1953-11-19

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I should like to table an
exchange of notes between Canada and the United States of America constituting an agreement concerning the Haines-Fairbanks pipe line signed in Ottawa on June 30, 1953, in English and in French.



ALLEGED ABUSE OF MEMBERS' FRANKING PRIVILEGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. T. Applewhaiie (Skeena):: I should
like to ask a question of the acting Postmaster General. Is the Post Office Department investigating the apparent abuse of members' franking privileges, as reported in an item on page 6 of the Ottawa Journal of November 18, copy of which I have sent to the minister?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Acting Postmaster General):: I noticed the item myself in the
Journal last night. It is a reprint from the Calgary Herald, and I have asked the Post Office Department to communicate with the editor of the Calgary Herald to see whether he can get both the cover and the contents so we can find out which member's frank had been used. I assume of course from the article that it was used improperly.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I
would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of a news report to the effect that the United States government is renewing its application, or passing on its request, for an examination of Igor Gouzenko, is there any probability of the government changing its decision already made on the first application, under this further apparent pressure?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can only say in reply
to the question that notwithstanding press reports to the contrary, no such second request has yet been made to the Canadian government. If such a request were made I should think that, unless it included new information and new factors bearing on the case there would be no reason to change the decision already made.


INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF ANZUS PACT IN PACIFIC AREA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. . Are there any negotiations either taking place or in contemplation for the extension of the ANZUS pact on the Pacific, or for any wider Pacific defence pact?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not
aware of any such negotiation taking place at the present time, or of their imminent likelihood. I am aware that certain proposals have been made in Washington by members of the congress looking toward the extension of that pact. However, there have been no governmental negotiations as yet to this end.


SEA RESCUE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. As we are dependent upon the United States coastguard for sea rescue on the coast of British Columbia, has the government any plans for the establishment of a coastguard service on the Pacific coast in the near future?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in disagreement with my hon. friend as to the first part of his question. I do not think it is accurate to say that we are dependent on the United States coastguard on the west coast. On the contrary, we have two very modern lifesaving stations on that coast, on Vancouver

Inquiries of the Ministry island, with two modern boats operating at pretty fast speeds. Then, over and above that, we have a voluntary service covering the whole of the west coast of Vancouver island. Under the circumstances I do not think that I can answer the last part of my hon. friend's question in the affirmative.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last
before the orders of the day were called the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) stated that there had been an extensive lay-off at the Valcartier and Quebec arsenals, and asked me when the personnel would be re-employed.
I have been in touch with the manager of the Canadian Arsenals operations at Quebec city and Valcartier, who has assured me that there have been no recent lay-offs at either plant due to lack of work.


PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: I
should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. Do the minister and the government intend to proceed with the immediate construction of a post office in the city of Vancouver?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: These matters are all receiving consideration and, as decisions are made, they will be communicated through the normal channels.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (V ancouver- Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the question asked of the Minister of Public Works by the hon. member for Vancouver East, is the minister aware that during the recent election campaign an announcement was made by a minister of the crown that a post office building in Vancouver would be proceeded with immediately?


Robert Henry Winters: I am aware of no such announcement.
[Later: 1


Harold Edward Winch: As a newcomer I have asked a question, and I now ask you a question, Mr. Speaker. Have I the right to ask the
TMr. Chevrier.)
Minister of Public Works a question supplementary to that which I raised a while ago?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked his question. I would ask him not to pursue the matter at this time. Hon. members realize that I am giving some latitude to oral questions that are being asked before the orders of the day are called. I do so because this is the beginning of the first session of a new parliament, and also because of the fact that questions which appear on the order paper may not be reached until after the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne is disposed of. But I would ask hon. members to bear in mind that questions which are permitted before the orders of the day are dealt with are to be brief and of an urgent character. I think the hon. member has used his privilege and that now we should proceed with the business of the house.


Harold Edward Winch: This is a matter of-


Mr. Speaker:: It is not debatable.


WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) asked whether any limitations had been placed on the casual earnings which recipients of war veterans allowance are permitted to claim as an exemption from permissible income.
As I said at the time he asked the question, certain instructions had been issued in an endeavour to define "casual earnings" so the district war veterans allowance authorities could decide on questions of this kind as they arose, and so avoid delay in informing veterans whether or not earnings from any employment which they might have in view could be exempt as income.
Due to an ambiguous wording in a directive, which was corrected very shortly afterwards, the impression may have got about that it was proposed to restrict casual earnings to the sum of $2 per diem. This, of course, was not the intention. The purpose was to allow those who are under section 3 of the act approximately the same freedom in regard to casual earnings as those who are under section 4 of the act, which is proving advantageous to more and more war veterans allowance recipients as time goes on.
As I previously stated, there is no intention to be more restrictive in regard to war veterans allowance recipients' casual earnings

than heretofore. Many difficult problems arise in administering this provision of the act, conditions varying so greatly from place to place all across Canada. However, I can assure hon. members that the war veterans allowance board is keeping in close touch with all aspects of the matter to ensure that latitude is given to war veterans allowance recipients to earn by casual employment.
I can assure the hon. member that there has been no regulation, as he thought there might have been, to restrict casual earnings. If my hon. friend is aware of any individual cases, I should appreciate his bringing them to my attention.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: In
order to clear up the matter, in view of the fact that there is an ambiguous directive, could the minister tell the house the present definition of "casual earnings"?


Hugues Lapointe: I shall be glad to give it to the hon. member at another time but, as he well knows, it is somewhat complicated. The act does not define "casual earnings", so the board has to interpret it and make up the definition.
As my hon. friend is aware, the situation used to be much simpler. Until 1948 a ceiling was set in respect of casual earnings, and any income derived from employment amounting to a sum below that ceiling was considered as casual earnings. This, however, was changed, and in fact I believe the hon. member was one of those who asked that this provision be taken out of the act. Since that time the situation has been made more difficult for the board, so that now they have to look into each individual case as it arises. However, I would be glad to let the hon. member have the definition as it exists today.


POST OFFICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Parliamentary Assistant to the Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis) asked the following question:
Has the Postmaster General received protests from certain postal workers in the city of Regina respecting the delay in introducing the five-day forty-hour week for all such employees and also the delay in granting salary increases? Will the government rectify this situation in the near future?
Representations have been received on these subjects at various times from employees' organizations.
Inquiries of the Ministry
There has been no delay in introducing the five-day week. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) announced on September 9 that the government had decided upon further extension of the five-day week for its employees in those areas and types of work where it is now the established pattern in private employment. One of the places mentioned was Regina.
With respect to postal employees, the statement reads as follows:
The extension of the five-day week being put into effect forthwith applies to office workers only, and not to what are frequently termed "operating staffs", who usually work a 44-hour week. The government has now decided in principle, however, that it will proceed within the next few months to apply the five-day week to a large part of these operating staffs in areas and types of work where it is now the established pattern in business employment, even though such action will require a reduction in working hours and an increase in the number of employees. Time will be required to make the necessary arrangements, particularly in the large post office operating units and in various continuing operations requiring shift work.
With respect to salaries, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) indicated in a letter to the president of the civil service federation, which has been published, that the government would be giving consideration in the next few weeks to a general review of civil service salaries. Until that review is completed, there can be no question of a delay in implementing any salary increases.


Mr. Ellis:: May I ask a supplementary question? Is the Postmaster General aware of the differential between the wages paid post office workers in the city of Regina and those paid by the provincial government to their civil servants?


Mr. Mcllraith:: They are organized.


Mr. Knowles:: That is the point.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: May
I suggest that we might do as we have done in former years during this debate, namely, ask the Prime Minister or the government to arrange for the answering of questions already on the order paper at some convenient time next week?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: If it appears that this debate is going to continue for any substantial length of time, and if that would be the desire of the house, probably a day might foe fixed to
154	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart answer questions once a week until such time as the debate on the address is disposed of.
Mr. Cold well: That is satisfactory.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. A. H. Hollingworth for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks yesterday I gave a description of conditions in New Brunswick, placing particular emphasis on conditions that exist at the present time among the potato growers in that province and in the fishing industry in general. When the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) returns from overseas he will be asked to investigate these conditions I have described, in the hope that some way may be found to help remedy this most serious situation.
I am perfectly aware of the fact that my appeal may seem to be rather pessimistic, since influential citizens in our province have been telling the people that all is well. However, the citizens themselves will be the judges as to which story portrays the true picture.
For a few minutes I wish to return to an all-important subject, namely the proposed Passamaquoddy bay power project. This project has been under discussion internationally since 1925, and on November 9, 1948, the governments of the United States and Canada referred to the international joint commission of the two countries the responsibility for a preliminary investigation to determine the practicability, desirability and cost of a full-scale survey of various plans for a hydroelectric power development in the Passamaquoddy bay area.
In April, 1949, the commission appointed two representatives from each country to an international Passamaquoddy engineering board to carry out the preliminary investigation. On March 15, 1950, the board reported back to the .commission as follows:
That it was the board's opinion that an international Passamaquoddy tidal power project could be physically engineered, constructed and operated;
That determination of its economic feasibility must await a full-scale survey;
That such a survey would cost an estimated $3,900,000-the cost to be apportioned equitably between the two countries.


This project, it is stated, would generate around a million horsepower. But what the people in that particular area would like to know is this. If this project is feasible, how much will it cost to build and operate it; how much will the consumers have to pay for power; how will its cost compare with that obtainable from other sources, hydroelectric river power and fuel-operated power? Which of the several alternate plans for 'Quoddy is the best, in terms of cost, power to be realized, maintenance and so forth? How great a market is there for 'Quoddy power, existing and potential, local and export? How can this power be co-ordinated with power from other sources? How far can it be economically transmitted? These are questions that have been awaiting answers for a long, long time.
The development of 'Quoddy would offer, we believe, new industries the advantages of a superb deep water, year-round port at a point well situated in regard to world markets, 283 miles nearer Gibraltar than New York, 425 miles nearer Liverpool. Raw materials and heavy cargoes would benefit from cheap water-borne transportation.
When completed, the inner area of this project would extend over a hundred square miles, and would be one of the finest harbours to be found anywhere in the world. I urgently request that the government furnish the necessary funds to complete this survey, and that is all we are asking for at this time. What we are asking is that the survey be completed. What we would like to know is whether or not this project is economically sound. We are not asking that it be built at this time; we are not asking that any start be made along those lines, but we do feel that this survey should be completed; and I, as a member from that section, do believe that we owe it to the people down there to complete this survey. I believe they -have been held in suspense long enough, and it is time that we had some action in this regard. If after the survey is completed it is decided that this project is not economically sound, then it can be forgotten; and I am one who would wish that it should be forgotten if that is the report we get.
The people living in this area -have watched the project for many, many years. Back in 1925 the first move was made to get a complete survey of this proposed project. That was 28 years ago, and for 28 years it has been passed back and forth between the governments of these two countries, without any definite action being taken. A few years ago the United States did send a branch of their engineering corps to this particular section where surveys were made on their own. They

were not extensive, but in the few short weeks they worked in this locality they discovered that, by means of sonic devices which are now available, information they wished to have could be obtained at a cost much less than had been expected in the first place. In other words, modern devices are able to provide a much more accurate picture of the whole situation at a reduced cost.
We in the maritime provinces feel that we have always supported every project of a national character. We have always been prepared to support any project which we felt would help the growth of this great country of ours. During the eight years I have been here it has been my pleasure to support those projects which have been brought before this house which I felt would be of benefit to the Canadian people. We have never taken to consideration the question of whether they would be of any benefit to us personally. We have always considered the general picture, and we shall continue to take that attitude. But we do feel that as maritimers we should have some recognition.
The great St. Lawrence seaway has been under discussion for some time. There is not an hon. member in this house who is prepared to support that project to a greater extent than I am. I feel that it will be of benefit to all Canada as it will assist in the growth and advancement of this country.
After hearing the description I have given of conditions in that part of the country from which I come, I feel sure that any fairminded person will agree with me that something more than what has been done already must be done if these conditions are to be improved. Our young boys and girls are leaving us to go to other parts of Canada and to the United States.
The fishing industry is our only industry in that particular section, but it is not able to provide the necessary employment to encourage these people to stay. The income they receive is too low. As I stated yesterday, it is the most unstable of all industries in this country. Not only in Charlotte county but along the whole coast line of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland you will find that the first to feel the effect of any recession are these primary producers. When men of ambition, men who are willing to work are obliged to sell their products below the cost of production there is not much encouragement for them to stay in that part of the country.
The only solution to this problem that I can see is to devise some plan whereby industry can be brought there to provide employment for those who are coming along
The Address-Mr. Harkness and those whom we will need to carry on in the years ahead. I would be the last one in the world to paint a pessimistic picture, and I do submit that what I have put on the record is based on facts. Any citizen of Charlotte county will substantiate what I have said. Some way must be found to provide employment for those who are looking for work.
I make my last appeal to the government to give this matter serious consideration. I plead with the government to provide the funds necessary to complete this survey so that the suspense under which we have lived for 28 years may be eliminated and we may know if there is any hope of conditions being improved and our standards of living brought more in line with those which exist in other parts of the country.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, to you, sir, I should like to present my compliments and congratulations upon your election to the high office of first commoner. Those of us who came into the house with you have watched your progress from occasionally taking the chair, to acting as deputy chairman, then as chairman of committees and now to your present high office. We feel that you have been of great credit to that entrance class. I know all of us who have been associated with you feel that you will add prestige not only to the office but to yourself, and will discharge your duties most fittingly.
I intend to devote the major portion of my remarks to the grain situation. Before doing that I should like to take one or two minutes to refer to a matter which I brought up about a year ago in this same debate. I refer to the situation of blind persons in Canada. I am glad to note that during this debate a number of speakers have brought up this matter and have urged the government to give better treatment to our blind fellow citizens. Of any large group they are perhaps the most severely handicapped people in Canada. I think the time has long passed to remove the means test as far as pensions for the blind are concerned. I trust that will be done at this session of parliament.
Despite what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said yesterday in his speech, I believe that the most serious economic problem facing Canada today is the accumulation of unsold grain in our elevators and on the farms of western Canada. It is a particularly urgent matter at the present time for the west, but as time goes on it will have an ultimate effect only slightly less serious upon the rest of the country unless a solution or solutions are found.

The Address-Mr. Harkness
The total supply of wheat, according to the various estimates of this year's production, ranges from 955 million to 975 million bushels. In the case of coarse grains, it is something in the neighbourhood of 966 million bushels. That means there are nearly
2,000	million bushels of grain which pose marketing, storage, transportation and credit problems of great magnitude. The first three, marketing, storage and transportation, are basic and are really long-term matters. However, there is the fourth, the matter of credit. I hope that this is a temporary problem, but at the same time it is a matter that requires immediate solution. It is to this phase that I shall devote the major portion of my remarks.
In order to make the present situation absolutely clear to those who do not come from western Canada and who are not familiar with the grain business, I should like to say something about how our grain is handled. In western Canada we have in effect only one customer, the wheat board, which is an emanation of the government. A farmer can sell his grain only to or through the wheat board, except for the very small quantity he may get rid of from time to time to neighbouring farmers for seed or feed.
The amount of grain that a farmer may sell to the wheat board and the initial payment which he receives for it are matters of government policy. In other words the amount of grain a farmer may deliver and the amount of money he receives are determined by the government. It should be the responsibility of the government to ensure that the farmer is able to secure enough money to feed and clothe his family and himself and carry on his operations. I submit that this is the primary responsibility of the government, seeing that it has a monopoly of the grain trade; but it is a responsibility which it does not show any disposition to meet at the present time.
This year the quota was set at three bushels per cultivated acre. This quota is in effect now except for oats where it has been increased, I believe to a maximum of twelve bushels per acre for the man who grows nothing but oats. The number of such people is extremely small and the effect of the increase in the quota for oats is therefore slight. In other words it does not change the general picture, which is this three bushels per acre quota.
Most farmers, of course, delivered three bushels of wheat if they were able to do so because that would immediately bring them more cash than they would receive for oats and barley, the initial price being considerably higher. The average initial price

paid to farmers throughout the west would be no more than $1.20 per bushel, I would say, when you take into consideration the freight rates and spreads in prices due to different grades. In other words the farmer would receive $3.60 an acre. The cost of swathing and combining grain in my part of the country-and I do not think it varied a great deal throughout the west-was around $5 per acre. That meant that the farmer, provided his entire farm was in grain, received considerably less than two-thirds of the amount of cash required to pay his harvest expenses. If he had one-third of his farm in summerfallow he received just about enough to pay his harvesting expenses, leaving nothing to pay his debts, to carry him through the winter and so on.
However, that is not the whole picture because in a large number of cases farmers have not been able to deliver the quota. In many cases they have not been able to deliver any grain, and they have received no cash whatever. Just as an example, where I farm there are four farms constituting two sections, or 1,280 acres. Two of us managed to deliver 100 bushels of wheat or a little less, and the other two delivered nothing. In the area at least 1,000 acres are cultivated and we should have been able to deliver
3,000	bushels of grain. We were able to deliver less than 200 bushels. That is not an isolated case. The same thing applies at delivery points all over the country. There is no use in saying that the farmer has a quota of three bushels an acre and that should be sufficient to carry him when in fact a large number of farmers have not been able to deliver any grain and have not been able to get any cash at all.
Neither the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) nor anyone else in the government has been able to say when the quotas will be raised or what the quotas will be at the end of the year. Certainly, from the way grain is moving out of the part of the country I come from I would say that the quota is not going to be increased for some time. At my own delivery point no cars of grain moved out between the middle of August and the third week of October. No grain moved out at all. Since that time the elevators have shipped out about two carloads each but they have only been able to take in one carload each because they needed the extra space to handle the grain they had on hand. So the prospects for increasing the quota do not look very good. Neither do they look good for the farmer to get more cash in his hands through filling the quotas in all places.

That is the actual situation which exists in western Canada despite the statistical speech which was given yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I think I have shown that an immediate need for credit does exist and the situation demands relief. It is very easy for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to sit here in Ottawa in a well-appointed office, look over a lot of statistics, and then say everything is just fine, there is nothing to worry about, and that the western farmer has received more money in the past three years than he has ever received in any previous three-year period.
The minister said yesterday that the farmer does not need any special credit facilities provided for him. Well, it is a very different matter when you get down to actual individual cases on the prairies where in fact a desperate need does exist. The minister, of course, is notoriously optimistic about other people's troubles. He has been that way ever since I have been here. That optimism, however, is not of much use to the man who has no money to carry him through the winter and who has a number of creditors who are pressing him for payment for groceries, gasoline, repairs to machinery and so on. That farmer is sitting there with sufficient grain on his farm, in his granaries, to meet those debts and carry him through the winter, but he cannot sell his wheat. The government controlled grain-handling facilities cannot take it off his hands and, in many cases, he cannot get any credit for it.
The minister's reply is that if the man is sitting there with grain, let him go to the bank and borrow money on the security of his grain. That is very easy to say and, in fact, a large number of farmers can and will do that. They will be farmers who are perhaps long established, in a good position, who have their land paid for, have their machinery paid for, and probably have some bonds or something of that sort. In other words, those whose general position is excellent would have no trouble borrowing from the bank. Most of them, however, would not need to go to the bank. Most of them could carry themselves. They are not the sort of people we need worry about. There are many others, though, whose need is great and who cannot get bank credit.
I agree with what the minister said regarding the general basic financial position of western farmers. It is as good right now as probably it has ever been; but, at the same time, there are large numbers of farmers who have had misfortunes of various sorts. Perhaps they have not had misfortunes but are people who started farming in the last
The Address-Mr. Harkness two or three years and have not had time to establish themselves. They have no backlog behind them.
It is expensive to go into the farming business at the present time. A young fellow who wishes to farm must have large financial resources behind him and be able to obtain extensive credit. He cannot begin farming on a shoestring. There are many people who have gone farming in the last two or three or four years who have not yet had time to establish themselves and their bank credit is not good, although their basic situation is all right. They may have had the misfortune to be hailed out last year or the year before, or even both years, and those are the people who need bank credit and money advanced to them against the grain on their farms. They cannot get that credit and their position requires immediate relief. Their need is desperate and I think the government has a responsibility to correct the situation.
It is all very well for the minister to say that over $1 billion will have been paid to western farmers by the end of this current year and, therefore, there is no need for special credit facilities. That is just the same as saying that $1 million may have gone into a certain village of 100 families, and therefore, as every family in that village has had $10,000, there is no need to worry about them. The fact may be that 30 of those families have had an income of less than $500 and are in desperate circumstances. It is the same sort of thing again to say that western farmers as a whole will receive a certain large amount. That may be so, but it does not take care of a large number of those farmers who are in very serious need of a cash advance or credit on the grain which they have on their farms. I do not think there is any question about it. Some special credit facilities are necessary for prairie farmers.
Some of the eastern members of this house often refer to such matters as being handouts to the west. I believe this is a straight business proposition and should be treated as such. It is not a matter of the west saying that the country as a whole should help them because they have had hard luck. It is a straight matter of making cash available against a definite asset which is there, and which will bring in far more than the money which is asked to be advanced on it.
In his speech yesterday the minister said that losses had been experienced by the treasury when bank loans to farmers were guaranteed two years ago. By saying that, and giving the amounts, he sought to give the impression that guaranteed farm loans at the

The Address-Mr. Harkness present time would result in severe losses to the treasury and would be an expensive proposition for the people of Canada as a whole. Actually the losses Which were incurred were very small, being just over $11,000 to date and another $9,000 which has not been collected1, but which apparently it is hoped will be collected. I believe something must be wrong in the mechanics of the system with regard to previous loans if there were any losses at all. I do not think it was necessary that there should have been any losses. Certainly a system could be put into effect which would prevent any losses at the present time. There are several ways in which credit could be made available to the farmers who need it at the present time, without any possibility of loss to the treasury. I would say there is no necessity of even a government guarantee of bank loans.
A system of this sort might be introduced by making a change in the wheat board act, if it is necessary; or all that might be required is a change in the regulations. The money might be advanced by the bank on farm-stored wheat to the extent of, we will say, 75 cents a bushel or 70 cents a bushel or whatever the amount might be around there, approximately half the initial price. The money advanced by the bank up to that amount, or whatever amount you might wish to state, could be made a first charge against that wheat when it is delivered. In your act or in your regulations it could be provided that an entry would be made in the farmer's grain permit book by the bank manager when he borrowed the money. When the farmer delivered his grain, the elevator agent he went to would see this entry there; it might be $500; it might be $1,000. As the farmer delivered his grain the elevator agent, instead of giving him a cheque, would be instructed to send the cheques to the bank until the $500 or $1,000, or whatever was the amount, was paid off. As he did so, of course, he would make the appropriate entries in, the permit book, so the permit book would show the amount of the loan to start with and by how much it was reduced until it was extinguished; and of course you would have, as a result, a completely guaranteed method of repaying the banks without, as far as I can see, any loss to the treasury and without any expensive administrative set-up or costs involved whatever. It is just a matter of providing the authority and then issuing the instructions to the elevator agents.
Such a scheme is safe because, as I have said before, the farmer cannot sell his wheat and his other grain except to the wheat board on his permit book; and he has to produce his permit book before they will take

delivery of it. They mark on it what he has delivered and so forth. Therefore from that point of view the thing is fairly safe. The only possibility of loss under such a scheme would be by fire, a contingency which the bank could cover by fire insurance if they wished, or it could be provided that the farmer must cover it by fire insurance. The cost of fire insurance on farm-stored grain is not high, relatively. It runs to about $3 a thousand for a six months' period. If that fire insurance provision were made the banks, of course, could charge it up just like interest and collect it back when they were repaid.
Although, as I say, it seems to me that a scheme of this sort is absolutely foolproof, if any fear still existed as to the possibility of loss to the treasury, to the banks or to anyone else so that the banks would not be willing to lend the money, then I think you could make a further provision which would absolutely cover everything. That would be a provision for a deduction, on deliveries of grain, of half a cent a bushel just in the same way deductions are now made under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. That half a cent a bushel could go into a special fund which would be held to cover any possible losses. In the course of time, when the crop was cleaned up and the debts were repaid, the money would go back into the general funds of the wheat board and therefore back into the hands of the farmers. In other words it would be quite possible for the farmers, out of their own funds as a group, to guarantee this scheme against doss through really bookkeeping entries on the part of the wheat board.
There is only one way in which any losses could occur, as far as I can see, and that would be if a banker lent money on nonexistent grain. Of course in the case of a bank that lent money on non-existent grain,
I would say the bank would be responsible and would have to take the loss. I do not see why the banks should be guaranteed against serious errors on their part. In any other business transaction, if they lend money against assets which are not there and then cannot collect, they of course take the loss and look upon it as part of their normal business or just as a mistake that has been made. The situation would need to be the same here.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest this as only one scheme by which the present credit difficulties of the western farmers could be met on a straight business basis, with no question of a handout, paternalism or anything else of that nature. I do not for a moment contend that this is the only sort of scheme which

might be put into operation, but it has at least this advantage. It meets all the objections which have been raised by the minister and others as to the losses which he has implied would be almost certain to take place if credit were advanced at the present time. I would strongly urge on the government that a scheme such as this, or one of guaranteed bank loans, or one of cash advances for farm-stored grain, be instituted at once. I do not care what the particular scheme is but I know that the need exists, and I think it is one which the government must meet.
As I have said, as the government has made itself the sole buyer of western grain, it has the definite responsibility of accepting the grain from the farmers when they have it ready to deliver or of ensuring that they can secure sufficient credit on it to feed and clothe their families and carry on their farm operations. That responsibility the government cannot escape by indulging in statistical orgies such as the one engaged in or enjoyed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce yesterday. Such statistics fill the minister's mouth and the pages of Hansard, but they certainly do not fill any stomachs and they do not pay any gasoline and repair bills.
Yesterday the minister made much of the fact that over $1 billion would be paid out this year to western grain producers, the highest amount on record, he said. What he did not say is that the general farm income is considerably down this year from what it was last year and again last year it was down from what it was the year before, and that the farmer is actually in a price squeeze.
I thought it was quite a peculiar coincidence, and one which is unfortunate for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to see two of the headlines in this morning's Montreal Gazette. Looking at an inside page one sees this heading: "No Need for Grain Loans, Income New Record-Howe". Then when we look on the front page of the paper we see another heading: "Farm Income Dips Sharply in Dominion". Somebody must be wrong, as far as the general inference is concerned, and I suggest that it is the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The article under the heading "Farm Income Dips Sharply in Dominion" says this:
Farm income in Canada will drop by 12 per cent in 1953, the second consecutive annual decline from the 1951 peak, federal agricultural economists estimated today.
I suppose those are the economists of the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Gardiner:: Dealing with net income, of course.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.
The Address-Mr. Harkness
In a 106-page report prepared for the annual federal-provincial agricultural conference opening here Monday, the economists made these points:
1.	World agricultural prices have softened and this softening will continue into 1954.
2.	The flow of cash to Canadian farmers has declined . . .
I will not read the rest of it. Then further down, they go on to figures:
The economists estimated that net farm income in Canada will drop by 12 per cent which, on the basis of 1952 figures, would mean a drop of about $228 million to $1,672 million from $1,900 million. The peak was $2,200 million in 1951.
That means there was a drop of $300 million in farmers' net income in 1952. There was a further drop this year of $228 million, making a total drop of $528 million in two years, which is 24 per cent. In other words, farmers' net income has fallen by a quarter in the last two years.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) sought in his speech yesterday, when talking about these billions of dollars which have gone out for grain, to leave the impression among people who did not know that the farmer was much better off than he had ever been before, and that his income was at a much higher level than ever before. The minister also sought to leave the impression that the farmer, as a result of this, required no credit assistance. As shown by these figures put out by the Minister of Agriculture, the actual fact is that the farmer is much worse off than he was last year, and was worse off last year than he was the year before. His income has declined, as I have said, by 25 per cent-24 per cent actually- and his expenses at the same time have advanced.
Surely it is going to be very difficult for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in the face of these figures showing a decline in income of approximately one-quarter and an increase in the cost of doing business, to try to maintain that because a certain amount of money was sent to the west last year, no credit is now required. Actually agriculture generally-and I think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) himself will probably admit this to some extent-is in a much more serious situation than has been the case for a number of years. In any event-


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I would very much rather that my hon. friend read that whole article, because it does give an explanation which he has not given the house at all.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not know of any explanation that it gives, Mr. Speaker. In any event, I have not very much time left, so I am not going to use that time reading
160	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Harkness the entire article. The minister of course is at liberty to read it when he speaks in this debate, as I am sure he will.
Using both figures, and the amount of money which went out to the west last year and the year before and the year before that, his argument that the farmers do not need special credit facilities at the present time is ridiculous on the face of it. No one judges the prosperity of any business by volume of sales. What they do is judge the prosperity of a business on its income minus its expenses, and that is the only reasonable way of doing it. When you apply that test to farmers you find their income has shrunk by 24 per cent and their expenses have increased, so it is quite easy to see how much less prosperous they are than they were two years ago. In fact it is only too apparent that the general prosperity of the farmer and the farming population has declined both rapidly and dangerously.
There is one other matter I should like to bring to the attention of the government in regard to the immediate present situation in western Canada, and that is a matter for the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). It has to do with the income tax liability of farmers who are on an inventory basis. These farmers are, or will be at the end of the year, in the position of having large tax liabilities on their unsold grain, and in many cases it will be impossible for them to meet these tax liabilities. They are placed in a hopeless position, and if they do not pay-and they will not have the money to pay-penalties of various sorts will be assessed against them.
This is a matter which requires some action. What the farmers who are in that situation are asking is that the penalties and interest charges which would normally be imposed be waived until they are able to sell the grain and get the cash to pay their tax liabilities.
I think that is a course the government should take, and I would urge the Minister of National Revenue to look into the matter immediately, if he has not already done so; and if it is necessary to have an amendment to the Income Tax Act, to introduce that into the house as soon as possible. If it can be done by regulation, then the regulation should be brought into effect quickly. Certainly it is a pretty hopeless business to have a man, as will be the case, assessed with several thousand dollars of taxes on grain that is lying in his fields and which he cannot sell, as a result of which he has no possibility of meeting this tax liability.
The farmer who is on this basis of course is in quite a different position from the fanner who is on a cash basis. The farmer

on a cash basis pays income tax only on the cash that he actually receives. So far as they are concerned the present inability to sell grain does not affect them. But the farmer who is on an inventory basis pays on the basis of a year to year inventory and he is stuck with perhaps several thousand bushels of grain which he cannot sell and on which he still owes taxes. I have a letter here, a copy of one addressed to the minister. I will not bother to read it, but that is the general effect of it.
At the beginning of my speech I referred to the basic long-term problems in regard to grain as marketing, storage and transportation. Each of these is an involved matter. I see I have only about three or four minutes left, so I have no time at present to deal with them, but there are one or two remarks I should like to make in connection with them.
As far as marketing is concerned it has quite evidently become a different matter in the last year than it has been since the start of the last war. For the past 13 years up until this year, the marketing of wheat has largely been a matter of bulk contracts or purchases by governments through our government. Governments of the importing countries made these deals with our government or the wheat board as an emanation of our government. Farmers in western Canada have been in favour of this type of grain marketing because they considered that it gave them more security both as to the quantity they could get rid of and as to the price they would receive. The farmers considered such a scheme made for stability.
However, at the present time, with the opening of the Liverpool grain exchange and the end of bulk purchases by the British government, it would appear that this era of government bulk purchases has practically come to an end whether we like it or not.
I see no use, as is being done quite commonly throughout the country, in condemning Britain because she has chosen to depart from this method of buying grain. That is her business. If she thinks she can do it better by purchasing it on the open market than by government bulk purchases it is not for us, as far as I can see, to complain and reproach her. What we can do, I think, in Canada is to adapt our thinking to the present situation rather than complain over the change which has taken place. We must change our methods accordingly.
I was very glad to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce say that he had selling teams in Europe and in the Far East whose job, as I understood it, was to get in touch

with purchasers for our grain and induce them to buy it or perhaps induce them to buy it in larger quantities than they might otherwise. Certainly we have a large-scale selling problem on our hands, so far as the disposal of our grain is concerned. I certainly hope the Department of Trade and Commerce and the wheat board will use realistic methods in carrying out the selling program.
There can be no question whatever that more storage facilities are required. To begin with, the farmers themselves must build more. I have very little sympathy with some of the large farmers who have plenty of money and who also have large piles of grain lying on the ground. To my mind, it is entirely their own fault, because they had the opportunity and the money with which to build the necessary accommodation, and they failed to do so. So we need not waste any sympathy on them.
There are a large number of smaller farmers, however, whose credit position was not good and who have not been able to build granaries on credit from the lumber companies. Those companies have put out so much lumber on credit for which they have not yet been paid that they have just clamped down and said, "No more credit to farmers for the building of granaries." As a result many farmers who would have built granaries did not do so, because they were not in a position to do so.
Farmers generally should be encouraged, as they were during the war, to build these granaries through a process of accelerated depreciation. Perhaps they could get some help under the Farm Improvement Loans Act for increasing their storage space. I am of the opinion that the government as well as the wheat pool could do a good deal more by way of issuing information which would encourage farmers to take this action, and thus supply more storage space on their farms.
Then in addition to more farm storage we need more country elevators, and terminal elevators with greater storage capacity. In his speech the minister stated that the longterm average over 21 years was around 350 million bushels, and he pointed out that production in the last three years had been abnormal. There is no doubt that production in those years has been above what we had considered to be the average, but I do not think it was as abnormal as at first it might appear. In other words I think it is likely that our long-term average for the next 20 years is likely to be at least 100 million bushels or more greater than we had in the years up to 1943 or 1944.
The Address-Mr. Harkness
The point is that methods of cultivation have improved. There is no longer so much of what might be described as ignorance in the matter of cultivation methods, nor is there any longer a shortage of machinery. The result is that today it is possible to carry on an improved method of cultivation. I believe the result will be that we will have a considerably better average crop than that to which we had grown accustomed in the 20 years leading up to the last war.
Then, in addition to improved methods of cultivation, we see that the farmers are now using fertilizer to a greater extent, which has had the effect of increasing the yield considerably. The use of fertilizer is bound to expand, and this is another factor which will make for an increased yield.
Then we must consider the benefits derived from irrigation. While most of the irrigated land is not devoted to the growing of wheat, nevertheless irrigation will produce better crops, because it raises the general water level of the area in which the irrigation system is bein-g followed. This means that wheat on non-irrigated land will receive the benefits of water which otherwise it would not receive, so that in very dry years wheat will be produced on land close to irrigated areas.
All told I do not think there is any question but that our average wheat production will be considerably higher than the amount to which we had grown accustomed. We should plan on an average of at least 100 million bushels more per year. This of course entails a considerable increase in storage capacity that must be provided all along the line. This is a matter for the government, the wheat board, the line elevator companies and the farmers to consider.
In that connection I should like to refer to the grain handlers' strike last year which prevented us from getting rid of large quantities of wheat. We retained several million bushels of wheat which otherwise would have been disposed of, thus providing that much more room for this year's crop. The government was particularly culpable in letting that strike continue for months. I, in common with many other members, asked week after week what action the government was taking, or what it was prepared to do to settle the strike. But it did nothing. It was afraid of offending the strikers and the labour unions on the one hand and the farmers on the other. It took no action- just sat with folded hands.
That is the sort of thing which should not have been permitted to happen, the sort of thing for which the government is culpable, and the sort of thing which we hope will not occur again.

The Address-Mr. Regier


Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, on August 10 the people of my electoral division did me the honour of electing me as their spokesman in this, the twenty-second parliament of the Dominion of Canada.
In the campaign in my constituency there were five candidates, each of whom offered his opinions on the state of the nation, as he saw it, and each of whom offered a set of proposals for the endorsation of the electorate. The very fact that the electors of that constituency sent me to Ottawa has placed upon me the obligation to say in this House of Commons the same things that I said during the campaign to the people back home, and events since August 10 have only served to emphasize the arguments I used at that time.
I should like to begin by offering my heartiest congratulations to the government on its recent re-election. It has been said, and I think with some justification, that the government is able to win elections in Canada to the degree to which it finds itself able to adopt the recommendations given to it from this section of the house. This need not come as a surprise to anyone because we, in this section, have our program decided annually by the rank and file of the people. Our election candidates are selected in a democratic manner by the people. Necessarily our election expenses are paid on a voluntary basis by those thousands who support us, and with no strings attached.
I have always held great admiration for the way in which our leaders, C.C.F. members in provincial legislatures and also those in the federal house, are able to say what they want to say and what they think ought to be said. They do not have to keep in mind any allegiance to anyone, except to those thousands of people back home who have sent them to parliament.
Let me say at once that on election day in my riding no less than 400 people took the day off from work, many at the cost of a day's wages, and worked all day long for the election of the candidate of their choice. This was no accident, and I take great pride in stating it. I do not mind letting the opposition candidates know how we won the election, because I know that no candidate in any other section of the house will ever be able to obtain the voluntary services of 400 workers on election day.
Yes, we are the people; and we therefore know the people. Naturally we hope the day is not far distant when all people in Canada from coast to coast are going to look at the record of the C.C.F. and place their confidence

in our leader. Then, by their votes, they will show that no longer are they satisfied to eat the crumbs that fall from the table, but that they want to come on in and sit at the table to enjoy the full fruits of their labours.
The coronation of our Queen, Elizabeth II, Mr. Speaker, was a most important occasion for me. Elizabeth I symbolized what has been known as the golden age. Her reign saw the beginning of man sailing out on to new seas, new seas literally and new seas of ideas. At that time the people of that little island led the world in new adventures, and ever since the people of that little island have made one of the greatest contributions to mankind that any nation has ever made. As I look over the international situation as it now is, I again have reason to believe that once more the people of that little island will for many centuries lead the world.
The people of the British Isles and her adopted sons overseas-and I might add her Scandinavian relatives-again seem about to embark on a vast sea of exploration and the finding of new ideas. They are finding out the secret of how men can live together in harmony and how they can develop the things of the earth to their benefit. They are learning to free themselves economically, and I have every confidence that under another Elizabeth a new day is now dawning and that she will lead the world to new heights of human achievement. I have every confidence that we in Canada have every desire to join with the peoples of the British Isles, of the Scandinavian countries and of the other commonwealth nations in this wonderful new adventure. I hope we will not be led astray in Canada by what to me is a foreign soda-pop civilization or by a foreign "OGPU" civilization. I hope we shall do what we can to build a distinctly Canadian civilization, based on our great and varied cultural background, and ally ourselves with our sister nations of the commonwealth in the great adventure to which I have referred.
I should like to compliment the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) on his address to the house. I sensed in that address a return of the Progressive Conservative party to the old Tory party, and I admire him for it because, as I see it, it is the only alternative to progress these days. It is the only salvation for the survival of that organization. I do admit that a party of consolidation is necessary. In a democracy we do need a party of progress and a party of consolidation, sometimes symbolized by the red tie and the blue tie. The red tie, which I believe at one time the Liberal party in Canada claimed to possess, away back in 1837, has by now long since faded into a miserable blur. The colour

will become blue or it will vanish completely. I would like to inform those of you in the Liberal ranks in this house who still love a red tie that the leader of my section today is the custodian of red ties, and you may make your application to him for the vacant chair beside me.
Once in a while a blue tie turns into a deep purple, which is a most misleading colour. Of course I am referring to the section to my left. I certainly hope that we in Canada will never really adopt parties of either inaction, of revolution, or of reaction as our own. I hope the day will soon come when we, like the people of the British Isles, will return to the real two-party system in Canada, the red and the blue.
My reference to the red tie that the Liberals used to wear, Mr. Speaker, was not meant to be only humorous. There is plenty of evidence in this country of ours that this government, despite all the surpluses in the budgets over a period of years, and despite the fact that it has been able to find billions annually for armaments, seems unable or unwilling to give our people the basic social security to which they are justly entitled. Canada is a land having tremendous productive capacity. When I think of what we would be able to produce if we went out for full production, without many of the deliberate limitations in the interest of their own economy that are resorted to by the managers of industry; when I think of us applying our ingenuity to invent new methods whereby we may increase the productive capacity of our nation, then I say our national production could be vastly more than it is today.
If the nations of Europe, ravaged as they have been by several wars, are able to give their people a comprehensive social security plan, surely we in Canada, having so much more, ought not to deny to anyone the basic standards of food, clothing, shelter, health services and equal educational opportunities.
Let us look at what we do offer our people. I can think of a multitudinous array of things that we do offer. We have local relief and social welfare; we have mothers' allowances; we have family allowances; we have workmen's compensation; we have veterans' allowances of various kinds; we have compensation payments; we have life insurance; we have fire insurance. We have all these things, yet throughout our dominion there are many individuals left who do not fit into any of these and who are in dire need. Just as an example I can think of a married man, 45 years of age, with a family to feed, who has no means with which to buy his daily bread once his unemployment insurance benefits run out, unless he is willing to do 83276-lli
The Address-Mr. Regier so at the expense of his local municipality, and no decent citizen likes to do that.
I noticed with a great deal of pleasure that the speech from the throne made reference to aid for the handicapped. I hope it will be liberal aid'-I mean a small "1"-and I hope it will take in all the handicapped of all ages. I should like at this time to voice a plea that not yet another separate administrative department of government be set up to handle another type of pension. For the sake of efficiency and economy I would plead with the government to consult with the municipal and provincial authorities in our dominion, to explore at the initial meeting whether it is not possible to combine all our insurance and pension plans-and we have many of them, as I have already indicated- and make adequate provision for all. I think a great deal of money, millions, would be saved in administration alone.
I was very much concerned by the apparent decision of this government to move the main operating services of the national film board from Ottawa to Montreal. I am not in a position to say whether or not it should be done; but sitting back here and observing the questions and answers, and hearing some of the members of the official opposition speak, it seems fairly obvious to me that this move is being made without prior consultation with all hon. members. I feel that it is a most important move which may have far-reaching consequences. Therefore I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will see fit, as he has indicated he will, to consult with the other members of his cabinet and that we will be given an opportunity to look into this matter more fully.
As some hon. members know I am the first Mennonite ever to be elected to this House of Commons. There are about 135,000 people in the dominion who adhere to the Mennonite religion. As the historians say, ever since Rome became Christian and the church became Roman the Mennonites and their predecessor sects, along with others, have opposed the use of armed force to settle disagreement between equals, be it individuals, cities, nations or alliances of nations.
If two people out on the sidewalks of Ottawa become annoyed with one another we say to them, "You two men have no right to slug it out," as the ordinary saying goes. We say to them, "You must have your argument settled by some higher authority." If we apply that to the municipal level we will realize that we have long since got past the stage where we permit cities to war upon one another. I think we have got past the stage where we permit nations to make war one

The Address-Mr. Regier upon the other. The last two wars were wars of alliances of nations against alliances of nations.
For the record I should like to make it perfectly clear here that at this stage I do not oppose but rather endorse the use of force which may be necessary for the maintenance of law and order. But such force must be exercised by some authority which is higher than those who are involved in the argument. As long as the United Nations is the United Nations and not the Soviet union or the United States I am in hearty agreement with the use of military force by that body for the maintenance of world peace.
I have examined the brief prepared by the Canadian Legion, and I ask the government to recognize the reasonableness of what the Legion is asking for. These members of the Legion offered everything on behalf of those people who were able to stay at home and make money, as a lot of us were. Many of us were able to make money only because there was a war and other people were laying down their lives. I say that our government should get away from associating our veterans with the poorhouse. Rather let us regard the veteran as having earned a decent standard of living. Even if the Legion are granted everything they ask in their brief I am sure we will not be giving one cent more than these veterans so well deserve. I hope that at this session the government will see that justice is done to these people.
Returning to the subject of world peace, which I submit is our greatest problem today, let us keep the conference table of the United Nations. Let us make that conference table ever larger, until it takes in all the peoples of the world. Let us give to that body military power sufficient to enforce its decisions, and also the goods with which it can take action to eliminate some of the roots of war.
Canadian people are most anxious to preserve and extend the influence of the United Nations, despite what some hon. members to my left may say. I believe the Canadian people would heartily endorse such action if instead of spending 50 per cent of our income on defence the government spent half of that-I am speaking for myself now- in making the United Nations militarily powerful and the other half in giving to the United Nations the material goods, our wheat, our fish, our lumber and what not, in order to remove the causes of war in the hungry nations of the world. I repeat that we should do everything to make for a better conference table.


Let us beware of being only a satellite at the conference table. We are in a most fortunate position, we are a most fortunate nation. Those of you who know the Men-nonites are aware my forefathers did not come from the Soviet union. They came here a hundred years ago, but some 40,000 Men-nonites have come from behind the iron curtain since 1917 and know what communism is. We can say to international communism and to international monopoly capitalism "a plague on both your houses; we want neither of you." One leads to fascism and the other is communism, both equally bad.
We want world peace and prosperity and we will use all our power to keep the representatives of all nations around the conference table. We will throw our full weight behind such nations as those of the commonwealth, the Scandinavian countries, western European and southern Asiatic nations, all of whom are desperately looking for our leadership.
Although I do not know all the secrets of international diplomacy I am sure that when the former prime minister of Great Britain visited Washington and when the present Prime Minister of Great Britain visited Washington, it indicated that the people of Great Britain, once under a Labour government and again under a Tory government, had prevented us from entering a third world war. We should be ready to help those people who want world peace. The people of Great Britain knew they had nothing to gain from a third world war, and I am convinced that they will do everything possible to prevent such a war occurring.
During the recent election campaign we heard a great deal about the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) being the founder of NATO. I should like to see him take a lead now as he did in NATO and organize the vast masses of humanity in the world who want to keep the peace. We should do everything we can to keep the two most powerful nations of the world away from each other. If our far north needs defence from attack I would be most happy to see the forces of the United Nations in our northland. We are a sovereign nation, and if we are prepared to relinquish some of our sovereignty-and I think we should be prepared to do so, as should all nations-then let us relinquish it to an international body which is representative of all the nations of the world and not to one state, regardless of how powerful that state may be.
We live in troublesome times, but mankind has always made its greatest advances during such periods. There are those who,

being overcome by the dark cloud of war and fear, would turn back the clock and again bring about a fusion of church and state. Whether consciously or otherwise I feel that there are hon. members in this house who were elected on what I would call this wave of reaction. My forefathers and the forefathers of other hon. members gave their all centuries ago to bring about the permanent separation of church and state. I trust that no one in this house, whether on the government side, in the official opposition or in any section of the opposition, is going to willingly give his support to undoing the work which our forefathers accomplished at such great sacrifice.
You see, Mr. Speaker, when we have a fusion of state and church it does not take very long until it is stated that all the actions of the government have the blessings of the Lord Almighty. Then it is just a little step from there until you reach the point where to say anything against the government is sacrilege. That is the establishment of a dictatorship worse, I submit, than any we have seen for hundreds of years. Let us be on our guard against that in Canada. Let us rather have faith in this belief which we all share, that the breath of Almighty God is in each one of us, whence originates our saying that the individual human being is sacred. That is the basic belief on which our democracy is founded, the belief that ordinary men and women given freedom and knowledge will govern themselves all right.
Mr. Speaker, some editors have referred to the throne speech as unilluminating, and others have forecast that this will became known as a do-nothing session. I hope that the government will show these forecasters to be wrong. I anticipated seeing action on a planned aggressive policy on immigration. We cannot further monopolize our rich resources for the comparatively few people we have. We must face that basic fact. We need more people to consume our basic products but we do not want the present immigration policy, which is adding to the number of unemployed.
I cannot blame my unemployed at home for their attitude when they see all types of immigrants employed and they themselves unemployed. I cannot blame them for feeling that the immigration policy of this government is wrong. Out of that feeling is going to come a demand that we halt immigration, and I would hate to see the day when we had such a demand throughout the nation because we do need more people. Must our immigration policy be based on the employers of
The Address-Mr. Regier Canada? Can it not be based upon the principles of compassion and on the needs of our economy?
I would have hoped that the new government would have forecast an entirely new trade policy. We have surpluses or we are threatened with surpluses in all our major basic commodities, and I am rather amazed to see wheat farmers fighting fishermen and fishermen fighting wheat farmers on the floor of this house. I think it is terrible. Fundamentally and basically their trouble is the same. We have surpluses of fish, lumber, apples, wheat, cheese, coal, and meat. If they are not readily apparent, all of us who represent the length and breadth of the dominion know they do exist or would exist if those who are able to control production did not limit the production. As long as there are hungry men and women in the world a limitation on production is to me a cardinal sin. That is fundamental to me.
That is not to say that I do not believe in orderly planning of production; but when we reach the stage where we have big signs on Saskatchewan telephone poles, as we had many years ago, "Grow less wheat and help win the war", then we have reached a sad state of affairs. That was done under the auspices of the dominion Department of Agriculture.
Now we do have surpluses, and our manufacturers are very keenly aware that surpluses of secondary products are just around the corner. Unless action is taken on a national scale to relieve this situation there is only one thing that can happen, Mr. Speaker, and that will be a break in the price structure in our nation. We all know what that would mean. That would result in unemployment and a repetition of the hungry thirties. Every worker's employment, every worker's job, and every farmer's prosperity is hanging in the balance today.
The minister the other day indicated that we were selling more than we have ever sold before. I agree that we are. However, our productive capacity here and all over North America is going up by such leaps and bounds that we have to have goods moving faster both at home and abroad. That ought to be the prime consideration of this government, to get the goods moving faster. We know they are moving fast, but they must move faster still.
The great hurry of the government to remove the restrictions on the level of prices in the dominion a few short years ago has

1G6
The Address-Mr. Regier been the basic cause of the now too high price levels that we have in our dominion. We have, as a result of that and for other reasons, lost our world markets. Another and perhaps an even greater cause of the loss of our markets has been the deliberate allying of our economy to the economy of the United States. The United States market is for us an unnatural market. However, during wartime that market was established and reestablished during the second war. That was unavoidable. But surely we have reached the stage now where we have to turn our backs on that market and find other markets. We must reverse the trend. We must buy from where we hope to sell and, further, we must take payment in the money of the people who have a natural need for the goods we have to sell.
To talk of convertibility of sterling is nonsense as long as you have one nation with a near monopoly on the gold reserves of the world. In that situation you can never establish convertibility of sterling. I think the sooner we forget about convertibility, the better.
We could also help the situation by letting into our country free of tariff those goods not naturally produced here. AH Canadians, when they can afford it, would rather have Canadian-made standard automobiles. However, by our tariffs on the small English and other European automobiles we are denying to thousands of Canadians the right to have any automobiles at all. I do not see where our automobile industry would be hurt one whit by removing tariffs on small automobiles. I have a small automobile and, believe you me, as soon as I am able to afford it I shall sell that automobile and buy a standard car. I think all owners of small automobiles in Canada feel the same way about them.
There are a lot of things which we use in Canada and which we do not naturally make in Canada, but still we must pay tariffs on those things. I was very pleased to see that one of the ministers, speaking about a month ago in one of the cities of the United States, warned that we in Canada would have to come to the adoption of a policy under which we would manufacture only those things that are natural for us to manufacture. I heartily agree with that statement, but I looked in vain in the speech from the throne for some of this liberal-with a small "1"- talk to be implemented by action. I still hope that some action will be forthcoming. If we take that course we will enable those nations which make the things which we do not make to sell them to us and obtain

money with which they in turn can buy our fish, lumber, apples, wheat, bacon, cheese and other products.
Mr. Speaker, I would plead with this government not to make any further appointments to the upper house. Let the latest appointee, a most able lady, have the last word.


Stanley Howard Knowles: She will.


Erhart Regier: It is my belief that the government should eliminate the agencies that intervene between the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the man who is building homes. If this government is going to continue and extend its underwriting of the cost of house building-and I hope it will-and if the nation's credit is to be used, it is only right that this government should endeavour to get this credit to those who are building homes at as low an overhead cost as possible. Using the chartered banks or insurance companies is not serving that useful purpose; it is only adding to the cost of administration. When the people's money is used to underwrite the cost of homes, let us underwrite the cost of homes and not the cost of profits.
I have looked for an upward revision of family allowances, old age pensions and pensions for the blind and the elimination of the means test from all our regulations connected with pensions. For our senior citizens I think Canadians as a whole would welcome the announcement that this government is prepared to pay $65 at age 65 without a means test.
I have one observation to make with regard to the last federal election. I have been given to understand that had I been a candidate in some areas in this dominion I would have had to submit my election material to a municipal police officer for his approval. I have been told, what is more, that I would have had to obtain a licence or a permit for every one of my 400 volunteers who helped with the carrying of this literature into the homes. To me, Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. It is an infringement of the right of the people of Canada to be Canadians, and it violates the principle of free elections. We do not like the rigged elections that take place in other parts of the world. We greatly deplore them. Surely even a Liberal government will not stand idly by and let this type of election gain a foothold in our free land. When this government conducts an election, I submit it must be a free election. This government was freely elected by a politically free people in a democratic manner, and as such

I	must accept it as my government and bear it allegiance, as I do. However, I would find it extremely difficult to pay my respects to a government that was elected otherwise than in the manner in which it has been elected. I respect my government because it has been elected in a free election. Let this parliament protect the political rights of our Canadian citizens and put its foot down on anyone, big or small, who will play with dynamite in our midst.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I refer to the sentence in the speech from the throne which reads as follows:
Much remains to be done before there can be permanent and durable peace in the world.
I regret that in this speech there is nothing to indicate that this government realizes the significance of that sentence. I regret that in his amendment the Leader of the Opposition fails to admit that free enterprise is a thing of the past.
Today we have monopoly enterprise. The issue today is who shall control monopoly enterprise. We cannot ever go back to free enterprise, no matter how much you wish it. It is a thing that belongs to the pages of history. The issue today is this. Shall the people, through their freely elected parliament, control the major industries of the nation in their own interests, or shall they be left to the whims of those who happen to have the management of the investment savings of the people and who claim those savings as their own and operate big industries therewith while paying a mere 3, 4, 5, or 6 per cent to the owners of life insurance policies and so on, yet who claim they are justly entitled to profits away over and above that. That is the issue today.
Here is a perfect example. I notice in the Canada Year Book, the issue of 1952-53, page 1132 and the pages immediately thereafter, a list of fire insurance companies registered with the dominion government. There is a list of their net premiums collected and the net claims they have had to pay since the year 1880. That is a long time, a period of 73 years. I must admit that not every year is given. For a long period only every fifth year is given. But for the last
II	years every year is given.
The statistics there show that not once have the companies, taken as a whole, sustained a loss. The consumer has always taken the rap. For the year 1951 the percentage of claims to net premiums paid was 38-71 per cent. If I may be permitted to do so I will leave out the odd numbers and speak in round figures. Out of $134 million of premiums paid there were claims of but
The Address-Mr. Balcom $52 million. If you take from the net earnings the refunds that they made to the policyholders; if you take off their income tax, and if you take off all other forms of tax on these companies, they still had left a net profit of over $33 million. They had a net profit of $33 million after income taxes and refunds to the policyholders. Before income tax, other taxes and refunds to policyholders they had a profit of $46 million. Net claims paid, $52 million; gross profits, $46 million. There are 277 insurance companies in business. Where is the free competition? Where does the consumer get the break?
Mr. Speaker, I am now going to conclude. Canadians now know that there is no need for any of our citizens to be in want. Canadians also know that for the sake of our jobs, for the sake of our farms, for the sake of each and every one of us, and for the sake of world peace, our products must move in ever increasing quantities and with ever increasing speed to the hungry markets of the world.


Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in entering the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I shall endeavour to deal with the problems concerning my own constituency, namely Halifax, as briefly as possible. The problems are many, but I shall not speak on all of them today.
I should first like to join all those who spoke before me in congratulating the mover (Mr. Hollingworth) and the seconder (Mr. Villeneuve) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am sure the people back in the constituencies of York Centre and Roberval must have been highly elated when they read the splendid, thought-provoking speeches of the two new members.
I should also like to congratulate those members of the house who have received promotions during the year. I might perhaps be forgiven if I single out our own minister, the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Winters), who is now Minister of Public Works, and the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Kirk) who has taken on the status of parliamentary assistant in that extremely important department, the Post Office.
The speech from the throne, which covers so much that is essentia], to my mind has one omission that is too important to overlook. There is no reference to a Canadian merchant navy. I believe it was the speech from the throne at the 1911 session of parliament, which opened on November 11, which contained a proposal to establish a Canadian navy. At that time, as some hon. members will recall, reciprocity was more to the

The Address-Mr. Balcorn fore than were thoughts of war. I had hoped that the similarity in the opening dates might have had a parallel in an announcement at the opening of this session regarding the Canadian merchant navy; a statement that the government was going to take action to keep a merchant shipping nucleus under direct Canadian control so that it could be in our hands in the event of an emergency. Spokesmen for the government have stated in the past that a merchant fleet was considered an essential. When the Canadian maritime commission was set up in 1947, it was to provide a means of assisting and encouraging our shipping and shipbuilding industry to maintain themselves in a healthy and efficient state. For a trading nation like Canada, there could surely be little doubt of the economic importance of merchant shipping. Even more important, in defence the merchant marine is in fact an arm of the navy.
Some action has been taken towards the maintenance of a Canadian merchant fleet. When the war ended and the merchant ships were sold to private concerns, the so-called flag covenant was made a condition of sale. Ships purchased from the government under these conditions had to continue to be operated under the Canadian flag. How effective has this policy been? The figures speak for themselves. In 1947, there were 215 ships operating under the Canadian flag. On June 30 of this year, there were 39.
Why has this come about? In the past few years the high cost of operating Canadian merchant ships has made it virtually impossible to compete with foreign vessels. Currency and import controls have added to the problem of high costs. Because Canadian flag ships must obtain most of their revenue in a convertible currency, the area in which business may be sought has been limited. The shipowners association estimated that the cost of operating a Canadian flag ship is $100,000 more than for a United Kingdom vessel of the same type. The main factor in this additional cost is wages. This figure does not include depreciation or a return on capital investment. Add to this the requirement that when replacements were made the owner was required to build a completely new vessel in a Canadian shipyard.
The costs of shipbuilding in Canadian yards are estimated to be at least 40 per cent higher than those in the United Kingdom or European yards. The government has recognized the handicaps of operating costs by permitting the transfer to United Kingdom registry of the bulk of the merchant fleet. The replacement policy permits the owner to dispose of Canadian flag ships provided the proceeds are used for an ocean-going dry cargo ship. Under

the new policy replacements need not be built in Canadian shipyards. This puts Canadian ship owners on an even footing with foreign competition as to capital costs. But what of the operating handicap of $100,000? Is it fair to require the owners to operate ships under the Canadian flag without offering any compensation for the attendant handicap?
I know there are very sound reasons against increasing the protection of industries, either by tariffs or by subsidies. Canada has a very large stake in both the spirit and the letter of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, to which this country is a signatory. Yet, the government has already indicated that the shipping business is in a special category by imposing the flag covenant. If it is in the national interest to maintain the nucleus of a merchant marine, then it is the responsibility of the taxpayers of Canada to meet the cost. Either the ship owners should be allowed to operate in a free market or they should be paid a subsidy equal to the additional cost of operating a Canadian merchant ship.
My own view is that Canada should have the nucleus of a merchant marine. We would then have a basis for expansion in case of emergency. There would be at least a nucleus of trained personnel and management upon which to build if the need arose. A subsidy of $5 million annually would keep 50 Canadian ships operating. It would be an inexpensive way to ensure the continuance of a small Canadian merchant fleet as a complement to the navy, which is part of our defensive armoury, and the expense should be treated as such. In terms of the cost of the Royal Canadian Navy, this is a minor item. However, one hardly makes sense without the other. In terms of the total volume of world shipping, it is not a major cost factor.
I am in sympathy with the government's unwillingness to limit the capacity of other countries to earn dollars, yet this is not an ordinary commodity for the reasons referred to. The volume of trade affected would not seriously affect the earning capacity of foreign shipping companies. In the foregoing, reference was made to the high cost of ship construction in Canada. The wages in the transportation equipment industry are undoubtedly high. Just think what it would mean if the shipbuilding industry received a subsidy proportionate to the duty on automobiles imported from the United States, and is there any reason why they should not? The backbone of sea power is not the battleship or the aircraft carrier but the humble, peaceful merchant ship. Sink these merchant ships and our powerful battle fleets would

never be able to leave harbour. All the airliners which zoom over the Atlantic would be grounded were it not for the plodding tankers which they pass en route. The loss of our merchant marine would reduce us to the status of a second-rate nation depending on other countries for our protection, for we would control no means of supplying our forces overseas or of conveying our saleable goods to their markets.
I should like to bring before the house and the government two matters which in a sense have a personal flavour, but which are in fact important to the proper representation of the people in the House of Commons.
First, the matter of office accommodation has bothered me greatly since I came here in 1950. I find myself in hearty agreement with the words of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) speaking in the house last year, when he described as scandalous the office conditions that the people's representatives are asked to put up with in the House of Commons. During last session I shared an office with one of the most able and industrious members in the house. A better personal relationship could hardly be found, but I am sure he shares my sentiments in regard to the conditions that prevail. Between visitors, telephone calls, and delegations visiting one or other of us, not to mention office routine, concentrated thought was out of the question in a normal working day. That meant, in addition to the 9 a.m. to midnight round of activities, one had to find additional time to do work which had to be done in comparative quiet. Under these conditions it is virtually impossible to give proper service to a constituency and especially when that constituency is the largest in Canada and naturally, you will all agree, the most important.
The second problem, which is of particular moment because of the location of Ottawa in relation to Halifax, is the time required in travelling. I am sure those who live considerable distances from Ottawa, both east and west, must find this a hardship. I believe it would be in the public interest for the government to provide for transportation by air for members while the house is in session. Travelling by plane on passes should cover only journeys between Ottawa and one's constituency and should perhaps be limited to the period when the house is in session.
Mr. Speaker, one of the special problems concerning the people of our constituency, by virtue of its strategic position, is civil defence. Halifax city, Dartmouth and the surrounding communities constitute a target area. This has been recognized, and special 83276-12
The Address-Mr. Balcom efforts have been made toward civil defence. The city has a civil defence co-ordinator, and a great deal of useful work has been done in Halifax, but at considerable expense to the city.
Disaster is no respecter of city or municipal boundaries. The,need for protection extends to the congested suburban areas, and even beyond. But those communities are not in a position either to operate or to finance an efficient civil defence service. The federal government has gone some distance in recognizing the national character of the problem, but has not gone far enough. Success of the civil defence program depends upon widespread public interest and support. For, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has said, voluntary effort is its real foundation. This voluntary effort must be translated into action on a community basis.
Many of the elements of an adequate program are services which are the responsibility of local government-services such as health welfare and protection. The province, too, provides facilities such as highways and traffic control, which are part of the pattern. It is proper that the responsibility for these should remain where it is, and for the overwhelming majority of communities the extension and co-ordination of these are adequate for any likely eventuality.
But what of the target zones, where extraordinary precautions have to be taken? In the Halifax-Dartmouth area the civilian population is subjected to more than ordinary wartime hazards. Witness the explosion in the harbour in 1917, when some 2,300 people were killed; and again at the Bedford magazine in 1945. Should not protection from such catastrophes be more than local or provincial responsibilities? I would strongly urge the government to make provision for the special needs of target areas, without requiring equal financial participation of provinces or municipalities. Such arrangements would involve co-ordination by federal authority of the services of all three governments, as well as the marshalling of the voluntary effort.
It seems sensible, from a practical standpoint, as well as in terms of moral responsibility, to establish the civil defence program for these target areas on the basis on which it will operate-that is, in conjunction with the military arm. A considerable financial obligation would thereby be removed from the local and provincial governments, an obligation which in five provinces has apparently gone by default, with a consequent absence of provision for catastrophe in these

The Address

Mr. Balcom
areas. Of course the federal government has decided that these strategic points are important to the whole nation.
These are times for preparedness in order to prevent total war. As King George VI said to the British people at the time of the war of 1939-45, "Everyone is in the front line in total war." Civil defence is just as much a part of total war as the army, the navy and the air force, ships, tanks, shells or guns. It is an anachronism that seeks to make any form or part of a defence system the responsibility of a collection of local authorities.
We have a national civil defence coordinator. Why, then, do we go on relying upon numerous local authorities to set up and conduct their own schemes under the national co-ordinator, when defence of all kinds is national in scope? We have tried piecemeal methods in connection with the old age pensions scheme, but it did not work well, and we finally went over to a wholly national scheme. And if this is desirable in the field of social services, how much more desirable-how much more imperative -is it where the very safety of the nation is involved?
Mr. Speaker, in the field of transportation, the auxiliary services are all important in attracting business. In Halifax, where transportation and related services are the very lifeblood of our business life, there are several very obvious shortcomings. They are all functions of the Canadian National Railways.
In my first speech in this house I urged extension of the Nova Scotian hotel to provide an additional 100 rooms. It is not necessary for me to point out the personal inconvenience, yes the hardships, and the restrictive effects on many kinds of business which result from inadequate hotel accommodation. I would point out that many of those seeking hotel services are patrons of the railway, of the Canadian National Steamships or the Trans-Canada Air Lines. It would surely be good business to provide adequate hotel space in order to promote the use of the travel facilities, all of which are publicly owned.
In applying the word inadequate to the Nova Scotian, I am not reflecting in any way upon the staff or the services given. The facilities are excellent as far as they go, but the hotel just has not enough guest rooms.
The story is quite different with the Canadian National baggage and express sheds which adjoin the station. These wooden buildings which were constructed about the time of the first world war are

now inefficient and unsuitable. They are unsightly and a potential fire menace. The face-lifting job which I hope will not be put off too long should include hard-surfacing the remaining part of the square in front of these buildings.
There are, in addition, several public projects for Halifax for which the time is now ripe. The customs building has been judged beyond repair by the Department of Public Works. The plan to renovate it to meet present-day needs has been shelved, and we hope that this site will be used in the near future.
Decision on a new public building has been long pending. Now that the heavy defence construction in the area is well under way and the construction industry is no longer extended, the reasons for further postponement can no longer hold. I hope we can look for action on this matter in the immediate future.
There is another project in the Halifax area which I want to see go forward, and that is the provision of a permanent building suitable for army headquarters. Appropriate accommodation has now been provided for the navy and the air force, but the army quarters, while much improved in appearance, are still in temporary buildings.
Unfortunately, but necessarily, we have to spend public money for defence; preparedness must be a part of our national life at present and in the foreseeable future. To house army headquarters in temporary buildings is quite sensible for an emergency period when our available resources have to be carefully rationed. But with the passage of time the cost of maintaining and repairing such buildings increases. From a business standpoint it becomes uneconomic to continue on such a basis. I submit that the time has come for the provision of a suitable permanent building for the army headquarters. It will provide a nucleus for expansion should the time come, God forbid, when hasty expansion is required.
Of course, our great desire is to make Halifax the No. 1 port on the Atlantic coast, equipped with all the facilities for handling the shipping of the world-surpassing Montreal and rivalling even New York. Halifax is up and coming but we want it to go further than that-we want it to arrive!
Today, one of the most important facilities we need is a modern airport. And we are able to say that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) has indicated that such will be established in Halifax. We only hope that it will be in the near future, for to be really

a first-class port we need an airport other than that used by the military services.
Mr. Speaker, during the last session of parliament there was a great deal of criticism of the defence services for extravagance and waste. It is apparent from the election results that most of these charges were without real foundation. Many of them were vague and lacking in constructive suggestions for improvement. They deserve the oblivion which was their fate.
But we would be very unwise to assume that we have the best of all possible worlds, in our own defence expenditures, any more than in all aspects of our business life, both public and private.
We are all painfully aware of the high cost of medical services. Further, the demand for such services is so great that economy in their use is essential. Moreover, we all feel that every Canadian should have the best health care possible. In particular, our service personnel must be assured of the best available medical services, in peace or in war, either in preparation for combat duty or in treatment after injury, or sickness. This is demanded not only for humanitarian reasons; it is vital for morale as well.
I suggest that a more efficient and effective organization of our medical services is possible. Why should the army, navy and air force be in competition with one another in the medical field? With the specialized training required and the relatively limited personnel in terms of numbers, would it not be more sensible to have a single corps serve the three forces? Thereby you would have a more intimate, and a broader, opinion from the knowledge of the combined medical brains.
The dental services are already consolidated. So why not follow their example in the medical corps? A limited sharing of hospital facilities takes place now but this process could go further if the medical services, both doctors and nurses, were unified too. In my opinion, this is one branch where the same or better services could be obtained at less cost to the taxpayer.
I would like to speak for a moment on the matter of immigrants coming to Canada from England to take up permanent residence. I, with many others, feel that some consideration should be given to British subjects on the question of our Canadian old age pension. As British subjects coming to Canada, they should not be subject to the rule of twenty years' residence before they are entitled to the pension.
The application of this restrictive clause puts immigrants coming to us from the
83276-12i
The Address-Mr. Balcom British Isles on the same basis with those coming from foreign countries such as Germany, Holland, Czechoslovakia. I do not single these countries out particularly. I want to mention some. I submit that this clause should not apply to the British Isles people, subjects of Her Majesty, citizens of the commonwealth.
And then again I would like to draw to your attention the fact that English immigrants have been contributing to the pension scheme in vogue in the old country, but they have to forfeit that on leaving. In my humble opinion some sort of recognition should be in effect to create a continuity of pensionable years. It seems to me that this is the least we could do for these people.
I would like to mention also the question of post-war credits in England which almost everyone holds. These are not payable until 65 years of age. This, therefore, prevents many people from coming to Canada. If these post-war credits were released by the British government to persons emigrating to Canada, it would be a great assistance towards passage money. And I am suggesting to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration that the officials give this matter serious consideration and endeavour to arrange with the British government for the release of these credits.
Mr. Speaker, although this government has done much in the field of health, welfare and pensions, there are still groups that appear to have been forgotten over the years and who now should be given sympathetic consideration. I shall refer to only some of those who are affected, such as retired government employees, and this would include Canadian National staff who retired ten, fifteen years ago on a pension as low as $25 per month.
This just should not be, and some arrangement should be made to bring these payments up to a point commensurate with the present-day cost of living. The same situation exists with service personnel of the navy and army who retired with a pension that is completely out of line today. To be specific, I would mention the case of a major, retired on an earned pension of $75 per month about fifteen years ago, who is expected to live on that at present-day costs. Today a major retiring under the same terms of service would receive practically four times that.
This brings me into the matter of superannuation. We appreciate that every eventuality cannot be provided for, but I would respectfully suggest that somewhere along the line the old department of veterans affairs employees, or department of soldiers civil re-establishment of 1919 and 1924, have a grievance that should be righted. It appears

The Address-Mr. Balcom that a number of civil servants who have been employed, since 1919 and 1924, in the department of pensions and national health and soldier settlement board of Canada were granted permanency. But later these permanent certificates of employment were withdrawn, and again later reinstated. But the delay in reinstatement penalized these same employees from benefiting under part II of the superannuation act.
Under this superannuation act, the amount of an employee's superannuation is based on the annual average salary received by him during his last ten years of service. The act covering employees in the public service of Canada should, in fairness to these men who have worked faithfully and well, serving with the veterans of two world wars, be amended in order to give the benefit of superannuation, calculated on the average annual salary received by them during their last five years of service. We hope that all members will agree with this proposal and give it their support so that the minister may show justification for action he may consider taking.
And while speaking of the benefits to the Canadian people, I would like to see the five-day week, which has already been granted to the administrative staffs of the civil service, extended to those employees of the civil service excluded from the original order. I do not believe that you can make flesh of one and fish of another.
If one may judge by the statement of the parliamentary assistant to the Postmaster General, they are doing this in the Post Office Department and I should like to see it in other services.
Since we have a Minister of National Health and Welfare who is so conscious of the needs of the blind, the sick and the disabled, it was more or less expected that he would propose further legislation for assistance to totally disabled persons. I had hoped though that the federal authority would pay the full shot in this case, and thus relieve the provinces-particularly was I thinking of the maritime provinces-from this burden. We should remember that some of the provinces, including Nova Scotia, are carrying as heavy a load as it is possible for them to finance.
We have received information in the house this week that the cash income of the prairie farmers from the Canadian wheat board for wheat, oats and barley for the calendar year 1953 will be around $1,104 million-the highest cash income ever enjoyed by the farmers of western Canada.

To support this statement I should like to read from the Daily Bulletin of Wednesday, November 18, put out by the dominion bureau of statistics:
All regions had increased sales in the nine-month period-
That is retail sales.
-but for September moderate declines were recorded in the Atlantic provinces, Alberta and British Columbia. Saskatchewan had the largest percentage increase over last year both in the nine-month period and September, the former rising 9-5 per cent and the latter 9-7 per cent;
What a healthy state that is for anyone to be in!
Since the opening of the house, and it is a repetition of other years, we have heard of practically nothing but wheat and the alleged precarious position of the wheat farmer.
I wish the fishermen and coal miners in Nova Scotia were in the happy position of the western farmer. One thing that amazes me is that with such a glut of wheat on Canadian and world markets the price does not come down as it would if any other commodity were in surplus supply to the present needs of the people. With the price of wheat down it would be expected to be reflected in the price of bread to the public.
Were the market glutted with fish, even to the extent of one or two shiploads, the price would immediately react to the producer, the fisherman and the latter might not be able to sell his products. Not only that, he might have to take it out and dump it, but not as the western farmer dumps his wheat and then goes back in the spring and picks it up undamaged and receives a good price for it. No, the fisherman would sustain a total loss. The fisherman has a most perishable commodity to market. There are no cold storage plants at our doors as the farmers have elevators all over the country. I want to say that I have great sympathy for the farmers because I know they work very hard, but they do have these facilities which are not available to the fisherman.
When it comes to price there is no comparison in the basic production prices. Wheat prices have been at the dollar level while fish prices have been away down in the penny class. You can understand what I mean when I say that a fisherman has to sell 18 herring to buy a loaf of bread, 120 herring to buy a pound of coffee, and 175 herring to buy a pound of twine. If the inshore fisherman who relies on fishing for a living were to be so ambitious as to aspire to the ownership of an automobile, St. Peter would have to be in the boat with him, at least in spirit, so he could catch enough fish to accumulate the wealth required to purchase it. You can

figure out how many fish would be required in order to be able to send to Windsor or Oshawa to purchase a car. But I suppose the fisherman can dream that some day he will reach those heights by changing from Atlantic fishing to western farming.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, when I first entered this house in 1951 I did so as the member for Brandon constituency. At this time I return as the member for Brandon-Souris constituency, a situation resulting from the redistribution that became necessary following the 1951 census. In taking my place in this house for Canada's twenty-second parliament I am aware of the enlarged responsibilities that redistribution has brought about. Hon. members who have spent several years here will recall with affection the former member for Souris constituency, Colonel Art Ross. It is my responsibility to combine the work that he did during 13 years in the house with the work that I undertook formerly on behalf of Brandon constituency.
I am sure that hon. members will be glad to hear that Colonel Ross's talents in public affairs are not going to be wasted. I believe most hon. members are aware that he was successful in being elected a member of the Manitoba legislature for the constituency of Arthur. Incidentally that was a gain for the official opposition in the Manitoba legislature. I feel sure that the talents and skill in debate displayed in this chamber will stand him in good stead as he takes his place in that legislature.
If I were to fully discharge my responsibility to him I would be making an extended address this afternoon in connection with the wheat situation on the prairies. However, that subject has been covered most thoroughly by several other speakers who represent the west and I shall come back to it only if I have time at the end of my general discussion this afternoon.
In congratulating you, Mr. Speaker, I do so in more than a formal and perfunctory way. As a young member of this house I always felt that you were trying to put me at ease by at least seeming to take an intelligent interest in what I was trying to say. Sometimes when you look around this chamber you find it not too well populated and you wonder whether your remarks are being absorbed by anyone. Therefore it is always encouraging to see an intelligent gleam from the Speaker's eye.
In mentioning the mover (Mr. Holling-worth) and the seconder (Mr. Villeneuve) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne may I say that I was impressed with the youthfulness of both these hon. members.
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale I think it is encouraging as we look around this chamber during the first session of our new parliament to find younger members in all the parties.
A young man who takes it upon himself to enter public service as a member of the House of Commons finds certain peculiar problems confronting him. He must face certain handicaps in connection with his family, his professional ambitions and so forth. I feel that hitherto these have been a deterrent to many younger citizens of this country entering public service. I am hoping that as modern air transportation and other rapid means of transportation and communication become more readily available their use will be extended to members of parliament, particularly those from the farther western points or the maritimes, so that they may be able to overcome some of these difficulties and be in a position to more effectively represent their constituencies.
I admired the confidence of the mover and seconder of the address in reply but I suppose it is fairly easy to strike a note of confidence when you are returned to this house as a member of the majority party, particularly when that party has been returned once again with an unfortunately overwhelming majority. I say "unfortunately", and I shall enlarge upon that after I have dealt generally with the situation that confronts us.
Notwithstanding that majority I sense an underlying uneasiness on the part of those on the government benches. That is a healthy and wholesome sign in a democracy because it is at least a recognition that they are aware of the tremendous responsibilities they are carrying at this time.
I have taken part in three throne speech debates. The last time I spoke in a debate of this kind I was looking forward to what I referred to then as the day of deliverance. It did appear as if the unbalanced situation that has prevailed in our Canadian House of Commons for the past four or five years was about to be corrected. There was a growing dissatisfaction across the country concerning many matters-the inevitable problems that arise when one party has been in power too long and with too large a majority. Those issues were hashed and rehashed during the campaign, as they had been discussed in this house: the increasing cost of government, increasing taxation, increasing government control and complexity of government, the tendency towards government by decree and order in council rather than by parliament. Those things are bound to occur in any democratic form of government when one group holds power too long. Notwithstanding the dissatisfaotion

The Address-Mr. Dinsdale that seemed to be rising in the country just prior to the election, we are back just where we started from on prorogation last summer.


An hon. Member:: Good.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Someone says, "Good",
but that depends on where you sit. I hope to analyse the situation a little further and present my viewpoint on it. As I went through the recent election I got the impression that Canada was enjoying what some might call midsummer madness; because we were going through a very important election and yet a very small part of the population seemed to be aware of the vital issues at stake. There seemed to be prevailing a holiday mood. I think some hon. members were themselves in a holiday mood and failed to return to this chamber through negligence on their part. There seemed to be an increase in the feeling of apathy that besets all levels of government in these very complex and confusing days. We see that apathy in municipal affairs, in provincial affairs and in federal affairs. We find in municipal affairs that year after year councils, school boards, reeves and mayors are returned by acclamation because of the lack of interest on the part of a large section of the population. I do not think we need remind citizens in a democracy that the apathy and the apathist are far more dangerous to the well-being of democracy than are communists and similar positive threats to our way of life.
Perhaps it was inevitable that the situation should exist because we are enjoying an unprecedented period of what I would term artificial prosperity on this continent. 1 use the phrase "artificial prosperity" because, compared to most other nations of the world, with the exception perhaps of our neighbour to the south, we are enjoying the highest standard of living that mankind in any nation at any time in history has ever enjoyed. That, of course, is due to many factors but mainly because Canada came out of world war II practically unscarred physically, and with a growing industrial potential. On the other hand, European and some Asiatic countries, particularly Japan, were badly devastated by the effects of the second world war. We enjoyed an unlimited demand for goods of all kinds; as the phrase has it, we enjoyed the position of a sellers' market. Moreover, and we hardly realized it at the time, although we are quite aware of it now, North America had become the centre of world influence and Canada was of necessity drawn into the orbit by the pull of the new position of the United States in world affairs. Our experience in international affairs before the war was not one that was worthy of any

degree of credit. In fact, Canada had hardly been aware of its international responsibility up until 1939

and even then there was some reluctance, as the history of those days reveals, for the government to commit itself wholeheartedly in the initial days of the crisis. Today, however, we have been precipitated into the stream of world events because of more or less accidental circumstances. Certainly, we should not take too much credit for all this as it is due to the isolated position of the North American continent in relation to the trouble spots of the world, and to the fact that we have here the richest resources of all kinds of any country in the world.
Our government has been stressing that material prosperity. It was used in the campaign, or at least in my particular corner, as one of the trump cards-that things were never better. I would like to emphasize this afternoon that I feel that we are putting too much stress on material well-being at the sacrifice of such things as the maintenance of democratic balance and responsible government.
There is another point that emerges from the situation that faced us at the election, and I refer to the matter of disfranchisement. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised the matter the other day in a question and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) replied that he was aware of no situation of that kind. Well, I received several protests during the campaign and I think that this is an appropriate time to mention them in the house. I received, for example, a protest from the students attending the summer school at the University of Manitoba. They were not able to exercise their franchise because no special provision was established for them during this midsummer madness election. They, together with the director of the school, in no uncertain terms suggested that I make reference to it when I had opportunity. They are largely a group of school teachers who return for summer study in order to improve their teaching qualifications. As such they constituted a very important part of the electorate and they were very unhappy about the situation. Not only do they constitute a very important part of the electorate but usually they are very active and vocal in political campaigns. They were taken out of circulation because of the summer election.
On that point I would just like to say in conclusion that during the summer holiday period today we cannot undertake matters of major importance. We do not run our community chest campaigns during the summer. We do not conduct anything of importance

during the summer holidays in this mechanized, industrialized era. I think, therefore, that we should avoid a repetition of what took place-a repetition of this midsummer madness-even though it means the possibility of a threat to this overwhelming majority that we will have to put up with in this house for the next few years. I am glad to see that the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) has placed a resolution on the order paper that makes some concrete suggestions about this particular problem.
I am sure that if the election had come this fall, for example, when the people of Canada had awakened to their responsibilities, and when the new economic situations had taken shape, the result would have been much different and we would have had a much healthier political state of affairs in the country.
I deal with this subject because I feel that something is happening to our parliamentary system. We in the House of Commons are actually too close to the situation to see it happening; we cannot see the woods for the trees. But there are many authorities in the field who are wringing their hands and are wondering what is to become of parliamentary democracy. The hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) made some reference to it in his remarks, and I was quite interested in what he said. A recent book published under the title of "The Passing of Parliament"-I have forgotten the name of the author-deals with this sobering problem and the fate of our parliamentary system. Recently at the University of Toronto, Lady Violet Carter, who was delivering the Sir Robert Falconer lectures, among many remarks said something to the effect that parliamentary government is being replaced by party government. I feel that this statement applies particularly to Canada at the present time where we have had one party in power continuously for 18 years, with only a brief break in between; and by the time the record of this twenty-second parliament is completed, it will have completed 22 years. Our Canadian political situation has become confused by an excess of compromise and political expediency.
I recall that yesterday the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) got on to this point briefly. He was trying to discover whether the present majority party in the house was socialistic or whether it was Liberal, and no one could quite come to a conclusion as to its proper designation because it has been watered down by long years of compromise and political expediency. This has serious
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale implications, I feel, for public affairs and for our parliamentary system in Canada.
Canada has a special difficulty confronting it as a federal state. We have always been faced with the problem of maintaining federal unity in the face of diversity. This problem always comes up during elections. Some say the Conservative party contributes to disunity and maintain that the Liberal party contributes to unity. Of course, that is the opinion of Liberal spokesmen. During my campaign I had several episodes of this kind that disturbed me because I do not think it is in the best interests of confederation in this country. We had an advertisement that appeared in all my weekly papers as follows:
Manitoba now receives $23 million yearly under the dominion tax agreement. Drew would scrap this to fatten the money bags of Ontario and Quebec. Dare we take a chance? . . . Vote Liberal.
That is the old technique of dividing one section against another and actually it is as dead as the dodo because very few of us in the west now look upon either Ontario or Quebec as the big bad wolf, as the westerners used to do back in the 1920's or perhaps back in the period 1910 to 1920; but it still keeps coming up, and in some sections of our western provinces it has serious 'effects during an election. It is that sort of thing that has resulted partly in the unfortunate splintering on the prairies, where we have each one of our prairie provinces split among the four political parties in this country.
I again was interested in the phrase and the words that were used by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam when he referred to the necessity of consolidation in this country politically. I think that is one of the urgent necessities if we are going to continue to realize the great potential of Canada in the modern world and if we are going to move towards increasing national unity rather than be divided up as we have been, particularly since the depression.
It is unfortunate that there is a tendency for political parties to get hived up in certain sections. We are reaching a stage in Canada where we have a different political party for almost each province. I think it is especially unfortunate that the majority party in this house has 111 of its seats from the two central provinces. The Liberal party has not been getting a very good reception out west in recent years, and the reasons for that are all too obvious. That might be the reason for the disappearance of the red ties among the Liberal ranks. You were not in the house, Mr. Speaker, when that phrase was used, but most of what they used to call "the ginger group" among the Liberals came from

The Address-Mr. Dinsdale the prairies, the home of those wild and woolly westerners. There are not too many of them in the Liberal ranks at the moment. It is an unfortunate thing because it seems to suggest that political power in this country tends to concentrate in the more populous, more wealthy and more powerful provinces. I say that it will be a happy day when this consolidation does take place and when we have a two-party system that embraces a broad cross-section of national interest and not any particular sectional interest. After all, democracy is compromise. I look forward to that development even in the next four years in Canada.
Our general problem-that is, the general problem that I briefly referred to-has been aggravated by the general confusion of this twentieth century of ours which began on a wave of bright promise but which, as we stand here in mid-century, does not look too bright for the next fifty years. When the western world moved into the 1900's, into the twentieth century, everybody believed in inevitable progress towards perfection. We thought it was just a matter of time until we reached the golden age just around the corner. All sorts of ideas were abroad in the world. For example, Marxism, or scientific socialism as they sometimes called it, was making its impact in a practical way. Social Darwinism or, as it is sometimes called, social evolution was also becoming effective particularly among the universities, colleges and the intellectual leaders. It gave rise to a practical political movement known as Fabianism, which believed in the inevitability of gradualness. This is an old idea that every day in every way we are getting better and better. Those bright hopes have diminished and there is abroad in the world a wave of pessimism rather than a wave of optimism. I know that in my own short experience-if I may make a personal reference-I have come through three or four successive stages that are rather confusing, to say the least: First a war baby; then part of the flaming youth of the 1920's; then the forgotten generation of the depression; and finally the fighting generation of 1939 to 1949-and all that in the short space of two or three decades. These influences, which have affected all the young men and women who have been growing up in the modern world, have had their impact upon governments as well.
Because of the increasing confusion and uncertainty in the modern world people in the free world have tended to fall back more and more upon government controls, regulations, and coercion. I have often heard the late Dr. Innis, that outstanding economist


from the University of Toronto, use the phrase that periods of disturbance economically always result in appeals to force and coercion. Certainly the political record since the twenties has demonstrated the truth of that statement. Growing out of this confusion there have been all sorts of new social movements, political movements and religious movements, each one in its own way promising to solve all the problems that are confronting us and bringing in the new Jerusalem by its own particular form of panacea. Political movements have tended towards materialistic emphasis because in the twentieth century the emphasis is on materialism, and political parties have usually oversimplified the problems by suggesting that some economic manipulation would usher in the golden age.
In some cases there has been a confusion of religion and politics in political groups. In fact, it is hard in some European countries where political movements have grown up to say whether they are religious movements or whether they are political movements. I think it is rather dangerous when politicians in a democracy take themselves too seriously and begin to think that they hold the solution for all the problems; that they are infallible and everybody else is all wrong. That is a heresy that is not in the best interests of the democratic form of government, because the democrat must always take into consideration the possibility that he may be wrong and by means of discussion, negotiation and so forth arrive at some common basis of action and understanding.
All this leads to the super-state. The resulting loss of faith in our other basic social institutions in a free society has resulted in an increasing dependence by the individual citizen upon a paternalistic and all-powerful government. This is the situation I feel that emerges out of our recent unfortunate election, and this is not just sour grapes. I do not just speak from a partisan viewpoint. I believe it is an unfortunate situation because as I interpreted the political pulse before the election there was a movement of protest afoot, and it could have come to fruition. I am sure the common sense of the people of this country would have ushered in a more balanced democratic state of affairs had they really been given a chance.
Some of the leaders of the Liberal party are aware of these developments and they are sensitive on the point; quite self-conscious about it. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), for example, speaking on October 12 at the Montreal shoe and leather fair, had this to say:
It certainly will be the practice of any government with which I am associated that, except in

grave emergencies such as total war when all national resources have been marshalled for survival, government should not interfere in the affairs of business so long as it is operating legally and performing a public service.
The minister of external affairs also, speaking last March at the 25th anniversary of Yorkminster church in Toronto, had this to say, according to a press dispatch:
. . . 'the combination of reliance on the all-powerful state and a passion for material progress may become as great a menace to our future as Russia's 175 divisions.'
He spoke out against the tendency to 'become more and more accustomed to lean on' the government and called on the churches to emphasize the moral worth and value of the individual as a counter-balance.
And of course we have that classical expression from the dean of the Liberal party, the hon. member for Quebec South, which, I imagine, has been quoted many times, when he referred to the office-holding mania of the party now in power in this house. He said that the traditional party for progress and reform had gone right off the track and was travelling in the ditch of expediency and improvisation. What it required was a rebirth and resurgence of liberalism and a clear re-statement of its principles.
That was said in 1947. This situation has not developed overnight. It is one that has been developing slowly since the thirties in this country.
These statements, particularly the statement by the Prime Minister and the minister of external affairs, would tend to suggest that the Liberal party is trying to become conservative by evolution rather than by election, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this cannot be done. In this case the leopard cannot change its spots. Only a change in administration can accomplish the desired end. It is possible to move forward towards what has been described in this chamber as socialism, or nationalism or state socialism; but a political party cannot juggle indefinitely in the middle of the political highway in order to catch the prevailing tide of public opinion. I suggest that only a change in administration can bring this very necessary state of affairs to pass in this country. I would re-echo the words of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, when he said it was high time that this country returned to a strong two-party system because it was the only basis upon which our British parliamentary institutions can operate successfully.
Speaking directly now to the resolution by the leader of this party, I feel that he highlights this situation when he says, as appears at page 43 of Hansard dated November 16, 1953:
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale
We respectfully represent to Your Excellency that the welfare of Canada is dependent upon free competition; and that the prosperity and security of all Canadians will be advanced by government policies which will restore markets for primary products and generally promote a high volume of international trade.
I know that will be misunderstood in certain quarters as depreciating the new emphasis upon social responsibility in our twentieth century world, but I think that it does highlight one of the major problems and indicates a retreat from statism. I think most hon. members in this house will agree with me that governments can become too big, too powerful and too successful for their own good as well as for the good of the country. After all, big government is much more dangerous to freedom than so-called big business or big labour, for that matter.
I do not know whether I should give another quotation at this time. The hon. member for Eglinton hit this point yesterday, though I do not know if he hit it heavily enough, when he mentioned a particular emphasis in a particular constituency for the sake of political advantage. This came over my local radio station during the campaign *on July 28, 1953:
Have you thought of what it has cost the Brandon-Souris constituency to have an opposition member in Ottawa?
Well, in terms of indemnity it does not cost very much, as I am discovering. Going back to the quote:
The businessmen of Brandon, Souris, Virden, Killarney, Boissevain, Deloraine and Melita and other towns have felt the costs. When a Liberal represented Brandon, our skilled workmen found ready employment in government projects throughout this constituency.
We have seen Winnipeg and Portage la Prairie benefit by government projects. These cities had spokesmen in Ottawa on the government side of the house. Brandon-Souris languished because we had an opposition member.
Then, skipping part of this, I continue:
Consider the high cost of opposition representation at Ottawa, when you mark your ballot on August 10. If we are to share in large government projects, we must send a government member to Ottawa.
That actually came over the air, and it highlights most forcefully the state of affairs with which I have been trying to deal briefly this afternoon. Man in spite of himself becomes impressed with his own importance. If we carried the implication of that statement to its logical conclusion it would of course mean a one-party state, with no one other than a government member elected. And I am sure no member even on the government side of the house wishes to have that.
Turning again to the amendment of the Progressive Conservative party, I believe there

The Address-Mr. Leboe will be a tendency to misrepresent it, to emphasize the phrase "free competition" as a return to principles of dog-eat-dog, every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost. In anticipation of that argument I would emphasize that every party in the house, every group in society is now aware of the new social responsibilities in the modem world. This does not apply to political parties only, but has a wider application embracing service clubs which have developed in the last twenty or thirty years. It also applies to industry, which now recognizes its social responsibilities.
We have a new profession in the social worker, as a result of the new social order that has evolved from the industrial revolution. The record of the party to which I belong is, both provincially and federally, second to none in its recognition of social responsibilities in modern society.
The time at my disposal has almost expired. I should like to say in closing that I think the late member for Peel, for whom I had the most profound admiration, hit the nail squarely on the head, and in a very simple and kindly way, as was his custom. Speaking to me one day, he told me about an experience he had bad at the United Nations, when it was his privilege to meet one of the members of the Russian delegation. He was introduced by our Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) as a member of the opposition in the Canadian House of Commons. The late Mr. Graydon, in his usual penetrating style, ended the conversation abruptly by asking the member of the Russian delegation if he, Mr. Graydon, could be introduced to some of the members of the Russian opposition.
That is the situation we want to avoid in this country. And, of course, we will avoid it as the good sense of the Canadian public is aroused. I hope that through the discussions in the forthcoming sessions of the twenty-second parliament the political consciousness of the public of Canada will be awakened, and that four years hence we will see the dawn of the day of deliverance long past due.


Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like, as other members have done, to congratulate you upon your election to the very important office of Speaker of the house. We are certain you will discharge your duties well, as you have done thus far. We are certain, too, that you will receive the appreciation of each and every one of us at the close of your term of office. It gives us pleasure to note that you have accepted this highly responsible position.


Now, I do not expect to take up the whole of the forty minutes allotted to me this afternoon. As a new member, and this being the first time I have been privileged to speak in the house, I hope that, in common with other new members, I shall find my place in the deliberations, and that I shall be able to serve the people back in the electoral district of Cariboo as well as the people of British Columbia and of Canada as a whole. I do feel certain however that the people of British Columbia, and more particularly those of Skeena, are not going to be flattered by the remarks of the hon. member from that electoral district. To say the people of British Columbia have gone rather "wacky", and thus imply temporary insanity because they do not agree with the hon. member's politics, is to insult the intelligence of the people of that great area. I think they were exercising their democratic right when they went to the polls and did as they did, removing from office a government that had been guilty of very bad rule.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Apple-whaite) talks like one of those old-time politicians.


An hon. Member:: He is.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I hear someone say that he is, although I cannot vouch for that point. However, I remember well, back in the years around 1935, when the Social Credit government took over in Alberta. Those people were the ones who said that grass would grow in the streets of the cities, the capital would leave Alberta, and that there would be a general depression throughout the province. Yes, people would even wager that within a year's time there would be no such thing as an Alberta government, with those supporting Social Credit principles forming it.
Well, eighteen years have gone by, and I think I can say without successful contradiction that the Social Credit government in Alberta in the last election returned to power with the greatest over-all vote it ever enjoyed. These are things of which the people might well take note. The administration of public affairs in Alberta is as the people want it; it is what they desire, and it is what we will eventually have.
I was neither concerned nor impressed with the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena when he cast reflection upon the people of British Columbia. The day is not too far distant when we will be sufficiently well organized, and with an educational program available to us to give the people of Canada the opportunity to learn for themselves that we have a practical solution to

our greatest problems. We will place men and women in nomination across Canada offering the alternative which will seal the fate of the party now in power in Canada, just as surely as the voters have sealed the fate of the self-same party provincially in most of the provinces of Canada.
Pre-election spending, which is merely placing the real nature of things in a more favourable light, will not, in my humble opinion, fool the people of Canada very long.
As soon as Canadians realize that in our movement they have a bona fide alternative, there will be a change of government in Canada, and we will provide that alternative on the basis of-get this-a positive program of policies based on truth, and free of patronage.
I have been told by many people in my riding that my riding would be sadly neglected by this government by reason of the fact that I do not sit with the government. As a matter of fact, I noticed that in some of the advertisements that were published during our federal campaign. This point of view, I am certain, will prove unfounded. Certainly, since after a member is elected he is presumed, in the best tradition of democracy, to represent all of the people of his electoral district without fear, favour or regard to political views, one would hardly expect the polite hard-luck story from any department with respect to any real need that should be met in that particular district. We do hope that those who suspect this government would favour districts with members elected to the government and disregard the needs of those districts who elected members now sitting in the opposition are entirely wrong, and that events will show that we still have a government of all the people, even if they should fail to govern well.
Perhaps there are some here who do not realize the size of some of these northern electoral districts and the need for assistance in air travel to serve the area adequately. The distance from the southern boundary of the Cariboo riding to the northern boundary is about the same as from Ottawa to Fort William, and if you want to go east it is the same distance as from Ottawa to the northern point of Nova Scotia. That is one riding. I may say that that riding cannot be covered by railway, because the railway is not there-I hope it will be there some day. I feel that we should have some sort of equalization of expense money or some other means adequately to compensate these great distances that people have to travel in these northern ridings. The people are just as important at the very far north of the riding as they are in the south.
The Address-Mr. Leboe
One fellow told me he had a riding every part of which he could reach within ten minutes from one point. I have a riding that is over 1,000 miles from south to north, and I have an expense account of $2,000 and a pass on a railway that does not exist. Some people may think that is funny; but to those people who certainly want to do a job in looking after their riding let me say it is no joke. This proposition of air travel will come up perhaps at a later stage in the session and we are going to be looking forward to a little assistance for those coming from Alberta and from the British Columbia area especially.


Mr. Goode:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Bert Raymond Leboe: I am sorry; after six o'clock. We should keep in mind the distance from the coast of British Columbia to Ottawa and also to Newfoundland. It takes these people five days to get here by train, but they can fly over in a few hours. I think consideration should be given to them in that respect.
I notice that the clock is getting on and I would ask you to call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member wishes to embark upon a different division of his speech.


Bert Raymond Leboe: That is true, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: And therefore he has asked at this time that I call it six o'clock. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Speaker, I was quite
prepared to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode), but I notice that the hon. member is not with us, so I shall proceed. Our people in the Cariboo have a great many needs. That is nothing unusual, but there are certain needs in some districts that are most vital not only to the well-being of the people in those districts but because of the part they play in national defence. I should like to mention a few of those needs tonight.
Our people, in the part of British Columbia which I represent, lack adequate telephone communications. Prince George is 265 miles distant from Dawson Creek and yet there is no telephone service between those two points. We often find when a highway is

The Address-Mr. Leboe newly constructed that a ribbon development occurs along the highway to take care of tourist traffic. The Hart highway is just such a highway. There is no telephone service for the ribbon development between Dawson Creek and Prince George.
Many of the telephone lines upon which the farmers in the district depend for communication in case of emergency and so on are in a bad state of repair. In my estimation, this should have been corrected a long time ago. However, I shall bring this matter to the attention of the various departments in due course with the necessary facts and figures in the hope that we will get somewhere.
Telephone service is most vital to many people in British Columbia, Alberta and throughout Canada, and proper telephone service can be most important for national defence purposes. While I am dealing with needs connected with defence I should like to refer to the fact that there is no highway through the Rocky mountains between the Kicking Horse pass at lake Louise and Pine pass west of Dawson Creek, a distance of some 600 miles. This is a situation which should be remedied at once. A highway west from Jasper, Alberta, to Prince George, British Columbia, would provide urgently needed protection for and access to the Pacific coast. As such a highway is most essential for successful defence I think it involves federal attention and action. I am sure that a casual glance at the map would convince every hon. member of this house that this highway is a "must".
This would also afford an opportunity to help out thousands of people while taking care of a dangerous situation in the event of a national emergency if war should involve the west coast of Canada. British Columbia, with only a population of 1,200,000, has as many miles of highway as the combined road mileages in the states of Washington, Oregon and the northern part of California. Many miles of these roads require rehabilitation and rebuilding in order to meet the demands put upon them, and it can readily be seen that a highway from Jasper west will have to take its place on the priority list from the provincial point of view. Because of the cost involved it may remain on that priority list for some years.
This highway would be an arterial transprovincial highway to the north. Since the federal government have arrogated to themselves such a large portion of the tax field it is felt strongly in the west, and no doubt in the central and eastern parts of Canada as well, that there should be federal participation in all highways classed as arterial. It
[Mr. Leboe.I
is hoped that the committee on northern development will study the situation carefully, and here I am making reference to Bill No. 6.
While I am speaking about highways I should like to direct the attention of the government to a situation which has arisen in my area largely because the people concerned used very poor judgment and failed to keep in mind the needs of the people. There is one thing in government which we should never forget, and1 that is the needs of the people. A ridiculous situation has arisen where the right of way of a provincial road has been taken over by the Department of National Defence. The department then built what they termed an access road on the same location. The old road, while not a first-class highway, was a usable and serviceable road. In its place today we find that we have a road on which two trucks cannot pass. May I repeat? The old road, while not a first-class highway, was a usable, serviceable road. In its place today we find that we have a road on which two trucks cannot pass.
It is apparent that in taking this action no regard has been had for the use of the taxpayers' money and to see that they got the most for their dollar. Why should the Department of National Defence put a 16-foot top on a road, simply because it suits the department's needs, and ruin the road for the use of the people?
While on this subject I should like to deal with another situation which is quite serious and which has to do with co-operation between the Department of National Defence, the Department of Public Works and the provincial government. I refer now to the piece of the Alaska highway between Dawson Creek and Fort St. John. That is a wonderful gravel road but the traffic is very heavy. During nine months of the year the people using this road must travel continually in a cloud of dust which creates a very dangerous situation. I cannot vouch for the figure, but I have been given to understand that the maintenance of the Alaska highway runs to between $8 million and $10 million a year. If the Department of National Defence and the provincial government would get together and black-top this road it would save money for the people of Canada as a whole and do away with a terrible hazard which now exists because of the amount of traffic going up and down the Alaska highway.
I do not know how many hon. members have travelled over the Alaska highway and witnessed the traffic there, but any who have will know what I am talking about.

It may surprise some hon. members of this house to know that Dawson Creek in my riding has the largest volume of grain received from the producers of any place in Canada, and I believe of any place on the continent. One would think that that was something of which we should be very proud. It may be, but the fact is that the reason for this situation is the dire need of more adequate railroad facilities in the country north of the Peace river.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) has brought before this house the need of a coast outlet for rail cargo. It seems incredible that transcontinental railroads could be built 30 years ago with what would be considered today to be obsolete machinery and at a time when there was a much smaller population, but now when we have modern machines and methods we seem to be horrified at the thought of having to build a comparatively few miles of railroad to bring relief to the Peace river area and aid in the development of an area so rich in natural resources. Surely it should not be necessary in this day and age to have grain, livestock and other commodities hauled by truck over 100 to 150 miles before reaching the railhead. Grain quotas in this district, which loads more grain than any other shipping point, must certainly add to the bottleneck.
I remember being in that area and hearing a farmer say-and, as a matter of fact, he said it to me: If 1 can only haul day and night now that the quota has been raised I will be able to get all my grain into the elevators before grain starts pouring in from north of the river. In other words, he was not concerned with what happened to the grain that came in from north of the river so long as he got his grain into the elevator. It could very well be that some of the people who would have to haul their grain from north of the river, from the large grain-producing area from north of the Peace, would not be able to put their grain in storage at Dawson Creek. It is a ridiculous situation if ever there was one.
Figures as to available tonnage and possible development which would result from the building of this rail outlet to the coast from present railheads in the Peace river area are known to our government and certainly warrant immediate action to see that what should have been done 25 years ago is done. Provision should be made for adequate rail facilities for the people of this part of Canada. The people in this part of the country need to get their supplies in and their products out to market.
I am not going to take very much longer, Mr. Speaker, but before I conclude, for the
The Address-Mr. Leboe benefit of some of those who are here, I would like to mention a few important points in the riding of Cariboo. I want to let you know that this is not a wilderness. It is not some place where Eskimos live. I have lived there for 35 years and I have never seen an Eskimo. As a matter of fact, people often ask me what kind of clothes I wear up there and I tell them that I wear the same kind of clothes at home as I do in Victoria. That surprises them because they think we have fur on our backs a foot thick up there.
The country is real country but it needs development. I think the government should take a forward step to provide some of the facilities for the development and not wait for the development and then say that they will do something about it. I think the government should show a little leadership in that respect. I was up at Fort Nelson not so long ago on a visit. It is only a small place but even there they have problems- wharving problems on the river. I noticed there a large installation for national defence purposes, but of the pieces of equipment in the very large heating plant I noticed that only the little blower that blows coal into the furnace was made in Vancouver. The rest of it was shipped in from Toronto. I know that these other things are made right in Vancouver and could have been purchased there. I imagine that Vancouver firms had a chance to bid and perhaps they should have made their bids a little lower, but I would like to see some Vancouver products in these places.
Some of you, I suppose, will know from reading about Fort St. John, and perhaps from being there, that it is going to develop into one of the greatest oil producing areas in Canada. As a matter of fact I have heard geologists say that the mother pool may well be found in the Fort St. John area of the Peace river district. These points all add up to the need for railroad facilities and a better understanding of required development in that particular part of the country.
In Pouce Coupe we find that the people have gone all out to provide themselves with a hospital. It was built largely through private donations and it is a real asset to that part of the country. Coming down to the southern part of the riding we have Quesnel, a lumbering town with a large plywood plant. It would not be fair for me to go on without mention of Wells and Barkerville, the gold mining area. I would like to call the attention of this house and the government to the historical value of the Barkerville area. Those historical assets should be looked into and

The Address-Mr. Leboe preserved. It is something that should have immediate attention and action on the part of the federal government in order to preserve the historical value of the old gold mining town of Barkerville.
The only elevator that we have in my district on the west side of the Rocky mountains is located at Vanderhoof. That town has become more and more of an agricultural community and it has to support it a great deal of lumbering in the surrounding area. Lumber comes in from Fort St. James and Stuart lake area where millions and millions of feet of virgin timber are yet to be harvested. At the east end of the riding, east of Prince George, we have the famous upper Fraser valley and the town of McBride. The most important centre and the hub of the northern interior part of the province of British Columbia is Prince George. Since I come from Prince George I am not going to say too much about it at this time. There will be other times, I hope, when I will be heard from regarding Prince George-and not without good reason.
In closing my remarks I just want to make one thing clear to this house. I was not under any illusion when I moved into politics. I was, with my brother, in partnership in a sound business. We were doing all right but I came to the conclusion that money was not everything in this world. I know that to lots of people it does mean everything, but I wish they would consider that one can eat only three meals a day, sleep in one bed at a time, occupy one seat at a time on an airplane or one berth on a train.
Hon. members of this house, you can only take so much out of life and I fear that the use of money today by some is not necessarily for security and the good things of life. To lots of people money means power which they can exercise over their fellow men. Mrs. Leboe is the one who is making the sacrifice. We have six children and they have to be looked after. Our children are our greatest asset and it is for that asset, the protection of their liberties, their right to make their own way in this world, that I am in politics today. I have forsaken a great part of the business I had back home in British Columbia and have come here with real purpose and real conviction.
As time goes on I hope not only that I can be of some benefit to the members of the Social Credit group but that I can be of some influence for the betterment of mankind. Let us give to the youth of Canada, the generations who are putting their trust in us, who are this day playing in the school yards throughout the country and are entering into life in a real way, the hope that some

day when they grow up to be men and women all is going to be well in Canada. I think we can do those things if we have a sincere conviction in this matter and remember, with regard to any money that we have over and above the amount we need, that while it is all very well to use it for security we should not use it to the detriment of mankind.


Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr Speaker, some have expressed the opinion in this house that we should not avail ourselves of the opportunity of expressing our congratulations to those who have performed services and attained an office of prominence. I am not one of those who subscribe to such views. I think that this debate permits each one of us, as members of this house, to express our thanks for work well done and also to express our congratulations on the services performed on our behalf in the past and on the positions attained today. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on your elevation to the position you now hold. It is the result of conscientious hard work on behalf of the members of this house over a period of time. With your courtesy, geniality and fairmindedness I am sure that we in this house will have reason to be extremely proud of the position which you hold and you will, I am sure, lend dignity to all of us. As an English-speaking member from the province of Ontario, I think we are doubly proud of the fact that you, representing a Frenchspeaking seat in the province of Quebec, have been elected to this high office. We in Ontario are also proud and most favoured in having the Deputy Speaker appointed from our province by the members of this house. We know that he will give you support. He too will lend dignity and grace to the debates.
I too, Mr. Speaker, should like to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Hol-lingworth) and the seconder (Mr. Villeneuve) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am not so well acquainted with the seconder, but from what he has done in this house and the way he has conducted himself I am sure that we shall be hearing a great deal from him and that we shall be proud of the work which he will accomplish in the term now commencing.
The mover is better known to me, and I am sure he is well known to all members of the house. Over a period of years he has performed many services on behalf not only of the people of his own constituency but of all the people of Canada, a fact which is greatly appreciated. He has recently been elected. He fought a good, clean, hard fight.

It is interesting to note that his chief opponent, who was a man of great influence and, I think, probably of great wealth, has now sought refuge in the old country following the example of one of his predecessors. I think it is only fitting that I recommend to the mother country that suitable rewards should be given to him for the service which he has accomplished in Canada in acquiring a great chain of newspapers and in serving the people of our country.
The people whom I represent in the constituency of Essex West are. for the most part, engaged in the automobile industry. We have, of course, the largest concentration of the pharmaceutical industry in the British Empire; but in addition to that we are known as the centre of the automobile industry in the British Empire. We have a large plant of the General Motors Corporation which manufactures the motors used in trucks and motor cars. Then too we have a large plant of the Ford Motor Company which recently has expended about $7 million or $8 million on the expansion of a power plant and which now has embarked on a program of expansion of their plant there to the extent of some several millions of dollars. I am not certain as to the amount but I think it is in the neighbourhood of about $20 million. The third large corporation which we have is the Chrysler Corporation of Canada. They have never been known as any particular supporters of mine, I might tell you; but they have shown their faith in this country of ours and their hopes for the future by embarking on a program under which they will, in the next eighteen months or so, expend approximately $41 million in enlarging considerably the plants they now have.
On looking back over the years, Mr. Speaker-if I may be facetious for a moment-we recall that the automobile industry started here in Canada about 50 years ago. They are making quite a few sales. There are quite a few automobiles in the hands of our people-whether that is good or bad-and we are all endeavouring to get possession of one if we do not already have one. As I say, if I may be facetious, I have been coming to the conclusion that the automobile is really here to stay.
In its plant the Chrysler corporation employs, as of the present time, some 6,463 persons. They have an annual payroll of $23,857,000. Through this operation they produce on the average about 58,000 passenger cars and 13,000 trucks which is a total of about 71,000 motor vehicles altogether per annum. If you figure this out I think you will come to the conclusion that there are
The Address-Mr. D. F. Brown nearly 300 motor vehicles produced every working day of the year by that plant alone.
This is not just for the benefit of one locality or one corporation, for the expenditure which is made by that corporation is spread over the whole of Canada from British Columbia to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. All of us benefit by the materials which are purchased and the sales which are made to the various dealers.
These companies sell through dealers and these dealers give a warranty backed up by the company. That warranty is for the good workmanship of the car and is for the period of the first 90 days or the first 4,000 miles driven by the purchaser or whichever occurs first. That, Mr. Speaker, is the practice not of one company only; it is the practice of all the companies.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. White) is not present in his seat, although I have notified his office that I was going to bring this matter up tonight.* However, I may say that he and I are the very best of friends, and as a member of the opposition he is, I can safely say, probably one of my closest friends and severest critics. But Mr. Speaker, I abhor the practice of using this forum of the House of Commons for the purpose of airing personal grievances, and I do so for these reasons. First, that it is an abuse of our regularly constituted courts in this country which are set up for the purpose of providing redress for any wrong that may be suffered.
Second, it is a wanton waste of taxpayers' money to air these grievances here at such expense to the people of Canada on what is a purely personal matter.
Third, it precludes the person charged from defending himself in a fair and honest manner. He is not permitted to come to this house for the purpose of giving his evidence, defending himself and taking his own chances.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that such practice, if adhered to, will result in a form of legal blackmail.
As I said before, I would like to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac during the course of this debate which may be found on page 86 of Hansard dated November 17, 1953, and on page 87, where you will find he says:
In a recent matter that came through my law office I was amazed to find that the great Chrysler Corporation of Canada, which manufactures Chrysler, De Soto, Dodge and Plymouth cars, makes no warranty in the sale of their cars.
As I have said, I have no brief for any corporation, but I do hold a brief for the people of my constituency, and for the workers in the factories, for in addition to
*(See page 195.)

The Address-Mr. D. F. Brown all the large automobile factories we have some 50-odd feeder plants which supply parts and materials to these manufacturing agencies, and these people have a great pride in their workmanship. They have a great love of their work and they take great satisfaction in having accomplished a good job.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, while not intended to be so, it is a rebuff to say the least to the little people of my constituency who are charged with having performed a bad job.
I continue to quote from his speech. He says:
In fact, under the terms of the purchase, any such representation or warranty is specifically excluded.
And he continues further on-I want to quote him fairly:
But the Chrysler corporation made it very plain to me that no such warranty exists, and if someone is unlucky or unfortunate enough to purchase one of their cars which is defective, a car that is a "lemon", he is simply out of luck as far as the corporation is concerned.
And further down he says:
It appeared that everything that could possibly be wrong was wrong with the car.
Now, I do not deny for one moment that my friend, the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac, had some complaint about the car. But let us see what his complaint is and how it was handled. I find later on in his speech he says this:
It would appear that an important company such as Chrysler, having turned out a lemon of a car like this, would at least replace it with a new car in proper shape.
This is the crucial part of his speech. I think that is most effective. This is a report, as he puts it, of a client of the hon. member.
Well now, I am not going to say that that old legal maxim is correct, that he who acts as his own solicitor ... I will not say that because it will not apply, but I had a search made in the offices of the company concerned and they could find no record of any such client of my hon. friend having made any complaint. But they did find that my hon. friend made a complaint so that he is the client referred to in his speech.
I have with me correspondence on this matter and I would like to review it for members of this house. This is correspondence which was had with my hon. friend and I again regret that he is not here.


Mr. Speaker:: Since the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac is not here I do not think the hon. member should refer to correspondence which has been exchanged between an outside corporation and the hon. member.


I think perhaps the hon. member should continue his speech without any reference at this time to correspondence in which an hon. member of this house is involved at a time when he is not present in the house.


Donald Ferguson Brown: But, Mr. Speaker, if I might refer you to the debate, you will see that the hon. member has referred in his speech to the correspondence. And if it is your ruling that I cannot read-


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out to the hon. member that the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. White) referred to correspondence between the corporation and a client. Now, although the hon. member for Essex West may be in a position to establish that there were some difficulties mentioned in certain correspondence, between the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac and the corporation, that hon. member is not here at the moment; and therefore I do not think I should permit the hon. member for Essex West to establish this very point in the absence of the other hon. member.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I have no intention of taking any unfair advantage of the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac, or any other member in the house, at this or at any other time. And I hope that that will be reciprocated. But I should like to give you, Mr. Speaker, what are the facts in this case-that there is no such client as that referred to in the speech, but that there is a complaint with the company made by the hon. member himself; and this was done on April 21, 1953.
Now, it is significant to note-I do not know what value it has-that it was immediately preceding the general election. It so happens that the hon. member purchased a motor car in November of 1952. It was a De Soto, 1953 model, and I am told that he paid $3,507.85 for it. That is a pretty good car. It was not driven very much-probably a few hundred miles-until about February 10, 1953. I do not know what they mean by "a few hundred miles" but I suppose it might be 300, or it might be 500-or, to be generous, let us say it is 800 miles.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is assuming that the car about which the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac was complaining, as not being the kind of car having the standard qualifications of a good car, is the one which was purchased by the hon. member himself. There, again, the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac is not in his seat.
I think that so long as the hon. member for Essex West wishes to take the other

point of view in respect of the production and workmanship of cars produced by the Chrysler corporation, as he knows them- because that corporation is in his own constituency-he is perfectly in order. But when he makes personal references to the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac, in the absence of that hon. member, then I do not think he should continue along that line.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Do I understand you to say, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot refer to the speech of the hon. member?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Essex West will recall that the speech to which he refers is one in which the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac complains about the fact that the Chrysler corporation had delivered to someone a car which was not up to standard, and complained about the fact that there was no guarantee offered by the company.
That the hon. member for Essex West can refute as much as he wishes to do so. But when he says that the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac purchased a car on such and such a date and that the car had so many thousand miles or so many hundred miles on the speedometer, then I think at that moment he is dealing with the personal affairs of an hon. member who is not present in the House of Commons at the moment.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Yes, and I do not think the hon. member should have brought a matter as personal as this before the house. I quite agree with you, Mr. Speaker. I think it was a mistake. I think it was an abuse of the privileges of the House of Commons to have brought into the house a matter such as this which, as will be found at page 86 and following of Hansard, complains of certain defects in a motor car, which is a matter-and I shall refer to his speech at page 87-described in this way:
In a recent matter that came through my law office I was amazed to find that the great Chrysler Corporation of Canada-
I have read all that. I have made inquiries, and there is no such case. The only case is that of the hon. member himself. However, I shall not go into that matter.
But there is a charge here that a case of someone for whom my hon. friend acted- and as I say I do not think that is applicable -makes reference to certain defects in a car. I can only tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the only matter which has been referred by the hon. member to this corporation is the one to which I have referred.
In any event, since, Mr. Speaker, you will not permit me to refer directly to the case
The Address-Mr. D. F. Brown and the correspondence between the corporation and the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac himself, then I can only deal in generalities. In doing so I will say that there was a case of a complaint made by the hon. member for a client-which happened to be himself.


Mr. Casselman:: Are you sure about that?


Mr. Nowlan:: How about a committee to examine the car? Send it to the divorce committee for investigation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Ferguson Brown: And in the case referred to by my hon. friend in his speech he says that, so far as he is concerned, he refuses to have a car that bums oil, and-


Arza Clair Casselman: Did you ever buy a lemon yourself?


Donald Ferguson Brown: I have seen a few.


Arza Clair Casselman: I bought one last year, but it was not a Chrysler.


Donald Ferguson Brown: But the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac has, on behalf of a client, stated-if I may quote what he has said:
It will not be necessary for you to send one of your smooth talking representatives to me with the usual line of crap handed out in cases such as this. I simply want a letter from you advising in plain, simple language what you intend doing about this lemon of a car.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Apparently the hon. member is referring to correspondence to which I asked him not to refer only a moment ago.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I am sorry; I thought Your Honour had-


Mr. Speaker:: It is apparent that that letter is addressed by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac to the company on behalf of his client which, as you say, is himself. But that is the very correspondence to which I asked you not to refer a moment ago.


Donald Ferguson Brown: It is the correspondence referred to in the speech of the hon. member.


Mr. Blair:: You are burning oil.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is a reasonable man and he knows what I am trying to stress. If he were involved in a case similar to that presenting itself at the moment I am sure he would want to be protected, just as the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac is entitled to be protected. That hon. member is not present this evening. There will be other opportunities at which the hon. member for Essex West may bring this matter to the attention of the house,

The Address-Mr. D. F. Brown when the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac is present, and when we could have a reasonable discussion in the matter.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I certainly want to abide by your ruling. I do want to emphasize, however, that I abhor the use of this forum to put on the record for posterity matters such as this, and such -as those I am giving tonight. I regret it, and I apologize for it. I apologize very sincerely for having to do such a thing. I think this is not the place for me to do it; it is not the place for the hon. member to have done it.


Arza Clair Casselman: Two wrongs do not make a right.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: It is costing the taxpayers money.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Yes, and it is as
the result of the work of the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. White) that I am doing it. I do not think the hon. member for Peterborough should be the first one to cast a stone.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Why should I not?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Ferguson Brown: In any event, this corporation stands prepared at all times to give all reasonable service, as every other corporation does, corporations of my hon. friends in the opposition. They are all willing to abide by their contracts. If they are not, they do not last in business very long, and this company is no exception.


Mr. Martin:: Hear, hear.


Donald Ferguson Brown: But I do not think it should be blackmailed into doing that which, apart from fair practices, is wrong, because, as you will see by referring to page 87 of Hansard containing my friend's speech, the whole crux of the case is that they should replace it with a new car in proper shape.
Every effort has been made by the Chrysler corporation to effect any reasonable repair to any car at any time, even of my hon. friend's client. That has been done in this case, even as early as April 27, 1953, when they tried to get the hon. member to have his client permit them to take the car to the Windsor factory to have a proper inspection made, and that was refused. However, they were not satisfied with that; they made many other attempts; but now I presume the car has been driven, certainly before the first complaint was ever made by my hon. friend on behalf of his client, if not beyond the
4,000	miles-at least he had had it far beyond
IMr. Speaker.]
the ninety days. I do not think it had gone beyond the 4,000 miles when the first complaint was made. But this corporation, like other corporations, has adopted a policy that if a car is defective, it does not make any difference whether it has gone beyond the
4,000	miles or has been in the hands of the purchaser over the ninety days, in its fair practice program it will take in the car for rectification. That is not peculiar to this corporation; all the corporations will take in a car which has a defect giving a reasonable ground for complaint, and they will see that it is rectified.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, once more I certainly abhor the use of this forum to try to get a new car, to force almost at the point of a gun any corporation or individual to perform that which they know is not right. It is a form of legal blackmail, and is certainly to be abhorred.


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, this statement is certainly imputing motives. I submit that no hon. member can accuse another of committing legal blackmail, and I ask the hon. member to withdraw it.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Mr. Speaker-


Howard Charles Green: I am raising it, Your Honour-


Donald Ferguson Brown: I am sorry-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra has asked the hon. member for Essex West to withdraw. The hon. member for Essex West has stood in his place. Let us wait to see whether or not he will withdraw.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I should like to draw my hon. friend's attention to page 88 of Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Ferguson Brown: If I have committed an offence in this house, I apologize.


Howard Charles Green: No.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I do apologize.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
for Essex West is entitled to explain his position. I do agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that the words "legal blackmail" should be modified. Earlier, though in a more general fashion, the hon. member used the same words, but this time they seem to apply too directly, and therefore the expression should not be used.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I apologize
immediately, Mr. Speaker.


Howard Charles Green: No, Your Honour.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I will withdraw; I am sorry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It may be that by
saying that he apologizes the hon. member for Essex West may feel that it is tantamount to withdrawing, but it is not. I think the hon. member will be just as agreeable and say: "I withdraw the expression."


Donald Ferguson Brown: May I therefore clarify my position, Mr. Speaker. On page 88-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Ferguson Brown: -of this debate will be found the speech of the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac. He said:
I hope that all purchasers of Chrysler products will take notice of the fact that this company makes no warranty of any kind and that the poor purchaser must look to the dealer for any remedy which he can get.
Now, I do not know what you call it; it may not be blackmail. If it is not blackmail, I apologize and I withdraw.


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. member
has done more than withdraw, he has apologized and withdrawn.


Howard Charles Green: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I distinctly heard the hon.
member who has just resumed his seat say: "1 apologize and I withdraw." Now, that should be satisfactory.


Howard Charles Green: No; he prefaced that withdrawal by a condition, if such and such were the case. No hon. member can rise in this house and accuse another of committing legal blackmail. That is what the hon. member for Essex West has done with regard to the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac. I ask Your Honour to insist that it be withdrawn without any condition.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I ask the hon.
member what "blackmail" is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Whenever an hon.
member uses offensive words, especially with regard to an hon. member who is not in his seat, it is certainly in order for the Chair to ask the hon. member who has thus uttered those offensive words to withdraw. In doing so he is also entitled to explain why he used the words which he felt justified in using, and that I understood was what the hon. member for Essex West was doing. If he has attached a condition to his withdrawal, I do not think he meant to and he should not have. I know the hon. member will withdraw the words that are considered offensive.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I do not know
exactly the meaning of the word "black-
The Address-Mr. D. F. Brown mail". Perhaps the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra can help me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Let us not go into
the definition of words. I am asking the hon. member to withdraw the expression "legal blackmail" inasmuch as it refers to the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Can I say this,
Mr. Speaker? I abhor the practice of legal coercion of contractual rights of litigants or prospective litigants in this house. Does that answer the question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Ferguson:: Legal blackmail-


Mr. Speaker:: I notice with pleasure that the house is in good humour, but nevertheless the words "legal blackmail" have been used in reference to the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. White) and I must ask the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) to withdraw them.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I cannot leave a vacuum; I must have a substitute, and if someone will suggest a substitute I shall be glad to accept it.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: It would be quite easy for the hon. member to simply rise and say, "I withdraw those words."


Donald Ferguson Brown: I withdraw any offence there may be to the hon. member. If the word "blackmail" is offensive to my hon. friend, I withdraw it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Withdraw "legal" too.


An hon. Member:: Make it illegal.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think we ought to spend too much time on this matter. I think it is clear that the hon. member does not wish to offend the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac. While I am on my feet may I say that great latitude has been afforded to hon. members during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In previous years when amendments have been moved the debate has been kept relevant to the amendments. However, by practice the discussion has become wide and varied. But normally the debate should remain within the realm of public affairs. I hope that the incident which prompted the hon. member for Essex West to rise tonight is not going to be the beginning of a series of speeches having to do with matters not within the realm of public affairs.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Do I understand that when speeches of this nature are made we are not permitted to reply?

The Address-Mr. Nicholson


Mr. Speaker:: I am expressing a general view. The hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac having made his speech, I recognize that the hon. member for Essex West was quite in order when he felt justified in offering a refutation. He has done that. I am sorry I had to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member's time expired at three minutes after nine o'clock but there have been interruptions and I will give him an opportunity to conclude. I am not ruling that he should not have an opportunity to refute what has been said. As a matter of fact, he has done so.


Donald Ferguson Brown: In conclusion I shall make just one statement and give one bit of advice to the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac. It is this: That "more flies are attracted by honey than by vinegar."


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank my hon. friends for welcoming me back to parliament. Four years ago the people of my constituency apparently had complete confidence in this government. I accepted their verdict cheerfully and spent four pleasant years on the farm. Had the people this year been as confident in the administration of the government as they were four years ago I would still be on the farm. But since I am here I hope to be a genial member of the house and will do my best to live up to the traditions of the chamber.
Before commencing my speech I should like to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for leaving the national film board door slightly ajar yesterday. The Prime Minister has a reputation for fairness and I know that no harm will be done by having this controversial question referred to a special committee of the house. I do not propose to discuss the matter now, but at some time I should like to say how much the people in the rural areas of this country appreciate the service rendered by the national film board.
I am sure that hon. members would be surprised if western members did not have something to say about the critical wheat situation that exists. Yesterday the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) gave us an interesting set of figures which indicated a rosy picture prevailing in agriculture in western Canada. I should like to quote what the minister said yesterday, and I refer hon. members to page 127 of Hansard of that day. I quote:
When I spoke to the Manitoba pool on October 27. I hazarded a guess that the income figure tor 1953 would exceed 1951, which was itself a year of very good income, but might fall a little short of 1952. I now find that I erred on the side of pessimism.

But in the Montreal Gazette of this morning, which carried the report of the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, there was a reference to falling farm income. This article is headed:
Farm income dips sharply in dominion.
This is a report issued by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Usually I prefer figures used by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but on this occasion I suggest that the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture should have got together. The article continues:
World agricultural prices have softened and this softening will continue until 1954.
The flow of cash to Canadian farmers has declined, but so far has not "seriously" affected consumer spending.
World food production, for the first time, has returned to levels attained before the second world war, but the balance is sharply distorted to favour the food exporters and not those in the Far East who still require food desperately.
The following paragraph is really important.
The economists estimated' that net farm income in Canada will drop by 12 per cent which, on the basis of 1952 figures, would mean a drop of about $228,000,000 to $1,672,000,000 from $1,900,000,000. The peak was $2,200,000,000 in 1951.
I ask hon. members to remember that the drop this year is going to be $228 million from last year and $528 million or over from two years ago. These are figures that appear in the current review of agricultural conditions in Canada which was released yesterday or today.
I was interested in the remarks of the junior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Balcom) this afternoon who seemed to think that the hope of Canada was to have a fire sale of wheat in order that bread might again be bought at five cents a loaf. I think most hon. members will not want to buy their bread at five cents per loaf because if that ever happens everyone else in the country will be plunged into the same difficult plight as the farmer.
Apparently the hon. member is worried about the fishermen, but I suggest that he should not go off half-cocked regarding the price of wheat and the alleged financial position of the western farmer. I suggest that he show more concern about some other expenditures in Canada.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: May I correct the hon.
member?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member is rising to ask a question? If so, he must ask the permission of the hon. member who has the floor.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: On a question of privilege. I should like to correct the hon. member and state that I did not mention bread being bought at five cents a loaf; I did not mention any price. I said that I thought the price of bread would be reduced now that wheat was a glut on the market, but I did not mention any price.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If the hon. member could get the selling of grain into the hands of the Winnipeg grain exchange and speculators, no doubt with the heavy supply we have on hand wheat might come down to 20 or 25 cents a bushel again and we would find bread being sold at five cents a loaf; but in the long run the majority of the Canadian people would suffer.
I think there should be a fair relationship between the price the farmer gets for his grain and the price he has to pay for a Chrysler car and other things that are produced in Canada. I think the hon. member for Halifax might devote his energy to worrying about the amount of money Canadians are spending on liquor and tobacco. Apparently, in 1952, we spent $1,242 million on tobacco and liquor. The hon. member for Halifax does not seem to worry too much about the amount that is spent on being happy and on smoking. To suggest that the wheat producers are asking for something unreasonable when they ask that their own money, which is handled by the wheat board, should be used at least in part for making advances to the farmer against his own grain stored in proper storage on his farm is, I suggest, not unreasonable.
I was interested in the telegram that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) placed on the record yesterday from Mr. Roy C. Marler, president of the Alberta federation of agriculture. I do not know Mr. Marler but my information is that he is a wealthy dairy producer in the Edmonton area. The Minister of Agriculture will correct me if I am wrong, but I suggest that it is one thing to be a wealthy dairy producer near the fastest growing city in Canada with an assured market for whole milk but a very different thing to be in the position of the farmers in the Peace river country, northern Saskatchewan or northern Manitoba where they have not been able to sell enough grain to pay their taxes and operating expenses.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would not have thought, if one were to agree with all of the things that my hon. friend and his colleagues said during the election throughout the Dominion of Canada with regard to dairy farming, that anyone could carry on a dairy farm and be wealthy.
The Address-Mr. Nicholson


Major James William Coldwell: There are individuals.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: There are dairy farmers in all provinces who are close to markets and who are in a position to pay income tax. 1 am not suggesting that the industry is a profitable industry but my information is that Mr. Marler is a successful dairyman who has a good market at his door.


James Garfield Gardiner: He is a dairy farmer but I do not know how wealthy he is.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I will be surprised if Mr. Marler speaks for the farmers of Alberta and Saskatchewan and I am sure that during the next week or two we will have plenty of representations from the prairie provinces indicating that Mr. Marler just does not know what he is talking about when he says:
Certainly I do not think the farmers should be encouraged to borrow money at this time and I do believe an examination of complaints will show that the first interest of those who are complaining will be other than on behalf of the farmers' best interests.
Well, anybody will agree that the farmer should not be in a difficult position after so many good crops, but the fact is that farmers have not been getting their fair share of the national income. Mr. Marler goes on:
May I ask in all seriousness, how can farmers carry on under crop failures and other adversities which we have experienced in years gone by if they cannot carry on under present conditions for a limited time?
That is a very good question in view of the wonderful crops we have had for so many years. I come from a rural municipality that has never had a crop failure but you should see the list of farmers in that municipality who cannot pay their taxes until they sell their grain. It indicates that something is wrong. These people have worked hard and it just means that they have not been able to get enough money to meet expenses which are out of line with the prices farmers receive. I am sure that our farm friends in the west will tell us whether Mr. Marler speaks for them or not.
Before I leave the wheat farmer I would like to support what the leader of this group suggested on Monday when he said that there should be an advance of the farmers' money- not of public funds but an advance on grain stored on the farm. My leader pointed out that elevator companies receive farm storage. Why therefore should not a farmer who has gone to the expense of building farm storage receive payment for that storage?
With a view to getting up-to-date information on some of the problems connected with the marketing of grain, I took a trip from Churchill to the United Kingdom after the election and before parliament met. I should

The Address-Mr. Nicholson explain that I went entirely on my own. I was not representing any government or any organization. I went as a farmer. I thought that, as a member of this house, I should have the best information available about two things: the development of the port of Churchill-a resolution on the order paper will give me a chance to say something about that a little later on-and the present and future needs of our best customer. I had a very interesting afternoon at the British ministry of food. Naturally, I was disappointed, as all members of this house are, that the British did not sign the international wheat agreement. I discussed this question and presumed that those to whom I spoke were in the position that most civil servants are in some time or another when they give to governments advice which they think is good. Sometimes that advice is taken and sometimes it is not. After the decision is made they make the very best possible case that can be made for the situation. However, the people I saw at the British ministry of food were anxious to have the people of Canada appreciate the fact that Great Britain will never forget our contribution in food during the war and since the war. They have very much appreciated the quality and quantity of Canadian food which has come to the United Kingdom. They would like to have British Columbia apples, Nova Scotia apples, Canadian cheese, meats, eggs, pork and salmon, but the dollar crisis forces them to decide how many dollars can be spent in Canada and what they will buy with those dollars. Canadian wheat is the best wheat sold in the world. It makes the best bread. The British people are anxious to have as much Canadian wheat as they can for as long as they can. They explained what really is and has been as simple as A,B,C. Unless ways and means can be found to get an increasing volume of British goods into our market it is only going to be a matter of time until their purchases of Canadian wheat will decrease-particularly if there are other wheat producing countries in the world which are going to be prepared to take British manufactured goods. It is a problem that all members of all political parties are going to have to face up to very quickly. I would like to suggest that careful consideration be given to the proposals suggested by the leader of this group on Monday when he advocated that we should:
(a)	accept sterling as a means of part payment for some of our wheat and other agricultural surpluses, including commodities such as salmon and apples, which those countries have got from us in large quantities in the past.
(b)	. . . place a higher proportion of our foreign orders for governmental supplies in the sterling area. . . .

(c). . . lower tariffs and dumping duties on their exports to us; and, (d) we suggest too as an emergency measure, the postponement of further capital and interest payments on the United Kingdom loan obtained from us in 1946, which was to run for a period of 3J years.
I might suggest one additional point and it is that an import board should be established. I know that the present government has not had a mandate to set up an import board, but I remind you that it did not have a mandate from the people to set up a crown corporation to buy silk, rubber and sugar during the war years. However, if the government had not used foresight and anticipated requirements during the war the Canadian war effort could have been quite different.
I suggest an import board that would accept in the sterling area commodities that might come to Canada which could and would be fed into the regular channels of trade through wholesalers and retailers in our country without disrupting present established manufacturing, wholesaling and retailing industries. By means of an import board we could increase the volume of British imports. So I suggest that the government give consideration to this point coming from this corner of the house with a view to solving the complex international trade problems that affect not only the farmers but everyone in the Dominion of Canada.
While I was in London I met one of our former colleagues, Colonel Alan Chambers, D.S.O., who came here from Nanaimo in 1940 when I came. He suggested that before returning to Canada I should pay a visit to Vimy and the world war I memorials in France. This seemed quite a good suggestion. I had not been to the continent since 1926 and I welcomed this chance to go over there. Some time again I want to take a little bit more time to discuss Vimy particularly. The visit to Vimy is one that one will never forget. We saw it in the moonlight one beautiful night. I had forgotten that on that memorial there are the names of 11,285 of our fellow Canadians whose graves were not found in France in 1914-18. I was only 13 years of age when the first war broke out. I remember that among the first boys who left from our home town in Ontario was one of my boyhood heroes. He was one of the best ballplayers I had ever seen at that time of life. I was a country boy. He called me by name. I never forgot that. I had forgotten that my young friend was only 22 years of age when he lost his life in France. I found his name on the

Vimy memorial. On one of the other memorials nearby I found this inscription:
Here are recorded the names of the 73,307 officers and men of the British armies who fell in the Somme battlefields, July 1915 to February 1918, but to whom the fortunes of war denied the known and honoured burial given to their comrades in death.
In still another cemetery I found these words:
That the world may remember two and one-half million dead here have been laid side by side soldiers of France and the British empire in eternal comradeship.
At Dieppe, of course, we saw the graves of many gallant young Canadians who lost their lives in the second world war.
I was reminded of my visit to Europe in 1926 when I was a student at university, when young people were greatly concerned about fitting into a society that seemed to have so few openings. The European countries particularly found in a few short years that a serious unemployment problem had developed. Most of the young people were concerned about getting into business or the various professions. I recall that when the suggestion was made of going into politics and trying to do something about the complex international problems that prevailed, they dismissed very lightly the thought of entering the political field. Politics was a business for the aged but not for the young. During the years between world war I and world war II we did not expend sufficient effort in trying to solve our international problems.
After this visit to the continent I paid a brief visit to the United Nations headquarters in New York. I think I am saying what delegates from many countries believe, namely that Canada enjoys an enviable reputation in the United Nations. Our own Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) did credit to himself and to our country during the year that he was president. I was there as a visitor so I believe I can say that our delegates, advisers and staff at the United Nations clearly have the confidence and the esteem of people from a great many countries. However, I do not think that we have done our maximum. We are strategically situated, with a long connection with the United Kingdom and wedged in between two powerful nations, the United States and the U.S.S.R.
While I was in the United Kingdom I saw a copy of the speech that Sir Winston Churchill delivered in the House of Commons on May 19 of this year. Since coming back to Canada I made inquiries and I have not been able to find that this speech has
The Address-Mr. Nicholson received very much coverage in Canada. I suggest that we listen to what Sir Winston said while discussing foreign affairs on May 19. When he came to "Change in the Kremlin" this is what Sir Winston said:
It would, I think, be a mistake to assume that nothing can be settled with Soviet Russia unless or until everything is settled. A settlement of two or three of our difficulties would be an important gain to every peace-loving country ... It certainly would do no harm if, for a while, each side looked about for things to do which would be agreeable instead of being disagreeable to each other . . .
We all desire that the Russian people should take the high place in world affairs which is their due without feeling anxiety about their own security. I do not believe that the immense problem of reconciling the security of Russia with the freedom and safety of western Europe is insoluble. Indeed, if the United Nations Organization had the authority and character for which its creators hoped, it would be solved already.
Then he referred to a telegram which he sent to Stalin in 1945, on April 29. Here is the telegram:
There is not much comfort in looking into a future where you and the countries you dominate, plus the communist parties in many other states, are all drawn up on one side, and those who rally to the English-speaking nations and their associates or dominions are on the other. It is quite obvious that their quarrel would tear the world to pieces, and that all of us leading men on either side who had anything to do with that would be shamed before history. Even embarking on a long period of suspicions, of abuse and counter-abuse, and of opposing policies would be a disaster hampering the great developments of world prosperity for the masses which are attainable only by our trinity.
Then he suggested the hope for an early conference. He said:
I must make it plain that, in spite of all the uncertainties and confusion in which world affairs are plunged, I believe that a conference on the highest level should take place between the leading powers without long delay. This conference should not be overhung by a ponderous or rigid agenda, or led into mazes and jungles of technical details, zealously contested by hordes of experts and officials drawn up in vast, cumbrous array ... It might well be that no hard-faced agreements would be reached, but there might be a general feeling among those gathered together that they might do something better than tear the human race, including themselves, into bits.
For instance, they might be attracted, as President Eisenhower has shown himself to be, and as Pravda does not challenge, by the idea of letting the weary, toiling masses of mankind enter upon the best spell of good fortune, fair play, well-being, leisure and harmless happiness that has ever been within their reach or even within their dreams.
I only say that this might happen, and I do not see why anyone should be frightened at having a try for it. If there is not at the summit of the nations the will to win the greatest prize and the greatest honour ever offered to mankind, doomladen responsibility will fall upon those who now possess the power to decide. At the worst the participants in the meeting would have established more intimate contacts. At the best we might have a generation of peace.

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
I have taken some time to read rather extensively from that speech but I think it is a speech that more Canadians should read.
I want to make a suggestion to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who is embarking on a world-wide tour after the Christmas vacation-and he is to be commended for his imagination in making this good will tour. My suggestion is that he include Moscow in his tour. I do not make this suggestion facetiously. The Prime Minister, I think, would not be suspected, even by McCarthy, of having any subversive leanings. I think the Prime Minister of Canada might well have said, as did Mr. Churchill, that it would certainly do no harm if for a while each side looked about for things to do which would be agreeable instead of being disagreeable to the other. I would suggest that if the Prime Minister did include a brief stay in Moscow in his tour it would certainly do no harm and it might do a great deal of good.
As I have indicated before, I think that Canada has a very important role in the present critical international situation and I would like to suggest more active support for three of the specialized agencies that are pretty vital to us. They are FAO, WHO and UNESCO. With the very large supply of food we have on hand and cannot use, I think it should be recognized that food would be a very powerful weapon for good will which would help counteract the communist influences that are very active all over the world.
It is obvious that western farmers and the cheese producers of Ontario are not in a position to make large gifts, but I would suggest that since we are spending $2,000 million for defence each year we should take a larger percentage of that than we are taking to feed hungry people when the food would make such a difference.
I would like to refer to a job that a very distinguished Canadian is doing. He is Dr. Keenleyside, who is director of technical assistance for the United Nations. Dr. Keenleyside was the guest speaker for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture convention which took place at Victoria last winter. He gave us some information that we should have a look at. He said:
Over half the people of the world are ill, though most of them could be cured and many of the most prevalent diseases could be permanently eradicated. Those of you who were bom in Canada can expect to live, on the average, 70 years -the biblical three score and ten. Women of course average an extra two years. . . But in over 20 countries, including some of the largest in the world, the life expectancy even for women is about 30 years.
The leader of this party mentioned last night that two people out of three in the


world go hungry. Two out of every three never get enough to eat, though I imagine in Canada more Canadians suffer from eating too much rather than too little. Half the adults in the world cannot read or write. Perhaps 100 years ago we could argue that it really did not concern us how people lived in Africa or Asia or anywhere else. The important place was Ottawa. But the world has grown so small that if there is poverty, if there is disease, if there is ignorance in one part of the world, it should concern us. With the airplane, television and the radio, our neighbours all over the world know the very high standard that we enjoy while they live in poverty.
Dr. Keenleyside says:
Most of the people in the world cannot afford decent clothing, housing and recreation. Even in Canada the average income per capita is just over $1,000 per year . . .
That means $1,000 for every man, woman and child, and though we probably do not all get our share, that is the average. But two-thirds of the people in the world have an average income of $100 a year.
Mr. Speaker, if two-thirds of the people of the world have to live on $100 a year while we are living on $1,000 a year, it looks to me as though there is trouble ahead.
Dr. Keenleyside concludes, and here I shall also conclude my remarks:
It is at this point that I believe our present Canadian policy to be gravely inadequate. It seems to me to be unreasonable to devote $100 to direct military defence for every $1 we give to the saving of the underdeveloped areas of the world. Although Canada does more than most countries, our annual contribution to the T. A. programs of the United Nations is about equal to the cost of one bomber. Even adding the amount we are providing under the Colombo plan the total is still just about what we spend on a single destroyer.
By strengthening the still free but dangerously unstable parts of the world we are strengthening our own defences. Dollars spent on technical and financial assistance may eventually mean dollars saved on bombs. Every teacher or doctor or engineer or economist or agricultural expert sent out today will reduce the likelihood of our having to send sailors, soldiers and airmen tomorrow. I suggest that it is better to send Canadians with seeds and test-tubes and slide rules to help build better farms and hospitals and factories, than to send million-dollar aircraft to drop atom bombs on enemy cities. Admittedly we cannot be sure that we can avoid the one by doing the other. But if we don't assist the nations that need help we certainly make it more likely that we shall have to fight.
(Translation):


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, may I avail myself of this opportunity to offer my congratulations on your election to the high office that you now bold. Your duties, in directing the business of the

house, are very important, and I am sure you will discharge them to the satisfaction of every hon. member.
May I also congratulate the mover (Mr. Hollingworth) and the seconder (Mr. Ville-neuve) of the address. They have fulfilled very well a rather difficult task, even though we have a good government in the country, and I congratulate them for having had the courage and initiative that a young member must have to break the ice at the beginning of a new session. It is always difficult for a young member to make his maiden speech. The expression "break the ice" is quite appropriate, because the atmosphere in the House of Commons, as well as the atmosphere in the legislatures of our Canadian provinces, is rather cold when compared to the atmosphere on the hustings. I congratulate them because they have fulfilled their task to everyone's satisfaction. They have shown that they have what it takes and I am confident that they will make a very important contribution to the work of the house. That is why I also wish to extend my congratulations to the people of their respective constituencies for having elected them at the last election.
May I also, Mr. Speaker, greet the two new ministers: the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), new member from Newfoundland, and the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Lesage), who has always been my good friend. Being men of talent, initiative and eager for work, they will make a worth-while contribution to the debates of the house and they will give the necessary assistance to the government so that they may fulfil the task the people expect from them.
I have listened very closely to the various speeches made since the beginning of the session. I read several times the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) after listening to it, and I would like, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words about it to the house. At page 34 of this session's Hansard, we find the following, from the mouth, the very lips of the leader of the Conservative opposition:
No matter what differences of opinion we may have as to the way in which the business of this country can best be conducted, and it will be a good thing for Canada if those differences are always expressed in firm and vigorous terms, there is, I am sure, agreement throughout the house that the Prime Minister has and will occupy that high office with distinction and in a manner entirely in keeping with Canada's high position among the nations of the world. I most sincerely extend to him my personal good wishes for health and happiness as he carries out his great responsibilities, responsibilities associated with the whole conduct of this house and of the nation.
The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier
It is very stimulating, Mr. Speaker, to hear the leader of an opposing party address those words to our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). This is surely the proper spirit to show at all times in the discussions and the debates both of this house and of our legislative assemblies.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition added these well-chosen words:
At a time when there is so much bitterness and strife throughout the world, it is a happy incident of our life in this country that, while we hold firm convictions along party lines, friendships are formed between the members of the parliament of Canada which are in no way limited by the affiliations through which we seek to serve our constituents and our country.
Mr. Speaker, I was reminded there of a late member of this house, the former member for Peel, Mr. Gordon Graydon. 1 had first met Mr. Graydon in January, 1936, which means that his demise has been a true loss to me. I knew the member for Peel very well. For eighteen years we sat in this house together. Moreover we were both members of the committee on external affairs where, most of the time, I was of one mind with him on certain problems facing the Canadian government and the Canadian people as well as the rest of the world.
The former member for Peel was a man who served his country for the pleasure and the satisfaction he derived from it, a man who always put spiritual values far above material values, and that was the source of his strength and what compelled a greater admiration on our part. Gordon Graydon always contemplated great things for his country, and I have no doubt that the years he spent in the House of Commons have been very useful not only to his party but for the whole of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, during these last few years the federal government has enacted measures which parliament has ratified. It has passed an act for the conservation of waste lands, the reforestation of those waste lands and of our timber lands, a part of which is destroyed each year either through disease or through fire. I have always been in favour of such measures. I have even risen in this house to better support those measures, but I have always regretted that the Quebec provincial government, the government of my province, did not deem advisable to accept the help offered by the federal government in enacting such measures designed to help the provinces with their forests.
I see, for example, that the province of Ontario, during the fiscal year 1952-53, received $214,000 for the inventory of its forests. It has spent $187,830 of this federal grant.
194	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier
As far as reforestation goes, the federal government spent $75,000 while the province of Ontario spent $71,206. On the other hand, when I glance at Quebec's column, I see nothing there but an empty space. Needless to say how really sorry I am that no agreement was reached between the government of my province and the federal government; had such an agreement been signed, our provincial government could have helped all those who, directly or indirectly, are interested in the conservation of our forests and who do all they possibly can, drawing on their knowledge or on their financial means, in order to protect as far as possible, the estates they rent or have in freehold.
One cannot reasonably pretend, Mr. Speaker, that the autonomy of the province of Quebec would be violated by an agreement between the two governments. I do not see in what way that autonomy would be violated and I can see it all the less now that I have read the two bills adopted in 1949; it seems to me that whatever amount of good will is displayed by the provincial government, however sound their policy may be, the federal government could still provide help which would certainly be of some advantage.
It might interest you to read a book written by a highly qualified forestry engineer, whose proficiency is the result of his deep knowledge and of his vast experience. If you read this book, "Land of Milk and Honey" or "Wilderness of Cain", by Mr. Thomas Maher, you would soon see that my province does not only require the intelligent and concrete policy I spoke about a moment ago, but that it also needs the assistance of all men and governments of good will.
(Text):
I listened very intently to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) this afternoon, and I noticed that he kept for the dessert of his speech something like a spark of hope in the change that would occur some four years from now, if his party were to take over the reins of government in Canada.
I do not want to deprive my hon. friend of that hope; but I should like to help him-


An hon. Member:: Just imagination.


Pierre Gauthier: Yes, he has a good imagination. That is something. I would like to help him to continue to have faith in his country by reading just a few words spoken by Mr. George M. Humphrey, Secretary of


the Treasury in the United States. These words, mind you, were uttered after our election on August 10, 1953.


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


Pierre Gauthier: Secretary of the Treasury in the United States. He is somebody! What I am about to read is reported in the U.S News and World Report. At a conference of the national press club on September 16, 1953, a question was put to Mr. Humphrey, probably by a journalist, in these words:
How is it Canada can cut taxes and still have a higher dollar income on tax collection? If this is possible in Canada, why would not the result be the same in the United States?
Mr. Humphrey's answer was this:
I am glad you ask about Canada, because before I became a bureaucrat I was up there a good deal and spending a lot of money there. I think Canada has been a little smarter than we have been. I think they have run their country a little better than we have. I think they have had a little sounder fundamental condition, and they have had them right straight along over a period of the last several years, not just a few but ten or fifteen.
I might remind the house, sir, that during those ten or fifteen years it was the Liberal government that was in power at the time and they were doing their job very successfully in governing Canada. I continue with the answer of Mr. Humphrey:
They have been making great progress. Canada is in a period of very definite development. It has tremendous natural resources. I won't try to sell it to you, although I am a great bull on Canada. I think they have great future prospects. They are a little ahead of us, and have been a little ahead of us right along.
I wanted to give those words to my hon. friends so that they will keep in mind the fact that the future of Canada is still great.
(Translation) :
Mr. Speaker, during the last general election-and I intend neither to analyse all the principal phases of the general election that has just taken place nor to revive the various discussions that were held in my county- one of the subjects which was discussed, not very often yet often enough, is the question of the Family Allowances Act. I wish to submit to the house a few notes I took during a lecture by an employee of the family allowances district office in Quebec. I want to tell the house as well as the members and all the people about it, for a great part of our public may not know about the social and humanitarian aspects of family allowances. The Quebec members, and the general public too, may not know to what extent the Family Allowances Act has been a happy complement

The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier
to the compulsory school attendance act which was passed by Quebec under the inspiration of another Liberal government, that of Mr. Godbout, during the time he was in power, from 1939 to 1944. Mr. Speaker, allow me to show you how family allowances have contributed to extend for two years longer the compulsory school attendance act in the province of Quebec. The house will see no objection, I hope, if I rely on the notes I have now in front of me. I said that this act that we have in the province of Quebec is well thought of by the whole population and all classes of society. This act would become ineffective if its practical application were ignored. I hope it is complied with, both by the government itself and by its officials. It would serve no purpose to build a beautiful large school and have a compulsory school attendance act if the latter were not complied with. This act provides that children must attend school until the age of 14. The attendance is checked by those whom we call attendance supervisors. They are not policemen, of course, but almost voluntary supervisors, so to speak, whose function it is to see that this act is complied with, as well as to convince parents and children that it is a duty for them to observe the law. Therefore they should not see in this supervisor a policeman, but a man who fulfils his duty. I hope that act is observed and I might say, welcomed, by all classes of
society and all faiths in my province. I hope that the act, properly enforced, will allow all the children of the province of Quebec to attend school and get at least the minimum of education necessary today. Evidently, that legislation marks real progress for our educational system and that is why I earnestly urge our people to observe it as they should. The task of an attendance supervisor is somewhat like that of a social worker. As I said a moment ago, these attendance supervisors, through persuasion and understanding and kind words, may help children and parents alike understand that that measure is bound to produce happy results.
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that our people are not sufficiently aware of the social and humanitarian consequences of the Family Allowances Act. That is why I wanted to say how this Family Allowances Act which, although it was not originally accepted throughout the provinces, is, I believe, readily subscribed to now, has helped to further education in our province. Because of it mothers and fathers have once more convinced themselves that they can now count on a really appreciable amount every month with which to send their children to school, with which to dress them better so that when they appear in public it is now impossible to distinguish to which class of society they belong.
(Text):
On motion of Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf) the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
From Hansard of Tuesday, November 24, 1953.
*Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West): Mr. Speaker, as reported on page 183 of Hansard, I stated in a speech I made on November 19:
I am sorry that the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. White) is not present in his seat, although I have notified his office that I was going to bring this matter up tonight.
My secretary was instructed to notify the hon. member and as a matter of fact she did make an attempt to reach him in his office, both before and after the opening of the house that evening, but was not able to reach him. I believed at the time that he had received such notice, but unfortunately he had not.
197
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 20, 1953	POLYMER CORPORATION