1955-01-28

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1956, was presented by Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) asked a question to which I will now reply. I assume the question refers to the reference made by the governor general in council to the Supreme Court of Canada under the provisions of the Supreme Court Act of certain questions of law relating to the application and validity of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. This reference has been set down by the supreme court for hearing during the current week and I understand the hearing is being proceeded with at this time.
Hon. members are probably aware that disputes arising in connection with the employment of longshoremen and stevedores in the loading and unloading of ships have been handled by my department under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act since its inception, and prior to that for many years under the earlier Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.
However, in 1954, upon an application made by district No. 50 of the united mine workers to the Ontario labour relations board under the provision of the Ontario labour relations act, that board accepted jurisdiction and certified the applicant union as bargaining agent for employees of the Eastern Canada Stevedoring Company employed in the loading and unloading of ships at the docks in Toronto harbour.
The validity of this order of the Ontario board was challenged by a rival union which had theretofore exercised bargaining rights 50433-40J
for these employees, namely the brotherhood of railway and steamship clerks, freight handlers, express and station employees.
The attorney general of Ontario intervened in these proceedings and gave notice to the Attorney General of Canada that in the proceedings the constitutional validity of the federal statute, the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, would be brought into question by the province on the ground that the act is ultra vires to the parliament of Canada because it is legislation in relation to property and civil rights in the province.
Since the validity of the federal legislation was thus raised in the proceedings, it was considered advisable by the government to have the application of the federal legislation in respect to the employees settled with the least possible delay by reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, and at the same time to obtain the opinion of the supreme court on the question raised by the attorney general of Ontario, namely the jurisdiction of parliament to enact the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. The following questions of law have therefore been submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration, namely:
(1)	Does the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, chapter 152, apply in respect of the employees in Toronto of the Eastern Canada Stevedoring Company Limited employed in connection with the loading and unloading of ships?
(2)	Is the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act ultra vires to the parliament of Canada, either in whole or in part and, if so, in what particular or particulars and to what extent?
Decision on the matter of amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act will be deferred pending receipt of the report of the supreme court on this reference.
With regard to the second part of my hon. friend's question, hon. members will also be aware that the railway unions representing non-operating employees of the railways have indicated that it is their intention to undertake an early study of the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act relating to conciliation and to thereafter make
620	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry appropriate representations to the government. Naturally, we would want to have the benefit of such representations and to have the opportunity of studying them when they are forthcoming. Consequently, for this reason also, we are postponing any further amendment to the act for the time being.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question supplementary to the question I asked yesterday by now inquiring of the minister what other progress has been made within the department with regard to the revision which I understand was under way two years ago at the time when certain amendments were referred by this house to the industrial relations committee. At that time the minister said that a study and revision of the act was under way.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Very good progress has been made with those suggested amendments, but in view of the facts I have just submitted I feel we should withhold the recommendation of those amendments until these other matters have been dealt with.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I wonder if the minister is in a position to say how long that is going to take?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, I cannot say.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. When the non-operating railway unions are ready to make the recommendations to which the minister refers, would he consider having the industrial relations committee convened so that the union representatives might make their representations to the members of that committee as a whole?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question under consideration when the time comes.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Hon. Alcide Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Hamilton) may I say it is now possible to make public further details in this regard.
The department is well aware of the disappearance of a money packet containing $44,500 from the Britannia Beach, British Columbia, post office on December 17, 1954, which coincided with the disappearance of a clerk of the Britannia Mining and Smelting Company, who acted as assistant in the post office.


The money package was dispatched by the Royal Bank of Canada, Vancouver, to the branch of the same bank at Britannia Beach. We are informed that the bank had fully insured the parcel. The post office has not suffered any financial loss.
The post office is in a company town and the general manager of stores and purchasing agent for the company has been postmaster since his appointment in 1923 by the civil service commission. The company pays some of its employees to act as assistants in the post office.
The suspect who worked in the post office under the name of John Clealand Wallace Black has been identified as being John Keith MacDonald.
The extensive investigation which has been conducted by the Post Office Department and the R.C.M.P. since the day the loss of the package was discovered is still proceeding in *co-operation with the United States postal authorities and the F.B.I.


Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, arising from the statement made a while ago by the Postmaster General in answer to a question of mine, I should like to ask him whether the theft at Britannia Beach, British Columbia, post office may have been committed by a person who was not a post office employee but was handling Her Majesty's mails with the approval of the Post Office Department?


Alcide Côté: Well, Mr. Speaker, I could not give all the details as to how it happened because, after all, I was not on the scene of the crime when it was committed. But again, if-


Mr. Speaker:: The minister does not have to answer a hypothetical question.


Mr. Fleming:: It is not hypothetical.


Alcide Côté: That is why I am not in a position to answer it. I have to rely on the information given me, and if further information can be obtained with respect to the question asked by my hon. friend I will be glad to report all the details to him, which may be from the file, of course.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William McLean Hamilton: Is it
permissible to remove the hypothesis from the question and present it to the minister again in order to get an answer?


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose that the hon. member is not addressing his question to me. If he is, may I say that I settle points of order as they arise and I am not to be questioned from the floor on matters of procedure. But it is a very well known rule that hypothetical questions are not in order because there is no limit to the number of questions which could be asked in that way. I am sure the hon. member has enough resources of his own to frame his question so that it will bring about the results that he would like to get.


William McLean Hamilton: should like to ask the Postmaster General whether the missing person referred to in his report earlier today was a person who was not a post office employee but was handling Her Majesty's mails with the approval of the Postmaster General?


Alcide Côté: I think I have already answered the question at least partly. The hon. member has only to look at the answer I made today in Hansard, but if my hon. friend wants to see the file-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Alcide Côté: He may on one condition, that he comes to my office without any recording machine.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to a report that was published in the Vancouver Sun of Wednesday this week to the effect that, whether under private or government-guaranteed financing, the common shareholders of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited stand to make from 20 to 40 per cent profit annually. If so, is the minister in a position to advise the house of government policy on this matter and of any provisions that will be made for the protection of the Canadian public?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no to all phases of the question.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister considering any policies for the protection of the Canadian
Inquiries of the Ministry people as a result of the situation with regard to the pipe line which I have just mentioned? Is the answer to that question also no?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that the minister spends nights and days considering the welfare of the people of Canada.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to have a direct answer to this specific question.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the day of his departure. I should like to ask him two questions in connection with the Formosa situation today. Is he prepared to say anything today with regard to this matter? In particular, is he prepared to say whether the United States has given any indication that, as far as Chiang is concerned, he will not be permitted to conduct operations against the China coast?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: To answer the first part of the question, may I say that I do not think I can at this time usefully add to what I said in the house the other day. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know of any undertaking or any understanding that the United States government has reached with regard to action which necessarily prevents Formosa from being used as a base of operations against the Chinese mainland. I said the other day that I thought that would be an important part of what I at that time called the neutralization of Formosa which I indicated in my view should work both ways, namely that Formosa under neutralization should be protected from invasion from the mainland and should be prevented from being used as a base for invasion against the mainland.


AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLIES TO CANADIAN INSTITUTIONS AT REDUCED PRICES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Further to my statement in the house yesterday in reply to a question by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe), I should like at this time to outline in somewhat greater detail the proposed plan for the sale of butter at a reduced price to* hospitals, orphanages, and such institutions.
622	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry In the first place, the butter is being offered to all Canadian institutions on the list published by the Department of National Health and Welfare for the purposes of the Excise Act and the Excise Tax Act. This list of approved institutions is available to all hon. members, and rims to more than 1,500 names, I understand.
To all of these, letters are today going forward from the agricultural prices support board, accompanied by a questionnaire and application form for return by institutions wishing to avail themselves of the offer of butter at the reduced price.
As stated in the letter, the actual method of supplying the butter has not as yet been finalized, but the reduction will be about 21 cents per pound below the price which the institution is now paying to its supplier for the same grade of butter.
It is expected that the institutions concerned will secure their butter through their trade channels, the suppliers then being reimbursed by the board for differences in prices involved.
As has already been stated, the general objective in offering butter at the reduced price is to increase the total quantity of butter used in the approved institutions throughout Canada. This could be brought about by approximately the same expenditure for the purchase of butter.
Interested institutions are being asked for their comments on this objective and on the most suitable method of servicing their own requirements, although the board reserves the right to standardize the method to the greatest possible extent.
Institutions are being advised as well, I may add, that the board may find it necessary to limit the time for which this offer can be held open. It is not, of course, intended to be a permanent operation.


Mr. Rowe:: Would the minister tell us how much of that butter is being sold in that way, or how much of the surplus?


James Garfield Gardiner: All that we can get a market for. The total amount that will be disposed of will not be 20 million pounds which is the total we wish to dispose of.


William Earl Rowe: You have no idea how much?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. I really cannot make a guess at it.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I should like to ask of the minister a supplementary question that has a bearing on the sale of butter. With regard to the consumption of margarine in Canada, has any effort ever been made to find out 

how much of it is because of preference by the consumer and how much of it is because it is cheaper than butter?


James Garfield Gardiner: Efforts, of course, have been made to find out what the consumption of oleomargarine is, and I think that fact is fairly well known; but it is almost impossible to determine what portion of it is for spread and therefore in competition with butter and what portion of it is for cooking purposes and largely in competition with lard. It is extremely difficult to estimate what that division is.
lLater:l


Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture regarding the butter situation. If the butter is to be sold to institutions at about 20 cents less than the actual price, according to the statement made by the minister a while ago, what will be the margin between the price paid by the institutions and the price paid by wholesalers?


James Garfield Gardiner: The present wholesale price of butter is 61 cents. Take 21 from that and it is 40 cents.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: This statement is not an answer to my question and I knew that 21 from 61 makes 40.


An hon. Member:: Go to school, professor.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The schools I attended were as good as those attended by the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask hon. members to please give me a chance to hear what is the question that is being asked. Order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I knew about the difference, but I should like to ask this question. I should like to ask the minister what would be the difference between the price paid by the institutions and the one paid by wholesalers who obtain such butter from the government?


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement which I read indicates that the hospitals will get the butter for 21 cents less than they were paying for it under conditions now existing.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That does not answer my question.


James Garfield Gardiner: The price might be different at different places in Canada. The floor price is 58 cents at Toronto and Montreal but it is different at Regina, at the coast and down in the maritime provinces. No one answer would do for that.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That does not give any answer to my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member should be satisfied with the answer given.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Not quite, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Let us say that perhaps it is difficult to satisfy the hon. member in this instance.


HEALTH INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to a news item in this morning's Globe and Mail to the effect that the Ontario Blue Cross is about to enrol its two millionth subscriber? Is the minister not gratified to learn that as many as two million Canadian citizens are able and willing to protect themselves against the hazards of illness without requiring any government handout?


An hon. Member:: What about your amendment?


Mr. Coldwell:: What about the amendment?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I was just about to tell my hon. friend what has already been uttered from the bleachers. My hon. friend perhaps has not taken fully into account the very important amendment which stands in the name of the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe). I will also tell him of course that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is naturally gratified with any action that is taken to improve the health standards and services of the people of this country. That is only consistent with what the Department of National Health and Welfare always does.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What steps is the minister taking this year to bring in national health insurance so as to cover all the citizens of Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend ought to know the answer to that question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then, what is it?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) asked me if I could give any further information beyond what had appeared
Inquiries of the Ministry in the press with respect to a number of cases of methyl alcohol poisoning, which had occurred on H.M.C.S. Magnificent. I replied that as a board of inquiry was sitting to establish the facts, I felt that I should not make any further statement until it had completed its task.
The board of inquiry has now completed its investigation and is forwarding its findings to naval headquarters. While the report is, of course, a confidential report for the guidance of the naval authorities in taking whatever action may be warranted, I can give the house briefly the facts as to what took place.
Briefly the facts are that three cans of duplicating fluid, used in the ship's communication duplicating machines, were removed from a locked storeroom by a member of the ship's company, who had access to the key in the course of his normal duties. One can was removed during the early afternoon of Friday, January 21, and two further cans in the early evening of the same day. These cans were kept hidden and were passed around to several groups of seamen who surreptitiously drank the liquid mixed with soft drinks or grapefruit juice from cups and soft drink bottles. The cans, incidentally, were clearly and distinctly marked "poison" and bore other words of caution. When emptied they were thrown overboard during the night. There was no large party at any time during the day or night, but as I have mentioned, small groups of two to five men drank the mixture in widely separated places throughout the ship. There was no outward evidence of drunkenness on board during the time in question. There was no indication, therefore, to the officers making rounds that anything was amiss. The first evidence that anything was wrong was the sudden severe illness of a number of men. It is evident, I might add, that a great number of the men did not know what they had been drinking.
Great credit should be given to the ship's duty medical officer and to the staff of the Royal Canadian naval hospital at Halifax, as well as to civilian consultants, for the fact that due to their combined and prompt action the nature of the poisoning was quickly diagnosed and suitable treatment applied. Had this not been so, the consequences to the men involved would have been much more severe and in several cases would probably have proven fatal.
Following study of the report of the board of inquiry at naval headquarters, disciplinary action will be taken where appropriate, as well as such other steps as may appear desirable to prevent a recurrence of this regrettable incident.
624	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Harkness SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, January 27, 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.
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: In view of the general desire to save time and expedite the work of the session, Mr. Speaker, I shall forgo the usual compliments and make my remarks as short as possible. I am glad to see that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is so sharp in his arithmetic today. He is much sharper than he was when he was speaking in this debate some two weeks ago. At that time his figures did not work out nearly as neatly as they did in his reply today.
I believe the earlier speech delivered by the minister calls for some comment. He took up nearly two full pages of Hansard, and I am told that means approximately 2,000 words, explaining the continuation in office of Dr. Thomson, head of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, during the time he was running for the position of leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan. Most of this so-called explanation was taken up with a long discussion of Dr. Thomson's suitability for this post. This is a question which, to my knowledge, no one has ever raised. In other words, the minister was raising a straw man and knocking him down. Throughout this lengthy explanation there was no mention of the real point at issue, the real reason for raising this matter here. The minister passed it over as though it did not exist.
The main point is very simple, Mr. Speaker. It concerns the propriety of a civil servant running for political office before he has ceased to be a civil servant, and following his defeat for that office continuing in his job as though nothing had happened. This is directly contrary to the whole concept of our civil service. It is contrary to the idea of the civil service being outside of politics, and being a body which serves the state rather than the political party which happens to be in power at any particular time. A few instances of this kind would soon destroy the morale of the civil service. The divorce of this body from politics would be at an end and, in effect, we would see the restoration of the old patronage system. The Minister of Agriculture is perhaps one of the few people in this country who would have a thing of this sort carried on, and then try 

to make out there was nothing out of the ordinary taking place; that he could not understand why people were raising the question.
The minister, having attempted to confuse this issue by interjecting irrelevant side issues, went on, and by the misuse of statistics tried to persuade the country that agriculture was in a very flourishing condition rather than in the somewhat depressed state the actual statistics reveal, and as I am sure the personal experience and knowledge of most members here would confirm. In regard to the reduction in farm income, which the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) and others have brought to the attention of the government at this session, the minister said, and I quote from page 199 of Hansard for January 14, 1955:
What is the reduction in income in these three provinces-
Meaning the prairie provinces.
-because of wheat reduction in 1954 compared with the top year in that three-year period? . . . All told it is $440,900,000. That is the loss that has taken place in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba because of the fact that they had poor crops last year and low returns because of rust and low quality wheat.
I should like to emphasize that last phrase:
. . . because of the fact that they had poor crops last year and low returns because of rust and low quality wheat.
In other words, the minister was attempting to blame the weather for the reduction which took place in farm income in 1954. This is almost completely at variance with the facts. The reduction in farm income because of the poor crop of 1954 will show up chiefly in 1955. It did not show up last year to any extent. This is the year in which we are going to suffer from these poor crops last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: You have not followed very well the system of marketing in western Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is quite clear. Up to date the deliveries of the 1954 crop have been quite small. They amount to 300 bushels per farm, plus a two-bushel quota and in some cases a little more barley where farmers had barley. That is all the farmers have been able to deliver so far. Anyone who had any crop worth threshing at all, no matter how poor the crop was, has not been able to deliver it all as yet. All he has been able to deliver is that small quantity. The situation is that the hundreds of millions of dollars lost as a result of bad weather in 1954 is going to be realized in 1955 rather than during the past year. Therefore, it had little effect on last year's cash farm income. The situation is exactly the reverse of that which the
JANUARY 28, 1955	G25
The Address-Mr. Harkness
minister outlined in his speech, and upon which he built all his subsequent remarks.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the real reasons for the reduction in farm income are, first, the inability of the wheat board to sell a large proportion of the crop of the preceding year, that is of 1953. That is the first and main reason for the reduction. We were not able to sell the major portion of the crop taken off in 1953, and part of the crop taken off in 1952.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is not the same fact true with regard to 1953 as compared with 1952?


Douglas Scott Harkness: To some extent, yes. The cash income of the farmer in 1953 was smaller than in 1952 because he had not been able to sell as much wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then a further question: Is not the difference which has been stated throughout the whole debate, the difference in income as between 1954 and 1953? If you back that up another year, you get much the same thing?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not know what the
minister is trying to prove now. Certainly he is not trying to prove what he was trying to prove in his speech, that the weather was to blame for the reduction in cash farm income, and if it had not been for that the farmer would have been better off than ever before. Now, he is trying to bring in some irrelevant side issue.


James Garfield Gardiner: The weather is responsible for the increase in butter, too. The weather does regulate farm income in this country.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Minister of Agriculture of course always tries to find something to blame in these situations.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not blaming anything; I am just stating facts.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He is trying to blame the weather for the butter situation, the cheese situation and so on. I shall have something to say about that later. The main point is that the deficiencies or defects shown in the government's agricultural policy have been largely to blame. The minister tries to find some other scapegoat, and apparently the weather is the one he can think of most readily.
As I have said, the real reason for the reduction in farm income in 1954 is our inability to sell a large proportion of the crop in 1953. Another reason was the lower price which was realized for the portion of the crop that was sold, plus higher storage
charges because the grain had to be kept in storage for a much longer period. Those are the two chief reasons for the lower farm income in 1954. The weather had very little to do with it.
Having quite incorrectly attempted to blame the weather for the reduced cash returns to the farmer, the minister then went on to say, and I quote again from page 199 of Hansard for January 14, 1955:
The total cash income in all the provinces of Canada in 1954 was $2,408 million and when you add to that the $444 million which the three wheat provinces lost last year because their crop was down and of a poor grade, you get a net return of $2,849 million. That is what the income would have been if they had had a good wheat delivery year and that is $23 million more than the farmers of this country ever had in any one year.
Before I go on to comment on that I must say that I do not know where the minister found this extra $4 million, because just a few sentences before he said it was $440 million and here he says it is $444 million. He suddenly found about $4 million more. Of course it is nothing for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to lose or find $4 million; he can lose or find hundreds of millions in his speeches depending on what he wants to say.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not use the figure $444 million, but it would be very easy for the typist to make that mistake.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister should have
corrected it. I would be inclined to think that Hansard is correct because this is so typical of the sort of carelessness the minister exhibits so far as the use of figures is concerned.
This statement of the minister's which I have just read is a blatant attempt on his part to make this house and the country believe that the sales and prices of farm products are better than they ever were before. In other words, he is saying that the government has done its part and if only the weather had co-operated the farm population would never have been so well off. That is just another example of the well known "if" statement. In other words, if your aunt was not a woman she would be your uncle, and other statements along that line.
To put out nonsense of that kind, to say that if we had not had this crop failure, which I have demonstrated already had nothing to do with it, we would have had $440 million more of income and therefore the farmers would have been better off is doing no service to anyone and it certainly is doing no service to this house as it merely confuses the issue. I find it difficult to understand why the Minister of Agriculture persists in making statements of that nature.

The Address-Mr. Harkness
The reduction in farm income to which the minister devoted his attention was cash income, that is gross receipts. He did not touch on net income which is a much more important figure as far as the farmer is concerned. Just to take an example in another field. If you are running a store it is far better to have gross receipts of $100,000 and a profit of $10,000 than it is to have gross receipts or sales of $1,000,000 and a profit of only $5,000. It is exactly the same situation as far as the farmer is concerned.
It is not the gross receipts that he is primarily interested in. He is interested in them naturally, in the prices he gets and so forth, but the reason he is interested is that that is going to determine his net income to some extent. The thing he is really interested in, just the same as any other businessman, is his net income, the amount left over after all expenses, to be used to meet the needs of himself and his family for food, clothing and other necessities of life, to buy the luxuries which we all desire and to which it is considered we have some entitlement, to replace broken down or worn out farm machinery, to improve his farm and so on. The income he is interested in is his net income.
In dealing with this matter of farm income the minister said nothing about the farmers' net income. The reason he said nothing about it is that the figures are very grim indeed.


James Garfield Gardiner: I gave the reason in my
speech why I did not use the net figures. You should read it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That speech was just the same in that regard as most of the others: it was a sidestepping speech. As a matter of fact the minister did the same thing last year and the year before. He spoke of the cash income of the farmer but he carefully avoided going into the net income of the farmer.
I have the figures with reference to net income of our farmers. In 1951 it was $2,154,527,000; in 1952 it was $1,900,779,000, down $254 million. In 1953 it was $1,656564,000, down some $500 million from 1951. The figures are not out for this year but the general estimates of the farmers' net income that I have heard this year place it at no more than $1,400 million, and more likely it will be $1,200 million.
You can make a computation which will enable you to arrive at that pretty well from the figures of the past three years. Last year the difference between farm net income and cash income was $1,084,688,000. The spread has been getting worse every


year as the difference in 1951 was only $661,934,000. The spread this year is going to be more than $1,000 million, and most likely it will be about $1,200 million, leaving the farmer with a net income of about $1,200 million.
What that means is that the income which the farmer will have left over after expenses in 1954 will be just a little more than half of what he had for the same purposes in 1951. In other words his position is nearly 50 per cent worse in 1954 than it was in 1951.
However, the minister still tries to paint a rosy picture and he tells us that if it had not been for weather conditions our farmers would have had the biggest income this past year that they have ever had. With this situation confronting us it is no wonder that general business conditions last year were not as good as the year before. I would think that it is most doubtful that the rosy predictions of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that things are going to be better than ever this year are likely to be realized with this very considerable reduction in farm net income with the consequent reduction in the amount of money which goes into the general stream of spending to provide employment and so forth.
After his speech in the house two weeks ago the minister went out west in the course of a few days, and demonstrated that he had by no means exhausted his ability to try to make black appear white, or at least a very pale grey. Even he admits that we have an oversupply of butter and cheese, but our surplus position was made worse by the importation of large quantities of New Zealand cheese. The only logical reason which might have been advanced for this importation was that it would help the forgotten man, the consumer, by giving him cheese at a lower price. However, the minister assured the dairy farmers that that would not happen. He said that the processing firm would be glad to make the dif-rence of five cents a pound between the price they would probably get that cheese at and the ordinary price at which cheese is selling. I can believe that the importing firm would be glad of that much extra profit.
But if this will be the result of this importation, what a ridiculous situation we have, Mr. Speaker. The price of butter is being supported by the taxpayers' money, and surpluses are being built up as a result of that to quite a large extent. Then this New Zealand cheese is imported to increase the surplus, because it can have no other effect

than to increase the surplus of dairy products in this country. The minister goes on to say that the importing firm will make an extra one-eighth to one-quarter million dollars, and that money is essentially to be paid by you and me, Mr. Speaker, and our fellow Canadians as taxpayers. The whole thing just does not make sense. If we are going to support the dairy industry by floor prices and sell the surplus, when we have a surplus as a result of that policy, at reduced prices to hospitals here, or to people in other countries, surely we should not let large amounts of dairy products from abroad come into the country at the same time. As a matter of fact, when we do that we in effect subsidize our competitors and the importing firm, so that we are taxing ourselves in order to subsidize our competitors in other countries and the importing firms which import these products.
As I say, the government just has no policy in regard to the dairy industry which makes sense. What it is doing is following the course of drift and bungle.


Mr. Fulton:: Mostly bungle.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The farm income situation I have outlined is one of the main reasons for the large amount of unemployment we have had this winter. There are of course other reasons also. I am not one of those who make speeches, the purport of which is that the government can wave a magic wand and cure unemployment. I do not believe that the socialist wand would be effective in this regard, nor do I believe that the financial wand of the Social Crediters would be effective either. However, the government has done nothing in regard to the matter. They have just sat on their hands. Following the warning of last winter, which surely was stern enough as far as unemployment was concerned, the government has made no changes in its fiscal or financial policies which might have improved the unemployment picture, nor has it done any of the smaller specific things which might have helped, so far as I am aware.
As one small example of this failure, I was surprised to learn a short time ago that the government buys a considerable amount of its stationery requirements from the United States, all things which I believe are made in Canada, or if there are a few items which are not made in Canada they could certainly be purchased in Great Britain and thus help on the one hand to reduce our adverse balance of trade with the United States, and on the other hand to decrease Britain's adverse balance with us. I hold in my hand two forms used by the income tax
The Address-Mr. Harkness branch of the Department of National Revenue. They are complicated looking things. One of them is called an assessors' statistical report, and so forth, and the other has to do with instructions and the amount of adjustment. Hon. members can see that they are quite complicated looking forms, but they are a straight printing job; that is all they are. In each case, on the form in very small letters, so small that I can hardly read them, appears: "Printed in U.S.A." Why should the Department of National Revenue be making use of printed material of this sort which they import from the United States rather than having it printed in this country? As a matter of fact, that is not the end of this thing. In addition to these particular forms, I find that the government uses a large number of stationery items which are made in the United States. Some examples are staplers, staple pullers, Scripto pencil erasers, rubber finger pads, Scripto pencil leads, sensing leads, pencil sharpeners, and so on. As a matter of fact, if you go up to your office and look at your equipment which they supply us right in this building, if you look at the desk pen sets you will find stamped on the bottom-at least it is true of mine- "Made in U.S.A." The staplers are made in the U.S.A. too.
It seems to me this is something for which there is no excuse. It is carelessness on the part of the government. It is a lack of effort on their part to find small ways in which they can help to cure unemployment in this country. The total volume of Canadian employment which is lost this way must be quite large. This is only one small example of it. I know there must be a large number of items in which the same sort of thing is going on. If the government would devote some of its attention to plugging some of the small loopholes through which employment is lost in this country it might add up to quite considerable totals. Those are things which are entirely in their own hands.
To turn to another matter, I should like to reiterate the request made last year by the late Mr. Rodney Adamson that the committee on mines, forests and waters be given some work to do. This committee has been set up every year for a very long period, and within the memory of all hon. members here, with perhaps the exception of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), it has never done anything. It is just wasted motion setting up the committee and appointing members to it. It never meets in spite of the fact that the conservation and development of our natural resources are perhaps the most important things one can think of for the future of this country. I would suggest that this year the committee be given the

The Address-Mr. Campney task of investigating some important matter in the line of conservation or development. I would mention just two examples which they might investigate and report upon. One would be forest conservation and reforestation and the other would be the control and development of rivers.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, last fall I spent several weeks visiting our Canadian forces in Europe. I took occasion at that time to visit NATO headquarters in Paris as well as the supreme headquarters of allied powers in Europe or SHAPE as the military headquarters of NATO is commonly known. Again, in December last I attended the annual NATO council meeting in Paris. As a result of these experiences, which were in each case new experiences for me, I should like to give the house very briefly a few of my impressions of NATO and of Canada's relations to NATO.
I should think that NATO represents the greatest and most far-reaching attempt ever made in peacetime in the world to weld the military and economic forces of 14 sovereign nations into one cohesive, co-ordinated defence force for the defence of all. I think we may sometimes overlook the magnitude of the problems which NATO has undertaken. It is, from the very nature of the problem, a long-term project, and it is beset with very many difficulties: the language difficulty, for instance, the impact of national prejudice and misunderstanding, the differences in military outlook of the component nations, the variability of the strategical and tactical conception of the military forces and the lack of standardization of military equipment.
These are only a few of the practical factors which combine to slow up and to complicate the achievement of NATO's goal. And yet I believe that great results in fact have already been attained by NATO. Slowly but steadily we are evolving a strong, united and well integrated defence force in Europe.
I was tremendously impressed with the manoeuvre "Battle Royal" which I attended last fall in north Germany. There were 140,000 troops, British and Dutch, on the one side, and French, Belgian and Canadian on the other side, each side working together as a team and doing so very smoothly and successfully. It constituted, to me at least, a very vivid commentary on the progress being made in the welding together of NATO forces.
On the planning and organizational side, too, steady progress is in fact being made. Greater mutual understanding is being engendered and formidable obstacles, one after the other, are being steadily overcome.

I believe it is very fortunate for us all that NATO had a few years in which to set and become seasoned before we were faced by the full impact of the power of atomic and thermonuclear weapons. If this' had not been so the organization would hardly have been complete enough to make it possible for the supreme allied commander to make the very careful and far-reaching analysis of the thermonuclear threat which, through the military committee, he gave to the NATO council last December when it met in Paris, together with the outline of necessary plans to enable the NATO military forces to meet that threat.
These plans, of course, do not derogate in any way from the responsibilities of the governments of the countries comprising NATO in regard to the decision which is theirs alone as to how and when military action is to be authorized. This forward-looking report was only the first of such reports to be made in sequence as the mihtary studies continue.
My general impression of the defence side of the NATO council meeting was that of steady progress in all fields of military endeavour. There is, of course, much to be accomplished. There are many unsolved problems still remaining, but the fact that these difficult and intricate defence questions are being tackled and solved in a clear, vigorous and orderly fashion is to me very encouraging indeed.
The analysis of the planning which went to make up the report to which I have referred is, of course, secret, and therefore its contents cannot be disclosed. However, as there has been considerable speculation in the press about the matter I would like to assure the house that we do not contemplate any immediate drastic reorganization of our Canadian forces as a result of these studies. Nor do we contemplate any increase in our commitment to NATO forces.
There is no doubt that there will be certain shifts of emphasis and some new developments, but nothing of a revolutionary character. Obviously, the introduction of new weapons and new techniques has greatly increased the pace and the destructive power of future warfare, and priority, therefore, is being given to the raising, training, and equipment of forces described as "forces in being," that is, forces which must be immediately ready to take their place in the battle line.
Increased emphasis, too, is being placed on the air arm, but as hon. members are well aware this increased emphasis on air power is and has been for some years past a feature of our own Canadian defence program.
In this regard the military committee of NATO has been continually stressing for some time past the need for increased air defence

in Europe, particularly in the field of allweather fighters. We have been pressed for some time past to assist in this regard by reason of the fact that we in Canada are producing, in the CF-100, what is generally regarded as one of the very best all-weather fighters in NATO.
The government, after careful consideration, has decided that as soon as our regular air defence squadrons in Canada are completely equipped with CF-lOO's, which will be during the present year, we will be able- that is next year-to take steps toward meeting the pressing need of NATO for allweather fighters.
We do not propose to provide any over-all increase in the number of squadrons in our air force in Europe, which will remain at 12 squadrons as at present, but we are prepared to replace the aircraft in four of our day fighter squadrons in the air division in Europe with CF-100 all-weather fighters. This step will very materially strengthen the allweather defence capabilities of the NATO forces and thus help to meet one of NATO's most urgent needs.
It will also, by having the same types of aircraft in operational squadrons at home and abroad, make for maximum efficiency and economy, and will enable the R.C.A.F. to gain the broadest possible experience in allweather operations.
As a component nation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Canada has carried out her commitments in detail and on time. That should be a source of justifiable pride to all of us.
I cannot refrain from a brief word of comment on the quality of the forces we have supplied to NATO. Last fall, as I said, I spent three weeks in Europe, during which time I visited every unit of our first infantry brigade and each of the 12 squadrons which make up our air division. They are both a credit to Canada.
There is, I feel sure, no finer, more modernly equipped, better trained fighting air force in Europe today than the Canadian air division, equipped with Canadian-built Sabre jet planes powered by Canadian-built Orenda engines. When the squadrons have all been equipped with Sabre mark VI, they will be still more effective.
The men of the first infantry brigade are well trained, healthy, and of high morale. Their relationship with the German civilian population is exemplary. They won high praise from the umpires of "Battle Royal" for their initiative, for effectiveness and for endurance.
The Address-Mr. Campney
Notwithstanding the increased emphasis being placed on air development, there is, I believe, no question but that the army will continue to play an important part in our defence picture.
The emphasis may have changed, but the importance of the army's function remains. Changes in organization and tactical disposition may well become necessary. Devastating thermonuclear weapons may lead to a greater dispersal of manpower, smaller units, different types of weapons, and streamlined lines of communication. But an effective defensive barrier on the ground will always be needed where there is a threat of ground attack.
The advent of mass destruction weapons does not eliminate the need for conventional forces in all forms of warfare, great and small, and the army will continue to be required to play its historic and important role in any war of the future.
The same reasoning will, I believe, continue to apply to our naval forces. The supply line between North America and Europe must be kept open. That is of vital importance to all of us. The submarine menace which has so often nearly defeated us must in any future war be mastered and kept in check. The days of the battleship may be numbered, but the comparatively small very fast submarine killer will be more necessary than ever.
We in Canada are therefore, in keeping with our undertaking to NATO, building the most modern destroyer escorts we can devise, and we are modernizing our frigates, minesweepers, and other small craft to provide a fast powerful fleet for convoy duty and to meet the new Snorkel submarines being built in such great numbers by our only prospective enemy.
Thus we must maintain and keep modern and effective our conventional forces on both land and sea. The necessity of strong conventional NATO forces is fully exemplified by the importance we all attach to the 12 divisions we expect West Germany to provide for NATO when the protocol which was approved by the house a few days ago has been fully ratified and becomes effective.
The defence of Canada-indeed of North America-has suddenly become almost as important to the other NATO nations as it has always been to ourselves. This fact arises, of course, from the emergence of an improved Russian nuclear weapon delivery capability against North America. Under such circumstances it becomes essential that greater efforts be put forth immediately to strengthen the defences of this continent because North America is the only great base

The Address-Mr. Campney from which operations for the defence of Europe can be supported, and also because of the necessity of protecting the thermonuclear retaliatory capacity of the United States, something which provides at the present time probably the greatest single deterrent to war.
And so what we have come to term "continental defence", that great joint effort of Canada and the United States to protect and to defend both countries against aggressive attack, is at the same time a very real and vital contribution to NATO's effort as well. Thus every dollar we spend on "continental defence" has a double value. It has value first and primarily, of course, for our own defence and, second, for the preservation of the defence capacity of NATO as a whole.
"Continental defence" is an expensive business. The so-called "Pinetree" radar chain now in operation, supported by the fighter squadrons of air defence command, along with the mid-Canada line which Canada is proceeding to construct and the distant warning line to be constructed in the far north, together form a comprehensive air defence system and will cost many hundreds of millions of dollars. A large portion of the cost of this system is still to be paid. This cost will entail a very considerable drain on Canada's resources during the next few years.
In passing I should like to express to our friends to the south our appreciation of the very fine spirit of co-operation and understanding shown in the development of this great defensive system, on the construction of which we are jointly engaged.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister allow a question at that point, in connection with continental defence?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Certainly.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister or the Department of National Defence given consideration to giving assistance to the provinces in the building of defence roads into the north in order to make our defence the more flexible?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Some consideration has been given to the problem.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the decision?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As far as my department is concerned, the decision is that the value that would be obtained defence-wise would not justify the cost of the project as compared with other defence projects. We have turned this suggestion down, as far as defence is concerned, on several occasions.
Our relations with our neighbour demonstrate how easy it is for peoples with like ideals and with common incentives to work 
closely and effectively together in peace and harmony to their mutual benefit. I was deeply appreciative of defence secretary Wilson's statement yesterday in Washington which I think bears out what I have just said.
In concluding these few brief remarks I should like to emphasize the fact that Canada's military effort is motivated solely by considerations of self-protection. We have no aggressive designs against any other nation. We covet no nation's territory. We have never initiated a war against anyone. We are, in fact, not a warlike people, though we can fight if we have to. Our present effort is a defence effort only. It is an effort which we are making in the hope that it will contribute to the joint strength of the NATO nations whose only aim is peace.
I have mentioned how much I was impressed when I was in Germany last fall with the close and friendly relations which existed between our troops and their families and the German people of the area in which they are stationed. I might give one small incident to illustrate what I mean. Pending the completion of our married quarters in Westphalia, many of our soldiers' families lived with Germans in German homes. As an example of the co-operation which existed, I might mention that while I was there I met the burgomaster of Soest and his school officials at a German school in which they had crowded together the German children, voluntarily, so as to empty several rooms for the children of soldiers while our schools were being completed. I visited the children in those schoolrooms and saw them being taught by our Canadian teachers operating in the German schools. This is merely an example or an indication of the friendly and co-operative feeling which was generally evident. Yet less than 10 years ago these people were our bitter enemies, and we were their bitter enemies.
It seems to me that all of us might derive a lesson from that example. If we could only establish with the Russian people as individuals such personal contact and understanding as our soldiers and their families in Germany have established with the German people, perhaps the prospect of war might rapidly fade. Probably history will record as the greatest of all the crifnes which the Russian dictatorship has perpetrated against humanity the forced isolation of its people from contact with the rest of the world. Perhaps one day this monstrous imprisonment of a whole people can be overcome. If it is ever possible to overcome that imprisonment, I believe that the fear of war might rapidly abate.
In the meantime, the maintenance of peace is dependent on the continuing build-up of

effective military strength of the free nations. We must become so strong collectively that no one will attack us. That is the goal of NATO. What the 14 nations which comprise NATO-and we hope the admission of Western Germany will soon make it 15-could not hope to do individually, we can, I believe, accomplish by determined collective effort.
It is the function of NATO leaders to develop and fully to integrate that effort so that it may attain the highest possible degree of effectiveness alike in immediate availability of defence and in retaliatory capacity. From my own observation I believe that those directing NATO will measure up to the requirements of that most important task.


Mr. Pearkes:: Will the minister permit a question before he resumes his seat?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Certainly.


George Randolph Pearkes: Are there available enough CF-lOO's to equip the four squadrons to which the minister referred as being changed to being armed with that type of aircraft in Germany, without withdrawing that type of aircraft from the squadrons already committed to the continental defence of Canada?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member will note, I said that we would have all our regular air squadrons for the defence of Canada completely equipped with CF-lOO's this year and that we would then be in a position to equip the four squadrons of the present air division in Europe with CF-lOO's next year. I think that sequence is quite easy to fulfil.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the minister a question?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: The minister said nothing about Korea. Is it the intention to withdraw the Canadian forces from Korea?


Ralph Osborne Campney: We should of course like to withdraw our remaining forces from Korea as quickly as we can. As the hon. member knows, we have withdrawn two-thirds of our forces from Korea already. The remaining troops are under the direction of the United Nations and associated with other commonwealth forces so that we cannot really withdraw them out of hand, but we are hoping to withdraw them as soon as we can with the approval of the United Nations.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Might I ask the minister a question? I was interested in his remarks dealing with the necessity of maintaining defences against conventional weapons. In that regard is any one of the NATO countries assuming responsibility for maintaining the tactical air force defence strength? Canada
The Address-Mr. Brooks has no responsibility in that regard and I was wondering whether any one of the NATO forces was doing so.


Ralph Osborne Campney: It is my understanding that the tactical defence force of each nation is governed by that nation.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The tactical air force.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, but I believe that steps are being taken to bring such national forces into closer relation to each other.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to ask the minister a question although I realize there are many questions in which we are all interested and we could probably keep him answering them all afternoon. I do wish to congratulate him on having been appointed head of the department and to wish him every success. May I say that I agree entirely with what he has said with reference to NATO because I am sure our hopes and the hopes for peace in this world are bound up to a very great extent with the success of NATO.
Many members have already spoken in the debate on the speech from the throne. Many subjects have been discussed and perhaps there are few left, but it does not seem to be out of the way to repeat things in this debate. While many subjects have been discussed, we still have the problems with us and I am sure we all realize that speaking on these questions does not in any way solve our problems. As usual the throne speech this year mentions many of our problems, both world-wide and national. Unfortunately, we do not find in it very many solutions for the problems we have.
One of the first matters dealt with in the house was the ratification of the Paris agreements. This was mentioned in the throne speech. While I did not speak on the ratification of these agreements, may I say now that I am in entire accord with the solution contained in them that was approved by the house. We also discussed the serious unemployment situation in Canada, and while no solution was put forward during that debate the problem was nevertheless very thoroughly discussed.
We have, as usual, more than our share of unemployment in the maritime provinces. I am not going to discuss that now except to mention and pay tribute to the efforts made by two towns in the province of New Brunswick which were faced over a year ago with very serious unemployment. I refer first to the town of Marysville in the province of New Brunswick where Canadian Cottons closed their cotton mill over a year ago. The people of the town derived almost 100 per cent of their employment from the cotton

The Address-Mr. Brooks factory. After the factory was closed these people did not move away to other parts of Canada or other parts of our own province. They undertook to try to solve their own problems. They were faced with heavy taxes. Marysville has splendid schools, and anyone who has been there knows that it is a splendid up-to-date town.
The people sought employment wherever they could find it, and I might tell the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) that many of the men found employment at the Gagetown camp. However, they have to travel 25 to 30 miles morning and night in order to work at the camp, and they deserve great credit for doing so.
The other day an hon. member said that it was up to the people of the maritimes to try to solve their own problems. The town of Milltown is an instance of where that has been done. When the factory there was closed hundreds of men were thrown out of employment. They decided that they would solve their own problem. Instead of going to other parts of Canada they decided to try to open the factory and run it on a co-operative basis, which they were successful in doing. I am proud to say that as the result of this co-operative effort the workers of Milltown have employment today.
Much has been said in the debate about our loss of markets. This of course is one of the great problems of Canada. Loss of markets means loss of employment. Comment has been made here on the fact that after the war Canada and the United States had practically a clear field so far as the markets of the world were concerned. It was no effort for Canadian manufacturers or producers to sell their products in the markets of the world. It was no effort for the people of the United States to do so. The factories of Germany were destroyed and she had to go about securing new machines. The same was true to a lesser extent in Great Britain and was also true in France, Italy and Japan.
But today we have to face competition from all these countries and there is a grave fear in Canada that we are not facing up to the competition. I am reminded of a story I heard the other day of a South American country that was seeking certain heavy machinery to instal in a plant in that country. The owner of the factory wrote to Great Britain, France, the United States, Canada and Germany. The story is that from Great Britain there came a letter saying that they had the best and finest machinery in the world. France did not make any reply. The United States and Canada sent catalogues. However, in a short time two engineers from Germany arrived with the machinery and


asked where they might instal it. That story may or may not be true, but we do know that today the German people are taking over the South American market to a great extent. We also know that what is true of South America is true of many other parts of the world. Canada and the United States are losing markets which they so easily held during the post-war years.
If I may say so, it does seem to me that the time has arrived for Canadian manufacturers, producers, labour leaders and government officials to get together, because unless they do so I am satisfied that many of the markets which we have had will be lost to us for one reason or another.
The speech from the throne also gave a detailed statement of many undertakings. There was mention of the St. Lawrence seaway and hydro development. So far as I can see, this will be of no great benefit to us in the maritime provinces. As I said last year, and as I repeat now, the maritime provinces have no objection to the development of the St. Lawrence seaway. They have no objection to the great benefits which will be derived by the people of Ontario and Quebec as a result of the development of hydro power in the international waters.
The speech from the throne mentioned the Canso causeway. This is a good thing for Nova Scotia. They have waited for it for many years, and no one is more pleased than the people of New Brunswick that it is now an accomplished fact. It will be of very little benefit to the people of New Brunswick. We have heard of the Bar Harbor ferry and that also will be of benefit to Nova Scotia. We rejoice that Nova Scotia has received this recognition which will result in a great increase in the tourist trade of that province. As one of the Nova Scotia members said the other day, it will unquestionably mean more trade between Nova Scotia and the New England states. No benefit will be derived by New Brunswick; as a matter of fact I believe it will take away much of the tourist trade we now enjoy, coming in through St. Stephen and going through to Saint John and the various parts of New Brunswick.
Again the speech from the throne mentions the Sydney-Port aux Basques ferry. This also is a good thing. I could go on through the long catalogue of these many things. Mention was made of Ripple Rock in British Columbia, about which I have heard ad nauseam, I might say, from the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I congratulate him and the other members from that province on the fact this rock will be removed.

All these undertakings, Mr. Speaker, will not relieve the unemployment situation in this country, nor are they going to provide markets for our people. A short time ago I was interested in reading in the Labour Research a long account of the economic trends in the Atlantic provinces. The author posed many questions and supplied many answers. The first question which he asked was, what has been happening to the three old maritime provinces since the end of the war, or the four Atlantic provinces since Newfoundland became a member in 1949? He answers the question by saying that everyone knows they are less prosperous than the rest of the country. He then asks, are they catching up or falling farther behind or just holding their place in the race?
The dominion bureau of statistics gives the answer for the three maritime provinces. In 1946, personal income per head was $177 or 22 [DOT] 3 per cent below the national average. By 1949 it was $287 or 30-2 per cent below the national average; 1953, $406 or 32-3 per cent below the national average. At the end of the war, the gap was already considerable. Last year, it was about 50 per cent worse.
Another question was, are they getting a larger or smaller share of the national income? This question is easily answered. According to the bureau of statistics we are about 27 per cent lower than the Canadian average. Is employment keeping pace with the national indices, or better or worse? Nova Scotia with 45 per cent of the employment in the maritime provinces has never kept pace with the national index since 1946. New Brunswick, with 30 per cent, has lagged behind the national figure every year. Taking the three maritime provinces together, there can be no question that the increase in employment since the end of the war has been very small, far smaller than the country as a whole. Wages have fallen below the national average.
As I said a few minutes ago, when there is unemployment in Canada unfortunately the percentage of unemployment is always greater for the four Atlantic provinces than any other section of the country. According to the dominion bureau of statistics the figures for 37 dates, from October 1949 to November 1954, show that on every date the percentage of unplaced applicants was above the national percentage, usually considerably above. For 1950, it averaged over 60 per cent higher; for 1951, almost 36 per cent; for 1952, almost 31 per cent; for 1953, almost 47 per cent; and for the first 11 months of 1954, almost 28 per cent.
The Address-Mr. Brooks
The article also takes up the question of farming, fishing, mining, etc. I shall not take the time of the house to discuss those industries this afternoon, except to say that in only one instance, that is fisheries, had the maritime provinces more than held their own during the past few years.
Now, I come to one of the recommendations in the amendment offered by our acting leader (Mr. Rowe). It reads as follows:
(e) To facilitate and encourage the processing of our natural resources in Canada, and thereby increase opportunities and employment for Canadians;
I am 100 per cent behind that recommendation, Mr. Speaker. I have been advocating that for a good many years in this house. We in the province of New Brunswick believe implicitly in it. We believe that there are great potentialities, great opportunities in our province today. I do not wish to weary the house by repeating what has been said by members from New Brunswick during the last two years about the great natural resources, the great mineral deposits which have been found in the Bathurst area of New Brunswick. Last year in the Little River area north of the town of Newcastle they discovered even greater mineral deposits, including over three million tons of base metals, rich in copper, zinc and lead, etc.
Recently there has been a find near Woodstock which is reported to contain 150 million tons of manganese. I know, as other members know, that manganese is a very important mineral so far as the steel industry is concerned. I can recall during the first war, when we received most of our manganese from across the water, every effort was made to find manganese in this country. Little pockets here and there were dug and used. In the second great war efforts were made to find more of this mineral. Today, in the province of New Brunswick, we have 150 million tons of manganese which will be of great importance to a country so interested in the development of steel. I believe all hon. members will agree that minerals in the ground are of no value; they have to be mined. There have been millions and millions of tons of iron ore in Labrador for millions of years. A railroad has been extended into that area and those millions of tons of ore will be brought out and smelted. This means riches, not only for that part of the country but for the world in general.
There is not much benefit to any province or any locality if minerals are simply dug out of the ground and moved to some other place to be smelted. When that is done you are simply being hewers of wood and drawers of water. What we would like to have and

The Address-Mr. Brooks what we should have in New Brunswick are smelters which will process these great rich finds of minerals which we have.
When I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) why it was that we did not have decentralization of industry or more industry in our province he has told me on more than one occasion that the one essential was cheap electric power. We have suffered in New Brunswick in the past because we did not have cheap electric power in order to develop our resources or to manufacture in competition with other parts of Canada.
Now that these great mineral deposits have been found, our province will suffer even more unless cheap electric power is developed in New Brunswick. It will be noted from what I have said that New Brunswick is facing both an opportunity and a dilemma. Until cheap electric power is developed the maritime provinces, and New Brunswick in particular, will lag behind the rest of Canada. We have had neither the power nor the resources to do otherwise.
We know that there is enough undeveloped power in our province to make it potentially and economically sound and prosperous to exploit fully these newly found resources of mineral wealth as well as to develop the future manufacture of our raw materials. But we must have cheap power in relative plenty. This is now known to be available in the Saint John river and possibly on the Passa-maquoddy.
I refer to the Passamaquoddy because the state of Maine wishes to have an investigation made of the possibility of using the tides for power development. I hope that it will be found practical. I hope that the Dominion of Canada will join with the United States in endeavouring to find out whether the development of the Passamaquoddy is a practical proposition. If power were to be developed there it would assist not only New Brunswick but all of the maritime provinces.
There is a great opportunity to start an industrial revolution in our maritimes economy. There is the usual problem, particularly for a small and poorer province like New Brunswick, which is ill equipped to finance the development of cheap power which is necessary for this other development. Our public debt has reached proportions where it absorbs nearly one-quarter of the provincial government expenditures just for service charges. Our population is small, it being hardly half that of the city of Toronto, but it is bearing this burden with a per capita income which is less than 60 per cent of that of Ontario.
Because we have not cheap power, industry has ignored our province for a great many years. As I said a moment ago, we have been asking continually for the decentralization of industry. We have been told repeatedly that there cannot be decentralization of industry until cheap power is available because industry will not go where there is no cheap power.
As I stated in the house at the last session, I believe that the immediate answer to our power problem is the development of power sites on the Saint John river, particularly at Beechwood. If there was a proper financing of the development at Beechwood it would start a downward trend in power costs and would affect the whole provincial industrial picture.
The provincial government has undertaken the development of Beechwood but it will cost $45 million or more. To go to the money market to finance this project would mean almost prohibitive power costs. It would not then be possible to attract the industrial development we desire in the province. I understand that the provincial government has come to Ottawa and said in effect, "Will the nation as a whole help us with this difficult problem? Once we have taken this big step we feel we will be able to go on by ourselves."
I understand that the provincial government is seeking a loan from the federal government for a period of years at a small interest rate. It is not seeking a handout, it is seeking a loan that would be repaid and which would be used for something that would be of great benefit to us. I have not seen any of the correspondence between the federal government and the provincial government but my understanding is that Ottawa feels it is not right or proper to give help along these lines for the development of provincial resources.
No doubt that is technically right, but on examining many of the activities of the federal government over the past year in different parts of Canada I find that assistance has been given to certain projects in areas which had no better claim than this, and, I feel, not as good.
As I said a few moments ago, we are assisting in the development of the St. Lawrence seaway which will not be of any direct benefit to the maritime provinces. We have paid out millions of dollars under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) may reply that we have had assistance in connection with our marshlands, but for every dollar we have

received for the repair of our dikes I venture to say that $100 has gone to the western provinces.
I spoke about the Canso causeway a few moments ago and how pleased I was that Nova Scotia had received this great benefit. That is another proposition which is more or less akin to this assistance in the development of hydro power in New Brunswick.
A few years ago when the situation was so serious in Great Britain, they had what were known as depressed areas. I was pleased to read reports indicating that the government of that day decided to help these sections in Wales and Durham and other parts of England by bringing in industry, thereby attempting to bring those areas up to a level of prosperity with the rest of the country.
I think something of that kind should be done in Canada. The Minister of Agriculture mentioned the South Saskatchewan dam the other day. I understood him to say that perhaps it would go through some day. Power development is needed more by the maritime provinces than is the South Saskatchewan dam, in the west, but we in New Brunswick and the maritime provinces will raise no objections if he desires to go ahead with that proposition.
I do not think it is necessary, but the house may be interested in a few newspaper articles I have here dealing with what I have been saying. In the Maritime Merchant of January of this year there is an editorial headed "Power is the Key to Industrial Expansion", which reads:
The paper mill of the New Brunswick International Paper Company at Dalhousie, New Brunswick, is said to use five times more power than the city of Saint John.
The problem facing the Hearst newspaper organization in considering establishment of a $10,000,000 mill on Nova Scotia's eastern shore is said to be largely one of power supply.
Think of what that would mean to Nova Scotia. Mr. L. R. Riggs, the manager of the Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation Limited, when speaking before the Gloucester county council at Bathurst the other day, had this to say:
The problem of whether or not there is to be a refinery in New Brunswick depends largely on the availability of cheap power in large quantities. Mr. Riggs gave as an example that their zinc smelter owned and operated by St. Joseph's Lead in Josephtown, Pa., used more electrical power in 1954 than was developed by the New Brunswick hydro commission in the same year.
He stated that he was informed that Beechwood and the entire Saint John river proposed development would not have sufficient firm power to operate a similar type smelter in addition to the normal growth of the power demands for the province.
Professor William Y. Smith, head of the department of economics at the University of
The Address-Mr. Brooks New Brunswick, when speaking to the council of the Saint John board of trade a short time ago said:
From being one of the depressed or "have-not" provinces New Brunswick can expand and take its proper place as one of the provinces with a high and rising standard of living.
He mentioned the great mineral deposits and discoveries in the province and went on to say:
The development of these mineral deposits can work a revolution in the provincial economy provided that they are developed in such a way as to be of maximum benefit to the province. The more refining and smelting of the ore which can be done within the province the greater will be the increase in incomes which will accrue to the people of New Brunswick.
This is the important part:
To take advantage of our opportunity we need but one thing-large quantities of relatively cheap power. Almost one-quarter of all electricity consumed in Canada is used by mining, smelting and refining industries. New Brunswick must have more power; cheap power, together with proper use of our known resources, is the key to our future. By 1957 estimated normal demand for power will exceed the installed capacity of the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission.
I am not going to labour that point any further, Mr. Speaker. I should now like to say a few words about the army camp in New Brunswick.
The Minister	of	Labour spoke	to	the
Fredericton retail merchants association a while ago and is reported in the press as follows:
Mr. Gregg said	the	business section	and	thewhole camp area	was	to become not	only	an
integral part of the life of this immediate community but of New Brunswick as a whole.
Perhaps he had been receiving pressure from the city of Fredericton and other areas for special consideration. Gagetown camp is mostly in my constituency. Of the 1,100 people who were displaced and scattered over all parts of New Brunswick and Canada, over three-quarters of them came from the county of Queens, which is part of the constituency of Royal. These people are very well settled at the present time. I have discussed the matter before, but what I wish to impress upon the government, and especially upon the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), is that while we in New Brunswick cannot supply the millions of dollars' worth of clothing, boots and shoes, vehicles, guns and all that sort of thing that will come from Ontario and Quebec and from other parts of Canada, we can supply most of the food that is needed in this camp. For instance, there is no need to go to other parts of Canada than the maritime provinces to get the fish that is required for the troops who will be stationed there. My constituency is a great

The Address-Mr. Brooks dairy constituency and all the milk and butter required for Camp Gagetown can and should be obtained from the surrounding area.
I am pleased indeed to know that the heating apparatus for the different housing units is of such a nature that it will use New Brunswick coal. I suggested that in this house on several occasions and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) nods his head in affirmation of the fact that we are to use Minto coal. I congratulate the Department of National Defence on this. It will be a great boon to the coal-producing area of New Brunswick, which is partly in my constituency and partly in the constituency of the Minister of Labour.
Take fruits. You never hear very much about New Brunswick apples in this house, but I am sure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), if he has eaten New Brunswick McIntosh Reds-and if he has not he has missed a lot-will say that in the Saint John river valley we grow the finest apples that are grown anywhere in this Dominion of Canada. There is no reason why the fruit that is necessary for Camp Gagetown should not all be purchased in the surrounding area. The same thing applies to small fruits, berries. Large quantities of strawberries and other berries are grown in and around the camp area.
Instead of being pessimistic in my speech I like to be optimistic. I was pleased to see a report a few days ago that the coal industry in New Brunswick had been prosperous last year. The answer is in the fact that the New Brunswick government is using as much provincial coal as possible. I commend them for it; I commend the federal government for its intention to use New Brunswick coal in the army camp. The pulp mills in New Brunswick have become extensive users of coal, and they have also purchased equipment so they can use our own New Brunswick coal. For this I commend them. The result is that that industry is on its own feet and is in a prosperous condition in New Brunswick.
I have some other notes but I see that my time is nearly up. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) was down to our province last summer, and we are very glad to have members from other parts of Canada visit us. We have had a great many of them, and I am sure they are always welcome. Some praise us but most tell us how we should run our province. I should like to say this. We do not tell the other provinces how to run their business; what we do is send our people there who run it for them.
As an instance, the premier of British Columbia-this may not be popular-was a pupil of mine when I taught school in New Brunswick. At least three other premiers of the province of British Columbia came from the province of New Brunswick. The chief justice of British Columbia, the province from which this gentleman came and told us how to run our province, came from my constituency. The chief forester-and these are only a few that I can think of at the present time-came from the province of New Brunswick. The head of the Roman Catholic church in British Columbia, Archbishop Duke, is a New Brunswicker. Three of the six senators came from the province of New Brunswick, and two of them from my own constituency, I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and name many more notables who have come from our province and helped look after the government not only in British Columbia but in other provinces in this dominion. We also sent a prime minister to Great Britain, the only one, I believe, to come from any other part of the commonwealth. He came from New Brunswick.


Mr. Michaud:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have now completed my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to thank hon. members for their very kind attention. I hope the government will take under serious consideration some method by which they can help us to help ourselves without costing the taxpayers of this country any considerable amount of money.
Mr. F. G. Robertson (Northumberland, Oni.k
Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with other hon. members in extending my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Leduc) and seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I also wish to congratulate the government for foreshadowing legislation having to do with increases in the war veterans allowance and the income ceiling, as well as the liberalization of the Blind Persons Act. Both these measures will be much appreciated by the vast majority of Canadians, and I know the veterans themselves will indeed be thankful to the government for this action. As one member who has felt that this action should be taken as soon as economic conditions would permit, I am happy to see that this has now been done.
As the parliamentary representative for the county of Northumberland, wherein one-half of the people derive their income from agriculture, I naturally have great concern for the welfare of our farmers. It is a matter of note that the income of farmers during

the past ten years has been the highest on record. While we regret that there has been some falling off in income during the last two or three years, we believe this is not nearly as serious as some opposition members would have us believe. In fact, farm leaders themselves would be quite satisfied, in most cases, if present conditions could continue. I realize that the income of Canadian farmers as a whole is down, but I am happy to point out that, upon checking the income of Ontario farmers, I have found there was an increase of $49,233,000 in their income for 1954 over their income for 1953. This was largely brought about by increased prices for hogs, cattle, tobacco and similar products.
One branch of agriculture which has some reason for concern at the present time is the dairy industry, and I am happy to note that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) a few days ago brought to the attention of this house the importance of the dairy industry to agriculture as a whole in Canada.
I am pleased to note that the government has continued its support program, because this has been most helpful not only to the Canadian farmer but in bolstering economic stability throughout the country. At the present time we have a support price program for eggs, butter, and hogs, and that program has played an important part in stabilizing our economy. I would point out that the cost of this program has been relatively low. On the support of farm products we have spent $80,163,658.71, of which some $69 million was spent because of foot-and-mouth disease in Canada. If we subtract the latter amount it will be seen that by the expenditure of some $11 million we have done much to stabilize agriculture in this country.
No part of our Canadian economy is more dependent upon international trade than is agriculture. The government is continually doing all it can to stimulate international trade and I would commend the government for its efforts in this regard.


Harold Edward Winch: In what manner?


Mr. Robertson:: I wonder if the hon. member has read what the government did at the recent GATT talks, where it gave world leadership in promoting freer trade among the nations of the world. I would suggest to you, sir, that if you follow the importance of increased trade you will realize what it means to agriculture in this country.


Harold Edward Winch: Where has there been increased trade in Canada?
The Address-Mr. Robertson


Frederick Greystock Robertson: The hon. member is not quite so well informed on agriculture as he may be on labour matters, and even there I question whether he is very much of an authority.
International trade, however, is not a oneway street. We cannot expect to export unless we import, and I think the government realizes this fact and that is the reason for the action they have taken.
I would ask the government to continue their assistance to the dairy industry, and I would also urge them to continue the support price for butter. I was very pleased indeed to learn today that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has recommended to the government that some of the surplus butter be taken off the open market, and that action will be taken in this regard. I think this will do much to stabilize the dairy industry in Canada. I would also ask the government to continue the support price of 58 cents per pound for butter after the termination of the present plan. I know it is not necessary to ask them to continue their efforts in promoting world trade whenever possible.
I should like now to say a few words regarding civil defence in Canada in the light of the knowledge which has recently become available, particularly with regard to the development of the hydrogen bomb. Let me say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that I do not envy the task of those who are burdened with the responsibility for the development of a civil defence organization, whether it be on a federal, provincial, or municipal level. Those who are working in this field face extraordinary problems at all levels, and they must, I am sure, suffer extreme frustration.
I suggest though, Mr. Speaker, that Canada has made good progress in developing a civil defence organization. We have a well organized civil defence system on the federal and provincial levels, and in many of our larger cities and even some of the smaller communities. I think we can say it is comparable with the best of any other nation, though I do not argue for one moment that there is not yet much to be done. It is interesting to point out that the' federal budget for civil defence has grown from $872,000 in the year 1951-52 to over $7 million during the present year.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has enunciated two basic principles having to do with civil defence in Canada. The first is that civil defence is essentially a civilian activity, quite separate and distinct from the national preparations which are necessary to defend this country by
638	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Robertson
military action in the event of war. The second is that civil defence is the general concern of all levels of government. There is an important role for every level of government in developing measures for the protection of their civilian populations, measures which must draw on the federal, provincial and local facilities and services. I should like to quote President Eisenhower's inaugural state of the nation address in 1953, when he discussed the last mentioned question:
Civil defence responsibilities primarily belong to the state and local governments-recruiting, training and organizing volunteers to meet any emergency. The immediate job of the federal government is to provide leadership, to supply technical guidance and to continue to strengthen its civil defence stockpile of medical, engineering and related supplies and equipment.
Our federal government takes the same view, and in my opinion this is the only course possible. The federal government is acting as the planning, the guiding and the co-ordinating agency, but I think everyone agrees that the operational responsibility rests with the local authorities. Any other approach to this matter would be inconsistent with our conception of jurisdictional rights in Canada. It would represent an unwarranted intrusion upon provincial and local rights and would make for inefficiency if the federal government, for instance, should try to take charge of a community's fire, police and health services.
The financial arrangements have been changed within the last year. Under the new regulations federal aid can be given to municipalities undertaking civil defence projects regardless of whether provincial assistance is available, and it can be increased to double the basic amount for any project for which provincial assistance is available.
I should now like to give you some of the highlights of the federal program, which I feel is full of worth-while accomplishments. More than $2 million worth of civil defence training supplies and equipment have been provided to provincial and local organizations. This includes 15 fully-equipped rescue vehicles, 50 fully-equipped mobile fire pumpers, and 100,000 service type respirators. An extensive series of training manuals, films, exhibits and other educational material has been produced and made available without charge to provincial and local civil defence organizations.
A number of operational exercises have been carried out, of which the most far-reaching, "Operation Alert", was undertaken in co-operation with the civil defence authorities in the United States, to test the effectiveness of civil defence organizations in some 50 cities in our two countries.

A permanent civil defence college capable of training 2,000 instructors and key workers each year has been established at Arnprior. Special committees are engaged in working out detailed plans for the most effective use of transportation facilities, communications, health services, welfare services and so on.
To ensure co-operation with other friendly nations, Canada has become a member of the NATO civil defence co-ordinating committee, and federal civil defence officials meet regularly with their United States counterparts on the joint United States-Canada civil defence committee.
Agreements to share in providing compensation for injury to civil defence workers have been entered into with three provinces and the offer of federal assistance is still open to all the other provinces. Over 400 air raid sirens have been supplied to target areas exclusively at federal expense, and most of these have been installed with the federal authority sharing in the cost of installation under certain conditions.
The defence research board and other federal agencies are actively engaged on a number of research projects related to A B C defence, including the use of blood substitutes, shock therapy, weapons' effects and radiation detection.
The federal government has spent in the neighbourhood of $400,000 as a contribution of one-third of the cost of standardizing hose couplings in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. Every encouragement is offered to the other provinces to take advantage of this standing offer of federal assistance.
We live today in a hydrogen bomb age and there can be no doubt that if atomic science can be used for the betterment of mankind, we face a period of great happiness. If, however, it is used for war, then we face a period of unknown tragedy. I should like to quote to you what Senator Brien McMahon had to say with regard to this problem. He said in part as follows:
It is our solemn obligation, I think, to lift our eyes above the lesser problems that seem to monopolize our time and to discuss and act upon what, by any standard, is the supreme problem before our country and the world.
It has been suggested by some people in this and other countries that the hydrogen bomb has made civil defence obsolete. Nothing could be further from the truth. I should like to bring to your attention the opinions of such men as Sir Winston Churchill, who said the hydrogen bomb made the need for civil defence even greater than ever; Sir John Hodsoll, who is director of the NATO civil defence committee; Sir Sidney Kirkman, who is director general of civil

defence in the United Kingdom; and General Gruenther, commander in chief of the NATO forces. All these distinguished and able men say that the need for civil defence is as great as or greater than ever. I should like to quote part of what the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) had to say, writing in the special supplement of the civil defence bulletin in January, 1955:
We have all heard people say that because of the hydrogen bomb civil defence is obsolete. This to me seems like a hopeless and thoughtless attitude that can only mean greater destruction and loss of life if war should come. True, the hydrogen bomb is a terrible weapon. True, its use would mean many casualties and great suffering but it seems to me that this vastly greater destructive power calls for vastly greater effort, not for a hopeless attitude of defeat.
When anyone considers the problem which civil defence authorities are supposed to be trying to deal with, it is not too difficult to see the reason for the confusion, the apathy and the frustration which seems to surround this subject in some areas of Canada; for civil defence, by its very nature, in this cold war period can have no fixed or accurate terms of reference. We are trying to build up some protection against a risk the nature of which has, through force of circumstances, very many unknowns. We do not know if an attack will take place. We do not know when an attack will take place, whether it will be a year from now, ten years from now or twenty years from now. We do not know what part of Canada is likely to be hit, or the nature of the weapons that are likely to be used, or the probable frequency or intensity of the attack.
When it comes to a consideration of the terrible new weapons which are likely to be used in any future war-the atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb-we have access only within limits and in rather secondhand fashion to such information as may be supplied to us by the military and scientific authorities of friendly countries.
We have little or no means of establishing the detailed nature of the problems that we have to face by resources which we have at our own disposal, and even the information which we obtain from other friendly sources is in a sense theoretical because in fact, with the exception of the atomic bombs which were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, no atomic or hydrogen weapon has ever been used on military forces or on the civilian population in any other part of the world. In view of these facts it is not surprising that military, scientific and civil defence authorities of this and other countries should find themselves in a position where they have not
The Address-Mr. Robertson yet all the answers to the question, how do we protect ourselves against the atom or hydrogen bomb?
I suspect that few members of the house and an even lower percentage of our general population have yet absorbed the full significance of the reports which have been published on the effect of the hydrogen bomb. Once the Canadian public learns the extent of this threat and the size of it, I am sure we will have an end to such incidents as we have witnessed in the cities of Victoria, Peterborough and Montreal. As you know, within the last year the civic authorities in these three centres have said they would discontinue their small civil defence organizations. I am happy to know, however, that on second thought the civic authorities in Victoria and Peterborough reconsidered this decision and are now carrying on their civil defence organizations in a much firmer way than before. I have reason to hope and I am confident that the civic authorities in the great city of Montreal, once they have had an opportunity to learn all the aspects of the problem, will reconsider their decision, and that we will see their civic defence organization established on an even firmer basis.
It is, I believe, the responsibility of each member of the house to support the development of a strong and alert civil defence organization in that part of Canada which he represents. In order to do so effectively it is necessary that each member have a clear understanding of the destructive power of the hydrogen bomb. I firmly believe that if we can get, on the part of all governments, a clearer understanding of what the hydrogen bomb can accomplish in the way of death and destruction, we will then have no more uncertainties and no more arguments as to whose responsibility it is to provide a civil defence set-up. This is not the time for provincial and local governments to think of withdrawing their support. No government can do this job alone, not even the federal government.
I am one who believes that responsibility for the survival of its own citizens is part of the responsibility of every form of government in Canada. It clearly requires the moral and financial support of every level of government in Canada and, more than that, it requires the participation not only of governments but of the citizens themselves.
I should like to give you now a few facts as to the destructive power and after-effects of hydrogen and atom bomb explosions, to illustrate the size of the potential danger which we must understand and communicate to the people whom we represent. My information comes in all cases from published sources, particularly the bulletin of atomic

The Address-Mr. Robertson scientists, the issues for November and December, 1954, and from a release on the effects of the hydrogen bomb issued by the United Kingdom home office and appearing in the British magazine Civil Defence.
In this last-mentioned magazine there is an interesting and awe-inspiring table giving the terrific increase in the destructive power of thermonuclear weapons since August 1945, when the first bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those bombs are now known as nominal atomic bombs, and in their destructive power represented that of 20 kilo-tons of t.n.t., which is 20,000 tons of t.n.t. I do not believe that the general public has yet begun to appreciate the destructive powers even of the outmoded nominal atomic bomb of 1945. These bombs, carried in a single plane, encompassed as much destruction as was encompassed by our 1,000-plane raids over a number of German cities during the last great war.
We cannot really grasp even yet what it would mean if one of these bombs should be dropped on one of our Canadian cities. There would be an area of total destruction one mile in diameter in which every building and every individual would, in a single instant, be destroyed or killed. However, the nominal atomic bomb is now the water pistol of the thermonuclear age. Atomic bombs grew to 1,000 kilotons. They grew until we knew that there were atomic bombs of a striking force equal to one megaton or 1,000,000 tons of t.n.t.
The giant hydrogen bomb first appeared in the United States tests of 1952 and in the Russian tests of 1953, and then on a larger scale again in the early part of last year. It is reported by the magazine Civil Defence, to which I referred a few minutes ago, that the United States now possesses bombs of the nature of 20 megatons in strength. This means that one bomb has the striking force of 20 million tons of t.n.t., 1,000 times as strong as the nominal atomic bomb first used in 1945.
Let me refer again to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A nominal atomic bomb was dropped killing some 45,000 people in one city and 25,000 in another, and producing an area of total destruction about one mile in diameter. Today we know that we have hydrogen bombs 1,000 times as powerful. How can we measure the destruction certain to be created if one of these bombs should be dropped? I turn again to the British home office article, and I read there that the area of total destruction would be a circular area some five miles in radius and 10 miles in diameter, within which everything would be totally destroyed. We know that the cities of

Hull and Ottawa could be encompassed in such an area. That means that if a bomb were dropped at ground level in this area the whole of metropolitan Ottawa and Hull would be destroyed.
But that is not all of this terrible story. Extending for another seven and a half miles in all directions would be an area of irreparable damage in which every building would be, for all useful purposes, destroyed, and most of the people in that area would be likewise killed or injured. Extending beyond that again for another seven and a half miles would be another area of extensive damage in which the buildings could possibly be repaired for future use.
I have described in some detail, Mr. Speaker, the area of destruction covered by this largest in the family of hydrogen weapons to date because I think it is important to impress upon the house and upon the people generally the large city and suburban areas which can be blasted into oblivion by the hydrogen bomb.
I have dealt principally with the blast effects of the hydrogen bomb, and have said nothing about the equally devastating effects of heat and fire. I do not propose to go into this phase of the subject because time will not permit. I should like to say, however, that Dr. Ralph E. Lapp, one of the United States' greatest atomic scientists, writing in the November issue of the bulletin for atomic scientists, in an article entitled "Civil defence faces new peril" said that the 10-megaton bomb-about one-half the size of the bomb to which I referred a minute ago-had a fireball measuring some three and one-quarter miles in diameter.
Anyone who has seen the film of the United States hydrogen bomb explosion of November 1952 entitled "Operation Ivy" can testify as to the awe-inspiring nature of the fireball resulting from that explosion. There was a mass of angry, seething, burning gases which literally consumed all the air and destroyed, in a single instant, everything that had not already been devastated by the explosive force in an area some three and a quarter miles in diameter. If you compared all the fires which would take place in Canada over the period of one year with the fireball resulting from this explosion, the fireball would dwarf the sum total of those fires.
But fire and blast are not the only deathdealing or destructive weapons resulting from the explosion of a hydrogen bomb. We have to deal with a new element, namely radioactivity. In the past we have had to deal with explosive and fire effects, but never on the same scale as we would have to deal

with them following the explosion of a hydrogen bomb. We have never, however, had to deal with the problem of radioactivity. If war should come this could very well be one of the problems facing civil defence workers in this country. Much has been said and written about the radiation that exists at the time of the bomb explosion. We know that then large quantities of alpha, gamma and beta rays are set free, and that unprotected persons exposed to these rays within a few miles of the point of explosion might be subject to lethal doses of radioactivity even though the time taken for this radioactive flash is only a relatively few seconds.
More serious than this, however, is the radioactive fall-out which takes place. Large quantities of debris and dust are sent upward into the mushroom cloud resulting from the explosion. They become impregnated with radioactive materials, and they are forced into the upper air by the nature of the explosion. This material is carried by the wind and may produce very serious damage in areas many miles from the point of explosion. We have all read of the serious illness which affected the fishermen on a Japanese fishing vessel, and the death of one of these fishermen, as a result of being subjected to this radioactive fall-out.
There is plenty of evidence coming out of the experience of these tests, and now appearing in published form, which suggests that not only the very large area directly affected by blast and fire as the result of an H-bomb explosion, but also a much larger area extending many miles downwind from the target city itself will be equally subjected to the danger of this lethal radioactive fall-out.
What does all this mean, Mr. Speaker, so far as civil defence is concerned? Clearly it means that the dimensions of the problem are greatly increased over what they were a year or two ago. When the bombs were dropping over the cities of England during world war II, it was possible to think in terms of standing fast and fighting it out. Dr. Ralph Lapp, in the article to which I have already referred, clearly indicates the existence of a new state of affairs when he says that distance is now the best defence against the bomb. What does this mean? It means surely that our best hope of saving lives in the event of an attack with atomic or hydrogen bombs is to take advantage of any advance warning we can get. We should plan to move as many people as possible out of the target area before the bomb lands. It has to be recognized that there is no hope whatever of survival for those people caught in even our largest cities at the moment the bomb is dropped. Their principal hope of survival lies 50433-41
The Address-Mr. Robertson in the possibility of getting several hours advance warning, and getting them away from the danger point. It is for that reason that civil defence in Canada is giving, and I believe should continue to give, attention to the possibilites of traffic control, planned evacuation of our cities and the development of ways and means by which people can be housed, fed and clothed in reception areas 50 or perhaps even 100 miles away from their normal place of abode. Experiments have shown that large cities can be evacuated in a relatively short time. If there is time after a strategic alert, evacuation can be on a gradual basis and only those people required to stay in the city would have to be removed on short notice. Wide exit lanes can be built out of our larger cities which would allow the swift removal of the people from them.
This problem is difficult and complicated indeed. It involves careful planning of the quickest and best means of getting large numbers of people moved rapidly out of our crowded urban areas. Each city will present its problems. Each city must have its own individual plan. Above all, the co-operation of the people themselves in remaining disciplined and obeying the instructions given them by their authorities during test exercises and on other occasions is essential to [DOT]the successful operation of such plans. Fortunately the expense of such a plan, of such an organization, of tests and practices designed to increase the efficiency of such an operation, need not be very great. Knowledge of local traffic conditions already exists on the local level. Municipal authorities already have, in their police and traffic forces, a nucleus on which to build an excellent plan for their own population. Much can be done with a well thought out plan based on detailed knowledge and supported by the local civic authorities as well as the population of the community itself.
It is clear that the number of people exposed to death and injury from hydrogen bombs is very great indeed, but it is also true that sound civil defence planning can possibly save more lives than ever before. Because of the wider areas of damage that are now possible, mutual aid among communities large and small takes on added importance. In certain localities mobile columns should be organized which could come to the assistance of neighbouring communities. Shelters located at the periphery of target areas would provide some measure of protection to people who must remain there. Radioactivity can kill people many miles removed from the explosion centre, but shelters that would provide an earth cover of three feet would give a great measure of

The Address-Mr. Bourque protection against radioactive fall-out. High intensity radiation meters and people trained in their use would be invaluable to indicate when it is safe for people to leave their shelters. Inhalation or ingestion of radioactive debris is a matter that requires further study, but there is much hope that proper respirators can afford great protection against inhalation of these poisonous substances.
Plant location is another matter which should be considered in the light of our present knowledge of hydrogen bomb warfare, in order that our ability to wage war should not be impaired by the destruction of our industrial capacity and the death of our industrial workers.
I do not suggest that civil defence has reduced itself to this single, simple formula. That is far from being the case. We have, of course, to contemplate the possibility that other kinds of weapons besides the H-bomb may be used, and for these alternative possibilities we must continue to carry out the kind of civil defence operation and organization that we have been accustomed to in the past. We cannot discontinue our training in the fields of fire fighting and rescue training; we cannot discontinue our planning in the medical field. We will certainly under any conceivable form of attack need a sound system of warning and communications.
All these are elements in our present program of training and preparation. All these will be needed under the new circumstances which have developed out of the hydrogen bomb tests of the last few years. But what has emerged more clearly than anything else is that in terms of the use of these largest weapons of destruction only those who prepare their plans ahead of time, only those who remain disciplined and calm and cooperate with the proper authorities in removing themselves from the point of danger as far as possible in advance of the actual incident, can have any hope of survival. It is well for us to recognize this now, because only by recognizing it and co-operating at all levels of government to bring the importance of these facts home to the people can we begin to think through the kind of constructive civil defence plan and program which will be just as essential for our survival as the armed forces themselves.
(Translation):


Mr. Romuald Bourque (Outremoni-St. Jean):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted, at the beginning of this speech, to add my congratulations to those extended by previous speakers to the mover (Mr. Leduc) and seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, for the ease with which they

both carried out their task. I am sure they will leave their mark in this house and that their voice will add to the interest of the debates in which they will take part.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, the comments made by some of the opposition members who have spoken in this debate have sometimes ranged far from the subject under discussion, which may be the natural result of their finding little or nothing to criticize. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier), for instance, gave us an interesting summary of the opinions he formed of his fellow Canadians following a trip across Canada last fall.
I agree with him that we would all benefit by adding to our knowledge of our own country by visiting each of our ten provinces, and that is an opportunity which I am sure each one of us would be happy to grasp.
Like the hon. member from British Columbia I too have been pleased to travel across this dominion. Just two years ago I visited his home province for the first time, and I was greatly impressed by all I saw there. I found the people of British Columbia extremely kind and hospitable. As a French Canadian I was received with the warmest kindness. While I was able to spend only a few days in Vancouver, I must confess that I found there no disturbing signs which would indicate any immediate danger of an outbreak of communism or of any other "ism" which would imperil our country. I found British Columbians to be much the same as Canadians in every other province I have visited, very much the same as the people I meet and see in Montreal or Quebec city.
However, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam had an entirely different experience in the province of Quebec. It makes me wonder who were the people he met during his sojourn there. Historically the province of Quebec has always been an honest, industrious and God-fearing province. Rich in natural resources, it is equally rich in the quality of its people. It enjoys to a greater degree than any other province, with the possible exception of New Brunswick-the state of which the hon. member also found disturbing-the benefit of two great cultures, French and Anglo-Saxon. More than any other, too, it has found out how to blend these two cultures so that instead of being antagonistic to each other they are complementary.
Quebec, too, is prosperous. Possessor of more than 50 per cent of Canada's developed water power, it is home to many of this country's greatest industries. Capital from many parts of the world, as well as from other parts of Canada, has found a safe field for

investment in Quebec, and millions of tourists each year come to visit that oldest section of Canada.
This surely is not the background for a communist revolution. Nor could the great majority of Quebec people, who are faithful adherents of the Catholic church, be considered likely recruits for the godless forces of international communism. Throughout the world the Catholic church is recognized as the great bulwark against the red peril, and in Quebec its members are not all French-speaking. It is the church of people of many races, loyally supported by Canadians of many different origins.
A province so wealthy, so long noted for its industry and thrift, so successful in promoting harmony and happiness among its people of differing languages and culture, is not a very logical hunting ground for the sowers of hatred and discord. I am surprised that the hon. member found among our many hundreds of thousands of loyal and contented citizens the few who would seek to foment trouble even if they lived in paradise.
When he refers to the fact that the communists in Montreal polled more votes than the C.C.F. party to which he belongs, the hon. member, I am afraid, was not pointing up the menace of communism as much as he was demonstrating the failure of his own brand of socialism, which has not yet succeeded in electing a single member from the province of Quebec.
At the conclusion of this session the hon. member might be well advised to spend more time in his own constituency, where the voters have already taken the first step in the direction which the member fears and have moved away from the political parties which gave this country birth and have brought it to its present stage of development. There he is more likely to find the measure of his discontent.
Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to read in the Financial Times, issue of January 21, 1955, the statement of Mr. H. D. Scott, superintendent of foreign business for the Imperial Bank of Canada, who has just returned from a three months, 40,000 mile trip, which took him to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India and Pakistan, as well as the United Kingdom. He said:
"Canada's record has never stood higher in the estimation of foreign countries than at the present time", he said, "and Canada's trade and diplomatic officers were doing an exceptionally fine job wherever I met them. These government officers working overseas are a tremendous help to the Canadian businessman visiting foreign countries.
X cannot speak too highly of their help and service.
"Canada is greatly respected throughout the free world", Mr. Scott said, "and there is absolutely no doubt that countries in the Far East and in the
50433-41J
The Address-Mr. Bourque western hemisphere admire the manner in which we have conducted our economy during the postwar years and are amazed at our industrial and business development. Wherever I went I was told that Canada is truly a remarkable country."
To return to the outline of the legislation contained in the speech from the throne, I should like to refer briefly to two specific items. The first is the amendments which are to be made to the Blind Persons Act; the second is this government's support of the rearmament of Germany. To the first I give my wholehearted support. The second I support, as I suppose many of us do, as the lesser of two evils. I fear it, but I see no alternative.
The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Cavers) expressed the hope that a greater measure of help will be given to the blind, and referred to those in his constituency who suffer from this great affliction. For many years I have been keenly interested in the welfare of the blind in the province of Quebec, and have been an active supporter of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. My work with these people has been one of the most inspiring and most heart-warming experiences of my life. I have visited and talked and worked with many who live in a world of perpetual darkness. Seldom if ever have I heard a word of complaint. I have heard of their difficulties in making a living, and of how they have overcome those difficulties. I have heard, too, of the petty criminals who take advantage of blind people in the course of their day to day business.
These people deserve all the help that can>
be given them, because they do not depend upon help but are eager to serve themselves. Any more generous provision for their care and assistance that this government can give them will, I am sure, be warmly supported from all sides of the house. This is not a political matter; it is a humanitarian action which we all approve.
The question of rearming Germany is an entirely different thing. Just as many of us during our lives have come in contact with the blind, so have many of us seen the horrors of war which have been visited upon us twice during a quarter of a century. We know personally the victims of German oppression and German atrocities. We recall all too clearly the days of the 1930's when a rearming Germany once more became the scourge of the world. For six years we fought a rearmed Germany in defence of freedom and human decency. As we laid down our arms we hoped fervently that we would never be called upon to pick them up again, and in our wisdom we decided that the power to destroy should never again be restored to Germany's bloodstained hands.

The Address-Mr. Bourque
Just a few days ago I was reading in my copy of Hansard for April 17, 1951, the maiden speech in this house by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl). He declared, in much stronger terms than I could, his opposition to any move which would result in the rearming of Germany. "We are now considering," he said, "placing weapons in their hands once more. What can we expect in 1952, 1953, 1954 and the years that will follow?" he asked.
Well, the years 1952, 1953 and 1954 have come and gone, and the great German problem which the hon. member for Cartier feared at that time has given way to an even greater problem. How can we defend our freedom and our democracy against the menace to the east without the aid of our former enemy? History does not always permit us to be logical and almost never permits us to be sentimental. England fought for many long years against the tyranny of Napoleon. No greater enmity in the world existed than that between England and France. Yet in the face of new perils the two nations became allies and, even more important, friends.
Had Britain determined that her ancient enemy, France, should be forever disarmed, who would have stood by Britain's side against the Hun in 1914-1918? Then there might not even have been a second world war in which France, weak as she was, would once more face the German horde and give Britain at least a little time to prepare her defence.
We who have lived through two great wars can have little love for Germany and little desire to restore her might. But we must live with history; we must realize that selfpreservation is sometimes more important than sentiment, and that allies cannot always be chosen for reasons of affection. During the war we had the Soviet union as an ally, though many of us accepted her with grave doubts. Even Sir Winston Churchill, Britain's wartime Prime Minister, greeted this unexpected and new-found friend with considerable lack of enthusiasm. "I will accept aid from wherever it comes", he said, "satisfied that Germans killed by Russians would be just as successfully removed from the war as Germans killed by Englishmen or Canadians or anyone else."
Today I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Cartier, realizing that conditions existing in 1955 are different, like all of us has put aside his personal emotions and decided to accept the lesser of two evils. I am sure he agrees that we are in much the same historical position. West Germany is necessary to our defence, necessary perhaps to our survival.
r.Mr. Bourque.]
Represented as we are in the councils of Europe by our able Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) we receive our information at first hand. We have no experience in foreign intrigues, and we want none. We are prepared to face facts, however distasteful they may be, and the facts as presented to us by the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate that as members of the western community, as defenders of western ideals, we will be better served if we approve this rearmament policy than if we oppose it.
My support of this policy, I must admit, has been strengthened by the volume of mail and the number of petitions that have reached my desk in opposition to it. The communist friends of Soviet Russia in this country are against rearming West Germany. They are doing everything they can to prevent it. They have succeeded in convincing me even, I must say, against my wishes, that it is our only salvation.


Angus MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. gentleman who now has the floor is reviving the debate which concluded a day or so ago. Will you rule on that point?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may not, of course, refer to a debate which has been concluded, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) has so correctly pointed out. However, I was following the hon. member and his remarks are of a somewhat general nature, though I would ask him to refrain from referring particularly to the debate which was concluded.


Romuald Bourque: In these perilous times, the speech from the throne delivered to this parliament revealed much for which we can be thankful. We are far removed from the immediate and devastating threats of war. We are enjoying a prosperity which is built upon sound foundations. Even some of our good Tory newspapers do not hesitate, from time to time, to report news which tells us how fortunate we are to live under this good Liberal administration.
Arthur Blakely, parliamentary correspondent for the Conservative Montreal Gazette, reported in his column on January 13:
Canadian housewives, irritated by high coffee prices, would be more so if they were on the other side of the curtain. A pound of coffee goes for the equivalent of $4.78 in Russia. The Rumanian price tag is even higher, $6.47. Further west, in Hungary, the price is $13.54 per pound. And in coffee-loving Czechoslovakia, it is $18.85. Poland, reports here indicate, places the highest price tag of all on coffee. The asking price: $45.45 per pound.

In Canada prices have remained at reasonable levels and earnings have been reasonably high. The proof is to be found in the possessions of the average Canadian family acquired since the war. More people own their own homes, drive their own cars, have television sets, radios and even record players than ever before. More students are enrolled in our colleges and universities. More people of all ages crowd our winter and summer resorts and go to our moving picture theatres and sports events.
Opposition members have made much of the reports of increased unemployment, but unemployment is not cured by unemployment insurance or even by public works which, necessary to a degree, are an important part of government policy.
The amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act reveal the government's acceptance of its responsibility for those who are without work. They provide an increase in unemployment benefits from $2.15 to $2.85 a day in the case of a person without dependents, and from $2.80 to $4.00 a day in the case of a person with dependents. This involves a maximum daily contribution of
9	cents for the insured person. At present a person in class 2 who has the minimum number of qualifying contributions, namely 90, is entitled to 16 days' benefits. The amendment increases this minimum to 60 days or
10 weeks, and will not affect those who qualify for more.
This provision will allow every recipient in the supplementary benefit period of 1955 to benefit for the minimum period of 60 days, and if they have exhausted their entitlement they will receive the difference between the number of days already obtained and the 60-day guarantee. A review of the situation as it exists in Canada today will, I believe, satisfy any hon. member that this phase of government policy is fair and reasonable. But the real remedy lies in hard work, increased production and sound business. It is those qualities which this government seeks to encourage and promote, and I wholeheartedly support those policies designed to create a climate in which the economy of this nation can successfully operate.
Many serious problems will face hon. members during this session and in future sessions. I believe we are all prepared to give these problems serious, fair and honest consideration. To those who criticize us for increasing our salary to $10,000 a year I would refer to a recent newspaper heading: "Bob Hope Gets $100,000 as M.C. for T.V. Hour," or to the newspaper reports which carried the story that Jackie Gleason, an
The Address-Mr. Stanton American comedian, signed a three-year T.V. contract for $7 million per year. Surely, by comparison, we in this house are not overpaid.


Mr. Hayden Stanton (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in the throne speech debate I would like to congratulate the hon. members for Verdun (Mr. Leduc) and Trinity (Mr. Carrick) on the able manner in which they moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They did an excellent job, particularly when we consider the small amount of material with which they had to work. I am sure they did their best to make a lot out of a little.
They and other Liberal speakers have tried to make the people of Canada believe that milk and honey flow from this Liberal government, but if that is the case I would suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that he extend that pipeline across Canada as speedily as possible, so that some of that milk and honey will flow into the homes of those who are unemployed in this country at the present time.
The government, we are pleased to note, has at long last reviewed the plight of many of our war veterans, and is considering ways and means of relieving their burdens. This is exactly what the different Legion branches across Canada have been urging. We must realize and admit that the members of that body of service men and women have never been, nor are they now, unreasonable in their demands. The legislation they asked for last session received favourable consideration from the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) but somewhere, somehow, after the presentation of their brief to the minister, something went wrong within the cabinet and they did not receive the support that was justly theirs.
In formulating legislation for veterans and blind pensioners, the government seems inclined to place them in the same category as those receiving old age assistance. This should not be. I believe that when we are considering the welfare of our returned men and women we should throw aside any hint of party politics and consider every request from the dominion command of the Legion, and all legislation pertaining to their welfare, strictly on its merits, to give them whatever benefits we can which will contribute to making brighter the lives of those who are maimed, or who are discouraged by adversity in the sunset of life. They have it coming to them and I hope the government, now that it has announced consideration of the veterans' request, will not do as it did in 1954 and forget about them before the session closes.

The Address-Mr. Stanton
Nearly every item that has been mentioned in the address has been suggested or sponsored by members of the opposition in the last few sessions. The government are past masters in the art of availing themselves of constructive legislation based on suggestions of opposition members. They were prodded all last session for additional benefits for the disabled men and women of the army, navy and air force; they have been prodded for more generous treatment to the blind. No doubt they would never have thought of either of these matters if it had not been for the opposition members bringing this much-needed social legislation to the attention of the house.
Now that consideration, which is long overdue, is being given to the extent of $5 million for the removal of hazardous railway crossings, which are taking a greater toll of human life every year, I hope the expenditure will be distributed evenly across Canada where it is most needed, and not where political pressure is greatest.
I must at this point deviate from my address in order to bring to the attention of the government, and especially of the departments concerned, a situation that exists at Brock-ville. Trains that stop at this station cut across the main avenue from the north, which consists of highways No. 42 and No. 29. This is not only inconvenient because long lines of traffic are held up for long intervals; it is also dangerous, as two schools are now situated north of the tracks. Neither Brockville nor any other place can afford to lose even one of its children. I am sure the people of this county town would greatly appreciate a subway or overhead pass to take care of the ever-increasing traffic.
I was much amused to read in some of the old Hansard reports the remark made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) to the effect that the old station in his constituency had bedbugs, and that a new one was needed. Our station at Brockville has not yet reached that stage, but it is far from adequate for a thriving town and community of nearly 20,000 people; it is more suitable for a small town or village.
There are three major improvements that the town of Brockville must have if it is to keep its place in the expansion of eastern Ontario. The first is a subway or overpass at the northern limits of the town. This is a necessity at the present time. The second is a more modern station to take care of the ever-increasing population which the building and completion of the St. Lawrence seaway will bring. Third, and perhaps most important, is dockage that will be adequate to

accommodate the freighters that will be plying the St. Lawrence and the great lakes when this project is completed.
I cannot be unmindful of the unemployment which exists at the present time, and which is growing week by week. I shall not take time to deal with its many complexities. That has already been done by other members of this party. However, I should like to draw the attention of the house to the situation in which the employees of our two railways find themselves. In the early part of January of this year it was announced that 50 men would be laid off from the division between Cornwall and Gananoque. This is only what is happening to the railway employees all across Canada. The minister has admitted these lay-offs, and still the government is not putting forth any effort to effect a remedy but rather is sitting smug in the knowledge of its large majority. Many of these railway-men have their homes in communities in which they have always lived, and it is not easy for them to pull up at a moment's notice and move to a place unknown to them.
You may ask what is the remedy. There are few ills for which there is no remedy. In 1934 the then minister of public works had inserted in all departmental contracts a clause which read as follows:
Transportation of material and plant: All material and plant used in connection with the execution of this contract must be transported over railways operating in Canada to the greatest possible extent.
The Department of Transport construction contract forms contained a similar clause. Recently the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) and the former minister of transport caused the deletion of this clause from their contracts. Surely this clause, which has served such a useful purpose through all these years, could still serve in diverting to the railways much valuable traffic which they formerly enjoyed. Surely the government should be anxious to divert as much traffic as possible and as large a volume of business as possible through the channels of its own railroad.
We must realize that the railroads must work under many restrictions and conform to many regulations laid down by the board of transport commissioners, who have no jurisdiction over international and interprovincial highway operations. Although the supreme court and recently the privy council held that the federal authorities had jurisdiction over these highway operations, the government has lamely taken steps to hand these powers over to the provinces. So often when there is a decision to be made on some controversial question the government backs

away, meekly says "This is not our baby", and immediately tosses it over to the provinces. It is an old habit of the government when it does not want to face up to an issue.
Representing as I do a constituency that is 50 per cent rural, I would be remiss in my duty-indeed, I would feel myself to be a poor representative of that grand old riding of Leeds which produces an abundance of milk and milk products, especially cheese- if I did not at this time bring to the attention of the government the situation in which the producers find themselves at the present time. This situation will become far more acute as time goes on if New Zealand cheese continues to be imported into Canada.
It is an impossibility for Canadian dairy farmers to compete against their neighbours in the southern hemisphere in the matter of producing milk and milk products. We must realize that in Canada, on the average 100 acre dairy farm, the capital expenditure for buildings in which to house the cattle in the winter and for implements to produce food for those cattle for nearly seven months of the year, is at least $15,000. Furthermore, it will take one man to care for and to produce the feed for the winter months on a farm that will accommodate 15 dairy cows; and if he works only eight hours a day, or 40 hours a week, that number of cows will be materially decreased. How then can the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the government expect the dairy industry here, under these conditions, to compete with the dairymen of New Zealand who do not have to provide winter accommodation for their cattle, except a milking shed; where they do not have to provide any winter feed because the cattle have the advantage of pasture the year round; and where each farmer, by not having to provide winter care or feed, is able to milk and care for an average herd of 40 to 50 dairy cows? Again I say it is impossible for a dairy farmer in Canada to produce milk and milk products on a competitive basis with New Zealand. It just cannot be done.
While high tariffs and import quotas are unwise, perhaps, in the long run, Canadian industry is protected by substantial tariffs- and perhaps rightly so-running in many cases from 20 to 35 per cent and as high as 40 per cent. At the time the Minister of Trade and Commerce offers to balance New Zealand's trade budget by taking 2J million pounds of cheese, Canadian farm products are shut out of many world markets by embargoes. New Zealand has carefully restricted imports since 1938, yet our government is allowing cheese to come into Canada after the Ontario cheese producers have contributed
The Address-Mr. Stanton over $1 million of their own money to stabilize cheese prices and permit them to offer a more acceptable and attractive price to the importers of Great Britain. The government apparently has no constructive trade policy regarding farm products, more especially with Great Britain which has always been our most stable market. Now we have 2J million pounds of imported cheese, and no assurance from the minister that there will not be more. He has intimated to the house that he does not expect any more for six or nine months. I suppose he thinks that by that time the farmers will have forgotten.
I consider this is a real slap in the face to the dairymen of the dominion. It hits at the very economy of our agricultural industry, in which dairying plays so important a part. When the purchasing power of the rural district is lowered, the economy of the whole country suffers. No truer words were ever spoken than those of that celebrated finance minister, Sir Thomas White, when he stated that the economy and prosperity of a nation lie in the top six inches of soil.
Farm incomes have been materially reduced during 1953 and 1954, and the effects are already being felt across Canada. There is not at the present time the purchasing power there was some three years ago, and as a consequence there has been a serious unemployment situation at the Cockshutt plant at Brantford and the Massey-Harris works at Toronto. Worst of all, that grand old firm of Frost and Wood, later a subsidiary of Cockshutt, which has been the backbone of Smiths Falls through all these years, I believe since 1892, has ceased to operate on account of decreased sales. This will be a serious blow to the employees, many of whom are past middle life and have established homes for themselves and their families.
Agriculture, I contend-and I want to bring this to the attention of hon. members-should be thrifty enough and have an income sufficient to be able to compete with urban industry in wages. By so doing it would supply employment instead of furnishing employees for the urban centres. There are thousands of cars and buses commuting daily from the rural districts to the larger towns and cities. Why do they do this? It is only natural that people go where the remuneration for their labour is highest. Therefore it is plain to be seen that if the agriculturists of this dominion-and you will take notice that I use the word "dominion"-were able to compete in the wage field this labour trend would not be so pronounced. Indeed, I believe it would not be half what it is at the present time. It is simple mathematics. If there are not enough jobs for all, then for

The Address-Mr. Stanton every 100 men who commute to work from the rural areas there will be 100 unemployed in the town or city.
Knowing that New Zealand cheese will soon be on sale in our grocery stores, it is indeed hard for me to take part in the debate regarding this situation without using words most unbecoming to the dignity of the house. I wonder what the Minister of Agriculture would have said if 2J million bushels of wheat had been dumped into Canada from the Argentine, Australia or some other wheat-producing country. I wonder what the hon. members on my left, the socialists, would have said if their wheat market hung in the balance. I am sure they would have protested so loudly, and rightly so, that the sound barriers of this house would have been broken.
I cannot understand how so many hon. members on the government side of the house who represent dairying constituencies can be so patient at this time when the economy of their people is threatened. They must be a well disciplined group, quite content with the decision of their superiors even if it does distress and make the going more difficult for their people. That is what the present government is doing, making it as impossible as it can for the dairy farmer. However, I must congratulate the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott (Mr. Bruneau) for his outspoken address on the subject that is uppermost in the minds of his people at the present time. He and the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau) must have more courage than their associates.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce, by stating that he did not think there would be any more shipments of New Zealand cheese for the next six or nine months, has created a very uncertain and shrouded situation for the coming year. The Ontario cheese marketing board, the cheese producers' association and the farmers who produce that commodity do not know at the present time just where they are at.
I hold in my hand a portion of Canadian cheddar, which is not one of the finest but the finest and most appetizing cheese to be found in any country. It is a crying shame that we have to be subjected to the importation of an inferior quality of cheese when we have in storage now over 41 million pounds with a surplus of nearly 12 million pounds for which we have no market at the present time.
I should like to draw to the attention of the house and the people of Canada just what this shipment of New Zealand cheese means in pounds of milk. An amount of 2,250,000 pounds of cheese is equivalent to 28,125,000 pounds of milk or, to break it down again, is equal to the yearly production of 3,515


average dairy cows. We may then readily understand that the importation of this cheese means that hundreds of Canadian farmers will have decreased incomes.
I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture, who gave the previous shipment of New Zealand cheese his blessing and who should be near the people whom he represents so far as their problems are concerned, will give to the house and to the dairy farmers of Canada some definite statement as to the importation of cheese. I am sure that any future shipments can be suspended by embargoes or import quotas which the government has the authority to impose, as it did in the case of Japanese shirts and many other articles that were about to come into the country, or by higher tariffs which give adequate protection to many of our other industries.
Why let one of our major industries suffer while others benefit? If there are any future importations of New Zealand cheese while we have such large surpluses of this product as we have at the present time-and cheese is the most logical way of disposing of our surplus milk-I hope the menu of the two hon. ministers will consist of nothing more than limburger cheese, and I am sure that all the cheese producers join with me in this wish.


REGULATIONS RESPECTING FREIGHT ASSISTANCE ON WESTERN GRAINS AND MILLFEEDS
James Garfield Gardiner: If I may have the privilege of reverting to motions, I should like to make a statement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the minister leave to revert to motions at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the tabling of the estimates earlier today makes it necessary for me to make an announcement in connection with the freight rates on grain. The regulations affecting freight rates on grain have been changed somewhat and the changes come into effect on Tuesday next, the 1st of February. With unanimous consent I would ask that the regulations be printed in Hansard. If necessary I shall read them but it will take a little time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreeable to hon. members that these regulations be printed in Hansard as requested?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As an appendix?


James Garfield Gardiner: Either at this point in Hansard or as an appendix.

(For text of regulations, see appendix, page 667.)
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[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.
(Translation):
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is also a pleasure to congratulate the new members and the new ministers. I offer them my best wishes.
(Text):
I should like to take a few moments, Mr. Speaker, to outline some of the needs of the riding which I have the honour to represent in this house, and to inform the house of the feelings and opinions of the majority of my constituents in regard to certain questions relating to our national policy. Indeed, I deem it the duty of a member of parliament to devote himself, first of all, to the general interest of his country in accordance with the principles advocated by the political party under whose banner he was elected in his constituency, to inform the house when possible of the opinions of the majority of his constituents on the various topics of current interest, and to acquaint the government with certain legitimate needs in his constituency.
The riding of Dollard may be subdivided into two sections. Ville St. Laurent, located northwest of the city of Montreal, and the northeastern part of Montreal, which extends from Guizot and Fleury streets to the limits of Ville St. Michel. In the last few years a tremendous development has taken place in these two sections of Dollard. The population has doubled, many new parishes have been organized, and hundreds of new industries large and small have established themselves there. In the circumstances it is readily understood that the needs of the population have increased. I could describe the riding of Dollard in detail and speak of its 50433-42
The Address-Mr. Rouleau greatness and beauty, but I need not do so. All I have to say is that to me it is a good place, a beautiful and progressive district. In short, it is a great place to live because it is part of Canada, and it is the part of Canada that I have the honour to represent in this house.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that I was going to stress some of the needs of my riding. There is one need resulting from the railroad track which crosses the constituency from end to end. The constituency of Dollard is crossed by several railways. These tracks provide a great service to the population and to industry, not only of the riding of Dollard but the island of Montreal as a whole. On the other hand they greatly inconvenience the residents of my riding. In the section of Montreal which is included in Dollard riding the railway track is elevated, thus dividing it into two parts in so far as road traffic is concerned. In order to facilitate north-south traffic it has been necessary to build subways under these railway tracks to allow the traffic to flow through the main arteries of Montreal.
Most of the important arteries are open to traffic, but with the rapid development which has taken place it is urgent that others be opened, and more particularly De Lorimier street. Before long this street will be one of Montreal's most important thoroughfares, crossing the island from north to south. There is already a temporary subway at that point, but it is too narrow and dangerous. It should be enlarged immediately and finished permanently.
Another problem raised by these elevated tracks is the smoke-belching steam locomotives passing thereon. The section of the city which this elevated track crosses is strictly a residential district, occupied by families who have built beautiful homes. When this railway was built a few years ago the residents understood that nothing but diesel or electric locomotives would be used. To that end the Canadian National had the necessary trolley wires installed when the line was constructed. However, the Canadian National, despite repeated representations by the citizens of Montreal North, and by members of this house who preceded me, persists all too often in routing steam locomotives over this track. These locomotives belch smoke and soot, making the whole district dirty and being harmful to the health of the citizens.
Irrespective of any promises which the Canadian National may have made, I strongly protest against what in my opinion constitutes an abuse, because the smoke coming from these locomotives not only prevents the residents from keeping their properties

The Address-Mr. Rouleau as clean as they would like but is also injurious to the children's health. In the name of my fellow citizens of Dollard I urgently request the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler), the board of transport commissioners and the Canadian National to take the necessary steps to put an end to this practice. As the member for Dollard I shall not rest until justice has been done the families who live along these tracks.
In Ville St. Laurent the railway tracks are at ground level, which causes great inconvenience and constant danger to the population because of the numerous level crossings. I was pleased to note that according to the speech from the throne the government proposes to amend the Railway Act in connection with the elimination of level crossings, in order to implement the report of the board of transport commissioners in that respect. I am hopeful that in the course of the next few months it may be possible to eliminate several crossings in Ville St. Laurent, and also to provide protection in other cases.
During the course of last session the Ville St. Laurent council sent a delegation to Ottawa to present to the then minister of transport, Hon. Lionel Chevrier, a memorandum listing all the reasons in favour of building a subway on Decarie boulevard. This thoroughfare is the one most often used by Montrealers bound for the Laurentians. Because of increased railway traffic at this point not only has the ordinary traffic been slowed down, but a situation has developed which constitutes a very real danger in emergencies. In case of fire, for instance, the firemen would be delayed in getting to their destination. In case of accident the same considerations would apply to ambulances having to go over level crossings.
In the past these conditions have been the cause of catastrophies, to avoid a repetition of which it is urgent that action be taken on the just request of the Ville St. Laurent council. When the representatives of Ville St. Laurent met the minister of transport they were most graciously received and assured by the minister that he would do everything to grant their request. I take the liberty of submitting this question anew to the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) who, I am sure, understands the problem perfectly and will do everything in his power to remedy the situation as soon as possible.
I would point out to the Minister of Transport also that adequate protection is urgently needed on Cote Vertu, O'Brien boulevard and Persillier boulevard. During the last few months we have been grieved by several fatal accidents at those level crossings.

(Translation):
We have not looked upon these accidents with equanimity, Mr. Speaker. We took the matter up with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) who understands the problem. And we went to the board of transport commissioners, at the request of the municipal council of Ville St. Laurent, which is quite ready to help solve the problem.
The Minister of Transport understands the situation and the board of transport commissioners is ready to correct this anomaly as soon as possible.
I can appreciate the request made by the municipal council of Ville St. Laurent and bodies of its citizens, as well as the publicity given to this question by the newspapers of my constituency, such as the Saint-Laurent News. There is no one that does not wish to prevent a recurrence of the tragedies that have occurred within the last few months. Again, yesterday evening, a man was killed at the level crossing at Cote Vertu.
I offer my most sincere sympathy to the family of Mr. Adrien Lamarre, aged 36. I express the wholehearted wish that this situation may be corrected as quickly as possible. As far as I am concerned, I will take all steps necessary to prevent a recurrence of these tragedies. A human life is worth more than the money necessary for its protection.
(Text):
During the summer months the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) honoured us by being present at the inauguration in the eastern part of Montreal of a new postal station at Youville, the construction of which had become necessary because of the rapid development in the area mentioned earlier. This is a very modern building which will be most useful to the population and for which I extend my most sincere thanks to the minister, to the officers of his department and to the Department of Public Works.
There is need for the same kind of building in Ville St. Laurent. The postal substation here was built at the turn of the century, when Ville St. Laurent was nothing but a village of a few thousand people. In 1947 there were 10,000 people in Ville St. Laurent, while today there are 40,000. Several hundred new industries have moved there.
Trade is keeping pace with industry and as a consequence the present substation is inadequate. Notwithstanding all their efforts the post office officials are unable under existing conditions to give the population and the industries satisfactory service. It is not only necessary, it is most urgent that a new postal station be built if the population are to be provided with the postal services to which they are entitled.

The Postmaster General and the officials of his department know the situation. At this time I should like to thank the minister, who was kind enough last summer to come with some of his officials to see what the situation was at this station. I am aware that the Postmaster General, along with his officials and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), is trying at the present time to work out a solution for the problem. On behalf of the citizens of Ville St. Laurent I wish to thank him.
Ville St. Laurent is privileged to have within its borders an airport of which it is proud. However, this airport which is located entirely within the limits of Ville St. Laurent is called Cartierville airport. The authorities of Ville St. Laurent have asked me, and I am in complete agreement with them, to submit to the Minister of Transport and to the board of transport commissioners that it would be logical for this airport to be known as St. Laurent airport. I take pleasure in submitting this request to the Minister of Transport, and I hope he will see his way clear to make the appropriate change. In addition to meeting the request of the authorities of Ville St. Laurent, I submit that it would honour the great Canadian who is the Prime Minister of Canada.
Such are some of the needs of Dollard riding. I hope the government will give them the consideration they deserve.
During the parliamentary recess I had the good fortune of meeting many of my constituents, and I would like to pass on to the house some of the opinions expressed to me and which seem to represent the wishes of the majority on a few questions of current interest.
My fellow citizens were gratified at the government's decision to locate the national film board in Dollard riding, and are pleased to see that a building is going up which will soon house its services. On their behalf I wish to thank the government and especially the Minister of Public Works, who is responsible for its construction.
It is also a matter of satisfaction to us that work on the St. Lawrence seaway has begun, convinced as we are that once the waterway is completed the whole country will benefit by it. However, I would support the authorities of the city of Montreal in their request to the government and to the St. Lawrence seaway authority to take the necessary steps to see that the interests of the city of Montreal, the metropolis of Canada, are protected.
As Canadians we are rightly proud of our metropolis, and it is our duty to ensure that the construction of the seaway will not hinder 50433-42J
The Address-Mr. Rouleau the development of Montreal, or cause it to lose its place as the metropolis of Canada. Many of my fellow citizens are concerned about this question; this is why I take the liberty of drawing the attention of this house and of the government to this matter, expressing the wish that in the development of the St. Lawrence seaway the interests of our metropolis will be considered as well as those of the whole of Canada. We shall be very happy if this new achievement, while being of great benefit to Canada at large, gives commercial impetus to the city of Montreal.
During the parliamentary recess I was often asked another question with regard to restrictions imposed by the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on privately-owned radio and television stations. Most of my fellow citizens whom I have met, not only in Dollard riding but also in Montreal and elsewhere in Canada, are opposed to the fact that this organization which competes directly with private enterprise should be at the same time the organization that controls and grants permits to private stations.
We know that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation through its radio and television networks renders a great service to our country, but we would prefer that it be treated on an equal footing, or nearly so, with stations belonging to private enterprise. Such a practice would be more consistent with the democratic principles of Liberalism, and furthermore it would comply with the resolutions passed by the advisory council of the national Liberal federation at its meeting held in Ottawa on the 27th and 28th of October, 1952. and also by the federation of young Liberals of Canada during their biannual convention held in May, 1954.
Before resuming my seat I wish on behalf of my fellow citizens of Dollard to thank the Prime Minister of Canada for everything he has done and continues to do to prevent an important group of our fellow citizens from being taxed more heavily than others. We are grateful to the Prime Minister for giving his attention to the problem of double taxation which exists in the province of Quebec, and I take this opportunity to protest vigorously against the astounding statement made on January 12 last by an hon. member of this house to the effect that the Prime Minister of Canada had lowered himself in going to meet the premier of my province in an effort to find a way of settling the fiscal problems between Quebec and Ottawa.
652	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Rouleau
Judging from his speech I am strongly under the impression that my hon. friend has some difficulty in understanding the facts and conditions that exist in his own country. This is why, lest he should misinterpret my words as he has misinterpreted the happenings in his own country and especially in the province of Quebec, I shall direct my remarks particularly to him and I shall speak in my mother tongue. He will have the opportunity, if he so wishes, to read them in the official translation of the debates of the house.
{Translation):
I will say to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) that, as a Canadian citizen and as a Liberal, I did not feel humiliated in seeing the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) go to Montreal to meet the premier of one of the oldest provinces of my country, in order to find in a friendly atmosphere a solution to the problem existing between Quebec and Ottawa.
The Prime Minister of my country thus showed once more that he can raise himself above party politics when the welfare of the Canadian people is at stake.
With all the inhabitants of the province of Quebec, I read with a sigh of relief the report released by these two heads of governments following their meeting in Montreal, which allowed us to expect that the dispute which had lasted too long would be settled. By his unfortunate speech, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam obviously showed that he lacks the broadmindedness required to fill a responsible position.
After a brief journey through the various provinces of our country, he found nothing better to do than to attack each one of the provinces which form the Canadian confederation, including the province where he lives. As far as I am concerned, I had the advantage to travel from coast to coast on three different occasions and, since he mentioned in his speech that he spent more days in the province of Quebec than six French-speaking members have spent so far in his own province, I would say to him that I had the pleasure of spending many weeks in the magnificent province of British Columbia and in the marvellous city of Vancouver. In every province of my country, I always found a cordial welcome and on my return to Montreal, I was always pleased and charmed with my fellow citizens and dazzled by the beauty and wealth of my country.
The hon. member could do no better than to find fault with each one of the provinces of confederation and it was with a vio-


lence full of hatred that he attacked the province of my birth. To dare predict that my province would be the first to turn communist, he must understand very little the feelings of its inhabitants or he must have met the rare exceptions who share his ideas. When he made his accusation, it struck me as so absurd that for a moment I wondered what was the reason for his attack and what he meant to achieve.
If there is in the Canadian confederation a province that is against communism it is indeed the province of Quebec; I am convinced that in this respect it shares the common feeling of the vast majority of the Canadian people. In describing his trip, the member for Burnaby-Coquitlam reminded me somewhat of certain characters created by Voltaire: disillusioned, cynical characters who could see nothing but afflictions, vices, faults and ugliness. I do not wish to devote any more time to a speech so harmful to Canadian unity, towards which all Canadians of good will have strived and especially the right hon. Prime Minister. If the member for Burnaby-Coquitlam thinks he can win votes by saying that the province of Quebec will be the first province to turn communist, he is greatly mistaken, because, to my mind, it is precisely the fear Canadians have of communism that prevents the C.C.F. party from obtaining the success it anticipates in Canadian politics when an appeal is made to the country.
I have respect for the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell), but I am deeply worried over the opinions expressed by certain members of his party, especially after having heard their speeches. In conclusion I wish only to quote an extract from an article published in the Labour Review, volume 2, No. 3, page 43, under the heading: "Comrades in the C.C.F.", by Herbert Anderson. It proves that our fears are justified in regard to the communist tendencies of certain members of the C.C.F. party. I quote:
Those west-coast CCF people pretty well tipped their hand when they held their annual meeting in Vancouver. To put it bluntly, far too many of them showed up to be communist. A recorded account of their meetings, plus what got into the papers, indicated that between a third and a half of the British Columbia crowd are communist-minded.
The C.C.F. party has not yet disclaimed that article; therefore, I beg Providence to preserve us from the calamity that the C.C.F. party in power would visit upon us.

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
(Text):


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I expect to have some critical remarks to offer as I proceed. Before proceeding with them I should like to express my appreciation to the government for having announced that the war veterans allowances will be increased during the present session. I am sure I speak for veterans in all parts of Canada when I say this legislation is very much appreciated.
I should also like to thank the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) for the very good news he gave my constituency this afternoon. I mentioned last year that although Mackenzie is a very old constituency it is unable to boast of a single federal public building, and all in one year the minister is proposing to erect three public buildings. In view of the fact that this is our jubilee year in Saskatchewan the people in three communities, Carrot River, Kelvington and Porcupine Plain, will appreciate this very much. Of course the three combined will not cost as much as the national film board buildings which are being erected in the constituency of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. Those three buildings will cost less than $100,000; nevertheless they will be appreciated.
At this time I am sure I speak for all my colleagues in Saskatchewan when I extend an invitation to all members from all provinces of Canada to visit our province during the recess. Saskatchewan is not the richest province in Canada, but as far as hospitality is concerned we will put out the red carpet for members who can manage to visit us any time during our jubilee year.
The brief which was placed in the hands of members of parliament by the interprovincial farm union council points up a problem which is very real in all parts of Canada. They deal with the crisis which is confronting agriculture. I listened with close interest to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stanton), who spoke before the dinner recess and said that members of our group have not discussed the problem which confronts the cheese producers in Ontario. It certainly is not because we are not in sympathy with them, but we have not this industry developed to a very large extent in our constituencies. The problems of the cheese producers are the same problems that the wheat producers and the livestock producers in all provinces of Canada are experiencing.
This brief points out that Canadian agriculture as a whole during the last three years has suffered a most serious setback because of declines in farm product prices, while farmers' costs remained at high levels. They point out that the net farm income in 1951 ran about
$2,188 million. Next year it was down to $1,949 million and the following year to $1,667 million. The estimate for 1954 is $1,200 million, a drop of nearly $1 billion during those three years. They admit that there are places in Canada where agriculture is in quite a healthy position, and there are individual farmers here, there and everywhere who are in a comfortable position; but the whole brief supports the case-and it is well established-that agriculture is facing a major crisis.
In one of his latest bulletins the Minister of Trade and Commerce points out that the farm income is down about 12 per cent for 1954 from the previous year and down about 15 per cent from the all-time high in 1952. The bulletin mentions that the decline in farm income can be attributed in large part to the substantial reduction in returns from the sale of wheat. It is true that the returns from the sale of wheat do bring down the over-all average, but I submit that those of us who live in portions of Canada where our income is from wheat find that this drastic reduction is having most serious consequences.
According to this release, in the province of Saskatchewan the cash income from the sale of farm products in 1953 amounted to $743,352,000 and last year to $465,612,000, a reduction of almost 35 per cent. I need not explain that this is having a most serious effect, and not only in that area where wheat is produced.
The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stanton)' mentioned the calamity which has befallen the people of Smiths Falls, which is a few miles from here, involving a very old industry. He said the Frost and Wood Company had been compelled to close its doors and turn a large number of people into the ranks of the unemployed. That is a direct result of the fact that the farmers' income has been reduced so drastically, particularly in western Canada.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture also analyses what is happening to the farmers' share of the national income in a release dated April, 1954. This gives the share of the national income which went to the farmers in 1926, 1946, 1951, and 1953. In 1926 the farmers' share of the national income was 14-8 per cent; 20 years later it went down to 11 3 per cent, in 1951 it was 12*3 per cent and in 1953, the last year for which the federation have figures available, it was 8-7 per cent. They point out that 13 per cent of the Canadian people are involved in agricultural operations.
One might expect that 13 per cent of the people would receive 13 per cent of the national income. We often pay tribute to the

The Address-Mr. Nicholson farmers as being the salt of the earth, and we recall people in this and other countries getting their start on a farm. If we really mean what we say about the importance of agriculture I think we will readily admit that 8-7 per cent of the national income going to 13 per cent of the people represents a very critical situation indeed.
I received a copy of the report of the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations from the queen's printer the other day. This is a reprint of the material that was prepared by the Rowell-Sirois commission just prior to the outbreak of world war II, and on page 150 of the first volume they present a table showing what happened during the period 1928 to 1933, when conditions such as we are witnessing now developed much more rapidly and all Canada felt the impact. In Saskatchewan the average per capita income fell from $474 to $135, a drop of 72 per cent; in Alberta there was a drop of 61 per cent; in Manitoba 49 per cent, and in Canada as a whole 48 per cent. Other provinces felt the impact as follows: British Columbia, 47 per cent; Prince Edward Island, 45 per cent; Ontario, 44 per cent; Quebec, 44 per cent; New Brunswick, 39 per cent, and Nova Scotia, 36 per cent. The wheat-producing areas were the first to feel the impact and, of course, they felt the consequences much more severely than any other province.
On page 100 of this report there is a very interesting paragraph, and perhaps I should add that this was not written by the present government. It was prepared by the government of which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was a cabinet minister some years ago. It states:
The people of Saskatchewan have suffered a reduction in income during the last decade which has probably been unparalleled in peacetime in any other civilized country. Net agricultural income averaging some $200 million a year in the late twenties fell to an actual negative amount in 1931 and 1932, and was only about one-tenth of that average in 1937. Total provincial income (after including federal relief payments in the province) fell in the thirties by more than half, and in the worst years by two-thirds of the 1926-29 annual dollar average.
I am not suggesting that conditions out there are as they were during the thirties, but I am suggesting the drastic reduction in the income of the wheat farmers is having a serious effect on all sectors of our economy, and it is going to require action by the national government to stop this trend and see to it that the agricultural producers in the prairie provinces and in all parts of Canada get their fair share of the national income.


The situation in my own corner of Saskatchewan is more critical than anywhere else in the province, for a variety of factors. We were in the fortunate position of never having had a crop failure during the years of drought when other sections of the west went through year after year without seeing rain. But the last three years have been unparalleled in our history in that we have had so much rain each year that a great many farmers have not had any crop at all as a result of floods and excessive moisture.
I have received reports from ten municipalities in my own constituency; the Minister of Agriculture will be familiar with them. They are Bjorkdale, Buchanan, St. Philips, Sasman, Porcupine, Kelvington, Invermay, Hazel Dell, Livingston, and the L.I.D. office at Hudson Bay, These ten municipalities report to me that at the end of December a year ago they had arrears of taxes totalling $591,096, and at the end of December this year the arrears of taxes were $895,421.
Hon. members will agree, I am sure, that all Canadians wish to pay their taxes first of all, and they are conscious of the vital importance to them of sound municipal government. They are interested in keeping their schools running, in maintaining roads and bridges and other essential services, and therefore an increase in the arrears of taxes in a very productive area in Saskatchewan, to the amount I have mentioned, indicates that the farmers living in that area certainly have not been able to build up bank accounts during prosperous years.
I think the paragraph I read from this publication indicates that there were very good reasons why the farmers in the wheat-producing areas of Canada were unable to build up reserves during the thirties and during the war years when farm commodities were pegged at low prices. The farmers thus were not able to get in as favourable a financial position as many other people in this country.
I also have returns from four of the larger school units in my constituency. These are Tisdale, Canora, Kamsack and Nipawin, which report that they have $789,770 owing to them from municipalities in their area in arrears of taxes, and they in turn owe the banks $429,000 in overdrafts and loans, or an average of over $100,000 per unit at the end of December 1954.
The two sets of figures which I have presented to the house suggest that conditions in that area are certainly very serious. I do not think there is any easy solution for it, but I think we should recognize that the 15 million people in Canada somehow or

other should be able to organize our economy so that those who produce food for our own nation and for our other customers would oe able to get a fair share of the national income so they could have some reserves to put away for bad years, so their arrears of taxes would not pile up as these figures would indicate, and so they would be able to pay their school teachers and give their children all the advantages that are available in other parts of the country. I am not suggesting that there is any easy solution, but I think we can solve it.
During the summer when I was in Europe I took time to visit some of the countries that are facing problems like ours. In Great Britain, at a meeting at the Labour party conference, I was interested to find that one of the best economists there drew their attention to the fact that in Great Britain the farmers are not getting their fair share of the national income, and that if and when labour should form a government again, one of the tasks they must undertake immediately is to see that the farmer in the United Kingdom gets a fairer share of the national income. They said that is not going to be very popular with a large number of trade unions who do not want food prices to increase but, they said, "We want to be fair and we want to make sure that those who are producing food for us get a fair share of the pounds, shillings and pence which are available in Great Britain".
They are embarking on a policy that could easily have fairly serious effects on our economy. They are providing a substantial wheat subsidy. If my figures are correct, something like 65 cents a bushel is being provided as a subsidy to their wheat producers. I pointed out that Canada produces and exports the best wheat in the world. They did not deny that. However, there is a real danger of war and they must give some consideration to what would happen if war broke out and they were entirely dependent on overseas countries, for their foodstuffs, particularly their cereals. Even though it is costing their treasury a good deal of money to increase their production of wheat, they consider that it is in the best interests of the country to provide these subsidies. Something like $6,500,000 is being paid to the 21,000 growers as a result of the policy they are carrying out to encourage the production of their own cereals.
In Sweden I find that once a year the government meets with the representatives of the farmers. They review the general economy of the country and decide on what sort of a deal should be established for the next year for agriculture so the wheat producer, the butter producer and the hog
The Address-Mr. Nicholson producer will all have, for one year, prices which bear a fair relation to the wages and salaries that other people get. The Swedish farmer, when I was there, was being paid $2.28 a bushel for his wheat. This price was some 15 to 20 per cent higher than they would have been paying if they had bought Canadian wheat, but they consider that it is good policy for Sweden to have a healthy, flourishing agricultural industry. The farmers pay something like 75 cents per 230 pounds into a fund to make up for the losses that are involved in connection with the export business. If I remember correctly, they consume about 500,000 tons of wheat in Sweden, but as a result of the policy they have been following since 1947 they have built up quite a substantial surplus. Nearly as much wheat seemed to be on hand as they consume in one year. But the government has been paying $75 million into the fund to support agricultural prices. Sweden has about half the population we have in Canada. Similar support would cost about $150 million in Canada.
In France the price paid to the farmer, as I recall it, was $2.57. I wish we could get international agreement at some time so the metric system could be used all over the world. It is extremely difficult, as you travel about, to figure out the relationship between kilometers and miles and between ounces and grams. The price paid to the French farmer for his wheat was something like $2.57, which seemed to be a reduction of about 15 cents from the price which was paid the previous year. Part of this reduction was as a result of increased productivity in the country. Part of it was as a result of the reduction in prices in France.
There too they take into account the prices the farmer has to pay for his machinery and his fuel oil, and all the other costs he must meet. The prices are reviewed from time to time and they go up or down, depending on a number of these factors. They also are building up quite a large surplus and are reducing the price with a view to discouraging the building up of such a large surplus.
They also have a policy there-I am not sure that it is too sound-of paying a higher price to smaller operators. Those who deliver quintals-I have forgotten what the relationship is between quintals and bushels-are paid according to the number they deliver. If they deliver between 1 to 25 quintals, the net price to the farmer is 3,570 francs. One who is selling from 100 to 200 gets a price of 3,440 francs. If you are selling over 1,000, your price is down to 3,315 francs. This policy has been worked out, no doubt, to encourage the smaller farmers in France to
656	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nicholson keep up their production. The assumption is that the larger operators are able to cut down their operating costs.
In West Germany there was an agricultural policy that was extremely favourable to the farmers. The wheat farmer had a price of about $2.63 to $2.73 a bushel. The prices for barley were much higher than those in Canada. Barley prices were from $1.76 to $2.20, and $1 to $1.26 for oats. In Germany they have another policy-one that we have been trying to persuade the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture to adopt-to encourage farm storage. For wheat there is a payment of about 12-6 cents per bushel extra to the farmer on condition that he keeps his grain on his farm rather than filling up the elevator space, and about 11-7 cents for rye.
I do not wish to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I should like to live in any of these countries I have mentioned, or that I should like to farm in them. I have said repeatedly that while I was away I did not see any country that I liked as well as Canada and that farming, as I saw it in these European countries, does not appear to me to be as attractive as does farming in Saskatchewan, even with the low prices we are getting and the other problems that we want to solve at some time. But I think it is significant that in these countries I have mentioned they are devoting a great deal of thought and effort to increasing the production of foodstuffs as part of an over-all national policy.
I am aware of the problem we might have on our hands here if the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce guaranteed prices, such as we did in the past. Canada has a tremendous capacity to produce agricultural products. In this world in which we live, with all its tensions,
I think we should recognize that producing food is one activity that should be encouraged and that Canada should go all out first of all to see that every Canadian citizen is able to obtain maximum quantities of food.
I received a letter today from the old age pensioners in British Columbia containing a table showing the increase in the cost of foods over a period of years, and they suggest that the pension should be increased. I cannot think of any good reason why, with this large surplus of butter, every old age pensioner in Canada should not have the benefit of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In the United States they worked out a stamp plan some years ago when they had these problems. Everybody in a certain category got stamps entitling them to butter, fruits and a wide variety of surplus products they had at that time in the United States.


Mr. Hector Dupuis (St. Mary):: My first remarks, Mr. Speaker, will be to offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Leduc) and seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I would say that both discharged their task in a manner that promises well for their future as members of this house.
I believe that the speech from the throne justifies us in feeling that this session will be a very fruitful one. I particularly underline certain measures which will help to alleviate the burden now on the shoulders of a large number of Canadians who are totally or partly dependent upon public assistance in solving their personal and family problems. Every member of this house learned with great satisfaction of the decision taken by the government to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide an increase in the duration and scale of supplementary benefits, as well as other amendments intended to make unemployment insurance of greater benefit to the unemployed.
The National Housing Act of 1954, adopted during the last session, will be broadened to enable landlords to obtain loans for home improvements. I hope this will pave the way for a full rural loan measure, similar to that existing in some provinces, for farm owners. At this point I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) upon his timely suggestion that the national housing scheme be amended to give home owners the same protection as that given to the lending institutions. This would be provided by means of equity insurance, at a premium the prospective owner could pay, to protect him against the loss of his initial investment.
After a splendid exposition of the many reasons militating in favour of his suggestion, and the procedure which could be followed

The Address-Mr. Dupuis if it were carried out, our learned colleague went on to say at page 110 of Hansard for January 12:
I believe it is the duty of the government, which is encouraging him to invest his all in a national housing home, to offer him a measure of protection. At the present time the government is protecting lending institutions by insuring the amount of the mortgage. With that I am in full accord and agreement. You can believe me that the lending institution, with its funds spread over thousands of investments, and secured in each case by property, is far less in need of protection than the national housing owner, who has all his eggs in one basket.
At the present time, and quite properly, the government protects the national housing mortgagee, and it is my view that it should protect the national housing owner, at least to the extent of his initial down payment. Every owner is far more vulnerable than the lending institution. No matter what happens, the lending institution cannot lose. In the event of a foreclosure it will look first to the property, and then to the government for repayment. But the owner may very well be wiped out.
I sincerely hope the government will give consideration to this timely suggestion. This will be another opportunity to show that this party has always been concerned with seeing that the small owners get the security to which they are justly entitled.
The government is to be praised also for increasing the basic rate, as well as the ceiling on permissible income, of the recipients of war veterans allowances. These veterans already derive benefit from the generous War Veterans Allowance Act. Other changes will be proposed to the national defence and defence services acts. I welcome also the fact that consideration is being given to the request to lower the eligible age for blind pensions, and to raise the income ceilings for these unfortunate people. Fishermen ought to be equally happy to learn of the decision taken by this government which will enable them to obtain loans on a similar basis as that provided in the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
The government, having taken into account the regional and seasonal unemployment which now exists, and which we all deplore, is endeavouring to help this situation by accelerating public construction projects already approved and assuring financial provision for the construction programs of various departments and agencies on an enlarged scale. The proposed amendment to the Railway Act to provide for the elimination of level crossings must not be overlooked. This might help to eliminate tragic accidents and accelerate traffic at these points.
These good measures have been the objects of laudable comments not only by members on this side of the house but also by the

Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) and some of his followers, as well as other members sitting on the opposite side of the house. According to the Conservative party's spokesman, many of his followers have reason to be thankful to the government for the realization of projects or measures they had advocated in the past.
The Acting Leader of the Opposition said the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) would certainly have read the speech from the throne with a little chuckle to himself and would be glad that at last the government had heeded his pleas on behalf of the war veterans. He went on to say that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) also had reason for being happy because of the blasting, in the near future, of Ripple Rock, an improvement that hon. member has ardently advocated.
The hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean), still according to the Acting Leader of the Opposition, would also be justified in rejoicing when he heard that steady progress was being made toward the inauguration of the new ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland of Nova Scotia, and that the project would be undertaken this year. Another observation by the acting leader was to the effect that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough), who is very moderate in distributing compliments to the government, along with her colleague the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), should be delighted to note that supplementary benefits would be extended to the unemployed during the winter months.
Of course the acting leader intentionally failed to mention the efforts made by members on this side of the house in favour of the measures now lauded by the government antagonists. Nevertheless, we of this party are particularly proud to receive these testimonies, and to use the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) I will say: "although it is somewhat of an exaggeration to suggest that anything of which we are supposed to be boasting as an achievement is due to pressure put upon us by suggestions from the other side of the house, nevertheless we will be happy to give serious consideration to any constructive suggestion, whatever its source. The genuine welfare of the country is, or should be, of more concern to all of us". These words illustrate the sense of duty of our leader. On all occasions he has manifested his firm determination to serve the best interests of our country in a non-partisan manner.
Now let us study the amendment moved by the Acting Leader of the Opposition and

seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). It reads as follows:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to take or to recommend the necessary measures:	(a) to retain and expand Canada's
markets abroad for our production, particularly of wheat and other products; (b) to solve the urgent problem of unemployment; (c) to relieve Canadian taxpayers from the burden of excessive taxation and thereby enable Canadian producers to lower their cost of production and to meet increasing competition; (d) to eliminate waste and extravagance in government and improve its efficiency; (e) to facilitate and encourage the processing of our natural resources in Canada, and thereby increase opportunities and employment for Canadians; (f) in co-operation with the provinces to develop an effective contributory plan which will assure that every Canadian will have adequate hospital and medical services.
As to the first paragraph, I leave it to those who are better acquainted with the problems of international markets to supply the information, which in my opinion will show the efforts made by this government to retain the advantages deriving from our commercial relations with other countries, especially with the commonwealth nations. I thought representatives of the opposition would offer suggestions to improve our situation in this connection. If they have not found a better solution than this government has, they ought to be rather bashful about inserting such a paragraph in the amendment.
On the other hand, if members of the opposition have in mind ways of bettering present conditions, they should let us hear them. It is their duty to do so. They may have the intention of taking adequate steps to blast their way into the overseas or the United States or South American and other markets, as the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett said he would but was unable or did not have the ability to carry out. At all events let them tell us how they would tackle and solve this problem.
The Acting Leader of the Opposition must know a lot about blasting into the international markets, as he was a member of the government at that time. In the meantime I prefer to place my confidence in the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is well aware of the situation and whose competence is a safeguard that no opportunity will be neglected in order to find the best possible solution to this problem, with all the unexpected changes to which it is subject.
The second paragraph of the amendment states that the government has failed to take necessary measures to solve the urgent problem of unemployment. All of us in this house deplore that unemployment exists at any time of the year, especially in the wintertime. As 1 have said previously, this
The Address-Mr. Dupuis government has taken the necessary steps to help those who are affected by unemployment by extending the period and increasing the rate of the allowances during the winter months, and also by making large appropriations for public works. I represent a constituency whose population is composed almost entirely of workingmen. Anything done to increase the possibilities of employment will receive my approval. I shall discuss this matter at greater length on another occasion.
Let me refer now to paragraph (c) of the amendment, in which the opposition blames the government for not relieving Canadian taxpayers from the burden of excessive taxation, thereby enabling Canadian producers to lower their cost of production and meet increasing competition. Like every other citizen I would like to see a reduction in the heavy taxes we are paying. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) seems to be of the same opinion. He made a declaration recently, although he did not commit himself. Let us hope that we can expect a move in that direction. Like everyone else I am anxious to hear the next budget speech.
I am not blaming my hon. friends of the opposition for making such a popular suggestion, but I would like them to be a little more logical. On the one hand members of all the opposition parties demand the lowering of taxes and, on the other hand, they are asking constantly for higher expenditures in connection with welfare allowances and public works.
I favour the execution of public works on a large scale, especially in seasons when unemployment is high, but I think all will agree with me when 1 say that public works after all are disguised taxes because the money required is taken from revenue, from the money the government has to dispose of, which consists almost entirely of funds raised through direct taxation on the individual.
As far as increasing welfare allowances is concerned, I shall later analyse what has been done in this connection by the party which has received the support of the people for a longer period of time than any other party since confederation.
There is one timely suggestion in the amendment which in my opinion should be given further consideration by the government. I refer to the paragraph which reads: To facilitate and encourage the processing of our natural resources in Canada.
I have on several occasions, in this house and elsewhere, expressed my opinion on this matter. A larger proportion of our national resources can be processed here. I know this

The Address-Mr. Dupuis government has encouraged this policy, as have some of the provinces, but there is room for greater improvement in this regard.
Paragraph (f) of the amendment relates to the provision of adequate hospital and medical services. Everyone knows that such services are mainly the responsibility of the provinces. However, let us see what this government has done in the sphere of social assistance during the period from 1948 to 1953, leaving aside the achievements of other Liberal governments in this connection. During that period of time subventions or grants paid to the provinces by the federal government amounted to $167,407,831 for crippled children, professional training, hospital construction, venereal disease treatment, mental hygiene, tuberculosis and cancer control.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That is paid by the province.


Hector Dupuis: That is not paid by the province. The province has to put up an amount and the federal government equals it.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The larger share is paid by the province.


Hector Dupuis: If the hon. member cannot understand what I say perhaps I should express myself in French so I may be understood. What I mean to say is that the province puts up a sum and the federal government spends the same amount as the province advances. That is for the hon. member's information.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It is wrong information.


Hector Dupuis: It is right information, and I defy my hon. friend to prove the contrary.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I certainly will.


Hector Dupuis: I am at my hon. friend's disposal any time. I did not think I could teach anything to an hon. member who has been in this house so long.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The hon. member has been here too long and he does not know.


Hector Dupuis: It is not the hon. member's job to decide whether I have been too long in this house. That is a matter for the electors to look after. I feel sure that I know enough that when I advance a point I am sure of it. Otherwise I would not mention it.
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Would the hon. member permit me a question?


Hector Dupuis: Certainly.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Was that his platform during the last electoral campaign, which brought him such excellent results?


Hector Dupuis: What a proof of intelligence on the part of the hon. member! What stupendous genius! What relation can there

be between the amount spent by the federal government for hospitals in the province of Quebec and the electoral mayoralty campaign I launched with no success, unfortunately? That remark of his confirms my opinion; I have seldom met such a genius!
(Text):
A total of $94 million was paid during the same period to provinces which had spent an equal amount under the terms of the agreement between the federal government and the provinces.
I might also mention other forms of subsidies or contributions made by the federal government to the provinces for such purposes as the training of health workers, the training of nurses, the training of nursing assistants, mental health, and the employment of health workers. To this we must also add the salaries paid to the persons trained or undergoing training under the national health program, such as physicians, dentists, nurses, sanitation personnel, technicians, statisticians, and many others specialized or specializing in various other fields of public health. The number of those on the payroll totalled 4,947 during the period 1948 to 1953.
We have learned with great satisfaction from the report issued by the department of health and welfare that the federal government will offer additional financial aid to the provinces to help create (a) better health care for the disabled; (b) better health care for mothers and children; (c) better facilities and services to help doctors diagnose their patients' illnesses. The amount to be voted for that purpose is $42,000,000 for the next five years. These figures can be obtained because they are published by the department. All this does not take into account other sums spent by the Department of National Health and Welfare for special studies and research in laboratories, in the food inspection division and in many other items.
This is proof that the federal government, contrary to what the opposition claims, has accomplished a great deal in assuring adequate medical services. I understand that the plan for national health insurance is still being considered, and that negotiations are under way between the federal and provincial authorities. I hope they will lead to a mutual understanding between the interested governments which will be to the advantage of the people, especially the working class who cannot afford to meet the prohibitive cost of hospitalization. Incidentally I will say that in Montreal last year $695,000 was given to the neurological institute. That shows that a lot has been done to provide adequate medical services.

Before concluding my remarks on this subject I wish to draw the attention of my colleagues to the fact that out of the $167 million which was allotted to them during the period 1948-53, the provinces have used only some $94 million. It is up to each province to make full use of the federal contributions to expand hospital accommodation and medical services. Much more can be accomplished in that direction; and referring to the province of Quebec only I will say that there is a very great need for more hospital space, especially for those afflicted with mental illnesses. What more do our friends opposite need to prove that adequate hospital and medical services are receiving the attention of this government?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Change sides and you will have the answer.


Hector Dupuis: I do not have to change sides to be right. I am right on both sides. Must I deduce from the words of the member for Quebec West that he would be talking differently if he were on this side? Unless one is as blind as a bat he must recognize the splendid work accomplished by this government in the sphere of public health. I wish to seize the present opportunity to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who at all times has proven his ardent desire to ensure the best health and welfare conditions for our citizens. He has accomplished a wonderful task for which the people of Canada are grateful; that is, excluding the opposition members.
Now let us see what else has been done in the last 20 years under different Liberal governments in the field of public welfare, leaving aside the unemployment insurance scheme which has been so profitable to the workers of this country. In 1927 old age pensions were paid at the rate of $20 a month to people 70 years of age and over. The rate was raised to $25 a month in 1943 and the means test scale broadened. The allowance was again raised to $30 a month in 1947, and to $40 in 1949. This was a Liberal measure enacted by a Liberal government. In 1952 the age at which a person was entitled to old age pension was reduced to 65, and old age security and old age assistance guaranteed to every citizen 70 years of age and over. In the first case the means test scale was maintained. Let us bear in mind that not only have the aged people been given assistance at an earlier age than that requested when this measure was first put into force, but the monthly allowances have been doubled since this party has been in power. That is not such a bad record.
It was in 1945 that the government, under a Liberal administration, instituted family
The Address-Mr. Dupuis allowances entirely at the cost of the federal government. I am sure nobody ever thought that $5 or $6 a month was enough to maintain a child. The intention of the sponsors of such a good social measure was to alleviate the burden entailed in bringing up a family. Some are asking to double this allowance. I certainly favour this suggestion, although it would mean an extra expenditure of $400 million. Incidentally, the number of families in receipt of this allowance at the present time is around two million, representing five million children. I hope when the situation created by the menace of war disappears, which necessitates the spending of huge sums to assure our national safety, more generous allowances in all spheres of social security or welfare will be provided by this government.
As I just said, the whole cost of family allowances is borne by the federal government. I realize that doubling them would be a great help to a large number of fathers and mothers. Even $10 a month will not be enough, mind you-and every member in this house knows that as well as I do-to look after the necessities of life and the education of a child. However, I would favour such an increase. I do not want to pass the buck to someone else, as we commonly say, but I sincerely submit that the different provinces should make it their duty to allocate to their residents a monthly allowance at the same rate as that granted by the federal government.
My friends of the Social Credit party in my province have launched a wide campaign in favour of the doubling of family allowances. I hope they succeed. However, I want to say this to the hon. members of the Social Credit group. Their friends hold power in two provinces. I suggest that the federal members belonging to that party take the necessary steps to have their friendly governments in British Columbia and Alberta make up the difference existing between the actual rate of family allowances and the increase suggested.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: They do more than that, I want you to understand.


Hector Dupuis: That sum of $5 or $6 or $8 that you want added to the present family allowances could be paid by your province, and if they did that we would be very glad of such a gesture.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am sure they will, too.


Hector Dupuis: Let those who organize delegations make the same request of the provincial authorities who have the same moral obligation as the federal government to contribute to the welfare of the families.
662	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dupuis


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: They have not the same amount of money, though.


Hector Dupuis: I shall come to you in a second. I will show you what the budget of our own province is at the present time, and you will be surprised at the difference between the present budget and the one that existed in 1939.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It is a fine budget.


Hector Dupuis: You can defend the provincial government as much as you wish, but you are going to let me speak. I am coming to you now.


Mr. Holowach:: May I ask my hon. friend a question? After listening to a review of the accomplishments of the Liberal party I should like the hon. member to tell us whether the Liberal party has left anything undone.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Not much.


Hector Dupuis: They have had the interest of humanity at heart.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Absolutely perfect and complete.


Hector Dupuis: My hon. friend for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne), who like myself and others favours the increase, could use the strong influence he has with the government of the province of Quebec and ask that government to contribute in the same manner the federal government has for the past ten years, and allow another $5, $6, or $8, as the case may be, as a supplement to the allowance now received by the heads of families for their children. My hon. friend knows as I do that the annual budget of the province of Quebec is well over $360 million, compared with some $60 million in 1939. Perhaps by cutting out some possible extravagances, of a type similar to that which he reproaches this government with, and which may exist even in that province, it would be possible for the province to contribute to social welfare of this type.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Hector Dupuis: Does the hon. member wish to speak in my place? I am very short of time, Mr. Speaker, and I hope these interruptions will be taken into account.
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I will use my influence so that you do not lose time. Would the hon. member be so kind as to say in what way the provinces could co-operate?


Hector Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I will not answer the question since the hon. member who is now addressing me is repeating exactly what


I have said. I will only explain a little further; I will provide him with the necessary explanations. Let me speak.
Since I have no wish to be called unpatriotic by speaking English to one of my Frenchspeaking colleagues, I will repeat, substantially, what I have just said. I suggest he accompany me to meet the authorities of our province. We will ask them to provide the children with family allowances at the same rate as the federal government, at a higher rate, even, if they feel like it. I am offering my services to the hon. member and do so in all seriousness.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That will not be easy.


Hector Dupuis: I have no doubt that such a trip in the company of my colleague will be excellent, and I hope that, with a $360 million budget, the government of our province will have a few millions available to grant the request that my colleague and I approve, namely, the family allowance increase.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Will the hon. member permit me to lay down one condition?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to have to interrupt, but I feel that I have given enough latitude to hon. members since the beginning of the speech now being made. It is permissible to interrupt, to ask questions, but I think it is contrary to the decorum we want to maintain in this house to indulge in repeated obtrusions while the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Dupuis) is delivering his speech.
I should then ask hon. members to allow the representative of the St. Mary constituency to continue his speech without further interruptions.
(Text):


Hector Dupuis: Others, Liberals, C.C.F., and independent members representing constituencies of different provinces, can certainly do the same in order that family allowances be doubled. I sincerely believe it is the duty of all provinces to contribute to the increase in family allowances in the way I have just suggested. They have a moral obligation similar to that of the federal government. We have seen this government's action with regard to old age pensioners, the blind, and other deserving sections of the community, and there is no reason why the provinces should not spare a few dollars or even a few million dollars to look after our children. I shall view their actions in this regard with some interest. I will then be able to observe the sincerity of those who are calling for increased assistance, particularly the Social Credit members who seem to look in only one direction for help, and that is to Ottawa.

I shall watch the actions of the Social Credit representatives in British Columbia, Alberta and the province of Quebec, together with their responsible governments, in order to see whether they will do as much for the people there as has been done for them by the federal government.


An hon. Member:: When we get a new tax
agreement we will do something.


Hector Dupuis: You want additional allowances. The thing to do is to go ahead and get them from the provincial governments you support, if you can.
If the provinces are willing to assume their part of the responsibility the federal government, after reducing the cost of national defence in view of a calmer international situation, could easily use the sum of $400 million, representing the suggested increase in family allowances, in reducing the income tax and improving other measures in the field of social welfare. Relying on what this government and other Liberal administrations have done toward helping the heads of families, and also the attention it has given to the security and welfare of Canadian citizens, I feel I have some ground for hoping that serious consideration will be given to all suggestions the aim of which would be to help those who need financial aid.
I would like to look at some other welfare measures, Mr. Speaker, providing I have sufficient time to do so, and I would hope that in this regard you would take account of the interruptions I have had to endure. Let us take a glance at a few other security and welfare measures adopted by this government and those who have had the responsibility of administering our affairs for the past 20 years. Among these I should mention the allowances to the blind and handicapped. The speech from the throne indicates that these two measures will be modified in order to lower the age of eligibility for those who fall within that category, and also raise the income ceilings in the first case.
I must also underline the generous help landlords will eventually receive-and many have already done so-under the provisions of the National Housing Act. I also note that this government will introduce the necessary legislation to "provide facilities for loans to fishermen similar to those provided to farmers by the Farm Improvement Loans Act." All this, added to what I have already mentioned, is a record any government can be proud of. The policy of the Liberal party has proved itself at all times to be more efficient and constructive than that of the Tories. In the last few years they have found it wiser
The Address-Mr. Dupuis to change their policy with the sole object and hope of attracting public opinion in their favour.
I shall not vote for the amendment nor the subamendment because I have great confidence in the present government which directs the affairs of our country so efficiently. Although I realize there is ground for improvement in all spheres of our political economy, I do not hesitate to say that this government, and the preceding ones for the last 20 years, have efficiently solved the many problems that have arisen during their respective terms, or certainly as many of them as it was humanly possible to solve.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will realize that at the speed he is now speaking-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Reading.


Mr. Speaker:: I avoid mentioning that
expression-it might be quite difficult if not impossible for the reporter, no matter how efficient he may be, to take all the words the hon. member is enunciating so rapidly. For the hon. member's information I might mention that only two minutes remain before his time expires.


Hector Dupuis: I shall now turn to the question of national unity, and I wish at this time to comment upon and briefly challenge the statement made in this house by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). Other hon. members have already done so in appropriate terms. I shall limit my remarks on this ridiculous and fallacious declaration -and I suppose those words are permitted in this house, Mr. Speaker-by saying that I am at his disposal to supply him with documents, briefs and books, if he desires to avail himself of them, containing the appreciation of prominent English-speaking citizens of the province of Quebec who laud the fair treatment received by minorities there. I will also refer him to the magnificent address delivered in this house on January 17 by the hon. member for Pontiac-Timiskaming (Mr. Proudfoot), whose declaration is another proof that our province has always been broadminded. As reported at page 273 of Hansard he said:
I want to point out that the minorities have been fairly treated in the province of Quebec. Most certainly that is so when compared with the treatment of minorities in some other provinces of Canada. I would say that in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, 75 per cent of the people are of a different religious faith from myself, and at least 65 per cent of the people in that constituency are of French-Canadian origin. In the last two general elections, the voters of my constituency were willing to and did support me, and I believe those who opposed me did so not
664	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hodgson because I was of a racial religious minority group but rather because I happened to be of a different political faith.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: You are reading too fast.


Hector Dupuis: As to the assertion made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that there is no part of Canada that is as ripe for advances by the communist party as the province of Quebec, I just want to tell the hon. member-I will soon be finished with these remarks, Mr. Speaker; I require your indulgence for just another two minutes, no more-who uttered such an erratic statement that he will not live to be old enough to see a situation in Quebec justifying such a stupid prophecy. Generations will go by and Quebec will continue to be the safeguard of Christian and democratic principles in this country. Let that hon. member not forget that communism is the descendant of socialism, which is the creed of the C.C.F. party and its supporters. The more we keep away from socialism, hence C.C.F. ideals, the further we are from communism and its subversive methods. Our institutions, our schools in Quebec-, and the clergy of all Christian denominations will always be the bulwark of our democratic liberties.
I am finishing, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member is not yet convinced, I will tell him this. Come east, young man; and if he wishes it, I will accompany him on his tour. I am ready to accompany many members as long as it is for a good purpose. I will accompany him on his tour, but he will have to stay long enough this time in the province of Quebec to become familiar with the way of life and the ideals of its population. He will then find out for himself how foolish and unjustified were his remarks and will, I am sure, seize the first opportunity to make a retraction.
It was my intention to talk of several other subjects-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hector Dupuis: -but I realize that my time has expired. I really thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the indulgence you have accorded me. In the meantime I will just say one thing. I want to assure my constituents that I shall lose no opportunity to justify the confidence they have placed in me and in the party to which I am so happy to belong.


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate, after it has gone on for so many days and after so many speeches have been made, I shall endeavour not to be guilty of too much repetition. After listening to the previous speaker, may I say that if the committee on


procedure of this house can cut the length of speeches to 30 minutes, I think it would meet the desires of most hon. members.
The speech from the throne is a document that is prepared by the government and is handed to the Governor General to read at the opening of parliament. At this time I want to congratulate the two new members who moved and seconded the address in reply for the effort they put into the preparation of their speeches. From what I have learned from reading the speech from the throne and from listening to the previous speeches, this document is a fairly calm one. In it there is nothing about securing trade or markets for Canadian farm products. There is not even a reference to the pilgrimage to Washington of the three cabinet ministers a few weeks ago for the purpose of securing trade. They must have come back empty-handed because this government is so boastful about things they do that, if they had received any extra trade agreements or things of that sort, we certainly would have heard about it long before now. In the speech from the throne there is not even a reference to that pilgrimage to Washington.
The employment situation is treated as though it were seasonal and unimportant. I think it was the Minister of Trade and Commerce who said it was regional. It is regional all right, because it has permeated every region and every part of Canada. Then someone said that the 600,000 unemployed were an unimportant matter. It may be unimportant to this government, especially to the cabinet, but it certainly is not unimportant to the people of Canada, especially those who are out of work. When 600,000 are out of work it means 600,000 families who are unhappy at this time.
We have had the promise of public works projects, but no indication is given as to what they are or how much is involved. I may be of an unduly suspicious nature, but I suspect that too much has been made of them already and that not half the projects we anticipate will actually be undertaken. There are, however, two proposed matters of legislation that are welcomed. One is the increase in the war veterans allowance, for which the Conservative party has fought for years. The other is the proposed reduction in the qualification age for blind pensions. That is something that is all to the good.
I also recall a recent speech by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) advising the people of Canada to be calm. Calmness has a place, but it is asking much of Canadians to be calm in the face of unemployment which is steadily

rising, and to be calm with the continuing loss of export markets. Incidentally, the raising of unemployment insurance payments and the granting of winter bonuses will be appreciated by the people who are out of work, and will tend to alleviate but will not solve the problem of unemployment.
Are the labour forces to be calm in the face of increasing unemployment? Are Canadians to be calm in the face of being subjected to super-heavy taxation which is far above that which is needed to maintain our defences and other branches of government, and which bears so heavily on the lower income families? Are Canadians to be calm when they know that super-taxation has done its part to place prohibitive price tags on the goods they have to buy and on products for which markets have to be found abroad? Shall Canadians be calm when they know that corporate taxation at present super-high rates is killing the goose that lays the golden egg? Without fair profits there cannot be jobs. That statement applies to government-owned industries as well as to private business, as has been proven by the the province of Saskatchewan's experiment in socialist enterprise.
All of us will welcome the expected reductions in taxation this session, although no reference is made thereto in the speech from the throne. This is a course the Progressive Conservative party has advocated for years, but these reductions are several years too late. What of the farmers and other primary producers who are caught in a vise-like squeeze between falling prices for farm products and rising costs of the things they have to buy? Are they to be calm? What of the pensioners whose pensions have been greatly devalued by the cost of living? Are they to be calm? These are but a few of the problems affecting Canada's economy at the present time.
A few days ago the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) said he had more amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to bring before this house. As I said before, everybody appreciates the amendment that was recently passed, but we would welcome other amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I do not see why he is waiting. Why does he not bring them in now instead of telling us that he is going to do so later on in the session? If it is going to be for the benefit of the workers, and if it is going to help the unemployment situation, they should be introduced now. The people need them now.
Then as to the matter of unemployment insurance benefits, even with the benefits that have been added for the winter months these benefits are running out fast in many places. What happens when the benefits run out? You know what happens. The people line up at the relief desks in the municipali-
The Address-Mr. Hodgson ties. Who pays the relief? The municipality, to be sure. Does this government help the municipality to pay its relief costs? Not one iota. Is unemployment in Canada the responsibility of this government? Why, certainly it is. Everyone knows it is the responsibility of the federal government. Therefore the federal government should dig down into its pocket and come to the aid of the municipalities in paying their relief costs.
In my own constituency 30 per cent of the labouring men are out of work. In the northern half of my constituency 50 per cent of the men are out of work. The reason is that it is a tourist and lumbering district, and when the tourists go in the fall there is nothing for the people to lean upon except the lumbering industry. Many workmen from other parts of Canada drift into the Hali-burton area looking for work in the winter months. They have drifted there this year, but there has been no work for them. The only thing they have done is to increase the number on relief. There are more lining up for relief every day at the municipal offices.
What has happened to the economy of the lumbering industry in Canada? I can tell you. We have lost the British market. When Canada lost the British market for lumber, British Columbia lumber started to come into Ontario. British Columbia lumber producers cut the price and competed with our producers on the 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 foot lengths that we produce in Ontario. In British Columbia their lumber is produced in longer lengths, and when their yards are piled full with short lengths they become a drug on the market and they can afford to ship them to Ontario and undersell us so far as price is concerned.
There must be something more than that behind the situation. I saw in a newspaper a few days ago that New Zealand has recruited 100 Canadian lumberjacks to work in that country. The government of New Zealand is considering coming to Canada to get more forest labourers to go to their [DOT]country to work in their lumber industry. How is it that they can manage to produce lumber in New Zealand? Their market must be the same market as ours. That is the situation at the present time so far as my riding is concerned. We cannot sell any lumber.
There is one other point about the unemployment situation that I think I should mention, and it has to do with the Canadian National Railways. The Belleville division is in my riding, and the Canadian National Railways have sent out an order laying off 60 section crew men in that division. That cuts that labour force right in two. You had an average of four men to a section taking

The Address-Mr. Hodgson care of and maintaining 7 miles of track and now there will be four men taking care of 17 miles. The order is to become effective on the 1st of February.
Snow removal costs have been twice as great this year as in any of the last ten years. The idea of cutting the number of section-men is not new. The present set-up in the Belleville division has been in operation for 30 years to my knowledge. The same crews have been taking care of the same mileage, maintaining the same number of miles of track. But now the C.N.R. has seen fit to knock off 60 men and cut the number right in two. Hours of labour are shorter now than they were 15 years ago. Men do not do as much hard work as they used to, but the C.N.R. is going to ask these men to do twice as much work with half as many men.
It appears to the employees that this move is simply retaliation by the C.N.R. on account of the fringe benefits awarded the men by Mr. Justice Sloan in the arbitration of a few months ago. In 1951 the Canadian National Railways came forward with the very same program at about the same time of year. I spoke in the house on the matter at the time. The order went out, but for some reason or other it was not put into effect; the situation was left unchanged and has remained that way up until the present time. In 1951 there were 6 roadmasters on the Belleville division and today they have 21. There are to be fewer sectionmen with more miles to cover and there is more snow to remove, but there are three times as many roadmasters. I think certain types of work on the C.N.R. could stand to be investigated, because it seems to me that the railway is overloaded with officials from top to bottom.
Men are being moved all over the system. Men with 40 years of service are affected and are going to be moved about from one part of the country to another if they wish to hold their jobs. The younger men of course are the ones who will be laid off. The C.N.R. has 50 per cent more officials than the C.P.R., on the basis of the number of labouring men. No wonder the Canadian National comes back to parliament every year and wants more money to operate the road. It is no fault of the men. There are just as good men on the Canadian National as there are on the Canadian Pacific or any other railroad on the North American continent. It is a question of too much officialdom and too high salaries in the top brackets of officials.
Some few years ago I put a question on the order paper in an endeavour to find out what were the salaries of some of the top men of the C.N.R., but that question was never answered. I think I shall try again


this year. It may only be a try, but sometimes it is worth it.
I should like to do a little advertising of my own riding. Several things are happening there that I hope will produce a lot of work and be of value to our country. I refer to the discovery of uranium. It is not a new find. Dr. Hugh Spence, the head of the metallurgical service of the department in Ottawa, wrote an article on it in 1932. It was fresh in the minds of the government at that time. Plenty of people asked the government to do something about it, but instead the government spent a billion dollars at Eldorado when there was uranium at the back door of their Chalk River plant.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In 1932?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That is being proved now by diamond drilling, and nobody knows it better than the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask what government was in power in 1932?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Yes, but you have been in power ever since 1935. The same thing has been before you. The article was written in 1932, but there certainly has not been anything done about it since.


An hon. Member:: The Conservatives found it and you would not use it.


William Earl Rowe: You built Chalk River. We did not need it then. You were the only ones who needed it.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?
On motion of Mr. Hodgson the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: I think it is almost two weeks since I appealed to the house to try to wind up this debate. I know there are still a number of speakers who are anxious to participate, but I should point out that there is really no other work being done except in the rules committee, and I would hope that we could wind up the debate early in the week so we could get on with legislation and other work.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister indicate which items of legislation would have priority if we did reach that stage which he regards as so happy?


Walter Edward Harris: I would not be able to do so at the moment but I could on Monday night, and I would hope that having done so my hon. friend would wind up the debate.


William Earl Rowe: I do not think you will finish it Monday night.


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

Freight Assistance on Western Grains

[Stage Direction]
Regulations respecting the payment of freight assistance on western grains and
millfeeds shipped into eastern
Eastern Canada
1.	The Minister of Agriculture is authorized to pay freight assistance on:
(a)	Western wheat, oats, barley, rye, wheat bran, wheat shorts, wheat middlings, No. 1 feed screenings and No. 2 feed screenings, shipped or transported by rail or boat from Port Arthur, Fort William or Armstrong, Ontario, to destinations in Canada east thereof and distributed for use exclusively as feed in Canada for Canadian livestock or poultry;
(b)	Wheat bran, wheat shorts and wheat middlings milled in western Canada, or milled in eastern Canada from western wheat shipped or transported from Port Arthur, Fort William or Armstrong, Ontario, to port elevators or flour mills in Canada east thereof when such bran, shorts, or middlings are distributed from the manufacturing mill for use exclusively as feed in Canada for Canadian livestock or poultry.
2.	The payment of freight assistance authorized pursuant to section 1 shall be as follows:
(a)	On all rail shipments to destinations in northern Ontario the payment shall be the actual carlot rail freight charges but not exceeding $4.50 per ton;
(b)	On all shipments to destinations in Ontario, except northern Ontario, the payment shall be $4.50 per ton;
(c)	On all shipments to destinations, other than those in Ontario, the payment shall be $4.50 per ton if the destination is within the Montreal freight rate zone and $4.50 per ton plus the remainder of the through carlot rail freight rate in excess of the Montreal freight rate zone rate if the destination is beyond the Montreal freight rate zone provided that such destination has a through carlot rail freight rate below 80 cents per hundredweight; if the destination of the shipment has a through carlot rail freight rate of 80 cents per hundredweight or higher the payment shall be $6.00 per ton plus the remainder of the through carlot rail freight rate in excess of the Montreal freight rate zone rate;
(d)	The rates of payment under paragraph
(c)	shall not be increased while this order is in effect irrespective of any
Canada and British Columbia
increase in all rail through carlot rail freight rates which would result in the balance of such rate over the Montreal freight rate zone rate being higher than it is at the time this order becomes effective.
British Columbia
3.	The Minister of Agriculture is authorized to pay freight assistance on:
(a)	Western wheat, oats, barley, rye, corn, No. 1 feed screenings and No. 2 feed screenings, wheat bran, wheat shorts and wheat middlings, shipped from points of origin in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and in that part of British Columbia known as the Peace river district, to destinations in British Columbia and distributed for use exclusively as feed in British Columbia for Canadian livestock or poultry;
(b)	Wheat bran, wheat shorts and wheat middlings milled in British Columbia from western wheat, shipped from points of origin as designated in paragraph (a), and distributed as designated in paragraph (a).
4.	The payment of freight assistance authorized pursuant to section 3 shall be $5.00 per ton less than the carlot short line rail freight charges from Calgary or Edmonton or the point of origin in Alberta, whichever is the lowest, to destinations in British Columbia, and to pay the coastal water carlot shipping charges from any coastal point in British Columbia to any other coastal point therein but not exceeding the balance of the through rail carlot freight rate if the said coastal point is served by rail, provided that if the carlot rail freight rates are increased while this order is in effect the unpaid portion of the charges shall be increased by an amount equal to the increase in the said rail freight rates.
General
5.	On all grains and feeds shipped and distributed in accordance with the provisions of this order, evidence satisfactory to the minister must be produced to show that the sale price to consumers of such products has been reduced by and takes into account the payment of freight assistance as herein prescribed.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 31, 1955