1953-11-16

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table two reports of the restrictive trade practices commission which were published after the last parliament was adjourned. One of these arose in Ontario, the other in Quebec.
The Ontario report relates to alleged price discrimination under section 498A of the Criminal Code between two retail hardware dealers in North Bay, Ontario; and it is the first report to deal entirely with this type of offence.
The Quebec report relates to alleged resale price maintenance in connection with the marketing of soap products in the Montreal district of the province of Quebec, and is the first one that we have received dealing with resale price maintenance since the passing, in 1951, of the new legislation.
We have taken the opinion of experienced and capable outside counsel in both of these cases.
In the Ontario case, the opinion of Mr. Norman Mathews, Q.C., of Toronto, is to the effect that it is a borderline case of a technical violation and it is not a suitable case upon which to found the first prosecution under section 498A of the Criminal Code unless, of course, the conduct disclosed in the report is persisted in.
In the Quebec case, the opinion of Mr. John Ahern, Q.C., of Montreal, is to the effect that since the offence was technical and isolated and had been committed without the knowledge and approval of the management of the company concerned, and apparently against its policy, the case was not a suitable one for prosecution, and a prosecution would not likely help the enforcement of the Combines Investigation Act.
The director of investigation, having reached the same views, has advised me to the same effect. I concur with these views and have therefore decided not to prosecute n either case unless further checks indicate that the offences are being persisted in.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Perhaps the house would permit a question. How many prosecutions have there been under the resale price maintenance legislation?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I have indicated in my
statement, this Quebec case is the first case that has arisen since the new legislation was introduced. It is thought, having regard to the fact that the offence was only technical, that it would not be a very good oase upon which to base the first prosecutions under the new legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: So there have not been
any prosecutions?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.



INDUSTRIAL STATUS OF WOMEN


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 2, to provide equal pay for equal work for women.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I think the title of the bill is fully explanatory. It is intended to prohibit discrimination against women in the matter of wages earned.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA GRAIN ACT


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to amend the Canada Grain Act (distribution of box cars).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hazen Robert Argue: The purpose of this bill is to remove present discrimination in the distribution of box cars by providing in a new section of the car order book a rule for the fair allocation of box cars among elevator companies. By allocating their seeded acreage among the elevator companies at a marketing point, producers themselves will determine the distribution of box cars at that point.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Proposed Legislation INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS



AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 152, REVISED STATUTES OF 1952    VOLUNTARY REVOCABLE CHECK-OFF OF UNION DUES

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The purpose of this bill is to write into the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act a provision which is already in several of the provincial labour codes, namely the voluntary revocable checkoff of trade union dues. This bill is identical with the one that was before the house last session. At that time its subject matter was endorsed by the industrial relations committee and by the House of Commons.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ELECTION MATERIAL


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, respecting use of election material for byelections and Northwest Territories elections.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The explanatory note says that the purpose of this bill is to avoid the unnecessary expense of printing new election material by authorizing material already printed as required by the Canada Elections Act of 1938 to be used in any by-elections and Northwest Territories elections from now until the next general election. Legislation is required because of the coming into effect of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, on September 15 of this year.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, respecting the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


Mr. St. Laurent:: The explanatory notes read as follows: The purpose of this bill is to redefine the present duties and functions of the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Lesage) so as to give greater emphasis to his responsibility for the administration and development of the north and for Eskimo affairs. To reflect the change in emphasis, the name of the department is altered to include specific mention of northern affairs. The changes are in recognition of the growing importance of the north as a part of Canada and of the desirability of providing greater attention to all aspects of its affairs.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


Stuart Sinclair Garson: for leave to introduce Bill No. 7, respecting the criminal law.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TERRITORIAL LANDS ACT


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Resources and Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 8, to amend the Territorial Lands Act and to repeal the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act.


Mr. Adamson:: Will the minister explain the bill?


Jean Lesage: A similar bill was on the order paper last session but it did not go through the house. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Territorial Lands Act in order that the administration, control and disposition of quartz and placer mining rights in the Yukon shall be brought under the provisions of the act with resulting uniformity between the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It is exactly the same bill?


Jean Lesage: Exactly the same bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 9, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.


Mr. Green:: Is it the same bill as last year?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.
Motion, agreed to and bill read the first time.



PIPE LINES ACT


Lionel Chevrier: for leave to introduce Bill No. 10, to amend the Pipe Lines Act.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain this bill?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. The object of this bill is twofold: first, to give the board of transport commissioners jurisdiction over all companies constructing pipe lines extending into other provinces and extending also beyond the limits of other provinces; and second, to require those companies to obtain from this parliament special letters patent authorizing them to construct and operate such pipe lines either interprovi'ncially or internationally.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Have further representations been made by the state department of the United States requesting that Igor Gouzenko be permitted to leave Canada in order to testify before Senator Jenner's United States Senate committee? Is reconsideration being given to the decision of two weeks ago denying Igor Gouzenko the right to proceed to the United States?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is not to my knowledge that any further representations have been made. I will inquire from the Department of External Affairs, but I have had no information of any further representations.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a press dispatch from Washington.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I know, but there are frequently in newspapers dispatches for which there is no justification in the departmental offices.


John George Diefenbaker: I realize that.
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN


REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF ADVANCE ON FARM-STORED WHEAT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, a copy of which I have not sent him. Will the minister cause to be made immediately a most thorough review of the present grain situation to determine whether or not it might be found to be in the best interests of Canada as a whole to make provision for advancing growers an initial payment based upon the estimate of not less than 75 cents per bushel on all wheat adequately and of necessity stored on their farms?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The subject matter of the question is under the constant study of the government. If and when any decision is made it will be announced in the house.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to direct a question either to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who used to handle these matters, or to the Secretary of State under whom this question may now come. Will the government consider appointing a special committee to review the elections act with a view to considering the granting of an absentee vote or some other method to prevent the recurrence of last summer's heavy disfranchisement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As this is a question directed to the government, I think it would more properly be directed to the Prime Minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I would be very glad to have the Prime Minister's answer.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Prime Minister's first answer will be that he knows of no heavy disfranchisement last summer. Second, matters concerning amendment of the elections act are usually considered and recommended by the chief electoral officer, and I have no knowledge so far of any recommendations from the chief electoral officer in that regard since the last election.
34	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Drew SPEECH FROM THE THRONE



CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, November 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. A. H. Hollingworth for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session,
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is first of all my privilege to extend congratulations to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). Once again he holds the highest office to which anyone can be chosen by the free choice of our own people. No matter what differences of opinion we may have as to the way in which the business of this country can best be conducted, and it will be a good thing for Canada if those differences are always expressed in firm and vigorous terms, there is, I am sure, agreement throughout the house that he has and will occupy that high office with distinction and in a manner entirely in keeping with Canada's high position among the nations of the world. I most sincerely extend to him my personal good wishes for health and happiness as he carries out his great responsibilities, responsibilities associated with the whole conduct of this house and of the nation.
Many of us worked very hard to produce a different seating arrangement in this chamber. We were not successful, but we will continue to carry on that work. That, after all, is the genius and the strength of our democracy. Nevertheless, we accept the decision and rejoice that, holding the differences of opinion we do, and they are very substantial and real differences as will emerge in the discussions which will take place, we are able to meet as friends without rancour or recrimination, recognizing the vitally important fact that differences of opinion as to how the liberty, security and happiness of our people can best be ensured are in themselves the very hallmark of freedom.
At a time when there is so much bitterness and strife throughout the world, it is a happy incident of our life in this country that, while we hold firm convictions along party lines, friendships are formed between the members of the parliament of Canada which are in no way limited by the affiliations through which we seek to serve our constituents and our country.
All of us, as members of the house and as Canadians, joined most heartily in the words of welcome extended on Saturday to the President of the United States by the Prime Minister. The visit of President Eisenhower and his wife to Ottawa was a particularly


happy expression of the remarkable friendship between our two countries. The President occupies what is in many ways the most important political office in the world today.
I think all will agree that no sign of the immense cares and burdens which he carries appeared in the buoyant and confident manner m which he expressed his belief in the growing friendship of our two countries and his faith that beyond the shadows which surround us there is hope of that peace, stability and security to which such a large part of our common effort is directed at this time. His manner as much as his words gave us new reason to hope that out of the meeting at Bermuda next month with his old and very close friend, Sir Winston Churchill, and the Premier of France, there may emerge a still wider pattern of co-operation which we in turn can warmly approve and vigorously support.
Now may I congratulate the mover of the address (Mr. Hollingworth), and the seconder (Mr. Villeneuve). Naturally, I shall not be expected to share all their enthusiasm about the outcome of the recent election, but I can thoroughly understand their personal satisfaction, and they would indeed be less than human if they did not express that satisfaction in fairly glowing terms. Each has very properly expressed his pride in his own part of Canada. That is as it should be. There is not one of us who would be worthy of his responsibility to his own constituents without a high and genuine regard for the constituency itself and those who live in it. Loyalty to Canada and our pride in its great achievements as a nation are diminished in no way by the admiration we express for that particular part of the country which sent us here to take our place in this house.
In extending congratulations to the mover and seconder I would also point out that they are both young men, and I am sure that in addition to our congratulations upon their maiden speeches we all feel a measure of satisfaction that young men and women of their age are taking an increasingly active part in the public life of their country.
I should like to mention also, Mr. Speaker, the fact that in this house today we have four lady members. Never before at any general election had more than two ladies been elected. The four who are with us now have all given distinguished public service in other fields, and I think all the members on both sides of the house will agree that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) has given distinguished service in the House of Commons as well. It is perhaps appropriate that she should introduce a bill dealing with discrimination against

women, because the presence of these four ladies here indicates the extent to which any discrimination of that kind is receding in the minds of all our people.
The hon. member for Halton (Miss Bennett) bears a distinguished name associated with the government of Canada, and she has served in many capacities in the public life of her own community and in the general services of the country.
The hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) also bears a name not entirely unassociated with political activity. She has won a high reputation in the profession in which she has been engaged, and she brings here a very wide audience beyond the confines of her own constituency. I might say that perhaps she had as varied an experience in finding her way into this chamber as any member in this house.
May I also extend my good wishes to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley), whom I have had the pleasure of meeting on earlier occasions when our paths used to cross in another legislative field. To all of these ladies, I am sure the best wishes of the members go, and may I express my great personal pleasure that we now see this increasing number of lady members. We hope this trend may increase as the years go on.
Reference is made in the speech from the throne to an event which has deeply stirred the emotion of all who live within the commonwealth-yes, of all who love freedom in every part of the world. The coronation has brought the crown closer to the people than any event in history. No earlier monarch ever came to the throne with such universal acclaim. No monarch anywhere ever so completely captivated the hearts of all.
So much has been written and said that there is no occasion now to review the impressions of that event. What does call for comment is the emphasis it places upon our own unique traditions and institutions and the immeasurable value of some of those written and unwritten rules which provide the secret of the abiding strength of our own particular form of democracy. Within very recent years our own history has shown that our monarchy is monarchy by consent and is at all times subject to the supreme will of the people expressed through their chosen representatives. That is a solemn thought for each one of us to ponder as we gather here once again to do the nation's business.
We are reminded afresh that these institutions and traditions have met every test during years which have seen the collapse and obliteration of other political systems in other lands where people forgot that tradition
The Address-Mr. Drew is more than history, but in truth provides the only safe guide for the future.
Now the Queen is about to start on a visit to the West Indies, Australia, New Zealand and other distant places. Nothing like it has' ever been undertaken before by a reigning: monarch. We remember the enthusiasm with which she was received here in Canada while1 her father was still alive. We know the kind! of reception she will receive in Australia, New Zealand and other lands through which she and her husband will travel. It is a great opportunity to extend that sense of personal contact with the throne which can mean so much to all of us who express our allegiance to a single crown. The young Queen, our Queen, is undertaking a heavy task. I am sure we will all join in wishing for her and her husband Godspeed and a safe return to their young children, who will be so very much in their minds and hearts at all times during that long trip.
One thing which I think should be mentioned, and which I am sure everyone who was in Britain during the coronation will confirm, is that within the past year there has been an almost unbelievable improvement in the spirit of the British people and in the tempo of their daily activities. All those who* have had occasion to visit Britain regularly have, without exception, commented on this' new spirit. Undoubtedly, some of this was an instinctive response to the emotional uplift of the coronation itself. But it had started before the coronation ceremonies began and it has continued since that time. Most certainly the coronation stimulated and refreshed the spirits of the British people after all their years of austerity, but I think it would be very unfortunate for us and' for them to overlook the fact that this new spirit had been largely found in the increasing freedom from controls and restraints which had limited1 their freedom of action for nearly fourteen years. The unending rule that people work harder and with better spirit and greater efficiency when the reward for work becomes more apparent was never more clearly demonstrated than it has been in Britain during the past year.
We all rejoice, and rejoice with warm hearts, that the armistice in Korea has brought to an end the fighting in that distant and troubled land, we hope permanently. Once again we have all been given reason for pride in the-valour, fortitude and high purpose of those who wear the uniform of Canada. Many young Canadians have died, and to their families, to all their friends and those close to them,
I know that we extend our sympathy, as do all the people of Canada. Many more will
36	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Drew bear the wounds of war for the rest of their life, as evidence of the part this country has played in the first test of the collective strength of the United Nations.
In Canada and in the rest of the free world the satisfaction that is felt that the aggressor has been stopped at the point where aggression began should not obscure the terrible tragedy that has befallen the people of that troubled land and the division of their own country into two parts, which separate people of one race and in many cases of the same family. However, for the present aggression has been stopped and we must all hope that in God's good time, by means which as yet may be clear to no one, Korea and other nations now divided in that way will be united to live as one people in peace and harmony with their neighbours.
In addition to those forces which will remain in Korea, we have many young men and women in Britain, in Europe and on the high seas taking their full share in that partnership of peaceful strength, which we all so earnestly hope may prevent the unspeakable tragedy of a third world war. I have had the privilege of visiting units of our air force, our army and our navy at distant points beyond our own shores and I can testify to the splendid spirit and excellent manner in which they are fulfilling the duties assigned to them.
We have been told in the speech from the throne that it is likely that it will be necessary for some time to maintain these forces. Everything points in that direction. Nevertheless, it is comforting to realize that for the first time in more than three years no Canadian armed forces are at present engaged in actual combat. Let us hope that this continues until the day comes when the result of collective action reaches another stage and we shall see a reduction in the armed forces and the armament we must maintain.
True, it is difficult to see into the distant future and visualize how release from the threat of war may come about. I was greatly struck by the words of President Eisenhower in the magnificent speech he made to us on Saturday, when he said, in effect, that if we are firm and keep our faith we may have reason to hope that just as victory emerged from all the uncertainty of 1940 and 1941, so, too, we may once again see events shape themselves in a manner that we cannot now foresee.
History seldom repeats itself in the same form, but history does teach us that faith and fortitude cannot be measured in terms of cold arithmetic and that if the free nations of the world stand firm today, then we have


reason to hope that once again God may guide men along paths which they themselves cannot now see, and that the strength of our decent purpose may bring peace, security and happiness, not only to ourselves, but to those now enslaved.
All the arithmetic of war was against the possibility of victory for Britain and the commonwealth in 1940 and 1941; but there was expressed a confidence and faith, and there was shown a fortitude which was evidenced by the events that came in 1941, and the years that followed. Let us all hope that faith and fortitude may receive the same reward in the months and years ahead.
Another expression of hope came two weeks ago from that incomparable interpreter of events, Sir Winston Churchill, when he said that perhaps we have reached a time when the power of destruction is so great that no nation will be prepared to use the dreadful weapons man has devised. These were his words:
I have sometimes the odd thought that the annihilating character of these agencies may bring an utterly unforeseeable security to mankind.
He then went on to use typical Churchillian words when he said:
When the advance of destructive weapons enables everyone to kill everybody else no one will want to kill anyone at all.
And we may in some measure see some hope in the picture created in that way.
We have one parallel which supports this hope that the terrible possibilities of nuclear destruction may limit the use of those weapons. There are several in this chamber who will remember with what horror the world suddenly learned in April of 1915 that the German army had for the first time in history used poisonous gas as a military weapon. I doubt if any greater horror was felt in August, 1945, when we learned of the terrible events at Hiroshima and Nagasaki than was expressed in 1915. It was realized that this new weapon was added to the armoury of war. During the first world war new gases were invented with new and terrible powers. Dreadful though war always is, there was something peculiarly loathsome about that new horror.
When the second world war came, heavy casualties were expected from the new and still more terrible gases that had then been developed. There are many in this chamber who will remember so well that, for years, they carried gas masks on all occasions, anticipating the use of this dreadful weapon. Yet, throughout the whole of that war there appears to be no recorded case of gas being used as a military weapon on the field of

battle. It is not a particularly attractive kind of peace: it is a peace of mutual terror; but, certainly, it would be a peace much better than war. At least the thought does offer us the hope that the military strength we are building is not for inevitable war and it also offers encouragement to keep our minds on the pursuits of peace, so that we preserve through these years of strain the great principles of our free society.
With that thought in mind, and having discussed in general terms these matters raised in the speech from the throne, I now propose to deal with domestic affairs. The speech from the throne refers to a number of interesting subjects but tells us very little about what the government intends to do. The revision of the Criminal Code and the Bank Act will call for careful and extended consideration. It is hoped that the procedure to be followed will be indicated as soon as possible, so that members on both sides with special qualifications to deal with these subjects will be able to make their plans accordingly, and may perhaps contribute their own suggestions as to the manner in which these very important acts may be dealt with most expeditiously.
It is the omissions from the speech which are most noticeable. We are told that "there are some sectors of our economy which have been faced with difficulties". That is indeed an understatement. Nothing is said about the textile industry, the cheese producers, the dairy farmers, the cattle breeders, or other producers who are looking for some information as to what they may expect. There is a very noticeable silence about the critical situation resulting from the vast accumulation of unsold grain on the farms of the prairie provinces.
As this subject was not mentioned, I asked the Prime Minister on Friday whether the government is considering legislation to deal with this situation. He made it clear that he is not ready to give us any information on this subject. I do hope that the Prime Minister will agree to set aside a day, within the next week-and I make this proposal today-when we may discuss this subject. It is one which affects all Canadians, and not merely the prairie farmers or those whose daily activities are associated with them.
The facts of the situation are well known. More than five hundred million bushels of wheat and substantial quantities of other grains are now on the farms of western Canada because the farmers are unable to sell that grain.
That is not simply the result of three bumper crops. It is in large measure the result of the government's failure to respond to repeated requests in the house and elsewhere
The Address-Mr. Drew to take the initiative in reopening the United Kingdom and sterling markets for grain and other primary products. When the time came to sign the new wheat agreement last spring this government refused an offer of an agreement with the United Kingdom placing a maximum figure of $2 a bushel on wheat. They held out for $2.05. Now they are selling it at less than $1.95. They have no agreement with the United Kingdom because of their obstinate position, and no information has been presented to us indicating that there is any likelihood of an agreement in the near future.
In this situation prairie farmers have a right to be told what the government intends to do. The government has assumed full control of the marketing and selling of our wheat. It has, in fact, denied to the western farmer the opportunity, either personally or through his farmer organizations, to do anything about it. The western farmer, therefore, with no adequate local markets for his products, is entirely dependent upon the government.
Because the government has failed to keep open the traditional export markets, the elevators are full, and there is no place for the farmer to deliver his grain and realize on a substantial part of his current crop. In some cases he is not able to realize on any part of it. Consequently, he is unable to obtain money for the current daily requirements of his family and his home. This, in turn, affects the merchants and all those performing the many services which he requires. It affects not only his own province, but right across Canada.
The farmer, the merchant, and everyone else in western Canada whose work is related to agricultural production-yes, and the industrial and other producers in other parts of Canada who supply him-all have a right to know, and to know without delay, what the government proposes to do. If it proposes to do nothing, then let the government say so. Plans then would be related to the decision of the government. If the government does intend to do something, then let us know what it intends to do. After all, we are not dealing just with the problem of accumulated wheat. We are dealing with the daily needs of people whose production is related to this great crop, and who can only carry on their daily activities with the money which may in some way be realized from the crop they have grown. Time is running out. The situation is more than critical. If legislation is contemplated, then let us know what that legislation is.
38	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Drew
In the face of the situation affecting not only the prairie farmer but the economy of the whole country, surely we should have the opportunity to discuss this in parliament without delay and to have the position of the government clearly stated in definite and understandable terms. I therefore repeat my request that when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) speaks today he indicate that he will set aside a day for this purpose, and that as a preliminary to the discussion which will then take place we shall have a definite statement from the government as to what it intends to do in regard to this very critical situation.
In the hope that the Prime Minister will concur in this suggestion, which I believe is a reasonable way of dealing with a subject which should be dealt with as soon as possible, and that we may have full opportunity for discussion of this subject, I will not extend my remarks oni this matter further at this time, nor do I intend to offer an amendment dealing with this very serious situation, because that might be used as a reason for withholding the statement which I think we should have from the government as to what their intention is.
Another subject has attracted a great deal of attention in the past few weeks. I refer to the decision of the government to transfer the national film board from Ottawa. It is not my intention now to discuss the merits of that decision so much as to point out the way that important matters of this kind are disposed of without consulting parliament.
When this decision was challenged by the mayor and council of the city of Ottawa, it was reported that it was stated by the Prime Minister that parliament reached this decision. May I remind hon. members of the way in which this decision was reached. This decision was first announced outside of the House of Commons some time ago. It was stated that this was going to be done, and then a figure was included in the estimates, which came up for consideration. This very item which it is said indicated the decision of parliament was called after midnight the day before the last session of the last parliament came to an end1.
I concede that to the extent that the passing of this item may be taken as acceptance of this decision already made by the government, or its agencies, then those who permitted it to pass must all accept their share of responsibility. I do not pretend that it is otherwise. But it will also be recalled that over and over again we have insisted upon the setting up of a committee on estimates for this very reason. We have pointed
fMr. Drew.]

out that if an informed parliament is to make decisions upon the basis of information, then some mechanism should be devised by which information could be obtained in advance in regard to some of these items which have a habit of coming forward at very inconvenient times, and creating great difficulties for discussion, often not because of the neglect of hon. members, but because hon. members are engaged on important committee work in other parts of the building at the very time that those estimates come forward.
In defence of many hon. members who are interested in these subjects, let it be recalled that at certain points in the last session, as in other sessions, many committees were meeting simultaneously, thereby withdrawing members from the house, so that when items came up for consideration the hon. members who had prepared themselves to deal with that particular subject were elsewhere in the building doing the proper business of parliament.
It will be recalled also that we have been ready to accept any method for improvement that is put forward. We do not suggest any limited method. If there is some better method that the government may have, I am sure we would welcome it. But let us recall now, in the face of this suggestion that parliament decided on the removal of the film board from Ottawa to Montreal, that over and over again important estimates are left until the last minute, not always by accident, and until the pressure of events has made it difficult, if not impossible, to deal with them in an orderly fashion. I recognize that the members of the opposition, as well as the members of the government, must accept their share of responsibility for any loose practices of this kind, or the result of those practices; but at least we can say that we have urged, and do now urge, the adoption of a system of prior examination of these items which would ensure that in a case of this kind the information would be obtained which would give parliament some opportunity to challenge the decision of the government, with knowledge of the essential facts.
In this case parliament simply has not made the decision on the basis of any exchange of opinions in regard to the subject. It has not been told why a site has been chosen which is certainly one of the noisiest in Canada, because of jet aircraft taking off from an airdrome nearby. The importance of this fact I have mentioned lies in the necessity of putting special soundproof devices over the buildings which would be wholly unnecessary, we are told, if another site were chosen, even if it is right to move

the headquarters of the national film board from Ottawa. Surely things of this kind do require some explanation.
If the government does accept the recommendations of the Massey commission in regard to the advisability of bringing cultural activities together in the capital as much as possible, and if it recognizes the importance of films in defence instruction and other aspects of national defence work, then it does seem highly desirable that this whole subject be reconsidered. We do not know whether this new building will cost $5 million, $10 million or $15 million. We do know that in the past original estimates have been only a fraction of the ultimate cost. We know little or nothing of what the policy of the government is and what the scope of the activities of the film board is likely to be. I hope that the Prime Minister will agree to refer this to a committee so that the whole matter may be fully examined. This is not just a question of the availability of certain talent or the suitability of a certain location for technical purposes. It involves general policies, of the location of activities which have some relation to the cultural development of this country, and it also has a good deal more to do with national defence than has been discussed at any length in this chamber, so far as I know.
Now I come to a subject which raises issues as important as any which have come before parliament for a long time. If, because of my congratulatory remarks at the beginning, which were most sincerely expressed, any hon. members have any illusions that we do not intend to occupy our role as an opposition in dealing with subjects that present themselves to this house, what I am about to say will undoubtedly remove that impression.
Within the last few days the government has established a policy which has consequences reaching far beyond the particular subject with which its decisions dealt. Three weeks ago the Prime Minister clearly stated the policy of his government, and therefore of his party, in connection with activities where there is already a government agency operating. His words apply with equal force to every other operation where the government has entered some field of enterprise in which private enterprise is also engaged.
In dealing with the application of the Canadian Pacific Air Lines for permission to operate an air cargo service from Montreal to Vancouver, the Prime Minister explained that in reaching a decision in regard to such
The Address-Mr. Drew an application the principle guiding the government would be:
Whether or not from now on the public can best be served by two competing lines, not just for a short period, but indefinitely.
The Prime Minister went on to say, and again I quote:
And, secondly, our decision will be based on what will be best for the industry itself.
That was a statement as to the policy upon which the government was going to deal with an application then before it; and I emphasize the fact again that the application was one that involved a principle which would relate to an application associated with any activity in which the government might also be engaged.
I wish to repeat and to emphasize that I am dealing with this on the basis of the principle stated by the Prime Minister, which applies with equal force to every other government operation where private interests are also engaged. It is interesting to find that in explaining the reason for refusing the application in this particular case the government came to conclusions directly contrary to those reached by the air transport board upon the basis of the evidence submitted to them. The board had found that we have fallen behind in Canada in air cargo service. It found that there was a demand for extended service now. What was more important, however, was that it pointed out that it was impossible to tell how far the use of such service might be expanded by competitive efforts to seek new business.
The Prime Minister has been careful to say that the government does not intend to support a monopoly, hut whatever has been said it is in fact supporting a monopoly and we have evidence before us that this is not only for today but for tomorrow as well.
One of the most interesting incidents in connection with this application was the fact that while the decision was still pending the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines made a speech in Vancouver explaining why such an application should not be granted. In explaining the government's attitude and what the result of granting the application would be, he used the significant words: "The government is under no illusions" that the granting of this licence would not mean a subsequent effort to get into competitive passenger transport.
Many Canadians might ask, "What would be so terrible about that?" We have reason for pride, and great pride, in the standards of service and the safety record of Trans-Canada Air Lines. For that record the president and everyone working with Trans-Canada Air Lines all deserve our commenda-

The Address-Mr. Drew tioni. But that has nothing to do with the question before us. Either we believe in monopoly in transportation or we do not. A monopoly in transportation is just as much a monopoly in government transportation as it is in transportation in the hands of private interests.
What was implied by the statement was simply this. If the monopoly were broken in this case, then there would be a chance of the monopoly being broken in the other case, and that, of course, must not be contemplated. In other words, the government in reaching its decision was "under no illusion" that breaking the one monopoly might break the other. That seems to me a reasonable interpretation of the statement made by the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines.
In referring to this statement it should also be pointed out that the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines indicated a knowledge of the attitude of the government toward this question which was hardly consistent with the theory of free competition which has been asserted at all times in relation to government operations of this kind.
We have contended that the government was displaying more and more monopolistic tendencies, but this was stoutly denied. The Prime Minister has now dotted the "i's" and crossed the "t's" of a policy which means the end of free competition where the government has entered any business. It could mean the end of free competition generally, if the government decided at any time to carry this policy a stage farther under the overriding powers of the Emergency Powers Act.
Whatever the facts are in this particular case, business should realize and, above all, the workers whose employment is found by the expansion of new business, that a time when the governments in other free countries are getting more and more out of business our government is getting deeper and deeper into it in many directions.
By this decision the government may have torn away the veil from the mystery surrounding its determination to have emergency powers in peacetime which make it possible for the government, without coming back to parliament, to exercise full control over any industry, any individual activity, or in fact any aspect of the work of our people, by order in council.
In his speech on Saturday, which was so warmly applauded from every part of this house, the President of the United States

made an extremely significant statement. These were his words:
We are people who do not believe in government by edict or decree.
This statement goes to the root of the great issues dividing the world today. The trouble is that so many Canadians have not yet realized that over extended opposition and vigorous argument this government has insisted upon placing on the statute books legislation which makes it possible for them to govern by edict or decree, if in their own belief events at any time justify that course.
Now it is to be hoped that our people generally, and particularly those engaged in businesses which employ large numbers of people, will recognize what those emergency powers, call them stand-by powers, call them what you will, could mean, under the declared policy of the government-that where they are called upon to make a decision they will decide what is good for an industry, and who could and who could not compete.
Although chambers of commerce right across western Canada, and the Manitoba government as well, urged the extension of air cargo service, which could only be provided by effective competition, the government decided that there was to be no competition and under the policy stated by the Prime Minister this meant a decision that it was not good for the industry.
This means that the initiative, the vision, the chances which may result in profit or loss, are to be denied by the decision of the government. If that policy is sound in this case, in what case would it not be sound? If we should enter a period of economic stress, why would it not be equally logical for the government to tell our automobile companies that they must all make the same models of cars because competition, in their opinion, would not be good for the industry? Why should they not do it in other industries where similar things are made and where similar courses must be followed? After all, it has been done in other countries. It could foe done; and the government does not deny that it could foe done under the laws now on the statute books. The only answer from the other side is that they have complete confidence in the government and what it will do. Do not let anyone say that this suggestion is remote from reality. The power is there. Let anyone who doubts it examine the statutes. That has not been denied. If it is not intended that this power be used under certain circumstances, then we in this house

are still waiting for some reasonable explanation as to why the government has insisted upon having those emergency powers.
Let no one suggest that in presenting this position we are dealing with some vague entity known as "big business" which should be concerned about this subject. The people who should be most disturbed in this country with its vast opportunities and vast resources still to be developed are the Canadian men and women whose employment has been created in the past and whose expanding employment can be best created in the future by the driving power of competition with all its risks and possible losses.
Let no one suggest that any sinister motive on the part of the government or its supporters is implied in what has been said. This government has a perfect right to believe, and the supporters of this government have a perfect right to believe in centralized power and in legislation under which it can exercise that power by decree if it decides that events justify that course. But let no one be under any illusion as to what it can mean. It does not represent a belief in those checks and balances which were intended under our constitution, amongst other things, to prevent interference with free competition and individual initiative. That was the effect of reserving property and civil rights to the provinces. It does not represent opposition to monopoly, no matter what may be said. The clearly stated policy under which the decision in regard to the Canadian Pacific Air Lines application was made, and which would apply with equal force to any other type of activity, is that the government is ready to substitute its judgment for the judgment of any individual or group of individuals who believe that by their effort and energy they can provide a useful service to our people.
Socialism has its supporters and its very sincere supporters. I have no doubt that those who advocate that doctrine are fully convinced that it would be best for our people. Whatever else may be added, the core of socialist doctrine is government control of the means of production, transportation and communication. That does not mean that a socialist government would necessarily take over all production, transportation and communication. The socialist government in Britain made no such attempt. Presumably, they only created government monopolies in those cases where they came to the conclusion that it was good for the people and for the industry. Of course, as we know from the reported speeches made in Britain, there were 83276-4
The Address-Mr. Drew different ideas as to how far that should extend. The important thing to remember, however, is that no one was in a position to know what other industry or activity would at any time be included at some future date.
What it seems particularly difficult for many to realize is that this government now has power to create a monopoly in any industry or other type of production if the government, in its own judgment, without consulting parliament, should decide that this were needed. Surely this newly-announced policy by the government-not the particular refusal of an application but the announced policy of the government-gives new meaning to the words of the Prime Minister when he indicated his own belief some time ago that socialists are merely Liberals in a hurry. If that statement meant anything-and I am sure it was intended to mean something very definite-then it surely meant that the differences between those two parties are only of degree. Certainly those words have a new meaning when we find this government now enunciating a policy which conforms so thoroughly to socialist doctrine that it is not only the right but the duty of government so to plan the nation's affairs that the government in its wisdom will determine when there shall be competition and when there shall not.
This government has had a great deal to say about monopolies. After a period of convenient forgetfulness, it has claimed considerable credit for attempts to break monopolies by proceedings under the Combines Investigation Act. It has refused to permit what are regarded as fair trade practices in the United States, because this, they argue, might prevent our people receiving the benefit of competition. No matter what the merits of the argument were, that was the argument. Now it breaks the very principle embraced in the laws which it has been enforcing. The difference, of course, is that government monopolies are much larger. The difference also is that the government is in the position to prevent anyone from competing with their monopolies. History teaches us that a government monopoly can be just as destructive to the rights and liberty of people as any private monopoly ever was.
Personal liberty is the great issue in the world today. If we are to preserve that liberty, then we must remember that freedom of the individual, or of groups of individuals, to decide their own course, to risk and to venture in new fields of endeavour, is part of the strength of our system. Today we are living in a highly competitive world. Germany
42	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Drew has recovered beyond the wildest dreams of anyone living in that very vigorous country five years ago. Japan is well on the way to a similar recovery. In both countries that recovery has been based upon a free competitive system. The kind of competition we are going to face everywhere throughout the world is something which can only be met if we possess the vitality and efficiency of that competition which has been the secret of the economic strength of Canada and the United States.
We all agree that there must be laws to prevent abuses. No one is arguing in favour of unbridled competition or unrestrained activities which would in any way affect the welfare of people anywhere. Our party believes in the rule of law and not in the rule of dictate or decree. If history teaches us anything it teaches us that there are no supermen capable of planning the life of a whole nation and that there are no supermen who are in a position to say when it is wise and not wise for this or that venture to be undertaken, without placing shackles upon the vitality, the strength and the power of expansion of the people. The decision of the government made within these past few days brings into focus as vital an issue as has been presented in this country in many long years. It is to be hoped that this issue will be examined carefully, and that the effect of such a policy will be examined, and that it will be seen what could happen in relation to the expansion of our country and to the employment of those new thousands and hundreds of thousands who are needed to produce the infinite variety of things that can be produced from our mighty storehouse of resources. If only the initiative, courage and vision of free men and women are permitted to find the ways in which that can best be done, we need have no great concern about the future development and expansion of Canada.
We are not asked to consider the effect of a single decision in this case. What we really must determine is whether we are to abandon our heritage of personal liberty by preventing new ventures which might compete with enterprises which the government has undertaken. If that policy holds, then all the government needs to do is to enter some enterprise and then the door is closed to the initiative and vision that might have found an infinite variety of new things which could have been done in that field. A system which permitted rewards in keeping with the risks involved was the system which opened up this continent and has made it the most prosperous area in the whole world. Surely 

at a time when we are opposing the power of the state over men's lives, it is no time to be adopting a policy which emphasizes the power of the state to deny to any man or group of men the right to undertake any legitimate venture which is within the law. This insidious encroachment upon personal freedom is something which all of us must consider in the light of the policy defined by the statement of the government itself.
If this government is going to use its powers to decide what is good for business, that is socialism, no matter what it may be called. Oh, I can hear the suggestion that it is ridiculous to describe the members of this government as socialists. Do they not work hand in hand with big business? They certainly do. Are they not to be found in all the best clubs, discussing affairs of the day with representatives of big business? They certainly are. How can you call them socialists? Well, after all, this would not be the first time that big business had worked hand in hand with socialists. It is a perfectly honourable political doctrine which, I might add, is followed by the directors of a number of large industries, as well as by those working in the industries. It is the policy which determines the doctrine, and the policies being followed by this government and now clearly enunciated which decide whether or not these are socialist doctrines. It is not the appearance; it is what happens. This is socialism in a silk hat.
I call attention to the need for the government to retrace its steps and at the time when competition is becoming keener everywhere to assure the kind of freedom of competition here in Canada which will give us the vitality, initiative and strength to expand employment, opportunity and prosperity in the way it can be expanded in this country of such immense resources. I would hope that we might have the refreshing experience of hearing some of the supporters of this government express their own belief that this is the time for government to get out of business instead of getting deeper into it.
It is only by dealing with a situation of this kind as soon as possible-and after all this situation only arose a few days ago- and dealing with it in sufficiently vigorous terms to attract attention, that there can be any hope of recharting our course at a time when the policies of this government should be designed to release all the competitive energy we possess in a period of the very keenest world competition which will increase in intensity day by day. It is no answer to say to the members of the house or to the

people of Canada: Look at the record of what we have produced; look at what we have supported. Yes, a world devastated by war needed the things that this country possesses, but do not let anybody close his eyes to the fact that in the last year there have been immense changes and that we are coming into one of the most competitive periods the world has ever known when men and women with a higher general average of technical as well as other education are going to be more productive than ever before, and when we can only meet that competition by the keenest kind of competitive development here in our own country.
The course we follow in the period immediately ahead in which we have such immense advantages because of our resources should be one designed for the long-term pull. This is no temporary emergency. We are told that combined defence against aggression is going to go on for a long time. We are not engaged in actual fighting in any part of the world. We are therefore in a period as close to normal as most of us will ever live through for the rest of our lives. The steps that are needed today are not emergency measures but permanent arrangements for putting and keeping our house in order. The speech from the throne gives little indication of anything designed to put our domestic house in order for the kind of world in which we are going to live during the years immediately ahead, years which offer more hope but more problems than at any time in a great many years.
I have expressed the views which I have presented today because I believe, and I am sure there are many others in the house as well as members of the party to which I belong who believe, that freedom within the law is the right of every citizen of Canada and that as an individual, or jointly with others, he has a right to set up a new business, engage in a new type of production, or venture in new fields with a possibility of reward which offers some return for the risks he takes. Success brings increased employment and prosperity for all. The loss is the loss of the person who has ventured that risk with the hope of success and the gains it can offer. Nothing else has yet been discovered which provides the incentive upon which an expanding economy can be built. This is no time to be limiting expansion in this young country of ours. Years ago we found that even with all our resources restrictive practices could prove disastrous to Canadian workers. Let us take no chance of repeating that mistake.
The difficulties ahead are not only those associated with preventing aggression. There
83276-4i
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent are difficulties related to trade and to the competition growing out of that trade. There are signs that this may present very great difficulties indeed, and in fact this is slightly hinted in the speech from the throne. But I am sure that whatever our difficulties may be, and certainly there will be differences of opinion on this subject, there will be no disputing the fact and there will be general agreement in this chamber that, if we tackle our problems with all the energy we possess, no country in the world offers to its people, and particularly our youth, the immense opportunities that are open in this fortunate land to those who have the vigour and the vision to grasp those opportunities and, looking beyond the present, work for the future v/ith faith and confidence in what that future may bring to them and to all Canadians.
I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), that the following be added to the address:
We respectfully represent to Your Excellency that the welfare of Canada is dependent upon free competition: and that the prosperity and security of all Canadians will be advanced by government policies which will restore markets for primary products and generally promote a high volume of international trade.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all
to express to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) my appreciation of the gracious words of congratulation and the good! wishes which he has extended to me on this occasion. I think it is very fortunate that the situation should be such that on the very evening of the election of the 10th of August the Leader of the Opposition, without any acrimony whatsoever, accepted the verdict of the Canadian people as an expression of our democratic institutions. I think it is a splendid thing that in this house we should all feel, as the Leader of the Opposition does, that we are all here trying to do our best in accordance with our own lights for the good of our fellow citizens in this Canadian democracy. Though we have various approaches to the goal, the goal is the same for all of us, and we do, by the intimate and friendly contacts that are developed in the house, come to appreciate the sincerity of the views and motives of all of us in trying to serve the constituents who have sent us here.
I think a demonstration that similar processes prevail in our great neighbour to the south was evidenced by the visit, which gave us such great satisfaction, of the President of the United States here over last week end. I am sure we all wish to echo his words and his hopes that the time may be close when other nations of the world will try to follow the example of international relations as they exist and as they have been established

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent between that great power to the south of us and ourselves, a lesser power but nevertheless one now being recognized as sovereign and as having equality of status with that much larger national entity, and that the example of our confidence in the motives which inspire the actions of our great and powerful neighbour will serve to eradicate to a degree some of the misgivings we have heard about in other lands concerning the real motivation of the so generous conduct of that great nation in helping to rebuild the economies of so many nations throughout the world.
There can be no doubt that we do look forward, as does the Leader of the Opposition, to some further co-ordination of the approaches of the three great powers whose leaders will meet in Bermuda within a short time to discuss and attempt to bring about that degree of co-ordination.
Of course, there are none of us unmindful that this happy condition of our own situation in Canada was typified by the pageantry of the coronation of our Queen. There can be no doubt that it was very moving to all of us who were there, and under the new conditions of the transmission of news by sight as well as by audition, to millions throughout the world. All were greatly moved by the consecration of this beautiful young lady to the service of a power greater than any established on earth. I think we all felt that, just as she was promising by her oath to be a faithful servant of the greater power, we, in our service to the crown, were also carrying out the best philosophy that mankind has ever appreciated for the authority of institutions and organizations here on earth. I think we were all very much reminded of St. Paul's wisdom in saying that authority comes from above. Although the agents of authority may be designated by constitutional processes we have established here below, those who are thus designated have a responsibility, not only to their own constituents but, as Her Majesty herself, to a power that does determine the course of human events.
In the designation of those who are to exercise that authority, I think it has given us great satisfaction to find that the people of Canada have chosen to send to this parliament four representatives of the fairer sex. I have always believed that the principal objective in domestic affairs of the government of an organized society was to promote and maintain a healthy atmosphere for the development of happy families. I am sure that the women of the Canadian families know and appreciate, as well as we of the other sex do, what will have an influence for a good climate for the development of a
[Mr. St. Laurent.l
happy family life. It will be of advantage to us all to be reminded, in the course of our debates, of their special viewpoint in that regard.
Now, of course, no one who was there could help but be happily impressed by the evidence all around him of the spirit that has replaced one of some depression among our fellow citizens of the great commonwealth in the British Isles. There is no doubt that their outlook was a much more confident one than it had been at any time that I had been in the United Kingdom since the cessation of active hostilities. I think we have reason to expect that that confidence was not without justification. I believe it has revealed its effect in statistics, and that effect will, I hope, make it possible to look, within the not too distant future, to the prospect of renewed convertibility between the currencies of civilized nations. This will stimulate trade between them, and will thereby strengthen their economies, the very basis upon which must be built this strength that will be such as to deter aggression and prevent any recourse to those terrible agencies of destruction, which are certainly such as described by the Leader of the Opposition. When we do realize that we can kill each other, why would any of us want to start killing any of us?
We did have very anxious moments, those of us who were in government during the last war, over the preparations that should be made to guard against the use of chemical and bacteriological warfare. But it was known to us, and it must have been known to our enemies, that on both sides we had terrible agencies that would have wrought havoc on both sides. Fortunately we were not, in spite of these stresses of the terrible war, tempted to resort to those methods which would have meant destruction without probably much advantage to either side. The existence of these atomic and nuclear weapons now must be such that, knowing of their availability to all sides in any possible conflict, no one will feel that any permanent advantage would result by resorting to their use.
We are, of course, very happy that this first resort to united, collective action to force back aggression has thus far been successful. This has fortified our hope that, through collective action, we may still look forward to the achievement of those noble objectives stated in the charter of the United Nations. But, of course, it has been costly. It has been costly for us in material things. It has been costly in human lives. Fortunately our casualties have been fewer in number than the severity of the conflicts in which our forces

were engaged might have made us feel they would be. But for each and every one of those casualties, families have suffered grievous losses and made very great sacrifices for the improvement that has been brought about in the world situation by that successful resistance to aggression. I am sure that we all want the members of those families to know that we do appreciate all the sacrifices that have been made in their families for the common cause, and how great is our admiration for all those who have carried the colours of Canada in this far-distant conflict.
It is a great satisfaction that at this time, and for the first time in the last few years, parliament meets when none of our men are actually engaged in fighting abroad. They are standing guard over the freedom and liberties which are very precious to all of us, but there is actually no fighting taking place. We still hope that this armistice in Korea will be only the preliminary of a permanent peace for that unhappy land. I am sure that when permanent peace does come to that unhappy land, we shall all wish, by our votes in this house, to express our feeling that it is up to all to help rebuild, to the extent to which that is possible, the devastated land over which these three years of fighting has taken place.
With respect to domestic affairs, the Leader of the Opposition has stated that the revision of the Criminal Code and the revision of the Bank Act were matters of great importance, and that he, along with other members, would like to have some indication of the manner in which we intended to proceed with the study of these acts.
It had been my understanding at the end of the last session that it might not be necessary to return the Criminal Code to another select committee for special study, but that it might be considered in committee of the whole house-because each and every one of us must be prepared to take his and her responsibility in connection with the defining of these acts which are to constitute the list of those things regarded as criminal in this Canadian society.
I think that that, after all, might be the most expeditious and satisfactory way of dealing with the Criminal Code at this time. But I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that we do wish to have the business of the house conducted in a manner that will lead to the best results, and do so with the least possible waste of time as well as with a probability of achieving those results.
As to the Bank Act-of course, that always goes to the committee on banking and commerce. In setting up the committee this
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent year, in view of the fact that the act is to be revised I am sure members of all parties would want to have the committee made up of those they feel best qualified to perform a good service for the whole of the Canadian public in the consideration of that act.


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder if the Prime Minister would allow a question in connection with the criminal law amendment. Would it be possible to have printed and made available to members the findings of the committee of the last house? I think it would go a long way toward doing away with the necessity of convening another special committee if those recommendations could be made available.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will discuss that with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). I do not know just how extensive those recommendations are, but I shall discuss it with him, and also with the hon. member who has just taken his seat; because I think it would be very helpful for all, particularly the new members in the house, to have before them the fruits of the very considerable work done by that committee during the last session. If it were just a matter of the recommendations, that would consist perhaps of only a few pages. However, something more than just the recommendations might be helpful as a brief to assist all members in approaching the problem, and finally passing these sections in the committee of the whole house.
The Leader of the Opposition raised the question of the intentions of the government with respect to the large quantities of wheat still available in this country. I do not think that is something we should deplore. Canada did have this year I believe the second largest wheat crop it has ever harvested; and it harvested that crop at a time when our purchasers, in view of the discussions over the renewal of the wheat agreement, had already filled their storehouses to bursting capacity. This has meant that the purchases of new wheat so far have not been as large as they were in previous years.
The hon. member has suggested that a day should be set apart for a discussion of this subject. I would be glad to discuss the matter with him informally, because I think we would both wish to have the matter dealt with-I was going to say "threshed out", but the threshing has been done for some time- in a manner that will impress all hon. members and the public at large with the fact that the matter is being given proper and serious consideration. I would expect that within the next day or two my colleague the Minister

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) would be making a statement to the house concerning this situation. It may very well be that, following that statement, because of the rules which do not provide for more than one speech on one subject in the house, it might be desirable to have something done specially.
I shall be glad to confer with the hon. member to see if something can be arranged, something better than the ordinary course of speeches in the debate on the address in reply, which would satisfy each and every one of us that there has been full opportunity given for the consideration of this matter.
With respect to the national film board, may I just remind the hon. member that in the estimates for 1952 there is at page 351, among the appropriations for the Department of Public Works, one for a building for the national film board at Montreal. There was a vote at page 351 of the estimates book for 1952. Then, there was a revote of part of the sum which had then been appropriated, and an addition of another amount, for a building for the national film board in the estimates for 1953. In a vote of $500,000 for the building at Montreal, there was a revote of $275,000.
Then, on April 9, 1953, over a month before the concluding day of the session, there was a discussion of this matter, as reported .at page 3645 of Hansard for that date.


George Alexander Drew: Was that the statement by the toon, member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton)?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: No, that was a question raised by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Fraser). The item itself is at page 399 of the estimates book for 1953-1954.
This matter arose out of a recommendation made by the film board commissioner, Mr. Irwin, who considered the whole situation and who did not recommend that the headquarters-the office of the commissioner and his associates-be moved to Montreal, but that the operating or the producing activities of the film board be provided for in a building to be erected at Montreal.
That is still the situation. The film board [DOT]commissioner and his immediate staff-that is, the headquarters of the film board-will still operate from Ottawa. The provision being made is for the productive operations of the film board to be carried on at Montreal, for the reasons given at that time by the film board commissioner, and that were recommended by the board of governors and provided a basis for the appropriations made by this house in 1952, 1953 and 1954. That is the situation. It may be that the attention


of the people of Ottawa had not been sufficiently attracted at that time by these appropriations, and it was only when they realized that a site had been acquired in Montreal and that the thing was really about to happen that they became active. After reconsidering it and reconsidering the representations that had been made by the city council and by the board of trade of Ottawa, the government came to the conclusion that it would not recommend to parliament any change in the decisions that had thus been arrived at.
Now, the matter to which the Leader of the Opposition seems to have attached the greatest importance, and with respect to which I suppose I should tip my socialist silk hat to him on this occasion, is the decision in respect of the application of the Canadian Pacific Air Lines for a licence to operate an air cargo service between Montreal and Vancouver. The Leader of the Opposition sees something very threatening to the Canadian economy in the fact that the government has seen fit to express an opinion upon what would be the advantages for the public and for the industry in granting that licence to set up a competitive service between Montreal and Vancouver for the carriage of goods by air at this time.
Well, I think we are all believers in competition and that in a general way we would, all of us, be quite prepared to represent to His Excellency, or to any other authority, that the welfare of Canada is dependent upon free competition, not unlimited competition in every way, because of course that is not what the hon. gentleman meant. The hon. gentleman did not mean, for example, that alcoholic beverages should not be controlled by a system of licence. He does not believe, for example, that the operation of a hydroelectric franchise for the public in Ontario should be open to every competitor. It seems to me that it is something quite similar to say that the operation of utilities which require a franchise for the service of the public should not be open to anyone who thinks that he might undertake to do something in that line, with some prospects of cutting into the business of those who might already be performing the service satisfactorily.
I am not at all sure that it would not have been a good thing for silk-hatted socialists, or any other kind of socialists, to have had something to say about the duplicating of competing railway lines at the early part of this century. There can be no doubt that when these lines are established, even if their rates have to be controlled by some public body, they have grounds for coming

before that public body to secure the kind of rates that will give them a reasonable return on their invested capital. That has been the experience, and I think it was quite unfortunate that there were, for example, between Montreal and Toronto, three competing lines of railways established for passenger service at a time when there was not enough passenger traffic to make it profitable even for the old line that existed and provided that service.
That is the spirit in which we have approached this problem. We do agree that competition is a good thing-that competition which will be apt to produce better service for the public and better facilities for the public; but we are not of opinion that competition in the exploitation of franchises for the service of the public is advisable; when it is merely apt to produce a duplication of expensive facilities that then have to be taken into account in fixing rates.
In connection with our railway service in Canada, the Canadian Pacific Railway has had to be recognized as the yardstick for the fixing of rates because our country is growing, and its growth requires the expansion of services. The expansion of services requires the attraction of additional capital, and before the board of transport commissioners the Canadian Pacific Railway constantly makes the claim that its situation has to be considered, and it has to have rates that will enable it to earn a return that will in turn make it possible for it to attract additional capital to provide the expansion required by the development of the country.
That is the situation that we got into by that fact of competing lines for services that had been established. Well, now at the outset, when air transport was envisaged, I believe this parliament unanimously applauded the policy set out that the transcontinental service was going to be reserved, until it got firmly established, for the Trans-Canada Air Lines, which were not supposed to operate on a profit-making basis, but to provide as good a service as could be provided at rates which would not be unreasonable for the users of that service.
Well, now, a report was prepared by the air transport board which we considered with considerable care. The situation was such that the Canadian Pacific Air Lines, being a surface carrier, could not be granted a licence unless the government expressed an opinion that it was in the public interest that it obtain that licence. We did not just step into the picture of our own initiative; we stepped into the picture because the act passed by
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent this parliament requires an expression of opinion from the governor in council every time there is an application to the air transport board for a licence on behalf of a surface carrier.
The matter seemed to us to be one of great importance, and instead of being satisfied with the report that we got from the air transport board and with the study that each of us made of the voluminous oral and documentary evidence that had come before the air transport board, we decided that we would invite the officers and the representatives of the Canadian Pacific Air Lines and the Trans-Canada Air Lines to come before us and to summarize their reasons pro and con the application that had been submitted so that we might be sure that we were not overlooking any of the arguments that could be raised either for or against what would have amounted to a major change in government policy, if the application had been granted.
Those were the concluding words of the report we got from the air transport board.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask a question? Can the report of the air transport board be made available to hon. members?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes; it has been made public. It was annexed to the news release as soon as the order in council was passed. I refer to the news release which contained the order in council and the report upon which the order in council was based.


Howard Charles Green: Has it been tabled?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No; it has not been tabled.


Howard Charles Green: Can it be tabled?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, it can be. I think it is mimeographed. If hon. members desire to have it printed it can be printed, but we can make a mimeographed copy of the report available almost immediately. The report concludes with the words: "This would mean a major change in government policy". Before making a government change in policy we give the facts very careful consideration, and we did. For two days we heard the officers and counsel for these two air servicing companies, and we considered the representations that had been made to us. It was established that there had never been any lack of air cargo service for any air cargo offered.
Of course it was suggested that if there had been scheduled overnight air service between Montreal and Vancouver and Vancouver and Montreal there might be even more air cargo offering than had been offered. We heard T.C.A. tell us how they had planned to perform this service of the
48	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent carriage of goods by air. We saw the references they made to what had taken place in other countries. There was put before us the report of the proceedings before the civil aeronautics board of the United States which had four years ago licensed four, I think, large carriers to engage in the carriage of goods. One of them was American Air Lines, another was Slick Air Lines, another Tiger Air Lines, and there was another of lesser importance than those three. Those were the three that had carried the greatest tonnage, and this was a report of the proceedings on an application by the Slick and Tiger companies, which were all-cargo carriers in services that were provided only for the carriage of goods. The application was originally opposed by American Air Lines, who said: We can carry goods with our passenger service at lower rates than the all-cargo carriers because most of our overhead charges are absorbed in the business of carrying passengers.
We heard Trans-Canada Air Lines officials tell us what had been their plans. They have been delayed about six months in the implementing of their plans through delays in delivery of new passenger craft that are on order. They have on order eight Constellations to be placed in passenger service principally; and that would, I think, release fifteen North Stars, some of which would be converted to bus passenger service and others into all-cargo carriers. The advantage they would have over the user of new aircraft is that these North Stars are completely depreciated and could be converted into all-cargo carriers-as they have already converted some borrowed from the air force-at a cost of about $175,000 each. So the capital investment in these North Stars converted into all-cargo carriers would have only been $175,000 or thereabouts for each unit. That would have allowed them to set lower rates than they could by the use of new all-cargo carriers. There was some dispute as to whether that figure was exact or not, and there was considerable dispute about the present potential of goods for the establishment of an all-cargo service.
Well, we did not feel that it would be wise at this time to create in the air services the kind of situation that developed in the competitive railway services established in the early part of the century. We felt that it had not as yet been demonstrated that from this major change in government policy concerning the transcontinental air services in Canada real benefits would result for the Canadian public.


Now, that is a decision made on the facts as they appear to us to be at this time, and the only opinion we expressed was the opinion that at this time it would not be in the public interest to grant the licence that had been applied for. The situation may change, and it may be that when these Constellations are delivered and put into service the growth of passenger transportation will be such that more than are now planned for will be used for bus passenger service between the Atlantic and the Pacific.
There is no doubt that there are greater earnings possible from the use of aircraft in the carriage of passengers and mail than from the carriage of goods. Should that develop it may be that there will be room for new all-cargo aircraft carriers, but at the present time there did not appear to us to be the kind of traffic available, or in sight, that would make it probable that competition would bring about better conditions than exist at the present time, or more reasonable rates than are now available.
Here, in accord with its plan, T.C.A. told us they had recommended and obtained a reduction of freight rates in 1952 and, in order to attract additional traffic, they had submitted to the air transport board some little time after the application of C.P.A. went in a proposal for further lowering the rates by from 30 to 35 per cent. That application has not been considered by the air transport board, but no doubt it will be considered immediately. They felt that the best way to stimulate the offering of traffic for carriage by air was to reduce the rates.
Had there been any suggestion that there was traffic to go by air for which equipment was not provided by T.C.A. the decision of the government or the opinion expressed by the government under the statute might very well have been different. We do believe in competition when competition is apt to provide what it normally does provide, the right kind of stimulation and better service; but we did not believe that under existing conditions that would have been apt to happen in the operation of this as a public utility service.
We were impressed by the evidence that had been submitted before the air transport board. There had been heard before that board Professor William John Waines, dean of arts and science of the University of Manitoba. He referred to and cited from statements made in this house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) when he was the minister responsible to parliament for the operation of the trans-Canada services. This

expert cited from the report of the Duff commission on competitive conditions which had arisen between the railway services that had been established without regard to sufficiency or insufficiency of available traffic and his conclusion was, and it is put in a manner that made some impression upon me:
Competition is only useful for what it achieves. If it achieves greater efficiency, lower costs and charges and better service, it is an admirable principle to insist upon. But if it achieves overexpansion of expansive facilities with division of the market amongst competing carriers, it will lead to heavy burdens on carriers, shippers and taxpayers alike.
I think that is a very concise and cogent expression of fairly good economics when dealing with public carriers. If competition is apt to achieve better service, greater efficiency and lower costs and charges, all to the good; but if it is apt to achieve overexpansion with a division of the market, resulting in heavier burdens on carriers, shippers and taxpayers alike, I do not think it is in the public interest. In order to comply with the requirements of the statute, we had to express our opinion as to whether or not it would be in the public interest at this time to have the licence granted; and the opinion we expressed was that it would not be so. The concluding words of the report to His Excellency and approved by him are as follows:
The committee, therefore, advise that the air transport board be informed that the governor in council is not of opinion at this time that it would be in the public interest that the licence applied for by Canadian Pacific Air Lines to operate the said air service be issued.
I referred a moment ago-but I did not then have the text before me-to the concluding words of the report we had received from the air transport board. The last three lines of that report are as follows:
The application of Canadian Pacific Air Lines would involve a major change in policy and for these reasons the board presents the foregoing report for government consideration.
That is the whole situation, and I do not think it occasions a discussion at this time on the emergency powers which have been the subject of long and sincere, I am sure, but vigorous debates in previous sessions of this parliament. This is an ad hoc decision on a set of facts as it exists at this time with respect to an application for the establishment of a competitive carrier service requiring a franchise. The opinion that was expressed was that at this time it would not be in the public interest to have that competitive service established. It means nothing for the future. I personally felt that it was
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent quite in line with my profession of faith in the value, as a general principle, of competition in business. I still think it is valuable. I am still of the impression that, as a general principle, we cannot be too forward in our efforts to promote competitive enterprise in this country. I think our whole history from its early days has shown that the ventures of private interests have produced magnificent results.
Perhaps the most ancient but still one of the vigorous examples of what can be achieved by the ventures of private individuals is the success of that great company, the Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's Bay. That company was started more than two centuries ago and it is still developing as one of the things we Canadians take pride in.
I will give careful attention to the language used by the hon. gentleman in the motion he has put before the house, because I would be sorry if I found in it anything that prevented me from agreeing with him that the welfare of Canada is in general dependent upon free competition.
Before resuming my seat I would also wish to echo the congratulations expressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) to the mover and seconder of the address in reply. Of course, I will not put in my congratulations the restrictions or the qualifications that it was quite in order for the Leader of the Opposition to express. But regardless of whether or not they are right in their satisfaction with the results of which they spoke in their speeches, I think they both demonstrated, in their maiden efforts in this house, that they will make valuable contributions to our debates.
I would not want to associate the Leader of the Opposition with this sentiment, because I have reached a much more advanced period in life than has he; but to those of my age it is a great satisfaction to feel that there are in Canada that kind of young men and young women who are taking that kind of interest in the public affairs; to feel that our own efforts will not be lost, and that whatever benefit may flow from them will be developed by those who follow in our footsteps.
I am sure their constituents must be proud of the way in which they have acquitted themselves of a task which, to a new member, must be somewhat embarrassing when he envisages it. I am sure that we who heard their efforts here feel happy about the prospect of the contributions they will make
so

The Address-Mr. Coldwell to the proper discussion of the various matters that will have to be dealt with in this parliament. I express the hope that we may hear them frequently and also hear other new members-I am anxious to hear other new members, and not least anxious to hear the new members of the opposite sex-assist us with their words of wisdom in shaping proper policies for this young and developing nation which, even when it does bow to socialism, does so with a silk hat.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to join with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) in congratulating the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and his followers on the results they achieved in the last election. It is true that most of us hoped that the results might have been somewhat different. However, the Canadian people decided otherwise and we accept their verdict. I only hope that this newly elected parliament may produce results that will be beneficial to all the people of our country, and which indeed will enable Canada to make even a greater contribution to the peace and welfare of mankind than Canada has been able to make in the days gone by.
I am also glad that I was here when the President of the United States visited Canada and spoke to the members of both houses of parliament. I was greatly interested in what he said. In some respects, of course, he gave us great encouragement; but sometimes I wondered whether some of the encouragement he gave us, particularly in the realm of trade and commerce, was not subsequently qualified in a manner which rather discounted the hope we might otherwise have had for future trade relationships between his great country and our own.
I want to congratulate the mover (Mr. Hollingworth) and the seconder (Mr. Ville-neuve) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and may I add that I am going to do so on behalf of all members associated with me. It seems to me that the formal custom of everybody rising and congratulating the mover and seconder is quite an unnecessary procedure and I propose today, with the consent of my friends, most heartily to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address on behalf of all of us.
I am also very happy to see more lady members in the house. I only wish that we had several lady members with us. I recollect, of course, that the pioneer woman member in the house sat with us. She was Agnes Macphail who served the people of Canada so well and who, I think, has deserved better at the hands of Canada than she has received.

I have no doubt she will be long remembered as one of the great exponents of penitentiary reform. The reforms that have been put into effect over the past few years were very largely promoted in the house over a period of some twenty years by Agnes Macphail who was during that time the member for Grey South East and Grey-Bruce.
I also want to join with others in expressing our pleasure at the coronation of Her Majesty, and particularly the service that was rendered to the Canadian people and indeed to the people of North America, including the United States, by the wonderfully efficient manner in which the R.C.A.F., the B.B.C., Trans-Canada Air Lines and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation co-operated in bringing to this country so expeditiously the very remarkable and beautiful films of the ceremony in Westminster Abbey. At four o'clock in the afternoon of coronation day, seated comfortably in chairs around television sets in this part of Canada and across the United States, people were able to witness that moving and beautiful religious ceremony, the coronation of Her Majesty the Queen; and I wish to say how much many whom I know appreciated the service performed at that time.
I do not propose to enter into a long discussion of the merits of competition and the merits of control of monopolies except to say that I thoroughly agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when he says there are certain phases of our economic life, particularly those that require a franchise such as transportation, that are suitable for public control, development and operation. As I listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) this afternoon I could not help thinking of the thundering voice of the late R. B. Bennett speaking from approximately the same seat in the house when he said with respect to the ownership and control of Canadian radio: Who is there among us who does not regret that the government of Canada of that day did not take a different position with regard to the beginning of railway construction in this country?
I remember that when the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) introduced into the house the first statute dealing with Trans-Canada Air Lines there was complete unanimity regarding the desirability of this great new transportation facility being publicly owned, directed and controlled by the government and the people of Canada through an appropriate public board. I remember something else. It is only two years ago that, in order to restrict the monopolistic tendencies of private business in Canada, the
ii
house adopted a measure to prevent the setting of prices by private monopolistic corporations. As I remember, it was not those who are alleged this afternoon to be, shall I say, socialists either in overalls or in top hats, who objected to the prevention of the exploitation of the Canadian people by these monopolistic practices. It was indeed none other than the official opposition which kept parliament in session not only for several weeks but brought it back again after the Christmas vacation in order to try to prevent the putting into effect of amendments to the combines act.
When we talk of competition, how much competition is there in business today? What competition is there for the Aluminum Company of Canada? What competition is there among a number of other great companies all across Canada? Let us take oil. When the Imperial Oil Company sets a price of 42 cents a gallon in this part of Canada all the companies set a price of 42 cents a gallon.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Oh, wonderful competition!


Major James William Coldwell: You can run right down the line and you will find that many corporations that are said to be competitive are monopolistic. If we are going to have competition, if this is to be a competitive system, then let us be consistent and throw competition wide open in every field of human endeavour. I am sure none of us would want to do that. As the Prime Minister said this afternoon, the control of alcoholic beverages and their sale is a matter of public concern. So indeed is an efficient transportation system and the control of rates in the air, on the railways and elsewhere.
Looking at the speech from the throne, I want to say first of all that we join with the government, of course, in expressing satisfaction that collective action by the United Nations in Korea has achieved substantial results already. We hope that a political conference will be held and will restore peace in Korea. I had the great privilege this year again of being present at the United Nations assembly, and one of the disturbing factors is the attitude of Syngman Rhee and the great influence he seems to exercise over the great republic to the south of us. Even in today's Montreal Gazette we are told that Washington sources have reported that the United States would be willing for India to sit in on the conference provided it is agreeable to South Korea's president Syngman Rhee, who has been bitterly opposed to this.
We in the democratic world have risked losing much of the sympathy and support *of the great commonwealth country of India
The Address-Mr. Coldwell because of the manner in which her proposed presence at the forthcoming conference has been treated by the United States through, I believe, the influence of Syngman Rhee. I think our government was perfectly right at the seventh assembly in instructing our delegation to the United Nations to join with other commonwealth and other countries in supporting the inclusion of India at the forthcoming conference.
I do not want to deal with international affairs at the moment. I presume there will be an opportunity when the external affairs estimates are referred to the appropriate committee, but if I have time a little later this afternoon I shall make one or two further comments.
The speech from the throne also states that Canada's total volume of external trade has reached record levels. That is true. But unfortunately the policy of the government with regard to trade and commerce has created serious problems in our trading relationships, because we have been relying more and more upon the very uncertain and unpredictable market in the United States. Those of us who have been in Canada for a long period of years and those who were raised and brought up here and have lived beyond middle life know that from time to time when we thought we had an assured market in that great country it has been cut off, owing to pressure groups within the United States. Indeed, the government signed the Geneva agreements in 1947 and the late prime minister, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, brought them to the house for approval. They were criticized and they were not approved by the house, but they were put into effect one year before Canada needed to do so. This resulted in eliminating certain concessions that we had given to the United Kingdom and which enabled the United Kingdom to earn dollars in this country, in the belief that we were assuring ourselves a larger market in the United States for certain of our products, particularly for some of our farm products including dairy products.
Then by unilateral action the United States suddenly excluded cheese, powdered milk and some other commodities from that market. By unilateral action the United States has set aside some of the provisions of the Geneva agreement which we thought would be beneficial to us, and which persuaded us to enter into that agreement. I want to say this to the government. We are in favour of agreements of this description, but if we are going to have such agreements we should have the firm assurance of countries participating, and particularly the United States, that these agreements will be carried out in full, that there

52	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Coldwell
will be no going back on the deal once the deal has been made.
We have surpluses piling up in this country. Now, I am not one of those who grieves too much over seeing some wheat on our farms as a reserve. I think that is a good thing. But that is a very different thing from seeing the vast accumulation that is there today, some of it out in the open fields and exposed to the weather because it cannot be disposed of through any of the channels of trade. We see the same kind of thing in British Columbia. The other day I learned that there are millions of pounds of salmon, a record catch for this year. Some salmon has been carried over from the previous years, and today we are not sure where a market is going to be found for the British Columbia salmon. I know that when I was at the United Nations one of our advisers was doing his level best, whenever the opportunity arose, to try to find some outlet for codfish from Newfoundland. The apple growers of the Annapolis valley and British Columbia are also facing restricted markets. While it is satisfactory, therefore, to see quantities of food within our country, we must find the essential markets to dispose of those great accumulations of food.
The extent of this accumulation of grain is due to the fact that Canada and the United States have produced their third successive wheat crop which is larger than average. In the case of Canada the latest estimate I have seen-it was the October estimate-sets the crop at 594 million bushels. May I add also that, fortunately, that crop is grading well. If this estimate is realized it means, in fact, the 1953 crop will be second only to last year's record crop which was 687 [DOT] 9 million bushels, some 40 per cent above the ten-year 1943-52 average of 423-5 million bushels. Our carryover last year was in the neighbourhood, I believe, of 362 million bushels. Assuming that the present forecast of the crop is correct, 594 million bushels, and adding the carryover, the Canadian wheat supply for this year is approximately 957 million or nearly a billion bushels. Our estimated consumption amounts to 160 million bushels. This means that the supply available for export and for carryover for this crop year adds up to the tremendous figure of 797 million bushels.
At the same time, our quota of exports has been reduced substantially today because of the attitude of Britain and India. It is down to about 170 million bushels. The Canadian quota under the international wheat agreement was set at 250 million bushels. However, due to the refusal of Britain to sign the agreement and India's reduction by one-third of its original import quota-I am glad to

say because of improved domestic prospects- our quota had to be revised under the agreement to about 170 million bushels.
Of course the situation in the United States is very much like our own. It is estimated that their crop this year is 1,132 million bushels, and their carryover 570 million bushels. This means that they have 1,700 million bushels of wheat available for all purposes, and that exceeds the 1942-43 record, when it was 1,600 million bushels. The United States requirements of 700 million bushels leaves that country with about a billion bushels available for export. Again, if you do the same thing as I have already done with regard to our quota under the international agreement, subtract Britain's purchases and the Indian reduction, the United States quota remains somewhere between 180 million and 190 million bushels.
I regret that the international wheat agreement was not made effective so far as we are concerned, because it did have the effect, in spite of any disadvantages that might be argued against it, of protecting the importing and exporting countries. It protected the importing countries from excessively high prices and the exporting countries from excessively low prices. Today, because of these vast accumulations and because the elevators are filled, we find that the farmers on the prairies are able to deliver only three bushels per acre. Consequently the need arises for an advance payment on farm-stored grain as well as a payment for farm storage. The elevator companies receive farm -storage, so why should the farmers who have gone to the expense of building new granaries not receive farm storage as well?
After all, this is a great asset. The need for food in the world struggle against the threat of world communism should be evident to us all. I believe that not guns, not tanks, not atomic bombs, but rather the extent to which we can abolish misery, poverty and starvation will settle the peace of the world in the way in which it should be settled. Those are the means by which we can win this struggle against international communism. I say that with this vast accumulation, we should consider ways -and means of providing food for needy countries which have not the financial facilities with which to buy it. I believe that this should be done through a world food bank, and we should urge the adoption of a policy in that regard which is suggested by the international federation of -agricultural producers; that is, the United Nations should establish an agency which could do these things.
An international agency through which countries may dispose of their agricultural

surpluses should be set up. Then the movement of these surpluses could take place in a manner which would not threaten the stability of the prices of agricultural products. Then the terms of distribution would include the payment by the importing country of the maximum proportion it could afford of the prices paid to producers of the surpluses. I am, of course, paraphrasing the federation statement. The difference between the initial price, as agreed between the agency and the country of origin or the exporting country, and the lower special price paid by the importing country, would be borne equally by the agency and the country of origin. The funds of the agency would be subscribed by interested governments on a basis to be agreed upon by them.
It may be said, and it is true, that a plan of this kind requires action at the international level. It may be said that it would be some time before such an agency could be set up. What we need is international action now, and not wait for any great length of time. We say that Canada, as a major food-producing country, not only -should have an influential voice in pressing for the adoption of a plan of this kind, but that up to this time the government has not given any evidence that it realizes the value of such a plan or indeed that we should have an immediate policy of our own.
We are going to make some suggestions this afternoon. We suggest the adoption of an immediate program of our own, to be financed as part of our program to assist underdeveloped countries; and may I say that this appropriation might be regarded as a legitimate defence expenditure. And since international tension-and this is the general opinion of those present at the United Nations this year-has been lessened, and our rearmament program has already provided us and our allies with vast quantities of arms, some of the appropriations that were intended for those purposes during the current year should be devoted to what we believe to be an effective method of checking soviet influence in the underprivileged countries.
In other words the time has come when we should appropriate part of our defence expenditures to assist in building up the economies of those underprivileged countries. And may I say I believe that this is enlightened self-interest on our part; because, as an exporting country, the more we encourage the underprivileged to improve their own conditions and build up their own economies and raise their standards of living, the more likely it is that world trade can be expanded, and that Canada can benefit from that expanded world trade.
The Address-Mr. Coldwell
In the nearer picture, we believe that Canada should also endeavour to reorient its trade with the United States more and more into the sterling area, in recognition of the fact that more than half of the world's trade is still done by the sterling area, not to mention the fact that Canada's most reliable markets in the past have been in the sterling countries.
We believe that Canada should (a) accept sterling as a means of part payment for some of our wheat and other agricultural surpluses, including commodities such as salmon and apples, which those countries have got from us in large quantities in the past. Then (b) that we should place a higher proportion of our foreign orders for governmental supplies in the sterling area. I am not going into that this afternoon. However, I did put figures on the record during the last budget debate. It was astonishing to see that Canada was buying so largely for governmental purposes in the United States, when the same kinds of goods were available in the sterling area, particularly in Great Britain.
Then (c) we should lower tariffs and dumping duties on their exports to us; and (d) we suggest too, as an emergency measure, the postponement of further capital and interest payments on the United Kingdom loan obtained from us in 1946, which was to run for a period of 31 years, which they are now appropriating funds to meet, and are repaying.
I have made those proposals in the house before. I made them in the last parliament, and I repeat them today. And may I point out that while we were somewhat ridiculed for talking about sterling as payment in part for Canadian goods, what do we find? We find that the United States congress has authorized the acceptance of sterling and francs, as well as other currencies, to dispose of United States surplus products. Here, again, probably we shall follow along behind the United States, hanging on to Uncle Sam's coat tails, when we should have been giving him the lead a year or two ago. That is the situation.
Those are some of the means by which we can establish a stable economy. Tariffs and dumping duties against foreign goods are, in effect, walls against our own income. We believe that international agreements providing for the exchange of goods-not, of course, through the manipulations of tariffs, but rather through import-export board arrangements-are the intelligent method in modern times, in matters of trade. Those methods should be followed more and more by all countries. Indeed, Great Britain is following
54	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Coldwell them today, with her arrangements to exchange machinery for feed grains, or some other commodities.
Nations must buy today where they can sell, and if we wish to increase our exports we must take imports in exchange for them. That leads me to say this, that there is a great deal of fear at the present time concerning competition from overseas countries, particularly from Japan. May I say to the government that I think its influence should be used, with the United States particularly, so that Japan will be allowed to rely more and more upon her natural market which is on the Asian mainland, and not have to try to push her way into markets which have not been hers in the past. I believe that the natural market for Japan is in China, whose 500 million people require those goods Japan can make. She would also trade with India, Indo-China, Ceylon and Burma, as well as other eastern countries. But if we insist upon trying to prevent trading by Japan with China-in pre-war years she was a great trading nation-then she must try to push her goods into markets where she can push them, and some must come into Canada to pay for food and raw material she needs.
The problem cannot be solved by tariffs. Tariffs, of course, have affected the Canadian economy in the past. Giant organizations have been built up behind tariff walls, often subsidiaries of powerful American corporations, and tariffs have protected those industries that have exploited the Canadian people through the years. The automobile and textile industries are two examples that come to mind. Of course we have those industries with us and we cannot throw their workers to the wolves. But I am pointing out that if we want to prevent competition from Japan, then we should see to it that we use our influence to help Japan regain those markets which were normally her own.
Much depends upon our ability to trade; much depends upon the prosperity of our economic structure. In other words, our whole social security program, in which we are vitally interested, depends upon the maintenance of full employment, stable and adequate farm prices, and a prosperous economy. That is the only way in which we can carry the social security program we have already adopted, and expand it as I shall suggest this afternoon it should be expanded.
And so, in spite of what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) said this afternoon, we believe in public planning. We believe in economic planning through public control and direction, in the public interest. And we make no apology for believing that that


is the method by which we should develop our economic life.
We have a pressing problem, of course, in the realm of housing. The census of 1951 revealed that one out of every five houses in Canada is overcrowded. In the rural areas this condition exists to the extent of 23 per cent, while in the urban areas the condition is not quite as bad, with a figure of 16 per cent. In the urban areas over 350,000 homes are reported as being overcrowded, homes inhabited by probably two million or more Canadians. We are told in the same census of 1951 that many homes are in need of replacement or major repairs.
We say again, in spite of what is said in the speech from the throne, that this problem will not be solved by a reliance upon private investment or by new facilities for loans to home builders through the chartered banks. I had intended this afternoon to copy down a statement made by Hon. Mr. Ilsley when he was minister of finance, where he said that the banks had been denied the right to enter into the mortgage business, and that their loans had been limited to a certain field. He believed that policy was the right one, and that Canada should continue it.
May I say that other countries have been solving their housing problems by providing for the construction of subsidized low-rental housing on a large scale. That is true of the Scandinavian countries, and true in large part in Great Britain, as well as in New Zealand and in other countries. For those who cannot afford to build, loans to public bodies under such a subsidized plan are indeed essential.
At the moment you have the spectacle of unemployed miners in Nova Scotia, and mines shut down. Men with their families are moving out of that area looking for work. If the mines in northern Ontario are closed down, which is threatened by the employers, can the workers in those industries afford to go some place else and buy new houses? Remember, many erected the houses whence they came. Their equity now is of little value. Consequently, if we are to have a mobile labour force, and that is necessary in the kind of economy we have in Canada, then we must provide rental houses as well as houses for purchase.
For those who want to build houses, loans at low rates of interest could come from where? Through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. How should they be financed? I say through the Bank of Canada. If you have the chartered banks doing it, that is the way they will be financed. Securities will be deposited with the Bank of

Canada and they will get the necessary funds to lend. Why not do it directly and save our people the interest rates? I believe we can provide this money at an interest rate as low as 3 or certainly at less than 3 J per cent, even if we include all the operating charges.
The loans on these houses should be amortized over thirty years, with a down payment of not more than 10 per cent-not for all houses, but houses for those who need them and cannot afford to build expensive homes, in the price range of $10,000. Under such a plan-and my hon. friends can work it out if they like, as I have done-you can have houses owned by our people on a rental basis of not more than, in fact less than, $45 a month.
The government's policy has moved in the opposite direction over recent years. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation interest rates have been raised twice from 4J per cent to 5 per cent and more recently from 5 per cent to 5J per cent. With the new family units that have been formed and with the vast amount of immigration we have had, together with the backlog existing before the war, the housing situation has been greatly aggravated, and so far the government has produced no adequate plan to meet the needs of the Canadian people.
We are disappointed in that. We are disappointed also in the failure of the government to include in the speech from the throne some reference to a national health plan. As you know, we believe that a national health plan is essential to the welfare of the Canadian people. We are one of only three remaining democratic countries in the world where some such plan is not in existence. They have had it in Germany for years; they have it in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland and more recently in the United Kingdom. The three countries where this service is lacking are United States, of course Canada, and to a degree Australia. Australia has something of an hospitalization plan.
While we welcome the mention in the speech from the throne of the fact that a plan is to be introduced for the rehabilitation and aid of disabled people-that is fine-we also note that it includes a federal-provincial program; and that, I suppose, means that the provinces will have to co-operate in financing the plan. I refrain from criticizing it until we see what the plan is, but I do wish to say that already the method by which the federal government is setting up its social security plans, with provincial participation in the cost, is making it very very difficult
The Address-Mr. Coldwell for the less-favoured provinces of this country to come under these plans. Therefore I say a national health plan is imperative.
I should like to indicate some of the features which we suggest should be incorporated in such a plan. There are certain principles that we consider to be of fundamental importance. The first is, as I have indicated on numerous occasions: we believe such a health service should give complete coverage to every man, woman and child in the country, regardless of individual income.
Second, we believe that the service should provide full hospital, mental, dental, optical and other health care. That is already provided in my own province of Saskatchewan through provincial legislation.
Third, we believe that the administration 'of the plan, as far as possible, should be decentralized through provincial departments of health, and again decentralized below the provincial departments through local health regions.
Fourth, we believe that the inauguration of the plan should be accompanied by vigorous measures to overcome the shortages of doctors, dentists, nurses and other professional personnel as well as shortages of hospital space and facilities.
Finally, we believe that the plan should be financed by the federal government out of the general revenue of Canada. That would place all the people of Canada, regardless of whether they lived in New Brunswick or Alberta, taking perhaps the province with the fewest resources and the province with the richest resources, on the same footing. Whether an individual lived in one province or the other, he should have the same equal rights in these matters.
Those are the essentials of the plan that we propose. In proposing this plan I want to move an amendment to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis), that the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom the following words:
the welfare of Canada is dependent upon free competition; and that
and by adding at the end of the said amendment the following words:
We further represent that this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to recommend legislation establishing a nation-wide health insurance program, with provision for provincial participation.
In order to make the amendment intelligible to the house I should like to give it as it will
56	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Coldwell now read with the subamendment placed in the proper position:
We respectfully represent to Your Excellency that the prosperity and security of all Canadians will be advanced by government policies which will restore markets for primary products and generally promote a high volume of international trade.
We further represent that this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to recommend legislation establishing a nation-wide health insurance program, with provision for provincial participation.
I have indicated that we propose a health plan which should be administered provincially. We are convinced that there should be no interference with provincial health jurisdiction, nor need there be. In fact, one of the measures of success of any national health plan will be the degree to which it is administered locally, and the more locally the better.
This objective can be secured by making federal grants to provincial governments on the condition that certain health services are organized on a universal basis and that certain standards are adhered to. That offer should be made now, and the provinces should be free to enter the scheme as soon as they desire without first having to wait for any given number of provinces to agree. That is the way in which the old age pension legislation was put on the statute books in 1926. Provinces could enter as they wished. British Columbia entered in 1927, and the last of the provinces entered in 1936. That was the province of Quebec. We believe therefore that that is the manner in which it should be done.
One of the aspects to which we have to pay attention is, of course, the provision for general practitioners' services. Contrary to what many are trying to say, this plan would not interfere, any more than the British plan is interfering today-and the doctors in Britain are now confirming what I am about to say-with the patient-doctor relationship, which is there as it was before and is not interfered with to any degree.
Many of the actual administrative arrangements for practitioner services could be handled by the provincial health insurance commission. However, again certain fundamental principles must be laid down. In our plan, first, every individual in the community must be entitled to the service unconditionally; second, every person should' have a free choice of the doctor he wishes to consult; and third, the doctor must be free to accept or reject any particular patient. Of course, in an emergency any good doctor would accept any person; but I am talking about the normal doctor-patient relationship.


With respect to hospital care, a national health plan should make provision for universal general ward service. If a patient desires accommodation in a private or semiprivate ward, he should be required to pay the difference in cost between these wards and the public ward.
One of the difficulties which must be overcome is the very serious shortage of doctors, dentists, nurses, hospital accommodation and other facilities. Immediate steps will have to be taken toward relieving these shortages if the people of Canada are to have adequate health care. An interesting development is seen where you have had a hospital plan put into effect, as in my own province. Even before any national health grants were made for hospital building purposes-and the grants have been inadequate-hospitals were built by the local communities as the demand arose. From less than four beds per thousand in 1944 the figure has risen until today there are over seven beds per thousand in Saskatchewan. Some of them were built with federal aid, but some of them were built before federal aid was forthcoming.
In order to get new doctors, dentists and nurses in my own province, a large new medical school is being built on the campus of the University of Saskatchewan, and girls are encouraged to train as nurses through better payment during their period of training.
Generous grants must be provided' for bursaries and scholarships to permit increased numbers of students to enter the universities for professional training. These scholarships and bursaries should, of course, be made conditional on the student agreeing to practice in Canada for a given number of years after his graduation.
As I say, this is a bold and imaginative sort of plan, but it is one the people of Canada would support. We want to see the introduction of a health plan coupled with some of the specific measures I have referred to. We believe it will do more than anything else to eliminate human suffering and the shortage of personnel and accommodation that now exists. We say there is absolutely no possible excuse today for delaying the inauguration of such a plan in our country; and if we adopt a co-operative attitude toward this problem we can build a strong and healthy Canadian people.
One last word I would like to say in connection with all these things. We believe, as others in this house believe with us, that the Canadian people must remain free-and they must remain free not only politically but economically. I have been greatly disturbed

The Address-Mr. Low
by stories that have been coming to me from our great sister democracy to the south about the manner in which individual freedom of thought and speech in that country have been crushed. Only a day or two ago, last Friday or Saturday, to be exact, I read in the New York Times a story to the effect that already books that have been in our hands for years and years are being banned. For example, in the city of Indianapolis, the Republican member of Indiana's textbook commission said that the story of Robin Hood and all information about the Quaker religion should be removed from schoolbooks because they tended to support communism. He went on to say:
There is a communist directive in education now to stress the story of Robin Hood . . . They want to stress it because he robbed the rich and gave it to the poor. That's the communist line.
The Republican representative on the same committee said:
Quakers don't believe in fighting wars.
Nor do other Christians, may I add. Sometimes we have to fight them, but we do not believe in fighting wars.
All the men they can get to believe that they don't need to go to war, the better off the communists are. It's the same as their crusade for peace-everybody lay down his arms and they'll take over.
So, ban the Quakers.
It reminds me of, and I will conclude with, this little story which I heard the other day. It was told by that teller of good stories in my own province-and they are usually quite apropos-the present premier, Hon. T. C. Douglas. He was speaking with me in Saskatoon the other day and to illustrate what is happening in the United States he told this story. The other day a jack rabbit came running across the United States boundary up into Canada. When it got a little way up into Saskatchewan it was stopped by a group of other animals and jack rabbits who said, "Say, what's your hurry?" "Oh," said the jack rabbit, "did you not hear the news? The order has gone out today to shoot all the camels in the United States." "Well", said his fellow jack rabbits, "you are not a camel." "No," he said, "but how on earth would I prove that to Senator McCarthy?"


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, before I begin the remarks which I wish to make about the various matters that are contained in His Excellency's address there are some very pleasant tasks that 1 would like to perform.
In the first place, I should like to join with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew)
in congratulating the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on the very great win he and his party were able to make in the recent elections, and upon having achieved once more the position of Prime Minister in this country. Although he did win, and with a big majority, I can say quite safely for all my colleagues in this house that we bear toward the Prime Minister nothing but good will. We extend to him our felicitations and hopes that the years will be kind to him; and I give him the promise that when he brings into this house measures that are in the best interests of this country he will get my support.
Another thing I should like to do at this time is express my sincere congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply. I was keenly interested in the speeches made by those young men. I thought they were excellent addresses, and I believe that the bursts of applause with which those speeches were greeted at various stages were well earned. We shall look for great things from those young men in the years to come.
I should also like to join with others in expressing welcome to the four lady members who have been elected to this house. I am not going to say too much on that because I have heard men talk themselves into trouble over such things. I am certain, however, that those hon. members will be heard from in this house, undoubtedly to very good effect.
Canada was greatly privileged and honoured to have the President of the United States in this country on a visit during the last two days of the past week. We in Canada's parliament were, I believe, signally honoured in having the President address us in this chamber. I thought his speech was straight to the point, truly complimentary of our country and its people, and reassuring in these dangerous days. Canada is fortunate in having friends like President Eisenhower and warmhearted, peace-loving, friendly people like our neighbours just across the border to the south. I believe the United States is especially fortunate at this time in having a president in whom the spiritual, mental, moral, physical and emotional elements are so well balanced. To my mind, a feature of the address of the President on Saturday was the magnificent interpolation in which this remarkably humble but great man reminded us of the necessity of developing a strong faith as the surest way of finding our way through the dark fears and confusions of this time and the times ahead. I feel that I was especially privileged in being able to hear the President in this chamber.

The Address-Mr. Low
To turn now to the speech from the throne, in the fifth paragraph of his address His Excellency said:
We have every reason for satisfaction that through the use for the first time of collective police action the objective of the United Nations in Korea has been substantially achieved.
I am sure thinking people everywhere sincerely wish that statement were true, Mr. Speaker. It is true that through collective action the United Nations have halted aggression, and we are extremely thankful that that is a fact. But the present position of compromise and stalemate in Korea is far from the objective that was set by the United Nations in 1950. At that time, by resolution, they set as their objective nothing less than the unification of all Korea. I have wondered a number of times what has happened to that objective.
I would remind hon. members of this house that the history of the past twenty years and more has been one long series of compromises with communism everywhere, as a consequence of which that evil doctrine and its dynamic supporters have become the number one threat to the security and liberties of free men over the whole earth. There have been numerous critical times when the advance of this evil thing, communism, could easily have been stopped by courageous and decisive action. But it appears that there were too many perfidious men in high places in the free countries, and too many others who chose to remain blind to what was going on around them. Consequently no really effective counter-measures have ever been taken to halt the spread of communism. Lately, of course, we have heard a great deal of talk, some of it halfhearted, about the "containment" of communism; but that has only been of late years while the western nations were very busy trying to build a strong wall around the castle to keep out the marauding giant while he roamed almost unhampered without.
We do join with His Excellency and the government in earnestly and prayerfully hoping that a political conference will ultimately succeed in restoring peace in Korea. There are some of us, too, who earnestly pray that the government will become much more realistic in dealing with this hateful menace, communism, wherever it has the authority to do so. There are times, of course, as we realize, when it is necessary to compromise, and perhaps some rare occasions when it is necessary to appease. But our experience over the years since 1917 should have taught us that appeasement gets no one anywhere with communists or communism. Neither does pussyfooting of any kind.

I was attracted to an editorial which appeared not so long ago-as a matter of fact it was on October 24-in. the Ensign, which is published in the city of Montreal. The editorial is headed "A Strange Welcome", and I draw this to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) for his investigation. This is how the short editorial runs:
Today in Canada there are thousands of future Canadians anxiously awaiting the day when they can fully partake of the privilege of the protection of Canadian citizenship.
They have come often from homelands in which they have left soul-searing experiences of communist cruelty and Godless persecution. They look back upon the communist regimes which have murdered their nearest kin and hold captive those others still in their clutches.
They know, as we know, the efforts being made in our own country by representatives of these terror regimes, whether in recently occupied countries or in Bussia itself, to extend their fearsome influence upon these refugees by some of the most refined forms of blackmail, through holding relatives as hostages or by asserting jurisdiction over former "nationals" of Bed occupied territories.
To tell these unfortunate people, whether Poles or Hungarians, Czechs or Bussians, Ukrainians or Balts that, even here, they are still under the jurisdiction of the representatives of communist governments, is to drive terror into their souls and to expose them to dangerous coercions.
For that reason it is as surprising, as it is shocking, to learn that that is precisely what the passport department of the Department of External Affairs is still doing.
Many of them need identification papers, having abjured their red-travestied nationality. We have letters in our possession, written from Ottawa by the passport department stating for example "I regret that the issuance of a certificate of identity must be withheld until I receive refusal from the USSB embassy on the renewal of the present passport". Why should the USSB embassy refuse an opportunity of continuing its influence over refugees being pushed into its arms by those to whom they come to escape this terrifying experience?
Why should some of our officials help the soviet representatives in our midst to maintain this dangerous dependence of refugees on amply-proven centres of subversion? If the dictates of humanitv toward the refugee are not convincing enough, the dictates of prudence with regard to the safety of our own country should suffice.


Mr. Pearson:: Mr. Speaker, I dislike interrupting the hon. gentleman but probably he will let me say at once that that particular letter which he has quoted does not represent the policy of the department in this matter, and was issued in error.


Solon Earl Low: I thank the minister very much. I am indeed glad that is so. I was extremely anxious when I saw that editorial, particularly when I obtained copies of the particular letters that were quoted in the editorial. It was the case, I think, of a lady by the name of Golokolosova. I am happy to have the assurance of the Secretary of State for

The Address-Mr. Low
External Affairs that that does not represent the policy of the department. I want to say right here that I was not in any way criticizing the officers in the passport department. I have always found them to be most efficient in their conduct of the business of that department, and to be very helpful at all times. I was quite sure that if this had been done, as suggested in the editorial, it was because of policy or mistake, as has been shown, rather than of their own volition.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that most members of the house will welcome the statement in His Excellency's address that we will be asked to approve further assistance for relief and rehabilitation, for technical assistance and for continued participation in the Colombo plan. At the present time Canada could well afford much more substantial contributions for all these purposes than we made last year and the year before. As has already been pointed out in the house this afternoon, we have tremendous surpluses of food materials piled up in all parts of Canada. In some cases those surpluses have become a real hazard to our basic producers. They have been used as an excuse to depress prices to our farmers, fishermen and fruit growers. And yet, while we are wondering how to get the bountiful harvests of this year under cover for safety, there are millions of human beings in other and less favoured parts of the world who are starving or who are fighting a losing battle against poverty and ignorance.
The United States faces a problem similar to ours and perhaps somewhat worse than ours. Under their prices support plan, the government there has come into possession of $34 billion worth of food. Their storage facilities are taxed to the limit. Much of the produce they have is perishable, and much is spoiling. Last June President Eisenhower asked congress to provide him with legislative authority to give away hundreds of millions of dollars worth of these surplus foods to needy peoples in other lands. The President at that time indicated that he believed it was foolish to let food rot in federal warehouses while there are famines across the sea. He evidently feels that the surpluses which have become a political liability in the United States can be a diplomatic asset abroad. He feels, too, that real efforts should be made to distribute these surpluses in every part of the world.
Congress has given the President authority to dispose of vast quantities of these surpluses in a manner that is calculated to win friends for the western world. I was pleased to see the United States take the action which they did take. I was especially well pleased
to note that the President indicated he was prepared to sell surplus foods to other countries who wanted to buy them, and that he would accept their currencies in payment if that was the only means of clearing their trade deficits with the United States. Some of us in the house have been urging this government to loosen up on their rigid and indefensible trade policy and do a similar thing.
May I interpolate that it would have been refreshing in 1945, while the Bretton Woods debate was under way, if we had heard the leader of the C.C.F. make the suggestions he made this afternoon. Some of us did so because we realized what Bretton Woods was going to do to Canada. The President of the United States, however, has taken the initiative where Canada long ago should have been in the lead. I am sure our country would have been in a much better position today if soon after the war we had agreed to accept sterling in settlement of Great Britain's deficits with us. At least we would have had a far more secure market for our food materials than we now have, and in place of absolutely no food contracts with Britain, as is the situation at present, we doubtless would be sending large quantities of agricultural products to that country as well as to other parts of the commonwealth and areas that do accept sterling.
Out of the huge wheat carryovers from other years and from the bountiful harvest of 1953 we could, as I said before, well afford to send increased aid to less fortunate peoples and underdeveloped countries. Such gifts to hungry people would not only relieve human suffering; they would start shipments moving which would relieve the storage problem in Canada and make possible early deliveries and payments to farmers, which would in turn ease the serious credit situation that has been a great worry to the retail merchants of the country.
These gifts from our surplus food piles I suggest could be financed under the terms of the Finance Act of 1914 without imposing heavier taxation upon the Canadian people. There have been many thinkers in our country who have asked why the government should not issue to needy people right here in Canada tickets of claim against some of these food surpluses so as to distribute as much of them as possible amongst our own people. I am one of those who think that idea is entirely sound and feasible. That is exactly what Social Credit does propose and has been proposing for years.
I notice that the government is going to bring in a bill to amend the Bank Act to provide authority for the chartered banks to
60	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Low make housing loans on mortgages as security. That, it seems to me, is evidence that the government realizes there is a certain degree of deflation in Canada. I do not know of any other possible reason why this particular procedure should have been adopted. I support the idea, of course, of making more mortgage money available for the building of homes for our increasing population. At the same time I am perfectly sure that if the Finance Act of 1914 were used to finance shipments of foods to underdeveloped countries, as I have suggested, the effect would be to help restore the balance of purchasing power with production, which in itself would doubtless result in increasing the amount of money available for housing and would relieve that situation within a reasonable time.
It must be a source of great satisfaction to every true Canadian, as it was to me, to note the remarkable development that is taking place in our great country today. There is no doubt that Canada is in the midst of a remarkable development, and I would not at any time try to minimize it; but we in this group do try to envisage what our country could be if really sound principles of finance, taxation and trade were adopted and followed by the government. Our country and its economy could be a beacon, a shining light to all the world; but we still have within our borders many thousands of human beings who are forced to exist at or below the borderline of poverty at a time when our storehouses are bulging with production for which we have no ready market at all.
As long as there is left one single vestige of injustice or of insecurity or of special privilege, there is ample justification for the existence and activities of movements like the one which I have the honour to lead in this country. We have no party machine, and consequently we are not forced to follow the spoils system with its patronage and its denial in the government of the will of the people.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, His Excellency's
speech declares that Canada enjoys general prosperity. Although that is so, there are some sectors, it is admitted, which have been faced with difficulties. I wish to say that some parts of Canada of which I have knowledge are not receiving their just share of the development that is taking place. The maritimes have, in the past, been robbed of a fair share of industrialization; and my


own country, the Peace river country, cannot possibly enjoy anything like its potential development because that development is blocked by the lack of railway facilities. For 30 years now it has been known that the Peace river country could not enjoy equal opportunities with other parts of Canada, such as in the matter of costs of production, marketing, industrialization and so on, unless a rail outlet to the Pacific coast were provided and the necessity of the present long backhaul of 350 miles were abolished.
During those 30 years a Pacific coast outlet for the great Peace river country has been promised by all political parties. In fact it has been made a political football during election after election. It seems to me it is time to stop playing with the situation. At this time I call upon the federal government to take the lead in early action that will result in a rail link with the Pacific coast for the Peace river bloc of Alberta and British Columbia. Since the Northern Alberta railway which at present runs from Edmonton into the area enjoys a monopoly and is an interprovincial railway which comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government it seems quite clear that the federal government is the authority that must take action if a rail link to the west coast is to be provided.
It seems clear too, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Pacific Railway is not at all interested in supporting the extension of the Northern Alberta Railways line to the west coast so the situation remains stalemated. In my opinion the only way the great northern empire of Peace river can develop properly and play its full share in the Canadian economy is to have the stalemate ended by the only government that has the authority to end it, that is this government. The Peace river country has a real and important part to play in making Canada the great nation she can become. I shall probably have more to say about this matter at another time, but let me just conclude this part of my address by stating that His Excellency's address does recognize the strategic importance of that great northern part of Canada. His speech made some proposals for bringing about development in other sections, and I say that these same propositions ought to hold for the Peace river area.
The farmers of our country, Mr. Speaker, and agriculturists generally are facing a real crisis. The carryover of grain from previous years, together with a bumper harvest this year, have taxed storage facilities throughout the whole country away beyond their capacity. Great quantities of good food are piled on the ground, exposed to the elements, in every part of Canada. It is bound to

deteriorate unless some very quick action is taken to get it under cover. There is a good deal of it that will have to be conditioned in elevators that have drying facilities. Every day I receive letters from my part of the country telling about the distress caused the farmers in that part of the country, since they are not able to deliver their grain because the elevators are full and no shipments are being made from the elevators at the head of the lakes. Farmers generally are not able to market enough of their produce to pay their harvesting costs, let alone their grocery bills or supply and repair bills which have been accumulating during the year.
As a consequence the retail merchants have been carrying a tremendous amount of credit on their books to help the farmers. I am advised by good authority that many of the retail merchants are in a precarious position today as a result of the extreme amount of credit they have had to carry. Many of them are fearful that they will have to fold up or will crack under the strain unless some relief is afforded them. It is too bad these unsecured creditors, the retail merchants, have to be subjected to so much strain every time a crisis arises in our economy, but that is what happens.
The farmers of the country are asking, and they are justified in so doing, that some plan be worked out whereby they can receive payment for grain properly stored on the farm. So far as I can see little or nothing is being done along these lines by the government. Today I listened to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) assure the house that the matter is under continuous study. I am expressing the hope tonight that something will be worked out very soon, because the farmers are certainly in need. It seems to me that if we had any appreciation at all of the situation that is presently facing our farmers; if we realized that without a prosperous agriculture there can be no continued prosperity in Canada, we would get busy and provide some means by which the farmers could realize substantially on their crops, thus relieving the conditions of distress under which many thousands of them are now labouring.
I am convinced that this government has been very largely responsible for the fact that we have accumulated vast surpluses of food materials in this country during a time when millions of people in other lands were hungry and in need. There has been a potential market for every pound of food that Canada has produced, and every effort should have been made over the years to get that food into the stomachs of the hungry and
The Address-Mr. Low needy people wherever they happened to be. Certainly there is no excuse whatever for anyone in Canada having too little food. Any government worthy of the name "enlightened" or "Christian" would see to it that our home market at least was properly supplied so there would be no vestige of human suffering or want in our own land.
Of course, our first responsibility is to our own people; that is admitted. If we looked after our own people as they deserve to be looked after, many of the so-called surpluses would disappear overnight. It takes only a small increase in per capita consumption to make many surpluses that appear quite formidable disappear in a short time. This government's trading policies have contributed to the present crisis that faces agriculture in Canada. By getting into the Bretton Woods agreement in 1945 and adhering rigidly to it since that time, the government has seriously limited trade with other countries, especially in food materials. I know they can produce figures to show that the volume of our trade was never greater. That is probably correct; but in this, as in so many other things, it is not so much what the situation is as what it might be if we were following different policies.
Two or three years ago the world food and agriculture organization called upon the farmers of the world to go all out in their productive efforts, because that organization said an over-all increase of no less than 5 per cent in food production would be necessary if the hungry people of the world were to be fed at just the minimum level for health and well-being.
The farmers responded nobly to that appeal. But when the food was produced it backed up in the American economy into huge surpluses, and people of many lands went on starving. Moreover, increased production has been used as an excuse for depressing agricultural prices, as a consequence of which farmers have suffered a very serious decline in farm income during the last year.
When the farmers appealed to the government for some assistance in finding a solution to their problem, the only answer they got was, "Well, you are producing too much; cut back your production as a means of holding up your prices". That answer is not good enough in times like these, when communism is all too ready to fatten on the discontent and1 misery of people everywhere. An answer like this to the farmers indicates a total bankruptcy of ideas about how to handle the situation that faces us. One would expect a different answer. One might be reasonable in expecting something really worth while from

The Address-Mr. Low the government at this time, because it has not been many weeks since we heard', up and down the country, that they had answers for everything. I have not seen those answers in respect of some things. They should be producing them.
There is one further point I should like to make in this connection. The government makes the claim that they have enjoyed a good and increasing volume of trade everywhere since the close of the war. I admit that may be so; but there is another side to this case about which I should like to say just a few words at this time.
After the war the Canadian government ought to have gone all out in its efforts to promote to the utmost all trade with other nations on any reasonable basis that could be devised, as a means of holding our traditional markets and increasing the demands for our food products. However, this government sat complacently by, thinking that all was well. In fact we heard them say in this very House of Commons that all was well. They did nothing to promote the kind of trading relationships that were possible and logical under the circumstances existing in those post-war days.
Certainly we were selling our agricultural products, but we must give the credit for that to the taxpayers of the United States who sacrificed many hundreds of millions of dollars of their personal incomes in order that Canadian food could find its way into hungry mouths overseas.
From April 3, 1948, through March 30, 1953, that is through five fiscal years, the United States Marshall plan and their mutual security aid program made offshore purchases from Canada with United States dollars to a grand total of $1,539,063,000. Not one dollar's worth of these goods went to the United States itself. The great bulk of it went to European countries, and smaller amounts to Asiatic countries. What was purchased by the United States from us during those five years, to be sent as gifts to help other countries to recover from the effects of the war, made up 32%oo per cent of Canada's total domestic exports; so we could say that approximately one-third of all of Canada's export trade from April 3, 1948, to March 30, 1953, was financed by United States dollars contributed by the taxpayers of that country to help the countries of Europe and Asia to get back on their feet.
Of the total of $1,539,063,000 of Marshall plan and mutual security aid purchases in Canada, $604,540,000 represented purchases of agricultural commodities. It is easy to understand why we were selling our agricultural products during that period of time.
[Mr. Low.l
It was not because we went out after markets, or made any effort at all to hold our traditional markets.
I am sure these figures are correct, because I have checked them carefully in a publication from the dominion bureau of statistics entitled "Trade of Canada-Domestic Exports", as well as in mutual security agency reports on paid shipments data as of April 30, 1953. These documents I have in my possession and, as I say, I have checked the figures carefully. I am sure the people of Canada will be keenly interested in those figures, especially in the light of the claim that is made by this government that their policies were responsible for the volume of trade that Canada has enjoyed since the end of the war. That is not borne out by the facts.
However, more than a year ago the United States government began to reduce mutual security aid and Marshall aid, and therefore purchases of agricultural products in Canada with United States dollars have declined substantially. This has been one of the contributing factors to the accumulation of great surpluses of food products in our country, as well as the decline in farm prices, which has hit the farmers very hard.
Surely it must have been clear to the government of Canada that Marshall aid would not go on forever, and that it would be necessary in the years while we were enjoying this United States generosity to promote our own trade relationships with the various countries of Europe and Asia, so that with the cessation of Marshall aid, our agriculturists and other primary producers could still be ensured of a continuing and lucrative market for their production.
We realize all too well how important trade is to Canada. We have always advocated- and when I say "we" I speak of the group I have the honour to lead-the very utmost in mutually satisfactory trade with all other nations of the world. We have not supported those trade and financial policies of this government that have severely limited our trade. We have fought them, and fought them with the best of intentions. We are perfectly sure that if, in the post-war period, Canada had indicated to Britain and the European countries that we would be prepared to accept sterling in settlement of their trade balances with us, much or most of these food surpluses that are now causing us such difficulty throughout our own country would now be stored in the ample storage space to be found in many countries of the world who need and want our food production. I would rather see a lot of it stored there than have

it spilled over the ground and exposed to the elements in this country.
We will gladly support every effort that is made by this government to remove barriers and restrictions on trade. Indeed, we urge the government to do their utmost to make trade with all other parts of the world as free as is possible, while still retaining sufficient economic defences to ensure the future wellbeing of our economy. Above all, because of the widespread distress amongst the farmers of this country today, we urge the government to do everything possible to get shipments of grain moving again so our farmers can deliver their produce and get paid for it.
When we talk about trade and marketing our Canadian production in other countries of the world, we are often met with the assertion that one of the reasons we have not a single food contract with Britain today is that our prices are too high. We are told from many quarters that Canadians have priced themselves out of many markets of the world. However that may be, it is a fact that we labour in this country under many natural disadvantages of climate, geography and transportation. These should be enough without adding government-created disadvantages. We in this corner are convinced that the government of Canada today should be placing real emphasis on ways and means of lowering the cost of production in Canada with a view to making it possible for our basic producers, especially, to compete successfully for the world's markets. This government has done nothing whatever since it came into office in 1935 to deal with this serious problem of the mounting costs of production in our country. As a matter of fact I think it can be shown that, perhaps unconsciously, this government has done many things that have increased the cost of production; and I am referring not only to agricultural production, but to other kinds as well.
We had during the last session an example of something the government could have dealt with very easily, had it been in the right mind to do so. We discussed here a resolution calling for the removal of the sales tax that is charged on purchases of road machinery and building supplies by municipal governments, and purchases of school buses by school districts. This foolish, and I think senseless, practice simply makes the municipalities and school districts of Canada tax collectors for the federal government. And these taxes that have to be paid by the farmers in the municipal districts do add to the cost of production, and of course render it more difficult for them to compete for the markets that exist. In addition to this, the failure of the government to provide some
The Address-Mr. Low relief from the heavy corporation tax which is charged against utility companies has had the effect of making railways, telephone companies and electric power companies tax collectors for the federal government, and they sit here and hide behind it. The people do not realize what is happening.
The great burden of these utilities corporation taxes falls upon the basic producers in the country in the form of increased freight rates, which naturally has the effect of inflating production costs and making it much more difficult for our farmers and other primary producers to compete for markets in other parts of the world.
Farm machinery prices have advanced away out of all reason. Some inquiries have been made into this particular situation, but so far nothing like a comprehensive inquiry has ever been made into the cost of production over-all in Canada, particularly of primary products. We think it is time to do something about it, and therefore we very seriously and strongly advocate the setting up of a commission to study the cost of production, farm and basic as well as industrial, and to make recommendations as to ways in which these costs can be brought down in order to put our Canadian producers into a more favourable competitive position.
Such a survey could be of real value from more than one point of view. I suggest it could be used as a basis for the establishment of a program of support prices in Canada for agriculture. I am sure every thinking and serious Canadian realizes that something has to be done to ensure the stability of agriculture and the prosperity of our farmers and other producers.
I would draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that practically every other section of our Canadian industry is protected in one way or another. Industry is protected by tariffs, customs duties and price settings; labour is protected by union organization and labour legislation as well as federal and provincial legislation, setting minimum wage scales, retirement plans and so forth. Only the farmer is left to struggle on alone at the mercy of every other section of society.
We strongly advocate the adoption of some plan or policy that will guarantee to the farmer his fair share of the national income. That, I think, is the greatest problem we face in our economy, and something has to be done about it. I suggest also that it is the greatest problem faced by the United States economy. We can never make claim to justice and fairness to all our people as long as we allow the farmers, who make up more than 20 per cent of the population of our

The Address-Mr. Low country, to receive only about 10 per cent of the national income, as they did last year. That is not just; it is not fair, and we cannot have a prosperous agriculture under such circumstances.
We were happy to read in His Excellency's address that this government is working out co-ordinated plans with the provinces for rehabilitation of and assistance to disabled persons in Canada. This is a matter that for a long time has needed attention. Many of us in this house have pressed consistently over the years for federal help to our disabled unemployables. I congratulate the government-I suppose the particular minister involved is the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin)-on taking action now and making provision for disability pensions. My province and perhaps one or two others have already provided pensions for disabled persons. In the case of Alberta I think it is $40 a month, which is on a level with universal old age pensions.
Now, while we rejoice that federal aid to disabled unemployables is going to be provided, we warn the government that some of the provinces are likely to find it most difficult, if not impossible, to raise the share of the cost which it appears they will be saddled with in providing those pensions. This government will have to make more generous financial arrangements with the provinces, on a permanent basis, either under the tax transfer agreements or in some other way, if the provinces as a whole are to be able to discharge the growing responsibilities placed upon them in connection with property and civil rights and human welfare within their borders.
His Excellency's address reminds us that this is the year for the decennial revision of the Bank Act and the extension of the bank charters. We in this comer are very much interested in this matter, as we always have been. We shall have recommendations to make when the Bank Act is sent to the banking and commerce committee for study, as was indicated by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) today.
We are not critical of the chartered banks of Canada. We think they have done a good job of financial production, which of course has been their major function. They have done and are doing an excellent job in these things they were set up to do. However, we are convinced that the problem of production has been pretty well solved. In fact, during the past few years the powers that be have placed relatively too much emphasis on production and not enough on the means of consumption. As a result we often face


unsaleable surpluses and unemployment conditions that are tragic to many of our people.
We believe that now is the time to make the effort to find and adopt some way of adjusting purchasing power, first to available goods and gradually to productive capacity, and then maintaining it there. It is time to give earnest thought to means by which effective purchasing power in the pockets of our people can keep pace with the productive power of our economy, means by which their fluctuations can be geared to each other so that increased production will surely carry with it sufficiently increased purchasing power so that what people have been able to produce they will also be able to buy.
If we can succeed in doing that, and I am convinced we can, every part of our Canadian society will benefit, including the chartered banks. Under such new circumstances-and they would be new-Canada would not only help herself but much of the rest of the world besides. If Canada can offer uninterrupted work and interesting careers to all her employable manpower and supply a continuous stream of goods of the kind we are technically able to produce in such large volume, and accomplish these things without infringing in the least upon the system of free enterprise, but rather make it more free, then this nation will set an example for the rest of the world. Under such conditions there will be little or no scope or opportunity for malcontents and their propaganda. In this way one of the important steps toward world peace will have been taken, and the coming atomic age will be one of plenty and satisfaction rather than one of destruction.
Whatever proposals we may make in the banking and commerce committee for revision of the Bank Act will be made with deep sincerity and with the freedom, security and best interests of our nation and people at heart. We trust that our proposals will be heard and received with the same kind of patience and respect that our Prime Minister asks for from the President and the government of the United States when Canadian views do not fully coincide with the United States ideas.
(Translation):


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, may I first offer you my congratulations upon your appointment as Speaker of this august assembly. Undoubtedly your courtesy, your technical knowledge of the rules of the house, your sense of equity and fairness, made you worthy of that position long ago. On behalf of all members of this house, I believe that I can sincerely say that your appointment was a great joy to all of

us and that all the laudatory remarks written about you in newspapers since your appointment have been heartily applauded by members of the house. Being a French Canadian, I am happy that once again the tradition of alternating between an English-speaking Speaker and a French-speaking Speaker has been followed. While we are on this subject, I wonder if it would not be appropriate to suggest that when the time comes to choose a successor to the present governor general the same rule be applied and that a French Canadian be appointed Governor General of Canada to succeed the present incumbent. I would even suggest that the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) be designated as a possible successor.
I wish to congratulate quite sincerely the mover (Mr. Hollingworth) and the seconder (Mr. Villeneuve) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I do not approve of everything they have said, but I heartily applaud' the manner in which they have delivered their speeches.
According to tradition, the debate on the address enables members to set .forth the needs of their constituency. As a matter of fact, the rules have been rather broad in connection with that debate and every member is free to vie with others in praising his constituents and making their needs known. Tonight, I would like to avail myself of that opportunity and say something about my constituency.
Three Rivers is the third largest city of the province of Quebec; it is a paper-making centre known the world over; but it is primarily a seaport. Besides, Three Rivers is, together with the seaport of Vancouver, particularly remarkable in that they are the only two ports under the authority of the national harbours board which have succeeded during the past years in making both ends meet and in bringing revenue to the board. Unfortunately, the board refused to acknowledge this success inasmuch as the port of Three Rivers is concerned and Three Rivers has always been treated niggardly but it is a good thing that lately the national harbours board came to the decision to construct a shed at a cost of approximately $350,000, which will be a great improvement. I hope that that is only a beginning and that the necessary wharves will be constructed, and that the representations of the Three Rivers 83276-5
The Address-Mr. Balcer city council about the ferry boat wharves will be taken into serious consideration. At present, we are experiencing a lot of trouble with the ferry between Three Rivers and Ste. Angele. The system is so inadequate that one has to wait from three to four hours before being able to make the trip. And for this reason the national harbours board should improve the wharf at Three Rivers so that this city may become a modern port such as its geographical location would call for.
We have to face a large number of problems, but the number one problem undoubtedly is the joining of the north and south shores, by means of a bridge between Three Rivers and Ste. Angele in the county of Nicolet. This would help not only the city of Three Rivers, but all the cities in the district which are hampered by the lack of communications between the two shores. As a matter of fact, the whole central part of the province suffers from this state of affairs. It finds itself, because of that fact, in a state of economic inferiority. In any event the point is that we should thus join two economic regions which are perfectly complementary. We have, on the one hand, the St. Maurice valley, with the cities and towns of Three Rivers, Shawinigan, Cap de la Madeleine, Grand-Mere, all busy little towns with a varied production and depending to a large extent on the south shore. On the other hand, on the south shore we find Nicolet, Victoriaville, Drummondville, Thetford Mines, Asbestos, Sherbrooke, which also depend upon this crossing over the St. Lawrence. That is why I ask the federal government to do its share, for it is a large-scale national undertaking.
The federal government collects a large proportion of the taxes. At the present time, it collects 77 per cent of the taxes so that there remains very little for the provinces and municipalities. The latter are in a precarious position, for real estate in the small towns cannot be taxed any more than it is now. Consequently, cities and municipalities hesitate before embarking upon large-scale projects.
Of course, the federal government cannot be asked to take charge of all public works in every municipality of a given province, but when it is a case of works benefiting a whole district, of works benefiting a whole province, as is the case now, I think that the federal

The Address-Mr. Balcer government should go ahead and help, if not build the bridge itself, at least do its share and help the municipalities concerned in order to settle this problem as early as possible.
We learned recently that the channel in the St. Lawrence would remain open the whole winter and that the Department of Transport intended to have three icebreakers do the work. Well, to my mind, it would be a worthwhile endeavour and the Department of Transport should tell us precisely what its intentions are in this regard. The news, such as given in the papers, seemed to imply that it would be merely a matter of keeping the river free from ice, but nothing was said about keeping navigation going during the whole winter. At any rate, the population of Three Rivers would be very happy if navigation was carried on twelve months a year. It seems to me that Three Rivers could become an important factor in the economic development of the country during the winter season, for today one of the main problems this country has to face is that of selling hundreds of millions of bushels of wheat, which our western farmers cannot market. I do think that the problem partly arises out of difficulties we are having in shipping this wheat out of the country. If the St. Lawrence river were opened to navigation the whole year round, harbours like Three Rivers, Quebec, Montreal and Sorel would be of great use to the other provinces, for they would help them to send abroad the wheat surplus they had this year and which will probably occur again during coming years.
The only people protesting on this account were the tomcod-fishermen. In the Three Rivers district, we have an entirely local product, which is the tomcod. It would be a real pity if tomcod fishing were to disappear forever. In any case, the country's interest should come first, and I trust the government will agree to compensate the tomcod fishermen, at least partially, for the serious losses they will suffer after the channel is opened.
When hearing me ask the government to build a bridge over the St. Lawrence, at Three Rivers, I imagine some followers of the government will say that as an opposition member who spent part of the summer criticizing the government for levying too heavy taxes it is somewhat inconsistent to come forward and ask for further expense.
The fact that the government is piling up each year surpluses amounting to many hundreds of millions and, in spite of the criticisms


voiced by various organizations and newspapers in the country about the high level of taxation, that it brings down a budget which in effect maintains and even increases the taxes, means that it is wallowing in wealth.
It will be advanced that the government applies those surpluses to the reduction of the national debt; the argument is rather weak because I deem it unfair to saddle one single generation with the burden of the full national debt. The reimbursement of the national debt should be distributed, fairly, over many generations and the present government has no right to collect more money than it needs for a reasonable administration of the business of the country.
I believe that the federal government must not be the only one to look after the development of the country and to undertake large scale public works. However, experience shows that the government rather frequently meddles into matters which are none of its business. But it can help by doing certain works in the district of Three Rivers as well as looking after the construction of a railroad on the north shore, which has become of vital importance.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, that part of Quebec, and more particularly in the north and in that part of the province all along the north shore, has known an extraordinary and unprecedented development. I am of the opinion that the government should also do something there by building a railroad that would help to develop that part of the province and the province as a whole, while encouraging industrialists, who are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in order to work, in an advantageous and rational way, the natural resources of Quebec. All those are works of national importance and the government should do its share.
I said a moment ago that municipalities are experiencing financial difficulties and that it was not easy for them to undertake a comprehensive program of public works. That is not the only field in which municipalities are experiencing difficulties. As a matter of fact, the financial situation of the municipalities is so precarious that they are forced to take steps to curb house building within their own limits.
There is nobody in this country who does not favour a vigorous housing policy and the announcement in the speech from the throne to the effect that the government

intended to improve the National Housing Act has been well received probably everywhere. Unfortunately, as long as our municipalities are in such a financial situation, they won't be able to take advantage of the proposed legislation for they are unable to find the means necessary to supply the municipal services which housing projects may require.
There are many associations or groups of businessmen who would like to undertake the building of multiple or single dwelling units but they are prevented from doing so because municipalities are unable to ensure proper services not having the means to levy funds for these purposes. This problem is extremely acute in Three Rivers, more so than anywhere else in this country.
As a matter of fact I should think that the families in Three Rivers are among the worst housed in this country. That is why I would like our whole fiscal system to be reviewed in order to allow municipalities the financial means to discharge their responsibilities to the benefit of their ratepayers. Is that not something to which every citizen of a democratic and prosperous country like ours is entitled?
The lamentable financial state of the municipalities is therefore evidence that a new conference is essential so that our federal fiscal system may be reviewed, and with an open mind, in order that each administrative body, either federal, provincial or municipal should be in a position to be master of its own destinies and in order that everyone be treated with justice and equity.
I sincerely believe that the Liberal government would make a serious mistake in interpreting its victory of last summer as an approval of its fiscal policy by the people of Quebec, for federal-provincial relations still remain an acute problem. All public organizations and bodies in the province of Quebec recognize that this matter should be settled once and for all, for the federal-provincial relations will not be settled by mere subsidies from the central government. These grants are contrary to the spirit which inspired the fathers of confederation and merely tend to make of Canada a centralizing country, that is to say a country having only one government.
Let us not forget that if the Quebec people have been enthusiastic about accepting confederation, it is because they thought that this federative pact would allow them to pursue their evolution as an ethnical unit, while at the same time remaining part of a whole. Each time the federal government 83276-5J
The Address-Mr. Balcer infringes upon provincial rights or tolerates the provinces remaining in a subservient position it deviates from the policy set by the fathers of confederation, and even if it follows it to the letter, it is unfaithful to its spirit.
Unfortunately, the speech from the throne says nothing about a federal-provincial conference, and we all know that the people of Quebec would like such a conference to be called, in order to allow the governments concerned to reach some kind of agreement. Each particular government must be able to collect the moneys which it needs for the conduct of its affairs, and I deem it to be anti-democratic when in a federal state one of the component parts is forced to come and beg regularly from the other part the necessary funds.
I think that the federal government departs from the principles of the constitution when it lays its hands on all sources of taxation, exhausts them and then meddles in fields of activity that are not its concern, even if it offers sums of money. There is a way to settle the matter once and for all. The provinces should have the authority to levy themselves the money they need; they would, in turn, give the municipalities their autonomy and, in this way, a certain balance would be possible. I am sure it would benefit our Canadian democracy.
The federal government has, no doubt, many fine gifts to offer, and is always ready to meddle in fields that do not concern it, tendering a few millions here and there. Nothing is easier than giving, and I am sure that the provincial government of Quebec would wish for nothing better than to give too.
I think that a government which has been elected by the taxpayers of the country should, before giving away anything to Tom, Dick, and Harry, make sure that it can do it.
The province of Quebec does not ask the federal government to go into bankruptcy in order to save the institutions of that province, far from it. It simply wishes that the federal government withdraw from the taxation fields where it does not belong and allow Quebec to collect the amounts it needs to enable it to distribute various grants to the universities and classical colleges of the province and to ensure the progress of the educational system.
Mr. Gerard Filion stated very well the opinion of the population of Quebec when he wrote in Le Devoir on November 4, 1953, the following comments:
Nobody is asking the federal government to go into bankruptcy for the sake of the provinces, the municipalities or the school boards. It is being asked however to desist from forcing into receivership the lower levels of administration. There is
68	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Balcer
after all a fact that Mr. Abbott win never be able to challenge. The provinces, the municipalities and the school boards are hard up for money while Ottawa is rolling in riches. The inferior levels of administration are deprived of the means of fulfilling the duties which under the constitution are theirs but Ottawa has enough money to intrude into some fields of action from which it is excluded by our constitution. That is an unescapable fact which nobody, not even Mr. Abbott, Mr. St. Laurent or any other federal minister, can deny.
Therefore it is very unfortunate that the federal Minister of Finance came to Montreal to rehash the same platitudes as a challenge to the Tremblay commission. He should have, at least, delayed for a few months such an untimely intervention.
Mr. Speaker, the holding of a federal-provincial conference is as imperative today as it was last year or two years ago. I remember very well-if I may go back a few years-that in 1949, on the opening of the first session of the 21st parliament, the present government was harbouring vastly different dispositions. At that time, the only things we heard of in the house were the repatriation of the constitution, a federal-provincial conference, the abolition of appeals do the privy council. I remember that the supporters of the government stated in September that the present Prime Minister would go down in Canadian history as the Prime Minister who repatriated confederation, and who settled once and for all the matter of federal and provincial jurisdiction.
There have been, it is true, a few conferences between the federal authorities and the provinces. There again, the atmosphere was quite pleasant. I remember having read that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) had stated at the last conference that it was a great stride toward a solution of the problem and that we could at last bring some measure of finality to the settlement of that serious problem. Unfortunately, there was no more talk about it. And at least for the past year the federal government has quietly sat back and taken an attitude of indifference. It is no longer interested in the matter and is quite satisfied to leave Quebec alone and not give the province what it is rightfully entitled to from the fiscal point of view.
I hope that during the present session, or at least in the not too distant future, the government will try to face the facts in order that we may finally see in Canada the matter settled in a definite way, so that provincial governments may be in a position to help their institutions as they should and so that municipalities may have sufficient funds to


undertake the necessary public works. I believe it is in the interest of Canada as a whole to undertake a further study of the matter. I hope we will be given the opportunity, during this year, to attend a new federal-provincial conference.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I note with regret that the speech from the throne did not mention health insurance. Here again we have legislation that should not be enacted without due consideration. This is legislation which cannot be implemented without a new federal-provincial agreement. This is again another example of the importance of good relations between the federal government and the provinces. I hope that we will have soon the opportunity of seeing something being done about that as well as about other matters.
Mr. Speaker, the Korean war has come to an end. The international situation may still be critical, it may still be advisable to keep the country on the alert, but we may rest assured that the people of this country as a whole are hoping for substantial tax reductions in a not so distant future. I feel that the people of Canada as a whole would also like the government to oarry out its contribution to the Colombo plan and co-operate to an even greater extent toward the economic rehabilitation of the Asiatic countries and other needy countries.
I hope that all this will come before we are asked again to vote millions for a new war which will settle nothing.
Mr. Speaker, I once more congratulate you on your promotion.
(Text):


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I rise early in this debate for three specific purposes; but before I enumerate them I should like first of all to congratulate you, sir, on your elevation to the position of first commoner of our nation. I would also congratulate your lovely wife on being the first lady of the land. In this twenty-second parliament of Canada I rejoice with those who have been returned, and I grieve for those who have been left at home. In the twenty-first parliament we had a fine group of people. However, the electorate at large cannot be depended upon at all times so far as their choice is concerned. If they could be, possibly I should not be here.
By and large, regardless of political differences, this parliament of Canada is possibly the greatest cross-section of our population extant today. With a potential four-year period of comradeship and debate I sincerely trust that we will add in great measure to

the economic welfare of the taxpayers of Canada and also add to the prestige of our nation through the impetus of excellent direction in foreign as well as in domestic affairs.
So now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the three points with which I wish to deal tonight. The first one is internal trade; the second, war veterans allowances; and the third, pensions for the blind.
At this time I want to say that our Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) deserves the thanks of the people of Canada for the magnificent way that in the past he has been able to deal with the natural products of our country. We are today in a most happy position, yet at the same time in a rather difficult position, in that we have a great surplus of many products. I am not anticipating the answer to the problem, but I do believe that with the concerted effort of our ministers and the members, regardless of politics, we will find a solution to the problem of our surplus products before the conclusion of this session. It would seem to me logical to state the success or failure of this session will depend largely upon our ability to meet the challenge that is staring us in the face in so far as these surplus products are concerned.
You will recall that during the last session the Minister of Trade and Commerce led a delegation to Central America with results that are, to say the least, encouraging. However, we do require a greater response than we have had up to the present time, not only from South America but from all the markets of the world. The situation with respect to marketing is one to which we must all give some serious thought.
Consequently, I believe this. I stated it in my campaign; the people of my riding endorsed it, and I am sure the public throughout the length and breadth of this country will more or less agree with it. I am setting down no recipe that must be followed. We have approximately fifteen million people in this country. By and large, they have considerable of that folding money. They are a ready market; they are a willing market, and they are a cash market. We do not have to extend I.O.U.'s to them. In the light of that situation, it would seem logical for us to establish a department of internal trade.
Some years ago we had such a department, but in the shuffle it has more or less lost its identity. When I mention this, I am not suggesting that the government should follow exactly what I say. We have in the cabinet able men, some of whom have more onerous
The Address-Mr. MacDougall responsibilities than others. I suggest that one of those who has less responsibility should have an extra portfolio, without additional indemnity; that would be the portfolio of internal trade. This afternoon I spoke to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) and stated that I was going to make this suggestion tonight. I suggested that he might be the man to handle the portfolio. He did not say he would like to do so, but I am sure if the government insisted, he would do it. We have a problem in the development and expansion of our internal trade, interpro-vincially and throughout the various areas within each province. I am quite sure that with a real spirit of co-operation behind such a move a great forward step could be taken toward the disposal of our surplus natural products.
I leave that suggestion with the government and hope they will take cognizance of it. Some months ago we passed an anticombines act. I do not think any act passed by this parliament, as it is originally drafted, is a perfect act. I do not think our anticombines legislation is perfect. Unquestionably there are some bugs in it. If there are bugs in it, then the minister responsible for the development of internal trade could act as a clearing-house for a freer exchange of marketable products between each and every province in Canada. I think that of itself would be a good thing. It might not accomplish everything we expect, but if we go a step farther than we have gone so far, then we can say we are progressing and that is something.
Some months ago we all had something to do with Bill No. 181 which, as you know, had as its purpose the advancement of the position of the recipients of war veterans allowances. I supported that bill in committee. Because the bill did not go sufficiently far, the Canadian Legion has sent a pamphlet to the government asking, that additional advancement with respect to war veterans allowances be made at our early convenience. With that sentiment, Mr. Speaker, I am in complete agreement. I might add also that the government, which needs no wiring for sound, recognizes now that the burnt-out pensioner has an economic problem that is well-nigh too burdensome for him to bear.
We have been fortunate, and I hope we shall continue to have a free exchange of individual and collective ideas with regard to our veterans legislation. In other words, in our legislative program and in our approach to the veterans problems, we have acted in concert. To the maximum possible we have
70	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. MacDougall cut out politics. Regardless of our political affiliations, I believe we have given to the veterans fair, impartial and non-political treatment; and I would hope that we might continue to do so.
Certainly the government might rate a bouquet because of the increase in disability pensions made two years ago across the board to the extent of 33J per cent. That was a magnificent step in aid of those who were recipients of those pensions. However we are now dealing with another division of pensions. The government of the United Kingdom, the government of the United States and that of Canada have for a long time recognized the category of those who, while not suffering war disability, have pre-aged.
Under Bill 181, provided they could qualify, these people were made the recipients of war veterans allowances at the age of 60, or ten years earlier than the age at which the universal old age pension should function. That was a step in the right direction.
We have a great number of these people on the Pacific coast. It is only natural that men and women in that category should come to the banana belt of Canada, and we see them flocking there year after year. They settle on small holdings which do not require strenuous work, where they can rest, and also produce much of the food required for themselves and their families. As the years have passed there has been an ever-increasing flow of these people to British Columbia. The result is that today in that province we have 23 per cent of the total number of recipients of war veterans pensions in Canada. In other words about 73 per cent are distributed throughout the other nine provinces.
As of September 30 we had in this category in Canada some 30,517, as well as 792 dependents, 10,197 widows and 114 orphans, making a grand total of 41,620, involving an annual liability of $26,640,756. This is the broad picture for the whole of Canada.
As of the same date the figures show that in British Columbia we had 7,447 recipients, 161 dependents, 1,747 widows and 3 orphans, making a total of 9,358, and involving an annual liability of $5,913,437. This does not include the recipients of war veterans allowances living in that area known as the Peace River bloc in British Columbia, as it is now constituted. At the moment that area is not mapped out.
This is a large number of people and, as I have pointed out, it represents about 26 per cent of the recipients of war veterans allowances. In the past these people have gone to the defence of their king, their queen and their country, on the land', on the sea and


in the air. It seems to me that, having previously decided that they were pre-aged by ten years, a further step than that in Bill 181 might now be taken.
I realize that this will involve certain amendments to the act. The British Columbia members who sat on the veterans affairs committee two years ago kept this question constantly under review. Had it not been for the coronation, I believe that by the end of the last session we might have been able to accomplish a forward step at that time.
However, it is never too late to make a beginning. Those who do not agree with me will say that we cannot afford to open the act so as to admit a great number who are now excluded. This may be so; but the fact remains that Liberalism is always on the march. If we are to be a virile force we must be prepared to meet challenges as they arise. I believe those challenges can be met by the government and members in opposition together, so we will have a continuing veterans affairs committee of the house to advise the government and parliament as to the situation in respect of the recipients of war veterans allowances.
The truth of the whole program is this, that there is not the same urge from the other provincial command's that is found in British Columbia, in which province are domiciled the 26 per cent to whom I have referred. Those of us from British Columbia look upon this step as one that should be taken now, not during the last session of this parliament. It is an immediate necessity. Time waits for no man. The people about whom I have spoken are, in -many instances, in dire need of additional assistance.
I suggest to the house through you, Mr. Speaker, that the sooner we are in a position unanimously to agree that this condition requires immediate remedy, the sooner that remedy will be applied. Despite the magnificent charter this government has made available to the veterans- of Canada, I would ask it to go the second mile and to see to it that in the future the recipients of war veterans allowances are given a better deal than they have had in the past.
These are good people; they have answered the call and have done their duty as they saw it. From the Atlantic to the Pacific, constantly since 1949, editorially and otherwise, the press of this country has advocated the adoption of legislation such as I now bring to the attention of the house. I believe we can -spend our money in no better way that in advancing their cause. There is no better way to do it than by improving their living standards now. Despite the impeding factors to opening

the act, let us bring down legislation that will conform to the Legion's request which was made to the people of Canada at their last annual meeting.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the third and last point upon which I wish to speak tonight, namely the blind. I believe the government has received recommendations from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, which represents that great body of people in Canada.


Mr. Brooks:: May I ask the hon. member a question before he leaves war veterans allowances? Is he aware that recently by regulation the government reduced the amount of casual earnings permitted the war veterans?


John Lorne MacDougall: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Within the last three months?


John Lorne MacDougall: Yes, I am aware of that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We should like to hear him say something about it.


John Lorne MacDougall: We will talk about that when we come to it. I have three topics I want to discuss tonight. I am aware of that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Perhaps the minister will tell us something about it.


John Lorne MacDougall: If any of you boys want to take the rostrum, rise in your places and say so.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You might give us all the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Can't you take it?


John Lorne MacDougall: With respect to the blind, as of September 30 we had in Canada 8,230. The federal share of liability was approximately $245,000 monthly. The total number of recipients in British Columbia, my province, was 493. The federal share of liability in that instance was approximately $14,600 monthly. How about cutting out a lot of that chit-chat?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Go on with your speech.


John Lorne MacDougall: If you want to carry on with your conversation go out behind the curtain.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should tell the hon. member that he should not refer to other hon. members except to address them in the names of their constituencies. He has the floor, and hon. members know of course that an hon. member who has the floor must not be interrupted without his consent.


John Lorne MacDougall: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. They have me tangled up and I do not know where I stopped. I believe I
The Address-Mr. MacDougall had concluded with the words that the federal liability for British Columbia's blind was approximately $14,600 monthly.
I believe the Canadian National Institute for the Blind has sent letters to all members of all parties respecting an increase for those who have to grope and feel their way through life rather than by vision. In my riding I have an East Indian who has been completely blind since he was eight years of age. I asked him whether he received the blind pension. He said: "No, my friend, I do not receive the blind pension, and I hope I shall never have to receive the blind pension." From the time that man started to work, approximately 35 years ago, to this day he has earned his living without sight. He is a brush and broom maker in Vancouver, and as long as God gives him strength to do that work he will never be a charge upon the blind pension.
Regardless of what part of Canada we represent and to what party we may belong, we should daily realize how fortunate we are that by the grace of God we are able to see our way through this mundane life. Surely it is not too much, and I am sure the taxpayers of Canada would welcome such a venture, to ask that those who are blind, from the ages of 21 to 69, should have their pension increased to $50 a month without a means test. It is true that on many occasions in life we have to be rebuffed before we recognize how fortunate life has been to us. I am sure I am expressing the sentiment and the collective thoughts of every hon. member when I say that the people of Canada will warmly welcome a gesture by this house with respect to the elimination of the means test for the blind and an increase in their pension from $40 to $50 a month.
I could not conclude these remarks respecting the blind without saying that the blind people of Canada are grateful. They are thankful that not only this government but the last parliament and the parliaments that preceded it brought into effect this legislation of which they are beneficiaries. They say thanks a thousand times. Surely in these circumstances we would be well advised to enact the legislation they have asked for and that I am sure we all consider they deserve. We should do that without fear,, without hesitation and without delay.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote these few verses of a brother of mine. They are not Shakespearean by any manner of means. When he wrote them he was an undergraduate in law in the United States. Later he survived a double mastoid and typhoid fever at the same time, and eventually helped rescue the famous lost
72	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny battalion of the United States army at Chateau Thierry. The battalion that was lost was under the command of an officer known in those days as "Go-to-Hell" Whittlesy -"Go-to-Hell" was the reply he gave to the enemy who asked for his surrender. It was my brother who led them to safety.
While my brother was recovering from this double mastoid he learned a great lesson by looking through the window and watching a blind man go to his daily task. He wrote this poem entitled "The Virtue of Blindness", and I quote:
When in the morning I awake, to entertain the day, My head, perchance, and bones do ache, and all the world seems gray.
Then of my daily tasks I fret, and little things annoy.
I feel the old world owes a debt, for stealing all my joy.
I am uncivil to my friends, their pleasant greetings scorning;
To justify my selfish ends, I blame it on the morning.
As just about to leave my room, and cheerless hearts behind
I spy, despite the gathered gloom, a man goes by, "he's blind".
Still to his work he trips along, a smile o'erspreads his face,
He sings a low and merry song, as with uncertain pace
He feels his way thro' the busy street, with uncomplaining mind,
While I, with eyes to guide my feet, see less than he who's blind.
He sees the light that shines within, the soul's illumination.
He sees the folly of the sin, to curse one's hapless station.
What tho' his feet in darkness grope, with cheerful heart and mind
He travels on in trusting hope, an optimist tho' blind.
Oh sore affliction, by whose hand the light that in those eyes
Was darkened by your stern command, pray tell me wherein lies
The faith to see in life's dark road, while groping there to find
The strength to bear the heavier load, that's borne by one who's blind.
But wanderer tho' your lot is sad, and tho' your feet are tiring
Perhaps 'twill make your heart more glad, to know you are inspiring
Those thankless men, who seeing fail, in life's long walk, to find
The unseen rays that light the vale, for men whom we call blind.


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this debate is perhaps the most important of any in which we will be taking part this session, because this is the first opportunity which private members have of bringing to the attention of the house and the government any matters which are in danger of being overlooked or neglected-and 

there appears to be a good field in that direction. It is an opportunity to rise and protest, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) did so vehemently this afternoon, about any action which is taken by the government and which we may feel is not in the public interest.
I would like the indulgence of the house for a brief period to raise a matter which has to do primarily but not exclusively with the constituency I represent. May I hasten to say that it affects a portion of the constituency of Churchill as well as a portion of the constituency of Portage-Neepawa.
The area which I have the honour to represent is normally one of the best farming areas in Manitoba, and I say that not in any boastful vein because the statistics bear me out. Unfortunately this year we had very unusual rainfalls and it is estimated that in the months of May and June we had fifteen inches of precipitation in that area. You can easily imagine what the conditions would be under those circumstances. As a result a great number of acres of our best land were not put to crop at all and a great part of what was seeded produced practically nothing. Consequently, there is real hardship in my constituency, in portions of the other constituencies I mentioned, and as well to a lesser extent in many other parts of the province.
I recall that two or three years ago there was a disaster in the southern part of my province. The parliament of that time dealt with the situation rather generously. We were, of course, very happy to see that happen; but I want to assure the house also that in the Dauphin area we have always responded to every call for assistance whether it was from Manitoba, Great Britain or the continent of Europe. Wherever disaster has struck the people of Dauphin and district have always responded very generously.
On this occasion I am putting this matter before parliament because we are attempting to obtain some assistance of an emergency nature. It appears that it will be up to this parliament to decide in what form that assistance shall be. I am particularly glad that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is in his seat tonight, because what I have to say has largely to do with his department. He is not altogether unaware of the problem, but I feel that it is a duty and a privilege of the member presenting a problem to lay it before the whole house.
I do not wish to merely cite opinions, but I would like to quote from two briefs presented to the government of the province of Manitoba in this connection. One brief was from a delegation representing about

twelve rural municipalities and some unorganized territory. That brief was presented to Premier Campbell of Manitoba and his cabinet, and here in part is what they had to say:
Almost two months of continuous rains prevented normal seeding operations from being carried out. It is estimated that only between 25 per cent and 30 per cent of intended seeding was actually done. Of this, much was so severely damaged by water that the crop will not be worth reaping. In some cases, no seeding whatever was possible, and in other cases seeding had to be done over again in the hope of getting some return from the summer-fallowed land.
Another feature of the losses sustained is the fact that much of the unseeded land could not even be summerfallowed, and much of the newly broken land could not be worked. This is a loss which will be carried over into 1954, and where noxious weeds poured out their seed, the losses will continue for several years more.
I want to refer now to another brief which was presented to the government of Manitoba by a delegation from the Manitoba farmers' union. They said in part:
We have stated previously in no uncertain terms that the flooding this year is much more serious than that experienced by the farmers of the Red River valley during the flood in 1950, at which time all farmers affected were able to put all or most of their crops in after the flood waters subsided. This year's unusually heavy rainfalls have made it impossible for many farmers to seed their land, and many of those that did get the opportunity to put some portions of their crops in have lost it anyway when flood waters inundated their land.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, to place on the record much more documentary evidence to show that the situation is really serious. I feel a bit resentful about the fact that whereas at the time of the Red river disaster a great deal of publicity was given to it right across Canada-and rightly so-in this case, for one reason or another, not much has appeared in the press to impress upon the public generally something of the nature of the seriousness of this flood.
As I pointed out, we presented our case to the provincial government of Manitoba and were advised that it may be necessary to have this situation declared a national emergency, in which case it would involve this parliament. If a move is made in that direction, I hope it will receive the support of all the members of this house, because it is something which could occur in any constituency in Canada; it has occurred before. It is going to take the co-operative efforts of both the provincial government and the federal government to be of some assistance.
I wish also to refer to another phase of this problem which is perhaps even more familiar to the western members, namely the operation of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
83276-6 '
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny There has been some talk to the effect that this act would be invoked to look after the situation which I have just described. It is true that to some extent the provisions of that act would be of some assistance to some farmers, but it is also quite safe to say that, because of the way in which the act is written, less than 10 per cent of the farmers who have lost their crops would receive benefits under it.
I might also point out that the minister of agriculture of the province of Manitoba-and I think his word could be taken as fairly authoritative in that province-himself has stated that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is going to be of little value in the situation such as we have it. I have a copy of the letter here, but I will not take up the time of the house to quote from it; it is available.
In any event, the minister of agriculture of that province has sent certain recommendations to the government of Canada, asking for certain amendments to the act. While those amendments do not cover the situation entirely, they would be of some assistance if they were carried through. His recommendations were sent on September 3, and I have a copy of them here. On my way to Ottawa last Friday I happened to meet the minister of agriculture of Manitoba at Winnipeg, and at that time he had not received any indication from this government as to what action would be taken on the proposed amendments.
I certainly hope that some amending of that act will take place, because not only is it not going to apply to any great extent in this particular situation, but the whole operation and history of that act, so far as Manitoba is concerned, has been such that the farmers are becoming extremely restive about its provisions.
Of course we realize-and we want to be fair about it-that we cannot expect to withdraw every year every dollar we put into the fund. We realize that it is there for the protection of all the farmers of the three prairie provinces, and we are quite satisfied so long as it is providing assistance to the farmers. But since 1939, when the act went into operation, it is a fact that the grain farmers of the province of Manitoba have contributed $11,903,000 under that act; that is almost $12,000,000. In that same period of time they have received only $3,394,000 in benefits. That is just a little better than 25 per cent of what they have put in.
As I have said, we do not expect to be always on a level with our contributions; but

The Address-Mr. Zaplitny certainly it can be seen that Manitoba is not getting a fair break under this act as it now stands when, over that period of time, we have received only approximately 25 per cent of our own money back-and none from the federal treasury at all-yet when we have a situation such as this, which is a real emergency, the act is practically of no value to us at all.
It is my opinion that the act needs amending, particularly as it applies to Manitoba, to such an extent as to make it applicable to a smaller unit for the purposes of qualification. There are also certain other amendments which I shall bring forward at the proper time, when the act is under discussion.
Having laid this matter before the house and the government, I should like to move on now to a more general consideration of agriculture in our country. I believe this parliament is going to hear a great deal about agriculture for several reasons. One is that food is a basic commodity. It is one of the essentials of life. Agriculture is still the very backbone of the economy of this country. It is unfortunate that the prospects for agriculture at the present time do not appear particularly bright. It is also true that food is not only the most important commodity in our own country, but it is our best ambassador of good will abroad. As was so ably put by my own leader earlier this evening, a great deal can be accomplished in the field of foreign relations by contributions to the welfare of people who require food and the other essentials of life. We perhaps are in a very happy position in Canada in that respect, in that we can have a far greater influence upon world affairs than we ourselves realize if we go about it intelligently.
I said that prospects do not look particularly bright. The population figures with regard to agriculture themselves bear out that statement. Without going into detail, I may say that I was actually a little bit shocked to find, on looking up the statistics, that from 1941 to 1951, a period of ten years, during which the population of Canada generally increased more rapidly than it had been increasing previously, the farm population actually dropped by 250,000; in other words there were a quarter of a million fewer people living on the land than there were ten years previously. That in itself is a serious situation. With all due respect to city dwellers and to those who represent the great urban districts it is my opinion-and I say this seriously-that there is no comparison whatever between life in the rural


parts of Canada and life in our congested cities.
I do not say that at all in depreciation of the advantages enjoyed or the progress made by the large urban centres; they have made their contribution. But as one who has lived all his life in the rural part of Manitoba, I fail to see why anyone lives in a city unless it is because there are other people there. It seems to me that the bleak commercialism itself with which we are surrounded in the urban centres should be enough to drive the people out on the land.
But there are reasons why the people are leaving the land, and I shall state some of them in a moment. In the province of Manitoba itself the situation is perhaps even worse. With respect to the twenty-year period from 1931 to 1951, a period in which the farm population should have increased substantially, we find that there were 48,000 fewer people living on the land in 1951 compared with 1931. There is of course more than one reason for the drift away from the farms into the cities, but the result is that we are not only losing the population from the land but we are also throwing out of balance the whole distribution of population in Canada. We were already out of balance back in 1931, or even in 1941. When one looks at the map of our great country and sees that Canada actually begins west of the great lakes, and finds that the great bulk of the population is concentrated in the two central provinces, it is not a healthy thing for Canada.
I believe it would be a wonderful thing for the country if there could be a reasonable distribution of population throughout Canada, with more emphasis on rural population. It would be a wonderful thing not only from the point of view of our economy and the point of view of national defence, but also because there is something about rural life which builds character and provides a healthy body and a healthy mind, which are often lacking in the great urban centres. I mentioned the fact that the trend is from the farm to the city. I hope those who have left the farms have found satisfaction in the cities, but I doubt it very much.
The reasons for the trend are quite apparent. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), the leader of the Social Credit group, the 20 per cent of the population represented by the farmers of the country receive only approximately 10 per cent of the national income. In such circumstances one is not surprised that young people from the farms should seek something different, a greater share of the national income to which they feel they are entitled, and no

The Address-Mr. Zaplitny
doubt are. At the present time we have a problem, and I am not going to go into it extensively tonight for obvious reasons. The time is getting late. However, I will deal with it eventually.
Quite a bit has been said about the grain marketing situation, and no doubt it is a serious matter. I was keenly interested in what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) had to say on the subject, and I am sure we will hear a great deal more about it. If the Leader of the Opposition does not mind I should like to make a suggestion, namely that the situation with respect to grain could be tied in very easily with the resentment he expressed at the government's refusal to grant a licence to a certain aircraft company that wished to go into the freight handling business. I think there is a great opportunity here for him to ask for a licence for them to operate an airlift on grain. He would find solid support from western Canada for such a proposition. We could use a few flying box cars at this time.
I shall leave the matter of grain to some of my colleagues who are more expert on the subject, but there is another phase with which I am more familiar and which I think is even more serious at the present time. I refer to the livestock situation. Prices of livestock, particularly beef, have been falling very seriously and rapidly in the last eighteen months. I could quote plenty of statistics to show the trend, but I think most hon. members are quite familiar with the figures. As the statistics show, the over-all situation is that in 1952 there was a drop in farm prices, and most of that was caused by a falling off in the price of livestock to the extent of about 20 per cent. During that time there was an increase of about 10 per cent in the farmer's costs of production. That means
a net loss in his economic position of about 30 per cent.
When a certain industry suffers practically a one-third loss in its economic position in the country one can see what a serious impact that can have not only on that industry but on all the other industries which depend upon that basic industry for their livelihood. Coming back to my own province of Manitoba again, we find that in 1952 the prices of farm products dropped 66 points while the cost of production went up 7 * 7 points, which meant a net loss of 73-7 points compared with the previous year-a very serious situation. That is the general trend.
I also have some statistics published by Gilbert Jackson and Associates of Toronto, which I understand are reliable in a statistical sense. They indicate with respect to farming that in 1948 the total indebtedness of farmers in round figures was $384 million while by 1952 it had reached a figure of $486 million, an increase of over $100 million in four years. No one can claim that agriculture finds itself in a prosperous position when the indebtedness of the farmers of our country has increased by over $100 million in a period of four years.
It appears, Mr. Speaker, that I will not be able to complete my remarks tonight, and I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Zaplitny the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Tomorrow we shall continue this debate.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
83276-6J
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 17, 1953