October 21, 1957

CCF

Alexander Malcolm Nicholson

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):

Mr. Speaker, as the constituency of Prince Albert adjoins Mackenzie for about 150 miles I should like to say to my next door neighbour, congratulations on the splendid achievement of June 10. I have known the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) longer than most members of the house. When I knew him years ago he was a very well known criminal lawyer in Saskatchewan. During the time he has been interested in politics I have seen his party led by Messrs. Bennett, Manion, Hanson, Meighen, Bracken and Drew. The present Prime Minister is the seventh and had he not had long experience as a criminal lawyer I am sure it would not have been possible for him to take the leadership of the Conservative party and become Prime Minister. In my view he has performed a great public service 96698-15i

The Address-Mr. Nicholson in having demonstrated to the Canadian people that they could get rid of a government that had lost touch with the people.

After listening to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) the other day, it appears as if it has become established now that there is really no fundamental difference between the members on the government side now and the official opposition sitting on this side. We will look forward to establishing the right to become the alternative to the present government when, as the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schulz) said, the people will not be prepared to give them 22 years to look after the affairs of the country.

I was interested in the speeches delivered by the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) and the seconder (Mr. Arsenault) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I cannot recall any other first two speakers in such a debate admitting that Canada had a serious agricultural crisis. They should be commended for facing up to that fact at the very first opportunity. The hon. member for Calgary South comes to parliament with a name that is highly regarded here. During the time I have been here very few members have had as many good friends and as few enemies as his father had, and I am very glad to hear the hon. member speak out boldly at the first opportunity and say, as found at page 21 of Hansard of October 15:

In assessing farm income there appears to be only one real question of debate and that is the question of urgency. I would suggest that if you examine one province, as an example Alberta, you will recognize that this urgency is indeed verv real.

I must congratulate the hon. member for including this reference in his speech. Likewise, the hon. member for Bonaventure in rising for the first time referred to the fact that year after year the percentage of the rural population is declining. He went on to say that their agricultural organizations had hoped to prevent a second dispersal of their Acadian sons but that, alas, the exodus of young farmers and settlers who are forced to go elsewhere to earn a living is on the increase. As found in the English translation of his speech he said.

How many boys and girls of my constituency have scattered all across the country and even across the border! They have not definitely quit their native village for they still hope that better conditions may allow them to come back home.

Therefore I am very glad that at the beginning of the session the first two spokemen for the government have pointed up the fact

The Address

Mr. Nicholson that all across Canada we have a serious agricultural crisis. I intend to devote most of my time to discussing this matter but before dealing with it from my particular angle I should like to mention that since the election I have visited some of my Indian friends in my constituency. I have been honoured to represent over 3,000 Indians in the parliament of Canada. I think hon. members should remember that one of the highest honours conferred on the Prime Minister was his election as an honorary chief, and I am hopeful that he will never forget that the Indian people of Canada are looking to him to do something better than has ever been done before.

At Cumberland House, Pelican Narrows, Sandy Bay, Beaver Lake and Deschambault I find that the Indian people are facing new problems as the population increases. As the result of improved health services and family allowances the birthrate is increasing and infant mortality is decreasing. But we have forced the Indians farther and farther back and have made it more difficult for them to make a living. When I visited Pelican Narrows for the first time some years ago there was no school at all. For the first time in Canadian history the federal and the provincial governments reached agreement in connection with providing an education for Indian children, metis and whites and established a one-room school at Pelican Narrows. That school has grown to five rooms.

The principal of the school is a young girl, Stella Easton, who was selected by the superintendent during her last year at teachers' college. After one year in the north she was persuaded to take over the principal-ship of this five-room school. I wish hon. members could appreciate the tremendous responsibility we place on many of these young people. The Pelican Narrows hospital is managed by a young nurse who is employed by the federal department of health. When you consider that there are no doctors within several hundred miles of some of these centres, it becomes apparent that we must accept our responsibility and provide better medical and educational services for our native Indians in these northern communities.

At Cumberland House I met an old college mate of mine, the Rev. Mr. Parker. He married an Indian girl who taught school some years ago and he has given more than 30 of the best years of his life to looking

after the needs of the people at Cumberland House. There is a great contrast between his parishioners and the parishioners of some of the churches that hon. members attend in the city of Ottawa. I appeal, therefore, to the Prime Minister to keep faith with the Indian people of Canada who have conferred such a high honour upon him.

Coming to the problems confronting the majority of the people I represent, the farm people, I should like to tell the members of this house that the situation is even worse than that described by the hon. member for Springfield this afternoon. The conditions in my constituency are worse. As I mentioned previously, the Prime Minister's constituency and mine have a common boundary for about 150 miles. Before coming to Ottawa I visited some 15 rural municipalities and local improvement offices in the constituency to secure first-hand information regarding tax arrears. While these are only figures to many people, I should like, in a few minutes' time, to deal with a few cases which those figures represent.

As I said, there are 14 rural municipalities and one local improvement district. In the last five years the arrears of taxes have gone from $775,421 to $886,755, then to $1,439,612 and then to $1,810,343 and $1,873,957. There is one municipality that is partly in the Prime Minister's constituency and partly in mine, Moose Range. The arrears in that municipality have gone up from $89,526 to $306,205. I am sure the Prime Minister, as well as I, realizes that farmers in those areas have not allowed this situation to develop for fun.

I also visited the larger school unit offices such as Sturgis, Nipawin, Tisdale, Wadena, Canora, Kamsack and Hudson Bay. These school unit offices have owing from taxes $2,149,000 and they are paying on bank loans of $1,223,000. Let us look at the larger unit of Nipawin, which is chiefly in the Prime Minister's constituency but partly in mine. In 1952 the Nipawin school unit had owing from these municipalities $272,000. Last year Nipawin unit had owing $545,000, from the municipality and they are paying interest to the banks on loans which amounted at the end of last year to $226,000.

Hon. members might be interested in knowing that it is necessary to have posted in the elevators a list of farmers who have not been able to meet their taxes. The elevator agents are required to notify the farmers that they will have to make some adjustment for the payment of their taxes before they can have any cash for themselves from the sale of their wheat. You see in

all the elevators in Saskatchewan, and I presume the same thing applies in Manitoba and Alberta, these lists posted when the grain is ready for market.

Let us take as an example local improvement district No. 949 in northern Saskatchewan and I shall cite two examples from the list. I shall not mention any names. Here is a farmer who owes $1,637. This farmer fought to make the world safe for democracy between 1914 and 1918. He settled in northern Saskatchewan on the bushland in that area when they were able to get 160 acres of fine bushland for $10. Then when world war II broke out he still was not too old to do his bit and he spent four years in the second world war. He now owes $1,637. Mr. Speaker, if hon. members could visit the homes of these people and see what they are like they would realize something of what it is like to fight in two wars and then be in a position where your tax arrears have grown to such an extent you are forced to conclude that perhaps you had better walk out.

Here is another veteran. He also fought in world war I and in world war II. He owes $1,138. I saw him a few days before I came away and he said, "I will soon be 60; after fighting in two wars and after trying to build up an equity in a farm, I guess I had better pull out and take to the city or do something else."

Just today I wrote to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) about one of these veterans who is in the same position. He thought he could take some temporary work without losing his war veterans allowance. He wanted to do something about those tax arrears. When the Department of Veterans Affairs got word he had taken work at 80 cents an hour they cut off his war veterans allowance. I hope that these regulations can be changed so that a war veteran is not in that position. This particular war veteran was a sergeant with the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes). I am sure the Minister of National Defence will agree that the economy of Canada should not place an old veteran in a position where he cannot earn a few dollars to try to bring his taxes under control.

Hon. members who live in big cities like Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver find it difficult to place themselves in the position of these veterans. Before I leave these lists I mentioned, here is someone who is in arrears and who is living in London, Ontario; someone in Edmonton, someone in Brandon and someone in Field, British Columbia. These are farmers who have pulled up stakes and

The Address-Mr. Nicholson

gone elsewhere hoping that conditions will change and they may be able to come back some time and do something about it. Hon. members will find it difficult to believe that the 45,000 people living in Mackenzie now have not a dentist available to them. There was a time when we had five dentists to look after the needs of the population.

The first time I was in the penitentiary, some years ago-

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Oh. oh. The truth is out.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

Alexander Malcolm Nicholson

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Nicholson:

-I was there on a visit- I found that there was a qualified dentist being paid to look after the inmates of the penitentiary. Times have changed, and we do not have a full-time dentist on the staff now. However, we do provide excellent care for the people in the penitentiaries. For example, in the penitentiary in the Prime Minister's constituency we pay over $4,000 a year to a dentist to work part time to look after the needs of the inmates. I am not complaining about that; I am not suggesting that a country like Canada should ignore its responsibilities to the people in the penitentiaries, but I am saying that there is something radically wrong with an economy when it places 45,000 farm people in a position where there is no dentist to look after them.

We have ten medical doctors and most of them are there on contract with a municipality.

However, we have some real problems that are arising there. I visited one of the municipal councils when they had been notified by the provincial government that since their population had gone down from 3,400 to 2,500 they would get a smaller grant, that the provincial government could not pay as much to look after 2,500 people as to look after 3,400 people. They therefore went to the doctors to announce that from now on the doctors were going to get less pay. "Oh, no", the doctors said, "you are going to pay more. Everything is going up. We can go to the city and make a great deal more than we are making here." The doctors said, "According to our records we are looking after more people now than we ever did before. The people who are leaving are the young and strong who go east or north or south or west. The old and the invalids are staying behind and someone must care for them."

I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) who has taken over his portfolio is going to have to face this problem soon and to face it squarely. May I say in passing that I think the Prime Minister made the best possible

The Address-Mr. Nicholson choice in the selection of the Minister of Agriculture. I know of no one else on the other side of the house who would be as sympathetic toward farm problems and who would do a better job. But after saying that, I am going to stress what was said by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schulz), namely that the people are going to require action very soon.

The farm people are disturbed by what they read in the papers. I have here the Wheat Pool Budget from Alberta. When the people in Canada read that the price of bread ranged from twelve cents a pound in Canada to eighteen cents a pound in the Unite States they think it is time that some responsible organization got busy in Canada and found out why it is, when our labour costs are so much lower in Canada, the staff of life sells at a price which is so much lower than the price down in the United States. I think something about the monopolies would be of real interest.

Then in connection with the handling charges we read that the board of grain commissioners announced this week an increase of one-eighth of a cent per bushel in the maximum elevator charges. While the farmers are facing bankruptcy the powers-that-be do not seem to hesitate to boost freight rates or to increase handling charges.

I also read that in the United States about one in every ten is receiving free food from the government. According to a recent United States department of agriculture figure, the number of people in the United States who get free food is running up over 13 million, and 12 million are school children. If they are able in the United States to dispose of some of their surplus food by making it available to the school children, we in Canada should be able to do something.

Then we read figures like those which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) put on the record the other day; and may I say in passing that I am sure we are all delighted that the leader of this party is in such good health and that he was able to make such an outstanding contribution to this debate. But when they read that Frank McMahon, with an investment of $7,700, buying shares at a nickel apiece, was able to build up an equity of $4,000,000, it is not something which is easy for my veterans of world war I and world war II to contemplate. As I say, it is not easy for these veterans of two wars to contemplate that situation after serving their king and country in two wars and working to build up the roads, schools and other essential services, and who now, in the evening of

life, are contemplating walking off without being able to pay their honest taxes.

The Saskatchewan wheat pool has supplied the government with an extremely interesting illustrated pamphlet entitled "The Farm Income Situation". Farm costs have gone up year by year, from a base of 100 in 1947, until they have reached nearly 150. Farm prices followed up until 1951, although not as rapidly as farm costs; but since 1951 they have gone down to 110, 100 and 90. In other words there is between 1955 and now a spread in farm costs of 140, with farm prices down below 90. The average farm price of wheat was away up to $1.65 in 1947; it kept coming down, with a little spurt in 1952, to about $1 or $1.25 at the present time. With the index of farm prices going up all the time our farm people are in an impossible position.

I am interested in noting that the Canadian Labour Congress has faced up to this problem and that it has come out with some interesting material showing how important it is for the whole economy of Canada that this problem be recognized. I submit to the present government across the way that two members of the previous cabinet were chiefly responsible for allowing this crisis to develop as far as it has gone. I refer to the former minister of trade and commerce and the former minister of agriculture. Those two senior members of the cabinet kept insisting year after year that the farmers never had it so good; that if a farmer was not successful he had no one to blame but himself. However, the Canadian Labour Congress comes out with this interesting research bulletin showing what the dwindling farm income is doing to our economy. The income of the workers has kept increasing as a result of the ability of the unions to bargain collectively. They are not quite able to keep pace with the increase in the cost of living and the profits that are being made but they consider it to be a serious national crisis for the farmers to be in this position.

Last year in the same debate I reviewed at considerable length the statistics which had been released a short time before in connection with the national income. There is an edition to be out shortly and I am sure that it will demonstrate that the farm position is even more serious at the present time. But according to the statistics last year, out of 601,000 farm families in Canada only 39,000 made enough to pay income tax. That would be less than seven farmers out of 100. I think most hon. members will agree that while that situation exists the buying power of the people involved is seriously reduced and we are not likely to have a recovery that is going to establish high levels of income.

I am glad that the new Minister of Agriculture is continuing such publications as "Agriculture Abroad". There was some fear that there would be some slashing in connection with publicity. However, it appears to me that Canada can afford to have a look at what is being done in other countries. In "Agriculture Abroad" for December I find that we get some information about the competition we are getting from some of these other countries. I should say in passing that the offer made by the British recently to wipe out tariffs really does not attack the fundamental problems of today when nearly every country in the world is supporting subsidy programs that take much more money than tariffs previously took. In this article in "Agriculture Abroad" I find that France paid between $1.40 and $1.48 per bushel for every bushel that went into the export market.

I ask hon. members this: who can expect to sell even the best quality of wheat in European markets if one of our competitors is putting wheat down at a price which carries with it a subsidy of $1.40 a bushel? There was a time when France was a major importer, but times have changed and France does not wish to be caught in a situation again when she must depend to such a large extent on overseas countries for her foodstuffs. So this policy in France is there to stay.

Also in this periodical are interesting articles about Argentina, Belgium and a number of other countries. Some interesting figures are given with regard to subsidies paid by Great Britain, and I am sure that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) when he comes to discuss these matters in Britain will ask what they propose to do about the $551 million paid in farm subsidies over there. The subsidy for cereals amounts to $69 million; for eggs, $75 million; for fatstock, $139 million; and in production grants to $190 million.

I find no fault with the British for carrying out policies of this sort to make it possible for their farmers to stay in business, but I do not think the Canadian government should ask the Canadian farmer to buy his machinery in the highest priced market in the world while he is carrying on and attempting to sell in competition with wheat carrying a subsidy of $1.40 a bushel or, in the British market, in competition with British farmers who are receiving subsidies running up to $551 million.

The United States has, of course, a very extensive program of subsidies. Last year they made arrangements for the soil bank to cost something over half a billion dollars;

The Address-Mr. Nicholson farmers who co-operate can expect to receive over a three-year period something over $27 an acre. I was interested to read in the Ottawa Journal of last April an article by a well known radio commentator James M. Minifie. Mr. Minifie is a Rhodes scholar from Saskatchewan who has had an interesting career as a commentator and writer. Apparently he still has his father's farm near Vanguard, Saskatchewan-he has 480 acres there-and this article, which appeared in the Journal on April 6 of this year, mentions a plan to set up a belt conveyor to load his farm and move it down into North Dakota. Along with that would go a binful of the 1955 crop which was sitting in what used to be his dad's living room. After he got that down there, he would cash in; he would be able to get twenty cents a bushel more for his barley.

Mr. Minifie points out that an important difference would be that when he grew his crop he would be able to get cash; he would not have to sit on the farm forever and dribble it in on a 2-bushel quota. "I would just take it into town and the government would have to sweat it out from then on", the writer says. Mr. Minifie pointed out that he would probably put the northeast quota out of cultivation; it was not very good land, containing quite a bit of alkali. If he would take 200 acres out of production and devote it to not growing wheat he would make $4,200 down in North Dakota.

How can farmers in Saskatchewan who were not able to sell more than a 5-bushel quota last year possibly compete on such terms, having to buy their equipment in a high-priced market and then sell in a low-priced market? They have not solved all their problems in the United States, but they are continuing to devote their best efforts toward a solution.

For the coming year the United States department of agriculture is very much back in the export business. The bill amending the agricultural trade development and assistance act became law on August 13 and provides an additional $1 billion for concessional sale of agricultural commodities abroad and an extra $300 million for relief and other "give-away programs", according to the October issue of "Agriculture Abroad".

I have here also, a very interesting article explaining how the government of Switzerland is giving very high priority to keeping farmers solvent and prosperous.

The Minister of Agriculture also publishes the Economic Annalist and I commend him for continuing to make this publication

The Address-Mr. Nicholson available. In the August issue there is a particularly interesting article on West Germany's plan for agriculture.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a country which is as rich in its resources as is Canada should study what other countries are doing. Here is a table compiled by the Department of Agriculture which shows that for the year 1957-58 Canada is paying producers on the basis of $1.40 per bushel. The price in France is $2.06; West Germany begins at $2.49 and rises each month until it reaches $2.77 to the farmer who holds his grain on the farm. Other figures are: Ireland, $2.09; Italy $3.61; Netherlands $1.92; Spain $4.20; Sweden, last year, $2.15; Switzerland, $3.92; Turkey, $3.73; the United Kingdom $2.01; the United States $1.93; Uruguay, $2.92.

Proposals now being mentioned in the press indicate a price of 50 cents a bushel for six bushels and a price of 30 cents for barley, 20 cents for oats and a maximum of $3,000 to a farmer who has 1,000 acres. This does not begin to meet the problem, so I hope the cabinet will give immediate consideration to the promises which were made to the Canadian people before the election that steps would be taken to see that those in Canada who produce food for this nation and other nations will receive a fair share of the wealth which is produced by all our people. I think it is very important that the government should give careful consideration to the submissions made recently by the interprovincial farm union council and the federation of agriculture.

I must urge that special consideration be given to the large markets available here in Canada. The bureau of statistics has made an interesting study of the distribution of nonfarm income which appears in its most recent reference paper No. 76. It is pointed out that the average income per family in Canada in 1954 was $3,654. At first glance this seems to be a fairly high average but we must not forget that, according to this study, 12 per cent of the families in Canada received less than $1,000 a year income and a very large group received less than $2,000. I would therefore suggest that the question of family income be considered and all the people in Canada be given an opportunity of receiving a decent income so no one will be short of foodstuffs and the necessities of life.

I hope we will not lose sight of the fact that it remains true that two-thirds of the people in the world have never enjoyed one good meal. In a booklet published by the Department of National Health and Welfare in connection with world health day it is pointed out that if all the people in the world

were to have enough of the right kind of food the production of cereals would have to be increased 50 per cent, the production of meat increased 90 per cent, dairy production increased 125 per cent, oil production increased 125 per cent and fruit and vegetable production increased 300 per cent.

Having established in Canada during the war that whatever is physically possible can be made financially possible I submit the time has now come when we should see to it that those who are producing food are given an incentive to produce all the food we can use, all we can sell and a large amount of food which we can give to the underdeveloped countries of the world to raise their standards to a much higher level.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Edmund Leverett Morris

Progressive Conservative

Mr. E. L. Morris (Halifax):

Mr. Speaker, I can understand any difficulty hon. members on the other side of the house or at the far end of the chamber had just a moment ago in realizing that I was in fact standing in my place. My colleague from Halifax is a full foot taller than I am. On June 10 the people in my constituency voted for both the long and short ends of the Conservative ticket.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Irvin William Studer

Liberal

Mr. Studer:

And they got the short end, all right.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Edmund Leverett Morris

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Morris:

It is symptomatic of the change that came over Canada that day, Mr. Speaker, that in our two-seat constituency, one of two still remaining in Canada, we Conservatives now do not have a senior member for Halifax and a junior member for Halifax; we have simply a taller member and a shorter member.

Once upon a time I observed the goings on in this house from the gallery of the fourth estate above us. By all standards I have been subsequently exalted though it is permissible for me to wonder how I have gone up by coming down.

My first sense of gratitude at this time for being here is understandably to the people of my own constituency. My second, Mr. Speaker, is sincerely to the parliamentary press gallery wherein I spent the formative years of my political belief, wherein I received my first on-the-spot education in the labyrinth of government and from whence I watched with slow disenchantment the gradual decline of a once great political philosophy. I used to sit up there and think of Gilbert Keith Chesterton: "As much as I ever did, more than I ever did, I believe in liberalism, but there was once a rosy time when I also believed in Liberals."

The members of the parliamentary press gallery are indispensable to good representative government in this country. They are indeed the vital link between this house and

the people. Under your direction, sir, they enjoy-and quite properly so-certain facilities to assist them in their work. Over the years as their numbers have grown with the increase in government activity and the people's interest in it the tecilities allotted to them in this building have become crowded to the point where they are no longer conducive to the best effort on behalf of this house and, what is more important, they are not wholly conducive to the best interests of their readers, listeners and viewers. Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully ask your consideration in due course for the provision of improved facilities in this building for the membership of the parliamentary press gallery.

There is a second reason I ask your consideration which has to do with the honour and dignity of this house. It is no part of the intent of the press gallery, but its inevitable expansion into cramped quarters has necessarily involved the use of a corridor of this building, which cannot be as satisfactory as it might to those journalists who must work there and, Mr. Speaker, without their intent-indeed with no other choice-this constitutes in part a physical use of a small part of this building which is not in keeping with the use of the rest of the building.

As a new member I am sensible of the traditions of this house of assembly. We Nova Scotians have a long inheritance of representative government. Indeed we are preparing to celebrate a year hence, in October 1958, the 200th anniversary of our first house of assembly.

This building in which I stand represents to every Canadian the strength and glory of his self-government. I had walked many times the wide walk to this building but never before and perhaps never again with the same feeling with which I came to Ottawa soon after the election to take my oath as a member of parliament and to come quietly by myself to this house to which I had been sent in trust by my people. What did I encounter? A series of make-believe post offices, a stage at one end of the chamber, a congress of visiting persons-beyond doubt distinguished but not members of the Canadian parliament-with every seat taken, the aisle filled, the government lobby full of wires and box lunches and television receivers.

I do not question the worth of the organization that gathered here this summer but I do wish to object to the former government's allowing the use of this chamber for that or any gathering of a non-parliamentary nature and I do not think the government I have the honour to support would have allowed it.

The Address-Mr. Morris

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Pierre Gauthier

Liberal

Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):

Well, well.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Edmund Leverett Morris

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Morris:

Mr. Speaker, I do not want any post offices in this chamber and I do not want any strangers in my seat-

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Oh, oh.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Edmund Leverett Morris

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Morris:

-whether we are in session or adjourned. This seat, or some seat, belongs to my electorate. I belong to them. I do not want any stranger in it; they have a right to a seat without let or hindrance. There are other places in the city where congresses may foregather. We are more than glad to have them among us, but not in this chamber which is the meeting house of Canada. It should be preserved for one purpose and one purpose only, to house the elected representatives who have the trust from time to time of the majority of their constituents.

To me, Mr. Speaker, as a fledgling member of parliament, trying my wings for the first time, the most important part of the speech from the throne I believe is appropriately at the very beginning. The Queen said:

Parliamentary government has been fashioned by the wisdom of many centuries. Its justice, authority and dignity are cherished by men of good will. It will be the high purpose of my ministers not only to preserve these qualities but to take steps to make both houses of this parliament more effective in the discharge of their responsibilities to the people of Canada.

This is essentially the ideal that motivated the people of Canada, especially those in my constituency, on June 10, Mr. Speaker. If members are indeed honourable in the sight of their fellow men, then all other reform of legislation will come in good time. If parliament is debased, then the processes of representative self-government are in jeopardy.

We come to this particular parliament in the midst of a period of danger that is likely to be as profound as any in the modern history of the human race. Its symptoms are disintegration and conflict. We inhabit a world confronted with ballistic missiles, hydrogen and atomic bombs and now manmade moons. We stand very literally at the crossing of the ways. When the first atomic bomb was detonated in the Nevada desert 13 years ago, one reporter who witnessed it wrote:

What I have just seen, the last man on earth, in the last milli-second, will see.

Another reporter who sat beside him saw a different light. He wrote:

I felt as if I had been present at the dawn of creation, when the Lord said, "Let there be light".

We have to choose, Mr. Speaker, whether we are to go forward into the future to greater light or backward into the ooze and slime of the beginning. Unless our world is

The Address-Mr. Morris to revert, to a chaos oi competing barbarisms, a new and a better spirit must soon preside over the destinies of mankind. It halts in coming externally only because one country, and its earthly sputniks, refuse to open their iron curtain to grasp the hand of mutual survival which is offered to them. Internally, our greatest task at this first session of a new parliament, in the presence of a new government, is to undo any harm that may have been done the good name of parliament and to restore it to the people as the fountain of their liberties and the shield of their faith in their country.

I do not presume to say what other hon. members are expected to do by their constituencies but I am certain that my constituents did not send me here to engage in a reciprocity of childish invective and thoughtless insult across the floor of this house. I happen to differ in my political philosophy from hon. members on the other side, and indeed at the far end of this house, now inhabited by Social Credit members. This is only to say that they differ with me. We are all Canadians. I am only a young man; I make mistakes. A parliamentarian who does not make at least one mistake a day is not working, but I hope never to impute to those across the floor motives which I think are meaner than my own. We can disagree and do disagree but it is honourable disagreement of opinion that makes horseracing a gamble, marriage risky-and democracy work.

I do not propose at this time to speak at great length of the constituency of Halifax which I and my colleague (Mr. McCleave) have the honour and the duty to represent. There will be a better time and place for that, though I shall refer to it briefly in a moment. I should like, however, to make one or two brief general observations. If in doing so I violate the good spirit which I have just bespoken, I hope hon. members across the floor of the house will do me the honour of upholding the usual parliamentary usage of understanding that I am not to engage them in any reciprocity and they do not interrupt me in my maiden speech.

I have been sent here, Mr. Speaker, not only by Conservatives but by Liberals and by C.C.F. supporters. I regard myself as the member for all the people of Halifax. The duty assigned me on June 10 is, I think, to represent all my people along Conservative principles of conduct and government. I think the most significant reason I am here is that it was felt that my predecessors represented only those who they thought had supported them.

Secondly, 10 of the 12 members of parliament from Nova Scotia sit on this side of the house. Most of us are young, 29, 33-my colleague and I 34-37 and 39. And who can call the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), aur provincial caucus leader, anything but a sprightly youngster? I think we are likely to be more idealistic; we are likely to be more open-minded, I suspect that we are likely to be much more aggressive, than our predecessors.

We were not sent here by our fellow Nova Scotians to whine; we were not sent here to set our faces against the rest of Canada. We were sent here to get fair play, nothing less but nothing more, individually if we can, together if we must. We intend to work tirelessly to achieve for our people a fairer share of the gross national product. In nothing we shall ever do shall we intend to set ourselves against any other part of Canada. As I trust that nothing I shall ever do or say in this house will deny me the prospect of mutual respect with any member, so in everything we do we shall hope to prosper our country as a whole.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, it is a tradition that a new member in his maiden speech will constrain himself to deal with the opposition lightly, if at all, and his opposition shall not interrupt him. I do not intend to violate this usage when I say sincerely that I regretted as a new member an observation which I believe was made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) was being "professorial" when he described to the house the procedure for the introduction and passage of interim supply. I personally was confronted for the first time in my life with the fact that I had a hand in the expenditure of $305 million and I was grateful for the minister's guidance. I would be surprised if new members on the back benches across the way did not appreciate the minister's consideration at a time when we were being asked for the first time to vote such large sums.

One of the two-twelfths of the Nova Scotia representation who do not sit on this side of the house, the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen), told this house just before the supper recess that he would withhold congratulations to my leader but, sir, I entertain no such patronizing reservation about his leader. It has been an honour to have come to this house and to have shared its duties and the high honours of the past week-

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Allan Joseph MacEachen

Liberal

Mr. MacEachen:

May I rise on a question of privilege? I believe the hon. member for Halifax is sincerely mistaken in attributing remarks to me because I have not yet taken part in the debate.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Edmund Leverett Morris

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Morris:

I am sorry if I incorrectly addressed the remarks to the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond. The member on the other side of the house who spoke immediately prior to the recess made the remark that he would withhold congratulations to my leader. In any event, as I was saying, it was to me an honour to come to the house and to share what we have shared in the last week with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent). On behalf of my constituents, those who voted Conservative, those who voted C.C.F., those who voted Liberal, I join in extending to him and to Madame St. Laurent every good wish that their future years, after his announced resignation takes place, will be enriched with both peace and the honours his unquestioned service to his country have earned for them.

We have heard in the house in the last few days, Mr. Speaker, forecasts of gloom from the opposition benches. I should like to tell hon. members that they are not accurate as a description of the new government's support of my constituents. Since the 10th of June the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has undertaken to pay to the city of Halifax an annual sum equivalent to the business, or higher tax rate in the city on the vast bulk of federal government properties if the city will seek and secure remedial legislation to amend a technical phrase in the present city charter which requires the federal government to pay the residential, or lower, tax rate. This will mean an increase of $600,000 in the federal payment for the first year of its application, a payment which will rise in later years if the city tax rate rises.

Within 60 days of the election federal government agencies, through the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), announced contributions of $400,000, the largest single share, toward the removal of the notorious Fairview underpass which had been promised for more than 20 years. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) has publicly promised sympathetic consideration for any proposal by the city of Halifax and the province looking forward to the large-scale urban redevelopment recommended by the Stephenson report, most of the cost of which was in turn borne by the federal government.

The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) has visited my constituency and has talked with us about the very real problems of the 96698-16i

The Address-Mr. Morris fishing community. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) has toured defence installations in my constituency as recently as early this month and is considering a joint proposal with the town of Dartmouth and the county of Halifax which will provide improved water services, not only to H.M.C.S. Shearwater but also for residential and commercial development on the Dartmouth side of Halifax harbour. Canada's first wholly-owned aircraft carrier, H.M.C.S. Bonaventure, has arrived and is now based at Halifax, and a new jetty for her use will shortly be available full time at H.M.C.S. Shearwater.

A large-scale campaign of public works has been undertaken since June or is being recommended for the next 12 months at Indian Harbour, Prospect, Sambro, Portugese Cove, Herring Cove, McNab's Island, Three Fathom Harbour, Owl's Head, Murphy's Cove, Cooper Point, Carter Point, Petpeswick and Ecum Secum. A mammoth new international airport at Kelly Lake, just outside the Halifax-Dartmouth metropolitan area, which will be able to handle the largest airliners is well under way and is being pushed. A new $2-J million federal government building to accommodate most of the previously scattered federal government offices in Halifax will open next year in my city and, Mr. Speaker, it will be heated by Nova Scotia coal.

New postal services are being established or are in process at Spryfield, Rockingham, Birch Cove and Eastern Passage. Last Saturday we were able to announce that tenders would shortly be called for a post office in Bedford. The supplementary estimates introduced in the house last week include an additional item of $900,000 for pier A-l. We are asking for action on several other projects, including greatly improved postal facilities in Dartmouth and additional harbour projects in Halifax. We will seek assurance of a fair and just share of Canadian shipbuilding and repair contracts.

But these projects I have cited are only examples of the government's concern for Halifax and its willingness to listen to the members from Halifax. It has done more in 22 weeks than our predecessors did in 22 years.

What is more important than the recitation of these public works is the attitude of the government. No longer do we come hat in hand as poor relatives. We are given fair play, no more and no less.

All these projects, Mr. Speaker, are in addition to the pay increases granted the armed services, federal civil servants and the R.C.-M.P., increases which, in truth, were in part

The Address-Mr. Morris considered by the previous government and which are of great meaningfulness in my constituency. They are additional to the increased old age security, old age assistance, blind persons and disabled persons payments promised in the speech from the throne. They are additional to the increases in war veterans allowances.

The forecasts of gloom are a part of and about as accurate as a prognostication told in Nova Scotia about a representative of a Liberal candidate in one of the constituencies on Cape Breton Island. This gentleman went canvassing one day prior to the last election on the great man's behalf. In a field he spied a farmer spading his garden, so he stopped his car, reached into the glove compartment, took out his little black book and found the name "Angus MacDonald". I hasten to say that this is neither the hon. member for Anti-gonish-Guysborough (Mr. MacDonald), the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Macdonald) nor the late premier of Nova Scotia.

So he climbed over the fence and went up the field to the farmer. "MacDonald", he said, "I am canvassing for the Liberal candidate. If you could see your way clear to support him on the 10th of June he would appreciate it". "My friend", said MacDonald, "I knew his father. A bigger blackguard never watched the mist come up on Big Bras d'Or. I knew his brother. He was the laziest man from Dingwall to Judique and that sister of his, she talked more and said less than anyone I ever heard on the north side."

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Irvin William Studer

Liberal

Mr. Sluder:

Like a Conservative.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Edmund Leverett Morris

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Morris:

"I would not vote for your man," he said, "if he was the only candidate running on any ticket in the country." Mr. Speaker, the Liberal canvasser went back down the field, over the fence to his car and took up his little black book and opposite the name of MacDonald he wrote the one word "Doubtful".

No one in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, and I venture the judgment that no one in Canada expects miracles from a new government. Decent opinion in Nova Scotia is more than prepared to extend to the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet every loyal and patient understanding. Nova Scotians live today with a new hope. We hope for a greater justice from a new government. We trust that its measures for the Atlantic provinces' betterment will recommend themselves to the support of all members on all sides of the house.

On his way from Halifax to Ottawa for the opening of the first session of the first parliament of Canada Joseph Howe spoke words

'Mr. Morris.]

of his colleagues from Nova Scotia which are as appropriate for this day as they were when uttered by the great tribune 90 years ago. He said:

When myself and my friends from the lower province were leaving, we did not know how we would be received here; but I am glad to say that we have been shown nothing but kindness and attention from all classes and creeds since we came to the city, and X can only say that if at any future time it is in my power, I shall be glad to participate in your enjoyments and to be of any assistance that I can . . . whatever opinions I hold will be honestly and openly expressed. I only ask that they be weighed fairly, and that I may be judged without prejudice.

Mr. Speaker, when the roll is called I shall vote against the amendment to the amendment moved by the Social Credit group and I shall vote against the amendment moved by the C.C.F. I shall vote for the gracious address in reply to the speech from the throne, moved and seconded so eloquently by my colleagues, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault).

Mr. Louis Denise! (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I am a firm believer in traditions. One of them is that when a novice makes his maiden speech in this house he feels very much impressed; one might say that he feels as if squadrons of butterflies were reenacting the battle of Britain in his stomach. I am a follower of this tradition and believe me I feel the fluttering of each and every butterfly. However, I feel very much fortified by the realization of the fact that I do not speak for myself but for the thousands of Canadians who have sent me here. The Canadians of the constituency of St. Boniface have given me a mandate. It is my duty to act and speak on their behalf, and this I propose to do. I might add further that the results of the election were such that I acquired a further responsibility, that of representing the Liberals of the province of Manitoba in this house. There are many of them, young and experienced, women as well as men, farmers, craftsmen and labourers. They come from all walks of life and represent the very cream of the province. As a bit of further information regarding the present Liberal representation from Manitoba, it might be added that in the caucus for this province there is no discussion and all decisions are carried unanimously.

At this point I think it would be in order for me to congratulate Mr. Speaker and yourself on your appointments to your high offices. I wish also to congratulate the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) and seconder (Mr. Arsenault) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I trust that by now the butterflies have left them.

(Translation):

Mr. Speaker, there are others and very different traditions that are extremely important and affect us closely. I cannot ignore what everyone keeps repeating: the tremendous joy, the very natural pride and the sincere emotion stirred in our hearts by the visit of our Queen. We were captivated by her charm and loveliness, and perhaps that which touched us most was the statement that she was indeed Queen of Canada. It is true that she is also the Queen of other countries to which we are bound by tradition or otherwise. But it was verily our Queen to whom we were giving homage and acclaim, we were bowing to the symbol of authority in Canada. In fact, our homage went beyond her person to take her along with us to the altar of our own land, Canada. For our own country alone has a right to our full and ultimate loyalty. Our Queen not only recognized this fact, but guided us in that direction.

Other thoughts came to my mind during those memorable days. I asked myself what my country was, in actual fact, and I came to a conclusion which, in changing but a few words, would perhaps apply to all Canadians.

For me, it is Langevin street, the Red river and the Seine and the Assiniboine, La Salle and Rat rivers. It is the vast plains with their rippling expanse of golden wheat, where snow squalls start before winter sets in. It is the Rockies and the Laurentians, the gardens of Victoria and the tiny harbours of Newfoundland.

This is no attempt to be lyrical, Mr. Speaker; I only wish, above all, to stress this basic fact that Canada begins at home, for each and every one of us, and then extends to our relatives and friends, then to each of our communities, to our parishes and municipalities, to our provinces, the ten of them, and to the great North. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what is sometimes heard out west? "What's the use? What chance have we got? Two-thirds of the population live down east. They do not care two hoots for us." But we do know that, deep down, the eastern people are quite fond of westerners. Nevertheless we have been faced with examples of ignorance for things western which, to say the least, have been most disconcerting. For instance, you are speaking with an easterner and he says: "So, you are from Winnipeg! When you get back you might say hello to a friend of mine". So you inquire politely what street he lives on and the answer comes: "Well, I cannot remember, but I do know he lives in Calgary."

The Address-Mr. Deniset

The other day a lady from down east somewhere politely inquired if it was true that we had horses and cattle at the corner of Portage and Main. There is without a doubt greater ignorance of the west by eastern people than of the east by westerners. This is not good for Canadian unity and the harmonious understanding which should always be present when any decisions of a national nature are taken.

Mr. Speaker to return to what I was saying a moment ago, Canada begins in the home. If there is anything on which we can all be agreed here, it is that the greatest sacrifice a politician can make is to sacrifice, to some extent, his home life. Our duties and responsibilities are such, though, that we are far too often called away. It could be said of each and every one of us that the orbit of Canada is not its capital, but that our homes are the orbits of this country. Recognition of this fact should make us realize that all those homes, whether they be in the slums or in apartment homes, in the country or in modern cities: Vancouver, St. Boniface,

Toronto or Saint John, are all equally important. All our decisions should have regard for this great truth. The family home is the basic unit of society and we must therefore, with the aid of Divine Providence, give it every opportunity for full development under this Canadian sun of ours, the sun of our country, Canada.

(Text):

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is our Canada first. I said at the outset that I was very much impressed. I tried to describe my emotions. This leads me to understand the emotions of other members of this house, including not only the newcomers to parliament generally but the newcomers on the government front benches. They have given evident signs of anxiety at the magnitude of the job at hand. They surely realize the necessity for them to perform. To use the same words as those addressed to me by one of their members during the last election campaign, may I say: "I cannot wish you the best of luck but I wish you the very best". You will need all of it, even for what might be a comparatively short term of office.

Some of these gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, I know very well. I well remember, for instance, the then G.O.C. of the first Canadian division in England. I am sorry to say that he is not here in the house tonight. Undoubtedly he is busy with other duties. I think he would have liked to hear what I have to say. As I say, I remember him as

The Address-Mr. Deniset the G.O.C. of the first Canadian division in England under which I served as a platoon commander with the royal twenty-second regiment at the beginning of world war II. His enthusiasm was infectious. He would show officers personally how to conduct a reconnaissance. On one occasion, on one of the hectic days of some manoeuvres where the Van Doos happened to steal the show, I remember his exclaiming with pride, "My French Canadian regiment in Hitchen". He was no doubt expressing his admiration for the many Canadians of French origin who have served their country in the armed forces. I have no reason to believe that he still does not have the same respect for their admirable fighting qualities. One might be surprised that I speak in this fashion but I believe in giving unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. I also want to let the hon. gentleman know that when I rise again and at that time quite possibly disagree with him, I still have respect for one of Canada's finest soldiers.

I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, if at this stage, it being almost ten o'clock, I might move the adjournment of the debate.

On motion of Mr. Deniset the debate was

adjourned.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Official Opposition House Leader; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Chevrier:

May I ask the government leader what is the business of the house for tomorrow. I also wonder whether he would not be good enough to outline in his remarks whether it is the intention during the course of the week to interrupt the debate on the address in order to discuss other matters of a government nature.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Public Works; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we plan to continue with this debate and also on Wednesday. However, on Thursday I think we shall interrupt the throne speech debate in order to deal with the resolution preceding a bill providing for cash advances on grain.

On motion of Mr. Green the house adjourned at 9.57 p.m.

Tuesday, October 22, 1957

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink

October 21, 1957