1953-11-18

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I
should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister any clarifying statement to make with regard to the letter from J. Edgar Hoover, director of the F.B.I., read to the United States security committee yesterday by Attorney General Brownell to the effect that comments were made regarding the appointment of Harry Dexter White to a position on the international monetary fund by sources highly placed in the Canadian government?


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: As I read the report I understood this was a letter from Mr. Hoover, and I knew nothing about the existence of such a letter until I saw the report in the newspapers. The matter has been discussed with my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), because I must confess I was quite surprised to see brought out in any inquiry before a committee of congress references to what must have been, if there was anything, confidential information communicated by a Canadian official to a United States official.
As soon as we saw the report, proceedings were immediately instituted to ascertain if there had been any such communication and how and when it had been made. So far we have not discovered anything that would enable us to trace any such communication. But the inquiries are continuing, and if and when we do find anything that would tend to confirm the report, or to put us in a position to make a positive denial, that information will be communicated to the house.


RELEASE OF KOREAN PRISONERS OF WAR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to a report of the speech by the United States Secretary of State in which he stated that
Korean prisoners of war would be released on January 22 whether or not a peace conference has been held? I would also ask if this is a decision of the United Nations, and if not was Canada consulted regarding it? In any event, what is Canada's position regarding the matter?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The hon. member's
question seems to be threefold. The first part of it has reference to the statement that Mr. Dulles, the United States Secretary of State, made the day before yesterday, I believe, concerning the decision of the United Nations in respect of the disposition of prisoners of war in Korea. I assume that Mr. Dulles was speaking on behalf of the unified command under the United States, to which the United Nations security council by resolution on July 7, 1950, recommended that all United Nations members providing military forces for the Korean effort make such forces available. Therefore Mr. Dulles on this occasion was speaking on behalf of the unified command, that is the United States.
The second part of the question has to do with whether Canada was consulted about this statement. Canada was not consulted about this particular statement but the subject matter thereof is one on which there has been a frequent exchange of views in the past between the United States and other countries, including Canada, which have contributed forces to the United Nations command in Korea.
The third part of the question was: In any event what is Canada's position with regard to the matter of disposition of prisoners of war in Korea? I think that this matter is dealt with by paragraph 11 of the terms of reference for the repatriation commission as laid down in the armistice agreement. The provisions on this point are, I think, quite clear and mean, as we understand them, that if the Korean political conference does not meet before the expiration of the 120 days during which the prisoners are in the custody of the repatriation commission, or if the conference does meet within this period but fails to agree on the disposition of the prisoners within the time set, then the repatriation commission is obliged to declare the release of the prisoners in its custody from prisoner of war status to civilian status. That is the position as we understand it.

Inquiries of the Ministry
EMERGENCY POWERS ACT	ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY


INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF LEGISLATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: May I
ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government to ask parliament at this present session to extend the Emergency Powers Act?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is a matter of policy about which information will be communicated to the house in due time.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that no contracts have yet been let for the construction of buildings for the national film board in Montreal, would the Prime Minister consider recommending the setting up of a special committee to review the national film board question?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope the hon. gentleman
will realize the Prime Minister would not consider making any recommendation of this kind without first of all discussing it with his colleagues. I can tell the hon. gentleman that I had not discussed that yet with my colleagues. Since I got his notice as I came into the house, there could have been no opportunity to do so.


PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Baiilefords):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Did the government make any commitment during the last session of parliament or since to the fish and game league, North Battleford branch, regarding a breakwater on Jackfish lake?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: This notice was brought to my attention just as I came into the house and I have not had an opportunity of looking into it. To my knowledge, however, there was no commitment, but the hon. member may be assured that if the government did make a commitment it will be honoured.



NAVAL SUPPLY SCHOOL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a report in last night's Ottawa Journal that it is the intention of the department to move the naval supply school from Esquimalt to Montreal, and can the minister assure us that the report is erroneous?


Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minisier of National Defence):: My attention had not hitherto been drawn to this report, but assuming as I do that the report says what the hon. member has stated, I cannot give him assurance that it is erroneous because it would be quite correct. We are going to move the supply depot to Montreal to form part of and work with the central depot there which will train officers and men in supply matters for service on both coasts.


Colin Cameron: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Why is it necessary to move this establishment from Esquimalt to Montreal?


Brooke Claxton: We think it is very desirable to economize in matters of money and men. We have established a central supply depot at Ville LaSalle. It is to act as a supply depot for all Canada. It seems sensible to me to establish a school for supply officers and men at the central depot rather than to continue at Esquimalt, which is already overcrowded and where we need space for other naval requirements.


INQUIRY AS TO SALE OF AUTOMOBILES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister's attention been directed to a statement made by the president of the Chrysler U.S.A. export division on November 12 to the effect that his firm wants to sell cars and trucks to China? If so, what steps have been taken by the minister in regard to Canada's automobile industry doing similar business with China?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I do not know that the statement that the president of the Chrysler Export Corporation would like to sell cars to China has any bearing on the situation. He could have added to that statement that fortunately or unfortunately the laws of his

country do not permit him to do so. That is the position in Canada, assuming that my hon. friend is referring to red China; and that will continue to be the situation until red China ceases to be an aggressor country.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works? Is the minister aware that women cleaners working for his department at Winnipeg, and perhaps in other cities, have suffered a loss in take-home pay as a result of the introduction of the five-day week? Since this must be the only group of government employees so treated, will the minister take steps to rectify the situation?
Kon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation. The hon. gentleman wrote to me some weeks ago and I replied giving him as much information then as I am able to give now on the subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it was because the minister's letter was so unsatisfactory that I have had to raise the matter in the house.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 17, 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. Coldwell.
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate I would like to extend my congratulations to you, sir, on the appointment that has been bestowed upon you. It is fortunate indeed that the house has a man of your experience and proven ability to assume that high office.
I would like also to congratulate the mover (Mr. Hollingworth) and the seconder (Mr. Vil-leneuve) of the speech from the throne. It seemed to me that they carried out their duties in the best tradition of parliamentary debates. I think the house should be happy about the large number of able young men
The Address-Right Hon. C. D. Howe that have joined us during the first session of this parliament.
The participants in this debate have spoken about several matters on which it would be appropriate for me to comment. On this occasion, however, I intend to confine my remarks to the grain situation in western Canada. At some later point of our proceedings I hope to be able to give my usual report on economic conditions and prospects throughout Canada but in view of the attention that has been paid to the western grain situation, I feel that hon. members will expect me to give priority to this particular subject.
I do so most willingly because it is important that the house and the country generally should have the facts about the current grain situation and should not be misled by the propaganda that has been spread abroad by those who are trying to discredit the wheat board method of handling grain or who are interested in making the outlook appear as black as possible.
To begin, let me state a few more or less obvious facts. First, the large stocks of wheat now on hand have not accumulated because the farmers of the prairie provinces planted excessive acreages to wheat. Look at the figures. The acreages sown to wheat in the past 2 or 3 years have been no larger than they were 20 years ago, in the early 1930's.
Second, the large stocks of wheat now on hand have not accumulated because sales have been low. Quite the contrary. Canada has never sold so much wheat so rapidly as during the two crop years which ended on July 31 of this year. Again look at the figures. Exports of wheat and wheat flour during the crop year 1951-1952 amounted to 356 million bushels and during the 1952-1953 crop year to 385 million bushels. An average year's export in the 10 pre-war years was 200 million bushels and in the 10 years immediately preceding 1951-1952 was 260 million bushels.
If wheat did not accumulate because of large plantings or deficient exports, then why did it accumulate? For one reason and one reason only-because of phenomenal yields. The 1952 crop was the largest ever grown on the prairies; the 1953 crop was the second largest and the 1951 crop was the fourth largest. Never before have two bumper crops followed one another. This is the third bumper crop in a row. Hon. members from western Canada know as well as I do that a normal crop is around 350 million bushels of wheat. Prior to 1951, the 21-year average was 329 million bushels. In 1951 the prairie farmers

The Address-Right Hon. C. D. Howe harvested 529 million bushels of wheat; in 1952, 664 million bushels; and in 1953, 584 million bushels, a total in those three years of 1,777 million bushels. To put it another way: five ordinary crops have been harvested in three years.
Mr. Cold well:	Is the minister using the
most recent figures?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. I corrected the figure as a result of the report of the bureau of statistics made yesterday. The figure published yesterday was the wheat production for all of Canada. This is the latest figure for the prairie provinces.
That is the reason and the only reason for the present accumulation of wheat. It is not excessive acreage or poor sales. The reason is phenomenally good weather, which I for one cannot look upon as a calamity, nor does any western farmer, I am perfectly sure.
The fact is that if only average crops had been grown on the prairies during the past three years, we would not have been able to satisfy the world demand for Canadian wheat, there would have been no carryover whatever into the present crop year, and our supplies now would be barely adequate to meet the current demands. I am sure every thinking person is glad that nature was good to us, that we did have wheat to supply to a hungry world and that today we have a good supply to carry forward into years when nature may not be so kind.
I believe every thinking person will be glad too that during this period of large crops there has been a Canadian wheat board with the responsibility for marketing those crops. As hon. members know I am not a strong advocate of government in business. On the whole, I lean in the other direction. But from experience I have become convinced that the present system of grain marketing whereby farmers market their wheat, oats and barley through the Canadian wheat board has been very much in the interests of the producers.
Perhaps under some other government, perhaps with a different membership on the wheat board, the results would have been less satisfactory. All I know is that the present wheat board, operating under the general supervision of the present government, has disposed of vast quantities of grain at good prices and that, surely, can be accepted as a measure of its success.
The Canadian wheat board is directed by parliament to sell grain acquired by it-and I quote from the act-"at such prices as it considers reasonable with the object of promoting the sale of grain produced in
fMr. Howe (Port Arthur).]
Canada on world markets". The board has, in my judgment, carried out that direction fully and with a great measure of success. Under the present government it will continue to do so.
Hon. members will recall how the wheat board and the government were criticized for selling wheat at what some people considered were prices lower than could have been obtained. I seem to remember that some hon. members on the other side joined in that kind of criticism. Now the board and the government are being criticized for the opposite reason, that prices are being held too high.
A few weeks ago I spoke to the annual meeting of the Manitoba wheat pool in Winnipeg about such criticisms and should like to repeat here what I said at that time.
To be criticized for keeping prices down, when such criticism is unjustified, is annoying. But it doesn't do any harm to sales of Canadian wheat and flour. In fact the board used to welcome this kind of criticism. It made good reading in overseas markets. To be criticized for holding prices higher than they should be, when such criticism is unjustified, is quite another thing. It can serve no purpose other than to influence buyers to avoid forward commitments, in the hope that prices will eventually be lower.
The buyers of wheat the world over know the facts of the current wheat situation at least as well as they are known in Canada. They can be depended upon to buy shrewdly, and it is to be expected that they will emphasize the bearish aspects of the situation. They don't need the help of people in Canada who, it would seem, are more concerned to discredit the present system of wheat board operation than they are to assist in the disposal of Canadian wheat.
There has never been any reason to accuse the Canadian wheat board of holding prices at levels which endanger the sale of Canadian grain. And there is no justification for such accusations now. From long experience, the members of the board know that such a policy leads to disaster. As long as I have anything to do with it, the board will follow a pricing policy which keeps the buyer interested in Canadian grain.
So much by way of general introduction to the present situation. As a result of the phenomenal crop of recent years, and in spite of record sales, there was a large carryover of grain into the present crop season. It could not have been otherwise. Physically, we couldn't have moved into consumption all the grain that farmers wished to deliver from the extraordinary crops of 1951 and 1952. If, as might well have happened, the prairies, in 1953, had suffered the calamity of a drought, or an early and severe frost, this carryover would have been of the very greatest immediate value.
Instead, however, there was another ideal growing season and a bumper crop on the prairies. Unfortunately, the harvesting of yet another bumper crop coincided with a

decline in the immediate import requirements of several of our chief markets, due to good domestic crops and large stocks. This was an unfortunate coincidence but it is one that could not have been foreseen or provided against.
Even so, grain has been moving off the farms, into terminal positions and for export at a pretty fair rate. To judge from some of the comments I have heard in recent weeks, one might get the impression that the grain movement had come to a stop. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In some respects the movement is at record levels.
Let me deal with exports first.
Compared with the past two years, when new records were established, the export movement of wheat is down. But the reduction to date is far less than some people seem to suggest. From August 1 to November 4, which is the latest date for which figures are available, export clearances of wheat and flour amounted to 80-7 million bushels as against 103-7 million bushels to the same date a year ago. As for barley and oats, total exports are running well ahead of last year, which was itself a record year for exports of both these grains. The total for the three grains is down only 19 million bushels from the same period in 1952-53.
It might interest those hon. members who are not already aware of the fact that a new record was established this year for clearances of grain from Churchill. On the Pacific coast, grain is continuing to move out at close to the maximum handling capacity of the ports. The effect of the reduction in export demand has been concentrated entirely at St. Lawrence ports.
I am pleased to be able to report to the house that Canadian wheat and flour is moving steadily into the United Kingdom, which has always been, and I hope always will be, Canada's biggest market for wheat and wheat products. Now that the business of importing wheat and flour into the United Kingdom has been restored to the private trade, purchases are being made from day to day in relatively small quantities to meet the needs of individual mills, just as they were made in pre-war years. The situation is complicated, too, by the fact that the government of the United Kingdom is turning its larger than normal stocks over to the private trade. There are no longer large bulk contracts, but these individual purchases add up, and I hope that before the end of the crop year the United Kingdom will have bought very substantial quantities from Canada.
The Address-Right Hon. C. D. Howe
I have heard it said that Britain's failure to enter the international wheat agreement is hampering the sale of Canadian wheat to the United Kingdom. It seems that the Leader of the Opposition shares this opinion. In view of the biased and often quite erroneous information that has been given out about the international wheat agreement, I am not surprised that some people should jump to such wrong conclusions, or should try to create wrong impressions. Let me say again, as I have said in this house before, that wheat agreement or no wheat agreement, Canadian wheat will be fully competitive on the British market. It is fully competitive now, and there is no reason to believe that British mills will buy less from Canada than they would otherwise buy because the United Kingdom is not a member of the international wheat agreement. We are certainly getting a fair share of the British market now. I believe we are getting as large a share as in any peacetime year and perhaps a larger share.
During the last parliament I gave a clear statement of the views of the government about the international wheat agreement. We believe that it is in the interests of all countries, importers and exporters alike, to be members of the agreement, so as to reduce excessive fluctuations in markets and prices for wheat. We were disappointed when the United Kingdom stood alone in not accepting a renewal of the agreement. I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the United Kingdom did not declare its position until the final moments of the conference when practically all other countries, including all the main importers, had agreed to a floor price of $1.55 and a ceiling of $2.05. That is why the U.K. decision came as such a disappointment, not only to Canada but to every other country represented at the conference. It was not Canada that rejected the U.K. offer; it was the U.K. that rejected the overwhelming view of the rest of the wheat world. In our judgment, this was an unfortunate decision for all concerned, including the United Kingdom.
During the discussion that followed the signing of the agreement, there was a good deal of talk that the United Kingdom had not signed because it could not agree to a price of $2.05. It was pointed out at the time that this was only a ceiling price, that prices could, and might well, fall below that level. In fact prices have fallen below $2.05 from time to time, and this would have been the case whether or not the United Kingdom had joined the agreement.

The Address-Right Hon. C. D. Howe
However, this is threshing old straw. There is an international wheat agreement. The United Kingdom is not at present a member. Nevertheless we are selling wheat and flour to the United Kingdom, and I see no reason why we should not continue to do so in large volume. Certainly the Canadian wheat board will spare no effort to perpetuate the mutually profitable wheat trade that has been built up between Canada and Britain. I hope some day the United Kingdom will rejoin the club, but that is a decision that rests with the United Kingdom government.
The wheat board is out selling Canadian grain whenever and wherever it can. Mr. McNamara, the assistant chief commissioner, has just returned from several weeks in the United Kingdom and on the continent of Europe, calling on customers for Canadian grain. He has reported to me that, in his opinion, Canada will continue to get a fair share of the grain business in that part of the world. He found that Canadian grain stands high with the buyers in comparison with wheat from any other country. Mr. Riddel will leave at the beginning of the year for a tour of markets in the Far East and' possibly in other parts of the world, taking with him Dr. Anderson, the chief chemist of the board of grain commissioners, and Mr. Vogel from my department. Other officials of the board have recently been visiting markets in Latin America.
The board knows that it has a tough job on its hands. But I am confident, and I think most hon. members are confident, that the job could not be in better hands. A few days ago Mr. Earle Robertson was added as the fourth member of the wheat board. Mr. Robertson was highly recommended to me by men in the co-operative grain handling organizations whose judgment I trust as a man exceptionally well qualified to help in marketing Canada's grain. I was delighted when he accepted the appointment.
While I am talking about the export side of the grain business, may I add a word about the deferred pricing system which seems to have been misunderstood in some quarters.
Until recently, when a buyer came in to purchase wheat from the board-or book wheat, as it is called-he paid the board's announced price in effect on that date of booking-even if actual shipment of the wheat did not take place for some months. Some overseas buyers have claimed that this could be too long a period' to be carrying wheat at a fixed price. So the board set up a deferred pricing system, in addition to its former fixed price system. Now, when a


buyer books wheat with the board, he can fix the price on the date of the booking or, if preferred, he can defer the pricing for a specified number of days. Within that period the buyer can choose the day on which he wants his wheat to be priced, but his choice is of course not retroactive. If the price on the day of his choice is lower than it was on the day he booked the wheat, then he has gained by deferring the price fixing. But, on the other hand, of course, if the price is higher on the later day, the board and the producers benefit. It is definitely not a case of "heads I win, tails you lose". If the price is down, the buyer profits. If the price is up, the producer profits. The system is working very well and certainly has facilitated the export sales of our wheat and flour. Since in the last analysis most of the buyers are millers the chief merit of the system is that it enables the millers to fix the price of their raw material on a date as close as possible to the time when it will actually be processed.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Will the minister tell us for how long a period the decision can be deferred?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe it is seven days from the date of shipment from Montreal, and fifteen days from Vancouver.
Now let us look iat the internal movement of grain.
Receipts of prairie grain at the Pacific coast between August 1 and November 4 of this year totalled 40-5 million bushels. This compares with 35 * 6 million bushels in the same period a year ago. Lakehead receipts totalled 136-8 million bushels of grain as against 149-6 million bushels a year ago. Shipments out of the lakehead by boat to November 4 totalled 128-2 million bushels, 4-2 million bushels more than in the same period of the crop year 1952-53.
I would like at this point to pay tribute to all those who have contributed to the achievement of this large internal movement which has been of the greatest value in creating space in country elevators to enable prairie farmers to market their grain.
Now I come to the point that I know is of direct and immediate interest to hon. members from the prairie provinces, namely the ability of producers to market their grain. When the present crop season opened on August 1, there were 215 million bushels of grain in country elevators as against 154 million bushels on August 1, 1952. Thus, in spite of the large movement eastward and westward, there was bound to be less opportunity for producers to deliver grain at

the beginning of the season than there was a year ago. And yet I do not think the figures by any means support some of the gloomy statements I have seen and heard about the delivery position.
As a matter of fact, up to November 4 producers had delivered 207 million bushels of grain and the latest information of space likely to be available suggests that deliveries between August 1 and December 31 will exceed 300 million bushels and could reach 325 millions. This is a respectable total and more than has been delivered during this part of the season in many previous years.
The Canadian wheat board established an opening delivery quota of three bushels per cultivated acre. Because last year's opening quotas were five bushels for wheat and four bushels for each oats and barley, there is an impression in some quarters that last year's quotas were larger. That is not correct, because last year's quotas were per seeded acre and did not take summerfallow into account. In point of fact, this year's quotas are very little different from last year's, considering the average amount of summerf allow a farmer will normally have.
It has already been possible to increase the minimum quotas that may be delivered within the over-all quota of three bushels per cultivated acre from 500 bushels to 700 bushels and it is my hope that before very long the over-all quota itself can be increased.
Because of the limitations on delivery opportunities the government has been urged to provide for advances on farm-stored grain. Let me assure the house that even before these representations were received the government had given the most careful consideration to the position.
We decided that the quickest way of getting a large sum of money into the hands of western producers without putting them into debt was to speed up the payment of participation on the 1952 crop. This we did. A further interim payment of 12 cents per bushel was declared on 1952-53 deliveries of wheat.
The 1952-53 pools of oats and barley were closed out. Altogether these payments involve about $100 million. Already cheques valued at $72 million have been mailed to producers and the balance of the $100 million will be in the mail before Christmas.
The Address-Right Hon. C. D. Howe
Having declared their payments, the government had a look at the income of prairie grain producers in recent years. As hon. members are aware, there has been a big change in the pattern of deliveries in recent years. Up until a few years ago farmers delivered most of their grain soon after harvest. As a result of the more than average crops and particularly as a result of the exceptional crops of 1951 and 1952, this pattern has changed. Producers have been delivering grain steadily and in very large quantities throughout the whole year.
Now let me outline the results of the calculations of income of prairie producers derived from the principal grains-wheat, oats and barley. I shall begin with the calendar year 1945. In that year, prices paid at time of delivery basis Fort William-Port Arthur plus participation payments by the wheat board, amounted to $537 million. In 1946 the amount was similar, $536 million, in 1947, $588 million, in 1948, $693 million, in 1949 because of large participation payments on the five-year pool, $833 million and in
1950,	$605 million.
Now I come to the first of the three successive phenomenal crops, the crop grown in
1951.	During the whole of that calendar year prices paid plus participation payments jumped to $898 million. In the following year, 1952-that is, last year-they reached $1,091 million.
When I spoke to the Manitoba pool on October 27, I hazarded a guess that the income figure for 1953 would exceed 1951, which was itself a year of very good income, but might fall a little short of 1952. I now find that I erred on the side of pessimism.
I hate to be on that side. The fact is that the sum of prices paid for deliveries of wheat, oats and barley plus participation payments during 1953 will exceed 1952. Making conservative estimates for November and December, the total is placed at $1,104 million, which exceeds any previous year. These payments do not include the final wheat participation payment for the 1952 crop, which will be paid early in 1954, and which in total amount should be substantial.
With the permission of the house I should like to put a table on the record giving the figures I have just mentioned.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
128	HOUSE OF
The Address-Right Hon. C. D. Howe Mr. Howe (Pori Arlhur): The table is as follows:
Canadian wheat board payments to producers including initial payments, participation payments and other payments (in millions of dollars) basis Fort William/Vancouver
Calendar
Year	Wheat	Oats	Barley	Total1945	
381	99*	57*	5571946	
419	67*	50*	5361947	
441	67*	80*	5881948	
563	61*	69*	6931949	
702	63*	68*	8331950	
465	59	81	6051951	
721	74	103	8981952	
811	102	178	1,0911953	
841	83	180	1,104
(includes estimates for Nov.-Dec.)
Oats and barley were not purchased from producers by the wheat board prior to August 1, 1949. The estimates for these grains for calendar years 1945 to 1948 and for the first 7 months of 1949 are based on prices realized on the market plus Canadian wheat board payments of various kinds, e.g., equalization payments.
It will be understood, then, why the government considers that the need for farm advances has not been proven.
The government also had before it the results of the legislation approved by parliament in 1951 for advances to producers of grain on farms. Hon. members will recall the circumstances of that year. A very large crop had been grown but a great deal of it was tough and damp and a very large area was under snow and could not then be harvested. Faced with this situation, which was certainly very much grimmer than now prevails, the government introduced a bill to provide short-term advances to farmers. The banks were to be guaranteed against losses on loan advances up to $20 million on both grain in storage and grain in the fields.
The legislation was criticized as being inadequate. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who then represented Lake Centre, made an impassioned speech. Let me quote from it. This is what the hon. member said:
I think the amount of the guarantee by the government is palpably and obviously inadequate to meet the situation that exists.
Again at another place the hon. member said:
While this is a step in the general direction that we on this side of the house have been advocating for the last two or three months, it does not go far enough and does not meet the situation that exists. I can see no risk in connection with loans on wheat in storage on the farms. Wheat is wealth. It is good security. That security can be taken by the bank at any time once the loan is made. There is no risk in the guarantee by the government of loans against wheat that is in storage.
What happened? The legislation authorized loans of $20 million. In fact only 1,504
[Mr. Speaker.)

loans were made to a total amount of $625,663. I can understand a man being 100 per cent wrong, but when that man is 4,000 per cent wrong I question very much whether his opinion on any subject deserves much consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: I must have been
imitating my right hon. friend on occasion.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have read some of the statements made by my hon. friend about the present wheat situation, and I would estimate that his margin of error is about that same 4,000 per cent.
I regret to say, however, that even though advances under this 1951 legislation were very limited and one might have thought that the risk was negligible, over $40,000 is still outstanding and the Department of Finance has paid losses to the banks in excess of $11,000. These results must cause anyone to pause who advocates that the wheat board *or the treasury should become involved in a widespread system of advances on farm-held grain. With the permission of the house I should like to put on the record a table showing the figures I have just mentioned.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The table is as follows:
The Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act
Bank loans to producers as at Sept. 30, 1953
Total number of loans	 1,504
Total	amount of loans	
$625,663.91Total	amount repaid to	date	
$585,220.17Number of loans repaid in full	
1,216Defaulted loan position as	at November 13, 1953
Total amount of claims paid by Department of Finance (including
interest)	$ 11,378.90
* 'Reimbursement
Canadian wheat board deductions from participation payments

Collected by banks from
borrowers	 125.28

 1,714.03
Balance outstanding	 9,664.87
Number of claims paid by Department of Finance, 36
*'Number of claims reimbursed in full, 6
I have received representations in favour of farm advances, most of them marked "Personal". But I have also received representations greater in number on the other side. Mr. Roy Marler, president of the Alberta federation of agriculture and president of the western section of the federation, has

given me permission to read in the house a telegram which he sent me the other day: Am concerned by actions taken by some persons and organizations with respect to farmers' financial position. I have before me press statement stating telegram sent to you by farm implement dealers' association in Winnipeg. Also note that previously the retail merchants association has made representation to you on the same matter. I personally wish to commend you on a statement you are reported to have made to the Manitoba pool. The answer I am giving to the uninformed public in this matter is that the farmer is in a strong position. I suggest he has sold more than an average crop in the last three years at reasonably good prices and in addition has his granaries full and in some instances grain piled in the field. This cannot be reckoned as a calamity but can only be assumed to add up to a condition greatly enhancing his economic position. I have had letters from and conversations with many of the bank managers in Edmonton with respect to the farmers' credit position with their institutions and find that on every occasion they are not experiencing any unusual circumstances in meeting credit demands of farmers. Much use has been made of the farm improvement loan and I have had no complaints by farmers of not being able to take advantage of it. I suggest that before anybody should become panicky over the farmers' financial position the situation should be analyzed carefully and the source and motive behind these representations should be clarified. Certainly I do not think the farmers should be encouraged to borrow money at this time and I do believe an examination of complaints will show that the first interest of those who are complaining will be other than on behalf of the farmers' best interests. May I ask in all seriousness, how can farmers carry on under crop failures and other adversities which we have experienced in years gone by if they cannot carry on under present conditions for a limited time?
Roy C. Marler, president
Alberta federation of agriculture The situation on the prairies may be summed up as follows: Wheat board payments for wheat, oats and barley during the calendar year 1953 will reach $1,104 million, the highest in history. Payments from these sources during the calendar years 1951, 1952 and 1953 total $3,093 million, which is almost equal to the combined income from these sources of any five preceding years. I have already said that final wheat participation payment for 1952 is not included in these figures. In addition, prairie producers have on their farms very large stocks of high grade wheat, as well as supplies of oats and barley, most of it well housed and in good marketable condition. Bankers have assured me that this grain is good collateral at the bank, and of course it is the best of insurance against loss of income through short crops in the future. The prospects are that this grain will move to market at about the normal rate. Satisfactory income to the producers from wheat, oats and barley during 1954, and probably beyond that period, is assured regardless of the size of the crops.
129
The Address-Mr. E. G. McCullough
Therefore I cannot agree with the Leader of the Opposition in his statement that the situation of the prairie producer is more than critical and that special legislation is required to deal with this situation.
Mr. Speaker, these are the facts of the current grain position. They are such as to call for the utmost effort on the part of the wheat board to sell grain throughout the world. I submit that the board is making that effort. The situation calls, too, for the most efficient use of the elevator space available, so that producers can deliver the maximum amount of grain. I submit that a good job is being done in that respect, too.
Most important of all, perhaps, the situation calls for a steady hand. The government does not resent criticism and recognizes that it is the duty of the opposition to criticize. But I hope that in this house and elsewhere the criticism will be responsible, and will not lead those who are unaware of the facts to wrong conclusions, either about Canada's wheat policy or about the financial position of the western wheat producer.


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I very much welcome the opportunity of speaking at an early date in this debate, particularly after just listening to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and his statement on the wheat situation in Canada.
I intend to refer at some length to what I think is a very serious and critical situation facing western farmers, particularly in the marketing of western wheat, and I take exception to the perennial optimism expressed in the minister's speech as delivered to the house just now.
I consider it, Mr. Speaker, to be a very great honour to be returned to the House of Commons to work with my colleagues, the members of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. I intend to do my utmost to promote the objectives of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation because, upon returning after some absence from this house, I feel that the policies of the C.C.F. are the only ones that can bring sanity to the financial and economic problems facing Canada. Upon returning to the house I was rather impressed with the isolationist attitude and feeling one gets in parliament here at Ottawa. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that if we could go across the country before coming into this house to debate problems before us and perhaps see some of the difficulties that exist from coast to coast there would be an urgency in our deliberations which would bring more action than we see at the present time.

The Address-Mr. E. G. McCullough
All is not well with the ship of state, despite what is indicated in the throne speech. I am sure that if we went from coast to coast and saw the problems facing Canadian people in the various sections of our country we would recognize that the whole Canadian economy is in a very serious situation. I am sure that would be so if we could experience the situation of the unemployed in the coal mines of Nova Scotia, the situation facing fishermen in the marketing of their fish, and the situation facing western farmers who have again produced food in abundance for Canadian people and a hungry world. If we could see some of those situations face to face in such a way that when coming into this house they would be fresh in our memory, I am sure we would go beyond the measures and legislation provided by the Liberal government.
This afternoon I wish to speak for three main purposes. First, I wish to bring to the attention of the house the desperate situation facing western farmers in regard to marketing and also the price squeeze in which we find ourselves; second, I wish to suggest proposals for rectifying that situation; and third, I wish to say something in a general way about our national economy.
Now, in comparison to the optimistic statement delivered to the house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the western farmer is in a price squeeze. We have seen, particularly during the last two years, costs of farm operations going up and up while the prices received by the farmer for the things he has to sell are going down. Contrary to the statement contained in the telegram from Mr. Marler, president of the Alberta federation of agriculture, to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, which the minister read in the house, and which statement indicated that no serious marketing problem exists in western Canada, I want to indicate by documenting my speech that a very serious situation does exist.
Just before coming here I travelled pretty well throughout my constituency, which is representative of Saskatchewan. The local merchants have extended credit to the limit of their resources. In many parts of Saskatchewan local merchants, storekeepers and machinery dealers have held meetings and as a result thereof have gone on a strictly cash basis simply because they have taken the brunt of the lackadaisical attitude of the federal government and its lack of policy in coming to grips with the marketing situation in the west. To a large extent they are bearing the brunt of the situation that has been created.


So far as the carrying on of the work of the local municipalities is concerned, taxes are not being paid to the municipalities simply because the farmers are not able to sell their grain and pay their taxes. As a result there is a debt situation on the local level which is making it very difficult for local governments to carry on and for municipal councils to provide the necessary services. That is a very important thing in any community.
I should like to deal with the quota system existing in western Canada which will indicate to some extent that there is no money in the farmers' pockets. The three-bushel quota and the maximum of 700 bushels to any farmer do not give the farmer adequate money to pay his running expenses and his taxes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will my hon. friend accept a correction? He referred to a three-bushel quota with a maximum of 700 bushels. I am sure he meant a three-bushel quota with a minimum of 700 bushels.


Edward George McCullough: I accept what the minister has said but I want to indicate to the house how it works out in practice. While I, and I think all members of this group, favour a quota system operating under the wheat board, it is and can only be an expedient. When you cannot deliver your grain, as has been the case at many points in Saskatchewan, whether it is a three-bushel quota or a maximum of 700 bushels does not mean very much to the farmer if he cannot get his grain to the elevator. Here is the situation as it works out in practice. There may be an opening in a certain elevator and word goes out that there is an opportunity to market some wheat. Perhaps there is only a maximum of a carload of wheat. Any farmer who wants to take advantage of his quota must deliver his wheat in order to get some money to carry on. If his wheat happens to be high-grade wheat and other farmers delivering to meet the quota and fill the space in the elevator have lower-grade wheat, then the farmer with the high-grade wheat must take a downgrading on his wheat and lose money on it. Many farmers are in that position and have to take a lower grade for their wheat in order to market it.
Then of course there is the car order book system which was discontinued temporarily bringing about an injustice to farmers, in my opinion, who wanted to market their grain through the elevator of their choice. I am glad to note that Mr. Milner indicated to the wheat board on November 9 that as soon as possible there will be a return to the policy of

the -car order book. 1 want to deal with one other aspect of the financial situation facing western farmers and -then to document my speech by indicating from various sources that what I have said presents the true picture rather than the rosy one painted -by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
With regard to cattle markets, I agree with the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny), who spoke yesterday in this debate. He indicated that because of the financial situation existing in western Canada farmers were shipping cattle -to the stockyards, and that there was no- adequate system of grading whereby they could be assured of -receiving a just grade for the -cattle they ship. That -is true, Mr. Speaker. That situation does exist. Just before -coming here for the -session I was -talking with a shipper -who had sent a carload of cattle to Winnipeg. One white cow was downgraded or knocked down two cents a pound simply because it was a white cow. I have also talked with shippers who have told me that in shipping cattle to Winnipeg animals which are a cross -between Herefords and Shorthorns, having mottled white faces, are also downgraded. In other words, simply because it is a buyers' market the buyers now have it in their hands to enforce a discount of two or three cents a pound and disregard the quality of the beef.


Mr. Argue:: They do not like -the colour scheme.


Edward George McCullough: I should also like to indicate to the house that action should be taken to rectify the fluctuation in prices for our livestock. In his speech the hon. member for Dauphin indicated -that we should have a livestock board with adequate producer representation. It would be a beginning in giving some justice in the -marketing of our cattle. To indicate to the house the instability of income received by western cattle producers, I should like to point out that cattle prices in a five-year period fluctuated as much -a-s $18.79. When you consider that cattle prices reached a high of 32 cents a poun-d you can -see that there was a fluctuation of about 50 per cent from the high to the low in the five-year period.
With respect to hog prices, there was a fluctuation of $10.77 per hundred in the year 1951. A market situation of this kind can only mean that the western farm producer is in a very difficult position to -plan his operations or to be able to carry on in a proper manner financially. Coming -back to the question of documenting the very serious situation that I have indicated, I first want to take the figure of loans made to western farmers -for the year 83276-9J
The Address-Mr. E. G. McCullough 1952 under -the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
There were in that year 83,315 loans made totalling $98,259,152. Now, that is one example which shows that the western farmer has to go out and borrow in order to carry on. This is a very good act passed by parliament making it possible for farmers to get loans for farm improvements. These loans of course are made to farmers who need short-term and intermediate credit for the improvement and development of their farms and- the improvement of their living conditions thereon.
I should like to refer to the Globe and Mail. I think reference was made to this in the speech made today in the house by the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). This excerpt from the Toronto Globe and Mail dated Thursday, November 5, indicates that the implement dealers are concerned about the situation also. This is what it says:
In a wire to Howe signed both by the Canadian federation of farm equipment dealers and the Manitoba and lakehead farm equipment retail dealers' association, delegates said: serious damage would- result to the national economy unless something were done to get farmers out of debt.
"We believe action by the federal government is required in both the interests of agriculture and industry," the wire said.
So, there is some concern among the dealers. As a matter of fact I was talking to a local dealer who had one of the head men come down to see him and he was concerned about their dealers all over the province not being able to get an extension of credit on the matter of retail sales of farm machinery.
I should like also to indicate the increase in the credit buying of our people because the farm situation and that of the people throughout the country are perhaps synonymous, and there is a parallel existing all across the country.
This covers the period from April to June of this year and the figures are taken from the dominion bureau of statistics. They report that on retail consumer credit notes record cash and credit sales amounted to $3,135,900,000. Total credit sales jumped 7-5 per cent to $1,020,400,000 compared with the same period last year, while cash sales rose only 4-1 per cent to $2,115,500,000.
Mr. Speaker, I indicated- earlier that the dealers are concerned about the matter of giving credit to our western people. This is a report of a meeting held by merchants in the city of Dauphin and it indicates that the estimated total debt of Canadians to storekeepers has reached a record of $1-5 billion and that this was 50 per cent more than at the end of March, 1952.

The Address-Mr. E. G. McCullough
In regard to the loans which have been made to Canadian farmers under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, it is stated, in the biennial progress and program report to the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, that loans made during 1952 were $98,359,151 representing an increase of about 11 per cent over the previous year. Ninety-five per cent of the loans have been used to finance farm machinery purchased. The prairie provinces have made the most use of the loans, with 46 per cent of all farmers in Alberta receiving loans during the 21 months beginning January 1, 1951.
I should like to draw the attention of the house to the briefs tendered to the royal commission sitting at Regina in which it was indicated that two of the main reasons for the difficulties and problems facing rural dwellers is the instability of farm income. I think I have indicated an abundance of evidence to show that the western farmer today in particular is facing a very serious financial problem.
The speech which the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has just given to the house was substantially the same as his address to the annual meeting of the Manitoba wheat pool in Winnipeg on Tuesday, October 27.
1 I want to take exception to what he said there. First of all, he said that he did not believe the federal government should go into the business of lending money to the farmer. I agree with the proposition put forward by the leader of this group, for I believe it is expedient in the present situation that loans should be made to farmers so that they can pay their debts and carry on their operations. I do not think that such a policy is a good long-term policy, but I have a suggestion to make to this house further on in the course of my remarks.
The minister indicated today that the kind of speech which I am making, stressing the importance of something being done now, would make good reading for the importers of Canadian wheat overseas.
I think that the policy or lack of policy of the Canadian government in failing to take a hand in this problem or to do something of a substantial nature about it is the best kind of news the importers can get, because in spite of what the minister said, approximately 800 million bushels of wheat will be carried over into the next crop year. I do not think, in spite of what the minister said in the last part of his speech, where he indicated that he was pessimistic, that the picture needs to be a gloomy one. I should like to refer to the minister's speech to the wheat pool in Winnipeg, when he said:
I wonder if the Egyptians complained about a glut during the seven fat years predicted by Joseph.

We have heard much about this capitalist system, which is supposed to function in the interests of the people. I know full well, upon reading the record of the situation to which the minister has referred, that grain was stored in the good years for the bad or lean ones; and I am suggesting to the house today that in order to come to grips with this situation we have to be very realistic.
As is indicated in Toronto Globe and Mail of today, we will have a harvest this year of 613,965,000 bushels. That is about 20 million bushels over the previous estimate. I do not believe the minister or anyone else can predict how much wheat we are going to grow in the future. I do not think it can be said that we have now reached a time when we are growing an excessive amount of wheat; but I do feel that we should be glad of the large volume of that commodity in Canada today. It should be used as a bulwark against any future depression or crop failure in Canada. Every effort should be made to avoid cutting down but to increase possible production. We should try to get every acre into some sort of crop. I believe, too, that the federal government should subsidize the supplying of fertilizer so that increased yields would be possible. If this were done, there is a real chance that, rather than return to the smaller yields we had formerly, we might expect to have the high yields we have had in the last few years.
If this policy were undertaken we would have in Canada a large amount of wheat to stand as the best possible safeguard against any eventuality. I suggest that as a long-term policy we should establish in Canada the principle of the ever-normal granary. First of all, under this program the Canadian government should declare that it is proposing to establish the principle of the ever-normal granary. Under such a plan the target should be that within five years permanent storage facilities would be made available for a thousand million bushels of grain.
Then, third, under such a plan outright purchases of grain from the farmers should be financed from the federal treasury. Fourth, such a plan should begin immediately, as supplies of grain would warrant, and storage facilities should be provided to meet the requirements.
The first result of such a policy would be that it would have the effect of declaring to the world that there would be no fire sale of grain either now or in the future. Secondly, it would begin immediately to solve the problem of storage facilities. Third, it would give stability to all the Canadian economy by supplying farmers with purchasing power.

Then, fourth, it would provide an incentive to our primary producers to increase production. Fifth, it would give Canada the assurance that we could meet any commitments in connection with the export of our grain.
In his speech to the Winnipeg wheat pool the minister indicated that formerly there were times when we were in the position where we could not meet our commitments abroad for the export of our wheat. If we want to enter into any long-term agreement we should have wheat stored in Canada so that, under any circumstances, we could meet our commitments. I believe the method followed today, where we do not store under the ever-normal granary principle, indicates that we have in this country a hat-in-hand policy in the marketing of our grain. Instead of this we should have a program such as I have indicated.
I offer this idea in all sincerity. As an ambassador of good will and something to create friendship abroad, I am convinced that food will always be more effective than guns or, indeed, anything else. I am suggesting that a large amount of money be set aside to begin the program I have proposed. Despite the fact that the minister does not believe in a policy of making provision for storage facilities for our huge grain surplus, I believe the policy I have outlined would be accepted as good business. Those storage facilities should be made available immediately.
In the constituency of Moose Mountain we have large coal fields in which we strip the coal to a depth of about 45 feet. By using some engineering ingenuity, these huge excavations could be put to use in connection with the storage of grain. They could be cemented and lined with vapour-proof materials, and in this way make available at a low cost space for the storage of a huge amount of Canadian grain.
We are living in an atomic age, and do not know what events may bring at any time. I would hope that the proposals I have made would be undertaken by the government. I am aware of the fact that any capitalist government in this House of Commons always replies that these things would take a lot of money. My reply is that in this instance we should have an application of the principle that has been set forth by the government when it has said that what is physically possible should be made financially possible. If this principle were followed, the procedure I have outlined could be undertaken, and it would mean that we would embark upon a program under which the
The Address-Mr. Fleming abundance Providence has given us would be cared for.
I know that today one can drive anywhere in Saskatchewan and find wheat lying out in the open, wheat being destroyed by rain and by rodents. Surely this is a contradiction of the fundamental principles in which we believe. I am suggesting therefore to the government that it should undertake seriously a plan to store wheat in Canada for any eventuality, and for a long period of time if necessary-wheat perhaps to the extent of a thousand million bushels. I read in an Ottawa paper the other day a statement to the effect that stations were to be set up in the vicinity of Ottawa to observe flying saucers. If any of our planetary friends should come down here on flying saucers and observe us who, as we are told in the first chapter of Genesis, are to have dominion over the world, they would see people who under their stupid, crazy capitalist system were trying to bring about peace and good will among men, and at the same time allowing our foodstuffs to go uncared for. Surely. they would not come down to what seems to me to be a type of insanity existing under the capitalist system. Therefore, Mr. Speaker,
I suggest that consideration be given to what I have just said.
We of the C.C.F. group believe in a humanity-first program, and that program is in keeping with what I have just indicated. I urge the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and his colleagues, together with members of the Liberal party, to undertake a program under which we shall not have the situation that exists in western Canada today, where farmers are in desperate straits, simply because they have produced more wheat than can be immediately marketed. (Translation) :


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to address this house for the first time in the beginning of this twenty-second parliament, I would like my first words to be words of congratulation to you, Mr. Speaker, upon your election as Speaker of the House of Commons. Before the general election, it was no secret that in the event of the government being returned to power you would be chosen as Speaker of this house. That is no doubt why the government has been re-elected, Mr. Speaker; as a matter of fact it is the only good reason I can think of.
Those members who had the privilege to sit here during the life of the last parliament have had an opportunity to see, Mr. Speaker, how competently you discharged
134	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fleming your duties in this house as Deputy Speaker. All of us here, irrespective of party, feel sure that you will preside over our debates in such a way as to make us all proud of having you as our Speaker. The confidence we have in you was demonstrated when the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) moved your election since it was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) who seconded the motion. You have there incontrovertible evidence of the confidence which all members of this house place in you, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):
I should like to offer a word of congratulation also, Mr. Speaker, to the Deputy Speaker of the house on his election to the high office which he holds. When I came to this house in 1945 with you, Mr. Speaker, I found here a number of colleagues from university and law school days. They included the hon. member who last week was elected Deputy Speaker of this house. We first met as freshmen at the University of Toronto in the fall of 1921, in a class which also included the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). It included later Mr. Russell Boucher, former member for Carleton; and that group added to their number on leaving university and entering Osgoode Hall law school in the fall of 1925 the hon. gentleman who is now the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), and the late Senator Joseph Bench. There was another distinguished gentleman who had been with us from 1921 forward in the person of Mr. Francis Flaherty, who has been a distinguished member of the press gallery in this house for many years.
I cannot say, Mr. Speaker, that I commend the political views of all my former classmates. I can commend the views of some, but I do say that nothing, whether it be called a political difference or contest, has at any time dimmed or impaired the warm friendship that has existed among us all.
I should like to offer my congratulations in no perfunctory way to the mover (Mr. Hollingworth) and seconder (Mr. Villeneuve) of the address which is now the subject of debate. I will remind the mover of the resolution that he holds a distinguished position coming into the house, because the riding he represents is immediate neighbour to the greatest riding in Canada, that of Eglinton.
While there are in this new House of Commons 75 members who have not previously been members, there is, it is true, no great change in the balance, or should I more properly say the imbalance, that exists in the house. But before dwelling too long on this theme I think it is well to remind ourselves of some facts in relation to the results created at the last general election. In saying


this I do not wish to detract anything from the victory which the government has won or that any hon. member has won. I simply wish, however, to draw attention to some facts to which it may be necessary to make recurring reference as time goes on in trying to weigh the issues and assess in true perspective the manner in which the people have expressed themselves.
The final figures have not yet been issued by the chief electoral officer; but, according to the figures which are available, it is evident that in round figures some 5,700,000 Canadians exercised their franchise on August 10 out of a total of 8,400,000 eligible to do so. That means, sir, that only 68 per cent of those eligible went to the polls to cast their ballots, just two-thirds of those eligible. It is not a record, I think, that any Canadian could view with pride. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the government chose about as inconvenient a time for a general election as was possible, and certain of the events since have thrown some light on the reasons the government selected the date they did. Some of those have become apparent in the discussion in the house on the subject of the marketing of wheat, because it is evident the government wished to get the voting done before the bumper wheat crop began to have its depressing effect upon the market.
Let us look a little further at these figures. Hon. members who are supporting the government in this house, whether they call themselves Liberal or Liberal-Labour or Independent Liberal, amassed a total of 2,819,000 votes, 49 per cent of the total cast. The Progressive Conservatives were given 1,751,000 votes, or 31 per cent of the total; C.C.F. members were given 636,000 votes, or 11 per cent of the total; Social Credit members were given
306,000	votes, or 5 per cent of the total. That means, Mr. Speaker, that the members supporting the government in this house average, in terms of electors, 16,000 Canadians voting in their favour. Every one of the 51 Progressive Conservatives elected on August 10 represents 34,000 supporting voters. In the case of C.C.F. members it is 27,000 and in the case of Social Credit members, 20,000.
Of course the election machinery has created this strange situation, that the Liberals with 49 per cent of the vote comprise 66 per cent of the strength of this house; the Progressive Conservatives with 31 per cent of the popular vote have just 19 per cent of the strength of this house; the C.C.F. with 11 per cent of the popular vote have 9 per cent of the strength of this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the real strength.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not speaking in terms of vocal strength. Social Credit with 5 per cent of the popular vote commands 6 per cent of the strength of this house. You will see what disparity there is. The fact of the matter is that scores and scores of hon. members in this house, and not least of all those who are among the supporters of the government, are here on a minority vote. I do not say this at all with the intention of rubbing anything in; I am trying to put before the house some facts to give the general election results a true perspective. To consider the results of the general election in terms of popular support with reference to the situation of imbalance that exists in this house is to misunderstand the results of the election, for they cannot bear that interpretation.
I do not think we need spend very much time upon the speech from the throne. If it contains the legislative program of the government for the present session it is a very thin, puny program. It is evident that the session will be very short if that is all the government has to lay before the house in the way of a legislative program. The revision of the Bank Act will take some time and there will be extended discussion on some of the changes in the Criminal Code, but the balance of the program as adumbrated in the speech from the throne is impressive neither in content nor in length.
The amendment introduced by my leader two days ago puts before the house an opportunity to declare something that urgently needs to be declared in this country; that is, our profound belief that the welfare of Canada is dependent upon free competition and, second, that the prosperity and security of all Canadians will be advanced by government policies which will restore markets for primary products and generally promote a high volume of international trade.
Perhaps we should not be surprised that the leader of the C.C.F. took issue with our proposal that the house should declare itself in favour of free competition. We do not hear much of the C.C.F. Regina manifesto, but if the Regina manifesto still has a place among the policies and affections of the socialist members of this house then certainly they are still dedicated to replacing the capitalist system and to the establishment of a planned socialistic economy which will control finance and socialize -the insurance companies and many other matters which can never be squared with the assertion of our belief in the principle of free competition.
The second part of the C.C.F. subamendment proposes a plan of health insurance. It
The Address-Mr. Fleming is quite evident by the complete silence of the speech from the throne on this subject that no health insurance legislation -is going to be introduced by the government at -this session. If that had been their intention one would have expected to find it in the speech from the throne.
This must cause no little embarrassment to some hon. members who support this government, one in particular being my good friend the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). Among the reports of speeches made by the hon. member in support of government candidates during the general election campaign I read with particular interest a report in the Globe and Mail of a speech which he made in Midland on- June 29, reading in part as follows:
The prediction that a health insurance plan will be initiated at the first session of the new parliament was made here tonight by David Croll, Toronto Liberal.
Speaking at a Simcoe East nomination meeting which chose W. A. Robinson to again contest the riding, Mr. Croll told his audience: "Health insurance must be undertaken at the first session of a new parliament. It will be, I am sure, a workable plan, not just something on paper."
Apparently we have not even got it on paper. Then another very touching reference was made. I had to swallow hard when I read this:
Mr. Croll said he was sure the Prime Minister, with his deep understanding of human needs, would make a start on health insurance at the first session of the new parliament.
I have scanned the speech from the throne in vain for even the most casual or passing reference to that subject. Perhaps something a little more to the point is the report of what was said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) at Ottawa on June 23, which I quote:
Health insurance will be introduced ''in due
course and by a Liberal government", Trade Minister Howe told a Liberal nominating convention here tonight.
We are told that it will be introduced "in due course". Whatever "in due course" means, apparently it does not mean at this 3953-54 session of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was first promised by the Liberals in 1919.


Donald Methuen Fleming: "In due course" probably reaches out "from here to eternity".
There is a proposal in the speech from the throne for the introduction of a scheme of pensions for the disabled. I think we will all await with much interest the introduction of this measure. When the old age security program was under discussion in the special committee of both houses in 1950 some of us thought that was the appropriate time to

The Address-Mr. Fleming deal with this subject. In the meantime at least one province, my own province of Ontario, which has a Progressive Conservative administration, has introduced pensions of this kind. We shall look with interest at the government's measure in this regard.
There was one other subject which occupied a prominent part in the deliberations of this house at the last session, and one naturally scanned the speech from the throne with some degree of care to find reference to it, but the speech from the throne indicates a total blank in that regard. A year ago the government thought the extension of the Emergency Powers Act for another year was sufficiently important to merit mention in the speech from the throne, but if the government has any such proposal in mind for this session it is certainly hiding its intention.
It will be recalled that this afternoon I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) a question which was naturally prompted by the complete silence of the speech from the throne on this subject. I asked whether it was the intention of the government to propose at this session the extension of that infamous measure which will expire on May 31 next unless renewed. The Prime Minister indicated that that was a subject on which an announcement would be made in due course.
If the government has made up its mind on this subject it should have the courage to come and tell us, because surely this is the time in the session and the speech from the throne is the means by which the house should be told what measures the government proposes to lay before the house at this session. This measure was important enough a year ago to receive special mention. Let the government now tell this house in all frankness whether it is going to bring in a measure this year to extend the infamous Emergency Powers Act. If that is its intention there should be early debate upon the matter and it should have had prominent mention in the speech from the throne.
I have time to make only one reference to the policies of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and to draw to the attention of the house the fact that during the contribution to this debate by the mover of the resolution, on November 13, the Minister of Finance made what may well prove to be a revealing comment. The hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth), as recorded at the bottom of page 14 of Hansard, said:
This is another financial measure which will be introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) who, after bringing in seven budget surpluses in
(Mr. Fleming.]

the last few years, is probably looking forward to another.
The Minister of Finance then said:
Hear, hear.
It is quite evident, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance is completely unrepentant and that he is aiming again for another of these budget surpluses, the product of overtaxation. The budget surplus for the first six months of this fiscal year stands at $200 million.-another invitation to the government to indulge in more reckless spending.
Mr. Speaker, the subject of housing will, I hope, have a place of its own in debate at a later stage in this session. I comment on it now only to draw attention to the fact that it is absolutely inevitable and essential that something be done. The annual report of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the National Housing Act, issued last summer, drew attention to the fact that the average income of those buying houses under the National Housing Act in the year 1952 was $89 per week. The average buyer paid $10,934 for his house, or 7 per cent more than he did in 1951. The income of the class of people buying houses under the act, we are told, rose even more dramatically than the price of houses. It jumped from $4,076 or approximately $78 a week in 1951 to $4,618 or approximately $89 a week in 1952.
The situation obviously calls for redress. We have been urging this for a long time in the house, and we shall examine with some degree of care whatever legislation the government introduces at this session to meet the needs of the situation.
I cannot leave this passing reference to the subject of housing, Mr. Speaker, without recalling the way in which one member of this house manages to get houses built in his constituency. I refer, of course, to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). Speaking at his own nominating convention in the riding of Port Arthur last July, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said he had been told by people in his constituency that there was a shortage of mortgage money for the construction of houses in his riding. He then said this, and it is a direct quotation: "I instructed our treasury to make money available."
How many members of this house-yes, and at that time how many candidates for election to parliament-were privileged to the extent of being able to give orders to the national treasury that mortgage money be made available to his constituency? Is this the even hand of justice? Is this fair play to all constituencies? Or is this the old story of the Minister of Trade and Commerce

ensuring favours for himself and his constituency at a time when the extension of those favours would help to get him re-elected to this house? Mr. Speaker, housing is a national problem that affects all parts of this country, and there should be no favours extended to one particular part which are denied to other parts. I hope that hon. Liberal members of this house will not let this kind of discrimination pass without severe strictures against the man who perpetrated it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I draw attention to the fact that the opening reference in the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition sounds the note that the welfare of this country depends on free competition. That is our belief in this party. It is a timely assertion- timely because while some hon. members opposite have been giving lip service to the system of free enterprise their practices have fallen far short of the words. There was, for instance, the utterance of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in Ottawa on October 28, when he said the federal government does not intend to perpetuate monopolies in Canadian air line operation. Brave words indeed! But what are the facts? ... by their fruits ye shall know them.
They are a better test than their words. One calls to mind other words of Scripture:
This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
The principle of free enterprise might well make that complaint against hon. members opposite.
I have not forgotten how, in participating in debate at McGill University with the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) a year ago, I heard him say this-and he was then a minister of this government: "The present Liberal government at Ottawa is neither free enterprise nor socialist". Those were his words. Then he went on to say: "The government of this country is a 50 per cent partner in every business enterprise in the country". Of course he alluded to the extortionate rates of taxation imposed by his colleague, the Minister of Finance.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, they say they are not socialist. If they are not free enterprise either, then what are they?


An hon. Member:: Liberal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Apparently "Liberal" is
neither free enterprise nor socialistic. I would like to recall to my hon. friend that in the twentieth parliament of this country, those of us who were here heard an eminent member of this government, the late Hon. Ian Mackenzie, get up and proclaim himself a 83276-10
The Address-Mr. Fleming socialist. Of course in those days the Liberal government was doing its best to curry favour and support from the C.C.F. Their margin was not large enough in those days for them to get along without currying a little favour in selected spots to the left of Mr. Speaker. Those were the tactics they used to try to win favours from that quarter.
Well, let there be no mistake about it. We of the Progressive Conservative party are for free enterprise and we are not socialists as those expressions are understood and commonly used, although sometimes abused and sometimes misunderstood. I am looking straight at my friends of the C.C.F. when I say that; but I do say most positively that we in the Progressive Conservative party do not believe in socialism. We are a party that believes the welfare of this country depends upon the maintenance of free enterprise.
We therefore deplore, Mr. Speaker, the attitude exhibited by the government and so aptly described yesterday by my colleague the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I have to pause now to adjust myself from Lake Centre to Prince Albert and, in that connection, I would like to pay particularly warm tribute to my colleague, the hon. member for Prince Albert, on the way in which he secured a handsome victory in that riding, even after the government had butchered up his former riding of Lake Centre.


Mr. Marlin:: A pretty strong word.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I beg your pardon?


Murdo William Martin: I say that is a pretty strong word.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I say it was a pretty strong measure of butchery.


Mr. McCann:: Why do you not call it surgery?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The expression of my colleague to describe the attitude the government exhibited in respect of the application of Canadian Pacific Air Lines for an air cargo licence from the east of this country to the west coast on a route north of that followed by T.C.A. was "paternalistic", and an apt expression it is.
I read and reread the defence offered by the Prime Minister in this house the day before yesterday for the attitude of the government on that subject. It was so weak, so flimsy, that I had to read it again to try to convince myself that the Prime Minister had tried to offer it to the house as any kind of defence of the government's action. The government must feel very weak indeed on the matter. We have read in the press for

The Address-Mr. Fleming some days that there has been a division in the cabinet on the subject. It is quite evident, judging by the very feeble defence offered by the Prime Minister for his position, that the decision must have been a very difficult one to reach. I can well imagine, for instance, or I can hope at least, that the Minister of Finance must have opposed that kind of decision. I think I can guess that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was probably in favour of it, and I think I can guess where most of the other ministers of the cabinet stood on an issue of that kind. This paternalistic attitude, Mr. Speaker, that denies people the right to invest their money-


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member's record
as a guesser is not good.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -in order to carry on a lawful enterprise in this country which has been asked for by no fewer than thirty boards of trade in the western provinces and offers great benefits and facilities to many shippers in this country, is of a piece with the paternalistic attitude exhibited by the government in the past in such matters as television, in restraining all forms of television in Canada until a matter of a year and a half or two years ago. That is the reason Canada was denied television for so long, the same old paternalistic attitude on the part of the government. They were not doing anything themselves and they would not let anybody else do anything, even to risk his own money in introducing a new business under the most proper safeguards.
Before I leave the subject of television I wish to make a comment on something that happened very shortly after prorogation of the last session of the house. We left here on the 14th of May. About ten days later a change in the allocation of television channels in the Toronto area was announced. Previously Toronto had had assigned to it under long-standing international agreements channels 6, 9 and 11. Channel No. 9 had been occupied by the C.B.C. for station CBLT. Sentiment had been running strongly, as every Liberal member from the Toronto area knows, in favour of putting these other channels to use. There were people ready to occupy them. But what happened? After getting parliament out of the way the government, through the Department of Transport, shunted channel No. 11 to an entirely different area.
When I got wind of the fact that such a proposal was coming before the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation I communicated with the senior Liberal member from the Toronto area, my good friend from Spadina (Mr. Croll). I sent him a copy of a letter I wrote to the board

of governors of the C.B.C. protesting against this proposal and urged him, and through him the other Liberal members in the Toronto area, to make their opposition to this transfer known to the board of governors. Whether any of them raised his voice or wielded a pen or pushed the key of a typewriter in opposition to this transfer I do not know. But nothing has been put forward publicly to indicate that any Liberal member from the Toronto area made the slightest effort to prevent that channel being taken from that area.
I do not take a narrow view with regard to the matter of assignment of channels. I wish to be fair in my approach to it. I have always approached my duties in this house, not simply on a local, but on a national basis. But I do wish to say that to deprive that area of a channel that had been recognized for years as one that belonged to it, iand which people in the area were clamouring that it should not only be retained but occupied, is but another example on the part of the government of how it is prepared to go on overlooking the needs of the central Ontario region.
The whole central Ontario region is deprived of any representation in the cabinet, notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), as long ago as June, 1949, when seeking support in the city of Toronto for the election of Liberal candidates in that area, promised that the area would receive representation in the cabinet. Here we are in 1953 and there is still no representation of that central Ontario area in the cabinet. It is not for lack of experienced and capable men. But the area is still denied representation. Is it not about time some hon. members of the house who come from that area, and who give their allegiance to the government, had something to say to the Prime Minister and to the government on that subject? Do not mumble it. Do not say it in whispers. Come out and say it openly as it ought to toe said.
There is little time left to discuss the vitally important subject of trade. In the year 1952 Canada stood third among the trading nations of the world, with external trade amounting to $581 per capita of population, exceeded only by New Zealand. But in the first nine months of this year for which figures are available a trend which is fraught with danger, a trend the dangers of which we drew to the attention of the house in the last parliament, continues. Figures for the first nine months of this fiscal year already show in a disturbing fashion that we are continuing to an increasing degree to put all our trading eggs in one basket, the

United States basket. These figures for the first nine months of this fiscal year show that 60 per cent of our total exports went to the United States and 73 per cent of all the imports which Canada purchased came from the United States.
Of our total trade, both export and import, 67 per cent or just over two-thirds was done with the United States. These figures are higher than they were previously. They show why we had occasion to warn the government about the dangerous extent to which our trading eggs are being put in one basket. I am glad that in a speech last spring the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) used the same expression, namely "putting our trading eggs in one basket". The danger is there, and it is becoming more and not less pronounced.
We are glad to trade with the United States, but we do not wish to run the risk of seeing such an overwhelming percentage of our trade being done with one nation. It is fraught with danger as anyone well remembers who recalls the lessons of 1921 and 1929, not to go back farther, with respect to our trade relations with the United States. On the other hand, there is that market in the United Kingdom which the government has so lightheartedly watched being curtailed. In the first nine months of this fiscal year only 16 per cent of our exports went to the United Kingdom, and we bought only 10 per cent of our imports from the United Kingdom.
We did not hear a word today from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) about measures the government has in mind for encouraging the expansion of our trade with the United Kingdom. On the contrary, Britain's purchases from us have been declining in the first nine months of this fiscal year. It is a serious decline, and today Britain's purchases from Canada are virtually confined to wheat and flour. That situation is fraught with peril for Canada. How much longer must we wait for some statement from the government, some adumbration of policy on the part of the government for extending our trade with the United Kingdom? Silence reigns on that subject.
We must purchase arms. What is the government doing by way of seeking to expand the proportion of those arms that we purchase from the United Kingdom? We had something to say about this subject last spring in the house, but to date we have heard nothing from the government as to efforts to expand purchases from the United Kingdom and in that way to provide Britain with needed dollars in order that she may 83276-10i
The Address-Mr. Fleming purchase wheat and other products which we would be glad to sell to her.
There are many other matters in connection with trade about which I had hoped to speak, but as my time is limited I pass now to one concluding subject which I lay before the government in no partisan sense. Canada, as we have been reminded in the discussion today and on previous days during this session, has been blessed by Providence with the second largest wheat crop in all her history. That has been a blessing in one sense, but at the same time it has created very serious problems when we measure the unprecedented carryover of wheat, a carryover that was measured by the dominion bureau of statistics a few days ago in terms of visible wheat supplies of 957 million bushels.
Mr. Speaker, there are areas in the world today where people are hungry. Mr. Trygve Lie, former secretary general of the United Nations, speaking in Cleveland a few days ago warned the world, particularly the western or free world, of this when he said:
There is no fact in the world, in terms of humanity and in terms of politics, which is more important than this: The vast majority of the people of the world live in poverty and misery and they know it and they don't like it. Most human beings are hungry today most of the time; more than half the people in the world are illiterate; half of the world's population is constantly ill, and expected to die before the age of thirty-five.
The communists know that and of course in areas like that they are seeking to mislead the people.
Now, there are nations within the commonwealth, and one thinks particularly of the Asiatic members of the commonwealth like India, Pakistan and Ceylon, where people are hungry today, where we are told people are starving today. Mr. Speaker, they look at reports of this huge wheat crop of ours, this huge surplus of wheat, and I am sure there are many questions that are in their minds, questions that are being exploited by the communists who never lose an opportunity of exploitation in such circumstances.
The government has received a number of memorials and resolutions on this subject. One of these came from the annual meeting of the executive council of the Church of England in Canada held last September. They put their resolution, after a number of recitals, in these words:
-petition the dominion government to make available to the hungry nations of the world, with the least possible delay, and, if necessary, at no cost, a tenth of this year's wheat crop.
I think the idea back of that was that it would be appropriate for Canada under conditions existing today to consider tithing her

The Address-Mr. Fleming bumper wheat crop to help to feed the hungry in the world. Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak of any particular quantity, which would depend of course on an examination of this problem. There are many factors involved in that, an investigation of the need, an investigation of the availability of shipping, and other factors which I am sure are quite obvious. But, Mr. Speaker, I urge that serious consideration be given to this need, particularly at a vital time like this when the communists lose no chance of exploiting every source of unrest and suffering in the world, and that we lose no opportunity to do something effective and if possible something dramatic, something that will catch the imagination of the world, particularly of the east, in a matter of this kind. Would it not be a major factor in showing the hungry people in the east today that we are with them, that our freedom expresses itself in a sympathetic and brotherly attitude, particularly to citizens of our sister nations within the commonwealth?
We should go forward and say "We are going to help you; we are going to help to feed you, and we are going to do it in a way that will strike the imagination of the eastern world, we hope of the entire world." The United States is giving shipments of wheat to these countries today. I will not try to put before the government any hard and fast or cast-iron proposal in this matter but I do urge, Mr. Speaker, that at a time like this when the eyes of hungry millions are directed towards Canada we may lose one of the great-i est opportunities that destiny has given to Canada if we fail to strike what will in effect be a great blow for freedom, as well as an act of great humanitarian and brotherly assistance to the citizens of our sister nations of the commonwealth.
We spend great sums on national defence. Here is one way in which an effective sum can be used in a way that may, far beyond the comprehension of any of us, help meet the challenge which is threatening openly in many parts of the world today. As the late Archbishop Temple, the Archbishop of Canterbury, pointed out, what force does when successfully applied in defence of freedom is simply to repel counterforce. It gives an opportunity for those who are willing to use it to create good will and those conditions which may make a repetition of a contest in arms not inevitable.
Mr. Speaker, here is a great opportunity for Canada to do something effective and something dramatic to fill the vacuum that has been left in the wake of force. We must have strength. No one in this house, I am
IMr. Fleming.]
sure, questions the necessity for our being strong, but this is not enough. Here is an opportunity given to Canada. Let us grasp it and be grateful for it.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River-Camrose):: As one of the members of the twenty-first parliament whose constituency boundaries have been changed very drastically, I should like to state that this group has lost the services of a member, without any fight in the field. That member is Dr. H. H. W. Beyerstein who represented the constituency of Camrose in the last parliament.
I want to pay tribute to Dr. Beyerstein as my first duty here today. He was one of the most conscientious members of the house, and at all times looked after the interests of his constituents. I regret very much that he had to be left at home because of the loss of one seat and because of the decision of a convention in the combined constituency of Battle River-Camrose.
Dr. Beyerstein, I am glad to say, is now established and practicising his profession as a chiropractor at 10856 82nd avenue in Edmonton. Dr. Beyerstein is one of the best qualified chiropractors in Canada and I understand that at the present time he has the best equipped office in this country. If any of you have pains or aches that need attention I would suggest that you go and see Dr. Beyerstein, who has relieved some of my pains and I am sure he will be able to relieve yours.
The Battle River-Camrose constituency is formed by a combination of the major portions of those two constituencies. In this constituency we have the best class of people to be found anywhere in Canada, and I am speaking from practically forty years of experience. I know what these people are, and I am quite qualified to speak on their behalf.
The population of the constituency is approximately 57,000 and it contains approximately 7,500 square miles, with 70 towns, large and small. Unlike many other constituencies, the territory is all populated. It means that there is quite a lot of territory to cover. Mixed farming is carried on throughout, and you will find in that constituency some of the best purebred stock to be found anywhere in this country.
At the present time we have on exhibition in Toronto from the stock farm of Mr. W. L. Robinson, who lives about four miles west of my home town of Vermilion, four head of purebred Shorthorn cattle selected by the officials of the Alberta government and purebred livestock association officials, and it will be a surprise to me if Mr. Robinson does not

The Address-Mr. Fair
return home with some of the top prizes as he has done on other occasions.
In this constituency also we have quite a sprinkling of that thing they call black gold-oil. We have oil wells in several sections of the territory and they are being rapidly developed. In some areas of course, as in the past, we do not have sufficient moisture, and that creates trouble not only for the farmers but for all the people who live in that territory. Because I have discussed Battle River on former occasions I do not intend to use any of my time on that subject today. I do feel, however, that because part of the old Camrose constituency is included in my territory now I should tell the house something about it.
The town of Camrose-and I shall deal with it only as a sample of the many other towns in that area-is a progressive one. It has fine buildings; it is well laid out, and there is a plentiful supply of churches and schools, as well as a home for retired people. It has a population of about 6,000. In that town they are on their toes all the year round. On any occasion when they see an opportunity to do something for the town or the district surrounding it, they are right on the job.
About three years ago they discovered that there was some oil in that territory. However, not wishing to be disillusioned as others have been, they did not do anything about the oil wells by way of celebration until June 6, 1952, on which date they celebrated the drilling of their one hundred and first well. There was a sparkling celebration to which were invited officials of the various oil companies operating in the field, as well as the former minister of lands and mines of the Alberta government, Mr. Tanner, who has done a wonderful job in the development of oil in my province. An interesting program was offered, and the occasion will go down as one of the bright spots in the life of the citizens of Camrose. Anyone who drives around the Camrose district at night can see the lights of the oil wells in every direction. I am not sure of the number of wells drilled at the moment, but I know they are making very rapid progress in the well-drilling operations.
I am not in a position to state the amounts received for farm products from that area, and shall not attempt to do so at the moment. I am sure, however, that this district is bringing in its fair share of money from those products. When the district is blessed with sufficient moisture it has good crops, and large numbers of livestock are produced.
The farmers in the Camrose area in the first seven months of 1953 invested no less than
$790,259 in farm implements. This information is made available through a survey made by the editor of the Camrose Canadian and his associates, who went to the trouble of surveying the area and getting this information from the implement dealers. Included in this figure are 97 tractors. I am sure the amount would not be nearly as great were it not for the fact that the farmers have been charged exorbitant prices for their implements. I expect that some of the money being demanded today by the farmers as advances on wheat will be required to pay for that machinery. If the implement companies want to ease their consciences a little bit I suggest that they knock something off the amounts the farmers owe them, because the prices of implements are certainly far too high.
On three different occasions during the last two sessions of parliament I have brought to the attention of the house the matter of the exorbitant prices charged for farm implements. As a result of my last talk the president of one of the implement companies, who presumably spoke on behalf of all of them-but chiefly his own-checked up on the figures and statements I had made. However, in line with my usual procedure I had gone for my information to a source this gentleman was unable to question. I had gone to the bureau of statistics, and my statements still stand.
I intend before this session is over to press further for an investigation into the cost of farm implements, and perhaps to have a talk with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Gar-son) with a view to making more use of the combines legislation. I believe if this matter were properly investigated some good would flow from it. An investigation was made by a house committee in 1937 and 1938, and the implement companies saw fit to increase the prices of their implements on two occasions while the investigation was still proceeding, and nothing whatever was done about it by the government. I feel therefore that some reasonable and effective action should be taken in connection with this subject.
On June 12 the town of Camrose put on a program to show the farmers of that territory that their business is appreciated. June 12 is farmers' day in my province. The chamber of commerce and others in Camrose went around and collected enough money before that day to put on a fine celebration in honour of the farmers in the territory. A restatement of objectives is as follows:
To focus attention on agriculture as the original and continuing primary industry of Alberta.
To encourage a widespread and more intensive observance of "farmers' day" as an important
142	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fair
"looked-forward-to" holiday each year. To place it on an equal level in significance with ''Labour day", the industrial and commercial workers' holiday.
To further strengthen bonds of co-operation and partnership between rural and urban dwellers.
To these objectives, the businessmen and citizens of Camrose sincerely dedicate this communitywide effort.
On that occasion the citizens and businessmen made provision to take care of all expenses of the celebration, with the exception of bottles of Coca-Cola, which were sold on the grounds at the wholesale price of five cents a bottle. We had there what I believe was the largest barbecue ever held in Canada. Nineteen hindquarters of the best beef Canada can produce-because it was produced in Alberta-were barbecued. We had with us the mayor of Edmonton, Mr. William Hawrelak, and the mayor of Calgary, Mr. Don Mackay, who came to do some of the carving. We also had in attendance the provincial minister of agriculture, Hon. Mr. Ure who, I believe, was given the first slice; at least I saw his picture in the newspaper the following week. Therefore I think it must have been pretty good food.
Those people realize the importance of agriculture. Perhaps in this connection I might read a statement from the Alberta wheat pool budget of August 28. This is *credited to Shen-nung, a Chinese emperor and the inventor of agricultural implements, in 2800 B.C. He had this to say:
The well-being of a people is like a tree; agriculture is its root, manufacturing and commerce are its branches and life. If the root is injured, the leaves fall, the branches break away and the tree dies.
I am sorry that many of our business people have not yet seen the truth of that observation. There were gathered in Camrose on that occasion 13,500 people, and they were served with those 19 quarters of barbecued beef and a large quantity of salmon. The program commenced at ten o'clock in the morning. In addition to the events put on by the chamber of commerce of the town the members of different farm organizations had their picnics at noon on the grounds provided by the board.
This I believe was an outstanding recognition of the importance of agriculture, and I commend it to other communities across Canada. They also had a baseball tournament, and it required two or three days to finish it off.
In that town they also have a very good newspaper. I am not quite sure of the circulation, but I believe it is close to 6,000. At the time of the weekly newspapers association convention the Camrose Canadian took top place for its editorial page, with 23-8 points
IMr. Fair.]

out of a possible 25. It must be recognized that the paper is really doing a worth-while job. I understand it came within a hairbreadth of taking the community services award also. That shows what good newspapers we have in my territory when the Canadian took the place it did in competition with all the newspapers in Canada. At that time my own local newspaper, the Vermilion Standard, took second place in the smaller circulation class. That is really worth while.
A couple of months ago a friendship train was sponsored by the chamber of commerce of the city of Edmonton. Some 88 members started out from Edmonton one morning and stopped at various towns until they reached Wainwright, where they stopped, and eventually they went on to Saskatoon during the night and spent the next day playing golf and taking part in other amusements. They left Saskatoon that night, and on their way back to Edmonton the next day they stopped at Camrose.
I believe a friendship train is a good idea, and Camrose seems to have a number of original ideas. One of these they put into effect when the friendship train was going through. When the train arrived at the station the visitors found that the platform had been roped off and fixed up as a stock corral. On the ground to greet the visitors was Mr. George Goldberg, president of the chamber of commerce, who took Mr. Winspear, the president of the chamber of commerce in Edmonton, over a stockloading chute. The two presidents were hauled down the streets on a manure spreader pulled by a tractor. Other members of the delegation were treated in a similar manner, although they did not use a manure spreader. They used different methods; I believe some hayracks were employed. When that was done, through the hospitality of Camrose-
I have sampled some of it, and I do not think you will find any better cooks than they have out there; there was a heavy sprinkling of Scandinavian people among them-the visitors were taken to the basement of a church and treated to what they called a topsyturvy or upside-down dinner. They started out by singing "God Save the Queen" and then they served apple pie and cheese. They cleared the tables and served roast beef; cleared the tables again and served tomato juice and other things, and finished up with an address of welcome.


Mr. Maclnnis:: What were the other things?


Robert Fair: The other things I will explain to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway a little later on. Perhaps we shall do something about that after I am finished here.


Donald MacInnis: Hear, hear.


Robert Fair: I have just given a little history of one of the towns in the new territory. There are many other towns with similar achievements of their own; I have not time to deal with all of them. I think I have given a fair sample of the new territory which has been added to the old Battle River seat.
I now come back to the speech from the throne. I should like to deal with some of the items contained therein. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 deal with defence, the Colombo plan, the North Atlantic treaty and so on. I will not deal with them except to say that we favour a strong defence; but as far as I am concerned, I do not believe in keeping war factories operating for the purpose of providing employment or avoiding depression. The sooner we get rid of them, with security and with safety, the better it will be for all concerned. Paragraph 8 reads as follows:
Canada's total volume of external trade has reached record levels. But dollar shortages in many countries have persisted and continue to create problems for some of our exporters. Another commonwealth conference with respect to financial and economic matters is to be held in Australia early in the new year.
We have had experiences with similar conferences that were held some time ago, and all I need to do to remind government members and other hon. members, with the exception of Social Crediters, is to refer to what happened in December, 1945, when legislation put into effect the Bretton Woods agreement. If we have the interest of Canada at heart I hope it will teach us to do something different at the next conference from what was done at the Bretton Woods conference so we shall protect our people. We have quite a little trouble with trade today, and if we look back to the source of that trouble I think we can pin a very large percentage of it on the results of that agreement.
Tariffs seem to cause us quite a lot of trouble, and while many hours are wasted in discussion of them, we have not found very many beneficial results. When the President of the United States addressed us here on Saturday last he had something to say in connection with that as well, and I read from his speech, which is found on page 26 of Hansard:
The free world must come to recognize that trade barriers, although intended to protect a country's economy, often in fact shackle its prosperity. In the United States there is a growing recognition that free nations cannot expand their productivity and economic strength without a high level of international trade.
The Address-Mr. Fair
In our case, our two economies are enmeshed intricately with the world economy. Obviously we cannot risk sudden dislocation in industry and agriculture and widespread unemployment and distress, by hasty decisions to accomplish suddenly what inevitably will come in an orderly economic evolution.
"Make haste slowly" is a homely maxim with international validity.
In order to bring some of the benefits that we have been seeking for a number of years, particularly since the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) visited London last December and discussed trade and similar matters-though so far as I can see we have not yet received very much benefit from that conference-a joint economic and trade committee has been set up. In connection with the setting up of that committee the President had this to say:
Toward the strengthening of commercial ties between Canada and the United States, officials of our two governments have for some months been considering the establishment of a joint economic and trade committee. This committee, now approved, will consist of cabinet officers of both countries. They will meet periodically to discuss in broad terms economic and trade problems and the means for their equitable solution. I confidently believe that out of this process the best interests of both our countries will be more easily harmonized and advanced.
I am sure we all enjoyed the President's speech, and hope that something worth while will come from the statements he made. Certainly some changes are needed, and the sooner they are brought about the better.
Paragraph 11 of the speech from the throne had this to say:
At home we continue to enjoy general prosperity although there are some sectors of our economy which have been faced with difficulties. Our farmers have harvested the second largest wheat crop in Canadian history. Private capital investment has reached levels never before attained. Employment is at high levels.
In connection with the part relating to farmers I may say that we have had three exceptionally good crops, and the fourth one was also one of the best, although of poor grade and much of it in poor condition. Farmers are not like many other people who can shut down factories and lay off their help.
I have here the Alberta wheat pool budget of August 28 which contains a statement which will give some idea of how some of our industries protect themselves by reducing production while our farmers are left at the mercy of other people in the country. I read:
During the depression farmers do not cut production regardless of the price level of their products. On the other hand, manufacturers cut production, close their plants or operate them on part time and struggle to keep up prices.
In 1935, Dr. Gardiner C. Means prepared a table for the United States congress which showed how

The Address-Mr. Fair sitting back complacently and doing nothing about farm conditions. In the Edmonton Journal of October 14, 1953, we And a statement which shows that agriculture secretary Benson is going to revamp the agriculture set-up. Two days later in the same paper there appears an article datelined Kansas City which shows that President Eisenhower is telling the people there what they intend to do about agriculture. They are calling a number of their top experts together to work out a plan which will protect agriculture.
What are we doing about it in this country? Are we still continuing "to have the matter under active consideration" or are we taking effective steps to protect our agriculture and, by that method, protect all of our people in this country?
Farmers are blamed for the large spread between the prices they receive and the prices which the housewives pay. I have here a statement taken from U.S. News and World Report which gives some information. I see that my time is slipping away so I will hustle through this as fast as I can. The list is as follows:
Housewife	Farmer	Thepays	gets	SpreadCommodity	(cents)	(cents)	(cents)Bread, lb. loaf	.. 17	2-6	14-4Round steak, lb.	.. 79	47-6	31-4Bacon, lb	... 85	58-6	26-4Milk, 2 qts. ...	... 43	20-4	22-6Butter, lb. ...	.. . 80	54-6	25-4Cheese, lb. 	... 55	27-6	27-4Corn flakes ...	... 31	5-5	25-5Soda crackers,	lb. 25	3-7	21-3
I believe we should place responsibility for the high prices where it properly belongs. We should not create further injustices and pile them on the back of the farmer, because he is not getting the high prices that are being paid by consumers all across the country.
I intended to say something in connection with social security, but I have not much time left. However, I want to commend the government for at last taking the steps it is taking to provide some relief by way of pensions for those who are physically incapacitated. One or two provinces, including my own, are providing similar assistance at the present time, but I feel that the dominion government should make a large contribution in connection with that matter. Also, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind has sent requests which I believe should have been honoured long ago. Let us hope that at this session the legislation will be amended to provide pensions for the blind that will give them at least $50 a month and take care of the means test as well.
Another request that has been made time and again over the last two years concerns war veterans allowances legislation. I believe that single veterans eligible for war veterans allowances should receive $60 per month and married veterans $120 a month, with the means test removed. They should also be given permission to earn more than the small amounts provided for under section 4 of the act.
One of the last things I wish to deal with is the revision of the Bank Act. It is one of the matters that can properly be dealt with in order to provide a means of distribution of many of the things that we produce in Canada but which cannot be distributed through lack of money.
I hope that revision will not be completed this year without certain fundamental changes being made in that legislation. I believe the little group in this corner has a solution. It is one which we have laid before the house time and time again. 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 and find out, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) when he referred to a program initiated in my province some time ago, that what is physically possible must be made financially possible.
That is the only thing we have to consider, and it does not take intelligent people very long to figure it out. If we are now bound by programs of the past, let us forget about the past and make provision for our people and at the same time take care of the communist threat. I have a poem here entitled "To the Daring" which reads as follows:
The things that haven't been done before Those are the things to try.
Columbus dreamed of an unknown shore At the rim of the far flung sky,
And his heart was bold, and his faith was strong As he ventured in dangers new
And he paid no heed to the jeering crowd Or the fears of the doubting crew.
The many will follow the beaten track With guide posts along the way,
They live and for ages back Have a chart for every day.
Someone has told them it is safe to go On the road he has travelled o'er
And all that they ever strive to know Are the things that were known before.
The things that haven't been done before Are the tasks worth while today.
Are you one of the flock that follows
Or are you one that shall lead the way?
Are you one of the timid souls that quail

At the jeers of the doubting crew Or dare you whether you win or fail Strike out for the goal that is new?
That is what Social Credit stands tor; that is the star to which we must attach our wagon.


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Hollingworth) and the seconder (Mr. Villeneuve) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, two new members who have been in this chamber only a few days. I think their contributions were worth while, and I believe they will go far in the public life of the country.
In the few minutes at my disposal this afternoon I wish to deal with matters that are of interest to me and which I believe should be brought to the attention of the house and the people of the country. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) was speaking in the house on November 16 he had this to say, as appears at page 37 of Hansard:
It is the omissions from the speech which are most noticeable. We are told that "there are some sectors of our economy which have been faced with difficulties''. That is indeed an understatement. Nothing is said about the textile industry, the cheese producers, the dairy farmers, the cattle breeders, or other producers who are looking for some information as to what they may expect. There is a very noticeable silence about the critical situation resulting from the vast accumulation of unsold grain on the farms of the prairie provinces.
The matter with which I wish to deal concerns the omissions that I found in the platform of the Progressive Conservative party during the last election campaign and in the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke in the house just two days -ago. I believe that a national leader or a national party should never single out any particular primary -producer or manufacturer for special benefits. A national party and a national leader should speak for all the people of our country. To me it was most noticeable that the fishermen, who form a good part of the population in Charlotte and other -counties, were completely ignored. I believe the facts should be put on the record as to the conditions under which these primary producers are endeavouring to make a livelihood at the present time.
There is one other fact I might mention. In the maritime provinces today the potato growers are in most -distressed circumstances. They are selling their product below the cost of production, a matter which apparently has not been brought to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition inasmuch as he failed to make any mention of that particular group who are in a most serious way.
The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart
But he did take a great deal of time to bring to the attention of the house the position in which- the wheat producers of western Canada now find themselves. I believe that after the explanation given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) today much of their fear may have been removed. The report he gave to the house surely would indicate that that particular group of primary producers does not have a great deal to worry -about.
Another industry which means so much to the economy of the maritime provinces, and I speak particularly of course of my own province, is the pulp and paper industry. During the past year it has been passing through a period of inactivity when purchases of raw materials and sales have been slow. It means a great deal to the people of that section of the country, but again that particular industry was -completely ignored. No mention was made of it. I wonder why a national leader and national party would not be aware of these conditions which most of us know exist in our country.
The most depressed industry of them all is fisheries. It also was completely ignored in the Progressive Conservative platform of 1053 and in the -remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition two days ago. If the fishermen on the Atlantic coast had enjoyed three, four or five years of prosperity I am sure they would not be seeking assistance from any government at this time. If after three or four prosperous seasons they now had a bumper catch for 1953 safely stored for a rainy -day they would have little to worry about, and I feel sure -they would be most happy. Such, however, is not the case. Rather than prosperous seasons these primary producers have had four -or five lean seasons.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Under a
Liberal -administration.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am not blaming
any government for these conditions. No one has heard me do that. What I am criticizing is the fact that these matters are not brought to the attention of the people by the leader of the official opposition and were not mentioned in their pla-tform which was broadcast right across the country last summer. That is what I find fault with. They were completely ignored by the Progressive Conservative party. I might als-o -add that those supporting that party who came to my county to support their candidate talked about cheese, housing and the money they were going to save the people if they took office after the election, but no mention was made of that industry which means so much to the four maritime provinces.

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart The fishermen whom I represent have found conditions exactly as I have described them. After three or four lean years they find it necessary to seek employment somewhere else. This is the thing that hurts. The young men upon whom we were relying to carry on in the years ahead have been obliged to leave the industry and seek employment elsewhere.
This condition is due, in many cases, to a poor catch and in other cases to prices that are below the cost of production. In the constituency I represent the sardine industry is most important. This year the catch was very small and the quality was poor. The few sardines that were caught were small and unsuitable for canning. They were sold for fertilizer and for bait. The fishermen who caught these sardines were selling them for about one-quarter of a cent per pound. It is impossible to survive and remain in an industry with prices at that level. Other branches of the industry have found conditions to be exactly the same.
It is only a short time ago that the scallop fishermen over in Digby were obliged to come ashore and take their drags out of their boats, because the price received was only about 20 cents per pound. The only hope we have now in Charlotte county at this late date, and at this season of the year, is that the lobster industry will be prosperous. I hope the lobster fishermen may be blessed with a good catch and fair prices.
The hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) gave a detailed examination of the fishing industry in Newfoundland only yesterday. I believe he is to be complimented on the effort he made at that time, and I believe that he will be thanked by the fishermen down there.
But I want to take the time allotted me to speak for those I represent in this same industry. These fishermen have now had about four successive years of poor catches combined with extremely low prices. The average income of hundreds of sardine fishermen in Charlotte county and Saint John county this year would be well below $500. In fact, taking their annual expenses into consideration their income for this year would be nil, and owing to these successive poor seasons hundreds of young men are leaving our county, not as a matter of choice but of necessity. Older residents in fishing communities are obliged to remain as it is impossible for them to secure employment and establish homes elsewhere at their age.
The three islands in my constituency, Grand Manan, Deer island, Campobello, and the coast fishing communities are in a most 

serious position. These depressed conditions have also created a most unhappy situation among all the merchants in the county. Sales are low, collections are practically impossible, and the future is not too bright.
At this point I wish to endorse a statement made yesterday by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), as it appears in Hansard for November 17,	1953, at
page 103:
I make one more suggestion. When, the combines investigation branch runs out of work-
And after a brief interjection he continued: -it would be a fine undertaking for it to investigate the reason for the very pronounced and, as I see it, inexcusable spread between the price the farmer receives and the price the consumer ultimately pays.
I might say too on this point that perhaps that is not the stand this particular hon. member has always taken. I remember when the amendments to the combines act were being discussed he did not take that attitude; but whether he did or not I wholeheartedly endorse the statement he made yesterday, and I believe the same statement could apply to the fishing industry. The results of such action might be of great benefit.
One of the problems the fishing industry has always had to face has been that great discrepancy between the prices paid to these primary producers and what the consumer was obliged to pay when the product was purchased from retail stores. I feel it is a field that should be carefully explored, and the information that might come from an examination of that kind would be most helpful to all primary producers. I have suggested on many occasions that this course be followed, and I hope this particular branch of the government will find time to go into this most important problem which means so much to those who are striving to make a livelihood from the sea. There are examples that I could quote that are unbelievable in regard to this discrepancy. There must be an explanation somewhere, and I am sure these producers would be pleased to have it.
On several occasions since I came here in 1945 I have gone back over the record of this industry with which I have been connected since I was 16 years old. The story should be well known by this time, and for that reason I am not going into details in the short time at my disposal. When this history is compiled and condensed, however, I believe it will be shown that fishing is the most unstable industry on this continent.
The economy of Charlotte county has always been dependent on this industry and it is, to a great extent, the barometer by

which the prosperity and the standard of living in this particular section of the country is gauged. Authentic records are available which are most convincing, indicating that we have been fighting and are now fighting a losing battle. The figures which are most convincing in that regard are the figures of our population, which has been steadily declining since 1871. One of the most important things in the growth of any section of our country is population. We must have the population in order to grow. Instead of our population increasing, in Charlotte county since 1871 it has decreased.
This fact should be sufficient to prove that the fishing industry, which I have said is the backbone of our economy there, has not been able to supply a sufficient reward to even support the population, exclusive of the natural increase. It is therefore apparent that if our fishing communities are to be maintained rather than become ghost towns, something better must be provided which will create employment and bring us a fair share of Canadian prosperity.
To my knowledge, as a resident of that particular section, there is one answer to this problem and one only. Again this is a matter which has been brought to the attention of the government on different occasions. I bring it to their attention once more in the hope that I may be able to convince them that some way may be found to complete this investigation, so we may look forward to a very happy and prosperous future. I am referring to the Passamaquoddy power project. I am not an engineer but I believe that, if constructed, the project would bring industry to that part of Canada, a part which is greatly in need of industry right now. It would provide employment for those who are now being educated but who must leave that part of the country and seek employment elsewhere.
Those are the things that are so bad. No father or mother wishes to see his or her son or daughter placed in a position where he or she is obliged to leave home to seek employment in some other part of the world', or on this continent. Since I left here last May and returned to my home I know I can say without fear of contradiction that I have written recommendations for 50 or 75 honest, ambitious, hard-working young men who were obliged to leave that part of the country and come to central Canada in order that they might be able to provide the things they wanted to provide for their families.
The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart
That is the position with which we are faced. Our population down there is decreasing. I feel the only thing to do is to face up to these facts and bring them to light. Let me add1 at this point that some of the most influential citizens in my province today, through the radio and press, are trying to make the citizens believe that all is well. They are referring to this great era of prosperity in New Brunswick. I listened over the radio, before coming here, to these leaders in my province.
Well, when one whistles going through a cemetery, while it might boost his morale it does not change the atmosphere one iota. I believe in telling the people the truth. No one is more willing than I to admit that conditions are not good down there. I know that, and some way must be found to make an improvement.
As I have said, there is one way only to solve the problem, and that is to go ahead with this project which, to my knowledge, has been thrown back and1 forth for the last 27 or 28 years. I must endeavour in every way within my humble capacity to impress upon the government the necessity for completing this survey which means so much to the people of Charlotte county in southern New Brunswick, as well as to those in other parts of the province.
It is unfortunate that we have not the facilities to induce these young -men and women to stay home. I believe if we had some such inducement in the form of additional industry they would prefer to live in that part of Canada rather than any other. I am striving to see if some way can be found to improve this condition.
In my experience in the fishing industry we have had what might be called boom times, but they were of short duration. The general picture has been that the first industry to feel the pinch has been fishing. In fact I believe hon. members will agree that the first to feel the pinch are always the primary producers, those rugged individuals who are the backbone of our country.
The prosperity of a country can be based only upon what its citizens are able to produce. If there is no prosperity among the primary producers, it is impossible to find prosperity anywhere else in the country.
On motion of Mr. Stuart (Charlotte) the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 19, 1953