe that a knowledge of the law as it is is somewhat helpful in considering what the law might be altered to be in the future. However, this is not just a matter
Inquiries of the Ministry of law; it is a matter of fact as well, and that has been in the minds not only of the parties but in the minds of my colleagues and myself in our negotiations with the parties.



REFERENCE TO REPORTED CONTINUED RISE IN WORLD PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Elmore Philpott (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is there any reason for the continued substantial rise in the world price of sugar?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the world
price of sugar is influenced by a number of factors. One is the buying habits of the public. Another is that there was a short crop last year. There has been very heavy buying, particularly in France and England, abnormally heavy, and there is some talk of a present shortage of sugar in England. We have studied the matter, and as far as we can judge the situation the production and the supply of sugar are about in balance. We also think that there will be an adjustment of the price when the buying at abnormal rates comes to an end. But at the moment we think the world price is being governed by abnormal demand in certain countries and the short crop.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, and I apologize for not having sent him a little more notice. In view of the fact that this is the time of the year when the construction industry is organizing and planning for the year ahead, would the minister be able to elaborate or comment or give some word of encouragement in regard to the gloomy prediction of his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), on December 27 that there is likely to be a significant decline in residential building this year?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree that the prediction of my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was gloomy. He said there would probably be some decline in house building in 1957 as compared with the record performance of

Inquiries of the Ministry 1956 and the preceding year. The only comment I can make is that as far as I am concerned the remarks of my colleague were accurate, as they always are-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Henry Winters: -but that nevertheless there will be a high record of house building in 1957.
ILater:]


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works arising out of the answer he gave to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). Would he not consider the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to the effect that, of all the major investment sectors, residential building-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Alfred Claude Ellis: -is the only one likely to show a significant decline, is a gloomy and pessimistic statement?


Mr. Gauthier (Nickel Belt):: He shoots, he scores.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, when you
consider that during the last two years over one-quarter of a million houses were built in Canada, and when the Minister of Trade and Commerce says there might be some decline this year but nevertheless there still will be a high level of house building activity in Canada, I do not think that is a gloomy statement.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Well, Mr. Speaker, this statement makes one specific reference to residential construction. In other words, out of all the construction going on in Canada only residential construction is likely to show a significant decline in the coming year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearlies (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill). Was permission to enter Canada recently refused to one C. G. Hanna at a west coast port? If so, on what grounds?
Would the minister also advise as to the present whereabouts and status of that unfortunate individual?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I wonder if I might have Your Honour's permission to answer this question notwithstanding a ruling you


made at a previous session that you would not permit questions about individual immigration cases.
There has been a most extraordinary amount of publicity about the case of this unfortunate young man and I think perhaps hon. members would like to be in possession of the real facts.
He has on three different occasions appeared on a merchant ship at a Canadian port. He is in no way admissible to Canada under the Immigration Act and in fact at least four or five different provisions of the act would have to be set aside if he were to be admitted to this country. In view of the fact that he had no connection with anyone in this country, that he was on the ship of a highly civilized country and there were no doubt other places in the world where it would be possible for him to go, it did not seem to me it would be a proper thing for me to disregard the law enacted by this parliament and to seek by some back-door method to get around the law which was made by this parliament.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: A
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have been approached by people in my constituency who I suppose may be described by saying they believe in broad humanitarian principles rather than in technical rules at all times. I would like to ask the minister whether he thinks it possible to consider this situation on its merits and see whether a case can be made rather than to deal with it in a purely legalistic manner. It seems to me this young man might spend his life on freighters.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, sir, as to where this young man may spend his life, I think it is very unlikely that he would spend any great part of it in any one place because, having read his own life story as told by himself in the Toronto Star, I gather he seems to have made rather a habit of moving about from one place to another.
I think the case has been considered on such merits as we were able to find in the case and I am afraid that compared with a great number of other cases, often very tragic cases, of persons closely related to Canadian citizens, whom on account of the law that was enacted by this parliament it is not possible for me to agree to admit to this country, I would certainly not consider, on any kind of merits that it has been possible for me to discern, that it would be proper to ask to have an exception made in this case.


George Randolph Pearkes: Could the minister say
whether this man has actually left the west coast now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, he has not landed in Canada during this voyage. I have no guarantee that my information is accurate but I was told the ship he is on at the present time is going to sail on either the 12th or the 15th, I am not sure which, from whatever port it is at on the west coast, either Victoria or Vancouver, I am not sure.


George Randolph Pearkes: Victoria, I think.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister say what is the present status of the Canadian government railway employees' relief and insurance association? Has the action which was taken toward the end of December, that is the reinstatement of the deduction plan for insurance benefits, meant that the association is recognized in all its aspects, or is it merely on the insurance basis? This is a matter of some urgency to the employees concerned.
Hon George C. Marler (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, all I can say at the moment is that I know the matter has been under consideration but I shall have to make inquiries of the management in order to answer the hon. lady's question more specifically.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can give us the facts with regard to the situation in Yemen, and particularly whether there is any foundation for the accusations being made by the Yemenese against the British?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot give the facts. We have tried to ascertain them. The hon. gentleman does know that the allegations made by the Yemen government have been denied by the United Kingdom government and I think we should accept that denial. I understand the matter is being referred to the United Nations where we will probably hear more about it. In the meantime I shall try to ascertain what facts I can.
The Address-Mr. Cauchon PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State. Will the Secretary of State state what progress has been made toward filling the vacancy on the civil service commission which has existed for a year and a half?


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):: The only thing I can say in answer to the question is that the appointment will be made in due course and will be announced by the government.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: How many years?



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he can tell the house what is the situation with respect to the report of the royal commission on the coastal trade and whether parliament will likely have an opportunity to act upon that report at this session?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minisier of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to say when the report will be brought down and because of that fact I am unable to answer the second part of the hon. member's question.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, January 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. R. F. L. Hanna for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. Robert Cauchon (Beauharnois-Sala-berry):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first to congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) who has most ably moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
(Translation):
Also, Mr. Speaker, my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) for having carried out his task equally well when seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne.

The Address-Mr. Cauchon
At the time of the great fire in the town of Salaberry of Valleyfield, on December 30, last, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) sent a message of sympathy to the families who had lost their homes. On their behalf and also speaking for myself, I want to express our sincere appreciation to him. It is comforting to realize the spirit of good-will that is shown in such circumstances, for without the heroic efforts of our firemen and of those who volunteered to help in one way or another, our town would certainly have had to deplore a much larger misfortune.
(Text):
As in speeches of former sessions, Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne has expressed the Liberal government's policy of promoting social welfare and economic development and of effecting the continuance of the prosperity our country has enjoyed under the wise guidance of its capable Liberal leaders. An outstanding example of this guidance applied internationally was the plan submitted to the United Nations by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) at a time when that body was, I would say, nearly paralysed by war in the Middle East and Hungary. As one Canadian newspaperman said, "This week Canadians at the United Nations in New York have good reason to be proud to be Canadians." Never, Mr. Speaker, was constructive leadership more needed than at that moment and the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his Canadian delegation gave that leadership.
Although the opposition may refuse to our administrators the credit so justly theirs, it cannot deny that Canada has had prosperity; nor can it deny that foresight, good administration and sound financing have resulted in unprecedented progress within the last two decades. What is more, steps have been taken to assure Canada's continued prosperity. Think, Mr. Speaker, of the two great projects now under way, one to give the west eastern markets for its great resources of natural gas, the other to develop the great hydro power resources of the east and at the same time to give the lakehead direct access to the Atlantic seaboard.
These gigantic undertakings, together with the ever increasing amity among Canadians of different national origins, have served to convince all Canadians that the Prime Minister (Mr. St'. Laurent) has done more to unite, both tangibly and intangibly, the people and the geographical units of this vast country than has any other Canadian. In the annals of of Canada I am sure he will be accorded that honour for all time.

In justice too, I must pay a well merited tribute to our Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) who has so skilfully led the house in its deliberations and the country through a time of dangerous inflationary trends. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and other ministers have also, with courage and fortitude in the face of determined opposition, taken measures to assure Canada's economic development.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, one immediately thinks of the Hon. Lionel Chevrier and the seaway authority. In April, 1951, I spoke to him of my constituency's interest in the work to be undertaken and voiced our objections to lift bridges at St. Louis de Gonzague, on Larocque road and at Meloche-ville where increasingly heavy traffic would be dangerously impeded. At that time he promised to study the matter and, Mr. Speaker, as a result I was pleased to be able to announce last year that we could be assured of a tunnel at Melocheville. I hope also to be able to announce that something will be done at the other two points. On behalf of my riding of Beauharnois-Salaberry I wish to thank the Hon. Mr. Chevrier and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler).
That part of Quebec which I have the honour to represent now has, as I have formerly intimated, unrivalled industrial sites. The tremendous combined navigation-power project now under construction together with power now available, a skilled reliable labour force, a productive countryside, almost unlimited water supplies and an excellent situation in respect to markets should be most attractive both to light and heavy industries seeking new sites or working out plans for decentralization.
My foregoing remarks were preliminary to the introduction of a subject that has been of sincere concern to me for some years, that is, the practice of discrimination against the older but employable worker. Though I have no intention of reiterating the facts I presented in 1951, I feel it my duty to say that this discrimination continues and seeks justification for the same reasons as then. Proof of my assertion may be found in the advertisements of our daily newspapers.
We must concede that evolution of a population through the complex stages of its economic development and the continuing industrial revolution with the resultant increase in automation give rise to many difficult problems, but problems nonetheless necessary of resolution.
Then too we must accept the idea that a nation's progress depends upon (1) higher production with a corresponding rise in living standards for all and (2) new outlets for the

investment capital which provides new jobs and skills not only for the young but for those still employable who have been thrown out of work by changed production methods or similar causes.
All workers should and must share equally in job opportunities created by our present economic growth. Canada's citizens, even those 41 to 60, should have equal opportunities in its labour markets; that is, of course, if age is not a bona fide occupational limitation. Both government and private enterprise, therefore, have the task of anticipating and resolving problems arising from this continuing evolution, especially problems pertaining to the unemployment of any section of Canadian labour.
Because I have kept myself well informed regarding the employment situation in my own industrial community, it is clear to me that workers over 40 are most frequently the sufferers when production methods change. Consequently I have followed closely the attempts of various governments to check discrimination because of age. Recently I have read "New Channels for the Golden Years", a document issued by the New York state joint legislative committee on problems of the aging, under the chairmanship of Senator Thomas Desmond. Among the recommendations made on page 7 of the report there are two of particular interest. They are:
That the state encourage industry to establish vested pension plans and move in that direction itself in connection with the state retirement system.
That the state recognize the greater difficulty older persons have in finding jobs by providing an unemployment insurance differential for those over 40.
On page 10 the advantages of a vested pension plan are thus described:
Our committee believes that vested pension plans hold forth promise of
(a)	increasing likelihood of employers hiring workers at ages 55, 60 and over;
(b)	preventing indigency in later life resulting from workers changing employment in firms which grant pensions only after lengthy service;
(c)	reducing pressure on government to take drastic action such as adopting an old age pension act.
The British national advisory committee on employment of older men and women after studying the problem also has emphasized the need of "preserving pension rights on change of employment." The committee later in the report makes a recommendation that the state expand its anti-discrimination law to include age, as does that of the state of Massachusetts. Moreover, the following recommendation is also made as found on page 23 of the same report:
To give further emphasis to our belief that the state should move to end discriminatory practices
The Address-Mr. Cauchon
in employment of the 40-plus, we recommend:
That the state should bar any company from bidding on state construction, equipment, service or other contracts if it discriminates against the 40-plus;
The burden and stigma placed on our free enterprise system by the crude, raw, unscientific policy of banning the employment of the 40-plus by modern industry, particularly big industries, and especially new industries, warrants society, through its elective officials, in taking steps effectively to prevent such personnel policies.
To the contention, "But it costs industry more money to hire the 40-plus", we reply, "These are costs industry and society must bear".
If the cost of employment of the 40-plus is increased prices, we need to add that to our costs, just as we have added to the cost of production the cost of sanitary, safe factories, social security taxes, shorter work week.
However, we have seen no evidence that hiring the 40-plus will increase the cost of production. We have seen figures indicating that workmen's compensation costs rise, but these have been disproved.
We have seen figures that group insurance costs rise, but these do not appear significant.
We have seen figures that pension costs rise when the 40-plus are hired, but we have not seen them balanced against any compensating figures reflecting lower absenteeism, the greater loyalty, the greater stability, the lower turnover rate, the increased know-how of the older worker.
Nor have we seen what the cost to industry would be if vested pensions were adopted so that the employer hiring a man at 55 would not have to feel he had to provide "a suitable pension" for him at 65, but only a 10-year pension.
I was also interested to see by the 1955 report of the International Labour Organization that the state of Massachusetts had almost eliminated all discrimination in employment practices, including that against age.
In order to learn more about the Massachusetts law I went to Boston last spring to gather at first hand information from the officers of the commission.
It might be well at this point to summarize briefly the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practice Act and its amendment, sponsored by the American Federation of Labour, to include age. Age is defined as being between 45 and 65.
Every employer, employment agency and labour union subject to the provisions of the law must post it conspicuously on its premises. Those not subject are employers with fewer than six persons, clubs, et cetera not organized for private profit, domestic servants, and those employed in family businesses. The law reads as follows:
No person shall be denied the right to work because of race, colour, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry.
In respect to age, it is illegal for employers or employment agencies to: (1) ask questions before employment which directly or indirectly disclose age; (2) to print or circulate advertisements which directly or indirectly

The Address-Mr. Cauchon specify limitation because of age, unless that limitation is based upon a bona fide occupational qualification; (3) in case of employers to discharge or refuse to hire an individual because of age; (4) to act unfairly against an individual in matters relating to compensation, terms of employment et cetera because of age.
Labour organizations and groups of employees are forbidden to exclude from membership or to resist employment of such persons.
Moreover-and this is important-the law hag been interpreted to apply even if a company had, prior to its passing, adopted a retirement or pension plan calling for the retirement of persons between those ages, 45-65.
The commission seeks to gain compliance with the law by means of conference, conciliation and persuasion. A commissioner is assigned to investigate each complaint. Only once has a public hearing of a case been necessary. Public acceptance of the law has been due principally to the educational program initiated by the commission which arranges conferences with groups affected in various communities. In addition, surveys of the industrial communities are made by small committees of their own citizens, serving without remuneration. These acquaint the commission with problems peculiar to each locality. The surveys also tend to arouse interest and to enlist the co-operation of those affected by the law.
Here, Mr. Speaker, I might say that Pennsylvania has also enacted a similar statute.
As a result of my study of this question, I would make the following recommendations:
1.	That the Department of Labour should begin a study of the Massachusetts commission against discrimination with a view to setting up a similar commission in Canada.
2.	That the department should also consider amending the national Unemployment Insurance Act to enable the worker to change employment without loss of his rights in a pension plan.
Possibly pension stamps could be affixed to the workers' unemployment insurance books together with the unemployment insurance stamps. Whatever system is adopted, it should effectively protect the senior members of our society from discrimination and assure them of pension upon their retirement.
We cannot permit industry to make a unilateral decision to oust or to exclude middle-aged workers from jobs. Jobs can, in some cases, be adapted to the workers; in others, the workers can be trained for new jobs.
It is the inherent duty of each Canadian to discharge the responsibilities of citizenship.


It is equally the right of each Canadian to contribute to and share in his country's progress and prosperity. I believe it is industry's and government's joint responsibility, in recognition of the innate dignity of the human soul, to provide employment for each worker during the years he is employable and to assure him of a pension sufficient to free him from want in his old age.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, as the first speaker of the Conservative party to follow our new leader I wish formally for the record of this house to congratulate him on his new position and naturally, without any reservation, to wish him all the success in the world. The last two days here and outside the house have certainly shown that his fine qualities and capabilities will now be made known to all in this country. I want to say also that we extend to our retired leader the best wishes for complete restoration in the future of that good health that he knew formerly. I wish to congratulate too, Mr. Speaker, the mover (Mr. Hanna) and seconder (Mr. Robi-chaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. There were remarks made by both these hon. members which I thought were very fair. They called attention to some of the problems I have in my own -constituency.
The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna), in speaking of the city of Edmonton, said that they were indeed fortunate to have such fine prosperity and growth in that area. It was my pleasure to be in Edmonton a few weeks ago and I can say that is true. I commend him for further suggesting in this regard that perhaps their problems were not as great as those of some other areas.
The seconder, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud), who is from my home province of New Brunswick, suggested that there is a new optimism in our province which has replaced the old pessimism. I agree with him. I commend him also for having received that new spirit.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I would be remiss in my duty if I did not point out some of the difficulties that still exist in the Saint John area, in the province of New Brunswick and also in the maritime provinces. I do not wish to be thought pessimistic, but these are problems that have of late taken serious and grave form. At the outset, I want to say that these problems which I will mention are economic and geographic in nature; that is agreed. However, I would suggest, in the second place, that there is a grave federal responsibility in each of these serious problems-perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it

could be better described as a lack of federal responsibility for these ills that are creeping into our economic life in an area that is not quite as fortunate as the area mentioned by the mover of the address yesterday.
Our sad story begins about one year ago when we had a serious strike at the Atlantic sugar refinery in Saint John. There were 700 men out of work and 16 working days were lost. It was a wage dispute and was settled at Christmas of 1955. I am not taking sides in the matter. I only want to point out what was stated by management at that time, and I do not think it has been seriously disputed by anybody connected with that matter. It was stated that two problems exist for an industry in such an area as the maritimes. They were out of the immediate marketing area for their product and the difficulties with respect to their competitors were greatly increased. Secondly, there was the problem which a new survey had shown would be felt when the St. Lawrence seaway was opened.
Next, we had a strike during the same period on the Princess Helene, the C.P.R. vessel which connects Saint John and western Nova Scotia at Digby. There were 80 days lost. The strike ended in December 1955 and it was later settled in the spring of last year when wage talks resumed after the vessel returned to service. Again the problem there was one of economics and geography. The strike, to a large degree, was managed by a gentleman who is well known to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) and others in this house by the name of Hal Banks. Direction for that strike,-again I am not taking sides, but I am simply trying to point out the position in which we were and how it was misunderstood-came from Montreal by telephone and the strikers did not even know when they should begin the strike. This was the first waterfront strike we had had since the seamen's union of 1949, but it was felt by all in the community of New Brunswick and also in Nova Scotia.
The third serious situation, Mr. Speaker, came to a head on November 14 of this past year when a public meeting was held in Saint John with respect to the very serious lay-offs at the Saint John dry dock, our important shipbuilding industry. I think perhaps I could best explain this by reading a resolution that was passed at that time and agreed upon by all concerned who were attending that meeting.
Whereas the Saint John dry dock is one of the most important sources of employment and purchasing power in the Saint John area:
And whereas employment at the dry dock is at a very low level with only some 300 employees as against more than 900 a year ago and a full employment level of more than 1,300:
The Address-Mr. Bell
And whereas the present situation represents a weekly payroll decline of more than $40,000 in comparison with last year;
And whereas this condition severely affects many other industries and commercial establishments in Saint John;
Therefore be it resolved:
That an appeal be directed to the proper authorities, civic, provincial, and federal, that special arrangements be made forthwith to place with the dry dock contracts which will ensure a higher level of employment and so relieve a most difficult situation for the employees and which will also aid in improving the purchasing power of the community of greater Saint John.
I do not wish to go into the details of that situation which has already been brought to the attention of the house, but I simply want to say that at that meeting it was brought out, and agreed by all concerned, that one of the main difficulties was a $3.50 freight differential with the various other competitors of this shipbuilding industry in Canada. We also know that the related problem of a Canadian merchant navy is connected with it. However, I do want to mention one aspect of this meeting which calls attention, I hope, to the problem I am pressing here today of the lack of federal responsibility. I refer to a telegram that was sent by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) to that gathering when he had been asked to attend or send a nominee. This is a telegram from the Hon. George C. Marler, addressed to the secretary-treasurer of local No. 3, Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers:
Regret that I am unable personally to attend meeting Saint John Wednesday, November 14 and do not think any useful purpose would be served by sending representative of my department. The Canadian maritime commission is fully aware of the situation at Saint John dry dock and is making every effort to see whether it is possible to find some work which could be allocated to it.
George Marler
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, the workers who were finding it hard to make ends meet were not too pleased with this telegram. However, I do not wish to be hard on the Minister of Transport at the present time because he has shown interest in Saint John, and he has made two or three trips there since taking his position.
I now come to the most important and gravest aspect of our problem, namely, the present C.P.R. strike. I think the difficulties of the community of Saint John are well known to the nation at the present time. The strike was a double blow to our community because we also have shipping as well as railway facilities to consider. In addition, thousands of refugees were coming to our shores and they further congested the efforts that we were making to use the small Canadian National Railway facilities there. Seven daily freight trains had to be laid off. The C.P.R. employees, who number

The Address-Mr. Bell nearly 2,000, are all out of work as a result of the strike, and over 2,000 longshoremen are being thrown out of work at the present time because of ship diversions at the height of our very busy winter port season. Extra staff has been taken on at our unemployment insurance office. It is a serious blow that we have received, and it recalls to our minds the situation 35 or 40 years ago when we also had similar difficulties. Perhaps an indication of the seriousness of it, if any further word needs to be given, is the fact that prayers have been said in churches to help relieve the hardship which has resulted.
This is a permanent money loss to our city. It is not just the case of the $50,000 a day that we shall be losing. It is a fact that we can never recover this business and this money which we so sorely need. The longshoremen in our area live on credit from one season to the next. They have a busy peak season, and when ships are lost to other ports and when we know that the backlog cannot be caught up until the St. Lawrence opens we realize it is a permanent blow. In this connection, I have telegrams from the mayors of the city of Saint John and the city of Lancaster which explain the declaration that was made by both of their common councils with respect to the C.P.R. strike, and which state formally that an emergency condition existed in both of those cities. I will not put these on the record, Mr. Speaker, but I also just received a telegram explaining the seriousness of the strike in western Nova Scotia. This telegram was received from the affiliated boards of trade in the Annapolis valley, which was a joint effort, and probably speaks for the whole of the western Nova Scotia communities. This is the story of this serious strike. I have dealt with it from the local aspect. Then we can go on to the provincial aspect of it. I could probably refer to any area of the province, but surely we would be entitled to go to the constituency of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) who knows what some of these difficulties are with regard to layoffs and some of the other problems which I have mentioned.
We remember the serious layoffs that resulted two or three years ago from the shutdown of the cotton mill in Marysville; we remember some of the efforts that were made, but we also remember the lack of consideration that the federal government gave to this serious problem of ours. The Minister of Labour probably is not happy today when he knows that in the town of McAdam in his constituency over 92 per cent of the 3,000

inhabitants are completely dependent on the C.P.R. payroll. He cannot be happy about that. I am not taking the time now to refer to other problems; I am simply saying that this strike is affecting the entire province of New Brunswick.
Then we come to the maritime aspect of this problem. I have mentioned some of the local difficulties we have had; I have mentioned some of the provincial difficulties, and I now wish to refer to one of the serious problems that we have faced in the mari-times because of the hard money policy of the Bank of Canada and of this government. The best way that it can be explained, probably, is to refer to a statement that one of our people made at the time when he said that there is a family of 10 children and one of the children of that family happens to be taken ill. The present government gives the whole 10 children a dose of castor oil. We are of the opinion in the maritimes that we have never known inflation, and various statistics which have been given here and which will be given later will prove that. We object very strongly to this hard money policy which cripples us much more than it cripples some of the other expanding areas of this country. Our premier has objected strongly to this policy. He has made approaches to the Prime Minister and little attention has been given to it by this government. We do have that on the record.
I also wish to refer to the present upward revision of freight rates. For the first time in the history of the Atlantic provinces the four premiers, two Conservative now and two Liberal, got together and gave a joint statement of objection to the new increase in freight rates. This is a serious problem. It is one that we feel very strongly. The old benefits of the Maritime Freight Rates Act are no longer helpful to us, and those horizontal increases are making it extremely difficult for us to compete in the central Canadian markets. It is another example of the economic difficulty we have, and which is recognized but which also bears a lack of federal interest.
I refer to another recent announcement, Mr. Speaker, which was made when the statistics of the Department of National Revenue were given at the end of 1956 dealing with the incomes of 56 Canadian cities. We noted that Halifax was in 46th position, Moncton 47th and Saint John 51st. This is another indication of the economic difficulties of the maritime provinces.
Then we also remember the story of the election in Nova Scotia and I imagine this matter will be given better treatment by

The Address

Mr. Bell
those who know more about it. However, we remember the story of the former premier's last desperate despondent attempt to avoid the inevitable defeat which he saw coming. He came here to Ottawa to see the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) ostensibly on behalf of all the maritime premiers but he really came here to see if something could be done not only in order to save the Liberal party in Nova Scotia but to try and do something for the entire region. At that time the Prime Minister was quoted as saying to the then premier of Nova Scotia:
The making of direct expenditures toward the improvement of the economy of a particular area by the federal government would be justifiable if it were felt that the indirect results of such expenditure would develop the economy of Canada as a whole.
The Prime Minister was reported as saying this in the Daily Gleaner on September 6 1956.
Well, Mr. Speaker, needless to say nothing was done about that and the Liberal government went down to bitter defeat in Nova Scotia. In that same connection we remember a statement the Prime Minister made at the labour convention which I think was held in April of last year, a statement that has often been referred to in this house, to the effect that initiative should come from the people in the maritimes. We took that statement at its face value in an honest way because most maritimers are honest and we then proceeded to make our proposals and many were made.
One proposal which we have been making in New Brunswick for many years concerns power development. The Beechwood project has been brought here in a non-partisan way together with the complete facts, our proposals and our formulas, and nothing has been done about it.
I can think of several ways in which the Prime Minister could have taken action if the statements he made at the labour convention and to the former premier of Nova Scotia were true. I can think of a complete new revision of our freight rates; I can think of a further interest on the part of the federal government in fostering traffic through our maritime ports. Protected and subsidized industries in Canada still continue to use United States ports for a great deal of their export and import business. These are but a few of the ways in which the Prime Minister could bring about the intention of his words.
At the same time, however, we should be fair enough to recognize that in the throne speech this year there is mention of a proposed plan to assist in the solution of our agricultural problems. If it is successful the committee of the Senate will deal with and 82715-5J
consider the better use of land for agriculture to contribute more effectively to the improvement of agricultural production and the income of those engaged in it.
The Prime Minister referred to the problems of the farmers in Quebec and these are similar to the problems facing the farmers in New Brunswick and other parts of the maritimes. The government is finally making an effort to do something concerning these problems which have been brought to the attention of this house time and time again. Of course it is late and it comes just before the election but I suppose we must put in some kind words here concerning the fact that the government is considering this matter.
The Prime Minister mentioned, and rightly so, some of the problems which exist in Quebec. We have many French speaking Canadians in the province of New Brunswick; they constitute nearly 50 per cent of our population. I suppose they will benefit from the farming improvements that might be made and they will also benefit from any interest the Prime Minister and others take in their particular problems. I might point out, however, that we have other specific problems in this country many of which exist in the maritimes. I am merely saying that we should have from this government action that will bear out the intention of the words that have been spoken by the Prime Minister and others on many occasions.
I have mentioned the local problems in Saint John, I have mentioned the provincial problems that exist in the maritimes, and I have mentioned problems from a strictly maritime standpoint. I recognize that peculiar economic and geographic difficulties exist but I suggest there has been a lack of federal responsibility in these matters.
Probably the most important problem confronting us and requiring immediate attention is the strike. I have tried to deal fairly with it from a strictly local aspect. In the light of what has been said inside and outside of this house, in the light of the meeting that was held yesterday between the president of the C.P.R. and the Prime Minister, in the light of the meetings that have been held with the union and in the light of the indications the Prime Minister mentioned both yesterday and today that a solution will soon be forthcoming, I now ask the Prime Minister to come out and let us have the solution. It is there; they know what the plan is and what the answer must be. Let us have it. My people in Saint John want the strike settled. It has been suggested there is a solution that will soon be forthcoming. Is it coming this afternoon, tomorrow or the next day? Is the government waiting around with it so that they
68	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Balcom can be big heroes and produce a solution after everybody is thoroughly fed up and then the Canadian people generally will commend the government? I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Canadian people will give the government any commendation in this case. We want that strike settled from the Saint John point of view at least and if the government has a plan we want it right now.


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: What is your solution?


Thomas Miller Bell: Over the Christmas holidays I began reading a book concerning a gentleman who appeals to me very much. The book is entitled Man and Power and it was written by Lord Beaverbrook. It is a most interesting book written in Lord Beaverbrook's inimitable fashion and in it he refers to a very fine character by the name of Herbert Asquith who was prime minister of Great Britain up to 1916 when he was succeeded by Lloyd George. Lord Asquith was a liberal in the tradition of liberalism as we knew it then. A splendid parliamentarian, he advocated fine liberal policies and in spite of his contribution he was accused of being a person who waited to see. In the words of Lord Beaverbrook, he was accused of being "mild and ineffective in serious crises. He was lulled into a sense of false security." Mr. Speaker, I hope there is not a parallel that can be drawn between that Liberal prime minister and a certain other liberal prime minister.


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt the hon. member when he was speaking but I wonder if I could ask him a question.


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I would like the hon. member to tell us, if he would, what he would suggest as a solution to the railway strike.


Thomas Miller Bell: The resignation of this government would be the best one, but I stated that we only wanted the Prime Minister to bring out his plan for a solution which he now has in his vest pocket.


André Gauthier: Wrong bell again.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: May I ask the hon. member what is his plan for a solution to this problem?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) and the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) on their splendid speeches in moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


In the next few minutes I hope to place before hon. members mostly items of interest in my own riding, leaving world affairs to others so much better versed in such matters.
I would like at this time to say to the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) that although competition between the ports of Saint John and Halifax is always very keen it is always friendly and while we in Halifax are benefitting at the present time and Saint John is losing we wish to say to the hon. member we get no glory out of such increases in business and we join with him in hoping the strike may be ended very soon.
On Tuesday my colleague and I attended the unveiling ceremony of the monument to honour the memory of a great Canadian, the late Sir Robert Borden, a former distinguished prime minister of Canada, who served his country through the critical and anxious years of the first world war and represented Halifax honourably and ably from 1896 to 1904 and again from 1908 to 1917. It is only meet and right that we should honour our great men, for a wise nation preserves its records and remembers the sacrifices and glories of the past.
As the year 1957 opens, we have in Canada a situation of extraordinary buoyancy. Few Canadians are suffering because of broad economic or business problems. There are situations, as there always will be, where an individual or an industry is affected unfavourably, but on the whole Canadians find themselves in a fortunate economic position. The province of Nova Scotia and the other Atlantic provinces have participated in this general growth and expansion and a spirit of optimism prevails generally and we are very much gratified over this situation.
What is far more important at the moment and of greater significance for the future is the practical and tangible recognition by the government of Canada of the disparity in economic circumstances as between the Atlantic provinces and the rest of Canada. This recognition has taken the form of imaginative measures which in some cases represent extensions of established policies and in others represent an altogether new approach.
We were all pleased with the announcement made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) concerning the government's intention to spend an extra $270,000 in its 1957 tourist promotion budget for the specific purpose of encouraging more vacational travel in the Atlantic provinces. This in addition to the Bluenose service between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor, this ship having been constructed

through the co-operation of the government of the province, will give a boost to the tourist trade in Nova Scotia.
Another forward step is the acquisition of the Grand Pre park which I believe is to be operated as a federal park.
A further step in the development of our fisheries is indicated by the recent announcement of an extension of the subsidy to provide for loans for the larger vessels. To parallel this assistance to the larger operators I think the development program for the inshore fishermen should be stepped up. To put this suggestion in concrete form and based on the experience in my own constituency, I think the need for federally assisted bait freezers and cold storage facilities for Halifax east and west should be examined. If there is a need for additional facilities which would assist iri the sound economic development of our fisheries resources, let us make every reasonable effort to encourage sound growth.
On December 30 a terrific wind storm struck Nova Scotia wrecking great numbers of fishing boats and lobster traps. I have had many letters from fishermen who have suffered to an extent far beyond their means of recuperation. They have asked for assistance in becoming rehabilitated. I appreciate that this is probably riot within the scope of the federal authority but I would ask that our fisheries inspectors and officers do everything they possibly can to assist and that the federal government draw to the attention of the proper provincial authorities the necessity of a close survey and the urgent need of financial assistance.
On previous occasions in this house I have expressed regret at the relative lack of impact on the Atlantic provinces of the industrial development bank. This was evident from the small proportion of total loans going to firms in those provinces. I was delighted at the decision to open a branch of the bank to serve the Atlantic region. I know from the bank's operations, even since June of last year, that its facilities are being more widely used. The reports indicate a very satisfactory public reaction to the administration of the affairs of the bank in Halifax. Perhaps as experience within the present policy develops there may emerge a broad program of development going beyond the existing program which would involve detailed planning on a broad basis.
While on the subject I should like to make a comment on the volume of foreign investment in Canada, particularly United States capital. I know of no community or township which would not welcome a new factory or new resources development,
The Address

Mr. Balcom whether financed by Canadian, United States, or funds of other nationalities. Efforts are being made now by provincial and local officials to interest United States or other financial groups in our forest resources. We have an excellent working force, one that is second to none, and there is ample power, either at hand or available on short notice.
Another recent statement of interest to maritimers was the Prime Minister's (Mr. St. Laurent's) reference to an inquiry into the problem of land use and development in eastern Canada. I hope that a comprehensive inquiry will include an examination of soil conservation and flood control to include fresh water areas. There is one area in Halifax county, the Musquodoboits, which has a well established farming and lumbering economy which could benefit greatly from a properly conceived plan and managed flood control. Opportunities for development would then be much greater and more numerous if there were proper conservation and flood control.
While on this subject I should like to emphasize that these forward moves are not falling on barren ground. The Atlantic provinces jointly and severally are eager to do their parts as individuals, as companies, as associations, as communities or as provinces in order to develop their opportunities. Thirty years ago the maritime board of trade and the three provincial governments joined forces to set up the maritimes transportation commission. The purpose was to have an agency whose sole job was to give service to maritimers on freight rate problems. The commission now also includes Newfoundland.
Two years ago, again at the instigation of the maritime provinces board of trade, the four provincial premiers presided, so to speak, at the birth of the Atlantic provinces economic council or, in short, APEC, an organization of businessmen dedicated to improving economic conditions in the Atlantic provinces. The spirit of co-operation has grown since then and with it enthusiasm for the promotional objects of this economic council.
With government, labour, agriculture and industry all working together, I feel that the four Atlantic provinces are on the march. We do not wish for any special treatment from Ottawa but we do want the opportunity to carry on and to have the Atlantic region live and prosper with the other parts of this great dominion.
In the consideration of broad national policies which takes place in the debate on the speech from the throne, we always find ourselves providing for one phase or another of our transportation problem. This is

The Address-Mr. Balcom not surprising when you realize that transportation was one of the cornerstones of confederation and over the years has been a major preoccupation of government. It comes in many guises-railways, airlines, canals, ferries, port facilities and so on.
Today I want to speak about some matters in this field which though of a local and regional nature are nonetheless an important part of the national program. The first is the Maritime Freight Hates Act. Since 1927, when the act was passed, many changes have taken place. The benefits that were intended under the act have been reduced or whittled away by the effects of the so-called horizontal freight rate increases that have taken place since the war. Developments in other parts of Canada have contributed to this trend. Since the railways are not able to raise rates where intense truck and water competition exists, they must obtain their additional revenue where competition is less keen. So the pyramid grows. With the addition of the St. Lawrence seaway to the facilities of the central provinces their relative position will improve faster in comparison with other parts of Canada.
It is time then for another look and not only a look, Mr. Speaker, but a searching examination of the actual effects of the act as it now stands. Let me remind the house that this piece of legislation was not a special sop to an area because we happened to be less well off than other parts of Canada. The reduction in rates was based on a judgment of the amount of compensation required to make up for the circuitous route of the rail line, a route chosen for strategic purposes and reasons as opposed to the requirements of commerce.
This matter has been discussed in the house before by myself and other members from the east. It was brought to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) early last summer by the Hon. Mr. Hicks of Nova Scotia, speaking on behalf of the four Atlantic provinces. The royal commission on Canada's economic prospects has been asked to consider the problem and we await with interest their findings on this matter. I would emphasize that this is not a question to be argued before the board of transport commissioners. It is rather a matter of the highest government policy to be dealt with on the basis of thorough and expert examination of the whole transportation problem in the Atlantic provinces.
I would here commend also the improvement and increase in grain handling facilities at the port of Halifax. Substantial additions are also under way to the facilities on the Dartmouth side of the harbour. It is

time now, in the over-all planning for port development, that more attention be paid to related projects which involve the town of Dartmouth and the municipality of the county of Halifax. Along the waterfront from Dartmouth to Eastern Passage there are major industrial and defence establishments. Imperial Oil Limited has just opened a modern refinery, double the capacity of the previous one, with an added investment of over $30 million. Irving Oil has added storage and wharf facilities. We have Fairey Aviation Limited, a progressive and well-managed aircraft organization, and the Shearwater naval base is also situated there. All the attendant traffic has been added to the demands of normal growth. This has created problems which cannot fairly be regarded as the sole responsibility of the local authorities. In the interests of assuring the best use of harbour facilities as well as making proper provision for defence, federal assistance in planning and financing additional road facilities is, I consider, warranted.
Further, in connection with the strategic position of Halifax, the necessity for road transport facilities in time of emergency should be considered. There is not much point in having expensive vehicles for transport if they can be quickly immobilized for lack of roads. I know that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) is anxious to see the trans-Canada highway a national asset. I suggest that defence considerations call for the extension of that highway from Truro to Halifax. I am led to believe by the hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Purdy) that Truro is gaining so much in importance that it will eventually be the capital of Nova Scotia. This road from Truro to Halifax would be in addition to the road to Sydney.
In a growing country like Canada we can never stand still. We must always improve and go forward. There is immediate need for improvement of the Canadian National Railways facilities at the centre of maritime activity, Halifax. If the baggage and express operations are not the heart of the service, they are certainly the most obvious to the public. The freight office and yards in the north end of the city may affect more lives, but I am sure more of the public see and go through the old wooden structures which are an eyesore in a modern community and certainly cannot be a credit to an important organization like the C.N.R. Nor do they speak well for the efficiency of that great enterprise.
I might also make a suggestion at this point concerning the Nova Scotian hotel. It is a well known fact the Halifax hotels have a

high occupancy rate and that accommodation is pitifully lacking. Undoubtedly this has a deterrent effect on general business and in particular the tourist business on which both federal and provincial governments are spending substantial sums to develop it. It seems to me that a relatively minor expenditure in terms of over-all investment by the C.N.R. could add much-needed rooms and conference facilities as well. With the overhead expenses carried by more patrons, it is most likely that such an addition would improve the operating cost picture as well. The need for facilities is well known. Why not move ahead now?
Before leaving this subject I want to refer briefly to the use made of Canadian ports by our manufacturers. Of course, coming from the east, naturally I am interested in the ports of Saint John and Halifax. I think this is important because it is a situation that can be controlled. By that I mean that with the transportation facilities which belong to the nation and which have been built largely at public expense and are available at comparable prices, it is to the advantage of all that shippers direct their cargoes via Canadian ports.
I should like to cite a few examples where the Canadian public has a right to expect a different situation. In 1955 84 per cent of exports of farm implements made in Canada passed through United States ports. Likewise, 60 per cent of the automobiles exported and 49 per cent of automobile parts went via United States ports. Other products, where a greater or lesser proportion was involved, are such things as rubber tires, whisky, leather and electrical apparatus. Without exception, these commodities have the benefit of protection in the form of tariffs.
In other words, the Canadian consumer has to pay more for each of these articles he wants in order to enable them to be manufactured in Canada. Is it not reasonable then to suppose that the automobile industry, for example, show its appreciation of the protection it receives by directing foreign shipments from their plants through Canadian ports?
I should like to refer again to what I consider the need for permanent headquarters buildings for the army and air force in Halifax. I am not going to enlarge on that matter but I shall barely mention it. These services are operating in temporary buildings for the most part, and although I must commend both for the "spic and span" appearance of their buildings, there is still something to be desired.
The Address-Mr. Balcom
Last year in the house I expressed some views on the administration of the legislation concerning disability pensions. This forward step in our welfare program ought to have been received with general enthusiasm, but seldom has such a well-intentioned measure given me such concern.
Many people have complained of the rather rigid regulations and suggested a broader definition of total disability. This would doubtless solve many individual problems but it is not the whole answer. We must avoid putting a premium on being able to prove total disability, and the best way to do that is to provide an incentive for the individual to capitalize on any potential ability. This can be a broadly-conceived rehabilitation program which provides assistance and training for the people who are not totally and permanently disabled and for whom there is a chance of rehabilitation. An allowance should be paid for those people for whom there is some hope of rehabilitation, regardless of how meager that hope may be. Those who benefit from training and can make even a partial contribution to their own support will justify the program. This provision, with more flexibility in the general administration, would put the program where it should be.
Another measure in the field of social welfare which should be considered for revision is the Old Age Security Act. I believe it is time for an increase in the pensions paid to those over 70 and I suggest that another $10 per month be added. I realize that such an increase is in a sense contrary to the efforts of the government to curb inflation. However, I do not believe for a moment that the effect would be so serious as to outweigh the benefits. With a rising cost of living bearing so heavily on those who have not the capacity to increase their income to buy the necessities of life, we should be prepared to reconsider the needs of the aged. At the same time the assistance to the needy between 65 and 70 should also be boosted a similar amount. The inflationary impact on our economy would be more than offset or compensated for by the satisfaction in seeing these people happier in their last years.
In speaking of our social security, I should also like to suggest that there be reciprocity among commonwealth countries. We want an interchange of people. Especially do we want more immigrants from the United Kingdom. If we want to encourage this immigration we should be prepared to give such people the benefits of Canadian citizenship, namely the right to old age security without the limitation of 20-year residence. This could be done
72	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Balcom upon a reciprocal basis between Canada and the United Kingdom, and with other commonwealth countries which are willing to extend the same benefits.
There is another way in which the government can help to improve the position of the older age group and at the same time benefit the economy. This is in the application of its retirement policy. Automatic retirement at 65 does not make sense in the light of our present knowledge of the differing capacities of people at various ages. While it may not be quite true to say that you are as young as you feel, you can say that some feel and are much younger at 65 than others are at 55, and so on.
This is a situation in which the government should take the lead and not bring up the rear as it is doing at the present time. The employment policy of the civil service, and for that matter those who head up hourly-paid government employees, should be such as to utilize the services of people as long as they are willing and able to work. I know it is a great comfort to any civil servant-and to any politician for that matter-to have everything laid down by rule and regulation. Then when anyone comes along with a situation that calls for judgment, we can say that we have no discretion in the matter. However, that is a poor way in which to face up to the demands of a complicated society. Let us tackle these problems even though we are creating difficulties for ourselves. I am still convinced that it is better to be maligned and in the political wilderness and to have made a contribution to good government than to have overlooked problems for the sake of comfort and re-election.
I am asking at this time that all those hourly-paid and prevailing-rate employees who have reached the age of 65 or over, but under 70, and can do a day's work be retained in 1957. If necessary, have an independent commission or committee be the judge as to who is fit to continue.
On the employment practices of the government I have another matter to bring up. I refer to the practice of the civil service with regard to persons convicted of crimes. Here we are, as a government, spending substantial sums of money to train prisoners for jobs when they return to society. Our government spokesmen encourage such organizations as the John Howard Society to help in the rehabilitation of ex-prisoners. We ask private industry to employ people who have been convicted of crimes but have paid their penalties. We exhort private employers to give such people a chance to become useful members of society. How can


the government expect the public to take seriously its exhortations on penal reform and rehabilitation? Common humanity would suggest to an employer that he give the unfortunate a "leg up" instead of driving him into the streets. Let us get out from behind some of these comfortable rules and require the exercise of judgment in the name of humanity.
There are many other matters with which I should like to deal but I will not do so at this time. I refer to such matters as the formation of an independent parole board in Canada, and not only one but three in different parts of Canada so that they will be available and handy. I should like to speak on the world health organization, but I shall leave that till later. I should certainly like to say something about the salacious literature which is so prevalent in Canada. I should also like to speak about the evil of the trading and bonus stamps which are so prevalent at the present time. On a later occasion I should like to speak on the expeditious and happy way in which the customs branch, the immigration branch, the Red Cross and volunteer workers handled the influx of Hungarian refugees at Halifax on every occasion.
I should like to mention now, and perhaps speak later on it, the matter of a suggested change whereby the dominion sales tax would be collected at the wholesale level instead of the manufacturer's level. I wonder who thought that one up! It is not in the spirit of the first tax collector in the world, namely Saint Matthew. He was far too humane and understanding even to think of such an imposition.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, let me preface my remarks by commenting briefly on the speech from the throne and its shortcomings. I agree with my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), in his remarks yesterday when he commented on the failure of the government at this time to announce, among other things, legislation to provide for a comprehensive health insurance scheme in Canada. I among other members had felt that this year, after some long period of time from 1919, the government would have seen fit to introduce such a scheme. The failure to do so at this time indicates a lack of sympathy on the part of the government with the aims of organized labour and with the aims of a great number of men throughout Canada who have over the years expressed their desire for a comprehensive health scheme. There are many other shortcomings at this time when the Canadian people are confronted with a great many economic difficulties.

The Address-Mr. Ellis
We are faced now with runaway inflation- that during the short session I asked the


Mr. Harris:: Are we?


Alfred Claude Ellis: -and a rapidly increasing cost of living. I might say to the Minister of Finance that over the years the Regina Leader-Post, a newspaper in my own constituency, has always given support to the Liberal party. Just a month ago this newspaper stated it now agreed inflation has reached runaway proportions. I suggest that when such a strong champion of the Liberal party as the Regina Leader-Post now comes to this conclusion, the government should take some action to prevent this rapidly increasing cost of living.
There have been other evidences of that, Mr. Speaker. There is the failure of the government, in view of the increasing cost of living, to provide decent old age pensions; the failure of the government to make provision for increases in war veterans allowances or to make provision for others in this country on fixed incomes who are victimized by this runaway inflation. I think these are things which all members of this house must sincerely regret.
This morning some questions were asked of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) concerning the housing program in this country. I am always amazed at the Minister of Public Works because he uses these terms "housing starts" and "housing completions" interchangeably. A year or so ago if he were asked a question about housing in Canada he would say that next year we are going to have so many starts. This year when he is asked a question about how many starts have been made, he is now talking about completions. He will not admit that, while it is true completions have been high owing to starts made previously, as a result of the fiscal policies of this government home construction is falling off. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) states in his year end review, to which reference was made this morning, that in the Canadian economy the one segment which will suffer a significant decline is the home construction industry, then the government should take heed of this warning and do something to accelerate the housing program in this country.
The figures showing the amount of homes being constructed must be viewed in connection with the natural increase in our population and the fact that there are many new Canadians being welcomed to our shores. There is no excuse for any falling off of home construction in this country. There is a tremendous backlog of housing needs which should be met. Hon. members will recall 82715-6
Minister of Public Works whether, in view of the fact home construction starts were falling off-they are certainly falling off in my constituency and I fancy that is the general picture throughout Canada-the government might not be prepared to introduce some legislation to restore or to increase the number of homes being constructed in this country during the coming years. Of course, we get the answer again boasting of the number of completions which have been made and completely ignoring the fact that while a certain number of completions may have been made in the past year, the rate of home construction in Canada is falling off. There is nothing in the speech from the throne to indicate the government is aware of these extremely important issues.
Now, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in a debate of this type we have some responsibility in bringing to the attention of the government the issues which we feel most important. I think that of all the immediate issues facing parliament at the present time, one of the most important is the suspension of rail operations on the Canadian Pacific Railway. I have this comment to make at the outset, that I can hardly conceive of any labour dispute which has occurred in Canada in recent years in which the general public has received so little information about one side of the case. I think it may be due to the fact that the public relations work of the railroad brotherhood has been a little weak and they have not been successful in getting their point of view across to the public. On the other hand, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has done a very good public relations job in getting across its side of the story.
We find newspaper editorials in which it is categorically stated that firemen helpers are not necessary; they take that as being the ultimate. On whose authority do they make this statement? It is made simply as a result of the submission made by the railroad company, without consideration to the excellent case put up by the railroad brotherhood. There have been comments made in the press and by the general public about the calling of this strike. There have been suggestions made that the rank and file membership of the brotherhood did not have a vote on this particular issue. These allegations completely ignore the fact that this matter was introduced almost a year ago.
It was on February 1 of last year that the brotherhood of locomotive firemen and engine-men approached the company to negotiate a

The Address-Mr. Ellis new contract. After negotiations had commenced-as a matter of fact, after negotiations had been in progress for a week or so- the Canadian Pacific Railway injected the issue of the diesel rule. In other words when the two parties to the contract negotiations were sitting around the table discussing the issues which were negotiable, the railway company saw fit to inject an issue which is extremely important, an issue which affects not only the members of the brotherhood but the safety of all Canadians.
When the Canadian Pacific Railway Company submitted its proposal to eliminate firemen helpers from diesel engines in freight and yard service, identical proposals were submitted by Canadian National Railways and by some 140 railroads in the United States. The second point to bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, is that later in the same year, as a matter of fact on November 20, the Canadian National Railways signed an agreement with the brotherhood as did the 140 railroads in the United States. When we state, therefore, that firemen are not necessary simply because Mr. Crump and the C.P.R. say so, then we must take into consideration the fact that the Canadian National Railways and 140 railways in the United States have seen fit to sign an agreement with the brotherhood providing for the retention of firemen helpers on diesels in freight and yard service. The question then arises, who is correct? Is the C.P.R. right and all the other railroads wrong? Is everybody out of step but the C.P.R.?
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Alfred Claude Ellis: When the house rose at one o'clock I was discussing the effectiveness of the company's propaganda in creating a climate of public opinion favourable to the railway company in connection with the present dispute between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the brotherhood of locomotive firemen and enginemen. I pointed out' that the Canadian public, on a technical matter of this kind, is perhaps not fully acquainted with all the details involved in the dispute and therefore is likely to be misled in any conclusions arrived at. I feel that the effectiveness of the railroad company's public relations campaign, coupled with the fact of having many friends in high places, indicates

one of the reasons why many of the newspapers in Canada are able to editorialize and create very misleading impressions about the nature of this dispute. I am quite sure that in this dispute we are very much disappointed with the action, or lack of action, taken by the government. I should have thought that the government would have used its good offices to promote an orderly settlement and perhaps to have averted this unfortunate stoppage of work on the C.P.R. Above all, I should have thought that the official opposition would have fulfilled their proper function and would have submitted some practical alternative. It could not be an alternative because the government had not made its wishes known; but certainly it could have given some advice to the government on how best to deal with this particular matter. But I understand that the Prime Minister has had in the past very close association with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in his capacity as a corporation lawyer.
Moreover, I know that the leader of the official opposition has on numerous occasions gone to bat on behalf of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I know that in the agricultural committee last year the Leader of the Opposition was very quick to jump to the defence of the C.P.R. and to describe that company as being made the scapegoat in connection with the distribution of box cars. Therefore, in the circumstances the reticence on the part of members of this house to seek to convey to the Canadian public the facts concerning this dispute is most regrettable. I have particular reference to a letter which was presumably drafted and sent to all employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company but which, in my judgment, was intended mainly to be used as a propaganda weapon directed against the general public. In that letter, a very plausible sounding letter, very well drafted and over the signature of the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, many misleading statements are made. Among the statements made by Mr. Crump is the one that there can be no dispute about firemen's wages or working conditions. The letter goes on to say:
The conciliation board recommended wage increases totalling 12 per cent-the same as agreed on with other train service employees-and extra pay for six statutory holidays in yard service.
Of course, the thing we have to bear in mind today is that what the railway company is going to do is to negotiate with a group on the basis that that group would liquidate itself, so that any talk about wage increases, of course, begs the main question. As far as there being no dispute is concerned, I would draw your attention to the fact that when the

union presented its proposals last' February 1 they asked for a 25 per cent wage increase, so that there is a reasonable dispute in connection with wages, but the major issue, of course, involves the diesel question.
I think I should point out at this time, Mr. Speaker, that in the United States the railway companies have signed a 3-year agreement with members of the brotherhood of locomotive firemen and enginemen calling for a general wage increase amounting to some 26J cents per hour. Therefore, I think I can rightly say there are many issues in dispute. But Mr. Crump points out that there is no dispute on those issues, and goes on to say:
There can be no dispute about firemen in passenger service. Passenger trains will continue to have firemen. The company proposes to run diesels without firemen only in freight and yard service. This will be a gradual change.
That is not what the Canadian Pacific Railway asked for in their submissions to the union and in their submissions to the conciliation board. As a matter of fact, the C.P.R. asked for the elimination of agreements, rules, regulations, interpretations or practices, however established, which require the employment or use of firemen helpers on other than steam power, and establish a rule to provide that the company shall have the unrestricted right to determine when and if a fireman helper shall be used on other than steam power. In other words, the C.P.R. says, we are not asking for that; it is not involved in this dispute; but in their submission before the conciliation board they asked for unlimited powers. The reason the Canadian Pacific Railway Company claim that they are not asking for the removal of firemen from diesels in passenger service is not that they are concerned about the safety of the travelling public, but rather that in order to heat the passenger cars it is necessary to have someone in the cab to take care of the steam generator. Therefore, there is no guarantee whatsoever that the railroad company might not at some future date use the unlimited powers which they are seeking, if they are granted, to remove firemen helpers from the diesels on passenger service. Then, Mr. Crump goes on and says:
There is no dispute about the jobs of any firemen who have worked three years or more. They will stay on as firemen until they become enginemen.
This sounds very good to the average person reading it. They might think these people are being well taken care of; but how on earth can you guarantee employment as firemen if there are no jobs as firemen? Anyone who knows anything about the operation of railroads knows very well that 82715-6J
The Address-Mr. Ellis runs are obtained on the basis of seniority, and if the railroad company is going to dismiss a thousand or more firemen almost immediately, then the chances of firemen getting employment at their trade are practically negligible. The only employment they are likely to obtain will be on steam service for the time being until the line is completely dieselized. Other advancements, of course, will be made possible only through the death or retirement of existing locomotive engineers. Therefore, this is somewhat meaningless when examined very closely.
Then, in similar vein, Mr. Crump goes on to point out:
Nor can there be any dispute about firemen with less than three years service. They are to get other jobs with Canadian Pacific and without loss of their seniority as firemen. If they desire to leave the service the company will pay them a cash allowance based on their length of service.
Here again this is entirely meaningless, because there will be no work for these men as firemen, and what is the use of seniority as firemen if there is no employment as firemen? I think these statements made by the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company deserve some careful consideration by the people of Canada in order that justice might be done.
Then, the suggestion made by Mr. Crump that severance pay be granted is highly significant because, if firemen leave the employ of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, it will not be because they desire to change their employment; it will be because they are virtually forced out of employment since there are no jobs as firemen.
There are statements with regard to diesels in passenger service. They say that there is no dispute, but at the same time the railway company is proposing that the firemen left in their employment on diesels in passenger service shall take about a 35 per cent reduction in salary. In spite of that, the railway company says there is no dispute. There is a great deal of dispute on every one of those principles, and yet the railway company is using big advertisements in every daily newspaper across Canada to give the public a very misleading idea of the issues involved in this dispute. As a result of this letter the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is seeking to do two things. First of all, he is trying to create the impression that no fireman in the employ of the company will suffer as a result of the acceptance of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's decision. I think the comments I have made give the lie to that assertion.
Furthermore, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, through this letter, are trying to convey the impression that the board of

The Address-Mr. Ellis conciliation came out solidly on their behalf. Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that even in the majority report of the conciliation board, the board gave only conditional support to the position taken by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. As a matter of fact, in the summary of the conclusions arrived at by the conciliation board, they admit they have not considered this problem in its entirety. They state:
The board has not undertaken to discuss and analyze all the evidence tendered in support of and against the company's proposal for a change in the "diesel rule", but it has taken all the evidence both pro and con into consideration and has examined all the exhibits and has weighed carefully the submissions and arguments of counsel for the brotherhood and for the railway.
In other words, they have admitted that they have made no study of the technical aspects of this particular problem. They have simply listened to the opposing arguments of counsel representing the brotherhood on the one hand and the railway company on the other, and they have arrived at their conditional decision on the basis of arguments pro and con.
The majority report goes on to say:
The board's conclusion thus arrived at is that the company has established, in the main, its contention and accordingly we recommend that the company should be allowed to change the ''diesel rule" which would allow it to operate locomotives in freight and yard service without a fireman in the cab upon the understanding, however, that if as a result of actual operating experience it appears that in some circumstances the services of the fireman (helper) might again be required, a modification of the rule might again be necessary and would then become the subject of further bargaining at a time when another agreement is being negotiated.
So that it gives conditional support. They said, "Let us try it out for a year and if it does not work out we will go back". If the safety factor is involved, is it not wiser to make sure there is no danger to the travelling public or to the employees of the railway company before making the change? Surely this is preferable to making the change and then waiting until there is a major train accident involving the loss of life and limb and personal property before the railway company recognizes the lack of wisdom in seeking to force this issue at the present time.
The majority report is by no means absolute in its support of the contentions of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. And let us also consider the minority report. There is no more forthright denunciation of the proposals of the railway company than are contained in the report submitted by Senator Roebuck. In his minority report Senator Roebuck makes an excellent case on behalf of the people of Canada because there is more involved in this dispute than the question of

the employment of a thousand odd firemen on the Canadian Pacific Railway. What is involved is the question of whether the railway company shall be permitted to take an action which will jeopardize the safety of the travelling public; that is the main issue.
In my own constituency my own children cross railway tracks on their way to school every day and this is true of many children in every city in Canada. Children being what they are they will play around switching yards. The railways are unable to fence off their property and ensure that the safety of pedestrian traffic and particularly children is protected and guaranteed at all times. I would hate to think of any children playing around railway yards where one side of the locomotives is blind, where there is no man on the left side of the locomotive. I believe this is something which should be of concern to each and every parent and citizen of this country.
If the railway proposal goes through and the second man is taken out of the cabs of locomotives in yard service going back and forth on to spare tracks it will be done only at the expense of jeopardizing the safety of the men, women and children who live in the vicinity of railway yards. Those are factors which the conciliation board admits it did not have the opportunity to examine in minute detail and that is the consideration the railway unions want to have examined in the minutest detail.
In examining the issues involved in this dispute I think one must consider the problem of the firemen themselves and the unsatisfactory assurances given by the railway company. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the majority report lays a certain amount of blame on the shoulders of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Concerning alternative employment for firemen the majority report at page 3 says:
If the company had seen fit to accompany its proposal on the diesel issue with a concrete blueprint, spelling out in detail what provision it was willing to make for the 1,000 odd firemen who would be immediately cut off the payroll, and the not inconsiderable number of other firemen who would ultimately lose their employment if the company request were granted, the no compromise position which the union throughout maintained might have been at least in some respects relaxed or modified.
I think it is clear from what I have read that the majority report lays a great deal of the blame squarely on the shoulders of the railway company for not being more forthright and specific in its proposal to take care of the firemen who will be removed from employment, but as I have already indicated the major issue is the safety factor.

I can think of no better indication of the type of evidence presented before the conciliation board than that which can be gained by examining the type of witnesses who appeared before that board. Approximately 15 witnesses appeared on behalf of the Canadian Pacific Railway company and all of those people were executives. All but two of them were officers of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company primarily interested, of course, in safeguarding the interests of the shareholders of the company and inclined, of course, to place that consideration above all others. We know that as far as the union witnesses were concerned the brotherhoods brought in approximately 35 witnesses. Onjy two of their witnesses were foremen or men in supervisory work. All the other witnesses were men actually engaged in railroad operations including conductors, trainmen, brake-men and shop mechanics. All of these people gave evidence to the effect that in their opinion the removal of firemen from diesel locomotives could not be done without endangering the lives of both railroad employees and the general public.
It seems to me under that weight of evidence a strong case has been made for deferring any action on the question of the removal of firemen from diesel locomotives. It is also apparent to me that the locomotive engineers would perhaps have a more intimate knowledge of the role played by firemen and they have taken an unequivocal stand on this particular issue. They appeared before the conciliation board and pleaded with it to retain the firemen on diesel engines. Moreover, if you noticed the press report in one of the Toronto papers the other night you will be aware that the locomotive engineers in that city have stated categorically that irrespective of what might come of this dispute they are not prepared to take diesel locomotives out of the shops unless they are accompanied in the cab by a qualified fireman.
I believe that is a reasonable position for these men to take. They are the people best qualified to speak about the role played by firemen in diesel service. I think perhaps the terminology could be changed and firemen could better be described as co-engineers or assistant engineers. I think that is something which would go a long way toward eliminating some of the misunderstandings which presently exist.
It seems to me that we have to take into account the valued opinions of these people who are vitally concerned with railroad operations when coming to a conclusion on this broad issue. If everyone in Canada were in a position to read the excellent report submitted by Senator Roebuck the ground swell of public opinion would certainly be
The Address-Mr. Ellis solidly behind the brotherhood of locomotive firemen and enginemen. In that report Senator Roebuck makes it quite clear that in the interests of the safety of the travelling public and the railway employees themselves it is absolutely necessary to maintain in the cab of diesel locomotives fireman-helpers. Reference is made to the fact that T.C.A. planes have co-pilots and I suppose it might be argued that one pilot could handle the controls of the plane.
We have to recognize today that dieseliza-tion has made it possible for the railway companies to run more trains, longer trains and faster trains. This of course only points out the need for increased vigilance. Now is certainly not the time to be taking out of the cabs enginemen whose judgment is extremely necessary in many cases.
I think Senator Roebuck sums it up very well in his report when he refers to the tremendous responsibility placed upon the shoulders of the locomotive engineer. On page 3 of his report he points out:
There are few workers in the industrial life of Canada who bear so terrible a responsibility as that of the locomotive engineer in charge of a modern train.
And again:
So long as trains have been running, the engineer has been furnished with an assistant, who, in addition to taking care of the mechanical needs of the locomotive and sharing the task of lookout, has been charged with the responsibility of observance of the operating rules and the train orders and has kept track of changing schedules and has calculated the time of meets. The fireman is the engineer's co-pilot. It is not given to mere humans individually to always be right, to never be mistaken, and it is the duty and function of the fireman to catch an oversight, a momentary failure to observe, or a miscalculation of the time of an approaching train or the speed under varying conditions of his own train on the part of the engineer, and thus to avoid what would otherwise result in some frightful accident in which two trains may be involved with hundreds of thousands of dollars m property and the life and limb of passengers and crews.
That is a most categorical statement by one member of the conciliation board who makes it quite clear that in his view the position of the railway company is very ill-advised. It seems to me that some effort has been made to suggest that the firemen are holding out against automation. May I point out that dieselization already has cost almost 3,000 employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company their jobs and there was no sign of a work stoppage. Those people accepted the inevitable technological changes. Those mechanics in the shops were replaced by the dieselization program of the C.P.R.
As a result of dieselization the C.P.R. has been able to effect very considerable savings. According to their own figures, in

The Address-Mr. Ellis 1955 they saved some $18 million in transportation costs and an additional $6 million in the reduced maintenance of locomotives. One can therefore point out that dieselization already has brought about great savings to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. No one takes issue with that fact. We are happy to see these technical changes taking place.
What is involved here is not a question of automation, it is a question of the safety of the public generally and of the train crews.
It seems to me that in this dispute, which I hope will be speedily resolved, we should recognize the validity of the position taken by the brotherhood. The brotherhood's argument is quite clear. They say that the conciliation board should have been armed with sufficient technical knowledge in order to bring down an opinion based on more than a refereeing between two conflicting points of view. Reference was made this morning by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), to the fact that the three members of the conciliation board were lawyers. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) could not see anything wrong with that, but I suggest that if we are going to have an objective study made of this problem we will have to have experts and not lawyers consider it. Lawyers may be quite learned in the law but when it comes to operating a railway I think we should have the opinions of people who know what they are discussing. Certainly that cannot be achieved with the type of conciliation board referred to previously.
I am hoping that the Prime Minister's statement today presages a breaking of the stalemate and the bringing about of an early resumption of the operations of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Clearly the position which the union has taken is quite logical and reasonable. They say that they are prepared to go back to work provided there is an undertaking that this matter will be referred to a board qualified to discuss the whole question and that the findings of that board will then be referred to a conciliation board.
The conciliation board to which we referred earlier admitted that it was not in a position to pass judgment on technical matters. The members of that board admitted that their judgment was based merely on the ability of the opposing counsel to put across the best point of view. Surely that is not the basis upon which an important matter of this kind should be settled.
I feel that the government has been lax in dealing with this matter. They have held over the heads of the employees the

threat of compulsory arbitration. The example of 1950 is still fresh in their minds. At the same time the government has not paid the slightest attention to the reasonable proposal put forth by the leader of this group the other day when he suggested that in the interests of the railroad workers themselves and in the interests of the Canadian people there should be an immediate resumption of rail operations over the lines of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and that if the railroad company was adamant in its refusal to meet that reasonable request the government should appoint an administrator to take over the temporary management of the C.P.R. and to see that the railroad trains are running as soon as possible.
I think that is the position as it stands at the moment. Negotiations are in progress and it is our earnest hope that the resumption of rail operations will occur at the earliest possible moment. I plead with the government to leave no stone unturned to see that the railway company are persuaded to adopt a proposal such as the one outlined by the Prime Minister today when he suggested that if the Canadian Pacific Railway Company were prepared to accept the same settlement as that granted by Canadian National Railways while this matter was being investigated there was no reason why railroad operations could not be resumed. I suggest that the failure to come to a settlement must be placed squarely on the shoulders of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Every effort should be made to bring about a resumption of rail operations. The onus now rests upon the railway company.


Mr. Gregg:: The hon. member has complained of the fact that all three members of the conciliation board were lawyers. I am not going to argue with him on that but 1 would like to ask him whether, in view of the fact that two of the members are always appointed upon the recommendation of the two parties to the dispute, would he have the Minister of Labour refuse to appoint the nominee of management or labour if that person happened to be a lawyer.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I have just been pointing out that one of the difficulties about this conciliation board report is the fact that the board based its judgment, not on facts but on the ability of opposing counsel to present their points of view. The railroad company appointed a good lawyer to represent its side of the case under courtroom procedure and the brotherhood of locomotive firemen and enginemen had no other recourse but to obtain the services of a lawyer in order that their point of view could be represented.


Mr. Castieden:: Would the Prime Minister recommend a lawyer as controller?


Mr. Charles Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me particular pleasure this afternoon to extend the customary congratulations to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, not only because they made excellent speeches, well thought out, well composed and well delivered, but also because of the fact that they both spoke in the two official languages of our nation. I was particularly impressed by the fact that the mover, whose mother tongue is English, was able to speak to us at such length and so well in the French language. I was also impressed by the fact that the seconder, whose mother tongue is French, was able to speak to us at such length and so well in the English language. I congratulate these two members and at the same time I also wish to congratulate all members on both sides of the house who have been making the sincere effort that I have had occasion to observe during the last eight years to become more and more bilingual and to be able to understand and express themselves in the two official languages of our nation.
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I intend to deal with two of the subjects that are covered in the speech from the throne, the references to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the railway strike. Then I intend to discuss certain matters that concern my constituency particularly. In connection with NATO I find this reference in the speech from the throne:
An encouraging advance is being made, as evidenced by the latest ministerial meeting of the council, in the development of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the non-military as well as in the military field. My ministers remain strongly convinced of the need to maintain the North Atlantic treaty as the keystone of the defence of the western nations.
Farther on I find this reference:
Recent events have confirmed my ministers' belief in the importance of seeking solutions to international problems through the United Nations and of upholding by all practical and constructive means the principles of the United Nations charter. My ministers also believe, however-
This is the part I wish to emphasize.
-that while making every effort to achieve these long term goals, the western nations must remain strong and united in their defences and in their diplomacy in order that aggressive action against them will be prevented and international tension can be lessened.
That paragraph evidently refers to NATO. As chairman of the executive committee of the Canadian NATO parliamentary association, I am of course pleased with these references to NATO made in the speech
The Address-Mr. Cannon from the throne and I heartily endorse the attitude that the government is taking. I had the privilege of leading the Canadian delegation to the interparliamentary conference that took place in Paris from the 18th to the 23rd of November last, and I think that the best way for me to express to the house my thoughts and feelings about the importance of NATO at this time is to quote from a speech that I delivered at this conference of NATO parliamentarians. I said:
When we were in Paris last year in the month of July the Geneva conference was taking place and the Russians were advancing their plans for peaceful coexistence putting on the mask of friendship and trying to give the impression that a great change had taken place in Russia since Stalin's death and that Russian policy was being liberalized, becoming more human and friendly. The Russian delegates to the Geneva conference declared their peaceful intentions and made disarmament proposals.
One of the main consequences of this attitude taken by the Russians was to make some people doubt the necessity and utility of NATO and to bring to some governments of NATO countries the temptation to reduce their efforts to build up NATO's military defence forces in Europe.
Some extreme optimists even expressed the view that before long NATO would no longer be so necessary and that the NATO countries would soon be able to diminish considerably if not abolish entirely their defence expenditures.
But, Mr. Chairman, what a change now! The deplorable events that have taken place in Hungary recently have altered all that.
The Russians when confronted by the courageous demands of the Hungarian people for self-government, for free elections, for the abolition of the farce that is the system of one-party elections and for the withdrawal of the Russian army from their country, showed their real nature; they removed the mask of hypocrisy and duplicity they had been wearing and gave free course to the brutality and the cruelty that have always been the hallmark of all communist regimes and particularly of the Soviet regime.
After having received the demands of the brave Hungarian people, they pretended to negotiate the withdrawal of Russian troops from the country. During the so-called negotiations and directly contrary to the object of these negotiations, they brought into Hungary great numbers of men and quantities of military equipment, forged a ring of steel composed of 1,000 tanks around Budapest and made prisoners the legitimate government of the country and the very envoys with whom they were supposed to be negotiating.
They then proceeded to drown in a bath of blood the protests and resistance of the Hungarian patriots.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this unmasking of the Russians has greatly changed the NATO picture.
There can no more be any doubt of the usefulness of NATO and the necessity of keeping defence forces strong and alert. There can be no doubt about the desirability of closer union between the different NATO countries and of tightening the cultural and economic bonds that unite them as foreseen by Article II of the treaty.
Those are my feelings, Mr. Speaker, about NATO, and I am pleased that so many members of the Senate and the House of Commons have shown their interest in NATO by joining our association. The importance of NATO

The Address-Mr. Cannon parliamentary associations has been underlined and I think there should be placed on the record an excerpt from the report of the committee of three, of which our distinguished Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) was one, which was appointed by NATO to make a report. Their report has been issued recently, and paragraphs 58 and 59 of the report read as follows:
58.	Among the best supporters of NATO and its purposes are those members of parliament who have had a chance at first hand to see some of its activities and to learn of its problems, and to exchange views with their colleagues from other parliaments. In particular, the formation of national parliamentary associations and the activities of the conference of members of parliament from NATO countries have contributed to the development of public support for NATO and solidarity among its members.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting and, in my opinion, very well deserved commendation of NATO parliamentary associations on the part of the members of this committee of three. They go on to say:
59.	In order to maintain a close relationship of parliamentarians with NATO, the following arrangements are recommended:
(a)	That the Secretary-General continue to place the facilities of NATO headquarters at the disposal of parliamentary conferences and give all possible help with arrangements for their meetings.
(b)	That invited representatives of member governments and the Secretary-General and other senior NATO civil and military officers attend certain of these meetings. In this way the parliamentarians would be informed on the state of the alliance and the problems before it, and the value of their discussions would be increased.
I submit you have there, Mr. Speaker, a very useful and very interesting appraisal of the importance of associations such as ours. By chance, and purely by chance, our meeting in Paris in the month of November came at a very opportune time. I say by chance because, of course, the date of the conference had been fixed many weeks or months before the Suez canal difficulties arose and before, as a result of those difficulties and the events about which we all know, a certain division arose among the three principal, original members of NATO, namely, England, France and the United States. I say that our meeting was particularly well timed because it gave an opportunity to parliamentarians of the free countries to meet to discuss their differences of opinion, to thresh out the matter, I might say. I am convinced that these meetings, these conversations, these arguments if you like, did a great deal of good and helped to bring together the opinions of parliamentarians of these three countries.
The fundamental importance of the NATO parliamentary associations was brought home to us in 1955 by no less a personage than General Gruenther. When we went to

supreme headquarters, SHAPE, in Paris General Gruenther gave us a briefing. One of the things he said to us was this. He said we must not forget that all the members of the North Atlantic treaty alliance are democracies and that in a democracy the very existence of the government depends upon public opinion. Therefore in a democracy a continuance of the policy of any government depends equally upon public opinion. If we wish NATO to continue to endure and to continue to give to the freedom-loving nations the service that it is giving, he said, we must interest public opinion in the NATO countries in NATO and the work that NATO is doing; and, said General Gruenther, the best way in which to interest public opinion in NATO and the work that NATO is doing is to get parliamentarians who are the representatives of the people, who are the representatives of public opinion in their different countries, interested in NATO; and the best way in which to do that is to organize NATO parliamentary associations in the different countries.
The Canadians who attended this meeting took an active part. Out of 14 members of the Canadian delegation there were seven speakers. Those speakers were the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott), the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Leduc), the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Holling-worth), the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland), the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) and myself. In proportion to the numbers of our delegation, I think that we had one of the best records. I do not think that any delegation had more than 50 per cent of their members making speeches. I say this to underline what an active interest our delegates took in the proceedings. While I am on this subject I wish to mention the fact that the two delegates sent by the Senate distinguished themselves. Senator McLean was elected head of the economic committee. Senator Dessureault took an active part in the deliberations of the political committee.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we came back from this meeting of NATO parliamentarians in time for the short session which was called here in November to deal with the Suez matter. My experience at NATO confirmed this year the opinion that I had formed last year and convinced me more than ever of the necessity and the utility of these NATO parliamentary associations and their meetings.
I now pass on to the second subject with which I wish to deal and which is alluded to in the speech from the throne. I refer to the railway strike. I do not pretend to be an expert-far from it-and I have not gone

into the pros and cons of the matter. I am not going to express my opinion as to whether the railway company is right or whether the union is right. I am going to examine the subject from the point of view of the general public. From the point of view of the general public I must say that I think these strikes in public utilities are extremely deplorable indeed. I have had some experience in the matter because in 1950 I was privileged to move the address in reply to the speech from the throne in the special session that took place that year for the purpose of dealing with the disastrous railway strike when both of our railways were strikebound. I wish to quote briefly from a speech I made on that occasion. Dealing with strikes in public utilities I had this to say as reported at page 84 of Hansard of August 31, 1950:
In the province of Quebec, public opinion has already accepted legislation forbidding strikes in public utilities. In 1944. the legislative assembly of that province passed a bill decreeing compulsory arbitration in every dispute over labour conditions where a public utility and its employees were involved and rendering illegal any strike in a public utility under any circumstances whatsoever.
Heavy penalties are provided in this legislation for every day that such an illegal strike would last. This law is still in force and has given good results. It was enacted by a Liberal government known for its sympathy towards organized labour.
However our federal government did not want to incorporate this principle into the labour legislation of this country. It did not want to enact general legislation prohibiting strikes in public utilities and subjecting them to compulsory arbitration.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether public opinion is not coming around now to that idea, now that we have had another railway strike within six years. I wonder whether public opinion would not accept legislation outlawing strikes in public utilities, based, of course, on the general principle that the general good must be given preference over the good of the individual or even over the good of a group of individuals. I do not wish to elaborate on the matter now but I wish to leave with the house the thought that three things might help in the future to avoid in railways and in public utilities strikes that are so detrimental to the economy and to the well-being of our country. Apart from legislation prohibiting strikes in public utilities there is also the thought that if there was less influence by outside unions on our unions in Canada, there might be fewer labour disturbances. If our unions were entirely independent and were not subject to the influence of other branches of so-called international unions, I think that situation might also help to avoid strikes. In the third place, I think that the method of voting on such important issues is surprising, to say the least. I was greatly surprised to read in the
The Address-Mr. Cannon editorial of a newspaper-it is a well-informed paper and I have no reason to believe that what was stated is not true-that this strike which we are now suffering was decided by a vote of 36 men sent by telegraph, namely the 36 heads of the different unions that were involved. The workmen were never given the chance to vote. The workmen were never given the chance to declare themselves as to whether or not they wanted to strike. The thought that I am going to leave-


Mr. Nicholson:: Does the hon. member suggest that the firemen are not behind the strike?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: You make your own speech some time. The thought I wish to express is this. If legislation were passed to oblige that a secret ballot be taken of all workmen affected by a strike, it might have a considerable effect in avoiding strikes of this kind in the future.
These are three suggestions that I make. I am sure that they will not all be adopted by the government at the same time but I am making them nonetheless and I underline these suggestions. Even if only one of these three suggestions were adopted, it might have a considerable effect in avoiding strikes of the kind from which we are now suffering.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I am now coming to the part of my speech which deals with the fine county of the Magdalen islands, which I have the honour to represent in this house.
First, I wish to thank, in the name of my constituents, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the hon. Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) and all those who helped secure President Eisenhower's rejection of the recommendation which had been made by the United States tariff board, suggesting the imposition of an additional duty on the importation of Canadian fish to the United States. If that resolution had been sanctioned by the president of the United States, it would have had disastrous effects on Canada's eastern fisheries and particularly on the Magdalen islands fisheries, inasmuch as a large part of their products are marketed in the United States. Therefore, in the name of my constituents, I should like to express my most sincere appreciation to the right hon. Prime Minister and to all others who appealed to President Eisenhower in this respect.
In the name of my constituents, I also want more particularly to thank the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) for having authorized the fine modern airport, which is already in operation on Magdalen islands. Until now,

The Address-Mr. Cannon aircraft have had to land on the beach, which was at times fairly easy to do, but at other times not quite so easy. I am proud to say we obtained the building of this airport because conditions on the beach were not always the best. While I am on the subject of aviation, I want also to seize the opportunity of thanking the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Lapointe) for giving us a daily mail delivery service. When I was first elected member for the Magdalen islands, we had only semi-weekly mail service. Some time ago, I had managed to obtain three weekly deliveries. Now, with the co-operation of the Postmaster General and the Maritime Central Airways, we too will enjoy a daily service.
The year 1956 was a good year for us. Our fisheries yielded about twice as much as in 1954. I do not intend to claim any credit for that increase, since it is due to the fact that fishing was better or that our fishermen were luckier. Besides, if I were to take credit for it, I would have to take the blame when fishing is bad, and everyone knows that the result of fishing is always rather uncertain.
However, I am convinced that the improvements made at the Iles-de-la-Madeleine these last eight years, improvements to the ports, the harbours and wharves, the slips which have been installed, the breakwaters which have been put up, the dredging which has been done to improve shipping, as well as the assistance given towards shipbuilding and the buying of equipment for our fishermen, have greatly helped my people to achieve these splendid results. That is why, finding that the value of the catch by the Magdalen islands fishermen in 1956 was twice as large as in 1954, I want to thank the government most sincerely for what they have done for my county.
I now come to unemployment insurance. Ever since I have been the member for the Magdalen islands-it will be eight years next summer-I have, at each session, untiringly asked for the payment of unemployment insurance to fishermen. At the last session of parliament, my efforts were successful, thanks to the understanding of the government and, more particularly, of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg). Through an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act, fishermen came under the act. Regulations are now being prepared which will apply to those cases, and which, I am told, will come into force not later than next April. Fishermen will then benefit from the act on the same basis as workers in other industries. There, again, is a great improvement for the fishermen of Magdalen islands.

Mr. Speaker, may I say a few words now on the subject of family allowances. My views on this matter I have stated in this house on previous occasions. I shall therefore limit myself to quoting from a speech 1 made January 17, 1956, on the occasion of this same debate in reply to the speech from the throne. Talking about family allowances, I said:
Our great leader, the late Right Hon. W. L-Mackenzie King, was responsible for them and history will record that his decision to create family allowances was that of a great statesman.
But over ten years have gone by and family allowances have not been increased. As everyone knows, the cost of living has increased enormously during that time, while the needs of children have not decreased. The means of meeting the needs of the children should be increased to keep pace with the cost of supplying them.
Then I said further:
I have received representations, both verbally and in writing, from my constituents to the effect that they think it is time family allowances were increased. These people point to the increase in the cost of living since 1945 and the fact that government income available for purposes other than war purposes has greatly increased since that time. I agree with them, and I make an appeal to the government to increase family allowances. If they cannot double them, as requested in some quarters, they should at least increase them 25 per cent or 50 per cent. If it is impossible for the government to increase family allowances all along the line they should-and this is the minimum they should do-at least increase the monthly allowances of $5, $6 or $7 for the younger children to the J8 given to the older children, so the same scale would apply to all. This modification would not only benefit the children but would greatly simplify the administration of the act.
Such were my sentiments last year, Mr. Speaker, and such are they again this year. My constituents send me many representations, signed by hundreds of my good friends, people who admire the government and the right hon. Prime Minister, and who, despite the improvement with which they have been gratified and the good things they have received from the government, keep writing me to ask that family allowances be increased. I believe those requests are justified, and for the same reasons as were put forward by myself last year I say again that family allowances should be increased.
I would go even further and say, that, in my belief, family allowances are more important than health insurance. All people have children who need education, clothing and food; but not everyone becomes ill. I sincerely believe that it is more important to increase family allowances than to provide for health insurance.
In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize the fact that unemployment insurance benefits paid to Magdalen islands fishermen will put several hundred thousand

dollars into circulation in this constituency. The estimate I have been given amounts to four or five hundred thousand dollars, and this will help our fishermen to get by until family allowances are increased. While I point out this fact, I none the less urge an increase of family allowances as soon as possible.
In the matter of public works, I should like to mention very briefly the main projects that should be undertaken in the Magdalen islands. To give an idea of the needs in the western end of the islands, I need only quote an article from the magazine A Pleines Voiles which is published at Ste-Anne-de-la-Pocatiere and is interested especially in the welfare of fishermen. That magazine prints a column entitled "The Voice of the Islands" which I always read very carefully. I need not mention that the islands referred to are the Magdalen islands. Any Madelinot knows that when one refers to "the islands," one always means the Magdalen Islands. I quote:
Grande-Entree is up and coming!
At the south of Grande-Entree lies the lie du Bassin. Between it and Grande-Entree, the sea forms a marvelous little bay, sheltered from the winds, east and west, by the sand banks. If it were adequately developed, that bay could be turned into the best fishing harbour of the islands; it would be mostly suitable for all kinds of fishing, especially for lobster, halibut and cod. The required works would include the digging of a channel on the west side and the construction of a protective wall, docks and factories. Thus, the eastern part of the islands would be saved for fisheries and would enjoy the prospect of a most promising economic future.
Such is the project advocated by the religious and civil authorities of Grande-Entree and by the taxpayers of that community. Such is the foremost proposition at the present time at the islands and everybody is in favour of it.
I spoke about it to the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters). I am sure that he is interested in that project and I am confident that work will be undertaken this very year in order that this marvelous project may be implemented at Grande-Entree.
Mr. Speaker, here are a few among the public works which will be undertaken at the islands and which are included in my program. A new breakwater at North Cape (Cap-du-Nord), a new breakwater at Dune-du-Sud to prevent silting, such as has been the case with the present structure, improvements to the harbours at Pointe-Basse and Cap-aux-Meules, construction of a quay or dock on the west side of l'Etang-du-Nord.
As regards harbour improvements at Havre-Aubert, the chamber of commerce there recently prepared a blueprint, a copy of which was sent to me and which I have forwarded to the Minister of Public Works.
The Address-Mr. Cannon I am sure that department officials will find it most useful in planning future work at Havre-Aubert. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the members of the Havre-Aubert chamber of commerce on the spirit of initiative and of public duty they have shown in preparing this plan and in sending me a copy.
We also have an airport at Havre-Aubert, although not as large as the one built at Havre-aux-Maisons, to which I referred a moment ago. However, and precisely because it is a smaller one, it should be enlarged, maintained and improved. The reason is evident. Business is picking up at Havre-Aubert, as everywhere else in the islands, and it would not be fair to let this airport go to ruin. I have already asked the Department of Transport to enlarge it, and I will keep on asking that this be done. I am sure my good friend the Minister of Transport will admit that my representations are well founded.
We also wish to improve the wharf and the slip at Entry island and to deepen the harbour at Etang-des-Caps.
There, Mr. Speaker, is a short summary of what we in the Magdalen islands would require in the way of works for this year. I am sure that the government will favourably consider these requests which I am submitting.
Mr. Speaker, in the course of these few remarks, I have dealt with matters in the international, national and local fields. I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister for the important part he played in world affairs thanks to his friendly contacts with such people as the president of the United States, Mr. Eisenhower, and Mr. Nehru, the prime minister of India. It is a great satisfaction to our people to see that we can rely on the firm and sure guidance of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the Liberal government in these particularly difficult times on the international level. Clearly the people of Canada are also very satisfied with their government, at the national level, and I am sure that new evidence of this satisfaction will be given by a resounding victory of our beloved leader and our party at the next general election. (Text):


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising today to take part in this throne speech debate I, like those before me, wish to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud). To the mover I just wish to say that I enjoyed very much the remarks that he had to make, and I regret
84	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. H. O. White that I was unable to follow the speech of the seconder, but I did take the time to read it.
Each session of parliament each year, Mr. Speaker, seems to bring its particular problems, and this year of 1957, only in its 10th day, seems to be loaded with problems, even though the announcement expected today of the settlement of the strike will bring some measure of relief to many thousands of Canadians. It seems to me there are five problems that loom large on the horizon of 1957 in its 365-day run. I do, however, wish to say a word or two about the strike, and not only this strike but what might and could be done for the future. One other item of immense importance is the state of international affairs, with the Middle East the hot spot and the Kremlin engaged in making trouble wherever it seems to be possible or profitable for them so to do.
Another problem facing Canadians is that of inflation. We have heard a great deal about it. Much has been said about it in the 10 years since the war. There is also the problem of agriculture, the poor relations in a booming economy, and our $1 billion trade deficit, which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) says is an indication of the growth and development of this country.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister, in his speech dealing with the problems of the day, revealed the mailed fist in the gloved hand, and today the strike is more or less settled. All Canadians are alarmed at the recurring number of strikes and are asking for and thinking that there must be, some solution to the problems of relations between industry and labour, not only on the railways but in many key industries. They are alarmed at the influence exerted by persons outside of Canada in these labour troubles. They are also alarmed at the control outside of Canada of many of our key industries and raw resources.
I think the search on the part of hon. members of parliament for a solution not only to the rail strike which is concluding but concerning the question of strikes in major industries generally is an indication of the importance which they feel strikes assume in relation to the economy of the country and how they can cripple a nation if of long duration or extended to more than one or two industries in the country. The worst feature of such strikes is the fact that in many cases the innocent bystander is injured to a greater extent than is the industry or the men involved.
If a strike progresses the supplying industries become idle either through lack of raw 

materials or lack of markets and we find even today that as a result of the strike lumber, mining, manufacturing and agriculture all have been seriously affected. But the worst effect, in my estimation, is on the small businessman who lacking the resources of large corporations is not able to withstand the blow of the strike and in a short time faces economic disaster.
I am wondering if it would be possible for us, in regard to industrial strife, to apply our thinking as far as international affairs are concerned. Hon. members will recall that at the close of the first world war of 1914-18 there was set up at that time a league of nations and although it collapsed the idea and the ideal was to prevent an outbreak of another world war. If the United States had been prepared to play its part at that time the second world war might possibly have been averted. At the conclusion of the second world war in 1945 the nations got together again and set up the United Nations in the hope that it might avert a third world war.
In all democratic countries and in other countries, too, there are ethics, codes and laws which govern the relationship between man and man and for the settlement of civil disputes. Two parties engage in a lawsuit which goes to the courts and a judgment is handed down which is accepted as final and is enforced.
Similarly we have rules governing the field of sports. If we go to a ball game, a hockey match or a prize fight we accept the decisions which are made by the referee according to the rules of the game or the laws governing the sport. We have tried to achieve the same thing in the field of international affairs and possibly we have succeeded to a degree, but when it comes to the relationships between an employer and an employee we find we still have to slug it out until one side or the other succumbs or the government steps in. Whenever the government steps in it puts labour in a most unfortunate position because it leaves industry in the position where it can sit back and let the strike run its course in full confidence that the government will eventually intervene and end the strike. That is what we and labour generally do not wish to see come to pass in this country. Surely if we have developed to the stage where we have a tribunal for international disputes, civil law courts for the settlement of civil disputes and referees enforcing the laws governing the field of sports, disputes between labour and management can also be eliminated if the proper procedures could be brought into being which had the full confidence of labour and management and the Canadian people so that when a judgment was handed down

the weight of public opinion would make it almost necessary that the judgment be accepted by both parties.
For many years I have said in this house and outside of it that one of the solutions to industrial strife would be the introduction of profit sharing plans whereby labour becomes a partner with industry and shares in the wealth that the hands of labour have helped to create. It is interesting to note that more and more industries are adopting properly established profit sharing plans which are being enjoyed by many working people. Some companies have built up enormous resources for distribution to their employees. The strange thing about it, however, is that the leaders of unions are not interested in selling to employees the idea of profit sharing plans. They apparently seem to thrive on a certain amount of industrial strife. I hope, therefore, that before another serious strike is on our doorstep concrete action will be taken by labour and industry to avert such a disaster.
I wish to say a few words concerning our $1,000 million trade deficit and about trade in general. I noticed in the Prime Minister's speech yesterday he referred to the trade deficit and he used as a comparison a Canadian farmer who in the springtime would buy seed, feed and fertilizer and then in the fall would be able to make up his investment with the crop that he garnered. Our trade deficit is somewhat different and I am afraid a parallel such as the Prime Minister suggests cannot be drawn. We are buying this $1,000 million deficit from the United States of America but when the crop is harvested are we going to be able to sell it back to them? I do not believe it is possible. The United States is being very careful to see that any attempts made to sell our goods to that country are met with irritation, restrictions, uncertainties, give-away programs and a disregard for the GATT treaties. Consequently the easy solution suggested by the Prime Minister is not practical.
I also found it interesting to observe that it has been only during the last few weeks that the Prime Minister has become so acutely interested in the problem of the farmer and I am wondering if the proximity of an election has had some effect on his thinking as far as agriculture is concerned.
The argument is being advanced that we must buy from abroad in order to sell abroad, but the joker in the pack, so far as that argument is concerned, is this. Canada is a great producing nation, yet we are buying a great many agricultural products from abroad, products which we as Canadians
The Address-Mr. H. O. White could produce. Those products purchased abroad provide dollars with which foreign countries are able to buy Canadian manufactured products. They do not buy Canadian farm products. Actually the Canadian farm economy is being exploited to provide markets for manufactured goods.
There is another disturbing factor as far as agriculture is concerned and that is that in this inflated, high-cost economy we are being undersold by many countries. Our industries are protected by tariffs while many farm products are protected only for short periods of time, in some cases for as little as three weeks. I wonder why this is being done. I should not wonder because I think I know the answer. This government has found by experience through several elections that between elections they can kick the farmer around but when the next election rolls around the farmer will still vote for them.
It is interesting to note and I mention it again that yesterday and recently the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) dealt with agricultural problems. It is interesting to note that the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and others have been quoting statistics to prove how well off agriculture is, but I want to say to the government that agricultural statistics are not negotiable, they do not pay taxes, they do not buy feed, seed and fertilizer nor do they pay the interest on the mortgage. If they did, our farmers would be tickled to death because they would be able to get along. But the fact is that agricultural statistics do none of those things.
I was interested also in what the Prime Minister had to say about his golf game. He seemed to be able to improve his golf score and his social relations with the President of the United States but apparently he was not able to reduce the $1,000 million trade deficit by any appreciable degree.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Ike took him for a ride.


Harry Oliver White: There has been another interesting development in recent weeks. Last session we engaged in a very acrimonious debate regarding the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company. I see now that Trans-Canada and Tennessee Transmission have entered into a deal which probably will cost the Canadian gas producers and Canadians generally anywhere from $5 million to $10 million a year.


An hon. Member:: Propaganda.


Harry Oliver White: You will have a chance to answer all these questions in the not too distant future and it will take more than gas to answer them satisfactorily. If the government has an agricultural policy it cer-

The Address-Mr. H. O. White tainly is not known. I notice that when it announces some decision the federation of agriculture shortly adopts it as their policy. In other words the hookup between the right hon. minister and the federation apparently is very close.
While I am dealing with our trade problems I should like to say a little about the problem of inflation. For many years Canadians have been led to believe that the Bank of Canada by controlling currency and credit controlled the bank rate, but now when the issue is becoming a hot one we see news items in the papers and otherwise stating that the bank rate is controlled by the sale of treasury bills as they are bid for and sold each Friday. But they fail to tell you that while the chartered banks, brokerage firms and others can buy and sell treasury bills, the Bank of Canada is also in the market and can control the bank interest rate while saying to the public that they have nothing to do with it.
I might mention for the information of the house that I called up the Bank of Canada this morning and tried to get hold of one of these treasury bills. They told me that they were easily negotiable and were worth from $25,000 right up to $1 million. They did not provide me with one but they told me what they looked like.


An hon. Member:: Did you buy one?


Harry Oliver White: No, I did not
buy one. The average Canadian is asking who is fooling whom about this bank rate and is the increased bank rate likely to do the things it is proposed it will do as far as inflation is concerned. We have been told, and I think I am prepared to believe it, that inflation can be brought about in two ways. It can be brought about by a surplus of money-I do not know of any farmer in Ontario or anywhere else who would know anything about a surplus of money-or by an undersupply or scarcity of goods. By making it more difficult for businesses to carry on, an increased interest rate becomes part of the cost of goods sold. Industry is discouraged from producing and this brings about a further scarcity of goods rather than making them more plentiful. I cannot see how the measures which the government is favouring will eliminate a scarcity of goods which is partly the cause of inflation and the desire on the part of many people to purchase them.


It also discourages the building of houses. An increasing number of Canadians desire to own homes but as was admitted today in the house there is a decreased number of housing units being built. It is also likely to make these units more expensive.
As I mentioned before, by the expansion of money the productive industry of this country is going to be discouraged, which will result in further scarcities. I note that the president of the Canadian gas association has stated that gas distribution is likely to be seriously threatened, which in turn will affect the sale of gas-burning equipment. Consequently the householders in every city where gas may be distributed will be affected. On the other hand, luxury items enjoy a bigger spread or margin of profit, and those industries are not likely to be as seriously affected as are the industries supplying necessary goods. But curtailment of credit affects every Canadian industry adversely.
There is another rather alarming angle to this, Mr. Speaker, and it is that the credit curbs do not affect United States investors. They can bring their money over here and invest it. That is exactly what is happening; and the thing we wanted to get away from, more and more control by Americans of our raw resources, is going to be magnified and increased rather than decreased by the action of the government in its attempt to control inflation. In my opinion the controls are just ten years too late. If the government had thought about this when it was mentioned years ago instead of now when the dollar is only worth a few cents they would have been doing something.
It is of interest to note when I am talking about interest rates that I had as a visitor at my home just a week ago an agricultural expert from Switzerland. I asked him about the value of farm property there, and he told me the average would be $1,000 per acre. I asked him about the price of milk and other products produced there and I said, "How in the world do you ever pay off the mortgage if you buy a 60-acre farm for $60,000?" He said, "Why, the people in Switzerland who have money do not want us to pay off the mortgages. They will lend us money at approximately 21 per cent and they are glad to have these mortgages go on for generations as long as they are sure of their 2J per cent." I am not certain what rate is being charged today by the Canadian

farm loan board but I imagine it is around 5 per cent, or double the rate at which the Swiss people are able to borrow money in the form of farm loans.
I would also point out that Switzerland has money for export. The people of Switzerland are not going to the United States for money to develop their country. Yet although Canada has vast resources, people from the United States are able to come here and invest their money because we are so poor from paying taxes. Thirty-one cents out of every dollar that we take in goes out in taxes to our government. No wonder we have not money to invest in our natural resources.
It is also a bit alarming to read that some 500 bankruptcies occurred during the past year, or almost up to the level of the depression years. Curtailment of credit will not bring about an increase in goods, and therefore I doubt whether it will be very effective in controlling inflation.
It has not been my practice in the past to say anything about international affairs because there were others who were making detailed studies of the problems, but the developments during the last few months have struck home into the hearts of every Canadian, and I think what I have to say reflects the thinking of the vast majority of my constituents. The resignation yesterday of Prime Minister Eden came as a shock to most of us, but it only served to bring into focus the tremendous burden under which the leader of the United Kingdom government has been labouring for many months.
We should not forget that when Eden and Mollet were endeavouring to prevent a communist coup in the Middle East, brought about by the ineffectiveness of the United Nations, the Canadian government played a role that tormented France and Britain and gave solace to our enemies. Last night's news only served to emphasize that statement. The United States, in the midst of a presidential campaign, chose to be against Britain and France; but now we see the president and congress trying desperately to regain lost ground. Resolutions of the United Nations condemning Britain and France were adopted, but I think more and more people will come to the conclusion that the only mistake Eden made was that he left the Middle East too soon. Britain and France left in the hope that their retirement would help the cause of world peace and would preserve the United Nations.
The Address-Mr. H. O. White
Have Russia or Hungary respected the pious resolutions of the United Nations? While untold thousands suffered the United Nations dared not even send an observer to Hungary. It is rather interesting to note that Mr. Nehru has been shocked by the events in Hungary. I would suggest it has taken him a long time to realize what most of us in the western world have known since the close of world war I.
It has been my privilege to meet some of the Hungarian refugees and to hear something of their desperate fight for freedom at first hand. But what did the United Nations do? Nothing but talk. Hungary has revealed to the world that the will to be free is strong in the face of terrible odds. Hungary has revealed the communist world in its true light, ruthless and out for world conquest. Hungary has revealed the United Nations as an idealistic but impotent force. The United Nations must face realities or perish.
I turn to another phase of Canada's role in international affairs, that of foreign aid. In the past I have supported enthusiastically the Colombo plan and other plans devised to assist the so-called have-not or backward nations. But when the Suez crisis arose some of these so-called have-not nations were able to put into action a more efficient navy and air force than Canada is able to summon after spending nearly $2 billion a year since Korea. This makes me wonder whether we can bribe these foreign countries or buy their loyalty. I am afraid that all that is happening is that they are damning us because we do not give them more. At the very time we were able to supply this foreign aid the maritimes asked for financial backing for their bonds to build hydroelectric and other projects, and they were even refused the backing of the federal government. In western Canada there are many developments that could have been undertaken but they were held in abeyance, probably for the next election.
As far as I personally am concerned, events in the past few months have but served to sour the milk of human kindness. The government and all Canadians should work to strengthen the ties of the commonwealth, because after all the commonwealth of nations is probably the single greatest factor for peace in the world. I think the role of the commonwealth should be as a balance of power between the United States on the one hand and the U.S.S.R. on the other. As such it can probably maintain the peace of the world, but only if we have a strong, united commonwealth.
Trade policies and all other measures that can be devised should be aimed at

The Address-Mr. Philpott bringing the commonwealth together. Finally I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs by way of paraphrase of psalm 144, "Lead us not into captivity."


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Speaker, first may I add my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In doing so may I say that I am reminded of a little story I heard in Edmonton on my way through. It seems that there is always a great deal of argument between the city of Calgary and the city of Edmonton. Calgary boasts of having more chinook winds. The best reply I heard from Edmonton was that Edmonton has the sunny smile of Dick Hanna, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.
As to the graceful speech we heard in French from the hon. member for Gloucester I thought to myself yesterday that we in this house sometimes forget that we owe two debts to the people who speak so eloquently in the French language. In listening to those from Quebec who speak so often and so well in the French language, we sometimes forget the contribution made by the other French-speaking group, namely those from Acadia. I refer not only to such members as the hon. member for Gloucester but the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr, Michaud) and other Acadian members.
While I am still in the congratulatory mood, and before I get around to the strike, may I also congratulate my old friend the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) on the skilful way in which he spoke yesterday for nearly two hours, I think, and said absolutely nothing.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Elmore Philpott: I thought he did a much better job the night before on television. I thought we perhaps have a new television star arising in Canada. I think the new Leader of the Opposition was better when he was explaining his own omissions or errors or whatever you call them that the newspapermen were putting up to him than he was yesterday when he was setting out to criticize the government. It seemed to me that he did not say yes and he did not say no. He was waiting to see whether the government was going to do something, in which case he would have said they should have done nothing; or he was waiting to see whether the government was going to do nothing, in which case he would have said that they should have done something.
Before I talk about the strike I may say that I know the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) is waiting for some extremely good

news later on in the day. As far as I am concerned, I am quite willing to sit down at any time when he has that announcement which we are all waiting to hear and about the coming of which the hon. member who spoke immediately preceding me did not seem to be so pleased.
I do not want to keep the house too long on this matter, but I for one believe that we are now successfully coming to the end of one of the most potentially dangerous situations that we have ever had in Canada. I for one believe that this extremely difficult situation we have had in the past couple of weeks in Canada has been admirably handled by the present government. It seems to me that there were two clear-cut issues involved in this work stoppage. The first issue involved that certainly directly concerns us here as members of parliament, lawmakers for this great Dominion of Canada, was this: Should a democratic parliament in a democratic country forbid such a strike? If so, should it do so under all conditions or just under some conditions?
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would be a terrible mistake for Canada or any other democratic country that prides itself on freedom of action to put an arbitrary ban on the right to strike of any great group of Canadian workers, whether those workers happen to be railway workers or others. I am quite well aware of the fact that in a utility such as the great railroads where actual life and death, and the prosperity of so many of the people, depend on the continued service of the railway, no government-neither this government or any other one-could long permit an interruption in the service of so vital a utility. But in a true democracy I submit that you must always balance the things on both sides.
I know that in any police state, whether it is a fascist police state or a communist police state, the first act of any dictatorial government in regard to the industrial set-up of the country is to forbid the holding of strikes. I believe that any democracy-and this applies to Canada or any other democracy-takes an extremely unwise step when it arbitrarily passes an over-all law forbidding a strike. But in any event, surely the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I think the diplomatic, wise and fair way in which the government of Canada has handled this present work stoppage in Canada, as to which we all hope at any time to hear of an amicable settlement having been arrived at acceptable to all concerned, is surely the preferable way.
We all know that the basis on which this work stoppage is going to be settled, when

it is settled, is this. It will be settled on the basis that work will be resumed more or less on the basis of the status quo. There will be certain adjustments of wages and so on. There has been no great insoluble problem in that regard. The main problem which has not been settled will be left to further consideration under some kind of a fair test by some sort of tribunal which will carry more weight with the Canadian people.
I cannot share the suggestions made earlier this afternoon by my friend the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis) in two respects. I certainly cannot share with him the suggestion that the government of Canada should go to the arbitrary length of putting in a controller to run the Canadian Pacific Railway. The C.P.R. is an institution of which every Canadian citizen should be proud. There is nothing in our whole national life that has contributed more to the welfare and prosperity of this great Canadian nation than has the great Canadian Pacific Railway. We ought to be proud of the management. If the management has some kind of suggestion which it thinks will improve the operation of the railway, of course every sensible person will listen to that suggestion.
In the second place, I do not agree with the hon. member for Regina City when he says that no lawyer should be allowed to sit on the board. I was a little bit puzzled by his speech, because he spent exactly half his time lauding the findings of one lawyer who happens to be on the board-perhaps because he is a Liberal lawyer-and denouncing all other lawyers and saying that no lawyer should be allowed to sit on the board.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There has to be an exception to every rule.


Elmore Philpott: I have no objection to lawyers, so long as we do not get too many of them at the same time. It seems to me that there were two things wrong with the conciliation hearing which was held. The first thing that was wrong was quite simple; there was not enough publicity. I am a member of this House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, and I try to do my job, as I think most of the other members of this house do. I, for one, confess that I know practically nothing about the findings of the board of conciliation except what I have read in the newspapers since this strike started. I think we have to have a tribunal of the kind that will focus the whole publicity of this country on what is involved in this issue, because the most binding law in any democracy, including Canada, is the law of common sense.
What is involved in this work stoppage is this. Is it or is it not safe to operate diesel
The Address-Mr. Philpott engine locomotives with a one-man crew?
I submit that contrary to what a good many people seem to assume, the only conclusion reached by two of the three members of the conciliation board was what I would call the old Scottish verdict of not proven. Certainly they did not settle the argument, and in my opinion the argument cannot be settled. As a layman who has travelled quite often over the railway lines of both systems to the far west coast, I am very much in the position of the man from Missouri when it comes to saying that a one-man crew can ever safely operate any kind of engine down through the Fraser valley, whether it is on a passenger train or a freight train. I have been on those trains when it has taken a whole 24 hours to go from the peak of the Rocky mountains down to the coast, and when they required all their crew up in the front end to be on the lookout for the hazards of the day.
I say, therefore, nobody should assume that because this tribunal is going to be set up to focus the attention of all the people of Canada on this great question, is it or is it not safe to operate diesel locomotives with one-man crews, that the finding is automatically going to be that it is safe at all times and in all circumstances.
I have here a brief submitted, certainly to myself and I assume to other members of parliament, by local 657 of the brotherhood of locomotive engineers. I would submit that the locomotive engineers of Canada are a most responsible body of men in whose hands we literally entrust our lives day after day, week after week, all year round. Here are some of the things they say on page 2 of this brief:
It would not be possible or practicable to list here all the incidents in which the fireman helper has established his worth, the saving of human lives and valuable property. However for the purpose of this review the following is set forth: When trainman Martin on August 22nd, 1955, got off the engine at Glacier, B.C. in order to make a running inspection of his train he slipped and his body contacted the spring rigging of the lead Diesel unit he continued to turn over and over in a rolling fashion, but unable to get away from the side of the locomotive. Fireman helper, Saari, was at his station, and because of his instantaneous action the train was brought to an immediate stop. Trainman Martin suffered among other injuries a broken back. However he has now recovered and has resumed his normal occupation, but he freely states that but for the fact that the fireman helper (engineer's eyes) it would be impossible for him to be alive today.
On September 30, 1950, a locomotive was being turned on the Wye at Glacier, B.C. In the absence of a trainman the fireman was throwing switches: a child playing on the left side of the engine which had passed out of the view of both the engineer and the fireman was struck down and died 24 hours later. It was without question established at the coroner's inquest that if the fireman had been at his station in the cab of the engine, this tragic death could not have occurred.

The Address-Mr. Philpott
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit when this tribunal sits, as it will sit to settle this question of whether one-man operation is safe as well as efficient for the country, the men who actually operate the trains, whether they are passenger trains or freight trains, will have to have their say and they will have to have their say in a forum which will enable the people of Canada to hear what they are saying. When the tribunal makes its findings, in my opinion all of the people of Canada, who are 99 and 44-100th's per cent law-abiding, will loyally accept the findings.
There is one point I should like to make here, and it is this. There is no greater fallacy than the idea that the trade unionists are automatically opposed to automation. There is no class in our whole industrial society in North America so well aware of the value of the machine in raising wages as the skilled mechanics who operate those machines. Every skilled mechanic who operates any kind of great machine knows that the more expensive the machine he is operating, in 99 cases out of 100, the higher are his wages because the more skilled person he has to be to operate that machine. As Walter Reuther and other great trade union leaders have pointed out in recent months, labour is not opposed to automation; trade unions are not opposed to automation. All the trade unionist demands is that there should be a fair transition from the old methods to the new.
No, Mr. Speaker; labour knows very well that the machine is the best friend of the man who operates the machine, and that the more machines you have in the country the more of the products of the machines you have to divide amongst your population. The difference between a very poor and backward country and a very rich and advanced country, like Canada or the United States, is that we have the machine as our servant and other people do not.
I wish to turn now, Mr. Speaker, very briefly to one other topic. We are going to have an election this year. Contrary to what some of my friends opposite might expect, I make no prediction. I think that is presumption on the part of anyone who really attempts to believe in democracy. I say to my hon. friends whom I see smiling over at me that I hope they do better this year.
I am all for them. I believe in the two-party system. I think that alternatives to the present government are always necessary if our democracy is to have real vitality. I rejoice in the fact that the great Conservative party has found a fit and worthy successor to that great Canadian who sat for several


years in the position of leader of the opposition. I refer, of course to my old friend George Drew.
In my opinion the election of 1957 is going to hinge very largely on one important point, and that is which party which is or aspires to be the government of Canada can contribute most to the paramount question in the world today, the question of war and peace. I submit that there is no more practical team of peacemakers in the world today than the team represented by that great and distinguished Canadian the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) and his associate in the field of foreign affairs, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). I submit that on their own record they are the most practical pair of peacemakers in the world today.
As I see it, the foreign policy of Canada, the peacemaking policy of Canada, is based on four solid cornerstones. The first solid cornerstone of the Canadian peacemaking policy is Canadian nationality, pride in Canada as a dominion-yes, I am proud of that term "dominion"-but as a nation, too. Only this week some of us here witnessed the ceremony of the unveiling of that fine statue to that great Canadian and Conservative, Sir Robert Borden. I listened, I think it was last night or perhaps it was the night before, over the radio to someone interviewing the very distinguished woman sculptor who did that fine statue of Sir Robert Borden. The young man who was interviewing this great artist of whom every Canadian should be proud asked this distinguished Toronto lady what it was she looked for in Sir Robert Borden to try to put in that bronze and on that stone. She said this: "When I read and reread the life of Sir Robert Borden I found that he was a great Canadian nationalist". She said, "I got his Canadian nationhood standing foursquare in the way that he has his two feet planted on the ground". The only place I ever differ with my hon. friend's opposite in the official opposition is when they sometimes think there is some conflict between a robust Canadian nationalism and a 100 per cent loyalty to that great organization that we call the British commonwealth.
I submit that the second cornerstone in the peacemaking policy of the present government is the undying loyalty to and fervent faith in the great organization which we call the British commonwealth. No government that now exists or has ever existed on earth has done more to maintain and strengthen that great organization than this present Liberal government of Canada that sits here today. If I had to choose between all the

international organizations that exist, between NATO and the United Nations and the British commonwealth, and I could have my say so we could keep only one of those international organizations, without a minute's hesitation I would say, "I will stand by the British commonwealth" because the British commonwealth is an organic thing that has grown up on the basis of the actual trials and tribulations of history over the centuries. We must keep the British commonwealth and keep it alive and vital. Where I sometimes differ from some of my hon. friends is that the British commonwealth they have in mind is a purely imaginary thing. We are dealing with a British commonwealth that actually exists.
We had a crisis not so many weeks ago over Suez. In my opinion it was an entirely unnecessary crisis; for every good thing that that great statesman, Sir Anthony Eden, tried to do in the wrong way by his ill advice, perhaps stupidly, without consultation, he could have done more effectively in the right way, keeping the 100 per cent support of the British commonwealth and of all the loyal members of the United Nations. I submit that on that occasion we had the third and fourth cornerstones of the peacemaking policy of the present Liberal government of Canada very well exemplified, because Canada stepped into the breach to restore and bridge again the gap that had been developed between the great allies of this western alliance. Canada stepped in to repair the damage that had been done to the United Nations. If that was disloyalty to the British commonwealth, as I have heard some people suggest, it is a very strange kind of disloyalty indeed.
When I was reading of the very great and historic events that have taken place in and around the holy land, Egypt and the Suez canal in the past few weeks, and especially when I got to thinking that the actual war itself had started in the Sinai peninsula, the very spot where Moses, the great lawgiver himself, brought down the ten commandments that became the basis of all civilized law wherever civilized men are, I went back to the original source and read the fascinating story. I read all about Gaza. We have been reading about Gaza and the Gaza strip in the last few weeks, and so on. I heard of another man who was operating in Gaza some thousands of years ago, and how he went down and confounded his enemies by making them a bet that he could come up with a riddle they could not answer in several days. Now, I know my old and good
The Address-Mr. Philpott friend from Fort William would have answered this riddle in two seconds, but they were not as lucky several thousand years ago in Gaza as he is.
The riddle which Samson asked his enemies was this: "Out of the eater came something to eat; out of the strong came something sweet". Day after day went by, and they could not answer it. Well, of course, if you read the Bible story in Judges XIV you will see that he found a bee's nest in a lion's carcass. The honey was in the lion's carcass and the sweet came out of the strong meat.
In this great Suez crisis we started out with what appeared to be a terrible tragedy, the falling out of old friends and old allies, even a threat to split the British commonwealth itself. How did it all end? Because we had a practical peacemaker on the job in the person of our Secretary of State for External Affairs, he snatched victory from defeat. "Out of the eater came something to eat; out of the strong came something sweet". We achieved a victory from the defeat, because the suggestion of our practical peacemaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, was to set up a United Nations emergency force which, in fact, did restore peace in that part of the world, as Sir Anthony Eden himself said only a few days ago. In my opinion what has been done in Suez is only a beginning.
I am glad to say that in recent weeks at the United Nations our Canadian delegation has gone one step farther and has made the practical suggestion that there should be a uniformed United Nations force always ready to go into action at a moment's notice in the hot spots of the world. I submit, Mr. Speaker, it might have made a great difference had we had even a small force built up on a permanent basis, sworn under an oath of loyalty to obey the United Nations and not any one particular nation in the United Nations; highly mobile, with laws of its own, discipline of its own, and a uniform of its own

and how important is a uniform. How important did we find the uniforms of our own mounted police in the old days of the wild western frontier, when even the scarlet coat of one lone constable, or the scarlet coats of a pair of constables, was the moral force which symbolized to turbulent elements the presence of law and order.
I say this, Mr. Speaker, because when you have situations like that and such as those which exist to a certain extent on the world front today, it is not the actual physical strength of the force of policemen on the front line but it is the uniform they wear and what they symbolize in the way of strength which can be drawn in to establish the principle of law.
92	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blackmore
I submit that in recent weeks with regard to the Suez crisis we took an important and significant step-a short step, yes, but a significant one-toward the day when law shall apply among the nations, when "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more".


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I feel a bit diffident after listening to oratory such as we have just heard. With some of what the hon. member said I heartily agree, pertaining to the British commonwealth in particular, but there are some things he said which I would receive with very serious reservations.
However, in beginning my remarks I wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Hanna) and seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I believe I can do that more honestly and sincerely than I have been able to do the similar thing, on any previous occasion. I was happy to hear two young men give good speeches in full sincerity, putting their whole hearts behind everything they said, which is a pretty rare thing to find in speeches moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both hon. gentlemen expressed thoughts which I believe were entirely worthy of expression.
I should congratulate the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), my longtime friend, who has just been elevated, as we all know, to the very difficult position of Leader of the Opposition. I scarcely know exactly how to go about saying what I want to say to him. I congratulate him for the honour that has been conferred on him in that the members of his party have seen fit to entrust their future to his hands, but I can also condole and commiserate with him on the health-breaking and heartbreaking responsibilities he has assumed.
I have been here for 21 years, Mr. Speaker, and during that time I have seen leader after leader after leader of the opposition come and go. Among those who came and went was the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett who, in my opinion, was one of the greatest statesmen Canada has produced but this man was broken by the Conservative party. Now why, I never could make out, unless it was that being accused of being responsible for the depression by misrepresenting Liberals, one of the greatest lies ever perpetrated on the people of Canada in the history of this country, he was defeated in 1935. Well, now, he was the first one, and then we had a group following in quick succession. We had Hon. John Bracken brought in-


An hon. Member:: What about Mr. Manion?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, but I am not going to name them all because the list is too long. However, here was Mr. Bracken who was brought down from Manitoba where he was in a position in which he would have been honoured and doubtless retained for the rest of his life. He was brought to Ottawa and broken here by this great machine called the Conservative party within a very few years. It certainly was not because of a lack of ability. The west has been proud of Mr. Bracken; I am proud of him. Somehow or other he did not fit in with the Conservative party. I do not intend to go down the list in detail.


Mr. Brooks:: You were once leader of the Social Credit party.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, now, if you would just let me deliver this speech I can assure you I will get around to all of you in due time. I think I am quite capable of delivering my own thoughts. If I fail just suggest it to me, please.
All right; I will proceed. The Leader of the Opposition is going to be faced with three or four extremely serious problems. The first one is to be able to say and do something that will be different from what the Liberals are doing and saying.


An hon. Member:: He has been invited to join them.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not hesitate for a moment to say it will be next to impossible even for the legal mind of the present Leader of the Opposition to find one single, solitary fundamental difference in any respect whatsoever between his party and the Liberal party. When the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) talked about an alternative he certainly must have been unrealistic to the highest degree. There is no alternative to the Liberal party in the Conservative party; there is in the Conservative party no alternative to the Liberal party in any way, shape or form. I would invite the hon. member for Vancouver South, when he thinks he has had enough preparation, to get up and establish that there is.
The Leader of the Opposition will have this difficulty, too, the difficulty of finding money with which to fight elections. I have an idea that the Liberals pretty well have a monopoly on the one source in the Dominion of Canada from which a party could likely get plenty of money. The Leader of the Opposition will perhaps be able to get a share of that money, but I am not sure; and that is one of the things which will break him down.

He will have this difficulty, also. When he comes to support the proposals he makes he will have the difficulty which I have heard passed across the house for over 21 years: "Well, where would you get the money to *do the thing you are advocating? Would you favour an increase in taxes? If so, in what tax?" That is all it is necessary to say, and the Leader of the Opposition will be flattened right down flatter than if a steamroller had run over him.
I am mentioning just two or three of the difficulties this good man is going to face. I do not want to forecast that he will be a broken man in ten years, but if the past is any indication of what the future holds that is *exactly what he will be. A man ought to be able to carry on for ten years anyway, I think, without being broken.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: If you will just give me time I will deal with all of you, don't doubt that for a minute.
The leader of the Social Credit party yesterday read item 1 of the Social Credit program. He has done me the honour of asking that I read the second item of that program and this I will now do:
Get into the hands of Canadian consumers enough purchasing power to buy the goods Canadians produce and, at the same time, see that farmers, fishermen and other producers, and those who would be producers, are able to get the credit necessary to produce in greater and greater abundance, more and more kinds of goods.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this constitutes an alternative. If the Conservatives can figure out how to do this they will then have an alternative to the Liberals; but if they cannot figure out how to do it they will have no alternative to the Liberals, not even anything that looks like an alternative.
I now propose to address myself for a minute or two to this particular item of the Social Credit program for the coming years. This item calls for the implementation of the Social Credit financial technique in Canada.
I suppose I will be told that a recent royal commission in New Zealand killed Social Credit. We had an extravagant writer, named Leiterman or something of the sort, who recently scattered this foolishness all over the pages by saying that such a thing had happened. I might suggest to hon. members that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) will probably take that man all to pieces.
Meanwhile may I say that contrary to Mr. Leiterman and all other wishful thinkers, Social Credit is very much alive. The need for Social Credit is very much alive. Social Credit simply must spread in Canada if freedom is to survive. No one can pretend that
The Address-Mr. Blackmore at the present time the Liberal government is leading this country toward freedom. If anyone pretends that, he will pretend anything. It is leading it to slavery just as rapidly as it can, slavery of just exactly the kind they suffer over in Russia. It may be doing it by a back-door method but the ultimate end result will be precisely the same.
I do not know anywhere you can go where you will find more terror than that reigning in the heart of the average Canadian working man who is endeavouring to keep his family together. In a country with $29 billion of production we find that men are afraid of losing their jobs, that they will not have sufficient to cover the rapidly increasing cost of living. The result is that there is unhappiness, misery and anxiety in the heart of every man I have contacted in every walk of life. That is just something terribly serious. It stands as a condemnation of the Liberal government.
Just think of the misery being endured by the old age pensioners in this country. Just think of the misery being endured by those in receipt of pensions for the blind. They are faced with rising prices with no evidence at all that there will be a point at which prices will stop rising, or that there is any idea in the minds of Liberals as to how they are going to stop them from rising. The increase gradually goes on. If that is not enough to strike terror into the heart of any person then I must say that I am completely unrealistic.
I wish to say just a word or two concerning Social Credit. Major C. H. Douglas, a world famous engineer, originated Social Credit as a technique. Many people forget that he was a man famous all over the world as an engineer. An engineer is a realist if any man in any occupation is a realist. Major Douglas worked out his Social Credit proposals with mathematical accuracy and a great appreciation and understanding of facts as they were.
Speaking on April 6, 1934, before the agricultural committee of the Alberta legislature, Major Douglas made a statement which should arrest the mind of every man in Canada just as it arrested the minds of nearly all the Alberta people. He said:
Given the power, either I or dozens of other people could provide you in three months with a scheme which would work perfectly and put Alberta, or Canada, depending on the extent to which it is applied, forever outside the range of poverty.


Mr. Campbell:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Horne Blackmore: If the hon. member could wait I would prefer to have his question at
94	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blackmore the end of my speech. However, if he really wants to ask it now I will agree to his doing so.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Can the hon. member state why Major Douglas refused to come to Alberta to help the first Social Credit government in Canada?


John Horne Blackmore: One of the principal
reasons he did not come to Alberta was that he did not believe in taking social credit into political life. Because Premier Aber-hart did believe in that there was created a certain amount of unhappiness between Major Douglas and Premier Aberhart. I would imagine that is just about the most satisfactory explanation. They were both powerful men, they were both dynamic gentlemen, great in every respect. I knew them both; I think that is the explanation. I think almost any person who has had any experience will realize that.
I should have said that the quotation I have read is from page 97 of the evidence taken before the agricultural committee of the Alberta legislature, published in 1934. On that same page 97 he was asked, "What is Social Credit?" and he said:
Social Credit from the technical point of view is simply the power to monetize real wealth. That is very nearly a complete definition of social financial credit. The power to monetize real wealth is now a monopoly. We want the power to monetize and distribute money to be public property.
It could not be better put although he was speaking extemporaneously at the time. He gave that comprehensive definition of Social Credit. What is the meaning of the expression "monetizing real wealth" as it is used in that quotation? To monetize real wealth means to turn real wealth into money. Ordinarily we think that the only way in which we can turn real wealth such as goods into money is to sell the goods. That is the first thing that orthodox people think about it, but there is another means which Major Douglas had in mind. I should like to give a few examples of this matter of turning real wealth into money.
First there is the ordinary I.O.U. with which every hon. member of the house is familiar. For instance, a man may say, "I.O.U. one ton of coal" or "I.O.U. one hour's work" or "I.O.U. five pounds of sugar." Such an I.O.U. could be passed from one man to another in payment for many things and would probably affect four or five persons before it came back to be honoured by the person who wrote it out. Such an I.O.U. would be a ticket to claim goods or services. Any ticket to claim goods or services is a form of monetizing those goods and services.


It could be passed from one person to another as a medium of exchange, which is the first definition of money.
Then it is a store of value. As long as it stands for five pounds of sugar or one ton of coal it is a store of value. A unit of money such as a one dollar bill is merely a medium of exchange and a ticket to goods. Therefore an I.O.U. made by a man owning a ton of coal or five pounds of sugar is in effect the monetizing of that coal or sugar which he has, and it would be something that could be used as money if people accepted it as such.
Speaking broadly, any person or group of persons who creates or brings into existence any claim to goods or services or any instrument which could be employed as a unit of money is monetizing those goods and services, providing the people concerned are willing to accept that instrument as money. That of course is the all-important point, that the people readily accept it as money.
What are some other examples of units of money in Canadian history created by the monetizing of goods and services? A good many people think Social Credit is something new. It has been in existence almost ever since human beings have been on this earth. May I list a few such examples as they are described in a booklet entitled, "The Story of Canada's Currency", published for the Bank of Canada in 1955. One famous kind of early Canadian currency was Hudson's Bay tokens. From page 8 of the booklet I read:
Hudson's Bay tokens. These Hudson's Bay Company tokens represented the unit of currency used in the fur trade for many decades. The largest, one "made-beaver", was equal in value to the skin of an adult male beaver in prime condition. Smaller sizes represented one-half, one-quarter and one-eighth "made-beaver". Before these brass tokens came into use, a made-beaver was represented by a stick, a porcupine quill, an ivory disc, a musket ball or anything else agreed upon by trader and trapper. The trapper would be handed a number of the units agreed upon representing the value of his catch and with these would make his purchases from the store. The tokens were designed by George Simpson MeTavish of Albany Fort in 1854.
What the Hudson's Bay Company had done there when it made these tokens was to create in effect an I.O.U. which was backed by all the goods the company had in its stores or which the company would have in its stores right up to the time the person who had received the tokens came and recovered the goods. In other words they monetized those goods.
Another famous kind of Canadian currency was playing card money, first issued in 1685

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
by the French colonial authorities. From page 7 of the booklet I read:
Although card money began as a short term financial device it was not long before the cards began to circulate among people as a medium of common exchange and later issues of card money were provided with this specific aim in mind. With the passage of time card money became an important part of the currency of French Canada and remained until the fall of Quebec in 1759.
In this case it is not so easy to see that the money created was a monetization of any particular bit of wealth, as was the case with the Hudson's Bay tokens which monetized all the goods in the Hudson's Bay stores. In the case of the French Canadian card money an attempt was made to monetize all the goods and services being produced in the area which was using the card money, because the card money would be a demand or claim on any goods or services in that area. The claim was made good because people accepted the cards as money.
From 1800 to 1855 they began using another kind of money. May I read from page 14 of this same little pamphlet to which I have already referred:
The demand for currency in these times also stimulated the practice of merchants issuing "bons" good for the face value in merchandise. From 1800 to 1837 a very large part of the small change in circulation consisted of these merchants' tokens.
When the merchant issued one of these tokens he simply monetized the goods which were in his store and would be in his store until such time as the token was brought back to the store to be redeemed in goods. I go on:
Many were copper penny and half penny tokens of good quality imported from Britain but these were gradually replaced by lighter tokens of copper or brass.
Then further down:
In the latter period these sometimes took the form of store cards bearing the merchant's name, address and frequently the type of business.
There you have once more tokens, monetizations of goods, instruments of money, instruments of credit created by people with the goods to sell. In the particular town where I grew up there were two stores when I was a small boy, one called H. S. Allen and Company and the other called the Cardston Co-Operative Mercantile Institution. Each of these issued little tokens which they called scrip. We used scrip. I can remember seeing my mother come in with butter and eggs and various other produce, turn them in to the store, receive scrip for the goods, and go out and buy the things she needed to buy with this scrip. It was good. There was no need of having gold behind it. There was no need of having the Bank of Canada behind
it or the Dominion of Canada behind it. The scrip was accepted almost readily as cash.


Mr. Byrne:: In the next town?


John Horne Blackmore: It depended on whether there was an understanding between that town and the next town, but in that town it was accepted as cash. Presumably if you had scrip issued by the Dominion of Canada it would be accepted in the next town, in the next province and all across the country. What we are endeavouring to do now is to show what we mean by monetizing wealth. I think that makes it clear to anyone.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: No.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, my hon. friend may need a special course. I will give him a few detention classes after school. In two of the illustrations I used, the backing was goods and services. In the case of the playing cards the backing was the total production of the whole area in which the playing cards were being used, just as a dollar bill in Canada today is a ticket to any kind of goods or services you can name from one coast of Canada to the other, and that is all it is. That is all it needs to be. No one ever calls for the dollar of gold behind a Bank of Canada dollar. It would be foolish to do so. Once we know we can buy anything we want to use we are satisfied. We accept the dollar bill, and it is a good dollar bill because it has plenty of goods behind it.
The only thing we have to worry about under these circumstances is that the price remains stable. Everyone in the house knows that the Canadian dollar bill has lost practically one-half of its value in the last ten years and that under the glorious Liberal government with all its splendid capacity to govern the people right and maintain freedom! I would think that ought to sober even the most enthusiastic Liberal. It is important to have the goods to back the money and to keep the price stable. Then the money can be made of paper or, as was the case with the Hudson's Bay Company, even porcupine quills.
I propose to leave other things I could say concerning the Canadian financial system and come down to the finance act. Those who have read the financial history of Canada remember that in 1868 there was passed what was called the Dominion Notes Act. The Dominion Notes Act empowered the government of Canada to create tickets, "made-beavers", if you like, "playing card money", if you like, dollars that would be acceptable from coast to coast in Canada. When we come down to 1914 we find that there was passed, as a measure in connection with the

The Address-Mr. Blackmore war, the finance act of 1914, later re-enacted by the Liberals as the finance act of 1923.
Here are some of the things that were done under the finance act of 1914. They issued $26 million of bills backed by railway securities and spent them into circulation as part of the national revenue. They created $10 million in bills backed by nothing in particular except the credit of Canada, namely the ability of Canada in that case to deliver goods and services. They created $50 million in 1917 and bought horses, harness, grain and other supplies that were needed in conducting the war and sent those goods over to Britain. Britain used them to fight the war. Those $50 million were good money. The farmers who received them had no objection. They were just as good as any other money. They had nothing behind them except that they were a claim on goods in Canada.
What could be done under the finance act of 1914 one would certainly think would be possible to be done in Canada today. If it is not possible today in Canada to do what was done in 1914, then whoever thinks it is not, had better prepare himself to stand before this house and justify his position with great care.
Social Credit need not hesitate for a minute to talk about creating money. It has been done all through Canadian history.
One of the important things concerning this 1914 act and what was done under it was this. Much of the money was spent into circulation. That $50 million, that $26 million and that $10 million could have been used to pay old age pensions. It could have been used in bringing down the price of goods by a discount. It was spent into circulation.
We went on under the finance act reenacted in 1923 by a Liberal government. Just at this point may I recall that it was a Conservative government that enacted the finance act of 1914, and that it was a Liberal government which had seen the act in operation all during world war I, which re-enacted it as the finance act of 1923, notwithstanding the fact that they might have been suspected of having political animosity toward the legislation because they did not introduce it. If that is not clear proof that our forefathers of 1914 and 1923 saw the possibilities of the government creating money and spending it into circulation, backed only by goods and services and the producing capacity of the country, then where would you go to find evidence that would prove anything?
What is the limit of creating and circulating such money? The general limit of it must be the amount of goods there are in the


country. Since money, after all, is a ticket to goods, a claim to goods, it would be dangerous and unsocial to create more money than there were goods. On the other hand, if it is desired to be able to create more money and have it in the country, the first thing we must look after is the production of more goods. If the Minister of Finance at the present time were budgeting on a basis of that sort and were wondering where he was going to get the money to pay twice as big old age pensions, the first thing he would do would be to look into the matter of increasing Canada's production by an amount large enough to justify the creation of the necessary money. Thus he would have in his hands a means whereby he could bring about any kind of condition of prosperity within the country by the simple device of increasing production.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member if it is not a fact that production in Canada has grown in the last few years to such a proportion that we have a problem because of it?


John Horne Blackmore: We have two or three different kinds of problems. Of course if we create things which we are obliged to sell abroad, then there is difficulty there. But why not concentrate on the things that people are going to be using? If we are going to provide double the old age pension, why not produce the food, the clothing, the shelter and the various other kinds of things that old age pensioners need right within the country? And if we happen not to be producing a particular kind of goods now, why not concentrate on beginning to produce it? Thus we would have a realistic approach to this whole matter. I am making a suggestion which I think is perfectly sound. As the hon. member for Peace River so well showed, if it is found that there is a great inventory of many kinds of goods in Canada, why can we not create money, put it into the hands of the old age pensioners, and let them buy some of those goods? There is no answer. There is no answer to the Social Credit position all the way through.
Let us now take the Bank of Canada, which was set up in 1934 under the act passed in that year, and see what has been done under the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada, when it was set up, had the power to create money almost limitlessly. The one thing that stood in the way was that a certain amount of gold was required. But as the result of amendments to the act which were made in 1940, I am told, the Bank of Canada no longer is obliged to have gold as a backing for money. The Bank of Canada can take a $1 million dominion bond, turn it into money

and let the government have that $1 million and spend it as part of the national revenue if there are enough goods to spend it on; and there will be no cost except for the little bit of paper, ink and so on involved. This is extremely important. What Social Crediters say is this. Since we have this Bank of Canada with all the power which the finance act had, in the name of common sense, and in the interests of Canada why not use it not only to lend to people money with which to produce, but let people have it with which to buy up to the point where they buy either what they need, or all there is to buy. That is the Social Credit position. It is simple.
Having indicated what is the centre, the pivot, the heart or the core of the Social Credit idea, namely the creation of money to represent goods, may I now turn to the financial technique of Social Credit? When money is created the first thing that is done with it is to bring down the price of goods to the consumer. If you are worried about the rise in prices, why not use the compensated discount to bring down the price of goods? Why not? The result would be exemplified by this: If it be found that a pair of shoes is being sold at $10 and we want to bring the price down to $9, why not give to the merchant instructions that he may sell that pair of shoes for $9, turn in the bill to the bank and be compensated with $1 and given credit for $10? Then the bank will turn in the bill to the Receiver General of Canada and receive the $1. In this way, by the simple use of this government power to create money, the price of shoes would be brought down 10 per cent.
The same kind of principle could be applied to all the goods in Canada, bringing down the price of those goods. We are not obliged to be absolutely slaves to these conditions which are arising around us and causing so much difficulty. Would that course not be far better sense than to let the Bank of Canada raise the discount rate and force up the interest to people who are producing, thereby forcing up the cost of production and forcing up the cost of goods, and then hypocritically call that inflation?
Now, the hon. member for Peace River reminds me that it would be optional for the merchant to do that sort of thing, but Social Credit is based on the principle of cooperation. Surely people have sense enough to co-operate when they see something is to their advantage. If they do not, let them wait for a while until they have lost their trade through the competition of others who are co-operating.
The third principle of Social Credit is this. If the amount of money which is in circulation in the country as a result of the compensated discount and as a result of the
The Address-Mr. Blackmore money which is lent out for production in the form of farm loans and the like is not enough to enable the people of Canada as a whole to buy the production of Canada up to the desirable point, then issue the people dividends of created money, personal issues of purchasing power, which will enable them to buy up to the point at which consumption in Canada will equate the production in Canada.
The people will naturally ask, has this Social Credit ever been tried? I say, not under that name. For some most interesting reason the people who have money, and certain great forces that are seeking to enslave the world, are fighting Social Credit with a vigour that the fiends from the infernal pit would envy. They have such control over the press and the other means of teaching people that they delude people and keep them from accepting Social Credit and entering into a state of prosperity and security which is right here if we only had the wisdom to adopt the measures to make it available to the people of Canada.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: What would all this do to
the value of our money in world markets?


John Horne Blackmore: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but 1 must inform him that his time has expired.


Mr. F. A. Enfield (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am a little diffident about following the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) with their obvious rhetorical abilities. I always do find myself a little nonplussed after listening to the hon. member for Lethbridge. I thought I might apply to join that course along with the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) and learn something.


John Horne Blackmore: You would be very welcome and it would be highly profitable.


Frank A. Enfield: That may be, because if what the hon. member for Lethbridge says is true of the party in official opposition it does not look as though it is going to be much of a moving force in the future in Canadian politics. The hon. member's charge that there is no difference between the Liberal party and the Progressive Conservative party can be quickly cleared by an alliance between his group and the other groups.


John Horne Blackmore: That would be impossible, unless the Conservatives could come and join us.


Frank A. Enfield: At least then we might see some sharp differences in policies and platforms.
However, it is a privilege, Mr. Speaker, to have this opportunity to speak in the debate on the reply to the speech from the throne, it is a privilege and a duty, a duty I think to say something of what the people are feeling and thinking in one's own particular constituency and area, to do your best to try to put across what they feel to be the important political and governmental considerations. I think this debate, more than any other, gives us an opportunity to do just that. Before I commence on that I want to take the opportunity of sincerely congratulating the


mover (Mr. Hanna) and seconder (Mr. Robi-chaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They come from widely separated parts of the country and exhibited a sense of urgency in their well-prepared addresses in regard to the problems with which they are faced. They showed also a degree of aggressiveness and optimism, particularly in the case of the hon. member for Gloucester, that was very refreshing in this house. Altogether they embodied a spirit of cohesion and unity that I hope will always remain the same in so far as our great party is concerned.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, traditionally one should say something about one's own constituency. I want to do this in relation to two matters in particular, because I cannot cover the whole gamut of the measures that are proposed in the throne speech. First of all I want to discuss Canadian foreign policy, because I think that now the Middle East situation has more or less found a temporary calmness, it is a good time to bring to bear the thoughts one has in that regard. Second, I want to talk about something that is entirely unrelated, and that is the question of taxation for education on the municipal level. I chose these two subjects because I think it is about those two matters that people are feeling most strongly in the metropolitan area with which I am acquainted.
First of all I just want to take a moment to acquaint you with two or three physical facts about the constituency I represent. Hon. members will be glad to know that the Scarborough bluffs are still standing. I received a copy of the preliminary population totals for the Dominion of Canada showing changes in population in the municipalities in Canada that are most interesting.
I noted that in the municipality of Scarborough we had an increase from 56,000 to 139,000 in the years 1951 to 1956. That is an increase of 83,000 people. In the municipality of North York, a great part of which is included in the constituency of York-Scarborough, we had an increase in population in those years from 85,000 to 168,000, again, oddly enough, an increase of 83,000 people. That gives the house an idea of the tremendous growth that is taking place in the population. If you look through the list of municipalities across the country, with the exception of the township of Etobicoke in the metropolitan area of Toronto I do not think you will find any place with anywhere near a similar increase in population. Hon. members can understand the problems that arise when such a condition occurs, and not necessarily just political problems, in trying to meet and know the 83,000 new people.

We are very prolific in this area, but I imagine that apart from the natural growth a great number of the people moved into the area from outside. The problems arising from this growth are very difficult to handle. From the federal point of view we have the usual one of postal service. It has taken a great deal of one's time to cope with the situation in so far as the delivery of mail is concerned, which is a most important function of the federal government. We have had an increase of 30,000 in actual points of call on door to door delivery in my constituency alone. We have just finished constructing a new post office in Scarborough, and no sooner had we opened it than it was filled to capacity. It will shortly require an extension, making it twice the size it is now. I have urged the Post Office Department to undertake a survey in another great part of the constituency which is growing rapidly. This survey is to commence very shortly. I would encourage the Post Office Department to develop a sense of urgency about the need for this postal service.
It is not always easy for the civil service here in Ottawa to visualize the extent of this growth that is taking place. It is not easy for people who have a particular job to do, and who are busy doing that particular job, to make themselves go out and initiate proceedings and surveys that in the final analysis are going to mean more work and more problems for themselves. I do find that the post office department in Toronto need a great deal of encouragement to initiate activity that will provide the increase in services that we so greatly need.
Problems of transportation also arise. We have, I think, about 56 level crossings in the township of Scarborough alone, at one of which there was a recent fatality. We know that it is well nigh impossible to get the money to provide underpasses and do away with level crossings. I think the report we received last year stated that it would cost $600 million merely to convert 10 per cent of the existing grade crossings. Obviously this points to a need for more thinking on the part of those responsible for proper protection devices at the existing grade crossings. We have also been urging that this be done.
On the economic side, employment is satisfactory in my constituency. There have been some soft spots in certain businesses such as the building trades. I do not want to deal at length with the situation in house construction at this time, though I would like to speak on it later in the session, but it is a fact that the so-called tight money policy of the government has created quite a change 82715-74
The Address-Mr. Enfield in the building industry in those fast-growing areas. You have all read recently of the demise, or should I say bankruptcy, of the largest real estate trading firm in the dominion. I think that was a situation where,, because of over extension of credit facilities, or over extension of the use of credit, the firm found itself in close juxtaposition with this tight money policy and could not obtain that credit. This will result in the slowing down of the development of great areas of land where normally a great deal of house building would take place.
I am not saying that this is right or wrongv I am saying, however, that monetary policy, and the method we are using in dealing with it, represents a fairly new science, and t would urge the government to keep a careful eye on its means of measuring the impact of the policy it has instituted so it can decide just when to draw the line and encourage the opposite effect to take place. I think that is the theory, to use what monetary means you have at your disposal to try to iron out the peaks and valleys; but the problem is, when do you make your move? I have great confidence that the government will not let the tight money policy go so far as to cause a decrease particularly in house building, which I think is the basis of our economy, to the point where it is going to create a hardship on anyone.
I have digressed a little from my original plan, and I want to go back and talk briefly on the question of Canada's foreign policy, with particular reference to the Middle East situation. In this debate on the speech from the throne many members have mentioned this subject. In the past three years that has not always been done. In fact in the past I have never felt competent to discuss it at all.
I think we all suffer in various degrees from a lack of personal knowledge of and personal experience with the facts that govern foreign policy, which prevents us from feeling overly confident to discuss the subject; therefore I wish to state my view very briefly.
It is this. In this last crisis there was a great divergence of opinion among the people in my constituency as to the action taken by the United Kingdom. There was a sharp cleavage, in fact. The interesting thing about it was that people were either all for the move on the one hand or all against it on the other, with very few taking a sort of neutral watching ground in between. This resulted in widespread confusion on the subject and the result of the action that was taken in the Middle East. It was followed by a depressed attitude owing to the cleavage between the emotions perhaps, on the one hand, where the feeling



The Address-Mr. Enfield was to back the move, and on the other the reasoning which suggested that we had suffered an obvious loss of prestige and power in the Middle East that resulted from the sequence of events.
It was from this position that the people looked to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs for their leadership in this crisis. 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, and is unanimous in the feeling that as a result Canada has gained in stature in world leadership. But to be fair we must emphasize that people were shocked and indeed appalled at the rapid transposition that took place from a solid group forming the western alliance to a position in the United Nations wherein overnight great stresses and strains developed and we found the United States taking a stand directly opposite to the stand taken by Great Britain. I think it showed to many people that the United Nations has a long way to go. I believe it revealed great weaknesses in the United Nation's organization, and I am convinced that people still have a feeling of insecurity and uncertainty as a nesult. We in Canada have given our support unstintingly to the United Nations. In some respects we have had the ground knocked out from under our feet by the events that have taken place; and we must not forget this, because it means we have to urge our leaders in the United Nations, our Canadian representatives, to do everything possible to strengthen this organization, to suggest policies and forms of activity that will make it a stronger working group so that with a feeling of security and conviction we can back a group which we know is going to be an effective international body.
After all, the whole principle on which our foreign policy is based is one of containment of the Russian power and its satellites, a policy of containment based on the philosophy that things do not always remain the same, that with the passage of time there will be a softening of the attitude of those we call the enemy and a modus operandi arrived at whereby the two groups, or perhaps three groups in our world, will find themselves able to work completely together and there will be lasting peace. That type of philosophy depends entirely on building up a solid western alliance and a true United Nations group.
We would like, then, in our constituency the following questions to be answered in regard to foreign policy. To what extent can Canada make its own independent influence

felt in the United Nations? Must the question always be "As the United States goes so goes the United Nations"? What is the meaning of the unilateral action taken by the United States in recent days in the Middle East? What is happening to NATO? Will the combination of the current economic crisis in Britain and the reduction of French and British forces in Europe drastically alter the course of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? These are questions that I myself, and I think my constituents, would like to see answered, and if there are no positive answers we would like to see these questions thoroughly explored.
I would like now, Mr. Speaker, to turn to the other portion of my submission in this debate, which is entirely unrelated to what has gone before. As I said previously, this portion of my address concerns the field of taxation with regard to education in the metropolitan area. There was reference in the throne speech to an increase in grants for certain types of education, and this is something I believe everyone was pleased to see. From time to time there is a wide and insistent expression of opinion from provincial and municipal authorities that the federal government should do something in order to aid education. I find these expressions of opinion are not always accompanied by information that would make it possible to give every consideration to the request.
For example, I received a letter some time ago from the board of control of the city of Toronto requesting that the city be given greater aid through the taxation of federally-owned properties in the city. There was nothing in that letter to indicate what the impact would be of such aid, what it would mean in terms of increasing tax revenues. I found on reading the Globe and Mail yesterday morning that the city may gain about $800,000 under this measure that is mentioned in the throne speech.
I think the fundamental question here is this. If these bodies are going to ask for further financial aid from the federal government in a field that is historically and legally that of the province and municipality, then we are put in a position where we have to examine the entire financial structure of the province and municipality themselves. We cannot simply say, "Well, fine, you need aid, and we will give you aid". We have a responsibility for these trust moneys that we call taxes to the people from whom we collect them. We have only a certain legal basis on which we can expend them; therefore we must look into the method the provinces employ in collecting and expending taxes, or receive full information from the provinces

as to just why they find themselves unable to carry out what has always been their job, a job of which they are very jealous in many parts of the country.
Despite this, when it is said, "Why do we not do something to aid education," the fact that we are aiding education considerably seems to be completely ignored. In the 1955-56 session of parliament I put a question on the order paper. I want to read it now because I received an extremely full answer, and I think it is very revealing. The question appears at page 3728 of Hansard for May 9, 1956, and reads as follows:
During the fiscal year 1955-56, what sums of money by way of outright grants, bursaries, scholarships and loans were expended by the federal government directly in aid of education in Canada, including grants for assistance to Indians and Eskimos; (a) by each department of government in each province, for aid to university students, and including professional training; (b) by each department of government in each province for education cn the secondary and elementary school levels?
I tried to cover all aspects of education in the question because on going through the estimates I found that grants, scholarships, bursaries and loans were scattered all the way through the different departments of government for various courses and aspects of education. I cannot possibly put on the record all the details of the information that is contained in the answer. The total aid to education provided by the government in the year 1955-56 amounted to over $28 million. I should like to place on record what has been spent in the various provinces, because it may be of some value to hon. members. The expenditures to the nearest thousand dollars were as follows:
British Columbia	 $2,989,000
Alberta	 2,261,000
Saskatchewan	 1,862,000
Manitoba	 1,437,000
Ontario	 7,228,000
Quebec	 2,952,000
New Brunswick	 739,000
Nova Scotia	 1,007,000
Prince Edward Island	 123,000
Newfoundland	 422,000
Yukon	 76,000
Northwest Territories	 1,025,000
It will be seen that we are expending considerable amounts in our efforts to aid education. It is not true to say that we are doing nothing in this field. These expenditures are spread out through the departments because these totals are made up of a tremendous number of small detailed propositions for education. I would suggest it might be a good idea to channel them through a single minister of the crown. I am not suggesting that one minister should have the responsibility of initiating all such measures; I am not suggesting that one minister should be responsible for dealing with all such measures,
The Address-Mr. Enfield but I do suggest that there be one gathering point where the public and hon. members could look at a list and see just what is being done, what is being spent and where it is being spent.
I do not think this list shows much of a trend in so far as the division or separating of this money is concerned. There is one grant to universities made by the Department of Finance which amounts to some $8 million, and which now presumably will amount to something like $16 million. This is based on a formula so far as the division of the money is concerned, but that is not so with the rest of these expenditures. I make this suggestion because the public in inquiring of the federal government as to what is available for education must find it most difficult to ascertain just what is taking place.
Coming back to the province, if I may take just one or two more minutes on this subject, it has been suggested that there should be further aid for education. At one time the province of Ontario agreed to pay to the municipalities 50 per cent of the cost of education. I have obtained some figures of the actual grants, and I find that in 1945 the province to the municipalities paid some 54 per cent of those costs for education. I find also that in 1954-55 the grants for education by the province of Ontario came to some 34 per cent of the moneys spent by municipalities for that purpose.
This is quite a drastic change. What is the reason? We do not know. We are being asked to provide more money for education without any explanation of why this proposed division of the cost of education as between the province and the municipalities has broken down. Is it that educational costs have risen too steeply? Is it that the revenues of the province have not been so controlled as to increase in the manner in which they should? Is the province not sufficiently taxing certain industries-the mines, perhaps, and the lumbering and forest industry? Are the revenues not sufficiently stable and equitable from all sources in the province? We do not know the answers to those questions, and we cannot exercise proper and good judgment in regard to these constant requests for educational aid unless they are answered properly by the provinces and the municipalities.
These are my submissions in the throne speech debate. I venture to suggest that when the vote is taken in the next few days the government will receive a resounding vote of confidence in regard to its activities.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

The Address-Mr. Nickle AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary Souih):: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I extend the usual congratulations to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Next, I should like to extend my warm personal congratulations to the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) on his election to the high office of leader of the party of which I am a member. The hon. member for Prince Albert follows a long line of illustrious leaders of the Conservative party in Canada, and I know will be making a notably great contribution as leader of the Conservative party and as a prime minister of Canada in the years ahead.
At the same time, sir, may I express my deep personal regrets at the enforced retirement of Hon. George Drew as leader of my party due to ill health. Mr. Drew made a notable contribution to our country, to the party which he led and to parliament itself during his many years in office.
My main purpose tonight is to review the recent past and the near-term future of the great new Canadian industry which makes its headquarters in Calgary. I refer, of course, to western Canada's oil and gas industry, which has made Calgary one of the two fastest growing cities in Canada and earned for my home city the title of Canada's oil capital.
Before doing that I have a few comments to make concerning the C.P.R. strike, which is having a serious effect upon every phase of Canada's economy. In the west grain shipments have slowed down, aggravating the problems of our great agricultural industry which provides the broad base of the western economy. In a number of manufacturing industries in Alberta and elsewhere in the west cut-backs in production and in employment are already in effect because of the C.P.R. strike, and the situation will become far more serious over the next few days unless the strike is settled among industries dependent upon the C.P.R. for the transport of raw materials and finished products.
On strike are some 3,000 members of the firemen's union over the issue of whether or not firemen should be retained on diesel-powered freight and yard engines. The issue might also be summed up in this way. Should the railways and their workers keep pace with other industries and their workers in the trend toward automation and greater efficiency, consistent with adequate safety measures, in a world and especially in a country like Canada where competition in


trade and in transport is tight and where manpower to build the future is in short supply?
Only 3,000 are on strike, but over 70,000 C.P.R. employees are off the payroll as a result of the complete shut-down the strike involves. Rapidly increasing thousands of non-railwaymen are losing jobs in other industries because of the strike. The cost to Canada's economy and to every citizen of our country grows heavier every hour.
This government has shown little willingness so far to face up to the real issue involved, to put the interests of all of Canada ahead of any other consideration and get the C.P.R. back in operation by application of firm and courageous government policy. The government seems to be relying upon public opinion to push it into action and to determine the specific kind of action that should be taken.
Back in 1950 the Conservative group in the house proposed the improvement and modernization of the machinery for the conciliation of industrial disputes. The government voted down the proposal. Since then neither labour nor management has known with any certainty the government's labour dispute policies. Certainly there has been no government policy in so far as the effective handling of problems arising from automation and changing industrial trends are concerned. Issues such as wages or working conditions between labour and management can ordinarily be resolved by normal conciliation or bargaining practices. But can the same be said for issues such as automation, technological changes, related safety measures and so forth? Why has not this government, knowing full well that considerations other than wages and other normal matters of difference existed so far as the C.P.R. and the firemen's union were concerned, taken adequate steps in advance of this tragic strike to create machinery for the proper resolving by an authority independent of the two sides to the dispute of the matters at issue?
Certainly the basic point of dispute between the firemen's union and the railway is one that cannot possibly be solved by a strike, for a strike, regardless of which side wins out, does not and cannot resolve in equity and fairness the merits and demerits of automation or safety measures which are at issue. Regardless of where our individual sympathies may lie as between the railway and union positions, the majority of Canadians at least recognize that the issue is a somewhat technical one calling for the application of careful study on an unbiased basis by a qualified commission. Both sides

to the dispute in fact agree to that extent. So also to that extent does the government now seem to agree in its position as representative of the most vitally interested party of all, the general public of Canada.
Speaking as an individual member of parliament and in no other capacity, I say to both the union and the C.P.R. management: If you believe your case is right, if you believe it can stand up under the harsh light of critical examination by a competent, unbiased public board, then back your faith now by voluntarily agreeing to present all the facts and arguments to that unbiased board and to abide by the decision of that board. I refer to the technical issue of the need or lack of it for firemen on diesel engines for efficient operation, and the related technical issue of adequate safety measures for rail-waymen, property and the public. In the meantime, restore the status quo and get the railway back in operation.
To the government I say this: Show more courage and leadership than you have to date to get Canada back on the rails. Quit waiting for public opinion to force you into decisive action on this particular problem and the far broader question of modernized government machinery to assist in the fair and equitable resolving of technological problems such as those now facing Canada, plus much better machinery for the resolving without compulsion of the more normal differences on wages and other matters which arise from time to time between labour and management.
The Conservative party back in 1950 and at various times since has given the government a sound basis for a better labour dispute policy. I urge the government to end its dilly-dallying by concrete action now. Or are we on this side of the house and the Canadian public generally to assume that the government has not solved the railway problem but has quietly helped to relieve Canada's shortage of steel for industry by giving away that steel that should have been retained in the collective government backbone?
Departing from the railroad strike, I should like to make a few comments on the western Canadian oil and gas industry, give a brief review of the past and take a look at the present and the near-term future for what has become Canada's No. 1 mineral-producing industry and western Canada's No. 2 industry, second, of course, to agriculture in terms of revenue and employment.
First let me deal with revenue. In 1956 this industry in western Canada poured out a record $404 million worth of crude oil and other liquid petroleum products, an average of about $1,122,000 a day. In the current
The Address-Mr. Nickle year, 1957, production revenues should climb to substantially over half a billion dollars. The rate of growth is all the more remarkable when we consider that in 1947, a decade ago, when the Leduc discovery set off the boom, production amounted to only $18 million yearly. By 1955 it had climbed to $307 million for that year, and rose by a third again in 1956.
Offsetting the revenue is investment. Into the western Canadian economy in 1956 the host of members-hundreds of them-of the oil and gas industry pumped an investment of around $700 million for exploration, development, land, pipe lines and refineries, an amount far in excess of the former record of just over a half a billion dollars set in 1955. A decade ago the investment rate was only $12 million yearly. In 1957 over-all investment should come close to the 1956 record, with gas and oil pipe-line construction helping to offset some curtailment in exploration and development spendings.
Along with revenue and investment, of course, has come production. In terms of oil production, the normal rate of growth has been accelerated in recent months by the Middle East crisis which has forced a reshuffling of world oil supply lines to offset the closing of the Suez canal in Egypt, the closing of three of the four oil pipe lines crossing Syria to the Mediterranean, and Saudi Arabia's embargo on its oil deliveries to British and French markets. Canada's role in this crisis, so far as oil is concerned, has been and is delivery of its oil to various North American and Asian markets in order to free Venezuelan and United States gulf coast oil for delivery to hard-pressed Europe.
Largely because of offshore shipments from Vancouver to California and Japan, and increased deliveries to the United States midwest, western Canada's oil production climbed to an average of 509,000 barrels daily during the final quarter of 1956, which was about
52.000	barrels a day more than during the first nine months of the year. The net result of this was a 1956 daily average production of
470.000	barrels, which was about 110,000 barrels a day more than that of 1955.
During the first quarter of 1957 production is expected to advance a further 58,000 barrels a day over the late 1956 rate to around
567.000	barrels daily, and to hold around this level until the final quarter of the year, when additions to pipe lines and refinery facilities will permit a step-up to somewhere between
623.000	barrels and 658,000 barrels per day.
The actual volume late this year will depend a good deal on the speed with which world oil supply lines and ocean transport costs are restored to normalcy. Normalcy,

The Address-Mr. Nickle however, will not involve loss by Canada of the production gains it is registering during the present emergency; for the growing hunger in North America, and the probable adoption by the United States of a continental oil policy, will leave Canadian oil relatively free to expand its markets in both Canadian and American areas within economic reach. A continental policy for oil and gas, which I have long advocated in this house, has been winning support in such vital bodies as the United States office of defence mobilization as a result of the impact of the Middle East oil crisis.
A measure of the importance of western Canadian oil to the nation and to the free world is given by the fact that in early 1957, just one decade since Leduc's discovery, production will be running at a rate 30 times greater than that of 10 years ago, and during this year daily yield will increase by a further amount three to five times greater than our west's entire production of pre-Leduc days.
Mr. Speaker, production also involves a matter of price. Along with the oil supply crisis, particularly in Europe, the Middle East situation has brought some fantastic boosts in oil transport costs by tanker, throwing the normal competitive factors of world oil pricing out of kilter. Markets for western hemisphere oil have been tightening as the result of big boosts in production to help supply Europe. These factors have directly brought on in recent weeks increases in wellhead prices for oil in Venezuela, California and the United States midwest, and in the past week have brought on a general increase averaging 35 cents per barrel in Texas, Louisiana and the other major United States producing states. These increases are somewhat less than might have applied if the full rise in ocean transport costs were taken into account.
This general rise in United States oil prices in the past few days will likely bring on an increase in western Canadian oil prices in the immediate future, probably somewhere in the range between 20 cents and 30 cents per barrel. The Canadian oil price structure is tied competitively to that of the United States, whose oil is the alternative supply for the major markets in North America where our oil competes. The United States held oil prices in major areas constant for the last three years until last week, despite rising costs of industry operation, wages, steel and so forth, while Canadian producers had gradually to reduce their wellhead prices in order to expand their marketing area. Now the move will be in the opposite direction. Incidentally, western Canadian oil prices will continue to be around 10 per cent to 12 per cent lower than wellhead prices in the major

United States producing areas. The higher crude oil costs will likely mean about one cent per gallon increase in gasoline and other petroleum products costs in the United States and Canada. These boosts started in the United States last week, and likely will start in Canada very shortly.
An extremely important point about the growth of this industry has been the growth of oil exports. Exports of our western Canadian oil to foreign markets, mainly in contiguous areas of the United States, more than doubled in 1956 to an average of over 112,500 barrels daily, compared to only 51,000 barrels daily in 1955 and only 8,000 barrels daily in 1954, when exports commenced. United States dollar payments for the 1956 exports are estimated at nearly $120 million for the 40 million barrels moved beyond Canada's borders, thus putting oil into the top half dozen of foreign exchange earners for Canada.
During 1957 Canada's oil exports are expected nearly to double again, and should average at least 198,000 barrels daily for this year, but may run as high as 213,000 barrels. During the early part of this year exports should average 185,000 barrels daily, and will climb as more transport and processing facilities become available, perhaps reaching as high as a quarter of a million barrels later this year.
The greater volume of export, plus some rise in price levels, may make our western oil in 1957 a quarter billion dollar foreign exchange earner. Fully a third of Canada's 1957 production will find its way to foreign markets, with as much as 10,000 barrels daily on an average going to Japan, and the balance to the United States Pacific coast and midwest areas. Canada's rapidly rising foreign exchange return from oil exports, and the continuing heavy inflow of foreign capital for natural resource development, are vital factors in preventing a grave worsening of Canada's imbalance between exports and imports.
During recent months the Middle East crisis eliminated the cushion in pipe-line transport capacity east and west from our oil territory, as demand for oil brought capacity into full use. The crisis also speeded up plans for expansion of transport systems, particularly by the Trans Mountain pipe line across the Rockies. A looping program will start this year that could, within two to three years, bring a complete second parallel oil line to the Pacific. The Interprovincial pipe line running east from Alberta will be extended this summer from Sarnia into Toronto, tying in with refinery expansion at Toronto to permit Canadian oil to displace foreign oil

in a larger share of the eastern Ontario market. Interprovincial will also complete its looping program across the prairies this year, to enable winter deliveries by the year end to both eastern Canada and the United States midwest.
In 1957-58 there will be greater expansion of certain Canadian refineries using western Canadian oil, further contributing to the growth of this vital Canadian industry. But the biggest single market boost over the next three years is going to be the United States Pacific northwest. Here construction will start this year of at least two major refineries with a capacity totalling over 100,000 barrels daily and one or two more will likely start construction soon after.
Of course we cannot consider oil without touching also on natural gas. The first major export of western Canadian natural gas, Mr. Speaker, to both Canadian and United States markets will actually commence in the second half of this year. Thus will come the start of the realization of dreams and plans in existence for nearly nine years, since the first gas pipe line was proposed and started running into political and economic roadblocks. The flow of gas from the Peace river region of Alberta and British Columbia will start this summer through the first completed major gas line, Westcoast Transmission Company's 650-mile line across the Rockies to Vancouver and the United States border, where it will connect with the recently completed Pacific Northwest pipe-line system. Gas from southern Alberta will start its movement eastward this year through the prairie sections of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines system, and during 1958-59 will probably reach into eastern Canada and the midwest United States in large volume.
Westcoast licked its major problems in 1956. It completed adequate gas sales contracts in British Columbia and the United States, successfully completed its financing and started construction. The line is now 70 per cent completed, and construction will be completed this spring and summer, with operation to start by late summer. In the meantime, through the Pacific Northwest pipe line United States gas is now reaching Vancouver. This flow will be reversed when Westcoast completes its Peace river line.
Within the next three weeks Trans-Canada Pipe Lines will launch the public financing of its 2,250-mile system, with reasonable assurance that the financing will be successful. One of the company's toughest economic problems, the politically-dictated all-Canadian route through 1,000 miles of limited-market Northern Ontario, was offset last spring by the Ontario-federal government 82715-8
The Address-Mr. Nickle plan covering that section of the system to ease the financial strain during the early tough years of market build-up. The other problem, access to United States midwest markets to provide revenue to help carry the Canadian system at lowest possible gas costs to Canadian consumers, is still being battled out before the United States federal power commission, but it is now fairly evident that mutual Canadian-United States economic and defence interests ensure that access will be obtained in the relatively near future, either in the form presently proposed or in some modification of it.
During 1956, with the help of short-term advances from the Canadian government, Trans-Canada started construction of its system across Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but the United States steel strike held back pipe deliveries and prevented completion to Winnipeg before the onset of winter halted construction. By then 227 miles of pipe line had been completed. Construction will resume this spring as soon as weather permits, and gas should be as far as Winnipeg late this summer. In the meantime, Trans-Canada has successfully completed arrangements for the sale of its senior bonds to United States and Canadian insurance companies, subject to certain revisions in its gas purchase contract demanded by a key insurance firm. By this week contracts for over 80 per cent of the gas had been renegotiated in line with these requirements, and the balance will probably be completed shortly.
The new terms involved no change in prices to be paid for gas, but do involve changes in volumes committed for by Trans-Canada on a take or pay basis. They involve an additional hardship for gas producers on top of that imposed by the fairly low start in prices dictated by the all-Canadian route, but are accepted by producers as part of the price they must pay to help free Canadian gas from its shackles and thus speed the building of a great new phase of the Canadian oil and gas industry. To the extent that they are ready and willing to do so, Canadians across the nation will have their biggest single opportunity to date to invest in a major gas or oil transport system when Trans-Canada's public offer is made within the next three weeks. The offering will total $120 million, including $40 million in common stock and $80 million in junior bonds set up in a stock-bond package.
Canadians can, if they desire, buy a substantial majority of the total equity stock to be issued by Trans-Canada on terms comparable to those under which capital has been subscribed by the several major and independent oil and gas firms who are

The Address-Mr. Nickle Trans-Canada's present shareholders. The same opportunity will be extended soon after, primarily to Alberta citizens, in the financing of the Alberta gas trunk pipe line which will gather gas in Alberta for delivery to Trans-Canada at the Saskatchewan border.
Neither of these, sir, are get rich quick schemes, but they do appear to have a fairly solid long-term future. They represent not only a good, long-term opportunity to share Canada's future, but also a definite challenge to those Canadians critical of a heavy foreign capital flavour in Canadian resource development, and those who have decried what they term a shortage of opportunities for Canadians to invest in and control major resource projects. The coming two projects alone will give Canadians in 1957 more than $160 million worth of such opportunity. I trust they will avail themselves of it and hold their investment, rather than let the securities drift away to foreign investors who have faith in Canada's future.
Part and parcel of large-scale gas exports, Mr. Speaker-and just as important from western Canada's point of view-is the building and operation of gas processing plants, sulphur recovery plants and related chemical plants in the gas-source fields in nearby communities. In anticipation of West-coast's pipe line, Canadians and Americans joined in 1956 to start construction in the Peace river area of British Columbia of a $30 million gas, sulphur and refinery project. This, the first large industrial operation of its kind in British Columbia, is slated to go into production this summer.
In anticipation of Trans-Canada's pipe line, and to open a source of sulphur supply to the big new nitro-chemical plant built by Canadian and United States interests at Medicine Hat in 1956, the owners of the Pincher Creek gas field completed recently the first phases in southwest Alberta of what will become in years ahead Canada's largest gas processing and sulphur project. As dry gas needs of Trans-Canada and Westcoast expand into more of the currently shut-in gas fields of the west, there will be a host of new plants for the extraction of natural gasoline, propane, butane and sulphur from the fields to be put to use. During this year it is probable that several more such projects will be announced, particularly in south and central Alberta.
I should like now to briefly refer to exploration and development in the west. In 1956, for the first time in history, more than 3,000 wells were completed in western Canada. Some 3,287 wells gave their answer, 400 more than in 1955, and 1,000 more than


in 1954. Of these 2,360 completions were for oil wells, 190 were gas wells and there were 737 which were dry holes or failures which are inevitable in exploration.
This year will be another big year so far as exploration and development are concerned, but a number of factors indicate that it will fall short of 1956 in terms of new capital invested in those phases of industry spendings and in terms of well completions. These factors include first of all the present tight money situation and higher interest rates which hit particularly, so far as oil is concerned, at capital-seeking independents, though of course not even major firms are immune. Second, our Canadian taxation laws, which are less favourable than United States laws in respect to depletion and certain other write-offs, tend to mitigate against Canadian companies in resource development here, and will tend also in the near future to divert United States capital and also Canadian capital to United States development rather than into Canadian projects. I trust that the recommendations made today in the Gordon report, if carried out fast enough, will have a favourable result in offsetting the present outlook so far as tax laws affecting development of our resources are concerned.
A third factor in this year's development is something of fairly recent origin, namely rulings by Canadian tax collectors reclassifying some forms of presumed tax-free capital gains as capital income in the hands of a number of oil men and investors. This has definitely discouraged a number of affected operators who have long been prominent in Canadian oil and gas development. For the benefit of my C.C.F. friends, may I say I am not one of those affected.
The fourth point is the recent sharp curtailment in Middle East oil income going to international oil companies, which is now having some effect on their 1957 budget planning for their Canadian as well as other areas of development.
The fifth point is the fact that there is some diversion of funds from exploration and development because of the high capital requirements for refinery and transport system.
The final point affecting capital for development has been the generally unfavourable levels in 1956 of United States-Canadian oil and gas prices which, incidentally, are lower in Canada than in the United States. Those did not advance during the year to offset rises in wages, steel and other material costs. It is now expected, however, that the price situation will generally improve this year,

as it started to do in the United States last week and will likely start to do in Canada in the immediate future.
In the two or three minutes remaining to me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment briefly, since I have dealt with Western Canada as a whole, on the major areas of promise in the west. Alberta, of course, has been and still is Canada's top oil and gas province. By the end of 1956 Alberta boosted its oil production to around 426,000 barrels a day, and will climb from around 450,000 barrels a day, today, to probably over half a million barrels a day by the end of the year.
In 1956 Saskatchewan clinched its position as the second most important oil-producing province in Canada. Saskatchewan had a long string of oil discoveries in the southeastern section of the province, and they have already established over a hundred million barrels of reserves. The new southeast Saskatchewan area has combined with the older southwest area to bring about a skyrocketing of Saskatchewan oil production. That production almost doubled last year to an average of over 53,000 barrels a day. They started off in 1957 with over 75,000 barrels a day, and within the next three or four months Saskatchewan will be producing in excess of 100,000 barrels a day.
Manitoba, the third ranking province, showed some increase during the year. Its production built up during the year from
11,000	to about 17,000 barrels a day. There has been no notable discovery during the year, but prospects are quite bright.
British Columbia during 1956 produced its first oil, and by the end of the year passed its first milestone of 1,000 barrels a day. During the current year British Columbia will greatly increase its importance as an oil-producing area and will also, of course, begin to come into its own as a major supplier of natural gas and by-products.
The Northwest Territories, which possesses Canada's most northerly oil field, Norman Wells, continued during last year to meet the needs of the mining and transport operations in the Northwest Territories, namely around 1,100 barrels a day. There are at the present time several million acres of territory containing mineral rights currently held by large oil and mineral companies in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, and during the year and in the years ahead a great deal of money will be expended by industry, not only to untap but to unlock some of these large resources of oil, gas and other minerals which most competent observers now believe to exist in the northern reaches of our country.
82715-8j
The Address-Mr. Laflamme
My time has expired, Mr. Speaker, and I shall take my seat.


Mr. Mclvor:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for the outstanding information he has given to us.	i _
(Translation):


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks, I would not want to miss the opportunity to congratulate sincerely the mover (Mr. Hanna) and seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, because they have both shown themselves worthy of their constituents and I have no doubt that they will soon be given unmistakable evidence of appreciation.
I intend to deal with certain problems of special concern to my constituency, one of which is mentioned in the speech from the throne, that is "greater encouragement to the farmers", and to make a few suggestions concerning the application of the unemployment insurance act.
Representing a constituency that is exclusively agricultural, I consider that the interest shown by the present government in these numerous problems facing our farmers must be implemented by measures whose application will soon have salutary effects; otherwise, within ten years we shall witness a substantial reduction of the present number of: operating farms.
The farmer's income must remain at least equal to the average of that of other trades, and agriculture must offer advantages at least equal to those enjoyed by Canadian workers, generally.
Our farmers hold with reason that too often their products merely cover their expenses. The uncertainty of obtaining adequate prices ior their products has the effect of discouraging private initiative.
On many farms, the farmers have been making a living out of lumbering as well as from the sale of the usual farm products. On many farms the timber stands are depleted, and the farmer loses half of his income sources. If the farmer is not helped and guided in his production, he will tend to seek another way of life. His status as owner will be changed to that of an employee offering his services to industry. There follow from this a number of serious consequences for the survival of the agricultural class in this country; unemployment, removal to cities and the loss of an important part of our national heritage, a part which is as essential to the progress of this country as every great phase of our industrial development.

The Address-Mr. Laflamme
Among the necessary remedies besides reforestation we must include planned production and the assurance given these fellow citizens of ours that their labours will be recompensed by stable markets and a remuneration sufficiently large to allow them to earn their living in as much comfort at least as other classes of Canadian workers.
I would also like to bring to the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Harris) attention and to the attention too of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) a request already made by the Catholic Farmers' Union, and which I consider highly justified. They ask that farm revenue be considered as the result of a family enterprise and not as the fruit of the work of the father only.
At the present time a farmer who works the land with his sons must pay income tax on the whole of the revenue unless he has paid his sons in cash.
It must not be forgotten that the father who is a farmer is the head of a family undertaking. The work of the children is the source of his revenue and even if this work is not paid in cash, it can legitimately be argued that it should be deducted from the personal income of the father. Should the father wish to remunerate the work accomplished by his sons, he would have to pay considerable salaries which would reduce his income and which would be deductible from his income tax under present arrangements.
Child labour, whether paid for in cash or not, should also be legitimately deducted from the revenue of the whole farm since revenue due to the work of a large number of people should not be taxed as revenue earned by only one person. The father-son relationship should not constitute an exception to this rule.
I now wish to call the attention of the house to the present situation as far as unemployment insurance is concerned.
I am going to make but a few suggestions which, I believe, could appreciably improve the administration of the unemployment insurance act and regulations.
It should always be borne in mind that, and I believe that it is the purpose of this law, the unemployed is in most cases in urgent need of an income.
The great number of insurance claims may seem normal to the officer dealing with the claims, but a quick settlement of the cases submitted is essential to the unemployed.
In my opinion a further decentralization of the insurance offices is required, as in some periods of the year they are overworked, and cannot, in spite of the co-operation of the staff, deal adequately with the claims submitted.

Also the unemployed person should not have to travel several miles at his own expense in order to submit his claim or to obtain the information he wants.
A larger number of offices would meet that need more adequately.
A good many claimants often need information either about the way they should submit their claim or about the administration of the act, the regulations under which are amended almost every year. It is essential, I think, that any unemployed person applying to an unemployment office to fill in his application forms be met by someone in a position to give him all the information required, to acquaint him with the benefits provided by law and to interpret the act in connection with the facts stated by the applicant.
Often the commission sends by mail to the applicant a set of questions with which he is unable to deal adequately. However, the answers are taken literally and sometimes result in unjustified disqualifications.
Surely all these worries suffered by the applicant could be avoided by a more thorough study of the case at the outset.
In the event of an appeal from the decisions of the insurance officer, the appellant, in most cases, must go to a lawyer. If he wins his case, the commission returns him his benefits but makes no allowance whatever for his travelling expenses and does not even pay the fees of the person who helped him state his case.
In my opinion, this is not normal. Either the commission must provide free of charge the services of a lawyer, in such a case, or it should have in its own office someone who would act in all cases as counsel for the claimants and would at all times be at their disposal. This is the procedure followed in connection with the pensions and allowances of war veterans.
Moreover, I would suggest that a lawyer sit on every conciliation board made up of three (3) members since, in fact, the function of these boards is to pass judgment on the legality of a claim and to analyse the facts in accordance with the spirit of the act. The decisions at present made by these boards are based, 95 per cent of the time, on cases already heard. Such decisions make up a jurisprudence while we all know that each case may have characteristics of its own.
In summing up, Mr. Speaker, I suggest:
1.	That a larger number of offices be established so as to be within reach of the unemployed and thus avoid large travelling expenses.

2.	That employees responsible for supplying information and acting, so to speak, as counsel for the claimant be posted in each office.
3.	That costs be paid to each claimant who succeeds in gaining his point before the board of arbitration.
4.	That a lawyer be named on each board of arbitration.
All this should be done in order to lend a greater efficiency to the Unemployment Insurance Act, which is so essential to the workers, to ensure better relations between claimants and commission employees, and to make people aware that unemployment insurance, which is paid by the government, by the employers and by the employees is a capital guarantee for the workers to whom it gives collective security in case of unemployment.
My fellow-citizens always look to the future with confidence and they remain confident that their demands will always be heard more favourably by the present government than under any other system of government.
The legislation enacted by the government in the social security field and gigantic projects such as the St. Lawrence seaway and the construction of a trans-Canada pipe line set the pace for our industrial development and stimulate private enterprise. We can safely say that our people enjoy the highest standard of living in the world, after our neighbours to the south.
Enjoying an enviable reputation, having a truly Canadian foreign policy, we will soon see the day, I hope, when our Canadianism will be attested by a national emblem which will remain a symbol of unity, and of a desire for peace and freedom.
(Text):


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I deem it a great privilege to be able to voice once again in this House of Commons what I believe are the sentiments of the people of my constituency. I regret the need to mention once again some of the problems that face the people back home. I had hoped that a large number of these problems which already existed when I was first elected in 1953 would have been met by adequate legislation on the part of this parliament by this date; however, the government has not seen fit to meet these needs thus far.
There are a great many problems that cause us some concern, but in one short talk one cannot begin to deal with all of them. I would like very much to deal with the problem of housing, which threatens to become a most serious problem this year. I would also like to speak on the subject of insurance in all its phases. When I look at the statistics that are available I see the
The Address-Mr. Regier Canadian people are bleeding themselves white in a vain effort to buy for themselves a feeling of security in this rich Canada of ours. I would like, too, to raise the problems^, confronting the Canadian veteran, and E would also like to speak concerning the problems of the British Columbia farmer. I do* feel, however, there are two problems which are most urgent at the present time, and I intend to confine my remarks to these two matters.
I think the greatest problem facing the people, in my constituency at least, is the need for an upward revision in the old age. pension. I believe I am safe in saying that, there are not many constituencies in Canada; in which reside over 7,000 old age pensioners. Almost every fourth or fifth person I meet when I am home is under old age security benefits.
The other problem I have in mind is the failure of the federal government of Canada to recognize adequately other levels of government in Canada. I do not use the term "lower levels of government" because that would be reflecting the attitude of the government of Canada. In my estimation the other governments of Canada are not in any way lower governments, and I feel it is time that we put an end to people referring to municipal and provincial governments and other forms of organized society as lower levels of government.
I listened closely, and the following day I read closely, the speech from the throne, but failed to find an indication that those two major problems are being tackled by the proposals offered by the government. I see recorded on page 2 of Hansard such expressions as "excellent progress", "expansion", "rapid strides", "unprecedented levels", "blessed", "greater" and "enjoying the benefits". In one paragraph almost every sentence contains an adjective or superlative to indicate the wonderful blessings we have in Canada, the inference of course being while under a Liberal regime.
I dare say that may be so in a good many respects, and I do not want to take away any credit for progress where progress has been made. In my estimation the speech from the throne consists of 75 per cent pious platitudes, 20 per cent references to minor legislation and amendments of detail, and 5 per cent reference to some of the problems with which Canadians will be faced. In that 5 per cent I would include the reference to the setting up of a Canada Council, an increase in grants to universities, increases and extensions of grants to technical and vocational education,

The Address-Mr. Regier an amendment to the Municipal Grants Act, and the continuation of the wheat board as the sole marketing agency.
This is a long way from meeting some of the problems faced by our people, many of which have been caused directly by the progress we have been making in certain fields. My greatest complaint and the greatest complaint of old age pensioners is that the prosperity of Canada is not being shared equitably by all sections of the Canadian people. I think if old age pensioners read that one paragraph beginning with "excellent progress" and containing such expressions as "expansion", "rapid strides", "unprecedented levels" and so on, they would find such boasting slightly nauseating, almost as nauseating as the gas which unfortunately many of them turn on at night in order to put an end to the miserable existence they are forced to face.
The C.C.F. proposal in regard to old age pensions has been for long $65 a month at age 65 without a means test. In addition we have proposed on numerous occasions, and in the province of Saskatchewan where the C.C.F. forms the government we have implemented, a program of health care for old age pensioners. We have advocated on more than one occasion-and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) has referred to this in the house-low rental housing for our senior citizens and others with similar low incomes.
An old age pension of $65 a month at age 65 in British Columbia, if we retained the present $20 supplementary payment by the provincial government with a means test, would mean that the needy people of our province would have an income of $85 per month. That would go a long way toward making those people feel that they too were enjoying some of the benefits of this rich Canada which they had helped to build.
I want to pay a compliment to another relatively new political party in Canada upon the attitude it has taken on the subject of old age pensions, and I refer to the Social Credit party. I feel that in the three western provinces we have gone a long way toward alleviating some of the suffering of these people, and we fail to understand why a rich province such as Ontario cannot do at least as well as Saskatchewan, under a C.C.F. government, or Alberta and British Columbia, and pay a $20 supplementary allowance.
I regret that I cannot go along with the proposals which have received publicity in our daily press back home and which have been made by the Social Credit government in British Columbia. According to the press
IMr. Regier.]

reports they are advocating that Ottawa continue to pay $40 a month but agree to share the cost of the supplementary allowance on a 50-50 basis. If I have misunderstood the proposal I hope that succeeding speakers will correct me, but I understand that this would mean $80 per month in British Columbia, which almost equals $85.
However, we in our group are sufficiently aware of the problems faced by other parts of Canada to realize that while such a proposal might be satisfactory to the rich provinces of Canada, there are many provinces that would be unable to meet that type of matching grant arrangement. If such an arrangement were to be adopted by this government it would mean that once again we would have old age pensioners in one part of Canada receiving much less than those in other parts.
The other day someone asked me how much I thought old age pensions in Canada should be. The C.C.F. and many other major non-political organizations have advocated $65 at 65 without a means test, but my answer to that question was that in reality it is very difficult to say offhand how much an old age pension should be. My answer would be that the least we could do is to bring the purchasing power of the old age pension back to what it was in 1927. I submit that $40 does not supply to our senior citizens today those things which they have to buy to the extent that $20 did back in 1927. It may be that the value of our money has been reduced by about that percentage, but when we consider the things on which these people spend their money we are today on a much lower level than we were back when old age pensions were first introduced. That purchasing power, as I said, should be restored, and in addition I feel that the senior citizens of Canada should also share in the technological advances and the great increase in production of our Canadian economy. They are as entitled as anyone else to an ever-rising standard of living.
The first essential, of course, when we advocate an increase in the old age pension, is that we must establish the need for an increase. I do not think I have to say very much on that point. Our government recognizes, and I am in full accord with what they are doing in this respect, that our newly-arriving immigrants from Hungary must be maintained at government expense for some time until they can be fully established. However, what is the estimate of this expense? As I understand the situation, the government is prepared, where necessary, to pay up to $3 a day for the maintenance of a refugee from Hungary. I want to make it very clear that I do not oppose that in any

way. The C.C.F. party was the first to criticize the government for not doing enough for would-be immigrants to Canada.
However, we can easily understand the feeling of our senior citizens when they are told that they must exist on $1.33 a day in a country they have helped to build and for whose wealth they are responsible when the same country can turn around and, after ignoring their needs, can pay for the maintenance of other people the sum of $3 per day. It seems rather inequitable. With respect to the need, where do we find these senior citizens who need an increase in the old age pension so badly? Sometimes they are rather difficult to find. They cannot afford to live on the ground floor level with the street. You have to go up to third and fourth floor attic rooms to find them. You have to go into musty basement rooms to find them. You have to go to the shacks on the outskirts of the better residential areas. When we consider the conditions under which our senior citizens are forced to live in many parts of Canada I believe that some of us should hang our heads in shame.
What can you buy today on $40 a month? You go to various homes in our cities and you find that the average modest room in an old dilapidated rooming house will cost you $30 a month. That leaves our old age pensioner with the magnificent sum of $10 a month with which to pay for food, clothing, in many cases medical care, and all the other necessities of life. I know I am not speaking of the average citizen in Canada today. However, there are over 100,000 old age pensioners in the province of British Columbia alone to whom this is an important issue.
I know that some of the people of Canada have been enjoying relatively good times ever since world war II began. I know there are some Canadians, and I meet some of them rather often, who as a hobby are able to afford farms in the country. They would not dare attempt to make a living from their farms; otherwise we might get some decent farm legislation. You know, it is lovely to be able to take your guests on a Sunday to the farm or ranch. Some of these people keep horses there, or cattle and other livestock. I have seen some of the stables. It is very nice to be able to show your guests around. But in carrying out these hobbies far more money is being spent on housing for the horses and cattle than is being spent on housing, food and clothing for people who have helped to develop this country and who are responsible for some being able to have farms as a hobby where they can go on a Sunday, and maybe by having such farms help to relieve the income tax situation.
The Address-Mr. Regier
It is not the fault of these old people that they are in such great need. Not only are they in great need, but so are our blind pensioners, our veterans and our disabled people. In referring to our old age pensioners I have in mind all people who have to exist on pensions paid by the people of Canada through the government. I almost made the mistake of saying "paid by the government". The money is paid by the people of Canada through the government.
Many little things can be done to make the lives of many people easier. We still insist on the cruel 20-year residence clause. You do not have to be a citizen in order to obtain the $40 a month. You can be a foreigner. You need never have made any major contribution to Canadian citizenship and the welfare of the Canadian community as a whole. You need have no citizenship papers, but if you have lived here for 20 years you are entitled to the $40 a month. However, if you were a refugee from Hitlerism in the Sudetenland and came here in 1939 because you were a believer in democracy and your life was at stake, then even though you may be as old as Methuselah this government will not have any mercy on you because you have not lived here for 20 years. If you are in need you have to go and beg assistance from the local municipal welfare office.
I think it is high time that we removed the 20-year residence requirement. When our own citizens are given a rawer deal than people who may have lived here for a long time but have never assumed the responsibilities of citizenship, I think something should be done.
The question then arises, can we afford $65 a month at 65 for everyone in Canada, plus free health care and plus low rental housing for these people? In 1927 the gross national product of Canada was a little under $6 billion. In 1956 it was over $29 billion, and for this year the forecast is over $30 billion. In other words our gross national product has gone up five times since 1927. If we could afford to pay $20 a month then it is not too illogical to conclude that we should be able to pay $100 a month now, or five times what we paid then.
Looking at the matter in another way and going back only to 1949, when the universal $40 pension was introduced, at that time the gross national product of Canada amounted to $16.4 billion. This year we expect it to be practically twice as much. On the basis of a gross national product of $16.4 billion we decided the economy could afford a pension of $40 a month. Surely when our production
112	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Regier is twice as high the economy should be able to afford twice as high a pension. That would be $80 a month.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the C.C.F. proposals turn out to be most reasonable indeed. I receive letters in my mail asking me to plead for a pension of $100 a month. 1 am not saying that Canada cannot afford to pay $100 a month. However, if the government would pay $65 a month at 65 I know it would go a long way toward meeting the urgent need in Canada. We are responsible to a very great extent for the financial position in which these people find themselves. By deliberate policy the government has permitted the inflation of our currency over a long period of years, thereby indirectly-it may seem very direct to those affected-robbing hundreds of thousands of our senior citizens of what they thought was an adequate retirement plan for which they had sacrificed. Many of them had purchased annuities. Many of them had done it through life insurance company investments. Many of them had done it through investment in farms and the like.
There were a great many who lost their assets during the catastrophe of the hungry thirties. There are many in my riding who lost their farms on the prairies because of the economic conditions at that time. This parliament at that time passed emergency legislation to safeguard the apparent solvency of the investment houses and insurance companies of Canada, but this parliament did nothing to safeguard the solvency of the vast majority of the producers of Canada, at that time notably the farmers of the western plains. I have many of them in my riding who, under normal circumstances, would have been able to look after themselves in their old age in their own way and would have done so very well.
That is why I say this parliament shares a great measure of responsibility for the need that now exists. Not all the proposed increase will be net cost to government. Much of this money returns into the hands of the various governments of Canada. By means of sales and excise taxes, customs duties and, in the case of those who do not need it, income tax and succession duties, a goodly share of this money is returned and is therefore not a net loss to government income.
I also think of the great aid this would be to Canadian agriculture. When these old age pensioners get more money, what will they do with it? They will go out into the market place and maybe for once be able to buy a few eggs, a little bit of bacon, some butter, some cheese and so on. That is what our farmers need. They need a market
[Mr. Regier.l

at home in Canada. Paying more money to the old age and other pensioners of Canada is the easiest way of relieving at least some of the problems of Canadian agriculture.
I do not plead, Mr. Speaker, for the old age pensioners because of our ability to pay more money. I do not plead for them because of pity for them. I do not plead for them for the sake of a market for the farmers. I do not plead for them for the sake of election. I plead for them because, if we represent these people in the House of Commons, it is our duty to bring to the floor of this house the needs of those we profess to represent. I feel that they are entitled to more money and that it is a right that ought to be granted to them.
Then there is one other problem that I feel is not being met. I welcome the proposed amendment to the Municipal Grants Act, but that is meeting the situation only a small part of the way. Some day in Canada we shall again be obliged to sit down around the conference table and rethink Canadian confederation. This is going to be a long process, because the problems are many and varied. However, I feel that this year, 10 years before our hundredth national anniversary, would maybe be a good time to begin facing up to the situation.
Here in Ottawa we have a government that collects over 70 per cent of the tax revenue of Canada, yet the major responsibilities for the business of government in Canada are not in Ottawa at all. In my case they are back in Burnaby and in British Columbia. The individual back home, the taxpayer, just has to stop and think for a moment to realize that he gets most from his hospital board, his school board, his municipal council and his provincial government. They are the organizations that give him most of the things he needs. Yet when he considers who gets his tax money he is obliged to realize that it is time we began thinking about this problem that is threatening Canadian institutions more and more as the years go by.
I propose that we have 10 years of time in which to begin to meet the problem. A mere amendment to the Municipal Grants Act is not solving the problem at all. Certainly it is a little bit of relief for some of our municipalities; but the taxes on real estate, which were once the major source of income, have reached their limit. The taxes on Canadian homes and on Canadian farm land are, I feel, as high as they can safely be set. It is time we declared a moratorium on any increase in taxation on real estate in Canada.
I am not a centralizer. I do not feel that this government should bear all the responsi-

bilities of government in Canada. I believe democracy begins at home, and that you build on from there if you want to build a successful democracy. However, I do not believe that you should rob the home of all the money it has and shoulder the home with all the responsibility. I think that situation must be met. I feel that the Canadian people are rational, reasonable and educated enough so that if there is a will to meet the problem, it can be solved and we can go on to the second century of Canadian progress and Canadian development.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that my time has expired. I should like to repeat once again what I said before. In fact we are all worried about that little piece of land we occupy in this House of Commons, and especially that piece of land across from me occupied by government members. Here is another reference to a piece of land. I have reference to the old age pension. It is a quotation we all know, Mr. Speaker:
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.


Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Hanna) and the seconder (Mr. Robichaud) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I always pay particular attention to this part of this debate. This year I thought the addresses were of a high order. They showed an amount of careful preparation, and the subjects they introduced were well thought out. The addresses were delivered in a very fine manner.
I wish to speak for a short time tonight on the question of the railway strike. In this connection I wish to present a petition which I have received from the clerk of the town of Smiths Falls. In that town there are 1,700 people involved in this strike. This petition did not come to me in the usual way of petitions; it came in the form of a letter. I could not present it in the usual way by filing it with the Clerk or during routine proceedings, because the letter is addressed directly to me. With your consent, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read this petition into the record because of the fact that it is a letter addressed to me. It reads as follows: Municipal Offices Smiths Falls Ontario.
January 8, 1957
Dr. W. G. Blair, M.P.,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Dr. Blair:
At a meeting of our municipal council duly convened on the evening of January 7, 1957, the following resolution was passed for your attention and action thereon:
"Whereas the welfare of the town of Smiths Falls and district is threatened by the railway strike
The Address-Mr. Blair Be it resolved that the mayor convey to the federal member for Lanark county, Dr. W. G. Blair, M.P., this fact and ask him to inform the government of Canada of the urgent need of having the strike settled."
Yours truly,
F. R. Gilroy,
Town Clerk.
Having presented this petition which came in the form of a letter, there are some things I wish to say concerning this strike because it affects a considerable proportion of the people of the riding which I have the honour to represent. The general consensus, so far as I could judge from the addresses in this house, is that this strike is having a very serious effect on the economy of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and that the sooner it is settled the better. We heard one address yesterday from a maritime member concerning conditions around the port of Saint John. We know the situation with respect to the western wheat farmer. We know the effect on industry in Ontario, and I think opinion is unanimous that this strike must be settled as soon as possible.
I was glad to hear today that there was some sign of settlement of this strike by getting these people together. We hear a great deal about automation, and there are people talking about automation now who never even thought of it two weeks ago. Certainly automation is going to make progress, and any person who would say it is not is simply talking in a foolish manner. Automation will proceed, and automation on the railways will increase in the coming years. I think a good example is to go back to conditions in England in 1850 at the time certain improvements were made in the textile industry with the introduction of new looms, whereby it was possible for one workman to do the work that was formerly done by four or five. At the time automation was introduced into the textile industry it was the main industry in the midlands of Britain. These textiles were shipped all over the world. When the new looms came into use people were thrown out of work. There was a great deal of unemployment. There were riots and difficult times in England. It was not easy for people to understand just what was happening, but there must be progress along those lines. Progress will be made in so far as the railroads are concerned.
I had one thing in mind concerning this strike. I admit candidly that I am not so well versed on labour matters, but I am concerned with the matter of safety. I noted that in the report of the conciliation board there was one sentence that cast some doubt on the question of safety. In considering the
114	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blair question of removing the firemen or engineer's helpers, as they have been called, from the locomotives, there was the suggestion that we would try this thing out and if it did not succeed then we could return to the old system. At least that is the way I interpreted that part of the report, that various changes could be made. I confess, sir, that I have not had experience with labour relations but I have had experience with casualties. I cannot get away from the feeling that there should be a full inquiry into this matter. In so far as the firemen are concerned, they have made a statement that this procedure is not safe. I believe that the firemen are a group of highly responsible people, and if it is not safe there should be a full inquiry into the matter.
If it is ruled by an impartial board that automation has proceeded to the point where the other man is not required on the engine, that is one thing; but if there is the slightest element of danger, then that should be taken into consideration. Any person who has had any experience with railroads knows that wrecks have occurred even under present conditions. It is rather difficult to get away from the matter of human error. Sir, I can call to your mind some accidents that have happened in Canada. I can refer to probably one of the worst accidents that ever happened on a railroad; that is the one that occurred at Almonte a few years ago. It was a dreadful accident; and with all the safety devices on the railroad, with good crews and every care being taken, that accident did happen with the resultant loss of life and horrible injury. I am not fully convinced, therefore, that this matter of safety and the question of human error has been dealt with fully as yet. I feel there should be a further inquiry by a board to make absolutely sure the public is protected.
It is all very well to say you can try this out. It is just like driving an automobile; it is a lot easier to fix the automobile than it is to recover from physical injury. I am glad to see that there has been some move toward an inquiry along that line. As I have stated, I will not be fully convinced until I read a report concerning the matter of safety. I want to be absolutely sure the public of Canada is protected from any form of accident. In my opinion this matter of safety is the crux of the whole thing. Either we do require that extra man on the engine or we do not, and that is the matter which must receive careful consideration from any board appointed to investigate the situation.
Another aspect of the strike with which I am concerned is the matter of people employed in public utilities. I know I am suggesting something very difficult, but it would


seem to me that those employed in public utilities-I am thinking of such public utilities as the hydro, police force and firemen, without whom we cannot get along-should work out some formula or some device for conciliation between the employer, which is generally a municipality or a province, and those working in the public utility. I feel it would be better for such a move to come from labour. It is a very difficult thing to work out, I admit, but if a move were made along that line I think it would be of benefit to all concerned.
I wish to turn for a few minutes to the question of agriculture. I was glad to note the other day in the speech from the throne that some consideration would be given to the question of submarginal land and the possibility of using some device such as the prairie farm rehabilitation act. We go back in the history of this country to the time when the pioneers came here. In going across the country it is very easy to see the areas in which these pioneers settled. They took the high land, and the valleys and lower parts of the country were not utilized at first. They cleared the timber right off the land because it was their ambition to put in crops of some kind to carry them through the ensuing season.
Since that time we have carried on a program of cutting down everything in the nature of timber. I have seen areas in the country where anything that would make a small piece of timber seemed to have been ruthlessly cut down. We have formed no program for the replacement of those trees. This is becoming very important now, because there is usually a spring run-off and there are no trees to hold back the water. The water goes down the streams very rapidly, and we are trying to correct that by building reserve dams.
That is not the answer, Mr. Speaker. We should have a program in this country something like that which has been adopted in some of the Scandinavian countries, namely, if you cut down a tree, plant a tree. There are places in some of the older areas of Canada which do require reforestation, because some of the land was not suitable for farming when it was first cleared. There are other areas which are now classed as submarginal land, which could be used if that land had not been mined but had received proper crop rotation, and if the farmer could have afforded to place fertilizer on the land.
You hear remarks made by economists in agriculture that the time is coming, because of the new type of machinery that is available at the present time, when the larger farm will be the only type of agricultural

unit that will pay. I for one would be very sorry to see some of these smaller farms discontinue operations. The usual description is family farms. I cannot help but think of the fine families that were raised on those farms and the contribution they made to the economy of this country. But I do believe that some of the farms that are worked out at the present time have been mined on account of the fact that farming is becoming a difficult financial venture. I believe that some of those farms could be brought back by the proper use of fertilizer and crop rotation, and that the situation is not hopeless. But there are abandoned farms, Mr. Speaker, the occupants of which have become discouraged. You will find them working in industry. They are not doing any practical farming but are living in the houses on the farms and spending their time in industry. The general complaint of farmers across the country, and especially in my part of the country, is that the prices received for farm products have not kept pace with the prices of consumer goods that the farmer buys. They will all tell you that. This is becoming very apparent to the farmer and is causing many of them to leave the farms; and it is discouraging many young people from entering into the occupation of farming.
Then there is another thing. There has been a steady upward movement in the cost of living. It has gone steadily up in the last three months. I was rather surprised and sorry to note the other day that while the added cost of living was due to various things, there was one thing that seemed to balance out the other way, namely the lower price received for farm products. From the reports we receive I am quite sure that 1957 may be a better year in agricultural circles so far as prices are concerned. There has been the feeling that it may be slightly better than it has been the last four years. Toward the end of last year there was some rise in the prices of agricultural products, and 1957 may be a better year, or equal to 1954; but net farm income will be hundreds of millions of dollars less than the record year of 1951 because costs were lower in 1951 than they were in 1956. Retail prices of food in the stores in 1951 were about the same as they were in 1956, but freight costs, wages and processing costs have increased.
I am going to quote one very well-known authority on agriculture, namely Mr. Bryan L. White, for whose judgment on agricultural matters I have the greatest respect. In the farm page of the Ottawa Journal he points out this fact:
The Address-Mr. Blair There is only one deduction for any fair-minded person to draw from these facts. It is that the farmers of Canada have practically paid for all costs added to food since 1951.
Mr. White was referring to the matter of costs and farm income in the years 1951 to 1956, and he went on to say this:
Wages in the food processing industry have advanced every year, packaging has cost more, but few if any of these costs have been reflected in consumer prices. They have all been deducted at the bottom from the farmer.
I did mention, sir, that I was interested in this committee. I hope when the committee makes its report on the so-called submarginal land it will remember other things, namely that it is necessary to have trees to preserve water; and if industry is going to grow in a province such as Ontario recognition must be given to the enormous amount of water that is used by industry at the present time. Water has become precious. The building of reserve dams will not fully cover the whole matter. It is necessary that we learn and progress more along the line of reforestation, and also consider the deleterious effect of erosion on land.
The matter of reforestation is something that is very important at the present time, but it is difficult to get people to understand it. When our ancestors came to this country it had immense forest cover, but we are only beginning to realize that we cannot proceed without doing something to bring back the land. I remember talking to a forestry man in the Ontario government. I mentioned a part of the country to him and asked why we could not cover those thousands and thousands of acres with pine trees. The land was originally covered with white pine. He made a remark that amazed me. He pointed out that this land had been burned over and it would really take hundreds of years before the land would again become capable of growing pine trees.
It is not a foolish project to carry on a reforestation program, because in time the timber will begin to pay as it did years ago when the land was first cleared, when the trees were sold in the form of squared timber and mighty rafts went down the river to Quebec. The market for squared timber was one of the principal markets of our earlier pioneers.
There is one other matter that I wish to talk about tonight, sir, and that is some of the things that are misunderstood in so far as public relations are concerned between urban and rural dwellers. There is one matter that is really very interesting, because the other night I heard a man speaking on the radio who was evidently a trainer
116	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blair of athletes. He was talking about the harmful effect of milk. There are people talking about this who do not know what they are talking about, because we have always regarded milk as being the perfect food. If this propaganda goes out from people who do not know what they are talking about it will have a harmful effect on the dairy industry.
Medical research has been carried on into the cause of some heart conditions. The work is not yet completed, but there is a feeling that various animal fats have something to do with the causes. When we consider that for years children have been raised on milk-and we believe that milk is a perfect food-it would seem to me that we must attack this problem with common sense, because the eating of fats, or the eating of anything, is all a question of temperance and how you use it. The overeating of any particular type of food is a foolish thing.
This idea is taking hold in the public mind, possibly due to the fact that people read in the paper of the large number of citizens who seem to have developed heart conditions. This is to the detriment of the Canadian dairy industry. This has not yet been advocated by dietitians, and the question of temperance enters into this matter. As I have said, intemperance with regard to any form of food could produce the same effect.
The Prime Minister, in speaking of the matter of health yesterday, made mention of the fact that men in public life and those occupying high positions were subject to great strain and stress, and that the demands of their positions were having a bad effect as far as their physical condition was concerned. The day before yesterday we had the resignation of Hon. George Drew the leader of this party due to ill health, and yesterday brought word of the resignation of Sir Anthony Eden for the same reason. Sir Anthony Eden underwent a most difficult operation three years ago, and those who are his political enemies could very well bear in mind that here is a man who carried on and did a job for his country despite his physical condition. The President of the United States, General Eisenhower, has had difficulties with his health, as has Mr. Dulles. I fully agree with the Prime Minister that the strain and stress of public life is taking its toll among people who are at the head of governments and those who occupy prominent positions. No matter what our political affiliation may be, I feel we should take this into consideration and a measure of sympathy should be extended toward these people.
Before I leave the question of agriculture I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning.


The article is somewhat interesting, and it concerns the health of farmers. It seems that in the southern United States there is an organization known as the international federation of agricultural producers. The Louisiana State University school of medicine conducted a survey in which this organization was interested. The survey revealed that more than 60 per cent of the population of the United States suffers from headaches. The investigation also revealed that medical students had more recurring headaches than anyone else in the country, while farmers had fewer than any other group. This is not a joke; it is a report of the survey made by the Louisiana State University school of medicine. The article goes on to say:
It was not suggested that farmers have less to worry about than other people. The reason for fewer headaches on the farm may be that farmers breathe more fresh air.
I have inserted this in my address because I thought it contained a touch of humour. I am perfectly sure that if farmers do not suffer the physical ills of headaches they certainly suffer headaches in the slang sense of that word. It is a fact that the returns from the sale of farm products have not kept pace with the increased cost of living to the farmer. That is the issue which is causing so much difficulty for the farmer at the present time.
There is one other matter contained in the speech from the throne with which I should like to deal, and that is the question of aid to municipalities. Every person in this chamber, every home owner, and every person who rents in this country is becoming increasingly aware of the fact that taxation on real estate has reached the saturation point; there is no doubt about that. I noticed a statement made by the premier of the province of Ontario a few months ago. He said he had to deal with the reception of 750,000 additional children in primary and elementary schools within the next nine years. This simply means the province of Ontario and its municipalities must make arrangements for the education of almost double the number of pupils they have at the present time.
It is going to be extremely difficult for the municipalities to meet that increased demand by the addition of elementary and high schools. In the same period of time the universities will also double the number of students they have. This is a most serious matter. The young people of this country are our greatest asset. Meeting the increased demands involves in addition to education the supplying of public utilities, sewers, roads, highways, and all the things that are dealt with by the municipalities.

There is no doubt but that real estate has reached its saturation point in terms of taxation, and that at some stage in the next few years we must make arrangements for increased expenditures. I have grave doubts that the broadening of the taxation field through an increase in population or increased industrial expansion will entirely cope with this matter. With regard to aid to the municipalities, any thought the government has given to this matter and any start it makes, no matter how small it may be, will be a step toward some realization of the position of the municipalities. If conditions do not change in the next nine or ten years we are going to be faced with a serious problem. In some way or other there must be a means of granting increased aid to the municipalities.
There are other matters, sir, which I might mention at this time, and one is the position of the veterans. Before I left my home last week I watched a television program which dealt with an institute that cares for homeless men, men in a difficult financial position; as a matter of fact it is a mission. During the program the superintendent of this mission interviewed some of the men who were enjoying a free meal there. In many cases they were returned soldiers, and some reported that they received the veterans allowance. Others said they were not able to work because of their age or state of health, and some were not in receipt of a pension adequate to provide them with a room, meals and the comforts of life.
There is one group of ex-soldiers for whom I wish to make a special appeal. I refer to the soldiers of the first war who served only in England, and who are not eligible for veterans allowance. It is important to remember that they feel they have just as much right to receive the war veterans allowance as do members of the second war who served only in England. This feeling was created possibly because a theatre of war was declared with regard to one war and not with regard to the other. Many of the men who served only in England in the first war were held in position there, and some were ill or unfit. It was through no fault of their own. They made themselves useful in their positions. If you have had any experience in the army you will be aware it is not a good thing to take a man away from a job he is doing well.
Those who served in the first war are growing old, and they are few in number. They look at their comrades who served in the second war, many of whom served only a short time in England, and they feel they are
The Address-Mr. Caron being discriminated against because they are not receiving the war veterans allowance. Certainly their hearts were in the right place when they enlisted, and it is not their fault that they are not eligible. They are becoming older and fewer in number all the time.
In view of the decreasing number of these old gentlemen, who with the best possible motives enlisted in the first world war, I ask the government to reconsider the matter of war veterans allowances and grant allowances to those who served in England in the first world war. As I watched the movie showing these men being fed I felt that there was something wrong when they were forced to obtain a meal at a mission in order to keep body and soul together. Certainly this parliament should do something.
There are not many of them, and it would not cost this country very much. I hope no member of the government will say that we of the opposition ask the government to spend money and at the same time ask the government to save money. This is a small matter, and it does not enter into the question of spending money. It is the duty of Canada to look after these aged citizens who with the best motives volunteered in the first world war.
I know some of these men personally. They have no pensions, as they are in between the age groups. The average age of men who served in the first world war is in the early sixties, and many of them are not eligible for the old age pension with a means test. They are receiving nothing. The fact that they served should be recognized. I know it would be the wish of every Canadian that these people not be neglected.
(Translation):


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks, I wish to join with the hon. members who have already congratulated the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Hanna and Mr. Robichaud), who carried out their particular function in a splendid and masterful fashion. They spoke as statesmen, and we thank them for enlightening the house on many subjects.
Since the last session, important changes have taken place in this house, especially on the other side where we see a new leader of the opposition. I wonder if I must congratulate him or commiserate with him. A mixture of both feelings is appropriate, I guess. I must congratulate him for the support he received from his friends of the Conservative party who gave him a majority on the very first ballot. On the other hand, it seems that I must commiserate with him as he has entered a field fraught with difficulties. He

The Address-Mr. Caron will have to bear a very heavy burden, and I hope that Divine Providence will give him the strength and courage to do so, for, even if he should come back to this house as leader of the opposition after the election, I must say to him that it is no dishonour to remain in that post for a long time.
We have been speaking quite extensively in this house about the well known question of Suez, and some people have gone as far as to suggest that the behaviour of the Canadian government during the crisis had endangered the future of the British commonwealth. I wonder if those people have bothered to study the matter with sufficient thoroughness.
When Israel invaded Egypt, for reasons which they explained clearly enough from their own point of view, France and England immediately undertook their own invasion, thus leaving peace in a most delicate position.
The Canadian government's position with regard to this matter has, to my mind, been most commendable. The representative of the Canadian government to the United Nations, the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), did not want to condemn either England or France, but he nevertheless tried to maintain peace in the world with a reasonable suggestion. He therefore asked, by means of a resolution, that France and England withdraw their troops from Egypt and that the United Nations replace them with a force that would be responsible for maintaining peace and preventing invaders of any country from returning to this area.
The position of the Canadian government under those circumstances has been commended by almost all the countries of the globe. The United States took this opportunity to support the proposal made by our government because they also sought universal peace. That is why I hold that, by its action, the Canadian government did not endanger the British commonwealth. On the contrary, by its attitude, it merely consolidated its relations, because the commonwealth was on the verge of losing the support of India and of some other countries of the East who wanted to leave the commonwealth as a result of England's attitude. Since then, our union has been once more strengthened. Recently we received in this country the visit of the prime minister of India who came to hold talks with our own Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) about affairs of concern to the whole world. He believes that the whole world needs Canada's help. He knows that our country has been capable of stopping to reflect on matters, of taking no account of its own particular preferences, of looking facts in the face and of attempting to protect that peace for which we have so often fought in the past.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that Canada now deserves to be considered as one of the most enlightened countries in the whole world and that our leaders have acted in a most admirable fashion.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the time, I propose the adjournment of the debate.
(Text):
On motion of Mr. Caron the debate was adjourned.
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Friday, January 11, 1957