1957-12-09

PRIVILEGE


Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This question of privilege involves the right of members to see and be with their families at Christmas, to meet with their constituents and become better acquainted with their problems, and to exercise the privileges which are within the grasp of certain Ontario and Quebec members. The question I wish to ask of the Prime Minister is this. In view of the statement by the house leader-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member defer his question until we come to the question period. If he has a question of privilege he wishes to raise he may do it now, but I understand he is about to put a question.


Frank Claus Christian: As a question of privilege may I put the question?


Mr. Speaker:: If it is a question of privilege the hon. member has the opportunity to state it.


Frank Claus Christian: I have stated the question of privilege already, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the statement by the house leader that we were elected not to run home for long holidays but to do the business of the country, and in view of the statement in the Globe and Mail of December 9, 1957, that there may be difficulty in finishing the business of the session before January 14, 1958, should the members of parliament cancel their plans to return home for Christmas?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the house, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition spoke to me earlier and I told him I would make a statement on this question tomorrow. I could have made it today, but under all the circumstances I think tomorrow will be sufficiently early. However, the hon. member may be assured of one thing. There is going to be nothing in the nature of denial to hon. members of their opportunity to spend their Christmas holidays at their homes and in their constituencies.



EXCISE TAX ACT

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 231, to amend the Excise Tax Act.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I ask Your Honour at what point in the proceedings one should ask a question as to whether or not it is appropriate to introduce a bill amending tax legislation without the matter first being considered in committee of ways and means?


Mr. Speaker:: If there is a question of order with respect to this matter it should be raised as soon as I have put the question. Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider the point of order that it is not appropriate to ask parliament to amend any tax legislation without the matter first being considered by the committee of ways and means. We had something to say about this matter on Friday evening, and I will not take the time of the house to repeat what was said on either side of the issue at that time except to point out that I read from passages in Bourinot to the effect that in the Canadian House of Commons any change in taxation measures must first be dealt with in the committee of ways and means.
I offer today in the main just one other piece of evidence. It is difficult to find many instances in the past where bills amending taxation statutes have done nothing else but reduce taxes or provide alleviation. However, there were three such examples in April of this very year. At that time, when Hon. Mr. Harris, the former minister of finance, brought his budget before the house, he presented measures amending the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act.
I have carefully compared the provisions of chapters 25, 26 and 29 of the statutes of this year with the resolutions which were introduced prior to the introduction of those bills.
I find that there is nothing in the bills except reduction or alleviation of taxes. I find that every point of reduction, every point of alleviation indicated in the bills is covered in the resolutions.
I am just as sure as I am certain that I am standing here that last spring, when the

Excise Tax Act
former government was trying to get as much business through as possible so we could get out on the hustings, Mr. Harris would not have brought in those resolutions preceding those bills if it had not been made clear to him that such was absolutely necessary. There are a few other examples in history, but these are the most recent ones, making it clear that even when there is nothing in a bill but the reduction of taxes it is still a matter that should be considered in committee of ways and means.
There is a good deal of language in the authorities about upsetting the balance of ways and means. When private members geek to move changes in taxation, even by way of alleviation, that language is thrown at them; that we cannot upset the balance of ways and means. I would also point out that if it is in order for the minister, without a prior resolution, to introduce a bill amending the Excise Tax Act, the purpose of which is to reduce a certain tax from 10 per cent to per cent, what is to prevent me from introducing a bill reducing it from 7i per cent to zero? If it is in order for the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill amending the Income Tax Act, without a prior resolution, providing for an increase in the exemption for dependants under the Income Tax Act to the extent of $100, what is to prevent me, without a prior resolution, from introducing a bill raising that exemption to a much higher figure?
The whole basis of ways and means resolutions is to keep authority for the balance of ways and means, authority for financial policy, in the hands of the executive subject to approval by parliament. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a serious departure from our practice which the minister is asking parliament to follow.
It is surely not necessary for me to say, but perhaps I had better do so before the minister speaks, that this is not a case of questioning the substance of this or any other bill that may be introduced regarding taxation. But even when measures are placed before parliament which parliament may welcome and pass unanimously, it seems to me it is still desirable that they be dealt with by parliament according to the rules and practices of the house.
I say again, Mr. Speaker, that all of us recognize that if it had not been necessary to have ways and means resolutions prior to tax reduction bills, Mr. Harris would not have had the house take up the time on ways and means resolutions as was the case last April. Therefore it is my contention that whatever welcome the house may be

prepared to give to this legislation, it should be preceded by consideration in committee of ways and means.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to the point of order for a moment, there was some brief discussion of this matter on Friday night, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has now put it forward formally by way of a point of order at this stage. I think, therefore, it is essential that we dispose at once of the suggestion made inferentially now and made very definitely on Friday night that somehow or other the procedure now being followed by the government is an abuse of the rights of parliament because, of course, it is no such thing.
This house is not being denied any opportunity which it should have to discuss these proposals. I quite understand that perhaps it might be unwelcome to some hon. members opposite that they have to discuss these proposals, because in spite of what they have said it is obvious that whatever may be the merits of the proposals, every opportunity is sought by them to oppose progress on these measures simply for the sake of opposing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I
am amazed at that statement coming from my hon. friend.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member has referred to what took place on the budget last spring. As I shall have occasion to point out in the course of my remarks in somewhat greater detail, the reason the bills for reductions of taxation in the spring budget were preceded by resolutions in committee of ways and means was precisely because at that time we were considering a budget, the annual financial presentation of the Minister of Finance, and discussion of the whole financial picture of the country was before the house, as it is required to be.
Our rules provide most clearly that that discussion, which takes place once a year, is made on the motion for committee of ways and means. It is for that reason that that committee was set up at that time, to pass the resolutions which were preparatory to the introduction of the bills arising out of the budget. But here we are faced with an entirely different situation. This is not a budget. We are working within the confines of the budget proposals made to parliament and approved by parliament last spring. This is not an annual financial presentation and therefore a resolution for committee of ways and means is not required.
I should like to elaborate a little on the two aspects of this motion. First not only

is what is being done now strictly within the rules of parliament, but also there is absolutely no attempt being made, nor will the result be, to deny parliament any of its opportunities for full discussion of what is proposed.
As I have said, this is not a budget; the budget was delivered last spring. The proposals of the Minister of Finance outlined on Friday and now being laid before the house in the two bills, introduction of which is asked today, are operating within the scope of that budget. Bourinot and Beau-chesne are both authorities for the proposition that there shall be an annual financial statement made by the Minister of Finance. That is the budget. Rule 58 makes it clear that such budget should be delivered on the motion for committee of ways and means.
Now, that fact makes it clear, and the wording of the rule and the authorities-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member
would permit me to interrupt him I think that the neat point of order is whether or not the introduction of this bill should be preceded by a resolution. I am not concerned with an inquiry into whether or not there is a budget or a budget debate. As I understand the point of order, and perhaps the hon. member would shorten the discussion by confining himself to it, it is the question of whether a resolution is needed before this bill can be introduced.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the point I am making now is relevant to that matter, because if you have such a resolution you can only have it in committee of ways and means. That requires that a motion to go into committee of ways and means must have been made. My point is that the motion for the committee of ways and means is only called for in this context when and if the Minister of Finance is presenting his budget. But there is here no budget-because we are operating within the limits of the general financial structure which was before parliament and approved by parliament last spring-there is now nothing before the house, nothing presented by the Minister of Finance, which calls for the setting up of a committee of ways and means for consideration of the annual financial statement and of the resolutions that arise out of it. What the Minister of Finance has done here is simply to report that within the limits of the budget presented last spring it is possible to reduce certain taxes, and the reductions he proposes in those taxes will accordingly be laid before the house in the two bills which he is seeking to introduce this afternoon.
It is therefore absurd to suggest that parliament is being denied any opportunity which
Excise Tax Act
is appropriate to it simply because we do not have a full annual budget, a resolution and a discussion in the committee of ways and means. There will be the fullest opportunity to discuss the merits of the proposals during debate on the bills which will be introduced by the Minister of Finance-if hon. members will permit us to introduce them-and it will be very interesting to hear what the opposition has to say because-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not check the hon.
member before, but he is definitely out of order in introducing political arguments into this discussion, and I hope he will not proceed in that vein in discussing the point of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that this aspect was introduced into consideration of the subject on Friday night. However, to continue now on the question of the resolution itself: my second submission is that it is not necessary to have a ways and means resolution-which can only come out of a committee of ways and means-when the proposal, and the only proposal before parliament, is a proposal to reduce taxation. I should like to repeat the reference made on Friday night to Erskine May, 15th edition, at page 764 where it is stated:
Provisions for the alleviation of taxation are not subject to the rules of financial procedure. The repeal or reduction of taxes, for instance, by the finance bill, is sometimes preceded by a specific ways and means resolution but this procedure is neither necessary nor usual. Thus, provisions for the repeal or reduction of taxation, the granting or extention of exemptions, the creation or increase of drawbacks, etc., may be presented in bills or inserted by amendment without the preliminary sanction of a ways and means committee.
These two bills, the bills which it is proposed to introduce today, propose only reductions in taxation, as has been made clear, so the citation in May is clearly applicable. And here, of course, I join issue with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who suggested on Friday that May was not applicable to procedure in the Canadian house. I make no comment as to why it should be that suddenly on this occasion May, who so often in the past has been relied upon in that quarter, should be disowned; but if the hon. gentleman does not wish to accept the authority of an English text book we can rely on a Canadian authority which fully supports the position stated in May.
You do not need a committee of ways and means or a resolution of the ways and means committee when the only proposal is to reduce taxation. Authority for that statement is to be found in Bourinot, 4th edition, page

Excise Tax Act
431, where, discussing the functions of the committee of ways and means he says, at the bottom of that page:
It is the function of this committee to impose rather than repeal taxes.
The bills here are for a reduction, which is to that extent a repeal of taxation, and therefore they come within the scope of that citation.
Bourinot then discusses the function of the committee of ways and means and the rule that a new tax must be imposed in that committee. In the course of the discussion he makes it clear that the requirement for a ways and means resolution preceding a taxation bill exists only when the bill or the proposal is to increase taxation or to impose new taxes or to bring a new group or class of taxpayers within the liability for existing taxes. Quite clearly, in accordance with the outline given by the Minister of Finance on Friday night, none of those results would follow from these bills. I refer Your Honour and my hon. friends opposite particularly to Bourinot's discussion of this matter on pages 505 and 506, where he discusses the type of case in which it is not necessary to have a resolution of the ways and means committee before introducing such a bill. For instance, at the top of page 506 he says:
A bill merely declaratory in its nature, and involving no new charge, need not originate in committee of the whole.
And of course the committee of ways and means is a committee of the whole. He continues:
Neither is a committee necessary in the case of bills authorizing the levy or application of rates for local purposes by local authorities acting in behalf of the ratepayers.
Then he goes on with a list of the exceptions, and about half way down the paragraph he says:
Nor does the rule apply to bills imposing charges upon any particular class of persons for their own use and benefit.
Nor to bills indemnifying members for penalties they may have incurred for violation of an act.
And then this is the particular sentence in point:
Nor to bills having for their object the diminution or repeal of any public tax provided such bills do not affect trade;
And of course these bills do not affect trade; they are specifically for the repeal or reduction of a public tax, the income tax on the one hand and the excise tax on the other.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Will the hon. gentleman give us the reference which he has just made?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Page 506, Bourinot's fourth edition. Then if there were any further question-if there was any doubt left that the only time you need a ways and means resolution is when you propose to increase a tax, Bourinot points out at page 507:
Bills consolidating and amending statutes are frequently brought into the house with clauses containing charges on the public revenue, but it is only when these clauses impose new burthens that it is necessary to consider them first in a committee of the whole.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of those authorities, both English and Canadian, it is my submission that the course proposed to be followed here is both strictly within the rules of the house, and not only within the rules of the house, but designed to present to the house every opportunity which the house should have to discuss the taxation proposals being made by the Minister of Finance.
It is only if the Minister of Finance were to be introducing a budget which varies or enlarges the financial scheme laid before parliament and approved by parliament last spring, that it would require a committee of ways and means and a resolution in that committee. Where, however, as in this case, the minister has made it perfectly clear that he is operating within the limits of the budget already approved by parliament, and merely seeks to reduce taxes in certain particulars-and can do so and still meet the requirements also approved by parliament-then in such a case, and that is the present case, no resolution or committee of ways and means is necessary.
I therefore suggest to my hon. friends, Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, that they withdraw their objections and allow the house to proceed with the bills before it so the public may at the earliest possible moment obtain the benefit of the reductions proposed in taxes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Might I ask a question of the hon. minister, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I should be fair and say I have two questions.
First of all, if the minister contends that the Minister of Finance is not introducing a budget but is merely working within the framework of the budget brought down last spring by Mr. Harris-and I do not go along with this premise, but if this is his premise- does it not then follow that the proposals of the present Minister of Finance are upsetting the balance of ways and means established by Mr. Harris' budget last spring? On that basis is it not therefore necessary that we go into committee of ways and means?

My second question relates to the quotation the minister read from page 506 of Bourinot's fourth edition. The minister of course knows that Bourinot on other pages, such as page 418, makes it clear that all propositions relating to the tariff and taxation of the country must be considered in committee, and on page 438 he makes it clear that even reductions must be considered in committee of ways and means. Is it not also true that the quotation the minister read from page 506, if he had continued to read it, would have defeated his case? It says:
Nor to bills having for their object the diminution or repeal of any public tax;-
There is a footnote there, footnote (q), which brings our attention to the only case in Canada, which was in 1882, of a bill to repeal duties on promissory notes. On that page Bourinot goes on to say:
-provided such bills do not affect trade; and then they come under the special rule on that subject.
Well, the Minister of Finance certainly claims that this bill does affect trade. Let us read the next sentence or two:
As an illustration of the strictness with which the Canadian commons observe the rules respecting trade, it may be mentioned that in the session of 1871, the house went into committee on resolutions to exempt paraffine wax, lubricating oil, and other articles from excise duty, and to reduce that duty on certain articles in the province of Manitoba. When the house had agreed to these resolutions, a bill was brought in; but before it had gone through committee, it was considered advisable by the government to reduce the duty on certain spirits manufactured from molasses in bond; and accordingly resolutions were passed in committee, and when adopted by the house, referred to the committee on the foregoing bill.
Does the minister not think that by taking that one sentence or two out of the context of the paragraph he missed the whole point? There was this one exception in 1882 having to do with the duties on promissory notes, which it was felt did not affect trade; but the point of the whole paragraph is that the Canadian commons is strict with regard to these matters in insisting that they be dealt with in committee of ways and means.
I confess, Mr. Speaker, that my two questions have become a short speech, but perhaps the minister will answer them. First, if it is not a budget, is it not upsetting the balance of ways and means of the budget brought down by Mr, Harris? Second, does not the quotation from Bourinot which he read when read in full, support our contention that this matter should go to the committee of ways and means?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with that at all. To deal with the second
Excise Tax Act
point first, I did read the line referred to by the hon. member. I read the full sentence, as follows:
Nor to bills having for their object the diminution or repeal of any public tax; provided such bills do not affect trade;-
I stopped there because I thought even the hon. gentleman would understand the sense in which the word "trade" is used there; but in case he did not it should have been made clear to him by the rest of the paragraph which he did read, which made it clear that on the occasion when the Canadian commons did insist on a resolution to go into ways and means on a bill to reduce duties it did so because they affected trade-that was the argument put forward at that time -it did so because clearly the proposition then before the house related to a matter of a differential in duties between products originating in certain provinces. It is obviously referring to trade in the specific sense of trade between provinces, trade within or outside Canada, that the words "provided such bills do not affect trade" are used to suggest that a bill proposing to reduce a special excise tax which was placed on automobiles for war purposes and was placed on automobiles generally, regardless of where they originate in Canada and without reference to any special concession to one province or another-to argue that the reduction of such an excise tax is a bill affecting trade seems to me to be stretching a point even beyond the extent to which the hon. member usually goes. There is nothing in the argument he has put forward on that point.


Mr. Coldwell:: I am surprised at the Minister of Justice, who spent many hours in the room of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre learning procedure from him.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The other point he raises, that it upsets the balance of ways and means, can hardly be supported either. The fact that there is a reduction in taxes will, it is true, reduce the revenue; but the whole proposition is within the scale and framework of the financial proposals outlined by the previous minister of finance. It seems to me that the bills lay before the house a simple proposition. Does the house agree with the government in its wish to reduce certain specific taxes? It does not ask the house nor is it necessary to ask parliament to discuss the whole ambit of the fiscal and financial position of the country to arrive at the simple decision: do you want a reduction of specific taxes or not? That is the

Excise Tax Act
whole question before the house, however much the hon. member may try to depict it otherwise.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that the Minister of Justice should have dismissed the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when it was the intention of the Prime Minister to offer him a certain position. However, I would draw your attention to section 54 of the British North America Act which is, after all, what governs the Canadian parliament more than any citation from May or anything of the sort which is based on the unwritten constitution of the British parliament. I would cite section 54 to Your Honour, having every confidence that you will give full weight to a citation from our own constitution. Section 54 of the British North America Act reads:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that house by message of the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address, or bill is proposed.
In other words the recommendation must be in the session in which the matter is proposed, and I submit to Your Honour that this was written into the British North America Act to preserve the responsibility of the whole government for any interference with a tax or any interference in the expenditure of public moneys. It is not enough for a minister to introduce a bill; he must be in a position to say that the governor in council, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this interference with taxation, recommends it to the house. This, I submit, is a fundamental part of our constitution. It cannot be changed by any rules or any citations from May or similar sources, because it is fundamental. If it be argued that a tax can be done away with in part without the government taking the responsibility for it, it can equally be argued that if one tax can be done away with in part the whole taxation system of our country could be done away with. This would strike at the very basis of responsible government as it has been set up under the British North America Act.
This very point has come before the house on previous occasions and I would cite to Your Honour, for example, citation 562 of Beauchesne's second edition, which reads:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that house by message of the governor general in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.

Section 54 of the British North America Act is cited as the authority. Citation 566 of Beauchesne's second edition reads:
This house will not receive any petition for compounding any sum of money owing to the crown, upon any branch of the revenue, without a certificate from the proper officer or officers annexed to the said petition, stating the debt, what prosecutions have been made for the recovery of such debt, and setting forth how much the petitioner and his security are able to satisfy thereof.
Futher citations in this part of Beauchesne with which I will not burden Your Honour go to the point that it is necessary to introduce anything having to do with governmental revenue or the expenditure on a statement by the Minister of Finance that the government itself assumes the responsibility for it by the formula that it is recommended by the governor in council.
In Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, similar reasoning is set forth, and it is emphasized in paragraphs 436, 437 and 438 that such legislation must originate by recommendation of the governor in council. That can only be given, Your Honour, if the matter originates in a committee of the whole house. If it be held otherwise, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, then there is nothing to prevent anybody introducing a bill to do away with taxation. This would strike at the very foundation of responsible government as set out in the British North America Act.
My hon. friend, in introducing this resolution, was not able to say and did not say that the governor in council recommended it to the house; and that must be said, I submit, when a money resolution is introduced. The Minister of Justice referred to Bourinot in regard to the matter, and I think it is quite clear that the very citation he gave proves exactly the opposite to what he said. At page 505 of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure I find this:
The recommendation of the crown and a committee of the whole are necessary in the case of a bill granting a drawback on imports.
Clearly that is based upon the British North America Act. If it requires a resolution and the governor general's recommendation to grant a drawback on imports, clearly the same reasoning applies to any reduction of the excise tax, because they are both the reduction of a tax. I continue with the quotation:
In 1900 the same proceedings were followed in the case of a bill extending contracts providing cold storage on steamships beyond the provision made in previous legislation. A bill merely declaratory in its nature, and involving no new charge, need not originate in committee of the whole.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Read that again.


Walter Adam Tucker: Because there is no charge in it. The citation goes on:
Neither is a committee necessary in the case of bills authorizing the levy or application of rates for local purposes by local authorities acting in behalf of the ratepayers.
It goes on to say that it does not apply to bills imposing charges upon any particular class of persons for their own use and benefit. I find farther on the following:
As an illustration of the strictness with which the Canadian commons observe the rules respecting trade, it may be mentioned that in the session of 1871, the house went into committee on resolutions to exempt paraffine wax, lubricating oil, and other articles from excise duty-
This proposed bill is a move to liberate the taxpayer from excise duties, and this is the very citation given by the Minister of Justice; and it is an illustration of how Speakers in the past have scrupulously observed the terms of our constitution as laid down in the British North America Act. Here is what it says:
The house went into committee on resolutions to exempt paraffine wax, lubricating oil, and other articles from excise duty, and to reduce that duty on certain articles in the province of Manitoba.
I draw this to Your Honour's attention:
When the house had agreed to these resolutions, a bill was brought in; but before it had gone through committee, it was considered advisable by the government to reduce the duty on certain spirits manufactured from molasses in bond; and accordingly resolutions were passed in committee, and when adopted by the house, referred to the committee on the foregoing bill.
I cite that to Your Honour to show that even where it was a bill to reduce taxation, when it was designed to expand the application of that bill it was found necessary to go into committee in the same way. Therefore I submit, Your Honour, that in this matter you should very strictly apply the British North America Act, because this again is tied up with the rights of the commons.
Section 53 of the British North America Act sets it out very carefully that bills appropriating any part of the public revenue or imposing any tax or impost shall originate in the House of Commons. Clearly this section would apply as this is a money bill, and surely if it is held that this bill can be introduced as an amending bill without any resolution, without any recommendation of the governor in council, then I submit we are getting into the position where it can be held that bills such as this can be introduced in the Senate without any recommendation of the governor in council at all. In other words, I submit a ruling along the lines asked for by the Minister of Justice would be against the whole spirit of the British North America Act, which has been applied over and over again.
Excise Tax Act
I would draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that I wish to make it quite clear that we are not opposing the purpose of the bill; but in accordance with what the Prime Minister stated over and over again in the last two years before he became Prime Minister of this country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is about to depart from the point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: I am all ready to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I warn him that while I welcome his argument on the point of order I think it is inappropriate to go beyond that. I see the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.


Mr. Irwin:: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the profundities of Mr. Bourinot, Mr. Beau-chesne and Sir Erskine May as inscribed by Lord Campion and, so far as they guide this house, they are very useful; but the fact remains that this house itself has its own rules, and it is not necessary to proceed to a study of those various authorities so long as the rules themselves will govern us in what we do.
I have listened to the specious argument of the Minister of Justice, and I refer to his argument as being somewhat specious for the reason that he says the house is not going to be deprived of any opportunity to discuss these matters. The fact remains that while we are not being denied an opportunity to discuss them, they will obviously come up after the bills are presented to the house, which they should not be in their present form. The fact also remains that we would not be acting properly if we discussed them under the present circumstances, and that is the matter that is at issue at the present time.
I wish to draw your attention to Votes and Proceedings of Monday, October 14. There you will find two motions. One reads as follows:
That this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
That motion has been called on several occasions. The next motion reads:
That this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
That motion, sir, has never been called. That motion has been carried on the routine proceedings of this house from day to day, showing in effect that this house has gone into committee of ways and means yet the motion has never been called. Here we are being asked to consider doing certain things to the revenue of this country, and we are

Excise Tax Act
not bringing it up under the appropriate conditions laid down by our own house in rule No. 58. I am going to move, in view of the fact that we got off the rails on Friday night, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Christian):
That, as from eight p.m. to the adjournment of this house on Friday, December 6, 1957, all the proceedings of this house be expunged from the records of the house and that this house do return to normal proceedings as laid down by the rules.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Black Friday, all right.


Mr. Speaker:: While we are discussing a point of order I think it would be improper to interrupt that discussion by entertaining any motion. Is there anyone else who wishes to assist the Speaker in coming to a conclusion? If not, I think I am prepared to deal with the matter.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I may tell my hon. friend that he can save his breath, because as I am at present disposed I am going to rule on the side on which he will be arguing. If anyone wishes to speak further in support of the point of order I will be glad to hear them, but at the present time I have come to the conclusion that the point of order cannot be sustained.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe that is the side the hon. member for York West was on.


Mr. Speaker:: If so, I will be glad to hear him.


Mr. Sinclair:: He is no trained seal.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank hon. members for the full discussion of this point. It is perhaps a novel point, and perhaps one that would not have arisen under normal circumstances; but here we have a budget and estimates before the house which arose not in this session and not even in this parliament. We are faced with circumstances that perhaps do not often arise.
I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has considered the matter very fully, as has the Minister of Justice, and that they have referred to all the authorities, including many which I have considered myself. I have read the discussion of last Friday night and I, with the assistance of the Clerk and the legal adviser of the house, have spent some time on this matter.
I think it is quite clear what is required when there is a bill to raise money, to impose a levy or a tax, is covered in that section 54 of the British North America Act to which the hon. member for Rosthern referred. We have our own standing order No. 61 which presumably reinforces the section

of the British North America Act which says that parliament shall not raise money except by the procedure of a resolution and discussion in a committee of the whole house. That is the safeguard of the people that taxes will not be raised lightly, and only after opportunity of discussion, indeed after repeated opportunity of discussion of the tax that is to be raised.
This question before us, however, is quite different from that. It is a question of a bill which on its face-and we have the bill here -is not a bill to raise money but a bill to reduce taxation. Without going through the citations again in Bourinot, Beauchesne and May, I think I can indicate very briefly to the house the opinion I accept. It is set out in May, fifteenth edition, at page 764. There you have a statement under the heading "Alleviation of Taxation", and it is in these words:
Provisions for the alleviation of taxation are not subject to the rules of financial procedure. The repeal or reduction of taxes, for instance, by the finance bill, is sometimes preceded by a specific ways and means resolution but this procedure is neither necessary nor usual.
I find that in this parliament the same thing has happened on occasion. A measure to reduce taxation has been preceded by a resolution, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and sometimes it has not. There are quite a number of instances where bills to reduce taxation have been introduced without being preceded by a resolution and the necessity of the procedure which was argued for by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I will not read any more of that citation. The only question in my own mind was whether that British practice might be applicable in this parliament, and I find that both Bourinot and Beauchesne assume that it does and, in fact, say so in citations which I have here. Therefore I am satisfied that we are following a correct procedure in permitting this bill to be introduced without a resolution.
There was another point raised by the two hon. members which rather concerned me. I think it is answered by this citation from May, eleventh edition, page 572:
.	. . a bill for diminishing or repealing a tax
or other public burthen, unless the imposition of a new tax is proposed by way of substitution, needs no royal recommendation or preliminary committee stage . . .
I was a little concerned about the argument that perhaps the crown's recommendation was necessary and that otherwise it might be open to any member of the house to move such a bill. However, that is something I do not have to decide today. When a private member does introduce a bill to abolish the income tax or wipe out the proceedings of the

last 24 hours we shall meet that when it arises. In the meantime, with due deference to the opinions that have been stated, I must rule that in my opinion this motion is now properly before the house.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INCOME TAX ACT

Donald Methuen Fleming: for leave to introduce Bill No. 232, to amend the Income Tax Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as you will expect, I hold the same view with respect to the introduction of this bill without a prior resolution, but in view of the ruling you made on the previous bill I will not press the point at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has had his objection noted. I have not had the opportunity to read this bill, but I take it from statements made in the house that it does not impose any new tax but is simply a bill to reduce taxation and therefore-


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the fact.


Mr. Speaker:: -comes within the opinion I have already expressed on the other bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CLOSURE OF DEBATE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
That standing order 33 of the standing orders of the House of Commons be repealed.-The Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker:: By the standing orders this matter is automatically transferred to government orders and needs no other action of the house at this time. I refer the house to standing order 21, subsection 2, which provides for the automatic transfer of the motion to government orders.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 44-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged since July 1, 1954, between the minister or any official in Ottawa of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, on the one hand, and any of the officers of the Calgary citizenship council, on the other, respecting the citizenship reception centre.
Motion agreed to.
9G698-132
Motions for Papers


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 45-Mr. Hahn:
For a copy of the preliminary report entitled proposals for the hydroelectric development of the Columbia river system in Canada.
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this motion. Hon. members will perhaps recall that there was a considerable amount of discussion in the house last week with regard to the particular document in question. It was indicated at that time that we did not consider it in the public interest to table this document at the moment, at least, and I should like to state that there are really two grounds on which I would oppose the motion being adopted.
First, it is a departmental document of a type which is not normally tabled. Second, and more important, negotiations with the United States in regard to the Columbia river system and the development of hydroelectric power on that system have been going on and will probably continue for some time. We do not consider it in the public interest that this document should be made public during the time these negotiations are in progress.


Mr. Hahn:: The reason for putting the motion before the house is that I am desirous of getting this particular information. The hon. member will recall that on Thursday last the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) had this document in the house. On that occasion, as recorded on page 1890 of Hansard, the minister read from the documents proposals for the hydroelectric development of the Columbia river system in Canada.
I am not taking particular issue with the fact that the minister says this is a confidential document or an interdepartmental document, but my plea is based on citation 277 of Beauchesne's third edition, page 110, which says:
A minister of the crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the house, unless he be prepared to lay it upon the table.
I am fully aware, sir, that the minister did not have this document in the first instance, and did not bring it into the house. Apparently the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet did. However, I say the minister should not have read from the document, but since he did the house should have access to it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On that particular point, I would remind the house that I did not read from the document. All I did was to read

Canadian Centennial
the title of the document in order to identify it, but I read absolutely nothing from the document.


Mr. Speaker:: That is my recollection, that the document was not quoted except to identify it. This is not a debatable motion. The minister has explained his objection to complying with the order, and all that remains now is to dispose of the motion. Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


Stanley Howard Knowles: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of the establishment of a 100th anniversary committee, with provision for federal and provincial representation, for the purpose of planning the economic and social development of this country on a vast scale, including inter alia housing and slum clearance, conservation, irrigation and power projects, improvements in transportation, highway construction, the elimination of grade crossings, the building of hospitals, assistance to municipal projects and other public works, and also for the purpose of planning ways and means to strengthen the economy of every section of this country; and that consideration should be given to the advisability of such a program being launched immediately and being pursued vigorously year by year so that on July 1, 1967, the people of Canada will be in a position to celebrate this nation's 100th birthday not only with fireworks and speeches but by the achievement of a land of health and abundance for all our people.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the resolution which I have the honour to present to the house pretty well speaks for itself.


Mr. Byrne:: It certainly does.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We will take it as read.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure all of us in Canada realize that this nation owes a great debt of gratitude to some of those who have gone before us, and who dreamed dreams of a great country on this northern half of the North American continent. None of us can deny the debt that we owe to Sir John A. Macdonald, that great statesman who dreamed of Canada as a separate country within the British family without whose dream we would not be sitting

here today as the members of the parliament of a sovereign nation. I am sure it is also agreed that we owe a great debt to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who at the turn of the present century uttered those famous words, "The twentieth century belongs to Canada." He, like that other great leader, dreamed of the greatness in store for this nation.
There are others to whom Canada is greatly indebted. I believe those of the two larger parties in this house who have applauded the sentiments I have just expressed will agree with me that this generation of Canadians also owes a debt to my predecessor, the late J. S. Woodsworth, who for many years was the member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I welcome the applause given to his name. He too was a great Canadian, a man who dreamed of Canada as a country not only great in expanse and in terms of economic progress but a country where there might be social security and a high standard of living for all the ordinary people of this nation. Because that great man dreamed dreams and had visions of a better day, many people in Canada now enjoy a better life.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is appropriate for us from time to time to lift ourselves out of the matters that concern us for the moment and plan boldly for the future of this Canada. It is for that reason I offer the suggestion that we seize upon the fact that in ten years we will be celebrating the 100th anniversay of confederation as an opportunity to plan still further for the development of this nation and for the achievement of a land in which, as my motion suggests, there will be health and abundance for all our people.
The resolution which Your Honour read out in my name a few minutes ago has been on the order paper for three or four sessions, although this is the first time it has been reached for debate. When I filed it in previous sessions I was conscious of the fact that probably it would not be reached. But I felt that perhaps it was a good idea to let the resolution reach the light of day and be seen for two or three years so that our people might get used to the thought of beginning to plan now for the centenary of the founding of this country.
It is true that there have been debates on other matters during which the ideas contained in this resolution have been put forward, notably in the debate on March 2, 1955, when the present Secretary of State (Mrs. Fairclough) moved an amendment on the motion to go into supply having to do with the unemployment situation which obtained at that time. In the course of that

debate some of us urged that we should make a real attack on this problem of unemployment by instituting a long range development program. That approach was supported by hon. members now on the government side of the house.
I should like to mention, before going any further, that the idea of beginning well in advance to set up a committee and plan for our 100th anniversary was first suggested to me by my good friend of this city, Mr. Walter Mann. As a matter of fact he made the suggestion at a convention of our party in the province of Ontario seven years ago. To some it seemed somewhat far-fetched, at that time, to be proposing that we plan for an anniversary 17 years in advance, but seven of these years have already gone by, and as others, whose names I will quote in a moment, have suggested, there are times when plans ought to be made well in advance.
It is on that basis, bearing in mind the debt we owe to the dreamers of the past, bearing in mind the great potentialities of this country, and bearing in mind also the fact that things do not get done unless they are planned, planned boldly and planned well in advance, that I ask this house to consider seriously the suggestion contained in the resolution that the government take whatever steps are necessary to set up now a 100th anniversary committee, with provision for federal and provincial representation in the membership and work of such a committee.
I was interested in the support given to this idea over a year ago, in a very interesting article which appeared on the editorial page of the Ottawa Journal for Thursday, March 8, 1956. The article appeared under the well-known picture of the founders of confederation. It was entitled "Looking towards confederation's birthday" and was written by Mr. I. Norman Smith. I was interested in the fact that Mr. Smith, as he pointed out, wrote this article because he had had a discussion about Canada's 100th birthday with his friend Mr. Jules Leger, the under secretary of state for external affairs.
In this very interesting article Mr. Smith, on his own behalf and on behalf of his friend Mr. Leger, urges that we should begin now to plan for Canada's anniversary. He makes some interesting suggestions, among them that the Queen should come to Canada that year and perhaps be here on Dominion day and grace a special session of parliament; that NATO, or any successor organization, should hold its meetings in Canada that year; that the commonwealth prime ministers should meet here, and so on. Mr. Smith says that
Canadian Centennial
the full session of the United Nations could not be held in Canada because of lack of facilities, but a two weeks' plenary session could be held here, leaving the administration in New York.
Further down the page in this article Mr. Smith says:
Another approach to making ourselves felt internationally might be to invite the British empire games for that year, or even the Olympic games.
Then there are other suggestions; a scouts' jamboree, certain festivals, and so on, and then we come to a very interesting paragraph to which attention might be paid:
By 1967, surely, we should have agreed on a Canadian flag: and to get this agreement not all of the stubborn people live in Quebec province. Is not a country 100 years old expected to have a flag which if seen in Pakistan or Peru says ''Canada" without mistake?
The whole article is full of interesting suggestions, and full of the challenging thought that if we are not careful, when July 1, 1967, comes along all we will have will be the fireworks and the speeches. We will have those; there is no doubt about that. But if we are wise and far-sighted, and if we begin planning now, we will be able to have celebrations really worthy of such a great occasion.
I like the last paragraph or two of Mr. Smith's article, in which he says that a celebration such as we would like to have in 1967 must be planned on many levels, federal, provincial, municipal and institutional; and that we, the people, must do the planning. At the end of his article Mr. Smith says:
Finally, it must be planned now, and by men with a vivid sense of history and future, men unafraid to be called dreamers. Put such men at work now for even three weeks and they would come up with a blueprint of something that could easily prove the best thing that has happened to this country since confederation.
Well, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Smith and Mr. Leger are not alone in their interest in Canada's 100th birthday. I have on my desk a number of newspaper clippings referring to a very interesting speech which the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent), who was then prime minister, made at Hamilton, Ontario, in March of this year. I was interested in the fact that most of the newspapers in this country covered the speech and gave it a good press, and this seemed to me to indicate that the challenge of the then prime minister to Canadians to think about the beginning of our second century struck a responsive chord in the hearts of our people. I could read any of the dispatches I have, but the one I have picked

Canadian Centennial
up is from the Toronto Daily Star of Thursday, March 21, 1957. The heading is, "Courage to take chance advocated by St. Laurent". The story is written by Mr. Bruce Macdonald, a staff correspondent, and it reads in part:
Borrowing a line from Browning, Prime Minister St. Laurent last month invited those present to the celebration of his 75th birthday to "grow old along with me. The best is yet to be."
In a speech in Hamilton earlier this week, the prime minister reaffirmed his conviction that for Canada the best years are ahead, but he did it in forceful, vigorous and imaginative terms which belie his age.
His speech amounted to a challenge-a challenge to Canadians to seize the future which can be theirs with work, planning and the courage to take a chance.
"But for the balance of Canada's first century as a nation-and throughout the shining story of her second century-this, more than any other in the world, will be the land of opportunity," the prime minister declared.
But the future "won't just drop like a ripe plum into our hands," he warned. "We have to go after it with renewed energy, with new ideas, and with the confidence that what we are blueprinting can in fact be built."
It is perhaps half a century since a Canadian prime minister sounded such a challenge. Then it was his famous predecessor, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who declared in the House of Commons: "To those who urge upon us the policy of tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, to those who tell us wait, wait, wait: to those who advise us to pause, to consider, to reflect, to calculate and to inquire, our answer is: No, this is not time for deliberation, this is a time for action. The floodtide is upon us that leads on to fortune; if we let it pass, the voyage of our national life, bright as it is today, will be bound in shallows-"
And so the report of the speech of the present Leader of the Opposition goes on, ending up with this paragraph:
Mr. St. Laurent gave no hint of the kind of projects he had in mind, but disclosed that he intended on another occasion to "suggest for my fellow citizens some way of setting up challenging and adventurous goals" for Canada's centenary.
Well that makes three or four of us now; Mr. I. Norman Smith, Mr. Leger and the present Leader of the Opposition. But I call another witness, the present Prime Minister, who is very proud of what is referred to as his party's national development policy. In this document which the Conservatives put out in the last election campaign, and which I confess we quote sometimes in a different vein, there is this opening paragraph:
Can anyone doubt that Canada stands at the crossroads in her history? This is a time for greatness in planning for her future. Unity requires it-freedom demands it-vision now will ensure it.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the present Prime Minister is a good witness. His words make it unanimous; we all agree that Canada has a great future. As put by Sir Winston Churchill when he was in Ottawa in 1952:
Upon the whole surface of the globe there is no more spacious and splendid domain open to the activities and genius of free men.

Those were the words Sir Winston Churchill used to describe the Canada he was visiting at that time. We are agreed; we are unanimous as to the possibilities of the future so far as this country is concerned, but we are also agreed, in the words of the present Prime Minister, that it takes vision now to ensure the greatness of that future. This is the reason, Mr. Speaker, why I join with Mr. Norman Smith, with the Leader of the Opposition and others in urging upon the government that these matters be not left until eight, nine or nine and a half years from now, but that without delay steps be taken to set up a committee to plan the various matters which are suggested in my motion. There were a few smiles when that motion was read, as though it seemed to cover everything. It covers a lot, but there are still other matters. The point is that we should start now to plan for progress on a broad scale.
Let me just mention a few of the items set out in my resolution. I shall do so quickly and in passing. It will be fine to have fireworks and speeches on July 1, 1967; how much finer it will be if we have the Canadian people well housed. We can do it. It would be better, instead of just talking of the South Saskatchewan dam and other conservation and irrigation projects, if we really have them. We can have these projects and more, if we start planning for them now. We can do the same thing in the fields of transportation, highways, railway crossings, municipal projects, the building of hospitals, and so on. The field is tremendous; the opportunity is there to build the kind of Canada so that on July 1, 1967, we will really have something to celebrate.
Let us hope that we are not celebrating our 100th birthday with unemployment around us; let us hope by that time we will have introduced sufficient social and economic planning to get rid of unemployment completely; let us hope we will have got rid of exploitation of man by man within our country, and that we will have achieved the kind of life in which we are all participants in a co-operative and common endeavour. Let us strengthen our economy by 1967, so that every section of this nation will abound in material and social progress; so that social security will be guaranteed to all our people, and so that we will be able to play our part in helping the rest of the world to rise out of conditions of hunger, squalor and misery and thus remove the causes of war and achieve peace for all mankind.
The opportunities are tremendous. The challenge is put to us by Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, by my late

leader Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, by Mr. I. Norman Smith, by the present Leader of the Opposition and by the present Prime Minister. The future which is our destiny will not drop into our laps. All who have thought about these matters will agree that we have to dream and plan for that future and that now is the time to take action along these lines.
Mr. Speaker, on July 1, 1967, we will have the fireworks and we will have the speeches; let us hope we will have something more.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the house to feel that I am taking the hon. member's resolution lightly, but as I looked over page 4 in our program for today and read all the items he has set down there, I could not help but get a glimpse of him in his library back in Winnipeg, while he contemplated the coming session. I could see him enumerating the items-minimum wages, annual vacations with pay, statutory holidays, industrial relations, the Canada Elections Act, the Income Tax Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
health insurance.


John Borden Hamilton: Then I caught a glimpse of him as he donned his dark cloak and took off on his broomstick out over the barrens and, in a scene reminiscent of Macbeth, he hatched this resolution from the witches' cauldron. Then of course in the cozy library again, when everything appeared to be covered, I see once again consternation and the hon. member rushing to the long distance telephone to Rosetown-Biggar; the crackling of the wires and a voice coming over:	"M.J.-M.J., have you got human
rights covered?" Mr. Speaker, there is very little left-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That was the telephone call that offered him the speakership.


John Borden Hamilton: -that is not covered in this resolution, and if there were only the items which the hon. member has talked about today-the Queen visiting Canada, the scouts' jamboree, the British empire games, the paintings and the music-then of course we could all stand up in unison and say ''This is a resolution we are all able to support."


Mr. Winch:: Why can't you?


John Borden Hamilton: But it seems to me there is a great deal more to this resolution than just the phrases we have heard read out today by the hon. member. As a matter of fact, for the period I have been in
Canadian Centennial
this house he has filled the time almost completely by calling witnesses in many other parties.


Harold Edward Winch: Except you, since you changed your policy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They were pretty good witnesses.


John Borden Hamilton: I think what we should consider is the background in connection with this resolution and the time in history which we are approaching. It is easy enough to say that the twentieth century belongs to Canada; as a matter of fact speakers all over the country indulge in that very generous phrase, but I think the twentieth century will only belong to Canada if we are prepared to put into it the really hard work necessary to achieve this goal.
When we in government consider this I believe it is necessary for us to also consider what role we shall play in preparing for 1967. I cannot help but go back to the performance of governments over the years. I think we can divide the governmental history of this country into two major phases, the first from 1867 down to the end of the first world war, a period of 53 years, 33 of which saw a Conservative administration in office in Ottawa, and the second phase from the end of the first world war to date, a period of approximately 37 years, 31 of which saw a Liberal administration in power in Ottawa.
During the first phase this country went through a tremendous period of development. There were vast developmental demands including railway transportation, the opening up of new territories, encouragement for new methods of production and the finding of new markets. It was clearly a period when dynamic action was required on the part of government. It fell to the government to support, inspire and often to initiate longterm projects of economic development and I would say that during this period the Conservative administrations were not found lacking in the courage and vision necessary to carry out these projects. These administrations can be given credit for uniting this country from one end to the other.
Some may say that during this period social planning was not up to the mark but we have to remember that during those days the demands of the population were not great. Almost every person at that time was a handyman capable of building his own home and a large proportion of the population owned the homes they built. During this period Conservative governments played an active part in the long-term economic development planning of the country.

Canadian Centennial
Throughout the period from the end of the first world war to date we have seen a continuing laissez-faire attitude on the part of Liberal administrations. There has been no leadership, no inspiration, no active role played in the development of our natural resources and the other things that are required to produce in 1967 the celebration which the hon. member seeks in this resolution. From administration to administration the government in this period thought it was carrying out its function when it doled out from time to time on a piecemeal basis some welfare benefits but it lacked the vision and the daring that was evident during the period of Sir John A. Macdonald's administration in this country. I might use these words:
I don't think that free enterprise requires the government do nothing about economic conditions. Governments can-and I believe governments should -pursue fiscal and commercial policies which will encourage and stimulate enterprise and wise government policies can do a lot to maintain the rig., kind of economic climate.
If my last two sentences should sound familiar to the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) I can only say that they are his words spoken at the annual convention of the Canadian Lumbermen's Association in Montreal on February 9, 1953. It is unfortunate that the last administration did not take these words to heart and do something about them. It is increasingly apparent that with vast new worlds being opened before us by science leadership is required in government and I can only say that it is just as well for this country that the results of the election on June 10 turned out as they did.
The tremendous head start which this country had because of its resources of oil, gas and coal and those materials upon which a highly industrialized nation bases its whole economy may no longer be the determining factor in maintaining our relative position among the nations of the world. As the Red Queen said to Alice, "It takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place and if you want to get somewhere else you must run at least twice as fast."
Can we honestly say that the solution to our problems is the establishment of a 100th anniversary committee which has been proposed by the hon. member? It seems to me that if we are prepared to agree to this type of resolution then in fact we are abdicating our position as the government of this country. The references it contains to housing, slum clearance, conservation, irrigation and highway construction are matters which the government of Canada must take upon itself to deal with in the proper manner either through legislative process or in conjunction with other levels of government.

I must confess that when I see the word "planning" contained in a resolution sponsored by a C.C.F. member I can only assume that socialist planning is intended and until such time as I have a clearer picture of the aims of that party I find it impossible to accept its type of economic and social planning for Canada.
As I have said before, I feel that the government faces a very crucial and complex task in the next ten years of Canada's history. It is going to require a high degree of responsibility, constant co-operation with all levels of government and co-operation on the part of the government with the people of the country in order to ensure that when 1967 is reached we can truly celebrate our 100th anniversary.
I am sure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) of this country is fully aware of those responsibilities. As I said in the debate in reply to the speech from the throne he intends to maintain a constant liaison with the people. He will see that the urgent social requirements of the people are realized. There is every indication that all of the items listed in the resolution will be dealt with in their turn as we meet them in the house. I notice that one of the first things mentioned is housing. I do not think we need to worry too much about what can be done by this administration in connection with housing. Only last week we heard the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) outline the program of the government to ensure that a greater number of people in the lower income group will have housing priced within their reach.
As a matter of fact, sir, there is evidence already of what has been accomplished. I hold in my hand the Globe and Mail of just this morning, indicating that house-building shows a 63 per cent gain in November. The article reads in part:
House-building, after lagging severely in Canada last winter, has picked up smartly and in November was a thumping 63 per cent greater than in the same month of 1956.
This increase was the second straight monthly gain, figures of MacLean Building Reports show. The result was that for October and November combined, house-building awards were up 44 per cent over the same 1956 period.
Big reason for the improvement, notes the statistical agency, was the additional $150 million of mortgage money made available for lower-cost housing under the National Housing Act.
It seems to me, sir, we have adequate proof that we have no need to abdicate our position in connection with housing to a special committee. We can go on with other items. The resolution refers to public works programs. Why, sir, I have a list here of 31 projects which are under way in Canada right

now, ranging in value anywhere from $1 million to $13 million or $14 million. The resolution refers to highway construction. Well, in highway construction, under the responsibility of this administration, the trans-Canada highway, we will spend $24,805,000 this year. It also refers to hospitals. My hon. friend in the Department of National Health and Welfare tells me that $53,452,200 will be spent in connection with hospital construction and other items dealing with hospitals. There is hardly an item mentioned here which does not come within the responsibility of this house. Why should we have a committee, sir? I notice that it covers other items such as conservation.


Mr. Haidasz:: Conservation group in
Toronto.


John Borden Hamilton: For the information of the hon. member for Trinity, I may say that I have the report of the group in Toronto charged with conservation, the metropolitan Toronto region conservation authority, setting out the aims and objects of the group, indicating the plans and the hopes of this group and also indicating that in the actual physical planning required to be done on that level of government the people are well aware that it is within their ability to assess and provide the plans for such a program. As a matter of fact, sir, I cannot help but recall that during the time I have been here brief after brief was presented on behalf of those people without success. I say only this to you, sir, the attitude that has been shown by this administration in connection with its dealing with the provinces indicates that such items as this as well can be taken care of in the future. But, of course, this was the right time was it not, for this resolution? This was the time when, with a government in office only five months, the hon. member could line up a whole list of projects.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware of the fact that a resolution in exactly these same words has been on the order paper in three previous sessions?


John Borden Hamilton: I am quite
aware of that fact, sir, but it does not change my observation one bit. This was the time to have such a resolution, to confront a government that has been in office for five months and say: Oh, look at all these things that have to be done. When the hon. member stood up and spoke to his resolution there was never a word that these are items that might have been dealt with during the tenure of the last administration. There was no reference of that kind at all. Look at the situation
Canadian Centennial
now. A period of only five months has gone by, and already he is saying: Let us get on with the job.
It is the intention of this administration, Mr. Speaker, to take care of these matters to the point that when 1967 comes around all that will be necessary will be the fireworks. That is all we will need when the other things are done. The 20th century, the future belongs to Canada; yes, it does. This is the country of the young in heart, it does not matter how old you are. This is the country of the adventurous spirit. It is the country of all those who are prepared to work, firm in the knowledge that what we are creating is for Canadians, security for those who are here and boundless opportunities for succeeding generations. That is the vision and challenge and this government will meet it right down the line.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in this debate on the resolution which is on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and to deal with it not in the manner which perhaps he would expect me to but in another manner which I shall mention in a moment. However, before going on to that let me say to the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) that I am a bit surprised at the attitude he has taken with reference to this resolution. I say that because when one reads it carefully he finds that after all the only thing which the hon. member asks is that consideration be given to the establishment of a centennial committee for the purpose of dealing with the economic development of this country. I remember the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) replying to a question which was asked him in the house concerning a matter of like nature and saying: "Yes, we are willing to consider anything". All that the resolution asks is the consideration of the establishment of a committee to deal with the things mentioned therein. That is why I have no difficulty in finding myself in support of this resolution.
The only doubt I may have had relating to it was in respect of that part which deals with the building of hospitals, to assist municipal projects and other public works, because I believe those are all of a provincial nature for the most part. But nonetheless, the hon. member has seen fit to suggest that on the committee there should be both provincial and federal representation. Be that as it may, that does not prevent me from believing that the motion is a good one, because I think that it will meet some of the needs that the house is unable to attend to during the time extending from now until the 100th anniversary of the birth of our country.

Canadian Centennial
I regret that the hon. member for York West has seen fit to interject a political note in his discussion of this resolution. 1 would have thought that following the lead of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who because of the national character of the committee felt that he should cite prominent persons, who are neither of one political faith nor the other, in support of his resolution, the hon. member for York West would find himself in agreement with this resolution.
In any event, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to deal with another matter that has been engaging the attention of the country for some time, a project of national and international importance, a project which has contributed greatly to the social and economic development of our country. I refer, of course, to the great lakes-St. Lawrence seaway. I think the resolution now before the house is an opportune time to deal with it, first, because it took almost a century before it was possible to obtain approval of this great project and, next, because I am sure, and I hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) will agree with me, that it may be some time before it will be possible for me to discuss a matter of this nature on his estimates. They are not yet before the house and it may be some little time before they are. Let me say at once that I am pleased the minister saw fit to be in his seat while I participated in this discussion.
It seems to me, sir, that arising out of this resolution are some suggestions that I could profitably make. 1 should like to make to the Minister of Transport and to the government eight suggestions which are offered in no critical sense but in a constructive sense, eight suggestions which I believe will enhance the value of the project now under construction and which too will be of benefit to the country at large. But perhaps, sir, I may be allowed first of all to say something of a general nature about the project itself.
The St. Lawrence seaway is first and foremost a great engineering project. It is a great engineering project because dams are being built across rapids, power structures are being built many feet below the bed of the river, channels are being excavated through islands in the St. Lawrence and the whole regimen of the river in an area comprising 50 miles in length by three or four miles in width is being changed. It is also a great social achievement because in the area that I mentioned we have communities that are being inundated, two towns and six villages, churches, cemeteries, schools, whole communities that are being wiped out. I believe 23,000 acres are being flooded and

about 6,500 people have to be moved. But it is significant that on a new shoreline on both sides of the international boundary line are arising new towns, new communities, modern and up to date in every sense and, what is equal to that, parks and parkways are being built on both sides of the international boundary line.
But the seaway is still more than that, sir. It is an international project. It is one thing for governments to get together and decide upon a course of conduct but it is another thing to put that governmental decision into execution. In order to do that, there are no less than four and perhaps more international bodies composed of an equal number of Canadians and Americans that are working in co-operation and collaboration with each other to put the decision of government into effect. There is the St. Lawrence river joint board of engineers which has jurisdiction over the construction phase of the power development. Their duties involve the approval prior to construction and supervision during construction of all works proposed to be constructed by the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario and the power authority of the state of New York.
There is the international St. Lawrence river board of control whose objectives have been defined in the order of approval of the international joint commission and whose duties relate to water levels, the flow of water in the international rapids section and the regulation of the discharge of water from lake Ontario.
There is also the international lake Ontario board of engineers, appointed by the international joint commission, to study the level of the water. They have recommended a rather technical and complicated plan but one which I believe is being put into effect successfully.
Lastly, there is the international joint commission, a body that has been dealing with boundary water problems of this character for over 40 years, and it was, therefore, only logical that Canada and the United States should finally decide as they did that this was the proper medium through which to launch the power and seaway projects.
I mention these four boards which are putting into effect the decision of the Canadian and United States governments because it gives one an example of the co-operation and good will which can exist between two nations when they want a project of this nature approved. May I say just one word about the benefits which I believe will enure to the Canadian economy before I come to the suggestions. The first benefit is power; 2,200,000

horsepower of electrical energy in the international section is about to be developed. That represents close to 13 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per year.
When it is realized that this is the last area that the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission has for development in southern Ontario, one realizes what it means to the economy of the province of Ontario. Ontario has been forced on several occasions, and even recently, to the development of steam plants from coal, and we all know how costly those are. But here in the international section of the river is this large block of power, three times cheaper than the coal to generate, which unquestionably will have the effect, not only on our side of the line but also on the United States side, of developing and bringing industry to those areas.
Then there is the removal of the 112 mile 14-foot bottleneck that exists between Montreal and the foot of lake Ontario. The removal of this bottleneck will have the advantage of allowing 25-foot craft to move up the St. Lawrence to the ports of the great lakes, and for the first time it will permit lake vessels to go down the lakes to the port of Montreal and other St. Lawrence river ports. In earlier reports made by economists it has been estimated that the savings in transportation would amount to $48 million per year because of this benefit.
Then, of course, there is iron ore. I believe it is iron ore more than anything else that tilted the balance in favour of the development of this project. We always knew that it was a tremendous advantage to develop power but there was some hesitation on both sides of the line in an earlier stage in so far as the navigational aspects were concerned until such time as deposits of iron ore were discovered in Labrador and the Ungava region of northern Quebec.
It is hoped by many economists that, in the same way as the Mesabi ore came to the coal of Pennsylvania and brought about the existence of the great steel industry in the United States so also will the iron ore of Labrador and Quebec coming as it will up the St. Lawrence find a meeting point with power either in Ontario or Quebec-I believe more so in Quebec because of the greater power advantages that exist there-and thus establish a steel industry in that province.
Then, the fourth effect is that arising out of export and import trade. It has been said that until after the second world war there was little export or import trade on the St. Lawrence. After the war, because of the pioneering of Norwegian and Scandinavian interests, this trade, which is also known as
Canadian Centennial
great lakes overseas trade, began to take existence. In 1955 that trade amounted to about $760,000 per year but by 1956 it had gone over the million and it is believed by Canadian and United States economists that a few years after the seaway is opened this trade will be multiplied by three and within a short time by 25. It is this trade, therefore, which I believe has the greatest significance from the point of view of the ports along the seaway route, both on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence river.
Then, of course, there is the regard northward that it is hoped will be turned by industry and the general public of the mid-west states and of the eight states bordering on the seaway. There are eight states along the St. Lawrence route, the population of which represents about 35 per cent of that of the United States. These states have been turning their backs on the St. Lawrence. I do not say that in any derogatory sense, but geographically that has been the case. They have been looking toward the Erie canal and the Hudson river to move their traffic to New York city, and they have been looking to the Mississippi and the Illinois to take part of the trade down towards the ports of the gulf of Mexico. As I will indicate in a moment, it is hoped with every degree of assurance that that trade will now move by the St. Lawrence.
Finally, there is the industralization that is taking place along the seaway route, from the eastern extremity right up to the head of the lakes today. A measure of the success of the seaway is already apparent in the volume of investment that private industry has decided to make in order to take full advantage of one of the most revolutionary developments of our economy today. It has been said that more money is being spent by private industry in taking advantage of the present and future position of the seaway than in the building of both the power and navigation aspects of the project. I felt, sir, that before I made these suggestions that I am now about to make, I should preface my remarks by a statement of the effects of the seaway on the economy of Canada.
The first suggestion I should like to make is that an economic survey be made of the effect of the seaway upon the various regions of Canada; upon the ports and harbours along the seaway route, with particular reference to large concentrations of population such as the metropolitan area of Montreal and the area of Toronto and Hamilton. I make that suggestion because I believe the benefits of the seaway, as I have outlined them, will reflect upon all of

Canadian Centennial
the regions of Canada. Nonetheless, I think that survey should be made to ascertain what are the advantages to the central provinces; what are the advantages to the Atlantic provinces; what to the prairies, what to British Columbia, and, last but not least, what to that great area which lies to the north, the precambrian shield, because already tremendous mineral and metal development is beginning to take advantage of the seaway route.
I believe the survey should study and include something of the effect upon the ports extending from Rimouski, Seven Islands, Quebec, Three Rivers, Sorel-I jump over Montreal for the time being-Cornwall, Brockville, Kingston and Windsor-I pass over Toronto and Hamilton for the time being-to Sarnia and the lakehead. It seems to me that while the measure which the minister introduced concerning the port of Hamilton was a good one, and I felt I should support it because of the knowledge I had of conditions there, he will be getting requests from ports all across Canada for similar assistance. He already has a request of this nature from the lakehead. He, I believe with the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois) and others, went to Three Rivers and received representations there. Until a survey has been made of all these ports as to what kind of traffic will be most likely to go to one port of the seaway rather than the other, it seems to me that without an over-all policy of planning as that recommended here, disorder will follow.
Finally, it strikes me that the survey should have particular reference to the Metropolitan area of Montreal within a radius around that city of 100 miles, and similarly around metropolitan Toronto as far as Hamilton. I deal now particularly with Montreal because I represent a constituency in that city. I believe that the area of the city of Montreal within a radius of 100 miles will be tremendously affected by this development. The reason I suggest an economic study is that we have no such survey at the moment, other than the one which was prepared by the economic research division of the Department of Trade and Commerce in 1951 which was good at that time. It is seven years old, and much of it is based upon information which is out of date. I used it in the introduction of the legislation in the House of Commons in 1951, and I think conditions have changed so much that a great deal of this information is obsolete.
Then, may I draw to the attention of the house that the St. Lawrence seaway development corporation, the U.S. entity building the seaway had a United States economist, Dr.

Hazard, prepare a survey in 1955 or 1956, I am not too sure-having to do with the effect of the seaway upon the economy of the United States. Then, I hold in my hand something which I believe is novel, but it is one of the finest studies I have ever read of the effects of the St. Lawrence seaway on grain movements. It was prepared by Joseph R. Hartley in conjunction with the Indiana University school of business and in co-operation with the Chigaco board of trade. It is one of the finest surveys on the movement of grain in the St. Lawrence, and I commend it to the minister's attention. I wish I had time to take six or seven excerpts from it which I have marked out, but I will take only one because I think the house will perhaps not have realized just what, in the eyes of this United States group, the seaway means to them. Dealing with grain, one of the recommendations says:
The large volume of Canadian grain which already moves on the St. Lawrence canals will be extended somewhat by diversion from other routes. The relative changes will be much less than for United States grain. Total Canadian seaway exports will range 200 million bushels. The combined Canadian-American volume will be in the neighbourhood of 350 to 400 million bushels by the mid-1960's.
That is something we did not take into consideration when we were considering the project back in 1951. This survey says there will be no less than 200 million bushels of American grain going down the seaway. I quote from page two.
By 1966, the seaway will be carrying from 150 million bushels to 200 million bushels of United States grain exports, assuming present levels of international grain trading will be sustained.
That is why I say all these ports along the route are bound to be affected if this statement is accurate, and there is no reason why it should not be so. I may, perhaps, be asked this question: why did not you have a survey done when you were in government? Well, we started, and we asked a prominent transportation economist of considerable renown in this country to prepare an economic survey of the effects of the seaway on the various parts of Canada. He proceeded with this work, but unfortunately he was interrupted in his task because his services were required with the royal commission on economic prospects, and when that was over and he was prepared to continue his research we appointed him to the tolls committee to discuss the question of tolls with a similar committee in the United States. My understanding is that a large portion of this work has already been done, and that it would not take too much time to complete it. It would be of tremendous use, to the minister and to his department and to the country at large.

The second suggestion I should like to make is that the 1947 board of engineers' report on the Lachine section be reviewed in the light of present events. This was a report tabled in the house in 1948. It dealt with the development of the Lachine section. It was hoped at that time it would be possible to develop Lachine jointly for power and navigation purposes. When I was with the seaway authority I made several trips to the office of the premier of Quebec. I was, of course, always cordially received, but I was not successful in convincing the premier of Quebec that power should be developed jointly with navigation in the Lachine section. The engineers whom we consulted felt at the time that it would mean a saving of some $25 million if this were done.
The suggestion I would make now is that while this report was prepared in part in co-operation with the Quebec Hydro Electric Power Commission it should be reviewed, and it seems to me that the minister or the government, should see whether something could not be salvaged from this report and whether it is not too late to develop power along with navigation on that section. Because if this were done I am sure there would be substantial savings not only to the province of Quebec but also to the federal government.
The third suggestion I have to make is that the St. Lawrence ship channel and Montreal harbour committee report of 1950 should be brought up to date. This, may I suggest to the house and to the minister particularly, is an extremely important report. The committee was set up in 1950 with four terms of reference. One dealt with the Saguenay river; another dealt with the general development of the ship channel at the time; still another with the improvement of the ship channel over a three or four year period; and a fourth term of reference had to do with the progressive development of the Montreal harbour after the completion of the seaway and power development in the Lachine section. The committee had, as its main purpose, to co-ordinate the work and responsibilities of the main groups in the area; the national harbours board, the Department of Transport, the Lachine canal and the St. Lawrence ship channel which is a division of the Department of Transport.
That committee submitted a general plan for a project to accomplish this co-ordination. It was fearful that low water levels in the port of Montreal might affect navigation in that port, and made certain recommendations.
96698-133J
Canadian Centennial
The recommendation which it made is contained under "main features" of the conclusions dealing with Montreal harbour, and perhaps I may quote the main features of that plan.
The main features of the project are a dam with locks in the vicinity of Pointe aux Thembles and the maintenance of the low water level in the reach above the dam to an elevation approximately six feet above the extreme low water of 1934. The project will also entail the enlargement of the cross-sectional area of the river above the dam in order to reduce the cost of future harbour development on the south shore and to provide adequate depth for access both to this future development and to industrial areas that may be developed in that vicinity.
This report is dated 1950. It was prepared and made before the seaway construction had begun, and it was also made after the report of the board of engineers. I should like to draw the attention of the house to some of its features. The report is based upon the assumption that the power development in the Lachine section will be undertaken in one stage. It is also based on the assumption that the navigation channel would go into the La Prairie basin pool on the south side of the river at St. Catherine's bay, the area opposite Montreal, but would pass through the Victoria bridge at the north side of the river, with one lock immediately above the bridges and another slightly below the Victoria bridge. And, also, it was based on the assumption that the present Victoria bridge was to be abandoned for railway purposes and a new railway crossing constructed immediately above the present bridge and located partly on the dam and partly on the bridge structure.
To my mind this is perhaps the most important document dealing with the future development of the port of Montreal which has so far been published, and that is why I suggest that this report, which is still extremely important but which is somewhat out of date because of the fact that the ship channel is now on the south side of the river, should be brought up to date in the light of what has happened.
The fourth recommendation or suggestion is that the national harbours board should take immediate jurisdiction over the south shore area from the Indian lands at Caughna-waga to the present limits of the port of Montreal on both shores. As the minister knows, a great deal of land has been reclaimed by the seaway authority from above Jacques Cartier bridge to well below Longueuil. These areas are capable of industrial development and some industries are considering locating there at the present time.
Then there is the whole south shore from above Victoria bridge to the Indian lands of

Canadian Centennial
Caughnawaga, better known as the La Prairie basin, which are quite capable of development as a south shore harbour and industrial frontage, all directly accessible to rail as well as deep water transportation. Indeed, this area is today developing at a fast rate. I wish I had time to go into the amount of expenditure already made by industries which have been establishing themselves in this area. To mention but a few, there is a titanium industry, a number of trans-shipment docks, an ammonia industry and a new town called Candiac which has received a charter from the province of Quebec and which proposes to develop 2,500 acres of land with a population of 50,000 people. I spoke earlier of the steel industry where I understand land has been optioned by certain steel interests for the possible development of a metallurgical industry in that area.


Mr. Mclvor:: Would the hon. member allow a question? I understand that this seaway would never have been built and it very nearly did go wrong, but the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, meeting with United States officials said: "We appreciate your co-operation, but whether you co-operate or not, we are going ahead". When the hon. member is speaking of great men in Canada he should give honour to whom honour is due.


An hon. Member:: What about Premier Frost?


Lionel Chevrier: I did not have notice of this question,-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Put
it on the order paper.


Lionel Chevrier: -but I think perhaps I could read from this survey which would deal with the hon. member's question. The survey was made by Joseph R. Hartley and is entitled "The Effects of the St. Lawrence Seaway on Grain Movements". He states in one of the recommendations as follows:
Finally in 1951 Canada announced that she would build the seaway with or without our co-operation. This ultimatum had more effect upon congress than all the economic and political arguments that had ever been marshalled and congress speedily voted to go ahead.
This strong attitude was taken by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) and the former minister of trade and commerce, both of whom played a most important part in advancing this project before our neighbours to the south.
Now if I may go on with my suggestion? What I want to see is an orderly completion of the seaway. It is possible to visualize an industrial zone identified with direct and common paths of power and transportation

which will extend from the head of the international section at Prescott on the west, through the remade seaway valley of the river, eastward through Cornwall, Valley-field, Beauharnois to Montreal, Longueuil, Boucherville, Varennes, Vercheres, and Sorel to Nicolet at the foot of lake Saint Pierre. This will be Eastern Canada's industrial "Gold Coast" and may be expected ultimately to be a prime centre of rail traffic in the St. Lawrence valley. That is why, since most of this zone will be in the La Prairie section, it becomes of utmost importance to see that the area is properly controlled and planned for future development. Furthermore, unless some body takes it over there is bound to be chaos. A committee has already been established comprised of various groups of people to deal with this very proposal and I hope one of the recommendations which it will make is that the national harbours board should take over that area. I hope the board will take it over, because industry which is now coming into that area will at least be able to know what it may expect in the future.
The fifth suggestion I have to make is that the seaway authority should be given title to the Beauharnois and Welland canals. After all, as my hon. friend the Minister of Transport knows, if tolls are to be collected there must be title in the authority collecting them. As it is now, I believe title to both the Beauharnois canal and the Welland canal is today vested in the Department of Transport. While under the act the authority would, I think, have in equity the right nonetheless to collect tolls, in my opinion it would be in the interests of good administration that the seaway authority be given title to these canals so that when the question of tolls arises they will not have someone raise the point, legal or technical, that they are not authorized to collect tolls on those two canals.
As the house knows, the seaway authority has title in the rest of the seaway because it received it through expropriations both in the La Prairie section and at Iroquois where that lock was opened recently.
The sixth suggestion I make is that a new bridge should be erected by the federal government between Montreal and the south shore, downstream from the Jacques Cartier bridge. The house will remember that when these matters were being discussed by the last parliament it was felt that the transportation facilities across the island of Montreal-at least from the island of Montreal to the south shore-were not sufficient at that time to meet traffic conditions. Giving heed to these suggestions, the federal government decided to

build a bridge from Verdun across Nuns' island to the south shore. From the information I have been able to obtain the bridges as they now are and after they have been repaired, will have a traffic capacity of 7,500 motor cars per hour in each direction. This means 15,000 cars per hour and I am told what is required today is several times that amount. For that reason I believe another bridge, which was in fact recommended in the report of 1950 with which I dealt earlier, should be built downstream from the present Jacques Cartier bridge.
The seventh suggestion is that representations should be made to the province of Quebec to construct another bridge alongside the Mercier bridge. The Mercier bridge which links the island of Montreal with the south shore of Caughnawaga is the property of the province of Quebec and the seaway authority has already spent many millions of dollars in building new approaches to that bridge. As a matter of fact it was indicated to the seaway authority at the time they negotiated contracts with the provincial authorities and afterwards for the approaches that it was the intention of the Quebec government to build another bridge at some future time and that therefore we should make, not two approaches but several in case a decision of that nature should be made by the province. This we have done. Well, giving effect to these intentions and thinking of the announcement made by the provincial government that a new, fast, modern and up to date highway would be built from Montreal to the Laurentians, we did provide the funds for these new and up-to-date approaches to the Mercier bridge and the approaches, when completed, will be ready for another bridge should the province decide to take such a step. Representations should be made accordingly by the present government.
That is why I think the minister and others representing the government should approach the provincial authorities with a view to getting an additional bridge built alongside the Mercier bridge so that it will form a trunk in the highway going to the Laurentians. While I am on this question of bridges may I add that the national harbours board will,
I am sure, want to give consideration to the addition of another lane to the Jacques Cartier bridge. There is room there for one such lane, and its construction should not be much longer delayed.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him his time has expired.
Canadian Centennial


Lionel Chevrier: I have one more suggestion if I could add it-


Some hon. Members:: Proceed.


Lionel Chevrier: The final suggestion is that immediate consideration should be given to the construction of additional tunnels or overhead bridges on the Lachine canal. I have just one word and I will resume my seat sir. The Lachine canal, very much like the Welland canal, is in a bad way from the point of view of traffic. One has only to go there during the peak hours such as noon or five o'clock to realize what a bottleneck there is over the Lachine canal which is clustered with industry on both sides.
The former government built two tunnels, one at St. Remi and the other at Atwater, in co-operation with the city of Montreal which made pretty substantial contributions to them. It seems to me that tunnels or overhead bridges over the Lachine canal to remove the traffic bottlenecks should be given serious consideration. These are the suggestions which I wanted to make. They are made, as the house can see, in an attempt to be helpful. They are made in a constructive way and I hope the minister and his officials will find it possible to give effect to them.


Mr. Charles Yuill (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion thus far and I would like to place myself in the position of being in support of this resolution. I think the resolution is an excellent one because it deals with many phases of our social and economic development. Most of the problems that are embraced in the resolution are national in scope but although some appear to be national problems they seem to take on a local complexion because of their nature and there are some that could best be served by the joint action of the federal and provincial governments.
I have in my hand a copy of an article taken from Maclean's magazine of December 7, 1957, at page 1 entitled, "1967 Birthday Party-A Preview of Our Plans". The article reads:
It is only ten years until we celebrate our 100th birthday. What kind of party will we have? Here are some guesses by F. A. Hamilton, Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources who is planning at long range Confederation Year-1967.
It will last a whole year, not just the weekend we now devote to Dominion Day. "The emphasis on Dominion Day in the past has been too much on baseball and not enough on national background," says Hamilton. "We want mass participation in the centennial. We want a rededication of the Canadian people-a resurgence of the national conscience."

Canadian Centennial
The minister is quoted as having indicated:
With the trans-Canada highway completed, Canada will open a new one-or series of highways- to the Arctic-
Municipalities and provinces will be urged to plan and complete major works so that they come \o fruition and can be dedicated in confederation year.
This is the sentence that particularly appeals to me because it is pertinent to what I expect to say. It reads:
A re-examination of Canadian history at every level-down to the smallest backwoods community-will be encouraged with the idea of bringing every Canadian closer to his origin.
The minister's statement gives me some ground for hope that what I have to say will not fall on deaf ears in spite of the attitude displayed by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton). I think the minister's statement is indicative of the fact that he senses that we have problems and in his capacity he is willing to come to grips with them and I wish to congratulate him on that score.
With regard to the subject of highways mentioned in the resolution I would like to command to the government's consideration a very necessary addition to our trans-Canada highway system, namely the Yellowhead route. This is the shortest possible route between Vancouver and Winnipeg and I think it could be described as the missing link in the program of the trans-Canada highway. Certainly it serves the best interests of thousands of people in northern British Columbia and Alberta and Saskatche-ewan as well. At the present time the route has been practically all built, particularly in Alberta from Jasper, to the east gate of Jasper park and from there to the Saskatchewan border, where there is a standard highway second to none. With very few exceptions you will find the same condition in Saskatchewan. In Manitoba you will also find a condition that lends itself very generously to this route. The only part that is left for the attention of the federal government is a stretch approximately 17 miles in length that lies within Jasper national park between the town of Jasper and the west gate known as Yellowhead.
To a very large degree the government of the province of British Columbia has carried out its commitments in the building of the highway from that point to Kamloops. When this road is built it is estimated that there will be an additional 400,000 cars passing through Jasper national park. If that is so it is indicative of the services that will normally be rendered to the people in the northern part of British Columbia and Alberta particularly. I think if one examines
[Mr. Yuill.l
it a little more closely one would have to agree that there will be a considerable source of revenue accruing from that additional tourist trade. If one considers only, the $2 licence fee that is paid for entering the park one would find it would go a long way towards meeting the cost of building the short link within the park.
The increased volume of tourists passing through the park points up something that appears to me to have been neglected within the Jasper national park and the town of Jasper in particular. I refer to the public relations that should exist between the authorities and the people of the town of Jasper. This should bring home forcibly to the park administration the need for the fullest understanding and co-operation between the people of Jasper and those charged with the responsibilities of administering to their needs. There are many problems in public relations existing in the town of Jasper at the present time and these will be accentuated as the volume of tourist trade grows. Some towns within the national parks are considered children of necessity not convenience and I think this is true of Jasper.
I know a little bit about Jasper national park because I lived there at the end of the first war. At that time it had little or no appeal as a tourist attraction. The only way you could get there was by railroad and the only tourists to whom it would likely appeal would be those who were prepared to go in by train and then hire guides with saddle or pack horses who would go into the wilds and enjoy nature in the rough. When our provincial government saw fit to build a road at a cost of several million dollars it changed the picture. There is no problem now as far as traffic is concerned and one of the finest highways in Canada runs right to the park gate. For that reason, of course, tourist trade has grown by leaps and bounds.
If we are to celebrate the centennial in the right way, some of the things which are so necessary and so important to the people who are charged with the responsibility of making the tourist's visit a pleasant one should be given some consideration by the government. There should be a desire to understand their problems a little better and, if and when possible, to apply the milk of human kindness to the administration.
In the town of Jasper they have many problems that must have some consideration. As the tourist trade grew naturally it posed additional problems for the people of the town of Jasper. It is true that the parks authorities had their own responsibilities with respect to providing better roads, better

accommodation for the tourists, and so on, but without the co-operation of the people of the town of Jasper the tourist trade would of necessity lose its appeal overnight. If it were not for the people and for the all-out effort they put in as good-will ambassadors the park would not be the success it is today.
When the people moved into Jasper they were, as the minister suggested, there more or less on sufferance. Perhaps there is an element of truth in that, but without these people, as I have said before, the tourist appeal certainly would not be there. Because of the peculiar regulations that obtain in the parks, when people move into the town of Jasper they are forfeiting in reality their Canadian freedom because they have no voice at all in the management of the local affairs. They have no voice in the amount of taxes levied or in the disposition of the tax money. There are gross inequalities in land rental; there are obvious penalties to those assessed on a percentage of gross income as compared with those who are not. There are obviously injustices all the way down the line.
I know of a case where a man built a fully modern home but because he was just outside the town limits of the town of Jasper he was denied the right to live in his own home for five months of the year. That is something that could be easily adjusted. Those in Jasper who have their own homes and businesses have no security of land tenancy. They are dependent upon the whims of the department in respect of rental of ground leases. It depends upon whether they have a lease or are there on licence. The maximum time is 60 days in the case of a licence and a maximum of 42 years in the case of land rental lease. It puts these people in a pretty precarious position when, regardless of their contribution to the community, they are subject at all times to the peculiar whims of those concerned. If you dare bring the wrath of the executive down on your head you are a marked man and as a consequence you must move out.
The existing difficulties under which the citizens in the national parks now live could be corrected and eliminated by a little closer liaison between the policy-making officials and the residents of the national parks. One way to do that would be to appoint a western supervisor, a man who lives in that country and knows what conditions are. Rather than sending the problems 2,500 miles away to be dealt with by people who never even saw Jasper park and know nothing about the conditions prevailing at the local level, it would be fitting and very desirable to appoint
Canadian Centennial
a western supervisor who would have authority to correct the injustices and inadequacies that prevail.
The citizens of Jasper have submitted a request to the minister in the form of a resolution that they be given the right to set up within their park or within their town a municipal system that would give them some measure of autonomy. It would give them the right to have some voice in the spending of the tax money that is taken from them. I know the minister does not see it as I do, but I believe there is still room for reconciliation when you get down to brass tacks.
I have a copy of the reply that was sent in answer to the request, and it deals with the points that I have brought up. I do not want to delve into this too much at this time but there is a certain amount of misunderstanding prevailing and I think this is the feeling of the people of Jasper park. I would gather from the minister's letter that he is of the opinion that they will take over the management of the park, but I do not see it that way at all. All they want at any time is to have a voice in the management of their own affairs. I think it is a reasonable request. Whether or not it would be necessary to go to the extreme of setting up an independent municipality within Jasper national park I cannot say. I do not think it is necessary. I think that by a proper understanding, by a more kindly and humane attitude on the part of the authorities, many of the problems that are very serious so far as the people are concerned could be adjusted and rectified to the point where we would have a much higher standard of public relations.
I am hoping that the minister will make it a point to go out to Jasper, as he has promised to do. He will meet some of the finest people in the world, people who are not grabbing for everything for themselves. All they want today is to get a square deal and have the right to live as Canadian citizens, not as third-grade citizens. So far as their own destiny is concerned, they are actually worse off than the Indians on the reserves. No consideration is shown them so far as their freedom of movement is concerned.


Harold Edward Winch: What has this to do with resolution No. 3?


Charles Yuill: I think it has a lot to do with it. I think this glorious centennial presents an opportunity to deal with some of the problems which are prevalent and which should be taken care of in a humanitarian way. I think it is relevant, but I am going to leave the matter at that point. I know that when the minister visits the area and has

Canadian Centennial
some of these problems brought to his attention on the local level he will be willing and ready to take a new look.


Mr. Alexander Best (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on the resolution now before us, and to speak for the first time in the house I should like to congratulate you, rather tardily I admit, on the high office and time-honoured traditions to which you have succeeded. Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to congratulate the Speaker as well on the fine exercise of his powers, his great discretion and his very considerable humour and wide and human tolerance in the past eight weeks. Through you, sir, I would extend to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the gratitude of all members of the house for the vigour and dispatch with which they carried out their duties.
I could not talk further without referring to my predecessor in this house, Marion Sybil Bennett, member for Halton from August 10, 1953 until her death on November 12 just a year ago. Many of you knew her, valued her keen ability, her warm personality and glimpsed the unsurpassable bravery with which she faced her long and terrible illness. If I can bring to you only a fraction of her insight and her dedication to the affairs of this house, I will indeed be grateful and content.
I would suggest, sir, that the resolution before us today is somewhat deceptive in its implications. I have read it, and examined it a number of times. I have listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the various members who have spoken on it this afternoon. We have just heard the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Yuill) and before him the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chev-rier) who discussed various St. Lawrence seaway problems of considerable interest and made a number of suggestions, largely based on fact, which I would say contained much of interest. I would add, however, and I think hon. members on the government side of the house would certainly agree, that the statement of the hon. member for Laurier, that only consideration is required for this resolution, has in it a somewhat interesting meaning.
I can quite understand the reference by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) to the abdication of our position of responsibility if we are prepared to accept the resolution. I feel that is just what we would be doing, and I noted the rather pious references to political considerations by the hon. member for Laurier when commenting on these suggestions. I would say that the resolution expresses the sentiments of all of

us, but in large part sentiments, and not ideas based on hard, sound thinking and constructive practice having regard to the way the resolution is couched at the present time.
The sentiments of our party are, that we could not support the idea of a committee which would take over in a rather vast and amorphous form functions of the house, the special committees, and of the cabinet, and to deal with all the matters that come within the breadth of this omnibus resolution. It has much of interest in it, but, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said in speaking of other things the other day, it would make a caricature of parliament if we were to support it at this time.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when introducing the resolution. The debt of all of us in this country to Sir John Alexander Macdonald is one that is well remembered. The hon. member mentioned that the resolution has been on the order paper for the past three or four sessions and quoted certain newspaper articles at some length. For instance, he referred to an article in the Ottawa Journal by Mr. Norman Smith in support of his contention that consideration should now be given. But I would draw to the attention of all hon. members that Mr. Norman Smith's article had to do with a plan for Canada's birthday and concerned planning for a specific occasion, for the observation of this anniversary, and not for a vast host of projects which come rightly within the responsibility of the government, the cabinet, and parliament working each day and each year in the next ten years.
That, to my mind, is the obvious and very conclusive difference in our thinking. This great omnibus resolution has tremendous sentimental appeal, but is put in such a manner that we could not possibly agree with it. I would be quite willing to say that we should have the Queen here, which would be a wonderful thing, that we should have the Olympic games, a NATO meeting and music festivals, but these are not the things mentioned in the resolution before us at the moment. The things to which I have referred should be matters for consideration by a definitely established anniversary committee.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to a speech by the former prime minister at Hamilton, Ontario, last March and the somewhat, shall we say, coloured words of the Toronto Daily Star. But here again we are dealing with generalities and nothing but generalities and sentiments, which are common, of course, to Canadians

Canadian Centennial
all across the country. Reference was made also to the words of the present Prime Minister in the blue and white election document which we have seen waved in the house from time to time. Surely all Canadians agree that Canada has a great future, but this resolution is not the proper means by which to bring it about. We have seen this fine document put out by our party on many occasions. I believe the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) has read from it from time to time. In view of his dedication to the document and the useful knowledge that he must have gained from reading it, we sometimes wonder why he does not cross the floor of the house. Let us, however, look at the problem in more detail.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have you read it yourself?


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: Oh, very much so. The eight weeks that have passed since the historic opening of parliament by Her Majesty the Queen have been most heartening and fruitful. From the wording of the resolution one would perhaps think not.


Harold Edward Winch: I understand now why it has taken you two months to get to your feet.


John Borden Hamilton: That is uncalled for.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: It seems to me that in the past the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) has said that he is a socialist and therefore, he is practical. I would say, sir, that this resolution is the greatest example of impracticality that I have seen in my short time in the house.


Harold Edward Winch: I hope you will be here when I speak.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: that is wrong with it is that the Conservatives did not move it.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: Under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet, we have seen the unveiling of a program of wise and constructive policies long since due. We would hope, Mr. Speaker, that this is only a beginning, that vigorous and far-reaching projects will be planned for the future and that the heavy burdens of cabinet responsibility and administration will not paralyse initiative and vision as they have for so many years past.
Let us look at this resolution in a more specific way. The county of Halton, which I have the honour to represent, is an old and 96698-134
historic riding, unchanged since confederation these last 90 years. Within its boundaries, it contains almost every conceivable variety of occupation and outlook. It is, in many respects, a detailed cross section of eastern Canada. The effects of the St. Lawrence seaway, of the automobile and aircraft industries, of agriculture, of construction, the vast problems of roads and services and above all of education, are brought together and felt more keenly, perhaps, in my riding than in most others.
For many years the population growth of our country, and my riding, for they are identical, has been the largest in Ontario, closely followed by that of Peel, whose hon. member has recently led our NATO delegation to Paris. Together our ridings stretch from Toronto to Hamilton, from the shores of lake Ontario to the higher land miles to the north. Halton is the home of the giant Ford assembly plant, as well as the location of a host of smaller industries; the residence of thousands of workers commuting to the aircraft factories at Malton and the employees in the Hamilton and Toronto areas. Through our lands pass the major arteries of transportation, superhighways and many lines of both major railway companies. The vast and rapid growth of population has brought with it numerous problems of servicing and safety. The extension of postal deliveries and the improvement and gradual elimination of level crossings are matters which demand close attention.
We may be more aware than most of the necessity for change and planning that this resolution indicates. As a matter of fact, I would feel that the greatest anniversary committee-possibly I am prejudiced in this-could be, and will be, the same Conservative government that is sitting here now, giving leadership, unity, ideals and action, as it did 100 years before in the heroic days of Macdonald and Cartier.
If I may be pardoned for a few moments, sir. I have always felt, as I have strolled in the years past and now down that sort of philosopher's walk past the statue of Macdonald, a feeling of reverence and history, and in the light and the glow of that great picture hanging in the west end of this building, the confidence in Canada that must have been his. How came it to such a man, troubled and trialed by personal problems and great burdens, to take into his hands time and time again the task of uniting this far-flung land. We are now dedicated to do the same thing.
The government may be congratulated, I feel, on a return to a policy of national unity. The measures outlined in the throne

Canadian Centennial
speech, and gradually implemented in succeeding weeks convey the sincerity of this approach. I think we can now see that the fascinating array, this furious play within a play from time to time on benches opposite, can be dismissed as mere auditions for a January spectacle. All parts of the country alike must share in the prosperity of Canada, and through a broad and unbiased national outlook this will be achieved. The proposed resolution and suggested committee are in exact agreement with the very things we are at present doing. The very opening day of this session, in the words of Her Majesty, this government gave notice of its intention of correcting much of the economic imbalance inherited from the previous administration. The bill we have passed effecting cash advances for farm-stored grain will go some distance in aiding the static and reduced economy of the prairie farmer. It will affect my county and bring timely employment and increased business right across the nation, but it will take some years to change, in more basic fashion, the neglectful loss of markets and the subsidized competition from neighbour countries we have experienced from time to time.
We know, sir, that bills will soon be brought down to aid the mixed agricultural areas of the east, where the farmer has not yet quite resigned himself to the position of an often forgotten figure. The notice of legislation to ensure permanent floor prices is welcomed indeed, and we know that the details will be rapidly worked out and put into effect. One of the earliest actions of this government was to take steps to regulate the importation of turkeys and fowl from the United States. This measure has been of great value to the poultry industry, and many people engaged in it in my county. Halton lays claim to some of the richest mixed farming land in eastern Canada. Our livestock industry, predominantly dairy, serves millions of people in the nearby urban centres. Choice fruit and market garden land in considerable acreage predominates the southern end of our county. For years, the dumping of United States products has worked great hardship on these people, and it is our sincere hope that some changes will soon be forthcoming. As mentioned in the throne speech, farmers must be assured of a fair share of the national income and means that will be brought about to provide greater price stability are awaited with keen interest.
There is another matter which might be added to the general planning program and policies which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre makes in his resolution. In the
great meeting place of producers and consumers of agricultural products in the Toronto-Hamilton area, and the counties of Halton and Peel, there has been a long and growing demand for changes in our livestock processing methods. The humane slaughter of food animals has become general in most civilized countries of the world, but Canada and the United States lag far behind. I would call on the federal government at this time, Mr. Speaker, to enact or enforce legislation, to co-operate in every way with the provincial governments whose chief responsibility it is, to remedy this difficult and unnecessary situation. I realize a study of this matter is now taking place, and we can only hope that it will be effective in the near future.
The proposed resolution mentions the need for planning in the fields of conservation, irrigation and power projects. These have long been objectives of the Conservative party as well, and definite steps have been taken to put these plans into practice. It is hoped that the royal commission on energy will give us long-range recommendations for charting our future plans. The announcement of financial assistance for the maritimes through aid for construction of the Beechwood project in New Brunswick, and the intention to proceed as soon as possible, as the Prime Minister has said from time to time, with the Columbia river and South Saskatchewan dam projects, all show the intent and broad planning of this government.
My hon. friend mentioned the need for both federal and provincial representatives on the proposed committee. There has been, perhaps, no more important move of the present government than the calling of the dominion-provincial conference which met just two weeks ago today. There was seen in that two-day meeting I would suggest, sir, under that great map of Canada and that long, greying picture of the fathers of confederation, a spirit of co-operation and mutual interest that had not been displayed for a long, long time. This government listened; it did not tell. This was just the beginning-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is quite true.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: Yes, it listened; it did not tell.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No one learned anything.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: This was just the beginning of a fairer and more just plan for each and every province, a beginning of a more unified and unitedly prosperous country. This, then, is the beginning once again, through practical and sensible channels, of the intention and spirit of that part of my hon. friend's resolution. This government, working with the provinces in normal and tested channels, is already carrying out its plans and policies.

The hon. member's resolution mentions the economic development of this country. Throughout the past year, unnecessary hardship has been caused by the so-called tight money policy. This measure brought on supposedly to curb inflation and regulate the rapid expansion of this country almost crushed many sections of our economy and has caused great hardship in my own riding. Almost overnight, the former government restricted and curbed, above all else, small businessmen, an additional burden being added to the already heavy load that these people have shouldered. I am confident that the raising of the lowest tax bracket for small businessmen from 20 to 25 thousand announced by the Minister of Finance last Friday evening, is a step in the right direction, and should greatly encourage the 2,000 odd enterprises which will be affected.
We have noticed in recent weeks that the gradual and general downward trend of interest rates is continuing, and we hope this bill will be even more noticeable in the future. The tight money policy, child as it was of the previous government, has meant a much reduced rate of home building in my riding, tremendous difficulties for our municipalities, and considerable unemployment. Let the hon. gentlemen opposite consider, as they stir their dark cauldrons of fear and foreboding that they spawned these troubles of unemployment, and that the linkage is direct and unmistakable.
The mortgage money made available by our government on two occasions has helped, and will help, the housing situation very considerably. The resolution before us talks of housing and slum clearance, and we intend to go forward and face these problems. The government's decisions to lower down payment requirements on new low cost homes, and ease income restrictions, were indeed wise. We hope that further moves and reorganizations in the field of low cost housing are planned for the future. This will all be part of the national development policy that we have promised the people of this country, and which will bring increased employment and a thorough development of our country's resources by, and for, Canadians. This policy is now beginning to unfold, and makes unnecessary, by its very action and practicability, the intent of the hon. member's resolution.
The social development of Canada, as observed in the resolution before us, is of great importance. Our party believes in social benefits of a just and reasonable nature, and we have taken certain preliminary steps to change and modify our present methods.
Canadian Centennial
Increased pensions for senior citizens will greatly aid our older people a well as their children, who are in many cases responsible for young families, to gain a foothold themselves, and support their parents as well. The reduction of the residence requirement from 20 to 10 years partially removes a serious discrimination against our new Canadians. We have in Halton some 7,000 of these people who have come to Canada in the last few years, bringing with them specialized skills and knowledge, and whose development, in a material sense, has not cost us the inevitable subsidization in education, health and other fields, which most of us have experienced. These measures are a step in the right direction, a prelude to what we hope will be a comprehensive and thorough reassessment of our social security measures.
The increased war veterans allowances are merely the due of men who saved our country in many times past, and a credit to the Canadian Legion, which plays a large and constructive role in our various communities.
The recent d'fficult and courageous decision by the cabinet to continue the CF-105 production program at Malton has aided the economy of my county a good deal-and I note that sectional economy is mentioned in the resolution. There is every evidence that an extension of conventional aircraft and general military development will be necessary for some years to come. Utterances from Russia, to the effect that missiles will present the only solutions to offensive or defensive operations, are not borne out, even by the Russians themselves. Their large build-up of submarines and other conventional military material indicates a very definite balance or reliance on their part, on both the new strategy of missiles, and the older methods which have been used up to now.
I wonder, from time to time, Mr. Speaker, just why it is that we have not been further ahead in various military fields, and why we should face recurrent and convulsive shocks in our employment and working program at Malton, several thousand of whose workers live in my own county. I hope it will not be written that we were too late, and that the former government's neglect both of diversification in the economic sense and lack of vision in the military field at Malton and its allied industries was a measure of our loss of leadership and freewill.
Possibly, but improbably, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party opposite is planning a new national development policy in accordance with this resolution. The two chief exponents of that party, one to the left and one to the right, equally placed about their leader, are faring forth these days in search of plunder.

Canadian Centennial
One to the east, and one to the west a curious set of twins, the remnant of the brass put out to grass, and the farther they go, it seems, the greener it gets.
Somewhere along the road, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party lost its small '1' liberalism and ended up as a large "L" Liberal shell with nothing much inside. So, Mr. Speaker,-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You haven't done anything.


Mr. Carter:: You have read all your speech.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: I should like to refer to this week's issue of Weekend magazine, the issue dated November 30, because it contains some interesting questions, and answers by the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson).


Mr. Dupuis:: Get back to the resolution.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: I see that this article has been read by some hon. members opposite, but it provides some interesting quotations on the history of the Liberal party.


Harold Edward Winch: Have you been offered the Nobel prize yet?


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: Liberalism means, to the hon. member for Algoma East, change, reform, and improvement. These, he says, are the essentials of Liberalism. Again I quote:
I would like to think that over the years the Liberal party with a capital "L" has been the best embodiment of that liberal philosophy with a small "1".
I would submit, Mr. Speaker,-the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) to the contrary-that something must have gone wrong along the road, and that the party with the small "1" liberalism, in its best sense, is the party that represents progress, future and vision in this country, today sitting on your right hand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member would permit me to ask him a question-


Mr. Hees:: Go back to your fish nets. Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -I would like to ask him a question since he has taken-


Mr. Hodgson:: This is his first speech, what is wrong with you? Just cannot take it, eh?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, no, but I am just asking if he will permit a question. If the hon. gentleman who is speaking wishes me to sit down I will.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: I will certainly permit a question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think those of us on this side of the house who have listened with interest to the hon. gentleman's speech upon

which I congratulate him-I think he has caught the ear of the house and even my rather deaf ear-but I think most of us would be a great deal more interested in the hon. gentleman's own definition of conservatism than in hearing repeated the excellent definition of liberalism of my colleague from Algoma East.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: I will be delighted, Mr. Speaker, to reply to the hon. gentleman's question. The definition of conservatism, as I see it today, is in the actions and programs that this government in the last five months has brought before this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: You asked for it. You asked for it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Plus rising unemployment.


An hon. Member:: That is all you can talk about.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: That is a problem, definitely a problem and, as I have said, a legacy which comes from the other side of the house. We believe in a just system of social security, of helping people to help themselves, in the form of tax reductions, particularly for those younger families with children and-as we saw the other evening-the aid of small businessmen, and greater unification of all Canada through the encouragement of economic projects in various distressed areas. All this I call economic reform, which is a great and far change from the colourless and inert policies of the previous administration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just the same policies.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: And let us look at the side other than the economic standpoint. We are a party of reform because we have, and intend to still further, return to the individual in this country those rights and privileges which have gradually slipped away, and to return to parliament, the elected voice of the people, the rights and privileges which have so largely disappeared in the last few years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Like the right to have a budget.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: I think the hon. gentleman knows quite well what I mean. The record is clear.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It is; it is very clear.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: There is a matter which is a very great problem, and is indeed most serious. This possibly was discussed too much just a week ago, and it has to do with the situation in the automobile industry. We realize the situation is a rather serious one. The Ford Motor Company which has its general assembly plant in my riding in the town

Canadian Centennial
of Oakville has laid off some 2,400 workers, Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock at this
1,400 of those being employed at the Oakville time?
plant.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Do not say they are laid off;
temporarily retired would be a better way of	

describing them.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: Well, temporarily retired. The hon. gentleman opposite might be in a rather difficult position, and I would suggest that he use some caution in the next few months when he may find himself permanently retired.


George Harris Hees: You have got someone a little bit too tough for you here.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: However, this situation at Ford is somewhat different from the other two automobile companies. Chrysler Corporation and General Motors announced a complete cessation or suspension of production for several days last week due to newspaper reports which were not founded on any official statement whatsoever from this government. The situation is, if my memory serves me correctly, that General Motors shut its whole plant on Monday and Tuesday of last week and Chrysler Corporation on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of last week and, I believe, for the same four days of this present week. We felt that these two companies were using somewhat of a big stick technique on the present government and this distressed us very considerably. The situation of course at Ford, which has a plant in my own riding, has been somewhat different. Their announcement of a layoff of 2,400 workers was made prior to any problem with respect to this so-called newspaper rumour, and it was, as they had indicated at that time, due to a definite shrinkage in the buying market here in Canada. They have, in my opinion, acted with much more responsibility.
I would say that the measure announced in the cutting of the excise tax the other evening by the hon. the Minister of Finance was a very definite help to the industry. I hope it will be larger in the future, I must admit, but one point I would like to bring out in this chamber is that the announcement of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr Nowlan) just -a week ago this Monday night, was an unprecedented step which was most welcome to the whole automobile industry. This government set a new pattern in stating that tax reductions, if they were made, would be reflected by the industry and that the various dealers involved would not be penalized for having purchased new cars before the time of the announcement. That to my mind was a tremendously important step, a wholly new step in the concept of taxation.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, the list of improved services mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) together with his cheerful little quotation from Browning that "the best is yet to be" and the further quotation which I believe originated with the leader of our party to the effect that we should be looking forward to "challenging and adventurous goals"-I think those were his words-have encouraged me to take this opportunity to make one suggestion to the government as an implementation of this resolution. I am sorry that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) is not in his seat at the present time because the suggestion I am about to make concerns his department and a government agency which reports to parliament through him.
My suggestion is that the cattle boat the M/V Burin operated by the Canadian National Railways to carry passengers and mail in that section of my riding known as Placentia Bay be replaced by a more suitable vessel somewhat more in keeping with human dignity and the age in which we live. This boat was built as a cargo boat. It has life-saving equipment for only 34 persons and when the number of passengers and crew exceed that total the remainder have to be left behind. There are eight beds on the ship which are usually allocated to women and children and in addition to that there are eight bunks which are allocated to male travellers. The rest of the passengers must sit up and find a place to park themselves wherever they can. In the main this consists of sitting crouched on a narrow bench in the dining room and if that room happens to be filled they must crouch on their luggage in the narrow corridor. Those who cannot find accommodation there have to stand up outside on the deck exposed to the elements. I have personally seen passengers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have been looking at the resolution we are debating trying to discover how the hon. member relates his remarks to the establishment of a 100th anniversary committee. I hope he will come to that without too much delay.


Mr.   Carier@: I am relating it, Mr. Speaker, to a suggested improvement in services. We had a discussion on the St. Lawrence seaway

Canadian Centennial
which is a means of communication and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre himself listed a number of services which he would like to see improved. I think he emphasized the fact that in connection with this celebration we should do something more concrete than merely setting off a lot of firecrackers and our efforts should be directed toward and take the form of an improvement in the standard of living, communications and all of the fields affecting our fellow men. It is with that in mind that I present this suggestion to the government at this time.
The hardships which my constituents in this area have to undergo are really indescribable. I have seen people standing up all night exposed to rain and the elements with no shelter whatever. I heard of a man who had to wash his child's face in the morning with a handkerchief dipped in salt water. The accommodation on this ship is really a disgrace not only to the Canadian National Railways but also to this government and to Canada itself. If we are going to make any progress towards improving the service one requirement will be a change in the Canada Shipping Act in order to set up minimum standards of accommodation on ships that carry overnight passengers.
What I have said up to this point is no reflection whatever upon the captain or the crew of that ship. There are no better seamen in the world and it would be difficult to find kindlier individuals. I know from personal experience the tremendous handicaps they have to undergo. I have seen them give up their beds in the night to accommodate women and children who had no other shelter. I have known from personal experience that the captain has not gone to bed from the time he left port on Monday morning until the following Wednesday and I have seen him leave port on Wednesday night and not get to bed again until Friday. There is no ship in the Canadian National Railways service travelling more continuously than the particular ship to which I am referring at this time.
Some time ago I asked a question in this house of the Minister of Transport as to when we might expect some improvement in the service given by this ship and he was good enough to reply some time later that he had discussed the matter with the management of the Canadian National Railways and they were hoping to improve the service in the near future. Shortly after that this old tub ran aground and we hoped this would be the end of her career as a passenger ship but I see from recent press reports that she is

now undergoing repairs and the intention is to reinstate her in that service. The continued use of this boat in that particular service is a prime example of man's inhumanity to man.
It has reduced my constituents not to second-class citizens but to tenth-class citizens. Such a service is not given by the Canadian National Railways in any other part of Newfoundland, nor in any other part of Canada. It would not be tolerated in any other part of Canada. I doubt whether there is any service to parallel this one in the degradation of human beings to be found anywhere else in the civilized world. For the past eight years I have protested directly to the Canadian National Railways in the railway committee room and in this house against this discrimination but all to no avail.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, there is no excuse for the Canadian National Railways refusing to improve this service. I have been looking back over the files and I found that as far back as March 30, 1950, when I was a member of the railway committee and a bit of a greenhorn around this place, I submitted a brief to the railway committee which was printed as appendix B, pages 270 to 275, of the proceedings of that day. I should like to read the last paragraph of the statement which preceded the list of questions which I put to the management of the railway. It reads as follows:
Either the top management of the Canadian National Railways are not sufficiently conversant with the nature of the problems and difficulties and the special requirements that are needed to effect an improvement, or else they are not sufficiently sympathetic. We all know that reorganization and improvement take time, but a year has already passed and the conditions described above have not been alleviated, and it is necessary to start at once in order to achieve improvement in two or three years time. It is for the express purpose of bringing to the attention of the Minister of Transport and the top management of Canadian National Railways the special needs and requirements of our Newfoundland province, as well as to ascertain what progress has already been made in meeting these requirements, that I now table the attached questions.
Then followed the whole list of questions requesting information about the service. Then, again, on April 20, 1951, when I made what was supposed to have been my maiden speech in this house, I touched on the matter again. Hon. members will recall that my first efforts on the floor of this house were in support of my then colleague, Mr. Gordon Higgins, who represented St. John's East, and sat just about in this place on this side at that time. He introduced a bill about turrs, a seabird with which we were concerned at the time, and I rose in my place and supported his request, but that happened to

precede my prepared effort which followed on April 20, and I should like to read now what I said then:
The urgent need of at least three small passenger and cargo boats is apparent when it is realized that the Canadian National Railways in Newfoundland not only do not have sufficient passenger boats to take care of present traffic, but they have no spare boat in reserve in case of accident or emergency. Should one of the present ships be lost, the whole coastal service would collapse. To make matters worse, one of the ships now in service is over 50 years old and is due to be retired;-
I may say that that ship is not yet retired. She has been taken out of the passenger service and is still being used to carry cargo.


Mr. Stick:: It is time she was pensioned.


Chesley William Carter: This was a brief warning that I issued about the famous William Carson:
We are al! very pleased that a new ferry is being provided for the gulf service, but there is serious doubt of the wisdom of building at this time such a large ship as contemplated, requiring such extensive terminal facilities, harbour installations and improvements. Experienced captains and navigators have expressed serious doubts as to whether such a large ship can be safely manoeuvred during bad weather in the small space available in the terminal port.
This, Mr. Speaker, may be found at page 2236 of Hansard of April 20, 1951. Further along I said this:


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not want to
limit unduly any member who wishes to speak on this resolution, and I can see that it is appropriate to refer to matters by way of example; but it seems to me the hon. member is devoting his entire address to one instance. There may be members in the house who want to speak more particularly to the resolution, which, if I may remind the hon. member, provides for consideration of a committee for the purpose of planning the economic and social development of this country on a vast scale. Therefore, while it is appropriate to give illustrations of improvements in transportation, I think the hon. member has gone to the limit on that subject and unless he wants to relate the matter to the committee, I must ask him to give way to members who may wish to speak on the resolution.


Chesley William Carter: I want to relate my remarks to the resolution in one respect, Mr. Speaker. My constituents have been victimized for the past eight years and this resolution looks forward 10 years in the future. I am urging the Minister of Transport to take the matter up with the authorities of the Canadian National Railways so that the hardship and indignity of the past eight years will not be extended beyond 1967.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the principle, the
Canadian Centennial
purpose and the spirit of this resolution which asks the government to give consideration to this committee with federal and provincial representatives on it, and to planning our development and so on, so that we shall have reached a certain target or objective on the 100th aryaiversary of the inauguration of confederation. Before going further I must refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton West who opened the debate on the government side of the house.


An hon. Member:: York West.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am mixing the name of the hon. member with the constituency. It is so easy to get mixed up in that direction. I recall that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said that he did not want just fireworks and things of that sort at the end of the 100 years; he wanted achievements. So far as the Progressive Conservative party contribution to this debate by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) is concerned, he did not start off with fireworks, he started off with a damp squib, and I must say that he entirely overlooked the spirit of the resolution.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre avoided any reference to political parties or how this objective would be achieved. He offered us a broad objective and a target. His remarks were couched in language to which people should respond in a spirit of unity, but the hon. gentleman saw fit to ridicule the resolution which I thought was a very shallow approach to a very serious matter.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre gave credit to the achievements of Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the very well-known late J. S. Woodsworth. He treated them, I think, in a very statesmanlike way. Well, we can well understand government members talking this resolution out and not being willing to support it in full, but I would have expected from the government benches assurance of support in principle and speeches containing suggestions as to the difficulties of doing this or as to the need for amendment, and so on.
But I thought the speech of the hon. member for York West, in response to this appeal from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was rather below his normal average. I heard the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Best) speak for the first time this afternoon. I congratulate him on his facility with language and the ease with which he spoke in the house at this time. I know it is not very easy but the gentlemen of the legal profession usually find it much easier than those who live in some cases in the back woods.

Canadian Centennial
In any event, he said there were deceptive implications in the resolution. I do not know why these suspicions should arise because the resolution is on the highest possible plane, having a noble objective, and I could not understand why he thought there were deceptive implications. Then he said that for the government to accept such a resolution would be an abdication of responsibility. Members on the government side of the house use the word "abdication" as if they had some particular connection with royalty. They are always talking about abdicating this and abdicating that. They are simply government members of the House of Commons and I think they should use language that corresponds with their present importance, which may be much less in a few months.
The point of the resolution is that it asks for a committee to make recommendations over a ten year period with respect to the proposals contained in the resolution. We all know that these recommendations would have to be approved by parliament and by the provincial legislature concerned. But the resolution is a challenging conception. It is an appeal to the imagination. I have always had great admiration for Conservatives as being good, solid citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are solid all right.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: But I have always noticed that they have a tendency to lack imagination. This afternoon the hon. member for Halton said that the resolution was not a practical one. You know, Mr. Speaker, when the members of this group brought up the question of family allowances it was not a practical suggestion. When they brought up the question of old age pensions it was not practical. When they brought up the question of floor prices and things of that sort, even before the bill was introduced, it was not practical. But the present members on the government side of the house have to some extent learned from experience. After 22 years in the wilderness they realize that they must adjust their thinking to some extent to the thinking of the people as a whole so as a result, shall I say, of their recognition of what the people wish, require and demand they have passed some legislation which we have all been very willing to support. But it is a bits and bobs affair. They always fail to see the need for over-all planning, for an over-all approach, because it requires an imagination that they lack the capacity to exercise.
I must get on, Mr. Speaker, or else I will not be able to proceed very far with my

subject, and I am going to relate my remarks very closely to the resolution. The hon. member for Halton said that the resolution was not a practical one. We are the most practical of people. In dealing with this resolution we arranged that different members would speak on different topics, members who can not only talk about their subject but whose life experience qualifies them to speak about it.
If there were time this evening the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) would speak about irrigation and water usage because he has spent a lifetime as a farmer concerned with irrigation, the development of water resources and things of that sort. Another hon. member who is a very learned gentleman, a librarian and a sportsman was going to speak on the sports aspect. Another was going to speak on mining because he has worked in the mines. We are all practical people in this group. They were going to take a practical approach in support of an imaginative resolution.
I am going to speak on a subject tonight about which I have some knowledge. I refer to conservation and conservation is one of the major objectives in the resolution. I have spent 50 years in the practice of forest conservation so I want to say a few words in that connection. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will not rule me out of order. I saw you looking at me. Anyway, members of the house know that for some years we have been urging the necessity of the federal government taking action by calling a dominion-provincial conference and utilizing the committee that would be formed to develop a national conservation policy for forest, land, soil, water, wild life and so on.
The committee proposed here could undertake the same thing. If it were endorsed by the house and established by the government it would possibly have several subcommittees dealing with various problems but all working toward the one objective. That is why I am going to take this opportunity to suggest that we need dominion-provincial co-operation in the development of a national conservation policy. I continue my advocacy of the necessity of such a policy because many organizations and persons know that action on all levels of government is necessary to prevent the exploitation of natural resources and to establish nationwide methods of use in perpetuity.
I want to say that a future based on exploitation and wasting of natural resources rather than on conservation is the sure road to disaster regardless of how luxuriant our prosperity may be in the meantime. This is one aspect

of the resolution that I do think should receive very serious consideration along with the others by the members on the government side of the house. Action along this line has been taken by people on a voluntary and nationwide basis, and I willingly give full credit to the constructive work of successive federal governments, prodded along by the relatively small number of people in the country who are interested in the conservation of our natural resources, their utilization and their proper development for the future.
I realize that the government has inaugurated taxation policies to this end. Our transportation policy has tended in this direction, particularly with the subsidization of the railroad bridge between east and west through northern Ontario. Then there has been government co-operation by agreement with the provinces for the taking of forest inventories, reforestation and last year fire protection, which is a very important step indeed. We in this group realize the important work done under the Canada Water Conservation Act, the eastern Rockies conservation board, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act and grants for the control of the spruce budworm in New Brunswick.
We recognize the work done in connection with research into these problems by the agricultural science service, the forest branch, the forest products laboratory, the water resources branch, the bureau of mines and the national research council. We recognize that this total of undertakings by the federal government, in some cases in co-operation with provincial governments, represents a considerable contribution towards the development of conservation of natural resources in this country.
Before proceeding further, I want to pay a tribute to the work that has been undertaken by voluntary organizations in Canada. Once again I pay tribute to the Canadian forestry association which is doing some excellent work with respect to programs for schools, lectures and things of that sort; also the work undertaken by the Canadian forestry institute and the agricultural institute of Canada which has dealt primarily with the conservation of land, soil and water resources; the provincial conservation council of Ontario which has done great work; and the British Columbia natural resources conference which was established in 1948. I was very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to have the opportunity to peruse the ninth report which was published quite recently. I want to quote from that report because it deals with the objectives
Canadian Centennial
of that organization which, on a provincial level, is doing great work in this connection.
The British Columbia natural resources conference is an organization representing industry, university, government, both provincial and federal. The conference is concerned with the conservation, from the viewpoint of the full utilization, of all the natural resources of British Columbia. Through its inter-agency membership there is an annual meeting of the conference, the prime purpose of which is to promote integration and co-ordination of resource development in this province.
I want to mention also the work that has been undertaken by the conservation league of B.C., which has been sponsored by the Honourable H. H. Stevens, who was once a cabinet minister in this house, and the work undertaken by the pulp and paper industry in Canada generally, particularly in British Columbia; by groups organized to represent rod and gun clubs, universities and many local groups which have sort of stoked the fires of the provincial and larger organizations. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this voluntary association and organization work and activity provides a splendid basis for government and rank and file action on which to build a nation-wide acceptance of the principles of resources development, and a splendid opportunity for a committee such as this to appoint a subcommittee to deal with this particular aspect of this resolution.
Now, there has always been objection to getting dominion-provincial co-operation established perhaps along these lines because there is supposed to be a possible suggestion that there is transgression on provincial rights. We have a conference between Canada and the United States coming up, to which we look forward to reaching an agreement on an equitable basis for the development of the Columbia basin. We are awaiting the minister's announcement with a great deal of interest in connection with these important matters.
Then, there are conferences with other governments with regard to conservation of fisheries which have resulted in some satisfactory treaties. There has been good work in that direction, resulting in co-operation between governments. Then, the minister and the federal officials attend international conferences on resource development and this co-operation has produced excellent results. Yet we often see, even now, members of the federal government protesting that if you try to do anything along these lines in a dominion-provincial conference dealing with this particular subject, this aspect of the resolution, we would be accused of trespassing on provincial jurisdiction and rights.
I noticed that the former minister of northern affairs and national resources attended the 19th North American wild life

Canadian Centennial
conference on March 8, 9 and 10, 1954. He is reported to have said:
We must work as a team. We shall have to make mutual adjustments to develop mutual strength. We may well have to compromise on practical details in order to establish more firmly our hold on basic principles.
It is an excellent thing that we, who have so many different responsibilities, can meet here to discuss our varied problems in this friendly atmosphere. Each of us aims at the best development of the resources in his own field, and at the same time is prepared to listen to the views of workers in other fields, to examine methods of co-operation, to compromise if necessary, and to work always for the general good and not for sectional advantage.
It is of particularly happy augury that this is, once again, an international conference. In this great central city, we have come together from Mexico and Canada as well as from all quarters of the United States of America for a neighbourly discussion of problems which are not limited by man-made boundaries. Speaking as a Canadian, I deeply appreciate the friendly co-operative spirit of which this gathering is symbolic. I am proud and happy to be able to reaffirm Canada's desire to continue to work with her sister nations of the North American continent for our common welfare and prosperity.
This is a conference dealing with natural resources. We can meet with other nations. The minister and senior officials can attend conferences of that sort and work out programs to the advantage of us all. Yet when something is suggested that will result in a conference of federal-provincial governments we allow provincial objections, on occasion, to limit our actions in this respect.
Then again, in 1955, at the 20th North American wild life conference on March 14, 15 and 16, 1955, the former minister of northern affairs and national resources had this to say:
Friendly co-operation is, indeed, the keynote of relations between the United States and Canada in all wildlife matters. This conference itself is one illustration of that. In the field, the annual joint survey of breeding waterfowl is perhaps the world's greatest example of regularly repeated scientific teamwork by a large number of experts of two countries.
We want that scientific teamwork to be organized, yet a committee such as this, dealing with our natural resources, between the federal and provincial governments is objected to by some people. In addition to that, Dr. Trueman, the national film commissioner, and other officials attend these conferences on behalf of the federal government. The federal government sends representatives every year to the B.C. natural resources conference. The government calls a dominion-provincial agricultural conference; it calls dominion-provincial conferences on fiscal and taxation matters; dominion-provincial conferences on health insurance, and finally we have the former government recognizing the need for consideration of conservation of
[Mr. Herridge.l
our land and water resources by the establishment last session of a Senate committee. This committee is continuing this session its very interesting study of land use in Canada and carrying out that study with commendable vigour.
In a multitude of activities the government has recognized the need for dominion-provincial conferences and co-operation. Regardless of precedent and practice, the need for a dominion-provincial conference to establish principles of conservation, somewhat along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, goes unrecognized and repeated requests for the same in and outside our parliament are denied. For years this conference has been requested by numerous organizations who recognize its urgency and importance. Such a conference has been requested by the agricultural institute of Canada; the Canadian forestry association and others. I might give a summary of the forestry objectives presented at the resources conference, Ottawa, Friday, April 23, 1954.
The recommendations of the conference may be summarized briefly as follows:
1. That a national forest policy be developed and adequate provision made to implement it.
This can only be achieved as a result of cooperation with the provinces. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, December 3, 1956, passed the following resolution:
Several times in recent years the C.F.A. has asked that a national conservation policy and program be instituted in this country. In its submission to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects it said:
"Another matter of great importance to the future of this country is the planned use and conservation of its agricultural resources. At the present time the prairie farm rehabilitation and marshland rehabilitation programs are doing some excellent work along these lines. What is very badly needed is a comprehensive land use classification, and a national program of soil and water conservation and development that would cover all the agricultural area of Canada. Families which are trying to farm land which is declared sub-marginal for farming should be assisted to retire from farming or else be re-located in better farming areas.
If the government would only accept the principle of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-I am not saying move exactly in the direction of the resolution, but accept the principle, purpose and spirit-when it came time to celebrate the 100th anniversary of confederation we would have a rich and very worthwhile target. Provincial organizations have urged this means. Local organizations still hope for action. Editorials in newspapers and periodicals all across this country emphasize the necessity for action along the lines I have suggested. The need is urgent. The demand

for action by the federal government is increasing on the part of thinking and interested people.
I propose that two courses of action are necessary to meet this problem effectively. First, that the federal government should forge the necessary link in the chain of responsibility by calling a dominion-provincial conference to deal with this question, to deal with the other questions I have mentioned, and to establish nationwide principles of soil, forest and water conservation and management in Canada. Second, the fashioning of common objectives in the application of this principle, such as a land use survey of Canada which would comprise the survey of our wildlife and water resources as a basis for national planning. Such a survey might be of great value in planning future industrial development. We have undertaken surveys such as this in Ceylon and Pakistan under the Colombo plan, and rightly so. Surely we could apply this common-sense approach to the solution of our own problems.
Next I come to development and co-ordination of research. This very important phase of research has been a great deal improved in recent years, but it still lags far behind the research required to make a proper survey of our natural resources possible. Certain research is going on at the present time under federal jurisdiction, particularly with respect to forestry and there is applied research in the province of British Columbia and in some of the other provinces. What is required is the co-ordination of all these activities, because, as indicated in this resolution, we are facing one target. We should have co-ordinated educational programs, and a division of financial responsibility with regard to cost, overall planning to avoid duplication of effort and also the necessary publicity, which is to some extent lacking at the present time and which the former minister of northern affairs and national resources has complained about on a number of occasions. These things are all necessary if we are going to make any definite progress.
My second main proposal is that federal-provincial leadership should be supported by voluntary action in the form of a national conservation league or council. A co-ordination of voluntary effort is as necessary as co-ordination of activities by governments. I believe that government action is much more effective when supported by voluntary action by an informed citizenry. The urge for the wide use of renewable natural resources generated by such a voluntary organization will forge a link between governments and the people. Such a link, as the years go by, will in my opinion, develop into a nationwide, democratic endeavour to repair the
Canadian Centennial
ravages of the past, raise the real living standards of the present and protect the rights of generations unborn. The philosophy of life that springs from a reverence for all creations is the foundation upon which all civilization and cultures are built. Also, in this respect, I think we have a great opportunity if we can get this co-ordination between the work of our government and of voluntary groups in this country-an opportunity for persuading our youth of the wonderful opportunity with which we are now presented in the development of our country.
In conclusion, I will say this: in my opinion federal-provincial co-operation and leadership supported by a nationwide voluntary organization opens up a new vista of human relations, in which the differences between government, regions and communities are forgotten and a new fraternity is inspired by a noble objective-the mobilization of all our human resources behind one purpose, namely the wise use of our renewable natural resources in perpetuity.
I have dealt particularly with the conservation aspect of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I would ask hon. members to consider the purpose and spirit in which the resolution is moved. These things are not easy. You must have a target; you must have imagination to reach these objectives, and you must do some planning years ahead. In conclusion, I ask for support of this resolution as a worth-while proposal worthy of the consideration of this house, and for action in the days to come.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity of adding a word to this debate. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) has suggested that possibly the Conservative members of this house-the members of the Progressive Conservative party-lack imagination. Coming as he does from a beautiful part of the country in southern British Columbia, that land of lovely fruit orchards, deep lakes, beautiful mountains-the land or the great Ogopogo, that dream creature several hundreds of feet long which swims along the beautiful Okanagan lake with its head 20 feet above the water-when he talks to us about imagination we know that we are listening to an expert.
We are accused of approaching this resolution with-how was it said?-a shallow attitude. Of course we must be careful in dealing with resolutions of this length and magnitude to make sure we do not get entangled in its meshes. Therefore I am approaching the resolution with some caution,

Canadian Centennial trying to protect both flanks. The reader has to go along carefully since there is some imagination used in drawing up the resolution.
In so far as the resolution contains any element of lack of confidence in the present government, I am strongly opposed to it. I do not think it is necessary to set up a committee to usurp the functions of government. We have a wonderful government led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) who enjoys the confidence of the people of Canada probably to a greater extent than any prime minister has enjoyed the confidence of our people for a long time-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That is a conservation speech.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: -surrounded by a wonderful cabinet, and I should like to express my personal confidence in that government.


Mr. Argue:: Afraid of the next nomination?


William Howell Arthur Thomas: And I am
sure that this government can undertake the duties of government in as fine a manner and with as great an ability as any commission which could be set up.
However, in so far as this resolution is intended as a genuine contribution to the future planning of our country I would give it at least qualified support. Planning is necessary, whether on an individual level, on a corporate level or at the level of government. We cannot get along without planning and I could conceive circumstances in which were we to have an overall planning commission it could serve as something in the nature of a continuing royal commission, set up at least in part in the same manner, and charged with the responsibilities of inquiring into those different features and aspects and phases of our economy and social life which come up for consideration at frequent intervals.
We have just appointed a royal commission to inquire into our power resources and to make recommendations concerning them and if we had a royal commission or a planning committee set up in the same way to which could be referred questions of all kinds which affect our economy or our social life-not for legislative or administrative action but for review and report-I can see where benefit could be derived for the people of this country.
Now before I get lost here-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: No imagination.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: -I know I can get some of our farming problems into


this resolution somewhere without being out of order. I would say if we had such a planning committee at the present time to which we could refer such matters as the sugar beet problem which is troubling a great many people in four different areas of Canada it would be a very good thing.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Better talk to your government about that problem.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: These areas include southern Manitoba, southwestern Ontario and southern Alberta in addition to certain parts of the province of Quebec. We import in the form of raw sugar approximately 80 per cent of our requirements in Canada. We produce through our sugar beet industry approximately 18 per cent and the other approximately 2 per cent, during the last three or four years only, has been imported in the form of refined sugar. Now it is that 2 per cent, coming in in the form of refined sugar, which is causing trouble to our sugar beet growers inasmuch as virtually that whole quantity of refined sugar is being imported into the Hamilton area in southwestern Ontario and is being used to undersell our beet sugar produced in the Chatham-Wallaceburg area.
The importation of refined sugar was stopped by the Bennett administration back in 1932, during the depression.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: A lot of things were stopped then.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: It did not
bother Canada again until 1952. For 20 years the effect of the Bennett action on the sugar question had lasted to the benefit of Canadian producers and then, in 1952, refined sugar began to be imported from Cuba.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Taking candy from the kiddies.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: It was, through negotiation, stopped again and as far as Cuba is concerned is still stopped, but other nations are now beginning to unload, particularly Mexico and some other Central American countries, who are exporting quantities of refined sugar into Canada.
The sugar beet growers are asking for a support price of $14 per ton under sugar and part of the idea behind that request is the feeling that if we had support prices, under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, the Canadian government would then be justified in placing refined sugar on a quota basis and preventing its importation to undercut our sugar beet growers in this country.

Now I may say that the planning committee, if such were set up, could take this whole matter under consideration and would probably agree that the sugar beet industry of Canada was well worth saving. During two world wars this sugar beet industry served a great purpose in Canada but, aside from saving the industry as a possible means of home supply in case of emergency, the sugar beet industry is furnishing jobs to a great many people, especially to new Canadians who, when they are first brought to this country, work in the sugar beet and tobacco fields for a couple of seasons and are thus able to save enough money to make a down payment on a farm of their own.
The sugar beet industry in Ontario and these other areas furnishes large amounts of work for local truckers such as the man who owns his own truck and makes a living by doing local haulage work. There is also a great investment in the sugar refineries themselves and in all the equipment which is used. Furthermore, as far as southern Ontario is concerned, if some inducement were given to the growing of sugar beets, the 20,000 acres now producing crops could, in round figures, be increased to nearly 40,000 acres. That would mean 20,000 acres could be taken out of soybeans and corn and other cash crops which are now in surplus in this country. I should not say that soybeans are in surplus but corn and wheat are presenting some difficulties with respect to prices.
I must not take too long on this topic, but I am sure that a planning committee could also take a good look at the plight of the soybean growers in southwestern Ontario and try to find ways and means of doing something to help the production of soybeans. We now grow about 5 million bushels of soybeans in Canada but we import twice that many, approximately 10 million bushels. Therefore, the 250,000 acres which we use for the production of soybeans in southwestern Ontario could be trebled and again that would take a very great deal of pressure off winter wheat and corn, both of which we have in abundant supply.
Our soybeans have a two cents a pound tariff against them going into the United States. In other words, if we undertake to ship a bushel of soybeans into the United States it would cost $1.20 for the tariff but soybeans are permitted to come from the United States into Canada subject to no duty at all. There is a small amount of duty payable on soybean oil coming from the United States to Canada but there is no duty on soybeans. The suggestion has been made that the tariff should be adjusted to put us on an equal footing with the United States.
Canadian Centennial
Another difficulty in the agricultural picture in southwestern Ontario is the matter of the price of corn. Four years ago the price of corn was approximately $1.75 or $1.80 a bushel. The cost of raising corn has gone up. It costs more today to raise a bushel of corn than it did four years ago but the price of corn has dropped today and the farmers in my area are getting only about 90 cents a bushel, almost half the price corn commanded four years ago.
This illustrates what the farmers of this country are up against. It is admitted that the farmers are having a tough time and I am sure a planning commission could take these matters into consideration and if necessary make recommendations to the government. However, a planning commission is not really necessary in this respect because as is already indicated on the order paper the government within a very few days will bring legislation before parliament seeking to grant relief to the hard-pressed farmers. I am sure it is a matter of joy and pride to every hon. member of this house that we have a government which has the interests of the farmers so much at heart.


Mr. Castleden:: There is no resolution yet.


Hazen Robert Argue: Six weeks too late.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Dealing further with the matter of a planning commission, although I do not come from southern British Columbia or even from Winnipeg North Centre, I can still use my imagination as to what such a body could accomplish.


Mr. Fisher:: What about tobacco?


William Howell Arthur Thomas: All joking aside, this country is faced with many problems that require a great deal of thought and study. I am reminded of the time about 25 years ago when Canada faced a great crisis in the form of the depression. At that time we were also blessed with a government with great vision and imagination and the best of intentions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Some of our friends laugh but I will deal with them in a moment. I wish now to remind hon. members of some of the good planning that was done by the Conservative government of that day. It brought in the Natural Products Marketing Act. That act is the basis of most of our provincial legislation today dealing with the marketing of farm products. That act was passed in 1934. The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was also passed which helped the hard-pressed farmers out of the difficulties in which they found themselves at that

Canadian Centennial
time. It was a bankruptcy act passed for the benefit of farmers and incidentally it was the only one of all the Bennett new deal legislation that stood under the scrutiny of the privy council. The government of that day also passed the Employment and Social Security Act, the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act-


An hon. Member:: The Bennett buggy act.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: -and the
Minimum Wages Act. When some of our friends in other parties undertake to tell us that all the credit for these various pieces of legislation should go to other parties and that we are only building on the foundation previously laid by them, let me remind hon. members that the foundation for all these acts was laid back in the early thirties. Although they lay dormant for many years and were revived by the late Liberal government the fact remains that the foundation for these acts was laid by a Conservative government even before the Conservatives were "progressive".
In 1935 the Conservative government passed an act much like the one envisaged and advocated by our friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), an act to establish an economic council being chapter 19 of the Statutes of Canada, 1935. This reads:
His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
(1)	This act may be cited as the Economic Council of Canada Act, 1935.
After setting out definitions in section 2 the act provides.
(3)	There shall be an honorary advisory council on social and economic questions which shall be known as the economic council of Canada.
(4)	(1) The council shall consist of the minister, who shall be the chairman, and 15 members who shall be appointed by the governor in council.
(2)	The members of the council shall be selected from,
(a)	officers of the public service of Canada, not exceeding seven in number, whose administrative duties require consideration of social or economic problems:
(b)	representatives of organized bodies of a social or economic character, not exceeding five in number;
(c)	other persons having special experience or knowledge in connection with social or economic problems not exceeding three in number.
Section 5 (1) provides:
The dominion statistician shall be the secretary of the council.
The duties of the council are enumerated in section 6 which reads:
The duties of the council shall be to discharge such duties of an advisory character as the chairman may request them to undertake and particularly, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(a)	to study, investigate, report and advise upon questions relating to the general trend of social or economic conditions or to any social or economic problem of Canada, and to authorize the investigations in that behalf as hereinafter provided;
(b)	to make recommendations to promote and co-ordinate social and economic research within Canada;
(c)	to make recommendations to co-ordinate the activities of a social or economic character of the several departments of the government of Canada;
(d)	to make recommendations as to the organization of statistics as the basic data required for social and economic investigations;
(e)	to publish such reports and findings as may be considered to be in the public interest.
I feel I have quoted enough to demonstrate that the heart of the Conservative government has always been in the right place in terms of the forward look in matters affecting administration of the affairs of the country. I do not suggest that this form of organization is what is required today. As a matter of fact I do not think it is. If an advisory council were set up I think it should be something like a royal commission. Rather than the Prime Minister serving as chairman it should have a judge as its chairman, one who would be entirely independent of political pressure. I can visualize much good that would be accomplished by such a council if it were composed of members who carried sufficient prestige in the country that their opinions would be accepted by a large segment of the population.
I am going to tie it to only one idea at this moment.
Let us consider the problem of inflation today. There might be some argument as to what inflation is, but I think most will agree on a general definition. We know that our dollar today has the purchasing power of approximately 49 cents in relation to living costs just at the close of the last war, or up to 1939, at any rate. We know that, and we can agree that inflation has taken place. From all inquiries I have been able to make and from all reading that I have been able to do I find that we are now subject to what is called creeping inflation. I am going to be careful here. Some are inclined to lay the blame for this creeping inflation at the door of labour; others blame the tycoons of finance.


Mr. McCullough:: You are very close.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: But
wherever we lay the blame we are inclined to look upon it as it affects ourselves. It is like a story I heard. Are we allowed to tell stories here?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It depends on what kind
they are.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: It reminds
me of an Irishman and his friend. They

were talking about socialism. Pat said to Mike: "Explain this socialism". Mike said: "Well, we share everything equally". Pat said: "Fine. You mean if you have $100, you would give me $50?" Mike said: "Yes". Pat said: "If you had $50, would you give me $25?" Mike said: "That is right." Pat said: "If you had $10, would you give me $5?" Mike said: "Oh, go on, you know I have $10". Therefore, we are inclined to look at income tax and at other economic matters from our own particular point of view and we like to keep our sharing just above what we have but to take in what the other fellow has.
In this country we have no standard; we have no body to tell us what an hour of labour is worth, or what a bushel of wheat is worth, or what any other commodity is worth. I think it is generally admitted that the law of supply and demand is too harsh an arbiter of the matter of prices. For instance, if we were to allow our labour market rates to be controlled by the law of supply and demand it would mean that every so often we would have to allow somebody to suffer privation or starve so as to force people to work and force wages down. We are past that in this country. If we are to wait for the law of supply and demand to weed out all of the inefficient farmers and put individual farmers off the land so that there would be no surplus of food we would reach the point some day where there would not be enough food to go around and then the price of food would go up, all right, but our last state would be worse than our first. I say that the law of supply and demand is too harsh an arbiter.
If we had a planning commission or a royal commission with sufficient prestige-I emphasize that-so that the labour unions would be willing to pay attention if the commission said that an hour of labour in Canada should be worth so and so and on the basis of the value of that hour of labour a bushel of wheat should carry a value of about so much, or a bushel of corn, or a bushel of soybeans or a gas stove or an automobile, it might be something. If we had some authority to set objectives that we could aim at, it might give us a little bit of an anchor in time of storm or it might serve as a helm to guide our ship of state.
I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would agree that that is imaginative enough.


Mr. Cardiff:: He is full of imagination.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: It is a
subject that could stand investigation and honest consideration.
Canadian Centennial


Frank Claus Christian: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak in support of this resolution. I think it is important that in the setting up of a committee of the character mentioned in the resolution there be on it men who have vision and experience and men who are also practical and who are capable of doing good planning. I think one criticism of a lot of our public bodies and governments in the country today is that they cannot see sufficiently far ahead in the economic and social development of the country. In other words, many of our governing bodies in Canada have a shortsighted policy.
This particular resolution has a lot of merit in it, but I cannot necessarily agree with planning for only 10 years. I believe that in planning in our country we should give consideration to planning for many years ahead. What I am particularly concerned about is one very important aspect of public works. One that should be pursued with vigour is the development of breakwaters in some parts of our country. There should be an over-all development of Canada as far as possible. One part of the country should not be favoured over some other part of it.
I should like to refer particularly to the breakwater situation in the Okanagan valley. The hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) referred to the Ogopogo land from which hailed the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). I should like to say that that particular area is the area which I represent. It is a great tourist area and is gradually becoming more important all the time.
As hon. members are well aware, British Columbia is one of the finest and one of the richest provinces in Canada. The Okanagan lake is approximately 65 miles or so long and is situated in the central southern part of British Columbia. As that province becomes developed as the years go by the workers of British Columbia are going to need a place where they can go for a holiday and very little expense will be required to get there. It is a tourist area which can play a great part in helping to develop our own people and keep them healthy.
The Okanagan valley is known to be the playground of the province of British Columbia at the present time. I have brought this to the attention of our own government. What is needed is consideration given to the establishment of more breakwaters in the Okanagan lake. For example, in the Okanagan valley the province of British Columbia has developed a campsite on the side of the lake. I have not seen a finer


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of speaking at any length, I only wish to make a few brief remarks on the resolution now under consideration. I wish first of all to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for putting that resolution on the order paper. He deserves credit for being interested in preparing public opinion to celebrate worthily the 100th anniversary of this Canadian confederation of ours. I have no intention of opposing the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear! hear!


Pierre Gauthier: However, I believe that his motion should have inspired speeches of a far more serious nature than those I have heard here this afternoon, which were almost
exclusively of a political nature. I have no intention of following suit. In any event the only impression that has remained with me after hearing these speeches on such a worthy resolution is that which reminded me of an old song which I used to enjoy playing on my phonograph: "I am forever blowing bubbles".
The proposed resolution reads as follows:
That in the opinion of this house . . .
Mr. Speaker, intending to speak French I wish to point out that it is regrettable that we do not yet have a system of simultaneous interpretation. However, and I speak most sincerely when I say this, I hope that under your chairmanship the committee which has been entrusted with the study of this matter will progress in such a way that, when the time comes to celebrate the anniversary of the Canadian confederation, we will be in a position to say that simultaneous translation, as set up in the House of Commons, is one way to celebrate this anniversary, to strengthen national unity and to say to the whole world that because of the growing interest shown by hon. members in learning another language than their own, whatever it be, confederation has not been a failure but, on the contrary, has served to bring closer together those who speak the two principal languages of this country.
Unquestionably, to make anything firmer, stronger, it must first be understood and the road to good understanding between the various races that make up the Canadian nation lies in the direction of a proper understanding of each other's language. When people understand each other's language, they get along well.
And now, coming back to the proposed resolution, here is how it reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of the establishment of the 100th anniversary committee, with provision for federal and provincial representation-
I heartily endorse the wording of the beginning of this resolution.
-for the purpose of planning the economic and social development of this country on a vast scale-
Mr. Speaker, in an economy such as ours and at the rate Canada has been developing, can this development be speeded up even more by the establishment of even larger undertakings, and even faster economic development than that which Canada has known for years under all governments? I said I would not indulge in petty politics in the course of my remarks.
I realize that often one has to leave the country, visit other countries, and meet with

Canadian Centennial
the nationals of other countries,-1 use this word "nationals" in the true sense of the word, meaning the inhabitants of other countries,-that one has only to meet people outside our country to see how much our country is envied.
Whether one travels in Europe, Asia, Africa or in the United States, one realizes that Canada is the cynosure of all eyes; everyone wonders why this country has such a buoyant economy, and is progressing so fast with its vast development programs.
I can very well remember that, during the African tour of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, we were often asked: "Well, tell us about the Ungava mines, about the St. Lawrence seaway". We also were asked, at that time: "Tell us about your Prime Minister". You could sense how interested those people were in Canada's economic position, and in Canada's spectacular progress in the last few years.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think that, in view of our still flourishing economy, we will have no difficulty in bringing our people fittingly to celebrate the 100th birthday of the Canadian Confederation, but the motion concludes as follows:
... so that . . . the people of Canada will be in a position to celebrate this nation's 100th birthday not only with fireworks and speeches, but by the achievement of a land of health and abundance for all our people.
I very well understand what the hon. member had in mind. I am quite familiar with his political philosophy, and, indeed, I may tell him that all hon. members of this house and, in fact, all Canadians, want health and abundance for all our people.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I believe that, to strengthen our system, and to develop our Canadian confederation, there are not only the physical factors of health and abundance to be considered; there are also spiritual factors, the heart and the soul. All this must frequently be expressed by speeches, more so by examples, and above all, I think, by sacrifice. Recently the whole world was surprised to learn that the Russians had managed to shoot a satellite towards the moon and stars, and that it kept circling around the earth for several days. While I am of course in no position to say that the Russians must have made several attempts before they succeeded in launching it, I do think I can say that that must have
(Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf).]
been the case and that there should be no cause for undue concern on the part of the Western nations.
Where the democracies were at fault was in talking too much about their own satellite before making a successful launching.
I have spoken, Mr. Speaker, about sacrifices; there is no doubt that these people are making tremendous sacrifices, whether voluntary or not. I believe that a country such as ours which has been created and developed by the devotion and sacrifices of its inhabitants must accomplish still more, in order to be better able to wage a victorious struggle against those who undertake or accept sacrifices to crush other nations. We must avoid any action which might divide us.
I therefore believe, Mr. Speaker, that the best way to nobly celebrate the anniversary of the Canadian nation is to continue to make sacrifices and at the same time to provide well-being and plenty for all; we should not, however, forget the intellectual well-being of our fellow citizens. We should stop our criticisms when we know that our governments are taking action to develop the arts in this country. I remember,-and I am not concerned with any electoral motives at the moment,-that when the Canada Council was instituted, there were rather strong criticisms. Nevertheless, I believe that the council came at the right time, that it was necessary because it happens very often,- more often than we seem to think,-that our artists are among our best ambassadors in foreign countries. We must therefore help them; we must find and develop new talents in order to train artists who do not copy others but are typically Canadian in the expression of their arts. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that we can develop something much better than futurism or some other modern art which is so difficult to understand that the artists themselves have to explain their own works to the layman. I have no doubt that the Canada Council will bring encouragement and precious assistance to our artists, and this will help the country to celebrate the anniversary of the Canadian confederation in a fitting manner.
Now, before celebrating confederation, we should begin by amending ourselves. I think we should get rid of a certain regional turn of mind which too often exists in some of our people. We have created a confederation, and we have a central power over the ten provinces. This reminds me of the story of Menenius Agrippa who saved Rome.

The young people were dissatisfied with the administration of ancient Rome and they had gone, by the thousands, to live on a hill nearby; they refused to do any work and to contribute their spirit of enterprise and neophyte zeal to the good administration of Rome. Menenius Agrippa told these young people about the legend of the limbs revolting against the stomach.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it often happens that certain members of the Canadian confederation are inclined, not to revolt perhaps, but to indulge in severe criticism which is liable to weaken the central power, in other words, the stomach of our confederation. It is for this reason that I say we should get rid of a certain regional turn of mind, which is based on a shaky principle.
I also remember, because of a certain analogy, the story of Cato the Censor. Whenever he spoke in the forum he invariably ended his speeches by these words: "Hoc censeo", meaning I so decide and "delenda est Carthago", meaning, Carthage must be destroyed. So, I believe that we should avoid adopting the spirit of Cato the Censor and strive to keep the stomach of the nation, the central power, solid and strong, without giving up the idea that we must preserve the strength of the provinces. However, there must be a certain equilibrium. I believe that if the members refuse to supply the Canadian stomach with the required food, the stomach will not be able to distribute what is required for the strength of the limbs and the limbs will find themselves in a dire predicament. They will be weakened because of the loss of strength of the stomach.
Mr. Speaker, the central government must be maintained. We should not try to destroy it by accusing it of overly centralizing tendencies and by repeating statements which sound like medicine taken out of a drawer, not only in the federal field, but in the provincial field as well. We should get rid of that parochial mentality which weakens and hurts us, not only at home but abroad.
We should get rid of that parochial outlook, not only so that we will be able to celebrate in a glorious fashion this confederation centennial, but also to maintain our association in strength and hardiness until the end of time.
Mr. Speaker, there are many other things which could maintain the strength of confederation. Among other things, the satisfaction from the intellectual and sentimental point of view as well as from the point of view of the soul of its inhabitants. The Canadian nation is made up of many races whose
Canadian Centennial
number will increase. The more they learn to understand one another the more they shall agree among themselves and the more they understand one another the stronger will that community become. Each one of the races which make up the Canadian community has its traditions which must be safeguarded, which must be maintained so that each may remain strong and preserve its identity.
In the province of Quebec, we have traditions which unfortunately we often neglect. I heard some one the other day speak about men meeting for combined work to help out a neighbour making a "bee". Well, that is a tradition that we French Canadians must preserve. There is also the "guignolee", a group of people who go out to collect donations. And I come finally to the tradition which is perhaps the most significant, the oldest, and in any case the holiest of all, that of the paternal blessing on New Year's day. If I mention that one, it is because I feel that the house might very well be sitting until New Year's eve. The families of the province of Quebec wish to maintain this tradition and are looking forward to receiving the paternal blessing; so, how will they react to the absence of the father at the time of this most important ceremony which we are anxious to maintain among French Canadian families?
There is some reason for concern, for us and certainly also for our people. I do not want to criticize at this time, but I hope that we French Canadians may again this year go home and give our blessing to our children, as has been the custom of our forefathers since Canada has been Canada.
I shall stop now, Mr. Speaker. Other hon. members may want to speak now. I wanted to strike another note in discussing the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, whom I shall commend again. I wanted to strike another note, because I thought the motion was much more serious. If we go on at the present speed with our industrial, labour, agricultural and professional improvements, there might be no reason for accelerating. However, I believe we should call our people's attention to the intellectual, spiritual and moral aspects of the matter. The more we strengthen our confederation, the stronger we shall be to fight any outside enemy.
We must also keep on making sacrifices and show devotion to duty, in order to be stronger intellectually and morally.
I am sure that everything that has been done until today-and I refer in particular to our Canada Council-is bound to instil in our people a genuinely Canadian character,

Canadian Centennial
to stimulate our artists, those whom I have called our ambassadors a moment ago, and to help our people realize that the best way of celebrating the Canadian confederation is to prefer one's intellectual development to one's material well-being.
(Text) :


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in discussing the aspects of the resolution which is presently before the house I should like to point out first of all that if this resolution had suggested that a committee be set up, possibly on a federal-provincial basis, specifically to plan the 100th anniversary celebrations then I would say it would certainly be worthy of support. However, it seems to me that although it appears to have the welfare of the nation at heart it is taking away most of the obligations of the hon. members of this house. I feel that we are asking the people of Canada to pay with a good deal of duplication, for something for which, I believe, they are already paying; something which they are entitled to get and for which they are at present receiving value.
Now in dealing with the following subjects I might point out that most of these problems and subjects under discussion in this resolution have already been studied and are continuously being studied by many competent committees and groups. I also think the resolution which is before us might well be construed as a measure of no confidence in most of the groups already so established. By that I mean that we have many groups in operation, independent of government, in the way of agricultural and labour organizations, chambers of commerce and many others.
Hon. members of this house from various parties of the opposition have staled that they are in full support of this resolution as it stands; they are quite willing to set up committees despite the fact, as I have already pointed out, in my opinion such committees are now in operation and they are competent committees.
I think that in the short space of time-in fact a period of less than six months-in which this government' has been in office and the period of less than two months in which this house has been in session the present government has shown ample evidence and has proved conclusively that they are, not only eager and able to deal with these recognized groups who are doing such a good job in their various localities but are also capable of sitting down and discussing with those groups their problems and bringing such problems to a successful conclusion.
[Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf) .1
In regard to agriculture, for instance, we have many capable groups working on this important question. I say important because up until now and I imagine for all time to come agriculture has been and will be, rightly so, the backbone of our nation. But what has happened to agriculture during the past few years? Agriculture has been allowed to go down to a point where the farm family is fast becoming a rarity. Families are leaving the farm areas because of today's high cost of production; due entirely to the high cost of equipment as compared to the inequitable returns to the farmer for his products; the slow process of selling his grain, plus of course the tight money situation faced until a short time ago. The farmer is unable to keep his head above water.
Now these remarks apply generally to agricultural people all across Canada but are particularly applicable to the young farmer-the type of a farmer who, until now, I have not heard mentioned in this house- and the young farmer certainly has a multitude of problems. In many many cases he returned from overseas at the conclusion of the last world conflict and had very little opportunity to get himself re-established in time to avail himself of any of the benefits from the short period of boom which agriculture may have enjoyed during the latter 1940's. Consequently he found himself sadly trapped in the terrible cost-price squeeze which has since developed.
This was one time when the old maxim of there being safety in numbers certainly did not apply, because there was small consolation to such a young farmer in the fact that he had lots of company. He had his land and he had some equipment, both partially paid for, and he could produce crops because most of them were good farmers and willing to work. He could not however pay his debts with farm-stored grain. Later on, measures were introduced whereby he was allowed to borrow money on his farm-stored grain at 5 per cent interest, so he found himself paying that 5 per cent interest and at the same time earning about 2 per cent interest or less on his capital investment.
So what did the young farmer do? In many cases he found himself in the position where, if he was fortunate enough to find employment elsewhere, he went into industry and was better off financially by investing only his physical and mental capacity in that industry as against a fairly large monetary investment in agriculture. He had more cash by working with his two hands than he could possibly get with all his land and equipment, but he did not want to be in

industry. He wanted to be a farmer and Canada indeed needed him in agriculture.
Now this situation was brought to the attention of the former government, but nothing was done about it. Solutions to these problems are going to take time, I know, but I am very happy to see that a full review of the agricultural problems and the tight money situation is now in progress with a view to solving them as quickly and fairly as possible in order to give the farmer his fair share of the national revenue.
There are many aspects relating to agriculture with which I hope to be able to deal as they come before the house, but I see time is getting short this evening. I would like to say that, come July 1, 1967, I sincerely hope through the efforts of this government that this great country of ours will be in the enviable position of being justifiably proud of the fact that all our citizens will have available to them, not only a high standard of living which will include social security, hospital and medical services, a housing program, which will allow the people the benefits of the housing to which they are entitled and of which the people of Canada can be proud, but also an employment situation which will provide full-scale employment for every employable person in our dominion.
May I call it ten o'clock.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader what is the business for tomorrow?


Mr. Green:: Tomorrow we shall have a supply motion and then the resolution which is No. 147 on today's order paper with respect to a measure to establish a system of guaranteed prices for certain agricultural commodities, followed by the amendments to the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act. When we get through with those, we will take the bill which is No. 136 on today's order paper dealing with the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act and then the resolution on Beechwood.


Lionel Chevrier: I commend the leader for his optimism. Is he in a position to say what will take place on Wednesday?


Howard Charles Green: I think we will be continuing in that order on Wednesday.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask an additional question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the remarks made by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) can the leader give us assurance that we will not sit on the day before and the day after New Year's?


Howard Charles Green: I cannot give any such assurance, Mr. Speaker.


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

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

Mr. Howard: 1.	What is the present inmate population in each of the penal institutions operated under the Jurisdiction of the federal government, and, how many of the present inmates in each of the said institutions:
(a)	were convicted of the offence of the possession of narcotics in pursuance of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act; (b) were convicted of the offence of trafficking pursuant to the said act; (c) are known to have a record of drug addiction?
2.	Of those inmates who were convicted of offences under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, how many are under sentence for: (a) first time;
(b)	second time; (c) third time; (d) fourth time; (e) fifth time; (f) sixth time or more?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):
1.	(a), (b) and (c):
Institution	Population as on Oct. 31, 1957	(a)	(b)	(c)Dorchester 	559	3	3	10Federal training centre 	329	0	0	0St. Vincent de Paul 	1118	10	7	22Kingston (males) (incl. Joyceville)	924	42	33	59(females) 	79	33	22	53Collin's Bay 	426	1	1	1Manitoba 	384	17	6	28Saskatchewan ...	550	17	5	14British Columbia .	677	108	76	174Newfoundland ....	33	0	0	0Total 	5079	231	153	3612. (a) First time	in penitentiary	228;	(b)
second time in penitentiary 81; (c) third time in penitentiary 31; (d) fourth time in penitentiary 9; (e) fifth time in penitentiary 5; (f) sixth time or more in penitentiary 1.


LOW COST HOUSING
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Has the Minister of Public Works received a brief submitted by the national retail lumbermen's council of Canada suggesting certain amendments to the regulations or requirements of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation having to do with the construction of low cost houses?
2.	If so, what actions have been taken by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to implement the recommendations or suggestions contained in the said brief?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister
of Public Works):
1.	Yes.
2.	The brief submitted by the national retail lumbermen's council of Canada offered four proposals relating to the financing of low cost housing. Three of these proposals conform with the corporation's present lending policy and the suggested techniques are now used where circumstances are appropriate. The fourth proposal would involve a new principle generally known as the open end mortgage. This technique has been tried outside of Canada and has not met with any degree of success. The proposal would require an amendment to the National Housing Act, 1954, and possible amendments to provincial legislation. The type of mortgage proposed involves the approval of a higher loan than that required during the first construction stage. This technique is difficult of implementation because lenders are reluctant to make future commitments at current interest rates. The open end mortgage technique has been considered, and is still being studied.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Holowach: 1.	Since its inception, what moneys have been borrowed or appropriated for the operation of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
2.	Has the corporation repaid any of these amounts?
3.	If so, to what source and how much in (a) principal; (b) interest?
4.	What were administrative expenditures of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation since its period of operation?
5.	Are operational costs borne by insurance premiums on loans?
6.	What were the total of mortgage loans approved (a) by provinces; (b) in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa?
7.	Were grants made to any of the above cities for housing development? If so, in which city and in what amount?
8.	What construction of dwelling units were completed during 1954, 1955, 1956 and to date in 1957?
9.	What reserves and cash assets have piled up during years of operation?
10.	How many Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation insured mortgages have been foreclosed?
11.	What were combined losses on these foreclosures (a) homes; (b) rentals?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister
of Public Works):
1.	Since its inception, January 1, 1946, to November 30, 1957, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has borrowed the following amounts from the government of Canada, under statutory or parliamentary appropriations.

For lending under the housing acts section 22,
C.M.H.C. act	 $431,000,000.00
For the construction of federal-provincial housing and land assembly projects,
section 36, N.H.A. 54	 46,500,000.00
For the construction of housing projects for veterans and others, section 37,
N.H.A. 54	  175,000,000.00
Total	 $652,500,000.00
2.	Of	these	amounts the
corporation has repaid .... The unpaid balance is secured by C.M.H.C. debentures maturing at various future dates.
3.	The following amounts of principal and interest have been paid to the Receiver General of Canada.
Principal
Section	22	..$	15,000,000.00Section	36	. .	5,728,698.83Section	37	. .	74.176,818.60
Loans
Newfoundland 1,055 Prince Edward
Units
1,087

Questions Loans Units
Amount
Northwest
94,905,517.43
Interest 69,036,019.33 3,969,210.62 18,291,962.17
$ 94,905,517.43	$ 91,297,192.12
4.	Administration expenditures of C.M.H.C. from January 1, 1946, to October
31, 1957, amounted to	 $ 62,529,928.60
5.	Operational costs are not borne by insurance premiums on loans. Such premiums are paid into the mortgage insurance fund in accordance with section 10 of the National Housing Act,
1954.
6.	(a) Mortgage loans approved under the housing acts-January 1, 1946-September 30, 1957:
Territories .	9	9	69,000.Yukon ....	3	3	28,000.Total 	. 305,488 387,673	$3,084,859,942.Figures for mortgage	loans approved from	October 1 to November 15, 1957, are available	by regional totals only:	Loans	Units	AmountAtlantic region ... . Quebec	. 267	322	$ 2,982,735.region ... . Ontario	1,859	2,553	24,895,549.region ... . Prairie	6,372	7,659	78,192,905.region ... . British	2,246	2,488	24,558,170.Columbia region . .. .	736	936	9,217,482.Total 	11,480	13,958	$139,846,841.(b) Mortgage loans	approved under the	housing acts-January	1, 1946-	*November 15,1957.	Loans	Units	AmountVancouver	
20,303	23,796	$180,730,507Calgary . ..	.... 15,285	16,994	136,904,191Edmonton .	
18,488	22,479	175,113,629Regina ...	
3,134	3,941	32,938,061Winnipeg .	
17,300	20,294	151,558,451Toronto ...	
56,525	75,513	659,739,127Montreal .	
35,837	65,986	466,087,590Ottawa ...	
11,836	17,351	149,096,884Total 	.. . 178,708	246,354 $1,952,168,440	
Amount
10,532,318.
7.	There are no general statutory provisions for grants to municipalities directly for the development of housing. However the following grants have been made in related fields: Grants approved under section 23, NHA for urban redevelopment
Toronto	 $3,201,937.00
Montreal	 $2,467,587.50
Grants approved under section 33 (1) (h),
Island ....	195	228	1,658,901.	NHA for urban	renewal	studies	Nova Scotia	4,210	5,630	42,110,262.	Vancouver ....	$20,000New Brunswick 	3,188	3,625	28,051,170.	Regina	
Winnipeg 	$23,000 $14,350Quebec ....	52,141	86,031	622,852,749.	Toronto 	$18,000Ontario . . . Manitoba ..	152,523 18,088	182,965 21,060	1,542,621,881. 156,535,010.	8. Housing units completed	Saskatchewan 	6,993	8,941	73,220,730.	1954 	Total 101,965	Under N.H.A. 39,137	Other 62,828Alberta ...	38,125	44,138	344,034,369.	1955 	127,929	58,852	69,077British Columbia .	28,958	33,956	263,145,552.	1956	
1957	(Jan.-Sept.)	135,700 78,824	61,959 23,009	73,741 55,815
Questions
9.	Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has accumulated the maximum reserve of $5,000,000 as authorized by section 30 of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act. No cash other than that which is required for current operations is held by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The requirements in this respect approximate $2,000,000, which amount is distributed amongst all disbursing offices of the corporation. This amount varies according to circumstances and is part of the $5,000,000 quoted above.
10.	Foreclosures of insured mortgage loans fall into two categories:
(a)	Cases where the lender elects to claim on the insurance fund;
(b)	Cases where the lender makes no claim on the fund and elects to retain the foreclosed property.
As at December 1, 1957, there have been- 6 foreclosures of category (a).
As at December 31, 1956, there have been- 2 foreclosures of category (b).
In addition, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has knowledge of 3 foreclosures in 1957, not yet classified as (a) or (b), but this figure may be increased when the final reports are received from lenders, effective December 31, 1957.
11.	(a) Of the 6 properties acquired by the insurance fund, 3 have been sold and 3 available for sale. There have been no actual losses in connection with insured mortgages which have been foreclosed to date in respect of which claims have been made against the insurance fund, but as the 3 sold have been sold on instalment payment plans, the question of whether there will be an eventual profit or loss cannot be determined at this time.
(b) For the remaining cases, those where the lender elected to retain the properties, the lenders are not required to furnish details of profits and losses on property sales.
There have been no foreclosures of rental property.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, FREDERICTON-MCKINLEY FERRY, N.B.
Mr. Stuart (Charlotte): 1.	What Is the federal government's share of the cost of that part of the trans-Canada highway from Fredericton to McKinley ferry (7.7 miles)?
2.	Has the full amount been paid? If not, what part of the cost is still outstanding?
Answer by:	Mr. Hodgson, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	Only 5.55 miles of this section of highway have been incorporated in the trans-Canada highway to date. The amount of Canada's contribution (on a 50/50 basis) to the cost of construction on the incorporated section, Kelly creek to McKinley ferry, is estimated at $760,000.
2.	No. Until the province prepares and submits a final claim on a completed project, the actual cost of construction is not known. However, the amount paid to date to the province on claims submitted totals $525,150.95.


WOLSELEY, SASK.  LAND FOR FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. Argue: 1.	How much was paid for the land on which a federal building was recently constructed at Wolseley, Saskatchewan?
2.	To whom was the money paid, and on what date?
3.	What was the assessed value for taxation purposes of the above land at the time of purchase?
Answer by: Mr. Hodgson, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	$4,000.
2.	G. E. B. Lewthwaite on November 22, 1956.
3.	$1,990.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, P.E.I.
Mr. Kirk: 1.	What are the termini of the trans-Canada highway in Prince Edward Island?
2.	What is the mileage between these two points?
3.	How many miles have already been paved?
4.	When is it expected that the pavement will be completed?
Answer by: Mr. Hodgson, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	Wood Island ferry, the terminal of the Prince Edward Island-Nova Scotia ferry and the town of Borden, the Prince Edward Island terminal of the ferry system to Cape Tormen-tine, N.B.
2.	73.08 miles. Of this mileage 1.25 miles through the city of Charlottetown has not been incorporated in the trans-Canada highway.
3.	Contracts covering 69.79 miles of paving have been awarded to date, of which 67.35 miles have been completed.
4.	It is expected that all paving, with the possible exception of the approaches to the Hillsborough bridge will be completed in 1958.


END OF VOLUME II42  CANADA HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES OFFICIAL REPORT TWENTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT 6 ELIZABETH II ON THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1957, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN DELIVERED THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE OPENING THE TWENTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT, WHICH WAS DISSOLVED ON THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1958. VOLUME II, 1957-58 COMPRISING THE PERIOD FROM THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1957, TO THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1957, INCLUSIVE INDEX ISSUED IN A SEPARATE VOLUME EDMOND CLOUTIER, C.M.G., O.A., D.S.P. QUEEN'S PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY OTTAWA, 1958 HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 13, 1957