1955-01-27

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will know that I am proposing to leave tomorrow for London to attend the meeting of commonwealth prime ministers. As I have said previously in the house, this meeting will give an opportunity for an exchange of views on some very important questions, and it underlines the value of the commonwealth association as a medium for such exchanges. In turn these exchanges will make possible, I hope, more effective policies and actions for the attainment in our respective countries of the objectives of peace and greater human welfare which are basic for all the peoples of the commonwealth.
At this particular meeting questions of foreign affairs, and more particularly those concerned with Far Eastern matters, will occupy a great deal of attention. Recent developments in the Far East have underlined the seriousness of these issues. Because of that, and after certain messages to and from London, I have decided to ask my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) to accompany me to this conference. Of course it will be possible for him to return to Ottawa before the end of the conference if the situation here should appear to make that desirable.
As is customary I will also be attended at these meetings by the high commissioner for Canada in London. The under-secretary of state for external affairs, Mr. Leger, will be one of our advisers. I had hoped to include Mr. R. B. Bryce, the secretary to the cabinet, in that capacity, but because of his regrettable illness his place will be taken by Mr. Ross Martin, assistant secretary to the cabinet.
On economic matters we will be in close touch with our top economic advisers who are now attending the GATT meetings in Geneva, and it will not be difficult to have at least one of them join us in London when we reach the stage in the London meetings where we are dealing with that aspect of the agenda.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Acting Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made by the Prime Minister I should like to ask him if he expects to discuss trade matters at this conference. Perhaps he might include the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in his party.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should like to include all my colleagues in the house, but it so happens that that is not possible. In view of recent developments I would expect that much of our time will be taken up with a discussion of the international situation which we all look upon as being quite grave at this time. All of us appreciate the opportunity of taking counsel together as to what might best serve the interests of peace in the world.
The conference was not intended originally to operate as a continuation of the economic conference of two or three years ago, but I expect that that aspect of the world situation will also be under review. After the agenda has been settled at the first meeting we will know what time will be available for the consideration of that aspect of our affairs.


William Earl Rowe: Is no one from the Department of Trade and Commerce going?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Top advisers of the departments of trade and commerce and finance, Mr. Mitchell Sharp and Mr. Plumptre, are already overseas.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Are you taking a member of the opposition also?


An hon. Member:: Are you available?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am sure that might be quite helpful, but it has not yet become one of the traditions of these conferences between governments.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to press dispatches reporting that questions have been raised as to the validity of the federal labour

Inquiries of the Ministry code, and in view of that would he be prepared to report to this house the progress which has been made with respect to the revision of labour legislation which, he advised a committee, was under consideration two years ago?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take that question under consideration and make a report to the house in due course.



REPORTED LAY-OFFS IN AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a
question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the government received protests from labour bodies in Winnipeg concerning lay-offs in the aircraft industry, and also concerning reports that a large number of employees in this industry will be laid off soon, including a large number to be laid off by Trans-Canada Air Lines? Will the minister make a statement on this matter, and can he assure the workers affected that the reported lay-offs will not take place?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the answer
is yes; representations have been received from Winnipeg. With regard to MacDonald Brothers Aircraft Limited, by January 31 MacDonald Brothers will have laid off approximately 100 people. Some two-thirds of the lay-off has resulted from cutbacks in the turbo department which supplies parts to A.V. Roe. A further slight reduction will take place in February or March, after which we expect that employment will be reasonably steady for the next year.
With regard to Trans-Canada Air Lines, may I say that T.C.A. now employs some 632 people in maintenance work for the R.C.A.F. By late summer this work is to be transferred back to the services. In other words the R.C.A.F. intends to do its own maintenance work. In the meantime the Viscount program is expected to employ some 300 additional men at Winnipeg. Therefore the total lay-off between now and next June should be of the order of 332 people.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether he is now in a position to make a statement about the accusations made

against the deputy postmaster general by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau)?


Hon. Alcide Cote (Poslmasier General):: Mr. Speaker, I have completed my inquiries about the matter the hon. gentleman mentioned, and though it will take me some few minutes to make a statement I shall do so now because it appears to be the wish of the house.
A few days ago, speaking in this debate, the hon. member for St. Boniface made complaints about two changes in post office personnel. I have made inquiries into these two cases, and I would now like to bring the facts before the house. The first complaint was levelled against the procedure followed by the Post Office Department in connection with a promotion to the position of post office inspector, in Winnipeg, a few years ago. The procedure adopted was as follows. The position was advertised-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Postmaster General, but some hon. members seem to be looking at me and questioning whether what the minister is now doing is in order. I would not wish to allow this if it is not, but I would like to be told on what ground it is not in order for the minister to make a statement at this moment in reply to a question asked on two occasions by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since you seem to be looking at me, Mr. Speaker, and since I was shaking my head, I might answer your question as I see it. It strikes me that since the complaints which the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) is now about to answer were made by the hon. member for St. Boniface when speaking during the throne speech debate, and particularly in view of the fact that that debate will be resumed today, I believe it would be better if this statement were made in the course of that debate. If the minister makes a statement now there will be no opportunity to reply, as no one can debate a statement made on the orders of the day. I do not imagine the Postmaster General would take exception to that course.


Mr. Speaker:: Was it along that line that the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) was perhaps indicating that he had something to say?


Mr. Fulton:: No, I had no comments to make at all, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am grateful to the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for having indicated what he meant by looking at me so persistently; and while I believe it is a matter on which the house

will wish to accommodate itself, it is quite true that the hon. member for St. Boniface made his remarks with respect to post office personnel during the course of the throne speech debate. However, it is also true that the hon. member for Three Rivers has asked this question on two occasions on the orders of the day, and one might say that at this moment the Postmaster General is replying to the hon. member.
It may be that he is prefacing his remarks by pointing out what was said by the hon. member for St. Boniface. But are we, on the one hand, asking the Postmaster General to reply to the hon. member for St. Boniface during the ensuing debate on the speech from the throne, or, on the other hand, should we not allow him to reply to the question put by the hon. member for Three Rivers? What is the position now?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I could suggest a very simple answer, Mr. Speaker, and that is that if the Postmaster General felt so disposed he could inform the hon. member for Three Rivers that he is going to deal with the matter when he speaks during the course of the debate on the speech from the throne. That would be answering the question asked by the hon. member, and at the same time it would provide an appropriate opportunity for the hon. member who raised the question originally to perhaps question the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: It strikes me there is some merit in the observations made by the hon. members for Kamloops and Winnipeg North Centre, particularly in view of the fact that the Postmaster General has indicated that his reply may be somewhat lengthy. If it is lengthy he might deal with the matter during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and I am sure hon. members will allow him to take the floor at the earliest opportunity.


Alcide Côté: That was my intention in the first place, Mr. Speaker, but since I was invited to make my statement by the hon. member for Three Rivers, that is why I started to do so.



ALLEGED DISAPPEARANCE OF MONEY AT BRITANNIA BEACH, B.C.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de
Grace): Can the Minister of Justice inform the house whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are investigating certain happenings in the post office at Britannia Beach, British Columbia?
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps at this moment I might indicate to hon. members that once a question has been asked and the matter
Inquiries of the Ministry is said to be under advisement by the minister for a reply at a later time, one should not rise every day and ask the same question. Whereas one has the right perhaps to press for an answer, I think on the other hand one must be patient enough to wait until the minister has had time to consider the matter, to have the investigation made and to make a report to the house. I think the hon. member will agree with me that he has been quite insistent on this particular question for the last three days. Perhaps he might be patient until the question is answered. Of course he is directing his question today to a different minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is also a different question.


Mr. Speaker:: One could anticipate that the answer of the minister will be that he will consult the Postmaster General and that they will get together as to who will give the answer; but in principle it is the same question that was asked yesterday and the day before. I suggest that if we are to spend our time usefully during this question period, we should give all members a chance to put various questions during that time, and not come back to the same question again and again.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: With all due deference, Mr. Speaker, with respect to what I understood to be a ruling of yours there is something that I should like to point out, if I may be allowed to do so, because I think there is the possibility that it may put some of us on this side of the house in a difficult position and one which is not intended by the rules of the house.
As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, your ruling or your suggestion implies that once a question has been asked, nothing relating to that matter should be asked of the government until such time as the first question has been answered. In a case such as this where a member-as in this case-has quite a legitimate reason for approaching this matter and asking information from two different ministers on two different aspects of the subject, your ruling makes it extremely difficult for us to get adequate information. I think that fact is evident, Mr. Speaker, from the tenor of the original question which asks whether the Postmaster General was aware of the disappearance of this money and whether he was able to place the responsibility for the loss. The second question was designed to find out whether the matter had been considered serious enough to call in the Department of Justice and what action, if any, was being taken by that department. There is
574	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry no reason whatsoever why the Postmaster General should have given us such information in his answer to the original question. That is why I point out, with all due deference, that such a ruling could react very unfavourably to the rights of the opposition on many occasions.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member be good enough to give me the page on which his first question appears?


William McLean Hamilton: Page 501, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Would he be good enough to give me the page on which his second question appears?


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: I just asked it a moment ago, and Hansard is wonderful but not quite that effective.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. I thought the hon. member had asked the question previously.


William McLean Hamilton: asked the question originally as it appears at page 501 of Hansard of January 25. On the following day, which was yesterday, I simply asked whether the Postmaster General had had an opportunity to investigate and report upon this matter. However, as I have pointed out, the question today was quite unrelated to either of the preceding questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will realize that I could have risen earlier, told the hon. member that my rulings are not debatable, and not allowed him to proceed. However, he prefaced his remarks by saying that my ruling was curtailing the rights of the opposition, and of course I do not want to be accused of doing that. That is why I listened to him. Another reason I could have stopped him is that he should have risen immediately after my ruling was given. Instead he let other questions go by and now he comes back to this matter. But that is quite all right, and I am very grateful to him for having done so.
If he looks at the first question he will see what I might call the order of progression of his question. First he asked if the minister was aware, and one must look at the answer the hon. member received. The minister said:
I shall be glad to Investigate the matter . . .
The hon. member has asked the question a second time, and seems to think that perhaps an investigation is being carried on by the Minister of Justice. He has asked the Minister of Justice if an investigation is being carried on and if there is any result. That is what I gather. The matter is being investigated now, and until the report of the investigation is submitted to the house is it the intention of hon. members to repeat their questions


every day just to remind the minister that they asked the questions the previous day? That is my point. The hon. member had a perfect right to ask his question, but he does not appear to be quite satisfied with what the Postmaster General is doing and he wants to find out if the Minister of Justice is also investigating.


Mr. Fleming:: Through the R.C.M.P.


Mr. Speaker:: Or the R.C.M.P. or whatever it is. I merely made a suggestion to the hon. member, and I am asking his co-operation. The hon. member seems to think his rights are being jeopardized, and if the Minister of Justice wants to tell him whatever he feels like telling him at this time in answer to his question it is quite agreeable to me. It is not only the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace who has repeated a question. There have been other instances when, on two or three separate days, the same questions have been repeated by other hon. members.
I have not the cases in point in my mind at the moment, but I am sure hon. members will realize that sometimes, quite understandably, they are quite persistent in trying to get answers quickly to their questions. I am merely suggesting that the time that is set aside for questions and answers should be used for a great variety of different questions, and not for hon. members to rise and ask if they can get the answer to a question asked previously. One case in point is the question asked of the Postmaster General on perhaps two or three occasions by the hon. member for Three Rivers. He has asked the minister if he had any reply to make with respect to the matters raised by the hon. member for St. Boniface. That is another case in point. I was merely making a suggestion. If the hon. member wishes to pursue his question perhaps he might do so tomorrow and perhaps the minister will have his answer ready at that time.



PRISONERS OF WAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State. Has his attention been drawn to a newspaper clipping which indicates that Japan has agreed to pay $12 million in compensation to 13 countries, including Canada, whose soldiers it held prisoner during the second world war? Could the minister also indicate what portion of this amount will be passed on to the Hong Kong prisoners of war?


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of Slate):: 

AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLIES TO CANADIAN INSTITUTIONS AT REDUCED PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Earl Rowe: In view of the repeated statements in the press with regard to government plans for the disposal of surplus butter and the uncertainty of the response to my question yesterday, I should like to direct a question to the minister.
I notice that the Minister of Agriculture is back in his place in the house. He mentioned at Winnipeg that it was not a permanent policy of the government. Yesterday we heard that the price was not fixed. I noticed by yesterday's press that a new butter disposal plan is referred to, that the principle had been adopted by the government and that they were selling it at 20 cents a pound less.


An hon. Member:: What is the question?


William Earl Rowe: My question is this. Is it true or is it not true? Is it true that we are selling butter for 20 cents a pound less? I do not consider that this is a laughing matter, because yesterday we were told distinctly that there had been no such decision.


An hon. Member:: Question.


William Earl Rowe: My question is this. I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether we are giving away one pound for every two that is purchased, as indicated by the report?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: If that is the question, the answer is no. But in view of what has been said by the Acting Leader of the Opposition, I think possibly I should read what I said. What I said at Edmonton was this:
We have a floor price based on 58 cents a pound Montreal and Toronto on butter. This has stabilized the price to the producers at 58 cents in the summer and it may rise to 61 cents in the winter. It has stabilized the wholesale price at 61 cents in the winter to the consumer. We have over 20 million more pounds in storage at present than we think necessary. It is there because of good grass last summer. We do not know how much grass we will have next summer but believe we can safely market 20 million pounds. My last act before leaving Ottawa was to recommend that some be sold to institutions in Canada at a lower price. I understand the recommendation has been accepted. When I get back to Ottawa on Thursday I hope to find the plan in operation.
That was my statement at Edmonton. As to the other things that have been said in

The Address-Mr. Holowach the press, when I had finished and when the meeting was over the press naturally asked me this question: "What is the price?" I said, "I do not know and I will not know until I get back to Ottawa and discuss the matter". They said, "Will it be 5 cents less?" I said, "I think a better term to use would be to say it would be considerably less it the plan went through". "Considerably less" is what I understand has been in the press. I made inquiries this morning, and the officials are not in a position either to tell me or to announce to the country what the price will be. The matter is still under consideration.

On the orders ot the day:


Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Agriculture. Am I correct in taking from the latter part of his statement that the decision with respect to the disposal of 20 million pounds of butter and the price is within the jurisdiction of the department, and is to be made by the department and announced by the department rather than by the minister and the government?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are about 1,500 of these institutions. The officials of the department are naturally discussing the matter or taking the matter up with those different institutions. Until those discussions have been brought to a conclusion there is not much possibility of announcing a price here. But when the time comes to announce the price, if I am here- and I expect I shall be-I will probably announce it here,



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg South asked the following question:
Will the government consider allowing Canadians and others to travel to Europe via Scandinavian Airlines from Winnipeg to Copenhagen?
Scandinavian Airlines system has no traffic rights at Winnipeg under the bilateral agreements made with the Scandinavian countries. The government is not considering making any change in this situation at the present time.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, January 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun) for an address to His
[Stage Direction]

Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. Ambrose Holowach (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne offers private members an opportunity to direct the attention of the government, if that is possible, to serious grievances within our respective constituencies, and to express our views on outstanding problems in the life of this nation. This debate follows in the wake of the debate on external affairs which, in its high tone, its tense and dramatic moments, was certainly in keeping with the seriousness of the controversial problem being dealt with at that time.
The present debate is equally important because it comes closer to home and touches on problems that face our people every day of the week. I think we should remember that modern history records many nations have collapsed not so much from outside forces as from growing inequities, both social and economic, within the country, and failure to resolve those problems.
As a relatively new member of the house I have learned that a member's responsibilities to his constituents are varied. In this chamber, where we come together to reason and to give calm and considered study to the proper way in which to resolve our problems, it seems to me that the first responsibility of a member is to indicate objectively and honestly his views on the shortcomings of the government. Our nation's business, involving as it does the expenditure of some $5 billion of the taxpayers' money, involving decisions in domestic affairs affecting each and every one of us, involving decisions in external affairs as was indicated the other day during the external affairs debate, on matters which actually mould the destiny of our country-[DOT] such a nation's business calls for more than obedient approval of each and every measure presented by the government.
It seems to me there is little value in repeating pleasantries and being overcomplimentary in regard to past accomplishments. We certainly admit that the government has made some excellent moves in the past and that there are good men on the government side of the house. But no man is without fault and sometimes even good men following wrong policies lead us nowhere. I think democracy is sometimes cumbersome, but it does get things done; and if we are to achieve progress it can only be by continual prodding and constructive criticism in order that we may reach that perfection which is, after all, the objective and ultimate destiny of civilized man.

We are living in grave times and there are serious problems facing the country, such as the long, enduring and heavy burden of direct and indirect taxes and the general business recession, as evidenced by the business failures in our country during the first six months of 1954, which were 56 per cent higher than during 1953. The farmers' problems result from unsaleable crop surpluses that have accumulated. The drop in trade has been a sad development, resulting in an adverse balance of trade for the first six months of 1954 almost equal to the entire adverse trade balance for 1953. The colossal amount of credit buying that has taken place in our land recently indicates that our people are mortgaging their future earnings in order to acquire things which they need today. The growing high cost of government, the obvious trend toward centralization, and above all the lack of evidence that our present policies are capable of solving some of these problems, are matters for serious consideration. I believe that in the light of all this evidence there is no reason for any of us to consider all our activities here as being sacrosanct. Certainly we are proud of our accomplishments, and we have many of them in Canada. Surely, however, the credit goes to all of the people and not to one particular party. I believe that the progress that is being made in Canada is due, in the first place, to the courage of the early pioneers and the farsighted aspirations of people in an abundant land. Our progress has been made despite the small inducements offered in some of the government policies.
I wish to be fair in expressing my views. There are serious problems facing my constituents, and they are fresh in my memory. As I travelled around my constituency conversing with people I was led to believe that they look for a proper solution to some of their problems through the action of this house. With one or two exceptions the problems of my people are an integral part of the problems facing all the people in Canada.
I refer to the situation wherein there are hundreds of thousands of men and women in our country willing and able to work but unable to find employment. I refer as well to the hardship and distress that is the result of such a situation. We certainly were glad to see the speedy introduction by the government of measures to help alleviate the unemployment situation by the extension of unemployment insurance benefits. I believe we all agree that an increase in unemployment insurance benefits is not the solution to the unemployment problem. A proper solution would be the maintenance of conditions under which all hands and all 50433-37
The Address-Mr. Holowach machines in our country would continue to produce wealth. Real prosperity comes only when the people have the means of acquiring the things which they need to sustain themselves. Inner contentment can only come when the people are employed in productive effort.
Is it not thought-provoking that in a country such as this, with over four million square miles inhabited by only 15 million people, there should be unemployment? One would normally think our real problem would be to secure enough workers to handle the many tasks that have to be undertaken. I was disappointed as I stood, with others from this house, before the bar of the Senate and listened to the speech from the throne. Instead of a call to action, we heard a subdued review of past actions. In that speech, unemployment was referred to as some strange regional phenomenon. We all know it is more than that, Mr. Speaker. If unemployment has become a measuring rod of the seasons in Canada, then all I can say is that our seasons are becoming longer and longer and more depressing all the time. Blaming mother nature for our mistakes is, to my mind at least, a surprising new theory.
Then, of course, there are those who blame the newly arrived immigrants in our country as the ones who are responsible for unemployment. I believe there is little connection. These critics fail to realize that although some 174,000 people were admitted to Canada during 1954, many of them were dependent on those already in this country and did not replace anyone in a job. In addition, many of them have already returned to the countries from which they originally came. It is interesting to note also that some 50,000 Canadians emigrate each year to the United States, many of whom possess technical skills acquired through higher learning. With the unemployment situation as serious as it is I believe that exodus will become even more marked. We are thus losing human material which I believe is inexcusable.
What then are the real facts? I believe that unemployment is the result of various factors, not the least of which is our faltering economy resulting from the lack of sufficient purchasing power in the hands of our people to enable them to acquire the goods which they have produced and need. Much of this purchasing power is being arbitrarily removed from their hands by heavy taxation in order to sustain what I believe is the high cost of an ever-growing government.
I do not believe the Canadian boom was ever traceable to our policies alone, but was

The Address-Mr. Holowach the result of other factors. In an article appearing in The Challenge, a magazine issued by the Institute of Economic Affairs, New York University, volume III, No. 3, there is an interesting analysis by Frank A. Tinker, writing from Toronto where he served as United States vice consul. It reads as follows:
The Canadian boom was the result of a variety of factors: the backlog in consumer demand created by the war; the savage depletion of natural resources in other countries; the accompanying discoveries of, and investment in, these industrial materials in Canada; the creation of an industrial machine to meet the extraordinary demands; and the resultant population shifts.
. . . Much of the prosperity of Canada's citizens, which has not been as outstanding as the over-all picture suggests, is due to these artificial stimuli.
Today the factors which spurred the Canadian build-up no longer operate. Wartime scarcities have been eliminated. Industrial production in devastated countries has risen; recovery from war has filled the domestic gaps and has invaded those fields which previously were open only to the more fortunate, unscarred economies-like Canada's. The Korean and other Asian wars have been settled.
A little farther down this interesting comment appeared:
A large part of the difficulty lies in the tax program. The sound fiscal government of which Canadians have heard so much has been bought at the cost of assessments which a United States resident would consider outrageous and under which industry would suffer. The solvency of the government may be little solace to the Canadian who finds himself unemployed today partly because of it. This is not to say that a solvent government is bad. But a high-cost government which insists upon being supported through high taxes can be discouraging to say the least.
Perhaps some of us will not agree with all the statements made in that article. But I am sure we will agree that it is a disastrous human experience for us to realize that in time of war and blood-spilling we have prosperity, while in time of peace we always have a faltering economy.
What, then, are some of the answers? I am not one who knows all of them or even a large portion of them, but I think I know where to start. We start now by realizing that science and the inventive genius of man have been able to create an ever-increasing abundance of goods and services of every kind and variety. We have been able to solve the problem of production. Now the problem is to try to bring these goods within the reach of those people who need them.
I believe the real problem is for us to devise economic policies whereby these goods may be brought within the reach of those people whose incomes are being reduced because of the replacement of manpower by machines. It seems odd, Mr. Speaker, that on the one hand we all agree the progress of science is a good thing, we pass legislation in this house advocating shorter hours and

better working conditions, and we do this to eliminate the toil and hardship of the labouring group. Yet on the other hand in our fiscal policies we consider employment the only means of securing income to acquire the things people need. We are able to produce more, with fewer hardships and worries, but the paradox is that while on the one hand we are fostering scientific advancement which, after all, is aimed at the elimination of employment, on the other hand, we sustain an economic policy founded on the principle that the only way people can have incomes is by being employed.
There is proof that in modern civilization there will be increasing and ever-growing unemployment. I think attention has been drawn to this py farsighted statesmen ana public leaders. Here is an interesting article which appeared in the New York Times of January 17 and, while we may not agree with Mr. Reuther's political philosophy, I believe there is much food for thought in what he says. It is headed "Reuther Decries Brake on Output" and states:
He predicted that this year's output would fall $50,000,000,000 short qf. what it could be if there were enough customers to buy all the things our factories had the capacity to make.
He reiterated the C.I.O.'s support for maximum technological progress, but he warned that this progress could become a source of great suffering and social unrest unless the country applied "the same jet propulsion" to its thinking about human problems that was being focused on "automation", atomic energy and other scientific advances.
As evidence of the speed with which automatic methods were taking hold, Mr. Reuther told the unionists that the new Ford automatic engine plant at Cleveland already had been rendered "obsolete" by designs for even more efficient facilities.
"They can make a Ford engine block in only 15 minutes without a human hand touching it," Mr. Reuther declared, "and I am told they have on the drawing boards a plant that can cut the time down to 10 minutes."
He said the imbalance between what we could produce and what we could buy was becoming so acute that the manufacturers might find it necessary to set up plants to turn out "plastic consumers" to use the products for which there was no market.
My point is that this entire question must be faced realistically, and ways and means must be devised to make goods and services available to the people who are unable to find employment. At some future date unemployment may be inevitable. I do not think this necessarily implies idleness. It might spell out a new era wherein humanity will have longer rest periods and more leisure time to be devoted to physical and cultural pursuits, education and study, so as to enjoy a fuller and richer life.
Frankly, under our present fiscal policy there appear to be few remedies, unless the monetary reforms advanced by the Social Credit movement are given full and earnest

consideration. There might be some temporary alleviation of the problem by undertaking public projects. That should not entail going on a spending spree for the building of every project required in our country. In western Canada it should imply further financial assistance by the federal government to the respective provincial governments in order to induce them to undertake larger road building programs. This would absorb some unemployment, and certainly serve the needs of the country now and in the future.
I believe roads benefit the entire nation. Federal assistance in the matter of interprovincial roads is especially needed. On previous occasions I have drawn the attention of the government to the advisability of undertaking with the provincial governments the building of a road from Winnipeg by way of Saskatoon, Edmonton, Jasper park and the Yellowhead route, to the west coast. The rewards, both in times of war and peace, could not be measured in dollars and cents.
Second, I think we should design our policies to encourage consumption and production. In order to meet these requirements I submit that an early reduction in our taxes merits consideration. I believe the removal of many of the hidden taxes on commodities would bring these articles down to a level where people would be able to acquire them, thereby inducing consumption and production.
Apart from other benefits, it would restore some of the basic rights of the people to spend their own money instead of having governments spend it for them. I certainly disagree with those who believe that only by high taxes can we have high revenues. The reverse is often true. High taxes do not necessarily imply high revenues. I do believe that by a sensible reduction in taxation the government might well receive, through greater volume, what it now depends upon receiving through a high level of taxation.
Of course there are those in the house who indicate that because of our commitments by way of social services and defence costs, a reduction in taxation at this time would be improper. The movement to which I have the privilege of belonging is founded upon and dedicated to the well-being of the people. We look upon social services as the first responsibility of government. We consider it is the duty of government to protect our citizens against certain avoidable hazards of life and old age.
In the matter of defence it is true that we have no alternative but to carry on with our defence spending, in order to be secure in an uncertain world. However, let us remember that during 1953-54 the cost of 50433-374
The Address-Mr. Holowach national defence was reduced by some $126 million. However, that amount was absorbed by other departments. My point is that even if defence costs are reduced and if other government expenditures are not reduced accordingly just where in the world are we going? During 1952-53 these expenditures were $4-6 billion, and in 1953-54-55 they were approximately $5 billion. There is no denying that this government is growing larger and larger all the time.
Surely sizeable reductions in taxation could be brought about if the government would institute stringent policies of frugality to slice away some of the fatty tissues of government which are a consequence of the war years. I understand that at the present time some 22 crown corporations are being sustained by the taxpayers of Canada. The duties performed by many of these monopolies could well be performed by private enterprise if some incentive were given. In many cases the services performed by these corporations overlap the services offered by private enterprise.
Never before in our history have liberty and freedom had such meaning. We should realize that sometimes liberty and freedom disappear gradually through centralization and an ever-growing government until we reach a point where there is no turning back.
The forecast in the speech from the throne of increased basic rates and an increased permissible income under the War Veterans Allowance Act is commendable. So are the amendments to the Blind Persons Act to lower the age of eligibility and to increase income ceilings, and the conclusion of necessary arrangements with the various provincial governments in the matter of the Disabled Persons Act. They certainly deserve support from all members of this house. As the records indicate, we in this group have consistently fought for these measures. We realize that they have come late, but better late than never. We know they will be of assistance to many.
I regret that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) is not in his seat, because I want to tell him how pleased the people of Edmonton were to hear that his department had decided to relocate and build new airport facilities in Edmonton. We trust that these measures will be undertaken with dispatch, as existing conditions certainly justify this move.
I regret the absence from the chamber of the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote), because I want to draw to his attention once more the need of an improved, enlarged or new post office building in Beverly, Alberta. The present building is no more than a shack, which if dismantled would hardly bring more than

The Address-Mr. Holowach a few hundred dollars on the used lumber market. On previous occasions I have drawn the attention of the minister to the need of further improvements to the building, or the erection of a new building. In no sense are these people asking for something which is unfair; they are asking for something which is completely justified in view of the limited facilities now available.
I am rather disturbed when I read statements which imply that a member's political affiliation determines the decision as to needs such as this being looked after. A report of this kind appeared recently in one of the Alberta papers. I quote from the Medicine Hat News of Saturday, January 15, 1955, as follows:
New Post Office Opened at Taber
Mayor Harry Veiner of Medicine Hat was master of ceremonies for the event, with Senator W. J. Stambaugh of Edmonton, the chief speaker, and representing the Minister of Public Works, the Hon. Robert H. Winters.
The senator read a telegram of regret from Mr. Winters for his inability to attend due to parliamentary duties, and congratulating Taberites on their patience in awaiting completion of such fine accommodation for an essential service.
J. Harper Prowse, leader of the Liberal party of Alberta, and a native of Taber, also sent regrets for his inability to attend.
Senator Stambaugh said the new federal building was a direct tribute to the prodding and enterprise of the late Senator W. A. Buchanan of Lethbridge.
"Without his interest I doubt if the contract for such a fine structure would ever have been let," observed Senator Stambaugh. "There would have been a new post office some day, but not such a fine building as this one. And then after Senator Buchanan passed to his reward, you had Mayor Veiner of Medicine Hat to carry forward demands upon Ottawa. He was largely responsible for having the post office section rushed through last fall and opening in time for some of the Christmas rush. Harry Veiner is well thought of in Ottawa and has been responsible for winning the government's attention to tlie needs of Medicine Hat constituency."
It was never my pleasure to know the deceased gentleman who is mentioned in this article, but I do know the high esteem and reputation which he enjoyed. I know the people of Canada looked upon him as a man of outstanding integrity and possessing statesmanlike qualities. If the late senator fought for a post office in Taber it was simply because Taber merited a post office. I am sure that were he alive, he would not approve his name being brought into a message such as was delivered recently at the opening ceremonies at Taber. Surely the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) and the Postmaster General look with disfavour on this type of political drum-beating at the opening ceremonies of a public building in Canada.

I do believe that this newspaper report justifies a statement denying the assertion that political affiliation or political pressure determines the decisions in connection with the erection of public buildings.
Who is this man Harry Veiner who allegedly commands such tremendous influence in Ottawa? Is he not the same Harry Veiner who on two occasions was the Liberal candidate in that constituency and who, not once but twice, was rejected by the people of Alberta? It is stated that he is well thought of in Ottawa, and no doubt that is the reason for his rejection by the people of Alberta. Since when has he more authority to speak of the needs in that constituency, or to act as master of ceremonies at the opening, than the lawfully elected Social Credit member of that riding who, incidentally, was not even invited to attend the affair?
With such obvious political partisanship is it any wonder the people of Canada sometimes clamour for the reform of the other place? I believe such irresponsible statements are unfair to many hon. members in that other place who are more interested in Canada than in the well-being of any particular political party. I would suggest that if the hon. member from the other place is so interested in these matters he should be directing his efforts toward the construction of post office buildings in other places as well, and in this connection I would particularly direct his attention to the construction of a post office in the town of Beverly, Alberta.
I enjoyed listening to the speech by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) a few days ago. He mentioned the need for the exercise of moral principles in our national life, and I believe all of us will agree that unless the men in high office in our national life adhere to moral principles there can be little hope of real progress in the future, because it is moral principles and decisions based on them that are the only valid and true measure of human progress in this country.
As we stand at the beginning of another year in the second half of this century, a century which has seen bloodletting, violence, wars, depressions, recessions, booms and busts, and which on the other hand has witnessed scientific advances without parallel in human history, we should bear in mind that our individual responsibility as members of this house is not entirely to the political parties to which we belong but to the people of this country. It also involves an understanding that there is poverty in our midst and that we must conquer unemployment.

It involves in external affairs the realization that there are many economically poor nations and others who are subjected to enslavement yet cry out for liberty and freedom. To champion their cause is to champion the cause of practically the most powerful allies the free world can muster, and to be indifferent to their plight would be completely unworthy of our Canadian heritage.
Toward the ultimate objective of securing a sound and prosperous Canada, and making Canada's contribution to a world condition in which there shall be peace, security, and the blessings of political freedom for all, the Social Credit movement is dedicated. We do not consider ourselves as having in any way a monopoly of virtue; we look upon all hon. members of the house, irrespective of their political faith, as having a role to play in meeting this challenge and in the achievement of peace throughout the world.


Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Leduc) and seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both hon. members are certainly worthy of the compliments which they have received from their colleagues in all parts of the house since this debate opened. In the discharge of their assignment they have both won an invaluable reputation for themselves and have proved to be a credit not only to their constituencies but to their respective cities of Montreal and Toronto, and to this parliament as well.
The subject matter which I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members at this time is one which has not been dealt with very often in this house in the past. It is also one which, in my estimation, deserves to be widely known to the Canadian public generally if it is to win the support of well informed Canadian public opinion.
It will be recalled that the eighth general conference of the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization, in other words UNESCO, was held at Montevideo, Uruguay, from November 11 to December 10, 1954. This was the first time a UNESCO general conference had met in South America. The choice of Montevideo was a fortunate one because it is the capital city of Uruguay, a country which rightly enjoys a reputation for its high standard of freedom and democracy.
The Canadian delegation which attended the conference was deeply impressed by the charm of that country and its people, and by the friendly warmth with which the Canadian representatives and the delegates of the other 71 member states were received.
The Address-Mr. Arsenault
Our delegation consisted of Mr. Sydney D. Pierce, Canadian ambassador to Brazil, who was chairman; the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, Newfoundland (Mr. Carter); Dr. Philippe Panneton, of Montreal, widely known author and writer of many outstanding books on art, history and culture; Dr. Garnet T. Page, of Ottawa, a scientist and general manager of the Chemical Institute of Canada; Mr. F. K. Stewart, from Toronto, executive secretary of the Canadian Education Association; Dr. A. Vibert Douglas, a very distinguished iady and dean of women at Queen's University; Mr. Fulgence Charpentier, the Canadian charge d'affaires at Montevideo; Mr. Malcolm N. Bow, adviser from the Department of External Affairs; Mr. C. F. W. Hooper, from our Canadian embassy in Buenos Aires, who acted as general secretary of the delegation; and myself.
As I was designated vice-chairman of the Canadian delegation I had the privilege of serving as acting chief of the delegation during part of the conference. This was due to the fact that the economic conference of the organization of American states was held in Rio de Janeiro at about the same time as the UNESCO conference at Montevideo and the chairman of our delegation, Mr. Pierce, attended the Rio de Janeiro conference as an observer. May I express my gratitude to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and to the other members of the government for this assignment which I found to be an extremely valuable experience.
The Canadian delegation to Montevideo was a hard-working one. It was one which took an active part in all phases of the important tasks carried out by the general conference. Seldom in the past have I had the privilege of co-operating with a group of people so conscious of their responsibility toward Canada and so eager to discharge, to the best of their knowledge, competence and ability, the important and sometimes extremely tiresome duties which were assigned to each of them.
Members of our Canadian delegation participated with delegates from other member states on most of the committees or commissions set up by the plenary session of the general conference. Besides the plenary session, where Canada had five seats, members of our delegation sat on the program and budget commission, on the administrative commission and on the advisory committee, which are the four main working bodies of the general conference. The advisory committee to which I have just referred is a committee which is advisory on any question on which the program and budget

The Address-Mr. Arsenault commission wishes to receive technical advice. This advisory committee met two weeks before the official opening of the general conference and was attended by one of our delegates.
Canadian delegates have also been elected to the contribution committee and to the legal committee. This legal committee examines the constitutional and legal aspects of any resolution which involves constitutional or legal issues. A member of our delegation was also elected to the headquarters com,-mittee, which supervises matters pertaining to the new UNESCO headquarters which are to be erected at Paris, France. During the conference one of our delegates, Dr. Philippe Panneton, from Montreal, had the honour of being elected chairman of a working party.
The performance of the Canadian delegation at the recent UNESCO conference was, in my opinion, second only to that of the major powers. Yet in some instances when highly controversial issues were under consideration the Canadian attitude, and even our intervention as mediator upon the request of other nations, bestowed upon our delegation responsibilities which could not be more adequately discharged by any of the major powers, so great is the prestige that Canada enjoys today at the international level.
Having had the opportunity and the privilege of witnessing at close range the high consideration, the true confidence and the sincere esteem that other nations of the world have for Canada, for our Prime Minister and for our democratic government, I have returned from this UNESCO conference much prouder of our Canadian institutions and our sound administration, and much prouder to be a Canadian.
Before outlining some of the important decisions reached by the last conference of UNESCO at Montevideo, may I refer briefly to the historical background of UNESCO for the benefit of the readers of Hansard and that of the Canadian public generally. UNESCO, which is the abbreviation for the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization, was founded in London, England, in 1945 and the first general conference was held in Paris in November, 1946. Canada had joined UNESCO a few months prior to that time, on September 6, 1946.
In its early years UNESCO's energies were directed toward post-war rehabilitation, but in 1948 the organization turned toward the task of eradicating ignorance and illiteracy in the world. Dr. Jaime Torres-Bodet of Mexico, an international authority on mass education, was then appointed director general. He advocated an expanding program and budget

for a sustained attack on urgent international problems; but he resigned in 1952 when the general conference did not then approve the increased program and budget which he presented. Dr. Torres-Bodet, as we know, is now Mexican ambassador in Paris.
In July, 1953, Dr. Luther H. Evans of the United States was elected director general of UNESCO. One of his first endeavours was a reorientation of the organization's program. UNESCO now has an executive board of 22 members appointed by the plenary session. All candidates to the executive board must now first have the approval and the support of their respective governments. At this last UNESCO conference it was decided that 1955 and 1956 should be transitional years, and that the remodelled program should come into effect in 1957.


Mr. Dufresne:: Will the hon. member permit me to ask a question?


Bona Arsenault: Yes.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I have been greatly interested in his remarks. A few moments ago he spoke about a reorientation of UNESCO's program, and just now he spoke about a remodelling of UNESCO's program. Would the hon. member be kind enough to give us some further explanation?


Bona Arsenault: If I have not made myself sufficiently clear I am sorry. By reorientation of UNESCO's program or the reorientation of UNESCO's activities and by the remodelled program which will come into effect in 1957, the director general of UNESCO and the secretariat as well have in mind a program which will concentrate on major projects of international importance, large projects, rather than on small projects of local interest.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Could the hon. member give us a few examples of some of those projects?


Bona Arsenault: Yes, I shall be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker. As examples of major projects of international importance I think I could probably mention measures devised to eradicate, for instance, racial discrimination, measures to sponsor better international understanding; or scientific research, for instance, to improve the standard of living. As an example of a small project of local interest I might perhaps mention assistance in the erection of a library or an archive somewhere in Asia or in the Middle East.
UNESCO, as we are all aware, is a specialized agency of the United Nations which has the task of bringing about a truly international appreciation of the various educational, scientific and cultural contributions of each country, and of the ways in which the people of the more fortunate lands may share

their techniques with and assist those in less developed areas. UNESCO's basic objective is to build the defence of peace in the minds of men through education, natural sciences, social sciences, cultural activities, mass communication, exchange of persons, and scientific assistance, which are made available to its member states and especially to the underdeveloped areas of the world. As is stated in the preamble to its constitution, "wars first originate in the minds of men". It is in the minds of men that the defences for peace must be erected. Therefore above all UNESCO is much concerned with what originates in the minds of men.
The entry to UNESCO in 1954 of the U.S.S.R., the Ukraine and Byelorussia, and the return of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia to active participation brought the total membership of UNESCO to 72 nations. Some 1,200 delegates and technical advisers from all parts of the world attended the last UNESCO conference held in Montevideo. On the first day of the conference the Soviet delegation unsuccessfully urged the admission to UNESCO of Rumania and Bulgaria, and the rejection of the credentials of the representatives of nationalist China. However, the comparatively restrained and moderate statement of the Soviet spokesman was indicative of the attitude taken by the U.S.S.R. throughout the conference.
I must not forget to mention that the United States delegation also avoided provocation and concentrated on supporting increased technical aid to underdeveloped countries. Three resolutions on atomic energy offered another opportunity for political argument on such questions as banning atomic weapons, disarmament, the harmful effects of radiation, the control of nuclear energy and so forth. However, thanks to the co-operative spirit of all concerned it was possible to combine the three resolutions into one which authorized the director general of UNESCO to extend full co-operation to the United Nations on questions concerning the peaceful use of atomic energy. The joint resolution was, therefore, approved unanimously.
A Soviet resolution on measures to prevent the use of mass communication for the propaganda of war seemed certain to create real trouble until the Soviet delegation finally joined Canada, Colombia, Czechoslovakia, France, India, Lebanon, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States in sponsoring an alternative resolution on freedom of information. The resolution was approved unanimously, but the various interpretations of the operative paragraph, which invited the member states "to take the necessary measures to ensure freedom of expression
The Address-Mr. Arsenault and to remove barriers to the free flow of undistorted information" somewhat circumscribed the enthusiasm with which this Soviet concession had been greeted.
Throughout the conference there was an insistent demand from underdeveloped countries for a substantial extension of UNESCO's program and a large increase in the budget. The contributions of new members provided additional revenue and made possible expansion of the program and budget without an increase in the individual contributions of member states. By an overwhelming majority vote the conference approved an assessment level of $20 million for 1955 and 1956, an increase of approximately $2 million over 1953 and 1954. The redistribution of contribution percentages, as new members joined UNESCO, caused Canada's percentage to decline from 3-54 per cent to 2-77 per cent. The amount of the Canadian contribution for 1955 and 1956 will be approximately $554,000, compared with more than $600,000 in 1953 and 1954.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Will the hon. member permit another question? What is the basis of the contributions of the various members of UNESCO?


Bona Arsenault: The contributions of member states of UNESCO are established on the same basis as the contributions of member states of the United Nations. The population and national income of each country are taken into account. There are other factors which are considered, such as loss sustained during the last war and so forth. As I have just mentioned, our percentage of contribution was reduced this year to 2-77 per cent, while our percentage of contribution to the United Nations is 3-60 per cent, if I recall correctly.


Léon Balcer: What was the reason for the decrease in our contribution?


Bona Arsenault: The reason for the decrease in the percentage was the new members that joined UNESCO. I think I can answer the question of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) by saying that there are 60 nations of the world which are members of the United Nations, while there are 72 countries which belong to UNESCO. The entry of the U.S.S.R., Byelorussia and the Ukraine, bringing with it their contributions, caused Canada's percentage to decrease from 3-54 per cent to 2-77 per cent. Of course our contribution to the United Nations is higher than that to UNESCO because the budget of the United Nations is in round figures $40 million, with our contribution being about $1,500,000, while the total budget

The Address-Mr. Arsenault of UNESCO is in round figures $10 million and our contribution is approximately $300,000 a year.
Some of the projects which have been approved by the conference and that are of greatest interest in Canada have to do with matters pertaining to education. There is the continuation of the international fundamental education centres at Patzcuaro, Mexico, and Sirs el Laiyana, Egypt. A regional conference on compulsory education will be held in Latin America during 1956. Teaching about both the United Nations and human rights will be stressed. Assistance to member states in the development of adult education, toward better international understanding, was authorized, and special consideration will be given to selected summer schools in underdeveloped areas, and those for women students.
In the development of youth education for social responsibility and international understanding, a system of associated youth enterprises will be instituted during 1955 and 1956. Subventions to 11 international educational organizations were approved.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question at this point. I was interested in his reference to centres of international education where fundamental education was taught. He mentioned these schools as being in Mexico and Egypt. Could he tell us something of what is taught at these schools?


Bona Arsenault: I shall be glad to. The international fundamental education centres at Patzcuaro, Mexico and Sirs el Laiyana, Egypt, deal with the general form of education, education in the broad sense of the term. The centre at Patzcuaro, Mexico, alone takes care of the whole of Latin America, while the one at Sirs el Laiyana, Egypt, serves not only the Egyptian area but the whole of the Middle East. The population of those areas of the world are taught at those two centres, for example, how to maintain health; how to use their natural resources to best advantage in order to raise their standard of living; how to develop their agricultural resources, etc. In a broad sense that is what we mean by fundamental education.
Under the heading of natural science, the conference agreed that arid zone research should be accelerated. A substantial increase was voted in the budget for this activity. Surveys of the arid zones in Latin America, the Middle East and south Asia will be examined by committees of experts in an effort to co-ordinate research on this subject.

The proposed campaign against cancer was one of the most controversial items in the entire UNESCO program. It was first approved, then rejected, and finally accepted under the new title of "basic research on cellular growth."
The conference expressed keen interest in the work of the international council of scientific unions. A study conference on science teaching will be held in south Asia in 1955.
Subventions to the council of international organizations of medical sciences, to the union of international engineering associations, to the general assembly of the international union of biochemistry and to the international geophysical year were approved.
Under the heading of social sciences, it was decided that the development of social science teaching will be encouraged, with particular attention being given to direct aid to member states and the teaching of economics at universities.
The conference decided to intensify its work in the field of human rights and minorities, and to initiate a world-wide campaign to eradicate racial discrimination. Subventions were granted also to eight international social science organizations or institutions.
Under the heading of cultural activity, the conference authorized an analysis of the use of radio and television in cultural programs and a study of traditional cultures in southeast Asian communities which are undergoing rapid technological changes.
It authorized also an inquiry into the teaching of the humanities. Comparative studies of methods used in education through arts and crafts in industrial and rural areas will be conducted in Sweden, Germany and the U.S.S.R.
Underdeveloped countries that have requested assistance will be aided in establishing libraries and archives, the education of librarians and the microfilming of library or archival materials. During 1955 a seminar on public library development will be held in India, and a regional conference on the exchange of publications will be held in Latin America. The aid to member states such as Burma, India and Pakistan, for example in the development of museums, was approved and assistance was authorized to the international council of museums for the international exchange of exhibitions.
The conference recommended maintenance of the necessary services for the implementation of the universal copyright convention as well as for the protection of cultural property

in the event of armed conflicts. Subventions to 11 international cultural organizations were approved.
Under the heading of mass communication, such as the press, radio, television, the continuation of all UNESCO's activities for the promotion of international understanding was authorized. Continued efforts to procure support for proposed international agreements on the free flow of information were urged, and the preparation of a recommendation to member states on the free movement of persons was authorized. A substantial appropriation was provided for expert missions and fellowships. Under the heading of exchange of persons, priority will be given to the underdeveloped countries in the awarding of fellowships.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, under the heading of general resolutions; the conference considered the development of national commissions to be one of the most important questions on the agenda. A study of the structure and methods of work of existing commissions, the resources at their disposal, and the difficulties they were encountering was authorized. All member states were urged to improve the operation of their national commissions.
At this point may I recall, Mr. Speaker, that in chapter 25 of the report of the royal commission on the arts, letters and sciences which was tabled in this house in June, 1951, the commission summarized certain disabilities which, in its view, seriously handicapped arts and letters in Canada. One of the gaps in our national equipment in relation to the arts, letters and social sciences which the royal commission cited was the following, and I quote from pages 372 and 373 of the report:
Although Canada is a member of the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization, there is not yet established in Canada any form of national commission for UNESCO; an undertaking to create such a commission or an equivalent forms part of the UNESCO constitution, which Canada has accepted.
Canada has been a member of UNESCO since 1946, and has not yet established a national commission such as that prescribed by the UNESCO constitution and recommended by the royal commission. It will be recalled that the royal commission recommended the creation of a council for the arts, letters and sciences which, together with other varied and complex duties, would act as a national commission for UNESCO. Many of the duties of the proposed Canada Council would be concerned precisely with those matters of greatest concern to UNESCO, so that by the creation of a single body wasteful duplication would be avoided.
The Address-Mr. Arsenault
It seems obvious that the circumstances and considerations which led the royal commission to make this recommendation are still valid. As at September 1952, out of the 65 member states of UNESCO only three countries in addition to Canada had not established national commissions. They were Arabia, Korea, and Czechoslovakia. So long as we do not have some kind of national body, organized for the purpose to which I have just referred, we shall be failing in our undertaking to UNESCO, and we shall be taking only a very inadequate part in the UNESCO programs.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: There may be a reason for that. Perhaps Canada has not recommended that because she wants to protect the rights of the provinces in matters of education.


Bona Arsenault: Is this a question, Mr. Speaker? We contribute each year about $300,000 to UNESCO. In addition there are the costs of the delegations to the general conferences which are now held every two years. From this substantial investment we are not getting an adequate return, for the very reason that there does not exist any suitable equipment in Canada whereby the programs and the purposes of UNESCO can be made known to the Canadian public generally and, more particularly, to those special groups in Canada which are so deeply concerned with the objectives of UNESCO. As a result we are continuing to play less than an adequate part in the activities of UNESCO.


Léon Balcer: Would the hon. member permit a question? May we take from his remarks that if Canada has not raised its contribution to UNESCO, it is strictly due to the fact that we do not have a Canada Council?


Bona Arsenault: We decreased our contribution; we did not raise it.


Léon Balcer: If we decreased our contribution, then I imagine other countries must have put pressure on Canada to have our contribution raised.


Bona Arsenault: May I answer by saying that the member states have nothing to do with deciding what the contribution to UNESCO will be, because we first establish a budget. Then each member state is assessed according to that budget and according to certain rules and bases established, as I explained earlier.


Léon Balcer: Was there not any pressure-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Bona Arsenault: No, there was no pressure.


Léon Balcer: I am asking a question. If the hon. member does not wish to answer, then all right.

The Address-Mr. Arsenault


Bona Arsenault: There is no pressure whatsoever.


Léon Balcer: No pressure from other states asking Canada to increase its contribution, do you say?


Bona Arsenault: There is no way whereby we could increase our contribution, even if we wanted to, except by way of an outright gift to UNESCO.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: We are good at that; we are good at gifts.


Bona Arsenault: As a result of this we are continuing to play less than an adequate part in the activities of UNESCO, since the Canadian attitude in general conferences is not supported by a well-informed Canadian opinion.
Further, the successive Canadian delegations to UNESCO suffer a severe handicap in that there is little or no continuity in the Canadian delegations which, however well disposed and enthusiastic they may be, do not take up their duties at these conferences with adequate background information or knowledge of the problems which face UNESCO from year to year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Bona Arsenault: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He appreciates the fact that our questions are being asked because we think he is making a very important speech on a very important question. He has just said something about the desirability of Canada having a Canada Council, or some national commission related to UNESCO. Does he happen to know, as a member on the government side, whether we can count on the appointment of the Canada Council being made at an early date?


Bona Arsenault: Official policy, as a rule, does not come from backbenchers.


Mr. Pearson:: Don't be too discouraged.


Bona Arsenault: The announcements of
official policies do not generally come from backbenchers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it that the hon. member favours it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Bona Arsenault: One at a time, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In any event, it is a good speech.


Bona Arsenault: I hope something is done along those lines very soon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Bona Arsenault: If the Canadian government is in agreement that a national commission for UNESCO should be associated with or dependent upon the Canada Council, as proposed by the royal commission, it seems quite obvious that herein lies a strong argument for the immediate establishment of the Canada Council, quite apart from any other useful functions which the council might be required to assume.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I told you that you were making a good speech.


Bona Arsenault: Thank you very much; it is a non-political speech.
The formation of the Canada Council, with the added responsibilities of a national commission for UNESCO, would certainly have great advantages. Canadian delegations to UNESCO conferences would be composed, at least in part, of members of the national commission for UNESCO, who would be familiar with the policies and objectives of UNESCO and who would, over the years, provide a much-needed continuity in our delegations which in the present circumstances is sadly lacking.
Through the national commission for UNESCO, which would represent Canada as a whole, as well as the various literary, artistic and scientific organizations in Canada, the Canadian people would become much better informed of the achievements and purposes of UNESCO and, it seems quite clear, would be better prepared to advance, both within this country and internationally, the objectives of the UNESCO constitution, which Canada is under obligation to foster.
Through the active participation of a very considerable number of Canadians in UNESCO enterprises we should be getting a substantial return for our present investment which, as things stand at present, I am sorry to say is producing very little for us.
UNESCO has occasionally been subjected to some criticisms for spreading its activities too thinly over far too wide a range of subjects. If Canadian delegations to UNESCO general conferences are to be able to suggest more immediately useful and constructive programs, they should have behind them the authority of the informed and interested bodies in Canada which, through their interest in the work of a national commission for UNESCO, undoubtedly would see to it that their considered views were made known, and were expressed by the competent Canadian delegation.
And this, Mr. Speaker, must be considered without taking into account the heavy task which remains to be fulfilled by any UNESCO

member state during the two-year period which elapses between one general conference and another, such as the diffusion to interested bodies and the general public of information as to the result of UNESCO enterprises; the organization of international study conferences; recommendations on the choice of qualified experts to the various educational or scientific missions, and to see to it that UNESCO recommendations are properly carried out.
This can be performed adequately only by a permanent organ of liaison with UNESCO, such as a national commission, or its equivalent. Undoubtedly all important matters of policy would still be determined by the government, but on a very considerable number of matters the advice of the interested voluntary organizations in Canada would be of the greatest value. This advice cannot be secured adequately, failing the existence of a national commission for UNESCO, however we may wish to organize it in Canada.


Léon Balcer: Would the hon. member permit a question? I did not wish to interrupt earlier in his speech. Was a Canadian flag flown at the conference?


Bona Arsenault: There was a Canadian red ensign, yes, standing with the flags of the other nations. Unfortunately, may I add, it was often confused with the flags of some other commonwealth nations, and British colonies or territories. And I might add that members of our delegation were not too happy about it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, this opportunity to take part in the debate on the speech from the throne gives to a member an occasion at the beginning of each session to survey the position of parliament, to survey the issues to come before parliament, and to reach some conclusions and form some opinions on the role which parliament generally is playing in the affairs of Canada. This opportunity is the more significant since Canada is assuming an important place in the affairs of the world. Therefore I think it appropriate that when taking part in this debate a member should make some remarks in relation to the position of parliament and the relationship between parliament and the government. Speaking for myself at any rate, I find considerable cause for deep concern in the present relationship between the government and parliament and in the attitude toward parliament shown by the present government over the years in which I have been here.
50433-38J
The Address-Mr. Fulton
Very often-and perhaps more so on this side than on the other-we members object to the way in which the government seeks to control parliament, and to the way in which it ignores parliament. At the beginning of this session when there is confronting us a revision of the rules of the house, a committee for which has been set up, I think we should express some conclusions and indicate some objections to the way in which this process has been going on.
I do not wish to open my remarks in too partisan a spirit, but nevertheless I feel I am justified in saying that by and large the manner in which the government ignores parliament and the way in which the government attempts to control parliament is unfortunately approved of by the majority on the government side. For instance, I refer to such incidents in the past as the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that the government will give to parliament only such information as it sees fit to give unless the decision as to what should or should not be given to parliament is disagreed with by the majority. As I have stated, unfortunately the government controls that majority and the majority appears willing to accept that control. As a result the government is enabled to carry out its policy of refusing information to parliament, of refusing to take parliament into its confidence and of refusing to bring before the representatives of the people for discussion those matters upon which we are entitled to be asked to form a decision.
Indicative of this trend was the refusal to call parliament last fall when there were important issues affecting the country which were giving cause for great concern on the part of our people. I am not going to revive the debate which was concluded yesterday, but I cannot fail to refer to the fact that parliament and the people were kept in ignorance of the real facts with respect to the German treaty.
There are further grounds for the objections which I now make in that when the government does call parliament it treats it with what amounts to contempt. Their attitude is a reminder of the principle behind the statement made on one occasion in this house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who said, "If we want to get away with it who can stop us?". No minister in a government which had a proper appreciation of the position of parliament and of the relations of a government to parliament would have dreamed of using such words.

The Address-Mr. Fulton
This attitude of the government toward parliament is further demonstrated by the numerous interruptions which have taken place already in this debate. It is an accepted principle, which unfortunately is not followed by this government in practice, that the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne affords to members of parliament an opportunity to indicate whether or not they have confidence in the government. For that reason the normal business of the session is not proceeded with until that debate has been concluded.
I am not in any sense criticizing the laying before the house of the details of the government's program for the session while the throne speech debate is in progress. We are in complete and thorough agreement with that new practice. What I am referring to is the interruptions which have occurred in this debate for the purpose of taking up other matters. Several such interruptions have taken place at this session, and they have had the effect of reducing the significance of this debate, which in effect is an affront to parliament and an insult to its rights.
One can see in this interference with the throne speech debate the natural outcome of the government's attitude to parliament. The Prime Minister and the government said that there was nothing urgent enough to warrant the calling of parliament last fall. That argument was repeated yesterday. And yet already the throne speech debate has been interrupted because it was said that now we are here there are matters of such urgency that they require immediate attention and the government insisted upon laying aside this debate in order to have the other matters dealt with.
Only yesterday we heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) tell us that the consideration of the matter of the German treaty then under discussion was not really of sufficient urgency to warrant an earlier calling of parliament; yet he was speaking in the course of a debate which he had asked to have held at this time and which could only be held by interrupting the proper and normal business of parliament. In the same way this throne speech debate was interrupted earlier for the purpose of considering amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
There is not one of us who would deny the urgency of that matter in the light of the situation which the government has allowed to come about. But it is nothing short of absurd, it is nothing short of an affront to parliament, and is an indication of the government's attitude toward parliament to say, on the one hand, that there is nothing of such concern
IMr. Fulton.]
that parliament should be called early to consider it-to indicate in effect that parliament could not make much of a contribution to the matter in any event-and then to get us down here and say, "Now you are here, these matters are in fact of such urgency that we have to interrupt the proper and normal process by which parliament proceeds in order to take up these emergency matters".
In the same way in this session we have already seen a departure from another principle the preservation of which, I submit, is essential if parliament is to be in a position and have the authority whereby it is enabled to deal effectively with the government, which after all is or should be its responsibility. I refer to the principle of ministerial responsibility and cabinet solidarity. After all, if this parliament and the country are to be confronted with a series of statements by ministers, each of which is at variance with the other, it becomes impossible for parliament to decide the government's stand on a particular issue and thus to debate the merits or demerits of that stand.
We have seen increasing indication over the past few years of a serious departure from this principle of cabinet solidarity. I do not think it has been more conspicuously revealed than it was a couple of years ago in connection with the payment of $65 million to the wheat farmers of the prairies. At that time we had the Minister of Trade and Commerce saying one thing and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) saying diametrically the opposite in connection with the government's policy in that regard. When those two gentlemen found themselves in such an absurd position, they finally had to scramble out of their fix as best they might by saying, "Well, we have what we regard as a good Prime Minister; we will leave it to him and he will save the situation".
We have had an almost exact repetition of that absurd position this session. That was in the discussion of an important matter, the construction of the dam on the South Saskatchewan river. On the one hand, the Prime Minister has said the government does not feel it can conscientiously recommend to parliament that it is in the national interest to proceed with this matter; but on the other hand, we have the Minister of Agriculture out there carrying on negotiations with the government of Saskatchewan. What are the people to conclude the government believes? How are the people of Canada, or the parliament of Canada as representatives of the people, to arrive at any understanding of the nature of government policy in the light of confusion resulting from the fact that the government no longer speaks with a consistent voice?

We see another example of the government's overbearing attitude to parliament in the further refusal of information by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) with respect to the subjects which are to be discussed at the forthcoming conference of the commonwealth prime ministers. As has already been stated, apart from recent very pressing and immediate problems of international relations, there is no more important problem for this country than the question of intercommonwealth trade, and our trading relations within the commonwealth and the orientation of our trading channels generally.
Yet the Prime Minister refuses to afford parliament the opportunity of discussing the policies Canada should follow, refuses to give any indication of the position he intends to take on behalf of this government at that conference. Parliament is refused an opportunity to express its agreement or disagreement with those policies, to which however, we shall no doubt be committed. All that the Prime Minister tells us is that he, after all, is not going over there to make things any worse. The result of that attitude, Mr. Speaker, certainly means-if that is his attitude-that even if he tried he could make things no worse but he certainly is not going to make them any better. I suggest the Canadian parliament have a right to expect of their government and of their Prime Minister the expression of a more realistic concern with the problems which are exercising the Canadian people.
Then when the government, having treated parliament not only on this occasion but over past years with contempt, finally got around to calling parliament, they laid before us a throne speech which, by its conspicuous failure to deal with more pressing problems, is itself a further affront to a legislative body claiming any measure of independence and discretion.
In my view the most conspicuous failure of the throne speech is the failure even to mention one of the most outstanding and vexed problems of the day, the problem of dominion-provincial relations.
But perhaps on reflection, Mr. Speaker, it may be concluded that it is after all not surprising that there is no mention made of this subject, because in no respect has the record of the Liberal party and of the Liberal government been more shameful than in this field. There is no field in which that party has done more by playing politics to endanger national unity and bring relations between the various parts of our country almost to the breaking point.
It is a record in which unfortunately the Prime Minister, by his recent deliberate and
The Address-Mr. Fulton calculated reversal of policy and attitude, is now shown to have played a leading part, and in which he has had the enthusiastic backing of several members of his cabinet.
It has, of course, been for many years a deliberate part of Liberal policy to exploit the differing sentiments of differing parts of this country-always under the guise of fostering national unity. They have brought relations between the dominion and the provinces to the breaking point; they inflame the passion of one section of the country against another; they encourage resentment by the provinces against the dominion; they play off one part against the other and all the parts against the whole-then at the last moment, when the situation has reached a position of imminent disaster, they make a concession to avert a disaster which they themselves have created. Then they and their spokesmen, and the propaganda sheets which so assiduously foster the Liberal cause throughout the country, cynically seize upon the very concession they have made and boast that they have made another contribution to national unity thereby.
We have seen this process repeated once more and carried to the very ultimate just recently. We have seen a subject vital to the welfare of the nation-we have seen the welfare of the nation itself-used for political advantage by this Liberal government. In this whole process the Prime Minister has unfortunately played a leading part.
I refer, of course, to the method by which this government has dealt with relations between the dominion and the provinces, and particularly with the province of Quebec, over the taxation problem. There we see revealed in the most startling manner the way in which the Liberal government, under its Prime Minister, has been playing politics with a national issue for partisan political advantage.
To establish the truth of this assertion one has but to compare the statements and attitude of the Liberal leader last summer and fall with his actions in January of this year.
Last fall-and he must have known that six by-elections were in the offing in various parts of Canada in English-speaking or largely English-speaking ridings-the Prime Minister embarked on a course which constituted an appeal to English-speaking Canada, by attacking the premier of Quebec. So we had the sabre-rattling speech at the Reform club in the city of Quebec on September 16.
Then we were told there could never be one arrangement with one part of Canada and another arrangement with the others. Then the principle was enunciated that the whole was greater than any of the parts. Then we

The Address-Mr. Fulton were told that the Prime Minister had thrown down the gauntlet, challenged the premier of Quebec, and embarked on a battle to the death for the sacred principle of Canadian unity.
And how the ruse worked! For it was a song that has an appeal in many quarters- the battle song of the Liberal party which has led them to so many election victories: the song of national unity over-all while provoking national disharmony in all the parts. And nowhere, of course, does the sort of appeal made on September 16 have a greater attraction than in quarters where the feelings of the province of Quebec are not understood, and where the people have been exposed to years of the Liberal propaganda-the propaganda which states in one part of the country that Uncle Louis and his Liberal government are the saviours of the country from the wiles of the Conservatives, who are prepared to co-operate too closely with the premier of Quebec, while at the same time saying in Quebec that Uncle Louis-Papa Louis-is the saviour of his country from the wickedness of the Conservatives who will rob them of their heritage.
And so, to the advantage of the by-elections, and of the Liberal party, there was sung by the Prime Minister the battle song of anti-Duplessis; anti-tax concession; and the preservation inviolate and unchanged of the existing tax deals. And the ruse worked again.
Up until now, Canadians have taken the Prime Minister at his word and at the evaluation placed upon him by the Liberal party and its propagandists. I believe the Canadian people, even yet, are hardly able to realize the extent to which they were misled and misinformed in their appreciation of him and what he was doing.
Today, the by-elections being safely over, a completely different and diametrically opposite position has been taken by the Prime Minister. The very things we were led to believe he would never do are now being done.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman just said, "the by-elections being over" and he left the implication that a speech made in September was made for the by-elections. Does he not know the Prime Minister met Mr. Duplessis in Montreal on October 5. Surely you cannot have it both ways.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is perfectly true. But perhaps the hon. gentleman's elevation to and his assumption of a position of greater

responsibility has affected his memory. I do not know. But I suggest to him that he exercise his memory and that if he does so he will recall that nothing was said publicly between September 16, the date of the Reform club speech, and January 14- January 17, in fact-when the correspondence was tabled in this house and the announcement was made, an announcement which outlines a diametrically opposite course to that which we were led to believe was government policy on September 16; for the very things we were then led to believe he would never do are now being done. A different song is being sung now. The political purpose has been served, so the tune has been changed and the tone muted. The rousing battle song is now the sweetest of harmonies, and St. Louis the valiant knight has become once again Uncle Louis, the kisser of babies. No longer do you hear the rattle of sabres or the gnashing of angry teeth. Instead, honeyed words are flowing and the sword is sheathed. The Prime Minister has returned to parliament and on January 17, instead of St. Louis the Bold unfurling aloft the banner of righteous indignation, we saw the spectacle of Uncle Louis coming into the house and brandishing an all-day sucker-giant size- Liberal brand.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I see that my hon. friends do not like this very much. I did not suppose that they would. But we should look at what was said before and compare it with what is now being done. You will find, Mr. Speaker, that the proposal now made does involve the payment of different rates of federal tax by people in receipt of the same income residing in different provinces. To appreciate the extent of the hypocrisy of the Liberal party in dealing with the question of national unity, one has only to consider the extent to which the passions and prejudices of the rest of the nation were influenced by their spokesmen before the by-elections, and compare their earlier statements with their present actions. In 1954 the actions and proposals of the Quebec premier were everywhere ridiculed and condemned. In 1955, after the by-elections, they are in large part accepted, though in a different form. It should be noted that the premier of Quebec never went so far as to suggest that federal taxpayers in Quebec should have a lower federal tax rate than those living elsewhere, which will now be the case.

Let us compare some of the statements made. In 1954 the then minister of finance said in this house on April 6:
The principle underlying the suggestion that provincial tax should generally be allowed as an offset against federal tax strikes at the very root ol the system of federal-provincial tax agreements which have been developed in this country.
But in 1955, on January 14, in a letter to the premier of Quebec the Prime Minister says:
. . . we intend to propose to parliament a reduction of the federal tax for all taxpayers of a province having a provincial tax, whether or not they have to pay the provincial tax.
In 1954, the Prime Minister, in the speech already referred to-a speech which could only appeal to those parts of Canada where the Quebec premier was not popular, and in a speech deliberately insulting to the premier of that province-based . his appeal on the principle that he and his government would never offer to the people of one province any concession or benefit not available to the people of another. But in 1955 the Prime Minister does exactly the opposite; for in 1955 he says this, and these words can be found at page 230 of Hansard:
We also Intend to propose that Income tax payers who have actually paid a provincial income tax on their 1954 income-
And this applies only to the taxpayers of Quebec.
-be allowed a deduction up to 10 per cent of their federal tax.
You will recall further, Mr. Speaker, that in 1954, before the by-elections and in this house the Prime Minister told us-and he was echoed in this by certain of his colleagues, one in particular-that no good purpose would be served by holding a further dominion-provincial conference. But in 1955, after the by-elections, he tells us that a conference will be a good thing and that he proposes to call one at the earliest possible date.
Mr. Speaker, seen now in this light, seen now in its true perspective, seen after it has served its purpose for the political advantage of the Liberal party, this Reform club speech and the whole attitude and conduct of the Prime Minister stand out as one of the sorriest examples of conduct the only result of which was to fan the flames of racial prejudice and to sow the seeds of national discord and disunity-although it may have resulted in a temporary political advantage.
Then what of that other exponent of Liberal political principles, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). This great emancipator-you will remember, Mr. Speaker, how he was going to free us from the bonds of servile colonialism which he said still bind
The Address-Mr. Fulton us with respect to our constitution, and how he called a conference of the dominion and the provinces to find ways and means of amending the constitution; you will recall how he dropped that proposal like a hot brick back in 1950, when he found that once again the interests of his own party and those of the nation did not coincide, and how he once again subjugated the national interest to his party's political interests-in respect of this matter of the tax deal the great emancipator has found himself reduced to the position of a third-rate slave trader.
Only three short months ago this gentleman was roaming the western prairies, arousing western Canada against Quebec by a straight narrow appeal to racial prejudice. The Liberal party, he said, is prepared-and is the only party that is so prepared-to defend the present tax deals in exactly their present form against the onslaughts of those who think a better arrangement could be found. And he whipped up racial sentiment against anyone who, whether conscientiously or not, felt that some better arrangement could be made.
Well, the deals have now been changed; a new arrangement has been proposed by the very party which, for political advantage, was arousing the sentiment of the rest of Canada against Quebec. The very thing that this minister said could not and should not be done has been done. So, in order to remain where he is, the Minister of Justice-


Mr. Garson:: Mr. Speaker, anticipating an attack from the quarter from which it comes of the precise character of the one that is now being made-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind an interruption-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I took the precaution of obtaining the text of what I said. I should have said that I am rising on a question of privilege to affirm the statement that I actually made. The hon. member has said-


William Earl Rowe: That is not a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman is just making a speech.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My friend is attributing to me certain statements that I made in the province of Manitoba in the by-election there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not yet quoted the minister. I am going to do so, but I have not yet done so. I suppose he is so proud of his speech that he wants to quote it in anticipation-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend just finished saying a few moments ago that I said that we were unwilling to consider any other proposal and that our position was that we were

The Address-Mr. Fulton affirming the tax agreements. I have here the statement that I did make and this is it-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker.-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I said:
But notwithstanding these facts, Prime Minister St. Laurent, with that patience and fairness-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Kamloops apparently quoted the minister, and as I understand it the minister is now rising on a question of privilege to say what he did say on the occasion in question. I do not think I can interrupt the Minister of Justice on a question of privilege of that kind.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect, I have pointed out I did not quote the hon. gentleman, although I am going to, to his discomfiture, I think.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You did not quote him. You paraphrased him.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I stated the effect of what he said. If the hon. gentleman takes issue with my interpretation of the effect of what he said, then I suggest he is perfectly at liberty to rise and correct me in the course of another speech; but unless I misquote him when I come to the quotations I suggest to you, sir, it is not a question of privilege for him to rise and disagree with my interpretation of the effect of what he said.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Kamloops and I understood him to say that the Minister of Justice had said such and such. If that is not the case, I am glad to be corrected, but if that is what the hon. member for Kamloops said then I think I must hear the Minister of Justice on his question of privilege.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, what I said was this:
But notwithstanding these facts, Prime Minister St. Laurent, with that patience and fairness and statesmanship which are so characteristic of him at all times, has taken the position in this instance that he is willing to consider, on its merits, any new plan which Premier Duplessis has to offer at the present time.
That was stated in the Selkirk by-election campaign on October 15, 1954, and all these suggestions that any misrepresentations were made by me are quite without foundation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the minister forgets that he has made more than one speech. I think the minister also forgets that even in the one speech he has shown the ability in the past to contradict himself and say things capable of different interpretations. The minister may have said what he has just read. I have


not had the advantage of having the text, but I do have with me and shall be reading a Canadian Press dispatch and what his good friend, the Winnipeg Free Press, says that he said.


Mr. Argue:: That is more official than Hansard.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Be that as it may, the fact remains that the very things with respect to the present arrangements between the dominion and the provinces which the government said would not be done have been done, and so in order to remain where he is this Minister of Justice-this upholder of the constitution-is forced to accept the very reverse of the principles he himself enunciated. In order to remain in office he barters his declarations of policy for a further brief and inglorious tenure of his ministerial position.
Let us look at a few of the things he said during the by-election campaign and compare them with the deal he is now prepared to swallow. Last fall, what a brave and outspoken critic he was of any who suggested any modification of the existing taxation arrangements in order to accommodate the views of a large and important segment of our population. Enemies of the federal system, he termed them, although there is some doubt whether there is in fact any greater enemy of the federal system than the present government. The Minister of Justice portrayed the issue as a fight between Ottawa and Premier Duplessis over the tax deals, and he did not hesitate to fan the latent flames of race prejudice.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the statement which the hon. gentleman has just made concerning any position which I took in the by-election campaign to the effect that I portrayed the issue as a fight between Premier Duplessis and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is absolutely without foundation.


Mr. Hodgson:: People did not believe you anyway. They voted for Scottie Bryce.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think, Mr. Speaker, that as I proceed with my reading I shall persuade even the minister that he is wrong. I have a clipping here from the Toronto Daily Star of September 24.


Stanley Howard Knowles: More Liberal than the Free Press.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says, more Liberal than the Free Press.


Hazen Robert Argue: How could it be?


Stanley Howard Knowles: With a big L.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The heading is: "Drew, Duples-sis Both Out to Kill Pacts on Taxes, Garson Says." The dispatch is dated September 24, captioned "Special to the Star," and is from New Poplarfield, Manitoba. It reads:
The fight between Ottawa and Premier Maurice Duplessis of Quebec was made the issue of the by-election Nov. 8 in Selkirk by Hon. Stuart Garson, Minister of Justice, here Wednesday.
As I have mentioned, for his peculiar political purposes the minister went out of his way to link the Hon. George Drew, my leader, with the people of Quebec, against whom the minister was arousing the sentiments of western Canada.
But the hon. gentleman went further. He said in effect that the Liberal party would never make any concessions or changes. I know the minister does not now agree, but I will quote him in a moment. Why, he exclaimed, there could not possibly be anything better than the present arrangements exactly as they now stand. No better scheme could be devised, he said, and those suggesting changes or concessions must be imbeciles, because the best brains in the Liberal party could not find any other arrangement. The Canadian Press quotes him as follows-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a question of privilege, no member of the house has to sit in his seat and have words put into his mouth by which he is accused of calling other people imbeciles when no such words ever passed his mouth. If my hon. friend wants to read newspaper clippings of that sort and for that purpose, I suppose within the limits of the rules one cannot stop him, but I do not think it is a very creditable practice upon his part. I want to add that at no time during the course of that campaign did I call any persons imbeciles, not even my hon. friends of the Conservative party.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has said that it is discreditable. Let me tell him that I think that the campaign of himself and his party in connection with these tax deals has been the most discreditable thing the people of Canada have ever seen. I am amazed that this minister uses the word "discreditable" in connection with a matter of this kind and applies it to somebody else.
Here is what the Canadian Press quotes him as saying. Mr. Speaker, we have had experience of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) saying that he was misquoted. If the Minister of Justice wants to say he was misquoted, let him say so. It would be to his credit if in fact he was misquoted. But the Montreal Gazette of October 16, 1954, carried a Canadian Press dispatch of a speech at Stonewall, Manitoba, made by the minister
The Address-Mr. Fulton on October 15, and these words are in quotation marks as having been used by the minister:
One does not need to be a skeptic to doubt that a plan which is being advanced in 1954-*
The plan requested by the premier of Quebec.
-has either been considered and rejected in the seventeen years of consideration which this subject has had since 1937, or that it has not been considered because it was not thought to be worthy of consideration.
Those are the words the minister used to describe the attitude of those who suggested there could be some modification made in these taxation arrangements. The same report continues, not quoting the minister verbatim, but reporting the effect of what he said:
Mr. Garson said it is likely that every possible alternative had been considered since the study of federal-provincial fiscal relations began in 1937.
Yet the same gentleman now sits there, continuing in his ministerial position, when an arrangement giving in large measure effect to that request for deductibility is announced by the Prime Minister.
And the hon. gentleman went further still for the sake of his party and the by-election campaign. His own friend, the Winnipeg Free Press, reports him as saying that no one who had the interests of the country at heart would ever propose a new dominion-provincial tax conference at the present time. The Free Press of October 16, 1954, just three months ago, reports the minister as follows:
Hon. Stuart Garson, Justice Minister, charged here Friday that the proposed new federal-provincial conference on tax rental agreements is being fostered by old enemies of the agreements- "The same old opposition but in a new form''.
That is the minister who sits there, quite willing now to accept the statement of his leader-now that the by-elections are over- that it would be a good thing to have this conference at the earliest possible moment. Having joined with his leader, the Prime Minister, in denouncing those who said that for the sake of Canadian unity we should have a new conference to re-examine the dominion-provincial fiscal relations, he now sits in silent but eloquent approval of this complete reversal of position.
And so, for political advantage, the minister described those who felt that a new conference should be held to consider some other approach to the problem of dominion-provincial fiscal relations as enemies of the agreements. He described them as enemies of the western provinces and he fanned the flames of racial prejudice, resorting to an appeal to sectionalism to further his political purposes. Now, however, a new deal is being made.

The Address-Mr. Fulton The position under the tax agreements is being modified. On January 14, his leader, the Prime Minister, who a lew months before had joined him in fanning the flames of racial prejudice for Liberal political advantage, is advocating, and in fact is taking, the necessary steps to call a new dominion-provincial conference.
Yet this same gentleman, who only three months before had described those who suggested such a conference as enemies of the western provinces and enemies of the agreements, continues to sit there, although I suggest to you, sir, with respect to him and others who have joined in such a campaign, that any sense of political principle, any sense of shame, any proper sense of political responsibility, would have prompted them long ago to depart from the offices to which they so desperately cling.
National unity is too precious an objective to be played around with for political purposes the way this Liberal government has played with it. Dominion-provincial fiscal relations are too important, too difficult, to be made a political football to be kicked and muddied the way these Liberal cabinet ministers have kicked and muddied them.
After what we have seen, I am satisfied that never again will the people of Canada be misled by the concerted efforts which have been made to portray the serious and consistent suggestions made by my leader and others across this dominion for improving those relations and reviewing the present arrangements, as attacks on the federal system or as representing an attitude of hostility to the poorer provinces. Those very gentlemen who delighted in attacking and vilifying-yes, vilifying-the leader of this party for his stand are now doing the very things which he advocated.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think my time has very nearly expired. I am anxious not to impose upon the house further a speech which is so very clearly unpopular with the hon. gentlemen opposite. If the minister does not mind, therefore, I shall just conclude.
What we have seen lately is the clearest proof that the attacks made on my leader, whose absence from this house is regretted by all, over the past years for his suggestions and requests for a conference, have been nothing but the lowest form of politics. Now the people of Canada have seen the truth of the situation, and have seen that in order to restore national unity and the relations between the dominion and the provinces to the harmonious position in which

they should always be, the very things he advocated are having to be done.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy and proud to conclude by suggesting to you, sir, what I think all members of this house and the people of the nation will now agree with, that is that in this field, misunderstood though he has been, and deliberately misrepresented though he has been, the Hon. George Drew has once again rendered outstanding service to the people of Canada.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should like, sir, if I may, and I shall do so very briefly, to clear myself of the imputations which have been cast upon me by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, in the statement which he says that I made in the Selkirk by-election. I believe I can do it quite briefly and quite conclusively by virtue of my having taken great pains to keep a manuscript of my remarks at Stonewall, Manitoba. These are the portions of it which are relevant to the selection which my hon. friend picked out of context and which, in certain other cases, he quoted from newspaper reports. For that I perhaps cannot blame him, because he did not have the actual text of my speech.
This is what I said on that occasion:
From these few facts then,-and there are many others-it is clear that the continuance of the principle of these tax agreements is absolutely vital to the people of Manitoba. In this game of dominion-provincial relations, the tax agreements are the ball upon which we must never cease to keep our eyes. For with good financial management upon the part of the provincial government of Manitoba, this province, under these tax agreements, is moving rapidly out of debt into prosperity.
It therefore does not bother me in the slightest to have certain newspapers in Canada, including the Winnipeg Tribune, say that I am flogging a dead horse in this tax agreement controversy. This controversy over the tax agreements is by no means dead. It is still very much alive; and it will remain alive as long as those who are strongly opposed to the tax agreements still want to find some way of getting rid of them. Some of the opponents of the tax agreements want to call a new dominion-provincial conference. These people seem to think that such a conference would reach a new dominion-provincial arrangement which would cancel the tax agreements. Thus, the controversy over the tax agreements would continue to remain very much alive as long as there are in Canada influential public men and newspapers seeking to replace the tax agreements with something which thev regard as a better alternative.
Is there any suggestion in these words of devious plans, or of schemes, or the imputation of wrong motives to those who have opinions which differ from ours? I think not. "For example", I said:
For example, certain newspapers which do not support either the Liberal government at Ottawa or the Manitoba government are now hinting that as a result of the present discussions between

Prime Minister St. Laurent and Premier Duplessis, some new plan is already on the way which will embarrass us in Manitoba. Mr. Blakely, the Ottawa press gallery representative of the Montreal Gazette is reported in its issue of October 6, 1954, as saying that in my request for support for the Liberal candidate, Mr. Shanski in this Selkirk byelection, I had stated that the Liberal party was the only party in Canada which is both able and willing to defend and perpetuate these tax agreements. It is quite true that I did make such a statement, and it is a true statement.
I say on the floor of this house, Mr. Speaker, it is a true statement. All that our friends of the Conservative party have ever contributed to this matter, going back through the years, is to muddy the waters and obscure the issue.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was all too clear for you this afternoon.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has to explain his own speech.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I continue to quote:
Then Mr. Blakely goes on to imply, and clearly imply, that I had been left high and dry by the Montreal developments between Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Duplessis.
Now. Mr. Blakely is one of the ablest members of the press gallery at Ottawa and his paper, the Montreal Gazette, reflects in an authentic manner the viewpoint of large business interests in the city of Montreal and is also a strong supporter of the federal Conservative party headed by Mr. Drew, and of the Union Nationale government of Quebec headed by Premier Duplessis. The voice of the Montreal Gazette often speaks with eloquence and carries weight. Yet, in the present instance, the impression which Mr. Blakely has sought to convey in the Montreal Gazette is not up to his usual standard of accuracy. In what he has said, he ignores the fact that the tax agreements are sound contracts in writing, entered into between the federal government and nine of the provincial governments of Canada: and that they do not expire until March 31st, 1957.
Unless the provinces who have signed these agreements are prepared to agree to their cancellation now while they still have two and one-half years to run, the tax agreements are bound to remain in effect and to cover the relationships between the federal and provincial governments to which they will apply until March 31st, 1957.
The Montreal Gazette and other newspapers which have supported the Hon. Mr. Duplessis and the Hon. Mr. Drew in their opposition to the negotiation of the tax agreements-
And there was that opposition. If we have tax agreements now it is not thanks to the present leader of the Conservative party.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If we have a conference com ing up now we can thank him for it, and you know it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: To continue:
The Montreal Gazette and other newspapers which have supported the Hon. Mr. Duplessis and the Hon. Mr. Drew in their opposition to the negotiation of the tax agreements, are now showing their continued opposition to them in their hints and veiled prophecies that what they refer to as "the Montreal developments" have left western
The Address-Mr. Garson Liberals, to use their words, "high and dry". The best short reply to these kindly speculations is Mark Twain's remark concerning a false report of his deatn. He said that this report was greatly exaggerated. So are Mr. Blakely's fears concerning the continuance of the tax agreements.
For having had the honour of meeting most of the premiers and provincial treasurers of the Canadian provincial governments. I have formed quite a high opinion of their ability. I am confident that they are not going to throw away the benefits of the present tax agreements except for an alternative that will leave them at least as well off as they are under the agreements.
Long years of effort upon the part of able and experienced men have been put into the formulation of the tax agreements. It is, therefore, not surprising that these agreements have proven to be by far the best method of dealing with dominion-provincial relations in the field of public finance. During all of these long years of discussion and deliberation, first of all by the Bank of Canada in 1937, then by the Rowell-Sirois commission, then by successive conferences between the federal government and the governments of the provinces of Canada in 1941, again in 1945, and 1947, and then again in 1951, it seems likely that all the available alternative methods have already been considered for meeting the problem which is being solved by the dominion-provincial tax agreements. One does not need to be a skeptic to doubt that a plan which is being advanced in 1954 has either been considered and rejected in the 17 years of consideration which this subject has had since 1937, or that it has not been considered, because it was not thought to be worthy of consideration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then you turn around and adopt it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: To continue:
It would indeed be rather strange that such large numbers of able and experienced men in the field of public finance and dominion-provincial relations would in all these years of consideration have overlooked some really practicable solution to this problem. But notwithstanding these facts, Prime Minister St. Laurent with that patience and fairness and statesmanship which are so characteristic of him at all times, has taken the position in this instance that he is willing to consider, on its merits, any new plan that Premier Duplessis has to offer at this present time.
Now I want to ask my hon. friend from Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), who ordinarily is a fair debater in this house, if he can find in these remarks the least semblance of the picture that he tried to portray fifteen or twenty minutes ago. This was a statement made in the Selkirk by-election in an endeavour to lay before them all the facts, both pleasant and unpleasant, in as frank and candid a manner as possible.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would answer the minister. I thought it was a bad speech when I read about it, and I still think it was a bad speech, after the hon. member has repeated it. Neither it nor its contents improve with repetition.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have never worried very much about my hon. friend's opinion as to whether my speeches are bad or good, provided he does not misrepresent them.

The Address-Mr. Garson
Then I went on to say-


William Earl Rowe: Would the minister permit a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


William Earl Rowe: In fairness to some who are not able to answer in this house, I would like to know if the minister could tell us if the release that he kept so carefully was released to the press-because there is such a variance between what appeared in the Montreal Gazette and the Winnipeg Free Press and the Toronto Daily Star, and the release he is now reading-and when he has kept the release so carefully-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It was not only released to the press but it was mimeographed and sent around to an even wider audience. But I am sure my hon. friend, with his long experience in public life, knows that when any public man supplies the press with a copious release, a complete release, in many cases the press has not room in its paper to publish all of the speech, and they make extracts from it, and write headlines and they editorialize upon it. I am not complaining in the least degree about this-about the treatment by the press of this speech-not in the least. I am amazed that, with the space they have available, they can do as good a job as they do with these remarks.


William Earl Rowe: I would like to ask the minister if he read it as carefully in Selkirk as he is reading it now.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I did. I did not read it word for word, but I used fully its substance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister permit a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When the minister now speaks of the variance between his remarks and those attributed to him in the press, why did he not at that time correct the erroneous newspaper reports, instead of waiting to do it three months later?


James Garfield Gardiner: Did you ever try that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes-every time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Because I was then engaged in an election campaign, travelling long hours every day, and making at least two speeches a day. And in many cases I did not see the newspaper report of this or any of these other speeches until several days after; and I was too busy then to bother about the exact wording of them. And I certainly never thought that they would be put to such use as the hon. member for Kamloops has put them in this chamber this afternoon.

Then I would like to read now a further quotation from my concluding statement, to indicate the spirit and the basic meaning of these remarks at Stonewall. I said this:
Mr. St. Laurent, long before he entered political life, was appointed by Prime Minister Mackenzie King as the leading counsel of the Rowell-Sirois royal commission on dominion-provincial relations, of whose report on dominion-provincial relations the present tax agreements are largely the outcome. It is therefore not surprising that the Prime Minister with his great grasp of this whole subject matter, with his adherence to principle and his desire to promote the interests of the whole of Canada, is not departing from the principle of the present tax agreements when he offers to consider some new method. The end of the tax agreements remains the same. The tax agreements are the means to that end at the present time. If those who were opposed to the tax agreements from the beginning and are still opposed to them can, even at this late hour, submit a Petter means to that end than the tax agreements, the Prime Minister has stated that the federal government is willing to consider that means. But it ts not willing to change the end. The end is, as the Prime Minister has stated, to build up a prosperous Canada from coast to coast by equalizing the tax revenues of the 'have' and 'have-not' provinces.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, having waited for some time to get the floor while the Minister of Justice was reading the speech he made in the Selkirk by-election I am not surprised that the Liberals lost that election.
It was my intention to sit out this debate, not because I had no questions to raise or because there was nothing in the speech from the throne that I disagreed with. The unemployment situation, however, is so serious in my city and province that I am sure the people, particularly of Vancouver, would think it strange if I did not raise my voice in regard to it. Most of what I shall have to say will be in regard to unemployment.
Before I deal with that there are one or two matters I should like to refer to. Firs.t I want to comment on a statement made by the hon. member for Pontiac-Timiskaming (Mr. Proudfoot) when speaking in this debate on January 17. He was referring to the educational system of British Columbia and was replying to some statements made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). I am not coming to the defence of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam; if he needs any defence he is quite able to make it himself; but I do come to the defence of the educational system of the province of British Columbia. This is what the hon. member for Pontiac-Timiskaming said, as reported on page 274 of Hansard:
Why does not the hon. member take time off to compare the rights of minority groups in his province of British Columbia with those in Quebec. At this time I have in mind a place called Maillard-ville. British Columbia, and if I am not wrong I think possibly Maillardville is in the constituency of Burnaby-Coquitlam. I would ask him to

examine the school laws of his province before he launches an attack on my province, and before he assumes to give advice to the people of Canada.
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, non-sectarian public school system. No questions are asked of a child entering a British Columbia school as to whether he is Jew or Gentile, whether he is Roman Catholic or Protestant, whether he is Baptist or Witness of Jehovah. All that is nesessary is that he be a resident of British Columbia and of school age.
Not only is our school system free and nonsectarian, it is also compulsory. If a child is living in an outlying district where no educational facilities are available he gets his education by correspondence. Children living in localities where there are schools must attend them. On occasion we have taken parents into court in British Columbia in order to force them to send their children to school. I have never known of a parent coming to courts in order to get a school to accept his children. This is something for those who would criticize the British Columbia school system to inform themselves about.
If there are people in Maillardville or in any part of British Columbia who do not think the school system is good enough for them, who set up their own schools, then they are the people who are creating minorities; they are the people who are creating double taxation in British Columbia.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: How many Roman Catholic parents have to pay in order to keep their own schools in British Columbia?


Angus MacInnis: We have no-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Is there any difference between the minorities in Quebec and those in British Columbia?


Angus MacInnis: We have no minorities in British Columbia as far as our school system is concerned except those who purposely make themselves a minority. British Columbia provides an education for every child in the province, elementary and high school.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: What about the minorities in Quebec?


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member asked a question and I answered it. I may tell my hon. friend that in British Columbia we provide a school system which is in perfect conformity with the British North America Act and consequently we are not discriminating against anyone. If people set up their own schools and subject themselves to double taxation it is not done under the laws and
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis regulations of the school system of British Columbia. If a private school is set up the parents whose children attend such schools pay for their upkeep. They must also pay the public school taxes.
I want to say a few words with regard to the subamendment moved by the leader of this group when he spoke on the address. This subamendment reads as follows:
That the amendment be amended by inserting therein immediately after the words "Your Excellency's advisers" the following words:
"have deliberately returned to the policy of uncontrolled and unplanned private enterprise which resulted in the depression and unemployment of the pre-war years, and that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to undertake the economic planning necessary to cope with the serious problems now facing the Canadian people, and"
I shall undertake from government publications to show that the government has departed from that. First, may I say a word with regard to a comment by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) when referring to this amendment. This comment may be found on page 103 of Hansard, and it reads as follows:
May I say also that when I heard the mixed laughter and cheers I felt just a wee bit sorry for my good friend the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) because he seemed to me for just a moment to be like one of those fellows who went to swim in English bay at Vancouver on New Year's day. As he was just about to take the plunge somebody got away with his swimming trunks and for a moment he was in a rather embarrassing predicament.
I think what the hon. member for Vancouver South was trying to say was that the Conservatives were cribbing from the C.C.F. program. Probably that is true enough, but the Conservatives are not the only people who have been cribbing from the C.C.F. for years. I should like to read a statement by a prominent Canadian which appeared in Maclean's magazine of August 1, 1953. The man being interviewed was Mr. Hugh MacLennan, a noted Canadian author. Along with some other people he was giving reasons why he voted Liberal in the 1953 elections. Mr. MacLennan voted Liberal and in part this is what he said:
As I live in the province of Quebec, it is pointless even to consider the claims of Social Credit. They will run no candidate in my riding. Nor is the C.C.F. likely to do so either. In any case the C.C.F. is in the position of a man whose store has been robbed, and robbed consistently, for more than ten years.
By whom? Not the Conservatives. At least not according to this Liberal.
The Liberals have lifted so much of Mr. Cold-well's stock and sold it under their own trademark that he has been left with little of his own that would tempt me to buy.

Settlement of Ford Strike
I have no doubt that the civic government of Vancouver and the provincial government have made the federal government aware of the facts, but to no avail. That is the reason I am obliged to take up the time of the house now in order to try to make this government aware of the problems confronting many Canadians not only in Vancouver but throughout Canada.
I see that it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Miss Sybil  Benneli@Halion: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, may I ask a question? In view of the fact that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) was kind enough to send me a message saying that the Ford strike is reported to have been settled, may I return that kindness by asking him if, on this memorable occasion tonight, he will make some comment as to what this will mean to the people of Canada?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: I understand the hon. member rightly she is suggesting that, by consent of the house, the Minister of Labour be granted permission to make a statement. Does she mean at eight o'clock or now?


Miss Bennett:: As the matter is so important, I would suggest that it be done right now, if possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
it the unanimous wish of the house that we revert to motions in order that the minister may make a statement?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I think it had been agreed with all groups in the house that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) would ask at eight o'clock that we revert to motions in order that he could make an important statement. I suggest that if the Minister of Labour wishes to make a statement on the Ford strike, he could do so after the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys has made his statement to the house. Would that course be agreeable?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I thank my hon. friend for her courtesy. I think I should say this before six o'clock. I think I should remind hon. members that this industrial dispute at Ford has been a matter that has been constantly within the provincial jurisdiction. In saying that, I say too that I know that as it has gone on Hon. Charles Daley, minister of labour in Ontario, has done, time and time again, his
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
utmost to bring the strike to the happy conclusion which has been reached today, according to the press. I have not at this time the details, but if it is the wish of the house, I could make a statement later, having made these provisional remarks indicating that I as federal Minister of Labour cannot and do not wish to take any credit whatsoever for the settlement of this strike. Nevertheless I can tell the house that it fills me with a great degree of satisfaction because of the effect it will have upon a great industrial portion of Ontario, a portion of Canada which has been experiencing the difficulties referred to a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Mac-Innis). But I will discuss the matter with my colleagues during the dinner hour and one or other of us will convey to the house any information that may be available regarding the terms of the settlement.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Milton Fowler Gregg: At six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, at the suggestion of the hon. member for Halton (Miss Bennett), you asked for unanimous consent for me to make a statement regarding the reported settlement of the Ford strike. I hope, sir, I have unanimous consent so to do.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I then reminded the house that this long labour dispute was in an industry which comes under the jurisdiction of Ontario labour legislation and that the various efforts at government conciliation had been conducted by the Hon. Charles Daley, Ontario minister of labour, and his department. During the dinner hour I made some inquiries and learned that the negotiating committees representing the two parties will be making, or perhaps have already made, their own official announcement. I feel, therefore, we should wait until that is done to learn the details of the settlement which, I understand, are to be considered by the members of the union at a meeting called for next Sunday.
I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that all in this house rejoice at the prospect of work being resumed in this great enterprise. We sincerely hope that today may have marked the beginning of a long period of industrial peace in Canada's automobile industry.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement at this time, preliminary to the resolution that is now on the order paper affecting the gold mining industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Prudham: The government proposes to extend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act for two years, 1955 and 1956. Payments will be made on a different basis than formerly. The formula for assistance payments to gold mines consists of two factors. The first is the rate of assistance, and the second the portion of the production to which the rate of assistance applies. The proposed new bill maintains these two parts, but they have been somewhat simplified.
The rate of assistance has been revised and will be the amount that is two-thirds of the amount by which the average cost of production of gold from the mine during the year exceeds $26.50 per ounce. The rate of assistance in any event will not exceed $12.33 per assistance ounce. This leaves the ceiling at $45 per ounce allowable costs, the same as it was before, but raises the lower limit to which costs apply from $18 to $26.50 per ounce. Under the new proposal payments will be made on two-thirds of the production during the current year.
A resolution supporting this proposal, as I have said, is already on the order paper and will be before the house at an early date. I have extra copies of this statement here if any hon. member wishes to have one.


Daniel Roland Michener: This procedure, Mr. Speaker, is perhaps a little difficult to understand. I take it that the minister does propose to introduce a resolution to make the introduction of the bill possible, but at this time I feel it would be proper to ask when it is intended to introduce the resolution so that the matter can be the subject of a debate. I should like to ask the minister as well the reason for the necessity of making the statement in this way at this time. It is an interruption of the debate, and members who are interested in the effect of this resolution will not wish to debate it on such short notice and knowledge of its terms as we have been given tonight. I would appreciate an answer to the questions I have asked.
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance


George Prudham: I cannot say exactly when it will be brought before the house, but I expect it will be at an early date. I believe the reasons for making the announcement in this way are obvious. We purposely did it at this time because the stock exchanges across the country are closed. In recent years it has been the custom for the Minister of Finance to make an announcement at this time of day for the reasons mentioned.


Daniel Roland Michener: I appreciate the reason to some extent, but the stock exchanges are closed every night. Why should it be made at this particular time, instead of being introduced in the usual way? I feel that question is worthy of a more complete explanation than we have had from the minister.


William Earl Rowe: Can the minister tell us when it will be brought up?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister wish to explain further?


George Prudham: Someone has asked me to state more specifically when it will be brought up. I expect it will be after the termination of the debate on the throne speech, but I cannot say exactly what day. I hope it will be in the near future.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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 amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Angus MacInnis: I wonder if I could say a few words, Mr. Speaker, on the statement the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) has just made. First of all, I should like to say how glad I am that the great industrial struggle is over, as I am sure every member in this house is. During the time of this strike I have been thinking that huge industrial strikes of this kind, long drawn out, are perhaps in the same position as modern wars, that nobody wins.
Having had a settlement of this dispute after it has cost the parties concerned so much, possibly this would be a good time for some sort of committee-I do not know what you would call it, public relations or something of that kind-to continue explorations into the possibility of finding some way of dealing with these disputes after they have gone through the usual procedure and before a strike is called. I do not know whether or not I have made my idea clear to the minister, but I cannot think of anyone better than the

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis minister himself to approach the leaders of the trade unions and industry to discuss the possibility of avoiding long strikes of this kind in the future.
Shortly before my remarks were interrupted by the dinner recess I referred to the fact that newly arrived immigrants to Canada were provided with board and room if they were unemployed. I- hope I did not give the impression that I objected to that being done. Certainly I do not, and I hope it will continue to be done as long as it is necessary. We should not bring people to this country unless we are sure there will be work for them. If there is no work for them, we should look after them.
What I have been complaining about is that we seem to be doing more for the newly arrived immigrants than for the residents of Canada. During my remarks I mentioned conditions in Vancouver. I have here a pamphlet issued by the Canadian Welfare Council urging that something be done to provide a public assistance program for the employable unemployed. I want to draw to the attention of the minister and the house some of the conditions mentioned by the Canadian Welfare Council. As I said-and I mentioned the city of Vancouver-the first paragraph in this program says:
Appeals by the Salvation Army in North Bay "for donations of soup-bones, vegetables, and bread to feed transient men and their families", the re-introduction of used clothing drives in Windsor, the opening of soup-kitchens in Vancouver, and similar reports reaching the Canadian Welfare Council in recent weeks from many parts of the country, are evidence of the fact that there are still a great many unemployed workers in Canada whose essential needs are not being met.
I was wondering why the words "there are still a great many unemployed workers in Canada" are in here; but I imagine they are here because of the optimistic reports made from some government sources that the unemployment situation is on the up and up, although it is on the down and down.
Commenting further on the situation, this pamphlet goes on to say:
The head of a family who is denied help by municipal authorities on the ground that he is "employable" may be referred from one organization to another to beg for clothes, groceries for his family, or money to stave off eviction. He may stand in line for a bowl of soup to relieve the pressure on the food supply at home. Even though he can manage to keep his family alive, the loss of morale due to stop-gap measures, the need to seek help from several agencies, each meeting only part of his need, tend to discouragement and weakening of family ties.
I submit that these are the conditions which now prevail in this rich country, where so many of us are so well provided for and so happy. And it is, truly, a sad commentary on our social organization and our social

outlook that we should allow people to have to beg for soup bones and to have to beg for other people's cast-off clothing. Surely when they have to do those things it must leave scars on the human personality that will take many, many years of good living to eradicate.
The Canadian Welfare Council is suggesting that the various governments-municipal, provincial and federal-should organize a conference at which this situation could be discussed. And may I draw attention again to what I said quite recently in this chamber on another occasion, that how quickly and how effectively we act in this matter should not depend upon whether there are 20,000 unemployed or 200,000 unemployed. The needs of 20,000 are just as urgent, and it is just as necessary to look after their needs in a humane and civilized way as it is to look after the needs of 200,000 or 300,000, or whatever it may be.
Now I shall read a very short paragraph summing up the view of the Canadian Welfare Council. It says:
The Canadian Welfare Council urges all governments in Canada, federal, provincial and municipal, to take such action as may be required to bring about a conference on the subject of public assistance for the employable unemployed, in order to determine the most appropriate allocation of governmental responsibilities for meeting the needs of those unemployed persons not protected by the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act and to ensure that a program for this group is established with the least possible delay.
I give my support to that; but I submit that it is not enough at this time. We cannot wait now. As the editorial in the Vancouver Province says, empty stomachs cannot wait. We cannot wait now for a conference of this kind. We want something done now, done today, in order that we may eradicate this shame from our country.
The federal government in 1945 gave a firm commitment to the people of Canada that it would take the responsibility for dealing with this matter of employable unemployed. After learning the lessons of the depression, and after learning the lessons of abundance during five or six years of war, the government came out with an analysis of that situation, and a program to meet it.
I am going to put it on the record again and, although it has been done before, I make no apology for doing so now. Before the dinner recess I read a short paragraph from this book "Proposals of the Government of Canada, August 1945", where they pointed out that the war came before solutions to our main problems were reached. Let me read just a little more:
The difficulties of the depression were quickly submerged in the great national effort against aggression abroad.

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
Now there is aggression at home, the aggression of unemployment. It continues:
The winning of the war became a single dominant purpose to which all lesser demands and objectives were subordinated. The obstacles to united effort were removed by the willingness and patriotic desire of all groups to accept sacrifices and restrictions in order to ensure victory.
Now, I do not expect people to act in peace just the same as they do in war, even if the need is to relieve the distress of their fellow man. But people who stand in the way should be exposed by the government of this country, in the same way as they would have been exposed if they had stood in the way during the time we were at war. That is the government's responsibility; and unless they are willing to do that, there will always be selfish people who will stand in the way of progress.
I continue to read:
The federal government was responsible for the organization of the national effort and there were no limitations upon its power to do so. These circumstances and the co-operative spirit of the provincial governments made it possible to overcome, or temporarily to set aside, the factors which have impeded the development of solutions to difficulties of the past.
Let me draw the attention of the house to this next sentence-and it is not ten years yet since this was said. It represents the government's opinion in 1945. The people of Canada were looking forward to this, and the day of disillusionment comes in 1955:
The accomplishment of our aims in the post-war period must, no less than in war, be an object of national endeavour.
I ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), and any other minister sitting in front of me, if that is what they are doing today. Is that what they are doing?
The accomplishment of our aims in the post-war period must, no less than in war, be an object of national endeavour.
Well, I am sure, if it were, they would get a lot of help from the people of Canada. As I said before, there might be some selfish persons who would stand in the way; but the help and co-operation they would get from the rest of the people of Canada would be so great that those obstacles would be insignificant.
Then it continues:
Success in the attainment of high levels of employment, increased welfare and security, is dependent upon the fruitful co-operation between all governments and groups in the country. It is the responsibility of government to pursue policies that create conditions In which the initiative, energy and resourcefulness of individual citizens can achieve rising standards of life.
And if that is not accomplished, then it logically follows that it is the duty of this government itself to do those things which
private enterprise fails to do. That is its responsibility, either to do that or to abdicate.
Let me draw the attention of the house to the commitments which the government gave to the people of Canada in 1945, to be found on page 7 of the "Proposals of the Government of Canada" which I have mentioned already. These are:
To achieve the large objectives we must set for export trade, domestic consumption, private and public investment will require a closely integrated effort. The general principles guiding this effort must be explicit and clear as they will form the framework within which the specific plans and arrangements must be worked out. To this end the government briefly sets forth the basic principles underlying its proposals.
In familiar terms, our objectives are high and stable employment and Income, and a greater sense of public responsibility for individual economic security and welfare.
Who is taking responsibility today for the more than 300,000 unemployed?
Realization of these objectives for all Canadians, as Canadians-
Not just Canadians who are employed or in business, but all Canadians, which would mean Canadians who are unemployed.
-is a cause in which we would hope for national enthusiasm and unity.
I have pointed out to the minister and the government that they will have national enthusiasm and unity the moment they start to do something; but they will not have any enthusiasm or unity as long as they just sit and look at the problem and hope that something will happen to solve it for them. I continue to quote:
The government has clear and definite views on how these objectives can be attained.
I hope the ten years which have intervened since 1945 have not dimmed that clear and definite view.
These views may be summarized very briefly as, first, to facilitate private enterprise to produce and provide employment; secondly, to promote bold action by the state-
Just think of this government promoting bold action to provide for Canadians.
-in those fields in which the puolic interest calls for public enterprise in national development; thirdly, to provide, through public investment, productive employment for our human and physical resources when international and other conditions adversely affect employment;
I say that those conditions are here now; international and other conditions are adversely affecting employment and this is the time when the government should act as it committed itself to the people of this country in 1945 to act. I continue:
fourthly, to provide, on the basis of small regular payments against large and uncertain individual risks, for such hazards and disabilities as unemployment, sickness and old age.
604	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Girard
1 turn now to page 42 of this book and then I will be finished with my quotations. The government went on to say how these things could be done. It outlines the necessary requirements of a dominion scheme of unemployment assistance. I shall leave out
(a)	, which is not particularly necessary at the time, although it is very good, and go on to
(b)	, which reads in part:
The principle of dominion policy on the other hand is not the provision of relief, but the assurance of either a job or of a subsistence income in lieu of a job,-
I think subsistence income means a living income to provide an ordinary decent standard of living.
-if necessary for a substantial period of time, available to employable persons who are able and willing to obtain a job whenever possible.
Does the government think that it is fulfilling that condition when it provides a paltry $24 a week in the form of unemployment insurance for 60 days? It is not. Then I go on to (c), which reads:
(c)	A further requirement is that the dominion plan should not attempt to establish differentials in rates of benefit between provinces, or between localities in a province, or between rural and urban areas as such; national action of this sort must be based upon a uniform national system.
(d)	The plan proposes acceptance of dominion responsibility for unemployed employables, and provincial and local responsibility for unemployables, but it is recognized that this division presents problems of definition in some individual cases, and that in operating practice the only final test of employability is ability to get and hold a job.
I think my time is about up, but I do want to draw attention to the fact that in 1945, as outlined on page 43 of this book, the government plan proposed the acceptance of dominion responsibility for unemployed employables. I freely admit that unemployment could be much worse in the country than it is, but why wait until it gets worse. Why not deal with it now? It is the government's responsibility to provide either work or a subsistence income for those unemployed who are capable of working and who are willing to work. I hope that this commitment will be honoured, because I believe it was made in good faith. I would hate to see the government renege on it now.
(Translation):


Mr. Fernand Girard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take up again the question of bilingualism in Canada. It is a delicate subject, I admit, but so essential to good understanding between the two great races of this country that I feel I must come back to it. Even at the risk of hurting some feelings, the subject will have to be discussed time and time again until such time as true bilingualism is equally respected by the two great racial groups in this country.


I base the expediency of dealing with this matter on a statement made in this connection by His Excellency the Governor General, Right Hon. Vincent Massey, who stated in his book, "On Being Canadian", at page 20: (Text):
There are expressions of bonne entente on both sides, but one cannot build national unity simply on an exchange of compliments. The real compliment between friends is an honest expression of views in the light of mutual understanding.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I doubt if anybody would deny that bilingualism is the main link between the two great races which give this national unity of ours its bicultural character. It therefore follows that the vitality of national unity in this country is largely dependent upon the healthy state of this bilingualism.
May I be allowed to quote certain figures that will illustrate the present state of bilingualism and the condition of that highway to national unity. The figures I am about to quote are from the federal census of 1951, and I find them in an analysis published in the April 1954 issue of Relations, page 111 and following. According to those figures the bilingual population of Canada in 1951 was 12-3 per cent of the whole, as against 12-8 per cent in 1941.
It appears, therefore, that bilingualism is inadequate in this country, in spite of the bilingual character of our constitution. Then, too, it has shown a slight decrease in the last ten years, a fact which contradicts the too frequent statements we hear to the effect that bilingualism is gaining ground in Canada.
In addition, 60 per cent of those few bilingual people are from the province of Quebec and the great majority of bilingual people in other provinces are of French descent. Again according to the federal census of 1951, 3-8 per cent only of Canadians of English descent are bilingual.
These few figures lead to the sad conclusion that there is, properly speaking, no true bilingualism in Canada as conceived by the spirit and letter of confederation, since, barring a few exceptions, the only bilingualism practised has been purely and simply a concession on the part of the minority towards the majority. According to the same census, French Canadians, 31 per cent of whom are bilingual, supply 77-5 per cent of all the bilingual people in the country, whereas Anglo-Canadians, of whom only 3'8 per cent are bilingual, supply 14-6 per cent of all bilingualism in Canada.

The tragic conclusion to be drawn from this situation is that the only effort towards genuine good understanding has been made by French Canadians, who make up the only group to have practised a bilingualism worthy 3f mention.
Well, Mr. Speaker, instead of rejoicing over our worthier effort, we should perhaps feel sad because, when it is a one-sided practice, bilingualism becomes a neat form of assimilation. Before continuing to preach bilingualism among our compatriots, we have reached the point where we have to demand it from our English-speaking fellow citizens; otherwise, I repeat, our bilingualism will become a polite method of anglicization.
Some might bring forward the oft repeated cliche that our bilingualism has given us a practical superiority in the social development of the nation. There again, Mr. Speaker, figures deny this statement which has so often misled our French-speaking compatriots.
To convince us, let us see what bilingualism has brought us, in the very heart of Canadian life, namely in the federal civil service.
Setting aside gratuitous assertions, I have endeavoured to compile some figures which would give as accurate an idea as can be given of our representation in our federal civil service. For that purpose I took the public accounts for 1954, and went over the list of high officials in the various departments, taking those who earn more than $5,000 per year. Taking down the total number of high officials in each department, I counted every French Canadian name and established the average for each department. One may object that such a method cannot be accurate since, very likely, there are French Canadians with English names and vice versa, names which I must have missed in computing my average. I will answer immediately that argument with a reference from the 1951 federal census, which gives us the proportion of people in both ethnic groups who changed from one language to the other.
In 1951, there were in Canada 61,291 people of British origin who gave French as their mother tongue, and 342,678 people of French origin who stated that English was their mother tongue. That shows that any trend toward assimilation is more than five to one against us, which proves that the margin of error resulting from possibly mis-
The Address-Mr. Girard leading names, when I counted those high officials, works against the French-speaking group.
Here we have, then, according to the public accounts published by the Department of Finance for 1954, the way in which French Canadians are represented in each department.
Proportion of French Canadians in the Federal Civil Service
Salaries over $5,000.00 (Public accounts figures-1954)
No. of	No. of	Per centDepartment Wage-	French	of FrenchEarners	Can.	Can.Agriculture 	1058	102	9-6%Auditor General ..	23	4	17-3%Citizenship & Imm.	115	20	17-3%Civil Service ....	96	22	22-9%Defence Production	221	20	9-0%External Affairs ..	220	50	22-7%Finance 	154	30	19-4%Fisheries 	113	7	6-1%Justice 	90	20	22-2%Public Works ....	226	48	21-2%Mines 	370	22	5-9%National Defence ..	523	45	8-6%National Film Brd.	101	17	16-8%National Health . . .	333	47	14-1%National Research	329	17	5-1%National Revenue	1220	221	18-1%North. Affairs &	National Res. . ..	121	10	8 -2%Post Office	219	43	19-6%Printing Bureau . .	15	5	33 i%Public Works ....	211	40	18-4%Mounted Police ..	138	18	13-2%Secretary of State	97	50	51-5%Trade and Comm.	297	17	5-7%Transport 	613	46	7-5%Veterans Affairs . .	563	58	10-3%Total 	7466	979	13-1%
It should be noted that the high percentage m the Department of the Secretary of State is due to the large number of translators.
So, Mr. Speaker, that is what being bilingual has meant to French Canadians. There is the share which our people get: 13-1 per cent. Do we not have ground for concern when we consider that French Canadians represent 30 per cent of the whole population in this country, that they are the only group fairly bilingual, and that they are given only 13 per cent of the higher positions within the very administration which is responsible for watching over both cultures in this country and for fostering our constitutional bilingualism?
606	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Girard
Moreover, did you know that, again according to the 1951 federal census, English-speaking Canadians of British origin represent but 47-9 per cent of the Canadian population? Although they represent only 47 [DOT] 9 per cent of the whole population in a country which is constitutionally bilingual, our English-speaking fellow citizens hold more than 83 per cent of the higher positions in the federal civil service, while French Canadians, who represent 30 per cent of the Canadian population, account for only 13 per cent of those positions. The margin is but 17 per cent as far as the population percentage is concerned, but when it comes to the distribution of the higher positions there is a margin of 70 per cent. I say that our English-speaking fellow citizens get over 83 per cent. I say that Englishspeaking Canadians are getting more than 83 per cent, because I am leaving a margin of 4 per cent for positions that may be filled by Canadians of other origins, although when 1 compiled my figures, there appeared to be very few of those, hot more than 1 or 2 per cent, but I preferred to stick to conservative figures-and I use "conservative" in the right sense of the word.
Is that the standard of justice by which the federal government intends treating the two racial groups who have equal rights in confederation, with people of British origin who account for 47 per cent of the population holding more than 83 per cent of key positions, and people of French origin, who make up 30-8 per cent of our population, getting only 13-1 per cent of those positions?
In all other fields of Canadian life, outside the government, the situation is not any better as far as the rights of the French language are concerned. If bilingualism is to be taken into account only in the case of 'hose who wish to become elevator or telephone operators, and so forth, it is insulting for us to even mention it. I shall say nothing about bilingualism in the army, where our compatriots are systematically anglicized, as they are otherwise condemned to an aimless life and are subjected to unfortunate statements, like that made last year by navy officer E. Adam, at Quebec, who went so far as to state publicly that French-speaking Canadians could not hope to reach the higher ranks in the navy if they did not know the English language.
Has the proportionate importance of the two racial groups been respected in the choice of immigrants brought to our country? No, in spite of what is stipulated in the Canadian constitution. Yet, Mr. Speaker, every time someone is accused of destroying national unity, we become the scapegoat.
IMr. Girard.]

When we protest against the English designation of the Queen Elizabeth hotel, being built by the Canadian National at Montreal, in the very heart of Quebec, kingdom of 30 per cent of the citizens of this country, we are destroying national unity. When we declare ourselves astonished that the position of chairman , of the civil service commission is entrusted to an English-speaking Canadian, while that office should have rightfully gone to Mr. Boudreau, who had proved his worth, we are destroying national unity. When we require French in this bilingual country of ours, we are injuring national unity. When we protest against a matron who demands that English alone be spoken in a hospital which is mostly Frenchspeaking, and located in Quebec besides, it is we who are bigots and are injuring national unity. When we demand a national flag-not one with a fleur de lis, but a distinctively Canadian one, whereas a certain number of our fellow citizens insist upon the union jack -it is we who are injuring national unity. When we request the appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican, on behalf of nearly half the population of this country, which happens to be Catholic, it is we who are injuring national unity. When we request an investigation into bilingualism, it is refused us because it would be harmful to national unity.
But what is this national unity, Mr. Speaker? Would justice and truth be incompatible with it? Or is it merely a smoke screen which serves to quieten our enthusiasm every time we march towards recognition, not of our own particular wishes, but of the very conditions of confederation?
Some of our English-speaking fellow citizens seem to look upon us as a necessary evil to be tolerated only with ill grace. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) gave expression to this way of thinking last week when he made remarks unworthy of a member of this house on the subject of Quebec. Will he allow a member from this "other nation" to tell him that he will find, in his own constituency, at Maillardville, proof of our broadmindedness! It happens to be money from Quebec which has allowed his French-speaking constituents to build themselves a school.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Hear, hear.


Fernand Girard: The Address-Mr. Trainor the government the establishment of a board of inquiry to determine the situation of bilingualism in our country. We can be sure that if the French-speaking group are shown to be remiss in their duty, they will soon conform to the spirit of our constitution since they claim to be the most anxious of all to be faithful both to the letter and to the spirit of the confederative pact.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to quote another sentence from the book written by the Right Hon. Vincent Massey, "On being Canadian", at page 17:
(Text):
Certain profound questions which naturally spring to our minds when we talk about our future, come from the relation between the two great communities which have made Canada, and which must share her future.
(Translation):
Yes, Mr. Speaker! If we are so jealously eager for the respect of the rights we were guaranteed by confederation, it is because we want to share in the future of our great country, which will grow only when the right of existence for each of the two ethnic groups which give a bicultural character to our Canadian culture is truly recognized.
(Text):


Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, the refusal of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) in this debate a few days ago to follow the customary practice of congratulating the mover (Mr. Leduc) and seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne-


Mr. Winch:: I did no such thing. I said I had no congratulations to extend to the government.


Owen C. Trainor: I must have misunderstood the hon. member. As I understood it, it was a refusal to congratulate these gentlemen, and I thought it was a trifle harsh. While I agree with his reason, I think it unfair to visit condemnation on the hapless heads of these two estimable gentlemen. Therefore I should like to congratulate them on their creditable effort to make so much out of so little.


Harold Edward Winch: You are making it worse than I did. I ignored them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Wouldn't they like to be on an operating table under your knife.


Owen C. Trainor: The hon. member for Vancouver East appears to object strongly to the work of the propaganda section of the Liberal party in their coinage of the sobriquet "Uncle Louie" as descriptive of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). This is

merely mildly amusing, but I would suggest that if the hon. member finds the appellation inaccurate he might suggest "Foxy Grandpa" as an alternative. While I am on the subject, may I suggest to some hon. members opposite that adulation poured on the unresisting head of the right hon. gentleman may eventually prove cloying to his palate.
One appreciates an occasion, Mr. Speaker, when it is possible, conscientiously, to congratulate members of the government on opinions they have expressed. I find myself in that happy position. I should like to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) on the opinions he expressed in a speech to the Canadian Tax Foundation on the Canadian tax structure. One is encouraged to observe the fact that constant reiteration of a point of view by opposition members may eventually penetrate even the mind of a cabinet minister. I should also like to congratulate the Prime Minister on his belated discovery of the Canadian constitution. It is a discovery which some of his ministers do not appear to have yet made. The house is indebted to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier), the Dean Swift of the C.C.F., for that delightful satiric review of the political situation across Canada. Gulliver at his best never encountered more incredible situations.
In the program of research into the Canadian tax structure on which the Minister of Finance is engaged, I suggest he take a look at the situation in the automobile industry. In the United States the federal manufacturers' tax on automobiles is scheduled to be reduced on April 1, 1955, from 10 per cent to 7 per cent. Contrast that with the 25 per cent Canadian tax and you have an explanation of the major reason why a car costs so much more in Canada than in the United States. The Canadian automobile industry used to enjoy a substantial export market which has now practically disappeared owing to high production costs, of which taxation is an important element, thereby reducing employment to Canadian workmen. Here is one positive way whereby the government may extend that assistance to the unemployed referred to by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) in reply to my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees).
I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Finance to a facet of the Canadian tax structure which exemplifies the grossest discrimination and utter disregard for the principle of ordinary fairness in respect of a particular group of Canadian citizens. In 1953 the automotive distributors of Canada paid to the manufacturers the sum of $162,765,000 on the 483,821 motor vehicles
60S

produced in Canada, which in turn was paid into the federal treasury. This means that to get their cars dealers had to put up an extra $162,765,000 over and above the actual cost of the cars, on which amount no profit was taken. This cost had to be met, usually by financing, which meant that the dealers paid out, over and above the amount of the taxes, a very large amount in financing charges to obtain the money to pay these taxes. Surely no fair-minded person would maintain that there is any element of justice in this situation.
If the government is determined to maintain these iniquitous sales taxes, and the adjectival description is not mine but that of a former Liberal prime minister, then why not apply them at the consumer level where the ultimate payment is made rather than at the producer level? I grant you that this would mean informing the consuming public of the real impact of these iniquitous taxes on the price structure. It may be that the minister lacks the necessary courage, as did his predecessor. We Canadians, Mr. Speaker, are a law-abiding people, but we demand that our laws reflect the principle of strict, impartial justice. In the case to which I have referred I charge that this principle is being violated, and on behalf of these citizens I demand a recognition of the principle of equality before the law, implicit in our constitution although not guaranteed by a formal bill of rights.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to comment on an economic trend which may appear to be fortuitous to many, but in reality is in large part the result of deliberate government financial policy. I refer to the steadily declining purchasing power of the Canadian dollar on the domestic market. It will be understood that I am approaching this question from the point of view of the man in the street, humbly seeking information. I make no pretence of expert qualification in economic theory, like my friend the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and others in his party who seek to persuade us on the merits of a rather revolutionary economic theory on evidence no stronger than their own unsupported opinion.
I have obtained from the dominion bureau of statistics some information about the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar as measured by the consumer price index over the last 25 years, taking the year 1930 as representing 100, which I should like to place before the house. In the year 1931 it was worth $1.11; in 1932, $1.22; in 1933, $1.28; in 1934, $1.26; in 1935, $1.26; in 1936, $1.23.


An hon. Member:: Is that a good thing for the country?
The Address-Mr. Trainor


Owen C. Trainor: I do not know; just wait until you hear the rest of it. In 1937, it was worth $1.19; in 1938, $1.18; in 1939, $1.19; in 1940, $1.15; in 1941, $1.08; in 1942, $1.03; in 1943, $1.02; in 1944, $1.01; in 1945, $1.00.


An hon. Member:: Sold.


Owen C. Trainor: Do not buy it so quickly. You will get it cheaper in a short time. In 1946, it was worth 97 cents; in 1947, 89 cents; in 1948, 78 cents; in 1949, 75 cents; in 1950, 73 cents; in 1951, 66 cents; in 1952, 65 cents; in 1953, 65 cents; in 1954, 65 cents.
It seems obvious, Mr. Speaker, to one without any qualifications as an expert in this field that a 1954 dollar which will purchase only 65 cents of the necessities of life is just as valuable to the individual as the dollar when it was worth 100 cents or more provided he has enough of the depreciated dollars to compensate for their deficiency in purchasing power. In other words, those in the fortunate position of being able to vary their income to keep pace with the fluctuations in the purchasing power of the dollar are in a preferred position. But what of the individual with a fixed income, expressed in dollars, which he is unable to vary either upward or downward?
In this category, we must include all those who must live on a pension, be it provided through the investment of their own savings or as some return for past services to public or private enterprises. We must include all those who are trying to pass their declining years on the proceeds of government bonds which, when purchased, were represented to them as being exchangeable at all times for 100 per cent of the face value in consumer goods. If that does not hold true, then what of the expression "as good as a government bond"? This implied guarantee was the reason they were purchased in preference to more speculative issues with prospects of greater returns. I am certain that if victory bonds had been offered in 1939 for dollars that were then exchangeable for $1.19 of consumer goods, on the understanding that they would be redeemed in 1954 in dollars exchangeable for only 65 cents in terms of consumer goods, there would have been few if any purchasers, except on the basis of pure patriotism. How many government annuities would have been sold by the Department of Labour in 1939 if the purchaser had been told that the annuity would be paid in 1954 in dollars worth only 50 cents in purchasing power.
What about the case of the farmer who in 1954 must buy his operating supplies on this inflated market, where his dollar would buy only 50 per cent of what it would in 1939,

The Address-Mr. Cote while his product will not bring a corresponding inflated price when offered for sale on the markets of the world?


Hazen Robert Argue: He needs parity prices.


Owen C. Trainor: That is another question.
I am not offering a solution to this problem, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is obvious.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Owen C. Trainor: Because the main responsibility for the depreciation of the currency rests with the government. It is a result of their fiscal policy. Consequently, it is up to the government to devise a method of dispensing equal economic justice to all its suffering citizens who are condemned to live on a fixed income in terms of dollars. In this connection I am led to paraphrase a sentence from a famous speech by the late William Jennings Bryan, a man who always manifested a concern for the victims of injustice. The government is pressing on the bleeding brows of these suffering people a crown of thorns and they are being crucified on a cross of paper.
1 would suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) that the plight of these people is becoming desperate and that desperate conditions breed desperate remedies, which might conceivably embrace even a change in the government of this country.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Owen C. Trainor: I mean desperate for the government. Members of this house are being inundated by pitiful letters from old age pensioners, war veterans, civil service and C.N.K. pensioners, all stressing the inadequacy of their stipend to sustain life. This inadequacy is traceable in large measure to the depreciation of the currency. What remedial action does the minister propose? I suggest he must announce immediate constructive action to alleviate these conditions or suffer the consequences.


Alcide Côté: Last week while speaking on the address, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau) complained particularly about two changes which were made in post office personnel. I have made inquiries into these two cases and I desire now to briefly bring the facts before this house.
The first complaint is against the procedure followed by the Post Office Department in connection with the promotion to the position of a post office inspector in Winnipeg a few years ago.

The Address-Mr. Yuill procedure other than the one followed; that nobody has been ridiculed by the postal officials; and that no Canadians of any ethnic group have been called mediocre.
Everybody may peruse the Woods-Gordon report which did not find any postal official inefficient. On the contrary, the report states the company was impressed by the over-all efficiency of the department and the basic soundness of its organization and administration.
Finally, whether a letter registered and prepaid for special delivery, posted in Winnipeg late on the evening of one day and delivered in Ottawa the next day, is or is not good postal service, and whether the zoning system could apply elsewhere but not in Winnipeg, are questions of opinion and interpretation.
Mr. Speaker, I have replied to the complaints of the member for St. Boniface by giving the facts in order of sequence, in so far as possible, and only with the purpose of informing the house adequately.


Mr. Viau:: Will Mr. R. J. Emerson remain in the position of district area superintendent in Manitoba?


Alcide Côté: I ask my hon. friend to read the statement I have made. The matter of the position of area superintendent is not settled, as an appeal is now under consideration by the civil service commission. I would not like to prejudge and I am not able to prejudge what action will be taken by the commission.


Mr. Charles Yuill (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate it is not my intention to needlessly take up a lot of valuable time. I feel however that in the interests of the people of the Jasper-Edson constituency whom I have the honour to represent I am obligated to comment on some of the legislation forecast in the speech from the throne and also the lack of legislation to deal adequately with some of our most serious problems in my part of the country.
I should like to compliment those who have taken part in this debate thus far. The seriousness and high standard of the debate thus far is indicative of a sincere desire on the part of all members of this house to seriously and honestly appraise the proposed legislation and do something about it. I need only mention the dispatch with which the emergency legislation relating to the unemployment situation was carried out. There are many who felt that this was not the answer to this problem, but they know of the serious plight of those who depend upon the take-home pay of a husband, a father or brother. They know also of the

worry and fear and privation that always rears its head in homes where the breadwinner, through no fault of his own, is unable to provide the necessaries of life. Many of us feel that with a proper economic policy this would have been unnecessary, but nevertheless, when an emergency arose, with a minimum of political drum-beating we applied the milk of human kindness and did the only thing possible under the circumstances.
We in the opposition groups are supposed to be ever critical of government policy; we are expected to condemn the government for both their sins of commission and omission. I should like to say that I for one would like to be a little more realistic in my approach to these things. I believe in giving credit where it is due. I can see for instance some very humanitarian legislation in the Disabled Persons Act that is to take effect as of January 1 this year, and in the amendment to the Blind Persons Act, and the proposed amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act, and others which I hope to deal with at some future date.
I was somewhat disappointed, however, in the very restricted application of the Disabled Persons Act. I sincerely hope it will not interfere with the welfare of those already enjoying more generous consideration by our Alberta provincial government. To the possible recipients of these benefits in other provinces I am sure it will be welcome news to know that nearly all of the provincial governments are setting up the necessary enabling legislation to make this assistance available at the earliest possible moment.
I am sure we are all very happy with the proposed amendment to the Blind Persons Act which allows a reduction in age to 18 years and a higher permissible income for all recipients. This is very commendable.
It is very gratifying indeed to know that at last the war veterans are going to receive more generous consideration. I would strongly urge the government to adhere to the requests of the veterans for an increase in pension to $60 per month for single men and $120 per month for married men, and to allow a permissible income of not less than $1,200 a year for single men and $2,000 a year for married men. It is not indicative of the generosity of the Canadian people to pay tribute on November 11 in such glowing terms to our glorious dead and then go home and forget about the welfare of the veterans still alive and trying to exist on a pension whose purchasing power has shrunk to 50 per cent or less of its original value. I appeal to the government to give the veterans a better deal.

I would urge the government to give serious thought at the same time to the plight of our senior citizens, and do everything possible to improve their standard of living. I have in my possession a list of comparative prices of commodities in 1927, when the old age security pension was set up, and 1955, compiled for the senior citizens association of British Columbia. This list contains 30 different items and includes such items as tea, coffee, sugar, flour, vegetables, meat and the rest of the commodities that make up the basic standard of living in the average home. In checking over the list I find that the cost of these commodities has increased by 238 per cent in the period between 1927 and 1955. Surely this alone would urge the government to give their kindest consideration to the plight of our senior citizens.
My constituency of Jasper-Edson is basically an agricultural area. This year the farmers in this area have had one of the poorest crops in their history. To start with, the rivers, I think without exception, all overflowed their banks, in some cases cutting new channels through farms and depositing on summer-fallowed fields huge deposits of gravel. When the water receded it gave the fields the appearance of a gravel pit.
This was bad enough in itself, but many of the farmers had their livestock drowned. I know of one man who lost eleven of his best cows by drowning.
Again, as if to add insult to injury, it rained almost every day all summer, either preventing the sowing of any crops or that which was seeded to mature before a very early frost came along and froze everything. As if that were not enough, we had an unusual amount of hail.
The ironical part of it all is that in many instances these same farmers have been contributing to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act since 1939 and now when misfortune overtook them they found they were out of bounds or did not qualify for one reason or another. It is not very comforting to those who have lost everything to be told that because of this technicality or that they do not qualify, and then look a little farther south or east and see their neighbour enjoying at least the minimum P.F.A.A. benefits. They feel that they have been paying money into P.F.A.A. since 1939 under false pretences. It may be that they do not understand the mechanics of P.F.A.A., whatever they might be. I say that these people deserve a better deal and I urge the government to do everything possible at the earliest possible moment to help these fine people.
We have heard of the merits of NATO and the desirability of international co-operation in world affairs, and we recognize this as
The Address-Mr. Villeneuve desirable; but I would remind the members of this house that charity begins at home, and until we have learned how to manage our own affairs and look after our own people we are not setting a very good example to those we desire to help.


Mr. Georges Villeneuve (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to ask the indulgence of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) because I am going to speak in French.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice to the hon. members who have spoken before me to congratulate the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply for their brilliant speeches.
I wish also to welcome my new colleagues and especially the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Marler), the new Minister of Transport, to whom I think I should extend a special welcome as I anticipate that the constituency I represent will certainly owe a lot to him before long.
I hope that the tax issue will soon come to a final settlement. I am one of those who consider the Canadian constitution, called the British North America Act, as something more than a sort of ark of the covenant of the Old Testament which would have been half patched, although Canada is entirely different from what it was in 1867.
I was rather taken aback by the statement made in this house about a week ago by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). I venture to think that my hon. colleague was sincere and that he did not want to hurt the justifiable pride of the French Canadians of the province of Quebec. Since I believe him to be sincere, I suggest that he return to the province of Quebec during the next recess and that he spend a little more time there during his visits. He might even try to learn a little French in order to better understand our people. I am sure that after a few visits he will come back delighted with the spirit shown by the Quebec people and that from there on he will become the upholder of such a noble and attractive cause as that of national unity, which should be well understood by the different racial groups in our country. I invite the hon. member particularly to come to the constituency of Roberval, one of the preeminently French constituencies in Canada. I will be happy to have him meet our people and he will come back delighted, I think, with his stay in our province.
614	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Villeneuve
For my part, I hope that the members from British Columbia will invite us again to take that trip over the Rockies in order that we may better understand the mentality of the people in that part of the country, for when we know and understand each other better national unity will be practically a fact in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I find that in my constituency unemployment does not cause as much concern now as it did last year. However we have seasonal unemployment and it is a problem which requires our attention as well as all our ingenuity if we want to solve it.
The government brought in amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which will bring some relief to those people out of work, especially this winter. May I however be allowed to draw attention to some connection between unemployment and public works. The unemployment insurance benefits paid to those who are entitled to them must not constitute an encouragement to idleness. It is said that the devil finds work for idle hands to do and that is why I think that we should implement some public works project which would bear some relation to the payment of benefits. We might see to it that these people are paid the benefits to which they are entitled and ask the Department of Public Works to make up the rest of their salary. Our people like to work. In all our constituencies there are lots of things to be done and it is a pity that those people who would like to work should be unemployed.
Another point worth mentioning, I think, is that of assistance to small industries. We could certainly improve their position by amending the Industrial Development Bank Act. This legislation is somewhat too rigid for my liking. It should not only help in the expansion of industries operating at present, but it should more particularly assist in the establishment of small new industries with a view to diversifying the Canadian economy. In fact, if, in every community of any size at all, there were one or two small plants I feel sure that that would improve the labour and agricultural situation with consequent benefits to our working classes as a whole.
The 1954 housing act has had excellent results so far. I must point out though that these advantages have not been visible in my own constituency since the banks have not seen fit to give it all the desired attention. I would, however, like to say a word about one class of people who are in an unfortunate position as far as housing is concerned. I am thinking of our large families. I think it may safely be said that no group of people in this country is as badly housed as our large families. Yet, as has often been pointed out,


are they not the best human asset a country can have? In what way, then, could we bring special attention to their plight in the matter of housing? I know, of course, that it is much easier to advocate ideas than to solve problems. But I think that it would be a good thing, especially in semi-urban constituencies to come back to the general idea of the joint loan, with one-half being advanced by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the other by a recognized lending institution.
Central Mortgage and Housing would lend at an interest rate equal to that of government bonds, whereas the approved lending institution could lend at prevailing rates. Thus, in due course, the interest rate would probably fall to 4J or 4} per cent. Then, by continuing the mortgage insurance and promoting low cost housing, we could probably house a high proportion of the large families of this country who are particularly in need of shelter. This could be done only if benefits of the act were made available to all, everywhere in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, ten years ago, a Liberal government-and I think it can be said Liberal governments were always those to alleviate suffering in this country through social security measures-instituted family allowances. Since then, this same government, having remained in power, have improved matters by enacting other measures equally appreciated by the people of this country.
I can say that in my particular constituency families are generally large and greatly appreciate family allowances. In view of the high cost of living, they are under the obligation of asking that these allowances be increased, without further affecting the pocket book of the Canadian taxpayer. As large families are an asset to the country, I ask the government to be more generous to the heads of these families in granting them increased allowances and to give them very special consideration.
I wish the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) were in his seat at this time. However, I know that he will take notice of the particular request I want to make on behalf of my constituents.
In fact, for some years, numerous Canadians have been asking, in the name of national unity and to further adorn the crown of national unity through understanding and justice, that cheques issued throughout the country be bilingual. We acknowledge that much has been done up till now, because all cheques issued in the province of Quebec are bilingual. That is, so to speak, only a beginning. I should now like to see the government continue its work and the Minister

of Finance give favourable consideration to this request, which I believe to be quite fair and reasonable, namely, bilingual cheques throughout the country.
To my knowledge, bilingual stamps and currency have caused no social or racial disturbances likely to injure national unity. I should rather say that these measures have contributed to the consolidation of national unity. I am convinced that the hon. Minister of Finance will give serious consideration to our request and make a favourable decision. Besides, I have read a letter he wrote to an organization fighting for this cause and it is my belief that we shall soon hear good news about bilingual cheques.
I have a further request to make, regarding the simultaneous translation of the debates of this house. I think it would be an improvement. I can hardly lay claim to perfect bilingualism. On the contrary, I have much to do before I reach that point. However, I am trying real hard to get there and I am glad to realize that many English-speaking members are doing the same. They deserve congratulations and encouragement, for the sake of national unity.
The more bilingual Canadians there are in this country, the easier it will be for the two racial groups to understand each other better and to be in greater sympathy. They will be glad to live together in the same country, enjoying the same freedom and mutual understanding.
I understand that in such countries as Belgium and Switzerland, where they have two or three official languages, there is simultaneous translation of debates, as at United Nations headquarters. To my mind, this system would help give justice to all.
Yesterday, I heard the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon) refer to a statement reported to have been made in Vancouver by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). I am of the opinion that if a system of simultaneous interpretation were established in this house, the hon. member for Vancouver East would not have complained of the fact that we speak French here and that he has to wait 24 hours to get the translation of a speech made in French. With simultaneous translation, we could all convey our ideas to one another, our speeches would be understood immediately. Moreover, we could all give our full measure here since, if I am not mistaken, out of 265 members of the house only about 15 are perfectly bilingual. Simultaneous interpretations would certainly increase, not reduce, our incentive to learn both languages. Such a system would
The Address-Mr. Villeneuve help us also to grasp the meaning of everything which takes place here, since it is especially hard in this corner to catch certain statements and certain speeches, a condition which bars us from maximum efficiency.
We must also consider the visitors who understand only one language. They would be able to listen to the translation of the speech being made. They would get more satisfaction and be more interested in the proceedings, as would too the members themselves.
May I be permitted now, Mr. Speaker, to come to the main topic of my speech, agriculture.
In the constituency of Roberval, which it is my privilege to represent in this house, 60 to 65 per cent of the population devote their time to agriculture. This agricultural activity, I believe, constitutes the very backbone of the riding from the economic point of view.
Numerous individuals and organizations from my constituency have asked me to request that the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the government maintain at 58 cents a pound for two more years the support price for butter.
That request is exceedingly important for all the farmers in my constituency as well as for all the farmers of Quebec. In this regard I would like to quote from a speech made by the dairy industry commissioner for the province of Quebec:
Too little thought, perhaps, is given to the importance of the dairy industry of the province of Quebec with its capitalization reaching one and a quarter billion dollars, including $225 million for herds, aggregating about a million head of cattle, which produced, last year, five and a half billion pounds of milk, the gross worth of which on the farm was $168,569,000, or $11 million more than in 1952 and $18 million more than three years ago.
In 1952, 33 per cent of the total agricultural income of the province of Quebec came from the dairy industry. In 1953, that proportion had reached nearly 40 per cent. It should be noted that Quebec is the province most dependent on its dairy industry for its general agricultural prosperity. Indeed, except for Nova Scotia and British Columbia, the percentage of farm income derived from the production of milk in all other provinces including Ontario, is under 20 per cent.
One cannot stress too strongly the fact that half a million people derive their living directly from the dairy industry; to that number must be added those who depend on it indirectly, such as people employed in the processing, transportation and distribution of dairy products, the manufacture of machinery and accessories and those who provide essential services to the dairy industry. It all adds up to the fact that one-third of the people of Quebec depend on the prosperity of the dairy industry. It is therefore the source of an enormous purchasing power for one and a quarter million consumers of the province and it has a major influence on our economy as a whole.
The market value of dairy products, once they have been processed and have reached the market.

The Address-Mr. Villeneuve jumped from $193 million in 1951 to $207 million in 1952 and $222 million last year, an increase of more than $25 million in three years. It should be pointed out that as far as the gross value of production is concerned, the dairy industry ranks second in the province of Quebec, after the pulp and paper industry. It contributes nearly 40 per cent of the total dairy production of Canada. It produces:
34% of the butter manufactured in Canada,
21% of the Cheddar cheese made in Canada,
27% of the other kinds of cheese,
33% of the concentrated products made in Canada,
20% of the ice cream made in Canada,
32% of the whole milk sold in Canada.
I have here other statistics which are no less staggering on the importance of the problem for Quebec farmers. In 1953, 302,606,000 pounds of creamery butter were produced in Canada, of which 112,179,000 pounds came from Quebec.
Now, as for the effect of the support price of butter on the Quebec farmer's income, I must say that the farmer received 75 per cent of the retail price of butter. The farmer very seldom gets such a large share of the retail price of a consumer product. That is why the support price on butter has been more or less a lifesaver for the farmers. And it is to enable our farmers to maintain a decent standard of living and improve their position, especially as far as Quebec farmers are concerned, that I am asking the right hon. Minister of Agriculture and the government to maintain the support price on butter at 58 cents a pound for two more years.
Besides, from the Canadian standpoint, it is said that one out of six Canadians, or 17 per cent of our people, depends directly or indirectly on the dairy industry for his living. I believe that figure clearly shows the importance of the dairy industry for us.
Mr. Speaker, as I have only one more subject to discuss, may I ask this house, if it is possible, to allow me an extra five minutes after the ten o'clock bell.
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreeable to hon. members that the hon. member who has the floor be allowed to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: How long?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I inform hon. members that the hon. member for Roberval has requested not more than five minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Translation):


Georges Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, we are told, today, that more and more farmers are leaving the land to settle in cities. If we have to deplore an ever-increasing unemployment, seasonal unemployment, in particular, it is


because our farmers are going to the cities where they add to the number of labourers who, unfortunately, have to rely on temporary jobs for their living.
It is our duty to help keep the farmers on the land, and in so doing, we help maintain the stability of the Canadian economy, because agriculture has always been and will always be the soundest basis of society, and that is needed in this country probably more than elsewhere.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word or two on the subject of the building of the Chibougamau-St. Felicien railway. Last summer, I made numerous representations together with my colleague, the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier), in order to bring the matter to a head. Guarantees were put up by the lumber companies, and we have not yet given up hope that the Canadian National will accept these guarantees. I plan to deal with that subject again, when this house discusses the motion introduced by the hon. member for Lake St. John. However, I think I always did my best to bring about the implementation of that project which, in my opinion, is of capital importance for the future of the economy, not only of my constituency, but also of my whole district. It has always seemed strange to me to note that those who never work for the cause are always the first to take the credit. They give us the impression they are trying to keep alive the tradition of the fly on the wheel.
Incidentally, I would like to ask the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), whose absence is so often noticed in this house, to kindly read again what was said last year in this house and at the railway committee, in order to find out what the hon. member for Lake St. John and myself have done, within our party and outside, to have that project carried out one way or another.
I would like to tell him again, in conclusion, that I am confident the Chibougamau-St. Felicien railway will soon be built; I will continue to rely on the spirit of understanding of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler), of all the members of the cabinet, and of the Canadian National authorities for the construction in the near future of the St. Felicien-Chibougamau section of the Chibougamau railway. No doubt it will be built in my constituency, and I undertake to promote this project to which we could never give too much importance.
Mr. Speaker, I shouldn't like to overtax your patience, and I thank you for the forbearance you have shown me.

(Text):
On motion of Mr. Harkness the debate was adjourned.



DEPARTURE OF PRIME MINISTER FOR COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE

William Earl Rowe: I am just reminded, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is leaving tomorrow to attend the British commonwealth conference, and will not be back in the house. I should like to say to him through you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
Good Wishes to Prime Minister the members of this party, that we wish him a safe trip overseas.


Mr, Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: On this occasion the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe), Mr. Speaker, might well have spoken for all members on this side of the house. We, too, wish the Prime Minister well, and a safe journey both ways.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am very happy in the privilege of having these good wishes from all my fellow members in this house.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
619
[Stage Direction]
Friday, January 28, 1955