1953-11-23

ISOBEL BURTON


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: On
a question of privilege, during the spring session of 1952 I called attention to the disappearance of airwoman Isobel Burton from an R.C.A.F. station at Aylmer, Ontario. I understand that Miss Burton was located over this week end. Since considerable public interest was shown in this case I would like, on behalf of the friends and relatives of this girl, to express appreciation of the thorough and prolonged endeavours of both service and civilian police which have resulted in the finding of this missing person.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The leader of the C.C.F. group asked the other day whether there could not be an arrangement to answer questions and to deal with motions for the production of papers. If it is agreeable to the house, perhaps it might be done on Wednesday.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 11, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (payment for farm storage).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hazen Robert Argue: The effect of this bill is to ensure that producers in the designated area, in addition to elevator companies, will be paid the regular storage charge for grain stored on the farms. The determination of the date from which payment is to commence and the quantity of wheat on which payment is made are left to the Canadian wheat board, 83276-15i
but the payment of such storage charges to producers is by this new subsection made compulsory.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. SUGAR



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, notice of which I have sent to him. Will the minister some day soon bring the house up to date in respect to the international sugar agreement, showing how it might affect Canada's beet sugar industry?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The sugar agreement was
negotiated in London some months ago. Canada was represented in the negotiations by two or three officers of the government. Canada has not ratified the agreement. Whether a recommendation will go forward to the government that the agreement be ratified depends on conversations that are now taking place in Cuba. In the event that the recommendation is that the government ratify the agreement I shall be glad to make a statement in the house about it.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Was the appointment of Mr. Robertson to the Canadian wheat board made with the approval of any farm organization? If so, under the approval of what farm organization was it made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a question on the order paper in almost identical terms. It is not customary to ask the same question' in two places.


Mr. Knowles:: You might get answers in
two places.
228	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry TEXTILES



INQUIRY AS TO POLICY WITH RESPECT TO DUMPING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). If the minister is not in a position -to answer now he may take -this as notice. My question is based on a number of petitions signed by my constituents and is as follows. Is the minister in a position to announce the government's policy with respect to (a) the dumping of textiles into Canada and (b) the proposed lowering of tariffs on Japanese imports into Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question should be placed on the order paper.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: I
should like to ask the government whether it is their intention to make any statement -today regarding the Gouzenko situation.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, it is not the intention to make a statement today. The reply to -the last note received from the Secretary of State of the United States has not been delivered, and I would not like -to make any statement until the -answer has been delivered.



HARRY DEXTER WHITE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Earl Rowe: Has
the government requested the government of the United States to give the name of the alleged high Canadian official who gave information to the F.B.I. chief, Mr. Hoover, respecting the Harry Dexter White case?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: All information in connection with this matter will be given at the same time, and I hope to be able to give it not later than tomorrow or the next day.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, November 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. A. H. Hollingworth for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the
[Stage Direction]

amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to be able to take part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Before coming to this session of parliament it was my intention to say something concerning the plight of disabled persons but I was gratified to hear in His Excellency's address that legislation to assist these people will be forthcoming. I know that that will be greeted with delight by such persons in my constituency.
However, I should like to bring to the attention of the house the plight in which the small businessman finds himself when there is a break-up of his business through one cause or another. When a small businessman or merchant with one -or more employees finds that for some reason his business is at an end, his employees are looked after under the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act, but he who has contributed on behalf of those employees finds himself with no assistance. I should like to see a change made in the act so that such a person would be given some assistance to help him become readjusted in his community and gain employment for himself.
There are 78,000 people in the historic riding of Westmorland and one might say that those people have usually had the good sense to return a supporter of the Liberal party to this house. They are almost entirely made up of descendants of British Isles folk and French Acadians, Canada's first permanent white settlers. At present the two groups in Westmorland county are almost exactly even in number.
In the early days of the nation these people fought one another from the English Fort Lawrence and the French Fort Beausejour, both of which are in my constituency. Today, on almost the same ground on which those fortresses stood, two universities have risen. One is Mount Allison, an English-speaking centre of learning, and the other is St. Joseph's University, a seat of French culture. It is true enough that these people have learned to live together.
The term "we have never had it so good" applies to my constituency. We have a greater population, there is more employment, and we are enjoying a better standard of living than we ever had before. However, that is not good enough. We are experiencing a migration of young people from our area to the larger centres where opportunities of employment are greater.

We have felt most acutely the recent layoff on the Canadian National Atlantic region because the men laid off have nowhere to turn to for work. In other centres there are large factories and industries which could absorb such men, but we have none in Westmorland. My people do not want to go backward, they want to go forward.
When we recall many of the years previous to 1935 we are thankful for what we have because we remember those days with near terror. Those were the days when families in my constituency were living on relief orders that simply called for a bag of flour, a gallon of molasses and three dozen fish. We must have industries in our area but we cannot have such industries unless we have cheap power. The many projects for the production of power which have been presented in this house in years gone by have not been implemented. They were turned down as being impractical or infeasible. I should like engineers sent to New Brunswick to find out what is feasible and what type of power could be developed.
We in New Brunswick have read with interest about the plans for the St. Lawrence seaway, but we feel that a most important part is being left out, a canal through the isthmus of Chignecto, the narrow strip of line approximately 15 miles wide at the border of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. In trading with South America, and this country is anxious to do so, ships using the St. Lawrence seaway would have to travel an extra 400 miles or so around the province of Nova Scotia instead of being able to pass through the proposed Chignecto canal.
Ore boats from the northern part of New Brunswick, especially now that mining development has taken place at Bathurst, would also be required to travel an extra 400 miles.
I think it is vital in time of war as in time of peace to have an inland passage from the gulf of St. Lawrence and the Northumberland strait to the bay of Fundy. Several royal commissions have definitely established the physical and economic feasibility of the Chignecto canal. Its construction would cure our basic economic ills. It is true that it would mean a large expenditure of public funds, but that expenditure would be regarded by the people of Canada as an investment in an area which sorely needs stimulation. In my opinion the Chignecto canal must be built.
Now a word about the fishermen. The fishermen are the farmers of the sea. They need assistance in finding markets for their dried and smoked fish. These men are for the most part small operators and process
The Address-Mr. H. J. Murphy their own products. They are not brokers nor are they financially able to travel abroad to place their products on the market. This year was a very poor year and the lobster catch was only half of what is normal. Many fishermen have been left in bad financial circumstances. There is a surplus of smoked fish and the fishermen are asking the government to assist in the disposal of it.
I would like to read a statement written by the New Brunswick Fish Packers Association, dated October 30, 1953. It concerns the disposal of smoked bloaters-and smoked bloaters are smoked herring:
The Department of Fisheries has been advised by various members of the trade that a serious situation has developed in the marketing of smoked bloaters. As far as we are aware, however, no request has gone out from the trade for the department to take action. The following summary is given with the hope that the department will be able to offer some solution-possibly in the line of government purchases for relief purposes-to the problem of a large stock carry-over of 1952 production smoked bloaters.
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia dealers recently reported to the secretaries of the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia associations the stocks of 1952 bloaters they held at September 15, 1953. Their holdings were reported to be 136,000 boxes. With a carry-over of 4,000 boxes in the Magdalen islands, the total carry-over is 140,000 boxes.
Added to this, the production of bloaters in 1953, and at the time unsold, was reported to be 355,000 boxes. The total stock of bloaters on hand at September 15, 1953-both 1952 and 1953 pack-was
495.000	boxes.
Sales of bloaters for the last five years, as reported by the dominion bureau of statistics, have averaged 500,000 boxes per year. The sale of bloaters for the last marketing period of June 30, 1952, to June 30, 1953, however, amounted to only
366.000	boxes.
If marketing continues at this same rate durmg the present period, until June 30, 1954-and indications are that it will-the surplus at that time, on the basis of the above figures, will be 129,000 boxes. It is expected that further production will swell that surplus to well over 200,000 boxes at June 30 next year.
How will surplus react to detriment of fishermen? Many of the smokers will be forced to close out their operation next year, not having made a return this year. This will shut off the market for the fishermen's herring.
The maritime provinces are in the same geographical relationship to Canada as the New England states are to the United States although we are not the centre of a large population or great industry. On the contrary, we have very few. There must be an answer to our problem somewhere and I would like to find what it is.
Let no one interpret my words as being those of a whining maritimer. They are, rather, a statement of the needs of the people I represent. We do not expect the government to keep us, and ask only that conditions be fostered which will aid in industrial expansion.
230	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dufresne
I believe that with our pool of labour we could manufacture freight cars, passenger cars and other equipment for the Canadian National Railways. I believe that could be done economically at the C.N.R. shops at Moncton. I believe also that, with the coming [DOT]of cheap power, industries will locate in New Brunswick and provide employment for everyone. Our young people then will not have to leave and work elsewhere.
I do not speak belligerently or offensively but I speak sincerely in the interest of my people. I do not speak to my constituents now, for they have heard these statements time and again. I speak to the members of this house.
I do not agree with people who say somewhat bitterly that confederation was committed in 1867, but rather I am convinced that we must have a strong central government. To this government we look for some measure of assistance. This government has been our salvation in the past and has helped us along to the point where we are now. We are only asking for the extra push that is needed. We are simply asking for a little more.
Thank you.


Mr. J. W. Dufresne (Quebec Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to address this house since I was elected to represent the constituency of Quebec West.
Since confederation, this house has been admired by legislatures the world over for its principle of allowing members to speak in either of those two great official languages of Canada, English and French.
Consecrated here by tradition and by law, such respect for one another's language has gone far to building understanding between both these great groups and to extending the "entente cordiale"-a French expression- which is understandable to every Englishspeaking person-which is so evident here.
Today, because the majority of my constituents have French as their native language and because I know I will receive a friendly hearing in whatever language I speak, I will continue my remarks in French.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, before I embark upon my main subject, I trust you will permit me to offer you my respects, congratulations and best wishes on your nomination as Speaker of this honourable house.


Although it is but two weeks ago that I had the honour of taking my seat in this parliament of Canada, I have already had the occasion of noticing how brilliantly you discharge your important duties. Your deep sense of justice and the impartiality you have gained from undoubted experience, as well as your great dignity, are among many necessary qualities for the office you are called upon to hold, and you doubtlessly are endowed with them. Together with all hon. members of this house, I rejoice at your nomination; it is an honour which is reflected on the whole Canadian community. It is also more particularly a source of very natural pride for all French-speaking Canadians.
I have no doubt that you will fulfil your high office in a manner that will always honour us and that you will go down in history as a worthy successor of your illustrious predecessors. Today, Mr. Speaker, our gracious sovereign, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, is beginning the long trip that will take her to various commonwealth countries. I believe that I can speak on behalf of all the people I have the honour of representing, as well as in my own name, in bidding Her Majesty and her illustrious husband our most sincere wishes for a good trip and a happy return among their subjects and their children.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pause with respect and devotion at the freshly closed grave of a man who, during eighteen consecutive years, devoted the greater part of his life to the Canadian nation. Mr. Gordon Graydon is gone, but he has left in this house and in the heart of all Canadians a deep and undying memory. Mr. Gordon Graydon was the very impersonation of the perfect gentleman. His great culture and vast intellectual knowledge, together with an unfailing devotion, had made him a true parliamentarian, respectable and respected. He expressed, with characteristic sincerity, opinions he deemed just and beneficial for his country, but he always did so with courtesy and the dignity that everyone was pleased to find in him.
I personally knew him for several years and had been able to appreciate the true measure of his enlightened judgment, his undeniable talent and his ardent desire to serve well. His passing saddens me because I know that his advice and assistance would have been precious to me indeed.

I therefore offer Mrs. Graydon and her children the expression of my deepest sympathy in their tragic bereavement; I hope that the electors of Peel will make it possible for the worthy spouse of this great man to come to this parliament to finish the work he had so splendidly undertaken.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to launch, before the hon. members of this house, into a dry survey of the geographic layout of the constituency I have the honour to represent here. May I be permitted to say, however, that it is in my estimation the most beautiful county to be found, on account both of the intellectual qualities and of the high standard of the citizens who live there.
It lies between two counties, one of which is represented in this house by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the other by the ex-minister for air and dean of the House of Commons (Mr. Power). You will agree that I judiciously selected my neighbours and that if I had the opportunity to take a picture of the representatives of these three respective counties, you would' soon come to the conclusion that the humble member for Quebec West is somewhat like a blooming flower between two ever-threatening thorns.
I would loathe myself for not mentioning in this house that my constituency is peopled almost entirely with working people; it is teeming with an army of honest and conscientious workers whose sole desire is to live up to this divine precept, to which they adhere with a deep religious feeling: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread".
Most of them have large families. They are seeking through their own labour to discharge their responsibilities and, while bringing a little physical comfort to their homes, give their children, sometimes at the price of great sacrifices, the necessary education and schooling which will enable them to make little by little their own way in the world and become Canadians worthy of the name.
The spiritual values of our folk are remarkable and edifying and may serve as an example to the rest of the world. On every occasion, thanks to the truly priestly devotion of the clergy, they know how to implore God Almighty's help when affliction strikes as well as how to thank Him for the spiritual or material favours He extends.
There is no place in our midst, Mr. Speaker, for subversive ideas. There is too much love of church, parish, family or work, too much devotion to social, parochial or charitable activities, too much respect for democratically constituted authority.
The Address-Mr. Dufresne
However honest and generous they may be, our working people must not nevertheless consider themselves as forming an inferior class. It is as honourable as any other class of society. Our workingmen are legitimately proud of what they are. They rely upon their elected representatives to give voice to their legitimate representations. The workingman, Mr. Speaker, is entitled to the gratitude of the government. To his ability, competence and love of work we owe almost everything that strikes our eye. His rugged hands are evidence and confirmation of the long hours he has toiled in his shop or in the yard, under the burden of his tools. The honest and conscientious worker-and' those traits are typical of the worker living in the constituency of Quebec West-is the builder of the nation and it is our duty to recognize that fact.
We cannot let him suffer with impunity and deprive his family of its means of subsistence. It is our duty to provide him with his daily bread which he will have earned in any case by his labour.
It is all good and well to praise and appreciate the highly social legislation on family allowances, which was adopted by the parliament of Canada some years ago. It has contributed substantially in raising the standard of living of our large families, even if today, due to the constant rise in the cost of living and to overtaxation, it no longer achieves its original purpose.
But those who know the great-heartedness of our workers and the love for work which their forefathers have bequeathed to them are aware that they do not want material help from the state but gainful employment which will enable them to look after the needs of their families and to give to those who will come after them the example set by their own forefathers.
So, Mr. Speaker, I want to put before the government and more particularly before the Prime Minister and the ministers from Quebec-and I see they are conspicuous by their absence at this time-a most alarming problem and one which is spreading consternation among the working class in my county and my city.
With all due deference to those who shut their eyes and their ears that they may not see or hear what is going on, maybe it is necessary for them and for the political future of their party to make speeches on the so-called prosperity prevailing in this

The Address-Mr. Dufresne country, I want to assert that there is at home, in Quebec, an alarming employment slump.
Thousands upon thousands of workers are out of work and are suffering, with their families, from want and hardship.
Since being elected, I for one have received nearly 700 requests from honest workers who suffer deeply from the hardships they are faced with.
What does the government intend to do in order to remedy this growing crisis which is a source of grief and sorrow for our workers?
During the last campaign, I solemnly promised to the workers of my constituency to fulfil faithfully my task as a delegate and a servant of the people. I hope that my present attitude shows well enough that I have no intention of being remiss in my duties.
That is why I strongly urge the government to grant permission to start immediately in Quebec, the capital of my province and the cradle of French civilization on the North American continent, the projects which are necessary not only to the working class but also for the progress and the promotion of Quebec itself, as well as for the protection of the health of all its inhabitants.
The most urgent works, those which are imperative and which I ask for with all the energy I can muster, are the deepening of the St. Charles river and the purifying of the Lairet river.
Those pressing and essential programs cannot much longer leave the Prime Minister unconcerned. By the way, has the government not received numerous requests from various public bodies, from citizens' leagues, service clubs and so forth, all of which say how urgent it is for Quebec to get the aforesaid projects started? Not only are these two streams a disgrace for the old capital of Quebec, but they are also a great menace to public health.
Let us, for the time being, forget our differences of opinion with regard to the nation's business and join forces in the realization of this highly important project.
The first to accept wholeheartedly an immediate settlement of this intricate matter should be none other than the right hon. the Prime Minister. One of the rivers, the Lairet, flows entirely through his own county, while the other, the St. Charles river, forms the boundary line between his county and that of Quebec West, which I have the honour to represent in this house.


If the right hon. the Prime Minister and member for Quebec East does not want to break faith with the citizens of his home town and the voters of his county, he should, before retiring, which is bound to happen soon, make a generous gesture on behalf of his fellow citizens by settling, once and for all, the problem I have just had the honour of submitting to the house and to him in particular. This problem cannot be left unsolved and I am looking forward to pestering at all times the right hon. the Prime Minister and his government until they have granted that legitimate and essential request in the best interests of the people of Quebec city.
Let it not be said during the budget debate that no provision has been made in the estimates for this project because the government will then give me the opportunity to denounce it before public opinion and to charge it with unpardonable neglect.
If Canada's situation is good enough financially to allow it to assist European countries and _ to make gifts to the people of Ceylon, it is duty bound to earmark the necessary funds for the protection of what we hold dearest in Canada, our manpower.
Mr. Speaker, I had no intention to deal with any other subject than the one I just touched upon. However, I do not believe that, as a French-speaking Canadian and a citizen of the province of Quebec, I can remain silent after the speech made in this house by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), Friday evening last- especially so since newspapers which favour the government-there are many-have given it a great deal of noisy publicity.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: The Gazette.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: 'The Montreal Gazette is about one of the best newspapers I know of in Canada, a reliable source of news for our Canadian public.


An hon. Member:: The Montreal Gazette.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The hon. member for
Richelieu-Vercheres played in his speech 'on that very same string our government friends have been harping on, that of centralization and assimilation. I know very well that the hon. member has the right and the privilege to hold opinions different from those of nearly all the citizens of the province of Quebec. He is also free to follow the steps of his powerful masters on the road to centralization. He is also perfectly free to show to his fellow citizens that he is a partisan before he is a patriot and that he would rather submit blindly to a political party than advocate the sacred respect of contracts.

However, he could very well have done this without adding to the expression of his opinions the disgracious insult he threw to the prime minister of Quebec, the Hon. Maurice Duplessis, and through him to the entire population of that province, which shares his views.
I hold no brief in this house for the prime minister of Quebec. Everyone here knows very well that he can take care of himself without the help of the young member for Quebec West.
Mr. Duplessis has always fought for provincial autonomy. He has always advocated the respect of our Canadian constitution and he has respected it. He has always sprung without fear to the defence of his compatriots against the increasing efforts of those who advocate centralization and assimilation.
He has been unshaken by the enticing and repeated offers of the government in power and he has always been the undaunted defender of our rights, of our customs and of our dearest traditions.
It is therefore an insult to his admirable and enlightened patriotism, to his courage, his steadfastness and his dignity as a public man, conscious of his responsibility, as well as to his determination never to forsake the smallest portion of our most sacred rights, to say to all the people of this country that his stand in the matter of the autonomy of his province is nothing but a political manoeuvre.
This highly important matter, which has captivated public opinion for several years and is again in the limelight since the setting up in our province of the Tremblay commission on fiscal relations, is surely not a political matter. In that connection there can be no question of trying to save one party or to crush another; it is a matter of much greater import. It is truly a matter of national scope.
Perhaps that is not what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) understands. He has been laughing for some time. If the minister does not yet understand the matter, I regret to say that he will probably depart this world without ever understanding it.


Mr. Chevrier:: He is not the only minister
who is laughing. There are other ministers laughing at your speech.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I regret to note that the
Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) is siding with the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Abbott:: He is always smiling.
The Address-Mr. Dufresne


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: In order to raise such a controversial question above party considerations, men whose known dignity, high reputation and exceptional ability have been praised by the newspapers of the province, regardless of political affiliation, were appointed to that commission.
To defend our glorious past, of which we are proud, to defend our institutions, our tongue and our faith, to come to the rescue of our constitution, which is a guarantee of survival for our ethnical group, to see that there is no breach of contracts, to promote national unity and live up to it, all that, Mr. Speaker, cannot be reckoned as political manoeuvring but, rather, as genuine patriotism. I regret that the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, with whom may be associated those of his friends who cheered a moment ago, does not know the difference.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) recently made a statement which was published on November 20 in the Ottawa newspaper Le Droit.
It dealt with the matter of French-English bilingualism. The promoters of the movement submitted the matter to the government of Canada.
Le Droit of Ottawa reports as follows, and I quote:
The promoters of this bilingual movement made an attempt to interest Canada, but Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent wrote back, with regret, last January that "in our country education is not a matter for the central government but for the ten provincial governments which are very jealous of their rights."
I note with a great deal of satisfaction this statement by the Prime Minister and his unequivocal admission that education is entirely a matter for the provinces.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec is jealous of the right which was granted to it by the Canadian constitution. It refuses to admit any infringement in its fields of activity by any other authority, however powerful it might be, especially with regard to education. In this respect, the right hon. the Prime Minister and the humble member for Quebec West are in complete agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the house any longer today with regard to this thorny question to which I shall refer again in the near future.
Be it sufficient for me to say, before I resume my seat, that I have no other ambition, while sitting in this parliament, but to contribute my modest part to the progress and greatness of Canada.
234	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. W. M. Johnson
I want this Canada of ours to be powerful and prosperous. I want it to be the most beautiful country in the world. I want it to be such that we may live in it in peace and harmony and that may reign in our land that freedom which is so essential to the complete conservation of a sound democracy.
Let us all work together, let us unite our efforts, so that Canada may pursue its glorious ascension toward the noblest of destinies.
(Text):


Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I do so with a keen awareness of the responsibilities vested in me by the people in the Kindersley constituency to present their views in the parliament of Canada. There are two problems that I shall deal with at this time, and there are many others that I shall be mentioning later when time and circumstances permit.
As a new member, I have found some difficulty in becoming accustomed to parliamentary rules and procedures, as well as becoming accustomed to the routine in the city of Ottawa. Upon my arrival I was fortunate enough to meet a friend who showed me the various points of interest in the city. Since I saw him last he had been married and I was naturally rather solicitous of his welfare.
I asked him how he was getting along and he told me he was having quite a hard time making ends meet because of the high cost of living. In addition, he said he had a very extravagant wife. I was naturally concerned, so I questioned him further. He said, "Well, shortly after we were married she asked me for $50; the next day she asked for $50 and a while later for $100. She is always asking for money." I said, "Well, my goodness, what does she do with it all?" He said, "I do not know; I never give her any."
Judging from what I have learned about this government, Mr. Speaker, we are likely to hear much more in these proceedings about a livestock marketing board and the problem of advance payments on farm-stored grain.
I should like to describe the conditions which have resulted from the failure of this government to heed the advice of farmers, farm unions and farm organizations to set up a livestock marketing board. I believe that we are generally aware of the hazards of livestock production, particularly those of us who come from western Canada. We are familiar with the hazards of drought and the failure of feed production, and the devastations of disease in the herd or flock. When we are


faced with these hazards, plus the hazard of price manipulation at the will of the large packing houses, we are faced with a situation which has forced farmers out of livestock production.
For example, in the Saskatoon market the average prices for the week ending June 23, 1951, were as follows: Choice steers, $34.50 and common cows, $23.75. A little over two years later, for the week ending September 19, 1953, choice steers were selling at $18 and common cows at $7.30. Those are not necessarily the high and the low in the prices, but are representative figures which I have selected more or less at random. The current review for November, 1953, points out that hog gradings in Saskatchewan were reduced from 1,077,000 in 1943-47 to 430,842 in 1952. Egg production in Saskatchewan has decreased from 53,567,000 dozen in 1943-47 to
32.312.000	dozen in 1952. On the other hand, wheat acreage has increased in Saskatchewan from 12,977,000 acres in the period 1943-47 to
16.100.000	acres in 1953. It seems apparent then, Mr. Speaker, since western farmers are hard-headed businessmen, that they have found that they are unable to remain in the livestock business with these fluctuations in price.
A similar situation existed for many years in connection with the marketing of wheat when we were left to the mercies of the Winnipeg grain exchange. After many years of pressure the Canadian Wheat Board Act was introduced on June 10, 1935, by those friends of free enterprise, the Conservative government. It was not until September, 1943, that the present government saw fit to utilize these powers to the fullest advantage, but they have continued to neglect placing rye and flax under the wheat board. The marketing of these grains is left to these wolves of free enterprise, the Winnipeg grain exchange.
Farmers have been granted some security in the production of wheat, and the other part of their program, the livestock production, has failed to receive any notice. Farmers, therefore, have gone out of livestock and put the acreages that they would normally devote to that into wheat. Since they have become in many cases straight grain farmers, there is no necessity for staying on the farm in the long winter months; consequently, many have moved to the towns and villages where they can enjoy some of the amenities of life other occupations take for granted.
With a density of population of around one per square mile in my area of Saskatchewan, and you find two or three farmers moving out of the district and into the towns and villages, your population then becomes so sparse that your school problem becomes

complicated; your municipal problem of building all-weather roads is intensified; your problem of rural electrification is greatly increased; and the social aspect is suffering and the local community centre is beginning to disappear. As a solution to these conditions, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to establish a livestock marketing board, similar to the Canadian wheat board. I should like to see one major exception. I should like to see producer representation on this livestock marketing board, because it appears from our experience with the Canadian wheat board that once you fail to get producer representation you have a very difficult time indeed in achieving it.
I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the royal commission on price spreads of 1934 made the recommendation that a livestock marketing board be established; and, incidentally, these recommendations have been ignored by the government of Canada for the past 19 years. Some of the duties of the board which the royal commission recommends, and which I shall mention, are:
1.	An adequate inspection of all marketing stages and action to correct abuses.
It is interesting to point out, as the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) has done, that the packers have established the ability of grading our cattle with the arbitrary grade of choice, good, medium, common and so on. Meat is graded on a voluntary basis as to red brand, blue brand, commercial and so on, to assist consumers, and there is not necessarily any correspondence between the grades. A steer a farmer sold as a medium could conceivably be branded red label. I continue with the recommendations.
2.	Co-operation with producers, processors and the trade generally, to ensure as far as possible a balance between production and available markets.
3.	To encourage the organization of producers of livestock for regular and orderly marketing.
4.	The formation of a uniform policy on external marketing with a view not only to promoting new, but also retaining and developing, existing markets.
These are some of the duties as set out by the royal commission and they would serve to stabilize the markets by a system of forward pricing which would stabilize the agricultural economy in times of economic strain.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has made many excuses in his very capable manner, and doubtless with the support of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who is "not a strong advocate of government in business", claiming that it is a provincial matter. Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of national importance, and on behalf of the people I represent I am demanding action.
The Address-Mr. W. M. Johnson
Largely because of the failure of the government to give security to livestock producers, and because of the failure to follow an aggressive policy of international trade, the problem of an immediate need for a policy of advance payments on farm-stored grain becomes more apparent. The Western Producer of November 19 states:
Referring to interim farm finance, Mr. Wesson recalled the wheat pool board had brought the matter to the attention of the federal government last August.
Further on we find:
He said Mr. Howe had not refused government assistance. The matter was being left until parliament assembled, Mr. Wesson had been assured.
I hope that the statement given to the house on November 18 by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not considered as having the full advantage of parliamentary debate, and that it cannot be considered final.
The Current Review of November, 1953, states:
A major change in this year's income pattern is the significant decrease in agricultural income from the very high level of 1952. This year's grain crop, though exceptionally large, is below last year's record, and at the same time farm prices have continued the decline which began early in 1952.
Costs, on the other hand, have failed to drop. The index of goods and services used by the farmers has increased from 157 in 1946 to 243 in 1952. Factors contributing to this have been the high cost of fertilizer, the high cost of farm machinery and the high cost of farm storage, coupled with the freight rates-all matters which require investigation and action.
The matter was further complicated by the open quota in the pre-election period and the subsequent maldistribution of box cars. The result has been that some farmers have been able to get their quota marketed while others situated a greater distance from the market, or who did not know the quota was open, have been denied that privilege. The arbitrary cancellation of the car order book caused hardship in areas where it was operative. I think you will agree that the car order book is outdated. I therefore think it was the responsibility of the government not to cancel it but to substitute some other means of legislation which would permit the farmers to deliver grain to the elevators of their choice.
Costs of production must be considered when any statements are made that the farmers have received over $1 billion from the 1952 crop. I believe there would be considerable interest in the costs of farming, as we certainly cannot for one moment assume that the gross returns are the profits.

The Address-Mr, W. M. Johnson "A farm business study in the Fox Valley-Eston-Kindersley area of Saskatchewan," a major portion of my constituency, put out by the Department of Agriculture, points out that the average size of farm land class 3 is 587 acres, or just under a section. Class 3 refers to the productivity, with land class 1 being submarginal for wheat production, class 2 marginal, class 3 fair, class 4 good and class 5 excellent. It is significant that less than 40 per cent of the land in this area is class 3 or better. This study goes on to point out that the cash operating expenses on the average farm are $2,664, corrected to the increase in costs of goods and services used by the farmers which increased from 157 when the study was made to 243 last year. No allowance is made for depreciation, so that must be considered. Let us assume that the value of equipment is $10,000, a very low figure, which if depreciated at 10 per cent would give you $1,000. The average capital invested on a farm, land class 3, is $22,415, and the legitimate charge of interest on your investment at 5 per cent is $1,220. Therefore the total expenses on the farm are $4,884. The study goes on to point out that 47 per cent of the cropland is devoted to wheat, giving a wheat acreage of 276.
This gives us an actual cost of nearly $17.75 per wheat acre. It is to be pointed out that this figure does not include any returns to the operator; it does not include any returns for his family, nor does it include anything for the retirement of debt. Under the present cost of living I do not see how a family can expect to get along on less than $200 a month. If that is included, the cost per wheat acre becomes the very significant figure of $25.
In many cases the farmers were unable to market more than 20 bushels per acre which in my area would give them a return, at $1.21 for No. 1 northern, assuming they had the best grade, plus the 12 cent participation payment, of $26.60 per wheat acre. The Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that a payment on the 1952 crop would be made in 1954. This points out the crux of the whole problem. The farmers are being paid a year or two after their expenses have been incurred. The expenses for 1953 have been assumed and very little, if anything, has been received. The farmer is then forced to live on what meagre savings he may have.
I would like to ask hon. members of this house, what would be your reaction if you were told you were not going to receive anything for this year's work until next year at this time? That is just the position of the western grain grower.

The Minister of Trade and Commerce stated in the house on November 18:
Even so, grain has been moving off the farms into terminal positions and for export at a pretty fair rate. To judge from some of the comments I have heard one might get the impression that the grain movement had come to a stop. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In some respects the movement is at record levels.
The dominion bureau of statistics daily bulletin of November 19 states:
Deliveries from prairie farms during the week were down to 7,510,000 from 11,673,000 a year ago, while the overseas export clearances declined to
2.973.000	from 6,628,000.
I do not think I need to add anything other than to point out that those statements do not seem to be compatible. It is obvious that the responsibility is upon the government to create legislation to allow those in financial need and who are unable to deliver grain to get relief. There are perhaps not too many that are suffering, but if there were only
1.000	farmers in need the legislation would still be required. This would also assist those who are dependent upon the farmer. It would assist the small retailer who has granted credit to the farmer knowing he had wheat and that in due time he will be able to market it.
I believe an advance payment of not less than 75 cents per bushel on at least 2,000 bushels would be the very minimum to meet the need. I would prefer to see this figure higher and more in relation to the recommendation of the Saskatchewan farm union. It would be a simple matter. As you know, under the Canadian Wheat Board Act every producer of wheat must have a permit book. This could be handled through the local elevator agent. If a farmer went to a local agent and asked for an advance, the money would be given to him and an entry made in his permit book.
When the time came when there was room in the elevator and the farmer was able to deliver grain the advance would be automatically deducted.
I would point out that this is aimed at assisting the smaller farmer and would cost the government only the interest on the money borrowed to make the advance. It would not be in the neighbourhood of millions of dollars, as has been stated in the press. The more fortunate would not require this advance. Those who have been able to deliver their quota would not require it. It is those who have been unable to market any grain that would require this assistance.
I do not want my statements to be construed as criticism of the Canadian wheat

board. In fact I think this shows its strength. It shows that it is able to be changed in order to meet current needs. I will conclude by stating that I believe I have proved the necessity for immediate action in the establishment of a livestock marketing board and the need and desirability of advance payment on farm-stored grain. These things are necessary to give security to agriculture, the base of our Canadian economy.


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, when the history of our times is written it will be remembered by future generations as the era of the three isms, fascism, communism and McCarthyism. I am not going to attempt to define the first two, but I think McCarthyism should be defined. I am prepared to accept the definition given by a former president of the United States who has lived in a close and intimate fashion with McCarthyism. Here is his definition as reported in the Globe and Mail of November 17:
It is the corruption of truth, the abandonment of our historical devotion to fair play.
It is the abandonment of the due process of law.
It is the use of the big lie and the unfounded accusation against any citizen in the name of Americanism or security.
It is the rise to power of the demagogue who lives on untruth.
It is the spread of fear and the destruction of faith in every level of our society.
The former president of the United States, Mr. Harry S. Truman, told the Americans to fight that evil at every level of their national life. These three pernicious philosophies have in common the same end and the same means. Their end is to confuse, to divide, to conquer and ultimately to enslave. Their means are the big lie and the big smear. They were born in the gutter and the first of them, fascism, has already died and has been buried in the gutter. We hope sincerely that the other two will share the same fate.
The two surviving isms have another element in common. If you attack either of them you are accused immediately of belonging to the other. Anyone who has the temerity to oppose McCarthyism runs the risk of being branded a communist. At least he will be in good company since even Robin Hood wears the red tassel and red label today.
The spectacle of what McCarthyism has done to our good neighbours to the south has been a source of sadness and concern to thinking people everywhere. No one will disagree that subversives in government are despicable and should be cleared out, as they have been in this country; but to do this in an atmosphere of popular hysteria and to make it a combination of witch hunt and
The Address-Mr. Croll a three-ringed circus is to debase the functions of democracy and prevent the carrying out of the true processes of law.
So long as McCarthyism stayed at home we remained silent on the principle that the domestic affairs of a country were that country's problem. But the situation has changed. The McCarthyites are no longer content to pour their malice on their fellow citizens; they want to throw mud across the border at Canada. They have singled out as their first candidate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). The Globe and Mail of November 8 contains an article from New York headed, "U. S. Writer says Pearson Blocked Probe into Spying." Then it states:
Victor Lasky, former New York newspaperman-
And it continues:
-directed his attack chiefly at External Affairs Minister Pearson who he claimed has "consistently sabotaged" efforts to disclose soviet intrigue in Washington and Ottawa.
He went on to say that the minister had effectively squelched any investigation into alleged Soviet ties not only of his closest aide, but of himself. That was a statement made by a planted stooge attempting to make a smear. He knew his statement was false when he made it, but despite that he made it. But it is enough for our purpose. He has rung the alarm bell, the attack has now begun on the minister and it appears that it will be carried out by professionals. Mr. Lasky got his name into the headlines by implying that the minister was an ally of the Soviet fifth column. This little known journalist even tried to suggest, although he was careful to avoid entanglements with the libel laws, that the minister had provided information to one Elizabeth Bentley, a Soviet spy in Washington during the war. These charges, of course, are ludicrous. It is of course conceivable that Miss Bentley and some other spies quoted people who quoted people who quoted the minister, just as they might have quoted people who quoted people who quoted General Marshall or General Eisenhower. To be quoted and misquoted is the fate of those who are well known in political and diplomatic life.
The attack was not lost upon the press of this country and the people of this country. The Ottawa Citizen on November 19 carried a leading editorial "The Attack on Mr. Pearson":
Mud from the current American witch hunt has now been thrown across the border, with Mr. Pearson, the minister of external affairs, the target.
It goes on:
He helped found the United Nations, and has been a moving spirit in the formation of the North

The Address-Mr. Croll Atlantic Treaty Organization, and of programs of international co-operation, such as the Colombo plan. His anti-communism has not consisted of reckless denunciation, but of constructive efforts to prevent war and to help remove the social and economic grievances on which communism is nourished.
The editorial goes on to say:
With the exception of the most shortsighted nationalists, his program and personality have made him justly popular and respected in Canada and the United States. His record needs no defence.
Then further on:
The dangers inherent in the methods of the witch hunters cannot be overemphasized. A Mr. Victor Lasky, co-author of a book on the Alger Hiss case, has told a committee of the women's national Republican club that Mr. Pearson "consistently sabotaged" efforts to disclose Soviet intrigue in Washington and Ottawa. By inference, Mr. Lasky tried to raise doubts about Mr. Pearson's loyalty.
The method is by now well tried in the U.S. The America Firsters evidently find that they can intimidate opponents by raising the cry of disloyalty, or of "bad security risk", which has come to mean almost anyone who dissents from the lunatic fringe of the Republican party. With so many ex-communists as their chief source of information, it is hardly surprising that these people should use communist tactics-the smear, the implied guilt by association, the inference of disloyalty-against patriotic citizens who happen to be independent-minded.
The Toronto Daily Star on the same date says this:
Diplomatic quarters are aware that a campaign has been under way for about a year now to smear Mr. Pearson and to weaken Canada's voice in international affairs by the "lunatic fringe" of the U.S. Republican party.
The Toronto Globe and Mail, in a Saturday editorial, November 21, 1953, says:
The furore about Mr. Igor Gouzenko is deplorable. Washington is wrong in this argument, as probably the state department itself knows. But besides being wrong it is also being unfriendly. There is a suspicion, well founded, that the whole episode springs from a desire on the part of the McCarthyites to smear the Canadian government, External Affairs Minister Pearson in particular, and that the state department is aiding them because it is afraid of them.
The Ottawa Journal on November 20, 1953, in an editorial entitled "Beneath Contempt", says:
. . . Canadians have a right to ask that, throwing mud, American politicians throw it at themselves; do not try to pull down Canadian public men in the ugly process of pulling down their own.
Mr. Pearson was right in dismissing Lasky's talk as "beneath contempt". The trouble, however, is that some people don't know what is beneath contempt, and it must seem to many that the U.S. administration might and could do something to instruct its wild men in elementary manners towards their neighbours.
Now, by trying to smear the minister they hope to blackmail this government into handing over for their purposes and for their use 
Igor Gouzenko, who is a ward of the government, in order that he may provide for them another act in their variety show. As things stand now they have pretty well used up all their ammunition but they figure that Gouzenko will keep them on the front page for at least another month. To accomplish that, they have not hesitated to smear a distinguished member of this house and of the Canadian government.
I find it rather amusing that suddenly a great clamour has come from the various cat's-paws of McCarthyism for the production of Gouzenko in order that he may be used as new exhibit No. 1. I am quite sure that until a few days ago not one of them had ever heard his name or known of his existence. Now, all of a sudden, they have become authorities on the subject. They know all about Gouzenko and the valuable information they suggest he is so eager to give. What they are trying to do is to use a little blackmail on the government.
Before we lose sight of Gouzenko-and we should lose sight of him for everybody's good, including his own-let us remember one or two important things. On November 17, 1953, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), speaking on the orders of the day, made two things abundantly clear. The first thing was that Gouzenko himself said he had no information other than that reported in the royal commission on June 27, 1946, which is available to everyone for one dollar-and I am sure that the congressional committee can afford it. The second thing was that any information which could have been of value to the United States authorities or to any of our allies had originally been forwarded to them as soon as it became available. It is important to note that the whole transcript of his evidence, not what appeared in the report of the royal commission but a full transcript of his evidence, was sent to the United States government and other governments if they were concerned. I think that this house should recall that for the last seven years Mr. Gouzenko has not been in contact with spies. His bosom friends have been the R.C.M.P., and they have been good friends.
The McCarthyites now want Igor Gouzenko to join the circus and do some one-night stands on television. Their audiences have tired of the Bentleys and the Chamberses. The record of their parroting is more than slightly worn; in fact the record is downright cracked. Gouzenko is manna from Heaven to them.
When the publicity agencies and the public relations build-up boys hired by these various

congressional committees finish with Gouzenko and present him to the United States public, it will be hard for us to recognize him. He will not recognize himself. Nor will we be able to recognize the evidence that he gave before the royal commission.
Consider for a moment the build-up they can give him and will. Think of his name and his background. How well he fits into the script and what a great scenario they can write. Igor Gouzenko-a name that rings as Russian as Donald McDonald is Scotch; a cipher and code clerk with the air of mystery it implies. Ciphers and codes have always intrigued most people. Few know that one learns to do ciphers and codes as one does plumbing. Plumbing is more interesting and pays better, take my word for it. There is the incident of his visit to -the then prime minister's office, his being turned away, his unwelcome visits to other government offices, his return to his apartment, the Russian "goon" squad swooping down on him, his taking refuge in another apartment, protected by the Ottawa police department, and finally being rescued by the mounties and guarded by them for seven years.
This is the red meat for the build-up boys. The fact that he has no evidence is of no consequence. They are not interested in evidence or they would have read the report of the evidence that was sent to them. But the circus must go on. There you have it- intrigue, mystery, drama, action-and preserved by the mounties for McCarthy and Jenner and Velde. He brings them just what they need, namely a new face, a new name, a new angle, a new story and above all, what they love above everything else, headlines and more headlines. Before that congressional committee finishes with him they will build him up in the minds of a portion of the American people so that many of them will believe that he not only played the fiddle for the Czar but decoded Joe Stalin's most secret documents. You may ask, What about the evidence? It is not important for the committee's purpose, because the McCarthys, the Jenners, and the Veldes are not concerned in collecting evidence. Like dictators and tyrants everywhere at all times, they thrive on the spectacular, on providing a series of sensations, on constantly buttressing their position as defenders of freedom. So when the McCarthyites find that they have exhausted their propaganda, when they have squeezed dry the Whittaker Chamberses, the Elizabeth Bentleys and the other sudden
The Address-Mr. Croll converts, they find that they need a new script, a new scenario, and Igor Gouzenko fills that bill exactly.
To maintain their hold on public attention they must feed the press and the world at large some new meat to sate the appetite. The old records of prejudice and hate, the old tunes of guilt by association, of nonconformity, of red-tinged liberalism, were scratchy from constant playing. There had to be a new record, a hot rendition of the old tune but with a different metre. So they are satisfied to take a warmed-over Gouzenko. In their desperation to keep alive the flame of prejudice, they attempted to force ex-President Truman to testify. That attempt failed. They then booked Edgar Hoover, Federal Bureau of Investigation chief, and he was a half-day stand. It would appear that Mr. Hoover's defence will be that he really did not infringe on diplomatic courtesies and niceties because he only produced one copy of the top secret document that was alleged to have been sent by this government. In the light of that disclosure alone, how can anyone possibly consider producing Gouzenko under any circumstances if we wish to preserve national security?
What is important is that now for the first time we have a deliberate attempt to export McCarthyism to Canada. I am glad to say that up until now that vicious ideology has not been able to gain a foothold in this country. The big lie and the big smear have never had a place in Canadian politics; and, as the saying goes, we aim to keep it that way. But these purveyors of fear and hate overlooked the fact that a boundary line divides North America into two sovereign countries, and I repeat the expression "sovereign countries". When the United States state department-and I am sure with considerable reluctance-asked that the congressional committee be permitted, to question Gouzenko, the request was turned down for a good reason. The last thing we in this country want is to get ourselves involved in an American political hassle, for that is what it essentially is.
The rejection filled the McCarthyites with uncontrollable rage. How dare anyone have the temerity to say no to them? The New York Times, a very reliable paper, says that pressure is being exerted by the state department on the Canadian government to give ground. In order to attain their purpose, they have turned their guns on the minister, secure in the knowledge that he could not reply. The haters of the United Nations, in which the Secretary of State for

The Address-Mr. Croll External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is a distinguished figure, threw in their contribution to this attack. It was an opportunity to get in some whacks at a man who has done more for world peace in the forums of the United Nations than has any other single individual, because he refused to climb on the hate-wagon and by so doing weaken the very foundation of the democratic structure.
A second request for Igor Gouzenko has been made by Washington. This reveals the power of McCarthyism in the American political life, for a request is usually not renewed once it has been declined. In their eyes the sin of the minister is that he has retained his sanity and has not joined in the hymn of hate. He knows that if we do not defend the rights of others, we endanger our own. He has never hesitated to attack communist *aggression in and out of the United Nations; but his condemnation has been couched in temperate language, without the vicious extremes so often found in the speeches of those who profess to represent the American people. They fail to understand that one can hold strong views against communism without being intolerant.
No better friend of the United States, no greater supporter of our western democracy, and no more implacable foe of Russian communism can be found than Canada's Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yet today we see a fantastic situation in which some power-drunk men in the United States are attempting to undermine him there and, I suppose they think, in this country. The very fact that it was necessary to reply-and it was-to the smear campaign now in progress is a grim reminder to this house and to this country that fear can become an instrument of policy in the hands of unscrupulous men. No one is more worthy of public confidence, both in Canada and in the United States, than is Lester B. Pearson. Yet today we find powerful political elements in the United States attempting to picture him and Canada as pink-hued left-wingers with a soft spot for communism. He has the antagonism of some people who rely upon judgment by attack and the weight of insults to win their case. Because he does not join the pack when it appears popular and like a wolf tear the prey to pieces, he is in turn attacked by the pack.
The Russians do not like the minister, and with good reason. He represents a substantial stumbling-block to communist aspirations because logic and reason are his weapons, and he cannot be stampeded into doing what the Soviets would like him to do.

Whatever Mr. Lasky may think, it is very clear that the Kremlin does not consider Mr. Pearson to be a Soviet tool. Twice in 1946 and again in 1952, the Russians vetoed Mr. Pearson in regard to the critical post of Secretary General of the United Nations. Pravda, the official organ of the communist party, made a vicious personal attack, claiming that Mr. Pearson was:
. . . designated by officials for this high post because of his devotion to American moneybags . . .
-and his "zealousness toward the American military". Pravda went on to state categorically that Mr. Pearson was an American agent.
This spring Pravda developed a new theme. On February 4 the official Moscow newspaper carried an article suggesting that Mr. Pearson's real motive was to bring about the absorption of Canada by the United States. Among other things, Pravda stated:
As regards the reasons for the special effort of Pearson himself to carry through to the end the enslavement of the Canadian people by the American monopolies, these reasons are generally known. Pearson began his career in one of the leading American concerns for the production. of weapons, Armour and Company, and is up till now a participant in this enterprise. Pearson also possesses a considerable quantity of stock of the largest Canadian metal concern, International Nickel Company of Canada, in which the decisive role belongs to American capital. It is not difficult to understand where people like Pearson, nicknamed by the people "American Minister in Canada", are leading Canada.
I think the time has come to serve a "hands off" notice to McCarthyism. The time has come for us to let them know that we are not going to bend our knee to political blackmail. The time has come to bring home to them we are not going to be pushed around.
The lunatic fringe in the United States has been gunning for the Secretary of State for External Affairs for some time. Because he will not play their game in the United Nations, he has been accused of being soft to communism. Now they have delivered their first Sunday punch. Do as we say or we will smear you. Well, maybe the smear works south of the border but it will not work in Canada. This time the McCarthyites have picked the wrong country and the wrong man for their smear campaign.
Our record on subversives is an open book. We cleared them out in 1946, long before the world ever heard of McCarthy, Jenner and Velde, and we did it in the normal Canadian fashion and preserved fundamental rights. We did not need a congressional committee and television to help us clean house. The royal commission was empowered by order in council dated February 5, 1946.
It investigated and made its final report on

June 27, 1946. As is well known, prosecutions were then launched and the guilty parties brought to justice.
What is more, the Canadian government passed along full information to the United States authorities at that time. If they did not take the trouble to read it, it is not too late now. We did not hide anything in a pumpkin. Now, seven years later, the McCarthyites and the pumpkin heads have the effrontery to come to us and accuse us of being soft to communism. They want to drag us into the act, to blame us, and make us the whipping-boy. If we refuse to let Gouzenko perform then they are prepared to set up Canada, and particularly the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as their next candidate for trial by slander.
If McCarthyism achieves complete dominance over American political thinking, if it succeeds in strangling liberalism in the United States, if it achieves a dim-out of freedom, then Russia and communism will have achieved a great victory without striking a blow. We Canadians want no part of American political warfare. We can only regret this dismemberment of freedom, but it is their business, not ours. We speak of the American way of life. Now we can speak of the American way of politics. We belong to the British tradition and we want Americans to know that, if they do not.
What is going on in the United States at the present time is not a pretty picture. We cannot subscribe to it. To us it is unthinkable. If that is the American way in politics that is their business and their problem, but it must not be exported to us.
I think the time has come for the government to take an even more positive position in this matter and to re-emphasize to our good neighbours and to the world a few simple truths. We are against communism without any buts or ifs, and we are against subversives without the slightest qualification. We are ready and willing to cooperate with every free country in the world to oppose communism and to stamp out subversion wherever it may appear. We are ready to do these things and more to the limit of our ability, freely and willingly, and we have demonstrated it time and time again. But we will not be intimidated by the big lie and the big smear. We believe that the best defence to communism is still more democracy. We will not resist communism by embracing McCarthyism.	We
want no part of either of them. As for us, a plague on both their houses.
Now, I just have one last word. The President of the United States spoke up when McCarthyism attacked the former president of the United States. The Secretary of State
The Address-Mr. Montgomery for External Affairs is equally well known to the President of the United States and he knows that the minister commands the esteem and confidence of the Canadian people. By the same token we want consideration from our American friends. The attacks on a member of the Canadian government are shocking and should be repudiated by no less a person than the President of the United States.


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: I should like to convey congratulations, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Speaker upon his recent election to the high office of Speaker of this assembly. I am a fairly new member with very little experience in parliament but in that short time I can say from my experience that I am sure that all members will be treated fairly and justly by the Speaker, that he will bring to his high office great dignity and that we will be proud of him as our Speaker. To you also, sir, I wish to convey my congratulations on your choice as Deputy Speaker. I should also like to join with other hon. members in extending congratulations to the mover (Mr. Holling-worth) and the seconder (Mr. Villeneuve) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I represent a rural constituency where the majority of the people are engaged in agriculture and lumbering, and the chief agricultural product in my constituency being potatoes it will be readily understood that the marketing price of potatoes has a lot to do with the economy and social life of my people. During the debate so far I have listened with a great deal of interest to speeches concerning the problems of the western farmers which appear to revolve around wheat. I am naturally interested, as wheat and other grains grown in such large quantities affect the whole economy of Canada, but in western Canada, farming is on such a gigantic scale compared with the small owners in the east that I suppose for that reason the western farmer gets more attention. In fact, we from the maritimes often feel that he receives too much consideration. However, in listening to these reports I was glad to learn that they have enjoyed at least three good years, although it would seem that the three good crops were more or less a blessing in disguise. But, Mr. Western Farmer, even with all your difficulties I doubt if you have as many worries as our farmers in the east and in particular the potato growers. Potatoes are a very necessary food, but a crop which cannot be carried over. They must be marketed within ten months of their harvest or they are a total loss. Potatoes are also
242	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Montgomery an expensive crop to grow because expensive machinery is needed for planting and harvesting. In addition, expensive fertilizers must be used at planting time and spraying must be continued more or less throughout the summer. The cost of production runs from about $1.75 to $2 per barrel, which is 165 pounds. The determination of that cost depends upon the yield, of course. This means that the producer must get an average of $2 per barrel or approximately 80 cents per bushel to break even. Add to this the cost of storage, bags, handling and shipping, and it is readily seen that potatoes must retail at approximately three cents per pound in order for the grower to break even. When any hon. member is able to buy potatoes for less than three cents per pound, he may be sure that there are many farmers in my province who are working long hours for practically nothing.
Some hon. members may believe this sounds fantastic, nevertheless it is a fact. A recent report to me indicates that potatoes are selling today at 65 cents a barrel at the farm, and they are not moving very fast. This barrel of potatoes is costing the farmer, on an average, $2 to produce.
Occasionally, but not often, there is a scarcity of potatoes such as was experienced in the spring of 1952. Potato prices were high, and those farmers who had storage space and were able to keep their potatoes for the first few months came out of that crop year very well. Some of them made money. However, the 1952 crop was just the opposite, and it may be a surprise to many hon. members to learn that potatoes were dumped. This year the crop is average and the quality is good. Disposal of this crop is essential to our economy. We are by no means as fortunate as the western farmer, because our crop cannot be carried over from year to year, and this is the second consecutive difficult year. Out of the proceeds of this crop, not only the farmers but the merchants and others expect to get their accounts cleaned up. This is the period of the year when the rural municipalities expect to get their taxes collected; the banks expect their loans to be repaid; and children are talking about Santa Claus.
The potato farmer in my province is bedevilled by the high cost of production, unfair competition from the United States producers, high freight rates and dull markets, so he certainly needs courage. He is faced with the tax collector, the machinery agent, the sheriff, and most pathetic of all, if he is a family man, a lean Christmas. In my constituency there are three starch factories


and a potato chip factory. These are private enterprise industries which have been a boon to the potato producer- in some seasons. They handle a lot of potatoes, but the price that they can pay depends upon the price that they can get for their products. The prospects for starch this year are not very bright.
Groups of farmers and shippers have recently formed a marketing board whose representatives, together with experts from the department of agriculture, are working with officials from the federal Department of Agriculture under the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act. We are hoping that a sound and acceptable solution will be worked out so that some stability may be given to the marketing of this staple product. Certainly, we are all looking forward to an improvement when this board starts functioning because, in theory, it seems to be approaching the matter from the proper standpoint.
I should like to mention the matter of unfair competition from the United States producer to which I referred a moment ago. He is allowed to market his crop in Canada free of duty, with the exception of six weeks in midsummer. On behalf of the eastern potato grower I would ask the government to keep that fact in mind when trade problems are being discussed with our friends to the south or when present treaties are being considered for renewal. There is, however, a bright spot for some of the farmers who, as a a result of being forced out of the potato business, turned to the raising of grain. Last year quite a few farmers confined their planting to oats, and they are quite fortunate because there has been a good market for this product. In common with apples, oats are bringing a very good price. However, there is not a large amount of oats produced in New Brunswick, and in my constituency the amount of apples grown is extremely small.
I should like to mention another industry in our province, and that is our forest products industry. Our province depends upon lumber and pulp for a large part of its income. In 1952 the products of the pulp and paper industry amounted to around $100 million. The products of the small mills accounted for $20 million, and other wood products accounted for about $30 million, making in all a total of $150 million from our forest products. The matter of the preservation of our forests is of grave concern to us. The war against the spruce budworm alone is costing the province of New Brunswick more than $1 million annually, and in addition large sums must be spent for fire protection. So far as I know, no other province

in Canada is so concerned about the protection oi its forests, and I doubt if the forests *of any other province contribute so much to the economic and social life of its people. We are dependent to a tremendous degree upon the income from this source.
For the reasons I have stated, it is important to mention forest products here because it is important that markets be maintained. It is vital that every assistance be given to obtaining markets. This fact was brought to my attention forcibly by a number of small mill owners just before I left home. I find that many of these mill owners still have last year's cut on their hands, so they are in doubt as to whether operations should be carried out next year. Some of these small operators cannot afford to pay for woods crews, and this of course causes hardship to those people who are dependent upon these woods operations for their income.
The other day the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) gave you a very vivid picture of the fishing industry, which is not bright, and the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) talked of conditions in Newfoundland. It is pretty much the same pattern all over the maritimes. Apparently we overproduce: or Is it, if you want to put it that way, a lack of proper distribution? In any case we need markets. Our producers are not sharing fairly in the distribution of the wealth of this country. Therefore, I join with those hon. members in asking the government to give every assistance and cooperation to these industries in securing markets that will keep them in a sound position.
I have mentioned conditions generally, Mr. Speaker, from which I trust you can see that we also in New Brunswick have serious problems; but with co-operation from the government I believe-at least I hope-our economic position can be improved.
My province is one of the smaller ones, and the economy has expanded at a much slower rate than the general economy of Canada as a whole. For instance, since 1946- that is since the end of the second world war-the personal incomes of the people of New Brunswick have not increased more than 25 per cent, while the general average increase in Canada as a whole has been approximately 38 per cent.
We have many small industries in New Brunswick that are worthy of mention, that are meeting national and international competition, and which contribute greatly to the stability of our economy. I now come to what we hope will be one of the brightest spots in the development of our province, namely
The Address-Mr. Montgomery the mineral resources. Within the last eighteen months it has been discovered that we possess a very great natural resource which has untold possibilities, namely large base metal deposits of high value. If my information is correct, New Brunswick may have some of the greatest base metal ore bodies on this North American continent, some of which are now being prepared for milling early next summer, with prospects of far greater developments to follow.
I am told that some 40,000 claims have already been staked in the Gloucester and nearby districts known as the Bathurst area, and there are hundreds more all over the province. In fact some very encouraging prospects have been located in my own constituency. As far as I can find out, I do not believe these prospects are based upon a wave of wild speculation, because many of the larger and more conservative mining interests in North America are taking an active interest in the New Brunswick mining situation. Millions of dollars have already been spent and will be spent during the next year in drilling, surveys and other forms of investigation. This new discovery of our mineral potential gives us hope. Already the people of some parts of our province are enthusiastic and full of enterprise.
But with these new hopes and possibilities also come problems. Possibly one of the most urgent is the supply of power. It has been generally recognized that New Brunswick's slower progress has been due to the lack of power development. We are not so fortunate as many other provinces, in that we do not have many large power possibilities. However, we do have one source of approved possible development. I refer to the Saint John river basin. The full and final development is going to entail agreements with the state of Maine and Quebec, which comprise part of the basin and where important storage facilities are necessary, which we all hope will in due course be worked out to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.
What I wish to point out and what I wish to confine my remarks to now is what we call the first phase or river flow development, which is so important to us in the immediate future for the development of our mineral area and to meet the natural annual increased demand and also the new load which may be required for our new military camp, which is also a new and important development.
I refer to the Beechwood site on the Saint John river. It is located in my constituency. It has been surveyed and approved and I am informed recommended for immediate development in so far as the first phase or run of
244	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Montgomery river basis is concerned, which does not involve any outside interests. The initial installation at this site will bring into production two 45,000 horsepower units, with an estimated annual output of approximately 355 million kilowatt hours. Another important consideration is the cost of the power delivered to the industry. Thus the cost of development will have a bearing on the cost of power. From information I have been able to obtain, the cost of the Beechwood development and the necessary power lines will exceed $45 million.
This of course is going to be a very heavy burden on a small province like New Brunswick. We already have a heavy burden of debt in proportion to our present ability to pay. Our interest rates are high. But confronting us is a great opportunity, if we can find the money at a rate of interest which will permit the power development at a price which is attractive enough for the smelters and subsidiary industries to utilize our resources to the fullest extent.
I am reminded of the boy who was looking at a luscious apple on a tree. He wanted it so badly, but it was just beyond his reach. He could not get it until a man came along and gave him a little lift. Then he obtained the apple. The people of New Brunswick are in that position: a golden opportunity is waiting in the full development of our base metal resources, provided we furnish the power at a reasonable cost, which may very well be the turning point for prosperity for the future.
I believe other provinces have an interest in the prosperity of New Brunswick. In fact I am sure prosperity spreads, and we are all interested in one another. That being true, the problems and prosperity of one part must be responsibilities or assets of the dominion as a whole. Thus this government is justified in going to the aid of any province to assist in the development of natural resources which are helpful and beneficial to the economy of the whole nation, if that province is unable to carry the development itself in the early stages.
I should like to read from a report of a conference of the premiers of the Atlantic provinces held last September, in which appears a statement made by Premier Flemming which I think is very timely when discussing this subject. I quote:
It has been said that no nation can exist "half slave and half free"-that was said of the United States before the civil war. Well-in Canada-it seems to me that we cannot exist with have and have-not provinces-cannot exist partly prosperous and partly depressed. Such conditions of economic injustice and unbalance will always be threats to national unity and to that integration of aim and purpose essential to the development of full nationhood.


I think it can be fairly said that New Brunswick has been one of the have-not provinces, and it is generally agreed that the retarded state of its economy has been due to a lack of cheap electrical power. This fact was emphasized by the report of the New Brunswick committee on reconstruction published in 1944. It was one of the chief reasons New Brunswick did not get extensive contracts for production of war materials during the second world war, when this country as a whole was expanding rapidly in the industrial field.
If the need for cheap hydroelectric power was urgent in 1944 it is much more urgent today, with the great mineral resources awaiting development. Whereas the installed capacity of hydroelectric power is more than one horsepower per capita of the population in Canada, in New Brunswick it is only one-quarter horsepower per capita of its population.
Therefore it should be abundantly clear that the development of cheap hydroelectric power in my province is the key to unlock the treasure which promises to revolutionize the economy of New Brunswick. That will put in balance conditions that will remove the apparent economic injustices that have in the past threatened our national unity.
Hon. members may be wondering why New Brunswick has not developed more of her available resources. That is a fair question and I will try to give a fair answer. As I have already said, we have been a province of have-nots; we have heavy debts in proportion to the ability of our people to pay. We must look to outsiders to purchase our securities and, unfortunately, interest rates are high. During the next few years, if power is to be made available, our indebtedness is bound to increase tremendously, during which period we cannot expect adequate returns. Therefore interest rates on the money required to develop the power will be a major factor in determining the price of power to industry.
The price must be reasonably attractive to be of value. With the new discoveries of the vast and valuable mineral resources, I believe New Brunswick is a good risk for investment. The power development is a must. I sincerely believe it is the foundation of a new progressive economy that will provide prosperity for our people. It will provide work and markets at home. It will provide greater income for our people and larger revenues for the dominion.
Involved in the development of the Beech-wood site on the Saint John river, and other

sites-Beechwood is not the only one, but it has already been approved and that is why I refer to it-is the all-important question of water conservation, a matter in which I am glad to say this government has shown considerable interest. I do not intend to speak further on conservation at this time as that matter can be dealt with at a later date, but in the few minutes left I should like to summarize what I have endeavoured to say.
The prosperity of our agricultural industry in New Brunswick seems to be stalled due to high costs of production, international competition, high freight rates and distant markets which cause too great a spread between the producer's market and the consumer's market, a retarded economy due to the lack of developed hydroelectric power, and a debt structure which demands a high rate of interest, which is a handicap to the securing of capital for the development of cheap power.
A golden opportunity now presents itself in the discovery of great base metal resources, equal to any on the North American continent. However, there is an urgent need of cheap power for the development of said resources and the encouragement of new industry. Cheap money is needed to develop the required power.
I have tried in my rambling remarks to place before this house and the government some of the difficult problems of my province-others were brought to your attention by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart)-all of which can and will, I hope, be supported by other hon. members from our province.
I am not asking for handouts, I am not speaking on behalf of any party or government, but I am speaking for the people of my constituency, yes and for the people generally in New Brunswick. Like the boy who needed the lift to get the apple, the people of New Brunswick need a lift. We need the co-operation and good will of other provinces and the people generally, as well as of this government. I believe New Brunswick is on the threshold of a great future. Development of power is the key to prosperity. With recent discoveries of vast mineral resources we have become a good risk for investment.
If it becomes necessary for New Brunswick to seek assistance from this government in the development of power, I hope and trust a way will be found for giving that assistance and co-operation to permit cheap power development to become a reality on our interprovincial and international Saint John
The Address

Mr. Hahn river, in conjunction with a great and important conservation project. Personally, it seems to me, it would be sound government policy to assist any province in the development of natural resources which will lift that province out of a retarded and stagnant economy to become a prosperous and thriving member of the family of provinces within the dominion.
Just before I sit down I should like to refer to two other matters, the first being veterans and veterans affairs. I have always strongly supported, although not at great length, legislation for the veterans. I hope a veterans affairs committee will be set up at this session, and that the requests made by the Canadian Legion on behalf of the veterans will be considered most seriously. One thing in particular I should like to see is the elimination of the ceiling on the income a veteran may earn and still receive his veterans allowance.
I should like to say a word about possible legislation concerning the blind. I submit that legislation should be brought forward to give more consideration to the blind. I would want to see this legislation before discussing it more fully, but I do want to say that there are many blind or nearly blind persons today who are enduring hardships because they are not in receipt of blind pensions. Apparently they cannot get the pension when they have certain property or income, and I think that stipulation should be revised or possibly eliminated.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to convey through you my best wishes to Mr. Speaker upon his elevation to the high office he now holds. I should like also to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth) and the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Villeneuve) upon the fine way in which they went about moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I am not here to apologize on behalf of the people of British Columbia for the fact that they have elected a Social Credit government. They did so of their own volition. It was their democratic right to do so and, having done so, we accept it as our duty to give them the best type of government we can. We hope that within the next few years we will be able to announce that there is a second debt-free province in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick George Hahn: Possibly those of our provinces which are having difficulty in this day and age might take a lesson from the far west.

The Address-Mr. Hahn


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick George Hahn: I would beg the indulgence of the house while I tell you something about our province and, more particularly, the riding which I represent.
The city of New Westminster, which has a population of about 28,000, is fortunate indeed that it has so many versatile athletes. This year it has two dominion championships to its credit, namely the dominion soccer champions, the New Westminster Royals, as they are called, and the junior lacrosse champions of Canada, the New Westminster Salmonacs.
Outside the city proper we have four divisions:	Surrey municipal district, the
largest municipality in the British Empire, the municipality of Delta and the municipality of Langley. We generally divide Surrey into two regions, North Surrey and South Surrey. That gives the four divisions I mentioned.
Surrey municipality, this particularly large region, has a voting population of about 28,000. Add to that the population of New Westminster and you have the second largest electoral district in point of population west of the city of Toronto. We have approximately
53.000	electors in the area and naturally, because of its great expansion, we have a number of industries in the area. We have heavy industry in the lumber mills with their very large payrolls. The other industries in the city are largely fishing, box making and smaller industries which go along with the lumbering industry.
The population of the city has long overflowed the boundaries and today we find sections of North Surrey very heavily populated, especially in the Whalley, Bridgeview, and South Westminster areas. With the heavy influx of people we have need of more and more housing, and we are particularly happy to see that the speech from the throne indicates the possibility of getting more housing in our area.
Naturally enough, the fine city of New Westminster requires a thriving hinterland. In the municipality of Langley we find dairying and small fruit farming extensively practised. In Surrey we have intensive vegetable market gardening, poultry raising, dairying and summer trade. We are fortunate in having the only summer resort on the Pacific coast lower mainland, the hamlet of White Rock, which has a population of between
7.000	and 8,000. In Delta we have dairying and potato production.
This is just an outline, sir, of the area.
[Mr. Hahn.l
I was particularly interested to hear the various addresses that have been made in the past several days. The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) told us that things had never been better. As the days have gone by it seems to me that we have heard nothing but crying of woe and of more woe. We seem to have a fishing problem, a wheat problem, a potato problem, an English car problem and even a Gouzenko problem; and today I read that we have an overproduction of parliamentarians, which gives us another problem.
One of the specific problems of my area with which I wish to deal was dealt with also by the hon. member for Westmorland. That is the fishing problem. He said things had never been better, but I noticed that he did have the problem of fish. I have that problem in my area too; but before I deal with it specifically, sir, I would like to congratulate some of the men who have taken such an active part in the work of the international commission for the protection of sockeye salmon. They did a marvellous job. One is Senator Tom Reid, from my own area. Another who had a great deal to do with the committee was John Babcock, and in this connection I read from an editorial in the Vancouver Province of November 17, 1953:
Years ago, John Babcock, deputy minister of fisheries at Victoria, used to make speeches urging measures to restore and conserve the salmon fisheries of the Fraser. With proper measures, he insisted, the annual fish crop from the Fraser could be built up to a value of $30,000,000 ... In the end, it produced the international salmon commission, which, after years of investigation, evolved plans for the restoration of the Fraser's glories . . .
The $30,000,000 target has not been hit yet. But an encouraging start has been made. The efforts of the commission are beginning to prove themselves.
This same salmon problem may be divided into two parts. First, we have a lack of markets. We are told that there is an overproduction of fish. Second, and an even more acute problem, we are not allowed to catch the fish. In the British Columbian of November 10, we find the following:
The Fraser fishing area-the only one still left open in B.C.-will be restricted to Monday and Tuesday each week until further notice. From Wednesday, November 11, to the following Monday, the river will be closed to allow escapement of salmon to the spawning areas.
Reasons for the drastic step in curtailment of river fishing-a further blow to local fishermen who have already had to contend with a light run of chum salmon-were given by the fisheries department as poor escapement, a light run, increased fishing efficiency and the influx of large numbers of "outsiders" who have come to the Fraser now the other grounds have been closed.
The closing of the Fraser is a very, very important thing in the lives of the fishermen.

We have a large fishing population along the Fraser river, and each one of those fishermen has an investment of anywhere up to $10,000 in gill-net boats with which they usually catch salmon. Now they are told they cannot catch fish and the reason given is that "outsiders" are catching the pink salmon. As we have an international sockeye commission I would suggest that its powers be extended to cover the commencement of research on the problem of conserving the salmon fishing in order to make it possible for the gill netters to go on fishing pink salmon. I am requesting that extension of powers in order to get a sufficient number of fishermen out on the Fraser again.
The "outsiders" happen to come from the state of California, I am told. They come with their large boats, having done their fishing to the south, into the mouth of the Juan de Fuca, and catch the fish before they come into the Fraser channel. We have to conserve them from there on in. It is not a good deal; and, as fisheries in the United States are under the jurisdiction of the state, I am sure the federal government and. the state of Washington could arrive at a regulation that would be binding upon both.
Next, sir, is this matter of markets. In this instance I have here from the Financial Post a feature article dated November 20 in which we read this:
Probably more than any other industry in British Columbia, fishing has been the victim of overseas sales slump. Before the war British Columbia canned salmon was being marketed in 40 different countries. Today only about half a dozen countries regularly buy from this province, and that includes the Canadian domestic market and the United States, never much of a market for canned salmon because of the tariff.
Last year, Britain bought no canned salmon here at all although it used to be the mainstay of the industry and during the war bought nearly the entire British Columbia pack in two or three years. This year, Britain bought sparingly. The industry hopes that because of the economic improvement in Britain this year, sales will be much larger in 1954, but no firm commitments have been made.
Then, sir, I should like the government particularly to note this:
A delegation of leading British Columbia packers recently returned from a series of conferences in England. The purpose of their mission was to sell canned salmon. But in order to get even a favourable consideration they had to give assurance that the fishing industry in British Columbia would make an effort to make the necessary dollars available through purchase of more British engines, nets and other gear.
How unfortunate it is, sir, that though this little band of men in this section of the house begged the government not to sign the Bretton Woods agreement, they did so. Otherwise we might have sold our fish, at least to Britain.
The Address-Mr. Hahn
I am always ready to help someone who is ready to help himself. We find that this is what has happened. In the Vancouver Province of November 16 we read:
The British Columbia fishing industry has made its first move to attempt balancing trade between this province and United Kingdom by ordering a 34-foot vessel from a Scottish shipyard.
A delegation from the industry, headed by J. M. Buchanan, president of B.C. Packers, has completed a two-month trade tour of the U.K. in an effort to increase purchases of British goods . . .
A spokesman for the industry here said no attempt was made to secure further orders for B.C. canned salmon.
"This purchase is simply designed to show our willingness to do business", he said.
B.C. fishermen already buy most of their linen nets from the U.K.
That is very true, sir. British Columbia fishermen do buy most of their nets from the United Kingdom. They are trying their best to find a market for their fish.
One of the earlier speakers today said the fishermen were not wealthy enough to go to Britain to find their own markets. It makes it rather difficult when a small industry has to send its own trade envoys to the other nations of the world in order to get markets for its goods. Certainly there should be a way whereby our surplus could be got rid of without small trade delegations being sent to every nation in the world by these small companies or fishermen.
Another immediate problem that I find in my province is this one of lumbering. Up to the present time lumbering has been one of the staple industries in the province. That industry again is dependent on the home market. That home market today is lacking. It is lacking more particularly because farmers on the prairies have not been able to sell their wheat. So if we can advance 75 cents a bushel to start this economy rolling again it might be of some value to the people of British Columbia, more particularly the lumber operators. The slashing of lumber production is very definite. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. In the British Columbian of November 13 we find an article headed "Plywood Output Slashed" in which it is stated:
MacMillan and Bloedel Ltd., announced the layoff in its Vancouver and Port Alberni plywood mills. It said curtailed production of fir plywood was necessitated bv the first drop-off in twenty years in an annually-increasing Canadian demand for plywood.
The company said crews would be called back to work as soon as market conditions improved, possibly early next year.
I do not know where the newspaper gets its information to the effect that the market will improve next year, unless some governmental official may have passed along the
248	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hahn word that next year the government was going to advance 75 cents a bushel to the farmers so they could go ahead and buy the goods they required.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should be too complacent in our thoughts with regard to this matter of trade. It is very important. We can see how, more particularly, the production of wheat and the buying of this wheat by the government has a very important effect upon the economy of the country.
There is one further problem that I have to ask you to listen to, and that would be the problem of agriculture as it applies to my particular area. In Washington, D.C., on April 3, 1953, Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson issued the following warning:
A crop of 3S5 million bushels is 25 to 30 million bushels more than is needed to meet fully all national requirements for potatoes. Such excess production will cut two ways-per bushel prices will be reduced to farmers more than proportionately since the total crop will be worth less and costs of operating the larger acreage would of course be increased.
Mr. Speaker, what Secretary of Agriculture Benson said is quite true. It has been proved that the Americans increased their crop to 395 million bushels, that there was an excess of 25 or 35 million bushels, and that we became the dumping market for it.
There is a very odd state of affairs in the province of British Columbia where vegetables are concerned, as well as potatoes; I include potatoes as a vegetable in this instance. As was mentioned by one of the former speakers, our vegetable crop usually comes two to three weeks later than that of the United States. The result is that the United States early potato, vegetable and fruit crops come into our part of the province and steal the cream of the market. They get the money and we get what is left.
In the case of the potato growers the problem is similar, but a rather awkward situation evolves. Most of the potatoes that come into British Columbia-that is, the very early potatoes-come from the state of California and the state of Washington. From the state of California to British Columbia the freight rate is about 34 cents a hundredweight less than it would be from California to Manitoba for those same potatoes. Hence this is what we find. California sends potatoes into British Columbia and British Columbia sends new potatoes to Manitoba. If California were to be encouraged, by some edict, to send their potatoes to Manitoba rather than to British Columbia, the potato growers of British Columbia would have no worry. But they have no market at home because the California growers happen to be marketing


the second early potatoes When our early potatoes come on, so we are left holding the bag.
Mr. Speaker, I would beg of this government to please take these things into consideration when formulating their policies. Our potato problem is apparently not the only one in the country. In his address a short while ago the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery) dealt quite extensively with the potato problem as it exists in the province of New Brunswick. They have a marketing problem as well. It is true that from the point of view of acreage we probably do not have such an extensive crop as that of New Brunswick, but certainly we do have a similar problem on marketing, and it is the marketing problem that has to be taken care of.


Mr. F. T. Fairey (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, I have delayed my participation in this debate because, as a new member, I felt it wise to give time and opportunity to more experienced members to point the way. But now that I can discern a pattern to which I can conform, I trust what I have to say may not be out of :place and may be considered a contribution to this debate.
Evidently it is usual, Mr. Speaker, for all hon. members first to offer congratulations to you on your election to the high office to which you have been called. While I associate myself with all the very pleasant things that have been said, might I vary the procedure somewhat by congratulating the members of this house on their good fortune in having chosen one whose evident skill and firmness in conducting the debates in this chamber is accompanied by a graciousness and charm which is the envy of us all.
The mover (Mr. Hollingworth) and the seconder (Mr. Villeneuve) of the address have already received their meed of praise, and I associate myself with that. I hope that I shall do as well. Many members from both sides of the house and from all parties have already spoken, and I note with satisfaction that at times there has been no lack of that vigour and forthrightness in presenting a point of view which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) described as that cut and thrust so necessary and desirable if right decisions are to be the outcome of our deliberations here.
We who are in public life, and particularly those of us who have given some time to the
study of the behaviour of man in his relations with his fellows, have learned, if we have learned anything at all, that we differ from one another in every conceivable way; and what -a blessing this is. How dull would

life be, Mr. Speaker, if each of us were a replica of his fellow; and how terrible it would be if we all looked alike, thought alike and believed alike. It is through our differences that we tolerate one another, and it is the recognition that there must be different points of view that brings us together in friendly association to hammer out on the anvil of free and open discussion those compromises which are the outcome of the parliamentary system.
The recognition of these very human traits, this coming together to reconcile differing points of view, this willingness to compromise by giving way a little here and gaining a little there, this belief that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all, this belief in all of us that a compromise solution is the best that can be achieved at that time and is a step toward complete agreement, are signs of maturity, the genius of our people, and the foundation of our democracy. I trust that in any part I may play in this house I may be given insight to see the good intent in all men.
It is with pride that I present myself as the choice of the electors of that constituency in British Columbia which has at its centre the capital city of Victoria. My constituency embraces also the municipality of Oak Bay to the north, and also the municipality of Esquimalt, which includes the naval dockyard and H.M.C.S. Naden. The official name of the constituency is Victoria. I notice that there are two other Victorias represented in the house, the others identifying themselves by carrying a subsidiary title. It is a matter of regret to me that representatives of the other Victorias are on the other side of the house.
I suppose there have been times when members from British Columbia have extolled the beauties and wealth of the province, and have extolled also the vigour and strength of its people. All they have said or could have said is true, but I shall resist the temptation to repeat it. I have been sobered by reading a description of us by that master of the very apt quip, Premier Douglas of Saskatchewan. In an address to the chamber of commerce in Regina not very long ago he is reported to have said:
Tile people of British Columbia look upon others with the pity of Adam and Eve looking at someone who wasn't born in the garden of Eden.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, we are quite as bad as that, but we do have a very natural pride in the accomplishments, the
The Address-Mr. Fairey beauties and the vigour of our own province. I intend to speak for a few minutes of British Columbia in a very general way, if my colleagues from that province will permit me to do so, in order to bring to the attention of the house and the government the handicaps occasioned by its geographical features which militate against its more rapid development. Its great need is more and better communications, not only within the province itself but with its sister provinces.
I would remind you, sir, that the province is riven by four great mountain ranges-the Rockies, the Selkirks, the Cascades and the coast range. All of these run in a general north and south direction and until recent years farmed a very effective barrier between us and the rest of Canada. Between these ranges are extensive and fertile valleys through which flow great and mighty rivers, offering almost unbounded opportunities for the development of great hydroelectric power systems. The opportunities for the exercise of personal initiative are recognized by people who accept the risks attendant upon pioneer adventure in the hope -and -expectation of rich reward.
That is why our province has attracted to it those from other provinces and other countries, those -adventurous souls who have made such a great contribution to our growth, unequalled a-nywhere in Canada.
When I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the population of British Columbia increased about 47 per cent in the last decade, -and compare it with the over-all increase of 22 per -cent for C-anada as a whole, it is to indicate how attractive -the opportunities have proved to be to so many people.
Much has been said during this debate about the problems -being faced by agriculture in the prairie provinces. These problems are real and -affect us all. Lack of cash on the prairies affects the sale of our lumber and lumber products, our salmon and our fruit; but because this matter has been dealt with effectively by -the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and because I have nothing new to contribute to what has already been said on that subject, I do not intend to pursue it further. Rather would I emphasize the growth of industry in this country, and the degree -to which decentralization of industry is taking -place. More and more is industry moving to British -Columbia, and mo-re and more is it found possible and desirable to establish secondary industries close to the source of -their raw materials.
Despite -the rapid growth already evident iu our province, it is my conviction that the
250	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fairey high cost of providing adequate communication systems delays a development which would be to the benefit of Canada as a whole. I am aware that the provision of roads, bridges and the like within a province is the sole concern of each provincial government. However, any large scheme of development and the opening up of rich lands to settlement such as are found in northern British Columbia is a task beyond the capacity of local government without federal assistance. The federal government has quite properly co-operated with the provinces, looking forward to the ultimate completion of the trans-Canada highway, by contributing 50 per cent of the cost of construction according to agreed upon standards.
I have been at some pains to describe the rugged terrain over which this trans-Canada highway must pass in British Columbia. May I emphasize now the problem facing a population boastfully placed at something less than a million and a half people. The average cost of constructing a road in British Columbia to trans-Canada standards, including black top, is $140,000 per mile. There are sections of the road, however, passing through the Fraser canyon which have cost nearly a million dollars per mile. As a matter of fact there are two sections between Yale and Lyitton, one of which is a mile long and the other four-tenths of a mile, and they cost just under $1 million per mile. The average cost of all roads in British Columbia is $140,000 per mile, but the average cost through Kicking Horse pass east of Golden and through the Fraser canyon is about $240,000 per mile.
X know it is a fact, and it is gratefully acknowledged, that the federal government pays half of that on the trans-Canada highway. I would point out, however, that the remaining half, which is borne by the people of the province, represents a sum in excess of the total cost of similar roads in other provinces. When we consider that the province is obliged to pay the total cost of all other roads throughout such a large and rugged province, and which are just as costly, it seems reasonable to urge that consideration should be given to the establishment of some differential in the proportion of grants to costs, particularly where excessive costs are encountered and where the roads are interprovincial in their scope and are intended to bind us more closely together as citizens of Canada.
While I am on the subject of communication, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word about my own constituency, which is on the largest of the many islands off the coast of British Columbia. Vancouver island is nearly


300 miles long. It contains immense tracts of the finest merchantable timber. In that timber there are stands of the finest and biggest fir and cedar trees in the province. Moreover, in the last three years we have seen established in the northern part of the island a number of plywood plants and pulp-wood mills costing millions of dollars. On the southern tip of this island stands the capital city of Victoria. On the west coast there are numerous fishing villages and processing plants connected with the fishing industry. Yet it is a fact that communication by sea between the mainland at Vancouver and the capital city of Victoria and other places on the island is less adequate than it has been for many years.
It is not enough to point out that aircraft are now available. You cannot transport goods in any quantity by air. Sea transportation is yet the only form adequate to the needs of the west coast, unless roads could be constructed over which trucks could operate. For many years-this is a suggestion I am going to make, Mr. Speaker-a subsidy has been paid by the federal government to make possible the operation of ships to the west coast for the transfer of passengers and freight to and from these isolated places. It is suggested that consideration be given to the transfer of the amount of this subsidy to another form of communication, particularly to grant a like amount over a limited number of years toward the cost of constructing connecting roads.
One of the vexed questions in my constituency is the problem raised by the presence of large defence establishments, and the operation of very heavy equipment. I know this is a touchy point, but I feel it is necessary to bring it to the attention of the government. I am referring to a particular road in the municipality of Esquimalt which was built and maintained by that municipality but which is used, probably 80 per cent or more, by the heavy equipment of the defence forces. A great deal has been said about military roads, and we each appoint ourselves as chief of the general staff to decide which roads are going to be military roads. Nevertheless, in the particular circumstances which we have here, where a road actually connects two defence establishments and is used almost exclusively by those forces, there seems to be a reasonable case made out for federal assistance in putting that road into first-class shape and keeping it so.
A few words may be in order now, Mr. Speaker, about Canada's position as a trading nation. We have become the third trading

nation in the world. We are a nation of producers, and are dependent upon an active export market. My own province, British Columbia, like the rest of Canada, produces much more than it can consume. It depends for survival upon exports. I am satisfied that the Department of Trade and Commerce is vigorously engaged in seeking outlets for our surplus products, and has made substantial progress in that direction. I confess to a wish, Mr. Speaker, that ways can be found to renew our commercial ties with Great Britain. I am confident that, with the removal of the many restrictions under which those grand people have laboured so long, they will, with their traditional resiliency, rapidly re-establish that leadership which formerly was theirs and which we hope soon to see again. In the meantime, any measures we can take to meet them more than halfway and to hasten the day when our currencies will be mutually acceptable will meet with the approval of the Canadian people.
I am confident that the government will grasp every opportunity to bring this about, and that it will be greatly to our advantage. The fact is that we have surpluses for which we seek markets. May I remind hon. members who have spoken so strongly about surpluses of prairie grains that we in British Columbia have surpluses of lumber and lumber products; of salmon and other fish products; and also of fruit of all kinds from the orchards of the Okanagan. We shall always have such surpluses. With our growing population it ought to be possible to reduce the wide margin which now exists between what we produce and what we consume.
For this reason I wish to associate myself with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) concerning the formation of a branch or division within the Department of Trade and Commerce charged with the duty of exploring the possibility of stimulating internal and interprovincial trade. I should like to interject here that probably the problem raised by the previous speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn), who spoke about potatoes coming from California to British Columbia and British Columbia potatoes going from British Columbia to Manitoba, should come within the purview of a department charged with stimulating internal trade.
References have been made to the rising stature of Canada amongst the nations of the world. Not only is this due to the position she occupies as a trading nation, but also to her strong and confident voice in the councils of the nations. I had prepared a few remarks
The Address-Mr. Fairey upon Canada's position as a leading nation in the United Nations and the contribution made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) dealt with that matter fully and eloquently, and I shall omit that part of the remarks I had prepared.
It is gratifying to note that there is general agreement that we should be more generous in helping the less fortunate nations of the world and that it is proposed to increase the amount voted for further assistance under the Colombo plan.
If I may be pardoned a personal reference, may I say very definitely that, as a result of actual experience, I am convinced that the most effective bulwark against communism or any other "ism" is a demonstrated willingness to ease the burden of economic ills which plague so many nations who wish to be our friends.
It was my good fortune, Mr. Speaker, to represent Canada as a member of a three-man educational mission to Burma under the auspices of UNESCO two years ago. During a six-month period I had opportunity to travel throughout that lovely land and also to visit Thailand and India. My conviction is that the training of the nationals of all these countries so that they by themselves may be in a position to develop and expand their own resources by new and improved techniques is the way to that contentment which rejects violent and disturbing forms of government. To assist them to stand on their own feet is, I am sure, the better way.
A word about war veterans allowances. Most of those who have spoken before me in this debate, Mr. Speaker, have referred to the representations made to us by the Canadian Legion, and almost without exception members have declared themselves in favour of the proposals. That is a very easy and popular thing to do. Certainly I shall support any suggestion made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe), because this department enjoys a reputation for fairness and even generosity to veterans. I agree that some change in raising the ceiling on allowable earnings seems reasonable, but I am concerned about the near approach of these allowances to the amount paid to a veteran in receipt of a disability pension. There is a balance to be maintained.
The national institute for the blind has pointed out what I think is a desirable change in the regulations concerning the allowances paid to the blind. I think the change should be made.
My life, Mr. Speaker, has been spent in the field of education, the greater part of it in technical and vocational education. I suggest

The Address-Mr. Knowles this is of growing importance as Canada develops more and more as an industrial as well as an agricultural nation. The rapid advances in science and technical skills impose a duty upon the government to ensure that we shall always have an adequate, skilled working force, capable of meeting the challenge presented by new inventions and new techniques.
For some years this government has encouraged the expansion of technical training facilities in co-operation with the provinces, in an attempt to keep pace with the demands of industry. It is not a task for the provinces alone. It is my hope that if and when proposals are made for the expansion of this work under the general direction of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), they will provide for the allocation of sufficient funds to make possible notable expansion in the schemes already in effect, and the exploration of new ones.
One final word, Mr. Speaker. It is heartening to hear that proposals are to be made to take care of those suffering total physical handicaps. There will be general agreement to this proposal. There are, however, thousands of men and women suffering from physical handicaps of one kind or another who, with sympathetic care and the right kind of training, can be restored to economic independence, with the concomitant restoration of self-reliance and self-respect. I know that this important matter is under active review. The retraining of persons debarred from their former occupations by physical change is not only right from the humanitarian point of view, but it is economically sound in that it restores to remunerative employment a vast number of persons whose services this country needs.
I am sorry to have taken so long, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, I am sure it must be apparent to this house that we of this group have come back to this parliament not only with a substantial increase in the number of our members, but with some very significant additions to our debating strength. I am sure, too, that the house generally, and the government in particular, knows that we have come to parliament once again with a purpose. That purpose has many aspects, not the least of which is our determination to jolt, jab, prod, poke, pester and attack this government to try to get it to pay some attention to the needs and the wishes of the Canadian people.
I shall make as the main burden of my remarks on this occasion one of the questions
[Mr. Fairey.l

concerning which apparently it is necessary to keep on jolting and jabbing this government; but before I deal with that important question I feel that I should like to say a few words in support of the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). I am sure he had the support of the entire house in his insistence that we in Canada want no part of MeCarthyism, either from the United States or any brand that might be generated in this country itself. We support the position he took with respect to the speech of Mr. Lasky in which he attacked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). I believe the hon. member for Spadina was perfectly justified in asking that no less a person than President Eisenhower repudiate that attack.
It seems to me, however, that there is something more to this whole question than was touched upon this afternoon by the hon. member for Spadina. He may well be correct in his view that the attempt of the people in Washington to get Gouzenko, or an interview with him, is an indirect attack on the Secretary of State for External Affairs or an attempt to blackmail the minister. But I suggest that even more could arise from such an interview. 1 ask hon. members to consider what would happen if Igor Gouzenko were allowed, or allowed himself, to be interviewed by this United States congressional committee, either in the United States or in Canada. What would follow? Does anyone suspect that he is the last Canadian who would be called before such a United States committee? Not on your life. They would call on someone else, and there is no telling who it might be. It might be the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), or the hon. member for Spadina. It might be B. K. Sandwell, Grant Dexter or John Smith off the street. The first of such Canadians who refused to go would immediately be branded as a communist.
I submit that there is in this issue everything the hon. member for Spadina said there was this afternoon, and there is even more. Not only should the Canadian government stand its ground on this issue, but I go so far as to make an appeal to this man Igor Gouzenko, whose whereabouts none of us knows, that he not press, as apparently he has been pressing, for a chance to appear before the United States committee, on television or in any other way.
After all, we have granted to Igor Gouzenko the status of Canadian citizenship, and I submit that he owes a responsibility

to his fellow Canadian citizens to consider what could follow from his actions. According to a dispatch in tonight's Ottawa Citizen apparently there is being run this afternoon in the Toronto Telegram a photostatic copy of a deposition signed by Igor Gouzenko in which he apparently made the statement that he is the one who is asking that the United States committee be permitted to interview him on Canadian soil. This goes even further than the question of the sovereignty of this country. I suggest that if that practice were followed it would place in jeopardy the name and reputation of any Canadian whom any McCarthyite in the United States might choose to criticize or want to call before that committee.
I speak with some particular interest on this question; indeed perhaps I speak from a vantage point enjoyed by few hon. members of this house. I once was a victim of a smear tactic, but as a Canadian I dealt with the matter in the Canadian way. I took it to the courts and a decision was rendered' by the Supreme Court of Ontario, after a jury trial at that, which put a stop to that particular person trying to use his smear tactics against my name and reputation. I submit that all of us in this country prefer that these matters be dealt with in that way. We want no importation of the methods which are causing so much unhappiness, and so much concern amongst thinking people, in the United States at the present time.
I need not go further into this matter because the hon. member for Spadina dealt with it so well and so effectively this afternoon, but I thought he should know, and that the government should know, that the views expressed by him have the support of this house generally.
I indicated earlier that it was my intention in this my first speech in this new parliament to show that we are still the same group we were in the last parliament and' in parliaments before that. We are still here fighting for what we believe is needed and deserved by the Canadian people. We placed at the top of the list of domestic issues when we went to the people in the election of August 10 the need for a nation-wide program of health insurance.
We have placed that need before this house in the form of a subamendment which was moved a few days ago by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I suppose that in the normal course of events, or following the normal pattern of things, as an hon. member referred to it a few moments ago, our subamendment will be beaten when the vote is taken. I
The Address-Mr. Knowles notice a number of Liberal members nodding their heads in agreement with that statement.


Mr. Maclnnis:: They will vote for it some day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly the point. May I remind hon. members of this house that the first vote of the last parliament took place on September 19, 1949, and that first vote was on the question of abolishing the means test from the old age pension. Every Liberal member who was present in the house stood up and voted against our amendment seeking the abolition of that means test.
That was on September 19, 1949. Before the end of that parliament, due in large part to the jolting and jabbing from this corner of the house, we got rid of the means test on the old age pension, at least at age 70.
It may not be an unhappy omen if our amendment on this occasion is beaten. It may well suggest that before the end' of this parliament the federal government will see the error of its ways and will decide that the time has come to introduce a nation-wide program of health insurance.
This question of health insurance is not a new matter to be brought up on the floor of this house, and my speaking on it certainly is not new. Neither is it a new subject to the Liberal party, or to the Liberal members of this house. As everyone now knows, although many were surprised when we first brought it out five or six years ago, health insurance was first advocated by the Liberals at their convention of 1919. There are members of parliament in this House of Commons today who were not yet born when the Liberal party first promised" health insurance to the Canadian people.
The Liberals did not do very much about it in the earlier years, the twenties and the thirties, although quite a number of speeches were made about it and committees were put to work on it, but in the forties the Liberals did a great deal about health insurance. In fact if I were to detail the whole record it would take more time than is allotted to me.
But I remember the throne speech of 1943. I remember it particularly well because it was the first throne speech I heard as a new member of this house, eleven years ago. On January 28, 1943, the throne speech of that date promised action at that session on the question of a national program of health insurance. Similarly the throne speech the following year, delivered on January 27, 1944, dealt with the question of health insurance.
By this time, of course, there was a little hedging. That throne speech said that when
254	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knowles the provinces were agreeable there would be a program of health insurance submitted to the parliament of Canada. The 1945 throne speech was one of those unusual speeches containing only two paragraphs or so and it did not say so much. Even the long ones do not say very much, for that matter. Health insurance was not inserted in the 1945 throne speech in the earlier part of that year.
However, as everyone knows, it was discussed at length during the election campaign that summer. Liberal members made a great deal of capital out of the fact that in July, 1944, there had been laid on the table of the house in a report by a special committee of the house a draft bill setting out in full detail a national health act.


Mr. Coldwell:: Improperly printed and
improperly circulated during the election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As my leader points out, it was printed for election purposes despite the fact that the draft bill laid on the table was not really a bill introduced into the house by the government. But as my leader points out, an attempt was made improperly to create the impression that the government had taken action of a legislative character. There it was, and hon. members can find it today in the Journals of this house for July 29, 1944.
In that same year after the election we had the dominion-provincial conference at which the federal government submitted its famous green book proposals which included, among other things, a proposal for national health insurance. Following hard upon the green book proposals of the summer of 1945 came the session of that fall when again in the throne speech, delivered on September 6, 1945, reference was made to the institution of a nation-wide program of health insurance.
It got talked about during all the sessions of that parliament which met from 1945 to 1949, but no action on health insurance then was forthcoming because the government fell back time and again on the argument that the dominion-provincial conference in the summer of 1945 had ended in disagreement. Well, at any rate, as a result of our constant poking at the government over this question we did get something during the life of that parliament. In May of 1948 we got the beginning of the health grants program. Hon. members who were here on that occasion will remember-


Mr. Martin:: Will my hon. friend permit me to ask a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Gladly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What evidence does the hon. gentleman offer that he or any other member opposite had anything to do with that announcement of May, 1948?


Major James William Coldwell: There were three important by-elections to be won, and we won them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, no, my hon. friend is unduly excited. In fairness to the late prime minister that was his own conception, brought in at his own time. It was his own idea and, if there ever was one idea that the former prime minister deserved to have on the record as his own, it was the national health program.


An hon. Member:: Is this a speech?


Major James William Coldwell: The record shows that the by-elections were coming up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The interruptions are quite all right, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is surely conscious of the fact that before Mr. King brought in the health grants program in May, 1948, there had been debates back and forth across the floor of this house during all the years of that parliament. We were constantly demanding action on health insurance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not what you said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am surprised that the minister says what he has about the late Mr. King. However, if he wants to make the statement that Mr. King chose his own time, I suggest that it was 29 years after Mr. King had told the Liberal convention in 1919 that he stood for a health insurance program before he brought in the health grants program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. King told this house- and I will not read this again because I have worn out this piece of paper holding it up in the house-as recorded not only in Hansard but in the Toronto Star of the next day, that the health grants program was to be the foundation for health insurance. Since health insurance was first promised by the Liberals in 1919, and since it took 29 years for them to bring in a health grants program which was the foundation for a health insurance program, how long are we going to have to wait for something to foe built on that foundation?


An hon. Member:: Until the next election.


An hon. Member:: Twenty-nine years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Somebody says, "Until the next election". Someone else says, "Another 29 years". Well, as I said a moment ago, I dare to hope that this parliament may repeat what happened at the last one, and that what this house turns down on the first vote of the session becomes law before this parliament is dissolved.
In 1949 there was an election promise that something would be done with respect to health insurance. I do not know whether that promise was circulated widely throughout the country but it certainly was circulated throughout the part of the country from which I come, the city of Winnipeg, where the movement to which I belong is particularly strong.
After that election was over we came back and, lo and behold, reference to health insurance did not appear in the speech from the throne, so we had to start in again fighting for it. Eventually we reached what some of us thought was perhaps the high point up to that time with respect to the question, and I refer to what happened on June 21, 1951. In the previous year we had had a very happy experience in the committee on old age security. The committee had made recommendations to this house which were in due course accepted by the government and turned into legislation. Some of us felt that if we could get the same kind of committee, indeed the very same committee as to personnel, to work on the question of health insurance we might get somewhere on this important question. In the course of debate and in the course of our demands for a committee, on June 21, 1951, the Minister of National Health and Welfare promised- and I see he is watching me like a hawk to make sure I do not say something he did not say-that consideration would be given to the setting up of a committee. I am sorry that I have spoiled the interjection you were about to make, Mr. Minister.


Mr. Marlin:: I have caught you before.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He promised to give consideration to setting up a committee at the 1952 session of parliament. He made it clear that the committee was not to be set up at the fall session, but he hoped we could have it at the session of 1952. Well, we came back in 1952 and my first question on the orders of the day related to that matter. We then learned from the Minister of National Health ar.d Welfare that the government had decided not to set up a committee at that time, nor has one been set up since.
Well, that did not dampen our efforts in connection with this matter and, indeed,
The Address-Mr. Knowles nothing will dissuade us from continuing to fight for what we believe to be so important to our people, namely a program of nation-wide health insurance. However, it did seem to me that from that fairly high point in June, 1951, when we thought we were going to get a committee and legislation as a result of it, we slipped down to May of 1953 when, as recorded at page 5018 of Hansard for that day, the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that the health grants program was a very important and satisfactory part of government policy but that he was not prepared to recommend health insurance-as distinct from the health grants program-to parliament or to his colleagues in the government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: At that time. Read the words I used. You have paraphrased them wrongly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, no. The minister does
me the honour of paying attention and of interrupting, and I hope he will do me the honour of replying to this speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I might surprise you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says he might surprise me. There is one surprise I would be delighted to get, and that is the statement that he is prepared to fight for action on health insurance during the life of this parliament.
Despite the statement of the minister on May 8, 1953, that because of the cost and because the health grants program had not sufficiently laid the foundation he was not prepared to recommend to parliament or his colleagues that the government introduce legislation with regard to health insurance, that did not stop Liberals from talking health insurance during the course of last summer's election.
I shall have something more to say about that, Mr. Speaker, when we come back at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was just about to point out that, despite the dismal record of the Liberal party so far as action on health insurance is concerned, that fact did not deter Liberal candidates in last summer's election from campaigning on the issue of health insurance.
256	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knowles
I want to make it quite clear that I have not been able to find a promise of health insurance included in the Liberal party's platform for the election of August 10. I go further, Mr. Speaker, and say that I have not been able to find any Liberal platform. I collected all the Liberal literature that I could collect during the summer months. I collected the advertisements from the newspapers as they appeared, including great big pictures of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), telling what a fine man he was and so on. But at no time did I run across any statement as to the planks in the platform, as to the proposals that the Liberal party was prepared to lay before parliament if it were re-elected. There were many references to what the Liberal party claimed as its record; but alone, among the national parties of this country, it failed to go to the country on the basis of a platform.
However, Mr. Speaker, despite that fact, references were made to health insurance. For example, in one document which was circulated on behalf of the Liberal candidate in my constituency, I found a lengthy paragraph on what the Liberals claim has been done for the health of the Canadian people under the health grants program. Then after a recital of the advantages of that program this sentence appears in italics:	"The national health program is laying the foundation for health insurance." There is no promise that there will be health insurance; there is no plank in the platform to that effect, but there is the suggestion to the electorate that if you vote Liberal, somehow or other, some day, if you live long enough, there will be health insurance.
That same piece of literature to which I have just referred and which I still hold in my hand has on another page this sentence:
The goal of the national health program, Initiated by the St. Laurent government five years ago, is to bring the best of health care within the reach of every Canadian.
I am sure that both the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) would like me to make a slight correction in that statement. Actually the health grants program was initiated by the King government in May, 1948, rather than by the St. Laurent government which took office a few months later. However, Mr. Speaker, there again, without a definite commitment, is the suggestion that if you vote Liberal you will get health insurance. That is what Mr. King said to the country in 1919. That is what has been said by the


Liberals down across these 34 years since it was first put into the platform of the Liberal party.
Despite these references to health insurance that one finds by scraping around in Liberal literature, we come back to this parliament and do we find any reference to it in the speech from the throne? No, there is no reference to health insurance at all. Oh, there is included in the speech from the throne one little promise which the Minister of National Health and Welfare would like us to believe is another step in that direction. I refer to the welcome announcement that there is to be legislation providing for financial assistance to persons who are totally disabled.


Mr. Mclvor:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare and indeed the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) would not expect us to go any further at this time than to say that that announcement is welcome. We cannot go any further until we see the details of that legislation. If it is going to involve waiting for legislation by the provinces; if it is going to involve financial negotiations with the provinces before the legislation, provincial and federal, comes into effect; and if perchance there is then to be attached to the legislation a means test, some of our disabled people may yet have a long while to wait before they get the pension which they think, from the throne speech, is coming to them.
However, Mr. Speaker, we welcome that promise; but we suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and to the government that this business of inching along toward a proper health program is not good enough for the Canadian people in the light of the needs of our people and in the light of the capacity of this country to establish and support a national health program.
I want to say in passing that I appreciated the friendly remarks-I took them as in that vein, at any rate-of the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais) when he was speaking in French the other day, with reference to a request I had made for financial assistance to families in Manitoba who have been hard hit by the poliomyelitis epidemic that we have had this year. The point the hon. member for Charlevoix made in his speech was, I think, very well taken. I am sorry the Minister of National Health and Welfare did not realize that by this poliomyelitis epidemic there is demonstrated once again the serious shortcoming of any national health

program-such as he calls his health grants program-that does not provide financial assistance to enable people to get health care or to meet a crisis such as many of our people have faced in the province of Manitoba.
At this time we are confronted with hospital costs rising tremendously. Costs of Blue Cross plans throughout this country are rising. The costs of such medical plans as we have are increasing. We have information such as that which was given to us in the government's own sickness survey which shows that the people in the lower income brackets simply are not getting the medical attention they need.
The sickness survey to which I have just referred, just as an example, showed that families with incomes of $5,000 or over are averaging $158.70 a year spent on medical expenses, but where the family has an income of only $1,500 a year or less, the average expenditure is $46.60. No one would deny that the families with lower incomes certainly need just as much medical attention as do those with higher incomes. They probably need more. But because of their inability to pay they are not getting the medical attention which they need and deserve, and which this country is in an economic position to provide.
So, Mr. Speaker, because of the need for health insurance, because of its social desirability, because of the capacity of our country to provide it and because of the commitments that the Liberal party as well as other parties have made with respect to this subject across the years, I submit that this parliament now meeting, this twenty-second parliament of Canada, should not end without the establishment of a national program of health insurance.
As I said in my remarks before supper, one knows the pattern of things around here. That pattern suggests that our subamendment calling for a nation-wide program of health insurance with provision for provincial participation will probably be beaten when the day comes for that vote to be taken. But I say to hon. members on the other side of the house: Vote against this subamendment if you wish, as those of you on the other side of the house voted against our amendment calling for the abolition of the means test from the old age pension in 1949, but sooner or later you will see the day when health insurance will be established in this country.
In our view that step should be taken during the life of this parliament. I tell the government that we of this group will 83276-17
The Address-Mr. Knowles certainly give them no peace until action is taken-until health insurance is established for all Canadians, from coast to coast.
In addition to this extremely important question of health insurance there are a number of other matters, and my time will permit me only to refer to them, which we feel are left-over business from the last parliament and should be dealt with without delay. I have already instanced the first vote in the parliament of 1949 to 1953 which had to do with the removal of the means test from the old age pension. I remind hon. members who were here that the last vote in the twenty-first parliament likewise had to do with old age pensions. We of the C.C.F. moved on that occasion, in May of this year, that the house should express itself as of the opinion that the government should give consideration to increasing the amount of the pensions paid under the Old Age Security Act, the Old Age Assistance Act and the Blind Persons Act to an amount commensurate with today's cost of living.
We suggested in our speeches in support of that amendment that in view of the cost of living as it stood in 1953 as compared with what it was in 1949, when $40 was set as the amount of these pensions, and in view of the increase in our gross national product, the amount of these pensions should be not less than $60. Our amendment was defeated. We heard very little about that during the election campaign from the Liberals. Most of their talk on old age pensions was on what they claimed their government had done. They omitted, of course, any reference to the prodding and jolting it took to get any action. Nevertheless, so far as the people of the country are concerned they are still expecting action on the amount of the old age security pension, old age assistance, and the blind persons pension at the present time.
I say again to Liberal members of the house, don't sit back so satisfied just because you won the election with 48 or 49 per cent of the vote and assume that because the means test is off the old age pension at age 70 there is nothing more to do. Hon. members on the other side of the house know as well as I do that that pension is not going to stay at $40 for the next hundred years or the next twenty years. They know it has to be increased in keeping with the rising value of production in the country. Our plea is that our older people should not be asked to wait indefinitely, to wait until they can no longer keep alive on today's amount, but rather that there should be an increase in the amount of these pensions with the least possible delay.
258	HOUSE OF
The Address*-Mr. Knowles
We feel, too, that the time has come to remove the means test from the old age pension at the age of 65. In that connection, Mr. Speaker, may I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, before he brings in his promised legislation having to do with pensions for disabled persons, that he should reconsider, if there is any thought of it, this idea of attaching a means test to that pension. Surely in this day and age what we are doing with the means test is to get rid of it. Surely we got over a very important hump when we got rid of the means test from the old age pension at age 70. Let us carry on in the right direction and get rid of it from other statutes of this parliament where it should not be, and let us not introduce it in new, valuable and important legislation such as that providing pensions for disabled or incurable persons.
As I say, time will not permit me to pursue that question at any length, but as hon. members who have been here before are well aware I will have something more to say about old age pension matters as time goes on.
Likewise in just a sentence I want to indicate my continued support for the position taken by the Canadian Legion, particularly with respect to the War Veterans Allowance Act. In my view their claim is one that should be met, namely that the amount of the allowance should be increased to not less than $60 a month single and $120 a month married; and if you cannot get rid of the means test altogether at least the income ceiling should be raised to not less than $1,200 a year single and $2,000 a year married. We will have more to say about these matters of a social security nature as the session goes on.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say this: we feel that when we ask for health insurance, when we ask for adequate old age pensions, when we ask for proper legislation for our veterans, we are not asking that our Canadian people be given something for nothing. We are simply asking that it be recognized that the great wealth of this country is produced by the Canadian people, the workers and farmers who toil and turn our natural resources into real wealth. Because it is our people who produce the wealth of this country we contend that they have a right to get that wealth back in a decent standard of living, in decent and adequate wages where they are industrial workers, in decent and proper prices to our farmers for their products, and in measures of social security such as I have referred to tonight and such as we will continue to fight for during the life of this parliament.


The speech I have made is perhaps a little different from some of the speeches made at the opening of a session. Many speeches these days are including niceties of one kind or another, congratulations to various people and so on, but it seemed to me that what was needed, before the government is allowed to settle down into the complacency of which it is so capable, was to tell the government that some of us in this house are going to carry on this process of jolting and jabbing until we get the progressive kind of legislation to which we believe the Canadian people are entitled.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I too, like a large number of members who have already spoken, would like to extend to you and to your deputy my congratulations on your new appointments. I hope, sir, that your unbiased and objective interpretation of the rules will meet with the cooperation from every member that you deserve.
Having said that, I think I have completed the congratulations which I feel justified in extending at this moment. Before I leave the impression that I look at the whole world with a jaundiced eye I hasten to say that there are a couple of things in the speech from the throne which please me considerably. The first one has to do with something that is being done to aid fishermen, and it is referred to in these words at page 5 of Hansard of November 12, 1953:
The scheme initiated during the last parliament for insuring boats and certain gear has recently been improved and is helping to meet the hazards of the fishing industry.
There is still a lot of room for improvement in that connection. Last year the fishermen in my riding experienced a very severe and unexpected storm which in many cases wiped them out of business completely. I know personally of cases of fishermen who, in the space of 24 hours, were reduced from as many as 800 lobster traps to half a dozen, in the middle of the fishing season.
In the case of these men, insurance on equipment which they may be able to build or purchase in the next year is not good enough. Although this was a limited thing as far as the number of individuals involved, it was just as great a disaster to them as the fires which wiped out some villages in Quebec a couple of years ago, and just as much a tragedy to the individuals concerned as the Winnipeg floods or the tornado in western Ontario. I feel that something more than just a promise of helping these fishermen to insure equipment which they may be able to replace at great expense is needed. I should

like to have seen last year some outright grant made to these people so they would have been in a position to set themselves up in their business again before the end of the fishing season.
I was pleased, too, with the reference made in the speech from the throne to the relief to be afforded to completely disabled persons. The reference is in these words, which appear at page 5 of Hansard for November 12, 1953:
. . . a measure to facilitate the establishment nation-wide of a federal-provincial assistance program for totally disabled persons will be submitted for your consideration.
I am very pleased with that because I have recognized for a long time that people who are physically handicapped by being crippled or disabled in some other way are perhaps equally as entitled to relief as the people who are disabled because of blindness or old age. I am pleased to see that the government contemplates doing something toward relieving their situation.
My main purpose in rising to speak in this debate, Mr. Speaker, is to bring to the attention of this house and the government generally the unsatisfactory conditions which now exist in agriculture in this country, with special reference to the depressed condition of agriculture in Prince Edward Island, the province from which I come. In that connection I should like to quote from the "Current Review of Agricultural Conditions in Canada" for November, 1953. In reviewing the economic conditions of the country generally, this report says on page 5:
Income: The continuing high level of economic activity is reflected in the income components of gross national product. Labour income for the first seven months of this year was 10 per cent higher than in the corresponding period of 1952. This resulted from a small increase in employment accompanied by sizeable increases in wage rates. Average hourly earnings, one of the best available indicators of the basic wage structure, have continued to advance. At July 1, 1953, average hourly earnings in manufacturing industries were 6 per cent over those at the same date in 1952, and increases in other industries ranged between that of mining which was up 4 per cent and building construction where hourly earnings were close to 10 per cent higher. Although the trend in basic working hours has continued downward, more overtime and less short time, particularly in manufacturing, has resulted in slightly longer working hours this year. Along with higher basic rates, the longer work week has contributed to the steady rise in average weekly earnings to their present peak. At July 1 of this year, average weekly salaries and wages stood at $57.58 compared with $53.96 at July 1, 1952.
Further along in this report, Mr. Speaker, the problem of the agricultural industry is mentioned, and I should like to contrast what I have just read with the situation which 83276-174
The Address-Mr. MacLean applies in so far as farm income is concerned. On page 10 of this same review it says:
It is estimated that farm net income from farming operations during 1953 will be about 12 per cent below the 1952 level. This estimate is based on information available up to about the middle of September.
In addition to that, we find that net farm income in 1952 was 11 per cent lower than it was in 1951. There has been a strong downward trend in farm net income over the last two years. It is for that reason that I am deeply disturbed about the economic conditions which now exist in this country so far as agriculture is concerned.
Perhaps it will be said that it does not matter to this house if a few farmers have not as much spending money as they had last year or the year before. Perhaps someone will say, what difference does it make if a few farmers in Prince Edward Island or in the Fraser valley or in New Brunswick are not getting as much for their crops as they have in the past?
My contention is that it is a very important matter for several reasons. In the first place, bad economic conditions in agriculture bear in them the seeds of depression, or at least a severe economic recession. If the purchasing power of the farmer is reduced, the industries which supply the farmer will suffer correspondingly. I believe it is bad business, too, for our western civilization to force farmers out of production by economic pressures, even though they are producing food and clothing at a time when a large percentage of the population of the world is going ill-clad and ill-nourished. From a national point of view, too, it is a bad thing for agriculture to be in an unsound economic condition. I believe it was Booker T. Washington who said that no race could prosper until it learned that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as there is in writing a poem.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that a healthy and prosperous agriculture in this country is of great national importance from the viewpoint of human resources, if for no other reason. It has long been observed that rural populations are, generally speaking, industrious, healthy and well adjusted in their relations with their fellow man. This observation was made as long ago as the first century. I think it was Pliny the Elder who said:
The agricultural population, says Cato, produce the bravest men, the most valiant soldiers, and a class of citizens the least given of all to evil designs.
I noticed some hon. members applauding. I do not say this lightly; I believe it is true.
260	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. MacLean It is interesting to note that even modern statistics, as recently as last year and applicable to this country, proved that very point. In this country the provinces of Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan are more dependent upon agriculture than any other province. If you look up the statistics having to do with crime or with almost any other thing, you will find that the provinces of Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island are lowest in those characteristics which are least desirable and highest in the characteristics which are most desirable amongst the general population.
For instance, if you refer to the Canada Year Book for 1952-53, you will notice a table on page 293 headed "Adults convicted of indictable offences, ratio per ten thousand of population". Strangely enough it will be found that Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island have identical figures, 19 per 10,000 of population, and that is by far the lowest for the whole of Canada. Again you will find identical figures for the number of motor vehicle accidents per 10,000 motor vehicles registered in the province. There are many other ways in which this can be proved, if statistics prove anything. But from every point of view it is reasonable to suggest that there is no valid reason why the agricultural people of this country should not share equally and fairly in the material benefits that our economy produces. At the present time that is not so.
As I have already said, in the period of a year preceding last July the net income for agriculture dropped 12 per cent. In the preceding twelve months it dropped 11 per cent, while the average wage earned in industry increased 6 per cent over a period of one year. The unfortunate part of this drop in net income, as far as the people I represent are concerned, is that it is not spread evenly over the whole agricultural economy. By reference again to the "Current Review of Agricultural Conditions in Canada" for November you will find, on page 11, the index of farm prices, the following:
The index for the first seven months would be from 5 to 10 per cent below last year's level. The decline so far this year is largely attributable to significant reductions in the prices of livestock and potatoes and a minor reduction in the price of dairy products.
I may say that the sale of animal products and potatoes is what the farmers of my constituency depend on for their income. At the present time farmers of Prince Edward Island are forced to sell potatoes at a price which is far below the cost of production, and that is a very unfortunate position for them to find themselves in when one realizes that the per capita net value of production


in Prince Edward Island over the last number of years has been consistently lower than that of any other province in Canada.
I grant you there is a principle of economics which says that people are not prone to want to earn their livelihood in places which are undesirable communities in which to live. Therefore conversely if the place is especially desirable as a home, people will accept lower rewards for their efforts in order to have the privilege of living there. For instance, if you want to persuade a native of my province to work and earn his livelihood near the Arctic circle, shall we say, you must offer him pretty high wages. If you were to expect him to work in the tropics you would have to offer pretty high wages; and as far as statistics go, if you were to expect him to work in Toronto you would have to offer him pretty high wages. But I do not think the principle of the desirability of the place in which to live accounts entirely for the great discrepancy between the average income in my province and in other parts of Canada.
As I have already said, this depressed economy now has saddled upon it an absurd load, as far as the selling price of our main cash crop is concerned. I refer of course to potatoes. At the present time the price which is being offered to farmers in Prince Edward Island is 56J cents for a 75-pound bag. That includes the cost of the container. That, as anyone who is acquainted with growing potatoes knows, is an absurd price. I venture to say it costs at least as much to produce a bushel of potatoes as it does to produce a bushel of wheat, and I think more. It would be fair to say that if western farmers were offered 45 cents a bushel for wheat they would refuse to sell, and they would hold their product until the price improved; but the law of supply and demand does not apply strictly to a perishable crop such as potatoes, especially immediately after a crop has been harvested. Potatoes are a very perishable crop and they must be disposed of in a short time. The farmer has no choice; he cannot hold his harvest until the price has improved.
In addition to that, the financial position of many of the farmers in Prince Edward Island is such that, regardless of the price of potatoes, they must sell in order to meet the fixed charges of the cost of growing. The result is that if the price is low it tends to flood the market, because the farmer is forced to sell more potatoes than he normally would if the price were good, in order to meet his bills for fertilizer and other fixed charges, which are very high in the growing of potatoes.

It may be said that I am out to hold up the consumer, to force him to pay exorbitant prices for potatoes, and therefore add to the cost of living. A lot of people who represent city ridings may take that point of view. I would like to point out that the average annual per capita consumption of potatoes in this country is only about 200 pounds. The cost of potatoes, even at a good price to the farmers, is slight as compared with the total number of factors which make up the cost of living. At the present time in Prince Edward Island the farmer is being offered 45 cents a bushel for potatoes. If that price were to be increased from 56} cents a bag to say $1.26} it might be acceptable and would meet the cost of production. It would add only $2 a year to the grocery bill of the average Canadian. I do not think the consumers of this country are so miserly that they want to see the potato-growing industry of this country sabotaged and the potato growers going into bankruptcy in order that they may save 4 cents a week additional on their grocery bills.
I am told that at the present time offerings of potatoes in Prince Edward Island, in New Brunswick and in other growing centres are heavy. They are heavy for the very reason I have already given. Farmers must sell a lot in order to pay their fixed charges. I believe this government should make every effort to educate the Canadian people into being willing to pay fair prices for the basic necessities of life.
Probably owing to high pressure advertising or something else that I cannot account for, there seems to be a tendency among the Canadian people to expect to get the necessities of life at prices so low that they can then afford to pay fancy prices for the luxuries they do not really need. A great many people are willing to pay 30 cents for a quart of beer but they hate to pay 21 cents for a quart of milk. There are large numbers of people in this country who would gladly pay 40 cents for a pack of cigarettes, but they hesitate to pay 5 cents for a pound of potatoes, and potatoes at 5 cents a pound is about the cheapest energy-producing food that is produced in this country.
I am pleased that the potato growers in my province may benefit from action which is now being taken under the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act of 1939. I hope the people who are trying to better their position by means of that act will meet with success. I hope the government will use every possible means at its disposal to see that the producers of essentials in this country get a fair reward for their labour.
The Address-Mr. MacLean
I know the intentions of the government and the Department of Agriculture are good when it comes to compiling crop reports and things of that nature, but I feel that sometimes harm is often done, perhaps inadvertently, to the very people they are trying to help. Perhaps the best example of this is to be found in the September issue of "Current Review of Agricultural Conditions in Canada". At page 24, dealing with fruits and vegetables, reference is made to raspberries and it is estimated that the 1953 raspberry crop of 13,000,000 quarts is 9 per cent greater than the 1952 crop. They then go on to indicate that prices have been generally higher this season than those prevailing last .year. In spite of the increased production, prices went up.
Then in the next paragraph they refer to potatoes. I do not know why the growers of potatoes should be specially victimized, but that seems to be the case. This reads:
The total acreage planted to potatoes is estimated at 320,800 acres. This is 8 per cent and 12 per cent greater than the 1952 and 1951 plantings, respectively. New Brunswick, Ontario and British Columbia report the largest increases, whereas Alberta and Saskatchewan report a decline in acreage. Prices this year have been considerably lower than those prevailing in the same period of 1952. The situation is general throughout Canada and the United States where total production is expected to amount to 376,773,000 bushels or 8 per cent over the 1952 crop.
That may be fair enough down that far, but they then go on to make what I feel is an unjustifiable prediction when they say:
In view of the probable increase in production in both Canada and the United States, it is unlikely that prices will reach the levels of the 1952-53 season.
That is an open invitation to the trade. It is telling them that the potato producers of North America are stuck with more potatoes than they can get rid of and there is an opportunity to buy potatoes from the farmers at the lowest possible prices. As I said before, when the trade attempts to do that the law of supply and demand breaks down because potatoes are a perishable product and the farmers must dispose of them immediately. They must glut the market in order to acquire enough cash to satisfy their fixed charges.
That statement is most unfortunate when one realizes that in the next issue of the same review for November they say in effect, "we are sorry, we estimated a little too high; the crop is not as big as that after all. It is only 6 per cent greater than it was last year." Although that statement may have been unintentional it had a depressing effect upon the market for potatoes in this country.

The Address-Mr. MacLean
The general result of this situation is that economic conditions in my province are very bad. The city of Charlottetown is dependent for its prosperity upon the prosperity of the farmers and at the present time it is in the depths of a local depression. There is a chronic unemployment situation there. On October 22 of this year there were 735 people in Charlottetown for whom jobs could not be provided. In addition, 267 people in Queens and Kings counties had been placed in jobs outside the province during the first six months of this year. Likely there would be a similar number placed in the last six months. That would bring the actual unemployment figure for those two counties up to something like 1,400. In addition there would be at least 1,000 more people who have gone off under their own steam to Toronto, Edmonton, Seven Islands or some place like that to seek employment. In actual fact you have a grave unemployment situation in Prince Edward Island.
Immediately after the war we heard a great deal about the shelf of reserve projects and public works which were to be used immediately soft spots occurred in the economy of our country and the unemployment figures began to rise. I suggest that one of those soft spots has definitely developed in Prince Edward Island. It is time to bring some of those projects off the shelf and get some of the public works into being.
Time and time again the people of Charlottetown have been promised a new, up-to-date, modern federal office building. That promise has been renewed each year coincidental with the annual meeting of one of the political parties in my riding. That has happened for the last ten years, and still there is no building. I am encouraged by the recent announcement of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) to the effect that an item will be provided in the estimates this year to begin the construction of a new federal building in Charlottetown. I wish the minister every success in his plans in that regard.
Although the reward which the people of rny riding receive for their labours is lower on a per capita basis than that of any province in Canada, it does not mean that their production is lower. The people of my province are hard-working, efficient people. They are farmers for the most part, although there are some fishermen and men of other walks of life. The rewards received for their efforts have been discouraging.
The farmers of my province have not only attempted to earn a decent living for themselves by hard work, but have tried to pass on their farms to their descendants in at


least the same condition they were in when they received them from their ancestors. That is a worth-while ambition, and it is a good omen for the conservation of our natural resources.
But these men repeatedly find themselves frustrated in their endeavours. Their income is not sufficient to provide the necessities of life and at the same time permit them to carry on their farming operations in the way they would like to do and provide the necessary lime, chemical fertilizers and other requirements for the soil. In some cases, much against their will, they are reduced to the principle of actually mining the soil to keep themselves from starving. That is a very unfortunate situation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see this government-


Mr. Murphy (Lambton West):: -out of
office.


An hon. Member:: Now you are telling them.


Mr. MacDougall:: That is the truth.


John Angus MacLean: -for a while leave its concentration on political stratagems and the creation of mirages and other political illusions, and its concentration on camouflaging parts of our national economy which are not attractive to the people, in order that they may perpetrate themselves in office-


An hon. Member:: Perpetrate is right.


John Angus MacLean: -in order that they may perpetuate themselves in office-


John Lorne MacDougall: You are getting all
tangled up.


John Angus MacLean: I would like this government, and especially the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), whom I am glad to see in his seat, to think often and regularly of the people in my riding who are now expecting to accept 45 cents a bushel for potatoes.


Mr. Gardiner:: That is not what they are expecting to accept; that is the first payment.


John Angus MacLean: That is true, but even the most optimistic feel that the final price will not be much higher.


An hon. Member:: The minister has not
pulled the rabbit out of the hat yet.


John Angus MacLean: Large numbers of potato
producers are staying out of the pool, particularly the ones who are in a position to hold their stocks, in the hope that later on they may be able to get a little better price for their products.
I would like to conclude with a quotation from Jonathan Swift. I commend it to the

minister because it sums up the position in words far better than I could find. I would like to think that the minister would even frame the quotation and place it on his desk so he cannot help but see it every morning and think of people in these depressed areas. While he is about it he might make an extra copy for the Minister of Trade and' Commerce (Mr. Howe):
And he gave it for his opinion, that whoever could make two ears of corn, or two blades of . grass, to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to his country, than the whole race of politicians put together.


John Lorne MacDougall: That includes you, you know.


Mr. A. W. A. White (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth) and the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Villeneuve) for the capable and able manner in which they moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I represent the people of the riding of Waterloo South, which is composed of the township of North Dumfries, the township of Wilmot, and part of the township of Waterloo; the city of Galt, the towns of Preston and Hespeler, and a number of other small villages and rural communities. Nearly all of the riding which I represent lies in the watershed of the Grand river and its tributaries. If you were to pass through this riding you would see rolling hills and valleys with the Grand river and its tributaries making picturesque scenes of outstanding beauty.
The well cultivated and rolling farmlands, with their well kept homes and barns, indicate at once to the visitor the fertility of the soil and the industry of the farming population. There are also in my riding urban centres that are very progressive and heavily industrialized. As a matter of fact the county of Waterloo, which is divided into the north and south ridings, and the surrounding areas including the city of Guelph and the city of Brantford, constitute one of the most heavily industrialized parts of Ontario.
The expansion of existing industries, combined with the establishment of new industries in this area during this period of economic growth that Canada has been experiencing, has created many new and trying problems for the municipalities. One is the shortage of housing accommodation, and I am glad to see that the government, recognizing that a shortage of homes still
The Address-Mr. A. W. A. White exists in Canada, has indicated in the speech from the throne provisions to alleviate this condition.
We in the Grand river watershed pride ourselves upon being the first group of municipalities to unite for conservation work.
As a result, the Grand river conservation commission was formed and the Shand and Luther dams were built by this commission to ameliorate the disastrous flooding conditions which existed in the watershed during the spring run-off, and to increase the summer flow to flush out the river channel during times of low water. Last year this government, in co-operation with the provincial government, approved the building of a $5 million dam at Glen Allan, which is the final dam to be built in this scheme. When it is completed the flood waters of the Grand river and its tributaries, the experts tell us, will be harnessed. I would at this time, on behalf of the people in the Grand river watershed, like to thank the government of Canada for their financial assistance in these projects.
The people of the riding of South Waterloo have also shown the people of Canada how to unite for their common good in another field. On August 11 of this year a new 177-bed hospital was officially opened in the city of Galt, known as the South Waterloo Memorial hospital. This is a district hospital.
Its capital cost and maintenance are being shared on a per capita basis by the residents of the township of North Dumfries, the town of Preston, the town of Hespeler and the city of Galt; so that the cost of hospitalization in this part of South Waterloo will be equally distributed between all the people for whose benefit the hospital with its modern facilities was erected.
I would like to tell you that this hospital is completely furnished and equipped with all the latest and most up-to-date technical equipment that is on the market, and the entire cost of these furnishings and equipment was raised by public subscription in the participating municipalities. I would at this time, on behalf of the people in my riding, like to thank the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) and this government, as well as the provincial government, for their grants which helped to make this long-needed hospital accommodation possible.
There is a matter that is causing grave concern to all people in the Grand river watershed, and that is the fact that the Grand river has become the No. 1 pollution problem in the province of Ontario. This is
due to the rapid growth of urban centres
264	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. A. W. A. White along its banks and the inadequacy of sewage treatment plants, or the lack of them altogether in some cases, to cope with and treat properly the increased amount of sewage and industrial waste. This government will be asked, if they have not been asked already, by the anti-pollution committee of the Grand river conservation authority to join with the municipalities and the provincial government and to assist financially in cleaning up this condition. I know that my friend and colleague the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) will agree with this statement, because the people of the city of Brantford have to get their drinking water out of the Grand river and are put to additional expense because of present conditions.
As the representative of the people of Waterloo South in the parliament of Canada, I feel it is my duty to bring to the attention of the government matters that are vitally important to my constituents as well as to many citizens throughout the entire Dominion of Canada. Therefore I bring to your attention another serious problem with which many workers and manufacturers are confronted not only in my riding but throughout the length and breadth of this great country.
I speak, of course, of the present condition of the textile industry in Canada.
This industry, at its peak in April, 1951, employed 104,000 men and women. By July, 1952 the number of persons employed had dropped to 82,328. In April, 1953, employment went up to a new level of 95,000 persons. Since that time this figure has gradually dropped until today the number of men and women employed in this basic industry has been reduced to 85,000 persons. This drop of 10,000 persons employed in this industry in the last seven months does not, however, tell the whole story because a large number of these people are on short time, as low as two and three days a week.
To get back to my own riding of Waterloo South, I have gathered the following information. The Staufler-Dobbie mill normally employing 450 people is now employing 300 workers at the height of its rush season; and from April to September of this year this mill was operating on short time of three to four days a week. The Riverside silk mill employing over 200 workers is now operating at only two-thirds of this capacity. The Turnbull mill employing 200 workers is now operating at 80 per cent of this capacity on short time of two to three days a week. The Newlands mill normally employing 500 workers is now employing only 350 persons on three and a half to four days a week. The 

Galt Knitting Company is operating on short time with only one-third of its normal number of employees.
In the neighbouring town of Hespeler, which has a population of approximately 3,900, the large Dominion woollen mill normally employs 1,100 persons and the Artex woollen mill normally employs 315 persons. These two mills between them normally provide employment for 1,415 people out of a total population of 3,900. Today the Dominion woollen mill is employing 700 persons and even this number is experiencing considerable short time. The Artex woollen mill is now operating and employing only 215 persons, a drop of 30 per cent. Of 54 looms the company is operating only 36 at the present time. These are some facts and figures showing the position of the textile industry in my riding, and I know the same situation exists in the textile industry throughout the entire Dominion of Canada.
In the year 1950 the Canadian textile mills manufactured 68 per cent of all the requirements of the Canadian people. In the early part of this year this figure had dropped to 52 per cent, and in the last six months the imports have exceeded all previous records and for the first time Canadian mills are now producing less than one-half the total requirements.
I know this government has for some time been aware of the serious condition of the textile industry in Canada, and has been considering ways and means of remedying and correcting these disturbing conditions. I know the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) has had his department working overtime to prevent goods, sold at depressed prices in the United States and other countries, from finding their way into the Canadian market, and that the anti-dumping laws are being applied wherever possible. But in spite of this fact the situation in the textile industry in Canada is getting progressively worse.
I should like to point out that the textile industry alone in the city of Galt and the town of Hespeler carries a payroll of $5 million a year; and I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) especially would like to see full employment prevail-as would all of us in this house-in this and all other industries.
I was highly pleased to see that the speech from the throne indicated that this government is considering amendments to the Customs Act which, I presume, will attempt to alleviate the serious condition which prevails in the textile industry. One suggestion

is -that this amendment should establish that the value for duty on new or unused goods shall not be less than the actual cost of production of these goods in the country of origin plus a reasonable advance for selling cost and profit. There are other methods which could be adopted, too, and I am satisfied that the government will take the necessary action under the circumstances. I should like to suggest that all imported fabrics of any kind should be marked with a label indicating in French or in English the country of origin so that our Canadian consumers can, if they so desire, make sure they are purchasing goods produced in our own country by Canadian workers.
Another disturbing influence in this already serious situation was the recent announcement that Japan has been invited to participate fully in the meetings and in the work of the contracting countries to the general agreement on tariffs and trade. This announcement has been interpreted as granting Japan full GATT membership and extending to that country most-favoured-nation treatment.
This interpretation, I understand, is not correct. I understand that Japan has only been invited to participate on a temporary and provisional basis until the middle of 1955, and that those countries which wish to do so may join in an agreement with Japan to exchange most-favoured-nation treatment and to have GATT govern their commercial relations, but that this government has not undertaken to exchange most-favoured-nation treatment with Japan, nor have they entered into any agreement as yet. I am sure the (government, in negotiating an agreement with Japan, will be mindful of the difference in the standards of living prevailing in the two countries and the difference in wages paid, which could result in disastrously unfair competition in the marketing of Japanese goods in this country. I am also sure the government, mindful of past experience in this regard, will include every safeguard to protect Canadian industry and Canadian workers.
Another matter I should like to mention for a moment is the war veterans allowance, which I feel either should be increased or the veteran should be permitted to supplement his allowance with casual earnings to a greater extent than he is today. I also believe that the total amount of assets a blind person is able to have under the present means test should be increased. But what is more important, in my opinion, is that persons receiving the blind pension should be allowed
The Address-Mr. Herridge to supplement this pension with casual earnings to a greater extent than they are permitted to do under present legislation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, with all modesty I should like to point out to the house that I am the first Liberal to be elected to the federal parliament from Waterloo South since 1896, and I attribute my own election to a great extent to the fine leadership given to the Liberal party and the government of Canada by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) over the past number of years.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Deputy Speaker, before proceeding with the few vitally important things I wish to say this evening, I must take this opportunity through you to congratulate Mr. Speaker and yourself. I have seen occasions when a motion to elect a Speaker was somewhat of a formal procedure. There is no question about it that in the case of Mr. Speaker and yourself it was a heartfelt expression of appreciation of your abilities and your service in the past, and best wishes to you both for a successful period in office. I think I entered this parliament the same year as both you gentlemen did and although I am a lesser light of that class I am coming along very well now. I am getting an increasing number of letters addressed to me as "right honourable". Of course I write back to my constituents and thank them for the courtesy, telling them they are somewhat premature but possibly the title will be fit and proper after the next election, when this party is in power.
Now, Mr. Speaker, before proceeding I must congratulate the hon. member for Spa-dina (Mr. Croll) on the most excellent speech he made this afternoon. I think when he spoke he said what all the members of the house are thinking, and what all decent Canadians will support regardless of party.
Coming from a farming community and being a peasant farmer myself, I must say that I heartily support the remarks made the other day by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) with respect to the place of the farming community in the national life of this country and the characteristics of the rural people. I was much heartened again this evening to hear a very similar eulogy of the agricultural population of this country from the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean).
I rise to support the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I endorse the remarks he made prior to moving that amendment, and support
266	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Herridge it. You know, Mr. Speaker, that we members in this group are not given to unnecessary repetition, so I am going to simply conclude, as far as that is concerned, by saying that I most heartily support the policies and the program enunciated by the member for Rosetown-Biggar when he presented the over-all picture.
At the last election this movement presented a ten-point program to the Canadian people. I am not going to deal with all ten points this evening, but I want particularly to draw attention to two or three of them in the course of my remarks.
The first point was that we said if we were elected we would urge this government to give Canadian leadership for peace in eliminating the hunger and poverty on which communism thrives, to build collective security, and support the United Nations and its principles. We intend to do exactly that.
Before I proceed I think it is only fair, although he is not present in his seat tonight, to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), and I am duty bound also to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) for the splendid way they represented Canada at the United Nations.
We all must realize that world peace is essential for Canada's future happiness and prosperity, and I am sure all of us are very much heartened by the lessening of tensions in the world, by the Korean armistice, and by the rather heartening things that have been said by very important people in the world on this subject. I am also heartened to see that I have the rapt attention of the member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart). When we have the opportunity to discuss external affairs there is no question but that this group will clearly indicate its support for Canadian leadership for peace.
Before leaving the question of international affairs, which I will only mention very briefly, I do want to quote a few words from the remarks of Sir Winston Churchill when he was speaking to the Conservative party conference at Margate, England', on October 10. I quote them because I heartily agree with them and I think, whatever our views in this house are, the majority of members will support them. I think they are well worth while placing on the record and I intend to do so. Sir Winston Churchill on that occasion said:
My prime thought is to simplify. We have lived through half a century of the most terrible events which have ever ravaged the human race. The vast majority of all the peoples, wherever they may dwell, desire above all things to earn their daily bread in peace. To establish conditions under
[Mr. Herridge. 1

which they can do this and to provide deterrents against aggression are the duties confided by the heart's desire of mankind to the United Nations.
I am sure every one of us can say amen to that.
Our first duty is to aid this world instrument loyally and faithfully in its task. But the world also needs patience. It needs a period of calm rather than vehement attempts to produce clear-cut solutions. There have been many periods where prompt and violent action might have averted calamities. This is not one of them. Even if we entered on a phase only of easement for five or ten years, that might lead to something still better when it ended . . .
Five months ago on May 11, I made a speech in the House of Commons. I have not spoken since. This is the first time in my political life that I have kept quiet for so long. I asked for very little. I held out no glittering or exciting hopes about Russia. I thought that friendly, informal, personal talks between the leading countries mainly involved might do good and could not easily do much harm, and that one good thing might lead to another. This humble modest plan, announced as the policy of Her Majesty's government, raised a considerable stir all over the place, and though we have not yet been able to persuade our trusted allies to adopt it in the form I suggested, no one can say it is dead.
I still think that the leading men of the various nations ought to be able to meet together without trying to cut attitudes before excitable publics or using regiments of experts to marshal all the difficulties and objections. And let us try to see whether there is not something better for us all than tearing and blasting each other to pieces, which we can certainly do.
Her Majesty's government, as Mr. Eden and Lord Salisbury told you on Thursday, still believe that we should persevere in seeking such a meeting between the heads of governments.
We in this group most wholeheartedly support that perseverance.
If I stay on for the time being bearing the burden at my age. it is not because of love for power of office. I have had an ample feast of both. If I stay, it is because I have the feeling that I may, through things that have happened, have an influence on what I care about above all else-the building of a sure and lasting peace.
Let us then go forward together with courage and composure, with resolution and good faith to the end which all desire.
I am sure all of us can agree with Sir Winston Churchill's remarks in that connection on the question of world peace.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the second point in our program was to urge the government to establish an immediate nation-wide health insurance program. I am not going to speak at any length on that subject. I endorse wholeheartedly the very lucid explanation of the situation made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) this afternoon. In this case it would be quite fitting and proper for me to say simply amen to the things he said.
Before leaving that subject I do want to say that not only the members of this group but I know a good many members on the

government side of the house in their hearts support the proposal for a national health insurance plan. There is a large body of responsible opinion urging such a program in this country. Some of these people have made a close study of the question; some have dedicated their whole lives to the question of welfare. I should like to quote briefly from the magazine Welfare, the issue for November 1 of this year. This is what the editorial has to say:
Health Care a Necessity
Every now and then, and far too frequently, someone is quoted in the daily press as saying that Canada just does not have enough hospitals or enough doctors to establish any national plan for health services: all further discussion of health insurance, in the face of this fact, is supposed to be futile. What the person is really saying is that health services are now scarce: there is not enough of this commodity to go around, and hence we should let supply and demand determine who gets what-or any.
When essential commodities are in short supply- such as foods in time of war-we decide that their distribution should be controlled by rationing or that the government, with the full approval of the people, should get busy to ensure that the requisite amount is available. Are we to consider health services a luxury, available only in limited quantities to those who can afford to pay for them? Or can we not act on the modern idea that health care is a necessity? The health of the nation is decidedly the nation's business.
Our federal government, in the health grants, has taken some action to increase the supply of health facilities and personnel and the provinces have taken almost full advantage of the offer. This, however, is not enough. The Canadian Welfare Council's committee on health services has reached agreement on the following points:
"A healthy population is one of the objectives of any country ... In order that a country may have a healthy population, it should accept as a goal that health services essential to his needs should be provided and be accessible to each person, and that the country should establish a program designed to meet this goal . . . Each person's ability to maintain or improve his own health is controlled by the availability of the medical facilities and personnel which he needs, and by his financial ability to make use of them . . ."
Now, that is an editorial published by people who made a particular study of the question of the health needs of the people of Canada, and we in this group wholeheartedly support those views.
Another point in our program, No. 3, is a social security program to include sickness benefits, old age pensions and family allowances at adequate rates. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre dealt at some length with this question this afternoon. As I said before, I am not going to repeat his argument. We endorse wholeheartedly what he had to say. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speaks, whether it is upon national health insurance, old age pensions or family allowances, I notice it provokes the attendance of the Minister of 83276-184
The Address-Mr. Herridge National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), because it is recognized that the hon. member speaks only after making a full study of the situation and with great sympathy for those who suffer from the lack of these services.
I am going to take a little time to deal particularly with the question of the war veterans of this country, those who are in need of some amendments to the legislation to improve their lot. We in this group are particularly interested in the welfare of the veteran. To demonstrate that point I shall tell a little story. On one occasion a senior officer of the battalion with which I served overseas, who was formerly a colonel in the Indian army, took the chair at one of my meetings. Before he started the meeting he got up to explain his presence to the people by saying:	"Now, ladies and gentlemen, I want (to make my position quite clear. I am not a member of the C.C.F., in fact like a good many people in Canada I am rather foggy about the things for which the group stands. I do know, however, that the C.C.F. take a particular interest in the two problems in which I am particularly interested, the welfare of the veterans and the fruit growers. It is on that account that I occupy the chair for my good friend this evening."
I believe that illustrates our attitude on this question. When I listen to arguments in connection with war veterans allowances and improvements in the pension legislation, I willingly admit, first of all, that we have some excellent veterans legislation to this country. We have every reason to be proud of the progress we have made in that connection. I think we have led the world to that regard, so far as any democratic country is concerned, with our pension act, our rehabilitation act and our War Veterans Allowance Act, with which we have tried to do something for the veterans of the first and second world wars.
I readily agree that that legislation is something to be proud of, in general. I admit the officials who administer that legislation do so very fairly. I have had a great deal to do with the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and I find them anxious to do all they possibly can for the veteran within the terms of the act or the regulations attached thereto. We in this group think, however, as do many other hon. members, that we in Canada can do better than we have done to date. We feel that we can do some of the things the Canadian Legion is asking this house to do.
Whenever I speak on this subject I see in my mind some of the men who served with me in the first world war. I was rather a young man then, but I notice these men are
2S8	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Herridge getting a bit more frail every day. I think of those men who volunteered to defend this country, without any question, when the call came. I come from a community, Mr. Speaker, in which 124 men out of a total population of 1,422 people joined the colours within a few months. A good many of those men returned. They are ageing, and I never speak on this subject without seeing in my mind some of those chaps doing the best they can to get along on the war veterans allowance, their pension or possibly trying to make their living in other ways. I think of the addresses to which I listened, as I expect other hon. members did, when they were in France.
I remember listening to the late Sir Sam Hughes, and I expect the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) remembers as well, when he addressed our division in France, and the glorious future he promised all veterans who returned to this country. The same is true of the late Sir Robert Borden, and in fact of all those gentlemen who went over there at that time. They promised us everything but the moon. I think I am correct in saying that I remember those promises. I will admit that a great deal has been done, and we in this group are simply asking today that just a little bit more be done to make this legislation as satisfactory as it should be.
I am going to deal somewhat at length with the brief of the Canadian Legion, because to us it is a very important question. I hold in my hand the brief presented to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) and the cabinet by the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League on November 10, 1953. I am not going to read the whole brief, but I do wish to bring to the attention of the house certain things mentioned in it. I recognize that from sea to sea I have attention. I have the attention of the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) from the Atlantic coast, and of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) from the Pacific coast. My ambition is completely satisfied.
I now deal with the brief. I must say we all recognize that the Canadian Legion is a responsible body. It does not ask for the impossible. The Canadian Legion considers its proposals thoroughly. These proposals spring from the rank and file, from the branches throughout the country, the zone councils, the provincial commands and from the dominion conventions. These ideas are condensed in the form of a brief and presented annually to the cabinet of this country.
I suppose it is correct to say that amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act


are of first concern to the veterans' organizations of this country and to the veterans generally. I find in their representations to the cabinet in this connection the Legion representatives recommended this:
That the basic rate of war veterans allowance be increased to $60 per month for a single veteran, and $120 per month for those who are married.
In their comment they had this to say:
The arguments in support of this recommendation have been so frequently stated that they scarcely require to be repeated at this time.
How true. I continue:
Briefly they are:
1. The war veteran has always been recognized by the Canadian people and by successive Canadian governments as meriting very special consideration, and there is, therefore, no likelihood of serious criticism if W.V.A. rates are higher than those payable under old age pension or similar social legislation.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that under existing rates a veteran who must depend on war veterans allowances is suffering actual privation. I know myself of cases of many veterans in receipt of very small disability pensions who are incapable of accepting employment, but are forced to live at less than subsistence levels because of low war veterans allowance rates.
When it comes to the question of financing these proposals, Mr. Speaker, we in this group do not believe in suggesting amendments to legislation and at the same time also suggesting the lowering of taxes. We know that everything has to be paid for. I am speaking personally on this point. During the last session we took the stamp tax off cheques. In that way the government saved about $10 million for the Canadian people, because it was no longer necessary to put stamps on cheques, receipts and certain documents of that sort. To put a stamp on a cheque is not a hardship to the average Canadian, because the average Canadian does not issue many cheques. It might have had an effect on some people but it was not any great hardship to any large number of people. Therefore I think we could have very well retained the stamp cheque tax and the necessity to purchase stamps for cheques, receipts and other documents, and use the $10 million saved in that way to give the war veterans improvements in the war veterans allowance that the Canadian Legion asked for.
The second recommendation of the Legion is:
That the ceilings on total permissible income under W.V.A. be increased to $1,200 per year in the case of a single recipient and $2,000 per year in the case of those married.

The comment is as follows:
Again, supporting arguments have been stated at frequent intervals and such statements would appear to be as valid today as when originally put forward.
These statements have been made repeatedly in this house. I do offer the suggestion to the government that if at this stage they cannot see fit to increase the war veterans allowance-we are urging they do- as a first step in the early days of this session amendments to the legislation be brought down so that the ceilings on total permissible income can be increased according to the recommendation of the Canadian Legion. That would meet the position of quite a number of these men in the country at this time.
The third recommendation was as follows:
That where an allowance is granted on behalf of an incapacitated child over the age of 21, the allowance be continued on the death of the parent.
The reason for that was this:
Special allowances are provided under section 12
(2)	of the act for children prevented by physical or mental incapacity from earning a living. The section makes no provision for the child, however, in the event of death of the surviving parent.
That is a very reasonable suggestion and would mean small additional expense to the exchequer of this country.
The fourth recommendation reads:
That allowances on behalf of minor children of W.V.A. recipients be paid on the same basis as such allowances are now paid to the children of disability pensioners.
The reason given for that is:
While there are veterans over 60 in receipt of the allowance who would certainly benefit by this change, it is particularly essential in the case of the veteran under 60 who is in receipt of W.V.A. because he is incapacitated. In some cases the veteran in this category is trying to support a wife and several small children on $90 per month.
I can illustrate the need for the amendment suggested by the Canadian Legion by a case in my own constituency. There was a veteran who was completely incapacitated. He had two little girls. They were very bright. He wants them to go to high school and university. His wife went to work parttime as a stenographer to provide funds to meet the cost of these children's university education. She carried on for a couple of years, and then they discovered that there was an overpayment of some $1,800. According to the law the veteran is required to make repayment.
I must say the board was very fair. They made the repayment as small as possible, according to the legislation and the regulations; but it is to cover such situations that the Legion asks for this amendment. As an
The Address-Mr. Herridge hon. member in front of me suggests, it stopped the wife working. That means that it is very difficult indeed for these two bright young Canadian girls to continue with their university education. Surely a man who has served his country to such an extent that he is at present incapacitated and unable to work is not going to be denied the opportunity of having his children obtain the education their ability warrants.
Recommendation No. 5 reads:
That any necessary amendments should be made to sections 3 and 30 (11) of the act so that a woman who resided with a veteran during his lifetime may be granted an allowance in the event of her surviving him, if the circumstances are such that if the veteran had, immediately prior to his death applied for an allowance as a married man, he would for that purpose have been deemed to have been married to such woman and would have been granted such allowance.
I have run into one or two cases of that kind myself. The Legion recommendation is based on very sound ground indeed.
Then recommendation 6:
That perquisites be not considered as income under the act.
The comment of the Legion is:
We suggest that W.V.A. recipient who cuts his' own wood and keeps his own cow and chickens, should not have the value of the resulting produce deducted from his W.V.A. Why discourage the recipient from contributing to the general production of goods and services?
I am sure that is a reasonable proposition. I have numbers of these men in my own constituency who live in small houses, in some cases log cabins. They have a pig or two, and possibly a cow. They cut their own wood because there is plenty of standing timber in that country, and according to the act it is all considered as income. I think these men should be encouraged to do that sort of thing. We talk about free enterprise, individual initiative and so on. I have in my constituency one old chap 85 years of age who cuts all his own wood, keeps a pig or two and a cow, and cultivates a good garden. By having made some income because he is willing to work and add to the production of this country by providing for his own maintenance he is denied any allowance. I think the Legion is on very sound ground when it suggests that amendment to the legislation.
Recommendations 7 and 8 read:
7. Recommendation.
That the somewhat arbitrary regulation of W.V.A. whereby one-half of the gross income from a small holding is considered net income, be amended to permit the recipient, if he so desires, to charge all legitimate expenses against gross income as provided for by the Income Tax Act.
Comment. The W.V.A. regulation as it stands may provide a useful, rough and ready yardstick in many cases, but can and does prove unjust where labour must be hired.
270	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Herridge
8. Recommendation.
That Canadian veterans resident outside of Canada and otherwise qualified, be granted war veterans allowance.
Comment. Many veterans of the Canadian forces have found it necessary (for health reasons- possibly due to pensionable disabilities) to reside outside of Canada. We feel that these veterans should not be denied the right to war veterans allowance. The numbers are small and the cost would not be great if this recommendation were acted upon.
I have the case of a man in my constituency who worked in Trail for years, but he suffers from a lung disability and must go south for a month or two every year. I heartily support that recommendation of the Canadian Legion.
Recommendation 9 follows:
That the provisions of section 5 of the W.V.A. act be made retroactive to January 1, 1952.
Comment. Section 5 of the War Veterans Allowance Act, as amended in 1952, makes provision for the payment of W.V.A. at married rates to the survivor for 12 months following death of either the veteran or his wife, where W.V.A. was being paid at such rate prior to death. This section, however, has been interpreted to mean that the benefit cannot be extended to the surviving party where death occurred between January 1, 1952, and July 4, 1952.
Then I go on to recommendation 11 which reads:
That veterans of world war I who saw service in England only be granted W.V.A.
That has been asked for repeatedly by the Canadian Legion and the request has been repeatedly rejected. During the second world war Great Britain was considered a theatre of war, but in world war I according to our regulations it was not a theatre of war. We think it is high time that we extended war veterans allowances to those veterans, whose numbers are rapidly decreasing, who served during the first world war but who were sent only to England. In many cases they were acting under instructions and had to stay in England.
Those are all the comments I wish to make with reference to war veterans allowances.
I am not going to deal with the Pension Act because my time will not permit. In the meantime I want to say a few words on housing. The C.C.F. has urged a national housing program to provide 100,000 new homes a year. We talk about housing from year to year, but the problem continues to grow and increase. I could read comments which have appeared in the local press of my constituency, in the Vancouver press and in the British Columbia press indicating the great need for housing.
I attended a Legion convention, of the Kootenay branch, in Nelson just before coming down to the house, and the major


topic at that convention was the need for housing for veterans in Kootenay West. We in this group claim that the present housing legislation will not meet the needs of the people of this country. We consider that the need for housing is a national emergency. We believe that a strong nation can be built only on a satisfactory home life, and good housing is necessary for a satisfactory home life. That is why we believe that national credit through the Bank of Canada should be used to permit the making of loans at 2 per cent with a 10 per cent down payment and the balance repayable over a period of 30 years.
We believe that more should be done to support those in this country who are interested in co-operative industry. I was doing some reading in this connection and I came across a most interesting bit of Canadian history which I should like to refer to at this point. According to the Journals of the House, in February, 1907, a special committee commenced sitting to consider Bill No. 2, respecting industrial and co-operative societies. On March 26, His Excellency the Governor General appeared before the committee to give his views on the question and made some suggestions with respect to the redrafting of the bill. At page 100 of the Journals of the house 1906-07, appendix No. 3, I find a most interesting comment by His Excellency who had previously criticized the legislation that was before the committee. This rather took my eye because I am always interested in odd things. His Excellency said:
I would have you reflect on the security which the development of co-operative methods offer against the tyranny of trusts and combines.
If His Excellency were alive today he would be joining this group:
There is no guarantee that the power of a trust, or a combine, will not be used against the general well-being of both producers and consumers. The co-operative movement provides a safeguard against this danger of a value proportionate to its strength.
He later went on to give some interesting information to the committee concerning cooperative housing, and his concluding remarks appear on page 102 as follows:
I have put this information before the committee owing to a remark of Mr. Verville leading me to suppose that the problem of how to house the workmen of the rising towns of Canada is one which is very naturally engaging his attention.
The point I wish to make is that a housing situation existed in 1907 which caused His Excellency the Governor General to come before a special committee of this house to make suggestions regarding co-operative housing. It was a problem in 1907 and it is a problem today. Apparently we have not

The Address-Mr. Herridge
made much progress in this connection. The problem existed in 1907 and we are still discussing a housing program for Canada.
I suggest that the government give every consideration to promoting and assisting cooperative housing. When I finish with this book I suggest to hon. members that they get it and read what His Excellency had to say about co-operative housing as practised at that time in Great Britain and other countries.
I should like to deal briefly with the suggestions of the Legion in connection with housing, and they have made some very interesting ones. There is no doubt that this is important so far as the veterans of this country are concerned. When they presented their case to the cabinet the representatives of the Legion made some interesting proposals which I do not have the time to deal with at length.
I want to see if I am a good guesser. I think the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is sincerely interested in this problem. I predict that he will be so interested in these proposals that before this session is over the government will introduce legislation along the lines suggested by the Canadian Legion in their brief. I cannot understand why any government would not.
There are over 300 veterans in my constituency who are denied access to the small holdings provisions because they cannot obtain the necessary land. They must obtain three acres; and around the cities of Trail and Nelson it is impossible to get three acres in most cases. But they could get half an acre, which is quite sufficient. Because they are unable to comply with the regulations they are denied the opportunity to benefit from the Veterans Land Act.
They have asked me to urge that the acreage be reduced from three acres to one-half acre as it was before. I see the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) supports me in that, and I would expect the support of the other members for British Columbia as well as the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart). We generally agree on things that are obvious.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I would like the members of this house to read the proposals of the Canadian Legion in connection with housing, made on November 10. They are most interesting. They say this at page 4 of the brief;
The V.L.A. administration has cut a pattern for the "build your own home" program and its
experience with over 6,000 houses has enabled them to work the "bugs" out of it. It has a nationwide organization which, while very small, has the experience and training necessary to assure that a more generally applicable scheme could be made to work satisfactorily.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that in my constituency the Veterans Land Act administration conducted schools where veterans were taught to assemble material, dig basements and read plans. They were given general instruction with regard to building a home. The schools were most successful and were appreciated by the veterans in my constituency. A number of those veterans have built under the scheme. The veteran is his own contractor and receives money from the department. After receiving instruction from the school he is processed and obtams a loan provided he can get the necessary three acres of land upon which to erect a home.
I cannot deal at any further length with the schools, Mr. Speaker, but I do support the proposals made by the Canadian Legion. They recommend that the facilities of the Veterans Land Act administration be made available to carry out a build your own home program for city-sized lots on the following terms;
(1)	A veteran to be eligible must have service which would qualify him for settlement under V.L.A.
(2)	The veteran must have title to a suitable lot supplied with water, or sufficient funds to purchase such a lot; the lot to be turned over to the director as security for original advances and should the appraised value of the lot be less than $800, the veteran to deposit the difference with the director.
(3)	A veteran, to qualify, must have a good employment record over a period of at least 4 years, must have taken a course in house construction using the V.L.A. syllabus and standards, and be approved as qualified to take a contract to build his home.
(4)	The veteran must be able to furnish a bond of indemnification to the director, payable in case of loss or misuse of material supplied and paid for by the director on delivery and before it is incorporated in the house.
(5)	The veteran's plan must be approved as being practical and giving good value, and the veteran must agree to build in accordance with V.L.A. standards and to accept supervision to assure the following of these standards.
(6)	The veteran to be given a contract to build at a price not to exceed 80 per cent of the value of the lot and completed house.
(7)	The director to undertake to advance money when work is completed by subcontractor or material is supplied to site, up to a total of, but not exceeding 75 per cent of the appraised value of the structure as it stands, and the material on the site at the time such payment is made.
(8)	Payments to be authorized by the V.L.A. construction supervisor on bills approved by the veteran-contractor direct to subcontractor or supplier of material.

The Address-Mr. Herridge
(9)	The lot and completed house to he sold to the veteran at the contract price-
My time has nearly expired, Mr. Speaker, but I do suggest that the Canadian Legion, in putting forward these proposals on housing, has made a very constructive suggestion toward the solution of the question of housing in so far as veterans in this country are concerned.
In concluding I must say that in this group we believe that large numbers of Canadians will be housed unsatisfactorily for years to

come unless we treat the question as a national emergency and use national credit to build the houses that are necessary if we are to have a happy, healthy and contented nation.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, would you call it ten o'clock?
On motion of Mr. White (Middlesex East) the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 24, 1953