1953-11-27

Mr. Maurice Bourget (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Public Works):: On
behalf of the Minister of Public Works I beg leave to table a report of an investigation into measures for the reduction of the flood hazard in the greater Winnipeg area, dated October 1, 1953, prepared by the Department of Resources and Development. Extra copies of this report are available in the distribution office.



APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That a select committee to be designated be appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house for the purpose of suggesting any changes that may be desirable to assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business, with power to send for persons and papers, and to report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be the desire of all members of the house to have our rules and standing orders such as to provide in the most efficient possible manner for the orderly conduct of our deliberations, and I think it is the general feeling that these rules might be considered by a committee of the house with you, sir, for the purpose of reporting to the house whether or not in their opinion there are any of these rules that it would be desirable to modify for the sake of the orderly conduct of the business of the house.
I understand that the matter has been discussed with the leaders of the other groups in the house and that it is generally considered that it would be desirable to have a committee set up that would study with you the rules as they exist and then report to the house whether or not in their opinion there are modifications that it would be desirable to introduce. It is for the purpose of providing an opportunity for such study
that this motion has been put on the order paper and that I now submit it for the consideration of the house.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this motion. It provides for a committee similar to that which has been appointed on other occasions. Some useful results have followed from the discussions of that committee, but I should think that most hon. members would agree that the committee has not yet gone as far as would be wished in regard to expediting the business of the house, and in assuring a procedure which will use, to the greatest possible advantage, the time that is spent here.
In supporting the motion I do stress my own opinion that the expeditious handling of business will not be related nearly so much to any limitation of time on speeches or anything of that kind as it will to some orderly method of presenting business and setting up committees at the earliest possible stage and giving to these committees full power to examine and to report without limitation except such as may be imposed by the ordinary rules of secrecy or propriety.
Furthermore, I think that much could be accomplished in considering ways in which the estimates can be better examined. I am not suggesting for one moment that it is a sin of one party more than another, but over the years the practice that has developed of delaying the handling of extremely important estimates until late in the session, after the date of closing has been generally understood, reduces the real consideration of subjects that perhaps come up for consideration only in that way. I make these observations because I believe that as members of parliament we should in every way possible try to avoid the impression, which undoubtedly has been created in the minds of the public, that large sums are voted without adequate consideration. Speaking as Leader of the Opposition, I would like to see a method which would afford us in advance an opportunity to obtain much more complete information than is represented by single figures on a page of estimates.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we too are glad to support this motion setting up once again a select committee to consider the rules of

Special Committee on Procedure this house. There is no need lor any extended debate at this time. There is just one point we feel should be made clear. All the authorities are agreed that the rules of procedure of any deliberative assembly, and certainly the rules of procedure of this house, belong to the house itself. We feel that if any changes are to be made in the rules, and we think there are changes that should be made, they should be arrived at by general agreement. I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) agrees with me that the rules of the house are not the special concern or prerogative of the government; they belong to the entire house. This is not a case where an overwhelming majority should be used to effect changes; it is rather a case where the views of all parties of the house should be considered.
The authorities state very clearly that the purpose of the rules is to provide for the expeditious dispatch of business but also they are established for the protection of the rights of minorities. We shall go into this committee hoping that an effective job can be done, but we wanted to make the point that any changes should be by general agreement amongst the representatives of all groups in the house.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I think
it is not necessary for me to say anything more at this time except that we support the Prime Minister's resolution and that the rules of procedure should be given consideration at the earliest possible time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Can the
Prime Minister say whether the Canadian delegation to the FAO conference has been instructed to support the principle of a world food reserve? Can he give the house any further information as to Canada's position at this conference?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member will appreciate that the answer to his question has to be a qualified one. It is expected that there will be a discussion at the current conference of the food and agriculture organization which opened in Rome on November 23, concerning a proposal for what has been called an emergency famine reserve. In view of the fact that intergovernmental discussions or negotiations on this question are only about to begin, the precise attitude to be taken by
fMr. Knowles.]
the Canadian delegation had to be left rather flexible and is likely to be conditioned by the developments during these negotiations. I can assure the hon. member that, as in the past, this government will be anxious to do its part to relieve or prevent famine and distress in the most effective and practicable manner possible.



MACHINERY AND APPARATUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a
question to the Minister of National Revenue based on a news report by Victor Mackie in yesterday's Winnipeg Free Press, a report which is already causing considerable concern.
In view of this week's declaration by the tariff board that the Minister of National Revenue has failed to define "machinery and apparatus", as required by the Excise Tax Act, will steps be taken to correct this situation so that the exemption from sales tax accorded machinery and apparatus used for the production of goods in Canada can be continued and extended?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his question. However, I received it only shortly before coming into the chamber, and I have not had the opportunity of discussing the matter with my officials. I shall give him an answer early next week.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, November 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. A. H. Hollingworth for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Low.
(Translation):
Mr. Maurice Breion (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: The Address-Mr. Breton their revenues are fixed and limited to the real estate tax, which cannot be substantially extended. Well, it is up to the provincial governments to see to it that municipalities get adequate revenues by granting them taxation rights which they can theoretically grant to them in equal measure to their own taxation powers. If, for example, the province of Quebec wanted to grant taxation rights to the city of Montreal, it could let it tax gasoline or motor cars, or require new licences, in a word it could let it levy direct taxes.
It is not a federal problem, but a provincial problem. And, in this connection, Mr. Speaker, I think that Quebec municipalities should consider what is done outside the province, in Canada as well as in the United States, to work out municipal problems. They should consider how the province of Ontario has tried to solve the municipal problem. The city of Toronto, for instance, gets at the present time subsidies of $4 per capita to meet expenses, and I do not think that its autonomy is less than that of the municipalities in the province of Quebec.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered practically all the arguments put forward by my hon. friend. May I be allowed to sum up the debate briefly.
To start with, my colleague upbraided the government for having monopolized all the fields of taxation. I have endeavoured to prove that, under our constitution, the federal government is empowered to levy taxes in all sorts of ways. Then, according to my colleague, the central government dries up the field of provincial revenues by seizing upon all possible sources of taxation. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I have succeeded in proving to the House of Commons that provincial revenues have compared favourably with those of the federal government since the beginning of confederation; consequently, the provinces-and more particularly the province of Quebec, which takes a greater interest in the constitutional debate-have all the revenues they require to solve the municipal, educational and provincial problems which they have to face.
As far as subsidies are concerned, it has been said that they were contrary to the spirit in which the fathers of confederation endeavoured to draft the constitution. I have tried to establish the reverse, i.e. that the fathers of confederation established our

constitution on the basis of a redistribution of subsidies from the central power to the provinces, in order to re-establish the balance which should exist between the federal and provincial governments in the administration of one or the other of these powers.
Then the central government has been accused of meddling, through the granting of subsidies, in the educational field, which is strictly reserved to the provinces. I raise this question not in order to give it an answer, but simply to state that it would seem to me that to make an unconditional gift or grant to some public body-or at least to grant that sum for the very purpose for which that body has been set up-does not necessarily constitute an encroachment upon the established jurisdiction in the field of education. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that the fact of giving this money could affect anyone's autonomy, for the distribution of grants neither signifies a control of education nor does it define its form. But, here again, as I told my good friend last night, I did not intend to pass judgment, because I believe the matter to be contentious. Now, if the province of Quebec believes that, not only its own interest but that of all the other provinces is endangered, and if it is unwilling to submit the matter to the Supreme Court, we could proceed by way of an amendment to the constitution. It has, however, been found difficult to obtain such an amendment.
Once more, Mr. Speaker, if the province of Quebec has concrete proposals to put forward for the solution of that problem-the chamber of commerce and the federal government are waiting for such proposals from the province-let that province bring in a solution which would be acceptable to all provinces and then let it expound to the federal government, at a conference, what it believes to be necessary reforms. I certainly am of the opinion that the federal government would welcome such proposals.
I believe that grants do not constitute the ideal way of solving our constitutional problems and of bringing back a proper balance between the federal powers and the provincial powers. However, the fathers of confederation could not find a better way of protecting the powers of everyone interested and of making sure that they would fulfil the purpose for which they were being created. Surprisingly enough, the system has been in existence for 75 years and the province of Quebec is surely none the worse for it.

At all events, since it is possible and even desirable to amend our constitution so as to enable the authorities to levy indirect taxes in certain set fields, on a list of goods previously agreed upon and respecting which there will be no interference from the federal government, I believe that, until that problem is solved with the unanimous consent of all the provinces, it is still preferable to accept, as a result of agreements of a temporary nature between the federal government and the provinces, a solution under which, during a fixed period of five years, subsidies may be granted.
In short, Mr. Speaker, this constitutional problem is extremely important for us, in the province of Quebec, and I think that it ought to be discussed in a serious and objective way, considering the facts as they are and not as we would like them to be, and without dealing with the constitutional problem in an imaginary sort of way, which is now costing millions of dollars to the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to the members of this house as well as to those who might have read the speech I delivered yesterday and today. They may have found mistakes in grammar. I hope no notice will be taken of them. I had no notes and the late hour at which corrections were made was such that I was unable to do the job perfectly. (Text):
I wish to endorse the remarks of my colleague from Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Cauchon) in regard to the problem of textiles in general.
In my constituency, as in the whole province of Quebec, the crisis which prevails at present in the textile industry creates serious unemployment. About 200,000 male and female workers are employed in the primary and secondary textile industry in Canada, 100,000 of them in the province of Quebec. A large number of those workers are out of work at present, and many others work only three days a week. Bitter complaints are voiced about so-called American dumping of goods, even if the Americans dispose of their surplus production in a way which does not expressly contradict the definition of dumping as stated in the Geneva agreements.
I am aware that the government intends, while complying with the definition set at Geneva, to resort to a stricter application of import control methods. I certainly approve its action in the interest of the working population of my constituency and of the whole province of Quebec.
Fears are also expressed, and with reason, by the textile industry with regard to the next commercial treaty between Canada and
The Address-Mr. Blair Japan. Last year, when Japan was not favoured by a preferential tariff, we imported $13 million worth of goods from that country. Out of that amount, there were about $9 million worth of manufactured products, including $2 million worth of textiles. On the other hand, Canada exported to Japan more than $103 million worth of goods, including about $1 million of manufactured products not counting alcoholic beverages.
It is obvious that Canada must accept Japan's proposal to adhere to the Geneva agreements, if we are to keep on trading with that country. It is normal for Japan to seek to increase her textile exports to Canada; unhappily it happens at a time when our industry is faced with a serious crisis. It would be advisable to insert into the Canadian-Japanese treaty a restrictive clause concerning textiles, if we want to avoid the utter dislocation of one of the leading Canadian industries.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would express the wish that the House of Commons may adopt the system of simultaneous translation in both official languages of this country. I believe sincerely that the time has come to have French-speaking members take a more lively part in the debates of the house. A prominent politician once voiced the opinion that French-speaking members seemed to seldom take part in the major political issues of Canada. This exaggerated opinion stems from the fact that one-third of the members must follow the debates in another language and cannot express themselves as readily in that language as in their mother tongue. Other members before me have offered such a suggestion which should be greeted with sympathy by all those who wish to see Canada take a further step on the road to national unity.


Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate you on your elevation to the high position of Speaker of this house. We know that you will carry out your duties with efficiency and with dignity.
Today the Canadian textile industry is caught in the throes of a difficult situation not of its own making. Government policy conceived more than a decade ago, and blindly followed ever since, has left this important manufacturing enterprise in a precarious position.
In the years following world war II this industry spent a great deal of money to modernize plants and for some expansion in the hope that it would grow and prosper with Canada. It did for a time, but when the recession struck in 1951 the weakness of our national policy became only too evident. The industry could not stand up under the

The Address-Mr. Blair impact of an overwhelming volume of imports, and within a year more than 23,000 persons had been laid off, and many thousands were on short time. Business has, on the whole, improved since that time to the point where some 8,000 workers have been re-hired, but the pattern is so erratic and the future holds such great uncertainty that it would seem that this situation deserves more consideration from the government than so far has been accorded it.
Basic causes of the difficulties can be and will be traced back 15 years to show where a bad continuing situation made it possible for the upsetting circumstances of 1951 to bring about the current trouble.
There is nothing mysterious about the textile industry's problems. Government, business and press have all admitted that these problems are serious, but I should like to suggest that this industry, one of Canada's largest employers of manufacturing labour, is too important to be put off any longer with weak excuses and unfulfilled promises. This is a time for definite action that would offer some hope to the thousands of unemployed textile workers throughout the country, and to the many more thousand workers who are existing on part-time work at this moment, and to an industry that has every reason to believe that it has been neglected.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) recognized the severity of the matter, according to the Cornwall Standard-Freeholder, when he spoke in that city just before the last federal election, on July 20, to be exact. That newspaper quotes him as saying that Canadian textile markets would be back to normal by October. The Department of Trade and Commerce must surely have learned that there has been a further reduction in employment in Cornwall textile mills during the past few months, and the situation there is as serious as it was last summer. Nor is Cornwall an exception. Generally speaking, the situation in the industry has not improved in recent months. The distress is widespread, covering every province in the country, and one has only to read current statistics and reports to know that the future is bleak unless some immediate action is forthcoming.
The situation that exists in the Canadian textile industry today can be discussed in general terms, as the whole trouble stems pretty well from the same causes. But first I would like to talk about one aspect of the problem that is particularly close to me as it affects a great part of my constituency and a great many of my constituents. I speak of the Ottawa valley wool textile industry. Wool textile manufacturing in Canada was born

there more than a century ago. Wool textile manufacturing is a long way from being in a healthy condition. We must look more closely at the malady for a cure and a restoration of health.
I should like here to make reference to a speech made by a man whom I know very well, whose family established a textile mill in the Ottawa valley, in the town of Perth, in 1876-and have conducted it ever since. It must be presumed that his long family connection with the textile business, and his own personal achievements in the industry, lend authority to his words. He noted that the reasons for the decline in the textile industry, in the wool textile branch, are not hard to find. He said:
Average hourly earnings in the wool textile industry in the United Kingdom, our chief competitor, are only 37-5 cents per hour compared with average earnings of 99-7 cents per hour in the Canadian wool textile industry.
A severe handicap to Canadian producers of wool cloth and one against which we have protested time and time again without much apparent result, is the existence of an "accidental" tariff rate brought about by the imposition some years ago of a maximum duty of 50 cents per pound on wool fabrics coming into Canada from the United Kingdom.
Since the imposition of the maximum duty, costs and prices have risen to such an extent that most of the British fabrics imported today can take advantage of the maximum duty. This has resulted in an effective duty of about 14 per cent instead of the 21 per cent intended, and which of course does not equate the labour costs involved in converting raw materials into fabrics in Canada and the U.K.
I do not believe it is advantageous to the economy of this nation nor do I advocate a high protective tariff policy for this or any other industry, because such a device can only provide stability for an uneconomic unit at unwarranted high cost to the Canadian consumer of the products which the industry produces. I do not believe any member of this house would class the Canadian textile industry as an uneconomic unit. Therefore I suggest as one of several possible solutions for the problems confronting this industry at the present time that a study be made of our present outmoded maximum duty on all fabrics coming into Canada and the relationship that this bears to present-day conditions to that intended by the framers of the customs law.
In case anyone who forecast recovery by October now expects the situation in the wool industry to improve by Christmas, or would like to explain that the people of Almonte, Perth, Carleton Place, and the other fine towns of the Ottawa valley are still managing to eke out a living, I offer another statement made recently in Toronto.
The Right Hon. Lord Barnby, C.M.G., C.B.E., M.V.O., internationally known textile

expert, with large interests in England, said at that time that he was really convinced that when British domestic deliveries could be made in weeks instead of months, and when the profits had been squeezed out of the home market, British competition, with the advantage of its low wages, would be found to be even tougher in Canada.
Lord Barnby had quite a few other things to say, some to the credit of the Canadian industry. For instance, he found our mills efficient, but the main point of his speech, to my mind anyway, was the fact that the Canadian wool textile industry can expect an increase in the already severe competition from the British mills. That should give us all something to ponder.
This warning perhaps foretells a return to the extreme difficulties experienced in valley towns when the current depression reached its lowest ebb about a year and a half ago. At that time the Evening Citizen of Ottawa was very pessimistic in noting, and I quote:
Machinery may continue to turn in Ottawa valley woollen mills, but the oil is thin and the spectre of unemployment still rides the shuttle.
About this time two of the valley's oldest mills closed their doors and other establishments were forced to grant long vacations without pay to employees. Had it not been for defence orders there would have been even more suffering in the valley.
We are all afraid that even the current low level of business may not hold up, and that valley mills may return to the bitter experience of 1952. We feel that it would be serious to the economy of this nation to allow the industry to suffer to the point where it becomes ineffective.
As I noted earlier, the making of wool textiles is not a new industry in the Ottawa valley. There are people in the valley who inherited their skills as spinners and weavers from their ancestors and who have spent a lifetime providing cloths that are the pride of all Canada. Ottawa valley woollens are as good as those made anywhere else in the world, and this country would be a lot worse off without them.
Nor is woollen cloth the only thing produced in the valley that is having a hard time finding Canadian markets. There are many fine knitting mills in the district too, and some of these are perhaps even closer to the wall than the cloth mills. I have recently been studying some figures covering production and marketing of Canadian knitted goods, and would like for a moment to present some detailed figures.
The Canadian knitting industry is an enterprise that supports 293 mills and which, in 1948, employed 27,724 persons, but which has since declined to 23,640 workers.
The Address-Mr. Blair
In the case of our knitted outer garments, imports into this country have reached a volume three times the pre-world war II quantity. Most of the imported knitted wool outerwear originates in the United Kingdom. The United States is the source of more than half the synthetic outer garments, with the United Kingdom supplying the balance. About 60 per cent of the cotton outer garments imported come from the United Kingdom, with nearly all the balance being of United States origin. Imports for the first five months of 1953 were 77 per cent above the same period of 1952, and there is no doubt that when complete figures are available this year will show a post-war record for such imports.
Another section of the knitted industry which I have heard has been particularly hard hit comprises those firms in Canada engaged in the manufacture of seamless knitted gloves and mitts. In November 1948 these mills employed 1,100 persons, whereas four years later the payroll showed a total of 400 persons. The loss of the large portion of the market has been due to competition from Japan, which has increased its share of the Canadian markets from 6 per cent in 1948 to 29 per cent in 1952. Prior to world war II we saw Canadian shops full of well-made Japanese goods, cheap only in that wage rates in that country are so low as to allow sale here, even after shipping costs, at a fraction of what it costs to make similar goods in Canada.
The creation of a better international understanding is an objective to which we all subscribe. Unclogging the channels of international trade is a step towards that objective. However, to destroy a large segment of our economy in the pursuit of that objective is not in the interest of international understanding. Different standards of living and lower wage levels in other countries must be considered.
This comparatively small nation is not in a position to attempt to lead the world in offering inducements for greater international trade, when other countries, greater by far, are endeavouring to read escape clauses into existing trade agreements, or resorting to barter deals to enhance their own position in competitive world markets. To follow such a policy will only mean disaster for large segments of our population and gives no assurance that such action would win the respect or co-operation of other nations.
Considerable concern is now prevalent in some phases of our economy, and the textile industry is no exception, about the possible effects of a trade treaty with Japan.
Western Canada would no doubt gain through future trade with Japan. If Japan is going to be a power in the east against

The Address-Mr. Blair communism, she must be given support by trading with the nations of the free world. To drive Japan into the communist camp would involve the world in further disruption. Japan could give western Canada a market for such products as lumber, grain, fish and metals. Japan in the past has bought raw products not processed in Canada and in return has shipped manufactured goods to Canada. Japan buys from Canada at the rate of $100 million per year, and sells to Canada $13 million mostly in manufactured goods. There is no doubt that under trade agreements more satisfactory to Japan that country would increase greatly her shipments of manufactured goods to Canada. Japanese textiles would become even more competitive on the domestic market.
It becomes a necessity that under future trade agreements between Canada and other countries there should be safeguards against dislocation of our industries causing unemployment, and that there should be measures taken against flooding the country with cheap and inferior goods. Japan is not the only country involved in textile trading as opposed to Canada. Great Britain, Belgium and Italy, all with lower wages, make competition more difficult for Canadian mills.
There has been a textile industry in Canada since the earliest days and it was one of the country's first machine industries. It is necessary that a healthy, independent textile industry should be maintained to supply the needs of our people in times of peace but more particularly in times of war. The guiding factor in trade treaties, if they are to be successful, must be that they work to the mutual advantage of both parties.
To turn to the whole textile industry again, we shall see that it had a gross production last year of about $800 million. While the rest of the country was enjoying an industrial boom this industry has been continually in a state of uncertainty. It would be unfair for this industry to be asked to bear the heaviest brunt of foreign imports. Canadians are one of the great textile consuming people in the world and their expenditures have increased steadily during the past decade, and have been fairly consistent during the past two years. Unfortunately, the portion of these goods supplied by the Canadian industry did not follow the same pattern. While there has been a general increase in the quantity of textiles used by Canadians, the same increase was not apparent in the quantity of textiles supplied to the domestic market by the Canadian mills.
This is serious in that the unstable world conditions of recent years have caused some
;Mr. Blair.]
violent fluctuations in the Canadian market; and the domestic industry was forced to expand and then to contract, causing disruption and upset to many lines. Too, the Canadian industry today is in such a state that an emergency might find it unable to achieve top production in sufficient time to be of help to the country.
In the period of 1935-39 inclusive, Canadian mills were supplying 73 per cent of all fabrics -cottons, wool, rayon, et cetera-used on the domestic market, but today they are supplying only 51 per cent. In general terms, without considering the brief fluctuations, the decrease has been steady all through that period, but was greatly accelerated during the past two years.
Every yard of imported cloth deducts something from the payrolls' of Canadian workers, and many Canadian textile companies are reported in the position where they are either losing money or continuing operations at the break-even point in the hope of some relief in the immediate future.
It is safe to say that some of these companies cannot carry on much longer; and when they are forced to close, the amount of unemployment will be increased still further.
Difficulties of the textile industry in the Ottawa valley and in all of Canada have increased within the past two and a half years in proportion to the increased volume of imports. Some other countries have suffered the same experience but, despite some learned utterances to the contrary, there has not been a world-wide textile slump such as experienced in Canada.
Some countries, Japan and India for example, have increased their output during the past two years, and other countries, such as the United States, Great Britain, and western Europe, have managed to keep their output from dropping as far as that of the Canadian industry by shipping their goods here. What actually happened is quite simple. Most world countries began stockpiling textiles and other basic necessities with the outbreak of the Korean war, and when the expected civilian buying spree did not develop, most were stuck with large inventories. Such countries as United States and Great Britain, with lower unit costs of production due to greater mass production methods or lower wage rates, turned more attention to the Canadian market. They exported their textile depression to this country.
Another point worth noting here is that a few so-called experts have tried to point to

the difficulties of particular branches of the industry by noting the change in the use of various fibres during the recent years. At one time the new synthetic fibres may have taken a little business from cotton and wool, but during the last two or three years Canadian production of fabrics of all fibres has decreased. I have been assured by fabric producers that they have little sentimental attachment to any particular fibre, and can produce fabrics of wool, rayon, nylon, et cetera, alone or in mixtures of two or more of these fibres, if that was what the Canadian public demanded.
Because the demand for Canadian textiles is a comparatively small one, is spread over a large area, and is subject to a tremendous overflow of magazine, radio and television advertising from the United States, there has developed in this country a demand for such a variety of styles, types and fashions that it is recognized that there must always be a certain amount of imports.
It would be uneconomical for the Canadian industry to produce certain types of goods, but the amount of imports required to fill that demand would certainly not be 49 per cent of the total market, as is the volume of imports today. Indeed, I doubt if it would constitute the 27 per cent of goods that were imported into this market before world war II.
It seems logical that the Canadian industry, through long experience and intimate knowledge of Canadian tastes and climate, is best equipped to supply the bulk of the needs of the Canadian market.
For instance, during the period 1946 through 1953 the industry has spent something more than $400 million for new equipment and buildings, mostly the former. It has taken courage to make such heavy investments in new machinery and equipment during recent years when it became evident that the industry was not getting a fair share of the increased business. But the industry realizes that production efficiency is one of the few competitive factors over which it has control. Companies are also concentrating heavily on using the most up-to-date methods of promotion and merchandising, and keeping in touch with advanced styling and fashion. It is doubtful if the industry could do much more to improve its own position on the highly competitive Canadian market.
The situation which now exists in the Canadian primary textile industry is the result of a situation that has been building up for the past fifteen years and which has been accentuated during the past two and a half years. During the past fifteen years the volume of imported textiles into Canada has
The Address-Mr. Blair been increasing because the Canadian government has been steadily encouraging imports largely by lowering tariffs and relaxing customs administration. Today duties are much lower than even twenty-five years ago and on the surface it would certainly seem that the process has gone too far, too fast.
It does seem that a constant and too drastic encouragement of imports is in effect breaking faith with the industries that were established here on the understanding that their needs would be recognized. Also, what assurance is there, for new industries establishing in Canada today, that they too will not be ground up in the huge machines of the foreign producers within the next decade?
The Canadian government recognizes the importance of the textile industry by issuing a 50-cent stamp showing a bobbin, spinning wheel and textile equipment, but something further than the mere issuance of a stamp will be required before the textile industry is relieved from its present troubles. It is in times of dire stress such as now that the inadequacy of such policies becomes more obvious, and when administration of customs laws becomes very important.
The life of a pioneer may be very interesting but it is also often very hard. We have seen some pioneering done in this country in the way of so-called relaxed import procedures, but the hardships which result fall unfortunately on workers in industry and not on those who devised those procedures. It is quite noticeable that the United States, whose government has so far almost completely failed to carry out promises made six years ago to relax their customs procedure, has been quick to take advantage of our efforts to show the world what to do.
"Dumping" is a word used by many people with many meanings, but I say that it is wrong to have United States textiles dumped on this market in such great and growing volume when the price at which they are sold may easily represent only a fraction of the sales in their own market. The United States has the world's biggest textile industry which persists in overproducing and disposing of the surplus wherever it can. Only one or two per cent of their output sold here at dump prices can help to relieve their troubles but results in taking almost half the Canadian textile market.
When times are good in the United1 States textile markets they have no particular desire for business, but when they are bad, as they have been for the past two years, they can quickly produce the kind of results I have been describing among our mills. It is obvious to anyone in business that a big
406	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blair producer would be willing to sell on export markets at below home prices in order to increase his total output, reduce production costs, and work on a narrower but continuing total profit margin. Because of this it is necessary to have laws which prohibit the selling of exported goods at below fair market value on the home market. For a customs department to gather the necessary information on values of textiles in foreign countries, and to keep informed on such matters, would certainly require more men than are available for that work now. The law as it stands is probably being administered as well as possible by conscientious people, but their tools are inadequate.
For instance, a large quantity of a certain type of textiles may be sold by the United States industry on its home market for a given price and then a much smaller amount sold later at a lesser price. This lesser price is the fair price according to our law and is the one that is allowed when the surplus merchandise is shipped into Canada. As a result, surplus merchandise is dumped in Canada to save a loss to the United States industry but it creates turmoil in the Canadian industry because the selling price at home is often at a loss. In other cases there are more complicated factors. For example, much of the trade in textiles is what is known as style trade. The manufacturer can sell a certain line of goods at a big loss at the end of the season because he obtained a very good price when the line was new. But an old line abroad is often a new line here, and selling it in Canada at a fraction of the original price is not fair trade.
There is a natural tendency in Canada, because of high living costs, for people to demand consumer goods at a low cost. It must also be realized that Canadian manufacturers, in order to maintain their position, are forced to compete with other countries with lower wage standards and thus cheaper production costs.
I am absolutely opposed to forcing down the standard of living of Canadian workmen to the level of some of the countries with which we compete. It is not sufficient to say that an industry that cannot meet competition should not be in existence. The problem presents difficulties much deeper in their effects. The problem of manufacturers in Canada involves industries built up through the years with heavy investment and, above all, the providing of employment for Canadian workmen. The strength Canada exhibits in world affairs owes much to Canadian industry.
I draw the attention of the government to this serious problem, Mr. Speaker, in the knowledge that the problem is not only serious


but extremely difficult. We are fortunately not at war, but the uncertainty of international tension makes it imperative for our own preservation that we build up and maintain our strength in a program of preparedness. The Canadian people want their government to pursue such a policy and they have proved that they are prepared to pay for it with the highest level of taxation in the peacetime history of our nation. In my opinion, nothing should be done which will have the effect of weakening our industrial economy. I believe that, while it is in the interests of international good will and peace and therefore in the interests of this country that we should explore all possibilities of unclogging the channels of international trade, the problem should be approached on the broad basis of honest bargaining designed towards and feasible of mutual advantage to both parties. Further, our now outmoded customs law should be revamped at this session of parliament to give those administering that act greater authority to deal with the question of dumping so devastating to the textile industry of this country at the present time.
Consideration should be given to taxation policies that will offer greater inducement to accelerated research in this industry. Technical knowledge resulting from research in turn results in lower costs of production and discovers alternate uses to broaden the market, and while the textile industry may be efficient by present-day standards every improvement made in this field further enhances the ability of the industry to compete with foreign producers who manufacture in an economy with a lower standard of living and rate of wages than prevail in Canada.
In the long run we cannot afford the alternative, which is to sacrifice this industry, something certainly not in the interests of this nation, nor to degrade our standard of living to the level of lower wage countries with whom our producers compete.
(Translation):


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the first session of this new parliament, I am making it a point to speak in French, which is my mother tongue, and the language spoken by a great many members of the house.
I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Speaker on the honour bestowed upon him and to tell him that inasmuch as he is well versed in the law and familiar with the rules of the house, I believe he was the natural choice for the high office he now holds. I offer him my best wishes.
I also wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Hollingworth) and the seconder (Mr. Ville-neuve) of the address in reply to the speech

from the throne. They have fulfilled their task in a competent way. I also wish to call attention to the fact that my hon. friend from York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth), a member from Toronto, spoke in excellent French in the house, just as the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Villeneuve), a Quebec member, spoke in excellent English. This appears to me as confirming the fact that bilingualism is as well recognized across the country as it is in this house.
You will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to say a word about those members of the opposition who, for some time, have also been speaking in our tongue. I congratulate more especially my schoolmate, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), who expressed himself in excellent French on several occasions in this house, as well as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) who, more than once, has given recognition to the bilingual character of our country.
I would not like to be unkind to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) whose knowledge of the French language, may I mention it by the way, has considerably improved. I had the opportunity of hearing him speak during the last electoral campaign and I want to tell him that I was agreeably surprised to note the progress he has made in the study of our language. May I be permitted to conclude my remarks on that matter by expressing the hope that some of our friends who are sitting to the left of Mr. Speaker will continue to progress unceasingly along that line, provided, however, that they remain for a long time yet members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.
(Text):
I rise this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to deal with two subjects. The first is the shipping policy of Canada, about which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) spoke yesterday, and another matter which has engaged the attention of this house, the application of Canadian Pacific Air Lines for a licence to operate an air cargo service from eastern Canada to Vancouver. But before I deal with these two matters, I think the hon. member who has just taken his seat would perhaps find me remiss in my duty were I not to say a word about the matters which he discussed. I refer, of course, to the critical situation in the textile industry today.
I did not know the hon. member would speak on that subject, but since he has I may say to him that I have listened with great care to what he has said. His was an objective speech; his was a speech that
The Address-Mr. Chevrier placed on the record a number of matters concerning the textile industry with which we are at this time familiar. He dealt more particularly, of course, with the woollen industry, which exists in his part of the community. I could put on the record a number of things having to do with the silk and cotton industry in the area which I represent in this house. The causes to which reference has been made are not only one in number; there are many causes for the critical and difficult situation in which the textile industry finds itself today. The causes to which my hon. friend referred are but one factor in the situation. In one breath he suggested that a quick remedy was required. I wish I knew where one were to be found, because if I did I would certainly recommend it. On the other hand, he did feel that a study should be made of the customs law.
It is not for me to determine whether or not a study of the customs law would be a good thing; that would be a matter for my colleague the Minister of National Revenue. I should think, however, that a study of the customs law could not be determined in a few weeks, let alone a few months, if the situation with regard to the industry is as the hon. member states it is. As my hon. friend knows, and has so well said in his statement, there are of course other far-reaching causes. I am sorry that I have to deal with two other subjects today, otherwise I should like to speak at greater length on this textile matter. I would not want the hon. member to think that the situation to which he referred this afternoon was one which had to do with Canada alone. Let me assure him that the position in the New England states of the United States is equally as serious as it is in Canada at the moment, because there the situation in so far as unemployment is concerned is far-reaching.
There are two solutions to this problem. One is the imposition of a higher tariff, and the other is the establishment of quotas. The hon. member has not, of course, suggested either of those. I do not think that any member in this house will suggest that either of those two represents the solution. I should think that perhaps, as we have already indicated to a number of delegations that have come before the government, delegations representing industry, delegations representing the primary textile institute, delegations representing labour, it would be possible-and studies were being made in that respect-to amend certain sections of the Customs Act. A letter which was written

The Address-Mr. Chevrier by the president of one of the larger textile companies in this country to his shareholders only recently, and which I am sure the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) has seen, suggests three courses to deal with this critical situation.
The first suggestion was the study by labour and management of the situation as it exists today. The second was a careful scrutiny by industry of the causes which would perhaps lead to methods to be used to meet competition. The last suggestion was assistance from the government. If my memory serves me correctly, what the president of that company had in mind when he referred to assistance from the government was an amendment to section 36 of the Customs Act. I repeat that I should like to spend more time on this subject, but unfortunately I have to go on to these two other matters.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra yesterday made what I thought was a constructive speech on the subject of shipping. He asked a pertinent question at the end of his remarks: Are we going to have a merchant navy? I shall attempt, as best I can, to answer that question. He was critical of me for not having made the statement of policy to the house, and I have no fault to find with that criticism. The statement normally should have been made to the house, but if the hon. member looks at the date of the statement he will see that it was made on the day the house opened. On that day it was rather difficult to present a statement to the house giving the decision that had been taken, particularly when the press, as it had a right to do, was insisting that the information be given. That is the explanation which I offer; otherwise I can assure my hon. friend and the house that the statement would have been made here.
I believe I should divide my remarks thus. I should like to give a brief history of the position of shipping as I find it, and then I should like to deal with policy and finally with the reasons for the statement to which the hon. member referred yesterday. The Canadian shipping and shipbuilding industries originated in the early part of the eighteenth century, and they owe their origin more particularly to the plentiful supply of lumber which was found in Canada at that time. In the latter part of the nineteenth century both of these industries declined rather rapidly. This was due to the fact that steel ships were being built in the United Kingdom, and because of competition from those ships the position of our own wooden ships declined rapidly.

With the advent of world war I, the shipping industry had practically ceased to exist in this country. During world war I the government established what was then known as Canadian Government Merchant Marine Limited, a company formed to operate the government-owned fleet which consisted of some 63 vessels having a dead-weight tonnage of 380,000 tons. Those operations were profitable during such time as there was not the competition which we have at the moment. The government-owned company was unable to compete with the ships of other countries which operated faster and were more modern. In 1936, the company was forced to discontinue its operations.
I pause here for a moment to recall the conditions under which this crown agency wound up its operations. It had lost about $82 million on an original investment of $73 million. So that that was, I am sure, far from being an operation which could commend itself to the people of Canada.
Then, during world war II Canada built about 400 merchant vessels. Of these vessels, 215 were placed under the management of Park Steamships Limited. These vessels were sold after the war to private operators, because the government decided to go out of the business of shipping. And from the operation and sale of these ships, which cost $277 million, there has been realized thus far over $200 million. And because of the mortgages that have been taken on these ships there is no doubt that the full amount will eventually be realized. I make that statement here so that it can be compared with what was done in reference to Canadian Government Merchant Marine Limited.
Then came the years 1946 and 1947. Canadian ship owners during those years had little difficulty in finding employment for their vessels. There was a world shortage of shipping in those years. There were large quantities of relief cargoes that had to be moved from one part of the world to the other, and the European situation was a difficult one. So that the benefit of all these conditions inured to the Canadian ships. But in 1948 difficulties arose, first from the foreign flag vessels that began to compete in this country; next from currency and import controls which limited the field of Canadian activity to those trades in which dollar freights could be obtained; and, thirdly, freight rates began to decline very fast.
Then, as was mentioned in my hon. friend's speech, Marshall aid was limited to the extent of 50 per cent to American ships, and I think the other 50 per cent, or the larger

part of the other 50 per cent, to be carried in ships of those nations that came to the United States to get the goods.
The whole of this period of decline is well exhibited in a chart which can be found at page 6 of the sixth report of the Canadian maritime commission, tabled at the opening of this session.
I should like to deal for a moment with the three stages of the policy of the government having to do with shipping. The first stage came when the government decided to get out of the shipping industry, when it decided to sell all its dry-cargo vessels-some of them, 4,700 tonners-to private enterprise. When it decided to sell these ocean-going ships to Canadian companies on a deferred plan, the purchasers covenanted to operate them under the Canadian flag and agreed to make no application for transfer without the consent of the government.
Then came the second stage under that policy by the creation in 1947 of the Canadian maritime commission. That commission recommended, as its first step, what is known as the tonnage replacement plan. That came in 1948, when the plan was established. By virtue of it, ship owners were permitted to sell to foreign companies in return for an undertaking to use funds or proceeds of the sale for the acquisition of new and more modern tonnage. These funds were placed in escrow. Two tankers were the only deep-sea tonnage built by virtue of this plan. No dry-cargo deep-sea tonnage was built. None of them was built because of the fact that it was far more costly to build these ships in Canada, and to operate them under the Canadian flag than under foreign flags.
So that the Canadian maritime commission consented to an amendment of this replacement plan whereby it was possible for those having funds in escrow to assign them to others for building in inland lakes and on our coasts. The result has been that a large number of ships have been built under that amended plan.


Mr. Green:: That is, on the great lakes?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. Then came the third stage in the policy. This stage in post-war shipping coincided with the world-wide recession in the industry, and in Canada was characterized by the transfer of 91 ships to United Kingdom registry and the grant of a subsidy for one year only of $3 million for 40 ships on Canadian registry.
The Address-Mr. Chevrier
On December 9, 1949, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), dealing with this matter in the house, had the following to say:
The maintenance of a Canadian flag merchant fleet can be justified only on the basis of one or both of two assumptions: (1) that the fleet is a net economic asset to the community, or (2) that the fleet is important for purposes of national security.
In considering the studies which are available to us on the subject, we have concluded that we are not justified from an economic viewpoint in maintaining a Canadian flag fleet by artificial means. It is not the intention of the government to maintain an industry at the expense of the taxpayer, and of other export industries, by the unhealthy method of subsidies, unless these countervailing considerations are very strong indeed.
Now I should like to deal with what led up to the statement I made on November 12; and in dealing with that position I should like to use the figures that are to be found in the sixth report of the Canadian maritime commission, and that include the period up to March 31, 1953. The position at that time was as follows: There were then 55 deep-sea vessels of Canadian registry, and 91 Canadian-owned vessels of United Kingdom registry, under special arrangements concluded in late 1949.
It is urged that most of those vessels are obsolescent, and consequently at a disadvantage in competition with modern foreign ships. It is also urged that these ships are at a further disadvantage because of the high rates of pay and the more expensive working conditions of Canadian crews. In fact, reports of the maritime commission have indicated that it costs about 50 per cent more to build a ship in Canada than it does in the United Kingdom, and about 25 per cent more to operate a ship in Canada than it does there.
Now then, the great majority of these ships on Canadian registry were built during the war for the government, and were sold under the contract to which I made reference earlier. In October the Canadian Shipowners Association made representations to the government under two alternatives: First, they suggested either financial assistance from the government to compensate the Canadian owner for this additional cost of operating a Canadian flag ship, as compared with the cost in the United Kingdom and under other flags; or, secondly, freedom from the restrictive covenant into which they had entered with the government wherein they agreed to operate the ship under the Canadian flag.
I should like to deal with those two points. It has been said, and everyone knows, that these ships are to a large extent obsolete. They are not modern and they are not fast;
410	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Chevrier and it has also been fairly stated that to operate competitively one would have to grant a subsidy of about $100,000 per ship per annum. That would mean for the approximately 50 ships that were on Canadian registry on March 31, 1953, the payment of a subsidy of $5 million.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister where he finds that figure in the sixth report of the commission?


Lionel Chevrier: The figures are to be found on page 1, 51 ships, and for easy arithmetic I was using 50. Fifty ships at the rate of $100,000 a ship amounts to an annual subsidy of $5 million.
It has been said that our fleet is obsolete; that we should have more modern and faster ships. Well, if it is necessary to have more modern and faster ships, then we require more money to build new ships. There are two ways of building new ships. First, at government expense. To build 50 ships would cost no less than $200 million, because the prototype ship of the Canadian maritime commission would cost about $4 million. The other method is to get the owner to pay half the cost and the government to pay the other half. That would run into another $100 million, and it would not do away with the subsidy, because once we had modern ships we would have to pay still further subsidies, greater than the $100,000; so that the position in which we found ourselves was this. Here we were with ships that were obsolete, with costs that were mounting and with a critical position, namely, a decline in freights, so that it was difficult to see when it would end. In the face of that, and after considering the representations made by the ship owners as carefully and as sympathetically as it was possible to do, we decided against the granting of subsidies to the whole shipping industry.
My hon. friend expressed some surprise at that decision. Well, I can see no reason for surprise at all, because it was only a continuation of a policy that was handed down in 1949, the reasons for which were clearly explained by the Prime Minister when he made the statement and to which I want to refer again. Therefore the position which was announced on November 12 was only a confirmation of a decision that had been taken earlier.
With reference to the other part of the decision, namely, that owners be allowed to sell ships to a foreign flag if the proceeds of the sale are deposited in escrow for replacement purposes, the government agreed to liberalize the policy with reference to the use of the escrow funds, by removing the provision that replacement vessels must be
[Mr. Chevrier.!

built in Canadian shipyards, and limited their use to dry-cargo vessels only. Finally the government agreed that if it appears feasible to establish modern Canadian flag vessels on certain routes that would be of benefit to the development of Canadian trade, consideration might be given at a later date to the question whether some form of assistance ought to be provided in such cases.
There were many reasons why it was not found possible to grant subsidies. It does not seem opportune to provide subsidies in the case of ships that are obsolescent. And then because of considerations of a broad commercial nature, there were other matters to consider, because there are not only deep-sea vessels in the fleet; there are inland vessels, there are tankers, there are coastal vessels, there are unrestricted ships, all of which had to be considered in this decision.
Then the report of the maritime commission, which I have tabled, indicates that for public -convenience and necessity we grant subsidies for the maintenance of certain essential -domestic shipping services to the extent of $3,700,000.
I should like to indicate here the reasons which the Prime Minister gave when he made the statement to the house, to which I referred earlier, and which were in fact the same reasons which led us to the decision which we took. Here is what the Prime Minister said in the statement:
There are many objections to shipping subsidies. They do not tend to promote a healthy and efficient industry. They constitute a steady and usually increasing drain upon public funds. In a world in which some types of ships are already in oversupply they represent a waste of the taxpayer's money.
I do not propose to go into all the difficulties involved in shipping subsidies since the government's basic objection to a policy of subsidization rests on wider grounds. The world is still suffering from the effect of two great wars. Dislocation resulting from such wars has disrupted world trade to an extent that nations are taking extraordinary steps for the preservation of their economies. Our view has consistently been that it is not possible to seek a solution to our trade and currency difficulties on a purely national basis. Canada has goods to sell, but our European customers lack dollars to buy them. They cannot acquire such dollars unless we do our share of buying from them. In other words we must seek to encourage imports from countries to whom we desire to sell our goods and in this sense shipping services of other countries represent an import. We must not adopt measures which would hinder the revival of world trade and defer the achievement of balance between dollar and non-dollar trading areas. If we were to adopt a policy of subsidization of national shipping, it would be a protectionist measure disabling other countries from trading with us.


Howard Charles Green: What about the first sentence of the next paragraph?


Lionel Chevrier: National security; yes, I will deal with that. Therefore the reasons for the decision in 1953 are no different from those in 1949.
My hon. friend asks: What about the reasons mentioned in the second paragraph? The Prime Minister goes on to say:
The problem of preserving some part of the fleet for national security purposes deserves further consideration.
I did refer to that earlier in my speech. Now let me deal with it in greater detail. We have already under United Kingdom registry 90 ships at the present time. Those ships can be returned to us in case of an emergency. It has been agreed between the British and ourselves that in case of an emergency those ships can be returned. Then again, there is pooling-


Howard Charles Green: Those ships are old, are they not?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, of course they are old, the same kind of ship as the dry-cargo ships. The only way to get new ships is to spend over $100 million or $200 million, and I doubt very much whether the taxpayers of Canada are willing to put up that high cost for a merchant navy on commercial grounds.
Over and above the 90 ships that I referred to, there is the pooling under NATO. By virtue of an agreement under NATO, there will be established what is known as the defence shipping authority, and under that authority all the member nations of NATO have agreed to pool their ships in case of emergency, so that for national security purposes our position is far better than it was prior to world war I and better than it was prior to world war II.
I conclude this part of my remarks with the statement that, having regard to all of the conditions as we found them prior to November 12, the decision which we came to, while it may be a decision which may be disappointing to the shipping industry, having regard to all of the circumstances that we have before us, is the only decision that could have been taken.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question before he goes on to the other subject? I presume we can take it from his remarks that government policy is to let the merchant navy die out.


Lionel Chevrier: I attempted to answer my hon. friend's question and I told him that I was proposing to do that, and I thought that I had done it. Now, then, my hon. friend wants to put words in my mouth. I am
The Address-Mr. Chevrier afraid he will not succeed in doing that. The answer which I gave to his question he will find in Hansard.
Dealing now with another matter which has been the subject of much comment in the house, namely, the application by Canadian Pacific Air Lines Limited, let me first of all quote from an editorial which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of November 12, 1953. This reads:
It is now evident that the cabinet had to wrestle not only with its own divisions: it had to wrestle also with the awkward fact that its own body of experts, the air transport board, had arrived at the conclusion that the reas.ons justifying this particular monopoly have now passed away.
And a little further down:
It has not been easy, therefore, for the cabinet to arrive at a decision that practically overrides the opinion of its own experts.
And again:
The cabinet and the air transport board have arrived at essentially opposite decisions upon the most important point of all: the point of whether there is a big enough demand for air cargo services in Canada to support these two competing services.
While those words in the editorial are inaccurate, they were taken up by some hon. members in this house and repeated with some variations. I say without the slightest hesitation that the air transport board did not arrive at a decision opposite to that which was arrived at by the cabinet. Anyone who reads the report which was tabled by the Prime Minister and which was attached to the order in council will see quite clearly that that was not a decision by the air transport board, it was a report by that board. The air transport board had no authority to make a decision and no one knew it better than they.
As a matter of fact, the air transport board makes decisions repeatedly week in and week out. When it hands down a decision it is entitled a decision, but this was not a decision. On the contrary it was a report because it is set out clearly, as the Prime Minister explained in his reply to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), in section 15 (2) of the Aeronautics Act:
No such licence shall be issued in respect of a commercial air service, owned, leased, controlled or operated by any person who is engaged in the transport of goods or passengers for hire or reward by means other than aircraft unless the governor in council is of opinion that it is in the public interest that such licence be issued.
The air transport board knew full well that it was the responsibility of the governor in council to determine whether or not a licence should be granted. What it did was to report to the government on the need for an air cargo service in Canada. It also reported on the evidence as that evidence was
412	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Chevrier submitted to it, the evidence of C.P.A. and those who intervened on its behalf, the evidence in opposition by T.C.A. and those who intervened on its behalf; and finally the board stated clearly that the matter, being one of government policy, was being referred to the government for its decision.
In October, 1952, Canadian Pacific Air Lines made application to the air transport board for permission to operate an air cargo service from Montreal and Toronto in the east to Vancouver in the west, with intermediate stops at Edmonton and The Pas.
I ask the house to note that four months prior to this Trans-Canada Air Lines initiated a reduction in its then existing air cargo rates. The object of that was to ascertain just how far it was possible for T.C.A. to go in rate reductions.
In January, 1953, six months after the first reduction, T.C.A. filed with the board further air cargo rate reductions effective February-15, 1953. The air transport board rightfully suspended the application for those reductions because the C.P.A. application was before it.
Since the government has handed down its decision on the C.P.A. application the air transport board has approved these additional reductions by T.C.A. which will become effective on January 1, 1954. Let me for a moment compare the two conditions of rates as between the C.P.A. and the T.C.A. The T.C.A. proposal is for reduced rates at 34 points; the C.P.A.'s proposal is for reduced rates at 5 points. The T.C.A. proposal included all of the 5 points except one.
Then as to the level of rates, the C.P.A.'s proposal was for a rate at approximately 22J cents per ton mile; the T.C.A.'s proposal was 24 cents per ton mile on short distances; 19 cents per ton mile on medium distances, and as low as 15 cents per ton mile on long distances, that is from coast to coast.
The air transport board heard the application and reported, as I said earlier., under section 15(2) of the Aeronautics Act. They did not decide the issue; all they did was to tell us what the position was in so far as their hearing of the evidence was concerned.
The point has been made in the house- I have forgotten by what hon. member-that by this decision the government has retarded the introduction of air cargo service in Canada. There could be nothing further from the truth than that statement because that is not so. Air cargo service by T.C.A. exists in Canada today. T.C.A. now carries cargo in all flights in what is commonly known or called combination equipment.
In addition to that, as the Prime Minister indicated in his remarks, T.C.A. now has


three Bristol freighters capable of carrying loads of 6 tons each which operate from the east as far west as Winnipeg.
Over and above that the T.C.A. has 27 DC-3's and 23 DC-4's. At the present time it has on order 8 Super-Constellations with deliveries scheduled to commence in February, 1954, and 15 Viscounts with deliveries scheduled to commence September, 1954. The DC's which will be converted to air cargo will each have a load capacity of ten tons. While it is not possible to predict with any exactitude just how many DC-4 aircraft may be displaced from the present passenger service by the introduction of these 23 larger and faster aircraft, it seems reasonable to expect that the displaced aircraft will provide sufficient capacity to serve all the cargo traffic which may materialize during this early state of development.
Now then the whole matter as we understand it, or at least as I understand it, turns on the question of the realizable air cargo volume, on how much cargo it is possible to move by way of plane as against train and truck. That is the whole question. If it is not possible to move a great volume, then why license two carriers? That was the position in which the board found itself. That was the position which was placed before the government when the hearing took place.
One method of answering that question is to look at what has happened in the United States, because in that country they have had more experience than we have had with air cargo. Of 700 applications for allcargo service in the United States the number of operators has declined to 20 today. By that I mean 20 all-cargo and combination carriers as well.
In 1946 fourteen of the largest all-cargo carriers applied to the civil aeronautics board, which is the opposite of the air transport board in Canada, for certificates of operation. While the case, which lasted two years, was being heard, they asked for permission to carry on their operations so they could gain experience for themselves and for the civil aeronautics board. After the two years were up the civil aeronautics board handed down its decision on January 29, 1949, and licensed three carriers on a national scale, one on a local scale, and dismissed or declined all the other applications.
Within two years of that decision the locally certified carrier that had been licensed failed and passed out of existence. One of

the three nationally certified carriers went into bankruptcy. There were only two left and, in this year 1953, they have applied to the civil aeronautics board not only to merge because of their unprofitable operations, but to increase their rates. Their rates, prior to the application, were 16J cents per ton mile, and they demanded an increase of 25 per cent. Notwithstanding the objections of the combination carriers the civil aeronautics board ordered the increase of 25 per cent, which makes the rates greater than those charged by T.C.A. That is why I said earlier that this is in sharp contrast with the rate charged by T.C.A.


Mr. Fulton:: That would be 25 per cent on 16J- cents which would make the rates 20 cents.


Lionel Chevrier: It would make them more than that, on a graduated scale.
The all-cargo operations in the United States have encountered great difficulties. They have encountered those difficulties notwithstanding the fact that they have had a tremendous amount of assistance by way of defence contracts and carrying freight for national defence. There is one company that in 1952 had a return of $22 million, only 25 per cent of which came from ordinary freight. The rest of it came from defence contracts. If that is the position in the United States, I think it was wise for us to look carefully before we moved in the direction of granting the application.
It is contended-and I think it was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) who used these words-that the government "is in fact supporting a monopoly and this is not only for today but for tomorrow as well." The government made it quite clear that this was a decision for the time being and certainly did not tie the hands of the government. It was also made quite clear that the government did not find it in the public interest to grant the licence applied for.
In the public interest the government has granted many licences to C.P.A. Although it was the early policy of the government to reserve international routes to T.C.A., this policy was modified on many occasions. In
1948	C.P.A. got the right to establish a service between Whitehorse and Fairbanks; in
1949	between Vancouver and the co-terminals of Australia and New Zealand; in 1949 between Vancouver and Tokyo; and more recently between Vancouver and South America.
To those who complain that there is not free competition and that we are protecting the state-owned enterprise only, let me say this. In domestic air line service do you know
The Address-Mr. Chevrier that C.P.A. have licensed routes of 9,735 miles as compared with T.C.A.'s 9,993 miles in domestic and trans-border service? So surely it cannot be complained that prejudice is being shown in favour of one as against the other carriers.


Mr. Nicholson:: Has the minister the international figures available there too?


Lionel Chevrier: I have not them available. The governor in council has granted 13 licences to C.P.A. and they were all approved in the usual manner under section 15(2) of the act.
The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in beginning his speech, and dealing with the application of C.P.A., used these words as reported at page 99 of Hansard:
How far are we to go in this country along the road of state enterprise? Are we to be placed in the position where the future of Canada and its development is to be considered as the patrimony of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the cabinet?
I would point out that the Prime Minister and the cabinet granted Canadian Pacific Air Lines 13 services to operate across this country. Then the hon. member for Prince Albert continues:
Is private enterprise going to be given an opportunity to develop, to expand, within the necessary limitations imposed by the welfare of the state being the pre-eminent consideration? Is government to hold back northern development at a time of progress never before equalled?
I should like to know if any member can tell me how the progress of the north is being in any way impeded by the decision that we took having to do with this application. It was clearly an application to operate between Montreal and Toronto in the east and Vancouver in the west, with intermediate points at Edmonton and The Pas. It did not go into Saskatchewan, let alone Prince Albert. I fail to see how the northern development would be in any way prejudiced. The whole of the remarks of the hon. member for Prince Albert have to do with the seeming injustice which will be done to the north. I would point out that, as to C.P.A. or any other air line that feels there is sufficient business to be obtained in operating out of Edmonton or out of any other northern point into the northern territory or into the north, there is nothing to stop them from making an application to the air transport board; and if because of public convenience and necessity the board finds that the traffic warrants it there is no reason why the licence should not be granted. I have not heard too much criticism of the fact that we have not paid attention in aviation in so far as the north is concerned. I could speak of the large sums of money spent by the government in
414	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Campbell the Fort St. John-Grande Prairie region where we have spent $2 million recently. Large sums are in the estimates this year for further development. Even for the airport at Prince Albert there is no less than three-quarters of a million dollars for future development.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those facilities are all for private air lines.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; they are for all air
lines. T.C.A. operates also into Saskatoon.
I should have said that. As my hon. friend knows, we have spent considerable sums of money both civilly and from a military standpoint in Saskatoon. I therefore find it difficult to understand this criticism of this decision of the government. Those who were critical did not hear the evidence. We did. They did not see the witnesses. We did. They did not hear counsel. We did. I submit with deference to these members that we were in a far better position than were they, who did not hear the evidence, to conclude whether or not, under all the circumstances, the licence should be declined. But we declined the licence knowing full well that T.C.A. was in a position at this time to deal with that service. I can come to only one conclusion, Mr. Speaker, and that is that, having regard to all the circumstances, we came to the only decision possible. I respectfully submit that the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition should accordingly be defeated.


Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Baitlefords):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to echo some of the many fine compliments that have been paid to you. I am sure every member who spoke about the position you now occupy did so in all sincerity. I am also sure that we in our group, as well as the rest of the members of the house, will co-operate with you to the fullest extent.
During the past few days the debate has switched away from the subject I am most interested in. Of course I come from an agricultural constituency, -and my people are interested in a good many things. I am glad the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is in his seat because it is far easier, Mr. Speaker, to talk through you to the minister when he is in his seat. The minister has a reputation for being fair, I believe, and of having pretty good judgment on most occasions; but he did make an admission the other night, sir, that he had made a mistake with regard to the wheat board.
First of all I want to say that wheat growers in my constituency and all over the west believe the wheat board has done a good job, and they want to continue the 

use of the wheat -board for marketing their grain. That is an accepted fact in the west. I have heard no criticism of the wheat board in this debate. There have been suggestions offered. The government have been asked to provide an advance payment to our farmers. Before I go into that, however, as 1 said when I started, we in the west believe in the wheat board and any interference from any party or any individual to try to take the wheat board away from the farmers and return to the old method of selling wheat through the Winnipeg grain exchange will be met by revolution in western Canada.
I was interested in certain remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), as found at page 37 of Hansard. He said:
In this situation prairie farmers have a right to be told what the government intends to do. The government has assumed full control of the marketing and selling of our wheat.
Then come the words I want hon. members to notice.
It has, in fact, denied to the western farmer the opportunity, either personally or through his farmer organizations, to do anything about it.
That is a mistake. I do not agree with the government in m-any things, but I will -say that the government has not denied the farmers the right to change their method of marketing, nor have the farmers asked the government to do so. What worries me about what the Leader of the Opposition said is that I wonder whether, if the Progressive Conservative party ever gets into power, it would be their policy to do away with the wheat board.


An hon. Member:: They will not.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: They have only one member from the province of Saskatchewan at the present time, and if they ever did that he would have to look for a -seat somewhere else.
Having said- that the farmers in my constituency -are behind the wheat board, I also want to add that our farmers are happy about having a large surplus. They are not worried about having a large surplus. What they are worried about is the fact that through the maldistribution of cars last summer perhaps one-third or one-quarter of our farmers-I do not know what the percentage would be-need money badly at the present time. Why is that so? The minister said the other day that the estimated payments to our farmers in 1953 were $1,404 million.


An hon. Member:: $1,104 million.


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: What is a million?


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Well, the figure does not matter. There has been a lot of money paid

out, but what happened? The government appointed a car controller last year. I think he did a good job with respect to shipping, in seeing that ships were made available to carry grain instead of iron ore. But with respect to the distribution of box cars, as far as I can find out the car controller left that to the railway companies. What did the railway companies do? First of all they did what they have been in the habit of doing in the past; they hauled out grain that was closest to the large elevators. Then they hauled out the grain on the main lines, and the branch lines all over my constituency were badly neglected. The result was that farmers in the vicinity of the main lines and those lines closest to the big elevators got practically all their 1952 crop marketed.
I took the trouble to investigate the situation with respect to the old C.N.R. line running from North Battleford to Edmonton and the C.P.R. line running from Saskatoon to Wetaskiwin, and I found that practically all the 1952 grain had been marketed and there was room in the elevators for some of the three-bushel quota. These farmers are all right. That is where the large amount of money went about which the minister spoke. The money went to those farmers who were able to deliver their 1952 crop, but the farmers on the branch lines are the ones who are suffering today.
Then something else happened. About two weeks before the election the quota was thrown open. I do not know whether the wheat board was responsible for having the quota thrown open. Perhaps it was the Minister of Trade and Commerce who was responsible, but I do know what happened. It caused chaos in our part of the country. The elevators on our branch lines were full. The farmers started hauling to the main lines north and south a distance of 50 to 60 miles. One farmer in particular hired four extra trucks and was able to deliver a good percentage of his 1952 crop, but the smaller farmers with only one-ton trucks were unable to get out more than a load or two, which did not help them to any extent.
Then our local elevators were plugged, the three-bushel quota was imposed, and what happened? Before I left farmers were hauling their loads of wheat to the elevators the night before when they heard there was a likelihood of cars being placed at the elevators. Not only that; the car order book was done away with, something for which farmers had fought for many years.
Perhaps it was necessary to do away with the car order book in order that farmers could haul in a little jag now and then and get enough money to pay for a few groceries.
The Address-Mr. Campbell Perhaps it was necessary for that purpose, but this is what happened in this connection. Farmers now have to telephone every day to see whether there is to be a car at the elevator. If there is to be a car they will all rush in the night before, and the next morning the elevator is plugged up again and half of them have to go back home with their wheat.
I say, Mr. Speaker, and I am speaking through you to the minister, that our farmers have spent a huge amount of money during the last few years mechanizing their farms. I was on the road a good deal last summer and I did not see a single team of horses working in the fields. The cost of the mechanization of farms has been terrific, and I want to give a few figures in this connection. Much of this machinery was paid for by farm improvement loans. These loans have to be repaid, and the farmers need money to repay them. That is the group I am talking about.
I admit the minister is partly right in what he says. I admit that perhaps two-thirds of the farmers are O.K., but there is a group who are in bad shape. Here are the figures of investment for the last two years in farm machinery. The total retail value of passenger cars and commercial vehicles sold in three prairie provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1952 and up to and including September, 1953, was $447,986,190. Then I come to farm machinery. The total spent on farm implements and equipment in the prairie provinces during 1952 amounted to $160,942,935. Not only that, but in Saskatchewan, and to some extent in Manitoba and Alberta as well, a great deal of rural electrification took place. I have not the figures for Manitoba and Alberta, but power was installed on 9,000 farms in Saskatchewan during 1952-53, at an average cost of about $500 per farm. This represents an expenditure in Saskatchewan alone of $4,500,000 for those two years.
If the minister could tell our farmers that they would be able to deliver about 18 or 20 bushels per acre there would be no need for any advance payment. I am quite satisfied the minister is unable to give that assurance, so I think the government should reconsider the matter and see that something is done to make sure these farmers are not in need. I am satisfied the government could do what was done two years ago, when $20 or $25 million was set aside for the purpose of making loans to farmers. Only a percentage of that amount was used. I am sure the farmers who do not need loans would not try to obtain them.
I want to say something about storage because we have been trying to get a storage elevator in the city of North Battleford. For

The Address-Mr. Campbell years a storage elevator has been needed in that area, but since the farms have been mechanized in that part of the country the need has become more urgent. Now that our farmers are taking off their crops with combines there is greater danger than ever of having to harvest grain in a damp or wet condition. Happily we did not have to do that this year. For many years the North Battieford board of trade has been trying to get the government to do something about this matter. This is the story, as represented to me in a letter:
On at least three different occasions our board of trade has taken up with the federal government the matter of inadequate grain handling facilities in this northwestern part of the province and has advocated the construction of an interior storage elevator, with cleaning and drying facilities, but so far without success. With so much of last year's crop still in the district and a heavy crop now being harvested, the need for the desired storage facilities is greater than ever and at a recent meeting of our board of trade council it was resolved that further application be made to the federal government for the construction of an interior storage elevator here.
Then the letter goes on to give me a resume
of what has happened in the past. In 1952, apparently, a large number of the rural municipalities, local lodges of the Saskatchewan farmers' union, and some boards of trade in the district petitioned the government to build a storage elevator in North Battieford.
I am going on now to deal with several matters affecting different parts of my constituency. The Saskatchewan river is about 25 or 30 miles north of the town of Lloyd-minster, which is situated on the border between Alberta and Saskatchewan. On the north side of that river there are a large number of people who are not able to cross into Lloydminster for weeks at a time during the fall and spring. These people, along with the board of trade of the town of Lloydminster, have been trying to get a bridge constructed at that point. During the election campaign in the summer of 1949 three federal cabinet ministers converged on that district. They met with members of the council and after that meeting was over a full page advertisement appeared in the Lloydminster Times of June 22, 1949. This is what it said:
Your board of trade having made representations through the courtesy of Mr. A. Bater and Mr. C. Saville, federal candidates in the Battiefords and Battle River constituencies, to the Hon. D. C. Abbott, federal Minister of Finance; the Hon. J. G. Gardiner, federal Minister of Agriculture; and the Hon. C. D. Howe, federal Minister of Trade and Commerce, for the abolition of the 8 per cent sales tax on bunker "C" fuel oil; lower freight rates on Lloydminster crude; development of the north country between Lloydminster and Cold Lake; an all-weather highway on the 4th meridian from Lloydminster to Cold Lake; and a bridge across the North Saskatchewan river on the 4th meridian,


are pleased to advise that the federal ministers have agreed to give their active and wholehearted support to the aforesaid proposals.
Now I should like one of the ministers to tell me why we have not got that bridge across the Saskatchewan river at that point. Certainly at that time the board of trade expected, from the promises made by those ministers, that they would get a bridge.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was just before the election.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: I am not suggesting it was just before the election.
When I commenced my speech I spoke about the farmers being very satisfied with the wheat board. They are not so well satisfied with the present method of marketing livestock. I can recall a speech that was made in this house by "Scottie" Bryce, as we used to call him, advocating the establishment of a livestock marketing board. He advocated this year in and year out. There is no business in Canada that sells its products in the manner in which farmers are forced to sell their livestock. I can remember "Scottie" saying: "There is not a business in Canada that does business on these terms. What would you think of the Massey-Harris Company taking a carload of tractors into Battieford, dumping them into an empty lot and asking the farmers in that district, what will you give us for these tractors?"
Our farmers have been asking for a livestock marketing board for a good many years. Public opinion is rapidly building up so the government can expect to be pressed day and night, not only from the farmers in Saskatchewan but all over Canada, to establish such a board. I would urge the government to study this proposition and see if, for once, they cannot do something on their own initiative without waiting until they are prodded or until the farmers are ready to quit voting for them altogether.
There is one more subject I should like to discuss, and it relates to our native Canadians.
In 1945 the house set up a committee to find ways and means of improving the lot of our Indian population. I have not had the opportunity in the last four years to watch closely what has taken place, but several times each year I have had occasion to drive through one of the Indian reservations, and I have seen considerable improvement.
1 should like to congratulate the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, as well as the Department of National Health and Welfare. Perhaps I am not much of a politician, because if the government does something I think is good I am prepared to give

The Address-Mr. Deschatelets
it a little pat on the back-perhaps not a very big pat, but certainly a little one. In 1945 and 1946 we were advocating better housing for the older Indians, so they would get away from their mud huts and have somewhat greater comfort in their lives. Going through the reservation to which I have referred I have seen quite a few new houses.
One of the best things done thus far has been the transformation of the old airport hospital at North Battl'eford into a hospital for the Indians. Before coming down here to Ottawa I took time to visit that hospital and found the matron, Miss Morton, and Dr. Head, who were in charge, most cooperative. They spent more than an hour conducting me through the hospital, and I feel they are doing a first-class job. If one wants to know whether people in a hospital, especially children, are receiving proper care, all he has to do is watch the faces of the patients when doctors and nurses come into the wards. When the nurse entered the wards in which these little Indian children were located, the children's faces brightened up. Those who were not too ill, and were not confined to their beds, held out their arms to the nurse.
I take some pleasure therefore in complimenting the Department of National Health and Welfare upon having done a good job in this respect. We know that t.b. is rapidly disappearing, but I should like to make a suggestion in this connection. I would ask the minister to place in his estimates enough money to add a wing to this hospital so the children suffering from t.b. and now located in the wards could be segregated. They should be in the t.b. hospital in Prince Albert, but I understand there is no room for them there. Therefore I ask the minister to make this addition to his requisitions so the children suffering from tuberculosis might be kept apart from those who do not suffer from it.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, I have completed all I had wished to say at this time. (Translation):


Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-moni):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have the honour of addressing the house. I would like to thank the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for the invitation he was so kind as to extend new members on Monday, November 16, to address the house at this very session. Not only does this put us at ease, but it allows me, moreover, to reflect for a moment or so upon certain ideas and principles which will be the basis of my attitude during this session.
I have a very personal reason to congratulate the new Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin). He and I studied together at the faculty of law of the University of Montreal. The honour which he has so richly deserved reflects upon his fellow students in whose name I offer him my best wishes.
As member for the constituency of Maison-neuve-Rosemont I would be remiss in my duty were I not to pay tribute, all too briefly, unfortunately, to my predecessor who now sits in the other place, the Hon. Sarto Fournier. First elected to this house when aged only 26, he now finds himself a senator at the age of 45, having accomplished a very great deal at the beginning of a well filled career which is as yet far from over.
One cannot enjoy the confidence of such an important constituency, for nearly 20 years in succession, without having been a good servant of the people. I believe that the opportunity is well chosen for paying him this tribute, on the occasion of my maiden speech.
Mr. Speaker, the debate on the address allows every hon. member to speak very freely of his constituency; notwithstanding some of my friends' opinions to the contrary, I think it is an excellent idea.
In spite of inevitable repetitions, this debate allows us to familiarize ourselves with the various needs of this country. Canada is not an easy country to govern; its immensity renders its problems often hard to solve and it is all to the credit of the present government to have found a happy formula which makes it a truly national government.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent in this house a constituency of nearly 50,000 electors, of which nearly 20,000 are Englishspeaking. Located in the eastern part of Montreal, which is also known as the metropolis of Canada, that bilingual constituency, made up mostly of workers, of large families, may be held up as a model for the rest of the country. I think that possibly to a higher degree than any other constituency it offers the gratifying reality of a single group, born of two great races, which lives and works in the most complete harmony. Is it not true, Mr. Speaker, that, seen from that angle, Maisonneuve-Rosemont is the very embodiment of the wonderful achievement, possibly the most lasting one, of this government and previous Liberal governments?
National unity is not an empty phrase any more, but is reflected in daily happenings. To illustrate what I have in mind, allow me to mention a fact in particular.
At the beginning of the present session, I became acquainted with members from all parts of the country, and when I mentioned to
418	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Deschatelets some of them who are English-speaking my desire to take advantage of these contacts to improve my knowledge of their tongue, I was pleased to hear them say that they wanted first to improve their own knowledge of the French language.
I was strongly impressed with that fact, and I know that I have already formed with members from both sides a friendship that will endure.
While I was listening to that part of the speech from the throne where it is said that steps will be taken in order that assistance may be granted to totally disabled persons, I thought of the large families I represent here, and I was really proud to be a supporter of this government which has already done so much and intends to do still more for public welfare.
Mr. Speaker, one has to know these districts made up mostly of workers in order to realize what beneficial results the measures enacted by this government have had: yesterday it was old age pensions and family allowances; tomorrow it will be pensions for the disabled. Needless to say subversive ideas do not get very far among our people.
Another measure, possibly the most important of all those mentioned in the speech from the throne, deals with changes to be made in the National Housing Act and the Bank Act, in order to empower our banks and other lending institutions to make mortgage loans.
I cannot help but be acquainted with the housing problem in Montreal, having been for a few years counsel for the rent control board in Quebec. I must say that the housing shortage is possibly more acute in Montreal than in any other city, including Toronto.
There are a great many reasons for this but, in any event, the problem is of the first magnitude. I personally found out, during a survey carried out in Montreal in 1951, that there were almost 100,000 rooms let in that city. In a great many cases they were rented to people who would have had the means to live in proper quarters, had these been available.
Since 1951 the situation has improved enormously and in the northern part of my constituency, in Rosemont, a truly huge housing project is being carried out at the present time. From one week to the next houses are going up. I must give the government its due. Thanks to the housing act it has prevented the development of a catastrophic situation. The loans advanced in that constituency have enormously relieved congestion by creating small housing centres well within the reach of families with modest means.


The forthcoming legislation by improving loan facilities, as forecast in the speech from the throne, will enable a great number of our families to find a home, and I hope that this measure will provide for a low down payment and the longest possible period of amortization.
Coming to another question, may I remind this house that a carriage road, which is the property of the crown, runs through my constituency, along the St. Lawrence, and then crosses the whole city of Montreal.
I know that the traffic problem does not fall under the jurisdiction of the federal authorities but the people of my constituency are the first to suffer from an intolerable situation which is detrimental to progress, and I share the opinion of many experts who say that this carriage road, closed to the public, could help solve partially the traffic problem in Montreal, whether through the construction of an elevated highway or otherwise.
I would not like to venture any suggestion; but if the authorities of the city of Montreal deemed it opportune to approach the federal government in that respect, I would express the wish that their request be sympathetically received.
Mr. Speaker, before I bring my observations in French to a close, I would like to adopt a definite position regarding the matter of fiscal relationship between the federal and the provincial governments-and, more precisely, regarding the autonomy of the province of Quebec. I listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches made in the House of Commons, on Monday, November 16, by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) and on Monday, November 23, by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne).
I have the highest regard for the views expressed by the hon. gentlemen, but I am afraid I must differ with them. The autonomy of the province of Quebec is an accomplished fact, a fact respected by all, by and large; nobody has ever-neither the present government nor the governments which have preceded it-made any attempt against this autonomy; may I add that it was never less menaced than it is under the present government.
It is not a matter of autonomy and it has never been, but the question has been raised as a pretext; and for this reason, I pity the thousands of electors of my constituency who thus have been inevitably deprived of considerable sums of money to which they are entitled.
If what I say were not the very essence of truth, I would not be here now and the

Progressive Conservative candidate who, in my constituency, advocated the same theory as these two hon. members, would not have lost his deposit on August 10 last.
There are no problems, no matter how complicated they may be, which cannot be solved to the satisfaction of all, when these problems are raised in round-table discussions by men of good will. I am proud to be part of a government composed of men who have demonstrated, up to now, particularly with regard to this question, that they were imbued with the best good will in the world. (Text):
Mr. Speaker, during the last election I promised my English-speaking constituents to improve my English, and this is a promise I am going to fulfil now, even if I am given the privilege of being in the house a further four years.
X would like to make a remark in connection with certain advice directed to new members of this house by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Fair), in his speech of November 18, as reported at page 146 of Hansard:
On this occasion we have 74 members who are either new to the house or in some cases have been here before but not during the last parliament. I ask them now not to follow the lead of the whip or big boss of the party on all occasions. Let them do their own thinking for once-
Well, I have received a clear mandate to support the government on all good measures brought before this house. I wish to thank my hon. friend for his kind attention, and I hope he will take in good part my own advice, that a member of the opposition should not necessarily be against all good measures proposed by this government. May he act accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the 24th an important group of members of this house visited defence establishments in the Montreal area, and I was glad indeed that one of the highlights of this memorable trip was the inspection of different units and latest models of destroyer escorts and minesweepers at Canadian Vickers Limited. This plant, one of the most important of its kind in this country, is located in my constituency, and I think I express the feelings of my colleagues who attended this inspection in saying that we were more than impressed by what we saw.
Some of these models are original Canadian designs, and we were proud indeed at the thought that in the near future our own Canadian masterpieces will be in service in the defence of our coasts. Our group was led by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), and it is in order that I should thank him for this remarkable initiative. May I also express to Canadian Vickers Limited 83276-27J
The Address-Mr. R. W. Mitchell and to the thousands of anonymous workers at this plant my congratulations for their magnificent achievements.


Mr. R. W. Mitchell (London):: Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings of fear and humility that I rise to make this, my first speech in this house, and to thereby play my small part in making our form of government, which we call democracy, work. It is a tribute to the genius that is mankind that men and women of all faiths, of many different creeds and of divers political beliefs can come together in comparative harmony and resolve by free and open discussion and debate the problems inherent in a great and growing country.
I need not perhaps stress to hon. members sitting in this house the greatness which is Canada nor the unlimited prospects for a still greater Canada which lie ahead. Nor need I perhaps say that this fusion of peoples of many races, many tongues and many points of view which is called Canada has already assumed a great and responsible place in the council chambers of the world, nor that given proper leadership and guidance we will continue to grow and increase in stature as a world power.
Despite the fact that I probably need not say these things, I am nevertheless going to do so because there are all too few of us in Canada who are prepared to stand on our two feet and express what must be our inward convictions with respect to this great land. We are all too inclined to crawl into a shell when the relative merits or demerits of Canada are discussed. We appear, at least on the surface, to have lost the daring and initiative of our forefathers who carved this land out of the wilderness. It appears to me that we have lost this daring and initiative because we seem to have lost faith in the institutions which our forefathers strove so hard to build up. I suggest that at least part of that lack of faith stems from the reserve which appears to have become innate in us. Here and now I issue a call to all of us who have the honour of sitting in this house and to all who are privileged to call themselves Canadians to rise up and add their voices to those who have been crying in the wilderness of Canadian apathy. Let us shout the name of Canada from the rooftops so that all who will can hear.
Only in this way can we restore to this country the spirit of adventure and daring which we so sadly lack in many sectors and without which we can never go on to the heights of which we are surely capable. Let us get rid of this inferiority complex and gain stature and strength and full belief and
420	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. R. W. Mitchell confidence in ourselves by publicly announcing to the world, and particularly to that great union which lies to the south of our border, that we are a great nation with prospects unequalled in the world. We shall thereby gain assurance and self-confidence to enable us to go on to the summit.
I cannot proceed further without acknowledging the pride and satisfaction which has been previously expressed and which we all feel in the fact that four members of the so-called weaker sex-I think perhaps the word "fairer" is better-have not only answered the call to public service but have been elected to this house. Canada is a nation of home lovers; the family is the centre of activity, and there is ever-increasing evidence of the need for the guidance and counsel of women in public affairs at all levels of government.
I am sure, as I believe all hon. members are sure, that the four ladies who have answered the call will not only serve Canada and Canadians well, but they will by their example also inspire others of charm and ability to further effort. With due respect to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley), I feel I would be remiss if I did not say how particularly delighted I am that three of the four lady members are sitting on this side of the house as members of the opposition.
I acknowledge that I am a neophyte on the floor of this house, and as such I am fully aware of my limitations. I hope I am not presumptuous by nature, Mr. Speaker, but I do wish to associate myself most heartily with those who have spoken before from all parts of the house and who have offered congratulations to you upon your election as Speaker of this house. As a new member I have been most interested in observing your conduct and your actions in presiding over the house, and I can only say that you have exhibited to the full the characteristics of tact and absolute fairness, whilst remaining firm, which your high office demands.
I pursue my course in this house which in some respects at least, and in a much smaller way, will parallel the course which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has set for himself, namely to prod and jab the government. I shall only hope that you will not on too many occasions have to deal with me with that firmness to which I have referred, for it will be my policy to poke and prod at the government on many occasions, although my reasons for doing so will undoubtedly be entirely different from those of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Several new members of this house have preceded me in this debate, and I am proud to be one of this particular delegation of freshmen for they have by their conduct in this house set a high standard to follow, and I hope I shall be able in some small way to maintain that standard. My particular congratulations must of course be offered to the hon. members for York Centre (Mr. Holling-worth) and Roberval (Mr. Villeneuve), for it was they who initiated that standard in moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
In entering this debate I realize that it is an opportunity for a private member to extol the merits of his or her constituency, and that I believe to be in the best interests of Canada and Canadians. It carries out and puts into effect, at least in part, what I have said earlier, namely that we should continually shout about this country at any and all opportunities; and until we learn to do this about our own particular parts of Canada we will never learn to do it about Canada as a whole.
I have, however, noted with exceeding regret that most hon. members, particularly those from the ranks of the Liberals and C.C.F., have spoiled their effort by coming to this house with their hands out crying of the particular needs of their particular communities and seeking government assistance. They are seeking federal aid for all ailments, some minor and some not so minor, which affect their respective communities. They are all in effect asking the government to step in and subsidize this or subsidize that or take over this or that form of human endeavour. They are all, in other words, encouraging the trend of the present government toward socialism and centralization, and thereby preaching a doctrine which I submit is essentially foreign to the nature of this country and of our ancestors, who built us to what we are purely and simply on courage, initiative and solid belief in free competition.
We have heard speeches by hon. members of this house who represent constituencies ranging from the Atlantic on the east to the Pacific on the west, who represent mighty industries such as fishing, shipbuilding, mining, agriculture and many others which, when combined, endow us with the greatest wealth of natural resources on the face of this earth. Their speeches have been of great interest and assistance in making us realize just how great this country is and just how great are its natural resources. But many hon. members from the parties to which I have just referred have ended up with that note of pathos, asking for help for this or that local problem. As I speak to you briefly at this time of the riding of

London, which I have the honour to represent, I hope I shall not fall into such a pattern, and that I shall not do so in the future except in cases of dire calamity such as flood or tornado.
The city of London is located in the very centre of western Ontario, which has been well described as the garden of Canada. *Western Ontario is not only one of the finest mixed farming areas in Canada but it is also highly industrialized. The outskirts of the city of London are represented in this house by my friend the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White); and the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin), who has the misfortune to sit on the opposite side of this house, has succeeded in wedging his way into a small section of what might, with apologies to my hon. friends from Toronto, be called the metropolitan area of London.
London is a city of widely diversified industry. It produces everything from steel products to paper products. It is the market centre of western Ontario and is in fact the distribution centre for the products, both agricultural and industrial, of the whole of western Ontario. In this connection I wish to raise in the house two points which are of vital interest particularly to London, but also to all of the western Ontario area.
The first of these has to do with the airport at Crumlin, on the outskirts of London, which serves much of the western Ontario area. Most of the freight shipped by air to or from western Ontario passes through the airport at Crumlin, and it has become in this air age essential for the transportation of passengers to and from the larger centres on the continent. Comparatively recently, however, larger and faster aircraft have been introduced into some of the scheduled flights which formerly landed at London. The runways at this airport are not, however, of sufficient length to take care of these newer and larger aircraft, and as a result the air service to western Ontario will have to be curtailed. Already some 'of the flights have been cancelled. I accordingly urge the government to take immediate action to increase the length of these runways and thus restore full air service to the area.
Great sums of money have been spent by the government in building up an air force centre adjacent to this airport. The government has also by its action in increasing the size of Wolseley barracks and establishing a central ordnance depot in the area acknowledged that London is an important and strategic centre; and for this reason I have no hesitation in suggesting to the government
The Address-Mr. R. W. Mitchell that it should fulfil its belief in London by increasing the runways and thereby establishing a proper airport to take care of the traffic which it will be called upon to handle.
The second point also arises with respect to transportation, and has to do with the railway freight rate structure. The board of transport commissioners has been conducting hearings apparently designed to produce a new formula or to do away with or revise the policy which has been in force for many years. This policy briefly provides that shipments to London from the east or from the west and shipments from London to the east 'or to the west can be made at the same rates as those prevailing to or from Toronto. Freight rates, as we are all aware-and particularly hon. members from the west- represent a substantial part of the total cost of manufacturing and distributing our products. London has become, as I have indicated before, a large exporter of manufactured products and an importer of substantial quantities of raw materials for processing in our plants. Many of the industries which have located in London have done so with the assurance that no change would be made in the existing freight rates, so they would be thereby enabled to compete with similar industries in Toronto.
Toronto and some of the larger centres are already congested and overcrowded, and new industry is looking for places to locate outside that city. This is an era of decentralization, and if such decentralization is to continue and thereby reduce the congestion in the larger centres, this government must continue the old established freight rate policy. If that policy is changed new industry will not settle in London, as has been increasingly the case since the war, despite the many advantages which are available to them there. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that industries presently established may find it impossible to carry on, owing to the high taxation of these days, and may be forced to move to one of the larger centres.
I leave these subjects with the comment that is perhaps obvious; that if the air transportation facilities are not improved or if the freight rate structure is changed, local industry in London will ultimately be affected to an extent that will involve the laying off of many hundreds of Londoners in their plants.
London has six textile mills. I shall not take the time to labour the problems of the textile industry, as they have already been presented to this house in a much more thorough and able manner than I am capable of doing. I shall only say that already two
422	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. R. W. Mitchell of the plants are operating on short hours and three more have ceased production in certain departments, with a consequent serious reduction in wages in the one case and labour in the other.
There is one other problem which affects many cities and towns in Canada but, with the exception of Ottawa, London is more adversely affected by the policy to which I shall refer than almost any other city. The total assessment of federally-owned property in London and its suburbs bears a higher ratio to the total assessment than it does in almost any other city in Canada outside of the national capital. This is perhaps natural because as I have pointed out before, London has not only large army installations but as well has a naval establishment and is the centre in which are located federal government departments for the western Ontario area. The exemption of these properties from municipal taxation accordingly places a higher tax burden on the citizens of London than is placed on those of most other municipalities.
I do not propose to refight the issues of the last election campaign but I do suggest that some change in the present policy must be made, especially in respect of cities such as London, if they are to be able effectively to conduct their local municipal affairs.
It might be interesting to the hon. members of this house to learn that within the last few years the city of London purchased a new pumper for the fire department and of course, in common with other municipalities, paid the usual taxes thereon. The first fire fought by the pumper was at Wolseley barracks, on which the city receives no direct tax revenue from the federal government.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should point out that in addition to being the distribution centre for a highly productive area, and in addition to being a growing and significant industrial city, London is also the seat of the University of Western Ontario. This university has grown and expanded with the times and has made great contributions to cultural, scientific, and business life not only in western Ontario but indeed throughout Canada. We, the citizens of London, shall continue to grow and expand. We shall continue with ingenuity and courage to meet the problems with which we are confronted; and, with apologies to my hon. friends from the Toronto area, we shall continue to display the same quality of intestinal fortitude as was displayed by the Western football team on Saturday last in Toronto, with the result that our future as a great Canadian city is secure.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucesier):: Mr. Deputy Speaker, in rising to speak on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and rising for the first time in this House of Commons, I am privileged to offer you my congratulations on your appointment. Your qualifications and ability are well known to the veteran members of the house. May I ask you to transmit my congratulations to Mr. Speaker on his election to his honoured post.	Our
Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was well advised when on the opening day of the first session of the twenty-second parliament he moved that Mr. Speaker take the chair of the house as our Speaker. Since this debate began he has proven to us that he possesses in high degree the qualifications required to fill this role.
We new members of the House of Commons were also honoured and pleased when we listened to the mover (Mr. Hollingworth) and the seconder (Mr. Villeneuve) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I extend congratulations to the hon. member for York Centre and to his colleague, the hon. member for Roberval, for their magnificent presentations to the house in moving and seconding the adoption of the speech from the throne.
We have had reasons for rejoicing since the prorogation of the twenty-first parliament in May last. The coronation of our beloved Queen of Canada, Elizabeth II, was an occasion for universal rejoicing. Her Majesty holds a warm place in the hearts of all her subjects, and her devotion to duty together with her personal charm have strengthened our attachment to the crown. May I join with millions of her subjects in wishing her much joy and happiness in the long journey she and her husband are now undertaking throughout the commonwealth.
We, at least those of us sitting on the government side of the house, had different reasons for rejoicing on the evening of August 10 last when the Canadian electorate expressed in such an overwhelming manner its desire to have our great leader the Prime Minister and his government administer the affairs of this country for the next four years. As a newly elected member of the House of Commons I am amazed at all the superfluous excuses brought forward by some hon. members of Her Majesty's opposition in trying to account or answer for the defeat of their respective parties. While some hon. members have even intimated that there was no difference between the four major parties forming this present parliament, we Liberals will realize that we are here because we have a great leader and a great cabinet, and

we represent a party which embraces well defined principles applicable to every aspect of life whether social, political or economic.
In his address to the house on Friday, November 20, the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) deplored the condition of public piers along Saint John harbour. He described the dock as an eyesore of rotting and moulding timber. Before making such declarations I wonder if my hon. friend took the time to glance at the public works accounts for the last four years. If he had taken the time to do so he would have found that over $7 million was spent on public works in his own constituency from 1949 to 1952. Furthermore, when on November 20 the newspaper L'Evangeline of Moncton was reporting on page 1 an account of the hon. member's remarks in this house, on page 2 of the same issue was a statement from the chairman of the national harbours board announcing that over $2,500,000 would be spent for further improvement of the port of Saint John during 1954. I would feel proud and happy if during the next four years my constituency of Gloucester could be neglected as much as the hon. member claims that Saint John-Albert has been. We in Gloucester county would welcome public works expenditures to the extent of over $1,500,000 per year for the next four or five years.
I agree with the statement made to this house by the hon. member for Victoria-Carle-ton (Mr. Montgomery) with regard to the urgent need for cheap hydroelectric power in New Brunswick. We all realize that cheap power is the key to industry and a well balanced economy. The hon. member asked why New Brunswick has not developed more of her available resources. It is true that shortage of power has been the main factor causing lack of industries in our province, but we are forced to realize that in 1925 the government in power in the province of New Brunswick sold or practically gave away to private enterprise, particularly to United States interests, the most important source of energy on the Saint John river, namely the power site at Grand Falls. New Brunswick is paying dearly today for this most unwise and undesirable move.
My friend the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) has once more brought to the attention of the house an important subject which is of great interest to all of us in New Brunswick. I am referring to the proposed Passamaquoddy bay power project. Since 1935 not only this house, not only the New Brunswick legislature, but even the government of the United States have on numerous occasions discussed or taken partial action toward ascertaining the feasibility of this
The Address-Mr. Robichaud grandiose project. I adhere strongly to the hon. member's suggestion that action should be taken to find out once and for all if the realization of this project is reasonably and economically sound.
While on the question of power may I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to bring to the attention of this house another project of major importance which also on many occasions has been a theme of discussion, namely the Chignecto canal. We in New Brunswick were pleased to hear in the speech from the throne that the New York state power authority had accepted a licence for the development of the United States share of power in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river. We have the interest and welfare of the whole nation at heart and we will support this project of a national character. In view of the important mining developments taking place in my constituency of Gloucester, I feel that the time is most opportune to emphasize the need for the earliest possible action toward the realization of this long talked about project, the Chignecto canal.
It was proven long ago that such a canal would be a valuable asset in time of war and also of great value in a period of peace. The cost of transportation from northern New Brunswick of minerals, pulp, lumber, fish, potatoes and other agricultural products would be greatly reduced, to the benefit of the producers of these products, if the project could be completed. In addition, its construction would provide a considerable amount of employment at a period when the situation in the maritimes is not too rosy. I fully support and concur in the suggestions of the hon. members for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) and Cumberland (Mr. Lusby), who dealt with this question.
In my maiden speech before this house I should like to say a few words about my constituency. Gloucester, with its 200 miles of shore line, is beautifully located in the northeastern corner of New Brunswick, extending along the blue and salty waters of the baie de Chaleur and the gulf of St. Lawrence. These waters are richly populated with fish of all varieties such as lobsters, clams, salmon, cod, haddock, flounders, herring, mackerel, smelts, and we must not overlook the famous Caraquet and Shippigan oysters. These are among my county's most popular varieties of fish and shellfish.
It is to be hoped that the Department of Fisheries will take practical action to protect this industry which is so vital to the economy of Gloucester county. Better and more effective results would be obtained if the protective division of this department would


Mr. Holowach:: Mr. Speaker, may we call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. Speaker:: Because of certain inquiries I have received, and also in order to reassure the employees concerned, I wish to inform the house that the commissioners of internal economy have reviewed the salaries of temporary employees of the House of Commons. It is my pleasure to report that they have authorized a revision of salaries in line with the increases being granted to civil servants. This decision conforms with our practice to the effect that in the past when general salary revisions have been granted to public service employees the salaries of our temporary employees have been adjusted, effective from the same date as that which has been announced for the coming into effect of the increased salaries of the civil servants.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. A. H. Hdllingworth for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Low.
Ambrose A. Holowach: Mr. Speaker, I feel humble and honoured to have this opportunity of speaking for the first time in the House of Commons. From the very outset I have listened with a great deal of interest to the flow of debate from both sides of this house, and especially to the ideas which have been brought forward as the key and solution to the great problems which face our nation.
During the first days of this session of the twenty-second parliament, it was my great pleasure to witness two memorable events, both of which contained messages for each and all of us. They were not messages of partisanship, for that is not important; nor were they messages of momentary importance.


They reflected rather the basic purpose of parliament as well as basic faiths which we as a people believe in. As a new member I make reference to them, Mr. Speaker, with modesty, for I am fully aware that hon. members are deeply conscious of their significance. I do so first because they impressed me, and also because it sometimes happens that because of our closeness to a situation we take certain features for granted, and in doing that we fail to be guided by them in our decisions.
The first was the thrill of participating as a new member in the opening ceremonies of this house, in the age-old tradition of selecting our Speaker and hearing his humble and meaningful words of acceptance. These and the subsequent -colourful event in the Senate chamber vividly drew to our minds -the simple principles upon which are built the constitutional way of our life and the free institutions- which our people -cherish above -all things.
The ceremony, the words spoken, Mr. Speaker, symbolized forcefully that political power is not permanent, nor is it absolute, nor is it centralized, but rather diffused and-variable and at all times qualified and subject to the decisions of the representatives of the people-and in the light of what is happening in the world today, wherein few people remain who have retained the rights of unfettered discussion, thereby being able to check abuse and bring betterment-only then can we fully appreciate o-ur political way of life.
There are few places remaining where men -are politically free, and our assembly should remember this. It -calls for each of us, and in particular the government, to make our activities in this parliament a shining example of what free men can accomplish. Freedom has a very bad habit of slipping away when we take it for granted -and leave it unguarded.
The second memorable event was the visit and address in this chamber by the President of the United States, Mr. Eisenhower. His inspiring address touched on many of the physical problems facing our two nations. I am sure we can resolve them provided that we use common sense and are sincere, and provided also that both sides realize fully that the well-being of one is the well-being of the other, and that the weakness of one might well be a source of danger to the strength of the other.
I was particularly interested in the theme of the President's address, the theme which ran repeatedly through his message, which reminded us of the lesson implied in the

opening ceremonies of this house. It was his reference to moral and spiritual principles. I should like to quote two passages:
Our primary reliance is a unity among us forged of common adherence to moral principles. This reliance binds together in fellowship all those who believe in the spiritual nature of man, as the child of God.
Then a little further on he had this to say:
We have to hand over to those who come after us this balance of values, and particularly the certainty that they can enjoy the same kind of opportunity in this spiritual, intellectual and material world that we, who will then be their ancestors, enjoyed before them. That, it seems to me, is the real problem that Canada and the United States today face together. It is one reason I get such a thrill every time I come to this country, because here I sense in the very atmosphere your determination to work in that direction, not acknowledging defeat, certain that we can win, because there are values that man treasures above all things else in the world.
Mr. Speaker, the enormous truth in the words of the United States President calls for an equivalent response by all who hold office and responsibility. I am one of those who believe that many of our problems, the chaos in which the world finds itself, is the accumulative result of man's indifference to the practical application in his affairs of these principles. It is not enough to profess allegiance to those principles. What is far more important is that we be guided by them. We live in an age of uncertainty and fear. Why? Because in the great struggle of ideologies presently being waged between communism and private enterprise we do not seem to understand that there is a third force waiting to be recognized and capable of solving many of man's dilemmas. This is the force of spiritual principles, and more specifically speaking the good and the positive in action.
When we read in the daily press of the scandalous betrayals by men in high office, men who were entrusted with the confidence of their people, when we observe the strife and the bloodshed in this tired world of ours, surely it becomes clear that fundamentally these are the results of the refusal to recognize that the building of a just and worthwhile social order can only be on the foundation of moral and spiritual integrity.
There is no other road to economic strength; there is no other way to have agreement. It is the only way to have peace; and all of this, Mr. Speaker, resolves itself into the fact that we of this generation are living at a time in human history when man is truly being challenged. We are being challenged to repair quickly the imperfections of our social order, or we shall continue to watch the ever-increasing collapse of human structures.
I say that the choice of policies which faces this house is no different from the 83276-284
The Address-Mr. Holowach choice of policies which faces us as individuals. What is that choice? It is simply this:	either policies which will
promote independence, policies devoted to the well-being of the individual and the sovereignty of people and nations, or policies which regiment the individual and enslave nations; either the best interests of all the people of Canada regardless of where they live or who they are, or policies of patronage and the well-being of political machines and pressure groups; either real prosperity based on the people's ability to acquire the God-given abundance of our land and production, or policies which deny them these things and create want and unemployment; either simplicity, sincerity and honesty, or red tape, arrogance and incompetence; either putting into practice the precept of as little government as possible, 'or the extravaganza of more and more centralized government; either giving a real deal to our producers, workers, farmers, veterans, aged and disabled, or a patchwork of remedies which perhaps appease for the moment but which belie our lip service to humanity; either policies which will once again make fashionable the old virtue of frugality in government, or policies which are not without waste and extravagance.
These are the choices. One is positive, the other is negative; one uses the practical approach, the other is a visionary, theoretical concept; one is based on hard truth, the other is the much easier road of expediency.
I should like now to make a few general remarks related to the subjects mentioned in the throne address. As I travelled from the great northwest to attend this session of our twenty-second parliament one single thought dominated my feeling. I was thinking of the untold opportunities which exist for us to make Canada a model nation for others to follow. It was the feeling of vastness and of the immeasurable abundance of our land.
With those thoughts in mind the question arises, is there any rhyme or reason why, at least in this part of the world, there should be want when we have so much of everything, or unemployment when there is so much to be done? What justification is there to deny people who are physically handicapped more than the meagre pittance presently handed out to them? If in time of war billions are available for destruction, why is it that in times of peace millions of our people and many businesses have to suffer economic instability and recession?
Is there any reason why an abundance of food, meat, fish, fruit and materials should
428	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Holowach be, as it is now, a source of anxiety and concern as to their disposition, rather than being the blessing which they really are? What is wrong with sharing these great surpluses with our own Canadian people? This could be done by maintaining effective purchasing power in circulation so the goods needed could be acquired by our people. What seems so wrong with exchanging the balance of surpluses over and above our requirements with less fortunate countries which could in turn make payment in goods they have in excess? I agree with those who have said that such a gesture would remove many of the causes of war brought about by struggles for markets and the erection of financial barriers, or efforts to acquire food and raw materials which the people need.
I propose that the following principles be adopted in connection with our foreign trade policy; first, the home market to be provided with purchasing power sufficient for Canadians to buy our domestic goods and products at reasonable prices; second, make available to nations whose domestic needs require them, under reasonable and fair conditions, the food and raw materials of which Canada may have an abundance; third, encourage trade by a policy under which our surplus goods will be exchanged on a basis of mutual advantage and in an effort to avoid cutthroat competition; fourth, remove all those trade barriers which have arisen out of the operation of the present system and which permit international transactions which are not in the interests of all the people of Canada.
I was pleased to read in the throne speech that the government intended to further tackle the serious situation created by the housing shortage. All of us will welcome speedy measures to alleviate this situation. I think we will also agree that there is no excuse for its existence. The only time it would appear justified is when there were no materials or skills with which to build homes. We can understand the heavily-populated areas of Great Britain or nations such as Germany, France, Italy, Israel and Greece having housing problems, but that certainly should not be so in Canada.
One would have to stretch one's imagination to the breaking point to find a good excuse for the existence of the acute housing situation in this country, in view of the few millions of people living here. Every Canadian should be given the means of securing a comfortable and beautiful home. Happy homes for our people will defend us much more than will the instruments of war. People


are our greatest assets, and more homes will bring the happy and natural consequence of more population.
Let us remember that one of the reasons for this deplorable shortage of houses is that during the years of depression money alone was scarce. Although labour and building materials were plentiful, the shortage of money prevented normal house building for over ten years. May I therefore submit that if we are to reduce the growing number who say or imply that democracy cannot bring fulfilment, that the future belongs to another concept of man and his fate, then young men and women of limited capital should not be denied homes and shelter. I therefore propose that in this parliament legislation be introduced which will induce and encourage every citizen to build and own a home by providing the very lowest of monthly payments, the very minimum of down payments, and at cost.
As I have mentioned before, I have listened with interest to the ideas incorporated in these discussions. We need not have "isms" if we apply ourselves intelligently to the task of repairing our social imperfections. What we need is more democracy with a freer economy, with policies that induce creative qualities in people, something far removed from the compulsions and arbitrary directives with which our people presently are being bombarded.
What is needed is not new methods or new ways. We need new vision. Yes, this section of the house believes in and champions the cause of private competitive enterprise. We will always be against the superman theory of state regimentation. Why? Because the greatest social and economic progress the world has ever seen has been achieved in this way. Our strength and our national well-being depend on our production. Industry produces more when it is free than it does when it is regimented. It provides more jobs, higher wages, cheaper goods and better goods when it is induced by individual initiative.
Today the problems facing us are not the result of individual enterprise having failed. Its job is to produce. It is our government which has failed in making possible the distribution of the abundance produced by private enterprise. Because of this I propose immediate and progressive reduction of taxation on individual earnings, on cooperatives and on business. This will induce reinvestment and stimulate economic and industrial development which in turn will

progressively raise living standards and give opportunities for gainful employment.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell you something of the area which I have the honour to represent. Though at times hon. members on the opposite side of this house may differ with the views expressed by our section, I am sure the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) and the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) will agree with my remarks.
The city of Edmonton is not only one of the fastest growing and most vigorous communities of Canada, it is also the capital city of the great province of Alberta. Judging from the talk of the people outside our province, no other part of Canada symbolizes more forcefully the idea of progress and progressive government than do the city of Edmonton and the province of Alberta. East and west the talk is of the financial stability of our province, its people, the ever-growing industrial development of that area and its potential. I think it is no exaggeration to say that nowhere on the North American continent has more attention been focused.
Here is a land blessed with raw materials far in excess of our present requirements. Here is an area which has just begun to flex its industrial muscles. The nation's leading magazines write of the phenomenal Alberta story. It is no wonder; it is phenomenal. In this province Canada and the world are beginning to see something more than outstanding achievement. They are beginning to see the ideas and principles backing those achievements. Here is the birthplace of a people's Social Credit government. In brief, it is the place where the government of a people have written a record of service which commands the respect and recognition of all fairminded people who are impressed with honesty, order and social progress. This story of Alberta's success is a result of the people of that province backing a government whose policies are dedicated to giving the people the results they want through the proper and efficient management of their affairs. Believe you me, sir, we Albertans know where we are going.
I wish this house to know something about my constituency. Since it is an integral part of our city of Edmonton, I shall speak of Edmonton itself. There are over 150 years of history behind Edmonton. What was once a small trading post is today an ever-growing metropolis spread over an area of about 42 J square miles. It is the gateway to the vast riches of the Peace river country and our northern empire. It is the crossroads of world aviation. It is an industrial giant.
The Address-Mr. Holowach Located in the heart of Canada's largest oil and natural gas fields, Edmonton is the focal point of an industry which has converted 90 per cent dependency with respect to our nation's oil requirements to a position of near self-sufficiency. The $55 million cela-nese plant, the $13,500,000 Canadian Industries Limited plant and numerous refineries are located there. The Interprovincial pipe line and the Trans Mountain pipe line have their beginning in Edmonton. Edmonton has confidence in Canada and our ability to do things. Both labour and management share this view and provide teamwork.
Despite this industry, however, agriculture is the basis of the province's and the city's economy. For this reason the welfare of our farmer citizens is of grave concern to our city people, for the farmers' welfare transposes itself on the general well-being of the constituents of Edmonton East. Edmonton East is the home of large meat processing plants, and through this area are channelled many of the primary products from our lakes, rivers, forest and mines.
I should like to tell you something of our greatest asset, namely the people who live in my constituency. They are people of many races and creeds. They include men and women from the British Isles, men and women of Ukrainian, French, German, Italian, Jewish, Greek, Polish, Slavic and Chinese origin, each rightfully proud of his or her racial heritage but each fervently proud to be a Canadian first. They are an alert and creative people. They work hard and play hard. My constituency is one of Canada's great athletic centres with an unrivalled general sports enthusiasm. You have all heard of the Edmonton Eskimos. My people are industrious and love, too, the arts and the gracious things of life.
By occupation the majority of my constituents are industrial and business workers. As such they have facing them as citizens many specific problems I shall bring to the attention of this house on future occasions. My constituency of Edmonton East has many problems arising from the rapid growth of our city. These problems require sympathetic consideration by the federal authorities. Here is only one example. The town of Beverly, bordering the eastern outskirts of Edmonton, is in fact a most important part of my constituency. It is a vigorous and ever-expanding residential and business area. The people of Beverly rightfully feel that the present postal facilities and services, while perhaps satisfactory in years gone by, are now inadequate and do not meet the needs of the people. In view of the tremendous

The Address-Mr. Holowach expansion of this area the people of Beverly desire the inauguration of postal delivery service.
In a general way, Mr. Speaker, my constituents are deeply concerned over the long and heavy burden of taxes which have been imposed upon them and the people of Canada by this government. They are concerned with their financial inability to acquire homes which they need on a satisfactory and equitable basis. They are concerned with the high cost of living and inflation which is daily erasing their hard-earned savings and rewards of labour. Inflation must be halted and taxes reduced, for those who suffer are the workers on fixed salaries and budgets, the housewives, pensioners, veterans, and countless others. The government is responsible for this situation by its policies of hidden taxes on just about everything we buy. The burden has fallen on the poor, those least able to protest against this inequitable situation.
My constituents are concerned with the ever-mounting debt of our nation which places liabilities upon generations yet unborn. They feel there should be no political patronage in the matter of selection to high offices in our land. They are concerned with the government's delays in rectifying discriminating policies, as in the matter of freight rates which go into the cost of the things they buy and what they ship to market, and retard the growth of our industrial development. My constituents are concerned with what they consider unsatisfactory and beggarly treatment of our aged, our blind, our veterans and our disabled in the matter of their pensions. In this connection may I quote a short passage from a letter received from the executive officer of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind in the city of Edmonton:
Under the Blind Persons Act, sightless Canadians may receive a blindness allowance subject to a very rigid means test which limits a single person to an annual income of $840 including the allowance and a married recipient to $1,320. Obviously, these totals are drastically inadequate and leave no room for self-improvement.
My people, Mr. Speaker, are interested in humanity, not politics, and I should like to go on record as supporting their demands. My constituents watch with care the activities of our central government and desire to see the arrest of waste and extravagance. In this respect I have in my hand a communication directed to me by the Edmonton chamber of commerce which reads in part as follows:
That the Edmonton chamber of commerce deplores the action of the federal government in extending the activities of the national film board in competition with private enterprise:	and
further, that it is opposed to this large expenditure
{Mr. Holowach.]
of public moneys, creating more jobs for civil servants which could be absorbed in private industry; and, further, that this opinion be conveyed to the Ottawa board of trade, the three Edmonton members of parliament and the Canadian chamber of commerce.
Before resuming my seat I should like, Mr. Speaker, to perform one duty. I would be reluctant to speak on this matter were it not that statements made were void of truth and fair play. What I have to say is in direct reply to the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode). I am sure he is an honourable man and welcomes correction. Speaking on Friday, November 20, he gave an interpretation to a statement supposedly made by the premier of Alberta.
Canada has had many distinguished sons and daughters, but none has ever commanded more love and admiration from the people than does the premier of Alberta. Few statesmen have distinguished themselves more in the cause of social justice. Millions see in him a man of the highest Christian integrity and honesty, and their champion in the cause of humanity. The youngest premier in the British commonwealth of nations, he is beloved by the people of Alberta whose leader and spokesman he is. Even now history records his outstanding contribution to the social, economic and political progress of our nation.
To my way of thinking, the newspaper clipping read into Hansard is unfair and untrue. It quotes a few short sentences of a 45-minute address which lauded the virtues of the British people as a shining example for men .and nations to follow. I know, for I was there. I heard him speak. In fact the essence of this clipping creates an impression diametrically opposed to the positive message in the premier's address.
It was disappointing that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna), who spoke yesterday evening, allowed himself, in the latter part of his speech, to be misguided into casting reflection upon the extraordinary economic and financial accomplishments of his own province. I was surprised that the hon. member did not get the facts before he spoke, because if he had his speech would have been a good one. I could have given him the facts if he had asked me.


An hon. Member:: It was good anyway.


Ambrose A. Holowach: The hon. member himself
said the city of Edmonton had been the fastest-growing city in all Canada for the past several years. Everyone knows that when a city doubles its population in less than ten years it puts a terrific strain on the services and facilities the city is forced to supply to its residents. Consequently there would have to be a tremendous upsurge in

borrowing in order to provide those facilities. It is true that Edmonton's debt has increased. But what the hon. member did not tell the house is that between $3 million and $3J million of Edmonton's debt was borrowed from the provincial government at 2 per cent under a self-liquidating projects scheme for a period of 20 years.
Last year the city borrowed from the provincial government $9 million at rates that ran from 2 to 3J per -cent depending on the nature of the projects involved and the term. Some of this money was borrowed for 25 years. Moreover, last year the provincial government bought up $11 million of debentures of the two cities of Calgary and Edmonton at 31 per cent, which saved all the handling costs that usually are incurred when debentures are handled through financial houses. Next year my city expects to borrow another $12 million from the provincial government at rates running from 2J to 3| per cent for various projects of expanding utilities and services.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, our young country with its wealth and wonders of production, with the creative qualities of its everyday people, coupled with sound, sensible policies, can make this age in which you and1 I live not only one of peace but of happy living. This section of the house stands for homes, not promises. It stands for jobs, not relief. It stands for what is right, not who is right. It stands for peace without poverty. We are united in our purpose, we are strengthened by the conviction that our principles of life and government are the only practical alternative for the people of Canada, and we are advancing.


Mr. Maurice Boisvert (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I enjoy very much being called upon to speak on a Friday evening because I have a feeling that we may address ourselves in a loud voice.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, you will not be surprised if I do not spare you my compliments nor my congratulations, for compliments are like flowers; if we add new flowers to those that are already cut, the bouquet becomes but more beautiful and its perfume more pleasant. You will also allow me to tell you that your personality, your spirit of justice and especially your experience in the discussion of diplomatic affairs, were calling you to the high function that you now occupy. I am sure that
The Address-Mr. Boisvert the confidence unanimously placed in you by the various parties will be justified, thanks to a competence which will always remind us of your predecessor's, which you will strive to imitate, in order to do even better.
I should not like to remain silent about the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Robinson) who now occupies the position of Deputy Speaker and whom I have known especially as chairman of the committee on radio broadcasting. He gave us proof that he is a remarkable public man and, above all, he has demonstrated that he could give the impression that everybody was right, without saying that anyone was wrong.
I also wish to congratulate the two hon. members who have moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They did so in well-chosen words and in such a way that those who have elected them must feel honoured in having done so.
It would be appropriate also to congratulate the newly appointed ministers and parliamentary assistants. They will constitute a new pleiad which can only be of benefit to the nation's business, in view of their experience and devotion to the commonwealth.
Finally, I must mention the subject of the re-election of the government, and pay tribute to the Prime Minister. His knowledge of affairs and human beings makes him one of the first citizens of the world. His qualities of heart and experience allow him to tower above the Canadian scene with rare merit. His colleagues of the cabinet do not see in him merely a leader to be obeyed, but a friend who endeavours to maintain the prestige of everyone, in order to uphold the prestige of our country. Personally, it is to the Prime Minister that I owe my re-election and I am proud of it. I am also grateful to all those who have helped me with their words and eloquence.
I should like now to touch upon some of the problems concerning the political and economic life of the country. First of all, I must say I am glad to note in the speech from the throne that an effort will be made, and I quote:
As further steps in helping to improve social welfare, co-ordinated plans for rehabilitation of disabled persons are being worked out with the provinces and a measure to facilitate the establishment nation-wide of a federal-provincial assistance program for totally disabled persons will be submitted for your consideration.

The Address-Mr. Boisvert
On many occasions, since 1949, I have spoken before this house and elsewhere in favour of those unfortunate people who are not responsible for their affliction and who suffer to the bottom of their hearts from pangs of despair often worse than their disability. The Liberal party, which has always been in the vanguard of social legislation in this country, will take pride in bringing to these unfortunate people some degree of comfort, if not perfect, at least sufficient to remove from their minds any impression of being outcasts.
I am happy too that the St. Lawrence seaway project along with its hydroelectric development will be carried out in the years to come. This hydroelectric development, as well as the opening of a channel which will enable deep-sea ships to reach as far as the lakehead will bring to Canada as yet incalculable political and economic benefits. It is with satisfaction that I have found the following passage in the report of the Canadian maritime commission:
Growing interest in the St. Lawrence seaway project is reflected in the expansion of direct shipping services between the great lakes and overseas. In 1952, vessels registered outside Canada and the United States made 338 passages with cargo through the St. Lawrence canals. This figure compares with 222 in 1951 and 202 in 1950.
This quotation is sufficient to demonstrate the interest this matter has created, not only in Canada and the United States, but the world over. It will be recalled that all the great discoverers who came to the new world were looking for a passage to India or China. The Panama canal was opened so as to enable communication to be established, by way of the Americas, from Europe to Asia. When shipping reaches the lakehead the dream that Cartier had in 1534 of reaching the Pacific by following the St. Lawrence river will have been half realized.
The idea of crossing continents by interior waterways is as old as the world. Rivers have been called "roads that move". The first real progress to be made in this world can be ascribed to the existence of this method of transportation.
In every country the great capitals are almost always located along a river. Paris is on the Seine, London on the Thames. I could go on indefinitely describing all the world's great capitals situated on rivers or at their mouths.
It is with gratification that we have learned that the Canadian government have taken upon themselves to proceed with the St. Lawrence seaway plan so that this river may become the most important inland waterway in the world. The beauty of the river and its
[Mr. Boisvert.l
economic and industrial possibilities will help to sustain the industrial growth which is characteristic of Canada today, as well as of the whole world.
Allow me now to take up a subject of local interest.
As long as this project has not been realized I do not think it would be possible to proceed with the immediate construction of a bridge which would join my constituency to that represented by the hon. member for Three Rivers, even though I favour this project.
Present circumstances are not such that they allow for the immediate implementation of this project and the hon. member for Three Rivers knows it. I am in favour of those public works which bring about a quick and practical solution to the problems relating to the social welfare and advancement of the people living in a certain area. But such works, whichever government undertakes them, must be undertaken in accordance with our constitution. When it comes to public works, it is necessary to know first if the plans are workable, what the cost will be and then who, according to our political system, will bear the cost. We must wonder whether it should be the municipalities, or the provincial government, or the federal government. I might add, in jest of course, that should the construction of a bridge be left to the provincial authorities, it might not remain standing for a great number of years. We have known that kind of thing to happen.
The government of Canada has built at Ste. Angele de Laval, in my county, a most modern wharf. It will be up to the city of Three Rivers to provide a ferry service that will answer the needs of the people in my county and the surrounding counties.
I recall that the hon. member for Three Rivers-and I am sorry he is not here this evening-criticized me and the government with regard to the carrying out of extensive works in Nicolet, for a gun proving range. He has even campaigned in my constituency, claiming we were going to ruin agriculture. Three Rivers was bom and has grown and yet I have never heard it said that the farmers of the district had had cause for complaint.
Since the federal government has spent several million dollars, of which two-thirds were left in my constituency, property has increased in value. The population is now growing instead of decreasing at an alarming rate, and the revenues of the customs department and the Post Office Department are larger.

The hon. member for Three Rivers in his eagerness to play politics at my expense -I do not blame him for it-forgot that what is good for the district of Nicolet is also good for the city of Three Rivers.
At a time when there was unemployment in Three Rivers, I saw somewhere that retail sales in the city of Three Rivers were going up for the year. Had it not been for the public works carried out in my constituency, this would not have been possible and I would like the hon. member from now on to remember that what is good for Nicolet is also good for Three Rivers, and that when the member for Nicolet works for the county of Nicolet-Yamaska he works at the same time for the county represented by the hon. member for Three Rivers. I may add that when the time comes to link the south shore to the north shore of the St. Lawrence, the government of Canada will be only too glad to help with the carrying out of any project acceptable to the proper authorities, and the member for Nicolet-Yamaska will not fail, and without playing politics, to suggest and to support such a project, as long as it is to the advantage of the people of the county of Nicolet-Yamaska and of the central part of the province of Quebec. (Text):
Before making a few remarks about the United Nations where I spent eight weeks, for which I warmly thank the government, I should like to speak about a matter that is bothering the democratic conscience of the free world. That matter deals with production.
Farmers are complaining about the fall in the prices of their products. This phenomenon is more pronounced in the United States than in Canada. On the other hand, in cities and towns people are complaining about the increases in prices of both agricultural and manufactured goods. The groups that oppose each other and oppose the Liberal party in this House of Commons are seeking, through insidious propaganda, to hold the Canadian government responsible for that condition.
Some say in short that the government meddles too much with matters that are not within its jurisdiction; others say the government is not taking as active an interest as it should take in matters that are within its province; finally another group contends, which is simple, and oversimple, that we should revamp our banking and monetary system which, as we know, is tied closely to the exchange problem and has a constant and direct relationship with trade between the various countries of the world.
This is an important problem that should receive our serious consideration. In my
The Address-Mr. Boisvert humble opinion it is at the very foundation of our economic activity, and is characterized at the present time by the struggle between capital and labour which determines the contingencies of an ill-balanced and day to day economy.
Figures tell us that weekly hours of work tend to decrease. There are only 4l-l hours in the present work week. On the other hand the trend of weekly wages is exactly the opposite. They tend to increase from month to month. During the past year they have increased in the manufacturing industry by an average of nearly $2 a week. I believe this indicates a defect in the operation of the economic machinery, because those who supply the food to our people are not treated in the same way as those whom they feed with the produce of their farms. Work on the farm is work, just the same as the work of those who are employed in manufacturing, mining, transportation, the building industries, and so on.
As a result the cost of producing foodstuffs is getting higher and higher, in a way that is detrimental to the farmers and other working classes, while the cost of consumer goods weighs heavily on the workingman's budget. I think one of the best remedies for the problem would be to increase the real volume of production. This can be brought about only by working longer hours in the factories, and by greater diligence and a deeper interest in the community at large.
If we could place a larger quantity of goods at the disposal of our people, the demand would not be as great and prices would tend to fall. I am far from suggesting that the worker has no right to his share-and a large one-in progress, both for his own benefit and that of his family. On the contrary I would like to see him enjoy earthly possessions, and see him happy. However, he must not lose sight of the new responsibilities toward society as a whole which result from the right to associate, and the importance of measuring nowadays with greater foresightedness the consequences of his conduct; because those consequences will be judged by an experienced, fault-finding and responsive public opinion.
One must be very wise when half the people on earth are fear-stricken and the other half poverty-stricken. It would be disastrous to wait until our country is in the throes of a depression, or our cities are struck off the map of the world, to realize that work is the first lot imposed on man by God, and that work well done is an achievement of the civilization to which we are proud to belong.

The Address-Mr. Boisvert
An American industrialist wrote recently:
We may seek for ourselves a maximum of opportunities, but we must stop when we are about to cause prejudice to others. It is up to us to find out when we have to stop. Abuses are what make laws necessary. It is only when citizens go beyond the limits set by their conscience that the government must step in. Consequently, the less we stay within certain limits, the more we will be forced to rely on the government and the more likely we will be to fall prey to socialism.
We must preserve this dynamic force which we possess. In some forms of society, man is bound to his work by the fear of the whip. In this country, everyone is bound to his work by the consciousness of relations between one's own interest and the interest of the community. But if the interest of the individual happens to be detrimental to the interest of the community, the legislator must then step in. Consequently, the more we will abuse our liberty, the more numerous will be our laws and the more unavoidable will be socialization.
The philosophy of a minimum of effort and a maximum of financial return, which leads the masses to believe erroneously that the welfare of man is based on the wages earned and received at the end of each week, goes along with another philosophy which is the philosophy of industrial production. The motto of our times seems to be an ever-increasing production. This principle has been expressed in the speech from the throne before the Quebec legislative assembly. May I quote three typical excerpts:
A remarkable fact is that the province enjoys an extraordinary prosperity . . .
For the past few years, it has known a tremendous development, which is ever-increasing, and which promises an extraordinary, solid and lasting progress . . .
The progressive and well-defined policy set by my government recognizes the necessity of industrial progress.
Those quotations make it obvious that the Quebec legislature is going all-out for industrial progress, and I blame no one at all. However, industrial progress is not everything; far from it. Here is an incident which occurred during my stay in New York. One of the first delegates I happened to meet was a congressman. He struck me as being a charming man, with a strong personality and endowed with many qualities. When I was introduced to him he soon saw I was of French descent and French-speaking. He said, "Oh, you are from that part of Canada which would like to be independent." I said, "What do you mean?" He replied, "Is it not a fact that the province of Quebec wishes to leave the Canadian confederation?" "Where did you get such ideas?" I asked him with surprise. He told me that something he had read had given him that impression.

I answered, "But there is nothing farther from the truth, considering the political history of Canada since confederation". "Confederation", I added, "was achieved by Canadians, both of British and French origin. Since 1896 the province of Quebec has been faithful to the Liberal party; and it is because it has supported, always with very large majorities, the Liberal party that the same party has for 43 years been leading the country. Since the unity of Canada is a fact, in the framework of confederation; since 1867 Canada has made giant strides toward absolute independence and Canadian sovereignty; since Canada, once a colony, has become a powerful nation, benefiting from a politically sound administration and a well-balanced economy, is it not an error to claim that Quebec is not well off in the confederation?" I added, "Since the end of the last century the province of Quebec has given Canada two prime ministers of French descent: the first one, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, laid the foundation of the nation; the second, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, increased the Canadian territory when he admitted Newfoundland into the confederation; and, under him, Canada, instead of being the vassal of another country, has become a nation which plays in the world a part far more important than we would expect from such a small population".
It was the turn of my interlocutor to be amazed. We then parted company.
I would not have mentioned this incident, if it had been an isolated case. But I regret to say that, though I never witnessed any unfairness, I found in other American circles a remarkable ignorance of the existence of the French element in Canada. I have chosen to speak about it for two reasons. The first one is that we Canadians of French language and descent do not wish to be considered as second-rate citizens by anyone or any country. We are Canadians deeply attached to the whole of our Canadian motherland. Because of their past and present endeavours we have a never-failing admiration and affection for our countrymen of English language and culture. We do not, however, intend to renounce our treasure of tradition, customs, culture and language, nor our slight oddities we know so well, for we are ready to accept all this from the other Canadians with whom we are in every way on equal standing.
The second reason is that I have been humiliated to see a United States congressman so ill-informed on Canadians of French descent. I told myself that it was up to the government of the province of Quebec to set the facts right and see that this beautiful

section of Canada is shown in a different light. It is the task of the federal government to give Canada a policy and economy which will give this country a standing in the world, whereas the provincial legislature must provide a policy which will give the province a standing in its immediate surroundings, Canadian and American.
The province of Quebec is the keeper of French culture. It behooves it to present it in its true light in Canada and the United States. The real flag of Quebec is its language, its well-spoken language; its French culture, a real culture coming from the best and purest sources; and its traditions of nobleness, affability and generosity. The French achievement in Canada is a fact. It is up to the government of Quebec to stress it within the Canadian confederation. I would suggest to this government that it could forget somewhat industrial development and turn its attention to cultural progress, which comprises both language and knowledge. It has been said, and I quote:
Production, after all, is not the goal of life. Production is only a means. God has not created man for the purpose of industrial production. Man has been created so that he should lead a healthy and comfortable life, and develop the faculties of his mind, in order to render the world more beautiful by the fact that it is lived in by man. We must bring production back to its proper value, when we consider the sense of life.
The Canadian of French origin must not only keep his language, culture and faith, but embellish and improve these three attributes of French individuality.
The part of Quebec in confederation will depend in far larger measure upon the perfection of its language, the clarity of its culture, the serenity and straightforwardness of its faith than upon industrial productivity. I am not opposed to industrial progress. It is necessary, and I make no difficulty about favouring it as long as this does not entail sacrificing upon the altar of the golden calf the admirable traditions left us by our fathers.
I know too that the legislature might have to defend and protect the rights and duties born of those traditions and provided for in the constitution. If ever the autonomy of a province is threatened I feel sure this house will rise in a body to demand that the constitution be respected, whichever province might be involved. The British House of Commons has ever jealously guarded those liberties issuing from the Magna Carta. The Canadian Commons will no less jealously defend the constitution.
There is a danger of essential truths being forgotten if we keep up this politicking
The Address-Mr. Boisvert founded on half truths. What we must seek first of all is to form true Canadians, proud of the part they are called upon to play in confederation-confederation having been agreed upon for this very reason- which consists in building up a fine and noble nation, joining two languages, two cultures which will ensure Canada's greatness and its influence throughout the whole world.
One word now about the United Nations. From my experience at the eighth session of the world assembly I have formed impressions, opinions and observations which will be of undoubted value to me. I have tried to get the greatest amount of benefit from my experience there as a political observer. This title is as yet very ill-defined, to such an extent that the best course to follow would seem to keep watch upon ourselves, first and foremost, and to remain everywhere and on all occasions perfectly reserved.
The United Nations is a human institution whose business it is not to frame laws but to promote peace and understanding in the world. The charter which is the basis for this peculiar organization is in the nature of a treaty. Sixty countries have signed and ratified the charter, thus binding themselves by its terms. Twenty other nations, so far, have asked to be admitted to the United Nations. There are thirteen trusteeship territories whose administration is the responsibility of the trusteeship council of the United Nations. We must add to this sixty other territories dependent upon other nations which, according to the charter, must provide information on the political, economic and social evolution of these territories. By its very nature the charter is destined to be universally applied.
Its possibilities are therefore infinite, on condition that world opinion ascribe to it a supranational usefulness in order that its decisions, accepted and admitted by the member nations, shall eventually become accepted as the basis for a new international law no longer used to frame treaties to end wars, but rather to prevent wars altogether and to bring about a fair and enduring peace.
The United Nations are struggling with three currents which undermine them. The first is unconcern. A good many people, here and there in the world, because they are not cognizant of the goals and aims of the organization, firmly believe that the United Nations are doing nothing. The second is indifference. This feeling is evident in the United States. The American masses take no interest in the organization. It is quite true that the United
436	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Boisvert Nations have neither baseball, hockey nor football teams. That indifference is distressing, for these people- have not yet realized the importance of that world stage and they do not understand that in order to be effective it must have the backing of public opinion. The third is contempt. Important people in the realm of politics, trade or industry state, "The United Nations is a worthless thing. We give away millions upon millions with no other result than being laughed at by the Russians and setting up small nations which will ultimately bleed us white without being at all thankful to us."
Lord Beaverbrook said on October 19:
Tile foreign secretaries of the great nations cannot keep still. They travel. The moral is: keep them at home and send our trade ministers abroad. Evacuate the United Nations and don't meddle any more in the domestic affairs of foreigners.
The noble lord was just reflecting the state of mind of too many people. I am glad the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) expressed in this house on the 20th a viewpoint totally different from the above.
These currents are dangerous, and they are a threat to the very existence of this world organization. The latter is not known well enough. Only if universal public opinion breathes life into it will it be able to survive. Nothing survives, nothing can survive, without the support of public opinion. The United Nations has been established for the promotion of peace, not for the preparation for war.
One finds in chapter I, article 1 of the charter the goals and the underlying principles of the organization. The purposes of the United Nations are: 1, to maintain international peace and security, etc.; 2, to develop friendly relations among nations, etc.; 3, to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character, etc. Those principles follow from the preamble of the charter of the United Nations, agreed upon in San Francisco in 1945 and already, as I have pointed out, ratified by 60 nations. Here is the wording of this preamble:
1.	To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2.	To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;


3.	To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4.	To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
The wording of the preamble may be romantic, but it is most inspiring and should be learned by heart by all the children of the world for, once grown up, those children who have known nothing of the horrors of war forget that their parents or their grandparents were victims of the violence of armed men.
Since the first session, thanks to the United Nations, peaceful solutions have been found in the dispute between India and Pakistan, who were at war for the possession of Kashmir. Other peaceful solutions have been found for the state of Israel and the neighbouring Arab countries, who have agreed to an armistice. Eritrea and Ethiopia have agreed to unite under the same government; and for the first time in history oppression has been repelled, in Korea, by the united armies of 16 nations who had signed the charter. Many other problems have been dealt with, not without enormous difficulty, and a ground of settlement was found which will be an asset for the world.
The United Nations may never take any speedy action, for it is not endowed with the sovereignty which is the prerogative of the member nations. These states must, in regard to questions of interest to them, take into account the public opinion prevailing among the people they govern. Such, for example, is the case of Trieste, of Tunisia and of Morocco. Many of these questions are deeply rooted in history, from which it would be difficult to cut them off violently. Diplomacy, which is the most refined and polished form of human relations, must be convincing in order to maintain links, or reestablish them when they are broken, between nations who are on the verge of cutting each other's throats for motives which very often are based on sentiment rather than on reason. The essential function of the United Nations is not to do away with diplomacy altogether but, on the contrary, to guide it, direct it, and emphasize its action with a view to peaceful solutions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am extremely sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Maurice Boisvert: Mr. Speaker, could I get the permission of the house to finish? I will take just a few minutes more.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Boisvert: Thank you very much. Speaking before the United Nations, on September 23, 1953, our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) stated:
I know that without the active participation of world agencies of communication and information, this experiment in world organization could not succeed, because it would not be able to secure popular support. But the United Nations has, or should have, a private as well as a public face. There should be opportunities here for other than public appearances. A television panel discussion can be instructive and entertaining, but it is no substitute for direct consultation or for that old-fashioned diplomacy which is becoming more respectable by comparison with some of the gaudier, but not always more responsible or restrained successors.
To these appropriate words, I should like to add those of the new secretary, Mr. Hammarskjold, published in the annual report of the United Nations:
The work of the United Nations should always be viewed as a continuing process over a long period of time in which there is constant change and development. It is difficult to measure the significance of results in the perspective of any single year. Often the unspectacular or the unnoticed may prove to be a significant forward step on the long road toward peace in a world of organized co-operation and of more special partnership among nations.
The notion of speed in the Americans is such that they misunderstand the interplay of diplomacy and slow action exerted by the United Nations. Consequently it sometimes happens that they take a stand on most important questions which even their own friends can hardly understand. They will have to show a greater discretion, a better sense of diplomacy, a greater respect for the opinions of other nations. They will also have to learn how to better protect official secrets from the press which might be too eager for news, true or false, as well as from politicians who think that even friends should always be at daggers drawn.
I believe Russia wants to stay within the United Nations, as I believe that, should there be another war, Russia would spare Europe- I imagine that is part of her military strategy -in order to bring it to communism, but would pounce upon America with her atomic weapons and try, through a punitive action which would be truly hellish, to bring despair to the soul of America. If the European nations do not attack, Russia will not move against them.
We must be ready for such an alternative and prepare our defence accordingly. The north does not frighten the Russian armies. We may see the day-and would to heaven that men could find the spiritual strength to make
The Address-Mr. Blackmore peace-when European armies will be called upon to come to the help of our continent. Then we should, in Asia, conclude strong alliances so that, should Russia attack, we could take a short-cut, the shortest possible, to invade Russia on her south flank.
Oh, I suppose I am talking about matters which should not be talked about, but it is my humble opinion that we should be ready at all times to face any situation similar to the ones I have just mentioned.
I want to conclude on a more pleasant note. I was deeply moved by the election of Madame Pandit to the high position of president of the United Nations. When I met her I was struck with her pleasant features, her beautiful eyes expressive of all the poetry and spirituality of India; and when I saw her discharging her duties I marvelled at the natural authority emanating from her person. I then remembered that in the United Kingdom last June a young woman had been crowned queen of an empire and at the same time queen of our country. This half century will be marked by the promotion of women not only in national but in international affairs. Such a trend is apt to give us confidence in a humanity which is said to have become more and more barbarous.
The new role given to women may very well mark the end of wars, because this promotion which has been accepted by men will take on more and more importance. Women directing their natural heroism toward the promotion of peace may well succeed where men have failed. I pay tribute to our Queen and to Madame Pandit, and also to the United Nations for the work they are doing in order to further a fair, honourable and permanent peace. We can help and we will help if we apply to ourselves first and if we ask the other nations in the United Nations to remember always what Richelieu said about treaties:
Kings must be very careful about the treaties they sign but once they are concluded they must be religiously respected.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) is not able to be in his seat tonight. I understand he has an important business engagement in Toronto which renders it necessary for him to be absent until Monday.
I desire to defend Senator McCarthy against the attack which the hon. member for Spadina made against him on November 23. I think probably I would be completely justified in doing this if there were no other ground than that the attack was made against

The Address-Mr. Blackmore a man who has no chance whatsoever to appear in this chamber to defend himself against it.
I was very desirous of having the hon. member for Spadina here and in order to ensure that he might be here, not knowing that of necessity he would be in Toronto, I wrote him the following letter which I think it advisable to put on the record. It is dated November 26, 1953, and reads as follows:
Mr. D. A. Croll, M.P.
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Croll:
On November 23rd you gave a speech in the House of Commons dealing with so-called McCarthy-ism. You took a strong position against United States Senator Joseph McCarthy, which I feel was your right and privilege as a responsible member of parliament.
In certain press interviews which I gave as a result of the question of the use of my frank by my secretary, Miss Moore, in sending to the Calgary Herald, together with two other documents, a copy of the magazine American Mercury, September 1953 issue, containing an article entitled: "The truth about Joe McCarthy"-in certain of such press interviews I used concerning Senator McCarthy words which are reported in the following quotation from the Toronto Globe and Mail, Friday, November 20, 1953, page 2:
"Mr. Blackmore described Senator McCarthy as 'the greatest fighter, the most militant and the most effective, against communism that we have in America today.'
The books advertised in the franked letter were While You Slept by John T. Flynn and The Iron Curtain Over America by John Beaty. Mr. Black-more praised them as exposures of communism in high places.
'If there is one thing that needs to be known today' he said, 'it is who is at the bottom of this communism in America, who is supplying the money? If true conditions in the United States, and they are probably the same in Canada, were known, certainly no one here would vote to support them.'
It was an outrage, Mr. Blackmore said, that University of Toronto students should have burned Senator McCarthy in effigy.
'Why did those boys and girls do that?' he asked. 'It was because they are so horribly deceived.' "


An hon. Member:: Tut, tut!


John Horne Blackmore: There will be plenty of room for snapping of tongues when you disprove what I said. I continue with the letter:
These two facts, of course, bring your position and my position directly into conflict. It is my purpose to speak on the question of Senator McCarthy as soon as the opportunity is afforded me under the rules of the house concerning debates.
I am writing this letter to give you an opportunity to be in the house while I speak against the position which you took on November 23rd.
With admiration for you personally, and with warm regards,
Sincerely yours,
John H. Blackmore, M.P.
In beginning to discuss this matter I desire to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I do not propose to defend McCarthyism. I do not know whether there is such a thing as McCarthyism except in the hectic imagination of certain hysterical people and the newspapers of our time. I have some evidence as to what and who Senator Joseph McCarthy is, what his aims and achievements are and what his methods are. I have been unable to find any reliable evidence as to what McCarthyism is, and I invite all hon. members who think they have been so able to bring forth their evidence. They will have plenty of opportunity to talk after I sit down, and they d'o not need to sneer until they get the facts. What I have in mind is the meaning and definition associated with the word by former President Truman in the passage quoted from the Globe and Mail of November 17, 1953, as recorded at page 237 of Hansard for November 23, in the remarks of the hon. member for Spadina. The hon. member for Spadina quoted Truman as follows:
It is the corruption of truth, the abandonment of our historical devotion to fair play.
It is the abandonment of the due process of law.
It is the use of the big lie and the unfounded accusation against any citizen in the name of Americanism or security.
It is the rise to power of the demagogue who lives on untruth.
It is the spread of fear and the destruction of faith in every level of our society.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Precisely.


John Horne Blackmore: I am very much interested to see the reaction in the house. Now let us go on. I do not hesitate, Mr. Speaker, to defy any member in the house to establish the truthfulness of any remark former President Truman made concerning Senator McCarthy. If anyone can, he is welcome to do so and he has the whole of this session ahead of him to do so. Take the facts concerning Senator McCarthy as they are and as they can be discovered in great abundance, and I will defy any man to prove one single sentence in that statement to be true. I defy him to give evidence that will satisfy anyone who is not blinded by prejudice that there is truth in any of Truman's remarks thus quoted, if applied to Senator McCarthy.
Now, that is clear enough. Anyone who thinks he can rise to the occasion is invited to do so.
Neither do I propose to defend McCarthy-ites. I know of no McCarthyite, either in the United States or Canada. If there is anyone who can point to a McCarthyite and establish the case, I will be listening to him. We have

the word loosely used by people who do not know anything about the matter, except what they have gathered in a prejudiced way from reading some report. I repeat that I have some evidence relative to Senator Joseph McCarthy. I stand ready to defend Senator McCarthy on the basis of what I have been able thus far to read about him and learn about him. The terms "McCarthyism" and "McCarthyite" I leave to the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). Those two terms and the concepts of "McCarthyism" and "McCarthyite", as he has used them, have nothing whatever to do with Senator McCarthy.
Senator Joseph McCarthy, as I have discovered him, is a gentlemanly, patient, patriotic young fellow, a distinguished veteran of world war II. You did not hear that before? It is time you did. He is a distinguished veteran of world war II who faithfully offered his life in battle for the United States against fascism and nazism. He is a responsible Republican senator from the sovereign state of Wisconsin, and is now devotedly offering his life once more, this time in a fight for the United States against communism abroad, and particularly at home.
In support of my position I produce two witnesses today. The first is Igor Gouzenko. In the Toronto Telegram of November 21, 1953 there is an article on page 18 by Eugene Griffin. I may say that Eugene Griffin is a reporter for the Chicago Tribune press service, and I think a responsible man. From that article I quote these words of Gouzenko:
"Senator McCarthy is doing important patriotic work," Gouzenko said. "If he or Senator Jenner (R. Ind.) or their committees feel that I might be of assistance in their anti-communist investigations, I would be glad to help. I think a talk with them would be worth while."
Farther down in the article I find this:
Before he came to Canada, Gouzenko was a Russian army officer with training in espionage work as a specialist in codes, a role that made him cognizant of some of Moscow's deepest international intrigues. He worked one year in the Red army's main intelligence office, where he handled spy reports from communist agents in many countries.
This is a man whose opinion is not to be laughed off lightly. The article goes on, and I quote from Gouzenko:
"I saw a tremendous number of secret reports from the United States-tremendous," he said today. "They included all kinds of material, military information, plans, texts of secret American documents, and so on."
The question, Mr. Speaker, that the members of this house have got to ask themselves is, how, and from what agencies in the United States did Russia obtain these secrets?
The Address-Mr. Blackmore Until we can state that, and prove it, we had better be rather humble. I presume that man knows what he is talking about more than any member in this house can expect to know in regard to this matter.
In support of my position, as I said, I produce the witness Igor Gouzenko. As the second witness I produce a Catholic priest in an article entitled "Senator Joseph McCarthy", in which article he quotes an article by an eminent United States Catholic journalist, the Reverend Father James M. Gillis, C.S.P. I believe this is another man we had better not try to laugh off. The priest's article appears in No. 29 of the highly respected periodical Fiat. I am sorry to impose on the house a lengthy quotation, but there are going to be hundreds of thousands of people in this country who will not have an opportunity of reading this article. I am going to put it on the record so people who desire to get the facts may read it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am in some doubt as to how far I should allow this type of debate to proceed. May I draw to the attention of hon. members citation No. 311 in the second edition of Beauchesne which reads, in the first few lines:
It is a mistake to believe that the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne allows members to raise all kinds of issues on the mere ground that they relate to the general situation of the country.
If that is the case when the debate might relate to the general situation of this country, I am in some doubt as to whether I should allow a debate on a situation in some other country. The hon. member commenced by stating that he wished to reply to an hon. member in this house, and I have no wish to deny him that right. Nevertheless he should limit himself to replying to the speech already made, and perhaps co-operate with the chair in trying to remain fairly well within the limits of the motion under discussion.


John Horne Blackmore: I appreciate very much the validity of what you have just said. I should like to remind you that the person who brought this matter into this house was the Liberal member for Spadina. Had he not brought this matter in, and said things which in my judgment were a positive disgrace to be said against any man in a friendly country, I probably would not be giving this speech at all. Certainly this man has attacked Senator McCarthy. I should imagine you would permit me to defend him. All I ask is the privilege of reading an article written by a man whom everybody in the
440	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blackmore country must respect, and which deals with Senator McCarthy in great detail.
In case you should see fit to not allow me to quote this article, I shall quote these words which the priest uses:
In view of these facts-
And he has named a great number of them. ... we believe that our readers will agree that Father Gillis is far more competent to deal with American affairs for Catholic readers than is the anonymous leader-writer of the Irish Press . . .
Now, regarding Senator McCarthy, Father Gillis says:
I think the senator, as head of the important subcommittee on expenditures, did his duty and no more than his duty; that he acted not only legally but conscientiously, and that he conducted himself with great restraint in the face of outrageous abuse.
If you see fit, Mr. Speaker, not to let me read any more than that, I have plenty more to say. I will say that that article is an absolute answer to the outburst of propaganda which is going all over this country, in the newspapers and through every other medium. I stand completely amazed that our people as a whole could be so carried away by a thing which is so absolutely untrue as the so-called McCarthyism nonsense.
I should like to know why the hon. member for Spadina gave that speech. It is full of highly coloured phrases, inflammatory suggestions, mean insinuations and bitter implications. The speech is just about as effective a job of sordid smearing and character defamation as I have ever heard or could imagine.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard hon. members calling "order", but I am sorry that at the moment the incident occurred I was not being attentive to the hon. member who has the floor. If any hon. member would like to rise and tell me of his complaint, I shall be glad to deal with it.


Mr. Lesage:: The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) said the speech of the hon. member for Spadina was sordid and smearing.


Mr. Speaker:: If those are the exact words the hon. member used, then I must say that in the past those words have been declared unparliamentary and therefore the expression should be modified.


John Horne Blackmore: I will read the words
again, and you can say whether they are out of order or not. The whole speech of the hon. member for Spadina should have been


called out of order before he gave it. Then I said the speech is just about as effective a job of sordid smearing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member
withdrawing his words?


John Horne Blackmore: I want to know whether,
having heard the words, you would declare them out of order. If you do, I shall withdraw them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon.
member did not hear exactly what I said. I said that if the hon. member for Lethbridge has used an expression as reported by the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Lesage), the expression has been declared unparliamentary and must be withdrawn. Has the hon. member used this expression?


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw them. I have plenty of other things to say, and I do not want to waste time. Looking in the speech of the hon. member for Spadina for evidence to support those suggestions, insinuations and implications I fail to find in the speech any convincing facts or valid reasoning. I think we can successfully challenge anyone in the house to find valid facts or reasoning in the speech.
The house and the country, and certainly Senator McCarthy and the United States, have a right to know something about the hon. member's knowledge, understanding and point of view in respect of Senator McCarthy. I therefore submit for the hon. member's careful consideration the following questions:
1.	Does the hon. member for Spadina want the Anglo-Saxon world, with its democratic institutions, its way of life and its sovereignties-does he want these to survive, or does he want the Anglo-Saxon world with all these priceless values to come under a worldwide iron curtain of communism?
2.	Does he know how deep, widespread and fearfully powerful has become the communist organization in America?
3.	Does he know how grievously that communist organization has already demoralized the free world?
4.	Has he taken pains to inform himself as regards the plans of American communism to do yet further harm to things the Englishspeaking world holds dear?
5.	Has the hon. member learned that the communist organization in America had, by 1947, become strong and influential enough to be able, by divers means, to deny the people of America truths of incalculable importance to America's welfare, so that the people of America learned just what this communist organization wanted them to learn, and

nothing more? This is very clearly explained in "While You Slept," as well as in "The Iron Curtain over America." Then_______
6.	Does he know that the communist organization was powerful enough to disregard the will of congress in 1947?
7.	Would the hon. member say that any elected representative of the United States could consider the responsibilities of his high office as discharged so long as there continued in office in the United States government, officials who, by their words or deeds, had shown themselves to be either members of the communist organization or active sympathizers with that organization's aims and acts?
We want to know that. Let him answer these seven questions. If his answer to each of these questions is yes, then how possibly can he excuse himself for rising in his place in this house and vilifying outrageously Senator Joe McCarthy, who has done more than any other man toward exposing the root causes and identifying the key figures___


Mr. Philpoti:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, in my opinion the expression "vilifying outrageously" is out of order as applied by the hon. member.


John Horne Blackmore: I withdraw that. I don't want to waste any more time.
-in the great subversive American communist organization, and then driving a surprising number of them out of office? How can he possibly forgive himself for assailing a great United States senator in a chamber where that senator cannot appear to defend himself?
8.	Has the hon. member informed himself relative to the great number of patriotic self-sacrificing Americans who, before Senator McCarthy, had sought to expose and clean out from government offices the agents of wickedness in high places?
9.	Has he noted that every one of these Americans, until Senator McCarthy came along, has been smeared, suppressed and, in many cases, driven out of office or in other ways injured outrageously, by much the same device and by the same agencies as those now being employed against Senator McCarthy?
Let me name a few of them: Martin Dies, J. Parnell Thomas, John J. O'Connor, Harold Knutson, Joe Starnes, John M. Costello, Roger C. Slaughter, John McDowell, Stephen A. Day, Leland M. Ford, Walter C. Ploeser, and so on, through an impressive list. And this is only a few of them.
The Address-Mr. Blackmore


Mr. Martin:: May I ask the hon. member a simple question? Has he ever met Senator McCarthy?


John Horne Blackmore: Never. I have never written to him, but I have read his books, and they are satisfying evidence as to the truth of what I am saying. Then, to continue:
10.	How does the hon. member explain the facts suggested in question 9? And just to make it clear, I would ask him and any other member how he would explain the fact that for years and years the only person in the United States who has successfully risen to destroy communism has been so widely and so scandalously smeared and-


Elmore Philpott: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Horne Blackmore: No. If the hon. member wishes to speak on Monday, he will have all the time he wants. Then the next question:
11.	Did the hon. member write that speech, or was it prepared outside and handed to him? I would like to know that.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: 12. Was the hon. member in that speech speaking for himself, or on behalf of the Liberal party?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am interrupting
the hon. member, first because it is ten o'clock, and also because a moment ago I saw some hon. members indicating that perhaps I should call the hon. member for Lethbridge to order. However, there was so much noise in the house and the hon. member was speaking so fast that, notwithstanding our loudspeaker system, I could not exactly hear the words he was using. Has there been a reason to call the hon. member to order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps I was one who was shouting "order" a moment ago. I question the propriety, at any rate, of the hon. member for Lethbridge alleging that the speech made by the hon. member for Spadina was prepared by someone else outside the house. I think we should assume, unless it is otherwise proven that, when a member speaks in the house, he is making his own speech, as I trust the hon. member for Lethbridge is doing right now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
On motion of Mr. Blackmore the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 30, 1953