1952-03-14

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill conferring authority upon the governor in council to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to construct a line of railway from Terrace to Kitimat, in the province of British Columbia, a distance of approximately 46 miles at an estimated expenditure of $10 million and an average expenditure of $217,391.30 per mile. The bill will make provision for the issue by the company of securities, which may be guaranteed by the government in respect of the cost of construction. To enable the company to proceed with construction forthwith, temporary loans may be made to the company out of the consolidated revenue fund, upon terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council and secured by company securities.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of Slate):: The Canadian government has been informed by His Excellency the Governor General that Her Majesty the Queen has approved a proposal to observe in the United Kingdom the official celebration of Her Majesty's birthday on Thursday, June 5.
As it is customary in Canada to observe the official celebration of the sovereign's birthday on a Monday in June, the queen's approval was sought, and has been received, for the official celebration of Her Majesty's birthday in Canada on Monday, June 9. An order in council was passed today authorizing the issuance of a proclamation accordingly.



MING SUNG INDUSTRIAL COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of a report which has just been received concerning the death of the manager of the Ming Sung company, I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he can give the house any information as to the company's indebtedness of more than $12 million to the Canadian government, and also as to the ships which were pledged for payment of the debt.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: No previous notice of the hon. member's intention to ask this question having been given, I shall take it as notice and make the necessary inquiries and bring down an answer.



ST. PATRICK'S DAY QUESTION AS TO ADJOURNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: I have not given the Prime Minister notice of this question, but I should like to ask whether he will give consideration to the adjournment of the house from this evening until Tuesday morning to enable us Irishmen and all our friends to properly celebrate Monday, March 17?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope that I am one of the hon, member's Irish friends. I would enjoy a holiday, but my experience has been that we honour the patron saint of Ireland by fulfilling our respective duties on that day.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES PRESS REPORT AS TO RESTRICTION OF MOVEMENT OF CANADIANS AT BUFFALO AIRPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he is today in a position to answer a question I put to him in connection with the Buffalo incident.

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I now have some information concerning the inconvenience which was suffered by passengers in four Trans-Canada Air Lines aircraft at Buffalo on March 4.
There is a firmly established procedure for the handling of Canadian aircraft at Buffalo when weather or other emergency makes landing at that airport necessary. Unfortunately, on this occasion, but through no fault of United States authorities, the procedure was not followed, and some confusion resulted, with consequent discomfort to passengers. The action of the Buffalo airport authorities in confining passengers to the aircraft was strictly in accordance with the regulations which govern such matters. Discussions, however, have been had with appropriate United States officials and other steps have been taken which it is hoped may prevent recurrence of incidents of this kind in the future.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct two questions to the Minister of Agriculture, of which I gave him notice. The first arises out of a statement he made during the discussion on the foot-and-mouth disease measure, to the effect that compensation would be generally based on that paid to Mr. Beatty respecting his herd. I should therefore like to ask him this question: What is the amount recommended by the commission, if not already paid to Mr. Beatty, in respect of those animals as a basis or yardstick for others in a similar position? Second, what force is looking after the policing of the quarantined area? If it is the mounted police, under whose jurisdiction are they operating, that of the attorney general of Saskatchewan or of the government of Canada?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: With regard to the first question, may I say that I think my statement was to the effect that there would be different types of herds involved, particularly if there was any extension of the area under quarantine. Mr. Beatty's herd is the only show herd of purebred animals which has been destroyed up to date; therefore anything that is done with his herd will, for the time being at least, apply only to that one herd. But no final action has been taken under the new legislation. Mr. Beatty's herd was checked under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and an
[Mr. Graydon.f

agreement was reached, or at least an agreement was signed by Mr. Beatty, to the effect that a certain settlement on the basis of that act would be acceptable. Probably I should not use the term "acceptable", but should say that under that act he would be entitled to a certain settlement.


John George Diefenbaker: What was that?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the figures before me at the moment, and I should not like to guess at them. The position has been taken that since the new act was passed he is entitled to something in addition to that; and as far as I know, that amount has not been settled.


John George Diefenbaker: Did he make a settlement before the new act came into effect?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would not say he made a settlement.


John George Diefenbaker: He agreed?


James Garfield Gardiner: The terms of the old Animal Contagious Diseases Act were applied to his herd in full. My understanding is that he signed a statement to the effect that on that basis he accepted what was suggested. But after the new act was passed it was made plain to him that is not the payment in full as he will receive it, and his herd is being checked again. I think it has already been checked, but they have not made a finding as to what total will be recommended.
On the other question, as to who is policing the quarantined area, the answer is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. As my hon. friend understands, we have an arrangement in Saskatchewan under which the mounted police do the work for the provincial government as well. They are not policing this particular matter under direction of the provincial government. They are policing it in carrying on their services under the federal government-I should not say that they are being directed but rather that they are working in co-operation with Dr. Christie, who is head of the health of animals branch in the city of Regina.


Mr. Argue:: I should like to ask a supplementary question on the same subject, and on an aspect of it in which I am sure western farmers are most deeply interested.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Hazen Robert Argue: My question is this. What
progress has been made or what steps has the minister taken to see that provincial embargoes and barriers on the shipment of livestock are removed at the earliest possible moment?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have interviewed the
Manitoba government personally, and I have since been in telephone contact with the government of British Columbia as well as the government of Manitoba. Both are trying to work out some plan under which we may get rid of the restrictions which are now in effect.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the
Minister of Agriculture a supplementary question arising out of the question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). In the communication with the provinces with respect to the removal of the provincial embargoes, did the minister undertake that if an arrangement to that end was made by the provinces, he would then lift the embargo against the importation of meat products from the United States?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, Mr. Speaker; none of the provinces raised the question at all.



RUSSIAN TRAWLERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, and perhaps it ought to be a joint question directed also to the Minister of Fisheries. Does the government attach any special significance, from either a defence or a commercial point of view, to the movements of thirty-three Russian deep-sea trawlers and their mother ship which are said to be moving from Singapore into the northern Pacific?


Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Minister of National Defence):: I received notice of this question when I returned from my office at about twenty minutes to three. In the time since then, inquiries which have been made in the Department of Fisheries and the Department of National Defence have indicated that no particular significance is attached to this movement; but these inquiries are still being carried on, and if I have anything to add, I will add it next week.



POULTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. Black (Cumberland):: I have a question I wish to ask of the Minister of Agriculture. Has the Department of Agriculture decided on the amount. of compensation to be paid to owners of chicken hatcheries in Nova Scotia where poultry died or were
Inquiries of the Ministry destroyed because of faulty vaccine furnished by the Department of Agriculture and used as a preventive of Newcastle disease? Will compensation be paid for loss of business suffered by such hatcheries?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. McCulloch) brought this same matter to my attention some time ago, and I shall repeat the answer I gave him.
Compensation has been paid to owners of flocks for birds and eggs destroyed for the purpose of controlling Newcastle disease. It has not been established that the vaccine supplied by the Department of Agriculture was faulty.
There is no provision in the law or regulations for compensation to be paid for loss of business suffered by hatcheries. The outbreak of Newcastle disease subsequent to vaccination in certain flocks in Nova Scotia is under investigation. When the investigation is completed, the desirability of paying additional compensation will be looked into.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance? Will the consideration which the minister has promised to give to the question of the five-day week for the civil service include consideration of the forty-hour five-day week for post office employees, or do they need to make a separate approach to the government?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Nobody needs to make a separate approach to the government. I received a letter from the national joint council of the civil service associations relating to the extension of the five-day week to other branches of the service. I am having the matter looked into and am preparing a memorandum for consideration by the cabinet. It is an extremely complicated question. I indicated in the letter which I sent to the civil service association of Ottawa the other day, I think it was, that it was unlikely that an early decision could be arrived at.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: As a supplementary question, may I ask if there is not a distinction between the civil service association and 'the association of postal employees, and also in respect of the fact that the latter want a forty-hour week?


Douglas Charles Abbott: What I really had in mind was that there was little purpose in every indi-

Inquiries of the Ministry vidual association making separate representations. The problem is one with which I and my officials and treasury board officials are thoroughly familiar; and I am glad of this opportunity to say that it is not necessary for each association to make separate representations. The whole matter will be considered, and I think that the officials in my department and the civil service commission have ample information to enable them to lay before the cabinet such facts as need to be taken into account.



SALE OF BANNED PUBLICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: On Wednesday last the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) referred to an article in the Ensign and asked certain questions.
I have since read the article referred to, and it deals with books printed in Canada. So far as my department is concerned it is entrusted only with the administration of the prohibition from importation into Canada of books of an immoral or indecent character under the provisions of tariff item 1201. It is not our responsibility to deal with the censoring of books printed in Canada.


William Joseph Browne: May I ask a
supplementary question? The article referred to a book which is imported illegally, and which is printed in the United States by the Dell Publishing Company. I am afraid my hon. friend must have overlooked that paragraph in the article. Perhaps he might give further attention to it.


James Joseph McCann: If the book is imported illegally and comes under the prohibition, we will see that there are no further importations.



SUPREME COURT BUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (Si. John's Easi):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is the minister aware that in the foyer of the Supreme Court building there are copies of the coats of arms of nine of the provinces? There is no replica, and no place for one, of the coat of arms of Newfoundland. What is he going to do about it?


An hon. Member:: Erect a new building.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minisier of Public Works):: This question is really a surprise to me, and I do not know right now what I will do.



QUESTION AS TO PAYMENT OF LESS THAN FLOOR PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I did not give him notice of it, because I received word only just before coming into the house. Is he aware of the fact that many of the packing houses in western Canada are apparently paying less than the support price for hogs? If so, does he contemplate taking any action to remedy the situation?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not aware of the fact. The reports which I get are that all the packing houses with which we have arrangements are paying the floor price.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. E. W. George 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. Fair, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Bryce.
Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak today on the question of double taxation and its evil results, more particularly with regard to its effect on home ownership. I propose particularly to deal with municipal taxation and the cost of education, and I shall endeavour to show that under present taxation arrangements the householder is being discriminated against and penalized to such an extent that his security of tenure is being threatened.
In a previous session the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) recognized the basic evil of double taxation and brought in an amendment to the Income Tax Act whereby owners of Canadian stocks and other equities could deduct 10 per cent of their income from such sources when computing their taxable income. This was a wise provision, although it could hardly be considered generous. My submission is that if it is just and right to admit the evils of double corporation taxation, surely it is even more just and right to admit the principle with regard to municipal taxation.
In Canada today I believe double taxation reaches a greater intensity than it does in any other country in the world. We have a corporation tax, including the provincial impost, of some 54 per cent. On top of this there is personal income tax, which rapidly

rises to 30 per cent on a comparatively small income, and then proceeds in the higher brackets actually to take more in taxes than is received in income. To this is added the universal sales tax of 10 per cent, and on many items an excise tax of 25 per cent as well. Added to this are the direct provincial levies, and finally municipal taxation.
In the calculation of the tax liability in each case no consideration is given to the taxpayer for what he has paid in other forms of taxation. Thus you compound the tax liability and, as I hope to show, this is as great an evil as compounding a felony. The impact of this system is felt most heavily by the middle class, who, for want of a better definition, I shall describe as all those who own or are in the process of purchasing a home, and whose financial status is such that this constitutes their principal capital investment.
While I realize that municipal taxation is not directly a federal matter, nor are educational costs, nevertheless their crippling effect is undermining the security of such a large segment of the Canadian people that this House of Commons can no longer stand aloof.
In what I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I shull ask for no grants and no expenditure of money by the federal government for municipal taxation, but I will ask that the impact of certain measures of double taxation be done away with. The difference between municipal taxation and income taxation is this: income taxation is based1 on the general principle of the ability to pay, whereas municipal taxation is based on value, sometimes an arbitrary value, set on the taxpayer's home and property, and levied against him frequently, and I might say generally, without his having an opportunity to do very much about the taxation so levied.
In the depression of the 1930's the destruction of property values through the increase of municipal costs was one of the most serious results of that grave time. My reason for speaking today, Mr. Speaker, is that there is throughout Canada an incipient condition which could easily lead to the same thing that happened in the 1930's. We have today municipality after municipality complaining about the added1 cost of direct relief. We have, as I hope to show in a minute, rapidly increasing taxation on real property, and there is a growing apprehension amongst municipal bodies about what the future holds for them. Here I want to say that there is no segment of the Canadian people, or of the people of any democracy, who need to be protected as does the middle class. They are the people who pay the bulk of the taxes, do the fighting
The Address-Mr. Adamson when there is a war, and do the great majority of the work. They are the very backbone of the country. As a matter of fact, the destruction of the middle class is inevitably the step which is taken either deliberately or accidentally before a dictatorship seizes any country.
Few people have built up sufficient capital by way of common stocks or other equities to provide for their financial security. The security of the huge majority of the mass of Canadians is in their own homes and property. To jeopardize these is to strike a blow at the very foundations of our society. This is recognized by a group of people who should know-and I am referring to the Canadian federation of mayors and reeves of municipalities-who stated that the problems they face are these:
1.	The costs of municipal services are fast outstripping the limited revenue sources available to municipal governments.
2.	The present municipal tax structure is too rigid or too limited to serve as an adequate base upon which the, financial affairs of local governments can continue to be carried on effectively.
What do they mean by that? They mean that their sources of revenue are fixed. They are directly fixed upon real estate and homes, which are the only taxable assets in a municipality. While I believe it would be unthinkable to enlarge the scope of municipal taxation, I make that statement as a personal observation, there must be some way in which this burden of necessary costs of the municipalities can be more equitably spread across the whole financial structure of the country.
The tax demands of municipalities is having a punitive effect in many constituencies in Canada, particularly in those constituencies where, through shifts of population and increased industrialization as in many of our eastern metropolitan areas, rapid growth has taken place. My own constituency, for which I speak, is a case in point. In the constituency of York West, which I have the very great honour of representing, there are two townships. The first of these, part of the township of York, has a population of nearly 100,000, while in the township of Etobicoke there is at present a population of between 55,000 and 60,000. In both these townships, particularly in Etobicoke, there has been a rapid increase since the taking of the census. York West contains, as well, five other smaller municipalities of between 10,000 and 15,000 each. Therefore municipal problems of metropolitan and suburban corporations are of vital interest to my constituents.
I propose therefore to show the house what real estate taxation means to my constituents, and with your indulgence I shall endeavour

ordinary householder. To do this I have taken three different types of dwelling, namely, the small house, the medium house, and the large or expensive house.
In the case of a small house the 1949 taxes amounted to $47; in 1952 I estimate they will total $66, an increase of 58 per cent. The interesting thing about it is that the educational taxes increased from $16 to $32, an increase of 100 per cent. In the case of a medium house the taxes increased from $143 to $197, or 38 per cent, in the same period, but for educational purposes they have increased by 93 per cent. In the case of a large house, the 1949 taxes were $765 as compared with an interpolated $1,182 in 1952, an increase of 54 per cent, but for educational purposes the taxes increased from $263 to $593, an increase of 126 per cent.
This shows how the cost of running municipalities has seriously accelerated in the last three or four years. If it continues, the man who owns his own house will see his equity decreased by municipal taxation, because it is like a perpetual mortgage which increases year by year but which can never be paid off.
So much for Etobicoke township. I come now to the township of York. With the permission of the house I should like to place this short table on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it just a table of figures?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, showing the increase in educational costs.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The table follows:
Increase in Educational Costs, Township of York
1.	Population	
2.	Number of pupils attending secondary and elementary schools	
3.	Number of elementary schools	
4.	Number of secondary schools	
5.	Total municipal levy for educational purposes	
6.	Percentage of educational levy to
municipal levy	
7.	Amount	of	provincial	grant	received	for	elementary	school.purposes 	..8.	Amount	of	provincial	grant	received	for	secondary	school.purposes 	
The growth of the township has
1947	1948	Years 1949	1950	195187,840	90,108	93,248	95,669	96,77013,823	13,601	13,974	13,730	13,73918	18	18	20	203	3	3	3	3$904,495.00	$1,031,458.00 $1,191,727.00	$1,374,503.00	$2,095,492.7237%	37-3%	39-75%	41-73%	48-45%$515,658.00	$509,194.00	$500,901.00	$555,023.00	$589,896.00365,649.00	411,709.00	398,317.00	291,094.00	308,288.00not been	to $2,095,000	in 1951, or over 100	per cent in
as rapid as that of Etobicoke, but I wish to four years. I have been informed that the emphasize that the taxes for educational pur- officials of the board of education of the poses have increased from $1,031,000 in 1948 township of York do not consider that they
[Mr. Adamson.}

can get by this year without an increase of serious proportions in the mill rate. The educational costs have doubled in four years. The future is obviously ominous.
Let us see what this has meant in the case of the same three classes of house. In the case of a small house assessed at $950 the total 1949 taxes amounted to $79; in 1952 those taxes will increase to $112, an increase of 44 per cent. A house assessed at $1,625 has had its taxes increased from $135 to $196 in the same period, an increase of 46 per cent. In the case of a large house the taxes have gone up from $460 to $660, an increase of 43 per cent.
The total tax revenue of the township in 1939 was $2,357,000. In 1945 it showed an actual decrease to $2,061,000, but in 1949 the total revenue had doubled to $4,476,000. The proportion for educational purposes in 1939 was $895,000; in 1949 it had decreased to $733,000, but in 1951 it had increased to $2,164,000, or nearly three times.
These figures indicate what is happening to municipal taxation in the section of the country which I represent. I have spoken to people from Ottawa and elsewhere and I gather that the pattern is similar all across Canada. I have the figures for Canada, but as they have been published elsewhere I shall not burden the house with them. Suffice to say that they show a similar picture, although perhaps not quite as intense in its over-all effect as is shown by metropolitan municipalities like Etobicoke and York. In every case the cost of education is rapidly mounting, and this cost is channelled directly onto real estate. The burden is becoming so intolerable that the wisdom of owning a home is becoming questionable.
With reference to the regulations in effect in the United States I asked the National House Builders Association Incorporated of the city of Toronto to provide me with some comparisons of building costs and taxation as between the United States and Canada. I will not read the whole of this letter, which is signed by Angus Gordon, secretary of that association, but I should like to read one or two paragraphs:
Attached are excerpts from replies to queries from this association to the United States treasury department. As you will see, real estate receives consideration both in the matter of mortgage interest payments and municipal taxation.
Then further on:
However, in conversation with Mr. Harry Barrington, president of the Salt Lake City home builders association and Mr. Alan Brockbank, president of the national association of home builders of the United States, X was informed that they are able to construct homes costing $10,000
14, 1952
The Address-Mr. Adamson and under in Utah with a down payment of $1,200 and carrying charges including taxation which bring monthly payments to as low as $48 over a thirty years amortization period.
Then he says:
This compares much too unfavourably with our own general picture. For a $10,000 home the average down payment throughout Canada would amount to $3,000, while to qualify a worker would have to be in receipt of at least $3,200 per annum.
In speaking about municipal taxation he refers to my own constituency and says:
You will realize in your own municipality of Etobicoke that school costs are stifling the men who are attempting to develop properties in the area. While nothing official has been issued, builders know that they have to add at least $1,000 per lot to the cost for the provision of school buildings before they can take up permits for the area.
He goes on to talk about the necessity for town planning and restrictions on speculative sales of real estate. I also have here the statement of the United States income tax department, signed by the deputy commissioner of the branch, setting forth that income tax policy in the United States is to allow both mortgage interest and municipal taxation as deductions from income for taxation purposes.
Before proceeding with the suggestions I have to offer I should like to mention briefly the matter of education. Today very serious questions are being raised all across both Canada and the United States with respect to the effectiveness of our educational system. Just the other day at the convocation of the university of Toronto Dr. Hutchins, of the university of Chicago, stated that it was entirely possible for a man to graduate from a university in the United States without being able to read or write. He was too polite, of course, to say anything about the Canadian system of education; but Dr. Sidney Smith, head of the university of Toronto, has had some pretty devastating things to say about the failure of first year students at that university. Many articles have been written, including one quite recently in Maclean's magazine by a noted educationist, calling into question the effectiveness of the Canadian educational system.
I realize that this is in no way a federal matter at the present time; but with the mounting costs, with the federal government having made grants to universities, with the critical situation facing the municipalities, with the criticism being raised on every hand about our educational system, is it likely that we in this house can completely neglect and stand aloof from this problem? I do not believe it is. I am convinced that with the present high taxation and with the tremendous percentage of the national income that is being spent by the federal

The Address-Mr. Howe authority, this house must take into consideration the welfare of the municipalities. We cannot allow that branch of government which is closest to the people to become unable to function through inability to meet its responsibilities. If we neglect this essential part of our governmental system in Canada we destroy a vital part of the democratic process.
I wish to offer the Minister of Finance the following proposals:
1.	That all municipal taxation be allowed as a deduction from income for taxation purposes.
2.	That personal expenditures on education for one's own family be allowed as a deduction, irrespective of the age of the student, thus assisting technical and medical students.
3.	That mortgage interest payments on the dwelling lived in by the taxpayer be allowed as a similar deduction. This should be allowed in the same way and for the same reasons that citizens are allowed to deduct interest paid on stocks or bonds which are in the process of being bought.
4.	The calling of a conference of all provincial ministers of education with the Minister of Finance or his or their deputies to explore means of providing direct aid to education; the conference also to consider the possibility of a national program on education so that students moving from one province to another would not find such a discrepancy between various provincial jurisdictions.
This problem is as vital as almost any we face today. Security, Mr. Speaker, starts with the family. To continue the trend which I have tried to outline today, of allowing ever-increasing taxation to jeopardize the security of the home, strikes at the very vitals of our democratic system.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: In rising to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with previous speakers in congratulating the mover (Mr. George) and seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address. Both acquitted themselves splendidly, and both demonstrated their ability to take an effective part in the work of parliament.
It has been my custom to at this time give a progress report of the work of the departments for which I am responsible, and I propose to follow that custom today. I shall not attempt to give a statistical review, but rather to cover the general situation as it appears now. Just about a year ago Canada got started on a three-year defence program.


Speaking at that time I outlined what the government was doing to set the defence production part of that program in motion, and what the effect was likely to be on the economy of the country. Today, one year later, I can report substantial and, on the whole, satisfactory progress. I can report also that the basic decision then taken to keep government controls to the minimum and as flexible as possible has proved to be the right decision. In the light of what has happened, it is fortunate that the government did not accept the advice of those on the opposition side of the house who at that time thought an extensive system of direct controls should be adopted forthwith.
I cannot think of a better way of summarizing the position than to say that we are taking the defence preparations in our stride. The expectation of acute shortages and of serious dislocations in the civilian sector arising from these defence preparations have not been realized. As has happened on many occasions in the past, the Canadian economy has shown once again that it is capable of a remarkable response to demands for adjustment and for greater output. I do not believe that these reserves of economic potential are by any means exhausted.
In saying this I do not mean to suggest that we can now relax, and that our defence objectives can be attained without effort or sacrifice. Far from it. The greater part of the job as presently planned is still to be done, and no one can be at all sure that we shall not be faced with new emergencies calling for even greater efforts. Events of the past year should have demonstrated, however, that Canada can play a full and honourable part in the strengthening of the free world against the threat of aggression and still retain a free, progressive and reasonably stable economy.
The first year of the defence program is drawing to a dose. Hon. members will, I think, be interested in the answers to two questions. First, have the objectives been attained? What is there to show for the moneys and effort expended? There will be many opportunities during this session to examine into the progress of the defence program. My purpose at this time is to give a brief and broad outline of what has been happening to that part of the program for which the Department of Defence Production is responsible. Hon. members will recall that approximately $1,700 million was appropriated for defence purposes during the current fiscal year, or about one-third of the three-year $5 billion program then contemplated. Of this $1,700 million, about.

$1,100 million was earmarked for expenditure on military equipment and installations. We shall not spend the full amount during the current fiscal year. How much less is uncertain, but if defence production progress continues at the current rate there will remain at the end of the fiscal year a sum of $200 million, more or less, unspent toy the Department of Defence Production.
I shall discuss the reasons for that shortfall in expenditure, but before doing so it may be worth emphasizing at the outset that it is not the result of a deliberate slow-down in the pace of preparedness. We set out to try to complete and pay for one-third of the three-year program in one year. That was an ambitious undertaking, perhaps too ambitious considering the specialized nature of the Canadian program, and the resulting need for extensive preparation and tooling-up before the production stage could be reached. The sights were set high deliberately so that there would be continuing pressure to do better; that pressure has never been relaxed. While there have been changes in the content of the program, and while some production schedules have experienced delays running as long as several months, I have every reason to believe that within the three-year period we shall do in physical terms, in terms of construction put in place and quantities of supplies and equipment produced and delivered, what we set out to do and probably somewhat more, for we have taken on additional commitments in the meantime.
There are a number of reasons why we shall not spend quite as much as was appropriated in the current fiscal year. There is no single cause, and indeed it is difficult to assess the effects of the different causes. One, of course, is the delays experienced in the procurement of equipment that was to be purchased outside of Canada. I am not blaming other countries for those delays. They have encountered much the same problems we have. Another is the fact that we were unable to get an important section of our weapons and ammunition program under way until recently because specifications had not been received. Then, you will probably have heard a great deal about the shortage of machine tools in the United States. Mr. Charles E. Wilson, head of the mobilization effort in that country, in his fourth quarterly report to the president dated January 1 of this year, said:
Despite everything that has been or can be done to increase production, machine tools will remain the most important factor limiting military production for many months to come.
The Address-Mr. Howe
That shortage has had a direct effect on the progress of defence preparations here in Canada. In spite of the growth of our own machine tools industry, Canada continues to depend heavily on imports from across the line.
Looking back, knowing what could not be known a year ago, it is easy to show-and I have no hesitation in saying-that there are some things which should have been done differently. That is the advantage of hindsight. On the whole, however, I submit that the program for which the Department of Defence Production is responsible is away to an excellent start. This first year has been used to good advantage. May I repeat the words used by the Prime Minister when speaking in this debate. Although the job done during this first year "may not be ideal and may not be as good as any of us would hope it could or should be, I think we have to be realistic enough to realize that it is as good as can be done under existing circumstances".
It was essentially a year of making ready. It was a year devoted in large measure to designing and engineering, to tooling-up, to organizing and recruiting, to testing and modifying-preliminary tasks which must be undertaken and accomplished before the production lines can roll. In many respects this stage of preparation is even more important under present circumstances than the later stage of production, for our aim is not to produce the maximum number of aircraft or electronic equipment, or ships, or guns as quickly as possible. Rather it is to produce in the next few years enough of these instruments of warfare to bring our defences and the defences of our allies up to what is considered to be an adequate level, and to be ready in the event of all-out war to produce at full blast.
As I have already indicated, the Department of Defence Production will probably spend about $900 million more or less during the present fiscal year. Until the results for the month of March are in, I cannot give a detailed breakdown of these expenditures for the year. Roughly speaking, however, about three-quarters represents expenditure in Canada and one-quarter expenditure in the United States. Half of the purchases from the United States will be for aircraft, engines and parts.
Now let me break the figures down by what we in the department refer to as programs. On previous occasions I have pointed out that, over the whole three-year period,
438	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Howe the Department of Defence Production plans to spend about one-third of the moneys appropriated by parliament on aircraft. As nearly as can be estimated, about the same proportion-that is, one-third-of the present year's expenditures will be on the aircraft program. Construction of military installations accounts for about 17 per cent; clothing and textiles about 8 per cent; electronics about 6 per cent; shipbuilding about 6 per cent; tanks, mechanical transport, weapons, ammunition and explosives produced in Canada, among them, another 10 per cent; purchases from the United States for the first and second divisions about 5 per cent; and the remainder, 15 per cent.
This is money spent or to be spent within the current fiscal year. It is money spent in payment for deliveries, in payment for construction put in place, and as progress payments for development and pre-production expenses.
Orders have, of course, been placed for much larger amounts. During the first ten months of the current fiscal year, we placed orders valued at about $1-6 billion. For the whole twelve-month period I would estimate the figure at close to $2 billion which is about three-fifths of the whole amount we expect will be spent within the three-year period by the Department of Defence Production. Some of these orders have been placed outside of Canada. As far as Canadian industry is concerned, the change from a year ago may be put in this way. On April 1, 1951, Canadian industry was working on defence orders from the Canadian government valued at $500 million; today it is working on orders valued at $1-5 billion.
As I have already said, this past year has been devoted, in large part, to getting ready to fill these orders and others that will be placed in due course. In some instances, particularly where the items are similar to civilian goods, the change-over to defence production is comparatively simple and deliveries do not lag far behind orders. For example, textile procurement is well advanced. Because of the specialized nature of such a large part of the Canadian program, however, new facilities must be created on a large scale.
We have encouraged industry to use existing facilities where possible rather than to build new plants, but some additions have been necessary.
One method by which the necessary additions have been made is through our program of capital assistance. During the first ten months of the current fiscal year-that is from April 1, 1951, to January 31, 1952-we


have made commitments for capital assistance for some 65 projects involving $120 million. Most of the assistance was given to the aircraft industry, which accounts for 27 out of the 65 projects. The remainder is distributed largely among the ammunition industry, electronics and shipbuilding.
By far the largest portion of the $120 million of capital assistance is for the purchase of new machine tools and specialized types of equipment. A considerably smaller amount is designated for plant construction, extension and conversion which, as a matter of policy, we are trying to keep to a minimum. So that there is no misunderstanding, I would remind the house that facilities established through capital assistance are owned by the crown.
The other form of assistance to expansion is accelerated depreciation. This is a very much misunderstood matter. I have heard it suggested that by granting accelerated depreciation the government is making an unwarranted gift of some kind to industry. Anyone familiar with the matter knows that this is not so. All that accelerated depreciation does is to enable companies to write down for tax purposes the value of the particular assets affected somewhat more rapidly than under the ordinary rules.
In the long run, accelerated depreciation does not necessarily involve real loss of tax revenue. It does, however, encourage the industry to go ahead in the knowledge that if the earning power of the asset is likely to drop sharply at the end of the rearmament period the depreciated value of the asset can be brought down to correspond.
We have used the device of accelerated depreciation sparingly and with discretion, and primarily to encourage the expansion of raw material production. The most common case is one where industry believes that, in the absence of this type of assistance, the commercial prospects of the expanded production do not merit the investment.
In the first ten months of the current fiscal year, certificates for accelerated depreciation have been issued for 57 projects involving $173 million.
In many instances, both capital assistance and accelerated depreciation have contributed to a rounding out of our defence industry and to the creation of productive capacity turning out many new items never before produced in Canada. Important as these two measures were for the creation of specific industrial facilities, their scope has been quite small in relation to the very substantial industrial expansion that is currently under way. Capital expenditures covered by these

two measures during the first ten months of the current fiscal year are less than 10 per cent of the investment outlay which Canadian business is expected to make during the current year.
As I said at the beginning of these remarks, the basic decision was taken to keep government controls to a minimum and as flexible as possible. Our objectives were simple. First it was necessary to assure that defence got the necessary priority over civilian needs. At the same time, since the defence program would be a protracted one, we had to do what we could to avoid damage to the civilian economy and to promote its normal growth to an extent consistent with the achievement of the defence goals.
We had had a wealth of experience during the last war with controls and we knew how to carry on a system of detailed allocation of our resources. We recognized we might have to take full advantage of this experience. It was prudent, therefore, to provide the legal basis for full government control over production and distribution and to assemble the nucleus of an administrative staff. This we did under the Essential Materials (Defence) Act late in 1950 and under its successor, the Defence Production Act.
The mere existence of these powers has helped by assuring that defence and defencesupporting industries receive what they need without delay. It has done so, moreover, with economy in terms of men and money, and with little burdensome regulation which businessmen find so frustrating. Should the international situation require it, our existing machinery could be adapted almost overnight to full-scale control and allocation. Conversely, it could be abandoned just as quickly and without most of the difficulties with which we had to contend in the post-war decontrol program. In short, our approach has been flexible and it has worked. That it has worked is due in no small measure to the cooperation of Canadian industry, which has not only supplied us with able administrators, but has conducted its operations in broad conformity with the aims of our policy.
Throughout the past year, government control over domestic steel supplies has been exercised by so directing the production and shipments of domestic steel producers as to ensure that the requirements essential to our defence program were fully met. The remaining supply of steel continued to be distributed by the steel mills and warehouses in a free market to their usual customers. The only exceptions are that we continued in effect an order which virtually bans the use of steel in construction of entertainment,
14, 1952	439
The Address-Mr. Howe commercial, service and like facilities, and we have adopted an inventory control designed to prevent accumulation of unduly large stocks which might be lost to current production or employed in speculative transactions. Supplies received by Canada from the United States under the controlled materials plan must be fully allocated by our own steel division in order to meet our obligations under the plan, and this we have done. The total supply of steel rolling mill products available to ' Canadian industry during 1951 was about 4 million net tons, compared with approximately 3-2 million tons in 1950. This increase resulted from somewhat higher domestic production and from increased imports. At times during the year, acute shortages were experienced in some types of steel and by some industries, so that the larger imports were an important factor in maintaining the output of Canadian manufacturers. While our domestic production this year should be at least as much as in 1951, continued efforts must be made to maintain imports at the level of last year if our minimum steel requirements are to be met. If this is accomplished, we will be able to get through 1952 with no greater difficulties in respect of steel supply than were experienced last year and without any more stringent government control.
Our position in non-ferrous metals differs markedly from that in steel since we are among the world's leading suppliers of most of those metals which are consumed in large volume. As a producer we rank first in nickel, second in aluminum and zinc, and fourth in copper and lead. Our responsibility here, therefore, is not only to see that our own relatively small priority needs are met, but also to do all we can to maximize supplies available for export to the free world. We have discharged our responsibility at home by operating a .purchase approval system under which all domestic purchases are scrutinized and approved or rejected in accordance with the priority of the need and the availability of supplies. This has proved to be a highly flexible system permitting rapid readjustment of civilian domestic supplies to the fluctuating requirements of defence and defence-supporting industries. It has also been most economical. Our international obligations have been met by directing supplies to appropriate destinations through an export permit system and by participation in the international materials conference. Under the aegis of this body, the principal countries of the free world, both producers and consumers, have agreed, in respect of the leading metals, upon quarterly distribution quotas based upon need. By and large the requirements

The Address-Mr. Howe of Canadian industry have been recognized and we have been able to operate within our quotas. The same is true with respect to our quotas of mill forms and other secondary products allocated to us by the United States under the controlled materials plan.
Very recently there has been a noticeable reduction in the pressure of world demand upon available supplies of the leading metals and, unless unpredictable stockpiling operations are undertaken abroad, or unless there is a marked worsening in the world situation, supplies in 1952 should not be as tight as they were last year. I feel confident in saying that our control over supply of these metals in 1951 caused a minimum of dislocation to Canadian producers and consumers and that we may look forward to at least as favourable a result in 1952.
The great developments which have been announced by private enterprise from time to time in the field of mining and metals manufacturing are being pressed forward along a broad front. An increase of 1,150,000 ingot tons to our steel capacity, equivalent to one-third of the actual ingot and casting production in 1951, will progressively be added until all the new facilities are completed early in 1953. This tremendous expansion will result in increased domestic supply of 800,000 net tons of steel rolling mill products for Canadian industry. Canadian production of iron ore will have expanded fourfold between 1951 and 1955, and will be a leading factor in the immense steel expansions now being made in Canada and in the United States. Important expansions are under way in non-ferrous metals, of which the Kitimat venture is by far the largest. The aluminum expansion may be as important, in terms of value of production and exports, as all other non-ferrous developments combined. By 1953, our aluminum capacity will have risen by 35 per cent and if the decision is taken to proceed with the second phase of the Kitimat expansion, capacity may well become two and one-half times as great as in 1951. If present plant materializes, copper production will have increased by 10 per cent in 1955 compared with 1951, nickel will be 15 per cent ahead, lead about 10 per cent, and zinc about 35 per cent. What this means in terms of investment in one year alone is illustrated by the fact that investment intentions in 1953 for mining and related ventures approach $500 million out of a total investment in new capital assets of about $5 billion. We have every reason to take pride in the contribution that these activities will make to the


defence preparations and the maintenance of high level employment both at home and throughout the free world.
This is a convenient point at which to mention that the Department of Trade and Commerce has just completed its annual survey of investment intentions for the year 1952. Total private and public investment is likely to be of the order of $5 billion, involving an increase of just under 10 per cent over the total for $4-6 billion for 1951, which was itself a record year. Perhaps half of the increase over 1951 will represent physical volume and half higher prices.
This is a remarkable indication of the confidence which is being placed in* the future of Canada. When the figures are analysed they also reveal a continued shift towards defence and defence-supporting projects, resources development and utilities, which the government by various means is trying to encourage. For example, I asked that the forecast of capital expenditures be analysed in terms of the deferred depreciation regulations which came into effect at the time of the last budget.
While the trends revealed cannot, of course, be attributed entirely to the effect of the regulations, it is interesting to observe that investment in categories where depreciation is deferred is down about 17 per cent in value and about 22 per cent in volume, whereas investment eligible for the issuance of a certificate of eligibility for current depreciation is up about 34 per cent in value and about 27 per cent in volume.
With the permission of the house, I should like to place on Hansard three tables which summarize the results of several surveys. The first covers production of building materials, past and anticipated. Further expansion in the output of many building materials is planned for 1952. The second table summarizes the results of the survey of private and public investment to which I have already referred, and the third analyses investment intentions for 1952 as they are or are not affected by the deferred depreciation regulations. The first two tables are advance statements of two papers on the building material and investment outlook for 1952 which will be tabled as soon as they become available in printed form.
With the permission of the house, I should like to place these tables on Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are as follows:

The Address-Mr. Howe



TABLE 1.-PRODUCTION AND PRODUCTION INTENTIONS FOR SELECTED BUILDING MATERIALS, CANADA, 1950-1952

[Stage Direction]
Material	Unit	Production		Production Intentions 1952	Per cent change 1951-1952
		1950	1951 (>)		
Iron and Steel Products				(2>
n
		158-1	215-0		
Concrete reinforcing bars	102-6	148-2	(*)148-2	0-0Wire nails and spikes	if u	86-2	91 -0	92-5	+ 1-6Plumbing Supplies	53-5	+ 1-0Cast iron soil pipe and fittings	54-0	53-0	Cast iron pressure pipe and fittings	<< <<	80-8	116-2	116-2	0-0Steel pipe and fittings	u " ....	164-3	194-0	187-1	-3*6Sanitary Ware	139-2	120-8	132-3	+9-5Sinks	thous. sinks-	169-7	117-7	128-5	+9-2Wash basins	thous. basins...	201-1	193-9	202-2	+4-3Heating Equipment	108-6	+7-7Furnaces-warm air and heating boilers. .. .	thous. furnaces.	109-2	100-8	Electric water heaters	thous. heaters.	228-1	293-2	289-1	-1-4Hot water storage tanks (range boilers)....	thous. tanks...	181-6	156-3	181-8	+ 16-37-3	7-9	8-5	+7-6Sawn Lumber	bill, b.f.m	6-5	6-5	6-4	-1-5Cement and Cement Products	16-7	17-1	19-2	+ 12-8Cement brick and building blocks	mill, pieces....	138-5	136-5	1.54-7	+ 13-3232-2	292-8	319-2	4-9-0Clay Products	Building brick (incl. sand-lime brick)	mill, bricks....	420-5	439-4	423-1	+3-71-4	1-5	1-5	0-05-1	4-1	4-1	0-0193-8	199-4	189-8	-4-8Mineral Wool Products	150-6	149-7	155-7	4-4-0Bulk mineral wool (granulated and loose)...	mill. cu. ft	12-9	11-5	12-1	4-5-2Gypsum Products	230-7	230-2	287-5	4-24-9214-7	223-1	280-5	4-25-7Gypsum hard wall plaster	thous. tons	164-3	168-5	195-3	4-15-9Roofing Products	Asphalt shingles (all weights)	mill, squares...	2-4	2-2	2-3	4-4-5Smooth and mineral surfaced rolls	mill, squares...	2-4	2-5	2-5	00Miscellaneous Products	Paints, pigments and varnishes	mill, dollars...	84-1	94-9	96-8	4-2-0Rigid insulating boards	
Builders' hardware	mill. sq. ft	227-3	289-4	307-6	4-6-3mill, dollars...	9-6	11-7	11-4	-2-6Non-metallic sheathed cable	mill. lin. ft	109-6	93-5	98-9	+o*8
Source: Estimates based on a survey of production and production intentions of building material producing firms. 0) Preliminary.
(2)	Additional plant for the manufacture of structural steel of sizes within ranges already being produced will come into operation late in 1952; no estimate of the effect of this on 1952 production is available.
(3)	Estimated.
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Howe

[Stage Direction]
Type of Expenditure	New investment 1950	New investment 19510)	New investment intentions 1952	Per cent change 1951-1952$ Millions	$ Millions	S Millions	Business-(2)	Primary industries(3) and construction industry	697	S53	859	+ 1Manufacturing	511	755	929	+23Utilities	720	916	1,130	+23Trade, finance and commercial services	397	396	309	-22Sub-total	2,325	2,920	3,227	+ 11Other-	Institutional services(4)	208	237	257	+ 8Housing	845	840	758	-10Government departments (s)	446	584	761	+30Sub-total	1,499	1,661	1,776	+ 7Total	3,824	4,581	5,003	+ 9(®)Private-	All enterprises and individuals	2,827	3,373	3,545	+ 5Public-	All governments (2)	997	1,208	1,458	+21Total	3,824	4,581	5,003	+ 9
Source: Estimates based on surveys of capital expenditures and capital expenditure intentions of business, individuals, institutions and governments.
0) Preliminary.
(2)	Including government-owned corporations.
(3)	Includes agriculture, fishing, forestry, mining, quarrying and oil wells.
(4)	Includes churches, hospitals, schools and universities.
(5)	Excludes equipment purchases by the Department of National Defence, includes capital assistance payments.
(6)	Change in volume, 4 per cent: change in price, 5 per cent.

[Stage Direction]
Category	Millions of Current dollars	Per cent change 1951-1952	1951	1952	Current Dollars	Constant Dollars1. Total private and public investment (Items 2 and 3)	4,581	5,003	+ 9	+ 32. Investment by bodies not under income tax regulations	1,875	2,079	+ 11	+ 53. Investment subject to income tax regulations (Items 4	and 5)	2,706	2,924	+ 8	+ 24. Investment not affected by deferred capital cost allow-	ances	1,590	1,721	+ 8	+ 25. Investment affected by deferred capital cost allowances	(Items 6 and 7)	1,116	1,203	+ 7	+ 26. Investment eligible for capital cost allowances subject	to the issuance of a certificate of eligibility	543	729	+34	+277. Investment not eligible for capital cost allowances	573	474	-17	-22
Source: Estimates based on returns from the 1952 survey of investment intentions. 

I shall complete these remarks by a few general observations about the Canadian economy as a whole. The past year has been a remarkable one. Twelve months ago the world was in the midst of an inflationary upsurge of prices, from which Canada could not and did not escape. To a large extent that upsurge of prices was based upon fears of imminent all-out war and of the effects of world rearmament. Then came the reaction. Many of the shortages that had been anticipated did not materialize and where shortages did appear they were a good deal less serious than had been feared.
This is the background against which developments in Canada should be viewed. It helps to explain why it is that now, when the defence program is getting into stride and placing real demands upon materials and labour, there should be less pressure on prices and supplies than there was when the defence program was largely on paper and just beginning.
From the outset it was the government's view that defence preparations could be fitted into the economy without an elaborate structure of controls over prices, wages and supplies. I believe the events of the past year support that view. By fiscal, monetary and credit policies, supported by a few controls over essential materials, the government helped to take the steam out of the internal inflationary demands and to restore balance. If, instead of doing this, we had depended mainly upon direct controls we would, I suggest, be worse off now and, in addition, the country would be saddled with a vast bureaucracy of controllers.
Our task now is to maintain a reasonable degree of stability while forging ahead with defence preparations and with the economic development of the country. In many respects the problem is easier than it was a year ago because of the absence of panicky buying. Everyone is a good deal more cautious about the outlook, which is a healthy condition in a free society. Such a condition makes for active competition and a sound price structure. Real trouble is brewing when too many people are convinced either that there is going to be inflation or that there is going to be a depression.
I see no reason to anticipate either inflation or depression. The demand for Canadian output should, in general, be well sustained by the continuing high level of capital investment, by export demand for most of our staple products and by defence preparations. Recent experience, on the other hand, has shown that these demands can be met without undue strain, provided that sensible policies are followed and provided the public does not go in
The Address-Mr. Howe for another buying spree. The recent high level of consumer saving has undoubtedly contributed greatly to the relief of inflationary pressures.
Although we have been passing through a period of what can only be described as very great prosperity, a number of so-called "soft spots" have developed in the economy. As hon. members are aware, there has been a sharp drop in the demand for consumer durables, some textiles and a few other items, and as a result we are contending with some local unemployment and some short time employment. Many reasons are given for these "soft spots" and I am not going to attempt a thorough analysis at this time. It does seem to me, however, that since similar troubles have developed in other countries, particularly in the United States, they cannot be attributed wholly to Canadian conditions or policies, as is sometimes suggested, but must be due in large part to something more fundamental. As long as over-all conditions remain favourable these industries should be able to work out of their difficulties with a minimum of loss.
There is more reason to be concerned about two developments affecting our export trade-the embargo on imports of livestock and meat into the United States resulting from the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, *and the further closing down of markets for Canadian goods in the sterling area. The tightening of trade restrictions around the sterling areas is unfortunate and all of us had hoped that by this time the trend would be in the other direction. However, these latest restrictions are only worse in degree than what we had become used to during the past few years. They are not likely to reduce total trade with the sterling area by very much below what it would have been without the new restrictions, because most relatively unessential items have already been eliminated from our trade with sterling countries. Some producers and manufacturers will, however, feel the pinch.
I have heard the suggestion made in this house that Canada is losing the British market. Of course, that is not true. The fact is that Canadian exports to the United Kingdom increased from $470 million in 1950 to $631 million in 1951 and I would not be surprised if, in spite of the British financial crisis, our exports to that market were to rise by another $75 to $100 million during 1952. Although the British may have to forgo certain marginal items from Canada they are very much interested in items such as our wheat, our flour, our lumber and our metals.
444	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knight
I shall say little about the embargo on imports of livestock and meat into the United States. This could be a matter of the most serious consequence, but all of us, I am sure, are hopeful that the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease will be brought under control quickly and the embargo removed with the least possible delay.
To conclude, a few words of summary: During the year just passed we have substantially expanded the productive capacity of the country, thus laying a firm basis for rising output of armaments and strategic materials. Deliveries of defence equipment are increasing steadily. The inflationary pressure that was particularly strong in the earlier part of 1951 has eased greatly. National income and employment are at record levels. The Canadian dollar, without official support, has attained parity with the leading world currency. Canadians are prosperous and national savings are very high, in fact almost as high as in the peak years of world war II. There are some clouds on the horizon and I have no doubt that many difficulties will be encountered before the year is out. But, on the whole, the economic outlook for Canada in 1952 is favourable.
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to many fine speeches during this debate, among which I would include those of the mover (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address in reply. I should like to congratulate them individually on their respective efforts.
There was another speech delivered last night to which I listened with admiration and envy. I refer to that of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), in which he referred to the need for a different method of redistribution of electoral seats in the House of Commons. Not only did I like the speech for its oratorical quality; I liked it for its subject matter. If I may say so respectfully, I agree with what the hon. member said. I have always felt that our system of redistribution was wrong, that it was a matter for statisticians and technicians rather than politicians. Human nature being as it is I do not see how any man, no matter how honest he may be, can help but be prejudiced in the decision he would make or help to make in the committee when he himself was to gain political or personal advantage, or suffer disadvantage from the decision of that committee. If I were sitting on the other side I think I would say that as readily as I say it from my place at the moment in a section of the opposition.


I feel that this committee should be completely and totally removed from political influence. When I say that, I am not suggesting that the present government has used or is apt to use any more political influence than any other party if it found itself in the government's position. My idea of a committee on electoral distribution would be one headed perhaps by the chief electoral officer, a man who I might almost say is qualified by heredity, and indeed by his own performance up to the present time. Then it should include political scientists, a geographer, an economist, a political historian and statisticians. Such a committee should be handed a map, the latest population statistics and told to sit down to do this work. I was glad that the hon. member for Quebec South made favourable mention of a good friend of mine, a political scientist for whom I have the greatest respect, Dr. Norman Ward, a professor of political science in our own university of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon. I know he has devoted a great deal of study to this matter and has written many articles upon the subject. With the knowledge of this subject which he has he would be an ideal member of a committee such as I have suggested.
Generally speaking, I do not like omnibus speeches. I believe that if a man is speaking and wants to make a good speech he should be imbued with one single idea in which he is particularly and vitally interested. The speech which he delivers should convey to his audience a definite impact of that one single idea. However, the debate in which we are presently engaged is characterized by omnibus speeches, and perhaps I may be pardoned if I make one myself. It is fitting perhaps that there should be provided at least once a session an opportunity when a member of parliament, representing as he does so many people and so many different interests, can present to the country through this house some of the ideas which he picks up during his ever-decreasing sojourns at home. So I do not want to say much about anything, but a little about a lot of things with which the people of my constituency are concerned.
The first thing I want to mention is the disappointment which the people, not only of my own city but of our province, feel at the delay in the construction of the Saskatchewan river project. I know that many reasons can be advanced for this delay. It is most unfortunate that two of the three wise men who we were told were to finally look into this matter are unfortunately ill, and to them I extend my sympathies. Whether or not their illness has anything to do

with the delay in the construction of this project, I am not prepared to say because I do not know.
I read the letter which was sent by the chairman of that three-man commission to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) explaining to him, and presumably to the house through him, why it would not be likely that any positive action in the matter could be taken before another year or so. I interpreted the letter to mean that. It is true that hon. members in the opposition and on the government side want to be sure that what we are doing is feasible and practical and good. Personally I thought that that decision had been made some time ago.
I have no objection to a thorough investigation being made to make quite sure that the project is practical, but what I do object to is the persistence with which this government uses this particular thing as an election project. It has been the members on the government side, particularly the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who more than anyone else have raised hopes in Saskatchewan which were later dashed to the ground. I have had considerable experience in listening to this sort of thing, and I have no doubt that if and when the government does decide that this project is feasible we shall be hearing a good deal about it before the next general election, whenever that takes place.
With all this I am not prepared to withhold from the Minister of Agriculture any credit which is due to him in persuading the other members of the government to get on with this particular project. I have no doubt that it would be to his political interest if he could get the project started. But I do object most strenuously to this thing being dragged out at every election, to promises being made which the promisers must know, because they have inside knowledge, cannot be fulfilled. I urge the government to give every consideration to this particular project so that it may be completed at once if it is proved to be feasible.
The next subject I should like to deal with is the development of the Hudson bay route. Ever since I was first elected in 1945 I have given more time to this matter, both in the house and outside, than to any other thing in which I have been interested. Progress has been made, and I commend the government and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) for whatever assistance they have given to help the project along.
I think there are still some things the government might do to further encourage the
The Address-Mr. Knight use of that route. We in Saskatchewan are beginning to feel, if indeed we have not felt it for a long time, that with all the uranium discoveries and the like our future lies in the north. Looking to the future, we feel that we want to have an open seaway to connect us with the old country and Europe; and we want a number of branch lines-I cannot go into particulars today-which will link the country both east and west with that Hudson bay route. I was pleased to learn that last year a record number of bushels were shipped from that port. I have not looked up the figure; but I think it was some seven or eight million bushels, but even that is insufficient to enable this route to stand upon its own feet. We have often heard it said, and we believe with truth, that there is no physical reason why 15 million bushels of grain could not be shipped through that port in a year. I am informed-and I do not stand by these figures because I am speaking from memory-that only some fifty-eight days out of seventy-six were employed during the open season last year. We do know that if we *could put 15 million bushels a year through that port, that route would cease to cost the taxpayers of this country a single cent, and we would accomplish our objective of putting it on its feet.
I was interested to learn that the drying facilities of the Churchill elevator were used to capacity this year, I think for the first time. I do not know enough about the matter to recommend that damp wheat from other parts of the country should be shipped up there to be dried and then shipped back again, because shipped back it would have to be since at the moment there is no outlet for it there. I cannot argue that proposition, but it has been argued1 and once more I draw it to the attention of the government. It is true that some of the finest elevator equipment in the world is to be found at that port. It is true that it has a drying capacity which astonished me when I heard: the figures. It is too bad it is not being used more fully. I presume the elevator is already full of grain, and I presume, or at least I hope, most of that grain was damp wheat collected from the prairies being stored there ready for shipment next season.
I would like to say one thing to those outside this house who may read what I am saying. I am thinking now particularly of our merchants, our wholesalers and distributors of goods in Saskatoon and the district it serves. We can never make a success of that port until we have both an import and an export trade. I think perhaps some of the facilities for import could1 be improved1, to permit incoming boats to be unloaded at the

The Address-Mr. Knight same time outgoing boats are being loaded. There is also a demand that the loading platform have a greater capacity. They can load three ships at once now, and it is felt that these facilities should be extended so it would be possible to load five ships. The same thing goes for storage capacity. I think this year it has been shown that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was quite correct when he once said; speaking of the government elevator at Saskatoon, that even if an elevator of that type were empty at least it provided insurance for a contingency. Well, the contingency is here, and as far as I know both these elevators are full.
Speaking of the government elevator at Saskatoon, I am glad to say the drying plant there is working day and night, seven days a week, and working efficiently. The manager, Mr. Halliwell, very courteously showed me through that plant, where I saw the drying process. With all the controversy we have heard about this wheat, needless to say that was a very interesting visit; and I pay this tribute to the courtesy of those officials.
Unfortunately the situation is not equally good all over the country. I believe those who criticized had some justification for saying the government did not get into action about this thing in time. Even today up in the northern part of the province there is what the Star-Phoenix calls a grim situation. It says that the elevators at White Fox are still plugged1, and that many farmers along that Nipawin-Prince Albert line have not yet been able to sell one solitary bushel of wheat, owing to the fact that the box car situation is just impossible. However, that is outside of my own sphere, outside my own constituency, and I Shall let it go at that.
I should say a word on one or two other matters, and one is the housing situation in Saskatoon. Last year Saskatoon built a good many houses, perhaps more than the average city of its size; but the point in which I think the government should be particularly interested, the situation for which to some extent it is responsible, is that we are at our wits' end to know how to handle the influx of defence personnel coming to our city. We have an advanced air training school there at which, when the project is completed, there will be 800 additional air force personnel. This is just at the edge of our city, at the airport buildings. Strange to say even I have been pestered with letters from many of these men, who I suppose have written to me as a final resort, asking where in the world they might be able to get houses. I went up and looked over that situation and saw the progress that has been made on those buildings. At the present 
time the government has a plan under which it is building large blocks of apartments for single men, and they have potential accommodation-and believe me it is just potential at the moment-for 150 married personnel. The trouble, of course, is that these buildings are only being started, and the officer who showed me around said he thought they would all be ready at the same time but there was very little chance any would be completed before next fall. That is a long time to wait. The city council, having taken, some note of this matter, passed a resolution some time ago, which I imagine has been forwarded to the government. I shall not read the resolution in full, but these are the important parts:
Whereas the city council of Saskatoon always has understood that the provision of housing for the married personnel of the armed services is a federal responsibility, and
Whereas it is understood that some 400 families of personnel coming to the Saskatoon air training school are expected to arrive in Saskatoon during the next few months, and
Whereas only 150 housing units for such families are being provided at the airport, and Whereas there is a housing shortage in Saskatoon which will make it almost impossible for these incoming families to obtain adequate accommodation . . .
Whereas this council on May 28, 1951, passed the following resolution which was forwarded to the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, and the Minister of Resources and Development: "That the federal government be requested to provide adequate housing accommodation for married service personnel to be completed for occupation as soon as required, the cost to be borne solely by the federal government."
Now, therefore, be it resolved:
"That this council again strongly urges upon the federal authorities the immediate necessity of providing adequate housing accommodation for all families of members of the armed services who may be sent to this city."
I would urge upon the government some serious and practical consideration of the terms of that resolution.
While I am talking about the airport, there is one other matter I would draw to-the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). We have a fine field and very good air service, but there is a lack of catering service. There is talk, and at the moment it is only talk, that the Department of Transport proposes to erect an administration building in connection with that airport. If that is done, no doubt there will be some provision for catering, but at the moment there is none. The board of trade, which is: naturally interested in that sort of thing, has; drawn it to my attention and I think the attention of the Minister of Transport, that such accommodation is necessary for the convenience of passengers originating there and those passing through that city.

In our city we have some packing houses and, naturally, packing house workers. While I am glad to be able to report that there has been no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in our immediate vicinity-I need not have said "immediate" because the quarantined area is some distance away-there has nevertheless been an adverse effect upon the industry and the people who work in it. First of all, there have been decreases in the prices of cattle. I shall not go into the figures because the decrease has been about the same as took place in Calgary and other western markets. There has been a slackening, only temporary I hope, in the use of packing house facilities. While the plants have not been shut down, this has resulted in some workers being laid off, but not to the extent that has occurred in other places. I believe I have the figures here.
I am quoting from a dispatch of March 6 which says:
Lack of cattle coming to market as a result of the foot-and-mouth disease in southern Saskatchewan has caused Intercontinental Packers (Saskatoon) to temporarily lay off more than twenty employees already and others may be out of work in a few days, G. Willows, manager, said Wednesday.
Unless the situation changed Mr. Willows expected that twenty more employees would be laid off next weekend and an additional twenty the following weekend. About 200 are employed now at the plant.
I can only express the hope that it will not be necessary to render assistance to many of these packing house workers, that is the assistance so eloquently pleaded for by the member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), but the hope too that such assistance will be proffered to those affected.
I have received letters about a matter, and frankly I have no solution for it nor can I suggest a solution. I believe that, in all justice, the situation should be brought to the notice of the government. It concerns certain small truckers-I use the term "small" in the sense that they are not trucking companies but individuals. News of the arrangements between the oil companies and the railroads has caused consternation among these people. While I have no immediate solution to offer, I believe the problem points up the argument that we need some sort of over-all transportation plan in this country. Britain was faced with this problem, but in reverse. It was not the railroads that were putting the truckers out of business, but the truckers that were putting the railroads out of business. The only way that both of them were saved was through an over-all transportation system.
I am thinking of a country district in Great Britain from which you can go by bus
The Address-Mr. Knight to your destination and use your return ticket to come back by rail. The same situation applies, to a large extent, to the shipment of goods. I do not know how successful the system has been, but it would appear that the men who were driving the trucks are still employed. Unfortunately, as I said, this problem concerns individuals as well as companies, and it has made it difficult for the man who is trying to start up in business. One man writes to me, and his letter is dated March 6, in the following terms:
Since returning to Canada from overseas in 1946, I have put in a lot of long hard hours attempting to build a dream into a business. I now own two units, partly financed, and should this "price slashing" agreement be allowed to take effect, there will be only one result. Myself as well as many others in the same boat will be back where we started from, if not worse.
I am not advocating any line of policy in that regard, I am simply bringing the matter to the attention of the government.
There are two other subjects upon which I intended to speak, but perhaps I should change the order of my presentation. There is a rather serious indictment I intended to bring against the Department of National Defence concerning their handling of a certain matter, but I expect my time will have run out before I come to that so I had better leave it until the defence estimates are before us. There are two of these smaller things, which perhaps look small to us but are very important to the people concerned, about which I wanted to say something. The first concerns pensions for the blind. I was favoured by being asked to interview some of the aged blind people who are now in a home for the blind. They drew this to my attention, and I think I should draw it to yours. Blind people are not in as good a position as many other pensioners. I believe that blindness is a disability which should be considered quite apart from the old age pension, just as I believe the disabilities of our burnt-out veterans should be considered quite apart from the old age pension.
As the matter stands now even the burnt-out. veterans, bad as their situation may be, have an advantage over the blind in that the means test does leave them at least a fraction of their military pension to be added to the old age pension. The blind have a pension which is the same as the old age pension, and up to the age of seventy that is subject to the means test. I am going to suggest that, the blind person who reaches that age is more helpless than the ordinary old age pensioner. I believe the solution is the-removal of the means test for blind pensioners. I would go that far. Of course, I do not believe the ordinary old age pensioner should

The Address-Mr. Knight have to live on $40 a month, and I have the more reason not to believe the blind old age pensioner ought to have to live on $40 a month. He has more expenses. He has to have someone to take care of him, and he probably has to live in an institution.
He is precluded from being able to earn a little extra money. I would therefore put that appeal before the house.
There is one other subject that I wish to mention. This time it is one which was drawn to my attention by a lady who is afflicted with deafness, and the matter in question has to do with hearing aids. I wrote to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) with regard to the general idea, advancing to him the proposition that I did not think that hearing aids should be subject to the sales tax. Whatever little money the sales tax upon hearing aids brings into the treasury could very well be done without, I think. In these days of tremendous expansion-the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has been just now painting a hopeful picture-and tremendous investment, and there is a tremendous government surplus this year, can we not do without this little pittance which comes in from the imposition of the sales tax upon these things which, as this lady said, make the difference, practically, between existence and non-existence to the deaf. These people who have to depend upon the hearing aids certainly have no joy in life when they are without them.
I have here in my hand a bill. I may say it is a copy of something issued by the Canadian customs department. It is an invoice for goods. May I point out, first of all, that these hearing devices cost far too much. Some of these little hearing aids that you see-or that you are not supposed to see-in a person's ear cost as much as $200. For some reason or another a great many of them are imported from the United States. Just imagine the predicament of this particular lady or that of any other lady-or of anyone, for that matter-who has to send this thing off to the United States for repairs. These people cannot afford to have two of them. You can imagine the delay involved-delay at the factory, the delay in bond, the notification that the thing is there, the delay in picking it up-the charges collect and all the rest of it. This lady told me that she had to do without this particular hearing aid for three weeks. Can you imagine the result? Can we put ourselves in a situation where you and I could not hear a word for three weeks? What would life be to us under those circumstances?
This lady suggested that she thought this matter was the responsibility of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin).


She did not see why, when we had a department of health in this country, they could not bestir themselves in this matter. If none of these things are now available in Canada, let us make them available here in Canada, and let the department of health have them here in Canada where they would be easily and readily available for the people who need them, in the places where they are needed.
I want to say a word about the imposition of this particular sales tax. I was astonished to find that sales tax had been charged not only upon the new parts which had been charged for by whoever had done the repairing but also on the total repair bill itself; and the total repair bill is marked "repairs only". To substantiate that statement I am going to read some of these charges, Mr. Speaker, and let you see what it costs these people. It must be remembered that these batteries must be renewed from time to time, and you have to send off to the United States for those, and there is another fuss about those before you can get them from the customs and you finally get them back into the machine so that you can hear.
This is a "Canadian customs invoice for goods", et cetera, et cetera. I will not worry you with more of that. It is the invoice for a hearing aid purchased by Mrs. So-and-So, shipped from a point in the United States. I see that St. Paul, Minnesota, is mentioned, and the invoice is marked "express charges collect". In the column headed "marks and numbers on packages" we find "1 carton". Under the headings of "quantities and description of goods" and "selling price to purchaser in Canada" we find the following:
Model 1550, No. 6718S	Service
Replaced microphone	 $5.50
Repair switch	 1.55
Replace condensers	80
Replace resistors	80
Repair receiver	 7.00
Labour on transmitter	 3.50
Then we find in big writing down below: Above instrument being returned alter repair only.
I think maybe that was a slight prevarication but I find the word "only" is underlined. Then we find the words: "C.O.D.; express charges collect". It has been through the customs, lying there for a while, and it is stamped at a later date by the Department of National Revenue of Canada: "Duty paid, February 19, 1952." Then the name of the officer is given, and so on.
This is a copy of the original. The total bill that this lady had to pay for the repair of the hearing aid was $19.15. Then it says here: "10 per cent-$1.92", which is what she had to pay before she got the thing.

I do not know, but I am just putting it up to the minister, or to whoever is concerned, whether that is the sort of treatment that should be accorded to people who are suffering from their particular disability, namely deafness. What have we a Department of National Health and Welfare for anyway?
I think that covers most of these things which I shall not describe as minor because they are major items to the people concerned.
My hon. friend tells me that I have only two minutes left. I shall therefore reserve for a later date my little quarrel with the Department of National Defence.


Mr. J. I. Hetland (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate, may I say that I have certain views that I have been wanting to put before this house for a considerable length of time. Before I start, I should also like to congratulate the mover (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think they did an excellent job.
In going around my constituency I meet a great number of people; and of course they give me their different views. Those views always have a bearing on my thinking. I do not always agree with them, but quite a number of the ideas are quite sound. This thinking, if it is directed in the right channels, does no harm. Inasmuch as farmers are hard workers, if they think that those in any other group are getting more than their fair share, their state of mind is not a satisfied one. I want to say this. Because our young folks sometimes think there are other pastures that are greener, and are leaving the farms in great numbers, the parents are having quite a hard time to hold their sons and daughters on the farm. The farmers, being hard workers, do not necessarily envy any other group. We are therefore not going to look at the situation in that light. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the west has many disadvantages because we are far from the best markets of the world or from the east; and anything that causes disturbance to or disrupts our way of life, we take seriously. We have a transportation problem, a grain problem and now, of course, we have the problem of the hoof-and-mouth disease which is going to cause hardship not only to the people in the areas concerned but to all farmers in our country. These problems are not always easy to solve. We cannot necessarily blame the weather on any particular person, but certain things are going on in Canada today that are apt to cause more or less trouble, and I shall be coming to them shortly.
The Address-Mr. Hetland
I know our cost of living is high. Our dollar also is not worth as much as it was years ago. The C.C.F. party say that profits are too high. I remember a year ago, when this government was putting the corporation tax up to 49 per cent, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) said that he was very much opposed to it. I do not believe that profits are the cause of our high cost of living. When Sir Stafford Cripps was chancellor of the exchequer in England during the Labour party's time in office he said in Maclean's magazine on November 1, 1949, that if he took all the profits from the corporations it would amount to only 4 pence in the pound, and he did not think it was worthwhile; it would do more harm than good.
Because the cost of living is high, the unions are always asking for more wages. They say they must have more wages in order to live. If they want an increase of 15 cents an hour they ask for 30 cents and they usually get it. When the 48-hour week was cut down to 40 it had a bearing on the cost of living. Before I go any further I want to say I am not against the union man. Strikes are not between the employer and the employee any more. Possibly they were years ago. They are now between the citizens of this country and the group that is striking.
I remember that when the railroad strike was over Mr. Hall was reported in the press as having said that the railroads got the worst of the deal. It was not the railroads that got the worst of the deal, Mr. Speaker, it was every man, woman and child in this country.
Some hon. members may say to me that I voted to settle the strike. I did because we in the west had our crops ready to harvest, and if the strike had gone on very much longer we would have been out of fuel, repairs and everything. It would certainly have caused a tremendous loss. I consider that the farmers had more or less a loaded weapon pointed in their direction while that strike was on. Where is all this going to end? That is the reason I am speaking today. The men are now asking for another 36 cents an hour increase, according to the press. If this thing keeps going on, a wage of $50 to $60 a day will be quite common and we shall also have to pay $50 to $60 for a pair of shoes, and I do not see where we shall be any better off.
I know that many union leaders are good men, but quite a few of them have not yet grown up. When a strike is on there does not seem to be any sympathy for the average citizen of this country. Let me tell you about a certain incident that happened to one of my constituents. He had sold his old combine

The Address-Mr. Hetland and had ordered a brand new one. The combine came into his town, and before he could get it unloaded the strike was on. This farmer tried every possible means to get the combine unloaded. He was refused. He went to the labour leaders and they said: "No, absolutely not; we are out to cause as much confusion as possible." This farmer went home very indignant, I can tell you. After the strike was settled the combine was unloaded. It took him another two days to get it in order to be put into the field. The farmer worked night and day trying to get his crop in, but before he was half through with his crop the weather broke and half the crop was left in the fields. The next spring, because of the water in the low places and the damage caused by mice and deer, and what-have-you, the crop was not worth cutting. All that the farmer could do was to set a match to his crop. That farmer told me that it would take him years to catch up to what he lost in the fields during this strike. I could go on and tell of many other instances, but I do not think hon. members are very interested in that. This is a glaring example and I wanted to bring it before the house. Again I emphasize that I am not against unions. I want to make that very clear. I think that unions have done a lot of good in this country. I can easily understand the position of a f ather with a family. He wants to be sure of a job and he wants to have a decent wage so that he can feed and clothe his family. We all understand that. It is against human nature for a man to get married and start raising a family and not know whether he can feed them or not. Most union men are reasonable and not in favour of strikes. They know that you cannot get something for nothing.
I have another matter that I should like to bring before the house. I still think that in our unions we have an element that is out to hinder as much as possible our way of life. Before I go any further I should say that the cost of living is to be blamed on wages continually going up. When a man takes an axe on his shoulder and a saw under his arm and goes into the woods and starts cutting down a tree he is in this position. If you double his wages and double the wages of all the men down the line the cost of your house will rise in proportion to the rise in wages.
I should like to say a word on social benefits. You cannot get all these social benefits without raising our taxes. I was very interested in the speech of the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Catherwood). I think he used a lot of common sense. I shall read
(Mr. Hetland.]
from his speech as reported on page 220 of Hansard of March 7. He said:
I do say, however, and I emphasize this very strongly, that there is a limit to the amount of taxation which the people of the country can bear.
I agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when he pointed out yesterday that the limit had been reached, but I also say it has been passed. The government must realize more seriously than ever before how dangerously we are riding the crest of an inflationary spiral. The time has come when we in this parliament, and the government particularly, have got to consider retrenchment because the days of buoyant revenue will not be with us to the extent they have been during the past year.
I agree with that, but I am glad that it came from the official opposition. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is not worried about spending. He likes to spend the taxpayers' money. He is always asking for more benefits, but cries to high heaven when the taxes are raised. You cannot have it both ways.
When the C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan came to power they thought that, so far as spending money was concerned, the sky was the limit. But after having been in office for some time they now find that they cannot go any farther until they have more revenue and have opened up more sources of revenue. It makes a difference when a party is in power, especially if it has made a few bad deals.
Unemployment insurance is good for the labouring man; I think it is a wonderful thing. But that, too, costs money. I understand that 40 per cent of unemployment insurance is paid by the employee, 40 per cent by the employer and 20 per cent by the government. We see that 60 per cent of that is not paid by the employee; it must come from some other source. The 40 per cent the employer pays must be added to the price of his article, thus bringing up the cost of living. The 20 per cent paid by the government must be raised through taxation, with resulting increased taxes.
I have no quarrel with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) when he says that these unemployment insurance benefits should be increased. However in that speech he has blamed the government for high taxes, and has described taxation as plundering. At the same time he calls for more benefits. The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Catherwood) and the hon. member for Broadview should get together, so that they may be more consistent.
One finds if he goes to a city that he cannot induce any of these unemployed men to come out on the farm. A friend of mine went to a city in Saskatchewan where there were 400 unemployed men. He wanted a man

to help do the chores during the winter months, so that the employer might take it a little easier. When a request was made, the official in charge just laughed. He said, "We have not a man in this group here who will go out on the farm." I do not blame the unemployed men for not going on the farm, because the farmer cannot afford to pay the benefits the worker can receive in the city. If the farmer did pay those benefits, farm prices would have to be raised considerably. Where would we go from there?
But if I were unemployed and had a family to support I certainly would go on a farm during the winter months, or until I could get something better. I am wondering whether we are spoiling some of our working groups. Some members of the opposition say that all labour should belong to unions. I have no fault to find with that suggestion; I believe it is true. I believe also that if all labour belonged to unions, farmers included-and we have our unions-we would not see strikes, where one class gets more than is coming to it. We know if the spread gets too wide between the higher and lower paid groups, the lower paid groups must take a lower standard of living. It may be that the farmers should belong to one union. But what would happen if the farmers went on strike? If we held up food production and did not permit it to go to the cities, inside of two weeks people by the thousand would be starving. Would that be right?
Labour says that strikes are right and fair; but I say it would be just as fair for the farmer to keep at home the products of his farm. I do not think the government would stand idly by and let that happen, and I would not blame it for taking action, because we know that two wrongs never make a right. We must keep in mind however that the farmers have a weapon; and if they went on strike it would make the weapon of the labour unions appear mighty small.
It may be that I have gone too far in discussing this matter, but I am anxious that there be no misunderstanding. I repeat my belief that labour should receive a fair wage and all the benefits it can get, provided all groups receive the same. On the other hand I do not believe it is fair for some groups to work 40 hours in the week while others work 80.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And some not work at all.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: It is not often that one finds a group like that. I believe that responsible union and farm leaders should get together to iron out this difficulty. The time has come in my opinion when we must stop asking the government to help us when any little
55704-29J
The Address-Mr. Hetland difficulty comes along. If we do not come to some understanding, we are only going to dislocate more people. The younger people will flock to the cities. If something of that kind happens, if we were to have a calamity or a strike of some sort, we might find in our cities a type of revolution beyond control, and particularly if the people were hungry.
It had been my intention to discuss at this time a condition in which we find hoodlums and gangsters in some unions. I do not know whether I should go into the matter at any length, but I must express the view that we should not have a condition in law whereby the members of some unions may go out deliberately and manhandle law-abiding citizens, as well as destroy property valued at thousands of dollars, only to have the union protect them. In my view that is absolutely wrong.
It is important to note that these hoodlums or gangsters are certainly in the minority. However, I have before me an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of March 11 which states:
Say Reds Control Auto Union
A United Auto Workers (CIO) man told a congressional sub-committee today that communists control the huge Ford Rouge Local 600 of the union.
If that is true, then it may be one reason why we have our labour troubles. I still believe however that it is up to the union leaders and those who belong to unions to control those unions. As a farmer I am naturally interested in western Canada, and everything pertaining to agriculture. The farmers with whom I meet and to whom I talk ask me this question: "When are we going to have another strike that will cripple our economy in the west?" They ask me why I do not bring the matter to the attention of the house, and make the demand that something be done.
Union leaders who act in an irresponsible manner, who do not use common sense and are not willing to protect our citizens, should be made responsible for any loss that can be traced to them, and they should be responsible, too, for any hoodlumism that develops.
Let me state, briefly, that I am not opposed to unions. I am not opposed to good wages for all-and I mean that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You had better say it again.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: I am not opposed to shorter hours, if all can have them. I am not against vacations with pay or unemployment insurance benefits. I am not against strikes if the people use common sense. I am against strikes that are handled in such a way that they endanger life and property, strikes that are not handled in a democratic way. I do

The Address-Mr. Hetland not think unions should be operated in a gestapo way so that a man must sign his name on a card when he is voting for a strike, as was done in a certain case. I am opposed to strikes that cause untold misery and endanger lives. I am against strikes between employers and employees which cause our farmers, not only to lose their profits but in many cases to have to go into bankruptcy.
I am against strikes that are caused by irresponsible men who I think are out to cause as much delay as possible in our defence efforts. These men are not Canadians and I believe they should be punished in the same degree as our other sons and daughters who do not belong to unions.
I believe unionism has its place in the life of the country because it has done a lot of good for labour and indirectly for the country. Our unions by bettering conditions for labour have also made things better for the farmer by providing more profitable markets for what he produces. But all groups should receive the same treatment as to wages, benefits and so on. Our farmers and producers should get as good a wage as the members of any other group.
Unfortunately some of our union leaders have not grown up fast enough. A good leader can do a lot of good; a poor leader can wreck any union. No handful of union leaders should have power to tie up the economy of our country. I believe the citizens of this country are fed up with strikes that cause so much damage and suffering. If parliament would pass legislation to prevent this abuse of power by irresponsible men I am sure the sigh of relief that would go up from our citizens would be heard from coast to coast.
This spiral of increasing wages and increasing prices must stop somewhere. The labour leaders have to take a large share of the blame for the high cost of living. They also have to take a share of the blame for the way in which our sons and daughters are flocking to the big centres. While they can take credit for bettering the lot of the labouring man, they still must be willing to share the responsibilities that confront us in these perilous times.
It may be quite all right for them to think of their own individual groups, but they also must be good Canadians and do what is right for all the citizens of our country. I had an article which I intended to read but I will pass it by. I hope I have not been misunderstood in this speech, but I shall be quite satisfied if I have been able to make the members of this house understand the
plight of the western farmers when our transportation system is tied up and our packing houses closed.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, I wish to apologize to the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. George) and the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier) for not having been present to hear them make their speeches. I can assure them that my absence was not deliberate, it was caused by something over which I had no control. In company with the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) and the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick),
I left in ample time but even the government could not control the weather and we were delayed. I have read both speeches and I find that they equal, if they do not excel, what I expected from both hon. gentlemen.
As the first representative of our province to speak in this debate I should like to say that with the members from other provinces who have spoken, we from Newfoundland are equally sorrowful at the death of our late king. There is one little story which I think is most explanatory. This was set out in a letter which appeared in the press in Newfoundland written by a doctor. He described how he had been called to go to one of the outports outside of St. John's. When he got there he found that the blinds were drawn in all the houses. He asked the first person he met when his patient had died. The reply was, "No one has died, sir; that is for our king." I think that is very descriptive of the feeling in Newfoundland and our connection with the crown.
With other hon. members of this house we are proud of our new sovereign, Queen Elizabeth. We were glad to hear from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) the other evening that there is to be no disturbance of what we in Newfoundland believe is the title of this country-the Dominion of Canada. We are most conservative in Newfoundland, even though so far all of us are not Progressive Conservatives. I repeat that we are most conservative about the old traditions. As the cornerstone of the empire, as the oldest colony of Great Britain, we do hope that these old traditions will be retained.
I do not propose to deal extensively with the speech from the throne but rather with matters chiefly provincial. I trust that for the next couple of years hon. members will understand that, until the newest province is fully integrated into the dominion, much lea-way will be allowed in presenting our problems. Because of the newness of our province it is only by constant repetition that hon.

members will be able to appreciate the difficulties we face which are not common to all of Canada.
As I say, I do not intend to speak extensively about the speech from the throne but I do want to say that I endorse fully the remarks made by my leader during this debate. Despite what has been said in a derogatory way about that speech, and unfortunately I did hear a few smart-Aleck remarks from the opposite side, I consider his to be the finest speech made in this debate.
I agree with my leader's request that the question of the Lisbon conference should be the subject matter of a separate debate. I agree further that defence should be the subject matter of a separate debate. It would be a great pity if by any chance- there have been some suggestions in the last few days that this is to happen-these important subjects became submerged in this debate. As is quite evident from a number of speeches that have been made, and as will be evident from the one I am about to make, the subjects generally dealt with in this debate are referred to as parochial matters. That is all the more reason why we should have two separate debates, one on the Lisbon conference and the other on defence. I do not know whether that has been agreed to, but I think it should be.
I understand also from the speech from the throne that a measure for the redistribution of the representation in this house is to be introduced at this session. After having listened to the very fine speech of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) last evening, I think the government might very well take his advice. I believe the hon. member is the dean of this house in length of service and for that reason, quite apart from his own brilliant self, his remarks should carry great weight. It would be a shame if his arguments against gerrymandering were not heeded by the government, because I believe he showed pretty conclusively that governments which have gerrymandered in the past have not benefited from such tactics.
I also understand, for what it is worth, that the introduction of this measure would indicate that there is to be no election this year. Whether that is so remains to be seen, of course; but that view appears to be buttressed by the fact that the Prime Minister is not going to advocate any of Dr. Abbott's soothing syrup in the way of reduced taxation. If that is so, if we are not to have any reduction in taxation, this government is going to be in an extremely difficult spot not only this year but until they decide the time is right to introduce such a measure. We-and by that
The Address-Mr. Higgins I mean not only members of this house but the people of Canada-have put up with this high taxation because we were told it was necessary because of defence commitments and in order to aid our allies. This afternoon the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) delivered a very lengthy speech. I could not follow him too clearly, but I did take some notes as he went along and I believe he said that in his department alone some $200 million will remain unexpended this fiscal year. If that is the case in one department of government, how much unexpended money may there be in all the other departments taken together? And what is the reason for making these tax collections? Why were these vast sums of money taken from the taxpayers of the country if they are not to be spent? I believe the government has a good deal of explaining to do in this connection, but so far I have not heard an explanation.
This afternoon we heard a most peculiar statement by the Minister of Defence Production, something which frankly I never expected to hear in this house. Before I had the pleasure of coming here as a member the reputation of the minister even in Newfoundland had been that of a man who knew exactly where he was going and what he was doing. Certainly since I have been here he has rather enhanced his reputation along that line. He is a Caesar as to whose actions there can be no question; but what did we find this afternoon? I may not quote his words exactly, but I think I have them pretty well as he said them. His staiement was; "Looking back, we could not have known a year ago what we know now; and we now agree that some things should be done differently." To me at least that was a tremendous confession, the idea of the minister admitting that he could have made a mistake. Something must have gone wrong with the government machine. We can laugh at ministers now and again. We can enjoy remarks they make. We may even enjoy seeing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) make such grave errors as he has made. But when the Minister of Defence Production makes an error we see the whole fabric of government begin to shake. I am sure it must have caused shivers to run down the backs of hon. members opposite. After all, this is the one minister to whom no one dares say anything, yet now he admits this mistake. Why he does it I do not know. Could it be that he is getting more mellow, or what is the reason? I am sorry he is not here to answer. I do not suppose he would reply except to say, as he said the last time I spoke, "Carry on, young fellow. You are doing as well as you can." As a newcomer here, as one who had

The Address-Mr. Higgins such a very high opinion of the minister, and still has in view of all he has done in the past, I found it most peculiar that he should now be making grave errors and, above all, admitting them.


Mr. Sluder:: He also said he was glad he did not follow your advice last year.


Gordon Francis Higgins: As far as I remember he did not ask for my advice. Perhaps that was my fault.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, when we rose at six o'clock I had been making some remarks with respect to the Minister of Defence Production. I believe I have come to the end of those remarks, because while it may be very well for the member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) to describe the minister, when he loses his temper, as an old Ford going downhill, I am afraid the minister would have too much gas for me to be able to keep ahead of him. For that reason, sir, I am going to let the minister remain as he is, and the member for Vancouver-Quadra-


Mr. Cardiff:: You mean to let him keep on going downhill?


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am not going to push him. I wanted to refer to the minister who has today been dubbed the "skeleton at the feast". If it is to be literally understood that he is a skeleton, it must have been a great feast; I could hardly imagine a feast like that. In connection with that particular description, I feel somebody will ask the hon. minister to explain why he should be so called. The language used by the member at Westminster is fairly strong when he says:
We are, of course, always glad to have the Canadian finance minister at any conference, but it was his presence which prevented the chancellor of the exchequer from proposing outright discrimination against the dollar, which is clearly what we ought to be doing at the present time.
I feel it is up to the minister to give us an explanation of that outburst. But it is in connection with our own particular problem that I was going to make a few comments. Today we had the Minister of Defence Production announcing that he has a surplus of $200 million in his department. I do not know what the full amount of the unexpended money is today, but it could very well be around $600 million. I am not too well versed in the financial aspects of this matter, but I think that is a fair guess. The Minister of


Finance has had many appeals concerning taxation but, as he says, he turns a deaf ear to all appeals of that nature. Evidently he has made up his mind that he is not going to be influenced by anybody to reduce taxes.
In this respect I should like to read from an editorial which appeared in the Evening Telegram of Newfoundland, which paper has always supported the present Liberal government. This article concerns the price of tobacco, and I shall read a portion of it:
In September, 1951, it has been shown, Canadians purchased legitimately only half as many cigarettes as they had bought in September, 1950, and consumption in the first five months of the present fiscal year was 5-6 billion compared with 7-2 billion in the corresponding period in the previous year . . . revenues from cigarette sales dropped $8 million from the amount of the receipts last year.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that is the strongest indictment against the policy adopted by the minister. As I say, this editorial appeared in a paper which ordinarily supports the government, so the language is much more effective than my own. The concluding paragraph reads:
Notwithstanding the diminishing returns in revenue from jumping the excise tax on cigarettes from $10 to $11.50 per thousand, the premium which it has placed upon illicit activities and the loss to honest business, the finance minister declares there will be no tax changes until the budget is brought down next spring and that in the meantime measures will be taken to keep smuggling to a minimum. His stiff-necked attitude applied to a cause that had merit would be commendable; to bolster up bad judgment and in affording the transgressor the opportunity to enrich himself, such obduracy is not in accord with common sense or encouragement to honest practices in business.
Those are rather strong words I suggest, but under the circumstances I feel the minister will agree that they are not unjustified. However, it is a matter for him to deal with when his budget is brought down.
In an earlier debate reference was made to a real disaster that struck Canada, namely, the foot-and-mouth disease. I took no part in that debate because, frankly, I had little knowledge of the problem, and I felt it was none of the business of the members of our province. But today I received a letter from Gambo that really puts us right back in the picture. Before I read that letter, Mr. Speaker, may I say that, having gotten the letter this afternoon, I looked up the reports of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for 1950 and 1951. I found very definite reference to foot-and-mouth disease, so much so that there can be no question at all but that measures to prevent this dread disease were very active in the minds of departmental officials.

For instance, in the 1950 report I read this short paragraph from page 211:
Foot-and-mouth disease still continues to cause concern in most countries of the world, not only in those countries where the disease has gained a foothold, or has been eradicated, but also in such countries as Canada where it has never been introduced.
On page 212, there is this short paragraph: Foot-and-mouth disease was diagnosed in Mexico in 1946. Although the outbreak appears to be under control, the ultimate eradication of the disease, from best informed sources, seems to be problematical. Foot-and-mouth disease, therefore, continues to menace the livestock industry of North America.
Almost the same wording appeared in the 1951 report. My whole purpose in reading this particular reference is to draw attention to the fact that this disease has been definitely regarded by the Department of Agriculture as a serious one. Yet in spite of that-
I am not going to harp on this matter because it has been mentioned in the house -and in spite of all the measures which should be known by the responsible officials, no measures were taken and the disease went unrecognized for a period of three months, after it had occurred.
I make those remarks merely to preface the reading of this letter, which I feel is of considerable interest in this connection. It is dated March 11 and it says:
About two months ago a T.C.A. bound from Europe with a full load-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should inform the hon. member, before he reads the letter, that if he proposes to read it, it will be necessary for him to disclose to the house the source of it.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I understand that, Mr. Speaker; I will divulge the source. I had no intention of reading it otherwise.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought I should draw the matter to the attention of the hon. member.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I shall have to read this piece again. The letter reads as follows:
About two months ago a T.C.A. bound from Europe with a full load of emigrants was refused a landing at Iceland by the Icelandic government as the load of emigrants they were carrying came from an infested area of "foot-and-mouth" disease: the plane came on to Gander and immediately on arrival national health at Gander notified Ottawa and had the plane and passengers carefully checked and isolated. But national health at Ottawa did nothing about it, and on arrival of T.C.A. allowed all the emigrants who comprised the full load to disembark and go to their respective places across the dominion. About twenty-four hours later the same T.C.A. was back at Gander with a full load of trans-Atlantic passengers.
I got the full coverage from two of the nurses with national health at Gander and later talked with the doctor who is fed up to know what happened and to hear the government as he feels trying to hide the true story.
The Address-Mr. Higgins Mr. Ferrie: Who wrote that letter?


Gordon Francis Higgins: That letter is written by M. M. Pritchell of the Gambo Trading Company. As I say, he concludes that letter by saying:
If this coverage is of any help to you, or the party, you can get the date of the arrival of the T.C.A. at Gander but the story is absolutely correct.
I have no further comment to make on that matter, Mr. Speaker; but if the story is correct, then indeed it is a grave reflection on the officials of the department at Ottawa who apparently gave the orders to allow this plane which was loaded with immigrants, and which had been refused landing by the government of Iceland, to proceed and the immigrants go to their respective places in the dominion. I am not saying that they did carry this foot-and-mouth disease, but the explanation is as good as one of those given by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) when he said that the birds maybe brought it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe it was the turrs.


Mr. Ferrie:: It does not do any good to keep on howling about it when they are in.


An hon. Member:: You do not like it.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: And you do not like it. You have no place to take your stuff that is ready to market.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You do not need to worry about us. Worry about yourself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I did not want to start any controversy here, Mr. Speaker. That was the last thing in the world I wanted to do. I do not think I should pursue that subject any further because it apparently causes a lot of excitement among members. After all, we are getting up to within a day or so of St. Patrick's day, and we might have enough trouble with that day itself.


Mr. Stick:: You are not going to start wearing the shamrock already, are you?


Gordon Francis Higgins: As I said earlier, I planned to use most of my time in dealing with matters provincial, and I have not much time left. I see the Minister of Public Works looking at me rather hard, but I am trying to get along as quickly as I can. I will just refer once again briefly to the question I asked the Minister of Public Works this afternoon, and that he is going to find out about; I refer to the question of a plaque for our coat-of-arms in the supreme court. As you know, Mr. Speaker, when we were brought into this great dominion, they had a plaque for us all ready outside the door of this magnificent building; but they must never
456	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Higgins have expected that we would ever want justice, because there is no room for it there. What is going to become of the first Newfoundlanders that have to come to the supreme court? There have been none up there as yet, I understand, but when they come, just imagine the shock it will be to the first Newfoundland lawyer who comes up there on business for his province and sees that his province is not represented. Lawyers are touchy people. I therefore trust that the minister will really look into the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They have probably room for you in the income tax office.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am talking with the Minister of Public Works again for a moment. From the beginning, at the time when we first came up here in 1949, I made the request to him for a wharf. I hate to mention small matters. This is the biggest wharf in our province, with all due respect to those wharves that have been constructed at Bonavista, Twillingate and even the one in the constituency of my friend, the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick). They have all had grants for wharves and they are well justified, but when I see the condition of that greatest wharf of the whole lot, the pier that is used by all the people of Bell island-last year some 100,000 people used that wharf as well as motorcars; in fact, everything that is transported from the iron isle, which has the biggest iron mine in the British empire, I might say, has to go over that wharf-then I have to come back and ask the minister what goes on. As to the last time anything was done in this connection, I remember we started on it in 1949. He has been making the excuse to me that it is a ferry wharf and he cannot help me. On July 20, 1950, the acting minister at that time was the present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) and he wrote to Mr. Curtis, who is our attorney general. In the last paragraph of his letter he says:
In some cases where the maintenance of a wharf has been shown to be in the public interest in addition to its being used for ferry purposes, the federal and provincial governments have combined forces and built a structure common to both. It might be possible for this government and yours to reach some such agreement in the case of Portugal Cove but unless and until some such agreement is reached, the maintenance of this wharf will be considered your responsibility.
I would plead with the minister at this time that he should think it is his responsibility and try to get together with the government of the province. I think he is fairly close to that government in a number of ways. At all events he is closer than I am.


In that way we might get something done. But I impress upon him the fact that one of these days that wharf is going to collapse. It is the only way that a community of 10,000 people who use the wharf daily have of getting all they need to eat and everything else, and it is their only way of getting to the mainland of the province. I would ask the minister to bear it in mind.
While we are passing out compliments, I should like to thank the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) for arranging T.C.A. direct service from Montreal. It is not quite direct, but it is a great improvement over the previous service. It stops only at Moncton and Sydney. The people of the newest province will be exceedingly grateful to him.
The other day I asked the Minister of Labour, who is not quite hearing me yet, a question: Is labour being recruited by the Fraser-Brace Terminal Construction Company at Saint John, New Brunswick, for work in Newfoundland and Labrador? Unfortunately I asked "Is labour being recruited?" and the minister said, "No." The question now is: Have they recruited it? I asked that question because the information that has been given-and there have been some kicks about it-is that considerable labour has been imported or at least recruited and brought down to work in Newfoundland and Labrador on radar stations. There has been some protest in that connection. With all due respect to the speech from the throne, and what it says about employment being high, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we can do with a lot of jobs down in our part of the country yet. I would ask the minister to keep that fact in mind; I would say this: When they get short down there, then send some labour from other provinces; but do not send them down until that time comes. I also wish to make a plea for Saint John, New Brunswick, as well. I do not want Saint John, New Brunswick, to feel that I am not thinking of them, because the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Riley) made a very touching plea the other day. I want to support him in every way I can. I do not know, but even the Saint John harbour salmon must have been touched by the plea of the hon. member. He is not in his place tonight, but I certainly support him, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. McWilliam:: It is getting close to St. Patrick's day now.


Gordon Francis Higgins: In conclusion, I might also say that the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) made reference to storm damage, as did the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth (Mr. Kirk). I understand that as a result of very severe damage done to the fishing community in Labrador in December last, and

also at Port au Port, representation has been made to the government. I do want to add my voice to the voices of the other hon. members and also to the voice of the government of Newfoundland in asking that due recognition be given to the people in those areas because the damage was quite severe. I believe that, because the present finances of the province are so grievously impaired by the continuous inroads made on them by the present government of Newfoundland, it is going to be very difficult to meet demands of this kind.
Briefly I should like to bring a matter to the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg). A project is to be established, or an attempt is to be made to establish a project in Newfoundland by the name of the Sieg-heim proposition. It is proposed-I do not know whether it is actually going to be done or not but the necessary act was passed last year-to incorporate a company to carry on a woods operation in Labrador. I have an advertisement in my possession, which was circulated through the woods labour offices in Germany, asking for 400 German woodsmen to work in Labrador and to be paid at the rate of $3.50 a cord. They are to be fed a type of food similar to dehydrated German army food, and they are to be housed in canvas camps. The camps are already in storage in St. John's. I would make this protest at this time to the minister. That type of labour should not be permitted to be imported into Canada.
I have three other matters. On a number of occasions we Newfoundland members have asked the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) questions with respect to the depletion of the Grand Banks, and he has assured us on different occasions that there is no evidence of depletion, or at least no evidence to warrant any conservation measures. It is most significant that this year Dr. Templeman of the fisheries research board has made a report on the depletion of the haddock fishery by draggers on the Grand Banks and the figures that he gives are startling, to say the least. He says that the shrinkage in haddock exports from 5,700,000 pounds in the first six months of 1950 to 1,300,000 in the corresponding period in 1951 shows quite clearly what a great danger we are facing in the depletion of these Grand Banks. I see the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries in his seat. I trust that he will draw this matter to the attention of the minister, who on several occasions has told us that there was no depletion of the Grand Banks. Dr. Templeman's statement is a most serious one. The Grand Banks are the largest reserve that we have 55704-30'
The Address-Mr. Higgins on this side of the water and it is one of the most important assets of the dominion. I trust that he will take the necessary precaution in connection with it.
Another matter has to do with the seal fishery. On December 18 a decision was handed down by the international court of justice at The Hague with respect to the headland rule. By that decision it would appear that the province of Newfoundland is entitled to keep foreign sealers, shall we say, outside its harbours and bays. In other words, the headland to headland should apply. That should apply not only to sealers but to trawlers as well. I hope that the salmon report of Mr. Menzies will be implemented. I cannot refer to it any more than that.
The final matter that I have to bring up has to do with the case of Dr. Sennewald. I am not saying very much on this because it is too long a story, but I received an answer the other day in connection with this matter that to me at least brings the government into it equally with the province of Newfoundland. The Sennewald story is as follows. On November 22 the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), I believe by misinformation from the premier of Newfoundland, authorized a Canso aircraft to be dispatched from St. John's to Gander, carrying a German national of the department of economic development. That aircraft intercepted another German national who was coming out to Newfoundland to explain the whole industrial program of the Smallwood government. From correspondence with him it was quite clear that Dr. Sennewald had very important information to give in connection with these industries. But, if I may use an American expression, the snatch was put on him and he was kidnapped. I could say a lot more about that, but the chief objection I have to make now is that I as a member of the other political party in Newfoundland feel that it was bad enough to have that happen, but when we have a bill for the plane being sent to the province of Newfoundland and I as one of the taxpayers of that province have to pay the bill for the aircraft sent out by the premier of Newfoundland to snatch this German, it is a little bit too thick.
I have exhausted my time. I am very grateful to hon. members for having listened to me as I outlined these many troublesome problems.


Robert Fair: It is not
my intention tonight to use up all of the forty minutes at my disposal. I feel the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) will be very glad to hear that. He seems to be in one of

The Address-Mr. Fair his annual rushes, and I shall not hold him up very long. There are one or two things that I should like to correct, if I may, and get some action in connection with them.
The first is in connection with the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on Friday, March 7, in connection with the handling of out-ofcondition wheat, oats and barley. I have no complaint in connection with that, but after he had made the statement the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) said this, which can be found at page 200 of Hansard of that date:


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask the minister a
supplementary question. Has he any knowledge of the available supply of small grain driers, and the success there has been in using them? Of what value are they?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. I do not remember the exact
number that have been brought into use-perhaps it would be forty or fifty. They contribute very little to the over-all problem, and, unless they are handled by experts, there is grave danger that they may damage the wheat. I notice that the press has been publishing photographs of loaves of bread made from standard wheat and loaves from wheat coming from these driers. The photographs indicate that the driers can easily cook the wheat so that it has no commercial value. I think that the small driers are making small contribution to the over-all problem.


Robert Fair: I should like to ask a further supplementary question. Is it not true that in the press of a few days ago great praise was given to those who are handling the small driers, and that very little damage has been done to the quality of the wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have heard of the damage that has
been done, and not of the good results. However, I am sure there is a fair proportion of both.
In connection with that I have since picked up a clipping, to which I now refer. It contains the words of Dr. Anderson, who is chief chemist of the board of grain commissioners in Winnipeg, the man who looks after the actual testing of wheat, after it has been dried. This is what the article in the Western Producer of March 6 has to say under the heading "Farm Driers Do Pretty Good Job":
Fifty-three farm grain driers have been reported operating in the three prairie provinces, Dr. J. A. Anderson, chief of the board of grain commissioners' research laboratory, said last week.
"On the whole they are doing a pretty good job," he said.
It was estimated there were about 30 additional driers on the prairies which haven't been spotted yet.
Samples of dried grain had been received from 31 of the driers, said Dr. Anderson, and in the majority of cases tests showed that operators were successful in avoiding damage to the grain passing through the driers.
Of the 53 driers reported so far, only four are of the type declared unfit for drying milling wheat.
The majority of the farm plants are located in Saskatchewan.
Estimates of the amount of damp grain that can be handled by the average farm drier were placed

at about 1,000 bushels a day. At that rate 50 driers could handle about 5 million bushels in a 100-day period.
Then it goes on to explain:
Elevator agents at country points were selecting one of their number to assume responsibility for gathering and forwarding to the Winnipeg laboratory samples of grain before it goes through the drier, and samples of grain after drying. Results of laboratory tests are wired back to the selected agent. Seventy-two samples were tested by the laboratory in one day last week.
Dr. Anderson said there still were a few "sour spots" but they would be cleared up as they were revealed by laboratory tests.
In my opinion that is quite different from the statement made by the minister. I am sure he has no intention whatsoever of damaging any more the wheat industry of Canada. Apparently however he did not have accurate information.
Another matter with which I wish to deal is one that has been brought up by the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth (Mr. Kirk), the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) and the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart). These men support the fishing industry and,
I believe, have given an accurate picture of the condition of that industry. Speaking as one who knows nothing whatever about the fishing industry I can still see that they have a just claim for what might be called a national calamity, so far as damage done by the storms last December is concerned. I understand similar storms have wreaked havoc on the equipment of those fishermen in days gone by and, so far as I am concerned and also the other members of this group, I can say that we are wholeheartedly in support of the giving of some help to these fishermen. It does not matter whether they may be on the west coast, the east coast or in central Canada.
I believe the hon. member for Charlotte, however, does not know anything about farming-although he did1 not admit it. During the discussion he had this to say, as reported at page 378 of Hansard-and I am sorry he is not in his seat to hear what I have to say-
Half of these people who go down to the sea in ships produce this food under conditions under which a fanner would turn his back. I am speaking from experience, because I have been on the water both winter and summer. I did not go out on the water for six or eight months, and then take my family south for the winter. I did not go on the water for six or eight months and then sit by the fireside for the remainder of the year. I was on the water twelve months of the year, and I believe I am in a position to understand just what these men have gone through, down through the years.
I would understand from what the hon. member has said, judging by his previous references to agriculture, that he is simply

repeating the old story that has been told in this house for many years, to the effect that the farmers in the prairie provinces work for five or six or eight months in the year and then take their families south. I would tell the hon. member for Charlotte that in his industry the fishermen do not have to feed or milk the fish, but in the cattle industry, in farming, the farmers have to work 365 days in the year, and there is no getting away from it. We do have to feed our cattle, horses, hogs and poultry every day, and the cows have to be milked twice each day, including Sundays. So I am just giving that piece of information to the hon. member, because it would seem that he is somewhat uninformed along these lines.
However I do have a lot of respect for the hon. member for Charlotte. He is the one who has had courage enough to come out here and make a plea on behalf of the industry he represents. He has also had courage enough to tell us about some of the injustices that exist as regards prices in the United States and Canada. He tells us that he lives on the border, and that he crosses over on frequent occasions. Before I leave that subject let me say that this group is in sympathy with the request made by those three members, and they will have our wholehearted support in their demands of the government.
Later in his speech he dealt with a number of subsidies which, he suggested, were enjoyed by farmers. However, anyone who will take the trouble to go through the list will see that many city and town people enjoy benefits from those subsidies, as well. And it might not be out of order or out of place to remind all members that when agriculture is prosperous, all Canada benefits. Organized labour, or unorganized labour, would benefit from profits on the farms. If a farmer has not the money to buy the products of industry then those who are engaged in other lines of industry are soon laid off from their work and find themselves drawing unemployment insurance-and if they are not in that class they must go without.
Then, in his speech he read from a booklet published by the Department of Agriculture, which said this:
New activities in the postwar period include a commitment on the part of the dominion government to support farm prices. The Agricultural Prices Support Act of 1944 states:
"In prescribing prices the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations."
The Address-Mr. Fair
I am sure many of us would be very happy if that condition existed. We do have the Agricultural Prices Support Act, under which farmers are supposed to have supported prices. But judging from the experience of the past, we find that no price support exists, so far as the producer is concerned. It is true that there are supported prices for the packers, and others in that line.
At page 301 of Hansard for March 11 we find the following under the heading "Pork products":


Mr. Kobert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: Yesterday the
hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) asked a question with respect to floor prices for certain cuts of pork. I can assure him that the floor price is the floor price which is contained in the order of February 16, which no doubt he has seen. We have agreed over this last week end to buy certain pork products at the floor price that was paid, and put them into cans.


Robert Fair: Is the floor price mentioned by the
parliamentary assistant effective so far as the producer is concerned?


Robert McCubbin: The answer is yes.


Robert Fair: You mean at the packers' level; not at the producer's level.
We have been kidded along, deliberately or otherwise, by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and his parliamentary assistant that that price is effective. That is not correct. Only last night the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin) made a speech in the French language. I am sorry that he did not speak in English so that many hon. members might have understood what he had to say. This morning I was reading the translation of his speech to be found on page 427 of Hansard for yesterday. These remarks, which I will quote later, completely contradict the statement that has been made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and his parliamentary assistant (Mr. McCubbin). The hon. member for Beauce had this to say:
Last Saturday I was visited in my home by a group of farmers from the parish of St. Honore de Beauce. They had brought me a request which they had circulated in great haste among their friends, the hog producers of the district. In a few hours this request was covered with 165 signatures.
St. Honore is an average agricultural parish in my constituency. The farmers are relatively prosperous because they are hard-working, thrifty, and because they know how to turn to account the small income afforded by their calling. I repeat that in one parish, in the space of a few hours, 165 hog producers asked to have their grievances brought to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) through their representative in Ottawa.
And what do they ask? Briefly this: that in view of the price of mill feed, the floor price of 26 cents a pound for pork is much too low; that, moreover, the floor price is not maintained in the Quebec market.
55704-30-i
460	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fair
Some may refer to provincial autonomy but, for my part, I am indifferent to that providing the farmers get a reasonable price for their products. As a matter of fact, X have in my hand forty-one copies of invoices given me by these good farmers, and I see that in the weeks of February 25 last and March 3, those farmers were paid at the Legrade, Inc., packing plant in Quebec city, 20 cents a pound for class A hogs and 19-6 cents for class B-l.
As I understand it, the floor price is 26 cents at Montreal and Toronto, 24J cents at Winnipeg and similar prices across the country depending on the freight charges. I shall repeat that last sentence by the hon. member, as follows:
-in Quebec city, 20 cents a pound for class A hogs and 19-6 for class B-l. Those people were right in asking that a floor price be enforced in Quebec as elsewhere.
I should like to add that it be enforced at the producer rather than the packer level. The hon. member continued:
I also received yesterday a letter from another producer in my county, Mr. Gerard Veilleux of Ste. Clothilde de Beauce. He told me in his letter that he sold his hogs and he enclosed a recent bill from which I saw that in that case also Legrade Inc. had paid 20 and 19 cents per pound. If I had the time, I could quote from that letter and I think I could prove, by the figures submitted, that that gentleman lost the sum of $58.61 on the sale of four hogs.
I wonder where the Minister of Agriculture and his parliamentary assistant are with their enforcement of the laws of this country? That is a condition that exists in Quebec, and I know a similar condition exists in Alberta. I do not doubt that similar cases can be cited as having occurred in other provinces. The hon. member continued:
Confronted by those stupendous facts, I went to the extent, yesterday morning, of writing a message to the packing house of the Co-operative Federee, in Quebec, in order to find out what is going on in that establishment. I wrote:
"Could you let me know what price was paid for hogs, grades A and B, which reached packing house, February 23, and March 3,	4 and 5?"
Soon afterwards, I received a most courteous answer, stating:
"Since February 16, we pay grade A hogs support prices Quebec 251, grade B 25.10."
Naturally, I looked around for some sound explanation of the whole business; I contacted an official in the department, right here in Ottawa. To my great surprise, he told me a thing I did not know; it appears that throughout Canada neither the merchants nor the packers have to pay the minimum price of 26 cents set by the agricultural prices support board. I must confess that I have wondered whether I had misunderstood -the matter and a few hours later, I again turned to the same official who gave me the same answer.
I am asking the Right Honourable Minister of Agriculture to enforce, if possible, the payment of that floor price to producers. I also ask him to raise this price at least to 28 cents a pound, for even at that the farmer would produce at a loss.


I received lately a resolution passed by the U.C.C., a southern Quebec federation, which reads as follows:
February 7, 1952
"At a meeting held at St. Joseph de Beauce on February 6, 1952, and which was attended by about 300 farmers representing 35 unions of the U.C.C. of southern Quebec."
Thirty-five unions, that's something for sure.
"Resolved that whereas the price of pork has fallen disastrously the meeting registers a strong protest against this situation.
Claims from the agricultural prices support board a minimum price of 28 cents."
The hog producers of this country feel that 28 cents should be the minimum paid for grade A. hogs. Further on the hon. member had this to say:
The official of whom I was speaking a moment ago went further. He told me: "It is up to the farmers to look after their own business and not to sell to those who do not pay the floor price." That is a fine answer, Mr. Speaker.
I am saying now, as I have said before on many occasions, that the farmers have no guaranteed floor prices for hogs, butter, cheese or eggs at the producer level. It is true that there are prices provided for the packer, but I feel that the experience of the past indicates that they are well able to take care of themselves. Perhaps, as has been suggested here on many occasions, an investigation into the whole packing industry would be a good thing and give to the farmers many millions of dollars to which they are properly entitled. We are told that the budget will be introduced soon and I have some information I should like to pass on to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). No doubt the Minister of Finance has a number of statisticians and mathematicians at his command, but some of the information I am prepared to pass on may give them some other ideas. A number of people seem to have only one-track minds. An advertisement came out this morning put out by the Canadian Home Laundry Manufacturers Association. I do not intend to quote all of it, but there is some interesting information I should like to refer to the attention of the minister. It is headed, "Does the Government Want Less Revenue?" Then it goes on to give the sales of washing machines in certain months in 1951 as follows:
January	 29,528
February	 24,818
March	 27,042
April	 26,754
May	 21,251
June	 14,598
July	  11,539
August	   10,489
It will be noted that April was the month in which the budget was brought down which

increased the sales tax and placed a 15 per cent excise tax on washing machines, stoves, refrigerators and so on. The advertisement goes on:
Note the constant reduction in washing machine purchases after April, 1951, when the 15 per cent excise tax was imposed by the government. Higher taxes are being collected for each machine sold-but with sales down by more than half, does the government really profit by those unreasonable taxes?
They go on to provide the answer, and show that average sales in January and February, 1951, were 27,129 units from which the estimated government revenue from direct taxes, which meant the sales tax only, was $238,735. The average for November and December, 1951, which was long after the excise tax had been applied, was 10,242 units. The sales tax plus the 15 per cent excise tax on those units, amounted to $225,324, or a decrease of a little over 15 per cent after the second tax was applied.
I am not going to quote more from this advertisement; no doubt the minister has had a copy supplied to him. But perhaps we should not blame the excise tax entirely. I believe the prices of many items of electrical equipment are far too high. To support that, all I have to do is quote the recent trade-in prices that have been placed upon old articles from the kitchen, perhaps an old butcher knife or what have you, for which anywhere from $10 to $50 or $60 has been offered as a trade-in. In the case of refrigerators I have seen advertisements in the Edmonton Journal offering as much as $175 for an old butcher knife, an old cup, or something of the kind. That is a definite admission by the manufacturers of electrical appliances that their prices were far too high. Regardless of what anyone may say, this latest development is the result of the resale price maintenance legislation passed last year. I am reminded that the Minister of Finance calls that inflation. Not one of the four or five methods the minister has brought in to deal with that problem has been effective in curing inflation in Canada.
There is another small item that the youngsters of this country are yelling about; that is the 7 cents they have to pay for a bottle of pop. We had that tax on during the war, but after the war it was removed. Kiddies all over the country yelled about that additional tax. They may have a nickel to spend, but they cannot buy their bottle of pop. The excise tax on chocolate bars and gum was reduced to 15 per cent, and there is no direct tax on ice cream, chocolate drinks, popsicles, freshies, and so on. I would ask the Minister of Finance to be good to
The Address-Mr. Decore the youngsters once again and remove that tax on soft drinks. During the hot summer days that are ahead let the youngsters get their pop for a nickel.
Yesterday the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) brought some matters to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue and asked that a committee of the house look into the administration of the Income Tax Act. I hope the minister will give the request favourable consideration, because wherever you go in Canada, particularly in the farming districts, you hear complaints about the administration of that act. While the hon. member for Red Deer gave an illustration which it is hard to credit, I believe many similar statements could be made, so I hope the minister will let us have that committee to discuss the administration of that act.


Mr. John Decore (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that hon. members of this house are anxious to have this debate brought to a conclusion this evening, and for that reason I have agreed with the house leader to make my remarks fairly brief. First may I join with other members in congratulating the mover (Mr. George) and seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. These two hon. gentlemen acquitted themselves in a way that brought honour not only to themselves but to the constituencies they represent.
The speech from the throne has made reference to the loss of our late sovereign King George VI. His late majesty was indeed loved by all Canadians; and although we no longer believe in the divine right of kings I do feel that in so far as our late monarch was concerned there was a certain divinity that surrounded him. The king in many respects was like any one of us. The knife of the surgeon had the same effect upon him that it would have upon us. But to me our monarch represented something more than just the head of the British commonwealth of nations, the greatest organization the world has ever seen. To me our monarch and our present queen represent the long history of the development of British institutions which are the very basis of our way of life in Canada and under which, regardless of what church we may go to, what occupation we may follow or from whence our parents may have come, we find freedom, justice and equal opportunity to all. I do believe that with the coming to the throne of Queen Elizabeth Canada has before it a new era of development and prosperity.
During the course of this debate some controversy has arisen over the statement

The Address

Mr. Decore by the C.C.F. national council on the 5th of this month. For purposes of the record I quote that statement again:
While continuing to support Canada's participation in NATO, the C.C.F. is opposed to certain recent developments in this organization.
Then it went on:
NATO policies seem to have fallen completely under the control of the military to the exclusion of necessary social and economic considerations in the building of western collective security.
Then the statement goes further:
This development culminated recently in the decisions taken at Lisbon to provide approximately 50 divisions in western Europe by the end of the year and 90 to 100 divisions by the end of 1954, the program to cost a reported $300 billion.
Then the paragraph goes on:
These decisions are irresponsible and disastrous. They are irresponsible because the military objectives, both for armaments and personnel, are incapable of being reached. They are disastrous because the very attempt to reach the impossible objectives would break the economies of every European nation, member of NATO.
Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) made reference to this question, and as reported at page 385 of Hansard said:
We have known all along, of course, that a stage would come in our defence build-up when the danger from the Soviet union might appear to be slackening, and when the burden of taxation for defence expenditure would weigh heavily upon us. That was certainly bound to be a difficult moment for the alliance we are trying to build up, and at that time there would be a very real temptation to let down our efforts. I suggest that that temptation may be more difficult to resist in this country after the statement of the C.C.F. party.
On the same page the minister made this statement:
The real danger as I see it, and as I pointed out in my broadcast on Tuesday night, is that the policy of his party, as it was stated in that council declaration, will play straight into the hands of communist propaganda.
What has happened in the meantime? I have before me a copy of the Canadian Tribune, which is the official organ of the communist party in Canada. It is dated March 17, 1952. I understand that today is only March 14, but these editors are so anxious to get their message into the hands of the people that they date the paper well ahead of time. In quoting from this communist paper may I first of all make it clear that, in so far as the leader of the C.C.F. party is concerned, I have a lot of respect for him. I am sure that the same thing applies to a great many Canadians. Although not many people will agree with his politics,
I believe the majority of Canadians hold him in high esteem, just as I do. When I am quoting from this communist paper, I want to make it clear that I am not trying to

cast any reflections or make any insinuations. All I am trying to do is stress what has been said already, that this statement plays directly into the hands of communist propaganda.
Here is a statement that has been made by Mr. Tim Buck. If this statement had been made by some correspondent or some editor of this paper, I would not pay any attention to it. But this statement is made by the national leader of the communist party in Canada. Knowing something about Mr. Tim Buck; knowing the attitude he has displayed regarding our defence preparations; knowing something about the peace appeals he has directed to the country; knowing about his trips to Moscow from time to time where he has been receiving his instructions; I believe that his statement cannot be ignored. This is what he says. First of all, the heading is "The C.C.F. Statement on NATO." Then, there is a subheading, "LPP leader Tim Buck welcomes C.C.F. national council statement as reflection of strong rank and file pressure on right-wing leaders." Here is what Mr. Tim Buck says:
The policy statement issued by the national council of the C.C.F. on March 5 is a welcome sign that rank and file pressure is beginning to have effect. The statement contains criticism of some of the decisions made at the recent Lisbon conference of the so-called North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Then he goes on:
By implication the C.C.F. statement admits that the Labor-Progressive party has been absolutely correct in several of its main contentions during the past four years. The statement doesn't make that admission in so many words of course: the use of self-criticism hasn't yet penetrated that far.
But, contrary to the position they have stuck to until now, the March 5 statement puts the C.C.F. in agreement with the recorded position of the Labor-Progressive party-


Mr. Thatcher:: It does nothing of the kind.


John Decore: It says so here. I am quoting Mr. Tim Buck, who is the national leader of the L.P.P. in Canada. I continue quoting Mr. Buck:
-that United States monopoly control of our country's natural resources and domination of the direction and character of its national economic development, is jeopardizing our future.
Furthermore, it puts the C.C.F. in agreement with the LPP that the St. Lawrence seaway should be built as an all-Canadian waterway, that the U.S. militarists dominate NATO, and that their military aims are breaking the national economies of the countries of western Europe.
Those statements are a marked retreat from the unqualified support previously given by the national leaders of the C.C.F. to the St. Laurent government's war program and its sacrifice of Canada on the altar of United States aggrandizement. The fact that such a marked concession is made, even though it is only in words as yet, testifies to the correctness and the effectiveness of the struggle to build unity for peace with peace-minded members of the C.C.F. and of the struggle within the C.C.F.

against support of the St. Laurent war policies. The March 5 policy statement of the national council should encourage all peace-minded C.C.F.'ers to demand action in line with its words.
Further along, he says:
It is evident that the top leaders of the C.C.F. still pin their hopes upon identifying themselves with the aims of monopoly capitalism. They will not voluntarily lead a genuine struggle against the war-mongers. They will not voluntarily identify the C.C.F. with the struggle for world peace through negotiation, banning the atomic bomb, controlled disarmament, and acceptance of the principle of the peaceful co-existence of the socialist and the capitalist systems.
But, even so, their declaration on March 5 that: "The C.C.F. urges that Canada should vigorously oppose the armaments goals set in Lisbon . . .," provides the basis for broad and vitally important united front activities by members and supporters of the C.C.F. and the LPP.
The defenders of peace should take the words of the C.C.F. leadership at their face value and develop all-sided activities corresponding with them. Make them the keynote of new actions to broaden the front of the struggle for peace.
I am not going to comment further on this. I say that if this statement had been made by some correspondent or by some other individual I would not have paid any attention to it. But it is a statement made by the national leader of the communist party in Canada.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: We cannot help what he says.


John Decore: The fact remains that the statement that has been made by the national council of the C.C.F. is playing into the hands of communist propaganda.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Oh, it is nothing of the kind.


John Decore: That is what this proves.
I should like to deal briefly with another matter that is connected with agriculture. The national calamity resulting from foot-and-mouth disease is rather difficult to assess today, and it is difficult to know what will happen to the prices of beef, poultry, hogs and lamb. One thing is quite clear, and that is that those prices are sliding downward now. Recently, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has issued a statement urging that there should be price support of beef and lamb, and that the price should be set at the price prevailing the week before the disaster struck. The same organization urges that there should be a floor price on hogs and that the present floor price should be raised.
I do not believe these statements are unreasonable, Mr. Speaker. We must realize that agriculture plays a very important part in the Canadian economy. Although we are trying to fight the high cost of living, we realize the progress that labour in Canada has made. We find that labour has been and
The Address-Mr. Jones is still receiving pay increases. They have not lost a strike in years. They believe in the forty-hour work week, and whenever the cost of living goes up they ask for more money. Whether or not there is a strike, they always get more money. I feel that the burden of fighting the high cost of living should not be borne by the farmers to any greater extent that by any other group in this country. It is a recognized fact that whenever prices go up in our economy the prices of the farmers' products are generally the last to go up; but when we have prices going down, the prices of farm products are the first ones to go down.


An hon. Member:: And the fishing industry.


John Decore: Probably the same thing
applies to the fishermen. I understand that the government has a fund of some $200 million for the purpose of protecting farmers against falling prices. I urge that, should this situation become worse as a result of the foot-and-mouth disease, the government should endeavour to use this fund that is on hand. After all, the policy of protective tariffs for some privileged industries in this country means in' effect that there are floor prices for many manufactured goods in Canada.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I was amazed at the last speaker's placing such great faith in Tim Buck. Judging by his speech, he appears to be a good student of Tim Buck and communists in general, something which I am not. Possibly he is closer to the communist thought than I am and is therefore better able to speak on that subject. Later on one of my colleagues will answer him and do so satisfactorily. After listening to the last speaker, I feel that the Liberal party are exceedingly fortunate that the C.C.F. published a platform; although they disagree with it, it has been the basis of nearly all their talks up until now. That is natural, in the absence of a program of their own to discuss. I hope they will make the best of it while it is still fresh.
I am not going to waste time by discussing that subject tonight because I have a subject which, to my mind, is a far more important one, as it deals with the fruit and vegetable industry of my constituency. I make no apology for taking the time of the house to deal with it, because the fruit growers of this area of which I speak are greatly worried today as a result of the condition existing in their industry.
The fruit and vegetable industry of my constituency dates back to the last century. Some of the original orchards were planted
464	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Jones by Lord Aberdeen when he was here representing His Majesty in Canada. This industry is the result of encouragement by the provincial and federal governments all through the years. Not only that; it has progressed remarkably well. It has proved to be a good investment for both those governments, as a source of both direct and indirect taxes for the municipal, provincial and federal coffers. Originally, fruit and vegetables were planted in the interior of British Columbia as a source of food for the settlers in western Canada. Later on, as the industry progressed, at the request and with the encouragement of the government, the producers geared their industry to supply the United Kingdom demand which called for a different size of apple, a different type of apple and an apple of a different colour. The industry therefore for many years has been geared up to meet that demand in what today is a lost market; and that is part of our problem.
For many years now we have been producing fruit of an exceedingly high quality for the markets of the world; and I mean high quality in uniform, dependable grades. This high grade of our fruit and the help of the federal trade commissioners enabled us to compete in nearly every important market of the world. The fruit growers in the British Columbia tree-fruit area are grateful for the financial assistance given to them by the federal government from time to time; but our industry suffered possibly more than did any other industry in Canada during the war and post-war years. That suffering was not as a result of anything of our doing. It was beyond our control. Part of it resulted from currency control, part of it through the economic ills of the importing countries, partly through the difficulties existing in the sterling areas and partly through the United States' subsidies paid on apples to what were formerly markets for British Columbia tree fruit. Today the United States subsidizes apples going to those areas that formerly were our markets to the extent of $1.25 a box or a bushel.
It is true that in times of stress and difficulty some industries can switch quickly from a non-profitable line to a profitable one. But in the fruit industry the fruit producers cannot do that. Theirs is a five to ten-year program, their trees producing when they are from seven to ten years old. They are tied up for a long period with cold storage plants, with irrigation projects, with packing plants, with packing and storage equipment; and you cannot change to any other saleable product using these facilities that are expensive and costly of upkeep. It is just


as silly to suggest that the motor manufacturer who suddenly finds himself unable to sell cars might turn to the making of chocolate biscuits or that the wheat grower on the prairie, suddenly told that there is no more call for wheat, had better grow oranges. It is just as impossible for us in the fruit industry to change overnight to something more profitable.
The federal government has assisted the industry quite substantially since the outbreak of war; that is, from 1939 until today. That assistance amounts to approximately $5 million. But during this period we have produced 90 million boxes of apples. Thus it is seen that the assistance given to the apple producers comes to less than 6 cents a bushel or a box during that time. Opposed to this, however, is the fact that trade agreements consummated between Canada and other countries since 1947 allow oranges, lemons, grapefruit and most imported grapes to be imported into this country duty free. Tariff protection formerly given to our industry has been severely cut. Approximately 60 per cent of our total imports of fresh fruits and vegetables are today admitted duty free. These imports seriously affect the stability of our fruit and vegetable industry.
I should also like to dwell briefly on transportation costs as they affect fruit producers. For a matter of fifty years we in British Columbia have been told that there is a costly part of the railway that has to be paid for by the British Columbia users of that railway through what is called the mountain differential. It has been in varying proportions from double prairie standard rates to one and one-quarter times the prairie standard rates. This practice has gone on for a matter of fifty years. The pretext has been that some bridge existed through the mountains and someone had to bear the cost and pay that loss. Actually there is less than thirty miles of mountain grade on the Canadian Pacific railway in British Columbia-that is on the main line-and there is no mountain grade on the Canadian National railway in British Columbia. The claim has been made of higher construction costs and maintenance. That claim was exploded many years ago. There is no higher construction cost whatever because the materials are better for construction and they are more easily available than in crossing the prairies. We now find that the bridge was not actually in British Columbia at all, but rather in northern Ontario. It took only a matter of weeks for this house to pass a bill to give relief when this bridge was found. Ours had been hidden for fifty years and is yet to be found. In the case of Ontario, they got $7 million a year

to take care of that part of the railway that is considered unprofitable, and I claim that British Columbia should be treated in the same way. As it is, for the last few years we have been penalized in excess rate charges to the amount of between $2 million and $3 million annually. While British Columbia paid this penalty for fifty years, special consideration was given to many other areas of Canada. I will mention a few: The Maritimes Freight Rates Act, the Crowsnest grain rates for the prairies, the feed grain assistance, all of which British Columbia helped directly or indirectly to pay. The royal commission acknowledged these facts and made certain recommendations which I hope will be acted upon.
I believe the railway companies realize that some relief must be given in transportation costs. Otherwise they will kill the apple industry in British Columbia and in the end lose a valuable industry that pays high rates. We do feel the suggestion that has gone forward now that freight rates be equalized as a national policy may help to solve our transportation problem, and we urge the board of transport commissioners to give sympathetic consideration to the case of the British Columbia fruit producers during the hearing on this subject in the very near future.
While our troubles in the industry have caused various communities to seek a balancing influence, several towns have gone out of their way to try to induce new industries to come to settle in the Okanagan valley particularly in order to balance our economy. In January of this year I happened to be attending a growers association conference at Penticton. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) addressed that conference, and lo and behold he strongly advised the growers there represented not to bother with outside industries at all; that the valley was not entirely suitable, but to concentrate on their own fruit and fruit by-products, to develop their own industry based on fruit and vegetables. We have tried that, and we are still trying it. Some years ago we tried to establish a winery in the hope that farmers who grow grapes could find a ready market for them. We have found a fair market for those grapes and wine, but now these people sent me a letter today, part of which I shall quote as follows. It is signed by the president of Calona Wines, Limited:
There is considerable bearing acreage of grapes in British Columbia, and much new acreage coming into bearing each year.
We wish to point out that these growers planted, and are growing these grapes with a view to selling a large percentage of their crops to the wineries of British Columbia.
The Address-Mr. Jones
We would also like to point out that many local people as well as grape growers have invested large sums of money in the wineries of British Columbia, and these wineries are well able to supply the demand for wines in British Columbia.
And incidentally supply other western provinces. I continue:
If American wines are sold in British Columbia-
And that is the question they are faced with today. The letter continues:
If American wines are sold in British Columbia it will mean the British Columbia grape growers and wineries will have a difficult time to stay in business, and as the provincial government is spending thousands of dollars to help build up industries in British Columbia, it is only fair to protect those who have invested their money to build1 British Columbia payrolls.
The grape growers of Ontario have asked for protection against American wines, and our information is that they are being given that protection. As we consider this a serious matter, and immediate action is required-
That immediate action, requested incidentally, is not at all from the federal government because this is a provincial matter. I am just reading the letter to show the house the difficulty facing the industry's by-products division.
The other matter is apple juice. A great deal of apple juice has been processed in the valley, and with a view to extending the market I wrote to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), asking that apple juice be placed on the menu for the army, navy and air force, and I had a very encouraging reply from the minister. But today I received this invitation to tender. It is an invitation to tender for fruit juices and jams. I was rather anxious to find out what success we had in trying to get the navy to purchase apple juice. I find that they are ordering 7,200 tins of fruit cocktail, 7,200 tins of grapefruit juice, 12,800 tins of orange juice. These tins are all 20-ounce tins. Then there are 10,000 tins of pineapple juice, 4,800 tins of blended juice and 1,200 bottles of lime juice, but not an ounce of apple juice. I should like to draw that to the attention of the minister. Possibly he has the best of intentions to see that British Columbia or Ontario apple juice is placed on the menu in the different camps and messes. I hope that by drawing his attention to it, he will have the matter checked, because I think it is unfair to call for these huge quantities of juice that have to be brought into this country from other countries when we have a better product manufactured in our own country.
I am outlining our troubles in the hope that the suggestions I have made will bear fruit. After listening to the minister today giving figures regarding our trade with Great

The Address-Mr. Jones Britain I can see very little hope of increasing what is already an increased figure, but I would suggest that the cabinet consider trying to persuade Great Britain to allow some of the money now being spent in Canada to be diverted to apples. I mention that because we are definitely stuck with apples, grown especially for the United Kingdom market. I do feel that if through the good offices of the cabinet and the ministers concerned, we can induce the British government to sidetrack some of that money they are spending in larger quantities each year towards purchasing our fruit we shall be moving a step forward because I think that would be a good policy. If it were possible for negotiations to be carried out to take payment in sterling or, as I have suggested before, barter for other goods, it would be to our advantage. Foreign markets are a little more difficult. We have sold in practically every country m the world from Egypt to South America and in Japan and China. Through an excellent product we were gaining command of the foreign market until the United States suddenly decided that they were going to try to get into that lucrative market. They have done it not through producing a superior product but through subsidizing the apple industry to the tune of $1.25 a box or $1.25 a bushel. I feel that the whole question of our foreign trade should be referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization, or a special committee should be set up, composed of agricultural members and financial members, to discuss how best we can solve the problems of an industry such as ours in a valley that is geared up_ to a condition that no longer exists. It is a longtime plan that we have to deal with, and I feel that in order to give us help over the present difficulties we should have the government apply a floor price. I m m going to take up the time to deal with that but I make the suggestion to the government that floor prices for apples and vegetables be considered. Again I am suggesting to the cabinet that they instruct the farm loan board to be more generous than they were with the victims of the last severe frost we had in the valley. The conditions under which these farmers can get loans today are more difficult than they were five or even ten years ago because, presumably upon instructions given to farm loan officials on the ground, it appears to be impossible to get decent loans on good risks. I have pointed out before that risks have been turned down by the farm loan board, although they have been acceptable to orthodox loan companies and, in one case, an orthodox bank, for loans of similar amounts.


I feel the intent of the farm loan board should be to be more free with loans than are the banking institutions and the other loan companies. Yet such is not the case. Therefore I would ask the minister to talk this matter over and see if something cannot be done to help these people bridge over this very difficult period in their development.
Owing to the joint calamity of frozen orchards and shrinking markets another problem faces us in the valley, and I refer to the problem of the workers in the industry. The packing house season is very short, and the season for field work is also short, and has also been reduced to a high degree because of difficulties arising from the loss of trees.
The claim period for unemployment insurance has been reduced, as well. This, on top of the seasonal nature of the industry, merits special consideration. I would ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) to survey the conditions now existing in the tree fruit areas where some thousands of men and women are at the moment unemployed. Such a survey should take into consideration unemployment insurance for farm workers. I do believe that if it were extended to farm workers they would be assisted materially in the present crisis.
I would suggest also that the minister consider extending the supplementary claim period until the end of May. As it is today, many of these seasonal workers cannot possibly hope to qualify for unemployment insurance, because of the shorter periods during which they are employed. I feel that in those cases, where men and women have been contributing toward protection they cannot get, and do not hope to get because of the shortness of the season, they should be returned in full any premium they may have paid during the previous year. I believe this would give justice to these people.
I feel also that this survey should take place immediately, and that steps should be taken to try to stabilize the unemployment situation in the tree fruit area. I have here a letter from the city of Kelowna bearing the signature of the city clerk, and endorsing a resolution sponsored by the city of London, in Ontario. While the preamble covers the condition of unemployment in Ontario, the latter part of the letter does cover the situation in British Columbia as well. So, if I may, I should like to read the resolution, which states:
That whereas the dominion government, in the early years of world war II. negotiated with the provinces for the exclusive right to tax income;
And whereas, at the same time, the responsibility for relief of unemployed persons was taken over 100 per cent by the dominion government and the

provinces undertook, on behalf of themselves and their municipalities, to share the cost of maintaining unemployable persons, the ratio of responsibility in Ontario being 50 per cent and 50 per cent;
And whereas over the past twelve years the dominion government has been faced with practically no unemployment problem so that its responsibility for relief of unemployment, in relation to the revenue collected from employers and employees for unemployment insurance premiums, has been negligible, while at the same time the whole burden of relief of unemployable persons has been borne by the provinces and their municipalities;
And whereas the present increase in unemployment due primarily to the dislocation of manufacturing and construction work, as the result of credit restrictions and material priorities, has resulted in numerous appeals to the municipal level of government for assistance, either to eke out inadequate unemployment relief benefits or to substitute for them where the unemployed person is not entitled to benefit or is uncovered by the unemployment insurance regulations;
Therefore be it resolved that the dominion government be requested to take action immediately to survey the unemployment problem and the need for increased unemployment insurance benefits and/or relief assistance, and reduction of the waiting period for collection of unemployment insurance benefit, to the minimum interval possible; that in line with the responsibilities assumed by the dominion in the dominion-provincial conference of 1940, the dominion government forthwith establish, either under dominion, provincial or municipal government supervision, offices for the handling of applications for unemployment relief assistance, so that the intolerable burden will not again be shouldered on to the municipal governments, whose revenues, being restricted almost entirely to real property tax, are not capable of handling this burden, which, under the above mentioned arrangements, was acknowledged as a dominion responsibility in its entirety.
I commend that resolution earnestly, hoping that the government will study it, and take steps to deal with a condition that I knew some time ago was becoming worse, and I now know is acute in the tree fruit area, particularly the Okanagan valley. I would urge the government to take steps immediately to get the facts and information and, if possible, give immediate relief to that hard-pressed industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Is the
house ready for the question?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before the vote is taken I wish to explain our intention in regard to voting on the subamendment, which reads as follows:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following paragraph:
"(c) To establish a federal authority to deal with meat and with dairy products during the present emergency, with power to establish floor prices for producers to protect consumers by control of retail prices, and to arrange for the equitable distribution of such products during the said emergency."
I wish simply to explain at this time that it is not our intention to support the subamendment. We agree with the suggestion
The Address-Mr. Drew contained therein that there are many things which should be done to meet this emergency; but we do not agree with the apparent intention of the subamendment to set up a government control over the operation of this great dairy and meat industry. The proposal is one which suggests bringing under the government business which, in our opinion, can be handled very much better by the people who are in that business, and have been in it for many years, and who are best trained for the work. It is our intention therefore not to support the subamendment.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: I am sorry to delay the taking of the final vote at this time, Mr. Speaker, and disclaim the responsibility for doing so. I would like to have seen the vote taken, and would not have risen at this time but for the fact that two speeches were made in this house this evening which I consider provocative and requiring an answer. I know the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) was very anxious to have the vote taken, and there is no one with whom I would rather cooperate, for he is a pretty co-operative little fellow. However, in my opinion the statements made this evening should be answered. If the government had been desirous of having the vote taken they should have exercised some judgment and not had those two speeches on the record which have added nothing to the prestige either of those who made them or of the government. In effect, as I listened to them, they added up to complete political immaturity. I am sorry to have to reply to those hon. gentlemen, who are new members; nevertheless Hansard goes out and people throughout the country would wonder why we sat here and allowed that sort of thing to be said without a reply. People outside cannot see and listen to the men who make these speeches.
The first speech I want to take apart a little is that of the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Decore). I think he was very ill-advised in making that sort of speech, particularly in trying to tie us in with the communist party, because from evidence I have seen he is perhaps one of the most vulnerable men in the house on that score. Those who live in glass houses should be very careful about throwing stones.


An hon. Member:: Who is throwing the mud?


Clarence Gillis: Well, you asked for it. The hon. member rose in his place and entered a debate that I thought was finished. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) started that debate on the air, and incidentally there is one error I want to clear up. That error was made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and by Blair Fraser in commenting on the debate 
in the house a few nights ago. Both gentlemen characterized the statement by the C.C.F. national council as a policy statement. The minister said in the house that conditional support for NATO was the policy of the C.C.F. That is completely in error. The policy of the C.C.F. is fixed at a national convention and cannot be changed by anyone until another national convention. The policy of the C.C.F. at the present time, as fixed by the last national convention, is unconditional support for NATO.
The policy statement that caused all this trouble was nothing more or less than a statement of criticism of the Lisbon conference by the national council of the C.C.F. It is an opinion by that national council, and not an official policy of the C.C.F. Both Mr. Fraser and the minister, therefore, were in error when they characterized that statement as C.C.F. policy. That is enough of that for me, because I think the remarks made by the leader of the C.C.F. and the Secretary of State for External Affairs placed the opinions of their respective parties before this house much more clearly than the member for Vegreville was able to do tonight. All he has succeeded in doing is muddying the waters.
Where does he go for his evidence? He said he was quoting from a communist paper, but he did not identify it. I presume it was the Canadian Tribune. He digs down a long way to gather up official evidence, and he places that before the house as a matter of record that the C.C.F. is wrong and Tim Buck is right. I think that is rather poor evidence. I have seen a lot of statements in that paper about matters I knew something about, and I certainly would not go out of my way to quote that paper in support of any argument that I might make. As the hon. member is relatively new, and I think immature politically, I would warn him that, on the whole, newspapers are not very good evidence with which to support any argument.


John Decore: On a question of privilege: I was not quoting the Tribune, I was quoting Mr. Tim Buck the leader of the communist party in Canada.


Clarence Gillis: You were quoting from the Canadian Tribune.


John Decore: I made reference to it in my speech, and said that it was the Canadian Tribune.


Clarence Gillis: It was the only evidence the hon. member presented to the house that there was anything wrong with the C.C.F.
Let us have a look at some of the evidence that might be considered in regard to identifying the communist party with a lot of

other groups in this country. For example,
I could take copies of newspapers issued previous to the 1945 election-most of the members in this house have read them-which record the fact that Tim Buck, the witness called tonight by the member for Vegreville, proposed a united front with Mackenzie King and solid support for the Liberal party. Even so, I would not be narrow-minded enough to say that the Liberal party is communist. You see, what the hon. member has to understand is that these people will hang themselves on any limb to hold themselves up.
On the other hand, I should like to remind the hon. member that he agrees with old age pensions. So does the L.P.P. and Tim Buck; they openly proclaimed that fact. The hon. member agrees with unemployment insurance, and so does Tim Buck. The hon. member agrees on family allowances and all those social security measures. When the government proposes such measures, and the hon. member supports them in this house, then Tim Buck states in the Tribune that he agrees with all those social security measures and has been fighting for them for years, does the hon. member believe that places him and the members of this house in the communist camp? These people hang on to something you are doing in order to give themselves prestige.	*


John Decore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: the hon. member has asked me a question, and I think I should answer it.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Clarence Gillis: It is completely analogous to what the hon. member tried to do tonight. Again this points to the political immaturity of the hon. member, and I am excusing him on that ground alone.
If I believed all the figures, newspaper reports and so forth were correct, then I might believe a statement made by the member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) which appears in Hansard for September 29, 1949. In my opinion the member at that time made a very good case to show that the member for Vegreville was elected with about 3,000 communist votes. It is for that reason I say the member for Vegreville is vulnerable. After listening to that speech, and looking at it again tonight, I could suspect that the member for Vegreville may be a fellow traveller or else why did he get all this support? But I would not do that. I like to give a person the benefit of the doubt, and I give him the benefit of the doubt on that score. If I were to grab the first piece of paper that contained some evidence that looked as though he may be associated with these people, I would say
The Address-Mr. Gillis he is a communist or else why all that support? As I say, I give him the benefit of the doubt, but he wants to be a little careful in future about grabbing up that kind of evidence and trying to hang something on the members of this house whose records are very well known throughout the country.
Then, if I wanted to go further with that argument and say that he was suspect, all I would have to do is to look at ten polls in his own riding. I have the material in my hand, and the switch in the communist vote between 1945 and 1949 is noticeable. The communist vote went Liberal. I do not want to waste the time of the house, but no doubt the hon. member knows about those polls. There was no C.C.F. candidate in that riding. Again, I could make a lot of noise about it, and say the hon. member was suspect, and that the chances are he is in that camp. But even on the basis of that stronger evidence, and what he had at his disposal tonight, I am inclined to say, "Well, until a court of law convicts him in accordance with British jurisprudence he is innocent", and we give him the benefit of the doubt.
He stood up tonight and, with the flimsy evidence of a statement made by Tim Buck, and on the basis of a statement issued: by the national council, he said that placed us in the category of playing along with these fellows. Then he contradicted himself by reading further from Tim Buck's statement. It goes on to accuse the C.C.F. of backing monopoly capitalists, so his evidence was very weak, very wishy-washy. We could not be both.


John Decore: May I ask a question?


An hon. Member:: You can't take it.


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


John Decore: Would the hon. member say I tried to tie the C.C.F. with the communist party in Canada, or would he say I merely tried to point out a statement that was made by Tim Buck as further corroboration of the statement made in this house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the policy statement concerning NATO issued by the C.C.F. national council was merely playing into the hands of the communist propagandists?


Clarence Gillis: No-yes, I definitely say you did try to place us in the communist camp. I listened carefully to the minister's speech- and I have a lot of respect for him-and I listened to his radio broadcast, and he definitely stated that the statement made by the C.C.F. national council indicated that they were moving toward the communist position. If that is not trying to place us in that camp,
470	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gillis then I do not know what is. The hon. member carefully followed what the minister had to say, and buttressed what he had to say, and people reading the record will definitely understand that that is the position the C.C.F. are taking according to the hon. member's and the minister's interpretation of the national council's statement. Then again, as to this business of newspapers, grabbing their interpretation and trying to hang something on it on the strength of something that a newspaper editor has said, may I say this. I have in my hand the Globe and Mail of this morning. In that editorial there is a paragraph that says this:
On the other hand, the C.C.F. seems to have been right in saying that the Lisbon program was "irresponsible" in the sense that it was a bluff. Virtually the same thing was said by Progressive Conservatives and is now in effect admitted by Mr. Pearson.
I consider this to be a more reputable paper than the Canadian Tribune. Would the hon. gentleman classify the writer of that editorial as moving towards the communist position or the Conservatives who take that position as moving towards the communist line? Nothing is more ridiculous. Or would he say that of Mr. Pearson, even suppose that Pearson admits the fact that the Lisbon conference was irresponsible? I would not be dragging out ghosts and skeletons if I were a member of this house on the Liberal side -not that kind of a skeleton anyway. If we wanted to be mean, there is something we could do. We hear and take lots of abuse, innuendoes and insinuations. We are Christians, though; we are charitable and we take all that. But when someone gets up, takes a straight kick at you right in the teeth, and then sticks his chin out and asks for it, there is not anything to do but give it to him. I have in my hand this full page advertisement; and may I say this is evidence, with pictures, that everybody can understand. This appeared in the North Grey by-election. It is a paid advertisement by the Liberal party. The hon. member did not know this, and that is why I say his statement was politically immature. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) would never have raised what he did today.


James Garfield Gardiner: You would be surprised what I would raise on this question.


Clarence Gillis: The minister knows his onions, in addition to agriculture. This is a thing that still hangs around. These things are always available, ready to be picked up. This advertisement was used in that North Grey by-election; just notice the names that are mentioned here: Collins, Murray, Jackson, Pat Sullivan and several others-all men that were interned during the war. Here is a


full page advertisement paid for by the Liberal party in that North Grey by-election, and it contains their pictures. They were O.K. then. Because you can use these fellows in an election, and they are trying to use you at the same time, I would not suggest for a minute, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal party was going communist or the communist party was going Liberal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They were in the same boat.


Mr. Sinclair:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


James Sinclair: When the hon. member is quoting this advertisement, which I do not recall, may I ask if he recalls the statement of Harold Winch, the leader of the C.C.F. in British Columbia, that the only country he would fight for is Soviet Russia. Since he did not fight for Canada in the last war, I presume that statement still stands. Does the hon. member recall that statement?


Clarence Gillis: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not. I have heard some foolish things credited to Harold Winch.


James Sinclair: So has everybody. The year in which that statement was made is 1937.


Clarence Gillis: I have never heard that accusation. The fact of the matter is that Harold Winch was in uniform during the last war, as the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) knows. There are a lot of people that may be as patriotic as is the hon. member for Coast-Capilano or the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) but who have not the physical attributes necessary to enable them to don a uniform and slug it out in Belgium or Korea. I never heard that statement.


James Sinclair: I never heard of that advertisement either.


Some hon. Members:: Read the whole of it.


Clarence Gillis: I do not think it is necessary to read it.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been put on Hansard three times already.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, it is on Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, you cannot put pictures on Hansard. The election is over. It is part of history. I merely use this advertisement tonight as a warning to my hon. friend and to indicate to him that, before he gets up in this house and makes an attack like the one he made tonight on any group in the house, he should be careful to consult

with some people in his own party who are more politically mature and that he should be careful not to drag out the kind of thing he has tonight, because I think he did himself a disservice by doing so. It added nothing to the debate and it merely brought out a post mortem tonight, something which I myself do not like to indulge in at any time.
I should like to say a few words to my friend, the hon. member for Humboldt, and I place him in the same category as I place the hon. member for Vegreville. He perhaps did the best he could with the material he had. The hon. member tonight made an attack on the trade union movement in this country.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: Mr. Speaker, that is not so. I did not make an attack on the union movement.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: I tried to be exceedingly fair to any union, because I myself belong to a union, only it is one of a different kind. I made no attacks on the unions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Clarence Gillis: That is a matter of opinion. I listened to the hon. member and took notes of what he said. That does not bother me a great deal. I can take a kicking around. I have a fairly thick skin.


James Sinclair: You have taken one in your own party.


An hon. Member:: So have you.


James Sinclair: You are experts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Clarence Gillis: I have taken a kicking around all my life. As a rule I am a little bit ahead of people. If they do not understand you, it takes them a long time to catch up to you.


An hon. Member:: You are too modest.


Clarence Gillis: I have belonged to the trade union movement since its inception. I think Nova Scotia gave birth to the trade union movement in this country.


Mr. Gibson:: You used a pick handle.


Clarence Gillis: Yes. You had to do it then. You did not have any legislation, with someone taking you around by the hand. It is because I went through that the hard way that I feel rather sensitive about it and am loyal to that particular trend of thought. If someone gets up in the house and attacks the medical profession I would expect the medical doctors in the house to get up and fight back. I know that if you attack the legal profession you will have the whole 89 of them on their
The Address-Mr. Gillis feet at the one time. I know that from experience. I have had that experience. As I listened to the hon. gentleman tonight I felt sorry for him. I was reminded of what the Lord said when they were crucifying him: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. The hon. member's speech certainly will not get him any votes, but it is a line with which I am familiar. It is a line that was developed by the manufacturers association and their allied associations many years ago: Divide the farmer and the worker. It worked for a while, but I do not think it works any longer, for the interests of the farmer and of the worker are identical. They are both working for the same boss.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: Absolutely.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member said he agreed with unions. The fastest way to kill anything you want to kill is to accept it in principle and then proceed to knife it in the back-the oblique attack. You can kill it by kindness; and it will die of its own volition. The chamber of commerce is wise to that procedure. The hon. member said he agreed with unions and then he proceeded to tear them to pieces. The interests of the farmer and of the worker are identical.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: Agreed.


Clarence Gillis: He decried high wages.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: I did not.


Clarence Gillis: Look up your Hansard tomorrow if you have not changed it tonight. He decried high wages.


James Sinclair: You may change some of yours before this is over.


Clarence Gillis: As long as you can keep your wages up and demand up in the industrial sections you are providing a market.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: Agreed. That is what I said.


Clarence Gillis: And you will have a market for your agricultural products.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: That is what I said.


Clarence Gillis: He talked about unionism or hoodlumism in the unions.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: That is right.


Clarence Gillis: I want to warn you about this, brother; but most of the strikes that took place in this country were not the responsibility of unions, and we do not have to go back any further than 1946. I knew what was going to happen in 1946 and I warned a lot of people, but they did not listen to me, because I came through one war and I knew that at the end of every war industry goes

The Address-Mr. Gillis through a period of what they term rationalization. It means, get rid of all the old men that you had to hire during the war while the young men were fighting. All these industries were heavily subsidized, and I mean subsidized to the end of 1946. In that year industry in this country wanted strikes, first, because their production would be paid for, and secondly, because they could lay off thousands of men in this country that they would never lay off through negotiations.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Clarence Gillis: I can prove that.


Mr. Laing:: How does that square with the Ford strike?


Clarence Gillis: Right in this last year what happened about the strikes? The unions did not call for them.


James Sinclair: Every year better employment and better wages. You know that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Clarence Gillis: I am sure the hon. member for Coast-Capilano who used to push a barrow underground out in the rock mines of British Columbia would not take that attitude.


James Sinclair: We have both gone ahead since that time.


Clarence Gillis: However, you know, Ottawa does something to you.


James Sinclair: To you, too.


Clarence Gillis: You get bigger, you get fatter, you get softer. You are inclined to think that everybody is wrong but yourself.


James Sinclair: No.


Clarence Gillis: You live in this vacuum too long. It is a good thing that some of us can get back once in a while to reality. We come back with a new perspective.
However, with respect to this hoodlumism in the unions, my friend, you need to be sure of what you say. There is no hoodlumism in the unions. The hon. member said that. They are just average, ordinary working plugs who are eking out an existence without very much of a future to look forward to.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: I did not say that.


Clarence Gillis: Many times. If you knew this game as well as I did, and if you had been taken for a ride as many times as I have been taken you would recognize the symptoms. If you have smallpox once yourself and you see it on somebody else later you will recognize it. In all of this turmoil and upset in industry 99 per cent of the time it is not the responsibility of the workers. They

have been taken for a ride for some definite purpose that is going to benefit the employer. I do not say that is so all the time.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: May I ask a question? Are you condoning this radical element in the unions?


Clarence Gillis: What radical element? That is what I would like you to tell me. You point out that radical element.


An hon. Member:: What about the Ford strike?


James Sinclair: Harvey Murphy.


Clarence Gillis: I am not discussing Harvey Murphy; I am discussing the hon. gentleman. You fellows have already endorsed him; you have plastered his picture all over. I am merely warning my hon. friend; I do not know this radical element. I know that movement. I go to the Canadian Congress of Labour convention; I sit in and I see 600 delegates there. I visit the mine workers local, which is supposed to be one of the toughest unions in North America. I have seen much more radicalism right in the house here and a lack of decorum.


James Sinclair: Hear, hear.


Clarence Gillis: They are much more careful about their statements. I do not know any radical element. I know that there is a struggle for a job inside and there are differences of opinion. We have got them here. That is democracy in action. This radicalism is only a slogan that has been hung on there for the purpose of fooling people like yourself, and unfortunately it does fool some people. You may get good leadership in the union movement or poor leadership; but don't you get that in political parties? What about Thomson in the last election? I am sure the hon. gentleman does not hold the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) responsible for that, or the Liberal party. You just have to work with the tools you have. That is true of the labour movement.
I hear a lot about this radicalism and all that kind of stuff. I do not see it. I have a lot of respect for them. They listen to you. Their case is always well prepared. This radicalism is just a peculiar type of class propaganda, that is all.
The hon. gentleman read a statement here this afternoon. He said that reds were in control of local 600, Ford auto workers, in the United States. That is a rather broad and sweeping statement. Walter Reuther is the president of the auto workers union, national and international; Victor Reuther is the educational director of that organization. I have met both of them. I think they are as fine

men and as sound men as there are in North America. It is not so long ago that Walter Reuther cleaned that element out of the organization. It is not so long ago that his arm was practically blasted off him through a window of his home.


Arthur Laing: He is anti-socialist, too.


Clarence Gillis: The same thing applies to his brother, Victor. He was blasted through a window with a shotgun. To say that the auto workers union in the United States is controlled by communists is just to indicate to the house that the hon. gentleman had not very much knowledge of the subject that he was talking about. These two men incurred the enmity of all these fellows in the United States to the extent that I have just indicated.
You have to admit that in this country all during the war you did not have any acts of sabotage, you did not have any suggestion of disloyalty in any section of the trade movement; but you found that right here in the government service. That is where the espionage took place, where the trials took place. We could pick them out. But in all the great organizations across this country where there were many opportunities of that kind nothing like that happened. There was not a single case. There was not any evidence of disloyalty on the part of the workers of Canada, and of the trade unions. In that very difficult period they demonstrated their responsibility, their loyalty to the country, both in production and in keeping the organization and the industries free from any subversive elements.
I know the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) would not condone the speech made here today by the hon. member. I read his New Year's message to the workers of Canada, to both congresses, in which he complimented them on their record of production, on their sanity and responsibility, on the contribution they were making to the country, both in industry and socially. He complimented their leaders. It was a very well written article, a well deserved article, and it reflected considerable credit on the minister who is new in the department and is picking up the whole trend in the labour movement.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: I agree with that.


Clarence Gillis: My hon. friend, that is the trouble. Your speech was completely contradictory. The hon. member said he believed in trade unions, and yet he characterized their members as hoodlums and as gangsters. He used those words. He was against the high trend in wages. It was all right if it provided a market for farm products. That was a complete contradiction again.
The Address-Mr. Knight
He agreed with unemployment insurance, family allowances, and all of these things that were fought for. Well, you know, they were not got easily. I can remember when there was no unemployment insurance and no family allowance, not even the right to stand in a hall and hold a meeting. My mind goes back to sitting in a little hall and seeing men shot around me by coal company thugs. They were not paying attention to or thinking of social security measures. We had to fight and stick through all that. It is a pattern today; it is accepted today. It is working well, it is working even better than I expected it could work, considering the difficulties we encountered in the early days. All of these measures with which you now agree were fought for by that organized labour movement. I can remember many people in the province I come from who, week after week, month after month, were evicted from their homes and lived in tents during the winter months, with the army and the navy-there was no air force in those days-and with barbed wire all around them. We were struggling for the right to have these things.
I am glad I lived to see things that many of the older people I knew did not live to see. But they had vision. And I am glad to see that we have got around to the point in this country of accepting these things as being necessary in this day and age. I would suggest strongly to the hon. member not to use the propaganda device that was perfected by chambers of commerce a good many years ago to divide the farmers and the workers. We are all working for the same goal. Our interests are identical, and we have to work together.
The attitude he took tonight and the language he used in reference to the trade union movement in my opinion showed poor judgment on his part and provoked me to rise in my place this evening and to say the things I have said.
I am sorry I had to get up and sound off at this time, but I thought that the provocative speech of the hon. member for Vegre-ville and the speech made by my hon. friend across the way required some answer from me, because I am interested personally in both the subjects they raised. I thought their statements were completely in error.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker,
I had a few words to say before the dinner recess this evening, and indicated that I had something to say in criticism of the Department of National Defence. After listening to the speech of the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Hetland) I decided I would say a word or two about his speech.

The Address-Mr. Knight
Perhaps it is unfortunate that I have to follow my colleague who has just spoken, because I cannot promise to equal either the logic or the wit with which he has kept the house enthralled during the last thirty or forty minutes. Like the hon. member, I deplore the speech of the hon. member for Humboldt.
I took down a few notes of what he said. However I do not think I shall burden the house with a discussion of them, because my colleague has handled the matter well and efficiently. And might I say that when my colleague from Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) sharpens his axe there is no one who is better able to wield it.
I cannot understand the bitter attack against the working people of this country by the hon. member for Humboldt, particularly the attack he made against those in the trade unions. Has not the hon. member, who represents an almost peculiarly rural area in Saskatchewan, and who is a neighbour of mine, any cause affecting the farmers he represents that could have been advanced by him positively in the house, rather than to have taken the negative approach of attacking the urban workers? I wonder if his speech represents the attitude of other Saskatchewan Liberal members toward our fellow men in the towns and cities. I would ask the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald) and the hon. member for Kootenay East what they think of the statement of their colleague who hails from the rural constituency of Humboldt.
Had the hon. member advanced any arguments, I would have been delighted to have tried to answer them. I cannot do that, however, because no argument was advanced. His whole speech was a masterpiece of selfcontradiction. I do wish to say once again, however, and to say emphatically that, on behalf of the workers in the city of Saskatoon, which I represent, I resent the attack he has made upon the labouring people in this country. May I advise my hon. friend, when he is seeking a subject he understands, and upon which he would be able to speak in the house, not to attempt to speak on labour problems.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: I still insist that I made no attack upon labouring men.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I suggest that he ought not to speak about the labouring section of the population, of whom he knows little and with whom he apparently has no sympathy.
Then, before the supper recess I said I would have a word of criticism to offer concerning a transaction of the Department of National Defence. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall follow my notes fairly closely.

because I wish to be sure that what I have to say is documented, and that there are no inaccuracies in it.
To begin with, may I say that I believe I have a serious indictment to bring against the Department of National Defence, an indictment of negligence, carelessness and lack of consideration in its dealings with certain farmers in my constituency in the Dundurn area of Saskatchewan, where there is a military camp.
At some time last summer or last fall-I do not know the dates-the military authorities had mooted the extension of the military camp at Dundurn, and that such extension would involve purchase by the department of the lands of a number of farmers. I have heard the number given as 28, but I am not sure of that.
On January 26 last I was informed of these matters by one of the men involved, notably that he had asked one of the inspectors who had come around to consider the expropriation of these lands if, in fact, he would be likely to have to move oil his place in the fall. This gentleman-and I do not know whether I am describing him correctly when I refer to him as an inspector-told the farmer-and I have the farmer's word for it, as well as the name of the inspector-that he certainly expected the expropriation would take place and that he, the farmer, had better be looking out for another farm.
The farmer proceeded to do just that, namely to look for a suitable farm. He found it, and made a deal. I do not know whether he paid anything on the option on the other farm, but he made a deal pending the decision of the government.
As time went on-and time is of the essence in this particular argument, as you will see later when I develop my theme- he began to get anxious, and asked for a definite decision from the Department of National Defence. He asked whether his land would or would not be expropriated.
He told me that the department-and I have only his word for it-had taken an option. What that means to him, I do not know; but I do know what it means to me. He told me that the department had taken an option on his land. I do not know whether he meant they had paid him anything or not. I should think that would be a legal point.
At any rate, as time went by, realizing the tremendous amount of work involved and the tremendous job it is to move from one farm to another, he wrote to the department asking for a definite decision. And, note this, his letter was not even answered.

Then, more time passed. On January 26- and I have the date in my little notebook- they got in touch with me and asked if I could do anything to find out whether they could then get some money with which they could make a payment so as to make firm this deal for the other farm, or, failing that, whether they could get some definite assurance from the Department of National Defence that their lands would be expropriated. They pointed out that if they had such definite assurance in writing they could go to the bank and borrow sufficient money to make a first payment on the new farm.
As I have said, one of these men complained to me that his letter, written quite some time ago, before he saw me, had not even been answered by the Department of National Defence. Well, I was astonished, because I wish to give the departments credit-not the department in question, but other departments with which I have been in communication-by stating that I have always received prompt answers to my letters, and that they have been most courteous in that regard. But it was not so in this case. I was shocked to learn that the man had written weeks and weeks before and had received no answer. I assured him that I could guarantee to get an answer quickly from the department. On the next day, that is January 27, I wrote a personal letter to the minister. A few days later I had an answer from the executive assistant assuring me that he would make immediate inquiries why the letter had not been answered. When I got that letter from the executive assistant I assumed that he or the minister or somebody in the department would write immediately to the farmer. I thought the matter was closed.
As a matter of fact, I telephoned this man immediately and said, "You are all right, you will be having your answer immediately because I have received word from the executive assistant to the minister." On February 25-I ask you to note that date-four weeks later, my friend telephoned me that he had not yet received a letter from the department. That was the night before I left home. On my arrival in Ottawa I went to the minister's office and gave notice that I intended asking a question next day of the minister. The executive assistant was very sorry about it and said that the file must have been mislaid in the department. He promised to write at once to my constituent, and he did so. I ask you again to note these dates. He wrote two letters, one on March 4 and the other on March 5. The farmer had written quite a while before I had, and my letter was dated January 27. As I said, the
The Address-Mr. Knight executive assistant wrote two letters, the second going out as a result of my question of the minister in the house. Here is the question I asked, as reported on page 85 of Hansard of March 4:
National Defence
Question as to Expropriation of land near Dundurn Camp
On the orders of the day:


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I should like to
direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister prepared to immediately notify farmers in the area of Dundurn military camp, upon whose land the government has an option, as to whether or not their land is to be expropriated?
I ask you to note that phrase "the government has an option" because it will be important when I quote the reply of the minister, which was as follows:


Brooke Claxton: I expect that those options will be
taken up within the next few weeks, and that, in cases where it is desired, arrangements can be made under which the government will not enter into possession of the land until the end of the crop year 1952.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Is the minister aware that those
farmers need some cash payment now if they are to secure other land upon which to move so that they can prepare the land for spring work? Is he aware that in the case of at least one man there is a request for an answer in this regard, and no answer has been given?


Brooke Claxton: I did not know of any such requests that had not been answered. I shall see that answers are sent at once.
And he did. I direct your attention to that reply of the minister where he said that he expected those options would be taken up within the next few weeks. I ask you whether or not that suggests that options had been so taken up. You may imagine that I am now at the end of my story, but there is worse to come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I do not think my hon. friends on the government side will be saying "hear, hear", when they hear the rest of the story, unless of course they are backing this sort of thing, they believe in this sort of thing, they are prepared to defend this sort of thing. I challenge any one of them to get up and defend1 this sort of thing.


An hon. Member:: Careful, boy.


An hon. Member:: Do not get mad.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am usually a mild man-


An hon. Member:: Watch your blood pressure.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: -but that sort of silly, stupid, childish interruption when we are discussing a matter so important to this group of farmers in that area, men who did not know from

The Address-Mr. Knight day to day whether the next day they would have to start moving their families, their household goods and their farm equipment and machinery; whether they would have time to get their seed wheat ready, should not be made. Yet they could not get an answer from the Minister of National Defence. My friends boo and jeer and say, "why don't you sit down?"


An hon. Member:: Why don't you?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Let any one of them get up on his feet now and defend this sort of thing. I am challenging any one of them to do that. I challenge the Minister of National Defence to do it. Let him reply and we will see if we get these sneers from the audience. As I said, I am usually a mild man and I hope that when I do this sort of thing I get credit for doing it with some conviction. I hope it will be given some consideration. This cheap business of not wishing to hear anything that happens to be hurtful to the political side upon which you happen to be is of no credit to you. Let me tell my hon. friends that they are responsible for the administration of this government, and these farmers in the Dundurn area should not be treated like dirt. Just answer that.
I said that the story up to this point had been pretty bad, but from here on it gets worse. Listen to this. On March 4 the minister had said that these options would be taken up. But I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the Star-Phoenix, the local newspaper, on March 3. Apparently they had got wind that the farmers had been making certain inquiries and they had telephoned or wired to Ottawa to the Department of National Defence. That is the place where the Minister of National Defence is. That is the same place where the executive assistant is, that is the same place where the head of the department is, that is the place where the orders come from, that is the place where they are supposed to know their business. I said "supposed to" advisedly.
In replying to my question on March 4 the minister said that the options would be taken up. But on March 3 the Star-Phoenix contained a dispatch from Ottawa dated March 1, the day after I had arrived in Ottawa to take up the matter with the government and two days before the minister said that the options were being taken up. As I said, time was an important element in this matter. Perhaps hon. members will believe it now. Perhaps they would like to have another sneer

at this. Try this one on your sneerers and see how you like it. The article reads:
Denies Army Took Land at Dundurn
Ottawa, March 1-Army spokesmen here denied that the defence department had taken over land belonging to 28 farmers near Dundurn to expand the military camp there.
They were commenting on reports that the army had taken over this land but had as yet paid the farmers no money for it. The reports said landowners had made deposits on other land, and that if they did not receive payment from the government soon for their own land, they would lose their deposits on the other land they intended to buy.
The army officials said the Department of Transport, acting as agents for the army, had approached the 28 farmers and had asked them how much money they wanted for their land, in the event of the army taking it over, the spokesman said. Presumably replies had been received from the 28 farmers.
However, these landowners had not been asked to give up their land to the army, nor had any expropriation steps been taken. The inquiries made were purely exploratory and no action had been taken other than to make these inquiries, the spokesmen said.
Whether or not the army actually intended to buy the land in question the officials would not say.
If landowners believed purchase by the army was imminent and had therefore gone out and made a down payment on other property that was "unfortunate" they said. But they claimed that nothing the army nor the transport department had done could lead to such a conclusion.
Then two days later the minister said the options were being taken up. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is the case. Somebody in the Department of National Defence blundered. Has that department no sense, no heart, no head, to leave these people in suspense all that time, with spring getting closer and closer and the people facing the task of moving their households, their machinery, and everything else? They showed an utter disregard for the problems of those people, not even answering their letters of inquiry.
A thought just occurs to me; I ask this question of my hon. friends who I notice have now quit the vocal sneering to which we were subjected a few minutes ago. When would those farmers have been notified if I had not raised the question in the house? Let any one of them answer that question if he wishes. I cannot.
Mr. J. W. Nose worthy (York South): Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.


Mr. Noseworthy:: I want to apologize to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), who I know is very anxious to see this debate brought to a conclusion. As a matter of fact during the course of the afternoon I told him in the corridor that as far as I was concerned we could conclude the debate at any time. Earlier in the day I noticed that there

was quite a long list of Liberal speakers. I presume they were called off. I suggest to the minister that he left the wrong speakers on that list if he wanted the debate to end this evening. He could not possibly have left ' two speakers who were more certain to provoke this group into continuing the debate than the two who were left to speak for the Liberal party.
Since I am the only representative in this group from the province of Ontario I certainly would not want this debate to conclude without having something to say concerning the remarks that were made in the house this afternoon, and the slurs which were cast upon this party. As to the debate which was originated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and carried on between him and our leader, I think the facts were put on the record by both hon. gentlemen. I believe most hon. members will agree that we in the C.C.F. are just as anxious about the struggle of democracy with communism as any Liberals in this house, whether they sit on the government benches or elsewhere. No one knows better than social democrats throughout the world what happens to democracy when communism takes over.
I do not think there is any difference of opinion between the government and the C.C.F. as to the over-all objectives of democracy in this struggle. We realize as fully as do the Liberals that the conquest of the free world by communism would be the death knell of democracy, whether that conquest was brought about by military means or by
14, 1952
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy infiltration. We are united as to the ultimate objective; but surely one of the characteristics of a democracy is that citizens have the right to disagree with government policy and to criticize that policy whenever they feel inclined to do so, without being smeared with the communist brush or charged with aiding communism. It will be a sad day for democracy in this country when it becomes impossible for any citizen to criticize the foreign policy of this government or of our friends with whom we have entered into a joint enterprise, the nations of the north Atlantic union, without being accused of aiding and abetting the communists. That will be a sad day for democracy, and we shall have lost one of our most cherished freedoms without any conquest by Russia or communism.
May I call it eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and adjourn the debate?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Noseworthy moves the adjournment of the debate. Agreed?


Mr. McCulloch:: It has not been agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is eleven o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Noseworthy the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: On Monday we will continue this debate.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 17, 1952