1955-02-03

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the report of the civil service commission respecting compensation for the position, chief of orders and notices, of the House of Commons, laid on the table of the house January 31, 1955, be now approved.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. A. H. Hollingworih (York Cenire) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 21, respecting flags of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Allan Henry Hollingworth: The explanatory note simply says that as .it is desirable that Canada should possess a distinctive national flag, this bill suggests a procedure for accomplishing that purpose.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister received a request for financial assistance from the government of British Columbia, the city of Vancouver or chambers of commerce in the Vancouver area for the building of a high level bridge across the north arm of the Fraser river at Marpole, British Columbia? If requests for financial assistance have been received, what decision has been made in the matter?


Hon. Roberi H. Winiers (Minister of Public Works):: Since I received notice of this
question I have had the opportunity of having a word with the hon. member. There has been confusion in some minds as to just where this bridge is to be located.
As I understand it, the initial request came to us for a bridge to replace the present Marpole bridge, and this government after due consideration agreed to pay up to a maximum of $400,000 toward a suitable bridge to replace the inadequate one now existing. The government of British Columbia, I understand, has decided to go ahead with a bridge at the foot of Oak street. I believe it is referred to as the Oak street project, and tenders have been called; but this government has not decided to participate in that project.


Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: May
I ask a supplementary question? There was an offer from the federal government of an amount of $400,000. Does that offer still stand?


Robert Henry Winters: That offer was based upon the federal government's interest in having traffic proceed with the greatest facility between the mainland of Vancouver and Sea island. This present Oak street project involves a new large bridge from Vancouver to Lulu island and another smaller bridge from Lulu island to Sea island. To the extent that this new project is in keeping with the federal government's aim in making the $400,000 offer, I assume it will be available for this new project.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Is the S. S. Walter E. Foster being transferred from Saint John to the St. Lawrence at the height of the winter port season and, if so, why?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this is a temporary reallocation for the balance of the winter, due to the sinking of the Lady Grey. The ship will return to Saint John as soon as the ice season is over.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask a supplementary question? Would it not have been possible to get an icebreaker from some other place, or to have used the old transport vessel in Saint John? This vessel is necessary for navigational aids in that harbour.

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Carlyle Marler: The department did not consider that that would be convenient.



SUGGESTED AMENDMENT OF ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will producers be given the right to deliver grain to the elevator of their choice through an amendment to the Canada Grain Act, as requested by the three wheat pools?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have to give the obvious answer, thaf the government's intentions with regard to legislation will be made known in due course. I have noticed that my hon. friend has a notice of motion in Votes and Proceedings intended to bring this about, and I cannot prejudge the opinion of the house on the resolution.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a supplementary question? Is there any method for allocating box cars at present in effect that is different from the method that prevailed a year ago?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the matter of allocating box cars is subject to the car order book, and after that it is by arrangement between the railways and the *elevator companies.
[Later: ]


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with car allotment. Is there anything his department can do to secure a greater allotment of cars for those areas of northern Saskatchewan served by the Canadian Pacific lines? On those lines there is always a smaller number of cars available.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The allotment
of cars on branch lines is under constant review by the wheat board. Calls for grain are issued for cars for particular lines. I cannot believe that there is any discrimination against northern lines. However I shall call the attention of members of the wheat board who are in Ottawa at the present time to my hon. friend's question in order to make sure that if there is any discrimination it is removed immediately.
(Mr. Bell.]



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last
when the orders of the day were called the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener) inquired as to what progress is being made by the Department of National Defence toward making the Long Branch rifle range available for civilian use.
Long Branch rifle range is the only outdoor rifle range operated by the Department of National Defence in the whole Toronto area. It has been so operated for over 40 years. The range serves 17 militia units of battalion or equivalent size, 6 militia units of company size, the regular army troops stationed in the area, personnel of the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force, members of the R.C.M.P. and Ontario provincial and local police, as well as military and other rifle associations.
Use of the range has been increasing steadily throughout the last few years both in numbers of personnel using the range and in time occupied. In 1954 approximately 9,000 personnel shot at the range. The range is therefore of very considerable importance in the field of military training in the Toronto area.
Continuous and very rapid growth of population in the Toronto area during recent years has gradually enveloped the range, and increasing pressure is now being brought to bear on the department to move out. We recognize this situation, but the difficulty has been to find a suitable alternative site. For the past few years we have been making every effort to find an area large enough and close enough to Toronto to develop into a suitable range. We have not met with any success whatever. The whole district around Toronto for many miles is being subdivided and developed, and any prospective site we have found is subject to the same objections which are being directed to our continued occupancy of Long Branch.
On the other hand it must be recognized that the department is obligated to provide shooting facilities for the numerous military units in the Toronto district, either at Long Branch or some other area reasonably accessible to Toronto. In view of the lack of success which is meeting our efforts, we are at present considering the possibilities of Camp Borden which, though 60 miles from Toronto, might, in view of the construction of

a new super highway, serve to meet our military need, though at considerable inconvenience to Toronto units.
In the event that Camp Borden is found practicable, I assume that the lands which we own at Long Branch would be turned over in the usual way to Crown Assets Disposal 'Corporation.
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel): I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Was it not the intention of the Department of National Defence to release the Long Branch rifle range by October 1, 1954? If it was the intention to release the range as of that date, what circumstances or what facts have caused the department to alter its original intention?


Ralph Osborne Campney: So far as I know there was never any intention to vacate the Long Branch rifle range by October 1 of last year.



CUSTOMS TARIFF


[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 Revenue. Has the minister received from Canadian toy manufacturers complaints that section 16(1) of the Customs Tariff, which provides that the governor in council may order that goods imported into Canada be marked with the country of origin, is not being observed? Will the minister tell the house that this provision of the Customs Tariff with respect to toys will be observed in future? If not, why not?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: That is a pretty large question. I have no knowledge of any complaints from this particular manufacturing concern, but I shall take the hon. gentleman's question as notice and have it looked into.



REGULATIONS APPLYING TO IMPORTATIONS FROM NEW ZEALAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: In answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Peterborough yesterday regarding imported cheese, I may say that cheese imported into Canada is subject to the same inspection and must comply with the same regulations as cheese made in Canada.


Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Do the
regulations that apply to cheese consumed in Canada apply to cheese imported into Canada?
Inquiries of the Ministry


James Garfield Gardiner: Exactly the same regulations apply to cheese used in Canada whether it is imported or produced here.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? Has the arrangement for the Hilton hotel chain to operate the new C.N.R. hotel in Montreal been finalized? In view of protests against this arrangement, can it be reconsidered?


George Carlyle Marler: I would remind the hon. member that the announcement was made by the management of the railways in November last, at the time the arrangement was concluded with Hilton.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production? In the light of news reports to the effect that President Eisenhower might call a conference of the nations on peacetime atomic energy, is it the intention of the government to set up a committee on atomic energy this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government of Canada
works very closely with President Eisenhower on atomic energy matters. It is closely associated with the discussions at the United Nations, and I can assure my hon. friend that if those discussions are carried further Canada will be represented.


Ernest George Hansell: My question was, is a committee of the house to be set up this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry, I did not understand the question. Yes, it is the intention of the government to propose a committee to study atomic energy as well as research generally.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 2, 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. Hahn.
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, in the course of my remarks yesterday I used the phrase or expression "a government that has the political morality of an alley cat". I notice that in the report in the Gazette this morning, attributed to the Canadian Press, that has been translated and attributed to me as follows: "the morals of an alley cat." I prefer to stand on my original phrase, which restricted it to the political field. The press gallery and the Canadian Press, who are so much better acquainted with the government and have known them so much longer than I have, can make any extension of it they wish.


Mr. Lapointe:: It might extend to the other side.


James Joseph McCann: You would be included.


William McLean Hamilton: This, Mr. Speaker, is the time of the false prophet. Our progress has been so rapid, the changes around us so great, that many of us have lost sight of those accepted and objective standards by which mankind has been guided for so many generations. This is the age of grotesque and perverse fanaticisms, of bigotries which would be contemptible if they were not all so dangerous. This is the generation of the big lie, the mass delusion. Only the obvious seems not worth saying, only the truth remains in want of publicity. All too often the good is despised as sinful or corrupt and every kind of evil is permitted to parade under the name of virtue.
In this time of change the signs and symbols which have guided the lives of men for centuries have suddenly become unreliable and obscure. In the universal deluge of ideas and mechanical advances men swim about amid the intellectual wreckage of their culture like torpedoed seamen clinging to different coloured bits of straw, not one of them sufficient to support a man.
The cause or occasion of the revolution in our time has been the coming of the machine. But its real challenge, like that of all such periods, is not political or economic so much as it is spiritual. This is the challenge that this government has failed to meet more than any other, the spiritual challenge, the challenge which has brought Canada ever forward. Oh, they have been aided by economic conditions, and they have stayed in power. They have had assistance from various factors, national and international; but as a government and as a party I suggest that they are spiritually gutless and intellectually bankrupt. They have hoped and groped their way through the past 20 years, calling on the civil service for ideas, intelligence and brains.


They have been raiding the same civil service for cabinet material when they could not produce it within their own party. They have been digging into provincial Liberal parties for cabinet material when those same provincial Liberals found they had no future in their own party. '


An hon. Member:: We have never called on you yet.


William McLean Hamilton: My
call will come from the people of Canada, not from men who have descended so far that in recent months we have seen them dig into this same civil service, take a man out of it for a preliminary canter in politics, and then when that did not work out put him back into the civil service again. In this respect they treated some of our most cherished traditions of service to this country as they would a box of candy from which you take out one piece, eat it, take out another piece, bite a corner off and put it back into the box.
They have been astute politicians, as leaders they have been lucky; but any government that could produce and support the document which was presented to us a short time ago as the speech from the throne, a document devoid of imagination or of any challenge to the people of this country, a document which refused to accept the facts of economic life in Canada as we find them today, a document which skated around the important issues of the day in order to make reference to matters which are of comparatively minor significance; any party which produces such a document should have nothing but shame in their souls at this point. I for one will vote against any recognition of that document, and without reservations about the party that has brought it into being. I shall be able to do that with great satisfaction.
There are one or two brief points I should like to refer to in passing in case the government has overlooked them. I would remind the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) that the St. Lawrence seaway which is going to have a tremendous effect on our city of Montreal is also well on the way to strangling the traffic passing from the island of Montreal to the south shore. There is one solution and one solution alone which is agreed upon by those who have an intimate knowledge of the situation, and that is a tunnel under the river.
I remind the minister of the need of proper harbour facilities at Montreal, where the passenger sheds are in many ways inferior to our air terminals. You all know what I think of the air terminals of Canada. They bring no credit whatsoever to the great country which

is ours. I would remind the Minister ot Transport of our need for a fireboat at the island.
Finally, I remind the Minister of Transport that Canadians from one coast to the other have hung their heads in shame at the news that the Canadian National Railways has not sufficient trust and confidence in this country to operate their hotel which is being erected with public funds. That is a blot not only on the record of this government but on the record of all Canada. I think the government should look back on this with shame.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon I endeavoured to get leave to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the Formosa situation. I have no criticism to make of the fact that you denied me that request. I think the matter is of urgent public importance, but it is your prerogative to decide whether there is sufficient urgency and whether there is a debate in progress which would permit one to discuss such a matter. This afternoon I want to say something of what I was going to say yesterday.
First 1 want to say I believe that from San Francisco right up to the present time Canada has had many opportunities of speaking out when she has refrained from speaking clearly. I believe that at San Francisco and subsequently Canada was looked upon, because of our situation, because we were not beholden in any way to any other country for the financing of the war or for assistance in our participation in that war, as a country which could speak for that group of nations which is below the level of the five great powers, I do not care whether you call them middle powers or smaller powers.
I am of the opinion that this is the time when Canada should speak with a clear voice regarding the Far Eastern situation. I am going to say that I shall respect the suggestion made yesterday by the acting minister of external affairs, for I am quite certain that what I am going to say this afternoon will create no difficulty or be in any way of an inflammatory nature.
I must confess that I was surprised at the .attitude taken yesterday by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he expressed opposition to my request for leave. It is only a few weeks ago' since the hon. member stated that he hoped we were not returning to the days of Mackenzie King, when external affairs were kept more or less under close cover. I might add that I can recollect speeches by the late Gordon Gray-don, when he was spokesman for the Conservative party, and in his absence speeches
The Address-Mr. Coldwell by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), criticizing the government because time and time again in this house we found ourselves faced with accomplished facts in relation to external affairs.
It seems to me, as I said in my proposed motion yesterday, that this House of Commons should have an opportunity of discussing and expressing an opinion in connection with the grave matters in the Far East. At noon today I heard the one o'clock C.B.C. news broadcast. I regretted exceedingly to hear that the premier of the people's republic of China is refusing the invitation to attend the meeting of the security council, but I understand the reasons for that refusal. It was stated that the premier said he would not be willing to send representatives to the security council until the government on the mainland of China, governing the overwhelming bulk of the Chinese people, was recognized and until the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek were removed both from the United Nations and the security council.
Now, one does not have to agree with the ideology of the government of China to say that that government is in fact the government of China, and has been for several years. Nor does one have to repeat what has been so often repeated in this house, that that government was recognized in 1950 by the government of the United Kingdom, with the expressed public support of the present Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, and the present foreign secretary, Sir Anthony Eden. In other words the British people, through their political leaders of all parties, recognized the fact of a new government in China long ago. So far as this and other countries are concerned, we recognize all kinds of governments, governments that cannot by any stretch of the imagination be classified as democratic and are often totalitarian.
Nor can we hide behind the fact that the government of China came into being through revolution. How often do we recognize the governments of Latin America when constant changes are made in those governments by assassination and by revolution. One can look over the list of the South American governments and see that a number have come into being by revolution and sometimes by assassination, yet we have recognized them. One does not have to agree with the ideology of a government to recognize it as, in fact, the government of a country.
This whole situation regarding Formosa is of course very dangerous, dangerous to the peace of the world; and, should war develop, very dangerous to the security and safety of our own country. It is said, of course, that
798	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Coldwell China's claim to Formosa is based upon insecure grounds. It is said that the claim of the government on the mainland of China to Formosa has failed to recognize the fact that for 50 years Formosa was controlled by Japan, and a century or so before was for 30 years under the government of the Netherlands.
If that is so may I ask, Mr. Speaker, by what right is Chiang Kai-shek there? Chiang Kai-shek says he is the government of China, and claims Formosa on behalf of his regime as the government of China. You cannot have that argument both ways. If Formosa is not in reality a part of China, then why is Chiang Kai-shek there? Why are we recognizing him as the government of China if that is the argument that is used? I heard it used last night by a United States newspaperman speaking from New York during the course of the mid-week review. I say then why is Chiang Kai-shek regarded by us or by anybody else as the government of China if it is true that China has no claim to Formosa?
Of course one cannot overlook the fact that both at Cairo and at Potsdam it was agreed that with the cessation of hostilities Formosa should again become a part of China, as it was before the Japanese conquered it 50 years before. I am not going to say that is the correct disposition of the country. In 1950, when I had the great privilege and pleasure of being associated with our delegation as an observer at the United Nations in New York, I made the suggestion that I thought a proper disposition of Formosa was to neutralize it under the United Nations and let the Formosan people decide what the future of that island should be. I am not arguing that it should be returned to China. I am arguing, hbwever, that the difficulties that have arisen in the Far East, and which now threaten the peace of the world, are largely due to the fact we have failed to recognize that there is a new government in China. We cannot hide behind the argument that that government came into being by revolution or that it has an ideology we do not like. When we look around the world we can see many countries with ideologies we do not like and with governments we do not like, which came into power by revolution.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe the policy of the United States in the Far East is just as dangerous, and just as wrong, as I believe the association of Canada with and the strengthening of NATO is right. Just as I believe the one thing, I believe the other.
I believe the one thing because I feel that if we drift along we shall drift into a situation which will bring about a catastrophic war, and I believe the other is a move in the direction of peace. When we look at some of the


statements that have been made recently, such as President Eisenhower's message to congress or the President's news conference of yesterday, we see the dangers that may ensue.
Some of the great newspapers of the world have clearly seen those dangers. Here is a statement by the Manchester Guardian. I do not suppose anyone will say the Manchester Guardian is a socialist newspaper, a communist newspaper or other than what it is, one of the great Liberal newspapers of the world. I have in my hand the issue of January 27, and I should like to read one or two paragraphs from what they say about President Eisenhower's message. They say this:
The ambiguities of President Eisenhower's special-message to congress on Formosa are deplorable. The message is so clumsily constructed that it appears to contain a veiled threat of American attack upon the Chinese mainland. It says that the United States must be prepared to "take appropriate military action" against "any concentration of Chinese communist forces obviously undertaken to facilitate attack upon Formosa."
As I pointed out to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) when he was referring to this particular speech, President Eisenhower failed to say that he would take the same steps to prevent an attack by Chiang's forces on the Chinese mainland. Then after setting forth the situation as they see it, they say this of the speech:
It gives apparent credibility to some of the communist propaganda claiming that the United States is planning an attack upon China. It is a gross blunder.	*
The damaging effect of these phrases cannot be undone by saying that their aim is no more than to assure the security of Formosa and the Pescadores. The threat to the mainland and the implicit American commitment to defend Quemoy remain. It does not help to declaim about "the free world's stake in a free Formosa." Nine-tenths of the free world has grave doubts about, the kind of freedom provided by Chiang's regime (even if it has graver doubts about the communists) .
Those are not my words. Those are the words of the Manchester Guardian. If I may I should like to quote one of our own Canadian papers which has had the respect of a large reading public in Canada over the years, particularly in western Canada. I refer to the Winnipeg Free Press of January 31.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: The Address-Mr. Caldwell be made. It cannot be made satisfactorily by force of arms, bringing catastrophe upon the rest of the world.
May I say here I am convinced that what our great neighbour to the south is doing at the present time is alienating the vast millions of people upon whom we must rely in Asia for support in building up democracy all across the world. That is one of the factors in this situation which is most disturbing; the alienation of India, the alienation of Burma, the alienation of Indonesia, the alienation of those teeming millions who look upon the United States as an interloper in a civil war attempting to refasten upon China a form of western imperialism. That is a factor I think we should not overlook, and one reason we should make our position clear while there is yet time. I think the only way this can be done is by negotiations through the United Nations; and if we have to pay the price of recognition of the present government in China, that price is not too high to preserve the peace of the world.


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


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend will realize that it is asked seriously. First, does my friend advocate recognition of the so-called people's government at Peking as the government of the mainland of China and, second, does he advocate that it be recognized as the government of Formosa?


Major James William Coldwell: To the first question I answer yes. I have urged recognition of the people's government of China in this house on a good many occasions over the last several years.
I did not advocate it during the Korean war.
I did advocate it before that war broke out.
I said during the Korean war that as long as that war lasted we could not recognize the people's government of China. The Korean war ended, and I believed there was an opportunity to make that recognition. Earlier in my remarks this afternoon I made it very clear, I believe, that as far as Formosa is concerned it should be placed under the United Nations. It should be neutralized and subsequently the people of Formosa, after the elimination of Chiang and his armies, should decide the future of their own country. That is my position, and I want to make that very clear.
These very negotiations in which we are engaged today do of course involve in effect recognition of China. We negotiated with them directly at Geneva. We negotiated with them on the Korean matter, and it is very difficult to see how you can negotiate 
with a government you do not recognize. If the price we have to pay is recognition, it seems to me that price is well worth paying.


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


Major James William Coldwell: May I say I was courteous enough to sit down when the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) rose, but we are not in committee and I do not propose to enter into personal debate. I want to put the view I hold before the house, and if the hon. member disagrees with me I should like to hear his views subsequently.


George Harris Hees: I just want to ask a question. Mr. Coldwell: All right.


George Harris Hees: I should like to ask the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) a question in all seriousness, as did the hon. member for Fglinton. The hon. member used the phrase "after Chiang and his army have been eliminated from Formosa". What did he mean by that?


Major James William Coldwell: I did not mean elimination by war. If the island were placed under the United Nations I think the United Nations would of course eliminate Chiang as the ruler and governor of Formosa. That is what I mean, to eliminate him as the governor and government of Formosa.
I said that the very negotiations we have undertaken from time to time have involved recognition, and I say that Canada should speak up today because other nations look to us to speak on some of these matters, and we have not always done so. I should like to refer to a statement of the leader of the opposition in Great Britain, and in this regard I am certain that he is speaking for more than the people within his own party.
I have here an Associated Press dispatch from London, dated January 31, reading in part as follows:
Clement R. Attlee, leader of Britain's Labour party, declared today that Chiang Kai-shek and his top nationalist officials should be exiled from Formosa.
That is one step beyond what I suggested a moment ago. It would seem to be quite necessary to do that. The dispatch continues: The island's people should then decide by plebiscite whether they want to join red China, Attlee said in a copyright interview in the Labour newspaper, Daily Herald.
I may say I am not following Mr. Attlee here, because I made this suggestion in 1950 when I was associated with the Canadian delegation at New York.
In any case, the United States should drop forthwith the claim that Formosa is part of its Pacific defence ring.

"I cannot see myself that the island of Formosa is an essential part of the defence of the United States of America in this era of the hydrogen bomb", Attlee said.
"It is clear that the Peiping government won the civil war against Chiang Kai-shek. It would then have occupied Formosa but for the intervention of the United States fleet. The American action taken at the same time as the United Nations action in Korea, in 1950, had nothing to do with the United Nations but was dictated by an American policy of security."
As I indicated earlier, the Secretary of State for External Affairs made it abundantly clear in the house at that time that we were in no way involved in that particular policy. I continue:
"Since that time the forces of Chiang Kai-shek have constantly attacked the Chinese mainland. It seems to me quite unreasonable that under the shelter of American forces the Chiang party should be able to carry on a civil war."
I think that sums up the situation very well. I do not want to say much more, Mr. Speaker. I think I have made my point. The point I am making is that Canada at this time should make it very clear where we stand. I should have liked to see the house yesterday support the statement made here on January 25 by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I do not expect, of course, that the minister, conducting the external affairs of this country, could rise in his place and say all that I have said this afternoon, but I am in a somewhat different position. I am not responsible for the conduct of external affairs, but I am responsible for expressing the views of what I believe to be a very large section of the Canadian people and, more than that, a very large section of public opinion throughout the democratic world.
I think I have quoted sufficiently this afternoon. I could have quoted the London Times and other papers to the same effect but, because we have a Liberal government in power in Canada, I chose to quote from a good British Liberal newspaper, the Manchester Guardian, and from the Winnipeg Free Press, which is an equally well known Liberal paper in our country.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I express my wholehearted support of what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said in the house on January 25 in dealing with this particular aspect of international affairs, and plead with our government to use its influence to see to it that a peaceful settlement of the trouble in the Formosa area is negotiated. If the price we have to pay is recognition of a fact, recognition that a government does exist on the mainland of China-even though, as I said, it exists like so many other governments, 50433-51
The Address-Mr. Martin South American, Spanish, Russian, governments in many parts in the world, because of revolution-


An hon. Member:: The United States.


Major James William Coldwell: Someone suggests the United States, but that was a long time ago. I did not intend to mention it, although of course it was not out of my mind that the independent government of the United States was established by means of a revolution. Fortunately those days are past. I do not presume there is any danger of another revolution in the United States at the present time, or in this country, either.
So, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask our government to stand for peace, to stand for negotiated settlement, to stand for the neutralization of Formosa, through the United Nations; and then to endeavour to see to it that the people of Formosa, who are so often forgotten in these discussions, are given at the right time the opportunity to choose their own form of government.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Acting Secrelary of Slale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said there was a difference between the role which he plays on that side of the house and the role of the spokesman for the government in the matter of foreign affairs at this time. That affords me the opportunity of saying that he will not misunderstand if I confine myself, in the brief observations I wish to make today, to the basic question he has put this afternoon, and which he mentioned on two occasions yesterday when he intervened in the deliberations of the house.
The government of Canada is anxious that all possible steps should be taken to stop the fighting in the Formosa strait; and it is because of that consideration that I do not want now to say anything that might interfere with important negotiations now going on. I can only reiterate with even greater confidence than yesterday the wisdom of the course suggested for us in the House of Commons at this time. At the moment the security council of the United Nations has this question before it, but discussions have been adjourned pending a reply to the invitation to the communist Chinese government to attend the council sessions.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said he had heard over the radio at noon that a reply in the negative had come from the so-called Chinese people's republic. By telephone and subsequently by wire, I have been in touch with our ambassador, the permanent delegate at the United Nations, and as a result

The Address-Mr. Martin I am not in a position to give an unqualified statement as to the nature of the reply that is now, I understand, on its way to the Secretary General of the United Nations. From what has been sent to me in the house, since I have entered the chamber, I would not be justified in making any comment as to the nature of this reply.
I think the situation at the moment is such that in any event one could characterize the news services account as not justifying final observation. Notwithstanding that, undoubtedly, whatever be the nature of the communist reply, the security council, which has adjourned its session to await the reply, will be convoked within the next day or so, and consideration will be given by that body to what course should be followed. I would hope that the security council will still find it possible-I know they will find it desirable -not to lose control of this matter.
Canada is not of course a member of the security council; but our ambassador, the permanent delegate there, is following the deliberations of the council closely, and is in constant touch with its members. The security council has had success in the past in a mediatory or good offices role and we hope, as I am sure all members in the house hope, that it will be able to bring about a cease-fire in this instance, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out last Friday it has done in a number of other instances.
Meanwhile the prime ministers of the commonwealth countries who have gathered in London have obviously been preoccupied to some extent with the Formosa situation. I have had the opportunity of learning the nature of their discussions, but the house would not expect me at this time to make any further observations about the full character and scope of those discussions, except perhaps to say that there have been some general exchanges of views on the subject at the meetings of the prime ministers. It is not the normal practice at conferences of commonwealth prime ministers to take decisions on questions like this. There have also been some informal discussions among those attending the conference, directed to the same objective as that of the security council, namely the stopping of the fighting.
The view of the Canadian government during the Korean hostilities was that Formosa should be neutralized. This idea of the neutralization of Formosa is still applicable in the present situation. As the hon. member who has just spoken pointed out, the government's view was stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on January 25.

Yesterday the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar made this observation:
Mr. Speaker, may I just add that the occasion for seeking leave to discuss this matter is that news from London today indicates that a position differing from that taken by our government on January 25 is being taken by our representatives at the commonwealth conference in London.
Later he reiterated this observation, when he said:
My request is based entirely upon what was said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the house on January 25 and the fact that authoritative statements from London today indicate that there has been a change of attitude by our representatives there.
On January 25 my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs said this in the house:
Pending such a decision-
That is, a settlement about the future of Formosa.
-I think that a strong case can be made for the neutralization of Formosa both in order to prevent any assault upon it by communist forces and also so that it will not be used as a base for invasion of the mainland.
I have read carefully the other observations of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the text of the speech which last Friday night he made over the network of the national broadcasting system. I think I may say that what he said, in substance, was as follows. A clear distinction must be made between Formosa and the Pescadores and the small islands along the Chinese coast. Formosa and the Pescadores have not been part of the territory of China for a good many years, and their present status is not very clear. The small islands along the coast are, however, indisputably Chinese territory. The views on neutralization expressed in this way do not necessarily apply to the coastal islands. Because of these circumstances it would be a great disaster if incidents in the small coastal islands were to lead to a general war.
These are not my colleague's actual words, but rather my paraphrasing of them. And he went on-again paraphrasing what he said- what is needed at the moment is to stop the fighting, without prejudice to the claims of either side or to an eventual political settlement. If this can be brought about and if the Chinese nationalist forces now on the coastal islands can be withdrawn, the resulting truce might go on for some years, as have similar truces in other parts of the world. In the resulting atmosphere a more permanent settlement might be reached by negotiation or perhaps by an international conference. Such a settlement should, of course, take into account the wishes of the inhabitants of Formosa.

The action which the United States government has taken in the Formosa area does not commit Canada or other countries. Any obligation we might have in regard to the Formosa strait could arise only from our responsibility as a member of the United Nations. Although we are not committed by United States policies, we are certainly affected by them. That is why we welcome the assurances which President Eisenhower gave on January 27 that the United States forces in the Formosa area would be used purely for defensive purposes. We are confident that the United States government will exercise a moderating, influence also on the Chinese nationalist government. In connection with the mutual defence treaty which the two governments signed, there was an exchange of notes between Mr. Dulles and Mr. Yeh, the foreign minister of the republic of China, on December 10. These notes provided that the use of force in the treaty area by either power would be a matter of joint agreement except for self-defence in an emergency.
I can assure the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar and the house that the policy of the Canadian government concerning the Formosa situation has not departed in any way from the principles laid down in the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in this house on January 25, and again in the statement he made over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation network last Friday. So there can be no doubt about that, I quote now directly from a communication that I have had from the Secretary of State for External Affairs in London, who is there associated with the Prime Minister at this time. His message to me is as follows:
There is no foundation at all to any report or suggestion that in regard to Formosa the Canadian policy has departed in any way from the principles laid down in my statement to the house on January 25 and in my broadcast of last Friday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the date of that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: February 3.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: In order to bring the attention of the house back to the discussion which was proceeding yesterday may I read the amendment moved by the Social Credit party during the speech of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn)? It is as follows:
We further regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to take or to recommend the necessary fundamental economic and financial measures to place Canadian producers and workers on a sound and prosperous basis, and to ensure our economy against recurring recessions.
I have read that, Mr. Speaker, because I want you to know that I am going to phrase 50433-511
The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston my remarks as carefully as I can in order to follow the wording of the amendment.
One of the most important problems that faced Canada last year, the year before that and the year preceding that, was the distressing position in which agriculture found itself. That is important to us as a nation. It is important to us as members of this house because the prosperity of Canada depends directly upon the prosperity of our agricultural industry. That is only natural when one remembers that agriculture is the basic industry of Canada. Despite the progress we have made in other lines, agriculture still remains of prime importance.
Agriculture is a big industry. Because that is so it is necessary that we give it due consideration. It is so important that anything which affects agriculture directly affects all other industry in this country. We experienced that last year. It has become more noticeable because of increasing unemployment. Farmers were not able to buy; therefore industry felt a slackening off in business and as a result, we are heading for an economic depression, or some might prefer to call it a recession.
There is growing concern among the farmers not because agriculture has failed-it has not-but because of accumulating surpluses. To me, Mr. Speaker, that is not a reason to become panicky; in. fact we should rejoice that Providence has permitted us to have surpluses. If we are in such an economic position that we do not know what to do with our surpluses, surely we cannot blame the good Lord for that. We must accept our own ignorance as being to blame. To me the matter of surpluses has always been something of which we should be proud. I have always taken the stand, and have so expressed myself in this house on other occasions, that what we should have in Canada is sufficient storage capacity so that we could have our supplies stored in, as I call it, an ever-ready granary, one that we could call upon in time of emergency.
It has been the experience of those of us who have lived in this country for any length of time that over a period of time nature pretty well takes care of any surplus. The surpluses we have on hand now would not be more than sufficient to take care of our needs if we were to have a crop failure or, certainly if we were to have two crop failures. Under those conditions we might find ourselves in very difficult straits. Therefore, because we have a surplus we should not become panicky. The thing that is disturbing to the agriculturists is that they have no money. I would not assume that we can blame anybody else but ourselves. We have

The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston fallen down in this house as legislators in our endeavour to provide sufficient money, which is the means of distribution. Of course, everybody in the country is looking to us or more properly to this government for a solution.
I said a moment ago that when we have adverses in agriculture they are reflected in all the industries in this country. The cash registers stop ringing and we have disasters in industry. We have found that condition in the smaller industries. It is now taking place in the larger industries. Last year retail sales in this country have fallen by over $260 million. They fell by a similar amount in 1953, and we shall find that they will fall a greater amount in 1955 unless our policies are changed.
There is another indication that this will take place; that is the tremendous increase in credit buying. One has only to pick up the newspapers to find that industry is trying to develop all sorts of ingenious ways to get people to buy beyond their means, even to the extent of forfeiting their future pay. I noticed in the paper the other day that a television set was offered by a firm in this town. They had what I thought was a rather clever way of getting people to pledge their future earnings. They agreed to put this television set in a person's house without any down payment. On the machine was a money meter, and every time the person used that television set they would put 50 or 75 cents in the meter. At the end of the month the agent would come along and collect the money for the month's payment. That was a rather ingenious form of credit selling.
If we could put an equal amount of energy into trying to find an economic solution to this problem I am sure we would reach some solution. In connection with credit buying I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of January 7. It is rather long, and I shall read only two short paragraphs as follows:
Consumer Credit at All-Time High of $1,885,000,000
The amount of money Canadians owe for the things they buy on credit has reached an all-time high.
The Bank of Canada estimates the outstanding consumer credit bill rose to a record $1,885,000,000 at September 30 last, an increase of $19,000,000 from the previous quarter and a jump of more than $100,000,000 from the previous year.
If we follow the same trend it will not take much imagination to see what is going to happen to our business concerns. In 1954 there was a total of $1,885 million of credit buying, which does not take into consideration any of the money loaned through the

farm loan board or under the National Housing Act. If those amounts are added you have a colossal amount of credit buying. It seems to me that should be sufficient warning for us to encourage, even to demand, that this government take drastic steps in order to make it possible for the farmers to realize something as a result of their labour. These are forerunners of disaster which cannot be denied.
If we look at the farm income for 1954 we find that it was $2,408,600,000. Things are not improving. We must recognize that in 1954 there was an income drop of over $300 million. That was the estimate given in a report to the federal-provincial agriculture conference held not long ago. In
1953	net income was down 18 per cent from
1952,	and 21 per cent from 1951. In 1954 net farm income was down 12 per cent from
1953.	There has been a continually decreasing farm income. In three years there has been a decrease of over 40 per cent in agricultural income. If we recognize that agriculture is the basic industry of this country it takes no stretch of the imagination to see what is going to happen unless something is done.
I suggested a moment ago that any slackening off in the income of agriculture will be reflected in business conditions in this country. I have in my hand the Monetary Times of December, 1954, a very reliable financial paper, and speaking on this matter they say:
The rate of business failures in Canada is continuing its post-war rise, but still has a long way to go to match pre-war figures, it is indicated in Dun and Bradstreet's report for the first nine months of this year. Up 42 per cent from 1953 figures, failures in the first three quarters of
1954	reached the 1,024 mark.
And again:
This factor is reflected, too, in the rate of increase of liabilities involved in failures reported. At $8,479,000 in the third quarter they are up nearly 13 per cent, but at $41,238,000 for the nine-months period are up 108 per cent. This would seem to indicate that bigger firms with greater liabilities are being involved, suggesting the shake-out of smaller businesses has been completed.
It would seem to be clear from that report that small businesses have already collapsed, and now the axe is about to fall on some of the larger businesses in this country. Surely these signs cannot be ignored, and the government is bound to take these matters into consideration.
There is another matter I must draw to your attention, a matter which has been referred to on one or possibly two occasions during this debate. I refer to the position of our farmers in respect to the Crowsnest pass freight rate agreement. There have been one or two who have sponsored the case of the

big railroads in an endeavour to chisel the western farmer out of his rightful claim in regard to this agreement. Some speakers in this house have taken that attitude, along with the president of the Canadian Pacific, and have gone so far as to quote Chief Justice Sloan.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Charles Edward Johnston: I will tell you why not in a minute; just keep your shirt on. They seem to think that because Chief Justice Sloan, who was investigating the dispute between the railroads and the unions in regard to contracts, found it to his convenience-why I can only guess-to go beyond his terms of reference and refer to the Crows-nest pass agreement, saying that the low rates under that agreement created a distorted and unbalanced freight rate structure, they should quote him. It would appear that he was giving that as one of the excuses why the Canadian Pacific was not able to pay a higher wage to its workers. With all due respect, it does seem to me that Chief Justice Sloan would do better to keep his mind on his own business rather than going into something with which he had no concern.
The president of the railway, together with some hon. members of this house, particularly the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne)-the hon. member has been interfering with me when I have been speaking, and I think I should say who he is so the record will be clear-seem to be doing everything within their power to create an adverse public opinion against the western farmer.


An hon. Member:: Oh, nonsense.


Charles Edward Johnston: They claimed that this Crowsnest pass freight rate agreement was unprofitable to the railroad, that it was outdated and therefore that some change should be made. Of course that is not true. The statements which have been made in that respect are not borne out by the facts. For a long time the Canadian Pacific has been endeavouring to solicit support from any direction in order to build up adverse public opinion against the western farmer. It was not long ago that we had a debate in this house in connection with the transcontinental rate. We in western Canada were allowed what was called the one and one-third rate. That meant that we in Alberta could get our freight moved to that province by paying 33-J per cent more than anyone else in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Scandalous.


Charles Edward Johnston: It certainly was scandalous. I did not hear the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) criticize that
The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston at all. They have claimed that the Canadian Pacific was not properly compensated for the construction of that pass. It should be remembered, Mr. Speaker-and I do not recall the hon. member for Kootenay East giving us these facts-that when the Canadian Pacific undertook to build that railroad they were given a subsidy of $3,404,720. Then as a further subsidy to offset any losses which might occur they were given 250,000 acres of land, together with the oil and mineral rights. The oil and mineral rights alone have amounted to millions of dollars, and there is no saying how many more millions the company will derive from that property as the result of that gift.
It should not be forgotten, either, that only a year or so ago this government gave the railways a subsidy of $7 million a year to compensate them for any loss in handling freight north of the great lakes. In all, I feel it can be fairly said that the railways of this country have been very generously treated. In fact they have been so generously treated and their revenues are up so well-if you consider all the revenues which they receive from their different enterprises-that they do not need to interfere now nor at any time with this Crowsnest pass agreement. I am in hopes that the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) will not be as easily influenced by railway propaganda as was the last minister of transport.
Speaking in this house about a year and a half ago I made a prediction, Mr. Speaker, and I feel I should draw it to your attention now. I never claimed to be a prophet, but this prophecy came true. I said then that the minister of transport was going to be relieved of his job and given a greater reward; and that has come to pass. He is now chairman of the St. Lawrence seaway authority. I am not questioning his ability to fill that position at all. I say without fear of contradiction that he was one of the best supporters the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National had in this country. It did not seem to matter whether or not the interests of the ordinary man were in the way.
I should like to refer to another aspect of agriculture, and to the way in which I feel this government may be able to be of some assistance. I believe we should have a definite support price for agricultural products, not because of any situation in which we find ourselves right now, although that would be sufficient argument, but because this government promised such support to the farmers of this country. We all recall quite well that during the war the government agreed to see to it that the farmers would not lose in the long run because they were forced to take

The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston controlled prices at that time. It is well known that because of the controlled prices of agricultural products in Canada during the war, particularly wheat, Great Britain was able to give her people cheap bread. It will be recalled that during the same period western agriculturists were once again asked to finance low cost bread for our own Canadian people. This is the only instance of which I am aware where one particular industry in a nation was asked to subsidize low cost living for the rest of the people in that country.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) assured the farmers of this nation that they would not lose because of that. It is only right, therefore, that the government should honour that pledge and institute a complete policy of agricultural prices support. It is true that shortly afterward the farmers were given $65 million to compensate them for a loss of $350 million. It must not be forgotten, either, that there was quite a debate at that time, and it was the Conservative party that refused to vote that $65 million for the agriculturists of western Canada.
Then, too, I believe the government should approve the suggestion made here last year by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), which took the form of a resolution in these words:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of enacting legislation at this session of parliament to provide for a system of approved farm storage under which the wheat board may make advances to farmers on grain held on the farm.
As I said a moment ago, the situation in which the farmers find themselves is not the result of too much grain but is the result of the fact they have not received the money for the grain they have grown. I recognize immediately that there has been some difficulty in the sale of that wheat. There should be no difficulty, however, in the way of the government making advances to farmers for grain in approved storage on the farms. I would go so far as to say that the government itself should make these advances through the Bank of Canada, perhaps with the assistance of the wheat board. If the government took advantage of this suggestion they could certainly give the farmers loans at a very low rate of interest.
I feel, too, that the government could make quite a few tax cuts in order to give the farmers and others some relief. The taxes being extracted from the consuming public of this country put the people in a position where they can no longer buy the goods that are being produced. This is affecting not only agriculture but all the other industries in this country. I would suggest


that the income tax exemption should be set at $1,500 for single persons and at least $3,000 for married persons. The government might consider als6 the elimination, in part at least, of the exorbitant excise and sales taxes now being imposed upon the people of this country.
Let me turn my attention for a few moments to another aspect of the matter which needs some consideration. I am still dealing precisely with the amendment which I read a moment ago, Mr. Speaker. I want to say a word or two about the unemployment problem. This question has been dealt with before, but I feel it needs repeating. In the speech from the throne the government made reference to unemployment as being of a regional and seasonal nature. Of course we all know that the government was somewhat ill-informed on that occasion, because neither then nor now could unemployment be termed regional or seasonal. Even if it were, it would be so important that this government should take some steps to see to it that no one was in dire need in a country with such vast wealth as we have. It was not so long ago that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made a plea to labour to knuckle down and produce more. They did that with such efficiency that they have now produced themselves into the soup kitchens. They have been producing so much that industry cannot sell it, and as a result they have had to lay off men. These men are now unemployed.
It is well to remember that 75 per cent of the people of this country are earning less than $3,000 a year. In the light of that fact we can readily understand why the standard of living of the majority of the people of this country is not too high. I am not exaggerating when I say that at least 50 per cent of the people of this country are living on less than $2,000 a year, and that is pretty low.
We realize that their standard of living is not too high. There is only one reason the people of this country do not have a higher standard of living. It is that they have not the purchasing power with which to buy the goods they desire. It is not a case of getting more jobs. It is not a case of what the Prime Minister said a year or so ago, "Get out, work harder and produce more". They have worked so hard that they have worked themselves right out of a job. Surely that is an economic fact that even the most elementary student can grasp.


An hon. Member:: Oh, we have heard that before.


Mr.   Johnslon@Bow River: I hear one hon. member say, "Oh, we have heard that before". I do not know where that remark came from, but let me tell him this. That is exactly the mental attitude that was taken during the hungry thirties, and the same situation resulted. We dare not sit back on our haunches and say, "Oh, we have heard that before", when we have thousands of people going hungry in this country. It may be said, "Oh, maybe there are not so many as that going hungry". Those who say that had better look to the facts and find out what they are before making such remarks. Right here in Canada, down at Sault Ste. Marie on July 14, 1954-and this was not seasonal nor regional-we had this situation, according to the Calgary Albertan:
Claim Unemployed Close to Starvation
Sault Ste. Marie-Two aldermen said there was so much unemployment in this city that some persons are literally starving because they have no money to buy food.
Alderman King said he has received 588 separate appeals for assistance, including "some cases of actual starvation".
Then we have someone in this house with the audacity to say, "We have heard this before".


Mr. Nixon:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I happen to be the member for that riding, and I want to say that there is no one starving in Sault Ste. Marie.


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member had better go and tell that to his aider-man. I cannot see any point of order there, Mr. Speaker.


George Ewart Nixon: I agree there is unemployment there, but there is no one starving in Sault Ste. Marie.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Charles Edward Johnston: I hope you are not counting these interruptions in on my time, Mr. Speaker. I would hesitate to contradict Alderman King. The hon. member had better see his alderman down there and see what is the matter.


An hon. Member:: Rather weak.


Charles Edward Johnston: However, I would believe that statement.


An hon. Member:: He probably talks too much too.


Charles Edward Johnston: Maybe so, Mr. Speaker. We will just assume for the moment -and I use that word advisedly-that what the hon. member has just said is true. But let me turn to another publication that just
The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston came in. It is dated January, 1955, and comes from the Canadian Welfare Council, a widely different source. They say:
Appeals by the Salvation Army in North Bay "for donations of soup bones, vegetables, and bread to feed transient men and their families", the reintroduction of used clothing drives in Windsor, the opening of soup kitchens in Vancouver, and similar reports reaching the Canadian Welfare Council in recent weeks from many parts of the country, are evidence of the fact that there are still a great many unemployed workers in Canada whose essential needs are not being met.
Then down further they say:
The demoralizing effect of unemployment on family life is a social danger we cannot ignore, whether there be 1 per cent or 10 per cent of the labour force out of work and without any source of income. The least the community can do is make sure that no unemployed person is allowed to be destitute.
Then down a little further they say:
The noticeable increase in transients reported by our member agencies from coast to coast is a reflection of this unfortunate situation.
I suggest that this situation is not seasonal and is not regional. They are appealing for soup bones and used clothes. That situation is not in keeping with our ability in this country to produce goods and services. We have that condition existing at this time.
Let me point out to you that the circumstances are different entirely from those that were in existence during the 1930's. We now have unemployment insurance. Just the other day we amended the Unemployment Insurance Act in order to increase the supplementary benefits. We also have the family allowance, which was not in vogue during the hungry thirties. We also have the universal old age pension, and we have increased public works. The other day the minister told us that a greater number of housing starts were made this year than ever before. Despite all these things assisting in the distribution of purchasing power-and I admit that-we have more registered unemployed in this country now than we had during the hungry thirties.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Johnston: We have more registered unemployed. According to the December 7 national employment service statement, at that time there were 362,678 registered. Those are the ones who are eligible for unemployment insurance. Then, according to the dominion bureau of statistics, the number of unemployed was 247,000. Those also are the ones who are registered. But according to the Canadian Congress of Labour there are 550,000 and by March they say there will be over 600,000. That is their estimate, but they were not so far out last year when they gave an estimate of what
808	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston unemployment would be at that time. I therefore think it is fairly safe to assume that their prediction is fairly close to being right.


Mr. Campbell:: What was the figure in the thirties?


Charles Edward Johnston: In the thirties I think the figure for those registered and others was about half a million. But it should be pointed out again that these people are unemployed during a time of so-called prosperity. As the welfare council points out, the number does not make any difference; if there is only one unemployed person in this country who is destitute something should be done in order to see that that family does not suffer. Particularly is that true, Mr. Speaker, when we have in this country so many goods that we cannot dispose of. When we have a surplus of almost everything, nobody should be in want.
From what I have pointed out to you, Mr. Speaker, it would seem clear that this country is in need of increased purchasing power. I am not at the moment going to enter into an argument as to the way in which that increased purchasing power can be obtained. Social Credit have what they believe to be the solution for the difficulty, but they are not the ones who are burdened with the responsibility of seeing that purchasing power is put in the hands of the people to buy the things that are being produced and that cannot be sold. That is the responsibility of the government. If they cannot discharge that responsibility, then in due course the people will have to take what action they deem to be necessary.
It should be clear that whenever there is this economic downtrend, the government needs some sort of mechanism in their policy which would put purchasing power in the hands of the people, and that purchasing power should become effective demand, so the people can buy the goods which are being made but which cannot be sold. How they are going to do that is their business; but it should be understood-and I do not think anybody will contradict this statement-that the act of buying makes jobs. Whenever you get the public in the position where they cannot buy, then you just cannot give jobs. When industry cannot sell the goods they are producing, then of course industry must close.
In my judgment it is not proper to blame private enterprise for the unemployment we have amongst us today, because private enterprise has excelled itself. It has so excelled


itself that it is producing goods that cannot be sold. Therefore it must let the men go. Even the labour unions themselves recognize that fact. Let me refer to the Canadian Congress of Labour submission to the government on November 12, 1954, when they had this to say at page 4:
What we ought to do is put money into the hands of people who will buy what we can already make and can't sell.
That is the crux of the situation. It is up to the government to see that that is done.
There are other matters I should have liked to talk about today. I wanted to speak about the coal industry, an industry that is indeed sick and needs something done about it. Their difficulties should not be shrugged aside as the minister did a year or so ago, when he said he knew that the coal mining industry was in a bad position but that it would do them good to have a little squeeze. Well, they are certainly being squeezed. If that was the solution they should now be on the road to recovery, but unfortunately that was not the solution. I want to speak about coal but I cannot do so on this occasion because my time will not permit.
On another occasion-and I shall take advantage of my privileges in this house to do so-I want to speak about one of our greatest national parks in Canada, not one of the greatest but the greatest as statistics will indicate; that is, Banff national park. I want to speak about how the government has neglected to do what should have been done for the greatest national park in Canada. I shall take advantage of the privileges that are mine in this house on another occasion, and I shall continue to put forward arguments for both these interests.


Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to associate myself with my colleagues who have taken part in this debate in extending congratulations to the mover (Mr. Leduc) and seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. There is one matter with which I intend to deal briefly before coming to the main remarks I wish to make on this occasion. As a Canadian born in the province of Quebec, I find it rather hard not to express my regrets at the unwelcome remarks which have been made in the house by a few members of the C.C.F. party against the province of Quebec to which I have the honour to belong and where I live.

It is not my intention to repeat what other members have already said in reply to the unfair reflections that have been made on my province. Too many serious Canadians from all parts of this country have devoted their lives to make Canada great and united for me to use at this time, or at any time, unworthy remarks in answer to the few who have seen fit to promote their publicity by trying to picture the province of Quebec as a threat to Canadian unity or as a land ripe for communism.
As a young Canadian with little experience in the House of Commons I was sorry to hear some of the comments uttered by members of the C.C.F. party, for I was brought up and educated by people who taught me all along to love my fellow citizens of British Columbia just as well as my fellow citizens of the maritime provinces. Furthermore, I am proud to share the views of Canadians imbued with the spirit of fair play and freedom, and for this reason 1 can say that in spite of different views expressed in the house lately Canada will travel the path of glory, freedom and prosperity if the two great races which form the majority of the population of our country have respect for one another.
I once heard a remark which may very well apply to some of the members of the C.C.F. party. A farmer in my riding told me one day that some people specialized in demolishing what others had built or tried to build. If you want to destroy a monument or tear down a building which has been a landmark you can call on practically anyone, as demolishing is an easy job. On the other hand, if you want to erect a monument or a nice building you have to call in experts such as architects, engineers and skilled labour. Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that the contrast between the two is greatly similar to some of our friends in the C.C.F. group?
(Translation):
I will now speak of shipping, and of some of the related problems in the hope of bringing about some change in the present situation.
I shall not deal today at length with the complex and difficult problem of deciding whether Canada should have a sea-going merchant navy, but I shall limit myself to coastal shipping on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence.
The Address-Mr. Maltais
Nobody can deny the vital part played by water transport in a country in the geographical position of Canada, whose limits extend as far west as the Pacific ocean, north to the Arctic ocean and east to the Atlantic ocean. In addition, it is connected with the latter ocean by a waterway extending over some 2,000 miles, if we include 'the great lakes, along which are located, more particularly from Montreal to Port Arthur, the greatest industrial centres of the country.
That long waterway has undoubtedly been the main factor in Canada's economic development and it continues to facilitate the unprecedented industrial expansion we have seen for some years past. It is rather difficult to assess in terms of dollars and cents the volume of products shipped by water, from the great lakes to various points on the St. Lawrence and outside the country, but a fair idea of the importance of that waterway can be gathered from the fact that more ships pass through the Sault Ste. Marie canals in seven months than through the Suez canal in a whole year.
According to the statistics I have obtained, more than 200 million tons of goods were shipped through that waterway in 1953. From a further breakdown of the statistics, showing a comparison between the present volume of traffic and that of preceding years, it appears that the shipping activity on the St. Lawrence gives a good idea of our country's economy.
In 1932, at the worst of the depression, only 3-5 million tons of ore were shipped through that waterway, while in 1953 nearly 95 million tons passed through it.
Although it is hard to get exact percentages regarding the nature of the products usually shipped, certain facts indicate that the tonnage of goods shipped may be divided as follows: grain comes first among the goods shipped, accounting for 36 per cent of the total; then oil and related products, with approximately 19 per cent. Pulp wood accounts for 8 per cent, coal 6 per cent, lumber in general, except pulpwood, 4-5 per cent and iron ore, about 2 [DOT] 5 per cent.
Those few figures pertaining exclusively to water transport on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence give us a good idea of the importance of coastal shipping for the economy of our country, and give us an insight into the expansion that will follow the deepening of the St. Lawrence and into the developments it will mean for the north shore.
810

The Address-Mr. Maltais
Not only will that activity of Canadian shipping in the vital field of transport increase the number of ships sailing on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence shipping but it is part of a national industry made up of skilled labour, experienced crews, technical apparatus, shipyards and tremendous capital investments.
It is therefore not surprising, Mr. Speaker, that the seamen of my constituency, situated on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, have expressed their fears and apprehension at the difficulties which seem to be increasing as a result of our legislation and of international agreements. The deepening of the St. Lawrence, which is now underway, will open up the whole great lakes district to unlimited shipping and will give access to the most industrialized part of the country. That is why Canada's merchant marine is getting more and more apprehensive, and the position of our ship owners will become unbearable unless more adequate measures are taken to help them.
The shipping act of 1934 contains nearly all the necessary provisions for the protection, control and regulation of Canadian ships. Certain international conventions, to which we have become a party, supplement that legislation. I do not hesitate to say that much of the trouble now experienced by our merchant marine results from the legal freedom enjoyed by the British merchant marine under the 1931 convention pertaining to the British commonwealth merchant marine, to compete here in Canada with our own ships for the transportation of goods.
At present, ships of all nations have access to the navigation facilities of the St. Lawrence, as far as the great lakes, but Canadian coastal trade is exclusively reserved to ships of British and Canadian registry.
Thus a ship built in Great Britain and flying the British flag can engage in coastal trade in Canadian inland waters. In other words, that ship may carry goods from port to port within Canada. This freedom of the British merchant marine to engage in coastal trade in our home waters is such as to place our own inland waters shipping in a difficult position. I am not speaking here of our high seas merchant fleet, since it is now practically non-existent. When a British seaman receives a monthly salary of $80 as against $200 for the Canadian seaman in a similar occupation, it is easy to understand the kind of unfair competition which any ship flying

the Canadian flag has to face from her British competitor. Besides, any British built ship is far cheaper to build and repair in British yards where salaries are again far lower than our own. This also adds substantially to the operating costs of a Canadian vessel as against that of a British vessel where the wage scale is far below that of the competing country.
Due to such low operating costs, several small ships of British registry are now plying the St. Lawrence river, and the competition our smaller shipping companies have to put up with in that respect is unfair, because they cannot carry that freight at the same rate.
We are now earmarking millions of dollars for the St. Lawrence seaway so that ocean shipping might more easily reach the great lakes. That project enables us to foresee still greater opportunities for our coastal shipping, and we know already that British ship owners are seriously considering an increase in the competition that we have to meet from their ships along the large seaway that the St. Lawrence river will be a few years from now.
Not later than last year, the inland shipping trade of Canada lost to British ships part of the transport resulting from hydroelectric power developments on the north shore of the river, with the help of Canadian capital.
If this situation is allowed to continue, the sacrifices made by the people of Canada in developing the world's longest seaway within our country will have served to dig the graveyard of what is left of the Canadian merchant marine.
Consequently, I ask the government that governments of all other parts of the British commonwealth of nations be notified with the least possible delay, and under article 24, part X of the convention, that Canada intends to amend the terms of the convention relating to the merchant marine of the British commonwealth and establish certain requirements regarding all coastal trade carried out in Canadian waters by any ship of other than Canadian registry.
Australia and New Zealand have already taken steps to protect their respective coastal trade by providing that foreign vessels would have to pay their crews salary rates in accordance with those already in force in their country, with the result that Australian coastal trade is practically limited to Australian ships.
The United States goes further by limiting that trade to truly American ships, built and registered in the United States.

Besides, our merchant shipping is the only-industry to face such unfair competition.
Our aviation is fully protected, and Canada was one of the first nations at the Chicago convention in 1944 to provide for the introduction of section 7 entitled "coastal navigation" and accepted at the international civil aviation convention.
This clause reads as follows:
Each contracting state may refuse to allow an aircraft of another contracting state to pick up passengers or cargo within its own territory and to carry them on a paying basis to another point of this territory.
The clause goes even further, by forbidding any contracting state to make arrangements or conclude treaties with another state, when the advantages and benefits allowed under the agreement are not shared by the other countries on the same basis.
Mr. Speaker, if it were possible to protect Canadian airlines, I fail to understand why our merchant marine could not also be given protection in the best interests of Canada.
(Text):


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the first subject I wish to discuss this afternoon is the need for cabinet representation in that great industrial belt extending from Chatham on the west to Cornwall on the east, then northward for 50 miles from the St. Lawrence river, lake Ontario and the United States boundary.
In reality this area is the heartland of Canadian industry. In it live about three million people, which is about one-fifth of the total population of Canada. Yet there is no cabinet representation for this vast and important area of our country. It is an area that needs representation so that the problems of industry can be brought before the cabinet continuously, and so that the cabinet may be made constantly aware of the problems which industry and those who work in it are facing.
Had that been the case, I am confident the government would not have been making the attempts it is now making to brush off as something merely seasonal and regional the unemployment situation which, last year, month by month averaged 70 per cent more than in the corresponding months of the year before. I make this statement from figures supplied by the minister's department which I have checked and know to be correct.
If this great industrial area was represented in cabinet discussions I believe there is a good chance that the government would be far more inclined than it is today to consider reducing the high commodity taxes many of 50433-52i
The Address-Mr. Hees our goods are carrying; taxes which are helping to price many Canadian goods out of both the domestic and export markets.
I believe there is a very good chance that if this area was represented by a minister who, because of his location in the area and his connection with its industry, was familiar with the problems of industry and the people who work in it, he would be able to explain to his colleagues that the cutting of commodity taxes does not necessarily mean a reduction in tax revenues.
The reduction of commodity taxes makes it possible to sell more goods; and if the correct balance can be struck, the total tax revenue may easily be greater when commodity taxes are reduced than at a time when high taxes are stifling the sale of products, as we see today.
A very good example of that was given to the government a while ago when they foolishly, and over our objections, raised the tax on cigarettes. The minister of finance found that when the tax rose, a lot of people stopped smoking cigarettes, and the sales fell off so badly that the total tax revenue was reduced considerably below what it had been when the tax was lower. The government had to reduce the tax to where it had been before. The sales of cigarettes picked up, and the total tax revenue went back to the higher figure, a figure considerably higher than when the tax was raised.
With that example before us, I hope the government will give consideration to reducing many of our high commodity taxes, because they are playing a very important part in pricing goods out of the market and making it impossible for many of our workmen to work full time. Often those workmen are laid off completely, and that is one of the main causes of the serious unemployment situation which exists, but which the government refuses to face in its true reality today.
Another thing that happens when you reduce commodity taxes is that more goods are sold. You have more people working and earning an income on which they pay an income tax to the government, instead of drawing on the government for unemployment insurance benefits when they are unemployed. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of plain straight arithmetic which this government has to consider because of the serious situation existing in our economy today. They have to stop pretending the situation does not exist; they have to stop brushing unemployment aside as seasonal and regional, and face the facts and examine this whole problem as an economic one and not as a political one which should be dodged and ducked. This

The Address-Mr. Hees government owes it to the country to face the facts and come up with concrete, constructive and economically sound plans for getting at and curing the basic causes of unemployment and lost markets.
It seems strange to me that with the many Liberal members in the house who live in the area that I have described, it is impossible for the Prime Minister to find one whom he considers capable of holding down a cabinet post. When we form a government we shall have no trouble at all forming an excellent cabinet to run the country far better than this government is running it. It seems strange that the Prime Minister is having this difficulty in picking a cabinet minister to represent an area which is, as I say, the heartland of Canadian industry.
In that area about one-fifth of the total population of Canada live. There is one member in this house who, as hon. members know, has had the experience of being the mayor of one of our large industrial cities. He has had the experience of being a cabinet minister in a Liberal provincial government of one of our large provinces. He has been the chairman of the defence expenditure committee, and is now the chairman of the banking and commerce committee, the most important committee of this house. I ask the Prime Minister-I wish he were here, but I hope he will give us an answer when he comes back-why it is, if he considers a member good enough for such important positions as I have just outlined, he is not capable of holding down a position in the cabinet.
In refusing to appoint a cabinet minister from inside this house, as the Prime Minister has done twice within a year, he has in effect said to the 150 members of his party who are not in the cabinet:	You just do
not have the ability to sit in my cabinet and I must go outside and choose a minister from outside of parliament. In effect he has said to them: I cannot have confidence in you. And twice, as has been said today, he has had to go outside. I think it is a pity.


Mr. Benneii:: Is that what you are going to do with your new leader?


George Harris Hees: When we form a government we shall have a great deal of difficulty in deciding from among our very able members who should form the cabinet. That is what our problem will be.


Colin Emerson Bennett: You will be an old man.


George Harris Hees: 
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: appreciate the fact, Mr. Speaker, that under the procedure of this house an hon. member may speak more than once during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Officially, of course, we are now discussing the subamendment moved by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn). Unofficially, of course, we can speak on any matter that comes to our mind. However, because we are officially discussing the subamendment I want to say that I have listened with a great deal of interest to the 

remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster. I have read with a great deal of interest and studied the amendment that he moved. I am, therefore, going to vote for it. I cannot do anything else.
The subamendment could be put in this way. Are you in favour of better weather in Ottawa? I certainly am. Now, economically and politically, that is the meaning of the amendment moved by the hon. member. I would say the amendment is one that you cannot vote against. It is something indefinite. I am going to vote for it because if those principles were put into effect there might be some improvement. It is in no way specific in its terms. My friend on my right says, "according to his ideas." Socred ideas are not specific in the amendment. The wording is general and that was known when the amendment was moved.
I want to speak on three points this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, two of which have been already mentioned. Although these two have been raised, I feel it is important that those who support these two suggestions make their position known, because if only one person speaks perhaps no attention will be paid to him. First of all, I want to speak on a matter that was mentioned in this debate and this afternoon was the subject of questions, that is the financial contribution of the federal government to a bridge over the north arm of the Fraser river. It has become known as the Marpole bridge, but actually that is a misnomer. I cannot understand the position of the federal government on this issue.
On going over the records I find that on October 15, 1946, a committee was appointed to examine into the question of a' bridge in that area. The committee was composed of seven engineers, including two dominion government engineers, and had representatives from the city of Vancouver and province of British Columbia as well. On November 14, 1947, this committee, which I repeat included two dominion government engineers, made a report recommending a new bridge but not at the present location of the Mar-pole bridge. There have been developments and negotiations since 1946. I, personally, was a member at some of the conferences held, at which at least one of our present cabinet ministers was present. We were given to understand that we would be assisted.
I have been reading with a great deal of interest some of the statements that have emanated from the Department of Public Works in Ottawa during the past few months. They are very contradictory. They would lead one to believe that the government had no idea of the plans for the bridge, and that

no application was made by the British Columbia government for financial assistance.
I was interested in this matter, so before I came to Ottawa I went to Victoria. I found that on March 25 of last year the Department of Public Works was sent all the plans of the proposed new bridge. I found also that on May 11 a letter was sent to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) requesting federal assistance up to one-third of the cost of that bridge. I am sorry that the Minister of Public Works is not in his seat, for I have on my desk a copy of the report of the 1946 committee as well as a record of the letters sent by the provincial government in March and in May.
What I am trying to do, sir, is to continue the remarks I made when I spoke first in this debate to the effect that the federal government has a responsibility for the major highways, byways and bridges in a province. There can be no question but that this bridge is required. There can be no question but that it serves one of the major international airports of the dominion. In view of the present international crisis, there can be no question but that the major international airport is Vancouver. Along with other members of parliament from all parties, I attended a meeting of the airport committee in Vancouver prior to the calling of this session. We were told that under no circumstances would the R.C.A.F. recede from its position that the Sea island airport was the station for the R.C.A.F. Therefore from the point of view of a highway proposition, a defence proposition and an R.C.A.F. proposition there is a major interest on the part of the federal government in the existence of proper access to that international airport. I just want to add my words to those that have already been spoken, and to the questions that were asked only this afternoon on the orders of the day, urging that the federal government reconsider its position and, in the light of all the circumstances, make a major contribution to the cost of this $10 million new bridge which is now almost under construction, or at least for which tenders have already been called.
There is one other point I wish to make. Unless the federal government does so Vancouver, the third city of Canada, will again be hemmed in by toll bridges. I am not going to say any more on that matter. I spoke on it last session and I am just adding my words to those which have been spoken on it at this session.
On my second point, I again am only adding my voice to those of other hon. members who spoke at this present session asking the federal government to reconsider its policy
The Address-Mr. Winch on the age limit of those who can get a government job. I admit that I am now rapidly approaching the age of 50. Nevertheless, at least my constituents think that I have not reached a point where I am past the age where I can be a member of the House of Commons. Yet, Mr. Speaker, there is no question whatsoever that throughout Canada in industry there is a growing requirement to the effect that you cannot get a job if you are over 45, and unfortunately now it is over 40. I understand there is a similar regulation with respect to employment by the federal government.
I believe that the Vancouver Daily Province under date of January 14 had a most interesting editorial which I should like to quote in part. It draws our attention to the fact that in British Columbia-which I think I can safely say is one of the most rapidly growing provinces of the Dominion of Canada and has perhaps the greatest potentialities for future development-in the past few weeks it has been found necessary to form a brand new organization. That organization is being called "Experienced Employables over 40".
This is the first time that I have discussed this matter on the floor of the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, but it was my privilege to discuss it more than once in the British Columbia legislature. I should like to repeat what I said a number of years ago, and what I still believe to be true, namely that it is wrong for industry or government to ignore the years of training and experience of those who are over 40. I believe it is wrong that the impression should be given abroad, either by government or by industry, that a person is useless after 40. If that were true, there would not be many of us on the floor of the House of Commons, and there would not be any Senate at all. If that were true, the answer is that you must go where it is not true, namely in the Commons and the Senate, and there you can only find one vacancy in the House of Commons and 21 in the Senate. That procedure would not solve the problem at all. May I quote from a part of this editorial in the Southam press and may I say that I agree with it:
Only in jobs where straight muscle work is needed does the age factor play a big part. But in the machine age "muscle" jobs are not in the majority. This is an era for highly trained personnel, the technicians, mathematicians-skilled workers who can design machines or operate them.
Then it says this, Mr. Speaker, and with this I also agree because upon more than one occasion I have been approached by those under 40 and told this, "Why do you speak on behalf of those over 40? We young men need

The Address-Mr. Winch jobs". I think the Daily Province answers that question very well when in their editorial they said this:
This isn't a problem that concerns only those who are over 40. It concerns every Canadian, for young men and women who are now looking for their first jobs will one day be 40.
In the last paragraph the editorial also says this:
We hope the forties will be able to roar loud and long enough to bring this country to the realization that if it isn't willing to let these people work for their living it will have to pay for their keep in discontented idleness.
I am making these remarks, as I said, because I want to support the members of this house who spoke a few days ago in opposition to the government policy and the government lead to the effect that you are useless after you are 45 or after 40. I should like to add my words in support of the contention that this criticism also applies to industry. One's capability of work is not measured by his age: it is measured by his mental and physical condition. There are many men and women who are many years over 40; yes, there are quite a few of us right here in the House of Commons who, I hope, demonstrate that mentally and physically they have a contribution to make.
In conclusion I just want to say, on that one issue, that I sincerely hope it will not be necessary to have, as a complement to the provincial organization now started in Vancouver, a national organization to try to find jobs for those turned down by government and industry because they are over 40 years of age. If they were useless, the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) would not be sitting in his seat today. Our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) would not be holding his job today. Ninety per cent of us would not be holding a job in the House of Commons. I hope the government will give some thought to this matter and will give a lead to industry. I hope they will give a lead to industry not only by the enunciation of policies but also by legislation such as some countries of the world have whereby there must be not only a percentage of those over 40 but those who are disabled in the employ of every employer.
I come now to my third point. It concerns a matter that has not been discussed in the house but I desire to raise it in this debate because I feel that it is of such importance that consideration should be given it by the government before they make a reply. I know that I could raise the matter when we come to the estimates but I should like a study made of it. While I was still in Vancouver before the house met I was interviewed by a number of men who were employed by the Canadian government on a

weather ship which operates off the coast of British Columbia. The ship is the C.G.S. St. Catharines.
Here, sir, is the consensus of opinion of experienced seamen on board that government ship. I was told that the policy with respect to the hiring of men on this weather ship operating off the coast of British Columbia is to engage men with no seagoing experience in preference to men with discharge books proving their ability and conduct at sea. I was told by those who interviewed me that promotion on this boat, at least in the deck department, is by favouritism without regard to experience and ability. I was told, and I am repeating only what I was told by those who met me, that cooks and waiters are constantly placed in seamen's berths and in an emergency would prove not only useless but even dangerous to other seamen and themselves. I was further told that proper types of life jackets for emergency boat work have been considered unnecessary by the local authorities although they were recommended by the master and the officers.
I was told by seamen on the boat that if a conscientious seaman found himself hampered by the type of life jacket supplied by the government in lifting a person or in pulling an oar he would be tempted to disregard the life jacket and endanger himself and others by taking it off. I was further told just before I came down here that all the personnel of the ship are concerned that the first aid facilities available on that weather ship are only of the most elementary nature, that on previous voyages cases of broken bones, acute appendicitis and severe eye injuries had occurred and the only treatment available was aspirin and laxatives.
These men made a recommendation which I want to pass on to the government. The recommendation was that they believed that a great improvement would be made if a fourth officer could be appointed on weather ships whose duties would not concern in any way the operation of the ship but who would give first aid training and proper boat and emergency training to enable the crew to deal with emergencies which might occur at any time during the operation of the ship.
I felt that this interview was important and that I should convey what was said to hon. members and to the government. But it became even more important in the light of a story carried in a Vancouver paper in September of last year which seems to confirm what is taking place on ships operated by the government of Canada. I am very happy that the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) is in his seat when I am going to refer

to this article. It is my only source of information, although I have tried to check it since coming here for the session.
It is a report by a member of the fourth estate, a member of the press gallery of the House of Commons. When we members of the house speak we speak from our knowledge and with the conviction that what we have heard or read is true to the best of our belief. I feel that the same applies to the members of the press gallery of the House of Commons. Although they may, quite naturally, do a little bit of guessing on occasion, when they are at a particular place and see things they write their reports on the basis of what they have seen, and we can therefore accept them as depicting exactly what they saw.
A member of the press gallery of the House of Commons wrote this article on September 10 setting forth his reactions and views while he was on board the C.G.S. C. D. Howe at sea. I am not speaking politically. I am not saying that C. D. Howe is at sea.


Mr. Lesage:: You are at sea.


Harold Edward Winch: He was on board the C.G.S. C.D. Howe at sea. What did this reporter have to say? May I state very briefly what he had to say. But first of all let me say that in the article this reporter says that he spent three years in the navy and had deep-sea service as a crew member on a merchantman, as well as considerable time knocking around the British Columbia coast. Therefore he felt that he knew what he was writing about. His account of his three weeks spent on the C.D. Howe to the best of my knowledge has never been repudiated or answered by the department of government concerned.
While I have the actual article before me I shall put in my own words what this reporter had to say. He said that, at a time when there were 5,000 Canadian seamen who had been pulled off the high seas, and when hundreds were on the beach in every port and looking for ships, the Canadian government mans its ships with inexperienced political appointees.
Then this report said:
I hate to say this because she's a friendly ship with a few good seamen aboard, but she's dirty, inefficient and no credit to the blue ensign of the Canadian government.
This is the account of an experienced seaman aboard a Canadian government ship named after the Acting Prime Minister, in which he states very definitely that every year this ship bearing the name of C. D. Howe heads north with a brand new crew of political appointees, the recognized source of government
The Address-Mr. Winch crews. As a man aboard the ship when he wrote the article, he said:
Smoking is permitted within six feet of several thousand gallons of high-test aviation gasoline and diesel fuel stored on deck.
This was written by an honoured member of the press gallery, written in September and not yet repudiated.


An hon. Member:: Did he get back safely?


Harold Edward Winch: His statement is not repudiated, that he found gasoline on board the C. D. Howe was stored under the helicopter landing platform, where it could easily be set off by a crash or fire aboard the helicopter. On board this ship the reporter wrote that discipline is only casual.
And he wrote something else which I cannot understand and about which I would like to have a very careful explanation. He writes that on September 10 all the victualling of the ship was done by the chief steward under private contract, and that he was not required to submit a statement showing his profits or expenses. It states that the chief steward did not have to bid competitively for the contract, and that he could make his purchases of certain commodities as though they were being made for a naval ship of war. In other words, to name only one commodity, he could buy cigarettes without paying the government excise or other taxes. According to those on board he could not have been making less than 100 per cent profit.
I do not wish to become involved in any argument at this moment about bilingualism, but I must point out that the C.D. Howe is trilingual-French, English and Eskimo.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am quoting from a statement of a House of Commons reporter who spent three weeks aboard that ship- because the article is headed, "Aboard C.G.S. C . D. Howe at sea". To quote further:
The Howe is a trilingual ship, a situation which leaves her wide open for panic in case of emergency. The working language of the ship is French and a large part of the crew, including some officers, speak nothing else. Passengers are mostly English speaking. Eskimos speak only their own tongue.


Jean Lesage: It hurts you.


Harold Edward Winch: It does not hurt me at all. I am raising a very important question, and it is not a matter of French or English. If the hon. member would be as honest as I am there would not have been some of the misunderstanding that has taken place within the last two weeks. I am quoting from the article written by this reporter who states that among those on board the ship there are

The Address-Mr. Black more those who speak French, those who speak English and those who speak neither, only Eskimo.


Jean Lesage: What do you wish us to do- fly the Eskimos, instead of taking them on the ship?


Harold Edward Winch: Would you mind if I continue reading this report? Perhaps I should begin again. It states:
The Howe is a trilingual ship, a situation which leaves her wide open for panic in case of emergency. The working language of the ship is French and a large part of the crew, including some officers, speak nothing else. Passengers are mostly English speaking. Eskimos speak only their own tongue.
Little seems to have been done to anticipate a language crisis. Instructions, for example, for operation of good but complex fire fighting equipment are in English which is unintelligible to most of the crew. With high-test gasoline and explosives aboard, there isn't much time for translation.	.
There are no emergency instructions in Eskimo in either the Eskimo quarters or the ship's hospital. Most Eskimos are travelling in a ship for the first time and would have little idea of what was happening in an emergency. Eskimo is spoken only by a handful of "old Arctic hands" aboard, mostly officials who would not be competent to issue emergency orders.
It is not a question of English, French or Eskimo. According to the writer of this report there is confusion, and no translations. I have spoken personally to the man who wrote this article who told me that officers give instructions in one language, and they could not be understood when he was giving them because of the language difficulty. He also told me that he actually saw an Eskimo sitting on top of a drum of gasoline smoking a cigarette.
I am drawing this to your attention, sir. I have only one minute left. These matters are important. This story, written by a press gallery reporter who was on board the ship for three weeks, is of importance. It is our responsibility to know whether it is right or wrong. If it is wrong, then correct it. If it is right, has the government taken any action to correct the situation outlined in this article? Because the information in this article is so close to the information given me by seamen on the weather ship off the British Columbia coast, we should know whether an investigation is being made. I think, sir, that this matter of our Canadian ships, the conditions of their complement, is of such importance that it merits a full investigation by the members of the House of Commons.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, following the speech which I made in the house on January 14, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) spoke briefly. My speech is recorded on pages 208
	- I

to 214 and his speech is recorded on pages 222 to 225 of Hansard. I thought the hon. member made a very good speech. He touched upon three matters which, it seemed to me, he has a right to have me deal with. First, would Social Credit require a dictatorship?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Positively no! When I hear an elected Liberal on the floor of the house give utterance to an absolute lie, as hon. members persist in telling in a nation like this, it is something I just cannot understand! His second point was: what was the story and significance of the Alberta prosperity certificates? His third point was whether or not Social Credit believes all the problems of the nation could be solved by just printing money. We have one or two making that statement. I suppose that if ten thousand speeches were delivered right in their presence they would still persist in their lie, which amazes me beyond all measure.
To make sure that the position of the hon. member in relation to my position as expressed in my speech be accurately before us, may I read certain extracts from my speech and from his? I will read a portion of my speech as recorded on page 210 of Hansard. I am not finding any fault with the hon. member. I do not want to be harsh in any way. I just want to put the facts so that people can get them. I said:
Opponents of Social Credit have always endeavoured to show that it would establish a dictatorship. But quite the contrary is the case. Social Credit would establish the freest state and the most fully democratic government the mind of man can conceive. Did Sir Thomas White establish a dictatorship in developing and employing the Finance Act of 1914? Even to ask that question is to be unfair to his memory and to shock almost any horn, member into serious thought.
The opponents of Social Credit will ask: "How could prices be maintained without iron controls?" I think it was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), speaking some time ago in connection with Social Credit, who asked that question. The answer is that prices on the whole would be maintained by a scientific use of the law of supply and demand. It is the law of supply and demand that is supposed to affect prices today. By having and exercising ready, effective control over financial policy the minister of finance would be readily able to increase the supply of almost any commodity in Canada, thereby dealing with the tendency of prices to rise. Some will ask, "But how could he increase the supply quickly enough to offset an inflationary tendency?" After a Social Credit government had been in operation for a certain length of time we would find that it would probably have on hand a considerable supply of many commodities, just as we find today the dominion government of Canada has on hand a considerable supply of butter, eggs, and other commodities.
I have stated several times in this house that it would be greatly in the interests of this nation to store up a good supply of different kinds of grain, sugar, honey, and other commodities of that

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
nature so there would be reserves available in case a need arises to free certain commodities upon the market when there appears to be sufficient shortage to cause a price rise.
The minister of finance could manage tendencies toward falling prices by a policy of price support wherever necessary, much as we are doing in Canada today through the agricultural prices support program. He could buy and take temporary control of and withdraw from the market all unmanageable surpluses, especially of nonperishable goods such as wheat, sugar, and so forth.
I would not think that any person with more than age 13 intelligence, after hearing a speech of that kind, would say the kind of things that the hon. member said.
We now go to page 212:


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


John Horne Blackmore: Gladly.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: Will he please explain what effect the Social Credit technique would have on taxation?


John Horne Blackmore: In the first place I would say that it would so greatly increase the well-being of the nation that the tax burden we are now bearing would seem to be relatively easier. Everyone knows that in times of buoyant revenues, buoyant incomes and so forth, as at the peak of prosperity in the war, it was easier to bear taxation. But the answer I would give, without going into too much detail, is that Social Credit is opposed to high taxation and would endeavour, just as rapidly as the goods and services produced in the country would justify, to remove the debt.
May I stop there to point out the fact that I mentioned goods and services. You will never find a responsible Social Credit speaker mentioning money without mentioning goods and services to indicate that the money supply must be in accordance with the goods and services. That is certainly clear in my remarks. I continue:
The debt can be easily paid off. Sir Thomas White could have used any $100 million that he created to pay off $100 million in bonds just as easily as he could have used the money to buy $100 million worth of wheat and other commodities in the war.
The result is that if the time came when a Social Credit administration felt that the wisest use to be made of a given amount of money obtained by monetizing goods and services was to pay off the debt, then by degrees it could do so by simply monetizing, as Sir Thomas White did, the goods and services of the country and paying off the debt. Taxes would thereby slowly be reduced until the time would come-I wili not say how many years it would take; it would depend on conditions, but I would say within a rather comfortable period-when taxation could be abolished entirely.
Those expressions are so plain that I am sure the hon. member could easily understand what was said; consequently it is pretty hard to suppose that he did forget what I said when he made his speech.
On page 224 of Hansard the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is reported as follows:
This evening we have all enjoyed, because some hon. members gave evidence of it, the exposition
of the Social Credit technique by the financial spokesman for the Social Credit party. I think we can take it that the views expressed by the hon. member for Lethbridge represent the official views of the Social Credit party, since I have never heard any of their members deny those particular views that were outlined this evening. I wonder how the party leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), reconciles the views we heard this evening with his statement the other day that his party is the real free enterprise party. How can he reconcile a government-dictated price structure with free enterprise? I should like to hear him deal with that subject. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that he can only have a government-dictated price system under a dictatorship.
That in the face of what I had said just a short time before! Then again:
The theory outlined by the hon. member could only be made to work under a dictatorship.
We heard a great deal this evening about tickets, and that there were not enough tickets to go around. I should like to display a real Social Credit ticket, Mr. Speaker. It is called a prosperity certificate. These prosperity certificates, so-called, were issued Dy the Social Credit government of Alberta. This one is dated August 5, 1936. I should like to read into the record what it says on its face:
"The provincial treasurer will pay to the bearer the sum of one dollar on the expiration of two t years from date of issue hereof upon presentation hereof provided there are then attached to the back hereof one hundred and four one cent certificate stamps."
On the back there are 104 spaces dated for the 104 stamps.
The hon. member did the country a service by reading that because it is important that people know what the prosperity certificates were like. Then he went on to say:
I think it will be apparent to most hon. members that it was really a gigantic taxation scheme. These prosperity certificates were used to pay civil servants. You gave a dollar's worth of service and you got one of these; and then, according to the face of it, you got a dollar when you had paid 104 cents over a two year period. Needless to say these were not in circulation for the expected two year period. They were rejected entirely by the people of Alberta, Social Credit and non-Social Credit.
That is not correct, but I shall not go into the details. Then again:
I would like to complete my speech; then the hon. member for Macleod can continue and tell the house the rest of the story, if I have omitted anything about the Social Credit certificates.
I am telling the story tonight. The hon. member continued:
I am not one of those who, like my Social Credit colleagues across the way, think all we have to do is print the money.
That is the most puerile thing in the face of what I have said already and after all the explanation that has been given and after the hon. member having lived in Alberta and seen the various devices which have been used by the government of Alberta to bring about prosperity in that province. However,
820	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blackmore nonsensical things like that are to be expected from people. Then at page 225 he is reported as saying:
I would like to congratulate the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) on his appointment. I am sure all hon. members earnestly wish him much success in the very difficult job he has in hand. The hon. member for Lethbridge certainly makes it look easy for him this evening. We would print enough money to pay off the national debt-
No mention is made of goods and services, which is the dishonest thing in the matter.
We would print enough money to pay off the national debt and we would eventually abolish taxation. It is a neat trick if it can be done.
I do not think for a minute that the hon. member deliberately intended those discrepancies in what he said. I think his speech was prepared a long time before he delivered it, and probably it was prepared by somebody else at a time when this speech of mine had not yet been delivered. I should like to give the house a little background on this matter of prosperity certificates.


Mr. Byrne:: I do not think it is becoming for an hon. member to say that another hon., member's speech was prepared for him. Speeches are made in this house by hon. members. While I am on the point of order I should like to say that I do not think it is appropriate to quote a speech made by an hon. member in this house during this debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: On
the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), I listened carefully to the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and I do not think it would be fair to interpret his remark as a definite accusation that the speech of the hon. member had been written for him. I think in fairness to the hon. member for Lethbridge it should be said that equally plausible suggestions have been made on the floor of this house on more than one occasion that, to put it mildly, hon. members had had some assistance in preparing their speeches.
On the other point, I do not think I can rule the hon. member out of order for reading quotations from a previous speech in this same debate, although I must say that there comes a time under the rules when lengthy reading of extracts is regarded as obstruction. I hope that we can rely on the hon. member's discretion. As the hon. member for Lethbridge has been interrupted, and as it is now two minutes to six, perhaps he would agree that we call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.



COMMONS AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, just before six o'clock the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) insinuated that I had made a speech in this house which someone had prepared for me. I think I should say that no one prepared my speech, nor do I think that anyone prepares the speeches of the hon. member for Lethbridge.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad to hear the hon. member say that, Mr. Speaker.
Now, I was at the point of giving an account of the prosperity certificate to which the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) referred with complete propriety the other night. It is necessary to get the background of the whole situation in 1936 when the Alberta government attempted to issue prosperity certificates and use them.
In the first place, here are a few facts about Alberta's financial history. Alberta began her provincial existence in 1905 with no debt whatever. Between 1905 and 1921, under a Liberal government, she went into debt to the extent of $100 million. Up to 1935, under a U.F.A. administration following the 1921 election, she was in debt to the extent of $167 million. The average interest rate on that whole debt was 4.95 per cent.
Now, that was bad enough. Roughly $10 million of this $67 million debt which the U.F.A. had incurred, largely because of the depression, was in the form of Alberta savings certificates which represented money that had been borrowed by the government from ordinary people at 4 per cent. These Alberta savings certificates were provincial promises to pay on demand. This is exceedingly important to bear in mind. The total amount of that savings certificate debt was $9,414,468.15, to be exact. If hon. members are at all interested in facing facts they must recognize the significance of this $10 million worth of savings certificates, and the effect they would have on the credit of the province. Ask yourselves the question, what would you have done if you had been in charge of the province at that time, and then you will not feel nearly so smart when you are contemplating what Alberta did.
On August 27, 1935, the United Farmers of Alberta government had to announce it could no longer pay either interest or principal in respect of the savings certificates. This move destroyed the credit of the province. No longer could Alberta borrow money anywhere on the world's money markets; that is very important for all Liberals to bear in

mind. Social Credit had nothing to do with it at all. The Social Credit administration under William Aberhart's leadership took office on September 3, five days after the loss of Alberta's credit by the U.F.A.'s financial default.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: What was the date of the election?


John Horne Blackmore: August 22; thank you for asking. Mr. Aberhart later said that when he became premier not only was the treasury empty but the bottom was scraped out of the barrel. My question is, what would you have done about it? What would the Liberal government have done if they had come to power at that time when the credit of the province was completely destroyed, with $10 million of demand savings certificates facing them, any one of which could be brought to their attention as a demand for payment at any time.
There were plenty of other difficulties, too.
In 1935 Alberta's economy was to a very large extent an agricultural economy and agricultural prices were tragically low. Freight rates were especially burdensome upon Alberta. Albertans were scarcely out of the very depths of the depression. To add to this adversity, in the year 1935, when Social Credit took over, Alberta's farmers in the south were afflicted with drought; in the north, they were rained out; in the centre, they were stricken with frost.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: You notice the idiotic laughter which manifests itself every once in a while. It is an absolute refusal to face facts seriously.
The civil service had to be paid, and the other manifold obligations of a provincial government had to be met. I ask once more, what would a Liberal government have done in the circumstances? Answer that.
The Lethbridge Herald, in an article entitled "Watch Your Step", under date of August 21, 1935, the night before the election, used these words, and I quote:
We might as well be blunt about it and say positively and emphatically that if Alberta electors should send a majority of Social Crediters to Edmonton tomorrow, Alberta is headed for disaster.
Mr. Hoadley has told the people of Alberta that it is impossible for the province to finance itself through loans or bonds because of the fear investors have that Social Credit may come into control of the government of Alberta.
Alberta for the 18 months that Mr. Aberhart mentions wouldn't be able to finance itself. It could not make a loan; it could not borrow money, because the people who have the money wouldn't invest in a province where Social Credit was being experimented with. Then what would happen?
The Address-Mr. Blackmore
Aberhart could not administer the affairs of Alberta on the revenues that come to it from the people of Alberta only. Expenditures would have to be slashed, relief grants which up to the present have been financed mostly by loans from the Ottawa government would be cut down. So would mothers' allowance; old age pensions; hospital grants', school grants; all social and other services to which the people of Alberta have been accustomed.
Now, that was the sort of panicky talk that was taking place throughout the whole province.
The Social Credit government had promised improvement in every respect. There was an abundance of nearly every kind of goods and services. This is the important thing, Mr. Speaker. There were plenty of goods. It was said the warehouses were literally bulging with goods. There was a grave shortage of purchasing power in the hands of the people; that was all.
The province greatly needed roads everywhere. There were 80,000 miles of road allowances in Alberta, every mile of which needed good roads built along them. There were many thousands of unemployed in Alberta, all ready to go to work to build roads. There were many needy farmers who could work on roads while their crops grew or while they were waiting for another year's harvesting. There was plenty of road building material, such as gravel. There was sufficient machinery. There was food, clothing and shelter enough to sustain the workers. Is there any conceivable reason why the people of Alberta, roughly 900,000 of them should not have been able to work together to build these roads? Yet, under a Liberal administration those roads would never have been built at that time and would not be built today under similar circumstances.
The Social Credit government was a monetary reform government. The members knew that units of money created by a government could be sound if the units created were not too numerous in relation to the goods and services available. This had been abundantly proven through the operation of Canada's Finance Act of 1914, to which I referred on January 14. The dominion parliament had reaffirmed implicit confidence in the principles and performance of the Finance Act by extending that act in 1919 and then in reenacting it in 1923 as the Finance Act of 1923 under the great Liberal finance minister, Hon. W. S. Fielding. The reference to this is in the report of the royal commission on banking and currency in Canada, published in 1933. In the face of these facts, why should not Alberta create money just as sound as the money created by Sir Thomas White, dominion finance minister? That is the first question.

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
In addition to the backing which Sir Thomas White would have, Alberta was placing a 100 per cent backing of coin and other Canadian cash in two years, to uphold these prosperity certificates. If Alberta affixed her signature to a million dollar bond, that bond was considered sound. Why should not a one dollar bond of Alberta be just as sound? When hon. members get that answer in a sensible manner, they will be in a position to appreciate the problem. The Alberta government, with obvious good logic, issued some thousands of Alberta one dollar bonds, called prosperity certificates. A million dollar Alberta bond to be redeemed in 20 years would be sound, why should not a one dollar Alberta bond to be redeemed in two years be sound? The prosperity certificate was in effect a bond and at the same time a promissory note. That was the status of the prosperity certificate; and all the laughing off by superficial minds will not change the situation one bit.
But any bond which might circulate-and here is where the difficulty arose-from hand to hand could be classified as currency. Here is where the stamp requirement entered the picture. Consequently if Alberta issued a one dollar bond and put it into circulation by trading it to an unemployed man in return for two hours of work on an Alberta road, then Alberta would be violating the currency legislation of the Dominion of Canada.
In order to avoid such dominion currency legislation Alberta had to penalize that road worker by obliging him, or whatever person accepted the bond from him, to put on the back of the bond a stamp from time to time, the denomination of the stamp being fixed at one cent and the period of time being fixed at one week. This was the only way that we could see of avoiding the currency law. It was not a question of whether the prosperity certificate was sound. It was a question of whether this big dominion government would permit the province to use that financial device in order to get out of what looked like an impossible financial situation.
The prosperity certificate was issued as a promise to pay by the provincial treasury.
I now refer hon. members to the passage which the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) read into the record, which reading is accurate and which, as I said a few minutes ago, is a service to the country because it gives the people a chance to get the truth. If you get the full truth about Alberta there will be nothing but admiration and wonder as to how the administration ever got out of the difficulties they were in in 1935-all difficulties which they had nothing to do with causing-and all the time


being opposed by the most sordid opposition from the hon. members of the Liberal party, 100 per cent, all the time. Lies, misrepresentations and distortions just filled the air like smoke.
The date selected on which the stamp was to be affixed to the prosperity certificate, as I remember it, was Wednesday. Whoever found himself in possession of a one dollar prosperity certificate on Wednesday night at a certain hour would be required to affix to it a one-cent stamp. There was thus encouragement to people to keep the prosperity certificates circulating. The hon. member said that it looked like a giant taxation system. It could be looked at in that way. But look at the high degree of discount people will give right today in order to get a dollar's worth of trade. For almost any businessman today it would be an almost negligible thing to give one cent on the dollar to get a dollar's worth of trade, or any ordinary worker who is unemployed would certainly be glad to give one cent for the privilege of earning a dollar. That is what it amounted to.
The cause for the cessation of the use of these prosperity certificates was, of course, among other things, probably first the never-ending attack organized against them by the opposition. The very men whose party were responsible for putting Alberta in the financial position it was in were loudest, most inveterate and sordid in their opposition, trying to make it impossible for their own province to come out of the mire. There you have the record of the Liberals of 1935, and they are just as bad today. The last thing in the world they are ever concerned about is how the province is going to get ahead or how Canada is going to get ahead. The only thing that interests them is how to get their miserable selves back into office for another term.
The next reason was the fact that so many opponents of Social Credit refused to accept those prosperity certificates because of prejudice. There were many people who could just as well as not have accepted prosperity certificates such as people who were running stores, garages and the like. If they had accepted these certificates and passed them on just as they would any ordinary money, there would have been no burden on anybody and the effect would have been surprising on the prosperity and the pick-up generally of the province.
The third reason why prosperity certificates were not accepted was that they were not legal tender for obvious reasons. It was not the fact that the people as a whole rejected them. It was the fact that the stubborn, sordid Liberal opposition made it impossible for

the device to work. That is all it was. Let the blame go right where it should lie. They worked together with some Conservatives who were just as bitter as the Liberals were. What did they care about the well-being of their own province? Nothing!
I ask hon. members this question. How long would our present Bank of Canada dollars be accepted freely if in the first place a one-cent stamp were to be required to be affixed on the back of each dollar every week? There would be hesitation to accept it, would there not? But it would not be because the dollar is not sound. In the second place, if anyone in Canada were free to refuse to accept a Bank of Canada dollar in payment of a debt-that is if the dollar was no longer legal tender-how long would it be accepted? I think that is enough to show that it was not a matter of the prosperity certificate being unsound at all. Fundamentally, it was just as sound as any unit of money but it had to be used under these difficulties to which I referred in order to avoid the currency laws passed by this dominion parliament.
What were the accomplishments of the prosperity certificates? The hon. member did not tell us about those. I do not blame him. He was putting forward his own case. I will put forward mine. In the first place they built many miles of roads. Let it be borne in mind that when the Social Credit government of Alberta came into power there were only 75 miles of hard-surface roads in the whole province of Alberta. There were 80,000 miles of roads but only 75 miles of them were hard surfaced and that hard surface was the result of an experiment with the Athabasca tar sands and those hard-surface roads were not anything like what we call hard-surface roads today. Anybody who will go into Alberta today and travel over the magnificent system of highways to be found there will wonder how in the world any government of an agricultural province built that many fine roads in the course of 19 years. The prosperity certificates made possible the start. They helped to tide Alberta out of a financial position any other government would have found impossible.
I will say this. If a Liberal government had gone into power there, unless it had had a special dispensation from Ottawa or somewhere else, it could never have managed at all.
What might the prosperity certificates have done for Alberta if they could have been free from the handicap of stamps? The number of prosperity certificates that could
The Address-Mr. Blackmore have been issued and used in Alberta would have depended upon the surplus goods and services there were in Alberta ready for the people to buy and use, and that amount was simply stupendous. I do not know how many prosperity certificates could have been used but my opinion is that the government. could have issued enough of them until prices began to go up. Of course, the minute prices begin to go up, then you have inflation. That is the way to judge.
There are a great many people who say a great deal about the prosperity certificates, and who try to hold them up to ridicule and all that sort of thing. But that is not helping to solve the problems of this country. The Liberals today who are in power-the great big party with a tremendous majority -are just sitting like a lot of frozen tomato plants. They do not know what to do about this unemployment situation and they are trying to whistle in the dark to make themselves believe that the thing does not exist. But they just do not know what to do. Meanwhile their agents are at work misrepresenting Social Credit, the only thing that could help them solve the problem. I am sure I do not know what will happen if depression actually sets in. I am not saying that it will set in, but there is every indication that unemployment is going to increase. I ask the Liberals frankly: What are you going to do about this unemployment in case it continues to increase? Are you just going to sit like a lot of frozen tomatoes, waiting hopelessly just as your forebears did from 1935 to 1939-it is enough to make anyone just nauseated; it is a disgusting situation-while men tramped up and down and rode back and forth on the cars, almost hating the country in which they lived?
I ask: What harm did the prosperity certificates do to anyone? Did they ever cause inflation? No; no rise in prices. Was any one of them not redeemed? No; they were all redeemed in good Canadian money, except those that were not presented for redemption. The cost of the stamp was deducted but that is all. I ask once more: What would the Liberals have done? I should like to know what the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr Prudham) and the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) would have done. I should like to have seen them form a government in the province of Alberta at that time and to have seen how they would have performed. These men are loud in their demands to destroy the government of the province of Alberta but just let them try to find a way out of the difficulties that faced Alberta then or that face Canada now.

The Address-Mr. Blackmore They would fail just as miserably as the Liberals failed in this house in 1935 to deal with unemployment and other ills in this country.
If the Liberals had gone into power in the province of Alberta of course they would *have gone for a loan. All they can think about is debt. They are never satisfied unless the country is loaded with an unbearable burden of debt. I think it was only five or six years ago that Harper Prowse, leader of the Liberal party in Alberta, said he would borrow $100 million and build a blanket of roads all over Alberta. That is exactly what he would do. He would have had the province loaded with such a burden of debt that every return it received from every source would have been required to service the debt. These Liberals would be perfectly happy to be able to wave helpless hands, shrug shoulders, and say they could not do anything about it.
If the Liberal organization had been in power there what would they have done? In those days the dominion government was talking about imposing a loan council upon the provinces which meant that in order for a province to obtain any amount of money beyond a certain figure it had to agree to allow the dominion government to tell it what it could or could not borrow. If Alberta had accepted a loan council in those days then her financial autonomy would have been destroyed. That is what the Liberals would have done. Meanwhile they would have left unemployed the people who were ordinarily employed on the roads through the use of prosperity certificates.
Just in passing I might ask the question: Why does the hon. member bring up the prosperity certificates here? I want to attribute nothing but the very best motives but it would be surprising if he did not bring up the prosperity certificates with the intention of trying to discredit the great Social Credit administration in the province of Alberta. The certificates were a trivial little thing that was only one of the struggles that the province made in its tremendous efforts to get out of the difficulties it was in.
Then I refer to the matter of dictatorship. It is an absolute falsehood to say that a Social Credit administration would have to have a dictatorship. If I do not know as much about it as the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna), it would be a most astonishing situation. The statement that Social Crediters believe that printing money is all that is necessary in order to solve the difficulties of the country is just as false and preposterous as the other piece of nonsense.


I should like to give the house a picture of something on the happy side. What I have already given is a picture of the very unhappy situation which faced Alberta at that time. What is the situation of Alberta today as she faces this great fiftieth anniversary of her becoming a province? From a Canadian Press dispatch that appeared in the Lethbridge Herald of September 16, 1954, we learn that Alberta's net surplus for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954, was $22,614,000. That is just about $9 million more than the total revenue Alberta had the first year after the Social Credit government took office in 1935.
In the year ended March 31, 1954, Alberta had revenues of $197,043,200, more than $42 million greater than the previous year. That is how this province of Alberta is growing today. Yet these Liberals would destroy the administration that accomplished that! How can they consider themselves to be patriotic Albertans?


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: If you will just listen you will learn something, but you do not learn if you do not listen. The government received from petroleum and natural gas leases $49,590,010. That is leases. The province of Alberta has reserved lands contiguous to parcels on which oil has been discovered, has held them until the time when people wished to have them and has sold the drilling rights on them on the open market at auction. During that one year the revenue from sales of such leases was $49,590,010. As I told some hon. members last year, if a Liberal government had been in power they would have had that money to divide among their friends.
The net funded debt of Alberta decreased in the year by $3,019,382. The unfunded debt of the province decreased by $83,304. Capital expenditure for the year was $89,911,864, including $35,228,877 spent on highways, bridges and ferries. There was $5,387,535 spent on public buildings and other public works, while $3,207,790 was spent on the St. Mary and Milk rivers irrigation project for capital development. The University of Alberta received $1,165,216 by way of capital expenditure. I wonder whether there is any reason why a government doing all that should be destroyed.
Loans and advances to municipalities and rural electrification associations amounted to $34,638,465 compared with $6,093,876 the previous year. The amount spent on public welfare, institutions and charitable grants was $36,453,388. Alberta's income from the federal-provincial tax agreement was $29,802,545. I am putting these last figures

on the record just so that we shall not have the Liberals running around telling people that the dominion government gave all the money to the province.
From the budget speech of the premier of Alberta delivered on March 5, 1954, we learn certain things about the debt situation of Alberta and I am going to give a series of figures so that we can see what has happened to the debt of Alberta since 1936 when the Social Credit government first began to manage the affairs of the province. As of March 31, 1936, the total debt was $167,027,144. In 1940 it was $156,501,773. In 1945 it was $150,159,819. All that happened before oil in any large measure was discovered. Oil was first discovered in great quantity in the Leduc field in 1947. As of March 31, 1950, the debt was $130,600,687. As of March 31, 1952, the debt was $100,437,090, and as of March 31, 1953, it was $97,452,424.


An hon. Member:: Table it.


John Horne Blackmore: And at December 31, 1953, it was $94,283,654. These figures show that there has been a very rapid decrease in the debt ever since the Social Credit administration took office. Not only were they able to pick up the reins and carry on by devices which they were able to work out, but they were able to reduce the debt from the very first year. Yet the Liberals in Alberta want to destroy the administration that has done that!


Mr. Prudham:: Why do you not tell them about Alberta defaulting?


John Horne Blackmore: Come into committee where I can get at you and I will take you all to pieces. You have not got a leg to stand on-just a poor, miserable politician, that is all.
Cash and investments in the hands of the province at December 31, 1953, amounting to $169,160,868, consisted of the following:
Cash	 $ 5,480.938
Bonds and debentures	 80,355^568
Loans to municipalities:
Self-liquidating Projects Act _____ 19,315,400
Municipal Capital Expenditures
Loans Act	 24,736,111
Rural electrification loans	 4,092,288
Loans to Alberta government telephones	 35,180,563

Show me in the British Empire any unit of government anywhere that is doing anything to compare with that?


George Prudham: Why do you not tell them that Alberta was the only province that defaulted on its bonds?
The Address-Mr. Meunier


John Horne Blackmore: I could not hear what the hon. member said but he will have plenty of opportunity to repeat it in committee some time. When he does I will aim to be right here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to have to inform the hon. member that his time has now expired.
(Translation):


Mr. Adrien Meunier (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for the brilliant and courteous manner in which they have fulfilled their task.
I was not at all surprised at the oratory of the mover, the hon. member for Verdun, who has been for many years a fellow member of the Montreal bar.
I am sure that the movers of the address have expressed the feelings of their electors and that the latter have reason to congratulate themselves and to be proud of their members.
I take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the government on the efficient and worthy legislation already enacted and which they propose to enact during the session.
I represent an important Montreal constituency of approximately 100,000 people made up of Canadians of various racial origins, French, English, Jews, Poles, Italians and Ukrainians; all are unanimous in approving the way in which the government administers the affairs of the country.
The amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act have been well received by the public at large and they will alleviate the hardship of seasonal unemployment among a certain class of workers.
Some of the previous speakers have asserted that those amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act were but palliatives and would not remedy the situation. To refute their arguments one can say that there is and always will be seasonal unemployment, owing to the geographical position and the climate of our country.
I have been living in Montreal for over 30 years and every winter there has been a period of unemployment, more particularly among day labourers. Those people are happy today to be able to receive unemployment insurance benefits during that temporary period of unemployment; they consider this legislation beneficial and will find it even better following the amendments made by the government.

The Address-Mr. Meunier
It has also been stated in the house, Mr. Speaker, that the government's immigration policy was creating unemployment and depriving our workers of their livelihood. In the constituency of Papineau which I represent, there are many foreigners, the majority of which is made up of Italians. One must not believe that all these people come to Canada to seek employment and work as day labourers; many of them bring funds and go into business. In my constituency and elsewhere several of them have established marble, jewelry and watchmaking industries, and they employ Canadian labour without racial discrimination.
I have always found that the government's immigration policy was selective and that it did not increase the number of unemployed; on the contrary, it has helped Canadian industry to develop and expand. I am confident that the government will maintain that policy which is a source of stability for the Canadian economy.
The amendments which the government intends to introduce to the Blind Persons Act have been greeted with satisfaction by that group of citizens. A large number of blind people are finding it hard to make a living in spite of their talents and skills. They can hardly be expected to resort to begging. I feel confident that this government action will help lighten their burden and make their life somewhat more cheerful.
Another piece of social security legislation which was generally welcomed throughout the country was the Disabled Persons Act, passed by the house last year. This action by the government and especially by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), gained high praise everywhere. It will bring those people who come under the act valuable aid and comfort. These disabled people, who were a burden for others, will be able to bear their infirmity better, remembering that they are not forgotten. They will forget the difficulties of life and be in a position to procure relief and welfare for themselves.
Now, before closing, I wish to take exception to a remark made lately by one of the C.C.F. members in this house. The hon. member said that Quebec was the sore point with regard to national unity, that its people would react and that such reaction would be to the benefit of the communist party. I shall tell my hon. friend, the member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier), that, if he has drawn such conclusions after visiting the province of Quebec, I wonder in what circles and in what places he has been. Yesterday the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin) gave him enough details on the life and

people of Quebec to make it unnecessary for me to go over it again.
The people of the province of Quebec are respectful of authority and of established order and I dare say to the hon. member that, if a very small group of the communist party stirs with no set purpose, the whole of the population cannot be made responsible for it. One has to live but a short time in the province of Quebec, as in any other province, to see that the people are in no wise different from the people of other provinces, but only that they have a Canadian mentality like the others and that they want the progress of the country, national unity and peace both in Canada and abroad.
We shall never see the day when the province of Quebec will be in the hands of the communist party, because the people of Quebec are too hardworking, sound and honest to believe in Utopia.
The people of Quebec are happy and content to live in a democracy and especially under the leadership of the Liberal party, which they have nearly always chosen to guide their political destiny.
(Text):


Mr. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, in common with many others who have preceded me in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne may I offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick), upon the fine manner in which they delivered their addresses. Their efforts were definitely worth while, and I was reminded of the occasion a few years ago when I had the opportunity of delivering my maiden speech in the House of Commons. With my own experience in mind, I believe I can sympathize with them in their ordeal.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to your attention and to that of hon. members a simple and constructive step which can be taken immediately by the government to increase employment by at least 10 per cent in one of our most important industries, and at the same time save some Canadian consumers $71 million this year. I refer to a decision in the 1955 budget which would remove the excise or luxury taxes now levied on passenger automobiles.
I hasten to say that I am not advocating the removal of all taxes from automobiles. The present total of taxation amounts to 25 per cent of the manufacturer's selling price. Of this amount, 10 per cent is in the form of the general commodity sales tax, and the remaining 15 per cent is a luxury tax. It is this utterly unrealistic added burden of taxation on one of the most important and, I might add, most expensive necessities of

normal life under modern conditions in this country, which should be removed.
I am certain there is scarcely a member in the house who does not feel that this luxury tax should have been removed some years ago, when the reason for its imposition had ceased to exist. I refer of course to the fact that the automobile luxury tax, as we know it today, was first of all a wartime austerity measure and then a control device to conserve exchange and to combat inflation. It has been continued at its present or at a higher level for some years now, regardless of its depressing effect upon an industry which accounts for one-eighth of all retail sales, regardless of its limiting effects upon employment and regardless of the severe hardship it imposes upon consumers in the low and average income brackets.
The two great problems facing many Canadians today are unemployment and inadequate family income to meet the demands of our modern standard of living. The government could go a long way toward relieving both these problems if, in the forthcoming budget, it would abolish this outmoded and unrealistic luxury tax on passenger cars.
In some measure I speak of this growing need as a representative of the riding of Ontario, one of the two great centres of automobile manufacturing in Canada. I speak also in much larger measure for all Canadians who are forced to pay this arbitrary and artificial penalty of over $400 if they wish to buy the most modestly priced family car of Canadian manufacture on the market today. I admit that they should pay something, but I submit, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure all hon. members will agree, that $150 or $160 per car, which is the amount of the sales tax, is a fair contribution of this family necessity to the federal treasury.
The luxury tax costs each modest car owner an additional $240 or so. It is a luxury tax but in this case it is not imposed on the luxury. I think it will be generally agreed that this proposition is self-evident. The facts are-and this is the finding of a very thorough and extensive survey

that 83 per cent of passenger car use on an average day in Canada is for essential travel of one kind and another; that 65 per cent of every hundred miles of car travel is directly connected with the necessity of making a living; and that today almost one million of our citizens are driving, for these essential purposes, cars which are ten years old and more. Apart altogether from the important safety factors involved, it must be obvious that the continuance of this luxury penalty on new car ownership is seriously affecting the efficiency of the entire national productive effort.
The Address-Mr. Starr
The estimate I have given of a 10 per cent immediate increase in employment, if this luxury tax were removed, is conservative. Most labour leaders, I am told, think it would be considerably higher. Even so, I know what a 10 per cent increase in high pay employment would mean, not only in my own riding, or in the Windsor area, but in many other parts of Canada. Mr. Speaker, 260,000 Canadians depend for all or a large part of their income on the manufacture of motor vehicles, the supply of materials and component parts, and the sales and service of these vehicles. All would receive benefits, direct or indirect, from the removal of this luxury tax. Four thousand or perhaps five thousand new jobs would open up in the manufacturing industry alone and as many again in the supply industries. The latter, incidentally, actually give work to more people than the manufacturing industry itself.
I need not explain to this house, Mr. Speaker, that I am not talking about stopgap, marginal, low wage employment. The jobs I speak of are preferred jobs in our national work force. If our economy continues to expand, and the Canadian-made automobile is allowed its full share of the domestic market, they will be steady jobs.
It will give hon. members some idea of the magnitude of the burden of this present luxury tax on the payroll resources of the industry when I say that this year, and I mean the fiscal year 1954, the federal taxes paid by the automobile manufacturing industry in Canada exceeded the total paid in wages and salaries by some $13 million. The figures, I believe, are $137 million in taxes and $124 million in wages and salaries.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that on these facts alone, the immediate removal of the luxury tax would be fully justified. But there are other compelling reasons, perhaps the foremost of which is the long list of consumer benefits that would follow from the rechannelling of those $70 million into new disposable income. Some of it would be spent on cars, and much of it would be spent on other commodities. Regardless of what happened to it, the fact remains that Mr. and Mrs. Canada would have $70 million more in their pockets and purses, to spend or save, than last year.
If there is anybody on the opposite side of the house-and I am sure there is not one but many-who may be interested in raising the level of Canadian retail spending next year, I commend this simple and available source of substantial millions.
The exciting prospect of the immediate redistribution of these millions is even more
828	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Starr appealing if we look at the kind of Canadian families who will benefit the most. They are, naturally, the people who buy most of our passenger cars. Who are they? Again I quote the very reliable independent survey made of this and other basic facts of automobile ownership. Although it was made about three years ago, I am informed by those conversant with up-to-date statistics that its conclusions are still valid.
At the time of the survey, 81 of every 100 passenger cars were owned by households whose senior wage earner had an annual income of less than $4,000. Sixty-five of every hundred passenger cars were owned by families whose main source of income was less than $3,200. I have said that the luxury tax amounts to well over $200 in the cost of the average car. Its removal, Mr. Speaker, would be the equivalent of a round of pay raises of between 5 and 10 per cent for every $2,000 to $4,000 wage earner who buys a new car this year. I might say also at this point, sir, that I have inquired into the matter of passing on to the consumer the luxury tax removal, and I am most reliably informed that the entire reduction would be passed on by the manufacturers and dealers.
Also important in this connection-and I trust this aspect will have the serious consideration of the minister-is the application of the tax reduction or removal to cars in the hands of dealers. On some other occasions the government policy has been strangely inconsistent on this point. When the luxury or sales tax has been increased, this has generally been made to apply to all cars still in the hands of dealers. On the other hand, when reductions have been made it has not been applied to such cars. Perhaps I should explain that the sales and excise taxes on passenger cars are collected from the manufacturer before the car goes to the dealer for sale to the consumer. It is to all intents and purposes still an unsold car, merely having moved from the factory into the chain of distribution. Surely it is most unfair to all concerned to treat these cars still in the sales rooms and waiting to be sold as though they had actually been sold while the higher tax levels were in effect.
Of course, the tax will have already been paid on these cars by the manufacturer, and we all know how reluctant governments are to give back money to taxpayers, but surely the injustice of retaining such tax moneys is too obvious to allow this kind of thing ever to happen again. I have made some inquiries as to the practical aspects of giving these rebates, and am informed that the necessary checking, auditing and policing of dealers


is a simple matter which the large manufacturers could handle on behalf of the government without any untoward incidents.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I will go so far today as to ask the Minister of Finance to make an immediate announcement that whenever new rates are announced, whether up or down, they will apply to all cars not actually sold to consumers. This is the only way to be absolutely fair. It might be thought that such an announcement at this time would suggest that a reduction or removal of the luxury tax had already been decided on. But this is not the case. Whether the tax is changed or not

and this could be acknowledged in the minister's statement-there will still be hesitation on the part of dealers to accept new car deliveries between now and the bringing down of the budget, unless such a policy is announced now.
It is common knowledge that there are rumours of some measure of automobile tax reduction in the air. I think it is not too much to say that the minister himself has had a good deal to do with starting those rumours. It would be a wise and gracious act on his part-and of immense help to the industry-if he would now recognize the difficult position of the dealers and state that no decision has been reached about next year's auto taxes-which is, I am sure, quite true-but that if or when changes are made, the new rates, up or down, will apply only when cars are sold to their new actual owners.
We must of course consider the effect of the tax removal on government revenues. I am sure that this is the question which is most important to the minister at the moment. I have said that the sum total of revenue from the luxury tax is currently about $71 million. However, even its complete removal would not mean a loss of anything like this amount to the treasury. I have heard various estimates of the actual loss, but the consensus of informed opinion is that it might be no more than half of the present tax "take", or about $35 million. This is due, of course, to the fact that the $71 million would go almost in its entirety into the main stream of consumer spending on cars and other commodities. The current estimate of the direct federal revenue on all commodity spending is between 20 and 25 per cent. That is one way the treasury would get back a substantial part of the $71 million. It would gain in other ways also.
For example, it would gain possibly 10,000 new taxpayers from the new jobs which the tax cut would create. Whether they came from other industries or not, the fact remains that new jobs would be created throughout

the economy, and we all know that new jobs mean inevitably new heads for the tax collector to count.
It would gain also from the substantial volume of new spending on cars, and from additional taxes on the accessories that always accompany new car ownership. The same applies to tires, car radios and so on, whose sales would be immediately stimulated by the upturn in new car buying.
I could mention many other general benefits from the measure of tax relief which I am advocating. It would afford some measure of relief to the overcrowded public transit systems of many of our cities. It would make life easier and simpler for those hundreds of thousands of Canadians who travel many miles to their work by passenger car, and to all of those who have fallen in with a new pattern of Canadian living, namely a small nome in the suburbs or countryside.
In closing, I am well aware that someone may ask the important question:	Why this
year? I think there are some compelling answers to that question. The sharp rise in unemployment is one current development that I am sure the government is anxious to check. I believe that the minister will find ready corroboration for the estimate of new jobs I have suggested, namely a 10 per cent rise in automotive manufacturing employment and at least an equivalent rise in the supply and service industries.
Another good reason for the tax cut this year is the fact, not generally realized, that one of the contributing factors to the economic slowdown of last year was a drop of 18 per cent in the total sales of the Canadian automobile manufacturing industry in 1954 over the previous year. I am told that the luxury tax removal would almost certainly restore that 18 per cent drop in the current year and then go on to add new production records to the output of this great industry in the years ahead.
I trust that I have said enough to make it clear, and to convince hon. members of the house, and particularly the government, that the 1955 budget is indeed the time for the final and long overdue removal of the luxury tax on this now common necessity.


Mr. N. C. Schneider (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, there has been considerable criticism regarding the excessive time occupied by the debate on the speech from the throne at the opening of each session. We should, however, remember that this debate is a report on the state of the nation. Each member of the house is given an opportunity to speak on the problems of his particular part of the dominion, and in that way parliament is given a survey of the problems and needs of the whole of Canada.
The Address-Mr. Schneider
Having been honoured by the privilege of seconding the motion in reply to the speech from the throne when I entered parliament, I can appreciate the excellent efforts by the mover (Mr. Leduc) and seconder (Mr. Carrick) this session. I wish to associate myself with all those who have congratulated them on their really fine speeches, and I feel that our parliament has gained two worthy members who will surely be an asset in our debates.
After a long and busy life in business, I am dismayed at the waste of time occupied by many speeches in the house and the needless quotations from newspapers and other writers giving opinions of very little interest to other members. We are elected to this parliament to express the opinions and the wishes of our constituents, but above all I believe that we are elected to act on our own decisions, and are personally responsible.
I am delighted that the throne speech calls for some revision of the house rules and I urge that private members' speeches be limited to 20 minutes. It has been estimated that the cost of operating parliament while in session is $10,000 a day. At this time we are sitting 5i hours per day, and that figures out to $1,818 per hour, and 20 minutes, which is one-third of that, cost $606. Surely no private member is vain enough to think that his ideas cannot be expressed in $606 worth of time, and that he should occupy $1,212 worth of time in 40 minutes.
The savings effected by this reduction would be fair to all and the party leaders' and ministers' privileges could remain as they are, giving ample time for summing up all the arguments presented without endless repetition by speaker after speaker.
Also the saving in the cost of printing of Hansard would be surprising when we think of the thousands of copies printed, and finally the printing and binding into those rows of big black books which gather dust in our offices.
A shortening of time of speeches would result in more time for the estimates at the end of the session and the real subject matter and purpose of the debate would benefit by a sharper focus resulting from the elimination of unnecessary repetition.
To faithfully represent the highly industrialized riding of Waterloo North, I must make a request regarding the excessive number of reports required from various departments of government. These federal reports added to all those from other levels of government represent a terrific amount of work in our business offices. Business is required to report the amount of various supplies and services used in the past year, and also estimate their requirements for the coming year.

The Address-Mr. Schneider How much, machinery, building construction, coal, fuel oil, and many other items require a great many reports? One company figures that they made out a total of 167 returns.
There is no denying the value of these statistics to some people, but I feel that as a rule the summary of it all is published so long after it is gathered that it is almost worthless. I urge the Department of Trade and Commerce, and particularly the bureau of statistics, to immediately give consideration to a study of the co-ordination of these government demands for information, and that all these questionnaires be looked at intelligently and sympathetically and some means be found to consolidate and minimize these reports.
The monthly coal statement is an example of their complaint. Coal was a problem during the war, but at present it is in good supply, and the same applies to fuel oil and many other items. In addition to the monthly reports we must also give a summary of the whole year, and woe unto the manager whose year's figures do not correspond with the monthly reports.
I have in my hand a resolution from the city council of Kitchener reading as follows:
That whereas the current unemployment situation in the city is a source of deep concern;
And whereas the Department of National Defence has already indicated their intention to construct an armouries in the city;
And whereas in the opinion of this council an armouries building in the city is greatly needed;
And whereas the building of a district income tax office has been proposed for this city;
Be it therefore resolved that this council petition the federal government to proceed immediately with the construction of these buildings as a means of alleviating in some measure the present unemployment.
There is also a letter from the Kitchener-Waterloo family service bureau board of directors drawing attention to the extent of the distress prevailing in our community because of the lack of some form of relief for the employable unemployed who have reached the end of their resources. The building of the new income tax office in Kitchener is assured, but the armouries is still a crying need in this hundred year old community with a combined population of over 70,000 in the twin cities of Kitchener-Waterloo. The patience and loyalty of our four units, the 54th light anti-aircraft regiment, the 48th field squadron, R.C.E.; the 3rd company, R.C.A.S.C., and the 24th field ambulance is commendable, and the oddity of an anti-aircraft regiment housed on the sixth floor of an office building does not help the militia.
I do not favour the idea of constructing public works projects for the purpose of relieving unemployment, but it would be of some assistance and would be justified in this


case. My deep concern is for the 3,479 unplaced applicants listed in the last report from our local unemployment insurance office. Many of the causes of the present business recession cannot be avoided during this painful readjustment to quick-changing world conditions. Canada took great pride in rapidly raising her standard of living, but now we find that we have priced ourselves almost out of the world markets. The only exception is the market of the United States, and they buy from us only when it suits them, and only until we interfere with their producers, at which time they protect them by raising the tariff or putting on an embargo.
Some of our hon. friends in the opposition seem to be extremely worried when Liberal members from industrial centres mention protection. We are labelled protectionist Liberals, but that does not worry us at all because we have the confidence of our constituents and throughout the years the Liberal government has always followed a policy of reasonable protection for our young and growing industries.


Mr. Rowe:: Hear, hear.


Norman C. Schneider: I am really amused by the criticism of opposition members, particularly the acting leader (Mr. Rowe), who feels that I am inconsistent and shed crocodile tears when pleading for protection for the factory workers of my riding. At first I was quite flattered by this attention from a veteran of 25 years in this parliament. I am no longer concerned about his misleading remarks, and have decided that his irritation is caused by the fact that in doing my duty I am doing what his non-conservative Conservative party should do according to policy and tradition.


William Earl Rowe: You should be sitting over here.


Norman C. Schneider: I chose this seat.
During the last session there were as many good speeches for protection of the textile mills from this side of the house as there were from the Conservatives. The really outstanding speeches on behalf of the textile mills came from the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair), on the Conservative benches, and the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. White) on the government benches. The Conservatives spent most of their time on the problem of wheat, hoping to gain favour in the west.
As the Acting Leader of the Opposition knows quite well, the percentage of Conservative voters in the cities in my riding is very high, almost 50 per cent. In criticizing me, does he suggest I should disregard their present plight and talk politics instead of

employment? I have chosen to place the interests of my people above party politics. The hon. member can follow his choice of politics first, but he cannot wisecrack me into following his ideas.


William Earl Rowe: We have one convert, anyway.


Norman C. Schneider: Yes, a wisecracker. In the present recession-


An hon. Member:: The 20 minutes are up.


Norman C. Schneider: Oh, no. In the present recession, the problem has very seldom been insufficient protection. We have practically the same protection at this time as we had when conditions were considered to be at their best. In my opinion, the real causes of our problems today are the following: First, the dumping of surplus goods into our country in spite of Bill No. 29 passed during the last session, which makes provision for a price not lower than the average of the past six months in the country of origin. Secondly, the importation into our country of high grade goods and equipment which undersell our product in our home market because of the low wage rates in the country of origin. A good example of this is in the manufacture of electrical goods. The wages paid are as follows: Switzerland, 45 cents per hour; England, 53 cents; France, 58 cents; Belgium, 62 cents; Canada, $1.51 and the United States, $1.87. This comparison of rate is applicable to many importations into Canada today. In the face of this condition, how can we expect to sell in the export market?
Another cause of our unemployment is the serious loss of purchasing power of our farmers, both in the prairies and in the east. Farm income has dropped 15 per cent in the last two years, mostly as a result of lower prices for wheat. World wheat prices are definitely beyond our control, and along with all other wheat producing countries we suffered a drop of approximately 13 cents per bushel below the previous crop year. Because of the high cost of almost everything the farmer buys, he is having difficulty in making a profit on many of his products. The root of the problem is that while his selling prices appear to him to be low, these same prices have been amongst the highest in the world. According to last year's records the following wholesale prices prevail: beef in England, 21 cents; in Montreal, 33 cents; bacon in England, 28 cents; Montreal, 62 cents; cheese in England, 24 cents; Montreal, 32 cents; eggs in England, 50-6 cents per dozen; Montreal, 52-4 cents. The problem is to find some way to market our surplus abroad at prices which will give the producer a fair return. Experience has
The Address-Mr. Schneider proven that when the farmer is prosperous he spends his money on equipment made in the city and we are all prosperous.
Another serious cause of unemployment, and one which is particularly irritating to our Canadian manufacturers, is the unsympathetic attitude of some of our government purchasing officials. Directives have been given to all such officials by the various ministers, but we still find orders and contracts for foreign made equipment being given when a Canadian company could supply it, sometimes at a lower price. Orders are sometimes given to Canadian companies who in turn buy and supply foreign goods. It is an unpleasant experience to lose such an order to a foreign firm, pay taxes to pay for the goods and send your employees home for lack of work. I appeal to all government spending bodies to carefully check each and every purchase to make sure that all possible employment is given to Canadian workmen.


William Earl Rowe: Hear, hear.


Norman C. Schneider: It is easy to stand here and say what you think is wrong with our country, but it is quite another matter to offer a solution to these problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Norman C. Schneider: Who is making this speech, please?


William Earl Rowe: It sounds like a Conservative.


Mr. Hodgson:: It is your own members in the rump over there who are interrupting.


Norman C. Schneider: It is easy to stand here and say what you think is wrong with our country, but it is quite another matter to offer a solution to these problems. Our young country could be compared to a young boy at his first birthday party. Johnny Canuck is a lively youngster with a reputation as a hearty eater and a fast grower. Other people outside his family have great confidence in him and are urging him to eat everything in sight. They are killing him with kindness by feeding him operating capital for investment in this wonderful country faster than he can digest it. Foreign capital has been fed into Johnny Canuck so fast that his dollar value has a premium of 3i per cent over the dollar of the richest country in the world, namely the United States of America. This diet is too rich for his stomach and while this high dollar value feels good at first, it is just like Johnny's cake and ice cream, and now he has an old-fashioned bellyache. Our high dollar value of 1.034 is a serious handicap in selling our surplus products in the export market. If our 3 A per cent premium were removed we

The Address-Mr. Bryce would gain an advantage of approximately 6 cents per bushel on our export sales of wheat. That would result in a faster movement of our surplus wheat and would greatly relieve Johnny Canuck's stomach ache.
Our dollar at par, or lower, would immediately stimulate our export trade and it would discourage the spending of our Canadian shopping and vacation dollar in the United States with whom we are so far out of balance.
Very few of us have training or experience in international finance, and I am sure I do not know how this devaluation of the Canadian dollar can be accomplished. But unpleasant as, it is, many Canadians agree that it is one of the solutions for the present problem. While I certainly do not advocate or compare our present position with that of Great Britain, I believe that they devalued the pound sterling to about half of its former or normal value. Surely if they did it our financiers can also find a way to give us some relief.
Great Britain is enjoying full employment while we sit here with Johnny Canuck's stomach full of rich food and like all small boys he does not want to take his castor oil. This parliament should encourage our finance minister in his present efforts to find some solution to this most pressing problem and to give us at least an even break with the United States dollar in securing export trade.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) and what he had to say with regard to what it costs when one rises to speak for 10, 15 or 20 minutes in the house. I have been trying to figure how much it is going to cost for me to speak for this 5 minutes. However, I am not going to allow a little thing like that to worry me, because this is something that has been going on since 1867 and it will not be changed in my time. I want to draw something to the attention of the government and I am not going to take long about it. I have never before spoken twice in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Many letters are arriving at our desks these days asking what the government intends to do regarding support prices on the various agricultural commodities. I want to take this opportunity of bringing this very important matter before the house at this time.
Canadian farmers have shown a strong preference for stability in the prices they receive for their products as against the wide price fluctuations that result from the operation of the so-called free market. Undoubtedly the majority, like industrial workers, prefer a reasonable, assured income to a "feast-or-famine" arrangement.

At the end of world war II, in 1944, the Agricultural Prices Support Act was passed "to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture" and "to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations". The act was continued until 1950 when it was made permanent legislation.
In practice, the act has done little to provide the farmer with a stable income but has rather been used in times of emergency, such as the 1952 foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, to ward off some of the effects of the drastic reduction in the farmers' earnings. Also, the three-man prices support board set up under the act has done little or nothing to keep farm income under review and take steps to carry out the terms of the act. This board was established to examine the need for support for various commodities from time to time. The act laid down no conditions for support and no methods for determining the extent of support. Each commodity is treated as a special case. In practice the board acts only when approached by a group of producers, or in a widely recognized emergency. At no time has a formula been set up that people would understand. When a price has been set, it seems to have been something that someone reached up in the air for and said, "That is it". There should be a formula based on the cost of production and some return for the producer, and it should be something that would apply to all the different cases. The board can only recommend, since the cabinet decides what support, if any, shall be given.
Support may apply throughout certain periods to all or to only a limited quantity of a commodity which is produced in certain areas. It may be given by offers to purchase or by guarantee of price. In 1944 a fund of $200 million was allowed, or set aside with losses to be recovered from the consolidated fund each year.
By far the greatest expenditures-about 85 per cent from 1944 to March 31, 1954- have been those made for hogs and cattle as a result of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.
Most support has been short-term. Butter is the only commodity for which support prices have been announced for two year periods, but even then the announcement has been made just before the beginning of the period.
That the board deals most frequently with wholesalers and packers rather than directly with farmers has provoked strong criticism in the country. Prices are negotiated with the wholesalers and packers so that they

will be able to pay, with some profit to themselves, certain prices to producers. It has been said that farmers have received as little as 10 cents a dozen for eggs for which packers received 38 cents plus 5 cents for storage. Instances were cited in the House of Commons here of producers obtaining from $1 to $2 less in Winnipeg, and from $3 to $4 less in Saskatoon than they were entitled to per hundredweight of beef. Even when the full price has been allowed it has often not covered the farmers' costs, with the result that production was drastically reduced in the following season. In 1950 potato growers in the maritimes planted 105,000 acres of potatoes. The next year their price was supported at only $1.20 per barrel and acreage was reduced by 35 per cent. Consumers in Toronto had to pay 66 cents for 10 pounds of potatoes in January, 1952.
In its brief to the cabinet in 1953 the Canadian Federation of Agriculture stated:
The announcement of the reduction in the floor price for hogs from 26 cents to 23 cents apparently resulted in a very serious reduction in sow breedings. . . . We believe that in the best interest of more stable production and price, it would be advisable to establish a higher floor than 23 cents in order that production might be maintained iu future months at least at the level of domestic requirements.
Because of the low support price production dropped, and pork loin sold in Toronto in January, 1954, at 78 cents per pound.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if my hon. friend were not reading his speech he could not get so far away from the facts as he has been ever since he started.


Mr. Fulton:: That is not a point of order.


William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Speaker, I take credit for being a better reader than some of the members on the other side of the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: Some of the others stick to the truth.


William Scottie Bryce: That is all right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And more worth reading, too.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Scottie Bryce: Again in 1954 this protest was made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture:
Our federation believes that the purpose of the egg support price as a protection to producers against loss and as a stabilizing influence in the industry is not being fully achieved because the level of support is too low. . . . Study should be given to establishing equivalent support prices at the producer level.
The failure of the present policy to ensure fair and stable returns for agriculture has become increasingly evident in the past two years. In 1944, when the act was passed, the
The Address-Mr. Bryce relation between the prices of farm products and the commodities and services used by farmers was fairly satisfactory. It continued to be so until 1951, although certain sections of agriculture experienced many difficulties. In 1953 general wholesale prices were 69 per cent above those of 1944. The 11 factor index of principal farm costs had risen 61 per cent and farm living costs had risen by 66 per cent, but the wholesale prices of farm products were only 40 per cent higher than those of 1944. The situation is now further deteriorating and the avowed aims of the 1944 act are far from being realized.
In its latest brief the inter provincial farm union council had this to say:
There is only one realistic and equitable solution for this problem. That is the immediate adoption of a new national agricultural policy that will provide price guarantees for all Canadian farm products sold on domestic markets on a basis equivalent and adjusted from time to time to the cost of living index. This price, naturally, would be in line with the prices of consumer goods and services required by farmers.
The price for eggs has come under criticism by the poultry producers but while the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has set the price at 38 cents the producer does not get that and in many cases takes a lot less.


James Garfield Gardiner: He does if they are grade A large.


William Scottie Bryce: I am delighted to hear what the minister has to say but if he mumbles I cannot hear it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I never mumble.


William Scottie Bryce: Let me hear what you have to say.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Scottie Bryce: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Sluder:: Read a little slower.


William Scottie Bryce: The minister has said that the egg stations should be paying at least 32 cents per dozen to the producers, but the letters that members get prove that the farmers do not receive 32 cents per dozen for their grade A eggs.


James Garfield Gardiner: The minister never said that at all.


William Scottie Bryce: Well-


Hazen Robert Argue: He just prepared the text that said it.


William Scottie Bryce: If you did not say it, it is just another of those things. The newspapers quoted you as saying it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no. It is not one of
those things, either.
834	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bryce


Hazen Robert Argue: The farmers get 27 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is 32 cents near Toronto and Montreal and there is a wider margin elsewhere.


William Scottie Bryce: I will take you to Manitoba where they are getting 20 cents a dozen.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, for nest run of eggs.


William Scottie Bryce: For No. 1 eggs.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, not under our support.


William Scottie Bryce: Oh yes. I will take you there. You and I will go to Manitoba and when you come back you will know more about it.


Hazen Robert Argue: He was there, Scottie, and that is why you are here.


William Scottie Bryce: There are 400,000 people employed in connection with the dairy industry and an industry like the dairy industry should be looked after. The production, processing and distribution of dairy products, together with the beef and veal obtained from the dairy cow, make the dairy industry a vital component part of our national economy. The many butter and cheese factories and con-densories in Canada, as well as the hundreds of milk plants, contribute much to our total national wealth and provide employment for a large number of Canadians. It should not be overlooked that milk is one of the most important foods in maintaining the health of our population.
The important role of the dairy industry with respect to both soil conservation and fertility is another important aspect which cannot be overlooked when estimating the significance of the industry as a whole. It is, therefore, of vital concern not only to those connected with the industry itself but to all Canadians to regard the future of our dairy industry with great care.
The amount of money that has been spent under the Agricultural Prices Support Act has been repeatedly published in the newspapers. From 1946 to March 31, 1954, $80 million was spent. Let us look at this $80 million that has been spent. The sum of $69 million was spent on beef and pork support during the foot-and-mouth disease, something the government could not help, something that nobody could help. It was a national disaster.


Irvin William Studer: That is not what you said at that time.


William Scottie Bryce: The $69 million should not be taken into consideration as being agricultural price support.


Irvin William Studer: That is not what you said at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Scottie Bryce: That leaves $11 million, and out of that $11 million only a little more than $1| million went for the support of butter. On the other hand, many other .products that were supported cost more than the butter support. For instance, there is gold. With the tremendous importance of the dairy industry the amount of $1J million was well spent money to keep that industry functioning.
I am sure everyone realizes that butter or butterfat is the key to the whole dairy industry. If you do not maintain this floor price then you are going to bring calamity and disaster to the dairy industry. If the people who are idle were provided with employment no doubt they would eat butter and there would be no surplus. I want to draw to the attention of the house that I am speaking not only for myself as a farmer, but on behalf of this group, who are representative of farmers who are dependent upon the dairy industry for their livelihood. I would be bold enough to say I am speaking for 400,000 dairy farmers who are facing disaster, if the government does not announce this butter price and let those farmers know what is going to be done before the cows freshen in the spring.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member who just concluded his speech that he is not the only one, nor is his group the only group or party in the house that speaks for the farmers. I know he has heard a great many speeches from the official opposition since the opening of this session which should warrant his coming to the sound conclusion that if any party has spoken at this session on behalf of the farmers, there can be no mistake as to its being the official opposition.
I should like to make two or three points briefly. The first is that in the last several years many parts of Canada have experienced misfortune. Since coming to the house I recall the disaster of the Fraser river flood, the fires at Rimouski and Cabano, the Red river or Winnipeg disaster and "Hurricane Hazel" which did so much damage not only in the Toronto area but in other parts of Canada.
Nor am I unmindful of the tragedy that befell the city of Sarnia because of the tornado in 1953. It so happened that it occurred almost exactly at six o'clock in the evening when the youngsters were probably in their kitchens, and citizens were

not on the streets. Otherwise we would have suffered a terrific death toll, because on street after street buildings were blown down, and the streets were littered with fallen trees and other debris. It is miraculous that we escaped without serious death loss.
My point is that in the event of tornadoes, hurricanes or fires such as I have mentioned, or in the event of flood damage, exemptions should be given from income tax. The nonbusiness property would be under one classification. I would suggest briefly that the difference between the value of the property immediately before the disaster and its value immediately after should be taken into consideration, and that such amount, less the insurance allocated to the insurers, should be the amount deducted for purposes of income tax.
Business loss would be in a different category, and income tax deductions could be the same as in the United States where the loss is in the proportion of the adjusted basis of the entire property which the value of the destroyed part bears to the value of the entire property. And such loss must also be reduced by any insurance or other compensations.
Mr. Speaker, some three years ago this coming April I spoke at length upon the necessity for lowering the level of the great lakes, not only because of the serious damage the lake levels have been doing to lake shore property, but for other reasons which should be taken into consideration immediately. We know that the St. Lawrence seaway project is under way, and that when it is completed the lake level will be lower than it is now. But I believe that at this time we must face the serious loss which property owners must endure before the lake level is reduced.
We have seen in the press recently that in the county of Essex and elsewhere in Ontario there is bound to be considerable damage this coming spring. And I can say without hesitation, living on the shore of lake Huron, that the high lake levels are doing a terrific amount of damage to very valuable property. I am not going to speak at length about the cause of these high levels, because there is some idea that permitting certain waters to flow into lake Superior, thus increasing the flow into lake Huron, could be controlled, and that the damage done by the increased flow is someone's responsibility. We hear it said from time to time that the federal government is responsible, or could be held responsible.
I am not arguing the merits of that particular case, but I think perhaps a sound case 50433-53J
The Address-Mr. J. W. Murphy could be made out. The point I make is that, pending completion of the St. Lawrence seaway scheme, action must be taken now. There is action that could be taken to lower the lake levels now. We understand that when the seaway is completed the levels of lakes Huron, Ontario and Superior may be lowered by some three or four feet. At the moment however lake levels are very high. I have here a graph giving information back as far as 90 years, but unfortunately it cannot be placed on Hansard in this form. It is available to anyone who would like to see it, however.
Some years ago Canada was greatly alarmed about the amount of water the Chicago drainage scheme was taking from lake Michigan. I believe that at the height of intake some 9,000 cubic feet per second were going in through that scheme. Action was taken in the United States courts, and as a result this flow was reduced to about 3,200 cubic feet per second. I would suggest that this government should consult with that of the United States in an endeavour to see if we cannot put more water through that scheme now, thus lowering the level of lake Huron and the levels of the lakes and rivers between that and the St. Lawrence river. I believe this is necessary, because if we could have, let us say, 8,000 or 9,000 more cubic feet per second going through that drainage scheme the lake level would be reduced by some 12 or 15 inches within a year. And we want to have the lake level reduced.
I suggest, as I did at that time, that the Welland canal should be kept open all winter. A good deal of water can go through there, if it is kept open-and it certainly cannot if it is closed.
As stated before, consideration should be given to controlling the amount of water flowing from lake Superior into lake Huron. This is absolutely necessary and, according to engineers both in Canada and the United States, quite feasible. The Trent canal is another physical means of increasing the flow and lowering these lake levels. And the blasting of the rock at Galop, with the control system at Iroquois, is another means whereby the level of lake Huron could be reduced very rapidly.
I cannot emphasize too strongly the necessity for action now. There is no occasion to wait two or three years. Lake levels are going to be reduced, and if there is action we can take, then let us take it without delay.
Do not wait until another $4 million or $5 million worth of damage is done before any action is taken. As I said a moment ago, and I am going to repeat it, the simple way to do
836	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. W. Murphy it is to permit another 10,000 or 12,000 cubic feet a second to go through the Chicago drainage canal, lessen the flow from lake Superior into lake Huron by 5,000 to 7,000 cubic feet per second. That would alleviate the distress which many people in the province of Ontario are going to experience in the coming spring.
The next matter I should like to mention is the plight of the municipalities. Over the years since I have been here I have emphasized this problem, as have many members of my party. We have urged that we have a dominion-provincial conference, a continuing conference incidentally, because when there is a delay between conferences a great deal is lost. When this conference is called it is most necessary that the plight of the municipalities be one of the major considerations dealt with. We all come from a city, or a town or a rural area. There is not one person in this house who does not know the serious difficulties that the junior municipalities are facing. Unfortunately their tax revenues are practically dried up. They depend on real estate taxation, and their projects are held up. They are subject to suggestions and practically orders from senior governments to set certain standards which these municipalities cannot meet because of their narrow revenue bases. They are confronted with a rapidly developing financial crisis. Let there be no mistake about that.
The increased cost for education and highways, the increased cost of administration, and I would include in that the increased salaries of their employees such as policemen, firemen and so forth, to which they are entitled if they are to maintain a high standard of living, have become a burden. Because of the limited revenues of these municipalities their plight is becoming so acute that some action must be taken, and it can be taken only through a conference. I have suggested before in this house, and so have other members of my party-it was suggested yesterday by the hon. member for London (Mr. Mitchell)- that the municipalities should be exempt from sales tax on any purchases that they make. I have said this before, and in fact it is a plank in our platform. It is one of the soundest arguments that anyone can advance, because the provincial governments of this country are exempt from sales tax, and yet the municipal governments and the boards of education who require anything for the service of their people must pay a sales tax. Probably because of our arguments over the last several years there has been an exemption on fire equipment and road equipment if it costs $1,000 or more, but that is not good enough. The amount that could be saved by


my city of Sarnia if it were exempt from sales tax would amount to something over $75,000 this year. That is no small item. In larger centres it would be many times that amount. They need it.
Another matter that I should like to mention is the payment of taxes by all crown property. Since 1945 we have argued in this house for the payment of taxes, or an amount in lieu of taxes, by crown companies and by the government on all crown properties. When I say "crown properties" I mean provincial crown property as well as federal crown property. I have pressed persistently for the taxation of crown companies or payment in lieu of taxes and I am happy to say that that formula was accepted by this government in November 1949 despite previous strong objection. We are fortunate in Sarnia in having the Polymer Corporation, one of the most successful corporations that ever operated in this or any other country. Today they pay into the coffers of the city of Sarnia some $285,000 as their share of taxes in that particular city. We do have a formula today under which, if crown property amounts to a certain percentage of the total assessment, there is some relief. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. I sincerely feel that all crown buildings and properties whether in the city of Ottawa, in the city of Sarnia, the city of Winnipeg, the city of Vancouver or any place else, should pay the same tax as the property next door which is owned by an individual or an industry.
I am going to say something that has not been said in this house before. The next dominion-provincial conference should deal with the science of government. May I give one illustration? Our townships and counties were laid out in the days of oxen. I will confine myself to Ontario; in fact I will confine myself to western Ontario. I have sat on a township council and I have attended county council meetings. In the county of Lambton we have 10 townships that were laid out in the days of the ox-cart. We are almost beyond the oil age and into the atomic era. We must streamline our governments, whether municipal, provincial or federal, to the needs of the day. Where we have 10 townships in my county or 12 in others, as the case may be, we could well do with four. So far as voting is concerned- I am not going into details-the county councils could be represented by population. We have to get away from this idea of adhering to something that was enacted in 1867 or 1868 as it affects the boundaries of our townships. Extra costs are imposed on the administration of our counties because they

were laid out before the days of the automobile. It is time we considered that together with the other matters which concern the plight of the municipalities.
I am going to refer to something which some people will say is a provincial matter. I am going to refer to many school sections in our province. Perhaps I should confine myself to my own. There are many school houses, the little old red school house in which the sanitary conditions are substandard. Perhaps the floors are scrubbed three or four times a year. I was amazed the other day when I read a report of a medical health officer which said that in 65 per cent of two townships the schools had substandard sanitary conditions. That also applied to the purity of the water. That may come within provincial or school board jurisdiction according to some people, but that is not the way I see it, because the health and welfare of the children of this country are the concern of everyone whether they sit in this parliament or in any junior parliament. It is about time that we put teeth into some of our laws. We hesitate to put into the batteries of our cars water that is not pure, and yet we allow our young children from coast to coast who go to these little red school houses to drink polluted or contaminated water. These municipalities need increased assistance for education and highways. I am going to suggest for consideration that when they get around to this dominion-provincial conference the municipalities be allowed the three cents per gallon gasoline tax which is now imposed and which was an extra imposition during the war. Later this government relieved us of that particular three cents. Other governments then took it upon themselves to collect it.
I have no hesitation in saying right now that I think that in order to save the municipalities from the plight they are facing they should be given some measure of revenue, and this three cents per gallon could be collected in the municipalities and would be a big factor in their being able to provide better services to the people.
The amusement tax may not mean a great deal in revenue, but I submit it should be collected by the municipalities and thus provide another means of increasing the revenues which they so badly need.
For the few minutes left at my disposal I am going to refer to a matter and I have no apology to make for doing so. During the discussion of the estimates a year ago I referred to the sale by Canadian National Railways of some property in Point Edward, which is just next door to Sarnia. It is just off the bridge crossing to Port Huron.
The Address-Mr. J. W. Murphy
At that time I was wondering what had happened to some 30-odd acres lying on the shores of the river St. Clair which is part of the St. Lawrence seaway scheme. These 30-odd acres would have made an excellent industrial site and no government or government agency should have disposed of them because they were located on the banks of the seaway. No one knew better than the Canadian National Railways and the Department of Transport the full details of the seaway development. We were all assured that this was in the offing, and yet we find that these 30-odd acres were sold for $10,500, about half the price of good farm land in western Ontario.
As I say, this was a choice industrial site, or even a residential site. Let me say for the record that good industrial sites are being purchased in that area by the chemical industries at prices up to $2,000 or more an acre. Yet we find the Canadian National Railways which owned this particular property selling it for the small sum of $10,500.
I can understand the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) not answering my question but in fact it gave me free-wheeling to discuss it. I understand that part of this property has been sold for residential purposes at somewhere around $45,000 and no doubt the remainder will be sold for the same amount. This sale was made within months of the purchase.
There may be some significance in the fact that the purchaser, who happened to have been the Liberal defeated candidate in the last election, purchased this property just after the 1949 election.
Another piece of property comprising about 14 acres was sold for $8,000-odd. This adjoined the other property I just mentioned. Within months of its being purchased from the Canadian National Railways part of it was sold for $45,000.
It is about time that somebody in this house had the courage and conviction to say to the C.N.R. officials that somebody in Canada is entitled to think for himself. Apparently they want to save us the painful chore of thinking for ourselves. In view of what I have told the house tonight I am saying that we have in that system $2,000 or $3,000 men who are drawing $10,000, $15,000 or more a year. Surely anyone who would make such a silly, asinine decision is not competent to hold a $10,000 or $15,000 job.
The matter of weeding out inefficiency is just as indispensable in our system as is the rewarding of the energetic and efficient. We must never lose sight of the fact that our so-called profit system is a profit and loss

The Address-Mr. Rowe system. I think it is about time that the officials in the Canadian National Railways woke up and found that out.
In this chemical valley of Canada we find the Canadian National Telegraphs office located in an old passenger railway car down on the waterfront, a location which certainly is not a credit to the Canadian National Railways. They need not wonder why they are not getting their share of the business; neither is it fair to the employees.
The staff of the Canadian National express are housed in another old passenger car up by the railway sheds. If you call that efficiency and sound business I must say that I disagree with you.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the house for more than a few minutes before this subamendment is voted on. The subamendment as moved by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) reads:
We further regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to take or to recommend the necessary fundamental economic and financial measures to place Canadian producers and workers on a sound and prosperous basis, and to ensure our economy against recurring recessions.
To me that is only an anaemic mockery of the amendment moved by the official opposition. It does not appear to me to be an amendment at all. It is only a watered-down reiteration of the amendment which it is supposed to amend.
If members of the Social Credit party are so serious in their admiration of our amendment that they want to try to copy it, then rather than trying to amend it I think they should support it.
I may say that we in the official opposition have no intention of supporting it. There is nothing new in the subamendment and there is no reason that I can see why this party should support it. I am not going to enlarge on our reasons. We have no confidence in that party. I do not think they will ever have a chance to put such a motion into effect.
I have no confidence in the subamendment. It simply mimics the amendment we have moved and therefore I intend to vote against it. I hope my party will vote against it.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Walter Edward Harris: May I ask the hon. member if it would be possible for him to make his views known at this time so that we could have a vote on the one subamendment.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Angus MacInnis: I cannot very well accommodate the leader of the house unless I have unanimous support, which apparently I have not.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Angus MacInnis: I shall not detain the house for more than a few minutes. I want to do something similar to that done by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) when he spoke a moment ago. I want to state our position in regard to the amendment to the amendment moved by the Social Credit member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) yesterday. The amendment reads:
We further regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to take or to recommend the necessary fundamental economic and financial measures to place Canadian producers and workers on a sound and prosperous basis, and to ensure our economy against recurring recessions.
We are able to vote for that subamendment, Mr. Speaker, because It is the kind of subamendment we have been moving on such occasions as this in this house for the last, I do not know how many years. As a matter of fact, it is the kind of subamendment we moved to this address which was voted upon the other day. When I heard that the genial member for New Westminster was going to move the amendment for the Social Credit party, I knew it would be an innocent, reasonable amendment for which any reasonable person could vote, that is any reasonable person who wanted to see the government do something to keep the economy going. If the amendment had been moved by my stern friend the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) or by the very knowledgeable member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), I am sure it would have been quite a different amendment. Perhaps we would not have been able to vote for it. As I said, the amendment is quite a reasonable one which regrets that the government has not done certain things.
The only way in which we differ from both the members on my left and the members on my right is that they insist the government should do things but they are always unwilling to give the government the necessary means of control to do those things. If you ask the hired man to do something, you have to give him the tools to do the job. You cannot complain about controls or that the government interferes and at the same time expect the government to promote business. At least, you cannot logically do that, but I have long ago given up expecting logic of the members either to my right or to my left. For that reason,

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
we are going to vote for the subamendment. We are not playing politics. It is something we do because we want to do it.
I should like to refer to one other matter. When the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) was speaking in this house on Tuesday night, he said, as reported at page 756 of Hansard for February 1, 1955:
I have never doubted the integrity of purpose of hon. members, not even my hon. friends to my left.
Well, you know that sort of patronizing attitude gets my goat. Even the members to his left! Surely, the hon. gentleman does not think he is better than we are. Supposing I say I have never doubted the integrity of hon. members, even of the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) ? We are members who, I think, are just as highly respected in our several communities as any other hon. member either on this side or on that side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Angus MacInnis: When my friend has to find fault with us, I imagine there is a great deal in our program and in our policies that could be legitimately criticized by people who do not agree with it. Nevertheless, I want to tell members in this house that there are very few men, women and children in this dominion who are not better off today because there is a C.C.F. party.
Let me read to you from an editorial that appeared in one of the Vancouver newspapers some time ago concerning this party. It says:
Canada needs a strong party of the left, a party of protest, a party which advocates policies entirely opposed to those of the existing government. The Co-operative Commonwealth Federation is that party and it is doing a good job . . .
This newspaper is the Vancouver Sun.
This newspaper does not believe in the socialist theories of the C.C.F., but it believes in letting the people judge these theories for themselves.
Then the editorial finishes in this way:
It has been the C.C.F. in British Columbia and in Canada, fighting day in and day out for the poor people, that has compelled the government to progress, to adopt reforms which otherwise would not have been adopted . . . the C.C.F. remains the only sure voice of social protest in the country.


Mr. Gagnon:: Huh.


Angus MacInnis: You can "huh" as much as you like, but you cannot "huh" that off.


Mr. Dufresne:: Who wrote that?


Angus MacInnis: The Vancouver Sun, a Liberal paper. I have no doubt I could get an equally good editorial from a Conservative paper. As a matter of fact, when election day
comes around there is no political party in this house that has anything to offer that has any appeal to the mass of the people except some of the things that the C.C.F. has popularized.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You haven't a monopoly.


Angus MacInnis: All right, so we have not a monopoly. It is there for you to have if you want it. We would not want a monopoly if that were possible. We do not care who brings these things about, as long as things are done for the people of Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I could say much more along the same line, but I just wish to say again-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Again?


Angus MacInnis: Does my friend want me to continue? He can easily say so, if that is what he wishes. When anyone is enjoying what I am saying I can go on for hours.
I say again that we are voting for this amendment because we feel that it justifiably criticizes the government for not doing the things that it should do to take care of the people in the country who are unable to take care of themselves.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Ernest George Hansell: No, we are not ready for the question. I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Hansell the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, should it happen that this debate is concluded tomorrow, and we all hope it will be very shortly after we resume at 2.30, we shall then take second reading of Bill No. 3, with respect to the construction, operation and maintenance of international river improvements, followed by second reading of Bill No. 4, to regulate the exportation of power and fluids and the importation of gas.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Friday, February 4, 1955