1955-02-01

Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform hon. members that the maximum selling price policy Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been following in one form or another since 1946 will be discontinued effective today. As- hon. members are aware, when a loan under the 1954 National Housing Act to a merchant builder was approved in respect of a house built for sale, a condition was imposed to the effect that only 90 per cent of the amount of such approved loan was advanced unless the house was sold at or below a price determined by C.M.H.C.
This policy was introduced to protect prospective home owners against unduly high prices which might otherwise have resulted under pressure of economic conditions which were encountered from time to time almost continuously since 1946. Conditions are now such that the continuation of this policy seems no longer warranted. In 1954 housing starts, including conversions, numbered 117,800, and completions 106,400. These are all-time records. As of January 1 there were approximately 71,000 houses under construction. New supplies of housing are such that competition itself can now provide a good measure of price limitation.
Our statistics show that approximately 70 per cent of the houses built by merchant builders under the National Housing Act are being sold at the maximum price as determined by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 25 per cent are being sold below this price, and 4 per cent to 5 per cent above it. There has been a tendency since the new act came into force for the proportion of houses selling below the maximum sale price to increase.
The percentages that I have just mentioned are on a national basis. They vary somewhat from one locality to another. There are indications that in some areas the so-called maximum selling price has ceased to be a maximum and has become in effect a floor price. In other words, the ceiling price 50433-46
set by the corporation is susceptible to representation to purchasers as being the price at which the house must be sold.
I should not like to leave the impression that the discontinuation of the maximum sale price policy will at once reduce prices all across the country. In some areas and for some types of houses there may be a moderate tendency towards higher prices for a short period. However, the removal of control generally will stimulate competition in the house building industry and the home owner will in the long term, I believe, get more value for his housing dollar. That is the purpose of this move.
It is desirable that the maximum sale price restriction should be removed before the commencement of the building season. Therefore, as of today the policy will be discontinued. This will have application not only to houses to be started in the future but in respect of houses that are now subject to the price limitation but which have not yet been sold.



REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN SALE PRICE OF HOUSES IN PETERBOROUGH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: In view of the minister's statement that Central Mortgage and Housing is trying to give the home owner a little more for his money, has any consideration been given to lowering the sale price of Central Mortgage homes that are for sale in the city of Peterborough? I understand that there are some six or seven of them now vacant?


Robert Henry Winters: Central Mortgage has endeavoured to make very reasonable arrangements for the sale of these houses. I am not aware that a revision of the sale price is under consideration at the moment.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They are priced too high at the moment.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 10, for the relief of Daisy Ruth Kirk Stanistreet.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 11, for the relief of Irene Christina Edwards Mackay.-Mr. Hunter.
[Stage Direction]
Proposed Legislation
Bill Np. 12, for the relief of Barbara Elinor Richardson Jones.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 13, for the relief of Wira Pushkar Tereshtshenko.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 14, for the relief of Stella (Stepha-nia) Burnatowska Holowaty.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 15, for the relief of Harry Evert Finlayson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 16, for the relief of George James Nangreaves.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 17, for the relief of Carmela Lanza Morash.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 18, for the relief of Meyer Francis Doyle.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 19, for the relief of Julia Mary Collen Dwyer Rose.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Bela Koschitza Brawerman.-Mr. Hunter.


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to extend its application to the years 1955 and 1956, subject to certain modifications.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. George C. Marler (Minisier of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to consolidate the various enactments relating to Canadian National Railways into one statute, also, to provide that the Canadian National Railway Company may operate a telecommunication system, to authorize officers and employees of the Canadian National Railways to act as directors of partially-owned companies, to authorize the company to construct short lines without specific parliamentary authority and to operate motor vehicles and further to make provisions for extinguishing charters of constituent corporations.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourget (Levis):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister been informed of the unfortunate accident on the river between Quebec and Levis this morning involving the C.G.S. Lady Grey and, if so, has he any comment to make?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, at 6.35 this morning the C.G.S. Lady Grey, a small icebreaker operated by my department, was breaking ice to facilitate the crossing of the river by the ferry City of Levis which operates between Quebec city and Levis. While this was being done the ferry collided with the Lady Grey striking it heavily on the port side. Because of the extensive damage the Lady Grey took water rapidly and the master was obliged to abandon ship. I understand that all hands on board were picked up by the ferry and are reported safe. I am also glad to be informed that there was no loss of life, nor were there injuries among the passengers of the ferry or among the crew of either vessel. The Lady Grey has sunk in approximately 100 feet of water off Beauport shoal which, however, is not in the navigation channel.
It has been customary for my department to provide icebreaker services of this kind at Quebec city in order to assist the ferry; in fact, just this week I received representations from the operators of the ferry asking for additional help because of ice conditions this winter. My officials are making a preliminary investigation pending a decision as to the establishment of a formal board of inquiry. I regret that I have no further information at the present time.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON GATT AND MEETING IN WASHINGTON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce when we may expect to receive from him the statement on Canadian trade policy which he promised to the house on January 10 in his statement appearing at page 20 of Hansard. Will he be prepared soon to give the house some report on the negotiations for the renewal of GATT, and also of that meeting of the ministers held with United States officials at Washington on January 5 and 6?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Owing to the length of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, it seemed to me that I could contribute more to the expedition of the business of the house if I refrained from speaking. I have heard no great interest in trade matters displayed in this debate, and perhaps in the circumstances the statement could be deferred until an appropriate bill is before the house or until later in the session.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I ask the minister if he
would not take into consideration the fact that a number of members in this house, in speaking in the debate on the address, have drawn attention to important matters pertaining to the condition of Canadian trade, and the consequent effects on the Canadian economy, particularly with the important conference on GATT, now proceeding, and that no report has yet been given to the house on the conference of ministers at Washington on January 5 and 6? Will the minister not now undertake to give the statement which he promised to the house on January 10?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have a speech prepared, Mr. Speaker, but on rereading it I find that the facts as disclosed by the bureau of statistics and otherwise are so favourable that I fear that I would again be accused of being an optimist.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask if the minister is not going to make-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does not the hon. member for Eglinton think he has been given full latitude to ask his question? Not only did he ask his question but after that he made a plea that the minister should change his mind. What is he going to do now, ask another question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, ask another question.


Mr. Speaker:: I would say that, in certain instances, members are abusing the leniency of the Chair.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the other question? It necessarily arises in view of the statement which the minister has made. Will the minister now give the house a report, first of all on the conference at Washington, and second, on what progress is being made in the negotiations for the renewal of GATT?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 

OAKVILLE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Sybil Bennett (Halton):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact that the estimates show that some $400,000 has been set aside for a new federal building in Oakville, would the minister state the position of the negotiations with the town of Oakville for an exchange of land to obtain a new site for the proposed building?
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public
Works): These are rather complicated arrangements, so perhaps I had better give a few details. With the knowledge and approval of the local authorities, plans were prepared for a new building on the site of the existing public building at Oakville. We were on the point of calling tenders when the city asked us to make the site available for local purposes and build on another site. This we agreed to do if the city would undertake to provide us with a suitable alternative site and pay the costs involved in making the change. A suitable site has now been designated and appraisals are being obtained. In the meantime, we are proceeding with the redevelopment of plans for a building on the new site.



FREIGHT ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Would the Minister of Agriculture consider postponing the change in policy respecting freight assistance on western grains and mill-feeds, effective today, in view of the depressed conditions of the poultry, hog and dairy producers industries of British Columbia, with a view to changing this reduction in British Columbia to the same basis of reduction as Ontario and Quebec, namely $1.50 per ton.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. In reply,
I would state that before the reductions were made in the payments on freight, full consideration was given to the situation which would exist following that reduction. I cannot see my way clear to suggesting that there will be any change.
716	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Frederick George Hahn: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of the losses the poultrymen of British Columbia have suffered during the past two years?



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the dispatch in Friday's Regina Leader-Post to the effect that two dams on the Assiniboine and Swan rivers are being planned at a cost of about half a million dollars? Could the minister indicate when work might commence on these projects?


James Garfield Gardiner: My attention has been called to the article in the press. It arises as a result of an address made by the supervisor of P.F.R.A. for that district at Kamsack, to a service club. It does outline the plans which are being made for the construction of dams, and they have been under consideration for some time. They are to control the flow in the Assiniboine river.



REPORTED CONSULTATION RESPECTING CONVERSION OF BUTTER TO GHEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Would the Minister of Agriculture care to comment on the report that the United States government is considering converting a large quantity of butter into a product called ghee, and that officials of his department have been in consultation with United States officials in Washington toward that end? Ultimately the product is to go to India and Pakistan.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member gave me notice of his question yesterday, and I wish to make the following answer. With respect to the newspaper story originating in the United States, relating to the conversion to ghee, as far as I am aware Canada has not been invited to any meeting to discuss any such plan. The agricultural counsellor at the Canadian embassy in Washington, with whom we communicated by telephone, had no knowledge of any proposed meeting.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, or in his absence to his parliamentary assistant. Have any representations been made to the Department of Fisheries for an extension of the smelt fishing season in eastern New Brunswick? If so, has any decision been reached in that regard?


Mr. J. Watson MacNaughi (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: The
hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question. Representations have been received by the department from fishermen and other interested parties, urging that the smelt season in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island be extended. Representations have also been made to me by the hon. members for Resti-gouche-Madawaska (Mr. Boucher), Northumberland, N.B. (Mr. McWilliam) and Kent, N.B. (Mr. Michaud).
Since the catch this year is substantially lower than in previous years, and since unusually mild weather has curtailed the fishing of smelts through the ice, it has been decided to extend the season in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island for a period of two weeks, which will bring it up to and including February 28.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Will the
Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, tell the house what the government intends to do for the farmers in the interlake country where the Prairie Farm Assistance Act does not operate?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have received notice of the question, Mr. Speaker, and I presume what the hon. member refers to is not the Prairie Farm Assistance Act but the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.


William Scottie Bryce: No, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


James Garfield Gardiner: But the Prairie Farm Assistance Act applies all over the settled portion of the province of Manitoba, and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act does not.


William Scottie Bryce: Not in so far as the interlake country is concerned; it applies to the rest.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, the fact is that whatever is going to be done will be done by the provincial government, if they make application to us for assistance.


William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Speaker, may I have the privilege of answering the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Scottie Bryce: That is passing the buck.


James Garfield Gardiner: Maybe for the benefit of the hon. member I should say a little more. The question of a five-year program between the government of Manitoba and this government with regard to the interlake country has been under consideration for some time. The proposal was that they should spend an amount which would figure up to about $300,000 a year, for five years, and this government has considered the matter and has agreed to co-operate with the provincial government who will actually spend the money for this year. The amount they propose to spend this year is $300,000, of which $150,000 would be paid by this government.


William Scottie Bryce: Who spends the money?


James Garfield Gardiner: The provincial government does the work.	*



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: May I
ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. What progress is being made in freeing the Long Branch rifle range for one or other civilian uses which are under consideration, or have been under consideration?


Mr. J. A. Blanchette (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) I shall take the question as notice.



IMPORTATION OF LAMB PRODUCTS FROM NEW ZEALAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Acting Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the rapid drop in the price of lamb on the Toronto market I would like to know if the Minister of Agriculture would give us something further, as he intimated yesterday he would, when he said he would have more information today regarding the importation of New Zealand lamb.
Inquiries of the Ministry


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Leader of the Opposition asked his question yesterday and at that time I could only say that the matter had not been brought to my attention. When I returned to my office I found there a letter, which I presume is similar to the one he received, from the livestock people in Toronto. I have checked up since that time, and I wish to give this information to the house.
The Canadian lamb market has been steady to strong at $23 to $23.50. The average price for good and choice lambs at Toronto for January a year ago was $23.26.
Canadian lamb prices are substantially higher than prevailing prices in the United States. The price for good and choice lambs at Toronto was from $2 to $3 higher than Chicago prices. During the week ending January 27 the average price for good and choice lambs at Chicago was $19.90 as compared with $23.21 in Toronto. Owing to the strength of the Canadian market and the difference between Toronto and Chicago markets for lamb, some 450 head of live lambs have been imported from the United States this year to date.
In view of the strength of the Canadian lamb market it can hardly be argued that the importation of New Zealand lamb has seriously depressed prices, but it would seem inevitable that there would be some softening of Canadian prices to bring them into a more comparable level with U.S. prices.
If necessary it may be noted that the trade in lamb and mutton as between Canada and the United States is of a reciprocal nature. While some lambs are being imported during the period of seasonally low marketings, last year some 2,248 head of feeder lambs were exported to the United States and in addition almost 100,000 pounds of dressed mutton and lamb was also exported to the United States.
There is no prohibition on the importation of lamb into Canada. The only government regulation is the imposition of a duty-i cent per pound for New Zealand and Australia- and anyone may ship lamb into this country who is able to do so over the duty. Since there is no government control there is no occasion for the government to seek or obtain advice from exporters or importers as to their operations or intentions with respect to lamb shipments.
Imports of New Zealand and Australian lamb and mutton for recent years are as follows:
1951	
3,385,587	lb.1952	
2,402,712	lb.1953	
2,942,489	lb.1954	(10 months)	
6,555,618	lb.718	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry During the early part of January of this year one shipment of about 250,000 pounds of New Zealand lamb was imported.


William Earl Rowe: I would like to ask a supplementary question. Was the minister not aware that the market had dropped from 23 cents to 19 cents in Toronto?


James Garfield Gardiner: This report indicates that the price in the United States is $19.90 a hundredweight in Chicago and $23.21 in Toronto. There would naturally be a levelling off of the prices of lambs here on account of imports from the United States.


William Earl Rowe: Why? We do not need to have our prices fixed there.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a duty of 7-5 per cent. It would come in over that duty.



TAXATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to ask two questions of the Minister of Finance. Was he correctly reported as saying in a speech at Weston last Thursday or Friday, referring to the tax rate:
Unless we can find ways of lowering the defence expenditures there won't be much change.
Second, if so, do the estimates he tabled last Friday indicate a sufficient lowering for this purpose?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Speaking at Weston I made the point, made by many persons discussing the financial position of the government of Canada, that the two large items of defence and welfare were the ones which gave the greatest possible scope for reduction in spending. I drew no conclusions as to which could possibly be reduced, or should be reduced. And, so far as the future is concerned, the budget will no doubt disclose whether these cuts have been sufficient for the purpose of cutting taxes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister if he would be good enough to answer my questions?



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the [Mr. Gardiner.}
[Stage Direction]
amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. A. B. Weselak (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, when I moved the adjournment of this debate last night I was discussing the matter of tariffs and their effect upon our economy, and had pointed out that if the United Kingdom lost her wool markets in Canada she would lose $30 million annually in Canadian currency with which to buy our products.
Reference in this debate has been made by opposition members to the decrease in exports to the United Kingdom, particularly in relation to farm products. In this connection I believe consideration should be given to the prices at which these products are laid down in the British market by various countries as compared to the relative wholesale Canadian prices of these products.
The figures I propose to quote are for the month of February 1954, and the prices in England are landed cost excluding duty.



UNITED KINGDOM AND CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Prices of Specified Commodities
	February 1954	
	<* per lb.	<f per lb.
UNITED KINGDOM Beef and Veal fresh from:	England	Montreal
Australia 		.... 17-6	
New Zealand 		.... 171	33
Uruguay 		.... 19-7	
		 21-4	
Bacon		
From Denmark 		.... 28-4	
		 28-3	68
Netherlands 			 28-4	
Butter
From
Australia	 41-7
New Zealand 			 41-5	62-7
			 42-7	
Cheese		
From		 24-5	
New Zealand 	
Eggs From	
24-2	32Australia 	
Ireland 	doz. 52-4Denmark 	
49-8	
These figures I believe illustrate that this problem has not arisen as a result of the marketing policies of this government, but has arisen as a result of increased competition from countries where production costs due to natural conditions are comparatively lower.
I have been much more disturbed recently by certain muted murmurings which have emanated from certain sections of our farm economy, indirectly asking for sectional protection or advocating policies which only can be made effective by the provision of embargoes and restrictions on imports which I

believe, certainly as a general policy, are contrary to the interests of our farming communities. The advocates of these policies may by their schemes ease a temporary difficulty, but in many cases their ultimate effect and the problems arising in the course of their administration will give birth to policies which eventually may be of tremendous consequence and of detriment to those who advocated them in the first instance. I would like to quote briefly from a statement made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in regard to tariff policy, where the position of agriculture is ably stated:
Like the Canadian economy as a whole, Canadian agriculture is in the last analysis dependent upon a strong and growing export market for its products. The relatively high level of tariff protection which has over many years been afforded to Canadian manufacturing has always been a burden upon the Canadian farmer dependent as he has been for the most part on the level of world agricultural prices. While it is realized that a policy ot tariff protection creates patterns of economic activity that cannot be discarded over night, Canadian agriculture strongly supports the broad policy of gradual tariff reduction, and liberalization of trade, which the government of Canada has followed over the past number of years.
I believe this statement concisely and aptly expresses the views of agriculture on the tariff problem. In my constituency, the farming community is passing through a very difficult period. We did not have the exceptional crops in the past three years which were experienced in many parts of the west. This year, owing to excessive rains, seeding was delayed and in many cases flooding and wet conditions prevented crops being sown. The crops which were sown suffered severely from rust damage and army worms, with the result that quality and yield were very low. The exceptionally wet fall defied the heroic efforts of the farmers to salvage what little crop there was, with the result that while it was gathered in some areas, in others over 50 per cent remains in the field, hammered into the mud by rainfall and wet early snows. The farmers in Springfield, while they have prospered in past years, this year are faced with a serious problem.
The agricultural community was settled largely by the influx of immigration at the turn of the century, and the people who settled this area came to this country with very little wealth and settled lands which required considerable clearing, draining and works before it could be brought under production. However, they by sheer hard work have evolved one of the finest farming communities which now has largely passed to
The Address-Mr. Weselak their children, the first generation of native Canadians. These people who developed our farming communities knew little of agricultural stability, knew nothing of parity or floor prices, but nevertheless banded together in marketing associations for their own benefit and protection, a movement which eventually gave rise to the establishment of the three large western grain pools and other cooperative marketing agencies, and the eventual establishment of the wheat board. At the same time, however, farming was not the mechanized operation it is today. Horses were commonly in use and, if oats were not available, a horse could do a fair amount of work on hay though he usually lost weight in so doing.
The point I am trying to illustrate is that in order to farm today the farmer to operate efficiently must have cash, and if not cash then credit; otherwise he cannot operate. Every farm operation on today's mechanized farms now requires the farmer to pay out cash, and the net result is that cash revenues are today far more important than they were in the past. As a result the farmers in Springfield, apart from those who have been established and have reserves, face an immediate cash situation which is of serious proportions. I realize that the prime responsibility in this case lies with the municipal and provincial authorities and not with this government, but it is nevertheless a problem which will recur and perhaps some study should be given toward evolving some method of alleviating these temporary hardships. It is true that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act provides certain benefits where crops fail, but unfortunately in our area crop conditions vary almost from farm to farm, with the result that the qualifying patterns under the act debar farmers from receiving any benefits under the act even though their individual cases warrant aid. In addition to this the cost of operating and cultivating land in the fertile heavy soils of the constituency are substantially higher than those in many parts of the west, and correspondingly yields are generally higher than the western average yields.
The net result has been that Manitoba farmers have not benefited as a whole from the scheme to any substantial extent, with the result that in the past few years considerable agitation has been evident among grain growers for some amendment or alternative which would meet Manitoba's peculiar problems. For every dollar paid into the fund, Manitoba farmers have received 30 cents, Saskatchewan farmers $2.50 and Alberta farmers $1.70. The province of Manitoba was keenly aware of this problem and
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Weselak at the last session a committee was set up to study the matter and report to the government. This committee has held hearings at many points in the province and has heard several hundred briefs submitted by individuals, farm organizations and others. The magnitude of the problem has not been minimized by the provincial authorities and the multitude of schemes proposed by interested individuals and organizations indicate that there is no easy solution to the problem. The one definite fact that has emerged from the hearings is that the present inflexibility of P.F.A.A. is not satisfactory in Manitoba and that it will have to be either modified or replaced by some other measure which will operate to the advantage of the Manitoba farmer even at extra cost if necessary.
In view of the fact that the report of the committee is expected this year, I do not propose to draw any conclusions or suggest any remedies at this time. I do not feel that an increase in payments, as suggested by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), while desirable and necessary, will solve the problem in Manitoba; the problem goes much further and we in Manitoba await with considerable interest the findings of the provincial committee.
A great deal has been said in this debate regarding the drop in farm income and the price squeeze which is presently causing difficulty in our farm economy. I do not propose to deal with the detail as it has been put on the record by government and opposition speakers who preceded me in this debate.
In the course of the past year, the wholesale price index for farm products dropped from 212-9 to 203-8 and the index of farm costs rose from 231-1 to 238-7 in August of last year; the indications are that this has risen since August. The spread last January was 18-2 points and this has now increased to over 34-8 points.
I believe this illustrates a trend which has continued for the past year and which ultimately if continued even with average production will destroy the small margin between cost of production and cash returns. In my opinion the index figure, being a related price figure, is generally more significant than total income decline figures which are affected by decreases in volume of production, generally due to natural conditions over which no control can be exercised.
Since the inception of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, a total of $80,163,658 has been expended by the government in the utilization of the revolving fund of $200 million provided for at that time. Of the
[Stage Direction]

sum of over $80 million expended nearly $69 million was expended in connection with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Saskatchewan in February of 1952, with the result that the actual cost of the program has been approximately $11 million or an average of approximately $1£ million a year over the past eight years.
The result of this program has been, and it has had that effect, of stabilizing the prices of farm commodities. It has worked particularly well in the case of butter, which prior to the application of price supports suffered wide fluctuations in price, with the result that when the producer had the product to sell his returns were comparatively low.
At the comparatively low cost of $1J million a year, a measure of stability to agriculture, and as a result to the Canadian economy as a whole, of inestimable value was achieved, far outstripping its relative cost.
The act as passed by parliament provides, in subsection 2 of section 9, that:
In prescribing prices under paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (1), the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture, by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions, and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the return from agriculture and those from other occupations.
Steady and continued increases in labour income can be largely attributed to the continued expansion of the national labour force; but nevertheless, we are all aware that substantial increases in return for the individual efforts of labour have occurred in past years, which is as it should be.
However, the farmer has as a general rule been required to purchase the commodities he requires at a price related to Canadian production costs, while a substantial bulk of his production has been sold in Canada and abroad at prices related substantially to the world economy, with the result that a disparity has existed and is now being accentuated.
The intention of parliament in 1945 was obviously to provide a fair return to the farmer. Owing to exceptional conditions in the past few years, farm production in general was well above normal, with the result that the farm economy remained fairly buoyant despite declining prices. Conditions have now changed, and immediate study will have to be given to the situation. The government has at its disposal competent economists and statisticians who are quite capable of analysing the situation, getting down to the bottom of the problem and recommending remedies to alleviate this situation.
I appreciate the action on the part of the government in the past in maintaining price support on butter, providing it for hogs and

eggs when prices fell substantially, and in March of 1953 under the Fisheries Prices Support Act of purchasing one and three-quarter million pounds of fish from fishermen in Manitoba for which there was no apparent market.
I realize that support of prices in this country creates a problem in the disposal and sale of our products in world markets, and therefore their application cannot be indiscriminate. Nevertheless I feel that continued and more extensive use of these provisions will have to be made in accord with the intention of parliament as expressed in the statute by the government to bolster a declining farm economy.
Since our agricultural problems are not of a static nature but are changing ones, I believe that the remedy lies, not in inflexible price supports but rather in flexible supports which can take into account existing factors which vary from time to time. The experience of the United States in this respect and their present attitude are stated by Mr. Ezra Taft Benson, secretary of agriculture, in the Atlantic Monthly for July 1954, at page 53. Regarding inflexible price supports he had this to say:
Our problems today center in the necessity of shifting from an agricultural economy of practically unlimited wartime demands to the more moderate demands of peacetime, while providing reasonable protection for farm income. The present farm program employing emergency, wartime, rigid price supports for a few important commodities is impeding such a transition. To a marked degree it is making an orderly transition impossible.
The present program has a number of flaws-
It results in unbalanced production through rigid supports on some commodities for which demands are decreasing.
It encourages a build-up of surpluses which in turn depress prices.
It discourages sound soil conservation practices by maintaining artificial demands for some soil-depleting crops.
It tends to price certain commodities out of both domestic and foreign markets and thus stimulates use of less expensive substitutes.
It destroys the function of price as a brake on overproduction.
It fails to provide reasonable protection for 60 per cent of our annual farm marketings which are not under price supports.
It provides the greatest help to those who need it least-the low-cost, big-volume producers-the least help to small marginal producers.
It creates the complex problem of what to do with land taken out of production because of severe acreage controls.
It provides for such drastic production restrictions that even with high price supports income is seriously jeopardized.
On top of all these disadvantages, the present program has not prevented a decline in net farm income for five out of the past six years. Under this program the government now has between 6 and 7 billion dollars invested in commodities whose prices are being supported. More than 2-5 billion of this amount is represented by commodities
The Address-Mr. Weselak whose prices are being supported. More than 2-5 billion of this amount is represented by commodities actually held in government storage. The balance has been loaned on commodities a large part of which will eventually wind up in government hands. These surpluses hang over the market. They depress prices. They drain off taxpayers' dollars day in and day out. The cost of storage alone is running more than half a million dollars a day.
On the other hand, regarding flexible price supports, his observations were as follows:
Flexible supports provide for some price fluctuation to keep supply and demand in better balance, while at the same time placing a strong floor ranging between 75 and 90 per cent of parity under the prices of basic commodities.
They produce greater stability in farming operations and in farm markets.
They encourage sound farm management practices.
They create better price equality in relation to other commodities.
They assure abundant food supplies for consumers at reasonable prices.
They stimulate expansion of market outlets at home and abroad.
They hold production controls to a minimum.
They give added incentive for conservation and soil improvement.
They encourage efficient use of agricultural resources.
Flexible price supports will promote these goals with a maximum of reliance on the co-operative and competitive efforts of free men and a minimum of dependence on government control.
In conclusion, I would like to briefly discuss another aspect of the farm problem and that is the need for a scheme of long-term credit for the rehabilitation of young farmers on farms. The amount of capital required today to establish and equip an economic farm unit has been estimated from $15,000 upward. The farm unit as it exists today is generally a family farm and as a rule forms all the worldly assets of the head of the family. In the event of the death or retirement of the head, the problem arises as to who shall carry on the farming operations. In the event of death, debts have to be paid and as a rule interests of other heirs settled. In the event of retirement, sufficient moneys have to be provided for the security of the retiring head who has through many years of labour established his equity in the farm.
The young farmer is faced with a serious problem; as a rule he is a competent, well-trained farmer who, in the majority of cases, through devise or devolution in the case of death, or by gift in the case of retirement, has a small equity in the farm, but the bulk of the money required to settle remaining equities must come from somewhere.
The farm improvement loans do not meet the situation; the limitations applied by the Canadian farm loan board, which has not been designed for this purpose, do not permit a solution to the problem. Loan and insurance companies do not either; in fact
722	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. R. W. Mitchell in Manitoba they have practically withdrawn from the long-term credit field in agriculture. The net result is that in many cases the farm is sold to a neighbour, or neighbours, a competent farmer is lost to agriculture and to Canada and he drifts into the labour stream in which he must re-educate and re-adapt himself as best he can.
Following the last war this government embarked on a scheme which has had singular success, and I refer to the work that has been done under the Veterans Land Act. Dealing with full-time farmers alone, 25,938 were approved for settlement and the record shows that only 2 per cent paying annually or semi-annually are in arrears in excess of $200. The success of this scheme encourages me to urge the government to give consideration to the advisability of providing long-term credit loans to young deserving farmers, with proper and adequate safeguards, thereby providing a solution to a problem which is plaguing our younger farmers throughout the country.
Mr. R. W. Mitchell (London):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate hon. members will be glad to know that I will not keep their attention for more than a few minutes. I say that for two reasons. The first is that the speech from the throne was so devoid of anything of a constructive nature that there is little to be said about it. The second reason is that I deplore repetition and any repetition which I may make of previous remarks will be purely for the purpose of emphasis.
I should like at the outset to conform with tradition by congratulating the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Leduc) and the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Carrick) upon their addresses to the house. I feel that both expressed foresight and progress which seem to be sadly lacking once members of the machine have been in the house long enough to be suppressed and made to conform.
The speech itself was a masterpiece of double-talk. It was full of sound signifying nothing. This government has looked back into the past and has failed entirely to forecast or foresee any sound measures for dealing with the economy as we face it today. I submit that we are committed to a policy of bungling along without any plan or program and without any rhyme or reason. We are destined, for another year at least, to be governed by a self-satisfied government with neither initiative nor vision. Order in council is still senior to the will of this house. Without planning, each crisis has to be faced in a spirit of crisis, met with catch-as-catch-can remedies, and without preparing any ground for the future. Shakespeare put into


the mouth of Lear the words: "Nothing will come of nothing." I submit that that is a suitable epitaph with which to bury and forget the speech from the throne on this occasion.
The subject of unemployment was conspicuous by its absence. Much has been made of the amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act, which, I submit, is nothing more or less than a sedative or palliative and is much the same thing as administering morphine to a person who is suffering considerable hurt. It does not go to the root of the trouble. It does not cure the ill.
We are told there is no problem. But, Mr. Speaker, I submit that examination of the figures produced by this government itself indicates that the unemployment situation in this country is not only severe but is growing worse. We are told it is seasonal and sectional. We are told that we have a greater working force than ever before. There may be and probably is some element of truth in these statements, but they are half-truths at best, and half-truths are dangerous.
The basic problem, however you clothe it, is to provide an opportunity for work for every Canadian who is able and willing to work so that he may be able to play his part in the development of this great country.
I was gratified to note that amendments will be introduced to the War Veterans Allowance Act, and to the Blind Persons Act. We have been pleading for these on this side of the house for some considerable time and it is our hope that the remedies offered will be neither too little nor too late. It is our hope that they will not be merely temporary stopgap remedies but that they will go to the root of the problem and solve the misery and the troubles which have faced these classes of persons for many years.
I was also personally gratified to note that amendments are to be introduced to the Railway Act and to the Municipal Grants Act. I say that not only because of the relief which will be offered to municipalities, but also because they point up a much broader picture which I wish to discuss. During the last session it was my privilege to speak in this house with respect to the continuing problem faced by municipalities in the raising of sufficient taxes to enable them to carry out the purposes and objects of municipal government.
I am not naive and accordingly I do not believe that these remedies, these pieces of legislation, are to be introduced as a result of what I said. There must have been many others from all sides of the house clamouring at the cabinet door to produce this sudden about-face.

We have learned to be grateful for small morsels which fall from our master's table, and these measures, if and when they are introduced, will we hope be something more than small morsels.
Referring to the Municipal Grants Act, may I point out specifically as an example that the total assessment in the city of London is some $146 million and that the assessment of federally-owned property is some $4 million. I have heard, and seen in the press and elsewhere, various suggestions as to what form the amendments are to take, but on any basis there is going to be some relief for municipalities, such as London, which have a high proportion of federally-owned property.
The Railway Act amendments will be welcomed, particularly by those hon. members who represent large cities. The government apparently has finally seen the necessity of curbing the damage and destruction which is wrought by level crossings in our cities and towns. They also apparently have finally seen the necessity of maintaining an even flow of traffic rather than creating and continuing the bottlenecks which tie up our cities many hours during the day.
May I once again be specific about London. London is fortunate in that it is served by the two major railways. It is unfortunate in that these two railroads divide the city into three almost equal parts, and in the centre of these parts is located the bulk of the industry and business life of the city. It is apparent from that that the bulk of our working force must at least twice a day cross one or the other of these railways. It is also apparent that those who wish to go to the business area or to the shopping area are in the same position.
May I say that on the C.N.R. there are only three major north-south routes on which there are overpasses, and on the C.P.R. there are none. For verification of my remarks with respect to the hold-ups with which traffic is faced I would refer hon. members to Mr. Donald Gordon, with whom it was my pleasure and privilege to sit at a major London crossing for 15 minutes last summer while he witnessed one of his trains being made up.
These temporary measures do not answer the problem. They simply perpetuate the inroads which this government has made into the tax dollar. The provinces and indeed the municipalities continue to be the victims of the tax grab and they have lost the right or the opportunity to govern or maintain themselves financially. Only so much of the dollar which is earned can be put out in taxes. The field has been exhausted and the municipalities are faced with a complete
The Address-Mr. R. W. Mitchell inability to increase their mill rate and tnere-fore must accept the charity of this government. This is a policy of self-perpetuation. The municipalities cannot bring themselves to bite the hand that feeds them, particularly when that hand controls the larder as effectively as does this government.
It is therefore my earnest hope that the government will enter into conferences in a spirit of co-operation and not of domination so that out of them may come a new tax formula as a result of which the provincial and municipal bodies will be able to enter into the field themselves.
I suggest there is no person more capable of governing his house than the master of that house. I am at times the master of my own house and I do not welcome advice or influence from outside. But I suggest that municipal councils and mayors are the persons in the best position to decide how and where municipal funds shall be spent. They are on the spot. They have the firsthand knowledge but they must have the money. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the government that as a measure of good faith instead of making grants in lieu of taxes they pay taxes to the municipalities on federal holdings. Second, I suggest that they reduce their taxes thereby enabling the municipalities to increase theirs and avoid the necessity of municipalities coming to the federal government for grants.
May I now refer for a moment or two to one of the depressed industries about which we have heard. I refer to the textile industry of which I have some little knowledge but I am satisfied that at least some of my remarks will refer to other industries in the same boat. I presume that as soon as one mentions that hateful word "tariff" one is branded as a high tariff man, and I refer to the word "tariff" as a means of protection, not of taxation. I suggest to the house and to the government that it is high time that we took a realistic view of tariffs and thereby protect our Canadian industries and our Canadian workers.
We have tariffs and we may as well accept the fact. My colleague, the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean), illustrated that most adequately yesterday from the cradle to the grave. These tariffs apparently are designed for two purposes. One is protection and the other is taxation. With the latter I cannot agree. A tariff for the purpose of protection, to be adequate today, must be examined in the light of today's conditions.
By way of example may I refer to tariff item 523b which deals with woven fabrics, wholly of cotton, printed, dyed, or coloured, and I will touch only the most-favoured-nation
724	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. E. W. Mitchell column which provides that these fabrics, if valued at more than 80 cents per pound, are subject to a tariff of 17J per cent and 3 cents per pound, if valued at 50 cents or more but not more than 80 cents per pound, a 22A per cent tariff, and if valued at less than 50 cents per pound, a 25 per cent tariff. I suggest that these tariffs were designed to enable our Canadian manufacturers to compete in the range of low priced cotton goods. We recognized the fact that we probably could not compete economically in the higher priced range of cotton products, and therefore certain protection was given.
But, Mr. Speaker, we must now examine these particular tariffs in the light of changed conditions. The price of cotton has risen. What was formerly 50 cent cotton, and accordingly given some measure of protection, is now in the bracket of high priced cotton and does not receive the same protection as it did. Second, let us not forget the fact that the value of the Canadian dollar compared with the value of the United States dollar has drastically changed.
Another problem of the textile industry has to do with the marking regulations passed under the National Trade Mark and True Labelling Act. Perhaps I should say that the problem has to do with enforcement and the additions which should be made to these marking regulations. That it is not a small problem may be indicated by the fact that imports of certain types of hose from and including July of 1953 until and including June of 1954 amounted to 1,169,025 dozen pairs for a value of $5,710,935. There are two particular aspects of this imported hosiery to which I wish to refer. The first is that so far as I can find there is no requirement that the country of origin be stamped on these items. Yet I have with me, Mr. Speaker, a pair of white ankle stockings which were sold over the counter of a store as being made in Canada. They are not made in Canada; they are made in the United States.
The failure to stamp the name of the country of origin in the case of the United States, Spain and Japan is enabling certain people to sell foreign products to Canadians who are conscious of the need to buy Canadian and desire to do so. We are defeating our purposes. We are trying in one breath to educate Canada and Canadians to buy Canadian, and then we permit certain of our citizens to sell products made in the United States with the statement-oh well, they are made in Canada; you prove me wrong.
The second aspect of these marking regulations requires that I refer to the hosiery marking regulations issued on the 14th January, 1953. Paragraph 5 provides in


brief, and I will not quote it, that if there is more than one item contained in a pair of hosiery they must be marked equally if the hosiery is stamped, with the largest component being named first. They also provide that where there is less than 5 per cent of the material content in the hosiery, excluding toe and heel reinforcing, they may not be marked or described in any manner whatsoever.
This particular pair of white stockings which I have in front of me has in the centre of the marking in large capital letters the words "combed cotton". Immediately beneath that in the same size lettering is the word "nylon", and if you look very carefully and have good eyes you can see below the word "nylon" the words "reinforced toe and heel". The first- reaction in looking at that is that they are "combed cotton nylon". That would be my reaction, but I am not a shopper. The second reaction would be that there is certainly nylon there, and even if you read all the words you see it is "combed cotton nylon reinforced toe and heel". To which part of the stamping does the word "nylon" refer?
These stockings have no nylon whatsoever except in the reinforcing of the toe and the heel. My plea is that we assist one of our staple industries to assist itself by enforcing and, if necessary, expanding these regulations so that Canadians who are conscious of Canada's future can be in a position to buy articles properly marked.
Lastly, I wish to say simply one word about the centennial the city of London is celebrating this year, to which reference has already been made in the house, and to extend a most cordial invitation to members of the house and to their constituents to visit us and help us in the celebration of our one hundredth anniversary.


Mr. J. M. Dechene (Athabaska):: In rising
to ask for the privilege of speaking in this assembly, Mr. Speaker, I wish to immediately assure this audience that I have a special reason for doing so, otherwise I would not inflict a speech upon them. Today, sir, I believe I am qualified by age and by experience-


Mr. Mclvor:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Miville Dechene: -to speak on a matter of
very great importance to the province from which I come. During the year 1955 we shall celebrate the golden anniversary of the entry into this confederation of the great province of Alberta. I feel it is proper for me to speak because, in looking over the records, I find that of the men who took part in the development of Alberta, those who

were there from the beginning and who contributed to its success, there are only two left in public life. I refer to the Hon. Senator MacKinnon and the member for Atha-baska (Mr. Dechene).
As I looked back upon those fifty years, I felt that I had a duty to perform and an obligation to fulfil to those people who made it possible for members to come here to represent Alberta. There is some history attached to this which I believe, unfortunately, has been overlooked. During the last few weeks and months competitions have been held in the schools of Alberta. Students have been asked to write about the province, and prizes have been offered to those who write the best articles. So far as I have been able to discover, however, no one has made any reference to how this province came into being or to the men who were responsible for this great development in the west. If I mention Alberta particularly, it is because other men better qualified than I am will speak for Saskatchewan and also because the territorial government had its headquarters in Regina for many years. The people in that province were used to government, but we in Alberta were in the outlying area near the Rocky mountains.
We did not have any experience in government, but we were proud to achieve the population which warranted this House of Commons passing the Alberta Act in 1905, declaring that on September 1, 1905, Alberta would become a province. A lieutenant governor was named and appointed. He chose a temporary government which, later in the fall, had to go before the public for either support or rejection. May I mention the names of some of these men who did so well? The first premier was the Hon. A. C. Rutherford, from the town of Strathcona on the south side of the river Saskatchewan. He handled also the portfolios of education and finance. He had experience because he had sat in the assembly at Regina for a number of years. He chose as his cabinet colleagues the Hon. W. T. Finlay of Medicine Hat, minister of agriculture; the Hon. W. H. Cushing of Calgary, minister of public works; the Hon. C. W. Cross, Edmonton, attorney general; and Mr. De Veber of Lethbridge, as minister without portfolio, a very able man who later became a member of the other house and who, of course, has long since departed.
As I said, there are only a few left to bring back the memory of this great achievement, and it was an achievement. In 1892, 63 years ago next April, my father went west as a homesteader with a family
The Address-Mr. Dechene of ten. After the construction of the Canadian Pacific, the west became stagnant. Up to that time, there had been some advancement, some settlement, and then it died out. Many of us, and I was one, had to come back east to try to find employment. There was nothing in the west for a young fellow to do. We sold our oats for 15 cents a bushel. Sometimes we got 17 cents and we were very happy. We had to put the oats in sacks and carry it up to the warehouse where we emptied it into bins. There were no elevators in those days, and I did that.
Then Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into office. At that time he chose as his minister of interior and minister of immigration one of the outstanding public men in the west- although I did not always agree with him- Clifford Sifton of Brandon, later Sir Clifford Sifton. He initiated a new policy of immigration designed to bring about progress in the west. We had tried to get people from Ontario. We got some, the best, because they had the spirit of adventure of their ancestors. We got some from Quebec and from the maritimes, but only a few.
The government therefore opened the gates to settlers from other countries. These people saw the possibilities in the rich soil of the west, and they were looking for freedom and liberty. They promptly accepted the invitation to come to this land, where they could in a few years become Canadians and enjoy prosperity and freedom. I recall very well when they started to come. I went back to the west in those days because my father wrote and said there was something to do; there was a new deal in the west and prosperity was coming back. He said we were going to build more railroads, and we were going to bring in a lot of people.
How well I remember all this. If I recall these events to the house, it is only because of the historical value. Thousands of people poured in from central Europe, the British Isles, from the Scandinavian countries and from across the line. Some came from Ireland, some of the best. They took advantage of what we had to offer, our fertile soil, our freedom and our laws. They came by thousands.
In 1903 I went back to the west. My father said: "Now, there is a new deal here; come on home, son. There is work for you here." I went home on the train with immigrants because it was cheaper and it was more interesting. I recall leaving Montreal, and I believe it took us eight days to travel to Calgary. We then had to take a small branch line-I forget the name of it-which ran from Calgary to Edmonton. The train was loaded with immigrants, most of whom came

The Address-Mr. Dechene from central Europe and the Scandinavian countries. There were a couple of carloads of people from the British Isles. They were happy. I recall walking through the train watching these people and thinking how far away from home they were. They came from Galicia, a province in Austria, from Bukovina, some from Germany and from Scandinavia. They had been told by those who came in the advance guard what we had to offer in the west. It took eight days to travel to Calgary, and then I had to take this train to Edmonton. If I recite these facts, it is only because I have something on my mind. I bow to my friends from the west, who were there in those days-and they were important days for us. We landed in Strath-cona, on the south side of the river. There was no bridge at that time. Well, perhaps that is not quite correct, because there was an old river bridge. Most of the people went down by tallyho-four horses going along at about 25 miles a hour. It took a good man to ride with them; in fact most people did not dare to do it, because it looked dangerous.
Then, there was a little train, a little railway-and perhaps it was the shortest railway with the longest name that has ever been known in the world. It was the Edmonton, Alberta, Yukon, British Columbia and Pacific Railway, and travelled about five miles. It just had to go down a hill, and up again. And I say all this because I think there is something of great importance attached to it.
Instead of taking the tallyho, as we called it, which ran downhill at breakneck speed- although I was not afraid of it; I was almost a cowboy in those days-I rode the train. It consisted of four wooden cars, loaded to the roof. And as we went down that hill we could see the lights across the river on the heights of Edmonton.
On that occasion I saw a man up at the end of the car. He was a tall man, a fair man, evidently a Scandinavian, and he began to sing. Mr. Speaker, it has been my lot at times to hear some fine singers. I have listened to Caruso, on gramophone records; and yet I must say that I never heard anything finer or better than that Scandinavian-although, unfortunately, I could not understand a word he said.
It was obvious however that he was singing a song of farewell to the country he had loved, and from which he had come, and at the same time a song of welcome to the country to which he had come-a country so vast, with its limitless prairies. But this man was pleased; he felt strong-a regular Viking, coming to a new land. And he sang all the way along, until everyone was spellbound.


As I say, I did not understand a word he said; but one could understand his feelings. Here was a land of liberty, a land of plenty, a land that gave scope for his strong arm and for his will, he was singing to it. Those of us who were there never said a word, all the way along. We just listened to that magnificent song. No speech could have expressed better the meaning of his song.
And when we got to the top of the hill- and, Mr. Speaker, it took us a long time-we got off at Edmonton. My folks were there to meet me-and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I am not wearying the house, because I do not speak in this way simply to relate a personal matter but rather to illustrate the development that has taken place out there. Immediately I told my father about the man I had heard singing. It seemed, I said, as if he loved this land, and I said that I believed I loved it more since I had heard him sing. I did not realize the value of what we have, did not realize as well as this man who had come all the way across the seas, and who sang about the wonderful things we have here- the size of it, the breadth of it.
Everybody was so happy in those days. That was a time when there were no strangers: we were all brothers in the west. The old-timers from out there will remember that.
Then some years later I happened to be electioneering north of Edmonton, not for myself but for the great architect of Alberta's destiny, the late Hon. Frank Oliver. And, away beyond Edmonton, perhaps some 30 or 35 miles, I called at a nice, tidy little shack which had been placed in a clearing in the bush at a place then known as Independence. It was clean as a whistle, good buildings, well kept fences. The man came out to see me, to welcome me. I looked at him and at once recognized the same man I had heard singing on the train. But now he could speak English. That man was still singing, but singing louder and better than ever. He was singing about the possibilities of this great land. And when I speak today I do so to draw the attention of hon. members in the House of Commons and to those who come from the west to the fact that in those early days we were happy; we were proud of ourselves. We did not ask for any government favours. We would have been insulted if anyone had offered us something for nothing. And that was the feeling throughout the land.
I mention this because, as a result of a great immigration policy, the land of the west became cultivated, villages were built across the prairies, and railways were constructed. And, referring to railways, I can remember Frank Oliver repeating day after day and year after year the necessity for

railway competition, because we were then at the mercy of one line. If oats went up a cent a bushel in British Columbia, then the freight rate went up by that amount. We could sell nothing at a profit.
And then the Canadian National Railways came along, and the Grand Trunk, and there was competition, bringing hope to the land. The population increased rapidly, and two new provinces were cut out of the prairies- Saskatchewan, and the one in which I am more interested, Alberta the sunny.
Then the first war came along and created a condition over which no government, provincial or otherwise, had any control. In many areas there was dissatisfaction among the people; there was division and discord. The west was ranged against the east. Then in 1921 I believe I was the only survivor in the northern part of the province of the Liberal legislature which went to the people in the month of July of that year. I believe there were nine in the whole of the province who survived, five of whom were in Edmonton-and I recite these things, Mr. Speaker, because in the minds of some people both here and elsewhere there appears to be the idea that Alberta was born either in 1921 or 1935.
Alberta has been looked upon right in this House of Commons, sometimes through the eyes of a banker whose name I will not mention, as something quite different from what it is. I do not need to mention his name, because some of my friends over there have named him often, and have recited his opinions to the house. Of course we are talking about a province in which everything had to be done-the building of the legislative buildings, the erection of normal schools and public schools, the building of roads and bridges-all those things. The entire province had to be covered by a brand new government, and the revenue to do this had to be found. We did not listen to the banker, because if we had done so we would not have a province out there, even yet. But as public men we knew it was our duty to provide facilities for the settlers, those who had had the courage and the fortitude to go out there and carve out a little kingdom for themselves.
Perhaps I should say in passing that I am not speaking from notes, but that I am freely asking you to join us in our golden anniversary celebration in Alberta the fair, which has contributed so much to the advancement and the welfare of this country. And we have only begun, as everyone knows.
In a few months at most enough gasoline and oil will be produced in Alberta and Saskatchewan to supply the entire Canadian market.
The Address-Mr. Dechene
Millions and millions of dollars' worth of new wealth has been created by the people of our provinces of the west for themselves and for the people of Canada; but I want to pay a tribute through you, Mr. Speaker, to a class of our people in that land who in some parts of the country are referred to as immigrants. Well, there is nothing wrong with being an immigrant. We are all immigrants; we emigrated from somewhere in this country or from some other lands not so long ago.
Take that country north, east, southeast and northeast of Edmonton, all around Edmonton clear up to the Peace river. In that area you will find men and women who came from Europe, from the Ukraine, from Germany, from Poland, from the British Isles, from Scandinavia and from other countries. I hope some of you will have the privilege of visiting Alberta next summer when we celebrate our jubilee. If you do you will see miles and miles of countryside, right up to my section, a distance of 175 miles, which 50 years ago was wild but today is a garden of Eden growing everything under the sun. You will see the sod shacks and mud houses have disappeared and now there are the finest of homes to be found anywhere. You will see silos and thoroughbred cattle in the fields. I admit to you, sir, that I resent the picture that is often painted of my province of Alberta. From 1921 to 1930 we were called the I.O.U. province. They cannot call us that any more because we have paid off all our debts at a high interest rate.
I want to pay this tribute to the Ukrainians. It is not a matter of politics. Do not worry; I am not going to bother you again after this parliament, but I should like to also pay this tribute to the Poles, the Germans and the Scandinavians who are all far away from home. I should like to tell you a story about them. I should like to tell you what they have done. Today in the public life of the west you will find men of the second and third generation in important positions. You find them in the judiciary; as you know, you find them in our parliament. You find them in our legislatures, and you find them in our cabinets in the western provinces. The mayor of Edmonton, the booming and greatest city in the west, nobody can deny that, is a second generation descendant of a pioneer settler. His ancestors, whom I knew very well, came from a part of the constituency of Athabaska. I want to praise them publicly for the tremendous achievements they have made.
It was easier for us from old Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes. I admit we were pioneers in the development of the west, but

The Address-Mr. Dechene it was easier for us. They were great men and women but it was easier for us because we were in our own country. We knew the rules and the languages. I am proud to say to you this afternoon, sir, there are thousands of those Ukrainians, Germans, Poles and Scandinavians in the constituency of Atha-baska. We have the greatest respect for one another. I say to you publicly in this house that these men and women have done a wonderful job in the west.
When we talk about 1903 I want to show you how the policies, politics and the vision of public men influenced the people of the country. You could find the same feeling all over the land, ambition, belief in the country, confidence in its future. Sometimes some men in public life have made it their business to try to destroy that confidence, to destroy in the souls and in the hearts of these men and women the spirit of Canada, the spirit of the pioneer. I can boast that I was one of them, and I can boast, sir, that I never had to ask any favour from any government. I am proud and pleased that God gave me life to be able to make these remarks today without any preparation. I did want to pay tribute to that valiant population.
I want to describe to you this afternoon the visit of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. When the western provinces entered confederation, Laurier did not send a messenger to Regina or Edmonton; he came himself. I do not think there was any greater public man. There may have been others with more ability but I am not going to make comparisons. Comparisons are odious. What I wish to say is that there was no greater lover of Canada, no greater advocate of its possibilities, no greater friend of the western prairies-that spirit still lives in our Minister of Agriculture-than Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Frank Oliver would wake up at two or three o'clock in the morning to go to meet a settler coming from the country to see what he wanted, and what he could do to help him out. That was the spirit we had in those days in the west.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier came to Edmonton, and I should like to remind the house of this because I think it is worth-while. Crowds came from all over the countryside. There were perhaps a dozen cars in the city of Edmonton those days; there were none in the country. People came from all over the country with the horse and buggy and the wagon; some came with oxen and some walking in order to hear Wilfrid Laurier, the champion of western Canada's advancement, progress and settlement. If I should live a thousand years I shall never forget the speech he made. It was a masterpiece not only in


eloquence but in patriotism. I well remember the welcome he gave us. He knew them all. Thousands were there and many came from other lands. I should like to repeat some of the words he used in his welcome. He said: Many of you came here from other lands, from central Europe, from the United States, from the British Isles. You know now how welcome you are in this land of the free and the brave. I want to give you some advice. I give it to you as an old man getting on in years and as prime minister of this country. We are not asking you in Canada to forget the land of your ancestors. No, do not do that. We know that every nation in the world has many things to be proud of. Nobody has a monopoly of courage and of intelligence in this world. Remember the land where your ancestors lived, struggled and died, because if you remember the land of your ancestors you will be better citizens of the land in which you are now making your home and where your children will take your place and carry on. He said: "Remember the past, remember your land, remember the old country; but I am asking you today, when this land is becoming a province, a new jewel in the crown of confederation, which is today the most brilliant with its tremendous resources, to think of the future. Remember the past, but think of the future. Think of your children. Be grateful to the people of Canada who spent money and who granted you the privilege of coming to live in a land where you can be free."
There may be lots of good lands in the Ukraine, some as good as any that can be found anywhere in the world, but there was one thing lacking, namely, freedom, liberty of expression, liberty of thought, liberty of religion. They found that, sir, in Canada. This year we are celebrating our golden jubilee in this fair land of ours.
I am not sorry that all through these years it has been my first love. I say to you Canadians through this forum of the Canadian people, through this parliament, that this celebration, which will run from June to September next, is worthy of the sons and daughters of Saskatchewan and Alberta who came into this confederation on September 1, 1905. I have argued very often in this house, not through ill will, that we should never forget what we have contributed to the wealth of this nation, although sometimes we are accused of asking for too much. Unfortunately there are speeches made to gain some local advantage, some political kudos, because of the great majority of people on the western plains, but we are not asking for any favours.

I know I will be pardoned if what I say at this stage is said without any more preparation. I do not write my speeches. I have some notes with me that have been made hastily. I do not write my speeches, first because it is a rule of this house and, second, because I believe that I know enough about this country of mine to speak about it without having to write or having somebody else write notes for me.
So on that September 1 we did see a wonderful picture up that hill. I think I have said this once before. I do not think that anywhere in Canada you will find a more magnificent setting for a celebration than those flats down the river below that big hill on which is situated the hotel Macdonald at Edmonton. The spectacle is magnificent. You have the Saskatchewan river flowing through there to lake Manitoba and lake Winnipeg. There is the magnificent site on which the city is built. The trees across the river were in their full early fall foliage. The people gathered, on what was called the Ross flats. They were settled first by an old Scottish Liberal named Ross and they still carry the name of Ross fiats. There was no city then, it was just a garden. I do not think that I ever saw a better show anywhere in the world than I saw that day.
May I say in a spirit of unity and not at all as a partisan that as a Canadian I do not ever want to hear a word about our immigration policy. I know the wealth it has produced because there were no other hands available. They could not get them anywhere else.
I want to end with this message. You will find courage and fortitude in the west. It has been said that the soil is fertile in the west, that everything will grow there. We have had some bad years, but is there any country in the world which has not had bad years? That soil will grow grain; it grows flowers to that height, and it raises the finest livestock. It even grows ideas. People think it will grow money. The only way I found to grow it was by earning it.
I say to hon. members of this house this afternoon that, from their hearts and souls, they say to their constituents throughout this country when June 1 comes around and Alberta begins its celebration of its golden anniversary of joining this great country, they have a thought for Alberta and to those who are so inclined to raise a toast to the people of the province of Alberta.


Sybil Bennett: Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate we have heard much about the greatness and magnitude and intrepid nature of this great land
The Address-Miss Bennett to which we belong, and not the least of these have been the words of the hon. member who has just spoken. But after all we must return to the more practical consideration of conditions as they exist in this country. Listening to the speeches that have been made over the course of days and weeks it seems to me that hon. members of this house, particularly those to your left, Mr. Speaker, have set out most clearly the conditions as they exist today in this country.
I think there is only one conclusion and one deduction that can be drawn from what has been said, that is that the speech from the throne no longer performs the function and purpose it was originally intended to perform. The speech from the throne should contain a forthright, honest, down to earth statement of conditions as they exist, these conditions as they relate economically and socially to this nation. In a like manner this government should set forth in clear and concise language how they intend to deal with conditions as we find them today.
Judging from what I have heard in this distinguished house there are four or five problems with which the people of this country and this government in particular must deal. There is the problem of unemployment. There is the problem of the loss of our markets internally and externally. There is the reduction, of national income, nationally and individually. There is the question of the development of the natural resources of this country and the reassessment of their potentialities. There is the question of overtaxation as it relates to unemployment, loss of markets and the shrinkage of national and individual income.
I say that this government should forthwith and without delay make an honest and thorough examination of the basic causes underlying unemployment in this nation as we have it today. In the same forthright manner, after this examination has been made remedies should be suggested and brought forward in order to cope with the situation.
I realize that the government has provided legislation for additional unemployment insurance benefits and we welcome it. Projects are provided for public works. In my own constituency $400,000 has been allotted for a new federal building. But these things do not go to the root of the matter. They are only palliatives. They do not deal with the situation of unemployment in this country. As has been said by other hon. members, the unemployment situation is far from being seasonal and regional in character.

The Address-Miss Bennett
In a like manner this government should consider the reason for the loss of our markets. At the same time they should consider and set forth a policy whereby we shall retain, regain and find new markets. This government should examine the whole situation with regard to our natural resources and their potentialities in order that we may be able to increase our productivity and produce more in this nation without increasing costs of production, and thus be better able to meet competition. We must reduce the cost of production and in that way compete more favourably in the markets of the world. In that regard I think there should be a complete overhauling of taxation in this country so that it will improve the lot not only of the provinces but of the individual throughout Canada. This house and this government must give the leadership so that men and women in industry and in every profession and business will know what this government intends to do and how it intends to cope with the problems facing this nation at the present time.
What we need is a national policy and that national policy should be conveyed to the people of this country so that they realize what we are trying to do. I know that in the last 10 or 15 years this nation has enjoyed great prosperity and it is easy to coast along on the tide of that prosperity. But, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the prosperity we have enjoyed has not been provided by this government nor has it been provided by any single hon. member in this house. We have enjoyed that prosperity because we have, as the last hon. member who spoke pointed out, magnificent natural resources and potentialities, added to which we have a people of genius, of great inventive resource who have worked hard to turn out the products which this nation has been selling on the markets of the world.
On the other hand, the countries which have bought from us have, for various reasons, now developed their own productive capacities so that the situation is now entirely changed and we no longer find we have ready markets throughout the world. We no longer find we have places in which to sell our products and we are now forced into the open market and indeed a highly competitive market. These countries are now selling in the open market at prices with which we cannot compete, with the result that we now face a problem of unemployment while so many of those countries are enjoying total employment and renewed prosperity.
As all other hon. members in this house, I must examine the policy, or shall I say the lack of policy, of this government in the light


of business conditions and unemployment in my own constituency. I have the honour to represent one of the finest constituencies- and perhaps I should say the finest constituency although other hon. members may not perhaps agree-in the whole of Canada. In the county of Halton we live in the very heart of the greatest industrial development to be witnessed in this nation, and what I have to say about the county of Halton and its needs directly or indirectly applies, I presume, to every other constituency across this country. In the past two or three years we have seen a tremendous and unprecedented development. We have, I believe I can safely say, hundreds of new industries, large, medium, and small, coming into our county, and following this we have had a great development in the construction of new homes. With the entry into our constituency of hundreds of families fine rolling areas of land there have been turned into great suburbs. Municipal governments all over the county have had to provide for this great new development by building roads, providing water and sewage facilities, and providing the schools and other facilities which are required to meet this new development. They have had to do this despite the lack of proper tax arrangements and only through which it would be possible to bear the brunt of the development which is taking place.
In this regard I wish to again emphasize to this government that what is required immediately is an entire new revaluation of the taxation system in this country so that at the federal, provincial and municipal levels we can have a more even distribution of taxation, and so that those municipalities which are responsible for and are really guiding the development of this nation at the present time will have sufficient means through taxation to carry the brunt of the development now taking place.
If that is not done the fact is that the small home owners-and not the large property owners-who have built their little homes in thousands all across the country will have to bear the brunt of the cost. At the present moment they are bearing the brunt of this tremendous and expensive development, but they cannot continue to do so indefinitely and a redistribution of taxation is now required so that the average home owner will receive assistance perhaps through the provision of additional income tax exemption which will compensate him for the extra taxation he is now paying. It must be remembered that through this industrial development a great deal of benefit will accrue in the ultimate analysis to the federal treasury of this country.

I would now like to say a word to hon. members from the western provinces and from farming communities throughout the country. We too are a great farming county and we are very proud of our record in that respect in the county of Halton. Indeed, we have the wheat king of the world, Mr. W. E. Breckon, living in that county, and last year Mr. Breckon who farms 300 fine, rich, rolling acres down in Burlington was adjudged at the royal fair to have grown the finest wheat in the world. I therefore say, with all due respect, but with a great deal of pride that I, as the representative of that county, can take my place with hon. members from most of the great western provinces in Canada.
In addition to that we are a great dairy industry county. We have one of the very finest milk producing herds in the whole of Canada. But for our farmers in that county, and indeed all across the country, there are many difficulties to be overcome, despite what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) may have said in this house, for they are now receiving less income today than they have received at any time during the last seven years. They cannot find markets for their cattle, hogs, sheep, cheese, or butter and one of the facts that we tend to lose sight of is that over two million people in this country are directly or indirectly dependent upon farming income.
That does not take into consideration the literally hundreds and thousands of men and women who derive their living supplying various needs and necessities to farmers. Over two million people in this country have had their incomes reduced. They are not able to buy the things they are accustomed to buying. In that connection it must be remembered that the average farm family, being almost an enterprise within itself, buys four times the amount bought by a family living in a city. We must remember that if the farmer does not have the income, if he does not have the purchasing power, then that very fact is going to be and is being reflected right across this country and is one of the reasons for the present unemployment.
Turning back to industry, may I say that we have many large electrical industries in my constituency making heavy equipment, and industries making small electrical wares. In every instance these industries are on short time. They are laying off men because they are unable to compete in the markets of the world. They are not even able to compete in the markets of their own country, because wares produced at a very much lower cost are coming into Canada and are being sold in our markets.
The Address-Miss Bennett
That is just one instance where we must decide what we can do along the lines of research, along the lines of bringing about greater productivity at lower cost in the industries of Canada and increasing our efficiency in order that we may be able to compete. Of course there are the textile industries, and they are in a most unhappy and unfortunate position. Everywhere in the county these textile industries, some making cotton goods and some woollen, have either closed down or are on short time. The same is true of the leather industries. They are not able to compete. The men and women who worked in these little industries have had to find work elsewhere. They have not been able to meet the mortgage payments on their homes or pay their municipal taxes. They have not been able to go to the storekeepers and buy what they used to buy.
In every part of the dominion we see the result of the loss of markets in the decrease in individual incomes. As all hon. members know, I am always asking questions about the Ford plant. I have been making remarks about the Ford strike, and have been talking about the 15 per cent tax on cars. The Ford plant in my constituency is the largest in all Canada under one roof, and in that plant are employed at the very least 2,700 men. As other hon. members will know, the loss of income to these men was felt very deeply. It has been estimated that during the strike each man lost $1,250. He has not had that money with which to pay his taxes and meet the interest on his mortgage.
Let me say here that I have talked to a good number of these men, and they tell me they have mortgages under the National Housing Act. They tell me they have not been able to meet their mortgage interest for two or three months, and the minister who is in charge of these matters should give consideration to their plight. There are 9,000 men affected in the automotive industry in Canada, and many more thousands in subsidiary industries. It is to be hoped that these men will be given an opportunity to catch up on their payments now that they have returned to work.
The foolish part of the whole thing is that the government should consider that the 15 per cent tax levied on cars should be imposed because motor cars are a luxury. That is unrealistic, improper and not in keeping with the business outlook cf this nation. It is not in keeping with a proper economic outlook, and does not take into consideration conditions in this country. I want to remind every hon. member that 83 per cent of the motor cars driven on any given day in Canada are

The Address-Mr. Caron driven for necessary purposes and not as a luxury. One in 15 of all men and women employed in Canada today is employed in the automotive industry. What greater opportunity could there be for leadership on the part of the government at this time, what greater example could they set, than to announce that the 15 per cent tax on motor cars will be removed? After all, the luxury tax has been removed from mink coats and many other things which are really luxuries.
If the government want to set an example, if the government want to give leadership they should announce at once, when the automotive industry is trying to get back on its feet-an industry that is so important to this nation-that this tax will be removed. That in itself would give confidence and an Impetus to the industry and would give notice to every other concern in the industrial life of the nation that the government intend to lead the way in lowering the cost of production by lowering the taxation that is being borne by industry and by individuals today. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we have come to the point of too heavy taxation and diminishing returns, and throughout the country we see the results in unemployment, loss of markets, loss of national income, indeed in the very development of the natural resources and great potentialities of our nation.
I ask the government to consider this matter and take action without delay. I ask them to give leadership so that workmen, industrialists, men and women in every walk of life right across the nation will be given ambition and a sense of responsibility.
(Translation):


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join those who have already congratulated the mover (Mr. Leduc) and seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I particularly wish to refer to the mover who, with wonderful rhetoric, told the house about the special culture which we receive in the province of Quebec.
(Text):
On this day I should like to recall one historical fact. On the 1st of February, 1882, there was born in the eastern townships of Quebec a man who was marked by Providence to become one of the greatest men we have known. This man today is away from our country working for the betterment of the world. He is absent from the country, but we want to tell him that not only the members on this side of the house but all members desire to wish the Prime Minister of this country a happy birthday.

On January 27, after listening to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Mac-Innis) refer once again to the question of minorities, in answer to a speech previously delivered by the hon. member for Pontiac-Timiskaming (Mr. Proudfoot), I decided to place my name on the list of speakers. I have noticed that many members in certain parts of this house seem to be completely lacking in any historical knowledge of this country. The subject of minorities was injected into the debate on January 12 in a speech by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) who decided that after spending a few hours in Montreal, with his super intelligence, he had seen enough to speak for the people of Quebec.
In case anyone might think I am not speaking the truth, I shall quote the hon. member's words from Hansard for January 12, page 120:
This province-
Meaning the province of Quebec.
-seems to be the sore spot in the matter of Canadian unity.
All these remarks seemed to be made in the name of national unity. Why did the hon. member say that Quebec was the sore spot in national unity? At the end of that paragraph he went on to say:
We do not want to handle divorce cases in the parliament of Canada.
On the same page he said:
. . . "What about this question of divorce?" The people of Canada are getting sick and tired of it. There is one man who can help us out of this situation and that is the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I feel that if he does not do so, he will have failed in one of his greater responsibilities.
The hon. member believed the Prime Minister should establish divorce courts for Quebec and Newfoundland. For the people of Quebec, who are mostly French Canadians and Catholics, the question of divorce is more than a question of breach of contract. We still believe there is a moral question involved of much more importance than the material question. We still believe that we were placed on this earth not only to live happily, not only to earn money, not only to earn honours but also to obtain the goal for which we have been created, eternity.
It is for this reason that we oppose divorce. In our opinion marriage is not only a civil contract but is a sacrament, and we have no right whatever to touch a sacrament. This question is not the property of the governments of this country, it is the property of those who have responsibility for the morals of the people. I am in agreement with the hon. member when he states he believes these cases are not studied fully by the Senate or the House of Commons committees.

I am in agreement with him when he states that many of the witnesses brought before those committees are fake witnesses who have built up a case that does not represent the true facts.
I recognize those facts, but there is another aspect of the matter. These hon. members do not want to study divorce cases from the province of Quebec, so I feel the only thing for them to do is to make it impossible for divorces to be granted by parliament. Then if people from Quebec want a divorce they will have to move to some other part of this country. In that way everybody will be happy. We will not have to discuss this matter any more in parliament. The people of Quebec do not want divorce courts in that province and will never accept them. We believe that this is a matter for the religious authorities, not for the civil authorities.
This hon. member went on to speak about national unity. He said, as recorded at page 121 of Hansard for January 12, 1955:
My forecast is that when that tide turns in the province of Quebec it is going to turn mighty fast. My greatest concern is that it may turn to the communist party. I contend that there is no part of Canada that is as ripe for advances by the communist party as the province of Quebec. In the city of Montreal the communist party polled about as many votes as the C.C.F.
So far as the polling of votes is concerned, I believe that is proof that the population of Quebec is not ready for communism. If there is one party in this house that has never clearly explained its views on private property, it is the socialist party. They have never given the complete facts concerning their intentions toward private ownership, and it is for that reason that the people of Quebec are afraid of the C.C.F. party.
Furthermore, I believe that when the hon. member says Quebec is ripe for communism he completely ignores the history of that province and the principles of those living in that province. If there is one province that will stand against communism as long as there are moral values, it will be the province of Quebec. Attached as we are to our religion, which from the beginning of time has been the opponent of new doctrines that have come into the world from time to time, we will be the last to accept any ideas which even resemble communism.
This is one of the reasons the socialists are not accepted as yet in Quebec, even if they are not communists. We are afraid of their ideas. We are afraid of the way they are treating the question of national unity in this house. I really believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is no more danger of the people of other provinces turning to communism than there is in Quebec. There is always a minimum number of people who believe in try-
The Address-Mr. Caron ing any new thing that comes into the world, but those people do not form the majority in this country. Certainly they do, and always have, formed the minority in the province of Quebec.
What are the facts that prompt the hon. member to think in this way? It is because he believes the educational system is so poor. He said:
The people of Quebec are suffering. They are subjected to double taxation and they are not enjoying the facilities in the field of education which they would like to have, which they ought to have and which they deserve as Canadian citizens. They are not receiving adequate health services to which they are entitled.
Mr. Speaker, in the field of education we have plenty of proof that our system is not as bad as some would have you believe. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said, speaking to the hon. member for Pontiac-Timiskaming:
May I tell the hon. member, and any other hon. member who does not know, that under our constitution in British Columbia we have a free, nonsectarian public school system.
And then again:
Not only is our school system free and non-sectarian, it Is also compulsory.
And later on:
I have never known of a parent coming to courts in order to get a school to accept his children.
First of all he speaks about non-sectarian schools. That is exactly what we do not want to accept; and in the province of Quebec we do not want the Protestant minority to be forced to accept non-sectarian schools. We believe in the Almighty, and we believe that the most important thing in life is to get ready to go to heaven when the time comes. Even the greatest of riches in the world cannot gain us that privilege, if we have not prepared for it.
That is the reason we believe that Christian education should have its beginning in the schools. It should begin in the lowest schools, and should be kept up as long as a person goes to school. We believe there should be the same privilege for the Protestant minority; and in the province of Quebec they have and they use that right to have Christian education given the children in their schools. This is the first thing the Catholic does to prepare himself for that great voyage. And that is what we want to do, not only in Quebec but wherever we have a certain number of French Canadians or Catholics.
If the hon. gentleman had stayed in the province of Quebec long enough to make a study, he would first of all have studied the history of that province, a province which in history is the backbone of the whole country. He would have come to the conclusion that in the province of Quebec the
734	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Caron system of education is divided into two committees. There is, first, the Catholic committee which looks after all the Catholic schools in that province. This committee is composed of bishops and an equal number of Catholic laymen who are there to study the situation. They meet three or four times a year and decide what the Catholic schools require in order to function and give moral education, as well as physical and intellectual direction.
In addition to that, and completely independent of the Catholic committee, there is the Protestant committee of education. It is composed of some of their ministers and an equal number of laymen of the Protestant faith. It is they who decide upon the training they require in their schools. The Catholics do not vote whatsoever to tell them what to do.
And, even though they are divided into two committees, the provincial government gives just as much to the Protestant schools as they need-just as much as they give to the Catholic schools. In the school system of Quebec there is no double taxation whatsoever, because the money comes from the same source, and we want to use it for the children, whether they have Protestant or Catholic parents. It is not the Catholics who decide what kind of education the pupils will get in every school in Quebec. That is something the hon. member would have learned if he had stayed more than two hours in the province.
To develop the subject a little more, let me say that in the city of Hull, on the other side of the river, 6 per cent of the population was Protestant, but with the increase in population their school was a little too crowded. They needed more space. Well, the government of Quebec has given them a good Protestant school, one which could serve as a model for any province in the Dominion of Canada. The government bought the school the Protestants had and gave it to the Catholics, who are now using it for a classical course. It is known as ecole Marie-Mediatrice.
This was given so the Protestants would have a bigger school, and at the same time it gave the smaller school to the Catholics because they were smaller in number. And this has been done throughout the province of Quebec, particularly in the eastern townships, where conditions have changed. There was one place where there was a big Protestant school, much too big for the population, and a small school for the Catholics. The Catholic population was increasing, so the government gave the small school to the Protestants and paid them the difference between what they had spent on the larger school. Then the large school was given to the Catholic population.


That is the way we understand national unity in Quebec. That is why we do not like people from outside, people who have not stayed long enough to know what is going on, coming to this House of Commons or to any part of the country and making speeches in which they tell us that we are in danger of becoming communist partisans in this country of ours. Education in the province of Quebec has been given fairly to Catholics and Protestants. Lately the government in that province has given grants to universities- Laval, Montreal and McGill. And let me say that the biggest grant was given to McGill, a Protestant university, because they were in greater need than Laval or Montreal.
This is what I call fairness; this is what we call British fair play, in the true sense of the word. Is that practised throughout this country the way it is practised in Quebec? Catholics want to have their schools so they can teach the love of God from the very beginning of the school years. They do not want non-sectarian schools, in the name of national unity, and they say they give everyone the same chance. We hear of people speaking before the United Nations and in other places about the rights of man, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom of all those things.


Mr. Thatcher:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Yes.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I think he wants to be fair. I wonder if he realizes that it was his own party that was in power in British Columbia until a year and a half ago. While I have sympathy for the viewpoint he has expressed concerning schools, I think he should realize it was his own party that has prevented that very thing.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I will admit that. But even if my own party is at fault, then my party is at fault and I admit it. Would my hon. friend do the same?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The hon. member has asked me a question. Speaking personally, I would not.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I am glad the hon. member realizes that sometimes we can be fair. Well, I would not accept this treatment from any party, whether it be Liberal, Conservative, C.C.F., Social Credit or anything else. It is not fair; and I claim that we need fairness everywhere; not only in the province of Quebec, but in the whole country. As they said during the French revolution, "O liberte, que d.e crimes on commet en ton nom!" And one might say here, "Oh, national unity, what crimes were committed in thy name."

The Address-Mr. Barnett
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up too much of the time of the house. I hold in my hand clippings from English language newspapers in which citizens have been writing in favour of the province of Quebec. One of them, Mr. Arthur G. Penny, had this to say in an article which he wrote:
Because they feel that they have too often been misrepresented unfavourably, Quebecers who have a keen self-pride, are eager to be known as they really are.
Further on he says:
Accordingly, the columns of Concord, a French language publication, have been thrown open to the present English article, the writing of which has been entrusted to a Quebecer of English origin in the person of myself.
The Quebecer is religious, imaginative, cultured and artistic.
He goes on to say:
Other obsolete but wounding disparagements had it that Quebecers were "backward" in such matters as education and public health. Today they take second place to no other part of Canada in their attention to public health:	infantile
mortality has been drastically curtailed and the scourge of tuberculosis has been brought under control. The educational system was never so much inferior to as it was different from that of English Canada and the United States, being designed to serve the distinctive needs of Quebec's chosen way of life.
I should now like to refer to a social bulletin which came to my attention and which has the following heading: "French-Canadians and Confederation". The bulletin was written by Murray Ballantyne. If hon. gentlemen would read this bulletin through to the end they would learn a little more about the province of Quebec. It is a fact that once in a while we may have disagreements with our provincial government, but we have to know the background of the province of Quebec to understand them clearly. I do not agree with everything that has been done, but I have to admit that in some parts of this country the French Canadians have been treated in such a way that we have a certain reluctance to accept anything that comes from elsewhere. It may be a mistake, but we have to be clear on these questions.
I have spoken in English this afternoon because I wanted to be understood. It would be much easier for me to speak in French. I hope this will be clearly understood. In the province of Quebec we are doing everything we can to help Canadians become more friendly. I try to learn more about others. We try to listen to what they are saying and we try to understand them, but it is practically impossible for us to do so in certain parts of the country.
I do not want to accuse all members of the C.C.F. party of this, because I admit that the leader of the party seems to be a man of
great knowledge, but he is like a man trying to ride a pair of broncos. He is having a great deal of trouble. I sympathize very much with the leader of the C.C.F. I sympathize also with some other people. They tell me the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is a school teacher. Well, if he teaches school in the way he tries to teach the House of Commons I really feel sorry for his pupils.


Mr. Dufresne:: We have learned a lot
from him anyway.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I left the province of Alberta in 1918 with my parents. After listening to the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene) this afternoon, I was almost tempted to let the Alberta blood in my veins dominate to the point of going back; until of course I recalled some of the items I have been reading in the local press of Comox-Alberni about the snowdrops that are blooming out there and the spring flowers that are now coming forth, and I must confess that in spite of the eloquence of the speaker I decided that I would remain on Vancouver island. However, I shall be quite happy, if the opportunity affords itself, to accept his invitation to see Alberta celebrate its golden jubilee next summer. I did have the privilege of seeing Alberta in its greenery last summer, and also some of the other parts of the great country which the hon. member for Athabaska so eloquently described.
Consequently I have been quite interested during the session to hear some of the speeches that have been made by hon. members from the province of Newfoundland, such as the speech made last night by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten). Had they waxed as freely and as eloquently about their province and some of its problems during last session as they have this session perhaps I would not have needed to travel four thousand miles or so to realize some of the things I learned about it, or perhaps would have had a little more background prior to my arrival.
One of the phrases used by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's in his speech last night rather intrigued me. If I caught him correctly he made some reference to what he called "itinerant victims of a midsummer night's dream." Just for a moment I thought he intended to throw some bouquets in my direction. However, I quickly realized that I was in error in that assumption, and that undoubtedly he must be intending the reference to apply to that ex-Winnipegger who now sits in this house as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill).

The Address-Mr. Barnett
The thought occurred to me, while he was speaking, that it would really be quite interesting it at some time the minister would tell hon. members the full story of what I will call the Bonavista gunpowder plot. I am informed on reliable authority that the surplus of gunpowder from that particular operation undoubtedly puts Bonavista among the major arsenals of democracy, and I am sure the citizens of that town could, if the necessity should arise, create quite sufficient noise to scare away any stray gunboats or submarines that might chance to roam into that part of the Atlantic ocean.
Speaking purely as an impartial observer I will say that the remarks of hon. members from Newfoundland come fairly close to expressing some of the needs of the people as I saw them there. I realize that they were exercising that delicate restraint which hon. members on the opposite side of the house always use when they are drawing the attention of the government to the fact that there are a few unsolved problems among the people back home.
Last year when we were discussing the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act I made reference to what I termed the patchwork policy which the present government adopts. Since that time summer suns have come and gone, rains have fallen and some of those patches and the fabric to which they were attached have become a little more bleached, a little more soil-worn in the course of the normal usage that has been given to government policy by the exigencies facing our economy.
From such indications as we have had so far I must say it would appear that the government is going to continue with a similar policy. I am quite willing to concede that the government is capable of some very fancy stitching when attaching the patches; in fact, by and large it is a most competent seamstress. In other words, at times some of their patches seem to be attached with what I would term rather fancy feather-stitching. Nevertheless this patchwork policy seems to be continuing, and I have been wondering why this is so.
Hon. gentlemen opposite appear to be sincere and at times intelligent, and I am rather puzzled why they appear to be content with this hit and miss type of policy. A possible explanation appears to be that the government has fallen victim to what I would term a defensive attitude; they seem to be always on the defensive. I think this would apply equally to their policy on national or international level. In doing so I suppose they


are only falling in line with an attitude which appears to have become all too prevalent in what we call the western world.
From time to time I meet people who say to me rather proudly that they like to call themselves liberals with a small "1". I have been reflecting on the fact that I cannot recall having met anyone who said to me in that same proud tone of voice that he called himself a conservative with a small "c". I have come to the conclusion that probably the reason is that the people who might call themselves conservatives with a small "c" are afraid that by so doing they might be labelled Liberals with a large "L". In other words the government sitting opposite is a Conservative government regardless of its label, and has adopted a Conservative defensive sort of attitude.
I listened last Friday to the speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) in which he gave a summary of his visit to Europe and his inspection of some of the operations of the NATO forces on the continent. I have no quarrel with the minister for making the sort of speech he did. He reported to us, as is his responsibility as a minister of the crown holding the portfolio which he does. But to me that speech of his was typical of this defensive attitude. The brief reference he made to the fact that as a result of certain actions that were being taken we were shortly to have some German divisions to me seemed to indicate a certain smug satisfaction that everything was all fixed up and that was all there was to it; that we have these divisions and our defensive mechanisms are once again well in order.
Regardless of the merits or demerits of the facts he was mentioning, I submit that it is not sufficient if we tend to have that same feeling as a result of actions which are being taken at the present time in the western world. The other day I came across a publication put out by the Department of External Affairs entitled "Canada and the United Nations 1953-54". My eye caught some of the lines in the general survey which commences on page 1, and I should like to quote these words:
Nine years ago, when the United Nations charter was drafted at San Francisco, it was hoped that the new organization might be saved from the weakness and failure of its predecessor, the league of nations, by the frank acceptance of political realities which entrusted the principal responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security to the five great powers.
Then it goes on to say:
The realities have proved to be other than they seemed in 1945.
During the period when the United Nations charter was being drafted and signed some

of us were engaged in some rather bitter political infighting with the Canadian section of the communist party at the trade union level. The political realities of 1945 seemed very much what the political realities appear to be in 1955. I recall to mind only too vividly the feeling I had in my heart in 1945, that within ten years we would be in the sort of situation we are in today. I only hope that in 1965 our Department of External Affairs will not be turning out a general survey which says that realities have proved to be other than they seemed to be in 1955. This article goes on to say:
The unity of purpose among the designated great powers, which was a major premise of the charter, has proved to be a vain hope.
And again:
Nevertheless, though the division of the world into two major power groupings has continued and has so far defeated our expectations that the lessons of two world wars would smooth the path to the achievement of world peace . . . the United Nations has not diminished in importance. Rather, so long as its purposes remain our purposes and so long as it continues to afford the best, indeed the only near-universal, forum for multilateral discussion and negotiation, the need to retain and safeguard its position increases rather than lessens.
I would submit, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that from the very outset of the establishment of the United Nations and in the policies and attitudes adopted by various political groups in this and other countries of the western world it has not been recognized that if the United Nations is to have any real and practical value in the world of today then it has to be a universal forum.
The discussions that are taking place across the water today in reference to what has been termed a grave situation in the Formosa area would, it seems to me, have been carried on in a very different context if the principle that the United Nations should be a universal forum had been recognized at the outset, so that the question of the admission or otherwise of certain peoples to that forum would not have been determined by the political complexion of the governments in existence from time to time in those countries. Had that been the case we would not now be debating whether red China should or should not be invited to participate in a discussion which everyone agrees cannot be fruitful without her participation. In addition, we would not now be debating that issue had Canada and some other nations been willing to follow the lead offered by Great Britain in regard to the recognition of communist China, and followed through with her admission to a universal forum.
This defensive attitude, Mr. Speaker, is not enough. One of the lessons I learned very 50433-47
The Address-Mr. Barnett early in my experience in fighting the influence of communists and communism is that you do not get very far simply by calling them nasty names. We have to recognize that we cannot be content simply to be on the defensive and be pushed back all the time. We have to recognize that we have to be on the offensive and have to maintain that offensive consistently. We must never lose sight of the fact that the conflict in the world today is not one of arms or even atom bombs but a conflict of ideas for the loyalty and the hearts and minds and souls of great sections of humanity. The only way in which the western democracies are going to win this battle is by influencing the great masses of the people across the world that they recognize we have something better to offer.
I believe that is just as true in the realm of international affairs, in which I certainly do not consider myself an authority, as it is in the sort of dealings one has in a large industrial trade union. Unless you can offer leadership which is positive and dynamic and which holds forth a better program designed in the interests of those concerned, then you might as well give up the battle before you start. You might as well recognize that any sort of defences which can be devised in this context are going to prove futile and unavailing. So much, Mr. Speaker, for the defensive attitude on the international level.
What about the situation on the domestic level? The leader of this party introduced an amendment to the motion which is before us in which he suggested:
. . . that Your Excellency's advisers have deliberately returned to the policy of uncontrolled and unplanned private enterprise.. .and.. .have failed to undertake the economic planning necessary to cope with the serious problems now facing the Canadian people.
Actually that is a very kind amendment as far as the government is concerned because it assumes that at one time the government did have some idea of adopting a positive program which would involve the necessary economic planning. I suppose it is based upon the assumption that the proposals set forth in the green book in 1945 and enunciated in the first flush of post-war enthusiasm were seriously in the mind of the government at that time. But the amendment points out what is only too evident, that since the first flush of post-war enthusiasm died away the government more and more seems to be returning to an acceptance of uncontrolled free enterprise; that more and more the sense of unity and cohesion in a common purpose which characterized the war efforts of this country has faded away; that more and more


Mr. H. A. Hosking (Wellington South):: In
taking part in the debate on the speech from the throne I should like first to welcome and congratulate the mover (Mr. Leduc) and seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. All hon. members will agree that they performed their task in the fine manner to which we have become accustomed, continuing the tradition to which we look with expectation at each opening of parliament.
As a member of parliament and one who is intensely proud of the British Empire, I feel I should pay my respects to that great statesman, Sir Anthony Eden, for the honour he has brought to the commonwealth. As a Canadian, and particularly as a veteran, I shared with most citizens of this country the deep concern which all of us felt at the breakdown of the European defence community arrangement. I am sure I am expressing the feelings of most Canadians when I say that Sir Anthony Eden was primarily responsible for the happy conclusion that has eventually been reached with regard to the relationships of the free nations in western Europe and the North American continent. His knighthood was a fitting tribute, and was approved by all free people regardless of national background. The new agreement which he sponsored recognizing Germany is

The Address-Mr. Hosking
possibly the most important event that has taken place since the last session of parliament.
Another important event taking place is the meeting at Geneva on the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which everyone has learned to recognize as GATT. Our representative, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), should be commended for the job he did during the opening sessions in trying to promote trade. Everyone knows that next to Great Britain, Canada has the largest export problem of any of the important trading nations. In 1953 our gross national productivity was $24-3 billion. We exported $4-1 billion or 16-9 per cent of our production. In 1954 our gross national productivity was $23 [DOT] 9 billion. We exported $3 [DOT] 9 billion or 16-3 per cent of our production. Thus we see that the decline of [DOT] 6 per cent in export trade was felt right across the nation, causing a slight decline in employment.
Let us compare our exports with those of that great self-contained nation to our south. In 1953 they exported 4-3 per cent of their gross national productivity. Thus in order for us to live and maintain our high economy, external trade is almost four times as important to us as it is to the people of the United States. It is no wonder that the minister says our welfare depends on our ability to trade, and that he is out making agreements to stimulate that trade.
The farmers of this country have always recognized the value of freer trade. A great deal of the food they produce has to be exported at prices competitive with other countries. Thus they have always approved this government's policy of allowing them to buy commodities necessary for the agricultural industry, free of tariffs. They should view with alarm anyone who does not support this policy or who is being critical of it, because it represents their very lifeblood. The labouring people of this country should stop and think about who buys the commodities which they produce. About 83 [DOT] 7 per cent of the national production of this country is used in Canada. Since the farming section uses one-third of that, they need to make every effort to see that this home market is not disturbed or unemployment might follow.
Then, too, we should remember that Canada is a growing country and trade is our lifeblood. I can remember when the United States had a population of only 65 million, at which time our population was 7-5 million. Today the population of the United States has been increased by 100 million and ours has been doubled. Everyone agrees that our natural resources are comparable to

theirs, and that today we are facing a growth similar to that which the United States experienced 40 years ago. Unless we make mistakes our people have every right to expect a long period of opportunity. We are indebted to our Minister of Trade and Commerce for the effort he is making to ensure that this will happen.
It has been suggested by the opposition that we should be processing more of our natural resources before they are exported. If this could be done it would mean more employment, and that is a policy with which I could not agree more. Let us look to the record on this matter to see what the Liberal party has done and is doing to bring this about.
In 1953, 32 per cent of everything we exported went out as raw materials. The best example of this would be wheat. Everyone knows how difficult it would be to export bread, which would be one example of a manufactured product of wheat. The transportation and handling charges would be prohibitive. Twenty-nine per cent went out in semi-manufactured form, including paper, nickel, copper and the like. In this field we can show marked improvement, if we have the capital investment to build the plants to process these materials. The largest proportion of our exports, 39 per cent, was fully manufactured. That is not a bad record for a country which has doubled its national productivity in the last seven years. No other country in the world can boast of such a record. Let us continue to make every effort to increase our trade, which is an effective means of increasing employment.
Let us take a look for just a moment, Mr. Speaker, at how this wonderful record has been built up. The Liberal government's sound fiscal policy of a balanced budget during the prosperous years since the war has attracted to this country large capital investments. The larger these investments are, the more we will process our exports before they leave this country, because this supplies the means for the processing. Everyone will agree that by balancing our budget and by showing a sound business policy to the world we have encouraged foreign and Canadian capital to be invested in Canada, which in time will help us to decrease more and more the percentage of raw materials exported. This will aid in employment and help to keep our workers busy.
In the remainder of this speech I wish to turn attention to my own riding, Mr. Speaker. I would deal for just a moment with the housing situation in Canada. Ever since I entered this parliament in 1949 I have supported and encouraged our government policy of assisting the building of homes. This has

been one of the major post-war problems we have had to face. I think it is now time, however, to take a second look at the situation before we promote the building of so many houses that they will become a glut on the market. It is possible that areas like Toronto, Hamilton and Ottawa may still be short of houses. If this is the case, then we should make every effort to assist in providing our citizens with the opportunity to own their own homes in any crowded area, if they have the facilities to purchase them. There are other areas where so many houses have been built that we are close to the saturation point.
Since I have been watching this situation very closely in my riding, I was amazed to learn of the recommendations which have been made by the provincial government to the dominion government with regard to the purchase of land in my riding on which could be built some 600 houses, as a government project. I would like through you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) to give a great deal of consideration to the position into which Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation might get our government. I understand it is to be one of those projects arranged between the province and the city, in which the federal government pays 75 per cent of the cost, the province 17 J per cent and the municipality 71 per cent, and managed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
We have one of these projects in Guelph now, known as Green Acres. Let us look at it for a moment. In 1951 we bought 273 lots, built houses on 70, and have offered for sale the remainder, most of which have been bought by contractors. By January 1 of this year only three houses had been built on these spare lots, though permits have been taken out to build houses on some 20 of the 200 remaining.
At that time I promoted and assisted in every way possible the completion of this project because I thought it was necessary. I think today it is time to take a second look before we embark upon another project of this kind, for two reasons. 1. Do we need 600 additional houses, most of which would be outside the city limits? 2. The people of Ontario will expect us to look carefully into any recommendations by the provincial government after their experience with road scandals. You know, Mr. Speaker, the provincial government of Ontario has had unfortunate incidents occur which would tend to undermine the public's confidence in their judgment and the honesty of their operations.
The Address-Mr. Hosking I would ask the minister to look into every recommendation by that government with the greatest of care.
I wish to thank the minister for calling to my attention the fact that the government of Ontario had recommended that we buy 165 acres of land, of which only approximately 65 acres are within the city limits of Guelph.
I should mention now that the city of Guelph found it necessary to double its size two years ago. When they made this expansion they took in hundreds of acres which are not built upon, leaving many fields within the city limits for future expansion. Now we have the provincial government recommending that we go out into the township again, which of necessity would cause the city to expropriate further land in order to service this property for a future housing development. Surely that is not necessary, with all this space available for building. I am informed by the city engineer that there are at least 2,000 vacant lots within the city limits which the city is prepared to service if and when it is necessary.
Let us look further into this deal. The province recommends to us that we jointly purchase this farm land-most of which is outside the city-at $650 an acre, or at a total price of some $107,000. I took the trouble to find in the registry office some information about this farm. It has been bought and sold several times, and the last sale price recorded in the registry office was at $17,500, in 1948.
Mr. Speaker, I would not expect the people of my riding who pay taxes ever to allow me to return to this house as their representative if without protest I permitted this type of operation to take place in that area. We happen to be blessed in my riding with the finest type of honest citizens to be found anywhere in Canada. Their principles are such that they would not condone this squandering of money in such a fashion. Certainly we want houses, but we want them built in an honest and proper way.
I would suggest to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that if this is a typical example of the methods of the provincial government in recommending housing programs to our government, we look with the greatest of care into every recommendation of theirs. I would never want it to be said that the dominion government had any part in such squandering of the taxpayers' money. I would not want it to be said that the dominion government was legally correct, but that its dealings were not ethical. Mr. Speaker, through you I would recommend to

The Address-Mr. Hosking the minister that before any agreement is made with the province, this project be held in abeyance until representatives of the city and our government, and I, can look into all the details.
I was particularly interested last year, Mr. Speaker, to hear from our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that he was considering setting up a Canada Council for the arts, letters and sciences as recommended in the Massey report. I was disappointed at the conclusion of the speech from the throne to realize that inadvertently it had been omitted and was not among the proposed legislation. I trust that this omission will soon be corrected by a suitable government bill.
When this bill is introduced I would like to recommend to this house a most suitable member for that council. Everyone knows that my riding is the home of a Canadian who has brought great honour to Canada in the cultural field. I refer to Dr. Edward Johnson, who not only has been outstanding as a singer with the Metropolitan Opera Company, but who also has had the business ability to act as general manager for that company. It should also be remembered that he holds an executive position at Toronto university, in the Royal Conservatory of Music. Thus in Dr. Johnson we have an outstanding citizen with both a cultural and executive background, and I am certain he would be willing to give further of his efforts in any position which would benefit Canada's cultural growth.
This appointment would be very well received by citizens of the royal city for two reasons: one, he is a native son; two, he is now, in conjunction with a patriotic group of citizens, promoting the establishment of a civic symphony and choral group in Guelph. Canadians need to be encouraged to take part in cultural activities, and the proposed Canada Council would give leadership in this direction.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, through you, I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Public Works the need for a new public building in Guelph. As I have said before, the city doubled its size two years ago. This was necessary because during the last few years we have been one of the fastest growing cities in Canada. Guelph literally burst at the seams, and this situation is carried over to our public buildings. We now have offices in four separate buildings in the city, which is not a very efficient way to carry out the dominion government's work.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to look into the economies which would be effected by such a new

building; and I know, now that this situation has been brought to his attention, that as soon as the money is available we will have the building in Guelph which is so badly needed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Henry Alfred Hosking: Mr. Speaker, I have just one more point which I felt should be made and which I did not have time to make before the house adjourned for dinner. The whip of our party has suggested that we on this side of the house should limit our speeches to something under 20 minutes. As I treat his wishes as I treated those of my colonel, as a command, I shall try to conclude my speech in the next few minutes.
I should like to say, through you, to the members of this house and to all citizens of Canada that all the opposition parties have done great damage to the farmers of this country through the lengthy questions and debate in connection with the butter situation. Throughout the country among those who buy butter the feeling has been created that our country is loaded down with stale butter. By their continual harping on this question I am certain many people have been led to believe that it would be better if they did not buy butter at this time.
I can remember, when the foot-and-mouth disease was being discussed in this house, going home and finding that for the first time since I was married we did not have a roast of beef on the table for our Sunday dinner. I just could not believe it, because I knew my wife felt that at a Sunday dinner we should have a choice cut of beef. We had a nice roast of pork, and I jokingly asked what was wrong with beef. My wife replied that with all the talk of foot-and-mouth disease she did not think we should be eating beef. I laughed and said, "You know that pork has the same trouble as beef with regard to foot-and-mouth disease." When I came home at the end of the following week after there had been a further debate in this house I found that we were having chicken for dinner.
I do not think my wife is different from any other housewife in the country. If she was influenced by the controversy that went on in this house regarding an agricultural product, then I think great damage is being done to our farmers by the present controversy over butter sales that is going on at this time. I should like to suggest through

you to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that he make a statement to the house that we have the finest butter for sale, that it is in excellent condition, that we will have no stale butter to put on the market. We will then have the public of this country buying the best food they possibly can buy.


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, like all other hon. members who have taken part in this debate I wish to congratulate not only the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, but all those who have taken part in this debate. I think it is the privilege and duty of every hon. member who feels he has something to contribute to get up and make a speech.
I represent perhaps the best riding in Canada. The people of my riding are certainly the most intelligent in Canada. I rise tonight to make a personal protest against the importation of New Zealand cheese at a time when we have a surplus in Canada. I make this protest because of the pressure which has been brought to bear on me by my constituents, and the cheese producers and dairymen in my county. They have expressed dissatisfaction at the importation of cheese at a time when we have a surplus of 10 million pounds or more.
The cheese producers of Canada deserve better treatment from the government. During the past two years they have done their best to help themselves. They have relieved the government of the necessity of paying a subsidy on their product. They set up the necessary machinery to look after the sale of their product. Now they feel that the government has let them down. If this cheap New Zealand cheese was going to benefit the consumers of Canada it would not look so bad, but such is not the case. The processors who are importing this cheese are the only people who will receive any benefit. I understand that this cheese will be sold not as New Zealand cheese but as processed cheese, and at a straight profit of 5 cents per pound over Canadian cheese. Five cents per pound for 2-25 million pounds amounts to $110,000 which is a sizeable benefit for one organization.
One wonders sometimes where the nigger is in the woodpile. Farmers, especially dairymen who have tried to assume responsibility for their product by taking it out of the government's hands and doing a better job than the government in getting rid of their surpluses, now find that a quantity of cheese is being imported to disrupt the Canadian market. We just do not understand these things; we do not know what are the answers.
The farmer sometimes gets blamed for the high cost of food, but he is not responsible for
The Address-Mr. Cardiff the spread between the price he receives and what the consumer pays. Take eggs as an example. The government put a floor of 38 cents under eggs not so long ago, but what do we find? We find the farmer getting 26 to 28 cents for his eggs. If we are going to have a floor price why not give the benefit to the producer rather than to the retailer, or the middleman who steps in and takes all the profit out of it? If the government are going to interfere they should interfere right down the line and see that the producer gets his fair share of the price his eggs bring on the market.
Prices of farm products have dropped 13 per cent over the past two years on the overall cash production, with the price of some articles dropping as much as 40 per cent. Yet we find that the prices of the necessary things the farmer has to buy have gone up. I know of no government which can balance an economy with one important group of the population being imposed upon. I contend that the responsibility of the government is to find a remedy. Just the other day a carload of lamb was dumped on the Canadian market. Perhaps these things cannot be avoided; but when our farmers are getting such a small proportion of the national income, much less than is rightly theirs, I think it is time the government took some steps to protect their industry. It is not protecting their industry by permitting the dumping of quantities of food on our market when we cannot get rid of what we have.
I should like for a few minutes to refer to the great loss of life and property through "Hurricane Hazel". We all felt very sorry for those who suffered loss and destruction, but there were other parts of the country where loss was sustained through storm and wet weather. The bean growers of my county lost many thousands of dollars because they were not able to harvest their beans. Losses as high as $10,000 were incurred by single farmers, yet you did not hear very much about it. "Hurricane Hazel" hit certain portions of the country and damaged property, but it also showered rain on a great part of western Ontario. The land w7as so wet all fall that people were unable to harvest their crops. Many growers in my part of the country never got in their beans at all. Some were earlier and were more fortunate in getting some of them off, but in many places the beans were never harvested. We did not hear very much about it; we heard little complaint.
The losses they suffered were almost unbearable. They lost not only the crop but the cost of planting and cultivating it prior to harvesting. In many places this almost ruined some of the younger farmers who had
744	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Cardiff just started up. The older men who have been in business for some years do not perhaps deserve the same degree of pity, but the younger men do not quite know what to do with themselves. They cannot meet their responsibilities, and the fact is that they will have to wait a full year before they can redeem themselves. They have not asked for government support nor do they expect any, but in many places there was as much loss, apart from loss of life, as was suffered during "Hurricane Hazel".
Much has been said about the question of unemployment, and I believe a great deal of that must be the responsibility of the government. Two years ago I drew the attention of the then minister of citizenship and immigration to the fact that a great number of immigrants were coming into this country who were supposed to work on farms, but after they arrived here they stayed a short time on the farms before migrating into industry in the towns and cities of this country. The farmers could have employed that labour and would, but for certain reasons, still be able to do so.
I emphasize the fact that those fellows had no intention of staying on the land. According to regulations they were supposed to remain on the land for 12 months after their arrival in Canada, but some stayed less than two weeks. It is my contention that if the policy had been changed and the regulation had specified that these immigrants would have to stay on the land two or three years, then many who did not intend to work on the farm at all would never have come here in the first place. Then we would not now have them on relief.
The government also could have helped to avoid the present unemployment situation by insisting that no one be allowed here unless he or she had a job. This, combined with firmer regulations as regards the land, might well have resulted in thousands upon thousands of farmers being able to absorb a greater labour force. The fact that the farmer is not getting his fair share of the national income and is not getting sufficient for his products has meant that he has been priced out of the labour market and cannot afford to employ assistance at the prevailing rates of wages. The result has been that the farmers have been compelled to carry on without that much-needed assistance and some of them, 60 years of age and over, are trying to farm 100 acres of land without assistance.
It seems to me regrettable that in a country where there are thousands of unemployed the farmers cannot get any help. Some might ask themselves why they should go to work on the land for 12 or 15 hours a day when
'Mr. Cardiff.]

they could work in industry for $1.50 or $2 an hour, and they may have some justification for doing so. But after all, if they have no jobs the money stops coming in, and they start getting hungry. Then I think they will find that working on the land is not quite so bad after all. As I have already said, farmers could absorb thousands of these men providing they could be hired at reasonable rates of pay.
High taxation is another reason we have so much unemployment. This government has taxed industrialists out of business in some places, for their taxes are so high they have no cushion left to enable them to keep men employed in industry for any reasonable length of time, with the result that these men are added to the growing number of unemployed. If taxes were not so high and industrialists were allowed to accumulate some surplus for a rainy day I think we would find that many of these men would be kept at work. The fact that they are not is again the fault of the government.
The government must also take responsibility for high wages. I can remember, as no doubt most hon. members can, that when the war broke out we drafted men into the army at $1.29 a day. But when munitions plants were set up and started working at full blast the government found they had to assist in the running of such plants, and advertised for men at twice or three times the pay the soldier was receiving, instead of drafting them into the plants as other men were drafted into the forces. This policy started the spiral of high wages which has been continued ever since, until we now find ourselves in a very difficult situation. That is another reason we have unemployment. I might say in all fairness that when everything goes well the government is fine, but when everything goes in reverse the government gets the blame, and sometimes they deserve it.
Before closing I want to express the hope that when the government submits amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act, designed to raise the basic rates as well as the ceiling of permissible income of recipients of allowances, these men will receive not less than the Canadian Legion has requested from time to time over the past few years. In my opinion ex-servicemen are fine citizens, and should receive much more consideration than they have in the past. I for one hope that this time they will be properly looked after.


Mr. H. P. Mang (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to offer a few words in this debate I am quite conscious that we are nearing its close and that therefore if I should attempt to use all the notes I have in front of me it

would be a very fine method of becoming unpopular in this house. Not that I want to become popular, but I have some respect for your listening powers; therefore I am not going to tax them for any length of time.
Before making my few remarks I think I would be lacking in courtesy if I did not extend congratulations to the newly-elected members of this house. In particular I want to congratulate the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I wish to do so for a particular reason and not merely as a matter of courtesy, for I think I should express my personal satisfaction at the prospect of sitting in the company of two such fine gentlemen on this side of the house.
I seemed to sense in their remarks that they were sitting on this side of the house for certain reasons having to do with the principles underlying the party which they represent. After all it is the principles upon which a party is built that are the important things. It is not the party that is the most important thing in our political set-up, but the principles upon which that party is built. The political party is merely the instrument through which certain principles are applied to the conduct of the affairs of the country. I congratulate them most warmly because I feel that they are men who will help to make the Liberal party live for a long time and be the government of this country for quite some time to come.
As this will be, I think, the only appropriate opportunity to tell the house something about the constituency of Qu'Appelle, perhaps I may tax your patience for a few moments while I introduce you to that pioneer constituency of Saskatchewan. It extends from the city of Regina to the Manitoba boundary south of the beautiful Qu'Appelle valley, and comprises some 6 million acres with a population of about 40,000. Through it runs the original line of the Canadian Pacific Railway and also the trans-Canada highway. Because it is the area where the first main line across Canada, that of the C.P.R., was built, it is the pioneer agricultural area of the province. The first large-scale shipments out of that area were made from the town of Indian Head in Qu'Appelle constituency.
Because of the location of the C.P.R. the first settlers were those who pushed into that wheat-growing country from Manitoba, but later came the pioneers from Ontario. We have a great many MacPhersons, Macdonalds and MacDougalls, all kinds of "Macs", along that line, and Saskatchewan had its beginnings in that particular area. After the 50433-48
The Address-Mr. Mang region around the main line was settled as a result of the building of the railroad the great immigration policy, so dramatically dealt with this afternoon by the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene), resulted in a great flood of immigrants in the seventies, eighties and nineties settling some 20, 30, 40 and even 50 miles from the main line. They came from all over Europe. We have Scandinavians. There is a place called New Finland. We have people from southeastern Europe, a great many from the Volga river basin in Russia, people from Hungary and practically every part of Europe.
At this point I want to give voice to a sentiment which I have often hoped I would be able to express. With this great influx of people from all parts of Europe the greatest Canadianizing influence was derived not from the laws of the country or the different political set-up here, but from the Cana-dianism taught them by the pioneers from Ontario who had settled along the main line. They accepted them and called them by name, sometimes "Big Jim" or "Black Joe" and so on because the European names were unpronounceable. They learned from this British stock what it meant to be a Canadian. From the way the implement dealer dealt with those people, giving them a good or a bad deal, they learned how life in Canada would be of benefit to them.
Qu'Appelle is also a constituency which has had its celebrities. It is the birthplace of General McNaughton, the great scientist and soldier. He was born at Moosomin, where his father's store is still in operation. The first native-born lieutenant governor of the province of Saskatchewan, Lieutenant Governor Patterson, was also born in Qu'Appelle constituency. We also have Father Murray's Notre Dame college south of Regina, which has become internationally known. I could name many more people. We have had our Olympic champions and have produced other personalities. Perhaps some of you will remember that the constituency was at one time represented by the late Ernie Perley who for so many years sat as Conservative member for Qu'Appelle in this house, and a grand fighter for the west he was.
Then too we have some 18 branches of the Legion. Last year I was privileged to attend the opening of the armouries in the town of Grenfell by the Hon. Brooke Claxton, then minister of national defence, and we were told then that the town of Grenfell holds the record for the greatest percentage of voluntary enlistments in all wars since the Boer war. It had the greatest percentage of voluntary enlistments in the Boer war, the first world war and the second world war. The town is therefore most deserving of the

The Address-Mr. Mang armouries, and we want to express our appreciation to the department for assisting in the construction of that building.
Farming conditions last year in that great cattle and grain producing area were not good. We were hit by rust, as were other portions of the province. Where the year before we had 20, 30, 40 or 50 bushels to the acre, this year we had 2, 3, 4, or 5. In the eastern part of the constituency there was a very poor crop. A good deal of the land was flooded out after some 40 inches of rain, something that is almost inconceivable on the prairies.
Conditions are not too good. We have in that area-and I mention this for a particular reason

a drainage problem with which we hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who has control of P.F.R.A., will assist us. The precipitation was so great there this year that water which should have drained into the Pipestone river to the south actually changed its course and flowed into the Qu'Appelle river to the north. This resulted in the flooding of municipal roads and many thousands of acres of land in that area.
As the member for Qu'Appelle I do want to express our appreciation of the work done under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act under the direction of the Minister of Agriculture and Dr. Thomson. Last year a dam was completed on the Pipestone river which will create a lake some nine miles long. This will help with the drainage problems and alleviate the flooding in the Souris valley. It will provide also a water level for the many wells that this stock-producing area needs so much. We want to express our appreciation for that undertaking. I hope that next summer when some of you go along the trans-Canada highway you will stop off at Mooso-min, go nine miles south and see some of the work the P.F.R.A. is doing in the west.
The speech from the throne contains many features, most of which have been dealt with rather thoroughly. I find that some people have dealt with features which they claimed were not in that speech. However, it is only to be expected that there would be differences of opinion expressed in this house. What interested me particularly in the speech from the throne was the recognition of the definite influence the western economy has upon the national economy as a whole. The total production of the country this year has suffered in proportion to the smaller crop in western Canada. This reflects to a definite degree the important place of the west in our national economy.

The Address-Mr. Mang responsibility could not be placed upon the government, but rather that all these groups must accept a share of it.
What do we see today? In western Canada, as well as other parts of the country, agriculture is being asked to reduce its wages. Let us keep in mind that we from western Canada have had to take a reduction in the price of our wheat, not because we wanted to but because we had to if we were going to trade in the highly competitive markets of the world.
On the other hand what do we see in respect of labour? In this evening's paper I see where a group is asking for more wages and shorter hours, and with greater benefits all the way around. How the agricultural community in this country can stay in business in the face of the high wages received by those who build their combines, motorcars, trucks and their other machinery of production, it is difficult to see. I believe these other groups to whom I have referred will have to do some very hard thinking on their own. It is not just a matter of coming to the government and saying, "Here is our problem; you solve it."
I do not know how many more Ford cars and trucks are going to be sold in western Canada as a result of the wage rates obtained recently. But the fact remains that while the rate of agricultural income has been going down-and some people say it has decreased as much as 12 per cent in the last few years- the production costs of certain industrial concerns has been going up. As a matter of fact a few business combines have been disclosed-and I am not now referring to the combine used in harvesting grain. The situation disclosed demands the full co-operation and consideration of all.
Last winter I received a delegation from the farm machinery association; and when discussing the matter they tried to make the point to me, a western farmer, that if we would only be satisfied with lower prices for our wheat and other grains we would be able to sell more of them and thus obtain more money to buy their machinery. I said, "Well, how can this thing work if you are constantly asking for more and we are supposed to take less for our grain?"


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Will the hon. member give the name of the petitioners who made the request to him that western farmers take a smaller net return for their grain? Will he name the labour union that he said represented the workers-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Henry Philip Mang: It was a point that came up in the discussion. I do not just remember the names.


Edward George McCullough: It is
not right.


Henry Philip Mang: Well, I would not say that. I can check it. I will talk it over with the hon. gentleman because, among other things,
I think I can straighten him out in his thinking in that regard.


Mr. Noseworthy:: You made the charge. Substantiate it.


Henry Philip Mang: I shall look it up; I shall get the details, but it came out of the discussion. It may not have been a responsible individual, but the idea was-


Edward George McCullough: You are
wrong.


Henry Philip Mang: You say I am wrong; I say I am right. The idea was that we should sell our grain so that they would be able to sell more of their machinery. It cannot be denied that in western Canada today we are short of cash. A lot of other people in other parts of Canada are also short of cash, but that does not mean the western farmer is broke. We have grown billions of bushels of grain. For that grain we have received billions of dollars. What have we done with them? We have paid off mortgages; we have improved our farms; we have bought combines, cars, trucks and we have even gone into rural electrification. When you ask "Where is all your money?" I reply that a great part of it is in Oshawa, in Windsor, in Toronto, in Montreal and in Hamilton. I am not saying that it should not be there, because those people were good enough to make for us all those assets that we now have on our farms.
These things should be kept in mind. I am not expressing it adequately, I know, but you can charge that up to my inexperience. The point I am trying to make is that we should not in this house or even in the country keep on asking the government to reduce taxes because they are one of the causes of unemployment. We should not be asking the government to pay subsidies all the way down the line, though the pressure for subsidization is beginning to grow even in western Canada in one way or another. The two do not go together. How can you raise subsidies and social benefits which are costing us today $1,250 million? How are you going to do all that if we do not have taxes? To me it is a very peculiar way of approaching the economic problem which faces Canada today to say in the one breath, reduce taxes and in the

other, increase all these government services. To me it just does not add up, and when the Canadian public realize it they will come to the same conclusion.
There is confusion in the country today. These various groups in our country should examine their position with regard to world markets. They should co-operate with each other. I said to the farmers' union the other day, "You should be meeting with the government, but you should also meet with the two large labour unions and thresh out the problems as you are trying to thresh them out with us."


Mr. Ellis:: They are doing that now.


Henry Philip Mang: It is no use for one group to operate one way and another group another way. If we are to have and maintain a unified country and a high standard of living, then we had better have a royal commission. It would be a good thing to appoint a royal commission to investigate the whole Canadian trade position, both in the export and the domestic markets. This investigation should determine the relative cost factors in the Canadian economy which create a high production cost level. It should report on the relative influence on the high cost of production level in Canada, first, of company profits; second, investors' returns; third, labour costs; fourth, transportation costs and fifth, taxation. If we had a royal commission we would get away from these "black is white" and "white is black" statements. Hon. members know what I mean. Too many statements are being made today that are confusing the public. If a royal commission did what I have outlined it would bring all these groups together and we would be able to get somewhere.
At the present time our government is doing everything possible along that line. Our government realizes that we must have international markets. We should give credit to our government for being in the forefront of the battle for freer international markets. All these factors are involved. Let me emphasize that it is not just the responsibility of the government. I want a royal commission appointed to show where every group in the Canadian economic picture fits in. It is only by that co-operation that we can get anywhere.
In conclusion I want to congratulate the government on its efforts toward world peace. I read in the newspapers today about the meeting of the prime ministers in London. They represent 585 million people. Of those 585 million people our delegation represents 15 million. I was struck with the
The Address-Mr. McBain fact that, compared with the size of our population, our influence in world affairs is tremendous. That is something of which we should be proud.
We are on the brink of very important decisions. I do not think international relations will deteriorate to the point where we shall have a thermonuclear war, which could only mean the destruction of civilization as we know it. We must realize that unless peace is established we shall not have very much to worry about in this or any other parliament. We must realize that we are living in an era when, unless we have world peace, we shall all be doomed. We can only have world peace by establishing trust in the world.
That is our difficulty today. One of our difficulties in discussing the protocol last week was that we did not trust those people with whom we are associated. As soon as you establish trust in the world you will have peace, and you will not have it any sooner. I hope the government will continue to press forward, on the economic front and on the world peace front, in the direction they are pointing. When that goal is achieved we shall have the prosperity and peace that we all desire so much.


Mr. James A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this throne speech debate I, as one of the comparatively new members of this house, feel like various other hon. members who have so ably spoken before me and expressed the view that much has been said already in this debate. May I also extend my congratulations to the hon. members who have expressed themselves in moving and seconding this motion.
As this is the first session at which I as a member have had an opportunity to express my opinion and offer suggestions to this house during the throne speech debate it will be my desire to follow the path set by other hon. members. Being born of Scotch ancestors, as my name would indicate, and as my forefathers from the highlands of Scotland were known for their thrift and saving habits, I shall endeavour to do what other hon. members have endeavoured to do at this session, that is make my remarks as brief as possible and thus save the time of this house.
The constituency of Elgin which I have the honour to represent is steeped in history, as are many other ridings in this part of Ontario. The name Elgin was chosen in honour of the late Earl of Elgin, the grandfather of the present Earl of Elgin who periodically pays visits to his namesake county. The hon. member for London (Mr. Mitchell) extended an

The Address-Mr. McBain invitation to hon. members to join in the celebration of their centennial anniversary, but I cannot do the same since Elgin celebrated its centennial in 1952.
I represent a riding which is partly rural and partly urban. The rural areas are engaged in many phases of agriculture, such as livestock production, both dairy and beef, fodder corn, soybeans, white and yellow-eyed beans, potatoes, sugar beets and flue-cured tobacco. Elgin orchards are known for the fine quality of apples they produce, and as proof of their high quality they recently were awarded the horticultural trophy at the Royal winter fair.
St. Thomas is known as the railroad city of Canada by reason of the fact that within its boundaries are some six railways, namely Canadian National Railways, Wabash, Michigan Central-known as the New York Central in the United States-Canadian Pacific, Chesapeake and Ohio and the London and Port Stanley, an electrified road.
During the expansion of railroads in Canada these numerous railways operating through the riding of Elgin established repair shops in St. Thomas which gave employment to several hundred people, and at the peak employment was well over the thousand mark. Today the situation is vastly changed due to many factors. In my opinion one of the main factors is the almost complete dieselization of three of these railroads. These three were American-owned roads, and they found it more economical to haul longer trains from border to border across western Ontario without the necessity of stopping at St. Thomas to have the engines and trains serviced and repaired.
This resulted over a period of years in the almost complete shutdown of the repair shops in St. Thomas. This in turn forced the railways to release many men who had long years of service and in many instances were very near the pensionable age. They were forced to seek employment in other lines of industry. I have a brief presented and signed by the committee chairman of practically all the railway committees in St. Thomas. This has to do with a clause deleted some years ago from the contract forms, to which the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stanton) has already referred. I should like to read into the record a few of the clauses in this contract form which the employees wish to have reinstated:
Individually and collectively, we the railway employees of St. Thomas hold a very dim view of the action of the government in the deletion from its public contracts in the departments of public works and transport of certain clauses which give to the railways and their employees a measure of well-merited protection. In the past the government has, through the operation of the departments of public works and transport, recognized the merits of the claims of all the railways in Canada by Inserting in the specifications of contracts involving
fMr. McBain.]
the transport of goods and equipment. In 1934 the minister of public works inserted in the contract forms in the Department of Public Works the following clause:
"Transportation of material and plant:- All material and plant used in connection with the execution of this contract must be transported over railways operating in Canada, or waterways, to the greatest possible extent."
We feel that this action was sound, just, fair and worthy of the highest commendation. The Department of Transport construction contract forms contained a similar clause except that the transportation of goods and materials was directed over Canadian National Railways, which should have been amended to include all agencies of transportation under the jurisdiction and control of the federal government. It is with keen regret that we have learned that the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport have caused the deletion of the above-mentioned clauses from their contract forms directing the movement of goods and materials. This action will unquestionably deprive the railways of much valuable traffic they formerly enjoyed and, with the passing of jurisdiction, the railways will continue to be subject to government regulations and control which will not be applicable to the highway competitor.
Therefore I submit that in the interests of all railway employees across Canada this clause should be restored to the contract forms of the departments of public works and transport. I can see no objection to having the clause revised to include all transport agencies operated by or under the control of the government of Canada.
Elgin produces, as I have mentioned, many kinds of cash crops, and I just wish to note a few of them and the value they represent to the riding. The cash value of production in 1953 was as follows: Grain corn, $2,081,900; soybeans, $1,013,700; potatoes, $232,800; fodder corn, $542,600.
Elgin is the second largest flue-cured tobacco producing county in Ontario. Last year over 24,000 acres of this type of tobacco were grown in Elgin, approximately one-fifth of the entire acreage for Ontario. As in many other counties, tobacco acreage was substantially increased in 1954. In 1927 only 500 acres were grown in our county, while by 1937 this had increased to 7,229 acres, which had again expanded to 21,476 acres in 1950. Today flue-cured tobacco is the largest cash crop of this county. The gross returns from this crop in Elgin county for 1954 can be estimated at approximately $15 million. In Ontario and Quebec the flue-cured tobacco acreage amounts to around 120,000 acres, producing in 1954 some 170 million pounds of tobacco. Of this larger than average crop less than 8 million pounds remain to be purchased from the grower.
This crop is processed by the tobacco plants during the winter months, and at the present time the Imperial Leaf Tobacco Company at Aylmer gives employment to between 700 and

800 persons, operating 24 hours a day, alleviating to some extent the seasonable unemployment situation in this district.
By this I do not mean that we do not have unemployment at the present time, for we have over 700 registered unemployed at the office in St. Thomas and I know there are many others who do not register, who are temporarily unemployed and cannot collect unemployment insurance.
I am very glad to note that in the estimates $100,000 is being revoted for a new post office and public building in St. Thomas; but I regret, and I know many of my constituents regret also, that no additional funds are provided in the 1955-56 estimates. This is a building that has been needed for a great number of years. I know the employees of this postal department strive to give the very best service possible, but owing to their very cramped quarters and outmoded methods by reason of lack of space, they find it very difficult to give the service they would wish to give. Therefore I ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) to give his utmost consideration to making a start on this new building this year. This project would give some relief to the unemployment situation in the area and assure the constituents of St. Thomas that they are at long last going to have a new post office and public building, not just some election propaganda.
Before I endeavour to turn to a few of the problems of agriculture, as I see them, I wish to refer to a petition I have in my hand. This is from the cheese producers in Elgin county, protesting the importation of New Zealand cheese. It is signed by practically 100 per cent of our cheese producers, and also by the heads of the dairy production industry and various other organizations in the county of Elgin. The news that 2,250,000 pounds of cheap New Zealand cheese was on its way to Canadian markets came as a distinct shock to Canadian farmers, especially to those in the dairy industry.
Several hon. members have already spoken in this house on this importation, and we have received the reply from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that no more shipments of this cheese will come to Canada for at least six months. It is my opinion that other companies which are in the cheese processing business will be seeking cheaper cheese; therefore I can assure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce that similar petitions will be sent to them if they have not already received some. I will also see that they receive the petition I have in my hand.
The Address-Mr. McBain
Agriculture is the oldest profession, for it began when Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden of Eden; the other profession did not begin until at least one more woman entered the world. It should be remembered that both these professions sprang from two fundamental urges of man, the necessity to eat and the urge to propagate, whether illegitimately, indiscriminately or otherwise, since to exist at all man must eat, and to ensure his continuance on this earth he must propagate.
There are still many things in the realm of agriculture we do not understand. As we discover new laws and facts and gradually penetrate the fog of mystery we make strides toward improving the conditions of the human race, its health, its happiness and its living standards, and also the possible realization of the hope of a continued peace. In this complex modern world peace and war are largely determined by the world's supply and distribution of food, raw materials, and markets. As the population of the world increases at the rate of over 25 persons a minute the food sources in many countries appear to diminish. Food, therefore, becomes a dominant factor.
During the debate we have heard the word "surplus" mentioned many times, but I believe we should not be misled by such references. For a thousand years there has been no real surplus of food produced on the farms of the world, but there has been poor and inefficient distribution, added to which there has been exploitation by the buyer causing higher prices for this distribution. This inefficient distribution, in addition to causing higher prices, creates artificial surpluses which have no reality in a world where half the people suffer all their lives from malnutrition and associated diseases, and where at least 500 million are born and die without ever having had enough to eat at least one day of their lives. Some farmers, pointing to accumulating surpluses of certain foodstuffs in Canada, and fearful of dropping prices, suggest a slow-up of production, but while half the world is hungry any overall curtailment of production looks like a shortsighted policy.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urgently request this government to consider ways and means of regaining and retaining a healthy economic position for agriculture, not necessarily through subsidies that postpone but do not correct, not through restrictions that stifle, but through sound policies designed to promote a freer movement of agricultural products within Canada and to the needy people
752	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. McBain of the world, and at the same time to institute policies which will provide adequate protection for our most important resource, the soil.
Canada is one of the few countries capable of producing foodstuffs to help feed the hungry peoples of the world. Our farmers are willing and anxious to do their part, but they cannot do the whole job without irreparable damage to the soil. We therefore look for national and provincial policies that will protect and conserve for continuing use our renewable natural resources. It is a strange paradox that we must, by law, pay all other debts ahead of our debt to the land, yet our debt to the land is more important than any other. Morally, and according to the laws of economics and nature, the payment of debt to the soil ranks first, because over the years only by maintaining a balance of soil fertility in nature's bank can we continue to pay all other debts. Legally, however, andi according to man-made laws which so often ignore the laws of nature, all other debts must be paid ahead of our debt to the soil. Indeed, our law permits us to borrow at will from nature's bank with no compulsion to repay the loan or even to pay interest. Of course, nature has her own penalties. Slowly but surely she withdraws credit from those who misuse her resources.
Let us turn back the pages of history to where once the Babylonian empire flourished. Let us take a look at the Gobi desert which has crowded millions of Mongolians into the corners of its once rich and fertile land. We well remember Rommel's advance and retreat across the Libyan desert during the last war over land that once fed the Roman empire. All these lost empires tell precisely the same story of vanishing forests, overgrazing, fertility losses, and finally erosion and loss of top soil. They all tell a story of man's failure to come to terms with nature. In every case nature withdrew her credit, and in every case the people starved or moved on to exploit new lands, and now there are no longer any important land areas left to exploit.
In Canada and the United States it is true that we are only in the early stages of exploitation. We still have a long way to go to achieve the complete destruction of the Romans. On the other hand we have only been working at it for a hundred years or so, while the Romans had a thousand years to achieve complete soil depletion. But it is now quite possible for us to wear out soil 10 times as fast as a generation ago, when only horsepower was available, and a hundred times faster than the Romans whose main power was that of their slaves and oxen, and their main tools the hoe and the wooden plow.


Fortunately there is a sunny side to this picture of the decline and fall of man-made civilizations. This same efficiency and technological advance that enables us to destroy soil so quickly also enables us to accomplish the almost miraculous in maintaining soil fertility at highly productive levels, in reviving tired, worn-out soils and even, on occasion, reclaiming deserts. More and more we are learning to look at the land as the major source of real wealth, and to farming as a high art. We are learning that while soil fertility is highly perishable it is also a renewable resource, and herein lies the art of good farming, namely how to extract a living from the soil in such a manner as to be able to pass on the farm to the next generation in a more fertile condition than that in which we found it.
What we need most for Canada is a readjustment of basic values so the dollar will once more be the servant of man, not his master. Half the world's population is hungry and needs our surplus food, but we have priced ourselves out of world markets. Over half our soils are hungry, but we have put such a high value on the services of labour, industry and commerce that there is seldom enough left over to feed the soil. The crux of the whole matter today is that our greatest natural resource, the soil, must subsist as best it can on the scraps left over from the banquets of our highly artificial way of life. This was the way of all vanished civilizations of the past, and we are travelling along the same road but at the speed of jet propulsion.
This is my plea to this government and its leaders in agriculture, not only in their own interests but in the interests of private citizens, that they make room for agriculture at the first table so that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren may not have to join the ranks of the half-fed.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that the government should give more consideration to aiming at a balanced economy by widespread recognition of the importance of conserving our natural resources, the most important of which is the soil, especially that valuable top six inches. It should also give more consideration to establishing a joint federal-provincial land use policy designed to perpetuate and improve our renewable resources, and to the further education and application of Christian principles at all levels among all peoples at home and abroad.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, the subamendment to the amendment I moved at the beginning of the debate on the speech from the throne is rather surprising. It was moved by those who said our amendment was already too

long, but in spite of that they moved a negative addition to it. It is negative because it proposes a philosophy of socialism that would make impossible the amendment I had already put forward. Therefore I feel it incumbent upon me to make a few observations about the subamendment at this stage of the debate.
I do not agree that private enterprise has done in the past what my socialist friends have intimated. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as one looks back over the history of this North American continent it would be very difficult to accept such a novel philosophy in this day and age. I would say to my friends on my left, who seem to believe in state ownership and government control, that all they need to do is look at this great young country and the North American continent itself to realize just how the reverse is true. Can anyone read the history of the progress of the North American continent, the greatest free enterprise continent in the world, and say that we are going backward and that industry, production and government are stifled by private enterprise? Why, Mr. Speaker, the historical facts stream past the eyes of the most stupid in Canada to show what really has happened.
In 1900 not one out of 100 of the urban people of the North American continent had a horse and buggy to ride from place to place. Yet today on this same continent, which has been such an outstanding example of free enterprise and initiative of the individual, we now have an automobile for every four people. Just imagine the difference.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


William Earl Rowe: Probably my hon. friend never even had a horse and buggy, by the sound of it. But, Mr. Speaker, to my mind that is evidence, and there is plenty of other evidence. During that 50 years we have had two hot wars and a cold one which is probably getting hotter than it should be right now. This North American continent participated in those two hot wars and did more in the four or five years of each of those wars than any socialist state in history did in 50 years previously. It was the free enterprise and the pioneering spirit of those boys who flew the Lancasters and manned the ships that crossed the English channel; it was the initiative and incentive born and bred into them that saved the day when old Britain stood almost alone in 1940. It was that spirit of enterprise that made our industries hum. Where would those industries have been had it not been for private enterprise in this country?
Yes, I am proud of the fact that I and the party I represent stand foursquare for private
The Address-Mr. Rowe enterprise. We are making no apology. My socialist friends to the left can call it what they wish. They can call it the capitalistic system or they can call it the profit system, though I am sure there are not many of them who like to work for no profit. The profit system is after all the very essence and lifeblood of the free enterprise system. We are all too timid, too chicken-hearted to say what we mean in politics these days. We are all too chicken-hearted to say that we believe in the profit system, that we believe in the capitalist system. That is what made this country so strong. If this country had not been quite so strong where would we be standing tonight, when the world does not understand anything but power in the negotiations that are going on?
No, Mr. Speaker, there is no other energizing force that has ever stirred human beings like reward based on results. Let us not kid ourselves. The spark of our whole free enterprise system is that there is a profit in thrift, a reasonable recompense for reasonable endeavour, and that competition is the life of trade. These are among the incentives that prompt the farmer to toil early in the morning and the business executive to study plans late into the night. These are the things that have made the country what it is. These are the principles that give employment. These are the principles that give national strength. These are the principles that make national character. We do not need to restrict free enterprise, Mr. Speaker. We do not need to apologize for the capitalistic system. We should be proud of it. It is the newest system.
My friends to the left are talking as if what they are putting forward is the newest system in the world, but it is the oldest and it has never worked any place. Rather than restriction we need more enterprise. We need more incentive for enterprise. We need more production. We need more gadgets, more tools, more capitalistic expenditures, more consumer goods, and they can be secured if we have sound economic policies.
As far as the labour unions are concerned, a system such as is suggested by my friends to the left, who pretend to be friends of labour, would leave labour in a futile position. Labour would never need to sit across the table from employers, for they would have nothing to talk about. Why, Mr. Speaker, the only way labour can bargain for real wages is by a system that stirs the inventive genius of people who will risk their capital and build plants to give people employment.
Yes, I know my friends would like to have a socialist state. They never ran anything before, but they believe they could run such

The Address-Mr. Rowe a state. They want a state, evidently, where everybody owns everything and nobody owns anything. They want a state where no one has any authority except the politician. You would have a situation where everybody would be going to the politicians or the government with an empty dinner pail in one hand and a state coupon for a government dole in the other.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the initiative and genius of our people must be given more incentive rather than less. It must if we ever hope to maintain and increase that dynamic leadership that stands behind our economy, if we are going to support the great structure of social services with their tremendous cost that has been established in this country, to say nothing of the great cost of defence.


An hon. Member:: Family allowances.


William Earl Rowe: We call that a social service. I do not know what you call it.


Mr. Knowles:: That is not what you called it in 1944.


William Earl Rowe: Oh, Mr. Speaker, we have no apologies to make to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) about 1944 or any other year in the history of our progress in this country. It is always interesting and amusing, in fact it is often more amusing than a picture show, to hear these men assert what they will do for this country when they know they have not a hope in heaven of ever assuming responsibility.
The progress that is necessary to keep those services going that we have already established and paid for out of the production of our people cannot be maintained by placing our economy under the shackles of government ownership and state control. History will show that our national progress is still in its infancy, although it has already been great under a private enterprise economy. Our people will not risk, and do not intend to risk, the folly of state ownership and control. The strength we have shown in meeting what we have met in the past was established under that very system. I do not think anyone who pauses to think about what might happen if some of these wild suggestions were put into practice would want to see that done.
If you place the economy of this country in shackles of that kind you are going to place every social service in the same kind of strait-jacket. Just as our economy would be curtailed and doomed if that happened, so would our social services. Those who want the social services most are usually the ones who have contributed the least. It is for that reason that I believe my hon. friends to the

left have lost all hope of ever being called upon to form a government. By reason of the nature of their socialistic philosophy, their theory of state ownership and control, they could never become a government in this free enterprise country. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, they are not even good in opposition because of their reckless advocacy of state ownership. Their only contribution to the political life of this country, to this free enterprise country, unconscious though it may be, is to perpetuate the life of this rather dead government that is in power.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now tell us what your contribution is.


William Earl Rowe: Now, Mr. Speaker, freedom of enterprise and political freedom go hand in hand. History has shown that neither can stand alone. Wherever they have fallen, freedom of religion has also tottered in slow, tragic succession. We talk about world peace, but can you imagine for a moment what it would be like if you built state controls and state monopolies? You would be pitting one state against another instead of encouraging world peace as you do under a sound economic policy of trade and fellowship. It is a wrong philosophy, Mr. Speaker, in every respect.
I am not going to give any more reasons than I have given, and my hon. friends can expect me to vote against their subamendment. I can assure you now that we on this side of the house have no intention of voting for any such economic folly. I know my friends-


Stanley Howard Knowles: So you will vote with the Liberals.


William Earl Rowe: You have voted with them oftener than I have. I am always interested, however, when I hear those from the other side of the house being so doubtful about our stand on this and that. When I noticed a lull and heard a whisper and looked at them, I found some of their faces were as long as a clock when we moved the amendment concerning health insurance. No, Mr. Speaker, even those to your right say, "Oh, it is a terrible thing." Even the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) twisted and squirmed-


Mr. Martin:: I have not said a thing to you.


William Earl Rowe: No, that is why I knew it bothered you. The minister was afraid to say anything. I am rather amused because we find these same gentlemen who are always trying to help us, the same element in both

classes of political society in this country, always condemning our leadership. They are always finding fault with our leader, not our leader who is absent-


Mr. Argue:: Just the acting leader.


William Earl Rowe: I know you do not like him either. I must say that from almost eveyy member on all sides of the house I have had messages of sympathy and good wishes for my absent leader, which I have passed on to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: Whether or not some hon. members would rather have me here than him- they are more afraid of him than they are of me-he is going to be back soon anyway. It is rather amusing to me that these same gentlemen find a peculiar objection to anything we might move. They seem to be afraid they might be hurt a little bit. Whenever we bring in something new they find the same objections they keep finding about our leadership. I have sat in this house now for well over a quarter of a century, and we never had an effective leader since I have been the member for Dufferin-Simcoe-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: He laughs best who laughs last; just hold on. We never had one as effective as our present leader-we have never had any leader that the same element in political society did not find fault with, just as they find fault when we suggest something on which they think they have a monopoly. It seems to me my socialist friends to the left think they have a monopoly on everything that is good for humankind. They are past masters at giving away somebody else's money. They have shown no indication of economic soundness on how to get the money.
Some of these large corporations that my hon. friends dislike so much pay the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris)-he does not keep it long because he spends it rapidly-about 50 per cent of everything they make. My hon. friends to the left are all the time talking about how much we can give away.
I have no apologies to make on behalf of this party for the last clause in our amendment. Surely it cannot be said to be too long, for those past masters in parliamentary procedure have added another paragraph to it and suggested we should adopt the whole thing. I know that Mr. Speaker has some doubts about it. I know there are some members in the house who think it is a little long. I know some would rather have several parts of it left out.
I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since you come from my own county, are a student
The Address-Mr. Rowe of parliamentary procedure. I would suggest to you that despite the fact Mr. Speaker has some doubts about it, you should make a careful study of the amendment. I submit that if the amendment reached from here to you it would not be too long in principle. We are not moving a motion to ask that something be done; we are asking for a recommendation.
I am glad, Mr. Speaker, to see the rules of the house being enforced.
I have said I have no apologies to make, and neither I have. May I remind those hon. members who do not understand the Conservative party as well as they think they do that as long ago as 1942 we had passed at our annual convention an exactly similar policy. And may I remind my friends across the way that we are ready to do something about it. Even though they passed their resolution in 1919, ours has grown more in 13 years than theirs has in 36 years. Now, this is nothing new.


An hon. Member:: Don't apologize.


William Earl Rowe: Oh, I am not apologizing. On the contrary, I am trying to apologize for you. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is nothing new when we suggest a policy such as this. It is nothing very spectacular. Surely my hon. friends who sit to your right, Mr. Speaker, those old champions of free enterprise, those old, dusty free traders of the one wing and high protectionists of the other wing, those men who all down through the years have brought far more spectacular things to parliament, will not say this is new. But the Liberal members have not said a word about it. What the Conservative party has said I will say now, that while we do not expect to come into power tomorrow, you would think the socialist members thought they wei e going to come into power tomorrow Certainly we can say that there is no alternative to the present government except this party.
But, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to worry the Minister of National Health and Welfare tonight.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Don't worry him too much.


William Earl Rowe: I like him, and since he has reduced he seems to be in such good health that I do not want to hurt him. My health is not so good tonight. I thought at one time I would not have to speak until tomorrow, and if I had waited until tomorrow perhaps I could have been better than I am tonight. But I do feel that I must make it clear that while some no doubt are worried as to what this will do, my hon. friends to your right do not expect that we will have the opportunity to put it into effect
756	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Rowe until after the next election, at least. But I assure you that it will not take us 36 years.
And, Mr. Speaker, when we do I assure you and my friends to my left that it is not going to be state medicine, or a socialistic plan. It is not going to interfere with the splendid services of the Blue Cross or other insurance plans.


Mr, Knowles:: Will it be compulsory?


William Earl Rowe: Oh, we will look after you fellows after a while. It will not be interference with the provinces, but it will be in co-operation with them.
There seems to be some confusion, but everyone knows that this party I have the honour temporarily to lead stands for the very opposite of state socialism. We do not believe in state medicine; but down through the years we have just as much to our credit in the matter of social welfare and social services as any party in this country. We do not take second place to anyone in that regard. I have just as many friends among the labour movement; in fact I have more friends among the labour movement than I have among you fellows who champion it. And I have just as much concern as anybody in this house over the man who lives by the side of the road, who works hard and toils into the night to keep his family, and who shudders at the very thought of hospitalization. Our aim is to provide for those men who have not had a chance to protect themselves. And it is just as important to have a careful plan of that kind-careful, sound, successful and more or less non-political assistance-as it is to give-


Mr. Maclnnis:: More or less.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend would not understand that. He would only understand "more".


Donald MacInnis: I did not understand "more or less".


William Earl Rowe: Well, I cannot help it if my hon. friend is slow in understanding these things. I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the house-


An hon. Member:: Eleven minutes to go.


Mrs. Fairclough:: And all day tomorrow.


William Earl Rowe: Well, perhaps my hon. friend would be satisfied with 11 minutes. However, Mr. Speaker, the members of our present government, those who are responsible for the management of our affairs, claim to be the champions of private enterprise. They are the other private enterprise party. They are the other traditional party. And they are


the only party likely to be in power when the Conservative party is not in power. I believe that, too.
I believe that, so far as splinter parties in this country are concerned, unconsciously they contribute to keeping the other major party in power, but they have never contributed anything to keeping our party in power. We always went into power on our own when we did go, and we did not get help from either of them.
I have noticed in connection with those who sit to your right, Mr. Speaker, that after the necessity for certain controls developed during wartime, they developed a queer appetite for state control, and they have controlled a lot of things they should not control. They cling to the control of things to which they should not cling. I am not going to enlarge upon that point tonight. I shall do so on some other occasion, when I shall mention a list of the things they seem to like to control.
When they control so much I would not be cruel enough to say-I could not if I would and would not if I could-that they control the press. But they control so much of the air, transportation, radio and everything else, I have heard it said that once they control those it is not hard to control the press. But I believe they still have a semblance of free enterprise inclinations; I would put it that way.
I know it is the desire of every member in this house that we should encourage production. I have heard hon. members to your right, Mr. Speaker, say many things about those who sit here, but after the years I have spent in parliament I have never doubted the integrity of purpose of hon. members, not even my hon. friends to my left. It is not any doubt of their integrity of purpose, it is only the road they travel that bothers me.
I believe it is the common desire of this whole house to encourage production and encourage employment. I heard an hon. member speaking the other day who went so far as to say that he did not know how we could have more employment, more manufacturing and so on, without increasing tariffs. But to him, as a free trader-he did not say this, but I could see him twisting and squirming in his seat-of the two he would rather have unemployment. But, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have expansion in agriculture and in industry, which is vital for our future welfare, I just wonder how it can be brought about by the conduct of the present government. There is a vast difference between the method proposed by the government sitting to your right, Mr. Speaker, and

that proposed by the official opposition sitting to your left. Speaking without repetition-


An hon. Member:: Explain.


William Earl Rowe: Well, I explained before, but my hon. friend was so busy getting his own speech ready that I noticed at the time he was not listening to me. I shall not explain at length at this late hour, except to say that he must know that we in this party to which I belong stand tonight as we stood in the past for fiscal policy which will be adequate to encourage the development of our own resources and our own country.
Some of my friends say, "explain that". Some of my friends say I did not explain it. Some said it means high tariff walls. 1 ask some of you younger members to stop using that term, because it is 35 years old. It was used by old-time free traders before some of you young men were born. It was used by members of the party of Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the very time he was imposing higher tariffs than Sir John A. Macdonald had imposed before him. As the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) so eloquently said the other day, you now maintain tariffs on everything, and no one says anything about it. It seems to me that it is time we got our sight cleared.
I can show on the records of Hansard of this parliament that one of the most outstanding leaders the Conservative party ever had moved for a lowering of tariffs on farm implements, and every member of the Liberal party opposed him. Where are the champions of free trade? Where are they tonight?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who was that?


William Earl Rowe: If you read history you will find it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: Don't laugh it off. It was the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen in 1911. Where are those champions? We have those agriculturists from western Canada. We hear them talk about free trade. I saw some of my friends from western Ontario crying crocodile tears last year for higher tariffs on buttons, bones and bottles in this house. You cannot have it both ways. Before radio came in I can well remember you people blowing hot and cold across this land. I can remember the Right Hon. Mackenzie King preaching free trade in western Canada while at the same time his cohorts were making protectionist speeches in Montreal. That has been the pattern of your party down through the years. What do we find now? What has been said here and in the United States. Some
The Address-Mr. Rowe of my hon. friends laugh. It would be laughable if it were not tragic in the present circumstances.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us have a vote.


William Earl Rowe: No, you are not going to have a vote for a few minutes.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: They seem to have had enough.


William Earl Rowe: I thought you were sitting in here to listen to me. I see you are just sitting here to vote. If that is the way the Minister of Trade and Commerce feels about it he might as well retire, because he is not doing any good here anyway. We are not going to have a vote tonight. I am not any more generous than you were at six o'clock. I noticed today what Mr. Benson of the United States said they were going to do at GATT. He said that no matter what they do over there they have not yielded one bit on section 22 of the agreement with reference to their agricultural products and their support plan in the United States. In other words, they are going to GATT, but they are not going to reduce the tariff one iota. The same thing was said by Mr. Dulles of the United States.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, our great champions of international trade not only go to GATT but they make all sorts of treaties. My hon. friends are laughing, Mr. Speaker, but I want to tell them that the dairymen across the country are not laughing tonight; the livestock people of this country are not laughing; the half a million unemployed are not laughing tonight, because they see the action of this government, which is one of expediency and no fiscal policy. I ask my hon. friend who looks so smug to rise and tell me whether he stands for free trade. I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he will rise and say whether he stands for free trade.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will you permit me?


William Earl Rowe: No. Do you stand for free trade?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I stand for a policy that will produce peaceful relations with other nations of the world. That is the policy this government stands for.


William Earl Rowe: I am glad we are not to have a vote tonight, because at last we have found out that they stand for a policy that will mean peace with everybody. That brings to my mind the remarks of the late Mr. King, who said that we should not provoke the United States of America. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the type of policy they have. Will any of the other hon. members rise and say that they stand for free trade?

The Address-Mr. Rowe


James Garfield Gardiner: We have free implements coming into Canada.


William Earl Rowe: And you charge 90 per cent on bay rum and toothpaste that the little girl uses to clean her teeth. Will you rise and tell me that you are a free trader when you are charging the farmer 35 per cent on dairy machinery such as power churns, milk coolers, milk can washers and so forth in the dairy barn, and at the same time allow cheese to come in in competition with ours at a tariff of half a cent a pound? Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce rise and tell me that he is a free trader? He never was before he came here, when he lived at the head of the lakes.
My friend from western Ontario will not rise and tell me that he is a free trader. If he does he dare not go home until the end of the session. We have a government with an unstable fiscal policy, yet they drag out this old, duty-free trade label with which they try to fool the consumer as well as the producer, and sometimes one would imagine that they are trying to fool themselves.
When I look over the tariff list that the government maintain under the recent trade treaties I feel that they must be fooling themselves. Can you tell me what kind of a sound fiscal policy that is? Where is the soundness in the fiscal policy that charges a tariff all the way from 40 per cent to 90 per cent on articles the consumer uses? Why do you charge tariffs, for instance, on ginger, nutmeg and coffee? The tariff on coffee is 7

cents a pound. Why do you charge a tariff on bananas coming in here? Why do you charge twice as much on bananas as you do on cheese? Are you going to start a banana belt in this climate? Why do you charge 35 per cent on oranges, grapefruit and lemon pulp, while you allow mutton and lamb to come in here at half a cent a pound, a reduction from 7 cents a pound? That is what I mean by fiscal instability, if you want to know. You have a tariff of 40 per cent on mouth organs and 35 per cent on ping pong tables and 90 per cent on bay rum and toothpaste. At the same time you allow products to come in that we are trying to sell. You say we must buy if we are going to sell. My mother taught me that I had to sell before I could buy.
What fiscal stability is there in telling us that we must buy before we sell; that we must lower the tariffs on things we have to sell and raise them on things we have to buy?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are making mouth organs.


William Earl Rowe: If you make any more music like that you will ruin the basic industry of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, Mr. Speaker, call it ten o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Rowe the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 2, 1955