1950-03-09

ANNOUNCEMENT AS TO SELLING PRICE OF GOVERNMENT-HELD STOCKS

Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of privilege, and in the public interest, I wish to make a statement regarding butter.
I issued a statement through the press yesterday which is a summary of what will be issued to the trade. I am sorry that the interpretation placed upon it by some reports was such as to render it misleading; therefore I wish to make the announcement to the house, where I probably should have made it in the first place.
The announcement given the press was as follows:
Ottawa, March 8, 1950.-Right Hon. James G. Gardiner announced today that it was not anticipated that there would be any change in the selling price of government-held butter before the end of March. Mr. Gardiner also announced that if the government did decide to change its selling price downward on butter, those who had purchased butter from the government would be protected against loss resulting from the change to the extent of the stocks on hand.
This is the announcement going to the trade, and it will be fully understood by those concerned. Anything added as though it came from the department could result in misunderstanding, and therefore I wish to make this statement at the moment.
For the benefit of hon. members I wish to state that the last ten-year average storage of butter, as of March 1, was, in round figures, 19 million pounds. The highest storages as of that date were 23 million pounds in 1940 and 24 million in 1947. The storage as of March 1, 1950, is 36 million. Of this amount the government had 25 million pounds.
The end of the dairy year is April 30. The last ten-year average storage as of May 1 was, in round figures, 10 million pounds. The highest during that period was, in round figures, 12,700,000 in 1945 and 13,500,000 in 1949. We bought butter last year so that we would have a carry-over sufficient to make distribution possible.
On the basis of these figures there would be about 25 million pounds of butter in addition to current production to market between 55946-38
March 1 and May 1 to leave the usual carryover at the end of the year. The government disposed of two and one-half million pounds last week.
It should be remembered that neither the producers of butter nor the government ever encourage the production of more butter than can be consumed in Canada. It is because of the adjustments which will be necessary to maintain this objective that the announcement made yesterday was thought advisable. I wanted to put these explanations on Hansard.


Mr. Wrighl:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's statement, and with your permission, I should like to ask him a question. What will be the position of small dairies throughout the country which have stocks of butter on hand as at April 1? Will they be protected in the same way as purchasers of butter from the government reserve?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are protected by the fact that any time up to the dates referred to in this announcement they can deliver butter to the board itself.


Percy Ellis Wright: Must that butter be in carload lots, or may it be in less than carload lots?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been customary to have it in carload lots. I do not know whether other arrangements can be made. That is a matter of arrangement with the trade.


Mr. Drew:: I should like to ask a question arising out of the minister's statement. To whom and at what price was the butter sold last week?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was sold to the ordinary dealers across Canada. I understand that three of the principal dealers telephoned this morning as a result of the announcement made yesterday, and their understanding is the same as the announcement conveyed. One of them said: "We will probably have three carloads of government butter at that date and one carload that we shall have obtained elsewhere; does that mean we will get a settlement on three-quarters of the butter?" His question was answered yes, and he said they fully understood the principles involved. The sales were all made last week to the Canadian trade.


George Alexander Drew: At what price?


James Garfield Gardiner: At 60J cents.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether any



S86 HOUSE OF

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry butter has been sold to the industry in recent weeks below the figure which he gave a moment ago.
James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know of any butter that has been sold below the figure based on 60J cents up to date. That is the price at Montreal. There may be different prices in other parts of Canada.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am not concerned about a cent or two. Will the minister make inquiries? To be perfectly frank,
I am thinking about soap.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have not had any butter that we have been required to sell to the soap industry so far as I know. Sometimes that does develop.



THEFT OF NEEDLES FROM SHED AT REAR OF NATIONAL RESEARCH BUILDING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Are press dispatches correct in stating that radium needles representing thousands of dollars of taxpayers' property were stored in an unprotected shed at the rear of the national research building, instead of in a vault, as is the general custom, and that as a result these radium needles were stolen and now endanger the lives of any who may come in contact with them?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have not received a report on that subject as yet, although I have asked for it. I will answer the question tomorrow.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Thank you.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I should like to deal with a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure). It had to do with the supply of reefer cars, and part of it was to this effect:
Will the minister advise, instruct and demand that the Canadian National Railways provide reefer cars for the shipment of potatoes and turnips from Prince Edward Island? The shortage of reefer cars at the present time is the greatest they have experienced in years.
I promised the hon. member that I would get a report from the Canadian National Railways. I am advised by them today that


there are 454 reefer cars on hand or in transit for Prince Edward Island traffic. This total
is made up as follows:
Cars on P.E.1	 292
In transit at Cape Tormentine	 43
Moncton	  30
Truro	 22
Campbellton	  22
Monk	 45
Total	 454
Officers of the Canadian National Railways report that a satisfactory position as to reefer cars is considered to be around 300. When it exceeds this figure there is a danger of transportation difficulties arising in connection with the movement of the cars. Therefore my hon. friend can see that there is no shortage of cars. On the contrary, the situation is a good one.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Yesterday the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) repeated his question about an accident which took place between two Canadian National Railway trains in the province of Quebec. I have a statement here which is not too lengthy, and I could either give it to the hon. member or put it on Hansard. It is a report of the accident. It is not a report following investigation, because investigation is not yet complete. It is the report which I was able to obtain from the officers of the Canadian National Railways. I think perhaps I had better send it to the hon. member.


Mr. Isnor:: Are we to understand that the report will be placed on Hansard?


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I had better read it to the house. It is a report concerning the accident on the Canadian National Railways at St. Cyrille, Quebec, on February 24, 1950.
At about 10.45 p.m., February 24, passenger train No. 60, the Scotian from Montreal to Halifax, collided head-on with passenger train No. 1, the Maritime Express from Halifax to Montreal, about two miles east of St. Cyrille station, some six miles east of Drummondville. Ninety-three passengers and twelve employees were injured, but none of these seriously.
A formal investigation will be made by the railway officers with regard to the accident, but from reports received it appears the accident was to some extent due to another accident which occurred twelve hours previously, when a train struck a truck at the public crossing at St. Cyrille, damaging the

central traffic control circuit between Drum-mondville and St. Cyrille so that trains had to run on train orders over this section.
Train order was given to train 60, at St. Hyacinthe, together with several others, to the effect that No. 1 was to run six hours late and that No. 60 was to run Drummond-ville east to St. Cyrille west. No. 60 should have stopped at the signal at St. Cyrille west, which was displaying "stop" indication, and contacted the train controller at Levis, who would have authorized it to proceed to St. Cyrille station, at which point a terminal clearance would have been issued. Instead, however, train 60 passed the signal at "stop" indication, failed to obtain the terminal clearance form, passed governing signal at east switch at St. Cyrille also displaying "stop" indication, and ran through the switch of siding which was set for No. 1 to enter, thus entering the central traffic control territory in face of No. 1.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: May
I ask the Minister of National Revenue if he is ready to answer the question I asked yesterday regarding the computation of depreciation on farm properties?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the question which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked yesterday has just been brought to my attention. He asked whether the minister would consider delaying the coming into effect of the depreciation rates that were provided for by order in council on January 31, and applied to the year 1949. The answer is that it would not be advisable to delay the coming into effect of these depreciation rates with reference to farmers, because of the fact that at the end of the year farmers file only interim returns. Like every other taxpayer, the farmer makes his final return on or before the 30th of April of the next succeeding year. Therefore he will have plenty of time to readjust it, and it is not an inconvenience to the farmer. There may be a little inconvenience in so far as administration is concerned, but we are prepared to take on that extra work.


Mr. Hansell:: May I say that I have a letter from an accountant who points out that over fifty of his clients have already made their returns, not knowing of these changes. Will the regulations be enforced, so far as those who have already made their final returns, on the basis of the old rates? Some of them have made their final returns.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Knowles:: Because of advertising
encouraging them to do so.


James Joseph McCann: The new rates are of much greater advantage to the farmer. If he does not care to take advantage of the increased rate of depreciation, then he will be assessed upon the rate which he has used as the basis in filing his return.


Ernest George Hansell: It is a decrease in depreciation on farm machinery.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: On the 1st of March I had a question answered pertaining to the same subject. I have studied the order in council, and I have had correspondence from farmers who have made out their returns. They find there are changes which are not as beneficial to the farmer as the former provision in that regard, and there will be much contention on that very point.


Mr. Charlton:: If I may ask a supplementary question, when the budget was being discussed last year did not the government give the farmers an undertaking that this change would not be made effective with respect to 1949 taxation?


James Joseph McCann: The hon. gentleman will remember that objection was voiced in parliament, and it was urged that the new depreciation rates should not affect farmers and fishermen on the diminishing balance scheme; so the old rates still obtain for the farmers, as they were prior to these orders in council. As I say, it is a matter of administration. The farmer has the advantage in that he can write his losses backward and forward over a period of years, and it is only a matter of adjusting them through the administrative officers.


John Alpheus Charlton: Am I wrong in my understanding that there has been a change under these orders in council reducing the depreciation on power equipment by five per cent? Of course there has.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to have this made clear, because I have had correspondence with people who have automotive equipment. In past years they have been allowed to depreciate it at twenty per cent, but this order in council distinctly sets out a rate of fifteen per cent. Will they be allowed to depreciate at the rate of twenty per cent, or not?


James Joseph McCann: There has been such a multiplicity of questions in reference to the matter of depreciation, some of which I did not get very clearly, that I shall have to prepare a statement on the matter, either for tomorrow or the next day.
588	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Major SPEECH FROM THE THRONE



CONTINUATION OP DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, March 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. F. H. Larson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Cold-well.
Mr. W. J. Major (Glengarry):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me, as I rise for the first time to take part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, to voice a word on behalf of those whom I have the honour to represent.
At the outset may I offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Larson) and the seconder (Mr. Dumas) of the motion we are now debating. I listened to the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson) with much interest, and I am sure the people of his constituency have justifiable reason to be proud of their representative.
(Translation):
As for my friend and deskmate, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas), I congratulate him most heartily on the splendid manner in which he performed his task and particularly for the wonderful description he gave us of the Canadian shield which is so dear to his heart.
Mr. Speaker, I take this first opportunity to pay tribute to our leader, the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for the great victory he won last year. He must surely be proud of the great confidence that has been placed in him by the Canadian people, so that he may keep on directing Canada's affairs with the same wisdom he has shown in the past.
(Text):
May I also join other hon. members in congratulating the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris) on his appointment as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
During the last session of the house, while some hon. members constantly referred to the calmness of our new members, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I followed the deliberations with great interest; and though I was at times inclined to retort, from my sixteen years of municipal experience I felt that this would not be the wisest course. I can also assure you that with the wisdom of your guidance, Mr. Speaker, together with my endeavour to observe the workings of parliament, I have gained much benefit both for myself and for my constituency.
If I may be permitted the latitude at this time since much has been said about national

unity, I would say that this is one of the greatest assets we have in the constituency I represent. Glengarry is the home of the loyal and brave highland Scots and United Empire Loyalists who first settled it. I need not try to tell you of their congeniality; their stalwart sons who have settled all over Canada have made this unnecessary for me. Glengarry being also the easternmost county of Ontario, and bordering on Quebec, it was to be expected that people with two great traditions, the French and the Scots, could not be neighbours without eventually having an influence on one another. Consequently neighbourly comradeship led to an intermingling of these two races, so that we now find in Glengarry as many of the Quebec neighbours as of the gallant first settlers. You need not be in Glengarry long to feel the perfect harmony and understanding which exist between them.
Most of the people of our county are dependent upon agriculture for their income, either directly or indirectly. Our towns with their growing industries are largely dependent on the farmers for business. The farm producer's income is derived from three main sources- dairying, hog producing and poultry farming, of which dairying is the largest. Since the greater part of the income from our dairies is derived from milk manufactured into cheese, you can readily understand the primary importance our producers attach to the sale of and the price realized from this product.
We have been enjoying also an excellent export market in the United States for our dairy cattle. Recently the sixth t.b. test has been completed in our county, and out of 34,690 cattle tested, only nine reactors were found. This indicates the healthy condition of the cattle, and should result in an increased sale of Glengarry cattle in the export market. It will be easy to understand, therefore, that the price received for these products has a great deal to do with the happiness and success of the producers.
One might better understand the exact position of our producers if I were to refer back to the thirties, when food prices were extremely low, and when the average earnings Erom the production of dairy and other food products was not sufficient to provide for the immediate necessities of the producer. You can readily understand to what extent the maintenance of farm buildings and machinery had to be neglected. The anticipation with which the producer was looking forward to the time when the prices of his products would be sufficient to allow him to put an end to the continued dilapidation of his property and the replenishing of his equipment can

easily be realized. The farmer was faced with the necessity of making immediate repairs to his buildings, which were so vital to economic production, and he realized also that he could not continually draw from the soil without making certain disbursements to add to its fertility.
Then came the war period with its restrictions. Prices began to adjust themselves, but in the adjustment heed was taken of the need to encourage the people of Great Britain in their war effort. Although higher prices could have been obtained, and although higher prices prevailed in the United States, our farmers accepted lower prices for the food they produced. The net margin obtained, however, was not sufficient to allow them to attend, as they would have liked, to the repair and upkeep of machinery and buildings, as well as the fertilization of the soil.
Unlike industrial production, which is timed and controlled by the will of men, farm production is more or less timed and controlled by nature. The farm producer, being conscious of the food requirements of his country, must always aim at a larger production than the immediate need, so that there may always be enough to meet requirements. I believe everyone will agree that the farm producer should receive sufficient for his food products to cover the cost of production, as well as the cost of maintenance. If the producer must produce a surplus in his endeavour to satisfy the requirements of his fellow citizens, then I would say that the disposal of the surplus food is the responsibility of all the citizens of the country. The producer should not be asked to accept a price lower than the cost of production, and thereby bear alone the full burden of cheaper food. This burden should be borne jointly by the producer and his fellow citizens.
As you know, the producer of mixed' food products must work strenuously for long hours. His is not a task involving an eight-hour day with paid vacations, but a task which usually extends from daylight to sunset, and for seven days a week. Stock must be cared for and cows milked, even on Sundays. It is no wonder, therefore, that the farmer's son is leaving this arduous toil, which brings little or no remuneration, for the less arduous job in which he can find time to enjoy himself before calling it a day. When the displaced persons first arrived, the farmers were of the opinion that to some extent the farm labour problem would be solved. It took only a short time, however, for these men to remind us that our day was too long, and our man-hour effort too strenuous, for the remuneration obtained. Long before their year's contract was up,
The Address-Mr. Major these displaced persons had made arrangements for employment which would bring them a higher take-home pay with fewer hours of work.
As long as the food producer can exchange" the value of a day of agricultural labour for the value of a day of industrial labour, he does not mind too much the hard work and long hours. If and when it happens that he has to give more than a day for a day's return, then his ambition is weakened and his purchasing power reduced. Care should always be taken to make sure that neither his ambition nor his purchasing power is reduced to the extent of jeopardizing the stability of our country. The old method of free markets, and allowing the law of supply and demand to function, might have served a purpose when labour was not a factor and when the producer could have leather tanned in his home village and his boots made by the local shoemaker at a nominal price. The fluctuation of prices may not have been felt as much at that time; but now that the farmer must equip himself with the most modern devices necessary to produce as successfully and economically as possible, both in quantity and in quality, the producer cannot afford to have trade set a lower price for his product than the cost of production. Not only could he not carry on, but the disappearance of farm purchasing power would have most serious repercussions on all other industries.
A vivid and glaring example of this was recently brought to light with the ending of the egg contract with Great Britain. At that time the handling of the product was placed at the mercy of the regular trading channels. It is true that for some time the trade had been requesting that it be allowed to handle the product without intervention. It is unfortunate that the trade had to prove its inability to cope with the marketing of the product and maintain a reasonable price. The sudden and drastic fall of egg prices has been the result. We have seen also the parade of poultry to a depressed market, and this would have continued but for the fact the government used its power under the Agricultural Prices Support Act and announced that the eggs in storage next fall would be bought at a fixed price. You may rest assured that the parade of poultry to market would have continued long enough to change the egg from a welcome food to a scarcity.
It may be said that the misfortune of the producer was the fortune of the consumer, who for a short time could obtain unreasonably cheap food. But, Mr. Speaker, this is mere illusion; because while the consumer
*590

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker "was buying unreasonably cheap food for a fortnight, the producer was disposing of his producing stock at an unprofitable and discouraging price, with the result that he may replenish sparingly; and there is a strong probability that the egg market will be on the short side this fall. Thus it can be seen that by depressing a product beyond reason the ^producers must take a loss and the consumer is more likely to be called upon to make up more than the difference caused by the reaction in scarcity.
Fortunately for both the consumer and the producer, the government in its wisdom undertook to readjust the low egg price; and, by the price coming back to a reasonable level, the producer was given the necessary incentive needed to prevent the total disposal of his stock. He was also given encouragement to replenish his stock sufficiently to avoid unreasonably low production, so that the consumer may expect a reasonable quantity at a price fair both to himself and to the producer.
Remembering and reacting from the unfortunate and depressingly low prices they received in the thirties, and encouraged by their various farm organizations, together with their knowledge of the well-considered policy of our government, the morale of our farm producers at this time is higher than it has ever been before in the history of our country, and this is bound to have a strong reaction on our future prosperity.
It is also with deep interest that the farm producers welcome the announcement by the government that at this session a bill will be introduced to amend the Agricultural Prices Support Act to provide authority for continuing price support, and I wish to commend the government on the action it has taken. I am sure that this will be one of the means required to ensure a stable price adjustment and an ever-prosperous Canada.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: May
I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Major) on his maiden speech in this house. As I do so I recognize that it is one of those amenities that bring together members in all parts of the chamber; for all of us realize that parliament can only fulfil its purpose of legislating so that Canada may achieve the destiny that all of us hope for when it can attract to the halls of the legislature young men of ability and capacity; there are far too many who regard public service as something worthy of ridicule.
In extending my congratulations to my hon. friend upon his ability to express himself in both languages, I am not discharging a perfunctory duty; it is a capacity envied by those


of us who are not possessed of it, and it is one that is of inestimable value in understanding the aspirations not only of the race to which I belong, but also of the French race whose contribution has meant so much to the building of our country. I wish I could express myself in French; although I understand the language, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that if I tried to speak it the house would need a translator to translate my translation.
I was impressed by the speeches made by the mover (Mr. Larson) and the seconder (Mr. Dumas) of the address. The bringing into this House of Commons of young men of their ability and capacity makes for the continuance of the heritage that parliament has handed down to us, and which it is our responsibility to hand on to others.
Having said this, I feel impelled to make some comments on the address delivered yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner)-which was more important for what it did not say than for what it did say. Before doing so, however, I desire to bring before the house one or two suggestions that I believe will be non-controversial.
The first has to do with the examination of the accounts of parliament; and I have made this suggestion on previous occasions. If private enterprise is to be maintained in this country there must be a greater return to the individual; and there can only be a greater return to the individual if the national income is maintained and taxation is reduced. The federal government annually spends some $2,400 million as compared with $500 million before the second world war, and the municipalities are spending $1,300 million this year as against $600 million in the days of the war. The examination of expenditures is one of the major responsibilities of the House of Commons, and something should be done to improve our facilities in that connection. Canadians this year will spend over $400 million on defence-an increase of some $40 million over last year. In view of the world situation as portrayed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), and by my own leader in his address the other evening-one of the most powerful ever delivered in this house on the international situation-the people are not averse to expending money on defence and the preservation of peace; but as with other expenditures, they have the right to know whether or not a maximum return is being secured for the expenditures made. I suggest that the public accounts committee of this house as now constituted is ineffectual; it is merely window-dressing. It scarcely ever meets, and when it does, it does not discharge its responsibilities.

In the British House of Commons there is a public accounts committee, a replica of which I should like to see established here. On that committee the majority are not members supporting the government, but they are opposition members. The chairman is not appointed by the government, but it is a member of an opposition party appointed by the members of the committee. Such a committee operates for the purpose of assuring that maximum results shall be secured for all expenditures made. I bring this to the attention of the government; for, sir, if expenditures are being made economically, and if there is nothing to hide, such a committee could not find any over- or mis-expenditure. I suggest that such a public accounts committee be convened. We cannot go on increasing expenditures year by year with parliament having merely a passing acquaintance with them and with no knowledge whatsoever as to whether or not economies are being practised.
I shall now touch on matters of particular interest to Saskatchewan and to the western provinces and of national importance as well. The new members from the province of Saskatchewan who have spoken so far have brought to the house a breadth of purpose that has appealed to all of us. Hon. members from that province are united on certain things. Mention was made before the orders of the day were called by you, Mr. Speaker, of the matter of depreciation for income tax purposes. I say to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) that never before has that department been as efficient in the forcing of people to pay and in following them up as it is today. It has been so efficient that injustices have crept in; it has been so forceful that in a number of instances the actions taken have been hard to understand.
Recently a regulation as to maximum rates of depreciation allowable for income tax purposes was sent out by the department. I ask the minister, in the light of experience, to reconsider the rates. In considerable measure the farmers in my constituency are power farmers. They have written me about the rates of depreciation, which are as follows: combines, self-propelled, 15 per cent; combines, 10 per cent; sleighs, 15 per cent; swathers, 10 per cent; tillers, 10 per cent; tractors, trailers, trucks and wagons, 15 per cent. A number have suggested to me that the changes are almost incredibly stupid and the reasons for some rates are difficult to understand. Automobiles, self-propelled combines, tractors and trucks have been reduced from 20 per cent to la per cent. Sleighs, wagons and trailers have been raised from 10 per cent to 15 per cent. The maximum on swathers and one-way disc seeders is only 10 per cent. In
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker view of the rapid rate of depreciation of this machinery and equipment, changes should be made in these rates in order to meet practical conditions. All hon. members from the western provinces will support this request, I trust, and we should be supported by hon. members from other provinces and wherever power machinery is used.


James Joseph McCann: May I interject a remark? I ask the hon. member's pardon for doing so. We realize that the rates will have to be adjusted from time to time in the light of experience which we gain with reference to the life of these particular implements that are used.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the von. gentleman. It is with the realization of that fact that I bring these matters to the attention of the house. I hope the minister will act soon, because there is a considerable amount of complaint that the present rates do not operate in justice to the farmer.
I wish to refer now to freight rates. Generally speaking, so far as the western members are concerned, there should be a request on their part that the increases recently allowed by the board of transport commissioners be held back by the cabinet until such time as the discrimination and discriminatory rates now in effect against western Canada and other parts of the country are removed. I do not suggest a permanent hold-up, because all of us realize that there must be an increase in freight rates to meet the added costs of operating railroads if that is established to the satisfaction of the commission. The recent increases if allowed will accentuate that discrimination that now prevails.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is the protection accorded to statutory freight rates under the Crowsnest pass rates. Attacks are being made on these rates. Without regard to party considerations, I feel that every western member should rise in his place in this house and demand that those rates be not interfered with. If they are interfered with; if they are raised, it will impose upon the western farmers a tremendous additional and a correspondingly large reduction in the amount of the farmer's income on his grain crops.
Under the Crowsnest pass rates the average freight rate in Saskatchewan is 13 cents a bushel. That rate would be approximately doubled. So far as the Saskatchewan wheat pool is concerned it would mean that the freight bill would be increased to approximately $41,236,000, or almost double what it was last year. The western farmers have a right to demand that these Crowsnest pass

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker rates be not removed, and generally, so far as the freight rate structure is concerned, that the discrimination that prevails against western Canada and the maritime provinces shall be removed.
I wish to make some comments on another matter, to which I have referred on one or two previous occasions. Having regard to present conditions generally in the western provinces-and this is particularly true in the province of Saskatchewan, because we have had a crop failure there unequalled since the days of the thirties-our farmers remember that, during and prior to the election campaign, they were informed that there was sufficient money on hand to have paid not 20 cents a bushel in April last but from 33 cents to 35 cents a bushel from the money on hand. The Minister of Agriculture himself spoke on that question in the city of Moose Jaw in April last. He pointed out that the 20-cent payment made in the spring of 1949 was only a partial payment, and there was still to the credit of the farmers an amount of from 12 to 15 cents a bushel. Because of that statement the farmers throughout western Canada are asking why it is that any question has arisen as to why that payment of 20 cents a bushel resulted in an amount, greater than that to their credit, being disbursed by the wheat board. I make the appeal that I made on previous occasions in questions directed to the minister: That at the earliest possible moment the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) arrange to distribute to the western farmers whatever amount is to their credit, or at least that a substantial interim payment be made, to the end that they may be assisted in their spring work, particularly farmers in the areas where the crop last year as a result of drought conditions was a complete or partial failure.
To help meet the unemployment problem I ask the government to carry out the promise made by the Minister of Agriculture during the election campaign, particularly at Melville, Saskatchewan, on April 29, 1949, that this government would proceed with the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project. I have the quotation here, as I have many other quotations. The heading of this particular article is: "Gardiner predicts 1950 start on dam."
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), after studying the situation and determining the necessity of that development as a national project, gave an undertaking both before and during the campaign that it would be proceeded with as a national work. There was no question raised before the election that this dam was to be proceeded with only if the province made a contribution. But it is being


held up because of the federal demand that the government of the province of Saskatchewan must undertake to pay part of the expenditures in connection with irrigation. There never was any question of that, either during or before the election of 1949.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I be permitted to say something? I have not had an opportunity of saying what I am going to say.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister-


James Garfield Gardiner: I will ask Mr. Speaker to allow time to the hon. member, if he takes any in replying; but I just want to make a statement.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


James Garfield Gardiner: All right; if you don't want it, I shall make it later.


John George Diefenbaker: I only hope the minister does make it later, because that is what I want. Yesterday in a speech of one hour he devoted himself to reading a radio speech made in 1949.


James Garfield Gardiner: The matter which I am going-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just let me say this. This statement could not have been made yesterday; it could be made only today or later. If you want it, I shall give it to you; if you do not want it, go on and make your speech.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should observe the rules of the house. The hon. member who is addressing the house should not be interrupted without his permission.


John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday I sat and listened to the minister; I am recorded as making one interruption, and I did not even do that. I just sat and listened and now I am going to refer to some of the things the minister did not deal with yesterday. This is one thing he should have dealt with in yesterday's speech.


James Garfield Gardiner: What I am going to say could not have been said yesterday. It was only agreed to today.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I hear nothing but a continued mumble which cannot be recorded in Hansard. I listened carefully to the minister. He said many things, and many things he did not say, to both of which I am going to make reference this afternoon. If the minister wants to make another speech, he will have an opportunity later of doing so.

On behalf of the people of Saskatchewan I am asking that this project be proceeded with as a national undertaking, and that the promise recorded in the Regina Leader-Post of April 21, 1949, be carried into effect.
There is one other matter I should like to discuss which particularly affects western Canada; 1 refer to the Hudson Bay railway. Even when our farmers are not getting the highest prices for their product, they can get a greater return if the costs of production are kept down. 1 should like to see hon. members from Alberta and Manitoba join with us from Saskatchewan in demanding a greater utilization of this railroad and the facilities at Churchill. We from Saskatchewan want to build up a two-way traffic on the Hudson Bay route through Churchill, and we do not want to see it thwarted by any off-the-record policy of top-flight individuals in Ottawa, or by the Department of Trade and Commerce. We want to see an opportunity given to this railway and to the facilities at Churchill to assist the western farmer. This has been requested for many years. The facilities are there, but to all intents and purposes they are not used.
I now come to the speech delivered yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture. 1 have a few quotations here; indeed, if I were to gather them all up I would have an assortment of contradictory statements that would establish anything, any place, any time. Yesterday my right hon. friend spoke of the 1930's. That is the old stock argument of my hon. friends opposite. They talk about the 1930's and say that the Conservatives were responsible for the low agricultural prices. That is what they say, and my hon. friend was back at it yesterday. It is not long ago, to be exact on January 19, that the right hon. gentleman made a statement in Ottawa at a press conference. He was referring to the action of the United States in dumping farm products on the market, and 1 quote:
It certainly can affect the Canadian export market for farm products.
The United States policy is not new, it has been going on since the 1930's. In 1932, when the United States first started paying its producers higher prices than they could obtain on the market, the United States government started selling grains at below cost.
That's what caused our wheat to go down to 36 cents a bushel.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Ottawa agreements were in effect in 1932.


John George Diefenbaker: We have that statement vouchsafed by the Minister of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: They understood what 1 said.


John George Diefenbaker: That is true enough. We had a statement yesterday, and a different one
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker on January 19. At that time the minister said that the cause of the fall in wheat prices during the thirties was the action of the United States-I think that bears repetition- when all through the years we in this party have been held responsible for the fall of wheat prices that had fallen all over the world.
When the minister spoke yesterday he drew a picture that was optimistic in the extreme. What are the facts? So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, sales to that country in January, 1950, which have fluctuated in recent months, fell by $7,205,000 to $48,608,000. The total value of exports to all commonwealth countries, including the United Kingdom, was $62,336,000 as against $88,706,000 a year ago, according to statistics issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce. That gives the picture.
As I listened yesterday to the minister I wondered if this was the same minister who during the campaign had drawn such optimistic pictures of trade. Yesterday the minister read from his radio address of May 28, 1949. It was a masterpiece. In order to keep the record clear I am going to refer to some of the other speeches made during that campaign. When speaking yesterday, why did he not tell the farmers what their markets will be after 1950, and in 1951 and 1952? Why did he not tell the Canadian people how much sale there will be for wheat outside of the international wheat agreement? Why did he not answer the question that has been asked him so often as to what he meant when he spoke in Brantford, Ontario, on December 6? In an address to the board of trade of that city on that date he is reported to have said:
There is a very decided official effort to drive wheat and several Canadian food products from the British market.
Why not tell who these people are? What officials in Great Britain are interfering, for that is what it amounts to, with commonwealth trade with that country whose market is of such great importance to Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: It does not mean that but I must not say anything.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister himself spoke of the British market when he addressed the food and agricultural organization in Washington.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not "officials"; it is "official".


John George Diefenbaker: At that time he said:
I hope that nothing in the report will suggest that the United States should not follow the conservation measures which have been outlined by the delegate from that country. That, together with the removal of the embargo on the export of wheat

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker from Canada to the United States, would eliminate most of our difficulties and would go a long way to solving any international wheat problem with surplus wheat.
I ask, what has been done to remove the embargo?
Then he dealt with the British market and he said:
Canadian farmers, therefore, are still vitally concerned with world markets and are fearful lest monetary difficulties and other trade obstructions deny them entry to their natural market which is the market of Great Britain.
I ask him to tell the house what he meant at Brantford and what he meant on other occasions when he talked of obstruction in high places, or were they merely statements in a long series of statements in which at one time he said that there is not a surplus and the next day said that there is a surplus? Indeed when he spoke to the United Nations food and agricultural organization in Washington he pointed out that Canada was in grave danger from surpluses, and I should like to refer to what he said:
The report further points out that we may be threatened in the near future by "surpluses"-however artificial they may be from a world standpoint -in such commodities as bread grains, coarse grains, rice, sugar, fats and oils and fish. We have already been threatened in Canada by surpluses of most of the foods referred to, the exceptions being rice and sugar.
I ask the minister: what did he mean when he delivered that speech at Brantford in the fall of 1949? Who are the people in Great Britain who are interfering with our trade which, as the minister said in Washington, is so important? Surely the minister said either too little or too much. Indeed the Winnipeg Free Press of December 9, 1949, said:
According to the Canadian Press, Mr. Gardiner did not enlarge upon the source or the extent of the "official effort" and until evidence is forthcoming the existence of such a "drive" should: be discounted.


James Garfield Gardiner: You will notice it is "official sffort", not "officials' effort".


John George Diefenbaker: Official effort. Let the minister tell the House of Commons exactly what official effort in Great Britain is denying to Canada her natural markets. Surely among the members of one's own family there should be the fullest degree of trade which, as the minister pointed out in his address in Washington, is the natural trade. Surely frankness should characterize every relationship between the governments of the commonwealth. Yesterday the minister talked about the absence of surpluses. Here is something interesting. On February 13, 1950, he said, when speaking at the opening session of the Canadian horticultural council:
Some people In the world are making it difficult for Canada to distribute food surpluses to areas
{Mr. Diefenbaker.]
where they are needed. Conditions are not yet normal and Canada is producing surplus foodstuffs which are needed somewhere.
That was on February 13. He was speaking to farmers who know what the situation is. If he had told them there were no surpluses they would have said, "No surpluses? Well, what is wrong?" Therefore when he spoke to them he said there were surpluses. Then in the Globe and Mail of October 1, 1949, there is a report of a statement as to markets made by the minister. On that date he was interviewed about Canada's foodstuff markets in the United Kingdom and he said this:
We are trying to maintain Canada's markets in Britain, but there is no certainty that we can do so.
Then, mark these words:
However, Canada was not being "hurt by anything that has happened in Britain up to date. We haven't lost any markets if we haven't got anything to put into them."
In one speech in January he said that there were surpluses and in another in October, after the harvest was over, he was advising that there were not any surpluses. I suggest that we find out once and for all which statement is correct. Is there a surplus or is there not? In view of his diversified statements the Minister of Agriculture finds himself on the horns of a dilemma.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read the whole speech. They are all the same.


John George Diefenbaker: All right.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: You know, Mr. Speaker, when I get reactions like that it indicates I am saying something that is not altogether agreeable.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not agreed with by anybody who was at the meeting.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not through reading yet. I cannot begin to cover all the diversified fiction that I have before me.


James Garfield Gardiner: If you would finish reading, it would answer your own idea.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure I have never seen my hon. friend so agitated before. I sit and listen to him as he fires brimstone on us but he cannot take it himself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: He says to producers that there are surpluses because he cannot tell them that there are not, and to others, in order to show why the situation is what it is, why trade is being lost and where our markets abroad have gone, that we have not any surpluses to sell anyway. To one he says we have plenty and to the other he says we have nothing. In a well-known song

there is the line, "I got plenty of nothing", which would combine both of my hon. friend's versions.


Mr. Warren:: Is there anyone over there who could make a better job of it?


Mr. Graydon:: Stop that official effort over there.


An hon. Member:: Quack, quack.


John George Diefenbaker: We have a surplus of ducks in the house. Alone and by itself the radio speech which the minister placed on Hansard yesterday would feel almost like an orphan, and it must have companionship. I give it that companionship, with a number of speeches delivered by my right hon. friend during the election campaign. On May 12, speaking at Simpson, he said:
Market is safe, Gardiner says
Hitting out at political opponents who have been accusing the Liberal government of losing Canada's markets, agriculture minister Gardiner declared at a public meeting at Simpson Wednesday night there is no truth in such suggestions. "We could sell much more of most farm products if we had them in surplus supply," he said.
Then on June 11 I find this:
"We are not losing our overseas contracts," declared Mr. Gardiner. "All contracts automatically expire at the end of the year and are then renewed with amendments if need be. Canada has no surplus of goods and we are not losing our contracts."
On May 10, speaking at Regina, the minister is reported as follows:
"Wheat selling is not a problem. The problem facing Canadian agriculture was not the question of selling wheat to Britain but the question of finding additional markets for Canada's wheat surpluses," agriculture minister Gardiner said in Regina on Monday.
That is why, when the minister spoke yesterday, I expected him to tell us what is being done in this connection. He mentioned FAO and said they were going to buy some of our surpluses; but that is merely a temporary expedient.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read the rest of those
speeches and you will find the answers.


John George Diefenbaker: That same report goes on to say:
Mr. Gardiner said there had never been any doubt of Britain's ability to buy wheat from Canada.
Then on June 24 he said:
There is no evidence to support the contention . . . that Canada is losing the British market for food-


James Garfield Gardiner: You are not reading from that speech at all. Read the Simpson speech.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister wants to choose the speeches I am
9, 1950
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker to read. I have been fairer than he asks; I have not indulged in any selectivity, but am reading the whole record.
Mr. Gardiner, addressing a nomination convention of the Moose Jaw Liberal association, said there is no difficulty now, as there had been in the thirties, in finding markets for our wheat. The minister added that "we are going to have an election but I don't know when it will be."
I suppose it is merely coincidence that those last two sentences come together. Then I have another dispatch dated May 30:
Agriculture minister Gardiner Saturday night predicted that the United Kingdom soon will have sufficient dollars to buy more foodstuffs from Canada. "The United Kingdom and other countries," he said, "are going to be able to pay shortly." "In Canada two things were needed in the immediate future," Mr. Gardiner said, "more food products to sell-
Yes, Mr. Speaker; to the horticultural association we have a surplus; to the House of Commons yesterday there is no surplus. Well, my time is up, though I have many more quotations.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will read the rest of them when I get up again.


John George Diefenbaker: I trust it was only modesty that kept the minister from reading the rest of them yesterday.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was only the fact you would not give me more time.


John George Diefenbaker: I conclude by asking the minister and the government to place the trade situation before this house. The ministers say that trade is flourishing, that we have nothing to fear; yet while the right hon. gentleman was speaking yesterday this dispatch was coming over the teletype from Geneva:
Britain gave notice yesterday that she will order new cuts in her dollar imports if the demand for British products in the United States declines.
The minister told us how well trade was being maintained and developed; yet the record for January, published by the bureau of statistics, showed a falling away in British trade, and yesterday at Geneva the British government announced that there might be further restrictions. That is why, at the risk of reiteration, we on this side of the house, believing in our responsibility, have asked and repeated, the trade situation being so serious and the time so propitious, that at the earliest possible moment a commonwealth trade conference should be convened. It was in a spirit of helpfulness that the motion was moved, and that is the spirit in which it is again advanced today. People have a right to know the facts, instead of having from ministers of the crown statements which are so utterly incongruous. On the one hand that there are no surpluses; on the other hand that there are surpluses.

The Address-Mr. Mutch Let us know the facts; let us have an end to the Janus-faced trade policy of the government.


Mr. L. A. Mutch (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, like other hon. members I desire to open my remarks this afternoon by expressing my appreciation of the efforts of the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, on the workmanlike way in which they carried out that duty and brought credit both to themselves and to the constituencies which sent them to this house.
I have been here a long time, and I think I am as free from political malice as some of the arguments I have had to listen to during my seventeen sessions here have been free from logic; but I think perhaps I would be expected, and certainly it will be my pleasure, to address myself this afternoon to some remarks made in the house the other evening. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) paid me the honour of referring at some length to newspaper reports of an address I made in Toronto. I know he did not hear the speech; it was quite obvious he had not read it, so he must have had only the information contained in the newspaper dispatches. I regret that I was not in the chamber to hear him, because while the hon. member is very often wide of the mark in what he says he is seldom dull, and he keeps on shooting no matter how often he misses. I think perhaps it could be said of him, as it was said of another student many years ago, that he has dipped into many pools of knowledge and bottomed none of them. Certainly when he dipped into the factual matter with respect to what was said during the course of that speech which he essayed to criticize in this house the other evening, he did not quite bottom it.
The quotations the hon. gentleman read from the Liberal campaign literature used so successfully in Manitoba were perfectly correct, I am quite sure, since I have no reason to doubt that he procured copies of that literature. If he had heard or read the speech he was undertaking to criticize, however, he would have appreciated that I stated that in some of the views expressed at that time I might be at variance with some of those with whom I am associated in this party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said that.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: That is quite true; but in his desire to make me appear to speak with two tongues I am afraid the hon. gentleman has tried to make me say what he would like to believe I said, without troubling to find out what I did say. The hon. gentleman has had a long interest, and I think a sincere interest,
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l

in social security. When I knew him first, his interest in security was largely concerned with that security which comes in the next world. His personal interest in it was probably in collecting his fair share of the manna which falls from heaven on a tin plate. At some stage, he did enter public life in Canada, and he realized that there was a form of temporary security in public life. I do not think the hon. gentleman will take exception if I say that his reaction, when he first came here, was a little like that of the Scotchman who bet two shillings on a horse race and won 30 shillings, and then asked the Englishman how long this sort of thing had been going on. These people seem to believe that a little social security is such a good thing that a great deal would be better.
At no time, either in the speech in Toronto on the 14th of February or at any other time, have I attacked the normal and healthy desire of all self-respecting people to achieve social security. I believe it is one of the strongest motivating forces in civilized people. I do, and I did, contend that by providing social justice this government has made it possible for more Canadians to achieve social security. I said on that occasion, and I repeat, that fear has led people in all walks of life to put too much faith and too much confidence in legislated social security. I said then that this cult of social security had undermined confidence in ourselves, and in society as it is organized. I did deplore, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat, that state assistance is a snare and a delusion. I now add that it is a fraud. It presupposes that we can continue to get something for nothing. In spite of my hon. friend's eloquence on this subject the other night, it is still a basic and elementary fact that you cannot get something for nothing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But a lot of people are now getting it.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I believe that modesty should restrain my hon. friend from making a remark like that. I should think that the most realistic comment my hon. friend made in his discourse on my speech was when he said, "I do not know exactly what he meant."
The hon. member continued by saying that many are taking my name in vain, because of the views expressed in the speech delivered at Toronto. I am not unduly concerned if that is the case, but I cqnnot help wondering if the source of his information about that is any more accurate than the source of his information with respect to what I said. He then sneered at me because the Canadian chamber of commerce, in a publication the name of which I have forgotten, quoted something from that speech with apparent approval. I have never been too much

597 moved, either by praise or by blame. Perhaps in fairness to myself and others who hold similar views I should say that I have stayed in this house for quite a while, without too much to recommend me except a capacity for doing my own thinking and a willingness to express my views frankly.
I can quite understand that my hon. friend, and the member who interjected when he spoke, might wonder why I am taking a line of action which might be at variance with that of some of my colleagues in the Liberal party. I should like to say that I am under no illusions that some of the views which I hold, and sometimes express, would get support from my own party. Freedom of speech, however, and freedom of thought are still a reality in the party to which I give my allegiance. The party to which my hon. friend belongs is a party in which a member either conforms or walks the plank, as two of the members in the province of Manitoba have recently had to do. I am pleased to say that in this party it is still possible to express views based on honest convictions, although they may not necessarily be shared by all those within the party. As a matter of fact the party line, as expressed by the Liberal party in my time here, has not been so much a designated party line, but a considered opinion which comes from the meeting of many minds. This method of devising policy has worked quite successfully in this country.
A moment ago I said that my hon. friend has seen fit to sneer at the fact that some remarks quoted from my speech in Toronto had been cited with approval by an organ of the chamber of commerce. I have no objection to my hon. friend taking a dim view of my opinion. Frankly, I believe the chamber of commerce is adequately equipped to take care of itself; but in passing, I think it would be fair to say this: While I do not pay too much attention to either praise or blame, so long as I am able to express those views which I honestly hold, I believe I would feel much better about approval expressed by some of the men who are associated with that organization than I would about the expressed approval of my hon. friend, or those with whom he is associated. I appreciate the fact that he expresses the party line on those matters. Within the chamber of commerce, however, there are men who have helped to keep this country a healthy and prosperous place. It is a strong and virile organization. These men have made our country strong enough that the political termites can fuss and fret without tearing down our economy, with the consequent disastrous results which that might have.
The Address-Mr. Mutch


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that the description you apply to the people of Winnipeg South who want social security?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: No, I do not apply it to anybody. I use it because I think it is an inoffensive way of describing those people who, by their attacks, seek to tear down a thing which they are wholly incapable of replacing if they should succeed.
In my view, it is seldom that anyone loses friends or loses face by being honest and outspoken. It is when anyone tries to talk with many tongues, and look in two or three directions at once, that the public catches up with him. I am flattered, you know, that a speech made outside this house to a group of businessmen should have attracted the attention of my hon. friend. I am not unaware of the reason for his interest. He may have felt that, by expressing an honest view to an audience of people who might be expected to hav.e some interest in that point of view, I might have said something which would be politically disadvantageous to myself. I believe that was the inspiration for his attack. Speaking as one politician to another, I see nothing wrong with one seeking to find, from the spoken word of another, something which might at a later date be disadvantageous to him. If that was the desire, then I am afraid my hon. friend has only succeeded in giving me a little unsolicited publicity without achieving what he desired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is achieving that purpose much better himself.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I shall have to stand on my record in that respect. I was here first, and I fancy I shall be here last. I believe the real purpose of the hon. gentleman, in directing so much of his attention to me and a speech which I say he did not read, was that he hoped to take advantage of the press reports of the speech to make it appear that I was unsympathetic to, and opposed to, a program of social justice leading to a degree of social security, which was espoused by this government and by myself in the last campaign.
My support for things like adjustments of old age pensions, additional pensions for the blind, assistance in the matter of education, and assistance in matters of welfare legislation generally goes back, of course, far beyond 1949. It is perhaps legitimate political strategy-no matter how ill-formed, or, alternatively, insincere-to seize on certain statements from quotations, and honest quotations. In these quotations from anything I said published by anyone or quoted by my hon. friends or anyone else, I have not seen anything which I did not say; but I must say that certain things that I did say



S98 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Mutch have been left out of the context. The fact remains, however, that there is nothing in my record and there is nothing in what I said that would give rise to the honest opinion that I was opposed either to legislation that now exists or to the expansion of any form of state assistance, or legislation for social security, which is properly a charge on the community as a whole and for the benefit of the nation as such.
I have not said that I believe that some of the methods by which this and other governments in the past-and as most Canadian social legislation was enacted by this government, we can perhaps leave it at that-dealt with the matter have been the ideal methods of approach; but I have supported that which has been done. While I confess that in some respects those things which I think it has been not only necessary but wise to do have been more of a confession of failure to meet a situation in any other way than a tribute to those particular methods as a way of meeting social problems in this country, I do not think it lies in the mouth of my hon. friend or anyone else to suggest that, so far as I am concerned, when these matters have been under consideration I have given less than earnest and sincere study to them.
I have been consistent in my support of them. Whether or not my judgment was right is something which neither he nor I can decide; but of the four times I have been elected, the first time I was taken on faith; but three times the majority of the people seem to have accepted my sincerity. Whether or not some of the things which have actually been done are indeed ideal is a moot question and subject to debate; and whether or not I am right when I suggest that some of the social legislation, even that which exists, is a mere confession of failure and not a new nostrum which is desirable, generally speaking, for the advancement of mankind, makes very little difference, because in a practical world one faces realities; and the wasting of the human assets of a nation is too high a price to pay for economic idealism, either on economic or on humanitarian grounds.
These measures are conservation measures, shared by all for the advantage of the nation. I have not failed nor do I propose to fail in my support of anything which can qualify within that definition. But, Mr. Speaker, and I say this quite frankly, I have a holy horror of the modern conception of the welfare state. I have a congenital distrust of planners, and a passionate, persisting faith in the good judgment of that great mass of people who, above all things, desire to be protected from the dishonest and rapacious few and to be left alone to work out their own salvation.
I confess that I look with a jaundiced eye upon subsidies in any form. If we must put up with them, I urge that they be open, obvious and labelled. I suggest that we do not advertise them as a new nostrum for the general good but that we honestly admit them to be what they are, namely, the confession and the price of failure. We have been and still are sloughing off some of the extraordinary restraints of war. But too many of the restraints of longer standing still remain.
I should like to say just a word or two about trade. For the consideration of the government and the house I should like to suggest that the private trader, if he were given a free hand, would find markets for the merchandise which this country has to sell and would either trade his way back home, as has been done from time immemorial, or else invest the proceeds of his trade in foreign countries, and in that way help to create a market for his homeland. In fact, as far as is possible in an addled and overly regulated economic world, I should like to urge now that we begin to free the channels of trade and that we permit our exporters of goods, money and services to trade where trade can be found. Risk capital can still be found for an honest risk. In recent years the problem has been, and still is, that too often the field for expansion of trade is either regulated, occupied or restricted by government competition, our own as well as that of other countries.
We have been and are being pressed to take longer strides in the direction of legislated social security. I believe it is time to say that there is grave danger that the idea of state-provided security, if persisted in, will destroy the possibility of any real measure of social security at all for any of us. At the considered risk of being both honestly and maliciously misunderstood, I want to say now that I for one am not anxious to see any further groups, as such, of Canadians put on the payroll of the government of Canada. I do not withdraw what I said earlier this afternoon with respect to my support for those measures of legislation for social security which are borne by the public generally and are in the public interest and for the public good. But I think we should invariably approach these questions from that standpoint rather than from the standpoint that we are being asked to discharge a debt which the public, through its government, owes us. I am well aware of the unfortunate tendency of those who seek to do even that which is justifiable and good and at the same time seek to enforce on this and other governments the exercise of their powers to accomplish these ends. We approach these questions too often not from the standpoint of
t'Mr. Mutch.]﻿MARCH 9, 1950
their being desirable and good and in the public interest but from the standpoint of "ask and it shall be given unto you", because after all it boils down to the fact that all of us in the person of the state owe somebody something. That I conceive to be a doctrine which is not only fallacious but exceedingly dangerous. Because I do not condemn the state for the steps-some of them, at any rate -which have been taken in connection with social legislation, I am now by some being accused of insincerity.
The Montreal Star of February 28, 1950, suggests that to me socialistic paternalism is acceptable if proposed and enacted by a Liberal government. The editor of that paper is himself too well informed to forget, and incidentally knows me well enough to know, that I can remember and understand what socialism did for the British Liberal party between 1900 and 1923, when the party became the prisoner of the planners. I do not like socialism any better when proposed by Liberals-in fact I am more afraid of it, because Liberal paternity gives it at least an air of respectability.
As a student of history and politics, I studied with some sympathy the ideas put forth in my student days by the Fabian socialists in the early 1900's. To me they appeared to be a left wing of the then powerful Liberal party. I confess I looked forward in those days with interest and with some hope and with a good deal of expectation to the fruition of some of the plans which they proposed at that time. Looking back today and reviewing the events that have happened in the years since then, I do not mind telling the house that I am not only disillusioned, I am scared at what the planner can do, first under the guise of left-wing Liberalism, and then frankly as socialism.
When I am tempted to be smug about the situation in Canada today, and I might be forgiven for being so after last year, I must confess I look not at but for the Liberal party in Britain and I do not like what I see. It is urged that in principle the difference between the socialist and the Liberal is this, not so much a difference of objective as a difference of method. I confess again that I may have been guilty in the past of holding that point of view, and even of expounding it on some occasions. If I did, I say to the house with complete sincerity that if I ever espoused that doctrine I now renounce and denounce it.
I know that when one comes to look at the general picture of state aid programs for social security there is one great weakness. That is the great weakness which I referred to on a former occasion and which I now wish to
The Address-Mr. Mutch refer to again, namely, the tendency to wait until the idea is sold to the public generally, to wait until an appeal is made or, as was the case with the Fabian socialists, to inject, by methods of infiltration, into another party whose reputation brings confidence an idea to make state aid somehow to be something different from what it is, a sort of benign influence and to lull the public generally away from their realization of what the cost is. I am not thinking entirely in terms of cost in money, because I am of the opinion that we can probably maintain and expand the welfare legislation we have in this country at the present time. But I am concerned now, not only for a future day when it may not be true, about the effect that it has upon our people themselves.
The thing which makes the socialist planner so potentially dangerous is his, quite usual, completely sincere advocacy of something which appears to be both humane and closely related to human aspirations and human needs, without any attempt to impress upon people at the same time the price of these objectives if they are realized by the methods which he suggests.
Few people seem to realize that, as they succeed in selling the basic idea that the state owes a man a living, a little later on we shall establish through the state what the standard of living is to be. In so doing man is made hostage to the extremes of a political philosophy which ultimately must result in, if it is followed through to its logical conclusion, a communist state.
Today the communists among us are quiet and restrained. They can well afford to be, because many of those who sincerely hate communism and decry the communist himself are doing his work for him. When the planner has conditioned his unintentional victim by making statism palatable, the stage is set for the emergence, in this or any other country, of the communistic state.
The social planner then puts emphasis on what the state can or should give. If one points out the magnitude of what socialism takes away, or attempts to estimate the cost, as my hon. friend suggested the other day- this would be my argument then and I make it again-one is pilloried as being a reactionary, lacking in humanity, or even un-Christian. The basic idea is that the state owes every man a living. With respect to that let me say this, sir. When men accept that as being true there is no appeal to reason; there is no warning that will be heeded; there is no set of values that can stand against the acceptance by people, of any nation, of that philosophy.
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Argue
In commenting on the much mentioned speech, another gentleman who interests himself in social security of a different form, namely, Mr. H. H. Hannam, gave a press report based on press reports of my speech. He asserted that large numbers of Canadians have no chance of ever providing their own security without government help. I submit, sir, that is of course untrue, except in the narrowest personal sense, and even then only for the unfortunate minority. The shattering truth is this, that this condition could become true if we continued to take his advice and the advice of those of like mind. The cost of his kind of security has to be borne by all of us. It could be that his ideas would reduce all of us to a position of dependence on government for any measure of security; and if that happens the ultimate result will be no security at all.
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch). I am sure there are many people in Canada who will be sorry to hear him reiterate what he said at the now famous board of trade meeting. He seems afraid of placing more people, as he says, on the government payroll. I am sure that the old age pensioners of Canada would be very happy indeed if they were on the government payroll as are the hon. member and myself. But I would say to him that if he makes many more speeches like that probably the electorate will take him off the government payroll.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Did the hon. member get anything out of what I said in my recently concluded remarks which would indicate any unfriendliness on my part, or on the part of anyone connected with me, to the plight of the old age pensionerse


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, just unsound judgment.


Hazen Robert Argue: As I understood the hon. member, he is opposed to the removal of the means test.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I never mentioned it. I suggest that my hon. friend read the speech. If he could not hear it I apologize.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I can get nothing more from reading it than I got from listening very carefully I doubt whether it would be worth my time.
As other hon. members have done in this debate, I wish to congratulate most sincerely

the mover (Mr. Larson) and the seconder (Mr. Dumas) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I believe both hon. members did credit to themselves and to their constituencies. I was happy to see the hon. member for Kindersley move the motion, particularly because he comes from my own province of Saskatchewan, and I was glad to see our province recognized in that way. I was glad also to see that a farmer, and a young farmer at that, was chosen to move the address in reply.
I had intended originally to speak on the problem of soil conservation and land utilization and to indicate that we really do need a comprehensive program of forest, land and water conservation. Our resources are being depleted at a rapid rate and it is high time that this government, in co-operation with other governments and public organizations, embarked upon a program of soil and forest conservation. I would recommend to hon. members of the house an excellent article on this subject in the Agricultural Institute Review of January last by Mr. C. Gordon O'Brien, general secretary of the Agricultural Institute of Canada. The Agricultural Institute of Canada is composed of some 3,200 trained agriculturists. They feel as an organization that this nation can afford no further delay in dealing with the problem of land use and conservation.
I turn now to the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made yesterday in this house. I noticed the minister said that he was glad that the press had quoted him correctly during the election campaign and at other times. I was interested to note yesterday that he did not attempt to deny the press reports that have been made from time to time. It seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture says all things to all men. It appears that the Minister of Agriculture, along with other members of the cabinet, was guilty of making statements during the election that they have since contradicted. I should like to quote a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture at Indian Head on June 24, 1949, as reported in the Leader-Post of January 27. It reads:
Refusal of the Saskatchewan C.C.F. government to pay its share of the trans-Canada highway is one of the reasons for delay in finalizing plans for its construction, agriculture minister Gardiner told a political meeting here Friday night.
The Minister of Agriculture said that the Saskatchewan government was the reason for the delay in finalizing the plans. I should like to quote from a letter written by the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters), in charge of the trans-Canada highway, to the

Saskatchewan minister of highways (Hon. J. T. Douglas), on April 7, 1949, the second paragraph of which reads:
It seems clear from the helpful attitude you adopted at the conference and from subsequent correspondence that you are anxious to proceed at an early date.
In my opinion that is proof positive that the Minister of Agriculture's statement at Indian Head was not based on fact. I remember during the session last fall the debate that took place in respect to irrigation. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) smoked out the Minister of Agriculture in a very able manner and brought to light his changed views regarding irrigation in Saskatchewan. In spite of the minister's statements over the years that irrigation projects, particularly the South Saskatchewan irrigation project, would be built by the federal government, at the session last fall he said that the federal government would go ahead with that allimportant program only on condition that the government of Saskatchewan would contribute $50 million to $60 million over a period of years. Let me quote from the Regina Leader-Post of June 23, 1949, which reports a speech made by the minister at Lemberg. I quote:
"The South Saskatchewan project would provide cheap power and encourage building of industries in small towns, provide an incentive for young people to stay in this province. I think we have made a fairly good start now," said Mr. Gardiner.
"Send us back to complete the job. . ."
Lo and behold, when the people of Saskatchewan, along with the people of other provinces in Canada, sent the minister and the government back to Ottawa to complete the job, one of his first announcements was that if that job was to be completed the province of Saskatchewan must raise $50 million to $60 million. I can well understand the minister's view at the present time with regard to irrigation. He knows that there are surpluses of agricultural products on hand which he is finding great difficulty in marketing. He knows that neither he nor the government have a policy whereby those surpluses can be marketed. So he says, "Why go ahead with an irrigation development in Saskatchewan which will make our farm surpluses even more unmanageable?"
One cabinet minister after another went before the country previous to June 27 and either made statements and promises that they have since abandoned or else failed to give the public the information it had a right to expect. I might refer to the attitude taken by the minister and the government in respect to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, an act directed toward maintaining some income for farmers when they suffer a crop failure.
The Address-Mr. Argue
An amendment to the act was announced at the session of parliament previous to the election but we were not told what it would contain. In my constituency-I am not talking about any other constituency at this time -a number of the inspectors under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act went around saying that if the Liberal candidates were elected and the Liberal government returned the Prairie Farm Assistance Act payments would be doubled. When I took the train for Ottawa last September one of the inspectors said to me, "I suppose you will support the amendment calling for an increase in the bonus from $2.50 to $5 per acre?"
I know that the minister never said that the payments would be increased to $5 per acre, but nevertheless the impression got around that they would be increased by the new amendment and the minister did not have enough courage to tell the farmers of Saskatchewan exactly what would be in that amendment if the government were returned to power. No cabinet minister I wager can dig up a quotation from any of his own speeches or those of his colleagues which would indicate in any way that if the government were returned to power and if within eight months after the election Canada had widespread unemployment the government would completely abandon its shelf of public works program. I was amazed and disheartened to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) announce in his first speech of this session that the government was not prepared to undertake a comprehensive program to deal with the present serious and widespread unemployment. He said it was spotty, seasonal, regional, and that the coming of spring would take care of the situation. In the meantime, even if the Prime Minister is right-as I very much doubt-there are
375.000	unemployed in Canada who are living either on a pittance from unemployment insurance or on some form of municipal relief. If one also considers the dependents of these
375.000	unemployed, then there are a million Canadians today who have no income except a small pittance from unemployment insurance or some form of relief assistance. If any minister of the government had said in the election campaign, "If the people of Canada return us to power and if within eight months a million Canadians do not have a decent standard of living because there are not enough jobs to go around, we will do nothing," then the government of course would have been thoroughly defeated.
I could go on and quote many other instances where the government in my opinion misled the Canadian electorate before June 27. For example we have the old age pensions question before us at this time, particularly
602	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Argue because of the widespread desire that the means test be abolished. The campaign is based largely on the belief that it is time the people of Canada reminded the government of its past promises. I should like to quote from page 38 of the federal government's green book proposals to the provinces made in 1945 as follows:
The principal feature of the proposed national old age pensions is the elimination of the means test.
That is the principal proposal, and not until this session of parliament has the government announced that even if the provinces sign financial agreements they will not remove the means test from old age pensions. Since the 1945 conferences broke down we have been told repeatedly by government speakers in the house that the whole fault lay with the premier of Quebec, Mr. Duplessis, and the then premier of Ontario, the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I know now why the government has changed its attitude. It is because very soon the present financial agreements will end. Then new financial agreements will be discussed. And the government is afraid that this time all of the provinces may be prepared to sign, and the government then would be called upon to implement its own program. Therefore what do we get? We get a committee of inquiry, and I doubt very much whether the old age pensioners will get much more than that for some considerable time.
In recent days there has been another increase in freight rates. First of all there was a 21 per cent increase in 1948. At that time seven of the provinces objected strenuously to the 21 per cent being added to a freight rate structure which was already unfair and discriminatory. Therefore they took their complaints to the governor in council, and on October 12, 1948, order in council P.C. 4678 was passed by way of instruction to the board of transport commissioners to commence a general freight rates inquiry. In part it reads:
The committee observe that one of the representations made by the petitioning governments is that a horizontal or flat percentage increase of 21 per cent in all freight rates disregards and accentuates existing disparities in the freight rate structure, and that this had already been the subject of a direction to the board, as set out in order in council P.C. 1487 of April 7, 1948, in which the board was directed to make a thorough investigation of the rates structure of railways and railway companies which are under the jurisdiction of parliament with a view to the establishment of a fair and reasonable rates structure which will, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, be equal in its application to all persons and localities . . .
Further on the board is instructed to consider the matters set forth in the petition of


the provinces concurrently with the pending application for a further increase in freight rates. In other words, the government instructed the board of transport commissioners to make a thorough inquiry into the freight rates structure, at the same time to consider the railways' application for an increase, and then to bring in a decision with regard to both matters. The board did not get around to making the inquiry. Instead we have the so-called 16 per cent increase in freight rates, but it works out at 19-36 per cent over the rates existing before the 21 per cent increase.
The increase in freight rates last fall and the one of a few days ago took place after the election campaign in which the government said to the people of Canada that there might or might not be an increase in freight rates, but in any event the board of transport commissioners had been instructed that if there was to be any change it had to be brought about in such a manner as to make freight rates more equitable and just. That has not been done. If the people of Canada had known that there would be a further 16 per cent horizontal increase in freight rates on top of the previous 21 per cent, then I am sure that the results of the election on June 27 would have been substantially different.
Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) spent a great deal of time discussing markets. He wound up by saying that we had a few agricultural surpluses. He said we had a surplus of cheese, a surplus of butter and a surplus of honey. I should like to tell him that the farmers think we have a surplus of eggs also, because they know that the wholesale price of eggs at Saskatoon for example went down from 52 cents a dozen on December 23, 1948, to 33 cents a dozen on December 23, 1949-a price netting the producer as little as 20 cents a dozen average grade. At Winnipeg from August of last year until February of this year hog prices were reduced by $7 a hundred. The farmers know that there is a surplus of agricultural commodities when they see such terrific drops in the returns they receive. We all know that we have lost the British market for eggs. We know that we have a bacon contract with Britain for only 60 million pounds this year as compared with 160 million last year. We know that contract will end in July. We all realize Canada is rapidly losing the British market.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) took the Conservative party to task yesterday. He went back over its history and condemned R. B. Bennett for his policy of trying to blast his way into the markets of the world. I would say to the minister that the Bennett policy, unsuccessful as it was, of trying to

blast a way into the markets of the world was better than the policy the minister is now following, of doing his best to blast his way out of the markets of the world as quickly as he can.
Then, too, I noticed that the interjections by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) yesterday with respect to the McGregor report were not answered by the minister. If on June 27 the people of Canada had known that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) had broken the law, and that he was aided and abetted by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe); if they had known that after the McGregor report was tabled nothing would be done about the alleged combine in the flour-milling industry and that because nothing was done the commissioner would resign; then I say the result would have been very different indeed.
The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Trade and Commerce were successful in keeping the McGregor report buried for some ten months, breaking the law of this country. The Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture were equally successful in keeping from the farmers information as to the financial position of the wheat board. Through statements made by the Minister of Agriculture on many occasions in the past the farmers were led to believe that the wheat board, making a payment of 20 cents a bushel in the spring of 1949, would make that payment out of a surplus on hand. Yesterday the minister built a great part of his case around resolutions he had received in November and December of 1948 and January of 1949 asking that a 20-cent payment be made. Why did he receive those requests? Because in the House of Commons on February 27, 1948, he said he felt there was no doubt in the world that at least another 20 cents per bushel would be paid on wheat in 1949. On November 13 last, according to the Leader-Post, speaking to the wheat pool convention in the province of Saskatchewan, the minister said the wheat board would be in a position to make an additional payment, probably 20 cents a bushel. After that announcement was made municipalities in the drought area passed resolutions saying to the minister, "If the wheat board is making a payment, as you say it is going to, then we want our payments first, because our farmers are in financial need."
Reading a lecture to the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) the minister said it would be most unwise to pay out an additional 40 cents a bushel at that time because, he said, that would put a great strain on the resources of the wheat board. Let me quote his words, at page 1719 of Hansard for February 27, 1948:
The Address-Mr. Argue We would have to go back to the bank and borrow money and pay interest on it, and the farmers of western Canada are not asking us at the present time to go to the bank and borrow money and charge the interest up to them and pay them another 20 cents over and- above the possible 20 cents we may pay under this legislation.
He told the farmers of Canada and the members of this house that the government would not instruct the wheat board to pay 20 cents a bushel if as a result the wheat board would have to go to the bank to borrow the money. So the farmers naturally assumed last year, when the 20-cent payment was made, that the wheat board had sufficient funds on hand without going to the banks.
It has been stated in this house on a number of occasions already that the wheat board ended its fiscal year on July 31, 1949, with a deficit of more than $5 million, and that at the time they owed the banks more than $23 million. At that date the wheat board was completely bankrupt; its liabilities exceeded its assets by more than $5 million. When the board went to the banks to borrow money it had to pay an interest rate of three per cent compounded monthly; but this generous, benevolent government that looks after the funds of the farmers so well pays the wheat board five-eighths of one per cent on any money the board invests in treasury bills.
Yesterday the minister said the wheat board is borrowing money every year to handle the new crop. Of course it has to borrow money; that is not what we were objecting to at all. Let us take a look at the financial position of the wheat board on July 31, 1949, as compared with its financial position on July 31, 1948. According to the consolidated balance sheet, last year the board had on deposit in the banks just a little more than $4,000 and owed the banks almost $24 million. The previous year the board did not owe the banks anything; the banks owed the wheat board more than $57 million, because the board had that amount on deposit, and the federal government owed the wheat board $50 million by way of treasury bills, making the total cash reserves of the board $107 million as of July 31, 1948. But on July 31, 1949, its cash reserves were $23 million less than nothing.
Why was that policy followed? The government knows, as we all know, that on the price of wheat a government stands or falls in the province of Saskatchewan. So they said, "We will pay the farmers 20 cents a bushel; we will lead them to believe there is another 20 cents a bushel coming, and we know they will vote for the Liberal party." But farmers are really going to be up in arms now, when th$y find that the best they can hope for when the five-year period is over, unless Britain

The Address-Mr. Argue pays a higher price, and that I doubt, is an additional payment of not more than six cents a bushel.
Before the election the farmer might go into his post office one week and find a cheque for perhaps $800 for 1945 wheat. The next week he got a cheque for perhaps $1,000 for 1946 wheat. Within the next two weeks he received a cheque for perhaps $1,200 for 1947 wheat, and the day before the election he perhaps got a cheque for $1,000 for 1948 wheat. In other words he was paid, 3, 4 or 5 thousand dollars just previous to the election and from the statements made by the minister from time to time they expected to get another 20 cents a bushel.


Mr. Sinnoli:: What about The Battlefords election?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am coming to that. Let me quote what the Minister of Agriculture said at page 1720 of Hansard for February 27, 1948:
Under the plan of five-year payments that was brought into effect in 1945 the farmer knows that if there is drought he will have more money coming to him at an increase of 20 cents in each year, no matter when that drought comes-
The minister was replying to a suggestion by the hon. member for Souris that the payments should be increased by 40 cents. He said, "No, that is no good. We have had a dry year; we may have a dry year next year; we may have dry years throughout the balance of the five-year period." He believed it was a better thing to give the farmers 20 cents a bushel each spring from now until the end of the five-year pool. The farmers now know to their sorrow that the wheat board has been used as an instrument to elect the Liberal party. The farmers know that the Minister of Agriculture was right when he said in February, 1948, that the farmers did not want the government to go in debt to the bank, and bankrupt the wheat board in order to pay an additional payment.
If one goes over the wheat board consolidated balance sheet for 1949, one finds that the farmers have made a real contribution to the consumer by providing wheat at a low price. The farmers made a contribution towards keeping United Kingdom wheat prices down. The figures show that the average price for class II wheat, at the time the British agreement began to operate, was $2.39 per bushel. Under the United Kingdom agreement, the price was $1.70, that is the average for the first three years. Over the same period the domestic price amounted to $1.61 per bushel. I do not say the assumption is* a good one, but if we assume that the farmers had received the price of class II wheat for all wheat going into the domestic


market, the wheat board would have on hand now another $159 million. If under the British contract the price had equalled the price of class II wheat for the first three years, the wheat board would now have an additional $332 million. The farmers know they have made a very large contribution indeed.
I say to the government that if it is going to maintain a stabilized wheat program, as I think it must, if it is going to give the farmers of Canada even elementary justice, then when the government brings down amendments to the wheat board act it should establish another five-year pool, in which the initial price is not less than the money derived by the farmers from the five-year pool just ended. Agriculture was willing to accept the government's stabilization program on the understanding that stability would not mean just keeping farm prices down, but in future years would also mean keeping farm prices up. If the government will bring in, as I hope it will, another five-year agreement, under which the initial price is not less than the price obtained for the last five-year pool, then I believe the farmers will say the government's wheat policy has after all been a good one.
I have one more quotation I should like to place on the record, Mr. Speaker, and then I shall be finished. The quotation has to do with the interjection made by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott). Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture, as recorded at page 572 of Hansard, made a reference to the by-election in The Battlefords constituency. Before I quote exactly what the minister said, may I refer to the fact that he alleged the C.C.F. brought in federal issues, and that the whole campaign was fought on federal issues. He said the Liberals had a great majority, and a great victory, and therefore the government's policies were endorsed. He wound up by making this statement, talking again about Liberal votes, Conservative votes and C.C.F. votes:
When they-
Meaning the C.C.F. and Conservatives.
-put the two together and added them all up we still had them trimmed by 132.
That quotation, as with so many others, is not in accordance with the facts. The Liberal party won, but not with an over-all majority of 132; they lacked 243 votes of having an over-all majority.
I should like to quote the results in that particular constituency in the last three elections. In the provincial election of 1948 the Liberal majority was 436. In The Battlefords constituency in the federal election of 1949

the Liberal majority was 1,319; in February, 1950, the actual majority over the C.C.F. amounted to 138 votes. The Liberal party won by a fair majority in 1948, and by a whopping majority in 1949. They only "skinned through" in 1950. The Minister of Agriculture says that the election was fought on federal issues. If that is correct, and if this vote on February 8 last is indicative of the opinion of the people of Saskatchewan, if a provincial election had been held on that date the C.C.F. party would have won 38 of the 52 seats.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate on the speech from the throne, I should like to deal first with two problems of general interest. Then, as other speakers have done this afternoon, I should like to turn my attention to the problems of trade as they affect the agricultural situation in Canada today.
The two general subjects I should like to mention before passing on to trade and the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) concerning it are, first, the widespread appeal which has been made throughout this country for the setting up of a veterans affairs committee at this session. Every member has had requests from the Legion branches throughout his constituency, as well as from many of the women's auxiliaries to the Legion and other interested bodies, asking that that committee be set up. It is a request which is widespread and well-founded. This request cannot be disposed of by the brusque statement of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg), that the government does not intend to set up such a committee. There has been no amplification of that statement, nor has there been any explanation of the reasons which led the minister to that conclusion. I have no hesitation in saying that, in view of the problems which confront this country and the veterans as citizens of this country, there is every need for that committee. We on this side of the house, as well as the veterans organizations throughout the country, are not satisfied with that answer. We shall continue to press for the setting up of a committee until our efforts meet with success.
The other general question to which I should like to refer is the widespread agitation for the immediate removal of the means test. I am only one of 262 members, and I do not say I have received more of the printed cards in favour of that request than the others- I may not have received as many. I do know, however, that my correspondence has become increasingly difficult to keep up with owing to the number of those requests which have come to hand. If the number I am receiving
The Address-Mr. Fulton is any measure of the number the other members are receiving, then there must be many hundreds of thousands coming into this House of Commons from the people throughout the country. That volume of requests, Mr. Speaker, would not be in such proportion as we find it, if it were not for the fact that the people of Canada, particularly the old age pensioners, were encouraged, by statements made by government candidates from coast to coast during the election campaign in June of last year, to believe that the means test would be removed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Including Winnipeg South.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not believe in pressure groups, Mr. Speaker, any more than do you or any other hon. member; but this is not a pressure group. It is a heartfelt request from the people of Canada for the implementation of what they understood, by the ordinary meaning of words, to be a declared part of government policy if the government was returned, as it was, in June. It is no sufficient answer for the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to put this matter off by saying that we cannot do it without agreement with the provinces. He did not say that in June or May of 1949. It is no sufficient answer to say that we are appointing a parliamentary committee. In the election campaign of 1949 he did not say that he would do that.
The impression was clearly given, and it clearly remains, that if this government was returned to power a contributory pension scheme would be introduced and the means test would be eliminated. To refrain from implementing that promise is nothing short of a breach of faith, Mr. Speaker, and a denial of the understanding deliberately given during the course of the election campaign. In the course of debate in these last two days we have heard a good deal about double talk and about saying one thing and meaning another. The history of this promise to remove the means test is merely a part of the over-all pattern.
I should now like to deal particularly with the subject of Canada's trade situation. Probably no other problem looms so large in the minds of the people of this country as that of declining markets, in overseas countries, for Canada's produce. We in the opposition have pressed for one step to be taken that might solve that problem. We have pressed, and will continue to press, for the summoning of a commonwealth trade conference. That subject was debated for one whole day in this house, Mr. Speaker; and I think it is significant to note that during that whole day's debate there was only one speaker on the government side who even bothered to discuss the question of

The Address-Mr. Fulton trade. Indeed, sitting here, I had the instructed its followers that they were not to impression that the government had say anything about trade.


An hon. Member:: That is not the situation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to hear it, but that is the impression I had. There was only one government speaker, and no private member on the government side appeared to feel that the subject was important enough to warrant his giving his views on the situation. It is also significant that the only speaker on the government side-the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott)-spoke for something under five minutes, and the sum of his contribution was that a trade conference would not necessarily solve the problem, that he could not see that any good purpose would be served, and that it was not up to Canada to take the initiative. That was the sum total of the government's contribution on that day to the discussion of Canada's great problem. It is true that references have been made to the matter in passing by other speakers on other occasions. For instance, in the course of this debate we heard from the Secretary of State of External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and he dealt with the question of a commonwealth conference on trade matters. He said that he could not see that any good purpose would be served by it. When it comes to the matter of atomic energy and the difficulties which exist between ourselves and the Russians, he said he would attend limitless conferences. But on trade matters as between members of the commonwealth, the inference would seem to be that it is nonsense to assume that we can solve these problems by conference. Of course, when it comes to atomic energy, we and the Russians have never yet been able to agree. But the inference is that a conference would probably produce good results. But on trade matters between friends, nations of the commonwealth, who normally get along fairly well, the suggestion seems to be that a conference would probably not produce any results at all.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has not yet spoken in this debate but he recently returned from Europe. I have here a press report of an interview or what I take to be an interview with him when he landed in New York. It appears datelined "New York, March 1" and is headed "Howe Predicts More Exports-Trade Minister Returns From Six-Week Visit to Europe." Both before and after the election the Minister of Trade and Commerce, of course, from coast to coast has been predicting more exports; but the more he predicts more exports, the more our overseas trade seems

to decline. On this occasion the minister did not give us any facts which would seem to substantiate his moving faith that there will be more exports. The article goes on to say:
Mr. Howe, who arrived aboard the Queen Mary, said the over-all outlook for increased trade with Europe is "improving all the time." He added that the dominion is not "overlooking any possibilities" in its efforts to foster more trans-Atlantic trade.
The minister did not say how European countries would be able to pay for our exports with non-convertible currency. According to the article he went on to say:
Canada was encouraging private businessmen to arrange barter deals where such are more desirable. But the Canadian government was not directly involved in any such trade.
About the only impression we can get from an analysis of the minister's statements -at least until he gives us more detailed information in the house-is that, as a result of currency restrictions, we have had to turn the clock back some four hundred years, and have come to a point where money is no longer a useful means of exchange for international trade, and private businessmen are being encouraged to enter into barter deals. The government will not have anything to do with those deals. Oh no, that is not the government's responsibility. Its only responsibility appears to be to encourage private businessmen to arrange these deals and then to insist that they take the whole responsibility for such deals if they go bad.
Presumably, the situation is this, Mr. Speaker. You, coming from an apple-producing area of Ontario, are now encouraged to make a deal with the United Kingdom if you want to sell your apples; and it would be fine, from the government's point of view, if you would care to accept, shall we say, Egyptian cotton in return. Then you would have to set yourself up in the cotton business and find a market for the cotton. But the government will not accept any responsibility for that deal nor, presumably, will they come to your assistance if you are left with a lot of cotton on your hands.
The situation we see confronting this country now with respect to its foreign trade looks a great deal like the situation which developed in 1928 and 1929 when, you will note, Mr. Speaker, the trend toward the loss of Canada's overseas markets, and particularly the sterling market, first set in. Let no one be misled by the oft-repeated and completely unfounded assertion of the Minister of Agriculture in this house that the loss of Canada's overseas markets was the sole responsibility of the Bennett government. The fact is, as I shall show later on from the

dominion bureau of statistics' own figures, that the trend set in and was experienced at its most violent pace in the last two years of the King government in 1928 to 1930. It was not until the Bennett government did something about it in 1932, by summoning the imperial economic conference, that the trend was halted and Canada's trade finally began a long, slow uphill climb toward recovery from the situation that the Liberal government had brought about.


Mr. Ferrie:: Nineteen-cent wheat.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the hon. members of the Liberal party want to interrupt me I would ask them to do so one at a time so that I can deal with them.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: All right; what about 19-cent wheat?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The 19-cent wheat that my hon. friend is so interested in was explained in the quotation read by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) this afternoon, in which the present Minister of Agriculture, a leading figure of your own party, explained that the fall in the price of Canadian wheat was due to the United States policy, and that trend started in the years 1928 to 1930. If my hon. friend will contain his patience a little longer I shall give him the figures which substantiate my position.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Give me the money that they took out of my pocket and I will be happy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Fulford):: Order.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On a point of
order, Mr. Speaker, I want to be the first to congratulate you on being able to exercise your authority now. I am looking to my left.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Thanks a lot.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the press is full of information today which supports- although the statement is so frequently denied by the ministers of the government-the assertion that Canada is losing her overseas markets. I hold in my hand a quotation from the Toronto Star, dated February 15, 1950, which reads:
Canada fails to close Trade Gaps with U.S., Britain in Big Year
Although Canada's foreign trade, a key factor in the nation's prosperity, remained high last year, there were several "low pressure" areas which may mean rough weather ahead.
They were dealing with 1949 when the trend had already become evident. The report goes on:
The year-end report of the dominion bureau of statistics reveals Canada is no farther ahead today in solving the currency exchange problem than she was a year ago.
The Address-Mr. Fulton
It's generally agreed that the long-range solution, as far as Canada is concerned, is for her to buy more from Britain and to sell more to the U.S. Both of these things she failed to do in any substantial measure in the twelve months ending last December, the report showed.
Then we have the dominion bureau of statistics release, to which reference has been made on one or two occasions previously, covering the first month of 1950, coming to hand at the very time that this particular question is being discussed, coming to hand at the very time that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce and others are saying that to talk of Canada losing her overseas markets is nonsense. It is a pity that the ministers do not have time to read the publications of their own departments, or if they do read them they do not seem to have that confidence in their accuracy which we on this side of the house have.
This release shows that our exports to the United Kingdom in the month of January as compared with the month of January, 1949, fell by $7 million.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend knows the reason. He knows that the railroads in British Columbia, which carry our exports to seaboard in the winter months, were blocked.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They were not blocked during the whole month of January.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They were blocked for a good part of it. The drop in wheat shipments accounts for nearly all of the deficit.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is comforting to hear the minister make that explanation for the first time, but it does not explain the tendency which was so evident during the preceding months of 1949.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is aware-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Were the railroads closed all during 1949?


Clarence Decatur Howe: During 1949 exports dropped by exactly 2 per cent, and that was due to the drop in prices in the last half of the year. If that is a calamity in trade, then I hope we shall have no more serious ones.


Hazen Robert Argue: By volume?


Clarence Decatur Howe: By dollars.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to hear that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is consistent in his statement now and those which he made before the election. He might pass a little of his consistency on to the Minister of Agriculture, who told us that-



HOUSE OF COMMONS AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
The Address-Mr. Fulton
Clarence Decatur Howe: Incidentally, it was 2 per cent down from the highest peacetime export that this country has ever known.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I grant the minister that. No one has ever quarrelled with the fact that in the last few years our export trade has been at higher levels; but I can give the minister his own statement that a large part of that is due to the inflated value of currency, and a substantial measure of that is due to Marshall aid being extended by the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend would talk about something he understands and leave Marshall aid alone, it would be a great help.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the minister will let me complete my statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You make so many misstatements.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has given no indication that any policies are being instituted that will solve the problem which will exist in double measure when the Marshall aid program comes to an end. It will be interesting to hear whether the minister is going to blame the British Columbia weather for the decline in exports in the whole sterling area in the month of January, 1950, of $21 million. British Columbia weather can take a lot of responsibility, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think it can be blamed for that.


John George Diefenbaker: It has been blamed for unemployment, too.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As the hon. member for Lake Centre has said, British Columbia weather has been used to explain unemployment out there. I hardly think it explains the unemployment in New Brunswick, where those engaged in the pit prop industry have lost the United Kingdom market. I hardly think that British Columbia weather explains the fact that the apple growers in British Columbia have not sold a box of apples to the United Kingdom in two years. It hardly explains why it was necessary for the British Columbia apple growers to give away a million boxes this year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was not necessary. That was the result of their generosity.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the minister will explain these matters when he makes a contribution to the debate. The dominion bureau of statistics figures show, Mr. Speaker, that trade in the whole sterling area in the month of January, 1950, declined by $21 million as compared with the month of January, 1949.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, just before the house took recess at six o'clock we had heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce make the extraordinary statement that the British Columbia winter was mainly responsible for the decline in trade with the United Kingdom. That statement is almost as extraordinary as the statement made-or the impression sought to be left yesterday-by the Minister of Agriculture that the policies of the Bennett government away back in 1932 are responsible for the present decline in trade with the United Kingdom. Anything and everything is blamed by the government except their own policies which have been proved in detail, and with facts and figures in support, to be the main reason for the decline in our trade.
We heard this evening another most extraordinary statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce which will be found in Hansard, that the gift of a million boxes of apples to the United Kingdom by the British Columbia fruit growers was made, not because they had a surplus but merely because the fruit growers were in a generous mood. Of course that is the most extraordinary and I would say irresponsible statement of them all. If that is the attitude of the government toward our fruit growers then I feel that there is not much prospect of assistance or of any realistic measures being taken to tide them over a most difficult situation. That remark is an example of the sort of remark that is tossed off when the government finds itself in difficulty. They have not any real explanation and therefore they seek to deal with a thing by flippancy and evasion. The fact is that we have a situation where our trade with the United Kingdom and the sterling areas is declining at such a pace as to call for measures of the most energetic sort to be taken in conjunction with other countries of the commonwealth to put an end to this trend.
In dealing with the remarks made yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture we find that not only does he appear to indulge-and other hon. members besides myself have suggested this-in double-talk, saying one thing at one time and another thing at another, but he now wants to make his speeches in duplicate. For instance, yesterday he felt it would be a good idea to read at length from a radio speech he made in the election campaign last June. Not content with reading his own speeches over again to the house, he wants us to read them too. We heard him this afternoon trying to have the hon. member for Lake

Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) read his speeches over again. If they had been any answer to the situation, that would have been bad enough, but when they are not, when their only purpose is to further confuse the situation, that is confusion worse confounded.
The minister's whole position that the export of agricultural commodities to the United Kingdom is continuing at a satisfactory level is contradicted, not only by others of his statements but by the facts as well as by other members of the cabinet. We have the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) taking a very serious view of our declining trade with Great Britain. When the Minister of Finance was presenting his budget to the house'last March he made the definite statement that the Canadian authorities had made official representations to the United Kingdom authorities against the barter deals being entered into between that country and other countries, some being behind the iron curtain. I feel that this situation is serious enough to warrant us in asking the government and the minister to let us know what representations were made, to whom they were made and the results of those representations.


Mr. Fleming:: They also warrant the minister's attention.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Can't you make a speech without us? It is not very interesting.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I sometimes think the country could be run without you. I suppose a speech in the house could be made without the minister's attention.


Mr. Abbott:: The only trouble is that my hon. friend makes too many speeches and too dull.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is typical of the attitude taken by the government. They think that all speeches made by the opposition are too many. They would like to run the country without any opposition at all but it will be some time before they do that. However, let us not become heated. It did so happen that I was dealing with some statements made by the minister at the time he presented his budget last spring and I should like to quote now from a press report of his remarks as follows:
The government of Canada has made repeated requests at the very highest level that authorities in the United Kingdom and other commonwealth countries do all that they can to take advantage of the favourable opportunities which Canada has offered for their exports.
The Canadian government has also made it clear that it does not look with favour on purchasing arrangements or bilateral trade deals which tend to divert away from Canada either British or colonial products which otherwise could be sent here,-
The Address-Mr. Fulton
I was hoping, in view of the somewhat similar statement made some time ago by the Minister of Agriculture, that the Minister of Finance would tell us to whom the representations were made and what have been the results. It is stated here that the representations were made on the official level. I refer to that as indicating that at least one or two ministers, for a short while at any rate, recognized the fact that our trade situation vis-a-vis the United Kingdom and the sterling area is in a serious position.
But we find the Minister of Agriculture at this time departing from or contradicting the statements which he made formerly that we could not dispose of Canadian agricultural production because of the situation with respect to sterling trade and saying that we have no surplus production to dispose of. The Minister of Agriculture made a statement, as reported on page 288 of Hansard of February 27, that the only surplus we have now is cheese and he said, "We are carrying that right now".
I ask the Minister of Agriculture: If there are no surpluses why did the British Columbia apple growers have to give away a million boxes of apples to the United Kingdom? The minister is contradicted in connection with this matter, not only by his previous statements but by the facts. He is contradicted in this matter as he is in so many other matters. For instance, we all recall his words during the last year or two when this subject was being discussed when he said that there was no market for Canadian apples in the United Kingdom. Not only did he say that the United Kingdom cannot buy Canadian apples; he said that the United Kingdom is now producing all the apples it needs for its own domestic consumption.
He painted a picture of millions of apple trees in England groaning with apples, their branches loaded down to the ground. If that was the fact why did the British government accept so gladly and so readily the gift of a million boxes of surplus Canadian apples, and incidentally turn around, as I have heard, and market them in their domestic market at a substantial profit? We find the Minister of Agriculture making this statement on June 6 in the election campaign at Spy Hill, Saskatchewan.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be interesting if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce would let the house in on this little tete-a-tete they are having. It seems to be very interesting or amusing. They are certainly gesticulating wildly at each other. I hope it does not indicate another split in the cabinet. However, the ministers

The Address-Mr. Fulton can carry on their little tete-a-tete. I assure them it does not bother me because if their statements to each other are as wildly inaccurate as their statements to the public they probably would not be very edifying anyway.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can always follow my hon. friend better when I read him in Hansard afterwards.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is more than we can say for some of the minister's statements and for some other statements which do not always appear in Hansard in the way in which they are heard in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether the hon. member is reflecting on Hansard.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Far from it, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I intended no reflection whatsoever on Hansard. Quite the other way around. I think this situation we have now, and the conflicting statements coming from the ministers as to whether or not there are any agricultural surpluses in Canada, are sufficient to warrant us calling for a meeting of the agricultural committee before which experts of the various departments might appear and let us have the facts and figures as to agricultural production in Canada and the existence or otherwise of surpluses in these various commodities.
Yesterday when the Minister of Agriculture was dealing with the question of the marketing of our agricultural goods in the United Kingdom and sterling areas he resorted to what has become a favourite trick. When confronted with a situation for which he has no real answer he went back to the 1930's, and he tried once again to say that the whole responsibility for the situation rests on the Bennett government and the imperial trade conference of 1932. I should like to refer to what the minister said yesterday as reported at pages 572 and 573 of Hansard. As a matter of fact he went back away beyond 1932. He started back in 1877. This government has been in power for fifteen years and yet they are still blaming what goes on today on what Sir John A. Macdonald said in 1877. The Minister of Agriculture is reported as follows:
All I want to say about it Is that from the time Sir John A. Macdonald made his speech at Stan-stead, Quebec, in 1877 to the present day Conservative policy has been a policy opposed to trade as a solution for the problems of this country, and the policy of the C.C.F. party as announced is the same. On the other hand, the policy of the Liberal party has been one of trade in order to improve the affairs of this country.
At that point he was interrupted by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield) who said "free trade." Incidentally, I

should like to differ there even though that member is a member of my own party. I should like to point out that the Liberal party, avowedly a low tariff party, has in fact during the period of its power had higher tariffs than any other government in the history of Canada. The minister continued:
Therefore we have had good times when we have had a Liberal government in power, and we have had bad times when we have had a Conservative government in power.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to hear my hon. friends applaud that statement because perhaps they will applaud the figures I am now about to give them. If they will look at the dominion bureau of statistics volume entitled "Trade of Canada for the year ended December 31, 1948" volume I, there they will see the record of our trade with the United Kingdom and other countries year by year up to and including 1948. If they will look at those figures and examine particularly the ten years from 1928 to 1937 inclusive they will see that the decline in our trade with the United Kingdom, the sterling area and all other foreign countries started in the year 1928, and continued with increasing velocity up to the year 1930. Certainly it has to be admitted it continued until 1932. A Conservative government came into power in 1930 but the downhill momentum was so tremendous that it could not be arrested until 1932.
In that year steps were taken to correct it and restore Canada's trade with the sterling areas. Those efforts were successful. If hon. members will analyse these figures they will find in every year from 1932 on our trade increased, and continued to increase, gradually working its way back to the position it was in before it was wrecked by the policies of the King government as they took effect in the years 1928 to 1930. I have the figures here, Mr. Speaker, and I should like permission to table them in Hansard. First, however, I should like to make this analysis. If you take the table showing Canadian exports to the United Kingdom you will find the highest figure before 1930 was in 1925; the lowest year was in 1931. From 1928 to 1930 our exports to the United Kingdom declined by 47 per cent, nearly one-half the volume. They reached their lowest point in 1931 and they started up again in 1932. From 1931 to 1935 they increased by 77 per cent under the Bennett government as against a decrease of 47 per cent under the King government.
Taking Canadian exports to other British countries, the highest figure before the depression was in 1929. They reached their

lowest level in 1932. From 1928 to 1930 there was an over-all decline of 18 per cent. They reached their low in 1932 and increased from 1932 to 1935 by 94 per cent as against an 18 per cent decline in the last two years of the King government. If you take Canadian exports to all British countries the trend is the same. They were highest in 1926 and they were lowest in 1932. From 1928 to 1930 they declined by 44 per cent. After the economic conference of 1932 they began to go up, and between 1932 and 1935 they increased by 73 per cent as contrasted with a decline of 44 per cent in the last two years of the King government. Therefore there is good foundation for the statement that the Liberal party is absolutely wrong when it tries to saddle the responsibility for the depression on the Bennett government knowing full well that is not the fact, that the depression started in 1928.
I will give one typical set of figures; our exports to all British countries. They declined from $545 million in 1928 to $316 million in 1930, a decline of $230 million in two years. Yet my hon. friends say the depression was caused by the Conservative government under R. B. Bennett, when the fact is that the Bennett government inherited this accelerating and tremendous decline in our overseas trade. They had the courage to take steps to deal with it, as they did at the economic conference of 1932. The figures further substantiate the statement that from that period on our trade with the United Kingdom and the other commonwealth countries, as well as with the rest of the world, expanded steadily under the impetus of that imperial economic conference.
That is why we say the time has now come, when we see a similar trend beginning, to take steps to counteract it. The Minister of Trade and Commerce admits a two per cent decline in trade with the sterling area in 1949.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In our exports, not in trade.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Two per cent may not sound very much, but it is in the neighbourhood of $15 million, and indicates a trend which, according to the releases that are coming to hand, is continuing. That trend certainly demands that the government take some step such as the immediate summoning of a commonwealth trade conference to deal with the situation and put Canada's trade on the upward track instead of allowing it to continue on the downward trend it is now taking.


Mr. Dickey:: Would the hon. gentleman care to put on Hansard the comparable figures showing Canada's trade with all countries for the years he has mentioned?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall be glad to do so, and I would ask permission to place these tables on
The Address-Mr. Fulton Hansard. They are taken from the volume of the dominion bureau of statistics to which I have referred.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member consent to place these tables on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And in reply to the question of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) I may say that the figures showing Canada's exports to all countries other than those of the commonwealth show the same trend, declining from $794 million in 1928 to $547 million in 1930 and to $272 million in 1932, when the low point was reached. From that time on they began their slow, steady climb until the high point was reached in 1941. The tables are as follows:



TABLE I

[Stage Direction]
Canadian Exports to United Kingdom
1928		 $447,867,539
1929		 291,829,232
1930		 236,527,017
1931		 171,660,175
1932		 179,094,627
1933		 211,313,930
1934		 271,369,655
1935		 304,318,168
1936		 396,270,341
1937		 403,358,618
1938		 341,424,375
Highest figure pre-1930: $493,170,355 (1925) Lowest year: 1931
Increase from 1931 to 1935: 77 per cent Decrease from 1928 to 1930: 47 per cent

[Stage Direction]
Canadian Exports to Other
1928		
1929		
1930		
1931	 '
1932		
1933		
1934		
1935		
1936	 '
1937		
1938		
British Countries
		$ 99,227,726
		105,006,494
		81,128,537
		49,183,951
		38,985,273
		44,483,457
		64,926,281
		74,143,267
		84,294,078
		104,159,107
		103,213,752
Highest figure pre-1930: $105,006,494 Lowest year: 1932
Increase from 1932 to 1935: 94 per cent Decrease from 1928 to 1930: 18 per cent

[Stage Direction]
Canadian Exports to all British Countries
1929
1931
1933
1935
1937
[Stage Direction]
Highest-1926: $554,924,454 Lowest year: 1932
Increase from 1932 to 1935 : 73 per cent Decrease from 1928 to 1930 : 44 per cent
612	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bater table rv
Total exports to foreign countries including U.S.A.
1928		,	 $794,053,169
1929		 757,115,272
1930		 547,341,265
1931		 367,872,034
1932		 272,726,159
1933		 274,268,848
1934		 313,896,098
1935	\\\\\	
347,333.3461936	-	
458,178,9051937	
491,145,717
Highest-1928: $794,053,169
Lowest: 1932
Decrease from 1928 to 1930: 31 per cent
Increase from 1932 to 1935: 27 per cent
Mr.  A. J. Baier@The Baiilefords: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the motion for the adoption of the speech from the throne I first want to pay the usual tributes. I desire to pay a tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in that last December by a vote of several of the newspaper editors of our country he was selected as Canada's man of the year. I am happy to state also that running him a close second was an hon. gentleman to whom we listened with great interest this past week, none other than the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). I regret that my tribute to you, Mr. Speaker, is rather belated; but while late, it is none the less sincere, and I take this opportunity of congratulating you upon your elevation to your high office and the manner in which you are carrying out your duties. I am sure the message you gave us last session on the occasion of the visit of the Prime Minister of India will long linger in our memory.
Since coming here for this session I have heard that there was an election in The Battlefords constituency just a month ago. I am not going to say anything more about that election; enough has been said already. Speaking of elections, however, early in this debate something was said about ballots and ballot boxes in the last election, and there was some reference to ballot boxes as they are used in Russia and ballots as they might be used in China. Well, Mr. Speaker, I contend that there is not and never will be any comparison between the ballots we use in this country and the ballots used in Russia or China, and that is so for one great reason. We have a great pillar of the democratic system which I believe will prevent anything like that happening in this country. That great pillar is none other than the Canadian press. As our press operates from day to day, during election campaigns, between campaigns, and even in this very, chamber, with its piercing eye and ever-listening ear, it will see to it that the ballot continues to mean just what it should mean. '[DOT] .

The Address-Mr. Bater a snowplane, but on horseback. On several occasions the policeman stayed tor dinner, fed his horse, and before leaving asked my father to sign his patrol book to show that he had been looking after the settlers to see that no one was going hungry or suffering. These are the men who, today, should not be allowed to want for the comforts or necessities of life. I hope that something will be done for them. Just prior to coming down here I was speaking to the wife of one of those members who is eighty-two years of age. She informed me that they were not in want but she knew others that had been in the forces along with her husband in the early days who, she thought, could well do with assistance. I hope the government will give consideration to these men. There are not many left and they should not be allowed to want.
should like to ask what price must be paid to attain a world of peace and plenty. The terms are easy and are such as will finally benefit all and harm none. We shall not have to surrender any greater measure of our national identity, aspirations or ideals than you and I have to surrender as individuals in co-operating to maintain law and order within the nation; but we shall have to abandon the fallacy which teaches that we can become prosperous by limiting production and restricting trade, because political co-operation and economic isolation cannot exist side by side. What is required does not involve some new and untried scheme of social relationship or fantastic economic theory; it is simply the removal of those artificial barriers between men and nations that have been at the root of all our international differences, and the restoration to all the people of that most valuable privilege of organized society, the right to trade freely, one with another. Freedom of trade and intercourse between men and nations goes hand in hand with understanding and good will, and provides the only way in which all can be assured of that equality of opportunity that should be the inherent right of citizenship.
As our ship of state takes to the high seas of nationhood and international affairs, with the Prime Minister as the captain, his cabinet colleagues as his officers and the hon. members who support him making up the crew, I think I can safely say that our Prime Minister is well aware of the fact that in order to reach a port we must sail, sometimes with the wind and sometimes against it. We must, however, sail; we cannot drift or lie at anchor.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote a poem by Will Allen Dromgoole, which in my opinion should express the outlook of this parliament. I should also like these words to be my personal tribute IMr. Bater.]
to one whom it was not my privilege to know for a long period of time; I became acquainted with him during the last session. On a few occasions we walked together from this building down to the hotel. The person to whom I refer and to whom I wish to pay tribute is the late T. L. Church. The poem is as follows:
An old man going a lone highway Came in the evening, cold and grey,
To a chasm vast and deep and wide Through which there flowed a sullen tide.
The old man crossed in the twilight dim,
The sullen stream had no fears for him,
But he stopped when safe on the other side And built a bridge to span the tide.
"Old man", said a fellow pilgrim near,
"You are wasting your strength with building here;
Your journey will end with the ending day, You never again will pass this way.
You've crossed the chasm deep and wide,
Why build you this bridge at evening tide?"
The builder lifted his old grey head,
"Good friend, in the path I have come," he said, "There followeth after me today A youth whose feet must pass this way.
"This chasm which has been naught to me To that fair-haired youth may a pitfall be.
He, too, must cross in the twilight dim.
Good friend, I am building the bridge for him."
(Translation):


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few rather brief remarks to make in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I should be sorry, in fact, to take up an undue amount of the time of this house. I shall therefore be brief.
I am pleased to congratulate the mover (Mr. Larson) and the seconder (Mr. Dumas) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In my humble opinion, both have done excellent work and any praise I might offer would not add to the intrinsic value of their speeches.
By means of the speech from the throne the government has made known the problem of unemployment in this country. Although I do not wish to indulge in unnecessary discussion, I feel it is my duty to point out that unemployment has reached alarming proportions in the constituency I have the honour to represent. From nearly all parishes in my constituency I received petitions signed by hundreds of people and resolutions from municipal councils expressing concern at the seriousness of the problem. After a summary survey, I am in a position to state that there are over 2,500 unemployed in my constituency at the present time. Some villages are greatly affected. And then the fact

that the great majority of the unemployed are labourers and lumberjacks, and therefore not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, makes the situation all the more serious. One readily realizes, Mr. Speaker, the alarming situation of those men who, for the most part, are heads of families. They have been out of work for the past four, six and even ten months and their only income is derived from family allowances which, useful as they may be, under the circumstances are admittedly inadequate to ensure a decent standard of living. And yet the situation would not be so serious if all those who are fortunate enough to have a job were being paid fair wages.
Speaking in this house on February 20 last, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), as reported at page 53 of Hansard, stated:
Our pulp and paper people felt that it would be a prudent thing to reduce the size of their inventories in which so much of their working capital was tied up at rather high costs of production.
I admit these production costs are rather high, but the companies have reduced their inventories. They have not omitted, however, to reduce, in a shameful manner, the price paid to small operators for pulpwood, and the salaries paid to woodcutters for job work. In view of the price the paper companies get for pulp, it really is a shame that they should be allowed to pay these forest labourers the meagre wages they force them to accept with a knife at their throat, if I may say so. The forest labourer is not concerned with the fact that the paper companies have reduced their inventories. He is uneasy and wonders what has suddenly happened in the pulp industry that his salary should be cut by one-half or even two-thirds, while paper is still selling as high as a year or two ago, and even higher.
Last week I went through my constituency. It is inhabited by responsible people, by good workers who usually earn their living through hard work. A year or two ago, those people were getting between $5 and $7 to cut a cord of wood; this winter, under almost identical conditions, the companies are only paying $3, $2.50 and even $2. Would that be the result of exploitation by a combine or trust? With bitterness and resentment, the forest labourer ponders over the question. This would undoubtedly be an excellent field of inquiry for the investigating body that has become famous since last year's report on the flour milling industry.
The Address-Mr. Poulin


Mr. Lesage:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware that a provincial law deals with minimum salaries for forest labourers in Quebec? Under the circumstances the law is administered by the provincial government. Therefore, as the matter concerns workers of the province of Quebec, it should be referred to Mr. Duplessis.


Raoul Poulin: I am perfectly aware of that legislation. It hardly matters what political party has the right and duty to see that people abide by the law. As far as I am concerned, I avail myself of the means at my disposal to defend the lumberjacks' rights.
In any case, I have not blamed the federal government for lumberjacks' low wages. If any combine is operating, however, this is a splendid opportunity for the investigating commission I mentioned earlier to resume its task. I therefore urge with all the energy I can muster that lumberjacks be paid wages worthy of human beings.
If the government should ever decide to undertake public works for the relief of unemployment in the Beauce district, our municipalities would gladly supply a list of practical, useful, feasible and reasonable projects that would prove an asset to our parishes.
Discussing means to relieve unemployment, the Prime Minister also stated in the house, on February 20 last, as reported on page 58 of Hansard:
But there will inevitably be some residuary problems from time to time in some areas, and the initiative in dealing with them must be taken by the local authorities.
That is, in my opinion, exactly what local authorities are doing and that is why the heads of municipalities in my constituency sent me several resolutions and petitions asking the federal government to help them solve a problem with which they did not feel competent to deal.
These municipal governments are acquainted with local needs. Better than anyone else, including members of the cabinet and the representatives of all the parties in this house, they know that inadequate means are at their disposal to meet these needs. Our parish authorities know perfectly well that local governments are not capable of coping with this crisis. Our municipal governments are prepared, or should be, to do their share, in a very small way, of course, towards paying for these projects I mentioned a moment ago.
Everywhere enlightened people ask us to intensify the struggle against communism

The Address-Mr. Poulin here in Canada. May I modestly point out that poverty is a poor counsellor, that it is always in the seedbed of undeserved poverty that communism takes root most easily. Would not the expenditure of a few hundred million dollars to give the poor jobs which would preserve their dignity as free men be a way of making them happy and, as a result, of making them impervious to the come-hither of communism? It is only fair, I think, that we should ask ourselves this question.
And now let us look into another matter.
I was very much interested in the remarks recently made in this house by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier). In his capacity as a practising physician he dealt with a subject to which he has often addressed himself and which, to my mind also, is of great importance. As a matter of fact it is one which commends itself to both of us, since we are members of the same profession.
I am speaking now of alcoholism amongst our people.
Is there anyone here who has any doubt whatever in regard to the importance of that problem in this country? Let us consider the statistics which I am about to quote; they give a comparative estimate of what the average Canadian spent towards the necessities of life, during the year 1948. I quote:
(Text):
According to the Temperance Advocate of October, 1949, the average Canadian spent in
1948:
Private and university education	 $ 5 00
Jewelry	
5	50Tobacco	
24	00Fuel	
27	00Medical and death charges	
28	50House furnishings and	appliances	
47	00Alcoholic beverages	
48	00
(Translation):
Those figures, as will be readily admitted, are worthy of consideration by any serious-minded person.
I believe that the hon. member for Portneuf is altogether right in requesting the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) to intensify his preventive medicine campaign by the inclusion of the fight against alcoholism.
The prevention of alcoholism is a matter of education at all levels: at home, at school and after graduation. I do not believe that either rules or the police can stop people from drinking. The experience of hundreds of years confirms my conviction. The following is a statement made a few weeks ago in Montreal by Dr. Adrien Plouffe, associate director of the health department of the city of Montreal:

The prevention of the manufacturing and of the sale of alcoholic beverages is a myth, a fabulous thing impossible of attainment. The prevention of alcoholism is a matter of education.
Mr. Speaker, no one is made virtuous by order in council, and long ago Cicero, the prince of lawmakers, said:
What good are laws without morals?
What good are laws without a willingness to respect them, and without the convictions necessary to accept their yoke? And where can we acquire such convictions, if not from education?
And such education must come from above. A Chinese proverb states:
If you start cleaning stairs at the bottom, they will always remain dirty.
To start teaching temperance to the lower classes is a good thing, I admit, but it is not enough. And in this connection, I wish to express my admiration and gratitude to an organization which has devoted itself to the fight against alcoholism through the simple practice of complete abstention. This organization is known as the Cercle Lacordaire. It extends over all of the province of Quebec and to part of the provinces of New Brunswick and Ontario.
Having reached its tenth anniversary, it already has 90,000 members who, as human beings, are apt to make mistakes but who nevertheless bring their important, I would say essential, contribution to the organization of the fight against alcoholism. I might call this group a sort of people's university. It is far from being sufficient, however, and I would urge the minister of health to launch and support a wide educational campaign of temperance. Again I ask the hon. minister, who is apparently well disposed, to use all his influence in order that our Canadian universities may join, support and even lead the movement. Besides, it would be of little avail for our universities to pour into our communities hundreds of graduates, technicians, and scientists if these very communities are being gnawed by the cancer of alcoholism.
What is done elsewhere, and especially in the United States, could and should also be applied in Canada. Every Canadian university should scientifically teach the nature of alcoholism, its evils, its prevention and cure. Each medical faculty in Canada should have a clinic for the treatment of alcoholics, not only to cure drunkards, but also for the purpose of teaching how to prevent alcoholism. All our universities and schools of medicine have departments or clinics dealing with social

scourges like tuberculosis, syphilis and infant mortality. But, like the monkey in the story that forgot to light the lantern, we forget only one thing: to look after that other social scourge that all too often breeds the others, alcoholism. And I have proof to support my contention.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a word about another matter which bears some relation to the one I have been discussing since it also deals with education. On April 8, 1949, the Prime Minister tabled in the house order in council P.C. 1786, setting up a royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences. The commission was brought into being, among other reasons, to inquire into and submit recommendations on the following matters, as stated in section (d):
Relations of the government of Canada and any of its agencies with various national voluntary bodies operating in the field with which this inquiry will be concerned.
Public hearings have been held in many places in Canada and numerous organizations or individuals have stated their views on various aspects of the problem.
Now, before the hearings had come to an end, before the commissioners paid by the public treasury had finished gathering and collecting the evidence, one of them prematurely issued a statement which is questionable in content. Indeed, Reverend Father Levesque of Quebec city, a member of this commission, is alleged to have said something to this effect:
Mere academic education and culture are two different things, when education in general is being referred to. The former comes under the direct jurisdiction of the provinces, while the latter might be a matter to be dealt with by the federal government. No one is more anxious than we are to leave exclusively academic education within the purview of the provinces. There remains popular education or culture in general. We are concerned here with human thought. In this field, the federal government can legitimately play its part. I have quoted Le Devoir of February 20, 1950. Since then, I have never seen any denial of this quotation. I therefore have every reason to assume that the quotation agrees with the facts.
The least I can say is that nothing was forcing this commissioner to make so hasty a statement. Had he waited until the end of the survey, he might have altered his judgment. Perhaps he would not have uttered a statement disapproved of by an important section of the people of his province.
I hold this great educationist in the highest regard, yet I feel I have a right to discuss his opinions just as he is entitled to discuss mine. Is he ready to accept for our young
The Address-Mr. Poulin people all that will come from federal institutions? If not, who will distinguish between what is acceptable and what is not? For my part I refuse to accept that and I am far from being the only one who holds that opinion in the province of Quebec.
Moreover that premature judgment is liable to influence the reports which have been or will be submitted to the commission. Why make a survey if the minds of the commissioners are already made up?
I would therefore advise those who are responsible for this commission to make representations to the commissioners and suggest that some of them show themselves less anxious to hand over to the federal government those things which, in my humble opinion, are better left with the provinces. Should the federal government assist education under certain well-defined conditions? Yes, of course. But I am humbly though unalterably opposed to any direct intervention such as has been prematurely expounded by Father Levesque.
I wish to add that the Canadian government should give the utmost consideration to the solving of the problem of the marketing and prices of our agricultural products. I know that this is a very complex problem and the government should therefore deal with it carefully. I recognize that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has done a great deal in the past few months to try and solve this problem. I am aware that the minister has followed a reasonable part of the suggestions which he received from the farmers. Some progress has been made but much remains to be accomplished. It must not be forgotten that in many provinces of Canada, including the province of Quebec, the success of agriculture is the very foundation of our economic and social security.
Agricultural associations are unable by themselves to solve the problem but they are in a position to advise the government. I wish to point out this particular aspect of the question. I believe that the professional agricultural associations who have made a detailed study of this problem and who, therefore, are well acquainted with it have already submitted many suggestions to the minister.
As for myself, several agricultural organizations in my constituency have acquainted me with their views and I have duly forwarded them to the authorities concerned.
I am confident that in the light of this information and with the good will of the minister it will be possible to better the lot of an extremely important and extremely interesting group: the Canadian farmers.

The Address-Mr. T. A. M. Kirk
Even if I am perhaps imposing, Mr. Speaker, I would not want to conclude my remarks without recalling an incident in which you took part yourself last night, that is the handicraft exhibition of the province of Quebec now being held at the Chateau Laurier. This was not the first time that I saw most of the exhibits but to see them all exhibited in one place, especially outside the province of Quebec, and in a city so hospitable and sympathetic as Ottawa the beautiful, I believe is something that gives us a feeling of legitimate pride.
I noticed two items in particular. I might have been somewhat prejudiced at that moment, since the exhibits were being displayed by people from my own constituency of Beauce, Mr. Henri-Louis Levesque and Mr. and Mrs. Gerard Poulin. These people have done magnificent work. The house will allow me to extend to them my congratulations and to assure them that their achievements are truly wonderful.
(Text):


Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouih):: Mr. Speaker, to the mover (Mr. Larson) and seconder (Mr. Dumas) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne may I extend my hearty congratulations and assure them that the brevity of my comment is in inverse proportion to the respect and admiration I have for their most excellent presentations.
As a new member I am deeply conscious of the outstanding representatives from western Nova Scotia who have sat in this house during the last two decades. One calls to mind immediately such eminent and outstanding parliamentarians as the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley, who is now chief justice of the supreme court of Nova Scotia, and the late Colonel the Hon. J. L. Ralston, both of whom filled with great distinction many portfolios in the government. One also recalls Vincent J. Pottier, K.C., now a county court judge in the province of Nova Scotia, and judge in admiralty for Nova Scotia of the Exchequer Court of Canada, and Major Loran E. Baker, former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence.
Although the new constituency of Digby-Yarmouth had its borders altered to conform with county lines, with Digby municipality replacing Shelburne county, its general make-up as to economy and population is practically unchanged. The constituency is essentially a district of small primary producers, each with his own particular problems, and it is still unique in its inclusion of two great races-each bringing its own special characteristics to the moulding of a common citizenship. The counties of Yarmouth and Digby are a part of Canada where for genera-

tions those two great races, English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians, have lived side by side in perfect sympathy and understanding.
With reference to one of our primary industries, may I say that the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on Monday last in the house, to the effect that trade commissioners in several countries are working on the sale of pit props and that there is some hope that sales will be made, is a ray of encouragement to the farmers and truckers of Digby county in particular.
As to the primary industry of fishing, may I say that during the last thirty years the production of fish in western Nova Scotia has doubled, and in my constituency the fishing industry is keenly aware of the program of development outlined by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) to the house on December 6 last.
Canada has access to the world's greatest fishing resources in the Atlantic, and we want to see an expansion program that will not in any way permit the reappearance of any economic weak spots. The trend from salt fish to the fresh and frozen products is continuing, and we are fully cognizant of the necessity of modern processing in filleting, packaging and freezing.
Along the Digby coast investigations have been and are being made into the effect of dragging operations with particular reference to the complaint that the feeding grounds are being destroyed. The complaint that draggers are interfering with other methods of fishing by inshore fishermen is also being investigated. We await with keen interest the report on these two specific investigations.
There are certain other matters pertaining to the fishing industry which I look forward to discussing at a later date when the estimates of the Department of Fisheries are before the house.
Upon leaving the subject of commercial fishing, may I refer briefly to the international tuna tournaments held annually at Wedge-port, a centre of 1,500 people, practically all of whom are of Acadian French descent. The headquarters of the tuna tournament is Wedgeport, and from here the boats set out for the now internationally known Soldier's Rip, where the huge blue fin are caught by rod and line.
Last fall teams from the Argentine, Brazil, the British empire, Cuba and the United States took part in this competition. Next year we expect that there will be at least two teams from the Scandinavian countries. Last year in a period of a few weeks the anglers caught approximately 1,800 tuna, most of them

in the four, five and six hundred pound class. The largest caught to date by rod and line weighed 890 pounds. Tuna fishing is rapidly becoming one of Nova Scotia's greatest tourist attractions, and next summer we hope to have two of the hon. members from the front benches to the right of the Speaker take part in this sport as guests of the Wedgeport tuna guides association.
A constituency which depends in so large a measure on fishing and which has a coast line of several hundreds of miles is of course always in the minds of the officers and officials of the departments of fisheries, transport and public works. Such a coast line, with its many small peninsulas, capes, bays, harbours and coves, must of necessity have innumerable aids to navigation. Aids such as buoys, spars, lighthouses and lightships must be continually serviced and repaired. As a large part of this work must be done from a ship, it is the feeling of those who are always making use of these aids that it would be more economical and efficient if one of the ships being used for this purpose were stationed at Yarmouth, which is the central point of the coastal area from point Prim to Cape Sable.
At this time may I bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) the request for the basing of such a ship at Yarmouth and refer him to the various resolutions concerning this matter which have already been forwarded to his department by interested organizations.
Now that the main estimates have been tabled, we of Digby-Yarmouth are exceptionally pleased to note certain specific items which have been included, but we regret particularly the exclusion of certain other items of great importance. I have already brought to the attention of the Department of Public Works certain of these projects which are of extreme necessity to the fishermen of the areas concerned. May I urge on their behalf that these projects be included in the supplementary estimates.
I know that the residents of the coastal areas of my constituency are exceedingly pleased with the field personnel of the Department of Public Works with whom they come in contact, and look forward to seeing the membership of the district engineer's staff brought up to full strength in the near future. In bringing these matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Public Works may I add one more request; that is, that additional small dredging units be made available in order to maintain full use at low water of the small fishing harbours, channels and wharves.
55946-40^
The Address-Mr. T. A. M. Kirk
The inclusion in the estimates of one million dollars to be applied towards the construction of the automobile ferry which is to run between Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and a port in Maine was received with acclaim by Nova Scotians in general. As announced by the Minister of Transport on December 7 last, the federal government and the government of the province of Nova Scotia are sharing in the capital cost of this ferry, which it is estimated will amount to three million dollars. The announcement of the inclusion of the one million dollar vote in the estimates is evidence of the intention of the federal government to proceed with the project as rapidly as possible. It is my understanding that at present Ottawa is awaiting a reply from the Nova Scotia government indicating its agreement with the details of the proposal. Just as soon as this is received the committee representing the various departments concerned will, I understand, be able to proceed immediately from the already prepared sketch plans to the detailed scale plans of the ship and to finalize the decisions concerning propulsion machinery and docking facilities.
This proposed ferry service will aid in maintaining the prominence of Yarmouth, the southwestern gateway to Nova Scotia, which for many years prior to world war II was the port of entry through which the greatest number of people entered Nova Scotia. It is the considered opinion of objective-minded citizens of western Nova Scotia that the inauguration of an automobile ferry service between Yarmouth and a port in Maine is as forward-looking a project as was the inauguration of a steamship service between Yarmouth and Boston during the latter years of the last century. Travel conditions have changed greatly in the last two decades, and a short daylight run across the Bay of Fundy from Maine to Yarmouth will prove of inestimable value. Such a ferry, designed primarily for passenger and automobile traffic will, I am certain, permit the development of both refrigerated truck and passenger bus businesses.
In closing may I say that many of those in various lines of business in the constituency of Digby-Yarmouth are now considering, and upon the announcement of the start of construction of the ferry will be making, definite plans to handle the increased tourist traffic and business in 1951.


Mr. W. J. Browne (Si. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with other hon. members in congratulating the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson) on the way he carried out his task of moving the adoption of the address to His Excellency, and also
620	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) on the admirable way in which, in two languages, he seconded the motion.
I was especially interested in the description of life in that strange province of Saskatchewan given by the mover of the resolution. It was interesting to hear of the busy ranches, the golden grain gleaming in the late summer sun, and all the happy, contented homes, where the people live long lives of Arcadian simplicity. But I think hon. members will agree that they had a rude awakening when the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) rose and said that taxes in that province were so high he was considering selling his farm, and recommended that the portion of the province west of the third meridian should be given to Alberta and the portion east of the third meridian should be given to Manitoba.
The hon. member for Villeneuve told us how rich and varied were the resources of his constituency, and painted a picture of giant ore carriers sailing up the deepened St. Lawrence with iron ore from the Quebec-Labrador mines to smelters that would be established in Quebec. That brought no applause from hon. members from the maritime provinces, because already established at Sydney are great blast furnaces which have been in operation for fifty years, where the coal from Sydney is used to smelt iron ore that comes from Bell island in Newfoundland, while the limestone from the west coast of Newfoundland is also brought in to help out in the process.
Iron is considered the most necessary element in the establishment and development of industry; and today Canada seems to be the richest country in the world in that respect. In addition to the iron ore mines of Bell island, which are capable of almost unlimited expansion, we have the new workings at Steep Rock, as well as the recent discoveries on the Quebec-Labrador boundary. There should be no reason why in addition to the blast furnaces in Sydney we could not have other blast furnaces in Quebec and Ontario. The future of Canada seems very bright with such large supplies of iron ore within our boundaries, particularly since the supplies of the United States in Minnesota appear to be on the verge of petering out.
The hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) complained, as I have heard him complain before, about the indifference and neglect which the maritimes have suffered from the central provinces. He stated, as I am quite sure is the fact, that the goods purchased by the maritimes from the central provinces far exceed in value the goods which the central provinces buy from the maritimes.
[Mr. Browne (St. John's West).)

Yet in many sections of the maritimes, as those who have travelled there know, particularly in the country districts, there are homes that have an air of solid comfort.
There have been many interesting speeches and many very fine speeches during this debate, and one is tempted to discuss many subjects that have been brought to light. For example, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) went to a great deal of trouble to give a detailed analysis of the unemployment situation which the government have been trying to minimize. He also gave us the work projects in hand for the construction season of 1950. However, I am very much puzzled by the various statements we have heard from members of the government. Listening to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) one would not think there was any great amount of unemployment in the country; but the figures show differently. Unemployment insurance paid out for the month of December was equal to that paid out for April of last year, a little over $7 million; but in January the amount paid out almost equalled the amount received in insurance premiums, nearly $12 million. So we had the spectacle of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), acting in the absence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), bringing in a bill and beseeching hon. members to let him rush it through the house as quickly as possible because so many people were out of employment and had been without work for so long that they had exhausted all the benefits to which they were entitled, and it was necessary to extend the benefits until April 30 of this year and provide that in future years those benefits should be extended for three months beyond January 1.
Is it not paradoxical that in this great, rich country, where the grain elevators are filled to overflowing with wheat, where there are surpluses at various seasons of the year in some commodities-even at the moment in butter, cheese, eggs and bacon-unsold and sometimes unsalable, that there should be 400,000 people receiving unemployment insurance? These people, because of the small amount received in proportion to their ordinary earnings, must be living at a reduced level. I ask hon. members of the government to give serious consideration to that paradox. It seems to me to be an extremely serious situation, which unemployment insurance does not cure. Public works on a large scale will not cure it either, because those are only temporary expedients and do nothing to eliminate the cause.

You will find, Mr. Speaker, that in talking about this subject most hon. members think of the income the people receive, without thinking of the property from which income is derived. It would be much better for the government to attempt to arrange for people to have productive property in their possession, as has been done in the administration of veterans affairs. When the veterans came home, they were assisted in securing land, from which they could earn a livelihood. Many of them were also taught trades. It seems to me that the huge amounts of money that are being spent on unemployment insurance are not producing the permanent results that we would like to see. Year after year, we are faced with this problem. It may become a serious problem. Neither the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), nor the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), nor any member of this house, can tell what will happen in the next twelve months in this country. One can only surmise. There is wealth here, but has it been well distributed? It is for that reason that I say it is urgent for all, whether in the provincial government or the federal government, to do all they can to assist people in getting possession of productive property, because that is what counts, more than mere income.
Only recently we heard that there were surpluses of farm products in the United States as well as in Canada. In that country there has been destruction of these products, as there was in the thirties. There has been destruction of potatoes, just as there was destruction of sows in the thirties. I remember at one time in 1933 when the government of Newfoundland was encouraged by the late Sir Wilfred Grenfell to ask the United States government to give us some of the sows that were being destroyed. We were not able to get them. If they had been available, the people of Newfoundland would have been able to raise pork. The government of the United States has arranged for the sale of a large quantity of potatoes to Spain at a nominal price. Owing to the drought in that country, there is a scarcity of vegetables and wheat. If Canada has a surplus of food, and I understand there are surpluses in some commodities, it would be better to give them away than to destroy them.
Another interesting speaker, who gave us a delightful speech in many respects, was the member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight). He argued in favour of the recognition of the government of communist China, and stated that the sweep of the communist armies over China did not constitute a communist revolution. I should like to know what the
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne hop. member desires to have as evidence of a communist revolution. I feel quite sure that Mao Tse-tung would not consider it a compliment if he were called something other than a communist, or something other than a revolutionary. I wonder if my hon. friend would ask the missionaries, who have escaped from that country, what they think of what happened out there. Missionaries have been insulted, murdered; and their churches have been desecrated. The missionary dispensaries that were used for the benefit of the people of China have been confiscated and destroyed.
The hon. member for Saskatoon also made an extraordinary statement, which he challenged anyone to deny, when he said at page 189 of Hansard:
The only political force active at this moment against communism between the iron curtain and the Atlantic coast of Spain is the socialism of the democratic socialist nations such as Belgium, Norway, Sweden and Great Britain. Such socialist nations stand on guard for democracy in the Europe of today. I doubt if there is a member in the house who can deny that.
I am sure that my hon. friend will recognize that the presence of United States forces and United States officials in Europe administering the Marshall aid plan are also to be considered as political forces of some value. I think my hon. friend will recognize that in Belgium there is a strong Catholic "party, and that in France the government of the day is mainly composed of members of the Mouvement Republique Populaire. The alliance between the socialists and the M.R.P. is intended to keep General de Gaulle from getting into power. In Western Germany there is a government of Christian Democrats, in which the Catholics and Protestants have combined to run the country through the dangerous and difficult problems confronting it as a result of the welter of hate that was engendered during the war. In Italy there is the Christian Democratic government of de Gasperi, assisted by the socialists it is true, but socialists of the right rather than socialists of the left. In Holland, there is a Christian Democratic government. I consider, Mr. Speaker, that the socialism of those two Scandinavian countries, Norway and Sweden, is not the kind of socialism to be found in other European countries. The people of those two countries are quite individualistic, and there are strong capitalistic enterprises in both of them.
Then, what would my hon. friend say of the government of General Franco? Would he not call that a bulwark against communism? In 1936, General Franco came over from Africa and fought his way through Spain until he had conquered the communists. Surely he is to be regarded as a political force of some account in the area the hon.
622	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne member mentioned. What does he say of the government of Salazar in Portugal? He has been in office for 24 years; once when he resigned he was invited by the people to return. What does he say, after the election in Great Britain, when the number of people who voted against the socialist government amounted to 15 million, while the number who voted for it amounted to 12 million? Will he not say they are a political force of some value who stand on guard against communism? "Christian Democrat", which is the term I have used to denote these Christian Democratic parties, was a term that was coined by Leo XIII. It meant that the government was to be guided by Christian principles. As my friend may be aware, the socialist parties of Europe are largely anti-Christian, and have not the same Christian outlook which I presume my hon. friend has.
I shall leave the members of the C.C.F. party alone for the moment, and revert once more to the members of the government. I am sure that many of us listened with amusement as well as amazement to the speech delivered by the Minister of Agriculture yesterday. No one will deny that the minister is a patriotic man. He is the most attentive person in this house. I should like to give him credit for that. He listens to all the speeches, even some which he must find quite uninteresting. I did not think he did himself justice yesterday. In the future, I do not think the minister will be proud of the exhibition he gave us. He knew that he was not giving a fair picture of the situation. He was exaggerating, and he was stating things that were entirely out of proportion. I listened to him speak about the great work which the Liberal party has done. I have no doubt the Liberal party has done good work; it has done wonderful work. During the past ten years trade has flourished under the Liberal government. If it had not flourished during the last ten years, it would not say very much for the intelligence of the members of the Liberal government.
After listening to the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, I went to the library and asked for a book that would give the statistics on world trade. I found the United Nations statistical year book for 1948, and I have here many pages dealing with the trade of the whole world, or of the principal countries of the world. The Minister of Agriculture knows better than anybody else that the picture of trade between 1928 and 1948 was practically the same in every country throughout the world except in Europe during the war; there was a decline certainly beginning in 1929 with the stock market crash of that year when the bonds of some countries plunged down from $100 to $10, and the shares of all the stocks
(Mr. Browne (St. John's West).]

on the stock markets went down like an avalanche. For several years following that there was a depression all over the world, and it had not really finished when the war began. In 1939 I remember being in an ordinarily busy station in Boston and seeing the porters playing baseball because there were no people travelling on the trains. I remember travelling from Boston to New York in May, 1939, when there was only one other person besides me in the car on the train. There was a world depression on. I could show my hon. friend the figures for trade in Newfoundland since the war began. We did not have the blessings of a Liberal government in Newfoundland at that time. We had a commission of government; and even a commission of government was able to build up surpluses. I would say this for the benefit of the hon. member. If we had had a responsible government in power in Newfoundland in those days, we would have been able to build up large surpluses, just as the commission of government had done.
The most notable thing, however, about the right hon. gentleman's speech was not what he said but rather what he did not say; and, Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask you and the other members of this house to listen to what I have to say just now. I imagine that when the right hon. gentleman had finished that radio speech there was another voice that came on immediately after, the still small voice of conscience which spoke as follows:


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


William Joseph Browne: "Listen, folks; I have to tell you a secret".


An hon. Member:: Quiet!


William Joseph Browne: "Mr. F. A. McGregor, the commissioner under the combines act, considered that the flour millers of this country had agreed to put up the prices of flour all over Canada and in September, 1947, he started the investigation which he finished in December, 1948. He put in a report. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was mad about it. He of course has tremendous influence with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who has great confidence in him; and he persuaded the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), who is new at the job and did not know much about it, not to publish the report".


An hon. Member:: Rubbish.


William Joseph Browne: The voice went on, "We are not going to publish the report, folks. We did not tell parliament about this report when parliament was sitting. We kept it secret because the Conservatives might make use of it in the election; and the C.C.F., if they ever got hold of

it, might be the next government of Canada. So we did not tell them anything about it, and we are not going to tell the people either. What the people don't know won't hurt them". I have imagined that the right hon. gentleman was frank enough to tell the people what his conscience was pricking him about all the time. The right hon. gentleman, I think, has some ground to boast about his accomplishments, although there are many who would not say that. But I would say, Mr. Speaker, that this country would be more greatly honoured in the United Nations and everywhere else among right-thinking men if it would put respect for law and love of justice before its ability as a trading nation; it would be better for this country to have respect for the law so that rich and poor would be equal before the law. I ask hon. members who sit to my right and hon. members who sit on the other side of this house if they would not rather have Canada known as a country where the law was respected and justice was carried out by those entrusted with that duty, whether a man was rich or poor, than that it should have the greatest trade of any nation in the world.
At the last session of this house I drew attention to the fact that in negotiations leading up to confederation a principle which was considered at Charlottetown, at Quebec and at London and which found a place in the British North America Act, was thrust aside by the members of the Canadian government. I refer to the fact that Newfoundland, when she was negotiating a pact of union with Canada, had at the time a large surplus and a low per capita debt. That principle was enshrined in those documents which are so highly respected and which have become the law of this country. If hon. members would take the trouble some time to look at the Quebec conference resolutions they will find laid down in paragraphs 60 to 63, and especially in paragraph 63, the principles that I have outlined, that Newfoundland at that time, and Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, were to be given a credit of 5 per cent per annum on the difference between the total debt of the country and what it would be if it was the same per capita as the debt of Canada. If that had been done for Newfoundland we would have had a large annual allowance instead of what we have now as a diminishing transitional grant.
While I am on that subject I want to support what my hon. and learned colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins), said about representation in the Senate. If hon. members will look at paragraph 14 in the Quebec resolutions and paragraph 15 in the London resolutions they
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne will find there the principle which I recommend to the Prime Minister and the members of the government. "The first selection of the members of the legislative council (as the Senate was called then), shall be made, except as regards Prince Edward Island, from the legislative councils of the various provinces. Such members shall be appointed by the crown at the recommendation of the general executive government upon the nomination of the respective local governments, and in such nominations due regard shall be had to the claims of the members of the legislative council and the position in each province, so that all political parties as nearly as possible be fairly represented."
I ask if hon. members of the government feel that they own the Senate. Can they appoint members who are their supporters and nobody else from Newfoundland? So far we have four appointments; and four of those were supporters of the Liberal party and four of them were supporters of confederation. What about those representing the 48 per cent of the people who voted against confederation? What about the people who voted against the Liberal party? Have they no right to representation? When a province comes into this great dominion, is it fair that it should be without representation by parties in that chamber? I suggest to these hon. gentlemen, especially to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), who is sitting there and doing me the honour of listening to what I have to say tonight-and he is a fair-minded man; he has told me he is a fair-minded man-


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: And you believed it.


James Garfield Gardiner: We were just discussing the matter of how few Liberals there were in the Senate when we came into power.


William Joseph Browne: Yes, maybe there were. But two wrongs don't make a right. If that was done in the past the Liberal party with its huge majority here and in the other place could now afford to be a little generous with that little province.
If the principle I mentioned, which is contained in the British North America Act, of the difference in the per capita debt, had been recognized it would have made a striking difference to the present government of the province of Newfoundland. They would have had a substantial annual allowance which they have not got at the present time.
After three years have expired, the grant that they are getting now of a little over $6 million begins to diminish, and where are they going to find the revenue? At the fisheries conference the other day down in

The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne the east the minister of fisheries and cooperatives said that the island was eighty-years behind the rest of Canada. That is because Newfoundland did not have the advantage of the great industries in the central provinces from which to draw its taxes. It was unable to have the same developments that took place in Canada. But now that we are a part of Canada we should have the means to have these things carried on.
One outstanding fact, Mr. Speaker, is that Newfoundland's economy has deteriorated during the past twelve months more rapidly than that of any other province of Canada. I would not attempt to say that it should be attributed to confederation, although it is partly due to that fact, as I shall show in a moment. We who opposed confederation foresaw it. We warned the people about what was going to happen, especially in St. John's, and it is recognized by all Liberals and Conservatives now that what we said was true. I suppose the Liberals knew then that it was true. The factories in St. John's cannot compete with the great factories in the central provinces, and so they have had to close down. By November eight of them had closed down, and when I left one was going-on short time, two days a week. It will be only a matter of time when it will have to close down unless something happens to help them.
That is not a very bright picture for those of us like my hon. friend and the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) and myself who were born and bred in that city and who have spent so much of our lives there. It is hard for people to see the factories closing down and to see work coming to a standstill. We have a regard for that city. It has a great history behind it. It was the first place in the new world where European sailors dropped anchor. Six years before the Spanish Armada, Sir Humphrey Gilbert claimed it for the English crown. Before Cartier came up the St. Lawrence he visited Newfoundland. Before Champlain, before Maisonneuve, fleets from Spain, Portugal and England mingled together in the harbour of St. John's. It has a long and interesting history. It played a prominent part in the Napoleonic wars, in the war of American independence, in the war of 1812, and in the last great war it was the chief base of the Royal Canadian Navy. That is a fact that I should like to bring to the attention of the members of the government and ask them not to overlook it.
The present government of Newfoundland inherited a wonderful legacy of over $40 million, but I do not think that the federal

government should assume that that is going to last forever. The provincial government is trying to put their province on the same basis as the other provinces in regard to social benefits. That is what they are doing, and they are working with feverish energy and zeal to make the country prosperous, but that money will not last forever. With the diminishing transitional grant they will be faced with what I consider to be the insuperable problem of trying to balance the budget with expenditures on a par with those of the maritime provinces when there is so much unemployment in the country.
The terms of union contain a provision, section 29, which I should like to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), who had something to do with drafting them:
29. In view of the difficulty of predicting with sufficient accuracy the financial consequences to Newfoundland of becoming a province of Canada, the government of Canada will appoint a royal commission within eight years from the date of union to review the financial position of the province of Newfoundland and to recommend the form and scale of additional financial assistance, if any, that may be required by the government of the province of Newfoundland to enable it to continue public services at the levels and standards reached subsequent to the date of union, without resorting to taxation more burdensome, having regard to capacity to pay, than that obtaining generally in the region comprising the maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island.
I consider that the presence of this section in the terms of union is evidence of the good will of the government of Canada, and shows a recognition of the problem that has now come to the forefront. To set up a sound economy in Newfoundland, agriculture must be fostered and developed. At the last session I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) whether he would do all that he could to assist Newfoundland to get its agriculture on its feet. So far as I know, not very much assistance has yet been given; but I am going to plead with the minister now because agriculture is the most important thing in Newfoundland.
We cannot eat all the fish we catch, but we can eat all the agricultural products that we produce. During the past season we have had many ships from the neighbouring provinces come down there to sell their produce. They peddled their produce from cove to cove and harbour to harbour around the island. I know they have great surpluses of potatoes in the maritimes-100,000 tons, I was told in Prince Edward Island-and they can bring them very cheaply across the short neck of water over to Newfoundland and sell them around. But if Newfoundland is not to be encouraged to develop its own agriculture

what is going to become of it? It is going to go back 450 years and become what it was in Cabot's day, just a fishing vessel moored to the banks. If we want to see that country develop, we have to develop its agriculture. Agriculture is the basic industry of Canada and of the province of Newfoundland. It will surprise hon. members to know that we can produce all the agricultural products that we need. I am thinking now of vegetables. I am not going to say that we could produce all the milk, butter and meat. We could do that, but perhaps it would be at too great a cost. It would be a comparatively simple thing to produce all the vegetables that we need. I am going to tell hon. members that the quality of the vegetables we produce in Newfoundland is as good as any that you will find in Canada, so far as I can see.
I noticed in the report of the Duncan com- [DOT] mission of 1926 that the same thing happened in Nova Scotia after confederation. The people got into the habit of importing their produce. They brought in from outside Nova Scotia huge quantities of agricultural products that they could have produced themselves.
In Newfoundland before confederation we were accustomed to our own legislation. We did the best we could. We had a railway and we had a few highroads. We did the best we could with public health. Nevertheless our population increased at a higher rate than that of the maritimes. It did not increase at a higher rate than Canada generally. It is very hard to calculate the actual natural increase in Canada because there is so much immigration into this country, but we were increasing when Prince Edward Island was decreasing. In 1910 the population was 220,000. Today it is nearly 350,000. It will not stay at that figure very long if the factories are closing down in St. John's and Bell island ore is to be curtailed. If we cannot sell our fish and the produce from the maritimes is to be sent down there, who is going to stay in Newfoundland?
I am aware of the great benefits that we receive from the social services in this country provided by the federal government. The old age pensions have brought blessings to many an old man and woman. Family allowances, which I have advocated personally since 1933, have brought untold blessings to hundreds of families in Newfoundland, but I think hon. members will agree when I say that a country cannot exist on those things alone. They have social benefits in the province of Quebec and those who are unemployed at the head of the lakes get unemployment relief, but are they satisfied? Who would be satisfied? Certainly no man or woman over 16 years of age and
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne under 70 years would want to stay in a country for the sake of those things. They will leave and come up here to swell the ranks of your unemployed, or perhaps try to get to the United States.
The greatest advocate of confederation in our country stated the same thing that I am stating now. He has said that the future of Newfoundland depends, not on these things but on the energy and ability of the people. They must "produce or die" and it is the intention of the present provincial government to "make her or break her" in the next three years. I am afraid that honourable gentleman will break his heart before he will be will be able to succeed under such circumstances unless he gets the assistance he should have had in the first place by way of a substantial annual grant from the federal treasury.
Any reasonable man listening to these desperate statements can come to no other conclusion than that confederation in itself has not meant the salvation of Newfoundland. Hon. members here have been most kind and gracious to us all. They frequently say to me, "How are things down home?" I would like to be able to say they are fine, but I must say, "I am sorry to tell you that they are not so good." Then hon. members get a little disinterested, they become a little bored, but I tell them that it is true. Industry is slowing down and places are closing. At Bell island two great mines have closed down and the third one is working on short shifts. We had a contract for ten years with Great Britain for 1,250,000 tons of ore. That was reduced to 300,000, and then that was wiped out. We had a contract to sell 350,000 tons of ore to Germany, but that is gone. All that is left is the market at Sydney. I ask the government on behalf of this poor little sister, this new little sister of Newfoundland: Cannot you give us some help in selling that ore to Great Britain? I am sure that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is a most influential man in the United Nations and he should be able to have funds provided so that Germany can take that 350,000 tons. That would make all the difference between poverty and wealth in my hon. friend's constituency of St. John's East.
These men work very hard. If it is hard for John L. Lewis' coal miners to shovel coal for $14.75 or $15 per day with other bonuses, how hard do you think it is to shovel iron ore which weighs much more? If hon. members were to try that for a day I think it would be a good thing. If we went down in the mine for a day we would have more sympathy with miners than perhaps we have at the present time.

The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne
When I tell hon. members of the difficulties we have they say, "You just came in in time to get the benefits of unemployment insurance and family allowances." This matter is very serious for us. As the great advocate of confederation said, "We must produce or die." We cannot live on social benefits. The government of this country must recognize that the terms were inadequate. We do not desire to have to wait forty years as Nova Scotia had to wait until 1907. Listen to what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said when he introduced the amending legislation on March 25, 1907, and I quote from column 5297 of Hansard of that date:
The experience of forty years has brought this fact again and again to the attention of the parliament and the people of Canada. If I needed any evidence in support of that assertion, I might remind the house, that not once, nor twice, nor thrice, but periodically and systematically parliament has been asked, at almost regular intervals, to vote in favour of now one province and now another province, appropriations far in excess of anything that had been stipulated in the British North America Act; and, every province which has since joined confederation has entered upon terms in excess of the terms provided for in that act.
Whether we entered on terms in excess of those provided in that act, we did not enter on equal terms. There is a great necessity to have those terms ameliorated unless we are going to duplicate the sad history of Nova Scotia. The royal commission known as the Duncan commission when making its report in 1926 said that the representatives of the federal government were overweighted with fear when they went to deal with this question; they were afraid of what someone in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or British Columbia was going to say. But they should have no fear when they are going to deal out justice.
They must know that there is a minimum below which the provincial government cannot possibly carry on. That government is now bringing in new social benefits in the way of mothers' allowances and allowances for crippled people, such as they have in Nova Scotia, I believe, and such as were brought before this house in the form of a motion asking for the opinion of this house at the last session. They are doing that in Newfoundland today. I am afraid they are more enthusiastic about the welfare state than the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). In addition to that they are trying to promote industrial development as I have said already.
There is another matter that must be considered by Newfoundland, a matter coming under the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters). I refer to the trans-Canada highway. Much of our country is unpopulated and when you have a stretch of highway going 500 miles across such a country it will take a large sum to keep it


up. Where is the revenue going to come from to keep up that new road? It is not going to come in immediately and the provincial government will be faced with further difficulty. Any proposition that is made to the province will require their consideration of what is going to be expended and where the revenue will be obtained. With dwindling employment and revenue how can the province keep this new amenity in repair as it should be kept?
The present revenue with the addition of the transitional grants is insufficient to balance the provincial budget by several millions. This year there will be a deficit of between $8 million and $10 million which will have to be drawn from the surplus. Under the British North America Act, Nova Scotia was promised the Intercolonial Railway, but it was built 250 miles longer than was needed for [DOT]strategic reasons. I believe that is one reason why freight rates to the maritimes have been reduced below what they are in other provinces.
I do not want Newfoundland to have to bear a burden which it cannot bear, and I believe that is the situation today. When the surplus runs out the provincial government will quickly find out that they must come here, as they have had to come for many things which were not properly set out under the terms of union. While the situation is not desperate at the present time, it is very serious and urgent. I submit that this is the first test of the good will and sense of justice possessed by members of the federal government.
All down through the years since the railroad was built we carried goods across the strait from North Sydney to Port aux Basques free. What goods were carried? Canadian goods were carried without any subsidies whatsoever. Last year before confederation we bought $55 million worth of goods from Canada while Canada bought only $10 million worth of goods from Newfoundland. As my hon. colleague said, formerly we had a favourable balance of trade with the United States of over $25 million which has now been diverted to Canada. Canada's trade has been increased by $40 million. I am quoting him as my authority for that. I do know that a large quantity of that United States trade has been diverted to Canada. That will bring benefits to the central provinces. Therefore I think it entitles us to some consideration on the question of freight rates that is now before the government. In addition to that, there are special geographical and other considerations such as the narrow gauge track which should be considered in our favour as a reason for giving us extra benefits so far as freight rates are concerned rather than as a penalty whereby we will have to pay higher rates than are paid in the maritimes.

The federal government has an army of ambassadors, consuls, and trade commissioners abroad. In paying taxes I presume the people of Newfoundland help to keep them there. What benefit are they to us unless they are going to help our trade? I hope they will help us out. I am very glad to be able to say-and I presume the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) will be glad to know this-that Spain has agreed to buy 200,000 quintals of fish this year. I raised that matter last year on several occasions, and I am glad to see that the deal is going through. I trust that trade will continue. It is an old trade which goes back 400 years. We should also have trade with Italy and Greece because those countries want our cod. The little province of Newfoundland only has 350,000 people, and codfish is a commodity which I believe means more to a larger number of people in Newfoundland than any other commodity means to the people of any other province of Canada. It will be very helpful to the people of Newfoundland if codfish can be sold in these countries. That means that dollars must be found for the sterling with which we will be paid.
I hope I am not unmindful of all the difficulties confronting the government, the huge expenditures involved in foreign affairs, the transportation system, social benefits, national defence, industry and agriculture. I believe the social benefits provided to Newfoundland by the federal government amount to over $20 million a year which is a very sizable sum indeed, and we are certainly grateful. Nevertheless it must be remembered, and I think everyone will admit, that we have to pay our share towards these expenditures. Beneficial as they are, the welfare of any country depends more on the development of its agriculture, trade and commerce and other industries than on social benefits. It is not possible to tell how confederation is going to work out for Newfoundland, but it is not a one-way street. We pay taxes to the dominion also. On the purchase of goods we spend money which is put into circulation in the other provinces of the dominion. It is very difficult to estimate the amount of money which we pay in taxes. Of course the solution of the problem will depend upon the policy of the dominion in regard to the matters I have mentioned.
Finally, I trust hon. members will appreciate what I am about to say. When I came here last year I did not come with any special love for Canada. I admit that I was welcomed and received as a brother, and I appreciate that. I took the attitude that I would use whatever talent or ability I possessed to
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne further the interests of the whole nation. I can understand the feelings of my colleague as expressed in his passionate outburst the other night. I know how he feels about things. I believe I understand how he feels better than anybody else. We are only flesh and blood and we can be stirred to say the things that are deep in our hearts. I am prepared to work for the prosperity of this country in any way that I can with my poor humble ability.
Therefore, in all seriousness I should like to make the following recommendations as a concrete suggestion. Hon. members of the government may think they are extravagant, and they may find them difficult to accept. Nevertheless I recommend that now, and not eight years from now when Newfoundland has gone into a morass: 1. A royal commission should be set up under section 29 of the terms of union (a) to determine the annual grant necessary for Newfoundland to carry on its provincial activities, bearing in mind the revenue it can produce itself, and (b) to determine the freight rate structure. If they cannot come to a final decision at the present time let them make a temporary decision on the freight rate question. Let that be a subject into which the royal commission can go more fully at their leisure, (c) They should investigate how they can best assist the fisheries because these mean so much to the people of that province.
Then I recommend that the federal government do all it can to assist the development of agriculture. Last year the sum of $80 million or $90 million was spent on agriculture. What proportion of that was spent in Newfoundland? I suggest that it was very small, much less than we were entitled to. I also recommend that the federal government arrange for the provision of dollars for the sale of fish to the sterling area. The merchants of Newfoundland must carry on that fish export business. They have a nightmare and constant headache with 28,000 fishermen to consider. Think of how many families and how many thousands of people are involved in that proposition. That arrangement should be made by the federal government. They should create a national harbour at St. John's. There are national harbours in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and there should be one at St. John's. The government should provide more funds for the construction and improvement of public and marine works which were neglected for so many years. The Minister of Public Works knows- I have drawn conditions in my district to his attention from time to time. He also knows he is spending a good deal of money in other districts. Wharves have fallen down and

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy harbours are full of silt. I hope he will soon be able to get his dredge completed so that it will be able to go down there and start operations.


Alphonse Fournier: It is nearly on its way.


William Joseph Browne: Finally, as an assurance that the government will act fairly to all Newfoundlanders, I recommend that they grant equal representation to all political parties in the other place.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to add my congratulations to those that have been offered already in this house to the mover (Mr. Larson) and seconder (Mr. Dumas) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Because we have in the greater Toronto area some 20,000 unemployed at the present time, I want to examine the erstwhile employment policy of the government in relation to the Prime Minister's speech on February 20. I want to refer to the employment policy set forth in the white paper tabled in this house in April, 1945, which was given in greater detail in the proposals placed before the dominion-provincial conference in August of that year, and put away in mothballs on June 28, 1949. If we turn to page 23 of the white paper we find the following statement:
In this paper, the government has stated unequivocally its adoption of a high and stable level of employment and income, and thereby higher standards of living, as a major aim of government policy.
On page 1 of the paper we read:
The central task of reconstruction ... is to maintain a high and stable level of employment and income. The government adopts this as a primary object of policy.
Again on page 1:
In setting as its aim a high and stable level of employment and income the government is not selecting a lower target than, "full employment."
Then the paper goes on to say that full employment depends upon four classes of expenditures: upon expenditures made in export trade, expenditures made in private investment, consumption expenditures, and public investment expenditures. In that white paper the government recognized that a high level of employment depended to some extent upon the fluctuations of international trade. These, however, were not to interfere with the government's policy of full employment. We are assured on page 7 of the white paper that they can be overcome by patient and resourceful work. Again on page 7 we are told that bold and imaginative policies of collaboration in peace as in war would be taken to expand export trade and to reinforce the government's domestic employment policy to secure freedom from want. Those were
[Mr. Browne (St. John's West) .1
the days when the Liberals were talking about the new order they were to bring in after world war II. One of those bold and imaginative policies outlined in the white paper was to be the extension of credit to countries to whom we wanted to sell our goods. On page 9 of the white paper we read:
The government is willing to extend to such countries . . . adequate credits to finance, to the degree necessary, their import requirements from Canada.
I should like to call attention to that statement that adequate credits would be advanced to finance, to the degree necessary, the import requirements of these countries from Canada. A few evenings ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) told us that we were making available all the credits we could possibly afford at the present time. I think it is admitted by the government that those credits are not sufficient either to enable the United Kingdom to buy all the goods she wants to buy from Canada, or to buy all the goods that we could sell her. The government now substitutes the formula "what we can afford" for the 1945 formula "adequate credits to the degree necessary". My point here is that the government has changed its policy in relation to those credits.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We extended $2 billion in credits in 1945.


Joseph William Noseworthy: If their policy was right in 1945 apparently it is wrong today. However, I think the minister will agree that if tomorrow we got into a shooting war instead of a cold war and we had guns to sell to Britain instead of food, and if Britain needed those guns as she needs food today, we would find a way of doing exactly what we did during the war years; we would find a means of making financially possible what is physically possible. It is now physically possible for us to produce more food for Britain and the sterling area than it is financially possible for us to sell them. I submit, Mr. Speaker,, that is just one example of good orthodox capitalist economy.
The second form of expenditure on which a high level of employment depended was private investment; and to encourage private investment in plant, equipment and other durable goods and stocks we read on page 11 of the white paper that a quite different taxation policy will become an appropriate part of policies directed to the maintenance of employment and income. Again on page 11:
It is proposed particularly to eliminate or minimize taxation which contributes to a higher level of production costs.
And on page 21:
The government will be prepared, in periods when unemployment threatens, to incur the deficits and increases in the national debt resulting from its employment and income policy . . .

Then on page 8, in the proposals, the government says it will design both its spending policies and its tax policies throughout the cycle to levelling up the deflationary valleys and the inflationary peaks. And again on page 8, they say that a modern government budget must be the balance wheel of the economy.
Last evening the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) read into the record a broadcast he made in May, 1949. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it would be unfortunate if every hon. member of this house took advantage of this debate to place one of his own election speeches on Hansard. Others as well as the Minister of Agriculture could do that. As he pointed out, some changes have been made in the taxation policy, some reductions in income and other taxes. Probably we shall have more to say on that point when the budget is under discussion. Perhaps in the 1950 budget we can look forward to that new and quite different taxation policy of which the white paper speaks. We might even hope to see the sales tax eliminated, in keeping with the outline given in the white paper.
Another factor in maintaining a high level of employment is this:
An absolute essential in achieving this objective is to keep prices in hand.
I think we can leave it to any Canadian housewife to decide whether or not the government has carried out that policy of keeping prices in hand.
The third form of expenditure that was to maintain a high level of employment is called consumption expenditures. On page 12 it is pointed out that consumption expenditures will depend upon the maintenance and distribution of the income. Then we are assured that in addition to various social security measures such as unemployment insurance, the family allowance, agriculture and fisheries prices support acts, which were already in effect in 1945, a greater distribution of income was to be achieved by new social legislation. We were to have the old age pension from 70 years of age paid in full by the federal government without a means test. We were to have an old age pension scheme for those between 65 and 70, part of the cost of which was to be borne by the provincial governments. We were assured we were to have a health insurance scheme, also partially paid for by the provincial governments, all as a means of distributing income and maintaining a high level of employment.
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy
Speaking in the house on February 20 on this subject of consumption expenditure, the Prime Minister said, as recorded on page 55 of Hansard:
Production, and with it individual consumption, has increased 50 per cent per person, in terms of real goods and services, since 1939.
I submit what we should consider is not what has happened since 1939, but what the trend has been in the last two years, 1948 and 1949. It is true that during the war years, and for the two years following the war, we made some progress in raising the standard of living of our people. But what is the picture since 1947? From 1948 to 1949, our population increased 318,000, that is 2-4 per cent. In the same year, the cost of living increased from 155 to 160-8, an increase of 3-7 per cent. Together, those percentages total 6 [DOT] 1 per cent.
To have the same disposable income in 1949 as in 1948, our disposable income should have increased by 6-1 per cent. If we check the figures on page 17 of the publication "Canada at the Halfway Mark", we find that our disposable income for that year increased 5 per cent, one per cent less than would be required to maintain the same consumer purchasing power as in 1948. Looking at the picture from another angle, in 1947 our personal disposable income, according to a sessional paper tabled in this house on March 23, 1949, was $754 per capita. According to the figures on page 17 of "Canada at the Halfway Mark", our personal disposable income for 1949, in terms of the 1947 cost of living index, was $740 per capita, a drop of $14 per capita. This decrease of $14 per capita amounts to about $180 million less purchasing power in Canada in 1949 than in 1948.
I shall give you another illustration. According to a table placed on Hansard at page 1429, under date of March 14, 1949, by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the consumption of consumer goods and services, pegged at the 1935-39 level, dropped from $521 in 1947 to an actual $500 in 1949. Incidentally, the forecast in that table for 1949 was $509, an overestimate of $9 per capita. These figures I submit, Mr. Speaker, show that the Prime Minister's statement in Hansard of February 20 gives an erroneous impression of consumption expenditure during the past two years, and reveals that purchasing power has been declining steadily since 1947. There is every indication that it will decline still further in 1950.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: That does not follow at all.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The fourth type of expenditure that was to maintain employment and

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy income is referred to as public expenditure. On page 15 of the white paper we read the following regarding public expenditure:
... it is the firm intention of the government to institute a system of managing its capital expenditures so that they may contribute to the maximum to the improvement and stabilization of employment and income.
The same statements are repeated in other forms on page 16 of the white paper. I shall take the time to read a few sentences from this page because they are interesting in the light of the Prime Minister's statement on February 20. On page 16 we read about:
The undertaking of advance planning of all necessary and desirable dominion projects so that there may be available a shelf of soundly planned projects, ready for execution when prospective employment conditions make it desirable to increase public investment expenditures.
Then again:
The implementation, in co-operation with the provinces, of a new dominion policy of expenditures on the development and conservation of natural resources.
A little further down:
The resources of the farm, forest, mines, fisheries and rivers, are basic to Canadian development, and prudent expenditure on their conservation and development will be true investment expenditure yielding valuable returns . . . such expenditures would provide some measure of alternative income in the areas affected by declines in export markets,-
Even in 1945, the Liberals thought there might be a decline in export markets.
-and thus would fight most of our depressions at the point of first contact, rather than after they have spread through the economy.
On pages 23 and 24 of the proposals to the dominion-provincial conference, there is a program of public works outlined in detail, the public works that were to constitute this shelf to be put into execution when signs of unemployment begin to develop. These projects are set forth under no less than 7 headings and 17 subheadings. This was to be the program of public works for which the federal government was to assume full responsibility. They are set out in great detail under 17 subheadings which cover two or three pages. Those works which the government was to undertake in co-operation with the provinces are set out under four headings, with 8 subheadings, occupying about two pages of that book.
We were told that the expenditures on those projects were to be timed so that they could be expanded in times of low employment, and would decline when employment was high.
At page 8 we read:
In periods of declining business activity arising perhaps from depression abroad, it is proposed that these expenditures will be boldly expanded.

That shelf concept was recognized by Liberal speakers and cabinet ministers during the June election of 1949; it was recognized by cabinet ministers from the Prime Minister down. Speaking in Moncton on May 19, as reported in the Toronto Daily Star-and unfortunately, or fortunately, that is the paper I usually read-the Prime Minister is quoted as having said:
Canada's employment now stands at record levels, and the government will seek to maintain it by promoting trade, natural resources development, and projects like the St. Lawrence waterway, and the trans-Canada highway.
Then listen to this:
Planned public works projects will be started as needed to provide work.
To me that sounds very much like a promise. I know that in his broadcast a few nights ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) said that the Prime Minister made no election promises. He repeated the statement the Prime Minister made after the election, on election night, in which he said that the one and only promise he made was that he would do his best. If that sentence "Planned public works projects will be started as needed to provide work" is not a definite election promise, then English words have lost their time-honoured meaning.
Speaking at Nelson, British Columbia, on May 28, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew), as reported in the Regina Leader-Post of May 30, stated that there was "a considerable shelf of projects" that could be put into action at short notice.
Again, in Stratford on June 3, as reported in the Toronto Daily Star of June 4, the Prime Minister is quoted as follows:
The Liberal party is pledged to do its utmost to maintain full employment.
Then at Hamilton on June 5, as reported in the Toronto Daily Star of June 6, the Prime Minister stated:
We Liberals promised to work for full employment in 1945, and we have had a higher level of employment in Canada than ever before. The maintenance of full employment is just as much a Liberal objective now and in the future as it was in 1945.
Then, and this is the point I want hon. members to note, he says:
But we are also preparing for possible emergencies when employment may need to be stimulated by even more direct action . . .
From end to end of Canada there are great potential development projects like the St. Lawrence seaway, which, within the next few years, will create a great deal of employment, provided we have faith in the future of Canada and provided we have the determination to translate our faith into action.
Judging by present circumstances it would appear that the Liberal government has

neither that faith in the future of Canada nor the determination to translate that faith into action.
I find it difficult to make the statements made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign, and which I have quoted, jibe with that statement made on election night and repeated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in which he says:
And' now you have given to my colleagues and to me the vote of confidence for which we appealed. X wish to repeat the promise which is my only election promise-to give you the best services of which I am capable.
Again I say that, if all of the quotations are reported correctly by the Canadian Press and by papers such as the Toronto Daily Star, then either those were definite election promises by the Prime Minister with regard to that shelf concept of public works, or the English language no longer has any meaning.
What is the government's present policy with regard to that shelf of public works? The Prime Minister gives us the answer at page 57 of Hansard of February 20, where he is reported as saying as follows:
A survey was made last year of the state of planning of all capital projects of the federal government, including some, like the trans-Canada highway, to be executed jointly with provincial governments.
Then a few paragraphs further on he continues:
The results of the survey satisfied the government that the shelf concept, when limited to its own public investment program, was not the best approach at the present time.
To my mind this can mean one thing, Mr. Speaker, and one thing only, namely, that the shelf concept of public works so elaborately set forth in the white paper, in the proposals to the dominion-provincial conference, and in the clear-cut promises of the Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers during the election campaign, has now been abandoned as far as meeting the present unemployment situation is concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The shelf has been put on the shelf.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Again, Mr. Speaker, I think we are justified in asking at what time that survey was made last year. Was it before the election or after? If it was made before the election, then surely the Prime Minister and the cabinet ministers were misleading the electorate when they announced their determination at that time to stand by the shelf concept. Even if the survey was made after the election, it must have been so soon afterwards that the words in which the promises were made to the electors were still fresh in the memories and minds of the Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers.
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy
I want to quote again in connection with that matter; it is a quotation I have already given but I want to repeat it. It is from page 16 of the white paper and is as follows:
Such expenditures-
That is, the shelf concept of capital expendi-ures.
-would provide some measure of alternative income in the areas affected by declines in export markets, and thus would fight most of our depressions at the point of first contact, rather than after they have spread through the economy.
Surely the Prime Minister's statement of February 20 is a reversal of that policy. Surely such public works are needed now. Surely there are in Canada today areas affected by the decline in export markets. Surely if we are to fight a depression at the first point of contact, instead of waiting until it has spread through our economy, that time is now.
What are the reasons given in the Prime Minister's statement for the abandonment of this shelf? I want to examine them. It is not just that the time is not ripe. The reasons given by the Prime Minister indicate that they are much more fundamental than this matter of timing. They indicate a complete change of policy and a complete change in the thinking of the Liberal government. Let us take a look at the four reasons-if you can call them reasons-or excuses. The first reason he gives is this; and it is a reason that might have applied up until the election, but which certainly does not apply since then. The reason that there was no labour or material available for this public works program could have been true up until the early part of 1949. It certainly is not true today and has no application to the present time.
The second reason which is given on the same page is as follows:
We feel it is only whenever it might appear that private enterprise was lagging that we should stimulate public investment so as to maintain employment and prosperity.
If private investment is not lagging today when we have 400,000 unemployed in this country, then when will it be lagging? Surely that is no excuse for not applying that shelf concept at the present time.
The third reason is:
As a further practical consideration, adequate technical personnel to carry out a program of advanced planning over and above the regular departmental work was simply not available unless we attempted to compete for those who were capable of performing that work, with private enterprise that was already employing them.
There is no statement of that kind in the white paper of 1945. Pages of that paper are devoted to an outline of what the government was going to do, and going to start doing

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy even before the war was over with Japan, in the matter of research and training personnel for this kind of a job.
The fourth reason is:
Not only has the nature of the unemployment we were providing for changed radically from the possibilities envisaged in 1945, but the practical experience acquired in attempting to develop a shelf without provincial and municipal co-operation indicated the need of a more flexible method of preparing to meet possible eventualities.
In other words, the reason is that the government could not get the co-operation of the provinces and the municipalities. What has the government done since 1945 to secure that co-operation? It called one dominion-provincial conference when two provincial premiers refused to accept the terms which were offered. Then the conference ended. So far as I know no attempt has been made in the four or five years since to call another such conference. People from all over Canada were clamouring for another conference. The government has shuffled off its responsibilities by blaming the provincial premiers for having wrecked the one conference it did call, but has made no effort to call another until next fall. We do not know that even then this shelf concept will be discussed at that conference.
From the statement of the Prime Minister it would appear that the government has completely reversed its policy in that respect and that the shelf concept is off so far as the Liberal government is concerned.
During the course of the Prime Minister's speech of February 20, and referring to the co-operation with the provincial and municipal government, he tried to show that most of these public works which have to be carried out within some municipalities should be a municipal or provincial matter. He said:
But there will inevitably be some residuary problems from time to time in some areas, and the initiative in dealing with them must be taken by the local authorities. If they need assistance they should go first to their provincial governments.
In other words we are back where we were in the depression days, with groups coming to the municipal government for some solution to the unemployment problem, the municipal government passing the buck to the provincial government and the provincial government passing the buck on to the federal and the federal throwing it back to the provinces and municipalities. During the five years that have intervened since the war, five years when the government has had every opportunity of preparing for the kind of situation that is facing us today, the government has failed to reach any closer understanding with the provinces and municipalities in relation to meeting the unemployment situation. Today the unemployed in Toronto, 20,000 of them, go from the city council to Queen's park, to Ottawa, and back to Queen's park, just as the unemployed did in the thirties.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You made a good job of doing nothing.
On motion of Mr. Boucher the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall proceed with the motion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) to set up a committee to inquire into old age security. If that is concluded we shall take up the resolution in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to amend the Research Council Act. If we dispose of these two we shall try to conclude the resolution to refer the estimates of the Department of External Affairs to the external affairs committee.


George Alexander Drew: What after that?


Alphonse Fournier: I think we would adjourn at any time if we got through that much business.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 10, 1950