1953-11-30

Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have a question to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on behalf of the member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fair-clough), who is not able to be here today. The question is this. When the Secretary of State for External Affairs kicked off the ball on Saturday afternoon, did he have his eye on the ball or on Miss Saskatchewan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That, of course, is not a question of privilege.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I should like to make a brief statement concerning veterans benefits for members of the regular forces who served in Korea. As hon. members know, Canadian servicemen fighting in Korea included not only career men from the regular forces but also men who had enlisted especially for the purpose of taking part in this operation. Those who had so enlisted especially for service in Korea, like their predecessors who had enlisted during the second world war, interrupted their civilian life to do their part in the defence of Canada and the free world. It was only proper, therefore, that while they were serving in the armed forces they should receive benefits similar to those given to the men serving during the second world war, and that when they ceased to be in the armed forces they should become entitled to the benefits of the veterans charter, under the Veterans Benefit Act.
As the regular forces expanded, however, the balance between the men who were especially enlisted for service in Korea and those who were career soldiers changed. Today, I am told, all but one of the young men who enlisted especially for service in Korea have been discharged or they have joined the regular forces. When hostilities ended it was considered appropriate to review the
eligibility for benefits of all Korean veterans, and it was felt that members of the regular forces who had served in the theatre of operations, and had been subjected to the same hardships and risks as their special force comrades, should be eligible for the same benefits.
Accordingly an order in council was passed on November 19, 1953, under the provisions of the Veterans Benefit Act, which makes such members of the regular forces eligible, upon discharge, for the same benefits as members of the special force.



INQUIRY AS TO ALLOCATION OF FREIGHT CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: wish once more to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he has anything further to add to the statement he made the other day in answer to a question I asked relative to the proper allocation of freight cars for the transportation of wheat. In the last couple of days I have had further word requesting particular consideration of branch lines, especially Canadian Pacific branch lines, so that at least a degree of equality shall be achieved such as the minister desires.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: For the last two or three weeks the efforts of the transport controller have been devoted to picking up any points where the three-bushel quota has not been delivered, and that is the prelude to increasing the quota. I am told there are only a few points left at which the three-bushel quota has not been delivered. I do not think there is any inequality if every section has an opportunity of delivering its initial quota before the quota is enlarged.


John George Diefenbaker: So long as they have that equality, that is what is wanted.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, November 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. A. H. Hollingworth for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Blackmore at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Low.
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: On
Friday evening, Mr. Speaker, I began to defend Senator McCarthy against the attack of the member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), made in the house on November 23, 1953.
Before I proceed, may I just clarify my own position? I participate in this debate on my personal volition, and not in any way as a spokesman for the Social Credit group.
I now proceed with my defence of Senator McCarthy. May I give a measure of attention to Senator McCarthy himself? First, who is Senator McCarthy? Senator Joseph McCarthy is the head of the Senate investigations subcommittee. This can be verified from a Washington dispatch in the Ottawa Citizen of July 21, 1953. It must be quite obvious, consequently, to anyone who has a sense of reality that the senator is not likely to become a dictator or an American Hitler or anything nonsensical like that. He is not likely to become a graver menace than communism or any of the other "isms". All that type of propaganda is pure propaganda and is malicious, malignant and utterly unjustified.
Now, what set off Senator McCarthy on his determined course in hunting out subversive figures in the United States administration? It is an interesting story. When the senator first came as a freshman to Washington in December, 1946, he was greatly flattered upon receiving an invitation from, the secretary of the navy, James Forrestal, to lunch with Mr. Forrestal. Mr. Forrestal gave him a great deal of inside information which helped the young man to realize what it was, or apparently was, that seemed to be defeating the United States at every turn. He thanks God to this very day for that interview with that great figure.
Now secretary of state Byrnes in 1946 wrote a letter to Congressman Adolph Sabath telling that congressman that President Truman's own security officers had declared that there were 284 individuals employed in the State Department who ought to be dismissed for communist connections or sympathies. That rather puts a different light on the whole story, does it not?
Only 79 of those 284 were discharged. Therefore 205 individuals were still in the state department, on its payroll, even though President Truman's own personal security committee had recommended to him that those people be dismissed, and had declared them unfit for government service.
fMr. Diefenbaker.]

Now I will ask any man, any member in this House of Commons-and members in the House of Commons are of very high quality and responsibility-if they had been in a position similar to that of Senator McCarthy and had been given information like that, would they have laid down on the job? Would they have betrayed the responsibility and trust which was reposed in them? I seriously doubt it.
McCarthy, by whatever means he could possibly devise, was able to get the names of only 81 of those 205. McCarthy asked President Truman to have Dean Acheson give McCarthy the rest of the 205 names. Truman did not even answer McCarthy's telegram asking for them.
McCarthy asked the Tydings committee, before which he was called, to subpoena Acheson and get those 205 names. The Tydings committee did not do so, although presumably it was appointed to investigate the charges which McCarthy had made in a speech in the Senate.
President Truman issued a strict order on March 13, 1948, forbidding any government employee to give any congressional committee information concerning the loyalty of any person, or concerning the contents of any investigative files. Can you imagine that? Now, in the face of a situation like that, I think hon. members would realize that Senator McCarthy, to have got as far as he has got, must have done some remarkable work somewhere.
What seems to be the secret of his effectiveness? McCarthy assailed the top-notchers of the communist organization, the big fellows, the people whom most people cultivated- Acheson, Tydings, Jessup, Lattimore, Stevenson and Benton. All of them are now gone, but McCarthy still remains.
The little people all over the nation therefore liked and trusted him. It is easy enough to jump on the little, poor, weak fellow; but to jump on the big fellows requires courage and conviction.
McCarthy was and is a new and forceful figure with a new and vigorous voice, a dynamic personality with the ability to speak directly and to the point. He has the faculty of commanding public attention, and an insistent approach, a free-swinging style, and a remorseless attack. The communist organization assailed him immediately, with all the kinds of smear that it has at its disposal and that it uses against any man who begins to produce results against any of its people.

Senator McCarthy has proved that he has great courage and sincerity, great intellectual capacity tor learning facts and understanding world and national problems. He has displayed great pertinacity, great industry and great leadership. These facts, in the main, can be verified by consulting the introduction to Senator McCarthy's own book, "McCarthyism, The Fight For America", sent to the printer on May 18,	1952. This
introduction was written by William M. McGovern, professor of political science at Northwestern University in the United States.
Generally speaking, up to date what has been the net result of Senator McCarthy's efforts? As a result of his speeches, the man in the street, the average American citizen, became alerted to the perilous situation with which we are faced-and we are faced with a most perilous situation!
The one-time arrogant and bullying communist politburo, which only four short years ago nestled snugly and safely among American government officials, has been reduced to a rabble of trembling, pleading men, each reiterating anxiously that he has always been anti-communist.
No wonder communists and communist sympathizers are literally gnashing their teeth and screeching at Senator McCarthy! Communists will never forgive him for what he has done. He has let the cat out of the bag in every way; and unless they manage to assassinate him or otherwise effectively dispose of him he will let the rest of the cats out of the bag-and they are pretty ugly cats!
It might, with truthfulness, be said that McCarthy has taken much of the fight out of communism and pro-communism. In particular, Senator McCarthy has exposed the following members of that once bullying communist junta:	Owen Lattimore, John
Stewart Service, John Carter Vincent, William T. Stone, Esther Brunauer and Philip Jessup. Every one of those six public figures whom McCarthy has exposed protested absolute innocence when McCarthy named them. The final conclusion, however, was that McCarthy was right. They are gone.
Now, what are the common attacks levied against McCarthy? The first one is that he is often called too hard-boiled. Communists, Mr. Speaker, are exceedingly difficult and ugly customers to master. They have three main types of technique in their attempt to appeal to men's sympathies. They have beautiful and high-sounding talk about their Americanism and their absolute patriotism. They have unctuous idealism and zeal for human rights. Then, they employ twisted
The Address-Mr. Blackmore publicity-just take a look at the newspapers which will go out reporting this speech I am giving now and you will know the kind of publicity I mean. You will get the idea of who the communist sympathizers are. In addition to these, they resort to blackmail and plain goon violence. It is not easy to deal with them.
Again, Senator McCarthy is charged with unfeelingly involving innocent people in his investigations and attacks. The facts, Mr. Speaker, do not bear out this charge. To support this statement of mine, may I read from the American Mercury of September, 1953. This is a passage which I think must be accepted until some hon. member is prepared to refute it. This article is headed "The Truth About Joe McCarthy", and states, in part:
So painstakingly careful is McCarthy to avoid reputation-damaging publicity for the individual who may be innocent, that he follows a strict rule of private, unpublicized examinations at which the accused is given full opportunity to clear himself.
Sometimes these examinations are repeated several times. Only after the evidence of communism or pro-communism is overwhelming is the subject subpoenaed for a full-dress, publicized open hearing. This punctilious regard for fair play guides all the McCarthy inquiries.
The truth of this may be found in the way in which he dealt with Owen Lattimore, one of the most difficult men he had to deal with.
In a similar way we can show that all the other charges that are laid against Joe McCarthy are simply unfounded. They are manufactured for the sole purpose of blackening this man, discrediting him in the eyes of the people, so that the people of the United States and of the world will not learn the remarkable things which his industry and persistence have divulged, so as to warn them.
May I once more quote the definition Truman gave of McCarthyism as it was put on the record by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) at page 237 of Hansard. I quote first the words of the hon. member:
I am prepared to accept the definition given by a former president of the United States who has lived in a close and intimate fashion with McCarthyism. Here is his definition, as reported in the Globe and Mail of November 17:
"It is a corruption of truth, the abandonment of our historical devotion to fair play.
"It is the abandonment of the due process of law.
"It is the use of the big lie and the unfounded accusation against any citizen in the name of Americanism or security.
"It is the rise to power of the demagogue who lives on untruth.
"It is the spread of fear and the destruction of faith in every level of our society."
Joe McCarthy is just exactly the opposite to that, Mr. Speaker. This fact can be

The Address-Right Hon. C. D. Howe established by documentation beyond any possibility of question. I have the means right here on my desk. Every charge in the Truman statement, which I have already quoted, is altogether false, if it was meant to apply to Senator Joseph McCarthy. These charges which Truman makes are true concerning the communist organization of the United States. There is no depth of human depravity to which these communist people will not resort in their attempts to undermine and destroy those who have incurred their displeasure by establishing the truth.
I think I will close these remarks at this time, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to burden the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Horne Blackmore: Hon. members on the other side applaud my closing. I hope I do not misunderstand them. I will say this. As we go forward, and when the opportunity presents itself, I may bring to the attention of the house additional material so that hon. members and people in the country can judge for themselves as to whether what I have said concerning Senator McCarthy is correct, or whether what is being scattered all over the land with the desire to blacken him and drive him out of public life is correct.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, since the end of the war, I have usually taken advantage of the opportunity afforded by this debate to comment on the state of the Canadian economy.
In general, I think it is fair to say that my annual remarks about economic conditions and prospects in Canada have been a good deal more optimistic than the remarks made by members of the opposition parties. Indeed, my steady confidence has usually been in marked contrast with the gloomy predictions of some opposition speakers who have been quite sure that under the present government, the country was going to the dogs.
Looking back at what has actually happened in Canada since I began making these annual reviews, it is evident not only that the gloomy prophets were talking through their hats1, but that I was far from overoptimistic in what I had to say. In the light of events, in the light of the high level of prosperity and the high rate of growth and development which has prevailed in post-war years, I did in fact consistently underestimate the strength of the Canadian economy.
I suppose the opposition feel they have to take a gloomy view, that it would be bad

politics to admit that the country is prospering under a Liberal administration. It might almost be said that the opposition have a vested interest in depression. As for me, I shall continue to have faith in Canada and I shall continue to advocate and support the policies that have raised this country to its present enviable position among the nations of the world.
I have faith in the future of Canada. But I am not one of those, if indeed there are any such, who believe that in a free economy every industry, in every part of the country, can expect to be profitable and fully employed at all times. Least of all do I think that in a country like Canada, dependent as it is to such a high degree on external trade, it is reasonable to expect that everything that people would like to produce will always be saleable at the prices the producers would like to obtain. The world is not being run solely to suit Canadians.
What strikes me as most significant about the present situation is that here in Canada, and I think in every other country where there is reasonable freedom, conditions are becoming more competitive. The period of post-war inflation, which was given a shot in the arm by Korea, seems to have come to an end. The sellers' market has to all intents and purposes disappeared. The buyer is in a stronger bargaining position than he has been for many years.
This is a healthy development, far healthier indeed than the indefinite continuation of a situation in which costs and prices are being pushed up by the pressure of excess demand. Inflation breeds slump and the sooner inflation can be brought to a halt, the smaller the resulting distortion.
Fortunately for all of us, now and in the future, inflationary tendencies were never permitted to get out of hand in Canada. There has, of course, been a substantial rise in general price levels since the end of the war but most of this was unavoidable, the inevitable consequence of world-wide forces. As a result of our internal fiscal, monetary and credit policies and related measures, coupled with our multilateral trading policies, Canada experienced as little inflation as any country and a good' deal less than most.
For that reason the adjustment to a more competitive situation has not caused, and should not cause, serious difficulties for the Canadian economy as a whole, although it may for particular industries and particular firms. I think it can be said that we have been building on pretty solid foundations.
Evidence that this is so is to be found in the continued high level of Canadian economic

activity. 1953 has been an extraordinary year by any measure. Total output will exceed $24 billion, probably more than 5 per cent above 1952. Since price levels have been more or less stable over the past year, this represents an equivalent increase in real output in line with the increase achieved in each of the three preceding years.
As output rose, so did employment. Even with the steady rise in the labour force, augmented by large numbers of new immigrants, there has been very little increase in unemployment.
Up to mid-1952 much of the increase in production and employment could be traced to defence expenditure and to intensified world demand for strategic materials. Since that time, however, the main impetus has come from increased demand for goods and services to raise standards of living.
Of particular importance has been the rapidly growing appetite of the Canadian consumer. Total consumer purchases in physical volume terms are running about 12 per cent above the level of two years ago. This is much the sharpest rise that has taken place since 1946. It may interest hon. members to know that the increased flow of goods and services to Canadian consumers accounts for two-thirds of the addition to total national output during the past two years.
Sales of automobiles and household appliances have been remarkably buoyant. In part this reflects the substantial increase in instalment buying that began early in 1952. It should be noted, however, that the increase in consumer buying has been spread throughout all the main consumer goods, including soft as well as hard goods. Food consumption, for example, has risen by 12 per cent in two years.
Underlying this broad growth in consumer spending has been the strong upward trend of personal incomes, in real as well as in money terms. Prior to 1952, money incomes, although increasing substantially, did little more than keep pace with rising prices. By the beginning of 1952 consumer prices had levelled off and have since remained slightly below the peak reached in January, 1952. At the same time, average earnings continued to rise. The result has been a continuing and substantial improvement in real earnings of wage and salary earners, professional people and most other groups. It has been estimated, for example, that average weekly earnings of those working for wages and salaries has increased by 16 per cent during the past two years and the trend continues. As for farm incomes, lower prices for some farm products have to some extent offset the unusually
The Address-Right Hon. C. D. Howe large grain crops harvested in recent years. Even so, 1953 farm incomes, though below the levels of 1951 and 1952, remain well above those of any earlier years.
Nor are consumers dipping into their savings to maintain this high rate of spending. Individuals, on the average, are still managing to save 8 or 9 cents of each dollar currently earned, a rate which, on the basis of past experience, may be considered as pretty high.
Consumer spending has been rising. And so has expenditure for the purpose of increasing Canadian capacity to produce. Indeed, I am frank to admit that the rate of capital formation has exceeded my fondest hopes. I would not have been at all surprised if capital expenditure had levelled off this year. But such has not been the case. 1952 established a new record. The latest estimates indicate that capital outlays this year may reach $5-6 billion, a figure 9 per cent greater than the previous record established in 1952. Since prices of capital goods have been more or less stable, this 9 per cent increase represents an equivalent increase in terms of plant and equipment put in place.
I am not going to attempt to predict the level of capital investment in 1954. My department is gathering information as to the intentions of businessmen and governments for next year which will not be available in sufficient detail for some weeks to come. But the limited evidence already in seems to point to a continuation of a high level of investment expenditure.
I have heard fears expressed about what would' happen when some of the huge resource development projects now under way are completed. Will there be a sudden and sharp drop in investment expenditures? I think not. On the contrary, I am inclined to believe that the investment in basic industrial capacity now going on is part of a fundamental expansion in the productive capacity of this country, which is far from completed and which still retains much of its impetus. Korea served to speed up the development of resources which would otherwise have taken place more gradually. This concentration of effort in turn brought forward the need for expansion of secondary and service facilities which are necessary for a full and rounded development of the country.
It follows that while the gradual completion of some of the large resource projects initiated since 1950 may well bring a change in the composition of total investment, there will not necessarily be a sharp reduction in

The Address-Right Hon. C. D. Howe total expenditure. In 1954 capital outlays in basic material industries may be lower. This decline could be offset by a further increase in utility, service and institutional investment.
Let me run quickly over some of the developments that are in prospect. In some industries like industrial chemicals, primary iron and steel and the processing of metals like copper and aluminum, the emphasis is shifting from the creation of new facilities to the modernization of existing plants. Much the same thing is happening in pulp and paper.
Assuming reasonable free access to the United States market, Canadian sales of aluminum are likely to be such as to necessitate completion of further stages of the Kiti-mat project.
Turning to the development of sources of energy, the outlook is most encouraging. A long-term coal modernization program is under way. Even more money than in 1953 may be spent on the development of new sources of hydro power, oil and natural gas.
As for natural gas, the imagination of the Canadian people has been stirred

and with reason-by the prospect that lies ahead. The authorization at all levels-provincial, federal and international-of one or more long distance gas pipe lines will do more than encourage the drilling for oil in Western Canada. It will attract hundreds of millions of dollars of new capital-capital to pay for gas treating and chemical plants, gas gathering and transmission lines, gas distributing systems and gas using equipment. All this will take time. But, as electricity did in the past, so natural gas promises to usher in yet another era in Canada's march to industrial maturity.
All told, hundreds of millions, and perhaps even billions of dollars, are involved in the further development of Canadian resources. Projects of this magnitude, on top of those which are already under way, will do much to maintain activity in the months and years ahead.
I am also very glad to be able to report that Canadians are building more dwellings than ever before in their history. Starts, including conversions, may reach, if not exceed, 100,000 housing units in 1953. Last year the total was 86,000 housing starts and the previous record was 95,000 in 1950. There are good reasons for believing that house building will continue at a high level in 1954.
Time will not permit me to discuss defence procurement at any great length on this occasion. Later on I look forward to speaking on this subject. During the past fiscal year, defence procurement has amounted to nearly 6 per cent of the gross national product, and the present level is likely to be maintained for

the immediate future. Four programs-aircraft, shipbuilding, electronics and construction-make up about three-quarters of the total activity in this field.
An important step has been the abolition of the remaining Canadian controls on the use of materials. The defence program is no longer causing undue pressure on supplies, since our economy is now well adjusted to present levels of defence procurement. So far in this review of the general economic position, I have dealt with what might be termed the main internal determinants of economic activity-consumer spending, capital expenditures and expenditures by the government for defence purposes. It remains to discuss what, in some respects, is the key factor-external trade, which has such a profound influence upon the incomes of Canadians and upon their investment plans.
When the government, at the beginning of 1953, made a survey for its own internal use of trade prospects, the conclusion was reached that there would probably be some decline in exports below the levels of 1952 and quite a considerable increase in imports. Some decline in exports seemed likely because of lower price levels for some of our stable products, and the more stringent import restrictions being imposed by dollar-short countries, and some increase in imports because of the high level of personal incomes, a world-wide improvement in the availability of goods of all kinds and the declared intentions of Canadian businessmen to proceed with a record program of capital expenditure.
On the whole, things have turned out pretty well as was expected. The surplus in our balance of payments on current account in 1952 has been converted into a deficit, without, I might add, any weakening in the Canadian dollar, which now stands at a premium of well over 2 per -cent. The fact that the exchange rate has remained strong is, I suggest, evidence that confidence in Canada has not been at all impaired by the change in the current account position from a surplus to a deficit. It is not unusual for a country in Canada's position-prosperous and building up its productive capacity at a rapid rate-to experience a moderate deficit on current account, financed by a net import of capital.
Exports during the first nine months of 1953 were about 3 per cent lower in value than in 1952 but when allowance is made for the lower -average prices being realized for Canadian exports, the actual volume of exports is very little, if any, short of the record established in 1952. Exports during

the months of May, June and July were in fact greater in both volume and value than the corresponding months of 1952.
The renewed efforts by dollar-short countries to achieve balance in dollar trade had the expected effects. As examples: Canadian exports to commonwealth countries during the first nine months of 1953 were 13 per cent below the same months of 1952; exports to Brazil, which is in the midst of an acute exchange crisis, fell by 50 per cent.
On the other hand, our exports were pretty well maintained or continued to rise to overseas countries in which Canadian goods were less subject to discriminatory restrictions, or which are largely dependent upon imports of food and basic raw materials. I refer to such countries as Germany and Japan which have become two of our best customers; Venezuela, one of the richest of the Latin American markets; the Netherlands, to which in the first nine months of this year we exported goods valued at $32 million compared with $26 million in the same period of 1952; and Belgium and Luxembourg, which ranks fifth among Canada's export markets.
In 1952 there was a shift in Canada's export trade towards overseas countries. This year there has been a shift in the opposite direction. During the first nine months of 1953 the United States took 59 per cent of our exports, as against 53 per cent in the same period of 1952. It is the policy 'of the government to sell Canadian goods throughout the free world. That is why we are always working towards the removal of trade restrictions. But if we cannot sell our goods in one place we must try to sell them in another. I am not concerned by the very substantial increase in exports to the United States. On the contrary, I have instructed my department and Canadian trade commissioners in the United States to do everything possible to promote sales of Canadian goods in that market.
There should never be any relaxation in the efforts of government and businessmen to build up export markets, even when prospects do not seem to be too good. Hon. members will recall that in the early part of this year I had the privilege of leading a Canadian good-will and trade mission composed of prominent Canadian businessmen and officials to nine countries in Latin America. We went because we realized that Latin America is a rich and developing area to which Canada was selling a very large volume of goods and to which we might be able to sell even more. It has not surprised me and I am sure it has not surprised 83276-29
The Address-Riaht Hon. C. D. Howe my business colleagues who went with me that some of these Latin American countries have had to reduce their purchases from dollar countries. That seemed to be in prospect even when we were there. This drop in exports to Latin America has not altered to the slightest degree my view that this is a rich and developing market which Canadian exporters should watch and cultivate.
While I am speaking about trade promotion it may interest the house to have a brief report on the Canadian international trade fair. Participation in the sixth fair held this June represented a 35 per cent increase in space over the largest of any of the previous fairs. It is most encouraging to find that participation by Canadian manufacturers and agents accounted for 145,200 square feet out of a total of 264,800 square feet. Attendance of business visitors from Canada showed an appreciable increase over the previous fair, while the attendance of businessmen from the United States was more than double the number who attended the fair in 1952.
Plans for the 1954 fair are already under way and the bookings for space to the end of October reached a total of 173,230 square feet. Out of this total, bookings by Canadian manufacturers and agents amounts to 96,000 square feet.
It is my opinion that this Canadian international trade fair is steadily increasing its usefulness in assisting my department in its work of promoting international trade.
The next several months may bring important developments in the field of international economic relations. Basic questions of policy are now being re-examined in the United States, in the United Kingdom and in other major trading countries. We are hopeful that the conclusions and decisions to be reached will make possible some real and effective progress towards the goals of convertibility of currencies and freer trade.
In the United States, an important commission has been appointed to study all aspects of foreign economic policy. I am sure that the purposes and objectives of the United States in the broad field of world trade are fundamentally akin to our own and that the constructive leadership that the United States has provided since the end of the war will be strengthened and re-affirmed. The decisions of the United States government in this matter are bound to be of crucial importance to the future of world trade. They will be of particularly vital and direct concern to Canada, as the United States' major and closest trading partner.
In the meantime, there have been encouraging signs that many other countries are
450	HOUSE OF
The Address-Right Hon. C. D. Howe prepared in their own interests to move ahead as far as possible with policies that will bring freedom of trade and convertibility of currencies nearer. Hon. members are aware that the United Kingdom has instituted a policy of relaxing import restrictions on basic materials and foodstuffs and of moving towards a non-discriminatory basis of importing such commodities. I would hazard the opinion, shared I think by many in the United Kingdom, that this policy adopted in the dark days of a sterling crisis has contributed substantially to the improvement in the financial position of the U.K. The government of South Africa has very recently taken a step of great importance in wholly removing the discrimination in its import control system. Canadian exporters of manufactured goods have suffered from discrimination against them in commonwealth markets in recent years and I regard it as highly significant that they will now have an equal chance to compete for business in their traditional South African markets.
In Europe, the Netherlands recently announced removal of discrimination against dollar goods in a wide range of imports which had previously been subject to restriction. In other countries, we know that careful attention is being given to the advantages which ensue from the removal of discriminatory restrictions, particularly in the field of foodstuffs, basic raw materials, capital goods and machinery. I am optimistic, therefore, that further progress will be made in the freeing of trade during the coming year.
These are all signs pointing to the kind of trading world we have been striving and working for these last several years. I wish to express the Canadian government's gratification at the courageous and foresighted moves taken thus far by several countries in the face of many uncertainties. It is becoming increasingly clear to many countries that import restrictions in themselves are no solution to the exchange difficulties that have so hampered trade in the post-war world. Indeed, I think that a cause and effect relationship is being more and more recognized whereby freer imports of essential materials and foodstuffs, by reducing costs of production and internal price levels, enable countries to compete more effectively and thus to strengthen their exchange reserves.
Canada has been consistent in its approach to world trade problems, and I believe that recent experience has increasingly confirmed the validity of our approach. We have repeatedly expressed our views as to the desirability of relaxing trade barriers over the widest possible area. We have repeatedly stressed our belief that such action would


effectively contribute to the strength of the trading community as a whole, and to the improvement of exchange reserves in particular countries. We shall continue to play our full part in supporting all efforts directed towards convertibility and the promotion of high levels of multilateral trade.
I had the pleasure not long ago of leading the Canadian delegation to the eighth session of the contracting parties to the general agreement on tariffs and trade in Geneva. The GATT, by reducing trade barriers and by defining agreed rules of conduct in international trade, has been one of the main elements of stability in the world trade picture in recent years. I was personally impressed with the businesslike and cordial atmosphere that prevails in GATT meetings, and came away from Geneva fully convinced of the value of the general agreement as a central instrument for international trade relations. This was an important session, for a decision had to be reached as to the status of the tariff schedules negotiated by GATT countries on three separate occasions since 1947. On behalf of the Canadian government, I proposed a firm binding of these schedules for a further definite period, pending clarification of the trading policies of major countries. Other countries agreed with this approach as being in the common interest. I am happy to say that agreement has been reached to maintain for a further period of 18 months the important and extensive tariff gains achieved thus far under the GATT. This decision is indicative of a desire on the part of many countries to continue on a road that has proved its practical value and which holds real promise for the future. It is hoped that as the policies of major countries become more clearly defined, it may be possible next year to undertake a constructive re-examination of the general agreement as a whole, to adapt its basic provisions to the lessons and experiences of recent years and to the new plans and proposals that may emerge for the future. We in Canada will be particularly anxious to see a review of those provisions of the agreement that permit countries in balance-of-payments difficulties to apply restrictions and, in certain circumstances, to discriminate in such restrictions. We feel that more adequate consideration will now have to be given in the agreement to the kind of measures that will contribute effectively to the solution of exchange difficulties. In the light of such a review of the basic provisions of the agreement, and in the light also of the policy decisions to be reached by major trading countries, it may be found possible and

desirable to conduct further tariff negotiations. When that time comes, I am sure Canada will be ready and willing to play her full part.
Another important step taken by the contracting parties at the recent session of the GATT concerns Japan. Canada, together with a substantial majority of GATT countries, agreed to a formal decision inviting Japan to participate in the meetings and work of the contracting parties during a period when it is waiting to become a full party to the agreement. This does not in itself result in the application of the GATT as between GATT countries and Japan. However, the GATT countries also agreed at Geneva to a declaration whereby those countries able and willing to do so could enter into full GATT relations with Japan.
Canada has for some time been negotiating with Japan in the hope of finding an acceptable basis for a trade agreement between our two countries. The Canadian delegation in Geneva was instructed to state that, in the event of such an agreement being concluded, and subject to the terms of such an agreement, we would then be prepared to give serious consideration to having the GATT apply as between Canada and Japan.
Before concluding these rather discursive remarks it might be useful for me to attempt to draw the threads together and put Canada's general economic position and prospects before the house as I see them.
As I said at the outset, 1953 has been a remarkable year by any measure. Total output is at record levels. Price levels are more or less stable. Unemployment is very low. The country has been developing and expanding as never before. Export trade in physical terms is about as high as in the record year 1952. It has been a year of balanced prosperity.
And yet there have been problems, most of which are familiar to hon. members, and which I have no doubt they will bring to the government's attention, if they have not done so already.
The electric appliance industry has been experiencing some difficulty. Sales of electrical appliances have been unusually heavy for more than a year. Yet during 1953 both production and imports have been more than keeping pace with sales. As a result there are signs of an excessive accumulation of inventories in some appliance lines.
Another of the so-called soft spots is textiles. During 1953 to date economic activity in the textile industries is above the levels of the previous year even though many firms, particularly in the primary textile 83276-29i
The Address-Right Hon. C. D. Howe group, continue to operate below capacity. Retail clothing sales have been much better. At the same time imports of both clothing and primary textiles have been increasing and inventories of finished goods, particularly at retail, are higher than a year ago.
Another industry to encounter declining markets this year is the farm implements group. This situation has come about more as a result of the unusually high volume of sales in immediately preceding years than from any abnormally depressed market at the present time. As a result of bumper crops harvested in Canada and the United States in 1951 and 1952, sales of farm implements soared to record heights. While unusually good crops have again been harvested this year, equipment sales have moved in line with the moderate decline in over-all farm incomes. This downward trend has been accentuated by lower shipments to other foreign markets attributable largely to exchange difficulties.
This does not exhaust the list of industries which currently face problems of finding markets but it does illustrate the type of adjustment which cannot be avoided even in conditions of general prosperity. It is important to recognize, as I said at the outset, that we are now moving away from the sellers' market which has prevailed more or less for several years. This change does not, however, mean that there will necessarily be a decline in the general volume of business and employment. It does mean that many Canadian industries will experience more intensive competition, both domestically and internationally. There is no way of avoiding the marketing problems involved in this situation so long as we wish to enjoy the broader benefits to be derived from the free international exchange of goods.
Looking to the year ahead there seems to be little indication of any serious interruption in the generally prosperous conditions now prevailing. In the United States there have been numerous predictions of a moderate decline in activity in 1954. The basis for these expectations has been explained in terms of lower defence outlays, reduced capital spending, inventory liquidation, a decline in housing, softening in the automobile market and a number of other reasons. I do not propose to examine the significance of each of these factors. It is perhaps worthwhile, however, to emphasize one point which seems to apply not only to the United States but to other economies as well, and that is, that the period through which we have been passing seems to have very few of the characteristics normally ascribed to a pre-recession boom. By and large, speculative excesses have been absent since
452	HOUSE OF
The Address

Right Hon. C. D. Howe 1951. Commodity prices have been following a steady to slightly downward trend and business sentiment, seemingly influenced by oft-stated reminders of the dangers of a postdefence let-down, has remained on the cautious side. In such circumstances, there is little tendency for businesses to become over-extended and vulnerable.
The present situation would appear to be one in which adjustments could occur in one or in several sectors without any danger of these multiplying into a general collapse.
In these circumstances we might confidently expect that, whatever adjustments take place in the United States economy in the immediate future, they are not likely to lead to any serious curtailment in sales of Canada's major export items to that country. With respect to overseas markets, prospects for wheat sales are reasonably good even though increased world supply is likely to bring some reduction from the record export levels of the last two years. Sales of other commodities in overseas markets have undergone some adjustment during the past year and the present trade volume appears in over-all terms to be firmly based.
Sales prospects are probably firmer at home than in export markets. There is every reason to look forward to a continued high level of capital spending. Moreover, the prospective shift in the investment program toward housing and commercial and institutional building will mean increased employment for each dollar of expenditure. Total business inventories have increased during 1953 but not unduly, having regard to the rise in business volume and the extensive liquidation which occurred in many lines during 1952. Government expenditure for defence and other purposes should continue to act as a stabilizing influence. That being so, personal incomes and personal spendings, in aggregate, should be fairly well sustained.
To sum up, continuation of generally stable market conditions in the period ahead is indicated. It must be taken into account, of course, that capacities are expanding and larger outlets are necessary to absorb the increasing volume of production. With the emergence of increasingly competitive conditions on an international scale, marketing problems will be encountered in some industries.
To express my forecast for 1954 in a few words: There are going to be troubles in some industries but, as for the general level of economic activity, I predict the pessimists are going to be wrong again.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I ask the minister a question? In view of the fact that the GATT


agreements are being reconsidered and some changes are contemplated, is the house going to have an opportunity of discussing them? They have never really been ratified by parliament. Are we going to have an opportunity of discussing the changes in this session?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the hon. member will agree that it is difficult for parliament to negotiate GATT changes. I believe that is a matter for which the government has to take responsibility. The GATT agreements have never been ratified in the United States congress. We were waiting for the United States congress to ratify them, but that has not been done. The making of tariffs is a government responsibility.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister will recall that a motion was on the order paper to ratify the agreements, and the discussion here was dropped. The agreements were never ratified by this parliament.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Major James William Coldwell: Are we going to have a change this time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We expected the agreements to be ratified by the congress of the United States. We were waiting for that, and we are still waiting for that. I think probably we shall continue to wait for it.


Major James William Coldwell: The two institutions are different, with different procedures.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Since this is the first time I have risen to speak during this session, Mr. Speaker, may I take the opportunity, as many other members have done, of offering my congratulations to you upon taking over the chair. I am sure we are going to have a very happy parliament with you as the presiding officer. Should it become necessary at any time for you, in the heat of debate, to call an hon. member to order I know that the charm with which you will do that will make it a pleasure for the offender to comply.
Although the speech from the throne gave a warning that heavy expenditures for defence must continue, and pointed out the process of maintaining and if necessary building up our defences to deter aggression, the government did not see fit to enlarge upon this part of the speech from the throne until the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) spoke in the house last Thursday, exactly two weeks after the debate had started. This extraordinary delay, I must say, surprised me very much.

The words used in the speech from the throne to which I referred can be found at page 4 of Hansard for November 12, 1953, and are as follows:
Much remains to be done before there can be a permanent and durable peace in the world. My ministers therefore consider it would be unwise for the free nations to slacken our efforts to build up and maintain the necessary strength to deter aggression and they intend to continue to work to that end.
On Thursday the Minister of National Defence gave the house a comprehensive review of the services rendered by our armed forces during the last six months, both in Korea and in Europe, in their endeavours to assist the free nations to stop aggression. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the minister for the comprehensive review which he gave, and to assure him that all Canada is proud of the contribution made by our armed forces. We are grateful for the sacrifices that they have made in these operations. It was also with profound regret that we heard the long list of casualties incurred in Korea. We on this side of the house join in extending our deepest sympathy to the friends and relatives of the men who have given their lives for freedom's cause.
We regret also that many men have returned with their earning power diminished as a result of wounds received or of the hardships that they endured. The country expects this government to deal generously with these men, and to see that when they return to this country they are provided with ample opportunities to fit into the civilian life of the community. In his remarks the minister did not explain why it had been considered necessary to withdraw certain of the rehabilitation benefits to the Korean veterans.
It was not very long ago that amendments were made to the Veterans Benefit Act, in which the service of the men in Korea was to be recognized. The definition of a theatre of war in the old act was changed so as to include Korea, in order that men serving there might receive the benefits under veterans benefit regulations.
The definition originally given of service in a theatre of war referred to service of a member of the Canadian forces from the time of departure from Canada, or continental United States, including Alaska, before July 27, 1953, to participate in military operations undertaken by the United Nations to restore peace in the republic of Korea. And then it gives one or two qualifications under which a man may return home.
But in the regulations passed on Thursday, September 24, of this year, an addition was
The Address-Mr. Pearkes made setting out the date of October 31, 1953. So that if October 31, 1953, was reached before the operations in Korea to undertake peace had been terminated, these benefits also would be terminated. Actually October 31 was reached before the operations had ceased, because there is no excuse for our troops being stationed in Korea now, unless it is to restore peace in the republic of Korea. They are fulfilling the role of occupational forces, and are ready to act at any time, should the very uncertain armistice develop again into a flare-up of hostilities. The troops are there in those circumstances, and are ready to carry out whatever tasks they may be called upon to do.
So it would seem that perhaps the withdrawal of these benefits might have been a little premature. I did think that the minister would have explained why it was necessary to withdraw those benefits before the operations in Korea had ceased.
It was however with satisfaction that we heard that, both in the actual theatre of war, and during their periods of training at home and abroad, the services had lived up to the best Canadian traditions.
The minister then turned to the all-important question of the defence of this country, and of the plans that we and the United States are making to protect the North American continent from surprise air attack. He referred to a statement in the white paper, "Canada's Defence Program, 1953-54", which was issued last spring, and in which attention is called to the fact that there has been a substantial increase in the emphasis on the defence of North America against air attack.
When General Eisenhower, President of the United States, delivered his address in this chamber on November 14, he also spoke of the need for Canada and the United States to devise a way to protect the North American continent from any surprise attack by air. After calling attention to that fact, he went on to say, as reported at page 27 of Hansard:
The basic threat of communist purpose still exists. Indeed the latest Soviet communication to the western world is truculent, if not arrogant, in tone. In any event our security plans must now take into account Soviet ability to employ atomic attack on North America as well as on countries, friendly to us, lying closer to the borders of the U.S.S.R. Their atomic stockpile will, of course, increase in size, and means of delivery will improve as time goes on.
And when he refers to "their atomic stockpile" he is referring to the stockpile of the U.S.S.R. And then he went on:
Each of our two nations seeks a secure home for realization of its destiny. Defence of our soil presents a challenge to both our peoples. It is a common task.
454	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pearkes
In this respect it is also interesting to note that General Gruenther, supreme commander of the allied powers in Europe, said in his address to the Atlantic community conference at Copenhagen this summer-and I quote from the text of his address as set out in the publication Freedom and Union, October issue:
The Soviets have an air force of some 20,000 operational planes, a large proportion of which are jets. To meet that air threat our air forces must be increased, and their effectiveness must be such that they will be ready to fight on an instant's notice. It is not sufficient to depend upon reserve air forces, for the reason that air attacks can develop with such devastating swiftness that we would not be able to mobilize air reserves in time.
If the basic threat of communist purpose still exists, as General Eisenhower suggests- and who can doubt his word-and if at any time they should attempt to achieve their purpose by force, the Soviets, having the initiative, could select the point of attack. Geographically speaking, the Soviets occupy a central or interior position. The free countries are an extended perimeter, stretching from western Europe, through the Mediterranean, across North Africa and out to the Far East and the North American continent.
Frequently the Soviets refer to that as encirclement. One can obtain the full impression of the extent of this perimeter, and the central position occupied by Russia, only by looking at a globe rather than a map. Therefore the Russians, should they decide to use force, will be able to strike anywhere on that extended perimeter. We do not know at what point they may strike. It is one of those difficulties inherent in all operations conducted on what used to be referred to as exterior lines.
It does not follow that the enemy will do so. Yet the fact is now established that he could, should he so decide, commence a war with a major air offensive against the North American continent, supported by a large air force carrying atomic weapons both for strategic and for tactical use, because the atomic weapon has now passed from the purely strategic into the tactical sphere of operations as well.
It is well that this possibility is now recognized, because heretofore any suggestion made from this side of the house, that an attack was a possibility which had to be considered, was always brushed aside, and we were told that only diversionary raids had to be considered.
Now, as to this air threat of some 20,000 operational planes, I am not stating that they are all going to be used against this continent; they could not all be used, but we do not know what proportion of 20,000 might be


used. Twenty thousand is the force we know the Russians have. We have a Canadian-United States network of radar stations to provide early warning, and such communication facilities as may exist to direct our fighter squadrons, Canadian and United States of America, against the attacker.
In his remarks last Thursday the minister dispelled the myth, which had been created, of an Arctic radar chain, claiming that the project had never reached the stage of discussion between governments. It is well that the minister did make this declaration, because, through press releases and from other sources, the impression has been created in the public mind that a radar chain did exist across the far north. A radar screen has been referred to at times. The minister referred to a radar screen on more than one occasion. In its place a modified system has been built up to give protection to the most vulnerable areas against the most likely forms of attack.
The minister referred to a system working upwards and outwards from the most likely targets. I must say that "upwards and outwards" rather reminds me of a certain revivalist hymn, but it may give an impression of the present radar screen.
Now, this system, together with its attendant communication system, is partly in operation, according to the minister's statement; but it is now clear that no national screen exists.
Of course, the fighter squadrons are the backbone of your defence; but then we were told in the white paper of 1953-54:
The first regular squadron, equipped with CF-100 all-weather, twin-engined, jet fighters, was recently formed and by the end of the fiscal year a number of these squadrons will be operating.
The minister did not say how many of these regular squadrons were operating, but I have seen statements referring to three squadrons being more or less in formation at the present time. The statement goes on:
Meanwhile, a number of squadrons of F-86E Sabres, destined as part of Canada's NATO air contribution have been in Canada available for the defence of this continent. As the last of these are sent to Europe during the year,-
Mind you, they have all gone now.
-their places will be taken by squadrons of CF-lOO's. Reserve squadrons now equipped with Vampires and Mustangs will be re-equipped with CF-100's as these become available.
At that time we were told that there were some twelve auxiliary fighter squadrons in Canada, so that gives us a picture of the Canadian air fighter squadrons which are available to meet the threat.

We do not know very much about the United States squadrons, but as far as I know, no United States squadrons have been equipped with that particular type of aircraft, the CF-100, which is considered so important for the air defence of this country.
I am not pressing at the moment for information regarding the number of fighter squadrons, either regular or auxiliary, which are available at the present time, but I do want to call attention to the remark contained in General Gruenther's address at Copenhagen in which he is still talking about the threat of the Soviet air force. This is what he said:
It is not sufficient to depend upon reserve air forces, for the reason that air attacks can develop with such devastating swiftness that we would not be able to mobilize air reserves in time.
Those members of parliament or others who have seen the CF-100 manoeuvring may well question the ability, both physical and' technical, of a part-time pilot or radio navigator, or ground crews, to handle these tremendously complicated machines that travel faster than sound, and can perform amazing acrobatics.
Unless supplied with a high percentage of regular personnel, we should exercise caution as to the degree of reliance to be placed on reserve fighter squadrons. Today the general complaint with the reserve fighter squadrons, who are not of course equipped with CF-lOO's but are equipped with Vampires and Mustangs, is that they do not have sufficient active personnel in their squadrons to enable them to fulfil their given role.
While I have for a number of years past advanced the theory that first priority should be given to the development of our air forces-and I still adhere to that principle- yet I recognize the fact that a well-balanced team of all three services is essential. The time has not yet come when war can be won solely by air power.
The Soviets, again according to General Gruenther:
. . . have a very large active land force in being consisting of 175 Soviet divisions, and approximately 70 satellite divisions.
And according to General Gruenther the Soviet divisions are for the most part well trained. He says:
The satellite divisions are less effective, but their effectiveness is steadily increasing.
The west cannot of course match division for division, because to maintain in being forces of that magnitude would place an intolerable strain upon our national economy and upon the national economy of the free nations. That is why General Gruenther
The Address-Mr. Pearkes and General Eisenhower have both placed such dependence on the reserve divisions.
Again quoting from General Gruenther's Copenhagen speech:
But those divisions must be good if they are to be employed against Soviet forces. The creation of adequate reserve forces means that a large proportion of NATO manpower will have to devote a considerable time each year to reserve training. That is inconvenient for the individuals concerned, and of course it tends to create economic strains.
I do not believe that the small number of our reserve army that trained in camp this year caused any great economic strain to Canada. I was surprised that the minister did not tell us what steps are being taken to meet our obligation in so far as the maintenance of reserves is concerned, which may some time have to be used with our NATO contribution. For years it has been the traditional policy of Canada to regard the non-permanent militia, as it used to be called, or what is now called the reserve army as the backbone of our land forces. Unfortunately of late very little attention has been paid to our reserve army. An announcement was made during the summer that a committee had been set up to consider the reorganization of this force along certain lines. In view of the importance attached to the reserve formation by the SHAPE commanders, I am surprised that the minister made no reference to plans for the reorganization of the reserve army. I hope he will take advantage of an early opportunity to bring the house up to date in that respect.
The warning sounded in the throne speech and echoed by President Eisenhower here a few days later indicates that heavy expenditures will continue. President Eisenhower said:
The threat is present . . . now is the time for action on all agreed measures.
I thought the minister dealt with this statement very cautiously on Thursday. He said, as reported on page 365 of Hansard:
-there is complete agreement on the vital importance of effective methods of joint defence against direct attack.
The assurance that action was now being taken on all agreed measures was lacking. The minister used somewhat uncertain terms. He said that the two governments are in general agreement, that we are pressing on with surveys, that further work will be considered with a view to agreed action in accordance with the results of studies, surveys, tests and exercises that are under way or that may be undertaken.
I feel that that was a rather halfhearted response to the stirring exhortation by President Eisenhower that now was the time for action. Therefore I am prompted to ask

The Address-Mr. Pearkes these questions:	Are there any agreed
measures being held in abeyance? If so, why? Alternatively: Are there any measures which are now held in abeyance upon which agreement should be reached without further delay? I have in mind various questions regarding the standardization of arms and equipment.
I suggest that the house is entitled to a further statement as to the precise meaning of General Eisenhower's exhortation. I am sure that that must have been discussed before at government levels.
I thought that the minister might also have touched upon the vital question of manpower. It will be recalled that on February 5, 1951, the minister announced the government's 15-point, 3-year program. The details were given in the white paper of that year and in part III, dealing with manpower, the following appears:
To carry through plans for the next three years the strengths of the three services should be increased to more than 115,000 full-time service personnel.
Recruiting towards this number has progressed favourably so that it is anticipated that the goal will be reached well before the end of the three-year period.
During the first six months of 1951 there has been a net increase of 18,289 in the strengths of the three services, or an average of 3,048 per month. The recruiting program, which began in August 1950 with the enlistment of the special force and which was continued in May 1951 with the raising of the 27th brigade group, will be continued.
At that time I questioned whether the goal of 115,000 men could possibly man the ships and fill up the establishments of the three services as outlined in the program. I believe that subsequently the total was raised to 120,000 personnel. The most recent figures I have, those of October 31 of this year, show the total in the services at the present time as being 106,595. As far as I can gather from the various returns which have been made, the intake now hardly exceeds the discharges. According to the quotation I have just made from the white paper of 1951, the total increase in the first six months of that year in the forces was 18,289. During the last six months of 1953 the total increase has been only 3,000 which was just about the average of one month during those first six months of 1951.
I think the minister should have told us what steps the government are taking, if any, other than to raise the pay of the forces as recently announced, in order to reach the objective which was set when this program was first announced. I would ask: Have we reached the point of saturation? Is there a shortage of manpower of military age in this country? According to a press release


issued by the national advisory council on manpower on November 5, 1953, it would appear that there should be no great shortage. This reads in part:
Over-all manpower supplies were generally adequate to meet the demands of the defence program, of resource development projects, and of expanding civilian industries. The required increase in the labour force was possible chiefly because of an increase in the population aged 14 and over, estimated at 540,000 during the three years ending at June, 1953.
Last Thursday the minister referred to major research projects and to new equipment which is being subjected to the most comprehensive tests. The question is frequently asked: To what extent will new weapons lessen our manpower requirements and to what extent may we expect a reduction in our taxes as a result of the introduction of these new weapons?
Although one might reasonably expect that new weapons would reduce the requirements for the conventional forces, the minister did not give us the slightest indication of any reduction in costs or even of any reduction in the conventional forces. Of course new weapons are costly. This being so, it only underlines the necessity for the strictest economy being exercised wherever possible.
In the recent past I have felt that greater care might have been exercised in expenditures on some of our defence projects. I have found no reason to change my opinion that unless strict economy is exercised in connection with all our defence expenditures we shall only play into the hands of the Soviet communists by placing intolerable strains upon our economy.
Already important social and economic projects have been deferred as a result of expenditures for defence. If our armed forces are to remain effective they must receive the wholehearted support of the nation. When, after years of retrenchment, of heavy taxation and the outpourings of millions of dollars unselfishly given by our people during the years of the war, taxpayers are asked to continue making these sacrifices in more peaceful times, they may become discouraged and withdraw that support if waste and extravagance are noticeable. A balance must be reached as between our military and social requirements that will make us at once secure against external attack and internal destruction. I cannot overemphasize the need for care in all defence spending.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, as the third member to take his seat in this house representing the people of Comox-Alberni within the memory of any of the members of the house, with the exception I believe of the hon. member fox Quebec

South (Mr. Power), I feel it would not be amiss if I were to make at the outset one or two brief references to my predecessors from Comox-Alberni.
Since coming to Ottawa I have discovered that the high personal regard and friendly relationship that I enjoyed with Mr. Jack Gibson, who I knew principally of course as a political opponent, is very widely shared by the members of this house. I am sure that all hon. members would join with me in wishing Mr. Gibson well in the future. I shall have no objections, Mr. Speaker, to maintaining, in some respects at least, the independent tradition which has long characterized the Comox-Alberni riding. In fact, I should not be at all surprised if there are occasions when some of the members on the opposite side of the house feel that I am perhaps a little more of an independent, as far as they are concerned, than was my predecessor.
I would like to refer to Mr. Neill, who sat in this house as the member for Comox-Alberni from 1921 to 1945. I am sure he is well remembered by all the older members in the house and I am sure they will be interested to know that he recently celebrated his eighty-fifth birthday, in reasonably good health for a man of his years, amid the congratulations of his fellow citizens and all the city councils in the area in which he lives. He still takes a very keen and active interest in the debates in this house and in the public affairs of the country generally.
There are several matters, Mr. Speaker, which I would like to bring to the attention of the house and which are of particular interest and concern to that part of Canada from which I come. But before I do so I would like to refer to something which in my opinion has a significance in the province of British Columbia at the present time, that extends beyond the boundaries of my constituency. It is a situation that vitally affects the whole interior of the province of British Columbia.
The other day a question was asked in the house regarding the present tie-up of the mining industry in Ontario and Quebec and at that time the minister concerned replied that he was not doing anything about that situation. I presume that if the question to which I am now about to refer was raised in the same way his reply would be similar. Nevertheless, I feel that the members of the house should be made aware of a situation which affects the whole of the interior of British Columbia and which affects the production of approximately one-third of the lumber produced in the province.
The whole of the lumber industry in the interior of British Columbia is virtually at a standstill because of a strike which is now 83276-30
The Address-Mr. Barnett in progress in that area, and I feel that hon. members should have some idea of the background to that situation. I think they should realize that it is not something which has come into being overnight, but a situation which has been built up over the period of the last two or three years. It has reached the point where the workers in that industry came to the conclusion that they have no recourse but to take the action they have taken.
I would like hon. members to recognize that the predominant element among the employers in the lumber industry in the interior of British Columbia appear, in my opinion, to be still living in the nineteenth century as far as their attitude to labour management relations is concerned. I could quote, if I wished to take the time, some rather pointed examples of that. But for the moment I would like to draw briefly to the attention of the house one or two excerpts from a statement which came into the hands of the I.W.A. Perhaps I should explain for the benefit of some members of the house, possibly some of them sitting fairly close to me, that in British Columbia I.W.A. stands for International Woodworkers of America and not international wheat agreement.
This document that I have before me is a photostatic copy of a communication which accidentally came into the hands of the union. At the top it is marked "Highly confidential. Important. Please read carefully." At the bottom above the signature it is marked "Keep this bulletin confidential. We must not allow the union to become informed of our strategy."
The document in fact gives instruction to the employers concerned as to how they might go about dealing with their recalcitrant employees, and it states:
Most, if not all, action will probably involve picketing. Under the law persons may locate themselves anywhere outside a private property to "impart information" to anyone, but the actions of such person or persons determine the extent to which such person or persons are obeying or breaking the law.
Then a little later on-I will not read this whole document, but this to me is rather significant-it says:
In the case of pickets appearing before an operation that voted against strike, in addition to all the above, try to have pickets admit that they are picketing, or that it is a picket line-name person or persons who made the statement (It is important to get the admittance that it is a picket line-if necessary get into an argument to get the admittance).
Mr. Speaker, I have quoted from that document in order to illustrate the attitude that has been over a period of years and is now being taken by the employing interests in

The Address-Mr. Barnett the interior of British Columbia. I should like to suggest that the situation is thrown in marked contrast by the fact that right in the centre of the strike area there is today operating at full capacity and peacefully a plywood plant where the employers took the position that they wanted to sit down and to reach an agreement in a reasonable fashion with their employees, and where the union which has the rest of the interior struck at the present time sat down and wrote a long-term agreement with that particular firm. That concern is operating and it will continue to operate. The only interest the employees of that plant have in the strike is the fact that each man in that plant is making every month a substantial contribution to the support of his fellow employees in less fortunate situations.
From time to time I have heard made statements that the union to which I happen to belong and also other unions take a most unreasonable and unrealistic position. I would not argue that that has necessarily never been the case. After all, unions are made up of human beings and sometimes human beings can be unreasonable in any walk of life. Nevertheless I think this situation of unreasonableness is brought out, in a way which makes it clear that it is not always on one side, by this statement which appears here. One of the things that unions have sometimes suggested is that if unions have more factual information on which to reach their conclusions as to what would be a reasonable basis for settlement of disputes, possibly some of the industrial strikes which we experience from time to time could be avoided. This to me at least points up that very fact. It says:
Clumsy efforts of Northern Interior Lumbermen's Association-
This, I should explain, is a publication put out by the union, in case you might think it is something from the operators that I have gotten hold of. The quotation continues:
-to fool the public regarding alleged production losses were neatly exposed last week by the IWA, leaving the operators with scarlet faces.
A full page advertisement in the Prince George Citizen, October 19. over the signature of the association, headed "Where are our Profits?", professed to be an analysis of production and marketing costs based on the average 1,000 board foot unit.
The calculation made placed the net loss to the mill on each 1,000 board foot unit as $10.83.
This announcement was found surnrising to all those with knowledge of the marked increase in production and shipments which has occurred during the past two years. It seemed incredible that production and shipments should have been stepped up. if the looses claimed had been actual.
The advertisement closed with the following statement:

"These figures can be substantiated by examination of actual records and documents, and any person or group desirous of so doing is invited to visit our office".
As the most interested group, the IWA district policy committee immediately took advantage of the offer, for the committee was prepared to consider the true facts as a guide to future action.
Accordingly, the firm of Griffiths & Griffiths, chartered accountants, was retained and representatives of that firm journeyed to Prince George, with instructions to get the facts, as promised by the association.
The full text of the report of Griffiths & Griffiths is reprinted below:
GRIFFITHS & GRIFFITHS Chartered Accountants
W. Griffiths F. A. Griffiths R. F. Gardiner F. T. G. Chester T. W. Donovan
1292 West Georgia St.,
Vancouver 5, B.C.
29 October, 1953.
International Woodworkers of America,
Vancouver, Canada.
Dear Sirs:
Pursuant to the instructions received . . . we have made a trip to Prince George, B.C. with a view to examining the actual records and documents supporting the full page advertisement entitled "Where Are Our Profits" published by the Northern Interior Lumbermen's Association in the 19 October, 1953 edition of the Prince George Citizen. The following is our report thereon. Availability of Records and Documents.
We were informed in the association's office, on 27 October by Mr. R. J. Gallagher, secretary-manager, and on 28 October by Mr. T. Schmidt, president, that no records or documents were available for inspection by any person or group. The statement was made that a meeting of the association's membership had been held on 24 October at which time the decision had been reached to withhold all information related to verification of the statistics shown in the advertisement.
Conclusion.
Under the above circumstances, we have nothing to report as to substantiation of the figures appearing in the advertisement, the copy of which is returned herewith.
Yours very truly,
GRIFFITHS & GRIFFITHS
Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell on that matter any further at this time; but when there exists a situation which affects as seriously as that situation does such a wide section of the province, I do feel that this house should be aware of some of the facts pertaining to it.
To come a little closer to home, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote frpm an editorial which appeared in the West Coast Advocate published in Port Alberni on November 19 last. It says:
It is gratifying at this time to learn that the federal government has advanced its program to construct an addition to its local assembly wharf . . .

At the present time also the federal government is calling for tenders for improvements to the boat basin at French creek...
From these two projects alone it can be seen that Ottawa is not forgetting the west coast even though it did not return one of their party members.
Mr. Speaker, I would not presume to occupy the attention of the house with that reference were it not for the concluding sentence. As far as I am concerned, the particular projects mentioned are normal expansion of government services. It appears to me that the inference therefrom is that it is clearly a matter of surprise on the part of the publisher of that paper that these services continue even though a member of the government party was not returned. It is almost as if the publisher of this paper-who incidentally was the Liberal candidate in the last election-half expected the members of the government to act as arbitrary, autocratic and narrowly partisan individuals prepared to wreak their vengeance on the hapless constituents of any riding that presumed not to return one of their members to parliament. As far as I am concerned I should like to make it clear that I have some confidence that events will prove the publisher of this paper to be wrong in that assumption. As the member for Comox-Alberni, I shall proceed on the assumption that ministers of the crown are interested in extending the benefits of normal government services equally to all Canadians.
I do not intend to dwell at any length upon the glories of the Comox-Alberni constituency. The only remark I would make in that connection is that I believe we have a considerably greater mileage of seashore than, I would say, all the constituencies of Alberta and Saskatchewan put together. Nevertheless, the miles of rugged seacoast, the long inlets, the mountain ranges and the numerous islands do create some problems which may or may not exist in other parts of Canada. One of these, Mr. Speaker, is in the matter of elections.
I recall that in one of the earlier sittings in this session the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in reply to a question, said that he was aware of no widespread disfranchisement. Perhaps in a narrow, legal sense the Prime Minister is correct in that most of the people in Canada who were eligible to vote had an opportunity of getting their names on the voters' list. But what, in actual fact, did happen on August 10? I should like to give one illustration. In the city of Port Alberni there are three industrial plants of roughly equal size employing between 500 and 800 men. Normally these plants close for the summer vacation period on a staggered 8327G-30J
The Address

Mr. Barnett basis each year. It happened that one of these plants had its annual two-week shutdown period at the time the federal election took place. While most of these people were on the voters' list, I submit that they had a choice of either forfeiting their right to the ballot or forfeiting their right to their annual holidays.
I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is not a fair choice or a democratic choice to place before the citizens of this country. As I understand it, that situation existed in a great many parts of Canada. If it were a purely passing situation, due entirely to the timing of last summer's election, I might not be disposed to raise the matter now. So far as Comox-Alberni is concerned, however, that situation occurs every time there is a federal election because of the way in which the election act is drawn. Hundreds of the voters in that area have a choice between bread and the ballot, because of the nature of the constituency and the nature of the work which the people in that area do.
I am prepared to agree that the technical changes in the election act are properly matters for the chief electoral officer. I could not agree, nor do I think many members of this house would agree, that the principles behind our federal election act are not properly the concern of this parliament. Great expense is undertaken in some instances in order to give people the right to vote under the present act. I have been told that during the election last summer four-engine airplanes were employed to take the ballot boxes thousands of miles so that a few people could vote. I have no quarrel with that. I submit, Mr. Speaker, however, that it should not be beyond the power of reasonable men to draw that act in such a way that loggers and fishermen may have the opportunity of voting at every election.
It seems to me that what creates this dilemma for people in such occupations is that the act, as it is now drawn, gives priority to the matter of residence rather than to the matter of citizenship. Today we live in an age of movement, and the residence we occupy from time to time may be purely incidental to the occupation we are following. I have some ideas as to how that act might be amended in order to cope with the needs of fishermen and loggers. From what I have been told by some of these people I would say they have ideas, too. Some of the loggers I know resort to the old principle of hedging.
I was discussing with some of them the problem they would face if the particular logging camp in which they were working happened to close down for the fire season a

The Address-Mr. Barnett week before the election. This is a common occurrence in every federal election. When the camp closes the loggers have to go to Vancouver, and their board and lodging ceases when the work ceases. Many of them said to me, "Oh, we fixed that. We had the old lady put our name on the voters' list at home, and we did the same thing up here. We are protected whichever way the thing goes." I did not take the time to explain that such procedure might involve them in some conflict with some sections of the act. Nevertheless I think it does indicate that these people were genuinely interested in having the opportunity to vote. Certainly they had no intention of abusing the privilege.
I shall have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I made one pledge, and only one pledge, to the people of Comox-Alberni. I said that if I had to make a nuisance of myself in Ottawa for the entire period of this parliament, I would certainly continue to press for some suitable revision of the election act.
Another matter which I should like to draw to the attention of the house and the government is the situation which exists with respect to communications in that area, particularly as it applies to the government telegraph and telephone service. From my travels I have gradually come to the conclusion that for some reason or other the government telephone and telegraph services must be the Cinderella of government departments. The whole pattern of equipment, and the whole set-up, seems to be a carryover from the days of the trail of '98, when if I recall correctly they built a land line to the Yukon.
This matter was drawn rather forcefully to my attention, and I believe also to the attention of the minister in charge last summer, by a situation that developed on one of the islands in the strait of Georgia. I shall quote briefly from one of the communications I have had in this connection. As it happened this island was connected by marine cable, and something happened to this cable with the result that these people were left without telephone service for more than a month before the cable could be repaired. I am not being particularly critical of that situation, because it may have developed accidentally. The communication says:
Our problem does not start nor end with repairs to the marine cable. Practically no useful maintenance work has been done on the land line for the past five years. This land line consists of 12 miles of rusted wire supported by rotting poles which have been in for 25 years, none of them now fit to climb, and many of them with insulators gone, and the line either lying in the ditch or shorted on limbs of trees. We maintain that if


this line was an essential service 25 years ago it is much more essential today as we have had exactly the same mail service for the past 30 years and no improvement in it at any time since.
That, to me, does illustrate a situation which, as I know from my observation, is not confined to that immediate vicinity. That is something which I feel should not continue to exist in an area which is not in the midst of a dying economy. If the people were moving out of the northern end of Vancouver island and the adjacent islands there might be some excuse for letting a service of that kind die away. But I should like to point out that virtually an industrial revolution has taken place in that area in the last ten years, and that in the course of that time there have been three or four huge feudal empires of modern industrialism set up there, so that virtually the whole northern end of the island is now divided up between them.
I realize that this is partly because of forestry policies followed by the present and previous governments in British Columbia. Nevertheless, there it is; new communities are going in, and the people who are producing in those industries are living in the communities.
I am not now suggesting that the government of Canada should attempt to do anything about that situation. I think it is going to take something more than silk-hat socialists to do very much about it. But the thing I do want to point out is that while this communications system is being let fall into a state of decay, these new communities are being left without the facilities afforded by proper, public communications channels, and that comes very close to the question of the rights of free speech and free communication.
I could tell the house of instances where prearranged code words have had to be brought into existence between parties so they could enjoy free communication, because such facilities as there are have been the private concern of the industrialists. I would submit that while this government may not be prepared to do anything about the economic situation, or to do anything about creating a state of industrial democracy, at least it is in accordance with the best traditions of the Liberal party, as I understand them, that the rights of free speech and free communication should be protected and developed.
I think my suggestion is somewhat in line with one made the other day by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) in relation to post office facilities. I should like to draw to the attention of the government

the importance of giving some proper consideration to the development and improvement of this government telephone and telegraph service.
There is one other matter I should like to mention briefly, and that has to do with transportation in the coastal areas of British Columbia. We have a situation now where, almost without notice, steamer services are being withdrawn or reduced. People are worrying. Those who have been on the islands for the last thirty years or more are suddenly left without the means of getting in their supplies. We have up the west coast of Vancouver island, and to all those isolated communities, what amounts to a most unsatisfactory steamer service.
Of course we cannot overlook the impact of air travel upon the facilities that can be provided by a coastal steamship service. Certainly no one would suggest that the advantages of air travel should be removed from those people. It seems to me a revolution is taking place in the whole transportation set-up in that coastal area. I draw this to the attention of the house because I believe it is a matter to which the government should be giving very careful study and attention at this time.
There is a need for the development of an over-all and co-ordinated policy in respect of the type of services that can be supplied to and maintained for the people on the coast. I think some study must be made as to how those services can be co-ordinated, keeping in mind possible highway developments which, of course, would involve some form of study in respect of the authority of the provincial government.
This is a most important matter for those people who live in communities separated from each other by arms of the sea or by mountain ranges, and who should have regular communications with the outside world. So I am asking that this matter receive more consideration and study by the appropriate government departments, so people will have some confidence that they are not going to be suddenly left without adequate transportation facilities.
And while we are on the subject of transportation I should like to suggest that this matter of a coastguard service on the west coast of Vancouver island, and along the west coast generally, is not something which should be brushed aside lightly, as the minister appeared to do the other day when the matter was raised. The two lifeboat stations to which he referred are located a relatively few miles apart on one section of that coast, and certainly are not to be considered as being in the class of a proper coastguard
The Address-Mr. Studer service. I would not suggest that they de not perform or have not performed at times a necessary and useful function, but certainly they are not performing the function of a coastguard service as we understand it.
In closing I should like to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and to the attention of the house, the fact that even in the prosperous coast lumber industry at the present time there is a situation developing which has a ring rather similar to that raised with respect to other industries such as coal mining and textiles, and with regard to the surpluses of wheat. Just recently some 700 of the plywood workers of the British Columbia coast were laid off. When they will go back to work I do not know. I thought it would be of some interest to the house to know the reason which has been given for that lay-off, in a release by the company concerned. The release is from MacMillan and Bloedel Limited. It says:
Due to expanding Canadian economy, the company in 1951 laid plans for increased producing capacity which might come into effect in 1953. But completion of these facilities, and the engagement of larger crews to increase production, coincided with a wheat policy in Canada, whereby delay has occurred in selling a big part of the 1953 crop to Britain.
Whereas for many years past, fall and winter purchasing power for plywood and other products has been supported by a wide distribution of cash for grain, this year the prairie farmer's available funds from the current crop are much reduced. Plywood buying is being delayed there and elsewhere in Canada to such an extent that the expected increased demand in the fall season has not occurred this year.
I should like to draw this to the attention of the house as some indication of how closely the welfare of the people in one part of Canada is tied to that of the others. I for one, as a member from the coastal area of British Columbia, am quite prepared to take an interest in what some of my colleagues from the central part of this country say to us about wheat.
Thank you.


Mr. Irvin Studer (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Like everyone who has spoken in the debate on the throne speech, I should like to offer my congratulations to you as Deputy Speaker, as well as to the Speaker of the house who has been chosen during this term of parliament. The people of Canada during the last election recognized what is good government. I think the members of the House of Commons have also recognized a good Speaker, and therefore we have the Speaker and yourself, of whom Canada will be proud.
On behalf of the French-speaking people of my constituency I should like to make the same effort at least that other English-speak-
462	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Studer ing people have made and say a tew words on their behalf, and endeavour to speak their mother tongue. I can assure you that if we English-speaking people would make the same effort to speak French that the French make to speak English all of us would be perfectionists and bilinguists. So on their behalf I should like to say:
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate you and to offer you the best wishes of my constituents. A great many of them are linked to you through a common language and origin and they have asked me to convey to you, on their behalf, their appreciation for the services which you have so abundantly rendered to the citizens of this country.
(Text):
I would also like to extend our love and devotion to our wonderful Queen on the occasion of her coronation this year. We in Canada who have had the privilege of seeing "Canada at the Coronation", produced by the national film board, have a memento of that occasion of which we can well be proud and which we shall keep in our hearts to remind us of the devotion that is her just due.
This Elizabethan age must be the women's age, because we already see the results 'of it in the House of Commons. Why should it not be so-just as long as they do not represent Swift Current-Maple Creek? In any event, why should it not be so? The woman has, as everyone knows, the last word to say in our houses, and why should she not have the last word in this House of Commons? I can assure hon. members that the last word of the women in this House of Commons will be a good word on behalf of all the people of Canada.
Since Swift Current-Maple Creek is the most important constituency in Canada, without which the economy of Canada would collapse, it would not be in order for me not to say something about it. At the last redistribution we were given the largest settled constituency in Canada, 300 miles from one corner to the other, with 341 polls, almost double the average. It happens to be a unique constituency in this country, perhaps, in that it is the constituency which has the only city in Saskatchewan which elected a Liberal; and if more of the C.C.F.'ers had stayed down there longer, I am sure I would have had a much larger majority than I had.
Its economic importance is great; its wheat contribution is immense. It raises a large proportion of the cattle of Saskatchewan on its ranches and a great proportion of the sheep, in fact most of the sheep. The other


day I had the privilege of being in Kitchener and visiting one of the packing institutions, where I saw some of the sheep and lambs from Maple Creek and some of our own cattle, and I can tell you they are the best in Canada. To see them on the grading line in these packing plants would make you realize that Swift Current-Maple Creek has the reputation of producing the best in the country. In fact many Ontario people come out there to buy their feeders and bring them back to eastern Ontario, finish them off and put them on the market as a combination of western breeding stock and the feeding ability of the eastern farmers. There is no better combination in the whole of Canada.
We also have hogs; we have poultry; we have eggs, and we have irrigation. We have the second best experimental farm in Canada; we have water. When some hon. members speak about the water here, they say they have the best. Well, until they can obtain the reputation of being purveyors to Their Majesties the King and Queen, as happened to us when the King and Queen visited Canada in 1939, I suggest they wait before they boast about their water.
We have oil; we have just about everything that is necessary for a country. In fact we are almost a country on our own down there. Besides that we have Swift Current, which is the fastest growing city in Canada. It has the best weekly newspaper in Canada. It has no more prizes to win either for editorial pages or for the best weekly newspaper. We have the best bi-weekly paper, the only one in Saskatchewan. We have the best towns, the best schools; we have the third best boys' band in Canada, it having won that honour for Swift Current at Toronto last year, and we have one of the very few artificial curling rinks in Saskatchewan, in Swift Current. And if you will forgive me for saying so, Mr. Speaker, we have some of the best politicians in Swift Current-Maple Creek.


Mr. Hodgson:: A good advertiser.


Irvin William Studer: You have not heard anything yet. We have some of the best wheat exhibitors and prize winners in the whole Dominion of Canada. We have R. P. Robbins from Shaunavon, who won the Durum wheat award at the winter fair in Toronto a week or so ago. We had the same winner of oil seed flax; he was second in two-row barley; third in six-row barley, and we had the reserve for barley. He was fourth in field beans; fourth in hard spring wheat, and eighth in field peas. We have a junior 4-H club, and they won the club poultry championship at the Toronto fair last week. They

were Donna Lawrence and Gordon Ford with their coach John Humphries from Maple Creek. The honey championship was won by a neighbour of mine, Mrs. J. W. Kent of Pambrun, Saskatchewan. If there are any members of this House of Commons who can show a better record than Swift Current-Maple Creek, why don't they speak up?
Irrespective of that, our area has always had problems. I believe I have mentioned before that although we have the best of everything when conditions are good, we also have the worst of everything when conditions are bad. We are hearing much discussion about wheat. Let me say something about wheat, and about box cars, and about these surpluses. We have suffered more in the southwestern section of Saskatchewan from lack of wheat than we have ever suffered from having too much wheat. If this surplus of wheat is a crisis, then I hope we have more crises down in the southwestern area. We will need that before we will have sufficient wheat to catch up with the people in other more favourable areas of Canada who are producing wheat. I would rather have to wait for a box car in which to load my wheat than be waiting for a relief car. We have waited for many relief cars down in that area too long over the years.
The real difficulties exist in many rural districts where there is no wheat. There are large hailed-out areas in the southwestern district. Those people who have been hailed out for two or more consecutive years have no interim payments coming in; they have no payments of any kind, final or otherwise. If they have a crop this year I think the government should step in and make some provision like they did two years ago when the wheat was under the snow. I think some provision could be made for these people who need help, if they demand it. We hear many demands from our C.C.F. friends, although they do not correspond with some of the other demands, some of the other statements and some of the other speeches I have heard. Other than that, the personal demands from my constituents have not been great, and I repeat that this is a constituency which has suffered over the years.
I would imagine that there will be more money in my constituency for a longer period of time under present conditions than there would be if the wheat was moved out overnight. I would think the province of Saskatchewan could very well contribute something. They have been able to pay $35,000 for a trade commissioner over in Great Britain. He could be doing a job all right in connection with trade, and perhaps he can help in connection with wheat and sterling or anything else.
The Address-Mr. Studer
We may have a problem in connection with wheat, but I am satisfied that it is not only in connection with moving it. The money is there. Wheat is money. As long as that money is not taken from us we will be able to avail ourselves of it as time goes on. In the meantime the situation may be somewhat exaggerated.
I do not think the government should overlook any possibility in the way of obtaining the assistance of the best qualified people in Canada in helping to move this grain. If there are any people in Saskatchewan who know how to sell wheat, bring them in here and I know the government will be able to use them. I have not seen very many of them yet. The only thing I know that the socialists out in Saskatchewan have in abundance or surplus is talk. We would like to have their assistance if they can give us any.
They talk about paying for storage on the farms. If they go back to 1941 and 1942 they will remember that storage on wheat was paid to the extent of $6 million one year and an additional amount another year. Who got that money? That is what I want to know. That money was deducted from the final payment, as would be done in this case. If there was a payment for storage on the farms of western Canada of $16 million it would be deducted from the final payments. Who is going to get that money? Unless you show me that the people of the southwestern area are going to obtain their proportion of it, then I am not going to support any storage payment plan because I think my farmers will lose on the deal.
I like to think that I represent the farmers in my area to the best of my ability and that I am conducting my efforts in such a way as to bring the greatest amount of revenue to them rather than to take it away or keep it away from them. There are areas in southwestern Saskatchewan where there is no or very little grain. We do not want to place ourselves in the position where we will be paying storage charges to people who may not need it, or who are in position to store their grain over a period of years.
Unless your wheat is in the elevators or in a storage position, there are no storage deductions made. So I would like to have a precise statement as to who is going to get this money. Bring in all the people who may know how to sell wheat. Let them come in here and I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) will greet them with open arms. In the meantime, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce does not know how, who does know how? If he does not know how, we will have-


An hon. Member:: We all know Howe.

The Address-Mr. Studer


An hon. Member:: Howe knows how.


Irvin William Studer: We have heard reference made to the quota system and the irregularities and the discriminations and what-have-you that occur under it. Much of that may be due to the use of quota books. Last year it was worked on the basis of the wheat acreage only instead of the total acreage. This year the quota is on a new basis of three bushels per total acreage, and that will eliminate many of the discrepancies that formerly existed. There have been difficulties as between one point and another in connection with the box cars allotted over a period of the past years.
Then they talk about the car order book removal. I think everyone will agree that if the wheat board has an order for wheat, whatever grade it may be, it must obtain that wheat at whatever point it is possible to obtain it. Otherwise it will lose the sale. What good would it do to interfere with the selling of certain grades of wheat? The wheat board is out to sell wheat and nothing else. If it does not sell wheat the farmers of western Canada are going to suffer.
I would not interfere one iota with the operations of the wheat board, because they are the men who know how to sell wheat. I do not think any socialists anywhere in the country could have sold one particle more than they have sold. They are partial to socialist countries, but socialist countries are getting scarcer and scarcer so they would have considerable difficulty in the sale of wheat.
Let us look at what happens when there is no quota. Our friends refer to the United States quite often. I was down in the United States at a shipping point where there were from 150 to 200 trucks lined up on a Sunday waiting for the whistle of a train. The minute that train pulled in there was a scramble to get to the elevator to deliver their wheat. At least we have a quota system which brings about some semblance of order in the delivering of our wheat. I think we should continue it and increase our efforts to make it equitable for all concerned.
There should not be this constant sniping at the wheat board which we hear throughout Canada and in this House of Commons. It just does not make sense. I believe that our socialist friends would like nothing better than to have the wheat board operations collapse. The government of this country operated this wheat board against the wishes of more than 93 per cent of the people. How many people in Canada, apart from some of the wheat-growing farmers in western Canada, and not all of them, wanted the wheat board? Did the people of British Columbia want it?

I never heard them say so. Did the people east of the great lakes want it? I did not hear them say so. I do not think any socialists in any part of this country wanted it. They would not have been able to handle it if they had tried to do it.
If you have the government of Canada enhancing the position of the western farmers, even against opposition to the setting up of the very wheat board that was brought into operation for the well-being of the farmer, then why the continual sniping in regard to it? I think we should give our government a vote of gratitude, not only the people of British Columbia but the people of Canada as a whole. These people who keep sniping and contradicting and discussing and arguing about it are rendering a disservice to the people of Canada and thereby to the farmers of western Canada by the action they have taken up to date.
We also hear something about cattle. We have them talking about a crisis in this regard. In fact I have never heard anything discussed by the socialists in this house that was not a crisis. Even if cattle were 38 cents a pound it would still be a crisis. Most of them talk about crises and if they continue in that vein they will be in a perpetual crisis. They want a livestock marketing board, but the livestock growers do not want it. They passed resolutions against it and they told me not to support it because it would lead to controls and they do not want control in regard to cattle. Socialists want it because their whole system is based on controls, on control of every part of the economy, including people. The cattle growers can see through that flimsy argument the socialists continue to present, and the cattlemen would rather set up their own board than have a state-controlled system. They do not want controls and directions designating whether they might sell one head or one thousand head of cattle.
The same thing holds true of production in other fields. In any event, if the socialists are in favour of controls then let them go to the province of Saskatchewan. Let the provincial government build the storage and refrigeration that will be necessary for livestock. Let the socialist government wake up from their sleep and endeavour to provide the storage that will be necessary for that produce. If the province has to provide it, then perhaps they can encourage them to do so in the same way the people of Canada have provided similar marketing facilities for the smaller growers of livestock in this country. They have never made any effort before.

They had a natural products marketing act which they did pass, but it was bypassed out in Saskatchewan.
As I said last year, there is not one single instance in which the socialists have made an effort to help the farmers and the people in the west. They have confined themselves to criticizing the federal government from which all the revenue comes into Saskatchewan, and which has accrued through the operations of the farming industry during the past years.
We have heard many speeches from socialist members in the House of Commons, but they all play the same record. It is the same tune, although now it is a little scratchier. It is still the same record about what we are going to do in regard to cattle and farming conditions generally. But are we going to accept what they say about the actual situation in Saskatchewan? Are we going to accept what they have told us, that the situation in Saskatchewan is worse than ever before, and that there is a continual crisis there at the present time? I suggest they go and talk to the provincial treasurer instead of giving us this gloom-doom socialism. The provincial treasurer has this to say on page 7 of his budget speech for this year:
Despite these danger points, and the setbacks I have mentioned, it still remains true that 1952 has been the most prosperous farm year in our history. The gross value of agricultural production is estimated at well over $1 billion, an all-time high by a wide margin. Actual cash income received during the year rose to $700 million. And while net farm income for the country as a whole fell by 12 per cent from the 1951 record, this province registered a gain of better than 10 per cent.
I have not too much faith in the provincial treasurer out there, but I still have more faith in his words than I have in the humdrum speeches I have heard here this session.
On page 11 the statement continues:
Finally, the data on personal income provides the key to the story of Saskatchewan's expanding economy.
Where did this expansion in Saskatchewan's economy come from? Not from oil. They have realized on that, but only incidentally. It comes from the soil and the produce of the farms, from the overwhelming production of agriculture and livestock products, and from the wheat and other grains of western Canada. The provincial treasurer continues:
As I noted before, the estimate just published at Ottawa places personal income for Canada as a whole in 1952 at $17,146 billion. This is $1,188 per capita. A preliminary estimate for Saskatchewan is $1-210 billion. This is $1,435 per capita- 70 per cent higher than the previous ten-year average, and one-fifth better than the national average.
The Address-Mr. Studer
His statement should be accepted as an indication of the real situation in Saskatchewan. That is not the situation as a whole out west but it is certainly the situation as a whole in Saskatchewan, and it contradicts what has been said in this house by the socialists. But are they dismayed? No, they are not; even when the provincial treasurer, even when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in a speech the other day, and even when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) proved that they had not a leg to stand on. They are not dismayed as long as they have a soft spot to sit on. They sit in the house twiddling their tongues, and when they are not twiddling their tongues they are twiddling their thumbs and waiting for the day when they will receive pensions as members of this house.
I would venture this statement, and I would like to have someone contradict it. We have had the best years in this country when there were no socialists in the House of Commons whatsoever. They have always been a detriment to every country in which they have lived. We hear their arguments in regard to the percentage of national wealth. Perhaps we do not have a fair percentage qf national wealth in southwestern Saskatchewan, but when they take the figures from the record to prove that the farmer is not receiving a fair percentage of the national wealth, they do not take all the figures. They just take part of them.
I do not say the farmers are getting their share of the national wealth. I do not think they are, but the people I know who are getting a fair percentage of the national wealth are the socialists in the government of Saskatchewan. I think they are getting their share of the national wealth.
In any event no one will agree that the farmers are getting their fair percentage of the national wealth. The farmers will not agree, nor will the fishermen, the miners and the industrial workers. I would say, though, that it must be fairly equal at the present time because no one seems to be in a position to prove they are not receiving their fair share of the national wealth. I think we can take it as a compliment to the government, which has distributed the wealth better than any other government throughout the length and breadth of this country.
If the situation in Saskatchewan in regard to credit is bad, one of the best things they could do would be to close the liquor stores, which took in over $32 million last year; and if they did close them, in many localities it would increase the well-being and economic condition of the people in that province.

The Address-Mr. Studer
We are free traders out west and I think something should be done about that by the dominion government. I think we should take the duty off cement, because we are in a hazardous situation in that part of the country. Although the duty is not heavy, enough is involved to make a considerable impact upon prices. If we could have more cement at lower prices the situation would be improved considerably and we could make a recommendation to the province of Saskatchewan that they take the 3 per cent tax off building, particularly where the homes of the poor are involved. They place a 3 per cent tax on building the homes of the poor in Saskatchewan.
Oh, more than that, Mr. Speaker. They place a 3 per cent tax on the building of hospitals, the cost of which is contributed to by the Dominion of Canada on a percentage basis. Those humanitarians out there impose a tax on the dominion government that itself supplies a percentage of the cost of building of hospitals out there. Take the duty off cement; take the duty off cars and trucks; take the duty off farm tires and let us get back to a free trade basis. 1 never heard of anything in connection with tariffs that did not shackle the western Canadian farmer. If we are going to assist him, that is one little way in which we can try to do it.
Our farmers have to meet competition. Let none of you easterners think you are underwriting the wheat of western Canada. We have an international wheat agreement, and it is underwritten by the people signing that international wheat agreement as to the minimum and also as to the maximum. No one in Canada is in danger of having to come to the support of the western wheat growers at the present time; and no one has done so at any time very much, in spite of the $65 million that we have heard too much about in this country of ours. Place us in a position where we are not handicapped and shackled with these tariffs, so we can operate and produce out there on a basis of equality with other people. I have 200 miles of Montana border down there. I know what it costs on one side and what it costs on the other.
I make no apologies for being a free trader not only in this matter but in everything that goes into production. The whole world will be better off when we get into a position of absolute free trade and not just free trade between certain countries.
Don't worry about the farmers being too rich out in western Canada. The only way you are going to get rich, if you have ambitions that way, is to see that the farmer gets rich first. Incidentally, if there is any standard of living in this country, who should 
have it? Who is the first one that has a right to it, if it is not the primary producer who produces the food? He is the one who should have the highest standard of living in this country, not the lowest. He should not be forced to take that which is left after everyone else has had a portion of it or has taken what he thought was his just due. The primary producer on the farm and in the factory, the labourers and the fishermen and all those who produce that which is essential to life, should have the highest standard of living. But no one in this house will say they have had it. I think we should concentrate our efforts on achieving that end.
There are other things happening in the west that should have our attention. Not only is there the wheat crisis but there are other crises. One is the crisis in the political situation in the west. Here we have companies going into western Canada selling their products of all descriptions. But what has happened? They were interested only in the selling of goods. They were never interested in selling themselves to the people of Canada. If they are to be of any value to this country whatsoever, then along with the sale of their products they had better begin selling themselves.
You see what has happened out in western Canada which is the paradise of political opportunists who will take every advantage of that situation, be it in opposition to eastern Canada, telling the people that all of eastern Canada is against them. Eastern Canada has not sold itself out in western Canada either, with the result that out of 70 members we have 23 here in the House of Commons representing the government. Oh, the west may be necessary economically but politically it is expendable. I think the people of Canada should know that.
Here in the House of Commons we have a socialist group from the west, from Saskatchewan, who contribute nothing to the welfare of Canada except contradiction and opposition. All of them should be put together, all these opposition parties, and they should be called the "protestionist" party of Canada. I think that is necessary in more ways than one.
They are talking about reform of the Senate -excuse me, Mr. Speaker; I should say reform of the other place. I will talk about a few reforms here in the House of Commons. We can start with the splinter parties. If ever there was a waste of time in any parliament in any country in the world, it has been in this House of Commons. When the time comes that parliament should be closed I have to sit here and listen to people who have nothing else in the world to do except make their living by talking and

being members of the House of Commons. I think something should be done about it. Why is it that the small percentage of the people of Canada represented by the socialists, as they were in the last parliament-I think it is 6 per cent of the people of Canada -should be able to create this situation? Their representatives, the socialists, absorbed over 30 per cent of the time of this House of Commons, and they represented 6 per cent of the people.
I think we need some co-ordination in the House of Commons. I think we should place our splinter parties in the position where they will group themselves together with the official opposition party or be criticized continually for never wanting to be the government. I do not think they want to be the government. I think they are perfectly content to remain in splinter groups for the rest of their lives, because it is a better living than I know some of us make out in the country working in the way we are working. They are a voice crying in the wilderness. I think they should co-ordinate the political voice of the west. If the Social Crediters cannot convince the C.C.F.'ers, whom are they going to convince? And if the socialists cannot convince the Social Crediters, whom are they going to convince? Of course the Conservatives convince no one, so they are all in the same boat. I would suggest that these political splinter parties be not recognized in this House of Commons until such time as they have 25 per cent of the vote in Canada.


Mr. Knowles:: Do you not believe in
democracy?


Irvin William Studer: I repeat, until they have 25 per cent of the popular vote in Canada. Then they can associate themselves with the official opposition and become part and parcel of Canada.
Let us not be proud. We Liberals do not represent the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Irvin William Studer: I am giving them time, Mr. Speaker, to say "hear, hear". We do not represent the people of Canada. They do. There is the representation of the people of Canada by over 50 per cent of the vote. Over 50 per cent of the popular vote is vested in the opposition at the moment. In my own case I represent only 43 per cent of the popular vote. If we want to have a continuity of democracy in this country and show the way to the rest of the world I think every one of us who did not have a majority of the popular vote in his constituency should resign.


An hon. Member:: You start.
The Address-Mr. Studer


Irvin William Studer: I think it would be a good start toward democracy. I think it would be a wonderful start if we all went back to our constituencies and said, "We do not represent you; we cannot even speak for you; we are a minority." Let us go back and place the solution in the hands of the people. When the people know the truth you will find that they will always conduct themselves in a manner that will be in the interests of the welfare of the country in which they live. Perhaps even the government should resign because they have not over 50 per cent of the popular vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Irvin William Studer: The government has not 50 per cent of the vote but if they all resigned and went back to the country they would come back here without any opposition; and that again would not be good for the country. So a real crisis exists out in the west, with 23 members out of 70 on this side. If the opposition parties could add something for the good of the country, it would be all right. But as I said before, they have not had a new idea in ten years. The secretary of the socialists in Saskatchewan, Carlyle King- who I believe is professor of socialism in the University of Saskatchewan-said that the C.C.F. never had a new idea in ten years. Shucks, they never had a new idea in a hundred and fifty years. They are picking up what Marx and Engels threw away, bringing that before us here and expounding it.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Irvin William Studer: The hon. member made his speech the other day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member is rising to a point of order.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Yes, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Reference was made to Dr. Carlyle King. For the hon. member's information, if he is so misinformed, I may say that Dr. King is professor of English.


Mr. McCann:: There is no point of order there.


Alfred Claude Ellis: It is a correction of a misstatement of fact.


Irvin William Studer: Mr. Speaker, the real crisis is out in Saskatchewan. They speak about this thing called communism. They ask what causes communism, and they say hunger causes communism. I could perhaps believe that when I look at the physique of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); but when I look at the constitution of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) and the well-fed,
468	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Studer ready-for-market constitution of the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis) I would say, as would my Scottish friends, "I hae ma doots". If they are in that position, and are proud to be socialists, of what are they proud? Where in the world did a socialist ever make a contribution to anything? It is the easiest thing in the world to be a socialist. They seem to consider that you have to have some superhuman ideology or thought in order to be a socialist.
It is, however, the easiest thing in the world to be a socialist. All that needs to happen is for me to have a crop failure, then for the cattle to get hoof-and-mouth disease, the hogs to get hog cholera, the chickens to get coccidiosis; then love flies out the window and the wife leaves home. After everything is gone I say "Boys, I have had it; hooray, I am a socialist and willing to share everything I have not got with everything you have got". I question these individuals as to their right to be socialists. I do not think any non-wealth producing individual has a right to be a socialist. These socialists question us as to our right to be capitalists. Do they not question every capitalist as to his right to be a capitalist, implying that everyone got to be a capitalist by robbing the poor?
In all cases they are against any individual and any country that is doing good, any country that has been able to produce more and distribute more than any other country on the face of the earth, including Canada. Last year I questioned some of them as to their right to be socialists. I have as much right to question them about their right to be socialists as they have to question me about my right to be a capitalist-that would be a laugh for my creditors. I have a right to question them as to why a non-wealth-producer has a right to be a socialist. They may say the members of the government are nonproducers, and that may be true; but the difference is, those members are not socialists.
I am asking these socialists where they got their right to be socialists. Did they get it from God? No, they did not, because God knows you have to be a producer before you can distribute anything. Did they get it from Karl Marx or from Engels? No; they also were non-producers. Did they get it from nature? No, because the bees in the beehive make short shrift of the drone. Did they get it from the people? No, because they were socialists before the people ever heard of them. From what source did they get this right to be a socialist? My time is not up as yet, so I will give any one of these nonwealth-producing socialists three minutes to tell me from what source they got this right to be a socialist. Proceed.


Well, it appears as though they were unable to substantiate it. If they cannot substantiate it, then the folks out in western Canada ought to know they have been political impostors. I am going to jolt, jab, prod, dig, abuse, ask and argue until I eliminate these impostors.
Who solved the problem of production? Not the socialists, because if we had started off with their policy we would still be the underprivileged people of the world. We would not have to talk about distribution, we would be talking about producing something to eat. The same thing holds true all along the line. They never solved the problem of production, yet they take it unto themselves, by divine right, to say they are going to distribute my labour, my toil, and my sweat. They have no right to it. I have the right to the things I produce from my sweat and toil, not those socialists.
If they say they are delivering a service and they are educationists or ministers, let them go out and distribute that throughout the country. I am telling the people of Canada this, it is germ warfare. It is germ warfare because these reprehensible specimens of socialist bacteria are spreading their germ warfare all over the people of Canada, taking advantage of the weak and underprivileged and those who may have no access to knowledge and education.
My time is almost up, so I shall not be able to go into the subject matter of my speech. In closing I would ask the government not to overlook the poor; do not take it for granted that all is well in Canada. Yet there are more people enjoying the good things of life in Canada, enjoying a higher standard of living, with more future and more freedom than in any socialist country in the world. I am going to do my part to try to keep it so. Let not the government for a minute consider or believe that we have a perfect government or that we should be arrogant-which the government is not. The duty of the government is to its people. The Liberal government does not wrong the rights, as the socialists do; the government rights the wrongs, and that is what we shall endeavour to do in the future. We shall so operate the economy that people of all classes have an opportunity to earn their living, as is their right.
Although we are happy that so many people in Canada enjoy the benefits of our civilization, some of us are still unhappy because there are some who do not enjoy those benefits. Our policy shall be that everyone shall have the right to earn his living, that is everyone who wishes to do so, in order to ensure that our country will become great. I believe

this government has the best system and the best policies to sustain the right of every individual to provide the highest standard of living within his capacity. All of us will continue to be dedicated to the task of making it possible for all the people of Canada to attain the abundant life.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take what little time I have at my disposal to answer the hon. member who just took his seat, other than to say that I am quite proud of the fact that most of the people in western Canada saw fit to vote the Liberals out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is a lot of common sense out west.


Charles Edward Johnston: If we could expect that type of leadership, then the defeat of the Liberals shows the intelligence of the people of western Canada. The hon. member made it plain that the only ones who should have a say here are the members of the Liberal party, and the opposition parties should be wiped out of existence.


Irvin William Studer: I did not say that, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Edward Johnston: Sit down, we have had enough of that. We fought the last war in order to get rid of these dictators, these Hitlers in this country. I have not, as I said, the time to answer the hon. member.
There are many important subjects, Mr. Speaker, about which I should like to speak tonight but time will not permit. I should like to speak about agriculture, as that is a very important subject in my constituency. However, other members of the Social Credit party have discussed that subject quite thoroughly during this session. Then I should like to spend some time discussing pensions, as that is a very important subject and one about which a great number of people are deeply concerned. They are concerned about pensions for our senior citizens, pensions for the blind, pensions for veterans and pensions for the disabled. Again, those questions have been dealt with by other members of the Social Credit party, so I shall not bother with them at this time. There will be opportunities later this session when those matters can be discussed.
There is an important subject though, Mr. Speaker, in which my constituents are interested and about which I want to say something this afternoon. I have spoken on this subject on many occasions since I have been a member of this house. I am sorry the government has not seen fit to do much about it. I am referring to the coal industry of western
The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston Canada, not particularly of western Canada but the whole of Canada, because the coal industry is in distress.
The other day the h'on. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) was outlining conditions in the coal industry in his constituency. He pointed out where mines were being closed and miners were losing their jobs, and that the coal industry was going down.
That same condition prevails out in western Canada. I can remember speaking on this subject at the last session, and at that time I gave the number of mines, and their names, in my constituency that had been closed. I put on the record at that time the number of men who had been put out of employment in that constituency, and pointed out that they had nowhere else to go for employment if they wished to remain in that industry.
Yet nothing was done. It is so important a problem that the provincial ministers who have jurisdiction over coal mining in their respective provinces had a meeting at Niagara Falls to discuss the matter. I should like to read an account of what happened at that meeting, as reprinted in the Albertan of September 19, 1953. It is headed "Ask Action to Bolster Sagging Coal Industry". The article is dated Niagara Falls, and purports to be a Canadian Press release, stating:
Provincial governments-
And hon. members will note that the plural is used.
-Friday were urged to ask Ottawa for a clear-cut national policy statement on Canada's coal industry.
The recommendation was made in the report of a committee headed by J. P. Messervey, deputy mines minister of Nova Scotia, and presented at the closing session here of the 10th annual mines ministers conference.
After an examination of the industry's problems in the east and west, the committee received conference backing for further talks between the coal board and the conference's standing committee on coal policy.
It does seem to me the subject is so important that the federal government should take some notice of it. It is so important that each of the provinces is becoming concerned, and it is no longer a provincial matter. It has become a matter for the federal government.
One of my reasons for taking this opportunity to say a few words about the coal industry lies in the fact that perhaps we in Alberta are more distressed by the condition than any other part of Canada-and I am not for one moment minimizing conditions outside Alberta. The fact is, however, that in Alberta we produce one-seventeenth of

The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston the world's known supply of coal. Yet our coal industry is being pushed out because of the lack of a Canadian fuel policy.
The position in Alberta is becoming serious because of the development of substitute fuels, in the forms of fuel oil and gas. No one would suggest that it would be desirable to stop the trend of progress, and it would not be wise of course to stop the development of the use of fuel oil and gas. These are things that will bring progress in our country. Gas is to be shipped down here to Ontario. We do ship some coal to this province, and we expect that the shipment of gas here will have some effect on our coal shipments, and upon the coal market generally in eastern Canada.
Then, too, the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway, providing added power to the central provinces, will have an effect on our coal market in this part of Canada. It is clear, therefore, that we have a problem facing us. Although Alberta, as I said, produces one-seventeenth of the world's supply, in 1952 we produced in that province only 7,150,000 tons. That is only a fraction of our capacity. While the figures are not complete, it is estimated that this year we will produce only 6,260,000 tons or a decrease in production in one year amounting to 890,000 tons. We shipped 597,461 tons to central Canada, mostly to Ontario.
That is not very much for central Canada. Our coal industry is going down. What would have happened to us during the last war if we had had a depleted coal production? The answer is that we would have been in a very serious situation indeed. What will happen to us in another emergency if we have to fall back on the coal industry, only to find there is no coal industry left? Obviously this is a national problem. In Canada last year our total production was only
17.360.000	tons, and it is estimated that for this year we will have an even lower production. In fact the estimate is, by those in the coal business, that it will be the smallest since 1941.
The question may be asked, and quite properly: Well, where is the coal market? The answer is that we have a very good coal market in Canada, the best part of which is found right here in Ontario and Quebec, with the greater proportion in Ontario. As I said a moment ago Canada produced last year 17,360,000 tons, but it must be pointed out that we imported from the United States
24.176.000	tons. We imported 6,816,000 tons more than we produced. Out of the total imports, Ontario brought in from the United States in 1952 an amount totalling 2,215,000 tons, while Quebec imported 1,125,000 tons.


The evidence is clear that there is a market in Canada for Canadian coal. But what has the government done about it? While we have this market it seems to me the height of folly to allow an important industry, such as the Canadian coal industry, to become bankrupt. It is estimated that we could increase our present output by about 4 million tons per year. Alberta could increase her present production to about 10 million tons. In place of that we are now producing
7,150,000	tons.
What does this mean? It means that if we wanted to save the industry all we would have to do would be to find a market here in central Canada for a million tons. That might save the industry. If we could find a market in Ontario for 2 million tons, the industry could be stabilized; and if a market could be found in Ontario and Quebec for 4 million tons the industry could be put back on its feet so those employed in it could have a decent and satisfactory standard of living.
That would not be so hard to do; it would create a hardship on no one. We import over 24 million tons of coal from the United States. If we were to increase our consumption of Canadian-produced coal to the extent of 4 million tons we would still be importing from the United States over 20 million tons, and we would be producing in Canada about the same amount.
No; the federal government will not establish a Canadian coal policy, though they have been asked to do so for many years, and yet that is the crying need. We need a Canadian fuel policy so our people who are in that industry may make a living and that so vital an industry may be maintained. But no; the government which my hon. friend who preceded me lauded so highly could not establish an all-Canadian fuel policy for coal, but they can shout their heads off for a Canadian policy for gas. And what kind of gas? It is Alberta's cheap gas. They even do not want to pay a decent price for it. They want to get our gas down here at a cheap price. They will not take our coal; oh, no. Canada will be subsidizing the St. Lawrence waterway project, but will not establish a coal policy.


Mr. Gillis:: And she has been subsidizing
gold mines.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, and I
shall speak of that in a moment. But they could not do anything to establish an allCanadian policy for coal. When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was in our province during the federal election-and I do not want to speak about elections because I have

so much to say about them and about Liberal participation that time will not permit it on this occasion, although my hon. friend who preceded me asked for it.


Clarence Gillis: He may get it before the
debate is over, too.


Charles Edward Johnston: I want to refer to the statement by the Prime Minister as reported in the Albertan of Tuesday, July 14, 1953. The article is headed:
Prime Minister commits Liberals to all-Canada gas line.
Edmonton (C.P.)-Prime Minister St. Laurent Monday night pledged the Liberal government to back development of an all-Canadian pipe line to give eastern Canadian centres the benefit of Alberta's cheap natural gas.
Oh, yes, they can establish a national fuel policy in that respect, but who gets the benefit? Ontario and Quebec. Then the article goes on to say:
On the rest of Alberta's exports the Liberal government's policy was "quite clear".
We support fully the proposal that this surplus should go to central and eastern Canada and it is our policy to see to it that this surplus should go to central and eastern Canada by means of an all-Canadian pipe line.
Oh, yes, they are not backward in establishing an all-Canadian policy for Alberta's cheap gas, but they will not do very much to help us out in establishing a Canadian fuel policy for coal, an industry that is so vital to the welfare of this country, an industry that anyone with half an eye can see is going to be ruined unless something is done about it.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) mentioned the gold subsidy. Yes, we can subsidize gold; we have done that. In the period 1948 to 1952 the gold subsidy cost us $59,984,164. Do you know how many people that industry employs? It employs 23,000. We give them $59 million and some odd, nearly $60 million, in a five-year period, yet we cannot add a little bit more to the coal subsidy in order to give thousands upon thousands of miners and their families a decent standard of living. Instead of doing that we squeeze them out by allowing the industry to fold up.
In 1949 we paid the gold industry $12,569,144; in 1950 we paid them $8,287,243. Nobody raised the question here of subsidies to gold mines, particularly the Liberals and the Conservatives, but there is a great howl when we ask for a little increased subsidy to maintain an essential industry such as the coal industry.
I said a moment ago that the Prime Minister went to some trouble to advocate an allCanadian route for a gas line coming to Ontario. Let us not kid ourselves, Mr. The Address

Mr. C. E. Johnston Speaker. When that gas line is built to Ontario by an all-Canadian route north of the great lakes somebody is going to be subsidized, and the subsidy which will be granted to the pipe line company is going to run into millions of dollars. The Canadian people, we in western Canada and those in the far eastern parts of the country, in Nova Scotia, are going to be asked to subsidize cheap gas to Ontario; yet we cannot increase the subsidy to coal mines. The building of the all-Canadian gas pipe line is Liberal policy, but they do nothing about an all-Canadian policy for coal.
There is going to be some question of marketing, and the provinces are going to have to take their share of that responsibility. The province of Alberta has made some headway in that respect. During the last session of the legislature they introduced what is known as the Alberta coal sales act, under which coal shipped from that province will carry the trade name, place of origin, type of coal and commercial analysis so everybody will know exactly what type of coal they are buying and that they can use it for the purpose for which it was intended. If we follow a policy such as that I am positive we can establish an all-Canadian policy for coal.
I am about to branch off into another part of my speech, Mr. Speaker, and I should like you to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the attention of the house to another problem which is national in scope. This is a problem which has been concerning the Canadian public a great deal. Particularly does it concern those whose financial position is not as fortunate as it might be. I refer to the matter of housing.
I have spoken a number of times on this subject. Last session on April 21 I spoke at quite some length and went into a great deal of detail in regard to national housing. About a week later, on April 28, I again had something to say about national housing. At this time I do not propose to go into the detail I did on those occasions, but I do think this is a problem which needs bringing to the attention of the house once more. It has been referred to several times this session, and that fact only goes to emphasize the importance of the problem.

The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston
I think it goes without saying that a great many people in Canada who actually are in great need of housing are not in a position to get it. Nowadays a man can get a house without much difficulty if he has the money to pay for it. The people I am referring to now are those who were referred to by the dominion bureau of statistics in a statement which was quoted in this house during last session, when they said that 75 per cent of the people of Canada earn less than $3,000 a year. That means there are a great many people who fall within that category who earn less than $3,000 per year. But I want to stress that $3,000 represents only the down payment on a house. How in the world are such people going to get enough to build a house? It would take their entire income for a year to make a down payment.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) had this question under his jurisdiction when he was Minister of Resources and Development, and I know he was concerned about it because on April 2, 1953, when speaking to the appraisal institute of Canada, he was reported as follows:
Mr. Winters said that not more than one-third of Canada's families could afford new houses- either to rent or to own.
That is a tremendous number of our population to whom the minister referred as just not being able to afford a new home, either to rent or to own. If that is true, and I take it that it is, what is the government doing to see to it that this great number of people are properly housed? According to the minister, only one-third of our population can afford a place in which to live. The minister then went on to say:
But if enough new houses weren't found, he stated, it would affect the people at the bottom of the scale-the people who were living in dilapidated and obsolescent houses.
If I did nothing more than read that statement I submit it should be enough to convince this house that the people of Canada are in dire need of housing. This is not a condition that has just cropped up, nor is it something that is known only to the minister. Maclean's magazine was quite concerned about this matter and assigned a reporter to investigate housing conditions in Canada and in other parts of the world. I should like to refer shortly to Maclean's magazine of January 15, 1953, which contains an article entitled "Our Sorry Record on Housing". Then the following appears in red type at the top of the page:
To find out how Canada is matching similar countries in housing Maclean's assigned a social economist to survey the achievements since the war of Canada, Great Britain, the United States, Sweden and Australia. And how did Canada rate? Last.
[Mr. Johnston (Bow River).!

This article by Sidney Margolius then goes on to say:
How well are we doing in comparison with other countries? Is the Canadian house hunter either specially favoured or specially penalized because of being a Canadian?
These are significant questions. To get factual answers to them I compared postwar home building in Canada with postwar building in the U.S., Australia, the United Kingdom and Sweden- countries of similar standards and circumstances, except that bombed-out Britain started with the worst housing crisis of all.
The answer was startling:	Canada lags far
behind all these countries in its efforts to lick housing since 1946.
This article is accompanied by a chart comparing housing progress in the five countries I surveyed (see page 9). Here's what it reveals:
Canada has built fewer new houses per capita since 1946 than the United States, Sweden and Australia, but more than the United Kingdom.
In terms of population growth, Canada has built fewest houses of all. This is the most telling statistic, because it indicates the comparative housing squeeze.
I take it from that article and from the conditions to which I have referred, as well as from my own experience, that the housing problem in Canada is a serious one. The reason this problem is serious is not because of a shortage of materials. That reason could have been raised a few years ago, but it certainly does not apply now. There is no shortage of workers. Hon. members of this house have pointed out already how the unemployment problem is beginning to pile up.
The only answer is that there is a shortage of money. I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to point out to our friends on my immediate right that the evidence is quite clear that it is not private enterprise that is at fault. I shall have something to say about that if time permits. Private enterprise is doing a job of building homes. It is anxious to do the job. The materials are there, the labour is there; so private enterprise cannot be blamed. It is the faulty monetary system under which we practise and which our friends to the immediate right uphold.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Is that not part of private enterprise?


Charles Edward Johnston: No. It is an
abuse which Social Credit will change.


Mr. Noseworthy:: How can private enterprise function without it?


Charles Edward Johnston: I hope I shall have time to come to that. I have already indicated to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) that I intend to say a few words in connection with the remarks he made. I hope I shall not have to disappoint him. Private enterprise is ready to do the

job if our monetary system can be so arranged to provide the funds. One of the reasons money is not forthcoming is that the loan companies-


Donald MacInnis: Private enterprise again.


Charles Edward Johnston: -are asking too much for the loans they are making.


Donald MacInnis: Private enterprise.


Charles Edward Johnston: My hon. friends will have their question answered very fully on another occasion.


Donald MacInnis: It may be a good idea.


Charles Edward Johnston: I may do it particularly for the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis). If I am not able to do it on this occasion, I shall do it on another. I shall try not to disappoint him. As I pointed out in my speech last session, this national housing system was started a few years back, not to build houses but primarily to create a field of investment for the loan companies when there was no other profitable field in which they could lend money.


Donald MacInnis: Private enterprise again.


Charles Edward Johnston: They were getting 4 per cent on their loans with a 25 per cent guarantee against losses. The interest rate was raised to 5 per cent and they then started lending money for the building of homes until such time as it again became more profitable to lend money in other fields. They then ceased to lend for the building of homes. Then it was raised to 5\ per cent, and that is what it is now. They again began to lend money, but then as other fields of investment became more profitable, they ceased to lend on housing.
That is one of the main reasons we have not been able to build houses to the extent we should have over the last year. When I spoke of 5J per cent, Mr. Speaker, that is not the actual rate of interest that is being charged. In a letter I received yesterday from a chartered accountant in the city of Calgary, whose brother built a home under the National Housing Act, it is calculated by him that the rate of interest was slightly under 6 per cent, counting, the legal charges.
Show me a person who can build houses and pay that rate of interest, particularly among that class referred to by the Minister of Public Works when he said that not more than one-third of Canada's families could afford new houses, either to rent or to own.
Then a statement made by the national retail lumbermen's council gives the reason why mortgage money is not within the reach of the ordinary common person. The national house builders' association has this to say
The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston about it, as found in the Ottawa Journal dated April 8, 1952. After describing the insurance companies' attitude as amounting to contempt for the government and the building industry generally, the manager of the association adds that not only do the lending companies dictate the amount of money that should be loaned but they also dictate the amount of material and type of material to be used, regardless of what is specifically called for in the contract.
In view of the tremendous down payment and the exorbitant amount of interest that has to be paid, it is no wonder the ordinary person cannot build houses under the N.H.A. plan. I know some houses are being built, but we have not even begun to keep up with the backlog, and we are getting into a worse position as time goes on.
I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to go too much into detail on this occasion, but I do wish to recall that we put forth a proposition here last year which, if it had been followed, I think would have resulted in many more houses being built. It would have resulted in the building of houses for that class of people mentioned by the minister, that two-thirds of Canadians who cannot afford homes. We Social Crediters maintain there is a way even under this system whereby we can build homes, by making the money available to those people who really need it. During last session I suggested that the federal government set up a revolving fund. I think, if my memory serves me right, I suggested they set up a revolving fund amounting to $250 or $300 million. This is only about one-half the amount required to pay the interest charges on the national debt. It is not, therefore, a very large amount of money from the federal point of view, and this money could be loaned to the municipalities through the provinces at not more than 2 per cent.


An hon. Member:: That is C.C.F.


Charles Edward Johnston: No, it is not. When the leader of the C.C.F. spoke on this question this session he spoke of loans at 3 or 31 per cent. When the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) spoke he did a little chiselling and brought it down to 2 per cent. I suppose his thoughts went back to last session when we suggested 2 per cent, and he thought he would have to match that even though he had no plans along that line.
This scheme, Mr. Speaker, is founded on fact. It is a practical application of the way the province of Alberta is lending money to the municipalities for self-liquidating projects such as water systems, lighting systems,

The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston sewerage systems and generally servicing land. That money was loaned at 2 per cent, and they had set up in that fund over $17 million. It has been working so well that up to the moment they have not lost one penny of it. This government lost more than that in guaranteeing loans to the loan companies. I submitted the figure last session and I am speaking only from memory now, but I think it was around $450,000 they lost. Under a properly organized system you would not lose anything, as the experience in the province of Alberta would indicate.
When I mentioned the foregoing last session the minister reminded me of the provision under section 35 of the N.H.A. whereby there could be co-operation between the provincial and federal governments and under which the province would assist in providing the serviced land, but the minister pointed out that the provincial government in Alberta had ceased lending money to the municipalities for that purpose. I do not blame them a bit, and had I anything to do with it I would have done exactly the same thing. Why should the province of Alberta lend money to service land which would be built upon by the N.H.A., which provides for lending money at 5 J or nearly 6 per cent? That is just silly. Why should we provide money for servicing land at 2 per cent, making the mortgage companies' security all the more valuable, and then let them charge 6 per cent for the money they loan to build the houses?
I will make this statement to the minister. If the government will set up a revolving fund whereby money can be loaned to municipalities through the provinces for home building at 2 per cent, the provincial government will lend the money for servicing the land at 2 per cent. You cannot beat a proposition like that, unless of course this government are still carrying on the N.H.A. for the benefit of loan companies. If we did adopt a plan such as I have suggested then the federal government would immediately get away from the possibility of having to build houses, which would be a mighty good thing.
I will say, though, that some of the N.H.A. houses that are being built now are much superior to the houses that were built before.
I have seen some pretty terrible construction under the government building program. If the government adopted the proposal I put forward I believe it would lead to a better type of building. We would not have so many houses built in blocks where they are all alike. Each municipality would be


responsible for its own type of construction and would enforce the standards they desire to employ. You would have better buildings, better financial arrangements, and the federal government would get away from a lot of headaches.
If this plan was adopted we would be able to lend that money at a very small monthly repayment. It would probably be around $25 or $30 per month. I just do not know what the amount would be, for it would depend on the amortization, whether it was 25 or 30 years. That scheme is working very satisfactorily in the province of Alberta, and I am sure it would work just as well if adopted on a federal scale.
That, of course, would not do away with the problem facing the people who have no income at all. As regards that class of people we would have to make some arrangement for subsidized housing, low rental houses, but I am not going to deal with that tonight.
I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to deal with another problem but I see my time is up, and I shall leave that problem to another occasion.
(Translation):


Mr. Lionel Bertrand (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I want to start these few remarks by saying how much I rejoice at your nomination to the high post you now fill. In putting your name forward, the government made a wise choice, and your nomination received the approval of all members, regardless of political affiliation. Everyone had taken it for granted, for some time, that you would be called upon to preside over the parliamentary business of this house. You were well prepared for this post and highly able to fill it; your nomination is a tribute to your lability and your already brilliant parliamentary career.
I do not intend to speak at length. If I take part in this traditional debate it is only because I want to express immediately my opinion on certain subjects; besides I never thought that any miracle could be wrought by long and endless speeches. This debate offers a member the opportunity to recite his opinions-which as a matter of fact reflect those of his constituents-to tell the government what those opinions are, and maybe also to be of some help in the final drafting of the bills.

During the present session, the government will introduce a bill to allow more Canadians to acquire their own houses. It is a very commendable program, and those who wish to become home owners await the details with some impatience. The sooner the bill is discussed, the more satisfied people will be. I am bound to state that the public at large, and more particularly those who live outside the larger centres, were not altogether satisfied with the way the present act operates, and my constituents have sent me, on that particular point, complaints which did seem to be justified.
The new measure would reduce the down payment to 10 per cent. This is a tremendous step in the right direction and all the more laudable since the refunding period would be extended. It has been said that banks would be called upon to grant loans; this should be a boon particularly for people residing in small towns or in rural communities.
It will be much easier for them to apply to local branches of banks than it has been to get in touch with the head offices of loan companies or even with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. For, up to now, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the loan companies were rather averse to grant loans outside large centres; they alleged so many reasons for reducing them to the minimum that the claimants, sick and tired of delays and evasive answers, withdrew their applications. For my part, I believe that the housing legislation should apply to all Canadians, no matter where they live, be it in cities, villages or rural districts, as long as they comply with the basic conditions and give the necessary reimbursement guarantees. The National Housing Act will succeed, will attain the purpose envisaged by the government, only if all Canadians are allowed to benefit equally from it.
The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) has placed on the order paper a resolution concerning the selection of a Canadian flag and has recommended the establishment of a committee to this effect. I do commend him for it. I think, however, that if this committee is ever formed, its first task should be to agree on the principle of an entirely Canadian flag. The design or selection of the design for this flag would then be easy. By an entirely Canadian flag, I mean, as far as I am concerned, a flag containing in its folds no symbol, no sign, no design which recalls either Great Britain or France. The Canadian people originates from two great nations. Canada has been enriched by the qualities of both and, even if we
The Address-Mr. Bertrand should prefer one culture or the other, Canada must be first of all our country. Canada is an adult nation, able to govern itself, and the flag it will choose should prove it. It is not by borrowing from others that we shall affirm our country's power or strengthen the prestige it has gained amongst the nations of the world.
Many groups are recommending the appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican, and my county would approve of such an appointment. I favour it myself, not because I am a Catholic, but because I consider, as a citizen, that the Vatican today is the best listening post and the strongest bulwark against communism. Attacks against the Pope and the Vatican prove this most clearly to be true. Many nations, who have no religious ties with the Vatican, have nevertheless diplomatic relations and consider them essential, absolutely necessary, precisely because the Vatican, apart from the religious question, acts as a barrier against the expansion of the communist doctrine in the world.
In certain quarters, people seem to fear that none but a Catholic could be appointed to this post. There is no strict reason for it and the ambassador might very well be English-speaking and belong to a different religion; I would have no objection to it. The only important thing would be for him to be thoroughly Canadian, well qualified and worthy of the task entrusted to him. Let him be the proud spokesman of Canadians, let him express their aspirations, which consist in upholding the principles of democracy and of the dignity of man, in preserving peace among nations and ensuring their common happiness, as well as in maintaining the cult of our Christian civilization.
I offer the government my heartfelt congratulations for announcing its intention to grant allowances to the handicapped and the disabled. It was on April 1, 1946, that I rose for the first time to speak on a resolution that I had placed on the order paper. This resolution was seconded by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier). Other members such as the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Blanchette), for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard) supported this resolution both by further resolutions and in their speeches.
Every year since then it has appeared on the order paper and on March 7, 1951, twenty-six members of the house, from every party, declared themselves in favour of such allowances. No vote could be taken but it was obvious that parliament as a whole was in favour of such a measure. Thousands of
476	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bertrand letters sent to me showed how much the public at large favoured the idea. Radio talks, newspaper articles, and delegations helped arouse public opinion on that social security measure. The departments of National Health and Welfare, of Labour, and of Veterans Affairs turned their attention to the problem of the crippled and established various committees for the purpose of their rehabilitation. The active and sympathetic Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will have the honour of introducing the bill. We all know how many excellent measures he has introduced for the welfare of the nation since he has assumed the direction- with such outstanding success-of the Department of National Health and Welfare. His department and the country are now coming to the help of a neglected section of our society. The new legislation, springing from such excellent humanitarian motives, is all to the credit of its sponsors and it will be an honour for the members of the house to pass it.
There is much talk about communism. It has been proven that a number of nations are communistic today or sympathize with communism because they have been led to do so by misery and insecurity. But communism has certainly not bettered their condition. They had been promised wonders and an ideal standard of living, but they have only lost their freedom as a nation and have become enslaved.
One must have a minimum of welfare to lead an honest life. The man who steals a small loaf of bread to feed himself or quell the hunger of his family commits an act forbidden by law. It is therefore the duty and the right of society to alleviate misery, because misery is a poor counsellor. We spend enormous sums of money to prepare for war and preserve peace in our country and elsewhere. In fact we are on a war footing. We won the last war but, although it may seem incredible, we have not succeeded in winning peace. Cold war has replaced hot war. Everyone knows the exigencies of cold war; everyone accepts them to avoid the other kind of war which, should it come, would bring chaos to the world and deal a tragic blow to so many nations. Canada is spending the greatest part of its budget in an effort to avoid war; faced with the blunt fact of an ever-possible danger and of an ever-increasing uncertainty towards the future, nations are arming themselves. It seems that the cold war being waged in the world today is far from being over.
Canada devotes huge sums of money and contributes through United Nations agencies to the alleviation of the distressing conditions which still obtain among underprivi-
[Mr Bertrand.1

leged nations; it contributes also to worldwide assistance programs for the benefit of underdeveloped countries; it contributes to all those projects the objectives of which are to relieve misery wherever it may be, to fight these plagues which bring havoc in certain parts of the globe where medicine is still unknown. Nobody finds cause for criticism if these amounts are earmarked for alleviating misery. The alleviation of misery is a direct means of fighting communism. In this country, nobody disapproves of the Family Allowances Act, which helps make better citizens of our youth.
Nobody is opposed to legislating for the benefit of those wounded or handicapped by wars in which they have taken part to defend our country and the civilized world. Nobody is opposed to those laws made to assist old people, blind people or those who require an insurance policy against future risks. There will be unanimous approval for this invalid assistance act. These invalids are outcasts; they are without means, they often are obliged to call upon public charity and their horizon is limited by what they can observe through their window. Helping them is to give them that ray of sunshine that changes into smiles the despair which would otherwise settle upon them.
To abolish misery is to do away with communism. Does communism exist in countries where production is high, salaries good, standards of living high? Does communism take root in a country where the government looks after the hard-working small wage earners, the poor, the sick, the social outcasts? Does communism have a chance to flourish in countries where social security legislation protects the people against the hazards of life and looks after the welfare of those who are in want? And nobody will object, if he is sincere, to paying a few dollars each year in taxes, in order to allow the government of his country to introduce social security legislation which not only helps but ensures internal peace to a nation like ours.
There is, however, a class of society which it would be proper to consider in a special way; I refer to the blind. It may be said that I am indulging overgenerously in social security; that is true. There are certain phases of my life which have left their imprint on my mind and my direct contacts with the people, during the last 25 years, have made me aware of numerous social evils.
I take a special interest in the "Societe Amicale des Aveugles" and, on many occasions, I have received representations from that society. On October 16, an important group of blind people visited this parlia-

ment, and I must thank the clerk of the house, as well as his staff, for having gone to great pains to welcome them properly. It may sound surprising, even if every one was accompanied by a guide, that these blind people were able to visit every nook and cranny of this parliament.
Providence, which does nothing in vain, has endowed the blind with a sensitiveness we do not possess, a sense of perception which we do not have, a way of seeing and picturing things which would surprise us if we could experience it. I think that the blind should not be subjected to the means test, and that the maximum pension should be granted them without any restriction whatsoever.
There are not very many blind people in Canada whose income is large enough to make them self-sufficient. The majority of them cannot live on their monthly allowance, and they have to do some remunerative work.
The blind are not deprived of all their producing capacities, but these capacities are deadened or reduced to nothing. If you want the blind to take on some productive job, you have to make them financially secure. The psychological fear of not being able to keep up their jobs because they might lose their pension if they kept on working adds to their anguish.
When the mining industry, agriculture or some other branch of the national economy is endangered, the government votes grants and subsidies in order to regularize the situation. As far as the blind are concerned, one should try not to destroy the human ideals which dwell in their hearts and make them burn with a brighter flame. The abolition of the means test would ensure their financial, material and moral security. Blindness entails increased expenses for the victims since their cost of living is higher and it is impossible for them to profit from clearance sales; if the blind person wishes to go out, he needs a guide and is often obliged to have guardians at home; more than those who have their sight, the blind may have to face the expenses involved in such wear and tear as the spilling of a liquid, touching a freshly painted surface, and so on. Besides, as blindness is often caused by a poor physical condition or again causes such a condition, drugs and medical attention may involve heavy expenditures.
From the family viewpoint, blindness calls for greater expenses. That is why, in the province of Quebec, 5 per cent of the blind do not receive their pension. The husband or wife of a blind person has to work, for the
The Address-Mr. Bertrand act sets a ceiling on income which, even if the full pension is paid, does not suffice for the upkeep of the family. It often happens that the blind husband takes up residence alone, in order to be able to receive the full amount of the pension, while the burden of working and of bringing up the children falls uipon the wife.
In order to raise the family and social standards and help the blind person maintain his dignity, it is imperative to liberate him from an inferiority complex with respect to those enjoying normal sight.
He lives in darkness; his life is complicated in a hundred ways; he worries and becomes impatient; he feels isolated and forgotten.
I believe that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) would do something worth while if he could supply us with a table showing the number of blind persons per province, the total amount they receive at present and how much more it would cost the nation and the provinces to pay the maximum pension to the blind. We all have blind people in our respective constituencies; would it not be reasonable to try to find a way of improving their lot?
I represent in the house the constituency of Terrebonne, one of the best known tourist areas of the country. Tourist associations, chambers of commerce, tourists' information bureaux and municipal councils spend large sums of money to publicize that part of our country known as the "Canadian Switzerland".
I wonder if the Minister of Resources and Development, under whose jurisdiction comes the Canadian tourist industry and who brings to his new duties both talent and devotion, could not have a study made of the possibility of giving assistance to the tourist associations of this country in their annual publicity campaigns, either by supplying them with publicity material or through grants. I believe that we have here a matter which deserves close consideration.
I would like-and I know this to be also the wish of my constituents-the national film board to produce a film devoted entirely to that part of the Laurentian mountains which lies north of Montreal. Such a film could be shown on the screens of motion picture theatres not only in the other provinces but also abroad. And I have no objection to other tourist centres in Canada enjoying the same privilege. Documentary films by the national film board are always carefully produced.
I have a special request for the Post Office and Public Works departments. It has to do with the erection of a new post office at St. Jovite. A site was purchased for that
478	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bertrand purpose in 1939. War broke out and the project was delayed. After the war, postal regulations were amended and new revenue scales were set. The project was again delayed. Excuses which were then plausible are now groundless. St. Jovite is now entitled to its post office. Correspondence has been exchanged and it would now seem that the two departments are passing the buck. One must consult the other; one points out that it is having talks with the other and so on. This has been going on for months and nothing concrete has as yet emerged. I have no wish to make myself ridiculous with this question, all of fourteen years old now. St. Jovite is entitled to a post office. Its revenue is sufficient for this purpose and. its erection should not be delayed any longer.
I also recommend to the Post Office Department the establishment of a letter carrier service in the town of Ste. Therese. Two or three years ago the post office in that locality was considerably enlarged, most probably with that purpose in mind. I have already brought to the department's attention the fact that the town of Ste. Therese-where I live, by -the way-has grown considerably in the past ten years, that a great deal of land has been annexed to it and that at the present time its total area is such that it supports three large religious parishes. It will soon become urgent to set up post offices in every one of the districts forming these new parishes. A letter carrier service would be the ideal solution. It might be objected that there is the matter of income and population. My answer to that is that, in my city, due to special circumstances, there is a particular postal problem which demands a solution in order that the population may get the service to which it is entitled.
My electors have learned with great pleasure that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will undertake shortly a good-will tour of the world. It is my opinion that such a trip will place Canada in a still better light. The Prime Minister is, in fact, thanks to his brilliant personality, a good symbol of the greatness of our country. Canada cannot but gain in increased prestige from this trip. It has no territorial claims to make. It brings to all nations its co-operation, but within the framework of justice. It has but one aim: to serve the cause of peace. To speak on behalf of the Canadian nation and to foster peace and understanding in the world, Canada will have in the person of the Prime Minister an ambassador of the first rank.
Canada, through her domestic and external policies, sets a wonderful example of concord and sincerity. Her delegates to the United Nations are held in high esteem. Last fall I


saw the Hon. Lester Pearson carrying on his work at the United Nations. I could feel his popularity and his reputation. He is a leading diplomat, and the attacks from a few hysterical Americans or their false accusations cannot lessen either here or abroad the reputation of our dynamic Secretary of State for External Affairs. Twice the Hon. Mr. Pearson was spontaneously chosen to be secretary general of the United Nations; twice the delegates from the communist countries prevented his nomination to that high post. His policies, which were those of Canada, stood out clearly; they were the freedom of the people, the defence of the down-trodden, the respect for human and religious rights, and the great fight for peace.
Canada fights for peace in the world and is proud to enjoy peace within her own boundaries. Canada is a great country. She is admired the world over. She believes in democracy and proves it. Canadians, who have full confidence in their democratic system, expect their representatives in parliament not to act in any way which might belittle, lessen, or depreciate that system. They trust the men they have freely chosen to lead their country to new summits and further successes.
I would show ingratitude if I failed today, in this house where I have been sitting these last fourteen years, to address a message of thanks to the people of Terrebonne county who last July gave me such unanimous proof of the confidence they have placed in me.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like, at the outset, to extend to you my congratulations on your election to the office of Speaker of the House of Commons. From what I have seen and heard here, since the beginning of the session, I conclude that we could not have made a better choice.
As you will note, my French is far from perfect; but I do hope that before the end of this parliament, I will be able to speak fluently in your mother tongue, which is the language of my French-speaking colleagues.
(Text):
Second, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my thanks for the very welcome though unexpected assistance I received during the recent election campaign from two members sitting on the front benches opposite me. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), visiting in my riding prior to August 10, had the kindness to tell a group of ladies to whom he was speaking that no one really realized how many mistakes the government had made. Shortly before this the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) suggested to the dairy

farmers in my riding that they should eat their own cheese; the price was too high to sell it abroad.
Also during the same campaign I had the pleasure of making the acquaintance of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). The great pleasure of this-and I say this sincerely- was marred only by the fact that, unfortunately, he mistook me for one of his supporters. However, as you may readily imagine, I immediately took appropriate steps to inform him that this was not the case at all.
The riding of Oxford, which I represent, is typical of many ridings in southwestern Ontario. It is half rural and half urban. The principal industry is dairy farming. But in this almost subtropical part of our country we also produce tobacco in considerable quantities. In the city of Woodstock and the towns of Tillsonburg and Ingersoll there are many very diversified manufacturing enterprises.
Because of the variety of ways in which my constituents make their living, naturally there are existing at present a variety of problems which are causing them considerable concern. Most of these particular problems have already been dealt with at some length and in great detail by various other hon. members during this debate; and accordingly, since I have no desire to be repetitious, I will touch on these matters only very briefly.
First of all I shall deal with the dairy industry. Broadly speaking, dairy farmers are very much concerned about the depressed price of cattle and dairy products generally. I should like to point out, however, that with regard to cheese, an enormous surplus of which had been built up due to lack of markets abroad-a condition about which the government seems to be able to do very little -the Ontario cheese producers' association, which is a producer board, succeeded recently by their own efforts in selling 10 million pounds abroad. This is the policy in agriculture which my party has been advocating for some time, namely that of producer boards who can make their own selling arrangements without interference from the government.
Also in regard to the dairy industry, there is at present a large stock of milk concentrates on hand. I am informed that today the amount is about 15 million pounds. It would seem to me that if the government is anxious to create good will in the countries of southeast Asia and parts of Europe, a very practical method of assistance would be to purchase and send large quantities of surplus stocks of milk concentrates to these countries. There is no finer or more nutritious form of food than milk, and this act would have the twofold purpose of creating good will abroad
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt while at the same time reducing the present stocks at home, which will eventually raise prices here.
I could not help noticing that, according to Saturday's issue of the London Free Press, the Prime Minister would appear to hold the same view. I find this item:
Prime Minister St. Laurent said today Canada is anxious to do anything possible for the relief or prevention of famine in other parts of the world.
I offer to the government this suggestion concerning milk concentrates available in the country.
Second, as to the tobacco industry, one of the chief concerns of tobacco growers at the present time is the government's continued policy of maintaining the high excise tax on cigarettes. As many hon. members may know, particularly those whose constituencies are close to the United States border, this has the disagreeable result of encouraging the smuggling of American cigarettes into this country on a scale that may not be realized even by the government. This, of course, has a tendency to reduce the number of Canadian cigarettes purchased and, accordingly, the amount of revenue flowing into the government coffers.
I would like to respectfully suggest that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), in compiling his next budget, consider reducing the excise tax on cigarettes to the extent that cigarettes can sell in this country for 25 cents for a package of 20.
Third, I would like to mention the subject of the textile industry. In the city of Woodstock alone, which has a population of approximately 17,000 persons, there are over 2,000 textile workers. Accordingly this subject is of the greatest interest to my constituents. The subject of the textile industry and its present problems has, of course, been presented to the government in great detail by the various textile unions and has already been presented in this house during this session by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. White) and the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair). I would only like to add that I heartily endorse what both these hon. members have already said, and sincerely hope the government will take steps to tighten existing import regulations and will not make any treaty with Japan that will allow Japanese textiles, produced at incredibly low wages, to be brought into this country and destroy our textile industry.
There are in my constituency, however, one or two particular problems to which I hope the government may be persuaded to direct its attention. Oxford is a very beautiful county and a very delightful place in which to live, with many opportunities for-

The Address-Mr. Nesbitt people to pursue various lines of endeavour. For instance, if one were disposed to study archaeology one would indeed have to go no further than the Canadian National railway station in the city of Woodstock. This edifice, which was constructed shortly after the middle of the last century, is a delightful example of nineteenth century pioneer architecture, heated with a wood stove and quite unhampered by any twentieth century improvements. Despite the fact that one of the principal lines of the Canadian National Railways runs through Woodstock and does a very considerable business, the freight and passenger handling facilities are a disgrace. I would like to direct the request to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Ohevrier) that he please at least do something about this situation.
Like most of the rest of Canada, all southern Ontario was originally heavily forested, but because of the rich agricultural land in this part of the country these forests have long since been cleared away. As a result the land is no longer able to hold the moisture which falls in the largest quantity in the winter and spring; and accordingly in the spring the rivers in the area are raging torrents which erode and carry away the topsoil and in the past have flooded many of our cities, while in the summer these same streams dry up and almost disappear, causing severe problems of water supply for cattle and crops. Steps have already been taken to remedy this situation, and in my area the upper Thames valley authority has been established. This is a conservation project relating to the Thames river watershed. In this area various dams are proposed, and one indeed has been completed. The cost of these projects is divided between the federal government, the province and the municipalities, with the federal government and the province of Ontario paying the largest share.
The one dam already constructed in this large project is the Fanshawe dam near London, Ontario, and I had the pleasure of being present when it was opened early this fall by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) and Premier Frost of Ontario. These dams, I might say, are intended to prevent spring floods which threaten the cities, towns and villages on the Thames river, and also to prevent the erosion of farm lands. The lakes created by these dams have a secondary purpose of creating supplies of water for the dry summer period and recreational facilities for the residents of this thickly populated area.
In this large plan it is proposed to construct two dams adjacent to the city of Woodstock, one on the Thames river immediately to the north of the city and one

on Cedar creek, a small tributary of the Thames to the south of the city. The construction of these dams will be greatly appreciated by many of my constituents, since my riding is not located adjacent to any of the great lakes and has no large bodies of water within its boundaries for recreational purposes, which, although secondary to the flood control and erosion purposes, are still very important to the ordinary citizen. I sincerely trust that the Minister of Public Works will direct his attention to the construction of these dams at an early date.
There are now two matters which are the general concern of all members of this house and of all citizens of the country. Both these matters have been dealt with at length by other hon. members during this debate, and I should merely like to add my voice to theirs on both these subjects, urging their adoption by the government. First is the subject of the removal of the means test for persons who are blind. Quite apart from any other consideration, I have found in my practice of law in the past that the means test often works a hardship on many of our very best citizens. Because of its arbitrary nature, many people with a sense of pride and self-reliance would rather do without pensions than subject themselves to an inquisition.
Often it seems that the less deserving members of our country are the ones who are successful in deriving these benefits. In this regard, since we believe in equality of opportunity in this country, it is my belief that all blind persons should receive pensions free of a means test. This pension in a small way merely helps equalize their opportunity to acquire the same income they could have earned if they were not without one of the most valuable physical assets which the rest of us possess.
Second, with regard to veterans allowances, I heartily endorse the recommendations made by other members of this house that veterans allowances be increased to $60 a month for single men and $120 a month for married men, and that the ceiling on permissive income, the total income these veterans may have, should be $1,200 a year in the case of single men and $2,000 a year in the case of married men.
It was with some regret that I noticed that the speech from the throne failed to be more specific on the subject of commonwealth relations. In the last half century the British commonwealth has afforded an example to the rest of the world on how various peoples with very diverse cultural, racial and economic backgrounds can arrive at their own self-determination by peaceful evolutionary

processes. I think hardly anyone in the world today would not agree that in this twentieth century of ours all countries of the world must learn to co-operate and if necessary sacrifice a degree of their national sovereignty in order that we may all survive and not be plunged into the holocaust of atomic war or worse.
During this century on two occasions an attempt has been made, at least, to form the beginnings of a world government. However, despite the high hopes of 1918 the first effort, the league of nations, came to grief for a multitude of reasons, the most important of which was probably national selfishness among the member nations.
After the second and more widespread world conflict of the last decade, another attempt has been made in this direction, the result of which remains largely to be seen, although I think most of us are at least hopeful as to what these results may be. In this connection, the most disturbing single factor in the world today is that while all countries on the planet give lip service to the need for international co-operation and many of these countries seem to be quite sincere, nevertheless since 1945 there has been a tremendous upswing of nationalism in many parts of the world, particularly in countries that have acquired their independence since the end of the recent war. Such nationalism is of course understandable, since many of these peoples in Asia and the Middle East now find themselves their own masters for the first time in centuries, in some cases.
Nationalism is a two-edged sword. If properly directed it can lead to a great expansion both in the cultural and economic productivity of a group of people with the accompanying benefits to all. On the other hand nationalism can also lead to war for the sole purpose of emphasizing, much like a small and not too reasonable boy, a people's self-assertiveness. These are the horns of the dilemma upon which the world rests today.
Again referring to the British commonwealth, it is the only organization of -an international type that has hung together in one form or another for the last hundred years. Now, however, we are unfortunately beginning to see signs of a break-up, and for no other reason than the misguided nationalism 'of each of the various individual units in the commonwealth. You will find very few people who do not think the idea of the commonwealth, with its co-operative discussion of problems amongst its member countries, is a good thing. On the other hand it seems apparent that the governments of 83276-31
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt many of the units of the commonwealth give lip service to this principle and at the same time, for reasons which can seem only related to local politics, deliberately encourage the wrong type of nationalism in their respective countries, which can only tend to break up the commonwealth. We have had some examples of this in this country but the more recent examples have been in Pakistan and Ceylon, where there is some discussion of becoming republics.
How to stop this unfortunate trend? One very humble suggestion which I would like to put forth, Mr. Speaker, is as follows. Why could not the various members of the commonwealth with dominion or republic status exchange governors general? For example, have Prime Minister Nehru of India as governor general of Canada some time in the future, and have Mr. Massey, for instance, go to Australia. I cannot help thinking this would not only set an excellent example for the rest of the world, but would also indicate to the people in the various countries of the commonwealth that they were all actually on an equal basis and that no one commonwealth country was in fact any more powerful or influential than another.
A further possible suggestion in this regard might be also that with modern transportation facilities Her Most Gracious Majesty might be persuaded to be present at the opening of the various commonwealth parliaments. This again could not help but act as a further unifying force within the commonwealth.
A number of my United States friends have often asked me to explain to them exactly what the relationship is between various commonwealth countries, as they admit they are rather at a loss to understand this arrangement. I have tried to explain it in the following way, which I think illustrates the point, and I hope the parallel will not find too much disfavour with the hon. members of the C.C.F. party.
Each country in the commonwealth is like a separate corporation; each with different shareholders and each with a totally different board of directors, and each manufacturing different varieties of products, sometimes in competition with one another and sometimes not. Each corporation, however, has the same honorary president, and it is the personal example set by this honorary president in relation to the various corporations that gives all the corporations a sense of relationship to one another. And it is this sense of relationship that often irons out and smooths over a great many problems and misunderstandings that might otherwise lead to serious trouble.
482	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Decore
I sincerely hope the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) might take these very humble suggestions under consideration for possible future action.


Mr. John Decore (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I wish to make a few observations with respect to the need for experimental farms. However, may I first join in congratulating the mover (Mr. Hollingworth) and the seconder (Mr. Villeneuve) of the address which is the subject matter of this debate.
I should like to raise what I consider to be an important requirement in connection with farming in the three prairie provinces, and especially as it pertains to that part of Alberta from which I come. I refer now to the need in that and other areas in the west for additional experimental farms.
Let me deal first with Alberta. In that province we have oil, coal, natural gas, forests and other resources, but agriculture is still the basic industry and farming is the important occupation. The federal constituency which I have the honour to represent is typical in many respects of the province of Alberta. In my constituency you will find huge reserves of natural gas, and I expect that shortly there will be some discussion of this matter in this chamber. My constituency contains the Redwater oil field, one of the important centres in the oil industry in Canada. There is promise of new fields in my constituency as well as in other parts of the province. But, as I say, agriculture is still the basic industry and will continue to be.
Farming in western Canada is no longer a matter of the use of oxen and the walking plow, as it was with my grandfather over half a century ago, nor is it a matter of using horses. Farming in western Canada today is highly mechanized through the use of expensive machinery. The labour saving as a result of the use of this machinery probably explains the loss of population in the rural areas.
There is one thing with which western Canada is confronted at all times, the cost of production. We depend on export markets. Because of our distance from markets and because of the high cost of transportation, production cost is a most important factor if the farmer is to survive in his occupation. Furthermore, farming today must be carried on on a scientific and businesslike basis. Many problems have arisen in recent years such as soil erosion, the control of noxious weeds, the best methods of soil control to be used, and many others.


This is where the experimental farm plays such an important role. It provides expert advice to the farmer and is a source of firsthand information in the respective communities. I feel that the experimental farms we have in western Canada have been of great service to agriculture. But there is one suggestion I should like to make. Although these experimental farms have done great service, because of their distance one from another they do not provide an opportunity to many farmers to make use of them.
One example I could give is provided by my own constituency. The nearest dominion experimental farm to Vegreville constituency is at Lacombe. In the case of many farmers this represents a distance of 200 miles or more. Yet Vegreville constituency is one of the most thickly populated rural areas in western Canada. This constituency has produced many oats and barley winners at the Toronto royal winter fair and the Chicago world show. Only a few days ago Charles J. Kallal and William Melnyk, farmers in my constituency, won top honours for their cattle.
It is my submission to the government, and particularly to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), that instead of increasing the size of experimental farms like the one at Lacombe we should have something on probably a smaller scale scattered throughout the west, and especially in such areas as northeastern Alberta. A chance should be given to such establishments to build themselves up. I am not thinking merely of demonstration farms; I am thinking of something bigger than that.
It would then be convenient for farmers to visit the experimental farms to get firsthand information on the various experiments being conducted and see how they can improve their farming operations, increase their production and above all cut down their cost of production.
There is another matter I want to deal with at this time, and that is the statements made in this house by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) in his defence of United States Senator McCarthy. I do not think we in this house need concern ourselves too much with United States personalities except in so far as they affect us in this country, and I do not think I need to defend the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), because he is well able to take care of himself.
When the hon. member for Spadina made reference to McCarthyism and McCarthyites, I felt he made that reference at a time when it was necessary, a time when the hand of McCarthyism was stretching across into

Canada, a time when there were slurring insinuations of communist sympathies made against the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson).
The hon. member for Lethbridge has asked what is meant by McCarthyism and what is meant by McCarthyites, and I shall endeavour to answer that question by citing a recent example which occurred in this house. I must add that I do so with some reluctance, but I feel it necessary to do so because there is and has been a great deal of feeling among my constituents, and I was specifically instructed to raise this question during this session of the House of Commons.
I am referring, of course, as hon. members will remember, to the period when I first came into this house, in 1949, when a member of the Social Credit party, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) took it upon himself to condemn the people in my constituency and make slurring remarks and insinuations. He insinuated that in Vegre-ville there was nothing but a lot of communists, and added that I had been elected by the communist vote, and that although communism had failed throughout Canada Vegreville was the one place it had succeeded. That was at the time of my election. That was the accusation that was made in this house in 1949.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind some of the members in that Social Credit group that since that time there has been another election, namely on August 10 last. At that time we had about 100 communist candidates throughout Canada,- including a communist in the Vegreville federal constituency. Throughout Canada every communist candidate lost his deposit, including the communist candidate in Vegreville. Another thing that is somewhat significant is that this same Social Credit candidate who tried to be elected again was not elected, in spite of the fact that he spent the past four years conducting a personal house to house campaign.
I mention this, Mr. Speaker, because when we listen to McCarthyism, when we listen to the hon. member defending Senator McCarthy, and when I think of this Social Credit group I am reminded of Edgar Bergen. Most of us I think have heard Edgar Bergen on the radio. He is another United States personality, and I think Senator McCarthy is like Edgar Bergen. He has in Canada's House of Commons little McCarthys or Charlie Mc-Carthys with, Mr. Speaker, a Mortimer Snerd for good measure.
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, like most of the members who sit on the opposition benches I am more disappointed at what the speech from the throne does not contain than I am about what it does contain. I was very disappointed to find no mention made in the speech from the throne of any intention on the part of the government to improve old age pensions during this session. I want to remind ministers on the government side that while we talk about undernourished and underfed people in Asian countries we have in this country our own older citizens by the thousands who have to live on a paltry $40 a month pension and who, when they have paid their rent and their bills at the drug stores, have very little left to live on and are actually going hungry in this prosperous country of ours.
I am disappointed that there is no mention in the speech from the throne of any intention on the part of the government to remove the means test from the veterans allowance, or to remove the means test for the blind, and no intention of liberalizing unemployment insurance regulations. I would suggest to the cabinet that the time has come when unless unemployment insurance regulations are liberalized there will arise in this country a demand for their liberalization of such a nature that it will probably wreck our unemployment insurance program. The time-is overripe for some liberalization of these unemployment insurance regulations.
I am disappointed in the proposed housing' legislation. Last spring I introduced in this house a C.C.F. program for housing. We recommended, among other things, an extension of the amortization period and a reduction in the down payment. In so far as the proposed legislation will extend that amortization period and reduce the down payment I think it is good. However, we couple these reforms with the condition that the government itself should lend government money at 2 per cent for the building of low rental housing. I am confident that the proposed legislation, while it may tinker with the N.H.A., will not by any manner of means remedy our housing situation or meet the needs of those in our community who cannot provide homes for themselves at present-day costs.
I am sorry to find there is no mention in the speech from the throne of provision for houses for veterans. I have found that the people in this country who are suffering most from our housing conditions are the returned veterans with large families. I have in mind the case of a veteran with six small children. The house in which that veteran is living has been sold and he has received an eviction

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy notice. I personally applied on his behalf to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I applied to the veterans affairs people in Toronto; I applied to our municipal and metropolitan housing authorities. The only suggestion offered was that made by veterans affairs, and their suggestion was that the man concerned should pull up stakes in Toronto, take his family and move north some place where he could get a job and a house in which to live.
I suggest that is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, for a man who served five years in this country's service overseas. The veterans affairs people tell me that a few years ago, before the government undertook to sell their government-owned houses, they were in a position to meet such a condition as that. But the government has been so eager to get out of the housing business and to dispose of the houses they owned during the war that today the veterans affairs people have just no place to which they can recommend a veteran, no matter how dire the circumstances may be in which he finds himself.
I want to spend most of my time, Mr. Speaker, dealing with another subject that is mentioned in the throne speech; I refer to the reference to a proposed extension of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. I feel that I have some qualification to speak on gold mining in that, at one time and another, I have worked in the gold mines at every process in mining and milling from mucking to refining. I know from firsthand experience the hazardous nature of that occupation, as well as the arduous nature of it.
Before this house opened I spent a week with the men who are now on strike in northern Ontario and Quebec. I talked with them and their families. I talked with the businessmen in the communities that are now affected by that strike. Again from firsthand experience I know of the suffering which these men, their families and their communities are undergoing during the present strike in that area.
I want to deal with this matter now instead of waiting until the legislation is brought down because from experience I have learned that it is much easier to get the ear of the government and get them to consider a measure before it is brought down in the house than after it has been brought down. I am quite confident that if the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) and the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Eyre) were sitting on opposition benches instead of on government benches they would long ago have


spoken in the interests of the gold miners and the communities now suffering from the strike.
Just recently there came to my desk, and I presume it came to the desks of other hon. members, a portfolio of material setting forth the case for the mine owners as against that of the miners. The portfolio consisted of material from the report handed down by the chairman of one board of conciliation, the last of seven that sat on these cases. The chairman of that one board-one out of seven that have dealt with this problem-expressed some doubt about granting the voluntary revocable check-off to the miners because of an outbreak of violence which had occurred early in the strike. I may simply add that the miners' point of view was not sent to us, nor the comment made by the miners' representative on that board of conciliation. We received one side of the story only.
The case for the mine owners has been well taken care of in the financial pages of some of our papers. I want to set forth to the best of my ability the case for the miners themselves. Some days ago I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) whether, in view of the federal government's interest in gold mining, his department had taken any action to assist in bringing about a settlement of that strike. As reported at page 81 of Hansard the minister's reply was as follows:
. . . the gold mining industry comes within the jurisdiction of the provincial government, and since I have had no communication from the provincial government in this connection, my department has taken no action in the matter.
The question that immediately arose in my mind when I heard that answer was this. Was the federal government as much concerned with provincial rights in the matter of gold mines when the question of subsidizing these mines came up for consideration in 1948, and when amendments to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act were brought down in later years? Did the provincial governments concerned appeal to the federal government for assistance to the gold mines? To me it is quite evident that the provincial governments or the federal government, or both, were much more concerned about subsidizing the profits of the mine owners than they were about assisting the miners and the communities which are affected by this strike. Did the federal government proceed to subsidize gold mining with complete disregard for provincial rights in gold mining, or did the provincial governments apply for that aid? In either case, one or the other or both evidenced much more

interest in subsidizing the mine owners' profits than they did in the welfare of the people concerned.
I trust the Minister of Labour will clarify that point for us. When he is doing that, there are at least two other points on which I should like to have some clarification. Have any steps been taken by the federal government to make sure that Canadian taxpayers' money is not being used to offset the cost of the strike, or a part of the cost of the strike, to the mine owners? In regulation 17 I notice that where a mine is closed down for a period of 30 days or more, such help may be given. It is apparently left to the discretion of the minister to decide whether or not such assistance shall be given.
In the government's report on the administration of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act I also notice that in 1951, when the Hollinger mine was on strike for nine weeks, the amount of cost aid per ounce was well over $1 more than it was in 1950 when the mine was not on strike, and was more than it was in 1952 when there was no strike. I am simply asking the minister what steps the government took in 1951 to see that the taxpayers' money was not used to subsidize, in part at least, the costs of the strike to the mine owners.
I heard only today that another mine, the Paymaster mine, will close down on December 17 when its present contract with the miners expires. This mine will be closed for less than 30 days in 1953. According to my reading of the regulations there is no question in the world but that this mine, being closed down for less than 30 days, can apply this government cost aid subsidy to offset part of the cost to the mine of this period when it is shut down.
I say to the government, the government that is so careful to avoid the issue of provincial rights so far as a strike is concerned, that if they are permitting any part of the cost aid subsidy to offset the cost of a strike to the mine operators, then they are not maintaining a neutral position in this strike, a position which they profess to be maintaining. I would point out further that in the case of the Unemployment Insurance Act, it specifically states that no employee shall receive unemployment insurance while he is on strike. I submit that on the same basis no mine owner should receive federal assistance to help him cover the cost of a strike when such strike is in progress.
I note from page 8 of the report of the administration of emergency gold mining assistance that production costs include almost everything imaginable in connection with
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy mining and milling, together with the cost of exploration and development. Then on page 9 we are told that the allowable exploration and development costs incurred each week are verified by an inspecting engineer during a yearly field inspection trip. I ask the minister, is he confident that one annual visit of an inspecting engineer is sufficient to assure the government that the mine owners are not taking advantage of this subsidy to charge up development and exploration costs to a greater extent than is permitted under the regulations?
What knowledge has the government, for instance, of the amount of backfill the Hollinger mine has piled up for use in future years since it has been receiving cost aid from the federal government? What steps has the federal government taken to ensure that the piling up of that backfill is in accordance with the regulations laid down under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act? What precautions are taken by the government to ensure that these mines are not deliberately keeping their mill heads low in order to mill their low-grade ore while the government subsidy is available, and sealing off their higher grade ore until such time as they can get a higher price for gold or a higher subsidy from this government? I have met miners in northern Ontario who told me their job has been to seal off high-grade ore whenever it was discovered and to keep it for future development, while the low-grade ore was fed to the mill and emergency gold mining assistance used in order to pay for part of the cost of that milling.
Those are some questions that I suggest the minister take into consideration before introducing legislation which will extend the emergency gold mining assistance for another year. I am not suggesting for a moment that I am opposed to this emergency gold mining assistance. I am merely pointing out that if the government finds it necessary to subsidize the gold mines, then some measure must be taken to see that this benefit from the public treasury goes to the miners and the community, and is not all siphoned off in profits for shareholders and speculative stock buyers.
I want to deal with a few points in connection with this strike in more detail. In the first place I want to say that, in my opinion, the present strike in the gold mines in northern Ontario and Quebec was deliberately provoked by the mine owners with a view to forcing either a higher price for gold or a higher subsidy from this government. To this point at least there is not the slightest bit of evidence that these mine owners made any effort whatever to avert the strike. I

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy refer to the mine owners because I think if the management of some of these mines were free from absentee ownership the situation would have been different. In the first six of the majority reports submitted by boards of conciliation the findings were in favour of the miners' requests. These six reports advised an increase in wages, a reduction in the 48-hour week, and the adoption of the voluntary revocable check-off. Only in one of these seven reports was there a finding adverse to the miners. This report was made on the basis of outbreaks of violence which had occurred.
While speaking on that subject, may I remind hon. members of a statement made last week by the chief of police of Timmins on one of our national broadcasts. He stated that there had been a reduction in crime in the mining camps by 50 per cent since the strike began, and attributed that reduction to the co-operation which he had received from the miners' union itself.
Here are some of the men. I want the house to know the calibre of the men who have made these recommendations. There is Mr. Eric Taylor, prominent businessman and industrialist, a mediator with a record of settlements in industrial disputes that is probably the best in Ontario. He is a former vice-president of Brazilian Traction company, and a labour relations specialist for Canadian Industries Limited. He is also on the staff of the University of Montreal, and by no stretch of the imagination can he be considered to be partial in favour of the miners. Mr. Taylor made recommendations which the miners, through their unions, offered to accept, and are still ready to accept if the mine managers or owners will consider them.
Then His Honour Judge Wilfred S. Lane of Picton, Ontario, served as chairman of a number of successful boards of conciliation, including the dispute between the running trades and the railways. His recommendations, made two years ago, have yet to be implemented by the McIntyre mine. The union was and still is ready to accept the recommendations of Judge Lane, but the mine owners have rebuffed every one of those recommendations.
His Honour Judge Harold E. Fuller of Welland, Ontario, has handled some of the toughest labour relations and conciliation problems in Ontario. He has won settlements involving such giant corporations as Algoma Steel, International Harvester Company, and others. Three years ago he submitted recommendations which, had the mine owners been willing to accept them, not only would have averted this strike but would

have established friendly labour relations between labour and management in that camp.
Professor C. H. Curtis, specialist in labour relations and professor in labour management at Queen's University, Kingston, made inquiries this year from which he was able to conclude that the companies could increase wages and lower hours, in spite of the price of gold. The miners through their unions were and still are ready to accept the recommendations of Professor Curtis.
Again, it is the mine owners who have refused to compromise on a single one of these recommendations. There is not a single shred of evidence that these operators have made any attempt to avert a strike. Had the operators been willing even to try to reach an agreement the strike, which is now crippling a community of 50,000 people, would have been averted.
Gold mining is about the only industry in this country where the employees, through their union, in many instances are given no opportunity to negotiate wage agreements or agreements as to hours, conditions of work, welfare and other matters of interest to the workers. Gold mining operators, especially the operators of the larger mines, have been interested in one phase of mining only; that is mining for profit for the shareholders and the mining stock speculators. They assume they have some God-given right to the ownership of our natural resources, and some God-given right to exploit those natural resources without regard for the welfare of the workers or the welfare of the community. They have sought through the years to evade municipal responsibilities and municipal taxation. They have sought tax concessions from provincial and federal governments alike. While on the one hand they have very astutely invested their profits for the benefit of shareholders, they have invested nothing for the broken-down bodies of the miners who have worn themselves out digging gold. With the support of a portion of our press they have succeeded in selling to the public the idea that gold mining is a depressed industry, that the capital invested is risk capital, and that consequently it is entitled to more than normal profits.
Just to what extent is capital invested in gold mining today risk capital, and therefore entitled to a higher rate of profit than is received in other industries? In the first place, the price of gold is not fixed at $35 an ounce. It is not even subject to the old law of supply and demand. The mines have an option of selling a portion of their gold on the open market or selling it to the federal government, and they may choose whichever

is the more profitable. But the gold that is sold to the Canadian government is not sold for $35 an ounce.
The price of gold to the Canadian government depends upon the cost of production. The higher the cost of production, the more cost aid the mine receives and the more the mine owner gets for his gold. It is conceivable, though I do not think it has happened as yet, that a mine could receive maximum cost aid, which for 1953 is $13.50 per ounce, so their gold would be sold for an equivalent of 35 United States dollars, plus $13.50-that is, not for $35 but rather for $48.50 per ounce. In fact, in the case of one mine in 1952 the cost aid ran to $14.50 per ounce, making the price of gold for that operator not $35 but $49.50 per ounce.
Then, much of the risk of gold mining has been taken over not only by our cost aid program but by the services and facilities made available to the mines both by provincial and federal governments. The federal and provincial governments alike maintain mining branches for the express purpose of assisting mines, gold mines included, in exploration, mapping and improving the various processes which enter into mining and milling. If gold mining is a depressed industry, it is the wages of the miners that are depressed and not the profits of the mine owners. According to table C6 in the Labour Gazette for October, 1953, the average weekly wage for gold mining was $60.04. That average wage, by the way, includes the highly publicized bonus which miners receive. The gold mining average was $60.04. The average weekly wage for other metal mining was $69.10. Gold miners were receiving $9.06 a week less than miners in other fields. There has been no increase in wages in gold mining in Ontario and Quebec since 1951.
Amendments were made to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act in 1952 which increased the amount of cost aid which a mine could receive. None of that cost aid was passed on to the miners. The operators, without a single exception, rejected the recommendations of boards of conciliation for an increase of 7 to 10 cents an hour, and are still insisting that miners work through 1954 for the same wages they received in 1951, in spite of the increased cost of living and in spite of the fact that our 1953 cost aid will put at least $3 million more in the coffers and the profits of the gold mining shareholders.
Are we as custodians of the taxpayers' interests to stand idly by, or to sit idly by, while gold mine operators pass on all the cost aid they can possibly extract from this government to profits, with cold-blooded,
The Address

Mr. Noseworthy calculated indifference alike to miners and mining communities? I suggest that the basis on which cost aid is given be reviewed in order to make certain that miners as well as mine owners benefit from these federal subsidies.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a couple of minutes to deal with profits in gold mining. I have said that profits in gold mining are not depressed. They are not depressed if compared with profits made by investors in other industries. One of the mines now on strike, one of those which received cost aid in 1952, showed a net profit in that year equal to 28 per cent of their net worth. Their net profit in 1952, after all imaginable write-offs and taxes, comes within a few thousand dollars of their total paid-up capital. That is one of the mines now on strike, one of the mines which was receiving cost aid, and one which pretends that it cannot afford to increase wages. The McIntyre mine-


James Joseph McCann: Why don't you name the
mine?


Joseph William Noseworthy: -with a paid-up capital-


James Joseph McCann: So we can check up on it?


Joseph William Noseworthy: The first mine was
Broulan Reef. The McIntyre mine, with a paid-up capital of $3,900,000, according to their own figures showed a net profit in 1952, after write-offs and taxes, of $2,298,184. In other words, McIntyre's net profit in 1952 was close to 60 per cent of their total paid-up capital. I suggest that any other industry in this country, making a profit of that amount, would feel that it could1 get along very nicely and pay decent wages without having to get a federal subsidy.


James Joseph McCann: How much of that was from mining? Not the half of it.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Just because these mines have been making fabulous profits over the years is no reason why they are still entitled to profits on a similar scale at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, the miners and the mining communities.
I see that my time has expired. I merely want to appeal again to the minister responsible for this act to take some steps to see that if mine owners are to benefit by this cost aid program, the miners themselves and the communities concerned also derive some benefit from the program.
On motion of Mr. Schneider the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday. December 1, 1953