1952-03-17

Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on March 7 last the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), in the course of his contribution to the debate on the address, referred to a matter which he had asked the Combines Investigation Act commissioner to investigate and report on, and expressed his willingness to table the report which was made by the combines commissioner on that occasion. Objection was taken to that procedure upon what seemed to me to be an excellent ground, namely that if we permitted members to file documents of that sort we might find ourselves following the practice of the United States congress in that regard. It was pointed out, however, by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) that if this document were presented by a minister, it would take the curse from it. I am glad indeed to table the document, and I suggest to the house that it be reported completely in Hansard because it deals with a matter which is of great interest now to all the farmers of Canada.
By way of introduction to the tabling of the document, I might perhaps insert in Hansard at this point the information that the hon. member for Melfort had asked the commissioner to investigate and to report upon-


Mr. Casselman:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I should like to know under what rule this statement is being made by the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that earlier in the session a question arose with respect to a report which it was requested should be tabled, and objection was taken to the tabling of the document. The minister now is asking permission of the house to table the document. This is the time at which documents should be tabled. I understand the minister would like to go further and have the document included in Hansard. Am I correct in that understanding?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that the document should be included in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Wrighl:: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this document be printed in Votes and Proceedings. Had it been allowed to be printed in Hansard on the day that I asked that it be printed, I would have commented on the letter at that time to a rather larger extent.
I certainly would consent to its being printed in Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. Applewhaite:: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I objected to the printing of this letter in Hansard, when it was first asked for, on the ground that letters, articles and the like which are not read are not eligible to be printed in Hansard. If documents, letters and newspaper articles are filed and so printed, Hansard will no longer be what it is entitled, namely, House of Commons Debates. With whatever ruling Your Honour may make in connection with the document submitted, for which the minister accepts responsibility, I would not be in conflict. But I respectfully suggest that the printing of letters and other documents received by members or tendered by members would be a wrong practice for us to adopt.


Mr. Fulton:: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me that, the objection having initially been taken to the printing of this letter verbatim in Hansard, it should stand without alteration, otherwise we are going to get into an extraordinary position. If the procedure now suggested by the minister is followed, it will establish a principle under which a minister to whom the letter was not addressed, having received from an official in his department a copy of a letter addressed to another hon. member- here the hon. member for Melfort-is then able to have it tabled. It is not a letter addressed to the minister at all. It is not a document, and I suggest it would be establishing a questionable precedent to allow the minister to have that letter either tabled or printed in Hansard, or in Votes and Proceedings. It seems the letter must come, if it comes at all, from the hon. member to whom it was addressed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, if there is any grave objection to the course that is being suggested, I for one am not anxious to press
480	HOUSE OF
Printing of Documents in Hansard it. While this document takes the form of a letter in reply to the hon. member for Melfort, actually it is a report upon the questions which the hon. member addressed to the combines investigation commission, concerning a matter of very great interest to the farming industry of Canada. Having regard therefore to its substantial character, perhaps it would be of interest to all members of the house and of public interest generally that it should be tabled and printed in extenso in Hansard. If there is any disposition that that should not be done, I think it will be a very easy matter to inflict a few remarks upon the house and thereby submit the substance of the report in a debate at some appropriate opportunity, and perhaps that is what I should do.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the minister may be unduly sensitive about the reception that the house will give to any remarks he may make. I judge that from the words he has just used, but I do not think it should be put upon that basis. When he says that he will then be called upon to inflict some remarks upon the house instead of simply tabling the letter, I would point out that this discussion relates to a ruling which Your Honour made a few days ago, and which should be well understood by hon. members. That ruling applies to members of the government as well as to other hon. members. What was pointed out a few days ago was that unless it is something that falls strictly within the ordinary rules of the house, there are other opportunities which present themselves to introduce into the records of the house any remarks or any part of any document which could be read.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the earlier ruling you made, and in respect to what has already been said, that hon. members should be clear on this particular point. Either we are to be permitted to file statements, letters or other material of the kind without their being part of a speech made in the house or fitting into any of the rules which ordinarily apply, or we are going to recognize some established practice which brings them into the usual channels of publication in Hansard.
I suggest that if it is to be the rule that hon. members must avail themselves of some ordinary opportunity in debate to put such material on the record, then that rule should be followed in every case. I do believe it would be unwise to extend the practice of permitting documents to be placed on record without being read. For reasons that are obvious, consent is accorded to the Minister


of Finance in presenting his budget, and to ministers in regard to schedules of figures and information which simply supplement statements they are making in the house; but now that this has come up I think it would be well, Mr. Speaker, if you did draw a distinction between the tabling of schedules of that kind by consent of the house and the suggestion that communications, documents or otherwise should be placed on the record at any time without being read when these simply refer to subjects that could be dealt with in the ordinary course of debate.


Mr. Speaker:: There are public documents which it is necessary to table, and they should be tabled at this time. Apparently the Minister of Justice was under the impression that the house would like to have this document tabled and included in Hansard. The hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman) raised a point of order as to whether the document should be tabled. I understood the hon. member for Melfort would like to have it included in Votes and Proceedings. Would it meet with the wishes of the house to have this document included in Votes and Proceedings'? Agreed?


George Alexander Drew: No.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not agreed?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I for one attach some
importance to the point that was raised earlier as to the origin of the request that this letter be printed in Votes and Proceedings. The point which I think is important is that this being a letter, or having taken the form of a letter, it should only be printed-in any part of the records of this house-on the request of the hon. member to whom it was addressed. If, therefore, it is clearly understood that the request that it be printed-wherever it is to be printed-comes now from the hon. member for Melfort to whom it was addressed, then I myself would have no objection to that course; but, with respect-not because of any personalities whatever, but simply because of what I regard as the proprieties of the situation-I must object to a letter being printed at the request of some hon. member to whom it was not addressed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Melfort has made the suggestion, as I understand it, that it should appear in Votes and Proceedings. I understand it is the wish of the house that that be done. Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions previously hon. members have expressed interest in having the annual report of the national film board considered by a committee of parliament- the last such request was made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) on December 17 of last year. The government has considered these requests, and has decided to set up a special committee for this purpose during the present session. I therefore propose in due course to place on the order paper a notice of motion for the appointment of a committee to 'Consider the annual report of the national film board.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kent, Ont.):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, and in his absence perhaps his parliamentary assistant will answer. Has agreement between the Canadian Department of National Defence and the War Department of the United States in establishing a firing range for jet and other types of planes using live ammunition on lake Erie been concluded? If so, why was all the area established north of the international boundary, as indicated by a plan in the London Free Press under date of March 15?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edward Blake Huffman: The boundary limits as shown are only ten miles from heavily populated areas in my district.


Mr. R. O. Campney (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: May
I take the question as notice?



FLOOD CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Public Works. I regret that I have not given him notice of the question. Has the government been advised of the flood conditions in the Detroit river at La Salle, Ontario? If so, will any assistance be rendered?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Inquiries of the Ministry Fournier) is absent from the house today because of illness. If the hon. member will allow his question to stand, perhaps I can have a word with him and see if the matter to which he refers cannot be investigated.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May I
renew a question I put to the Minister of Labour on March 4, which is recorded at page 84 of Hansard and reads:
Will the minister indicate what policy, if any, the government has worked out to provide for one particular class he has not yet mentioned, namely, the unemployed who flock into a metropolis like Toronto, who are not normally resident therein and who naturally make claims upon the city for support during their period of unemployment?
The minister said:
I shall look into that matter, Mr. Speaker.
May I ask the minister whether he has looked into the matter, and can he now make a statement with reference to government policy in regard to the employable unemployed?


Hon. Millon F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I did look into the question and, having read it, I am quite sure that the hon. member could not have meant it as it was indicated there, because the government had not had any representations whatsoever from the province of Ontario with respect to this matter, a problem which is common to all large cities across Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister was making a statement that day on what he had told representatives from the city of Toronto, who had included that subject in their representations. Now I am asking the minister if the government can indicate what its policy is with reference to provision for employable unemployed.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Fraser:: Just a minute; we want an
answer.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, the representations made by the city of Toronto to my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) fell into three parts. One of them had to do with new Canadians; and my colleague dealt with that matter. Another part was the suggestion that the payment of unemployment insurance in Toronto and Hamilton' might be speeded up if the matter were looked into. I asked last week that a quorum of the unemployment insurance commission go to each of the two cities.

Inquiries of the Ministry They went and consulted with city authorities, and looked into those matters.
The third matter, which included the point mentioned by the hon. member, was pointed out to the delegations as one that was still outside any decisions reached between the provinces and the federal authorities.


Mr. Gray  don:@: May I ask the minister if there is any report from the quorum he just mentioned?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I have just had a verbal report, but I shall be glad to provide my hon. friend with details later.



DISPOSAL OF TOUGH AND DAMP WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Cenire):: Is the
Minister of Trade and Commerce in a position to make a statement in regard to the present market position of damp wheat on the prairies, and the prospects of being able to move it from storage so as to make way for the wheat to be threshed?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: As every hon. member
knows, the problem in connection with tough and damp wheat this year is something far more serious than has ever been met before. We have taken into the elevators about 190 million bushels of tough and damp grain, and we estimate that another 60 million bushels of tough and damp grain is now on the farms ready to be marketed. We are moving that tough and damp grain-giving damp grain the preference-into elevators as rapidly as we can. We believe that that amount of grain-that is, 250 million bushels-can be handled without serious loss, and arrangements are being made which we think will make that possible.
To date about 55 million bushels of tough and damp grain have been dried in the public and private terminal elevators, of which the larger portion is damp grain. Damp grain is now being moved to driers in Duluth, and later on it will be possible to move more damp grain for drying in the United States at other lake ports. We must make it clear, however, that 250 million bushels of touigh and damp grain is all that we can possibly undertake to handle in this crop year.
It is within the power of those who have grain in the fields, by exercising patience, to wait until all that grain can be harvested as dry grain. If they will do that, there will be no difficulty about marketing the grain that has not been harvested. Unless they do
[Mr: Gregg.]
that, we see very little possibility of their being able to market tough or damp grain harvested after the winter months.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the estimated amount still on the farms unharvested?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe I gave that figure the other day. I think it was about 140 million bushels.


Percy Ellis Wright: Can the minister inform us as to the drying capacity in Canadian elevators, per month, and what will have to be moved to the United States for drying?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say what the drying capacity in Canada is. We have dried about 55 million bushels in five months, so that I suppose about 10 million bushels a month would be a fair estimate. The amount that we move to the United States will depend upon the capacity for drying that we can have allocated for Canadian grain, and the capacity of elevator space available. We are selling certain grain as tough grain, and moving it as tough grain. Our Canadian mills are receiving only tough grain to mill into wheat, and Great Britain is taking a great quantity of tough grain. As for damp grain in store, which represents our real problem, we believe we will be able to dry it without spoilage. Indeed, our confidence is evidenced by the fact that we are now paying an extra 20 cents a bushel on damp wheat, and damp barley.


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a further question. Will consideration be given to issuing special disease-free certificates to farmers within the quarantined area of Saskatchewan, so that they may be able to ship out tough and damp wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; those certificates are now being furnished, and they are being accepted at country elevators.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister give the house any hope for an early end to the provincial embargo against the shipment of livestock and meat products?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: All the discussions which we have had would suggest that there will be early relief from them; but I cannot make a definite statement at the present time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister if he is aware that it is by no means all the members

of the house who wish to remove the embargo or to bring about the lifting of provincial embargoes. Those from British Columbia hope the minister will not bring any undue pressure upon the authorities in that province to lift the embargo too early.



ST. PATRICK'S DAY COMMEMORATION OF PATRON SAINTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works, but in his absence I shall ask it of the Prime Minister. Before doing so, however, I would point out that some good friend has been most generous in making a presentation to us which is appropriate to the occasion-St. Patrick's day. On behalf of those friends of the green, Mr. Speaker, I wish you and your big family in this house the best possible day., and express the hope that they will all be as sober and sensible as Irishmen will be when the day is over.
I was about to say that in the Senate chamber they have before them the inspiration of the four patron saints, St. George, St. Andrew, St. Patrick and Joan of Arc.


An hon. Member:: And St. David.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: And Joan of Arc. Would it not be an inspiration to hon. members in this house if those four slabs of stone on the east side we see in this chamber were carved to commemorate St. George, St. Andrew-


Mr. Cruickshank:: Fraser Valley. '


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: -Moan of Arc and St. Patrick? If the Prime Minister would consider that an inspiration, when will the work be proceeded with?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: My understanding is that Your Honour has control of these premises.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before asking a question 1 had intended to ask at this point, may I say that all hon. members will be happy to note that the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) finds inspiration in the Senate in any respect.



MING SUNG INDUSTRIAL COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. St.
55704-31J
Inquiries of the Ministry Laurent) concerning a question I asked last week, and which he said he would take as notice. Is the Prime Minister in a position to report upon the situation with respect to the debt of the Ming Sung company, and the ships which were pledged for the payment of the debt?


Hon. Douglas Abboit (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can give the answer. As hon. -members may have seen, the former head of the Ming Sung company, Mr. Lu, died- in Chungking. Certain newspaper reports indicate that he -committed suicide, but we have no means of verifying that. The ships-, which are subject to charges in favour of Canadian banks to secure the loan guaranteed -by the government, are still in Canton and have not been operating.
I think my hon. friend's question was with reference to the position as to the indebtedness. The loans are still in default. The banks have been paid by the government und-er their guarantee for the defaulted instalments. I should think that the prospects of collecting are perhaps somewhat remote.


Mr. Graydon:: Are the ships still flying our flag?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have no means of knowing, I have not been in Canton.


George Alexander Drew: The question just brings up another -point which I think should be answered at this time. Has the government rescinded the order in council which permits them to fly the Canadian flag?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I answered that before. I said we had instructed- our legal agents in Hong Kong to take -proper legal action to recover the amount of the indebtedness. The ships have not been in- Hong Kong since that time, and- my own feeling has been that the matter should be allowed- to rest -there.


George Alexander Drew: That does not answer my question. I would -point -out that in asking the question I had in mind the answer which was just given by the minister as to the remoteness of the possibility of collecting. I think the house should know whether the ships, which apparently are now not expected- to prove to be -any security, are still permitted- to fly the Canadian flag. I -ask whether the order in council has been rescinded.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has not.


Gordon Graydon: We ought to get the flags back anyway.

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy CONSUMER PRICE INDEX



QUESTION AS TO CONTINUED PUBLICATION OF COST OF LIVING INDEX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with the announcement that the present cost of living index will be published in conjunction with the proposed consumer price index for a short time. Will the minister give assurance that the present cost of living index will be published along with the new consumer price index until the next general election?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I understand it, the cost of living index has nothing to do with politics. It is prepared and published1 by technicians of the bureau of statistics, and I think we pay very little attention as to when the election comes so far as the cost of living index is concerned.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You pay very little attention to the cost of living.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 14, 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 amende ment thereto of Mr. Fair.
Mr. Speaker:: May I bring to the attention of the house the fact that almost daily there is considerable confusion in the house when we enter upon; the orders of the day, and it is most difficult for me to hear what is being said by the hon. member who is speaking. I would ask hon. members who feel that they have pressing duties that require them to leave the chamber to do so as quietly as possible, and also that there should not be conversation at that time to such an extent that I cannot hear what is being said.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourned on Friday evening I had stated that there wais no disagreement between the C.C.F. and the Liberals regarding democracy's over-all objective in its conflict with communism. While we agree with the point of view expressed by the Prime Minister over the week end that it would be sheer folly to seek to destroy the Soviet state by force, we are prepared, just as are other parties represented
[Mr. Graydon.l
in this house, to resist to the utmost of our ability any further aggression by Russia or by any of its satellites.
Whatever difference of opinion there may be between the C.C.F. on the one hand and the Liberals on the other, it does not concern our objective of preventing further communist aggression, regardless of what form that aggression may take. Such differences of opinion as do exist on this subject are with respect to the method by which our common objective is to be attained. Surely we have not reached a state of dictatorship in this House of Commons whereby one dare not differ with government policy, even on a matter as serious as our conflict with communism, without being charged with aiding the enemy.
Surely it is still possible in this parliament to debate the pros and cons of government policy and in that process discover what the known facts are without being accused of following the Kremlin line. Is it not a fact that is recognized by all of us, including the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), that Russian aggression is not necessarily confined to military aggression? Is it not a well-recognized fact that the economic collapse of France, Italy or any of our European allies would serve the purpose of Russia just as well as or probably better than the military conquest of any of those countries?
Is it not a well-recognized fact that the struggle between democracy and communism in the underdeveloped areas of the world is basically an economic and not a military struggle? Is it not also a well-established fact that our success in holding those underdeveloped areas within democracy's camp will depend on the extent to which democracy can demonstrate to those people that we can provide more security and a higher standard of living than communism can?
If we accept these premises, then surely there can be some difference of opinion regarding the balance that is to be maintained between military preparations, military expenditures and economic security in Europe, and between military expenditures and economic assistance to the underdeveloped countries. Am I not correct in saying that we stand to gain more by debating these questions in an effort to ascertain all the known facts than we would by trying to brush off criticism with the charge that those who criticize the government's policy are aiding the enemy?

The minister reminded us, as reported on page 388 of Hansard of March 13, as follows:
The power of the U.S.S.R. on land, as expressed in terms of divisions, is probably anywhere from 175 to 225.
Newsweek, in its publication Platform, for November, 1950, tells us that General Omar Bradley said that Russia had 175 operational divisions; that they could be increased to 300 divisions within sixty days, and to 500 divisions within a few months of mobilization. Who can tell us how many divisions Russia will have ready by 1954 as compared with NATO's proposed 100 divisions? Speaking of economic and social difficulties, the minister asked this question, as reported on page 390:
If that aggression should occur, then what chance shall we have in NATO, in the United Nations or anywhere else to promote that economic and social progress about which we have all spoken so many times . . . ?
I should like to ask the minister a question which in my opinion is just as logical as the one he asked. If that aggression should occur, then what chance shall we have in NATO, in the United States or anywhere else with 100 divisions in the field against Russia's 300 or 500 divisions, if in the meantime there has been an economic collapse in Italy or France or any other European country? Surely the economic stability of our European allies is a matter closely tied in with our military strength, and one which merits some consideration in this house. It cannot be brushed aside, either by the minister charging his critics with aiding the enemy, or by the Globe and Mail saying that the C.C.F. was talking nonsense when it said that NATO was becoming militaristic and overdoing preparedness.
Preparedness implies much more than military preparedness. Neither the minister nor the Globe and Mail has shown us that in building up our military preparations we are not neglecting other more important aspects of our program of preparedness. Economic assistance to the underdeveloped areas to enable the hungry millions to help themselves to greater production, and a consequent higher standard of living, is placed by the minister as of secondary importance. He placed military preparedness first. There are many well-informed people who consider economic assistance at least of equal importance with military preparedness. It seems to me that we must not neglect either for the other. Probably none of us is in a position to say whether, in the course of future events, economic assistance or military preparedness will prove to be the more
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy effective defence against communist aggression, since none of us is in a position to know just what form that aggression will take.
Another phase of our preparedness program is in the field of propaganda, the battle for men's minds. In a broadcast from Washington on March 4, President Truman made certain statements which appear in . a published pamphlet under the title "Cargo of Truth". He said that the democracies' ultimate victory must be won in the minds of men. He believes that the final solution for the ills that plague the world can never be found in armies, navies or air forces. The final victory cannot be won until truth has made all peoples free. That being so, what is to be gained by a responsible minister charging those who sincerely seek that truth with aiding the enemy? What is to be gained by a responsible newspaper like the Globe and Mail brushing aside our queries with the statement that we are just talking nonsense? , It may well be, as the Globe and Mail says, that 50 divisions are the bare minimum of strength required. Who knows? Is it not much better, and more intelligent, to say that the bare minimum of divisions required is the maximum that the NATO nations can provide without neglecting other facets of our preparedness, and without so weakening the economy of our allies that they may become a ready prey to the enemy? Out of this debate, more heat than light was generated.
There emerged, however, certain facts. The first fact is that the official NATO statement did not mean what is said in plain English. The official statement of NATO says that NATO nations agreed to provide approximately 50 divisions in appropriate conditions of combat readiness during the present year. The minister tells us on page 389 of Hansard for March 13 that those sentences do not mean that by the end of 1952 there will necessarily be 50 divisions ready for immediate action, but that by the end of the year they will be in various stages of readiness, which may mean almost anything.
Mr. Eden, speaking in the British House of Commons, was much more explicit. Mentioning the proposed number of divisions, he said he thought that was a matter that might well be gone into during the debate. I have heard no suggestion from this government that the number of divisions is a subject that we in this house should go into during the debate. Mr. Eden went on to say that possibly the contradiction is due to the fact that of the 50 divisions mentioned only a

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy
certain portion are or were said to be active divisions at present in the line in Germany. A number of these are reservist divisions at various stages of notice. Had the NATO statement not contained the contradictions referred to by Mr. Eden, or had the minister been as frank with us or with his radio audience as Mr. Eden with the British house, much of the acrimony in this debate would have been avoided.
A second fact which has emerged from the debate is that while NATO made provision for increasing the actual military strength of the treaty nations, it reduced the objectives from those which had been secretly set before the Lisbon conference. What has not emerged from the debate, and what the minister has not told us,, is where the additional twenty-five divisions mentioned in the NATO statements are to come from; what nations are to supply them, and in what state of readiness? Above all, I feel we have a right to know what Canada's commitment is, how many of those twenty-five divisions Canada is to provide, and what progress we are making in fulfilling those obligations.
Dean Acheson, in a national broadcast on February 29, which is published under the title of "Strength and Unity", after summing up the five major accomplishments at Lisbon has this to say:
These negotiations will now go on to another stage-one that is familiar to us-one in which these actions will be debated, discussed and acted upon by the representatives of the people in each of these countries. This is as it should be. In our free societies meetings of the ministers cannot be decisive unless they are deeply rooted in the understanding and support of the people and the people's representatives.
It is because of the absence of any such assurance that there will be an opportunity for an early and orderly debate on this subject that we have injected the matter into the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. If such discussion is necessary, as Dean Acheson says, to ensure the understanding and support of the people and the people's representatives of decisions taken by the meeting of ministers, then I submit that these ends will not be gained either by a responsible minister designating his critics as abettors of the enemy, or by a responsible newspaper brushing our criticisms aside as nonsense.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to one or two other topics with which I had not time to deal when speaking earlier in this debate. I want to mention a matter which concerns the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), namely, unemployment insurance. In my earlier speech I pointed out the need for an increase

in the payments to those unemployed, the need for a shorter waiting period, the need for some arrangement with local welfare departments under which in cases of distress the unemployed may get advances from the welfare department, to be repaid from the unemployment insurance; and I called attention to the need for one or more additional offices in the metropolitan area of Toronto.
Another matter I think the minister should take into consideration when amendments to the act are being considered is the position of the unemployed who are unable to work because of illness. Those who become ill while unemployed or who are laid off work because of illness have no security under unemployment insurance. Technically speaking I suppose they are then unemployable and are a charge on the local community. It would seem to me that those concerned with the administration of the act should give some consideration to finding a way by which those who have paid into the fund for a period of years may receive some assistance during periods of illness, when they need unemployment insurance or financial assistance much more than when they are well.
There is also need for an overhauling of the basis upon which unemployment insurance is paid, a need for someone with authority to cut some of the red tape and short-circuit the procedure in cases of dire need. It has been suggested to me that a completely new formula for the payment of unemployment insurance might well be worked out. For instance, I understand that in the state of Michigan there is no longer any need to employ enough bookkeepers to look after the affairs of the Canadian National Railways, as is the case with our own unemployment insurance commission; that there is no need to go back five years to check the number of stamps a man has in his unemployment insurance book. When a man becomes unemployed it is conceded that the minimum on which he can exist is $25 a week, and he is automatically paid $25 a week once he establishes the fact that he is unemployed, without any of this business of going back for two, three, four or five years to check on his unemployment insurance stamps. The length of the period during which the $25 a week is paid may be either the time required to find him another job, or whatever length of time it has been decreed that unemployment insurance shall be paid. Some of the Canadian supervisors who have studied that system tell me there is no evidence of abuse but that it has enormously reduced the bookkeeping and

office work, and that it is meeting the needs of the unemployed much better than our own system.
Another matter touching the Department of Labour on which I want to speak briefly is government annuities. As we all know, a bill was before us last session amending that act. Two of those amendments were of special interest to the public, one making the maximum pension allowable $2,400 instead of $1,200 per annum, and the second providing for cash surrender values. The minister undertook during the recess to give us some assurance that the bill would be brought before us again this session, but there is no mention of it in the speech from the throne. On the contrary we are given to understand that the government has made some new discovery, and that the bill may not be brought before us again. It would seem that it is now filed away in the archives.
I think we are justified in asking the government why this amending bill is not coming before us this session, after passing a committee of this house last session. Those of us who followed the work of that committee will recall that there was a bit of a battle. We recall that both the association of insurance companies and the association of insurance agents opposed the bill; and unless it does come before us again this session we can only conclude that the government has succumbed to the lobbying of the insurance people. The Minister of Finance expressed a great deal of righteous indignation about the lobbies carried on by the automobile dealers association and the tobacco companies. I wonder wherein those lobbies differed from the lobby carried on by the insurance companies against the annuities bill. Is it possible that the insurance lobby contented itself with a direct approach to the finance department, whereas the others dared approach members of parliament instead? And are we to gather from this that lobbies, to be successful in the future, must restrict their approach to the Department of Finance? Many of us think that the success of the insurance lobby in this case is only a repetition of the lobby that was carried on in 1948 when interest rates were reduced from 4 per cent to 3 per cent, mortality tables were made more conservative, and other changes were made which caused government annuities to become a little less attractive to the public.
The objection of the insurance companies to these amendments was based on the fact that in their opinion the government was subsidizing these annuities, and as a result that was unfair competition with the insurance
The Address-Mr. Studer companies. I think we should remind ourselves that the public is now subsidizing insurance companies just as much as, if not more than, the public would have been subsidizing these annuities had those amendments been adopted. Every time any member of the public buys an insurance policy or an annuity from an insurance company and pays what is quite evidently an exorbitant rate for that insurance policy or that annuity, he is to that extent subsidizing the insurance company. Certainly a government elected by the people for the purpose of maintaining or protecting the interests of the public should give consideration to the interests of the public and should place them above those of the insurance companies or of any other group. If the government pigeonholes the amendments to this annuity bill, I think it will be quite evident to the public that the government is yielding to the pressures of the insurance companies and is placing the interests of the insurance companies above those of the general public.
There are other matters, Mr. Speaker, on which I had hoped to touch but I have no doubt that there will be another opportunity; I shall therefore deal with them later.


Mr. Irvin Studer (Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, along with everyone else, I want to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. We in the west are particularly happy to have placed before us a cross-section of the views of these who live in the maritimes and eastern Canada, so that we can work along with them, as we expect them to do with us, in solving the problems that are common to us both. After all, as has been pointed out, we members of the House of Commons do not merely represent one section of Canada. We work in the interests of one section of Canada, but we have a higher motive than the taking of a sectional viewpoint. To the best of our ability we endeavour to solve the difficulties of all the people in Canada. That is the only method we can use if we ever wish to make Canada great. So the people in the west- especially those of Maple Creek-wish all the people in the east well.
We in Maple Creek, along with the other people in Canada, mourn for our late sovereign. Along with our sympathy we offer a silent prayer for Her Royal Highness, and we offer a silent prayer for the repose of the soul of our late sovereign. For the wonderful queen who has taken his place we wish a most glorious reign. To our beloved queen

The Address-Mr. Studer goes our sympathy, our love and our devotion. Every person in Canada will be doing his utmost to make lighter the almost unbearable burden that she will be carrying.
On this day, Mr. Speaker, March 17, may I say that I do not believe that it would be just right if we did not offer to the 1,267,702 Irishmen and their descendants in Canada, who today celebrate the feast of their patron saint, our heartiest congratulations on their being lucky enough to have been born Irishmen. I do not know anyone who would not like to be one. All over the world, wherever they may go, they have the reputation of being the most desirable of people. They enter readily into the ordinary life of every nation, and they assimilate themselves so comprehensively that they are almost immediately in the position to make a great contribution to whatever country they adopt. They have great influence. I know of no people that are more patriotic than the Irish or that love more intensely the countries of their adoption. Most countries, for their police, depend on Irishmen more than on anyone else. In my opinion that is the reason why one can give them great credit for being patriotic and loyal citizens, when all the nations of the world place confidence in them to the extent to which they have in depending on them to police their land.
I think the world would be a better one if we had more Irishmen in it. I would especially like to see more Irishmen in some of the countries that are having so much difficulty and worry with regard to world peace and are thwarting the efforts of those that are associated in the endeavour to obtain peace. With more Irishmen in those countries I am sure we would accomplish our aim just that much sooner.


Mr. Wylie:: What about Scotchmen?


Irvin William Studer: Do not tempt me. Last year, Mr. Speaker, I spoke to this house about the economic value to Canada of the constituency of Maple Creek. I should like to assure you that I do not wish to repeat all that I said last year, although the economic value is still there perhaps more extensively; if not, it will be in the future. I therefore can only repeat what I said last year namely that Canada will not be able to get along without my constituency. That being the case, all hon. members will be interested in seeing that we, with you with us, make it possible to continue our contributions to the welfare of this country.
As often happens in this country, and especially in our part of it, not all of the people were in a good crop district this year;

but they are making the best of what they have, as we were raised to do. As to our crops that are under the snow, we have not given up in a hopeless manner or in despair. We expect our dominion government to come to the rescue, as I think they will; and we expect our provincial governments to forget their differences, not to try to make professional critics out of themselves in regard to what the dominion government is doing, and to also come to the rescue. Let us all do what we can, both dominion and provincial governments, to enable us to conquer the difficulties that are constantly besetting those who have adopted the vocation of agriculture. Those people have difficulties to contend with which no one else encounters, because these difficulties are beyond their control. Most people in Canada can control, at least to some extent, their operations, their conditions, their futures, their budgets and what have you. The farmer cannot because he is subject to the vagaries of nature. He has to take what nature offers. If in the future we are going to continue to eat, I would suggest that we all give considerable continued thought to and take an interest in the welfare of the farmers of this country.
As to our damp grain, we want all the efforts that governments are capable of in finding a solution for the difficulties. With all of the provinces and the dominion cooperating, I am sure that at least most of that grain can be salvaged. I therefore repeat that I do not think it is the function of either the federal or the provincial governments just to criticize the efforts of one another. I suggest that perhaps it is time to come to the assistance of one another here in Canada if we are going to create conditions which are in the best interests of our people.
We have heard a little about the foot-and-mouth disease in our country. The constituency of Maple Creek, possibly more than any other constituency, supplies the beef of Canada. It is therefore of particular interest to me that no resources of the governments remain untouched in dealing with the problem. It is of particular interest to everyone that a safeguard be thrown around not only the constituency of Maple Creek but the entire province, in order to eliminate that dread disease that has infected or that has infested, one could call it, a $2 billion industry in Canada, to see that that industry be maintained, and that no extensive outbreak occurs anywhere else. Out of 299 municipalities in the province of Saskatchewan, I think we can be grateful that there are only four of them within the confines of this quarantined district. If that is

the record, it seems to me that someone in the livestock branch of the Dominion of Canada, and particularly in the veterinarians branch, must have been doing a very good job to confine the effects of a disease such as that within that area. Whatever criticism is offered-and I think criticism should be offered if it is warranted-I do not think that history will show that the Department of Agriculture was not doing its utmost to confine and to eliminate this particular disease that is prevalent for the time being out in Saskatchewan.
I have heard considerable criticism in the House of Commons in regard to what was done and what was not done. Nevertheless, perhaps it is premature to form an opinion in regard to it. Many hon. members asked: Why was not something done last fall, why was there such a long delay? Suppose an announcement had been made last December that foot-and-mouth disease was prevalent in Saskatchewan. What would 'have been the economic dislocation three months previously to when it was announced? What would have been the effect on the economy of Canada in the last three months, if the announcement had been made earlier? I think the government used good common sense when they made sure that the disease was foot-and-mouth disease before they permitted a condition to come about whereby nations would have imposed embargoes in the same way as they have been imposed by the provinces, with the dislocation that one sees now in evidence. I believe that applies not only to this disease but also to hog cholera which has been prevalent in the United States for years and years. We never hear of it in Canada, and therefore somebody must have been protecting this country, and I think it is the Department of Agriculture. The veterinarians branch and the representatives in the various districts have been protecting Canada throughout these years. If that had not been done we would have suffered greater economic losses than we are experiencing now.
When this criticism is made, we wonder where some of our friends of the opposition were between the last day of November and the day before this house opened this spring. It seems to me that the opposition are supposed to be the watchdogs of this dominion. If they had as much foresight as they have hindsight they would have been talking about this thing during the last session, not during this one. Where were the provincial governments? I said a moment ago that I had made a truce and I was not going to criticize anyone. But where were they during this time? It seems to me they have some responsibility here. However, I do wish to criticize our federal government for one thing, namely, 55704-32
The Address-Mr. Studer that they did not take the precautions that they possibly could have taken. We have heard about Willi Bruntjen and how he was supposed to have brought the virus when he immigrated to this country. We know that down in Mexico there have been outbreaks of this kind for years and years. We know that there have been about nine outbreaks in the United States. We also know that the minister of agriculture was down in Mexico from May 29 to June 8, 1951.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not me.


Irvin William Studer: The provincial minister of agriculture was down in Mexico from May 29 to June 8, 1951. I am referring to the minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan. He was down there attending some meeting. What he did between times I do not know, but if I went to Mexico I would go to the bull fights, and I would imagine that the minister of agriculture went to the bull fights. If he followed his usual inclination, I imagine that he would be waving a flag in front of this bull and I bet you a nickel it would be a red flag. He would come in contact with this bull, and if the bull treated him the way he is treating other people he would come back with the virus. I think steps should have been taken to have him quarantined, fumigated and disinfected and called exhibit No. 2. But, Mr. Speaker, that is perhaps beside the point. I think a little more co-operation instead of criticism between the provinces and the dominion could be given in that area.
I have heard a little on all sides recently about redistribution in Canada. I can assure you, on good advice from the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), that a nonpolitical basis of redistribution will be adhered to. No one needs to worry. However, in regard to redistribution, Maple Creek, as you know, is the largest settled constituency in the dominion. It has the largest number of polling places. It has 262 rural polls, which is more than any other constituency in the Dominion of Canada. We are not particularly worried about what is going to happen to us, if we have to lose five seats, because we are in the corner. We are bordered by Montana and Alberta. Medicine Hat does not want us. I have not been able to convince Montana, and as long as foot-and-mouth disease is in our country they will not have any part of us. However, it is a large constituency, and this is one of the problems that Canada is going to have to solve. I do not think the problem of redistribution or representation by population has been solved in Canada up to this time. How can any one member, no matter who he is, represent a constituency that is 180 miles long and 80 miles wide? The people in that constituency

The Address-Mr. Studer demand, expect and have a right to have the same representation as' the people in the city. The city member does not have to travel one mile in order to see his constituents. Just think of the member who has to travel one and a half times around the world, as I would have to do if I followed the road allowances of my constituency, and yet I receive the same remuneration as the member who does not have to travel one mile in his constituency. Is this going to be a country where only the rich can afford to be members of parliament? That is what we are rapidly coming to, because only the rich can afford to be continually on the road, buying new automobiles and trying to get around their constituencies and trying to give service to the people whom they represent.
What are we going to do? Are we going to put a floor under the number of members that each province can have, so that the number will not decrease below that floor? That is true at the present time of Prince Edward Island. Are we going to do that, or are we going to have representation by districts, by areas or by acres rather than by population? I do not think either suggestion is feasible. With respect to those areas that have a small population and still need to be represented, perhaps a combination of the two will have to be the result. I do not know of any other method that we can possibly adopt. Prince Edward Island has a floor of four senators. That province has a population of approximately 100,000. Saskatchewan, which has a population of over 800,000, has six senators. How can there be equality of representation -throughout Canada on that basis? As I see it, the whole structure has to be changed if we are to have any semblance of equality in representation throughout this country.
Far be it from me to say that we should have more senators in Canada. I would suggest that perhaps we can do with a few less.


Mr. Knowles:: Hear, hear.


Irvin William Studer: From what I have seen in the other place, Mr. Speaker, I believe that some of these hon. gentlemen-I bate to say -this- are not earning their salt. I believe that everyone who is in public life in Canada representing the people should be earning his salt. They should be setting an example to other people in Canada, if we wish to have our democracy continue. I would not say that we should dispense with the other chamber.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not?


Irvin William Studer: Because I think they have a balancing influence in Canada that no other

comparable country has. I think they are a valuable stabilizing influence in political affairs. For that reason I think we should keep them. All you need to do is to compare our country with other countries and see what is happening under a system where you elect both houses. If you do that you will see -that the value of senatorships rests on the fact that they are not elected, and that they can view legislation without being subjected to political influence and that drastic political propaganda that we have been subjected to as members during this last while in the House of Commons from special interests trying to gain a point in one way or another. They can disregard that and consider the legislation on its merits. I believe there is some value there, and it should last for a long time. But far be it from me to say that their number should be increased. However it will happen that way, or it will happen so that the number of senators from some provinces will be reduced. If that is not so, what is the answer? If that would not provide equal representation, then let someone else kindly come forward with a plan of his own.
The trend of the times is to have proper agricultural representation. Right here in the House of Commons today only eleven per cent of the members represent the farmers of this country-and when I say "farmers" I mean those who are producing the food, those who are producing the essentials of life, without which one could not get along. One can live without anything else, except food. He can go down to the tropics, and if he did it would not matter whether he had clothes, an automobile, a radio or television- he could get along without any of those. But he could not get along without food.
That is why I say proper representation of the agricultural community is necessary in this country. I am insisting that that agricultural representation be maintained so that our country can prosper, and so that our population can be guaranteed that they will have food. That is essential, and it should be in the minds of all of us. We want our situation with respect to representation to conform to present-day conditions.
I have the utmost respect for that which has passed. The older I get, the more respect I have for history. But when history does not conform to our present needs, then I am afraid some historical changes will have to be made, because what was considered suitable a hundred years ago is I believe unsuitable today, and especially is that true in connection with membership in the House of Commons.

We have a few problems still facing us out west-not only a few, but quite a few- and one of those is the wheat board. We have had some of the best men in Canada on our wheat board, men who have grown up in the selling of wheat. Last year we made a provision in our act whereby we would have two farmer members on that wheat board.
Some may ask as to the value of farm members on a grain selling agency. My answer is that the value of farmer members on a grain selling agency is that they are the only ones on that agency who have had experience as between the farmers and the elevators. I repeat they are the only ones who have had that experience-an experience which in my opinion is very necessary on the wheat board. We want qualified men of the very best calibre who will be in charge of taking wheat from the elevators and placing it in the hands of the consumers, wherever those consumers may be. But, in addition to that, we want our two farmer representatives on the wheat board who will be able to speak for the farmers in transactions between the wheat fields and the elevators. I would hope that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) would lose no time in placing the two farmer members on the board, so that it may operate on the advice of those farmers, and may carry out its duties in perhaps an even more perfect manner than it has done in past years.
The international wheat agreement will soon come up for renewal. I think every hon. member who is interested in it will insist that the international wheat price should conform more closely to what the price of wheat should be in this country. Taking everything into consideration, I believe we have the men who will be able to make that possible for the future.
I do not want to hear too many members in the House of Commons complain about subsidies to food producers, when they are available. As I said a while ago, it is the only balance we have. It is the only guarantee that prices will not become too low, or so low that no one will produce, and people will not be able to eat. That is what the subsidies do. They take the place of what we see in other lines of business, in that they guarantee stability. That is the only way it can be brought about, when the fluctuation in yield varies from perhaps 500 million bushels down to 100 million bushels.
The same observations apply to livestock, and to other commodities the farmers produce. In this I would include even chickens and eggs. If a floor price of 38 cents a dozen for 55704-32i
The Address-Mr. Studer eggs is too low, then I think we should consider placing that floor price at 42 cents or 44 cents, as advocated by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
The same observations would apply to hogs. But perhaps in connection with hogs the situation is not quite as simple as that. When we have free trade in a commodity between the United States and Canada we must consider whether in that country they have a floor price and whether, if they have, their floor price is $26 or $24, as it is here. Are we going to close the market when their price does not compare with ours? Have they a floor price on hogs that is higher or lower than our price-or have they no floor price, at all? My understanding is that they have none, and neither do they have a floor price on eggs. So if our floor price is higher than their price, eggs will come to Canada-and the same would apply to hogs being sold in Canada. If we are going to have free trade, it will have to work both ways. So that the government has to consider what is proper in order to maintain the industry over a long period of time.
I give notice here and now that the days of cheap food at the expense of the farmer are gone. Those days are gone, and the people of Canada are going to pay the same price for food as they pay for other commodities they believe essential. I give further notice that if the people of this country-labour, or whoever it may be-are going to earn their living by working a five-day week, eight hours per day, that is what we are going to do. And when that day comes throughout agriculture, that day when we work the same hours, it means that the price of food will be higher.
You think it is too high now. You have the hon. member for Winnipeg left centre-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Irvin William Studer: -standing up in the House of Commons and asking for a five-day week and an eight-hour day. We will have him here in the House of Commons trying to undo the natural law which says, "Seven days shalt thou labour". He will be asking for an eight-day week, so that he can earn enough money to buy that food.
I say the days of cheap food in Canada are gone, as they are in other countries; and we must govern ourselves accordingly. For too long have the farmers taken what was left, as I said last year. For too long the farmer has had to be satisfied with taking his share, after everyone else has taken his out of the
492	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Studer economy of Canada. So I say: Good luck to the farmers unions throughout Canada, whether they be in western Canada or anywhere else. They are doing exactly the same thing as other unions in Canada are doing. Those other unions are assuring themselves that they are going to have their living, through the help of their organizations.
During the course of the debate we have heard some discussion about the extra session held last year. It was suggested, if not actually said, that the government has been responsible for these extra sessions, and that if it attended to its business as it should we would be out of here within a couple of months.
I would like to take issue with that statement. I sat here in the House of Commons and listened to the opposition talk, day in and day out. I listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg off centre-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Irvin William Studer: -stand in his place eighty-eight times and talk during the session which took place a year ago. I listened to him make speeches which filled 112 pages of Hansard. I do not think there is any man that smart in the whole wide world. Yet the hon. member suggests that the government is prolonging sessions.
I listened to filibusters in the House of Commons, filibusters that denied the right of every hon. member to vote. I was not elected to come to Ottawa to listen to filibusters; I was elected to come to Ottawa to vote on issues; and if I do not vote right the people will take care of me at the next election. Filibusters are a negation of democracy, and our socialist friends are responsible for one of them. Then our other friends in the opposition were responsible for another one in connection with resale price maintenance-about which we have not heard very much since that time.
Then, there is another hon. member representing the wonderful constituency of Fraser Valley who, I think, was responsible or at least partly responsible for another filibuster. I have no intention of coming down to Ottawa to listen to filibusters of any group, because when there are filibusters it means they have a weak argument.
That is what I think about filibusters. Then, I wish to make another brief observation in connection with what has been said regarding extending the time of the House of Commons. I refer to what was said by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). He was telling the people in Melfort about the T. and T. boys in the House of Commons,


the Tuesday to Thursday members, the members who live in eastern Canada; he was telling them how they leave the House of Commons on Thursday and come back the following Tuesday with the result that the government has to regulate its activities to conform with the operations or the negligence, we might call it, of these members. If that is the case, it certainly should be corrected, but after listening to what they have had to say during the sessions I have been here I do not believe it is the fault of the government or that any criticism should be directed at the government in regard to the delaying of any of the processes of this House of Commons. It has been said, and truthfully so, that the government opens the session but the opposition closes it. My criticism of them is that they never close it.
Perhaps I should tell Satan to get behind me, but I should like to refer to some discussion that has occurred in Saskatchewan as to the amount of taxation levied upon the people of Saskatchewan as compared with what is levied upon the people in other parts of the Dominion of Canada. It is claimed that the farmers of Saskatchewan are paying more income tax than any other group in Canada under the same circumstances. Taking the picture as a whole, that is most certainly not the case.
It has also been claimed that the dominion government is taking more out of Saskatchewan in the form of taxes than it is putting back in. No one has been able to substantiate that argument, although it is decried from the housetops. They say over and over again that the dominion government is taking more money from the people of Saskatchewan than it is putting back in. I have the figures here and I wish I had the opportunity of presenting them to every person in Saskatchewan.
To make a long story short, taking all the figures and summarizing them, it boils down to the fact that the population of Saskatchewan is 6 per cent of that of the Dominion of Canada and if all the taxes imposed by the dominion government are equalized it works out to 2 per cent of the taxation of Canada. The dominion government is paying to the people of Saskatchewan through the dominion-provincial agreement, through subsidies for vocational training and public health, through old age pensions and family allowances, through crop failure payments, through social welfare and other assistance, a total of $75 for every man, woman and child in the province, whereas it takes out by taxation only $35.
Their policy in Saskatchewan has been to try to make the people believe this. They are ready to accept that. You know, our

socialist friends are wonderful people at believing things that are not true. If they believed things that were true they would not be socialists, they would just be Liberals. The other day we heard the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) refer to the packers. This has been his pet theme ever since I have been in this house. He has been telling us about how they have squeezed the lifeblood out of the people. But lo and behold, the hon. member told us that recently he had gone to see some of the packers and that he did not think now what he had formerly thought. He told us that maybe it is the retailer who is taking too much profit, that the packer might be all right.
If the hon. member for Selkirk has thrown in the sponge in this battle for farmers' rights then I will take it up for him. I am ready to say that the packers are getting too much, that the retailers are getting too much. Everybody between the producer and the consumer is getting more money than the producer is getting. I am ready to take up the fight for the farmer if the hon. member for Selkirk has called it a day in that regard.
If the hon. member is ready to say something on behalf of these packers I would tell him that he had better hie himself out to Saskatchewan and have a little talk with the government out there. There is a co-operative packing plant for sale in Swift Current. If he wants to see all these packers put out of business he should tell the government in Saskatchewan to buy this plant. They are always ready to say how good they are when it comes to making money. They should buy this plant and then they can put the packers that the hon. member is complaining about out of business. There is a wonderful opportunity there and they should not miss it.


Mr. Harkness:: Is that the horse meat plant?


Irvin William Studer: It could be developed into any kind of plant. The horses have been pretty well taken up and the reason for the plant continuing in existence is pretty well gone. It was developed for the purpose of taking horses off the range to leave room for cattle. Now its source of supply is gone and I think our socialist friends should take it over.
We have been told by the socialists that certain people have been misrepresenting things. There was quite an agitation in the House of Commons the other day during the debate on external affairs. Someone said that the socialists' policy was being misrepresented, that their policies were being misconstrued and that the socialist policy was not in conformity with what some hon. members in the House of Commons had been representing it to be. I do not know anyone in the world who could follow the socialist policy as they
The Address-Mr. Studer have been bringing it down for the last fifteen years. They have been following a most tortuous road for the past fifteen years; in fact I have never seen a more crooked one in the Dominion of Canada.
Every time they come down here they have a different story. I would say that the hon. members have not been misrepresented at any time about whom they associate with, or with whom they conduct their operations. If they are the kind of people who are above reproach, why is it that the Conservative party is not open to reproach? You never hear anyone say that they are associated with communists. No one would say that, because their record proves that they are not associated with communists. They criticize the government as much as anyone does, and I think they should, but no one accuses them of being communists. What about the Social Credit party? They put up the same arguments, they contradict government policy, but no one accuses them of being communists. Why? Because their record proves that they are not communists.
But that is not the case with the socialists' record. The socialists' policy is not a Canadian policy. Socialism is an ism that was created beyond the confines of Canada. It is world-wide in scope. That is why they do not owe allegiance to any country, that is why they owe allegiance to world socialism. That is why they cannot adopt the attitude that we would like to see people adopt who are loyal in their feelings. As we see them here in Canada, they are committed to world revolution. No one can deny that.
You cannot say that a communist has to be a socialist, but you do have to say that before you can be a communist you have to be a socialist. They do not call it the union of communist socialist republics, they call it the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The word "communist" is not in there. You cannot have one without the other. Naturally they are committed to a world movement and a loyalty to countries does not prevent them from adopting the world attitude. I say to every hon. member of this House of Commons that it is indeed unfortunate that they have followers they do have, because no sooner does the leader of the socialists in this House of Commons make a speech in Massachusetts last week than we see on the very same day the leader of the Labour-Progressive party, of which this house has heard so much, making a statement in Saskatchewan where the Labour-Progressive communist party is meeting. I quote from a dispatch dated March 15, 1952, as follows:
If Liberal leader Walter Tucker were elected in the next provincial election it would be "a signal victory for the eastern banks and the Wall street


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry lo inform the hon. member that he has exhausted his time.


Irvin William Studer: Those were just a few preliminary remarks, Mr. Speaker, if you would allow me to go into the subject matter of my speech I could do so.
I shall conclude in a few words. I was going to tell you about the socialist ship that has been sailing in Saskatchewan, but I shall let that go. We know that these people have proven to be political adventurers. We hope to be able to show them that the Liberal way is preferable in Canada, or other ways if you do not wish to adopt the Liberal way.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has unanimous consent to hang himself. Let him go ahead.


Irvin William Studer: The other day we listened to a fine speech on immigration delivered by the member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). It outlined the need of a country such as ours for people from other lands who would join with us to make our country greater. We need people of British stock, people from Scotland, France, Ireland, central Europe and United States, in fact any people who are willing to adopt our policies. I was impressed also by the speech of the hon. member who warned us to be cautious and not reckless in connection with immigration. I think we should have these people, but the best Canadians are right here in Canada. If we get stock from these other countries, then I want to say that the real purebred stock is right here in Canada, our own boys and girls that are growing up here. These are the people who have a future in Canada. The fathers and mothers of these

children believe the children should be part and parcel of the good things that Canada holds in the future for all its people. We should join with these immigrants who come to Canada in an effort to make this Canada of ours great.
I should like, therefore, to pay a tribute to the fathers and mothers of this country who are raising our young Canadians, perhaps under great difficulties. We welcome those who may come from other countries, and we join hands with them and with those who live here, so that coming generations will work for the welfare of a happier Canada.


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: I am
afraid, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot be a dynamic orator such as the one to whom we have just listened. I like to hear him speak because he can say more in ten minutes than most of us can say in twenty-five. I agree with some of the things he has said, especially the tribute he paid to the Irish. A year and a half ago I paid them a similar tribute in this house, making special mention of their virility, which is largely due to the eating of potatoes. I showed that these people had an interest in our province, and if we could get more of them into it we would be very happy because the consumption of potatoes is not what it should be. If it were not for the Irishmen we could not grow potatoes at all.
There are some things in connection with the hon. member's speech with which I should like to deal, especially his reference to redistribution, but there will be an opportunity for that later. I do not think the hon. member had the right point of view when referring to that famous province, the province of Prince Edward Island. I know that before the redistribution bill leaves this house the hon. member will fully understand what it means to Canada to have four representatives from Prince Edward Island in this house.
Before going on with what I wish to say I should like to refer, in a different spirit, to the passing of our late King George VI, a great monarch who bequeathed to the people of this country a great prestige. While his reign was not as long as some others it stands as a greater monument to democracy than that of any other monarch in the world. We mourn his passing. Now, for the sixth time in the history of England, we find a queen coming to the throne in her own right. People across the world have joined in proclaiming Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary as Queen Elizabeth II by the grace of God; and at this time I say "Long live the queen".
The Address-Mr. McLure
I have a few things to say. I shall be as brief as possible, but I offer no apology for taking part in this debate at this time. The debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne gives members of this house an opportunity to present in one form or another the problems of their constituencies. The address read by His Excellency is the program of the government, and it is our duty as members to examine that program for its omissions and commissions. Before dealing with that, however, I want to offer a few congratulations. In the first place I congratulate two young men from Prince Edward Island, Mr. Allan MacDonald, a Scotsman, and Mr. Walter Reid, an Irishman. These students from St. Dunstan's university have won the debating championship of the whole of Canada, according to press reports; and their final score was made right here in the federal capital of Canada about ten days ago. I also want to congratulate the farmers of my constituency and my province. Again according to the press Prince Edward Island has won the reputation of having the best hogs for bacon to be found anywhere in the world, and last year we led every province in Canada in our percentage of first quality animals. Also within the last two weeks or so an exhibition has been going on down in Florida, and Prince Edward Island seed potatoes have topped all others as the only ones absolutely free of disease. That is something very worth while because if you do not have the best seed you cannot grow good potatoes.
I am not going to forget my congratulations to the mover (Mr. George) and seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They did honour to their constituencies as well as to themselves. I know the mover; he is a maritimer, and when it was learned that he was to open this debate you could hear it said around the corridors, "Let George do it!" Well, George did it and did it well.
In criticizing this speech we do not criticize the mover or seconder, because after all it is only the program of the government and as I said a moment ago we have a perfect right to criticize that speech as we see fit. After you go over that speech and read it carefully, and after you listen to the debate for and against in this house, you see that it is a very ordinary speech. Since this debate commenced some excellent speeches have been made. I was glad to be here to listen to my leader, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), because he made a wonderful speech. He was followed by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) who also

The Address

Mr. McLure made an excellent speech. As we have followed the debate we have heard other men acquit themselves well.
I am not going to take up the political side of this question; I am going to refer more to my own constituency. That is what is of interest to me, and I hope I can make it of some interest to the government, though I am sorry there are no government leaders in the front row opposite. They have done many things for which they might deserve some praise; but in speaking of my province I have to do so from the point of view of how this government has dealt with us. I have to be like the soldier who was asked why he scratched himself, and replied, "I always scratch where it itches the most." From time to time in this 'house I have spoken on one subject in particular, the subject that means the most to us; that is transportation, which is creating a great deal of talk in our province right now.
In connection with this matter of transportation the government of the day, like most governments we have had, have neglected our province. I have suggested this before, and again I charge them with wilful neglect, with not doing justice to Prince Edward Island under the terms of the union. I am not unmindful of the demands we have made on the government. Since I came here in 1945 I am not unmindful of getting after the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) with regard to the new steamer for us. Finally, after a couple of years of goading, we secured an excellent boat, the Abegweit, to replace the
5.5.	Charlottetown which was lost. The
5.5.	Charlottetown was lost while on her way from Borden to Saint John, N.B. for repairs. Had the government of the day fulfilled the terms and the recommendations of the Andrew Rae Duncan commission of 1926 and had fulfilled the terms of union of 1873, we would not have lost the S.S. Charlottetown because she would have been repaired in the province in Which she was in service. Recommendations were made by the Andrew Rae Duncan commission for the improvement of the harbour situation of Charlottetown and for building what was to be called a drydock or, as it is called today, a marine railway slip. This was a promise that was given to us by the government, but it is one that they have never even tried to fulfil.
I want to say just a few words further with reference to transportation. To my surprise I find that the Canadian maritime commission, authorized by this government, has now the full authority over all our transportation problems. They say yes or no, and with respect to our problem of transportation they do not seem to know anything but no. Let

us look for a moment at the last decision or so that they have given. We in the maritimes know, as do most of the members of this house, that we have two ferry systems. One is called the Borden-Tormentine ferry system, with two ships, namely the Abegweit and the Prince Edward. This Borden-Tormentine ferry is doing an excellent job for us. This ferry was given to us by the Borden government as part of the fulfilment of the terms of union of 1873. Besides the Borden-Tormentine ferry, we have another ferry operated by Northumberland Ferries Limited, giving service between Wood Island and Caribou. This ferry is a little different from the other one.
The Borden-Tormentine ferry is a government ferry, a government service, while the Northumberland ferry system is a private enterprise ferry subsidized by the dominion government. This ferry, known as the Wood Island-Caribou ferry-operated, as I said a moment ago, by the Northumberland Ferries Limited-has given an efficient service to farmers, fishermen and others. As a matter of fact, during the last two years the traffic on this ferry has become so great that it is impossible for the company to handle it. I might say further that this company has done a great deal in the interests of farmers, fishermen and the tourist industry. It is, however, a common thing to go down to this ferry, either on the Wood Island side or on the Nova Scotia side, and to find there long queues of cars and trucks waiting for transportation, notwithstanding the fact that they have two boats. One of them is small and one of them is fairly large. They are the Prince Nova and the Charles A. Dunning; but they cannot handle the traffic at all, especially in the months of June, July and August. This company has submitted facts and figures to the government. I am not going to put on record, as I did before, the figures showing growth of traffic over this ferry, because, within the last ten days, the government has had the facts and figures placed before them; they have been placed before the maritime commission and, through that commission, before the Department of Transport, with all the details to which consideration should have been given. The commission listened to the delegation that came here and spent three or four days. I was not on that delegation nor was I even invited in on it; but I learned that they did not have a good reception given to them by the Canadian maritime commission.
The commission accepted their briefs in order to stow them away, but the decision they came to, when the briefs were presented

and they were asked to assist in getting a new boat of larger dimensions for this Wood Islandi-Caribou ferry, without even going over the briefs, was "nothing doing"; and they never gave a legitimate reason for it. You could not, however, expect anything else from this commission. In the first place, I do not believe there was one man on that commission who knew the terms of confederation of 1873 or the recommendations with regard to transportation contained in the report of the Andrew Rae Duncan commission of 1926. For a commission of that kind to veto the proposals of this delegation, to the detriment of traffic from Wood Island to Caribou, is something that I think should be fully considered. I might say this. In my humble opinion the delegation made a mistake twice over. The first one was this. When this commission told them "nothing doing", right there and then they should have stated: We will not accept your decision in any form. The other mistake they made was this. They should never have gone before this commission, notwithstanding the fact that it may have been appointed in some way by the government. On transportation questions we are not dealing with subcontractors-although sometimes we have been subjected to them-but we must deal directly with the Minister of Transport and the government. If we were dealing with them, we could turn around, and say:	Here
is our proposition; you owe this province of Prince Edward Island1 proper transportation according to the terms of confederation. Give this to us at the present time. One little excuse was made about three months ago that there was a shortage of steel. When the delegates come back again they will have another excuse about the economy of the country. And yet they want our people to become producers. After they become producers of foodstuffs they will not give them the proper means of transporting their produce to market. I mention this to show that the commission, had no right and no knowledge to study a problem of that kind.
I wish to say on behalf of the Wood Island ferry that during the railway strike of two years ago it was the only connecting link, in so far as transportation is concerned, between our province and the mainland. During that time the ferry gave a wonderful service. I might carry this question a little further. I hope that hon. members will not look at this question as if we were trying to get something for nothing. This company was willing to pay its share of building the boat. They were willing to enter into a contract over a period of years. Even when they were
The Address-Mr. McLure shut off and it was said that there was nothing doing for them they went to the United States and found that they could get four or five boats there that, with a little alteration, would have given good service in the Northumberland ferry service. But an order in council was passed which said that no Canadian could buy boats for the next five or six years. Therefore that proposition was vetoed. I hope that our legislature in Prince Edward Island, which is sitting at the present time, will not accept the refusal of this commission. I hope-I am going to guess right on this-that they will bring a new petition before the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and the government and that they will succeed in getting what they truly deserve.
I have a few more things with reference to my constituency that I might mention. While they may not be of direct interest to other hon. members, that does not bother me. They still are of interest to me as one of the representatives of Queens constituency. In our province we had two elections recently. Going back to 1945 I find that a great number of promises were made by the Liberal party. First of all, in 1945 we had the promise that a fine dominion building would be erected in Charlottetown. It was a good promise for an election, but we heard nothing more of it until we commenced asking questions on the floor of the house; and even up until the other day nobody seemed to know anything about this building at Charlottetown.
They told us repeatedly that it would be built. They even bought some properties on which the building is to be erected. In addition to that, they drew extensive plans and they even made cuts of the building and had them published before the election by all the press of the island, saying: Here is this wonderful building. When I ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) when it is to be built I find that he does not know. I suppose it will be held out as another promise to be made use of in the next election. We will have to wait for that.
For the last five years we have also been promised-and the records of the house will show that-a naval barracks. In answer to a question of mine last year the minister told us that the naval barracks would be built. We have had that promise ever since 1946. The same thing is true of the armouries.
The armouries building was promised definitely three years ago, but we are farther away from it now that we were then, because the last excuse was that there was one other place promised one first, and when it was

The Address-Mr. McLure built then we might have ours next. I understand that they are not going to build the other one for the next four or five years, but we are still playing second fiddle.
Another thing we were promised definitely was harbour improvements and marine railway slips. I have brought this matter up on several occasions. Every government and every party are committed to these two particular promises. These things are badly needed in our province, but nothing has been done so far with regard to them.
I shall leave the public building for the time being. In reading over the speech from the throne I was disappointed to find no mention of incapacitated people. I had hoped, as many others had, that in the speech from the throne we would find that that part of the social security plan would come into effect at this time. The only thing I see is that in the notices of motions on the order paper motion No. 10 which reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of co-operating with the provincial governments for the purpose of providing pensions, equal to old age pensions, for all those who are incapacitated and unable to earn their living, regardless of age.
I find that motion No. 22 on today's order paper is along the same lines. If we ever reach these notices of motions I am sure the house will take a deep interest in the discussion, as it should. Only today I received a letter which is so pitiable that I hate to put it on the record. It has to do with a family of three who are incapacitated. They are receiving a little money. From the local government they get $10 a month, and from the civic government of Charlottetown they get $10 a month. They have to pay $12 a month rent, and all they have to live on is $8. Only one of the three is able to walk. The other two, on account of the dread disease of polio, are completely incapacitated. Although I have nothing to say against the action of the government in connection with the social security measures they have brought forward, I say it should have done something for these incapacitated people. I believe it is on record that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) made what amounted almost to a definite promise that this year provision would be made in the speech from the throne whereby these unfortunate people would be cared for.
Then I would turn to another matter connected with pensions. In common with many other hon. members, I have referred to pensions paid to those who have retired under the old pension plan. Before the increased cost of living, the amount they received was almost sufficient for their purposes. Today


however it is quite inadequate. I am thinking particularly of those who worked for the railways, as well as others who held civil service positions.
Many of those pensioners retired on amounts as low as $25 a month. But even those who are receiving $90 or $100 today are not receiving sufficient to live on. This is also true, and even more unfortunate, in respect of widows in receipt of pensions. There was some inkling in the speech from the throne that action would be taken. Before I left my home to come to Ottawa I had visited a number of these pensioners. I have in mind one man who had worked 43 years, having entered the service at an early age. Upon his retirement two years ago he felt that, after working that length of time, he would have enough pension on which to live. He found however that he had to sell his property and then look for a job. This man had a family to support.
Because of the small pension he received, he had to come again into the labour market. However, if the government had increased his pension as it should have been increased, to a point where it would take care of the increased cost of living, he would not have had to re-enter the labour market and thus take a job from someone else.
There were other matters I had intended at this time to bring to the attention of the house but, as the time at my disposal is almost exhausted, I shall terminate what I had intended to say. In closing I would repeat what I said earlier with respect to transportation, and I would hope that other hon. members would take up the cause of the incapacitated people in all districts of Canada. To them more than to any other class we owe a livelihood, in this fair country of ours.
Prince Edward Island is certainly one province that has done and is doing its full share in the production of foodstuffs for both the domestic and export markets. As I said earlier, however, if we do not have proper transportation facilities our people will find it difficult to produce, only to find that it cannot be transported to the point of consumption. I had intended to make some further observations, among which were some references to the postal service in Prince Edward Island, but I shall defer those remarks until a later time.


Mr. John Decore (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate further in this debate but, in view of the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) I think I should have something further to say.

To begin with, I was accused of having prolonged	the debate.	For that	I offer	noapology.	It has been	attributed	to me	bythe bon. member for Cape Breton South that I am politically immature. Well, when it comes to comparing my political maturity with that of the hon. member-or, indeed, any other type of maturity-I am always prepared	to take a back seat.	I am notenvious.	One of the	sins of humanity	is
envy.
I do appreciate some of the very fine qualities of the hon. member for Cape Breton South. In addition to those qualities I noticed that the Ottawa Citizen of last Friday described him as being a gentle but devastating Clarence.


Mr. Martin:: "Clarie".


John Decore: But with all the qualities he does possess, I think hon. members will agree with me that sometimes those who are politically mature get erroneous interpretations, come to wrong conclusions and give bad judgments. These are the words of the hon. member, as they are reported in Hansard:
I think he was very ill-advised in making that sort of speech, particularly in trying to tie us in with the communist party.
Those who followed what I had to say, or read in Hansard what I said, will certainly not be able to come to that conclusion. I certainly agree with this observation of the hon. member:
I should like to remind the hon. member that he agrees with old age pensions. So do 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?
Of course I agree with that statement; but he has missed the point completely. I believe he has deliberately missed the point, because if he had examined my speech more closely he would have noted that I tried to stress the following statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), which I read into my speech the other day:
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-
He was referring to the leader of the C.C.F. party.
-as it was stated in that council declaration, will play straight into the hands of communist propaganda.
I went out of my way to be most careful in what I said, and if the hon. member will
The Address-Mr. Decore refer again to the report of my speech at page 462 of Hansard he will find that after making that quotation I said:
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 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.
That was the whole point of my speech when I was dealing with that particular matter. There was no intention to tie anyone in the C.C.F. group with the communists, and least of all the hon. member for Cape Breton South. We all know the qualities of the hon. member. I think all hon. members will agree that if someone had said that he was a communist he could not then be described, as the Ottawa Citizen has described him, as being gentle and devastating. In all probability he would have been just devastating and we all love him for that. I repeat that there certainly was no intention of trying to insinuate that the hon. member or anyone in the C.C.F. party was a communist.
When it comes to someone trying to tie up someone else with the communists all you need to do is to follow carefully what the hon. member himself said. He indicated that the member for Vegreville was very vulnerable, and he then continued, as reported on page 469 of Hansard of March 14:
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.
Then he continued:
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.
In trying to tie up somebody with the communists, I think this is one of the best examples of what could be said by a member in order to hang something on someone. To establish what he had to say he called on a certain authority. Who should that authority be but the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw). Surely if the hon. member for Cape Breton South wanted to call on any authority in connection with the Vegreville federal constituency or for that matter in connection with any of our national problems, he should call on someone other than the hon. member for Red Deer. I think there is one thing that could be said: If any C.C.F. candidate, any Conservative candidate or
500	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Decore any Liberal candidate can corral during an election a number of so-called communist votes, he should be given credit for it.
It is too bad that Nova Scotia is so far from Alberta. I should like to invite the hon. member to visit Alberta and come to my constituency. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) accepted our invitation last year. I think the hon. member would see a lot of things. There is one thing I do not like about our province. I do not know about the hon. member, but I like to take the occasional drink. The trouble with our whisky in Alberta is that there is too much water in it. It is what we call watered stock. The government has been putting too much water in it in order to make more money. My grandfather used to like to take his liquor neat and they tell me that I have inherited some of his qualities.
I would point out to the hon. member that in order to get to Alberta he should be cautioned that he will have to pass through Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan is a wonderful province, as can be seen from the type of members sent to this house. I am sure that politically speaking the hon. member would find himself very much at home, but perhaps he should hurry because we do not know just when the provincial election is coming up. If he does go through Saskatchewan I would warn him about stopping in the constituency represented by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Hetland) because we do not know what might happen.
We would have a lot to gain in Alberta from a visit by the hon. member. He has had considerable experience in coal mining and we have a lot of coal in Alberta. We also have oil wells. But I would like the hon. member to visit our farmers and see how they have to struggle under adverse conditions. I would like him to see how our farmers are trying to build up their farm unions. There are not just labour unions in this country; the farmer has his problems as well. The type of information that could be gathered would in my opinion add to the political maturity of anyone.
I suppose many will agree with me when I say that in trying to achieve political maturity some people are able to reach only a certain point. If I may use a term which may not be the technically correct one, they reach a point of saturation. I am reminded of an overmature banana. I repeat my invitation to the hon. member to visit my constituency and talk to the farmers there, especially in the ten polls to which he referred in his speech. He will find in my area farmers who have attained world recognition at the royal winter fair at Toronto and


the Chicago world show. One of them, a farmer by the name of John Porozni, has recently been appointed a master farmer. We are all very proud of him. When the hon. member meets these people he will see why they have voted Liberal. They are hard-working, law-abiding loyal citizens of Canada. They are just as loyal as the hon. member or anyone else in this house.
It may be that if the hon. member stays there long enough he will become a candidate in the constituency. If he runs as a Liberal I will make way for him and work for him. I am sure he would soon become Liberal-minded. I know some of his qualities. He is broadminded. Sometimes I think he must find it embarrassing to find himself in the group to which he belongs. But if he should run in my constituency I should like to make one suggestion as one who is not politically mature. Let me say to the hon. member that whatever he does when talking to these farmers, he should not talk to them about working a 40-hour week because they will not listen to him. I hope that the hon. member will accept what I have said in the spirit in which it is given.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. George) and seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The speeches with which they initiated this debate did them great credit. I should like also to congratulate my colleague the member for Calgary West (Mr. Nickle) upon his maiden speech in this chamber. I am sure it demonstrated that the people of Calgary West made no mistake when they sent him here to represent them.
I do not propose to enter this Cape Breton-Alberta dispute of which we heard something a few minutes ago. However, I should like to point out to the hon, member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore), in case his remarks might cause any loss of tourist business in Alberta, that the spiritual inspiration of which he spoke will not be any more palatable to him in any other province except Newfoundland, because in all the other provinces the alcoholic content is exactly the same.
I propose to follow the example of the mover and seconder in that I shall address the majority of my remarks to matters which are not dealt with in the speech from the throne. I think there is good reason for that because the speech from the throne was most noteworthy for what it did not contain rather than what it did contain. At the outset, I should like to mention one matter contained in the speech from the throne, and that is the announcement that legislation to

amend the War Veterans Allowance Act is to be brought forward. I am extremely glad that action is being taken at this session to increase the amount of the war veterans allowance. These men and their wives, as well as the widows of the men who have died, who are drawing war veterans allowance, have been amongst the worst hit by the rising cost of living. An increase in the war veterans allowance should have been made at the last session when disability pensions were increased. I have not heard any sound reasons advanced for this lack of consideration at that time. I trust that the increase provided this year will be in conformity with the increase in the cost of living which has taken place since war veterans allowances were last dealt with.
While I am speaking about veterans matters, I should like to bring to the attention of the house a situation concerning the children of men who were killed overseas, and whose mothers have now remarried. Up to last June, when an increase was provided in the allowances which were paid to the mothers of children of the men who lost their lives during the last war, whether or not the widow remarried, the allowance was still paid to the children. However, when the increase was put through, it was not passed on. Last year I put a question on the order paper in regard to this matter, and I should like to refer to the answer I received.
This return was brought down on December 17, 1951. The first question I asked was:
Have the increases in allowances put through at the last session of parliament, for the children of men killed overseas, been paid if the mother of the child, or children, has since remarried?
The answer was:
All such cases of remarriage are being reviewed. Where need is established, the award to the child or children is increased above the ordinary rate.
In other words, the Department of Veterans Affairs has introduced, in my view without any legislative authority, a means test into this allowance. I am quite sure that is something which the veterans affairs committee and parliament never intended. These people are now subject to the means test, and I do not believe they should be.
The second question was:
If not, what is the reason and the authority for not making the payment?
The answer to that question was:
The act was amended in June, 1951, and in bill 288, an act to amend the Pension Act, the following explanatory note appears:
"The purpose of this amendment is to make more adequate provision for the children of pensioned widows and to increase their awards to correspond to orphan rates which are double the ordinary rate for children."
17, 1952	501
The Address-Mr. Harkness A remarried widow is no longer a pensioned widow.
Evidently what the department has done is to take the explanatory note which appeared in the bill as authority for its action. Nothing along that line appears in the amendment which was put through.
The third question is this:
How many children are affected, and what is the saving to the taxpayer if payment is not made?
The answer is:
Approximately 3,500; impossible to state as review is still under way.
I shall have something to say about that in a moment.
The fourth question reads:
What is the number of widows with children who have remarried, and what is the saving to the taxpayers due to their remarriage?
The answer to that is:
Approximately 3,200. A pensioned widow received a bonus of twelve months' pension on remarriage. It is impossible to estimate the saving as the Canadian pension commission cannot determine the life expectancy of the widows.
In making that answer the department showed a very becoming degree of modesty which does not ordinarily characterize this government. As a matter of fact, it is very easy to estimate what the approximate saving would have been in the year in which the return was brought down. The pension payable to the 3,200 widows if they had not remarried was $1,200 a year, which gives us something over $3,800,000 per year. In other words, the taxpayer of this country is contributing $3,800,000 less than he would have if these widows had remained unmarried. The amount of the income for the children affected would be approximately $800,000. In other words, if all these children had been given the increase, the amount would have come to about $800,000. If that had been done, the taxpayer would still be ahead by at least $3 million per year. This calculation is not to the exact cent, but it is certainly close enough to give us a good indication of the financial situation so far as this action of the government is concerned. I feel that it was a very niggardly action. It was an attempt to save about $800,000 a year by imposing a means test on the children of men who were killed in the service of this country. The excuse given is that the men who married the widows are able to provide for the care of the children. This may be true in some cases but I do not believe it is a sufficient reason for cutting off this allowance. In many cases the man marrying the widow is not able to satisfactorily look after the children, and it is humiliating for him and his wife to have this investigation of their affairs in connection with that
502	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Harkness matter. As I said before, I do not think it was ever intended by the veterans affairs committee or by the house that such action would be taken, and certainly the legislation does not call for it. Chapter 56 of the statutes of Canada, 1950-51, George VI, deals with this matter. The amendment actually put through the house, not the explanatory note, reads:
Section twenty-two of the said act is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(12) When pension is awardable under the provisions of this act in respect of the death of a member of the forces who died leaving a widow and child or children, such child or children shall be entitled to a pension in accordance with the rate payable for orphan children in schedule B to this act."
That is all there is; and in my opinion-


Mr. Lapointe:: Would you mind reading schedule B?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is in the old act, and I do not have that volume here.


Hugues Lapointe: I think you will find it mentioned there.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In view of that amendment my personal view is that the department has acted contrary to the law. I believe if one of these women put her case into the hands of a good lawyer and 'he got a fiat to sue, he could probably establish a case for her and force the department to pay this money which has been withheld.


Hugues Lapointe: Not the department; the commission.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I fail to see any authority on the part of the department or the government for withholding these payments. I believe it has been done contrary to the law, and I would certainly ask that the matter be referred to the veterans affairs committee, which we were told last year was going to be set up this session. Certainly it is one of the matters that should be further discussed in this house, and on which the opinion of those who recommended the amendment last year should be secured.
Now I should like to turn to another matter, to make a protest which has been voiced in the press and to me personally by a considerable number of people, over the lack of any religious ceremony or anything of religious significance in the national memorial service held in this building on the day of the late king's funeral. I have here a short Canadian Press report dated Toronto, March 7, which is symptomatic of a considerable number of such reports. It reads:


Shocked by Lack of Religious Note at Ottawa Service
A resolution unanimously passed by the Toronto diocesan board of the Church of England said a "multitude of Canadians" were "inexpressibly shocked" by "lack of any religious ceremony" at the national memorial service in Ottawa on the day of the king's funeral.
This is a Christian country, and surely it would have been appropriate that something of a religious nature such as a prayer, for example, should have been included in such a ceremony. In fact a ceremony of that kind by its very nature is religious; it must be. Every day we open the proceedings of this assembly with prayers, and I think that meets with universal approval on the part of the members and the people of this country. That being so, why should a ceremony of so much greater national significance, such as the memorial service for our late king, which was also broadcast, contain nothing at all of a religious nature? It is very difficult for me to understand why it was done in that way. Certainly the local ceremonies held across the country were not characterized by that sort of action. The one held in my own city of Calgary was very different. There a large meeting was held in the arena, attended by I have forgotten how many thousands of people. On the platform were between thirty and forty clergymen of all denominations. Prayers were offered; passages were read from the Bible; and there was a proper religious significance. I find it difficult to understand why something of the same kind was not included in our so-called national memorial service.
I have two other matters I should like to discuss, Mr. Speaker, but I see it is two minutes to six, so I would ask you to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner recess I had dealt with two or three subjects-commendably briefly I hope-and I have two or three more upon which I wish to comment, also briefly, at the present time.
First of all, I should like to say something about what I can only call the blast delivered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to the automobile dealers association. In my opinion, this was nothing more than a red herring to divert public attention away from the fact that automobile prices in this country are much higher than they are in the United States, almost entirely owing to the fact that we have such excessively high sales

The Address-Mr. Harkness
tax, excise tax and customs duties applied against these necessary means of moving about.
I should like to make it quite clear that I am not speaking as an advocate of the automobile dealers association but rather on behalf of the consumer who is the man who has to pay for cars these extremely high prices which have removed from the average man the possibility of securing a car; and this is a development which I at least think is a bad one as far as this country is concerned.
One of the things which distinguished this continent from the Rio Grande north, at any rate, from the countries of Europe and from other parts of the world was the fact that the ordinary worker, the ordinary man, the man with an average income, could buy an automobile, an electric refrigerator probably, and these other things, which to a large number of people at least make life desirable and to some extent worth living. The fact that our average man, our average worker, could secure these things distinguished him-and made a big difference in his outlook-from his counterpart in the countries of Europe. The fact that the prices of automobiles and, to some extent, those of other appliances have now become so high, largely owing to government taxation, is, I think, going to store up for us in the future a great deal of trouble in the matter of what has often been referred to as class warfare, class distinction and things of that sort. That is the type of development which, from every point of view, it is in our interest to put an end to.
Hon. members of this house may recall that I have spoken on this subject here before; in fact, I did so long before the automobile dealers started their present campaign. I therefore do not think that the accusation can be made against me that any remarks I make on this subject have been prompted by that campaign or by them. The last occasion on which I spoke on the matter was in the throne speech debate of last session. On October 15, as reported at page 61 of Hansard of that date, I said, among other things, this which I should like to repeat:
Let me take one example in the manufacturing line,-
This is of high prices.
-because so far as manufactured goods in Canada are concerned we find a situation anything but reasonable. Nearly all manufactured goods are priced considerably higher than in the United States; there is no question about it. Let us look at automobile prices. A two-door model of a well-known so-called low-priced automobile, one of the best known on this continent, sells in New York for $1,598, while in Ottawa, from information supplied by the dealers, it sells for $2,335. Why do we see this difference of $737?
Since that time I have taken the trouble to secure some more prices and the tax figures when applied to those particular models of automobiles, and there is one more that I should like to put on the record. It is the case of a Chevrolet automobile, one of the lower-priced models. The price before taxes in the United States-and this is without freight costs added; it is really in the factory towns, you might say-is $1,473.50. The price in Canada, under similar circumstances, is $1,757.06. That is a difference of $283.56. The price is $283.56 cheaper in the United States than in Canada. The federal excise and sales taxes in the United States are $120. In Canada they are $473.94, a difference of $353.94. The Canadian purchaser has to pay $353.94 more than his counterpart in the United States. If you add up those figures you will find that the total price to the consumer is as follows: In the United States $1,593.50; in Canada, $2,231, a difference of $637.50. In this country these people in the same circumstances, buying a so-called low-priced car, are forced to pay $637.50 more. The difference in price of $353.94, due to excise and sales taxes alone, is of course entirely due to the policy that this government has followed in taxing matters with regard to automobiles and, of course, other appliances, particularly electrical appliances of all sorts. The further difference of $283.56 is due to customs duties.
As far as I can see, there is no essential reason why the cost of manufacturing a car in Canada should be that much greater than it is in the United States. The wages are lower in our industry in Canada. The general factory costs are lower, including factory sites, the building of the factory and all that sort of thing. It is true that a certain number of parts are imported from the United States, and therefore they probably cost more. But certainly I can see no reason for this large difference of $283.56. There is no question that most of this is due to the fact, not that the cost of manufacturing cars is that much greater in Canada but that the customs duties make it possible for the manufacturer to sell the car for that much more, without taxes, than does his counterpart in the United States.
The need for an automobile by large numbers of Canadians does not require argument, I think; it is self-apparent. To practically all farmers at the present time an automobile is essential. To a large number of craftsmen, factory workers and manual workers of all sorts, an automobile is also essential in order that they may get to their places of employment. This is all to say

The Address-Mr. Harkness nothing of large numbers of people in businesses of all kinds for whom an automobile is a necessity. In western Canada, because the distances, comparatively, between any places of population-whether it be villages, towns or cities-are much greater than they are in the central provinces, this need for an automobile in the west is really much greater than it is in the central provinces. Unfortunately our prices are higher there than in the central provinces because of very high freight costs. At the present time the cost of shipping a car from the factory here in Ontario to Alberta runs between $250 and $300. So that even some of the people on comparative salaries or wages who could buy a car here find it impossible to buy one in Alberta because of that difference in freight.
The prices of cars can be brought down very drastically by the action of this government, and really only by that means. That is the only way in which they can be brought down. There are two ways in which they can be brought down. The first is by lowering the excessively high sales and excise taxes; and second, by reducing the protection of Canadian manufacturers, through lowering the customs duty, to the point where they have only the protection they require to keep in operation, which I am sure is very small.
In leaving this particular matter I will only say that I sincerely hope the Minister of Finance, when he produces his budget in about three weeks' time, will include provisions in the budget along these lines, giving some relief to people so far as the price not only of automobiles but of other manufactured appliances of various kinds is concerned. It is all very well to talk about the comparative cost of living in this country and in the United States. None of these things is really included in the cost of living index, and therefore it does not by any means represent what the real cost is to a very large number of people of holding a job and carrying on their business, particularly if it is a farming business, and so on. The difference in price of these things between United States and Canada alone makes the differential against us very serious. One of the reasons why I may perhaps harp on the subject is that I think it is one of the reasons our people leave this country and go to the United States. It is one of the reasons why we lose native-born and educated population to the United States. They can readily find out what the prices are of things like automobiles, and many of our young people say: Why should I not go down there, get a job and buy these things more cheaply? Therefore from that point of view, as well as from the general

economic point of view, it would be very much in our interest if the prices of these things in the United States and in Canada could be brought much closer together.
There is one other tax which the Minister of Finance mentioned, and on which I should like to say a word, namely, the tax on cigarettes. I think it is admitted now by everybody, including the minister, probably, that that tax has reached the point where diminishing returns are being received. That alone is sufficient to condemn it. From the bare return point of view alone it is a bad tax, because it is producing less returns than it produced before it was increased. In addition to that, of course, there is the thing which has received a great deal of publicity, namely, the amount of smuggling which this tax has encouraged. From these two points of view alone it would be to the advantage of the country to get some reduction in the cigarette tax.
I turn to the last subject upon which I have anything to say, Mr. Speaker, namely, the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. In my opinion this is the most calamitous event which has occurred in Canada for a long time. The loss of the United States market will cripple our livestock industry very seriously for as long as that market is closed to us, apart from the loss we may have through animals being destroyed, or anything else along that line. However, in addition to the current loss of the United States market, which is bound to continue for some time under the best of circumstances, we have in operation in this country a series of provincial embargoes which have completely disrupted the normal marketing of livestock in our own country. These embargoes are rapidly producing some areas where there is a serious shortage of meat, and other areas where there is a very serious over-supply of livestock of all kinds and meat. As a matter of fact, the situation in which they are now is that there are no markets available to the producers at all, practically speaking. That is a situation which, for the protection of both the producer and the consumer, should be rectified just as rapidly as it is possible to do so.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was urged in this chamber and in other quarters to call a conference of the provincial authorities with himself in order that a settlement of the present extremely unsatisfactory conditions might be worked out. I have heard nothing since the discussion we had on this matter was concluded in the house, about this conference having been arranged. The minister went out to Regina, returned here last week and said that on his

trip out west he had talked with the Saskatchewan and Manitoba authorities and by telephone with the British Columbia authorities. Such means as that are not, I think, likely to be as effective as getting representatives of all the governments together, and with them all together working out a solution of this problem. I do not think there is any question that a solution satisfactory to all concerned could be worked out. It is merely a matter of getting them to see each other's point of view and getting the thing done. I think that a conference of all the people concerned is probably the most likely way of getting that accomplished. As a result, I would hope that the minister would convene this conference without any further delay and try to get on with the matter.
My own province, from the producer's point of view, is probably the worst off of any. We just have not markets, for we have no place where we can go with our livestock. We cannot go to British Columbia; we cannot come east. All we have is the local market which, in comparison with the amount of livestock produced in Alberta, is extremely small, Fortunately, people have been holding their livestock off the market to a very large extent, waiting for some settlement, you might say, of this provincial embargo matter to be made. A lot of people are not going to be able to do that indefinitely for various reasons. As far as some livestock are concerned, lambs and hogs, there is only a certain length of time that you can hold them off the market. If you hold them longer the value decreases very greatly.
Perhaps the provinces with embargoes in effect are unwilling to remove them because of lack of confidence in the means which has been taken up to date to restrict the disease to the area in which it broke out. That point of view may have validity. I think that more could have been done and should be done immediately to ensure that this disease does not spread beyond its borders.
My information from a very reliable source in that quarantined area is that the quarantine is not as effective as one would hope. For example, the people in the area are still moving about quite freely. They go into the towns, into the city of Regina, which is included in the area. They mix with other people, and without any special disinfection of their clothing and so forth taking place, without really anything having been done along that line, to prevent the spread of the disease, unless the conscientious farmer himself may have done it more or less on his own initiative. I understand the only means of enforcing the quarantine in that whole area
17. 1952	505
The Address-Mr. Harkness consists of four Royal Canadian Mounted Police cars. They drive about through the area.
Their function is almost solely to see that herds of cattle are not moved from one farm to another. That is their job. There is, essentially, no other means of enforcing quarantine. It is entirely in the hands of the farmers themselves, whether they bother with it or whether they do not bother with it. This is a method of dealing with the outbreak which I do not think will work efficiently and effectively. For instance, when there is an outbreak in England on a particular farm, a policeman is posted and is on duty 24 hours a day at the gate of the place under quarantine. As a result the quarantine is put into operation closely and effectively. People are not allowed to go out or come in.


Mr. Dewar:: Why have they not stamped it out, then?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The placing of a policeman at the entrance to every farm under quarantine on the prairies is perhaps not practicable.


Austin Edwin Dewar: Answer the question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I shall answer it in a moment. What I am saying is that a fairly close and enforced quarantine could be kept on the premises where the disease has actually broken out. I believe there are 23 of them. That might make all the difference between confining the disease to that area, and permitting it to run wild.
So far as the question of the hon. member is concerned, when he asks why they have not stamped it out in England, the answer is that they have stamped it out time after time but that they are constantly being reinfected from across the English channel. One can see across the channel from some points in England. With birds coming over all the time, reinfection is constantly taking place. They have actually done an extremely good job of keeping it under control. The only reason they have been able to have such a wide measure of success, and the only reason they have been able to stamp it out time after time, is that they have enforced an extremely drastic quarantine.


Austin Edwin Dewar: Why has not the United States let Mexican cattle in?


An hon. Member:: Why don't you keep your mouth shut for a change?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think the hon. member really wants information, so I shall not bother with him any more.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then, why do you want to ship cattle to British Columbia?
SOS	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Harkness


Douglas Scott Harkness: The most serious thing, however, that has been revealed to me, so far as the foot-and-mouth disease is concerned, is that considerable numbers of deer have been seen moving about in the quarantined area. My own view is that these deer constitute perhaps the greatest threat of all of the disease spreading right across Canada. There are a considerable number of deer in the Qu'Appelle river valley, which is part of the quarantined area. From that river valley the deer can readily travel both east and west, and into all the other river valleys right across the country.
It seems to me that if this disease is to be confined to its present area, then one of the most essential things to be done is to put an end to the danger of spreading the infection through these deer.
I was told by a man who had been in the area for ten days that he had seen five deer jumping over a fence from the fields of one of the farms where the cattle had been infected, and by that time slaughtered. On another occasion there were more than twenty deer counted along the banks of Was-cana creek, which the Minister of Agriculture said in the house was in his opinion the source of infection. He said that all the cattle infected were either bordering on or close to Wascana creek, and that in his opinion that is where they got it.
As I say, more than twenty deer were counted in one day roaming along the banks of Wascana creek. Well, what hope is there of controlling a disease if no action is taken in respect of these deer, when they are just as susceptible to the disease as are cattle? It is true that the farmers in the area have been given permission to shoot the deer, and other people can also obtain permission. But that fact is not widely known, and the amount of shooting has not been very considerable.
I do not think there is any question that the only way the condition could be controlled would be to have a drive put on by a large number of people, so as to cover the entire area. These people might move toward a centre, from opposite directions, and drive the deer before them, shooting as they go along.
I do not think there is too good a chance of controlling the outbreak unless those deer are cleaned out, and I am surprised that, up to date, no action has been taken to do this. I would strongly urge that such action be taken. This whole question of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak is, so far as Canada as a whole is concerned, in my opinion the most serious thing we have faced since the war.
[Mr. Cruickshank.i

As I said earlier, my own province is badly affected by it, and is likely to be more seriously affected if the disease spreads. In my opinion it is essential that, among other measures to prevent the spread of the disease, one should be the cleaning out of these deer which, I believe, are numerous in the area in question. I should hope that the federal government, in whose hands control of the disease rests, would arrange for the elimination of the deer without any further delay. This should be done before the animals have a chance to travel long distances, either east or west, or up the river valleys. Once the disease is spread by wildlife long distances from the present quarantined area, we might as well give up the idea of controlling it. It would be extremely likely to spread right across Canada.
I fail to understand the government's slowness in taking this very obvious precaution. We do know that the Department of Agriculture was unbelievably slow in identifying the disease; and now it would seem that it is most ineffective in taking the drastic steps necessary to keep the disease under control.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say how much I enjoyed the speech this afternoon of the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer). It is always refreshing to hear from him.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We all enjoyed it.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Of course, as usual, the hem. member did not say very much, except to decry the accomplishments of the C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan.
But, notwithstanding all that, he is a good fellow, and always entertaining. And so we were pleased to hear from him.
There was one observation he made, however, that I did not appreciate.


An hon. Member:: Just one?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: That was when he said that if you are a member of the C.C.F. party you are a "conditional Canadian." I do not know exactly what he meant by that phrase. However I wish to say that I was born in Canada, and I have always thought that in view of that fact I was a citizen. I think the hon. member for Maple Creek was born in the United States and was educated there. I should like to know just what his definition of a Canadian is? Does one have to be a member of the Liberal party to be a full Canadian?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: He did not tell us that.


An hon. Member:: You are on the right track.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: However, I am not going to deal with any of the nasty comments made this afternoon by the hon. member because, after all, I do not think he believed most of them, himself; he is too intelligent.
At one point in his speech this afternoon the hon. member said that he thought all members from Saskatchewan, regardless of political affiliations, would get together to oppose this redistribution bill, if under it we are going to lose five seats.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You are going to lose yours, anyway.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Well, that remains to be seen.
I suppose if my hon. friend had much to do with it, I probably would lose it. But fortunately, he has not. Members from Saskatchewan are not asking for any special privileges. All they are asking is that Saskatchewan be treated on the same basis as other provinces such as Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. We are asking that a similar floor be placed under the number of seats for Saskatchewan as is placed under the number of seats for Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. As the hon. member for Maple Creek said today, it is almost impossible to get around our constituencies at the present time. If they are going to be enlarged, we will not be able to see our constituents more than once every four or five years.
This is so particularly if we have to come down here for seven or eight months in the year, and if we do anything in a personal way to earn a living. I agree with the hon. member for Maple Creek when he says that regardless of politics those of us who come from Saskatchewan must get together to see what we can do to resist this redistribution bill. Personally, I thought the proposal made by the leader of the opposition in the Saskatchewan house, that seats for any province be not reduced by more than 10 per cent in any one distribution was fair and reasonable. I am hoping that we will not lose any, but I think that his suggestion would be a fair compromise.
Having said that, I should like to take a few minutes to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and his parliamentary assistant to certain difficulties which presently face the electrical appliance industry at the manufacturing level, at the wholesale level and particularly at the retail level. I preface my remarks by stating quite frankly that being in the hardware business I am personally interested in these difficulties. It may be that because of this I am biased, but nevertheless I feel that there are certain facts that should be brought to the attention of the house. Speaking before the joint
The Address-Mr. Thatcher committee on combines legislation on November 26 last, Mr. B. N. Simpson, general manager of the Canadian Electrical Manufacturers Association, summed, up conditions in the appliance industry as follows, and I quote from page 308 of the proceedings:
Employment in the industry is 50 per cent of what it was at this time last year. Production lines are only operating at 40 per cent of what they did last year, and then only because manufacturers are trying to maintain employment to the best of their ability and retail sales in the appliance industry are not more than somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25 per cent approximately,-
In my opinion these conditions have not appreciably improved in the past 3J months. Since the time Mr. Simpson gave his evidence, cut-throat competition at the retail level has produced considerable confusion and I would say almost chaotic conditions in the appliance business. A substantial number of dealers, some of them veterans who started in business after 1945, have gone bankrupt these last several months. I hope the house will believe me when I say that unless the minister is prepared to do something to remedy this situation, hundreds more small dealers across Canada will face exactly the same situation in the next year or so.
What are the reasons for the difficulties facing this industry? I think actually there are three reasons. I suggest the first reason is to be found in the last budget introduced by the Minister of Finance which provided for an increase in the sales tax of from 8 per cent to 10 per cent, and also for an excise tax of 15 per cent or 25 per cent on electrical appliances. It seemed to me then, and it seems to me today, that this tax was discriminatory, unfair and unfortunate. It raised the price of these appliances, which after all are not luxuries, out of all proportion. I should like to give the house a few examples
of how prices were	increased. They are:	
	Price	Price
	before	after
	budget	budget
6-foot Frigidaire 			 $299.50	$344.50
7-foot McClary refrigerator 349.00		399.00
Beatty gas washer ...		 219.50	244.50
As a matter of fact, the excise tax raised the price of those appliances to such an extent that after last April many consumers simply stopped buying them.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What was the profit to the dealer?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I shall come to that in a moment if the hon. member will just wait. When people stopped buying these appliances naturally many men were laid off, and there was widespread unemployment. What were the reasons which the Minister of Finance gave this house last April for imposing this special excise tax? He gave two reasons. In
508	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Thatcher the first place he said that this tax was being put on simply because revenue was needed- that it was going to provide the federal treasury with $16 million. Perhaps that was a logical reason last April, when the minister was forecasting a surplus of $30 million, but I do not see how any hon. member can say that it is logical today, when we learn that in the first nine months of the fiscal year our surplus amounted to over $700 million. Surely such an abnormal tax on certain products is justified in peacetime under those financial circumstances.
Then there is another factor. It is beginning to look as though by placing this tax on these commodities the minister has gone beyond the point of diminishing returns. Let us look at the sales of washing machines in Canada for last year, which were as follows:
January	 29,500
February	 24,800
March	 27,000
April	 26,700
May	 21,200
June	 14,600
July	 11,500
August	 10,500
It will be remembered that the budget was brought in in April. These figures show that the volume of sales dropped sharply and drastically after that date. I think the same is true of other electrical appliances. The sales of washing machines last January and February amounted to over 54,000 and the revenue to the treasury from the 8 per cent sales tax amounted to $238,000. The sales for November and December of the same year, at a time when the 10 per cent sales tax was in effect, as well as an excise tax of 15 per cent, produced a revenue to the treasury of Canada of only $225,000. Why? Because only 20,000 machines were sold. The point I am trying to -make is that the point of diminishing returns has been reached and this tax no longer is a real source of revenue to the treasury.
The second reason which the Minister of Finance gave last April for imposing this special excise tax was that the government wanted to discourage sales of appliances, so that steel could be saved and plant capacity and men made available for the defence effort. After the tax was imposed, sales did fall off, steel was made available, and plant capacity was available for the defence effort. However, as far as I can gather no great use has been made of these plants. I do not think it -can be said today that those plants are needed for the defence effort. In order to prove that point, may I refer to what the Minister


of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) had to say on March 14, and I quote from page 436 of Hansard as follows:
The expectation of acute shortages and of serious dislocations in the civilian sector arising from these defence preparations have not been realized.
Even if the two reasons which the Minister of Finance gave last April for this special excise tax were logical then, surely those reasons no longer exist. I therefore ask the minister either to abolish this excise tax, or at least reduce it substantially. Such a step would mean lower prices to the consumer, work for those who are now unemployed and a much needed sales volume for the industry as a whole.
The second difficulty in the appliance business today, again particularly at the retail level, is the present form of the government's consumer regulations. Hon. members will recall that those regulations were originally introduced more than a year ago as one of the weapons needed to fight inflation. So far as appliances were concerned, one-third down in hard cash was required on all sales. Many people thought that those regulations were too severe, and so representations were made to the Minister of Finance asking him to ease them. Some members of the trade themselves made such representations.
The Minister of Finance listened to the pleas and he amended the regulations by order in council. But it seems to me that he went from the extreme of being too harsh, to the other extreme of being too easy under the amended regulations. He allowed the full value of a trade-in to be counted as part of the one-third down payment. I am not going to suggest that the results of that have been-


Mr. Sinclair:: But that was at the request of the trade association?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Yes, I stated that a moment ago. Some merchants, particularly those in the larger centres such as Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, have used the amendment as a method of getting around the regulations altogether. They have done this by offering fictitious trade-in values. I think every hon. member in the house has seen some of the advertisements which have been carried in the papers across this country in the past several months. I have a few in my hand. Here is one from Vancouver. I do not need to give the name of the firm, but it says that $50 will be allowed for your old washboard on a new washing machine. Here is one that says, "$50 trade-in allowance for a toothbrush on a new stove". This next

one says, "$150 trade-in allowance for a cup and saucer on a new refrigerator." These are from Vancouver.
Here is one from Winnipeg.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Give us Moose Jaw.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I said that this practice had not occurred in the small cities, if my hon. friend had listened. Here is one which says, "$289 plus a pair of scissors for this refrigerator." This one offers "$289 plus your trade-in, which can be a chair, ice-box, lamp or any household articles that you have no use for" for a refrigerator. Another offers "$40 for your old carpet on a new rug." There were literally dozens of those advertisements published in recent months.
Some hon. members may ask, what is wrong with that practice? After all, does it not mean cheaper prices for the consumer? I have heard such questions asked. It seems to me that there are several bad features of this type of merchandising. In the first place, advertisements of this kind are making a complete farce of the consumer credit regulations, whose main purpose was to control easy credit, and the inflationary trends that were caused by easy credit. This practice does not necessarily mean that the consumer is getting a better price, because some companies-I think there are some in these advertisements-have simply added money on to the purchase price of the article, and then given it back to the customer in the form of an increased allowance for his trade-in. The customer is not perhaps worse off, but in many instances he is no better off. The effect of the manipulation however is that little or no cash down is needed. As a matter of fact many of these companies advertise the fact that no money is needed for a down payment. Here is one here, "No money down on these refrigerators." It seems to me that this kind of advertising is evading the purpose of the legislation. In the throne speech this statement appears at page 2 of Hansard for February 28:
Inflationary pressures are still being strongly felt and require the maintenance of anti-inflationary measures.
If that is so, then this practice should be stopped.
In the second place, I believe this kind of advertising is, perhaps not dishonest, but at least deliberately misleading to the public. I feel that it is an unethical practice. Many merchants hope they can avoid it, but feel they are going to be forced into it by competition unless the regulations are changed. Retailers right across the country are concerned about the practice. As a matter of fact, the British Columbia retail merchants
The Address-Mr. Thatcher association made a representation to hon. members a short time ago. I draw attention to the first paragraph of that letter dated March 11, 1952, a copy of which every member of this house has received. It says:
... a manipulation of the trade-in value can be used to defeat the original intention of the consumer credit regulations and thus create a chaotic condition such as has never been known in the history of retailing in Canada.
That association is asking the minister to insist that there must be a down payment of at least 20 per cent cash, on all future sales. As a merchant, it seems to me that their request is reasonable, and I hope the minister will bring in some such amendment. If he does I think that he would be helping hundreds of small merchants across Canada to meet unfair competition.
The third reason for the difficulties of the small dealers, and the appliance industry generally, is the fact that their system of orderly marketing was destroyed several months ago, when resale price maintenance was abolished by parliament. It is too early yet to measure the full effects of that abolition, but hon. members might be interested in a story carried in the Winnipeg Free Press of last Friday. It sums up conditions in the city of Winnipeg. This is the issue of Friday, March 14, and the heading is, "Free competition sparks new retail price slashes." The article goes on:
Competition this week was knocking the bottom out of appliance prices in Winnipeg . . . dealers . . . were slashing the price of hundreds of items almost down to cost to attract people into their stores.
Said one dealer:	"If the other fellow can cut
prices, so can we. We're selling those machines at cost."
I am certainly not going to deny, Mr. Speaker, that abolition of resale price maintenance has set off a series of vicious, predatory price wars, which no doubt temporarily benefit the consumer of Canada; but if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and the member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) take pride in that fact, let them remember that their act has brought a respected and important segment of Canadian business to its knees today. Let them remember also that because of their legislation, hundreds of small retailers are today face to face with bankruptcy. Let them remember that if we can go by the experience of other countries, which abolished resale price maintenance, in the long run the consumer has not benefited by the elimination of competition. The small appliance dealers are apparently to be the first victims in the retail trade to be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency, by a government seeking a scapegoat for its own
510	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. McCusker failure to deal with rising prices. I commend these facts and these opinions to the house for consideration.


Mr. E. A. McCusker (Hegina City):: Mr. Speaker, as this is the first occasion upon which I have taken part in this debate, I wish to add my congratulations to those already extended to the mover (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. On my own behalf, and on behalf of the 1,267,702 Irishmen who were here in 1940 and their descendants since that time, I also wish to thank the member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) for the kind greetings he extended to us today.
At the moment, Mr. Speaker, my constituents are faced with a serious problem which affects their economy and the economy of Canada. That is the epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease which recently developed in several municipalities around Regina and in an abattoir in that city. The manner in which the disease was brought to the attention of the provincial and federal authorities is common knowledge. The steps taken to make the diagnosis and limit the spread of the disease are also well known. The success with which these efforts have been crowned is becoming increasingly clear. There has been no extension of the disease beyond the quarantine area within which there is a cattle population of 25,000 under close farm to farm observation.
I have but recently returned from Regina, where I found complete satisfaction on the part of the authorities and the people with the manner in which the epidemic was being handled. They were resentful of the undue publicity given this disaster in this house, which caused the other provinces to think the disease was much more severe and much more widespread than actually was the case, and which implied laxity and inefficiency on the part of those men in the federal health of animals division who are dealing with the epidemic. They feel this type of criticism will create the impression abroad that the epidemic is not being properly dealt with and the quarantine is not being rigidly observed, and that as a consequence the ruinous embargo will be unduly prolonged. Some hon. members will remember the depression and drought years that we endured in Saskatchewan. Our grain planted in the spring did not germinate. The grass did not grow. Our fields became black. Our cattle wandered from one blade of grass to another, from one pothole to another seeking water, until they were starving and had to be shot. Then we were given the magnificent sum of $15 per head.


An hon. Member:: One cent per pound.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Perhaps that was so in the hon. member's area. In any case we got $15 a head. During that time we had almost daily what George Spence aptly termed the black blizzards, with clouds of earth in the air so the sun could not be seen. At that time we had in the east men sitting in luxurious offices, bankers, insurance men, trust company men, who were very critical. These men knew nothing of farming methods in western Canada. Many had never been there, yet they felt amply qualified to criticize those of us who were out there going through this terrible drought. These men were known as armchair farmers.
There has been altogether too much criticism in this house from armchair veterinarians across the way. A sane approach to this problem was made in Regina, where a meeting took place attended by the following men. The chairman was Mr. Nollet, provincial minister of agriculture, and among the others attending were Right Hon. James Gardiner, federal Minister of Agriculture and members of his department; Herbert Weib, vice-president of the Saskatchewan stock growers; D L. Davis, director of the Saskatchewan poultry association; W. J. Bell, president of the Saskatchewan federation of agriculture; Kenneth Coppock of Calgary, secretary of the western Canada stock growers association; J. H. Wesson, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool; George Ross, chief of the western section of the western beef council; J. L. Phelps, president of the Saskatchewan farmers' union. Also present were some of the farmers whose herds were affected. You will admit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a pretty formidable list of names. Their deliberations and conclusions are briefly outlined in an editorial in the Leader-Post of March 11, 1952, part of which with your permission I shall quote:
It is a matter of gratification, accordingly, that during the day-long emergency conference of agricultural and government representatives held in Regina last week and to consider the disease outbreak and the damp grain situation, an encouragingly constructive atmosphere appeared for the most part to prevail. Discussions in the main were kept on a high plane, and as a result there was a general disposal of misconceptions and misunderstandings which if left unexplained or undealt with might have interfered with the effective program of eradication now under way. Agricultural Minister Gardiner and the federal men with him laid all the cards on the table face up. That is the way it should have been; in fact, the air was so much clearer at the end of the conference than at the beginning that it was possible to find spirited support for a resolution expressing confidence that everything within reason is being done by government authorities to control and suppress the disease.

I should like to quote also from another copy of the Leader-Post a resolution adopted at that meeting:
At the close of the meeting, a resolution was passed expressing confidence that the governments and veterinary services were doing everything possible to control and suppress the disease. The resolution expressed regret at the provincial embargoes on livestock and meat shipments but stated belief that the action taken by certain provinces was taken in good faith in an attempt to prevent the disease spread.
The resolution said further that the disease was not as serious and as widespread as had been represented in the press.
That is the verdict of a board made up of men prominent in the cattle and grain industries in western Canada, under the chairmanship of the provincial minister of agriculture. Contrast the attitude of that board with the attitude of some of the hon. members who sit across the way in the house, whose criticisms tend to undermine the confidence of the people of Canada in the efficiency of those who are endeavouring to eradicate the disease. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Agriculture had stated in this house that the matter would be referred to the agriculture committee, where all the witnesses could be examined to determine if there was any negligence. That is the place for any members of this house to get the information they want, and that is the place to offer their criticism.
I regret that the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) is not here tonight. I asked the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) to notify him and the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth (Mr. Charlton) that I was going to criticize something they had said in this house. The hon. member for Lake Centre must feel the odd twinges of guilt as he looks back over the pages of Hansard. He should have been the first to demand that these men be given a chance to defend themselves before being condemned. Is he not the father of a resolution now on the order paper concerning a bill of rights? In view of his attitude and that of other hon. members across the way I think we had better pay pretty close attention to that bill of rights to see that another clause is not added which would abolish British criminal law in this country and replace it with continental criminal law. That was the law under which he was acting last week. Under British criminal law a man is adjudged to be innocent until he is tried and proven guilty; but under the law under which hon. members of the opposition were operating last week, they were condemning the man and trying to hang him before he ever came to trial.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
The Address-Mr. McCusker


Mr. Cardiff:: That speech is premature.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Of course, hon. members of the opposition may have been misled. They were visited by the provincial Progressive Conservative leader, Mr. Alvin Hamilton, who stated in a press interview before he left Regina that he was coming down here to brief them and to see that the farmers and those affected got a square deal. I think possibly he should take some of the blame for what happened here last week. It would seem that the information which he supplied to them was not too authentic.
Tonight the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) got to his feet and spoke in the usual conservative tone. He started to condemn the men in the field who have not yet had a chance to be heard. He raised the matter of deer running around the country. He voiced a criticism that the quarantine was not strictly enforced. I may say that I was back in Regina ten days ago and that I discussed this matter with the game commissioners. They were very active at that time trying to take care of that menace. It is nothing new. Furthermore, I will call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the cattle and the herds affected were confined chiefly to the barns. They are not out on pasture. There is no pasture in my part of the country in the winter; and those were dairy cattle confined to their barns and yards along the Wascana creek. The disease has spread a short distance on Wascana creek, which is a long one, and it is in the Qu'Ap-pelle valley where you usually find the deer, not up on the upper reaches of the creek just north of Regina where it is not thickly treed.
When I was in Regina the other day I spoke to some of the provincial livestock people and they were perfectly satisfied with the co-operation that existed between themselves and the federal authorities. The hon. member for Brant-Wentworth (Mr. Charlton), who is a veterinarian-and I am sorry that he is not here tonight-was less than kind to his confreres. I should have thought that he would defend them until they had a chance to speak for themselves. But did he do that? Mr. Speaker, the hon. member read to us a lengthy article from the British encyclopedia or some veterinary magazine or other describing the disease.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: He was quoting from a textbook, I think.


Mr. Sinnott:: Volume 749.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: He explained the ease with which the disease -could be diagnosed. I wonder if he has heard of an -attenuated virus that affects an animal and produces a

The Address-Mr. McCusker disease that is atypical-symptoms obscure, and the disease of short duration, but totally atypical? He did not say anything about it. As this virus passes from animal to animal it becomes exceedingly virulent and will later produce a disease exhibiting typical symptoms. I am sure the hon. member could have made that explanation in defence of the several men in the country who are veterinarians and who are out in the field carrying on the work. Did he do so? No, he did not. I wonder if he himself has ever seen a case of foot-and-mouth disease? I wonder if he has ever seen a case of vesicular stomatitis? I do not think so. 1 wonder if he has ever read the quotation from Sir William Osier's "Books and Men": He who studies patients without books travels an uncharted sea; he who studies books without patients does not go to sea at all. I am afraid my hon. friend is in the latter category. He has never been to sea. He is what the English aptly termed during the war a jetty admiral. Someone behind me asked what I know about the foot-and-mouth disease. I might inform them that the process of parturition is identical in the countess and1 the cow-and so is the process of many of these diseases. In medicine we use animals with which to experiment, to find out what the effects of certain diseases will be on man and to study ways and means of combating them. The reaction of animal tissue to injury and that of human tissue is quite similar, whether the injury be chemical, bacterial or traumatic. The cardinal symptoms are: rubor, tumor, calor and dolor-redness, swelling, heat and pain. They are the same in that respect and in many cases the diseases are similar.
After the frightful case of nerves which our friends of the C.C.F. have been exhibiting during the last few days, I rather hesitate to direct any of my remarks in that direction. I would hate to precipitate another case of jitters such as we saw here last Friday night.


Mr. Hodgson:: You are doing fine.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I promise that I will not use that word which upsets them so badly. I will speak about agricultural topics. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who is not present, gave assurance to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that he would give him full support in getting the bill through the resolution stage and through the three readings in one day; yet he did not seem to be adverse to prolonging the debate and dragging it out for three days. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), who sets himself up as the sole representative of agriculture from western


Canada was not particularly helpful. I want to call the attention of this house to the fact that the real representatives of agriculture in this house sit on the government side.


James Arthur Ross: Where are they?


Emmett Andrew McCusker: The hon. member for Assiniboia reacted as usual. To any bill in support of agriculture in western Canada his reaction is the same as it was in this case. When the Minister of Agriculture said that his bill made it possible to give those whose herds were affected by, or had been in contact with the disease, a fair and reasonable settlement, what was the reaction of the hon. member for Assiniboia? It was "it is not enough to say that we will do whatever is fair and reasonable". Mr. Speaker, here is a man who, ever since I have been in this house, has been dissatisfied with what is fair and reasonable. Mr. Speaker, I feel that there has been too much heat and perhaps not quite enough light generated in this debate. From here on let us proceed calmly. Let us leave it to the committee on agriculture to hear these people before they are condemned, to decide if there is any fault, and to place the blame where it belongs. As for the rest of us, we can ill afford to make capital out of a calamity of this magnitude. Let us try to work together to restore the confidence of the people, in and outside of Canada, so that we can have this embargo removed as soon as possible.
I want to say a word about a man who has stuck his nose into this matter; I refer to Mr. Alvin- Hamilton, the Progressive Conservative leader in Saskatchewan, the man who is going to lose his deposit in the forthcoming election.


An hon. Member:: Do you want to bet?


Emmett Andrew McCusker: He will not succeed in having one of his supporters elected to the provincial legislature.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I thought you were going to keep politics out of this debate.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I am just talking about Saskatchewan. I want to tell you that in this house last week a statement was made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), that in December it was common knowledge among the farmers of Saskatchewan whose herds were affected that this malady was foot-and-mouth disease, that everybody was talking about it. I presume -that was the information that was given to him by Mr. Hamilton when Mr. Hamilton briefed him, and before he made this statement in the house. Then, on a broadcast a few days later Mr. Hamilton, when asked a question by one of the reporters,-do you

believe that statement is true? he said no. He said: I was canvassing in that district. You know, he is a candidate in Lumsden, where this disease is. "I was canvassing in this district throughout January and February", he said on the radio, "and I did not know that the disease existed until I read it in the press". Gentlemen, he is canvassing in that district. Mr. Thayer, one of the C.C.F., is a provincial member in that constituency. My brother farms in that constituency. Regina adjoins the constituency. The constituency of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) adjoins it. The people including the above-named were unaware of it; they thought they were quite safe. They thought it was vesicular stomatitis.
There is another matter that I should like to bring up tonight, which affects the members of my constituency. I want the members of the C.C.F. party to hang onto their seats when they hear this. I hold in my hand letters from many unions in my municipality. There was a general impression that mail from unions all went to a certain part of the house, but I received some, which is closely related to the matter that I have to deal with. I refer to the plight of some of my constituents who are employed in the packing houses, and to some of the Canadian brotherhood of railway employees. I have representations here from the queen of the west, division 43, the Canadian brotherhood of railway employees; from the united packing houses of America, local 226; united packing houses of America, local 373; retail and wholesale department stores union, local 538. May I point out that on account of the federally placed quarantine these men will be more severely injured; they will face greater hardship than similar unions in other parts of Canada. For example, starting in the mari-times, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia have placed provincial embargoes. Therefore the workers in these areas can hold the provincial authorities responsible. The federal authorities did not put them on, and the federal authorities wish to have these embargoes removed immediately. In Regina it is a different matter. We are quarantined in an area fifty miles square. No produce can move in or out. These railway men are completely out of employment. Some consideration should be given to this matter. It applies also to the same extent to the packing 'house workers. I ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) to look into the needs of these men and give them that charitable consideration for which he is gaining such an enviable reputation.
The Address-Mr. McCusker
There is one other matter which has to do with the truckers. I have been receiving many letters from them. I have dozens of letters from them. I understand that their case is being considered by the board of transport commissioners, and it is therefore not proper for me to discuss it at this time.
One other matter that I should like to deal with before I sit down is housing. At present we are trying to make arrangements with the federal government to build 150 houses in Regina on the basis of the federal government putting up 75 per cent, the province 12i per cent and the city 12-J per cent. This will not begin to meet our needs. At the present time we have a waiting list in Regina of 1,500 veterans families who require houses. We have people employed in Regina who cannot find homes. We had two employed in a firm in Regina in which I am interested. They had to leave. One of them came back to Toronto and the other went to Battleford because they could not find accommodation in which to house their families. Arrangements were made so that loans could be placed with four insurance companies, but these loans are for a type of house that is too expensive for the young people starting in life to build. The chamber of commerce has put forth some reasons why assistance should be given to private citizens to build houses. They list the advantages. They consist of more variety and attractiveness in design because of individual choice; pride of ownership and care of property; more personal supervision in construction; many contractors employed instead of one large contractor.
In the old days, before we had subsidized housing and gave the entire contract to one large firm, there were many small contractors. One or two carpenters and a plasterer formed a little firm and hired a few men. They worked long hours. They built better houses. The prospective owner was there in the morning and in the evening filling in and assisting. He got a better and a cheaper house. That is a thing of the past.
Another advantage is the dispersal of homes throughout the city instead of grouping them into districts. They ask for the restoration of the additional loan of one-sixth. They want to make it possible to grant loans on modest houses, modern or non-modern. When the city of Regina was built years ago, and when I first started to work, we did not have modem houses. Gradually this has changed, but the construction of those days was not destroyed; it was improved upon. We cannot subsidize a man to build a small modern house with two bedrooms, or one bedroom, sitting room and kitchen. No, it must have

The Address-Mr. J. J. Smith three bedrooms. Young people just starting out in life cannot afford that. The question often asked is: What if he has a family? My answer to that is: When a family comes along he will have established himself and will be able to afford a better house. He will be able to sell the one he is in now to some other young people just getting married and starting out in life. I ask the minister to give some attention to these people who are in considerable difficulty at the present time.


Mr. J. J. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate there are a few things that I wish to call to the attention of the government; but before doing that there is another matter with which I should like to deal for a few minutes. It has to do with what took place in this chamber on Friday evening. I assure hon. members that I am not going to deal with external affairs. I will do as I have always done in this house, namely, speak about something that I am familiar with. However, my colleague, the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Hetland), brought a subject before the house that I think was timely. It was high time that the matter was mentioned.
I have nothing to add to what the hon. member had to say other than to remark that the two hon. members from the C.C.F. party who criticized him for what he did were unfair; their remarks were unwarranted. Of course my friend the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) could possibly be excused because he does not know the conditions of the farmers in western Canada. For that reason we will excuse him. It is possible that he did not gather the motive of the hon. member for Humboldt, and, as I say, he can be excused, but there is no excuse for the attack of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), and the references he made to the hon. member for Humboldt. Possibly he and his colleagues in that party, along with other hon. members, will agree with me before I am through that that was unfair and uncalled for.
I should be fair to the hon. member for Cape Breton South. He did pay what is, in my opinion, a compliment to the hon. member for Humboldt when he said that the hon. member was politically immature. Well, I do not know the people in the Humboldt constituency, but I presume they are much the same as the electors in my constituency. I would presume, too, that they would want their member to remain politically immature. So long as he is practically political, that is good enough. And if I am here three or four years, or nine or ten, when anyone rises in his place and says that I am politically immature I will accept it as a compliment.


What was the hon. member for Humboldt putting before the house? As I recall it he said that on many occasions when unions strike they did not strike against their employers, but against every man, woman and child in Canada. If I were to criticize the remarks of the hon. member for Humboldt I would say that he was much too kind. I think he could have added, when he was referring to the railway strike, that that strike was against the farmers of western Canada, and that it affected them to a greater degree than any other class of people in this country. I believe all members, regardless of their political complexion, from the prairie provinces will agree with me when I make that statement. And I will go further and say that the farmers from the prairies are still suffering from the effects of that strike.
I am quite satisfied that I will not be contradicted when I make these statements. That being so, I would suggest that any hon. member referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Humboldt, while speaking in this debate, either refrain from speaking or compliment the -hon. member for Humboldt for bringing the matter to the attention of the house.
On Friday, March 14, as reported at page 474 of Hansard, the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), referring to the hon. member for Humboldt, had this to say:
I cannot understand the bitter attack against the working people of this country by the hon. member for Humboldt

Well, there was nothing bitter in his attack. I do not know what the motive of the hon. member for Saskatoon might have been, but I suggest that if he is going to try to convince the people in Saskatchewan that the little gentleman from Humboldt is bitter, either in this house or out of it, then he had better save his breath to cool his porridge.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher), I think those of us from Saskatchewan, as well as those from Alberta and other constituencies on the prairies, would be well advised to co-operate in our problems, and not to get into political fights in the house. It is true that we are likely this summer to have an election in Saskatchewan. After all, those of us who want a good political scrap will find nothing to stop us from getting out in Saskatchewan and doing it right there. But I do resent it when any member from the prairie provinces accuses a supporter of the government of making a bitter attack, and proceeds to censure him when, in fact, the bon. member in question is simply trying to put a case clearly

before the house. He is told, in effect: You keep quiet, or we will slap you down. I cannot stand for that.
I believe that since I have come here I have tried at all times to reach logical conclusions which would be for the benefit of all. I believe hon. members in the opposition would agree that I have tried to do that. I say this, not as a threat, but as a warning that if the opposition wish to turn this honourable house into a rough-house, then we boys from Saskatchewan will accommodate them. I say this to the government leader in the house and to the whips, that if they think they can stop us, then they are badly mistaken, because we will not be tramped on.
I shall now turn to some subjects of greater importance. Within the course of less than a month I have listened to two speeches from the throne. They ran fairly true to form, in the way in which they were delivered by the gentlemen who represented the crown both here in Ottawa and in Saskatchewan. In Ottawa our new Governor General is the first Canadian-born son to hold this high position. The same is true in Saskatchewan where, for the first time, a speech from the throne was delivered by a native-born son of the province, Mr. W. J. Patterson. Both those appointments were made by this government. I suggest that if everything the government has done was as well accepted as those two appointments, by all political groups, then there would not be any opposition in this house and that would not be a very happy circumstance.
Referring to appointments, I should like to refer to the appointment made by the Department of Labour when it sent Mr. Pat Conroy to Washington to serve as representative of the Canadian government, or of the Department of Labour, in that post. There are trade unions in my constituency. One of those unions happens to consist of coal miners, because at Estevan we have a mine that turns out about one-tenth of all the soft coal produced in Canada. If I might speak for the coal miners in that union I would say vhat the appointment of Mr. Conroy was well Accepted by the boys out there at Estevan. [Mr. Conroy was there at the time of the istrike, and is well known to many of the *miners. On behalf of the miners at the Ester van coal fields I say to the government that the appointment of Mr. Conroy has been well received.
I should like this evening to place some further points before the house for consideration, and in doing so I shall try to be brief. A good deal has been said about the big surplus. I said I would not speak about anything 55704-33}
The Address-Mr. J. J. Smith with which I was not familiar. I am going to make only a few comments about the budget surplus, but I do not make my remarks brief because of a lack of knowledge on the subject.
The figures would seem to indicate that the surplus is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $700 million, and we are told that $400 million of that will be spent before the end of the fiscal year, and the balance paid out on our national debt. I would suppose that members of the official opposition would agree that it is all right to have a surplus; the only difficulty is that they did not put it there.
At this point I should like to quote briefly from a pamphlet in which is set out an article which appeared in the Reader's Digest under the heading "Inflation Concerns Everyone". The article was written by Samuel B. Petten-gill, former democratic congressman from Indiana. I recommend the pamphlet to all hon. members, because I believe it deals with some of the criticisms which have come from some of the opposition benches. What I am about to place on record is the opinion of the congressman, and one with which I certainly agree. He says:
The chief cause of inflation is that the federal government ever since 1930 has spent more than it has taken in.
This is referring to the United States government.
It has gone Into debt during eighteen of the past twenty-one years.
Then further on it says:
One thing the government can and must do is to sop up as much of the increased money supply as possible by taxes. Your part in this is to pay without evasion. Better pay taxes now than have your widow cash in your life insurance some day for just enough to buy a meal-as actually happened in Germany.
That is just about what this government is doing-it is balancing its budget. We hear cries about heavy taxation, but according to that gentleman that is all right. It has been suggested that this heavy taxation is inflationary, but surely no hon. member will suggest that a government or an individual should not pay its debts because it is inflationary. That is all I am going to say about that particular matter.
I should like to say something about foot-and-mouth disease. I spoke about this on another occasion during this session when I suggested that those of us who wanted information should wait until the committee was set up, and the government officials called. Certain gentlemen have indicated a readiness to condemn the officials of the government and the government for what has been done, and I am wondering if they will have the courage to come before that committee and
516	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. J. Smith face the officials of the government and the other veterinarians who might be called, and make those same statements. It will be interesting to watch what is done. I am not a member of the agriculture committee but I am certainly going to be there to see what happens.
I have asked myself why it is that we have the foot-and-mouth disease in Saskatchewan. It seems that all disasters fall on that province. If Providence had anything to do with it, why was it permitted to appear in Saskatchewan? The only reason I can think of is that the people of Saskatchewan have great courage. That is the province where men are men and women are sweethearts.
This afternoon the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) referred to wheat board representation. I understand the board is to be increased from three to five members and we farmers-I am speaking now as a member of the farmers union-feel that the two extra members should be farmers. It is true that farmers do not know everything; it is true that in a farmers organization some radicals will be found; but when you have a practical farmer you have a man of fairly high standing. I am ready to put a practical farmer against a member of any other profession in Canada or any part of the world. It is not necessary to have only professional men. We need some practical farmers on the wheat board. I hope when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is making the selections he will see that the added representation is made up of practical farmers.
I want to say a word about the automobile industry. We have heard a lot about this industry in the last few years, more particularly this last winter. I have an opinion about the automobile industry and I say at once that it is a personal opinion. However, when I have an opinion I do not hesitate to express it before this house. I came across a rather interesting book not long ago giving facts and figures of the automobile industry, the 1951 edition. This was issued by the Canadian Automobile Chamber of Commerce.
We have heard a lot about this infant automobile industry. It has been coddled and nursed and protected for years and I suggest that it has now grown up. It is a big boy now and it is time it stood on its own feet. It does not need any more protection. My Conservative friends-I do not include the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) at this time- will say: "What about the automobile industry? It needs protection." That may be their reason, but I do not agree with them. As I say, this industry has had time to grow up.


My mind goes back to the time when the customs duties were taken off farm machinery, I believe in 1927 and 1936. When that was done we heard great cries about the implement companies being ruined, but that has not turned out to be the case. The financial reports indicate that these companies are doing fairly well. There is no difference in the automobile industry. That industry should be able to stand on its own feet and compete with automobiles from other countries.
The importation of cars not manufactured in the year of import is prohibited. I do not think that should be. Let us consider some figures given in the book to which I just referred. I do not like messing up my speech with a lot of figures, but I have some here which I think will be rather interesting. The automotive production in 1950 was 284,000 passenger cars, 106,000 trucks and buses, or a total of 390,000 units. That was nearly 100,000 more than had been produced in 1949, or an increase of 50 per cent. In 1950 the financed sales were 31-5 per cent of the total, the balance being cash sales. In other words, about one-third of the sales were financed and two-thirds were for cash. There were more cars sold for cash in 1950 than were produced in 1949. I suggest to the government to give serious consideration to taking off all duties on automobiles entering Canada. I think it will be found that, as I have said, this industry has grown up and is able to look after itself.
It is true that some retailers or car agents are in difficulty, but why is this? They acted on bad advice from the automobile industry which forced them to build large garages, show rooms and so on. Many dealers went into the thing too heavily and are now in trouble. It might be noted that the tax on automobiles imposed in Canada is far out of line with what is paid in the United States. It is not necessary for me to give my arguments to the minister as he has heard them in another place. I trust that in his new budget the minister will give some consideration to getting that tax in line with the one in the United States. If he is unable to do so, I hope he will tell us why.	J
In conclusion, I have one other point I wish to bring to the attention of the house. It concerns the war bonds that were sold during the last war. Some of the people in this dominion are today forced to sell those bonds to enable them to buy food. The bond salesmen told these purchasers that these bonds were the best investment they could make. The people were told to be patriotic and buy a bond. I have some of these bonds, not too many. I am not speaking for myself

The Address-Mr. Cloutier
because I hope I shall be able to hold these bonds until maturity, at which time I shall get one hundred cents on the dollar plus interest. They have not been a bad investment, but there are many people in Canada who bought those bonds and who knew quite well that they could not hold them until maturity. Many of the old people expected that they would be dead before that time. Some of the people who are forced to sell their bonds today are taking around 95 cents on the dollar, and I do not think that is good enough. I would ask the minister to give the house some explanation why the government cannot make these bonds sell at par, the same as the Canadian savings bonds.
The minister is in the fortunate position of having a surplus this year. We are having good times, taxes are easily collected and money is fairly free. We are now in a cold war. If we have to continue this cold war too long and economic conditions become difficult, then taxes will not come in so freely. If we get into a shooting war, we may have to go into the market and sell government bonds again. I am afraid that it is going to be rather difficult to sell government bonds when people know quite well that many of those who bought them during the last war are not getting 100 cents on the dollar.
There is a little more in this article which I should like to quote.
If I save money by useful work, producing goods which others have bought, and lend $1,000-my savings-to Uncle Sam, there has been no increase in the nation's money supply. Uncle Sam has $1,000 more; I have $1,000 less. But if the government borrows $1,000 from a commercial bank, the money supply of the nation has increased by that amount. The bank takes Uncle Sam's promissory note, a government bond, and credits him with a $1,000 deposit against which he draws checks to pay his bills.
In my opinion as long as the government borrows money from its own people-we are referring to Canada now-then that government is no poorer. If it has to borrow money even from the banks, that creates more money and makes inflation. I would suggest that the government might try to make it possible to give these people 100 cents on the dollar who have to cash their bonds now in order to live. As I have said, I hope that the Minister of Finance will be able to tell us why he cannot do anything about cutting some of this taxation on automobiles, if that is not possible. I hope he will be able to tell us why something cannot be done about these war bonds to see that these people get back 100 cents on the dollar. So far as removing the duty on automobiles coming into this country is concerned, I would advise him not to tell us why
it should not be done because there is no explanation. The government should just remove the duty.
(Translation):


Mr. Armand Cloutier (Drummond-Arlhabaska):: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to restrain strong emotions as I rise in this house, to speak on behalf of the constituents of Drum-mond-Arthabaska whom I have the honour to represent in the Canadian House of Commons.
The emotion I feel springs from various motives; to start with, I would say that it is inspired by the fact that the constituency of Drummond-Arthabaska has known many very great politicians; I wish I were as eloquent today as were Laurier, LaVergne, Dorion and other great orators; thus, the voice of my constituency could be heard in this chamber with the brilliancy and the eloquence of former days!
I would have to be a poet to do justice to the constituency I represent. For I feel that Drummond-Arthabaska is no ordinary riding and it is the very breath of its soul which vibrates today in the recesses of my own heart.
There are several reasons why we should pay special attention to Drummond-Arthabaska. May I first of all mention the part the constituency played during the last war when it placed first in the victory loan campaigns held throughout Canada. The understanding prevailing in our plants between employers and employees should also be held as a model. We have very large industries as well as several private concerns that are quite prosperous. Everywhere there is harmony between English and Frenchspeaking citizens as well as between the various classes of society. Have we not there a reflection of our national life?
I would be remiss in my duty if I failed to mention the farmers of my county with whom I remain in close relationship. Those who remain faithful to the land deserve that we take an interest in their fate. There are several problems that I should like to mention here. Let us not forget that the farmer remains the cornerstone of society, the hope of tomorrow and of the future.
Since my election as member for Drummond-Arthabaska, I had made it a point to make one or two speeches during each session. Some will no doubt wonder why I have not yet spoken since my re-election in 1949. If I have not spoken sooner it is because the esteem and respect I have for my new colleagues prompted me to await my turn so that they would expound their views and policies.

The Address-Mr. Cloutier I avail myself of this opportunity to pay tribute to present members of parliament, who are undoubtedly the most active ever seen in this house.
I also wish to congratulate my distinguished colleagues, the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Gentlemen, you have fulfilled your duty in a very remarkable manner.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, so many of my colleagues speak English that I shall continue in their language, with which I am not so familiar as it is not my mother tongue. I therefore beg your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and that of the house.
I avail myself of this opportunity to pay a public and respectful tribute to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and to present to him the usual compliments, as well as to assure him of my most sincere admiration and attachment. His predecessor, Right Hon. Mackenzie King, left him a happy if difficult legacy in view of these troublesome times. He knows, however, how to fulfil this task. Thanks to his talents as a great lawyer, as a fair and just man and as an administrator, he has surrounded himself with eminent colleagues such as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) whom I should call this country's great builder since, under his skilful direction, Canada has become the fourth world power. I should also mention the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) who has so long devoted his talents, his experience, his oratorical skill and his persuasiveness to furthering the interests of the agricultural community.
It would take too long to mention each and every department, but I would like to underscore the personal integrity, the diligence and the very high qualifications of the members of the cabinet as well as their parliamentary assistants. All contribute in splendid fashion to make Canada one of the best organized powers in the world. On behalf of my constituents I therefore wish to pay tribute to these hon. gentlemen, and to thank them for the excellent co-operation they have never failed to extend in furthering the interests and the general welfare of the constituency of Drummond-Arthabaska.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to sound a note of sadness. In all the countries of the commonwealth 1952 is a year of mourning for our glorious monarch. He will be remembered as a very worthy king, both as a man of duty and a man possessed of great family virtues. In this connection I

wish to quote an editorial signed by Mr. Louis-Philippe Roy, editor of L'Action Catholique of Quebec city, who wrote:
AH his life George VI was a man of duty. There is no greater virtue than to perform one's task everywhere and all the time, whether it be obscure or exalted. It would moreover be ridiculous to believe that the kingly office has ini it nothing but glory, adulation and receptions. During the last war, as on numerous other occasions, the deceased monarch showed how human he had remained, how close to his subjects whose worries, hardships and sufferings he shared. These tragic tidings deeply affect all those countries over which George VI reigned, because it is the holder of authority who disappears; but if this sorrow is genuinely heartfelt it is because, under the kingly trappings, beat the heart of a father. The king was in truth the beloved father of a fine family. And therein most certainly lies the second lesson to be drawn from his life. Never did the splendours of the palace eclipse for him the more domestic happiness of a united Christian family.
Honesty of mind, gentleness of character, simplicity of demeanour, personal integrity; all these the Canadian people had occasion to observe in the person of this monarch who visited Canada in 1939. We therefore take our share of the understandable affliction of the royal family. We will make it our duty to pray for the deceased sovereign, for the noble queen who survives him and more especially for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II who acceded to the throne. It is all the easier to wish Her Majesty a peaceful and glorious reign since she has just concluded in this country a tour which accorded us the occasion of admiring in her person the qualities of her noble father, and above all, perhaps, the character of Victoria, her illustrious forebear. May God bless the royal family in its present bereavement as well as in the glamour of this glorious accession to the throne.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, may God bless the royal family. Such is the hope I am expressing on behalf of the constituency I represent and especially of the city of Drummondville, which in November of 1951 was honoured by the official visit of Their Royal Highnesses The Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh.
Another event which took place almost at the beginning of 1952 was the departure of His Excellency the Viscount Alexander of Tunis and his family. It must be emphasized that Viscount Alexander was, par excellence, the transition governor. Indeed., no royal representative was more Canadian than he; none of his predecessors had better understood the bi-racial and cultural character of this country. Viscount Alexander of Tunis will be remembered by all Canadians, both French and English-speaking, as a man who understood our country, who loved its people and who contributed largely to preparing that happy transition brought about by his departure for his mother country, where he has gone to assume important duties.
His Excellency the Right Hon. Vincent Massey, who succeeds Viscount Alexander of Tunis, will be the fifty-sixth governor general of Canada, in a succession of governors that

goes back to Samuel de Champlain, who was appointed as governor of New France in 1633. His Excellency will be the eighteenth governor general since confederation and the first Canadian to be appointed to this high office since the signing of this historic agreement. The investigation he led into the development of the arts, letters and sciences in Canada was to prepare him further for the high honour and heavy responsibility placed upon him. His Excellency the Right Hon. Vincent Massey has shown unequivocally and bravely that he too has understood the bi-racial and cultural character of Canada and its spiritual mission throughout the world. [DOT]
On behalf of all the electors I represent, I wish His Excellency the Right Hon. Vincent Massey success in his new responsibilities.
I was saying, gentlemen, that Canada, under the leadership of the present government, has become one of the best organized powers, as much by its freedoms, the privileges enjoyed by its citizens, its labour organizations, and its social security measures as by its resources, its economic development and, above all, by the part it has come to play in the international sphere, by its diplomacy, and its contribution to the various bodies entrusted with safeguarding "peace". Indeed, our country-as has often been pointed out by the Prime Minister-wants peace and not war! But it must be in a position to offer some resistance to the enemy; to that end, I am convinced that, according to the old saying, if we want peace, we must prepare for war: si vis pacem, para bellum.
It also appears to me that any unfair aggression should be checked and that is the reason why we have sent a brigade to Korea. With all my colleagues, I deeply deplore the death of those who have fallen on the battlefields, although casualties have been relatively low since there are only, thus far, 127 dead, 514 wounded and 5 missing. Despite the fact that the war goes on-which is very deeply regretted by all-those figures are not at all excessive.
In fact, I believe that the city of Drummond ville has lost only two or three of its sons in Korea, among whom there is unfortunately a man whom I considered as one of my warm personal friends, a very devoted and likeable figure, who knew how to sustain our boys' courage. I refer to Major Rosaire Lupien, one of my fellow citizens, who had the honour of being appointed principal chaplain of all the forces of the commonwealth in Korea. And this, after he had played an active and courageous part during the last war on the main battlefields of Europe!
The Address-Mr. Cloutier
Here are the words of the New Year's message which was sent to me by my excellent friend, Major Lupien, and it is with the deepest emotion that I quote:
I have deeply appreciated in this far away place the good wishes you have sent me. The letter you wrote to my father in connection with my recent promotion has caused him much pleasure. Please accept in return my religious wishes for the New Year.
A few days ago the Hon. Messrs. Claxton and Lapointe were in Korea; I had the honour of conversing with both of them.
My health is excellent and all is well.
Religiously yours,
Korea, January 4, 1952.
Rosaire Lupien, priest.
Army Chaplain.
Is that not, Mr. Speaker, a very moving echo of the great morale of that brave apostle, of that priest and soldier who spared neither his zeal nor his devotion to hold up the courage of those who were committed to his care. That is why I wished to pay officially to Major Lupien my most respectful and loyal tribute and may I be permitted to extend this tribute to the good family of my late distinguished fellow citizen.
But since I am now talking about our men in foreign lands, I wish to repeat a request which I have already had the honour of making in this house. In fact with what fervour and impulse wouldn't the hearts of our boys thrill if they had been given a symbol of their country, the flag. "The flag" calls forth courage and discipline; it bears in its folds the salvation and glory of a people.
Why, gentlemen, I ask you, should Canadians be left any longer without a standard? Canada has truly become a nation which should have "its flag", an emblem to represent her not only as a free people but also as a power to be reckoned with.
Nothing great will be accomplished if the whole soul of a nation does not breathe in the folds of a common flag. The spirit is everything and the sense of the ideal and the divine in man, and in society, of that which transcends the life of the individual, and gives it its value, vibrates in a flag, is carried in its folds over the wide spaces and beyond the seas, a symbol of self-respect and justifiable national pride.
Let us hope that in the very near future Canada will have a truly national and distinctive flag, a standard, an oriflamme which will find its place among the most beautiful, the most respected and the most beloved national emblems, the world over!
It is only logical that the idea of a national anthem should be linked with that of a flag, and, here again, I must voice for the second
520	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Cloutier time in this house the regret that a national anthem has not yet been adopted. I do not see why we should not simply decide in favour of "O Canada", since all the virtues it extols belong equally to each of the two groups which make up our country!
The soul of a nation expresses itself through its national anthem, the beauty of which is in direct relation to the nobleness of the feelings it conveys. Could there be a better choice than that of "O Canada", this inspiring hymn, flowing from the source, the very heart of a religious and heroic race, an anthem of pride and hope, a song extolling our tenacity, our bravery, qualities which are still admired overseas on the battle front, the war song par excellence:
Canada was born of a proud nation Thy history is an epic poem Relating the most brilliant deeds!
Our national anthem "O Canada" is not only a recalling of the past, it is an inspiration for the future, and it is easy to interpret it as the inspiring symbol of Canadian unity: Let us be a nation of brothers Under the bond of Faith!
Let us sing out as our fathers did
The victorious cry: "For God and the King!"
"O Canada" is the hymn, the very anthem of our country, rising from the soil and which is echoed back as the thrilling voice of the past and the dynamic voice of the future by our great rivers and our immense forests from the east to the west. As I have said, "O Canada" should remain our national anthem, for no other hymn can better express "the soul of our country." It reflects the past, the present and the future, the very aspirations of a vast, of an immense country. As someone so rightly said the day "O Canada" is sung from Newfoundland and: Cape Breton to Vancouver and Victoria our Canadian nation will have made much progress towards the union of hearts and minds.
These young Canadians from both racial groups who some years ago took part in a forum on Canadian unity came to the following conclusion: "Canada can become a nation only if she achieves a common purpose. The other provinces must understand Quebec at least as well as Quebec understands them. And Quebec, for her part, must realize that she is the most difficult part of Canada to understand."
In the past twenty-five years we have no doubt made constant progress along the path to Canadian unity, And as was stated by the hon. Senator Adelard Godbout, it was during those years when national unity was at its peak that Canada achieved the greatest strides in the economic as well as the military and international fields.


We therefore have everything to gain by fostering closer relations between our two races. Who are the French Canadians? Colonel Goforth, director general of the Canadian army general staff in Ottawa, during the last war, asked that question and answered it in a very eloquent manner. Here is what he said of the French Canadians:
They came from small villages in Normandy, Brittany, on the other side of the narrow sea that separated them from the native country of our ancestors. The French expression "La Manche" brings something very suggestive to our minds, because it compares that sea to Neptune's sleeve. In that imaginative sense, those of us who are of English descent and have received an important adjunction of Norman and Celtic blood, are made of the same stuff from that same sleeve as those with whom we share this Canada of ours.
And Colonel Goforth points out that history books give no information about everyday life and the thoughts of the people which really constitute the history of a nation. The glorious tradition, Mr. Speaker, of Canadian arms did not begin with Wolfe's victory on the plains of Abraham, but with the heroic struggle of a tiny band of French colonists against an enemy. The desperate and never to be forgotten resistance of Dollard, Sieur des Ormeaux, and of his comrades on t'he shares of the Ottawa river, is as much an epic in our history as the heroic deeds of Cecil Merritt at Dieppe or Paul Triquet at Casa Berardi.
When our Canadian soil was invaded during the revolutionary war and again in 1812, it was the unswerving loyalty of New France towards the British crown and the heroic deeds of her sons, de Salaberry for instance, which laid the foundations for the future glory of Canada. For more than a century our French-speaking fellow countrymen have always found a noble and inspired leader who understood the value and necessity of Canadian unity, who rallied his own people and ours to his own vision of our common destiny, who successfully toiled to communicate this ideal to those of his generation. These leaders were not men of the same political party. The first was Sir Louis Hippolyte Lafontaine, whose association with Baldwin created the happy union of Upper and Lower Canada. Then at the time of confederation under Sir John A. Macdonald's quite long administration, it was the well-balanced leadership of Sir Georges-Etienne Cartier and Hector Langevin which preserved the harmonious agreement between Quebec and the other components of the new dominion. The era of Sir Wilfrid Laurier might be called the golden era of Canada's growth and prosperity. The fires of racial language and religious prejudices never

The Address-Mr. Cloutier
burned less fiercely in all our history, while the light of our patriotism shines with renewed glory.
To these names which recall the political milestones of Canadian history, Baldwin, Macdonald, Lafontaine, Cartier, Laurier, must immediately be added another sympathetic and recent figure, whose prestige at once appeals to the imagination; I mean the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. His memory remains dear and ever alive, not only to his followers and to those who knew and loved him, but also to all Canadians, whatever their social class or their religious and political convictions.
"William Lyon Mackenzie King," it has been said, "what a marvellous name to add to the greatest and most brilliant names forever inscribed in the annals of Canadian history!" His predecessors Macdonald and Laurier in particular had played an important part in the triumph of responsible government, national unity and the development of Canadian autonomy. Well, the Right Hon. Mr. King, by a slow and difficult, but sure and successful process, has obtained for us the statute, universally recognized today, of a free and powerful nation and, may I add, has led us to a point very near to full autonomy.
Indeed, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, in most difficult times and in circumstances which might have riven the country in two irreconcilable blocs, contributed more than anyone else to the unity of Canada. He found a nation sorely divided, riven by the controversies of the first war, torn by political disputes, which set east against west and race against race. Nevertheless he was called after his death, and rightly so, "the man of peace, the greatest single force for a united Canada."
The Right Hon. Mackenzie King, in an extremely serious and critical period, achieved the miracle of national unity. Under the able guidance of this great leader, Canada has become in the climax of his leadership not only a power but a great power, with a wealth of destiny still before it in the world.
William Lyon Mackenzie King immediately takes his place among the great leaders who helped to fashion the destinies of Canada, our young and beautiful country. And I suggest it is fitting that we honour his memory as soon as possible.
A group of distinguished Canadian citizens are at present seeing to it that a monument is erected in Montreal to the memory of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the great French-Canadian statesman whose constituency I have the honour to represent in this house.
May I be permitted to express the wish that on a prominent spot on parliament hill there may soon be erected, to the memory of the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, a monument of bronze, of brass or perhaps of marble, which will recall the sympathetic and familiar features of the great lamented man whose moving as well as indestructible memory lies in the hearts of all our people.
If I take the liberty of bringing forth today such a request, possibly it is because I was favoured with a particularly gracious gesture on the part of the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, who was most sympathetic and friendly towards me. And I remember that other speech on national unity I delivered a few years ago, on the occasion of which I received words of congratulation from Mr. King, to the effect that I was imbued with true Canadian spirit, the very spirit that inspired such great men as Laurier and other outstanding statesmen. I did not think the incident would have any repercussions, but a few days later I had the privilege of being called to a private meeting where I was warmly received and of which I retain-need I add-an unforgettable and very touching memory.
Therefore, in view of the interest which the Right Hon. Mackenzie King seemed to have taken in that speech, may I conclude by referring to the broad picture which Canadian unity had evoked in my mind, and which the mention of those great statesmen from Lafontaine and Baldwin to Laurier and Mackenzie King recalled to my memory; that gigantic country of ours, Canada, which covers the whole St. Lawrence valley, Newfoundland, this new Canadian province which has sent us such worthy representatives, the fertile lands from the bay of Fundy to the great lakes region, the western prairies, the Rockies, and the lands bordering the great Pacific ocean.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, may I quote again from the works of one of our Canadian poets these few lines from "The Mixer", whose meaning reaches the very depths of my soul, and which I should like to share with you:
In the city, on the prairies, in the forest, in the camp,
In the mountain-clouds of colour, in the fog-white river-damp,
From Atlantic to Pacific, from the great lakes to the pole,
I am mixing strange ingredients into a common whole,
Every hope shall build upon me, every heart shall be my own,
The ambition of my people shall be mine and mine alone,

The Address-Mr. Dinsdale Through the pangs of transformation in my fiery furnace blast,
Do I shape and mould and make them "Canadian at last."


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, this is a speech which I never expected to have to deliver in this chamber. It deals with a subject that, from the standpoint of logic and good common sense, I feel should have the support of all hon. members of the house. Unfortunately, notwithstanding that fact it seems that the government has decided to discontinue the annual grant of $15,000 to the international peace garden, and I wish to take this opportunity of bringing a few thoughts before hon. members of the house on that subject.
From another standpoint I think it is fortunate that this opportunity is afforded because, as I have discussed this topic with some members of the house, it would appear that the purpose and history of the international peace garden is little known. I should hope that the discussion which will take place around this subject may provide the necessary publicity, not only in this chamber but right across this great dominion of ours.
The debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne has revolved mostly around domestic problems. It is only indirectly that we have become involved in discussions outside the immediate matters facing government in connection with the governing of the country. We have launched into the field of external affairs briefly, and it becomes increasingly obvious that there is the area wherein lies the real difficulty. I am sure we all feel that unless we solve the problem of external relations, unless we deal with the matter of living peaceably together in the great society into which we have been precipitated by modern means of communication and transportation, all the solutions proposed in this chamber towards the settling of domestic problems such as inflation, high taxes, unemployment-or what have you- will be of little import.
The preamble to the United Nations charter says something to this effect, that wars are made in the minds of men, and it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be built. That is a very idealistic and high-sounding phrase; yet, nevertheless, it is true. The difficulty is that of building these positive defences of peace in the minds of men and women not only in this country but in all other nations of the world at the present time.
We know there are movements afoot supposedly promoting the idea of peace and

international understanding. Certain representations were made to hon. members at the time of the session last fall by a movement which professes to promote peace but which, to my way of thinking and, I believe, to the way of thinking of all hon. members in this chamber, can be described only as the peace which passeth all understanding. Peace is a very difficult ideal to promote, and I feel that one of the major functions, if not indeed the major function of the whole international peace garden idea, is to provide a symbol of peace around which the thinking of the people of Canada, the people of the United States and the peoples of other countries in the world can revolve.
It provides that symbol. We are all aware of the powerful influences symbols have; we are well aware of their powerful emotional effect upon the thinking of mankind. We need refer only to symbols such as the national flag, and the devotion and patriotism that is aroused whenever it appears. Then, so far as the Christian religion is concerned, we need refer only to the symbol of the cross. On a much less exalted level, we remember the powerful influence wielded by the symbol of the swastika-the double cross -in moulding the thinking of the people in Hitler's Germany.
I should like to give hon. members some information concerning this peace garden project. It began in the mind of one man. The whole idea was conceived in 1928 by the late Dr. Henry J. Moore of Islington, Ontario, an internationally known horticulturist. He presented his idea to a meeting of the international garden association being held in Toronto and it was enthusiastically picked up by that group. In 1931 the International Peace Garden Association was formed consisting of citizens from Canada and the United States, mainly representatives from the eastern parts of these two countries.
That association began to look for a suitable site for the peace garden. At first interest was focused on certain park areas in the east and then attention was focused on the far west. The central region was ignored because, as was said by one member of the association from the state of New York, it was thought there was nothing that would possibly be suitable in that God-forsaken frozen north country. But strangely enough after the committee visited the Turtle mountain region on the border between Manitoba and North Dakota it immediately saw the natural possibilities of that area and in 1931

that site was selected and arrangements went forward immediately for the implementation of the peace garden idea.
On July 14, 1932, I believe it was, the opening ceremonies in connection with the international peace garden occurred. I was present myself. The road leading into the garden from both sides of the border was merely a country trail at that time. In spite of the transportation difficulties and the fact that the idea was relatively new, some 50,000 people gathered to take part in the dedication ceremonies. It was typical of the peace garden movement right from the beginning that such vast numbers of people should be interested for it will be readily understood that the desire for peace is deep-rooted and sincere in the hearts of all people.
As I see it, there are three main functions of this peace garden. First, it recognizes the fact that a unique situation exists in an unguarded frontier of three thousand miles between the United States and Canada. Second, it promotes the general idea of peace. To symbolize this in a beautiful garden is I think an excellent idea. Going back to the beginning of man's pilgrimage on this earth we automatically think of the idyllic state established in the garden of Eden. No better symbolism than that of a garden could have been selected to promote the intangible idea of peace. Then it provides something concrete, something tangible around which the hopes of mankind can be oriented.
In addition to the idealistic aspect of the garden, there are certain practical and utilitarian considerations. I have no doubt that in arriving at the decision to withdraw support, financial, materialistic, and practical considerations were uppermost. I mentioned that when the garden was first established in 1932 there was just a country trail into the area; but today the garden is transversed by a modern paved highway approaching from both the north and the south. In the relatively short period of its development the international peace garden has become a significant tourist attraction. This garden is on the famous Cape to Churchill highway. Mr. M. J. Tinline, who following his retirement from his position as superintendent of the experimental farm at Brandon has enthusiastically given of his services in promoting the peace garden, in a recent speech had this to say about the garden as a tourist attraction:
The great garden will be on the Canada to canal highway at a point on the international boundary between Dunseith, N.D., and Boissevain, Manitoba, and sixty miles south of Brandon. The location is almost the exact centre between the Atlantic and Pacific and but thirty miles north of the exact centre of the North American continent which is at Rugby, N.D. The highway extends from a point
55704-34J
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale two hundred miles north of the boundary to the Panama canal, and it is to extend north to Churchill and south to Cape Horn. Upon this main street of the Americas, which will be the longest north and south highway in the world, will travel millions of people in the days to come.
The highway, it is hoped, will link the garden of peace with the monument, Christ of the Andes, erected by the Argentine and Chilian governments on their boundary in 1904.
Because of the increasing significance of the garden as a tourist attraction there is a movement afoot on both sides of the boundary to establish more adequate customs facilities. The United States congress has appropriated $90,000 to bring the American facilities into line with the present tourist needs and I understand the Canadian government is contemplating similar action. While we are dealing with the practical aspect of the garden I think it would be well to note a statement by the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) appearing in the Ottawa Journal this evening to the effect that last year Canada had an estimated deficit of $9 million in her tourist trade. I venture to predict that, as the symbolism and significance of the peace garden idea establishes itself in the thinking of the people, the relatively insignificant $15,000 which has been provided each year since 1949 will be repaid many times. Tourists are visiting this garden in increasing numbers because they realize that it is a unique manifestation of a wonderful idea. It is beginning to attract pilgrims from all over the world.
Last June and July in a place which twenty years ago was a mere wilderness there were 30,000 visitors reported in at the customs station. This is simply an indication of the attraction that this garden will be to tourists if the development which has been going on so satisfactorily is allowed to continue.
It must be admitted that even though the garden idea was first launched twenty years ago the development has been relatively slow. It was conceived during the depression. During all the years of the depression, the only assistance provided was through the United States civilian conservation corps and men from our Canadian relief camps. They did some of the basic work of construction, road building, tree removal and planting and so forth. It was not until the late member for Brandon, Mr. J. E. Matthews, began to take a personal interest in the garden following the years of world war II-when of course most developments of this kind were at a standstill-that the development really began to make progress. I am told that he was instrumental in bringing the matter so forcibly to the attention of the government that the $15,000 grant was first provided in 1949. In turn, he appeared before the United States

The Address-Mr. Dinsdale congress and succeeded, along with others, in having a grant of $100,000 provided from the United States counterpart of this house.
I feel that, in a sense, the peace garden development is a personal memorial to my predecessor in this house. I would add that that is one of the main reasons why I am picking up the torch on behalf of this project.
What will be the result of the withdrawal of support at this time? Work recently accomplished, particularly within the last two years, is going to be undone because the retaining walls have still not been built. This construction work was on the agenda for the current year. Soil erosion is going to remove most of the beneficial effects of some of these developments. There is the possibility also that the withdrawal of Canadian support will see a declining interest so far as the United States congress is concerned.
Supposedly, the whole move is in the interest of economy. I should like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there are much easier ways of effecting economies, if that is the desire of the government, without detracting from this important project in the interests of international understanding and peace. For example, we have had instances brought before the house of government expenditures for rentals in the city of Ottawa for space that was never used amounting to some $70,000. This is far beyond the $15,000 involved in the annual grant. Then, we move into the area of defence expenditures. I would venture to prophesy that when the committee on defence expenditures begins its deliberations, many instances will be revealed of unnecessary expenditures far greater than this relatively small amount. It is ridiculously small when placed alongside the astronomical figures in which governments indulge today.
A final argument on behalf of the peace garden, and maybe the most effective argument, is the fact that women's groups right across this country have had their imaginations captivated by the idealism and symbolism involved. Such groups as the women's institutes, the Red Cross association, the I.O.D.E., the Professional and Business Women and similar groups on the other side of the border have been promoting plots in the garden area. They are going to be very disappointed when they discover that the relatively small support that has been coming from the dominion government is going to be withdrawn during this critical period of development. I think there is an old quotation to the effect that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. I only hope that the ladies demonstrate such fury as they have never done before when they raise a protest over the withdrawal of support for this project.

To bring my remarks to a conclusion, I think that here is a real test of the true spirit of democracy. If the government of Canada cannot find the wherewithal for this infinitesimal sum of $15,000 for the promotion of the ideal of peace, we will be very remiss in our duty as responsible representatives of the people. Rather than withdraw support, I feel we should be speaking in terms of increasing the support so that we might give all the encouragement possible to the few who have worked so valiantly towards the realization of the dream of the late Dr. Henry Moore. If necessary, these appropriations might come out of the Department of National Defence, which is dealing today in billions and not thousands of dollars. If we can afford millions of dollars for armaments for the negative aspect of of defence, surely we can afford $15,000 for the promotion of the one idea in this country that is so successfully building the spiritual bulwarks of peace in the minds of men everywhere.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member who preceded me.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thought he presented an excellent case for the continuation of the grant of $15,000 to this international peace garden. I hope that his remarks were taken to heart by hon. members opposite who were asking me to sit down. I think the hon. member had a great deal of sympathy from members on all sides of the house in presenting a case for doing something positive for the peace garden. I liked his last suggestion that, since we have millions for armaments, surely we can spend $15,000 to keep up this good work that was started by his predecessor.
I did not intend to speak again in this debate, but there were certain remarks made by the member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) this afternoon that we in this group cannot allow to go unanswered.


An hon. Member:: You cannot take it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We can take it all right, but we like facts. If I remember correctly, when speaking on a previous occasion the member for Maple Creek said that he had several brothers in the United States who could speak longer and faster than he could. Well, he made a pretty good job himself. We do not mind his speaking at length and speaking quickly, but in this group we do like to listen to facts. Owing to foot-and-mouth disease

in Saskatchewan, the concern over redistribution and the tension that is being developed with the coming provincial election, possibly the hon. member was not in his usual normal condition. In the words of a well-known Victorian statesman, it is quite safe to say that this afternoon he was completely intoxicated with the exuberance of his own verbosity.
I should like to refer to a few statements the hon. member made as we noted them at this end of the house. The member made general remarks. His speech was largely generalities, except that part in which he was trying to score on the C.C.F. members in this house.
At one point in referring to the C.C.F. members the hon. member said, "I would say they are conditional Canadians." We in this group cannot permit that slander to go unanswered, a slander not only on the members of this group but on hundreds of thousands of good Canadians in this country. When a person says we are conditional Canadians, according to the dictionary meaning of the word he says our loyalty is limited by certain factors, that it is conditioned by certain circumstances. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is much necessity for me to tell this house that the loyalty of this group goes unchallenged in Canada.
I do not bring these facts to the attention of the house by way of boasting. We recognize that some members of the house served in one sphere while some served in others. I am not making these remarks as any reflection upon those who did not have the opportunity to serve in His Majesty's armed forces; but I would bring to the attention of the house the fact that this valiant little group-and I think it has to be valiant to submit to the torrent of words of criticism we listen to at times-has the second highest percentage of members who served in the front line of any of the groups in this house. Of this group 38-64 per cent served in the front line in the first or second world wars. The ancestors of the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), our national chairman, came to this country in 1790. The family of the hon. member for Maple Creek arrived quite recently in comparison with them. I understand that in Quebec there is a small town or village named Wrightville, after the ancestors of the hon. member for Melfort. He also served overseas with distinction in the first world war, and his son served in the second world war. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) served overseas with the Canadian expeditionary force in the first world war, and was severely wounded. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) served with the famous
The Address-Mr. Herridge 51st highland division in the first world war. The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones) served in the first world war and was wounded. All these hon. members joined up in the early days of that war. Then coming to the member for Kootenay West, he had some little part in the first world hostilities. His wife served as a nursing sister overseas for three years. His father served in two wars, and three of his daughters served in the second world war.
So I do not think anyone can refer to the members of this group as conditional Canadians. We have done our best to demonstrate our loyalty to this country and our willingness to defend it when its interests are at stake. I want to remind the house also that in the federal election of 1945 the C.C.F. received the largest percentage of the soldiers' vote from overseas. It is obvious that the troops overseas did not consider those running on the C.C.F. ticket as conditional Canadians. I would like also to remind hon. members opposite that the late prime minister was defeated by a C.C.F. candidate in the constituency of Prince Albert by the overseas military vote.
Then at one point in his speech the hon. member for Maple Creek said, "The C.C.F. supported the war when Russia came in." That is completely untrue, as the record will prove. I want to quote very briefly from Hansard of September 9, 1939, at page 55. This is just one paragraph from the speech of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell):
The Co-operative Commonwealth Federation recognizes that Canada is now implicated in a struggle which may involve the survival of democratic institutions. We consider that in the cause of the allied powers lies a hope of building European peace on a more secure foundation because, in part at least, the people of Britain and France are waging a war against aggression.
Surely that proves the position of this movement at the commencement of the war. On that occasion the late J. S. Woodsworth, whose memory is very much respected by representatives of all parties in this country, voted against the war appropriations because he was a confirmed pacifist on principle. At the same time there were Liberal members who voted against the war appropriations. I presume they expressed their convictions and took that action because of their principles. We do not suggest for a moment that they were conditional Canadians.
At another point in his remarks the hon. member for Maple Creek said, "The socialist policy is not a Canadian policy." Well, our foundation policy is the Regina manifesto, which expresses the philosophy of the C.C.F. It was drafted by Canadians to suit Canadian conditions and Canadian circumstances. It is
526	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Herridge a completely Canadian product, drafted as the result of the meeting together of representatives of labour and farmers across the country, of people in the universities, professional and business groups and others. In that connection the hon. member also said that was why we did not owe allegiance to any country, that we were committed to world revolution. Anyone who has studied Canadian political history knows that is completely nonsensical. I presume the hon. member spoke without knowledge and in some confusion, but I want to deal with that point. I happen to have in my hand the transcript of an address given by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar on Friday, March 14, to the American study group of Amherst college. The title is "The case for an evolutionary socialism". This is what the hon. member had to say quite recently, and it has been said over and over again; the point of view of this party has been expressed both in this house and across the country, but I want to quote this because I think it is a good antidote to the misstatement of fact by the hon. member for Maple Creek. Intelligent people would not accept his statement as a fact, but there may be some people without knowledge who would think there was something in what he had to say. Mr. Coldwell's address contained these words:
Evolutionary, democratic or, as it is sometimes called. Fabian socialism, particularly as it is understood and advocated in the United Kingdom, throughout the commonwealth of nations and northwest Europe, and by others in the United States, is the product of a distinctly evolutionary process. It rejects the methods of communism which rely on revolutionary and catastrophic upheavals to attain its ends. Democratic socialism, therefore, emphatically repudiates the use of force as a desirable instrument of social and economic change. Thus it is not only distinguishable from modern communism but from some other movements which, in the past and I fear to some extent in the present, prostitute the word "socialist." Such parties, of course, were Mussolini's fascist party in Italy and Hitler's national socialist party in Germany.
Because democratic socialism has reached its greatest strength and influence in the United Kingdom and other countries with parliamentary institutions of the British type, I shall describe briefly the background of our movement. Historically, and most readily from British sources, this development can be traced from the medieval socialism of the guilds and monastic orders through the Tudor and Stuart periods of the mercantile era to the eighteenth century and the beginning of the industrial revolution.


An hon. Member:: Eleven o'clock.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: If I could have permission,
I can finish in a couple of minutes.
From this revolution in industry, capitalism developed great productive forces . . .


This ultimate goal, to be attained by evolutionary means-
Then I want to deal briefly with another quotation from this speech by Mr. Coldwell:
Totalitarianism, whether of the communist or fascist variety, outrages human dignity because it denies these basic moral values of individual personality and freedom; on the other hand our indictment against capitalism is that it has denied to great masses of people-particularly when there is a period of overproduction-the right to consume and enjoy the products of their toil. We believe that our objectives can only be secured by well-defined and progressive steps taken with and by the consent of the people exercising their franchise democratically. Wherever there is a denial of these rights, there can be no real freedom and democracy.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, once again we have indicated the philosophy of this movement; these basic socialist principles are unchangeable and have been unchanged since the movement was established in this country.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with one other statement. The hon. member said that the premier of one province stated that they were not prepared to send their sons to be slaughtered to bolster discredited regimes. What is wrong with that statement? Is the hon. member willing to send the sons of Canada to bolster discredited regimes? We send our sons to fight aggression and to make certain that democratic regimes are established when peace is secured.
I had a few more remarks that I intended to make at this time, but I think I have clearly indicated to the house that this group and the members of the C.C.F. throughout this country do not have a conditional loyalty to Canada, nor are they conditional Canadians. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that you will not in future hear from any member of this house any suggestion as to the loyalty of any member of any group in this house.


Mr. Laing:: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question? Will he assure us that he is an unconditional socialist?


Mr. Balcom:: Mr. Speaker, may I move the adjournment of the debate?
On motion of Mr. Balcom the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: Tomorrow we shall continue this debate. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has had his estimates ready for the past few days and will be awaiting the opportunity to table them at the conclusion of the debate. If that occurs, we

will go into supply. I understand that it is the wish of the house that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) should make the motion and lead off in a debate on external affairs.


George Alexander Drew: Just before closing, Mr. Speaker, in view of the remarks that have just been
Business of the House made, I think I might point out to the minister that he can doubtless find ways in which the presentation of the estimates will be facilitated.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 18, 1952