1955-01-10

DIPLOMATIC INSTRUMENTS


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table three copies in English and in French of the protocol to the North Atlantic treaty on the accession of the Federal Republic of Germany, signed at Paris, October 23, 1954, and three copies in English and in French of the agreements relating to Germany concluded at Paris on October 23, 1954.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, this protocol, I feel, is very important and I wonder if it would be possible to have it printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For protocol above referred to, see appendix, page 59.)



INDUSTRIAL STATUS OF WOMEN


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to provide equal pay for equal work for women.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INTERNATIONAL RIVERS


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, respecting the construction, operation and maintenance of international river improvements.


Mr. Knowles:: Explain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This bill will provide that a licence from the government of Canada will be required by anyone who shall construct, operate or maintain any improvement in any river flowing from any place in Canada to any place outside Canada. The definition of the word "improvement" includes a dam, obstruction, canal, reservoir or any other work the purpose of which is to alter the natural flow or to interfere with, alter or affect the actual or potential use of an international river outside Canada.
The provisions of the act apply to the government of Canada, to the government of a province and to any private individual. The bill provides that all international river improvements heretofore or hereafter constructed are declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



POWER, FLUIDS AND GAS LICENSING CONTROL OVER EXPORTATION OF ELECTRIC POWER AND FLUIDS, AND IMPORTATION OF GAS

Clarence Decatur Howe: for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, to regulate the exportation of power and fluids and the importation of gas.


Mr. Fulton:: Explain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This bill revises and consolidates the present Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act. It retains licensing control over the exportation of electric power and over the exportation, by pipe lines, of petroleum, natural gas and other fluids. It extends control to the importation of gas. Strict licensing provisions are maintained subject to suitable amendments limiting the revocation of licences to cases in which a licensee refuses or neglects to comply with the terms or conditions of the licence. The bill retains present export duties on exported power and removes the authority to impose similar export duties on petroleum and gas.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Inquiries of the Ministry INCOME TAX EXEMPTION



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a question of the Prime Minister of which I have given him notice. The question is as follows: Having regard to the widespread public interest in the negotiations between the dominion government and the province of Quebec in the matter of tax exemption, and to the fact that there was no reference made to it in the speech from the throne, is the Prime Minister prepared to make a statement on the subject?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I thank the hon. member for sending me notice of his question. I regret to have to say that I am not yet prepared to make a statement on the subject matter referred to in the question.



INQUIRY AS TO RATES ON MOVEMENT THROUGH VANCOUVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can he make a statement now with respect to the rates on grain going through the port of Vancouver?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should prefer to take this question as notice and to make a statement at the next sitting.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES STATEMENT ON REPORTED NEAR TRAGEDY AT MOOSE JAW

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. What explanation does the minister have of the report that, in spite of the tragic accident at Moose Jaw last year, another near-tragedy should have occurred at the same place and under almost identical circumstances? May I ask what steps are being taken to deal with this matter?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, an investigation of the alleged near mid-air collision between an R.C.A.F. Harvard and a T.C.A. North Star in the vicinity of Moose Jaw on 6th January, to which the hon. member has just referred- and I wish to thank him for having given me

notice of his question-has been completed by the Department of Transport with representatives of the R.C.A.F. and T.C.A. present, including the pilots of both the aircraft involved. This investigation shows the newspaper and radio reports to be grossly exaggerated and misleading.
The R.C.A.F. Harvard, captained by an experienced flying instructor with some 4,000 flying hours to his credit, was on a navigation training flight with a pupil pilot. The T.C.A. North Star, also with a very experienced captain, was on a scheduled flight from Winnipeg to Calgary. The weather was clear with bright moonlight and good visibility.
The course of the North Star was 250 degrees and that of the Harvard 288 degrees. The aircraft instruments showed both aircraft to be flying level; the North Star at 6,000 feet and the Harvard at 5,500 feet above sea level; with the speed of the North Star being almost twice that of the Harvard.
Thus, at the time of sighting one another the T.C.A. North Star was behind and overtaking the Harvard, with the Harvard slightly to the left ahead and at 500 feet lower altitude, their courses thus crossing on an angle of 38 degrees with a height separation of approximately 500 feet between them. These conditions were in conformity both with the authorized pre-flight plans of the two aircraft and with the air regulations which govern civil and military aircraft.
The navigation lights of both aircraft were flashing normally and the first pilot to sight the other aircraft was the T.C.A. pilot, who was in the overtaking position.
The Harvard captain very shortly thereafter sighted the lights of the other aircraft approaching from his right rear, at which time both pilots, as a precautionary measure, altered course away from the other aircraft and then resumed their original courses after the faster aircraft had passed. The T.C.A. pilot at no time found it necessary to. carry out any violent manoeuvre; in fact his turn involved a bank of 35 degrees only and, so far as is known, disturbed none of the passengers. However, one passenger sighted the other aircraft through a window and apparently became unduly alarmed, which may be explained by the fact that it is more difficult to judge distances, angles and relative altitudes at night than in daylight.
In this instance the occurrence was not a near catastrophe, as much of the publicity concerning it would indicate. In fact, both pilots acted in conformity with the air regulations which are designed for such occurrences and which, in fact, proved their practicability in this instance.

The Harvard was crossing the airway along which the T.C.A. aircraft was flying, and existing regulations require height separations at intervals of 500 feet in such circumstances.
The T.C.A. aircraft, in altering course to the right and avoiding passing over or under the Harvard, complied with the air regulations.
It is of course essential that air regulations be maintained constantly up to date and adequate to keep pace with the rapid progress of aviation. To this end the responsible departments of government and the civil agencies concerned will continue to utilize the information obtained from this and all such incidents to determine what further improvements, if any, to air regulations may be required in the interests of safety.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask a supplementary question? Is 500 feet the distance laid down by international regulations or by our own regulations?


George Carlyle Marler: By our own regulations.


Major James William Coldwell: Does the minister consider 500 feet to be enough if the weather is not good?


George Carlyle Marler: I consider that 500 feet is quite adequate having regard to the conditions of visibility that were referred to in this instance.


Major James William Coldwell: Under that condition, but what about other conditions?



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister advise the house whether the government has any plans for Canadian industry similar to those announced by the United States government in Washington yesterday in order to help private industry develop and operate experimental atomic power plants?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has been carrying out a plan similar to that announced in the United States. At the moment some six or eight private industries in Canada have been invited to submit proposals for a joint project of the type mentioned in the article, and it is expected that those proposals will have been submitted by early February. When they are received it is hoped that a joint
Inquiries of the Ministry operation can be carried out between the Chalk River establishment and the selected private firm.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is he in a position to say whether the farmers of the Rowley district, whose wheat board cheques, according to a press dispatch, were stolen en route to their destination, will have new cheques issued to them in the near future?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In reply to this question, under date of January 7 the Canadian wheat board issued a press release announcing that certain cheques due producers at Rowley had not been received by the payees. The disappearance of the cheques is under investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The statement goes on to say that several of the cheques have been illegally cashed which would suggest that forgeries have taken place.
In circumstances such as these it is the practice to have the payees sign an affidavit that the cheques have not been received. The wheat board will undertake the necessary steps towards the replacement of the cheques as soon as possible.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? Can the minister give the assurance that we are at the end of lay-offs by the Canadian National Railways? Can he say how soon those laid off in recent months will be reinstated?


George Carlyle Marler: I am afraid I shall have to accept the question of the hon. member as notice and attempt to reply at a later date.



VISIT OF CERTAIN MINISTERS TO WASHINGTON- UNITED STATES POLICY RE QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is he in a position
20	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry to say anything regarding the visit of three ministers of the government to Washington recently, and whether or not the United States government has given any indication that it intends to discontinue its apparent policy of applying quotas and embargoes against Canadian agricultural products?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Before the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne is completed I hope to make a statement on Canadian trade policy which I think will contain the information my hon. friend is seeking. The visit to the United States concerned a number of matters. It would be difficult to answer the hon. member's question categorically, but I think the information will be forthcoming in the next two or three weeks.



SNAGBOAT &quot;SAMSON&quot;


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, notice of which I sent him earlier. Is the snagboat Samson, recently gutted by fire while in New Westminster harbour, fully covered by the fire losses replacement act?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: My understanding is that the Department of Public Works owns the snagboat referred to. If that department chooses to repair the boat or to replace it, I understand that, with the consent of the treasury board, funds can be used under the act mentioned by the hon. member.



IMPORTATION FROM NEW ZEALAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Does the minister plan to make any change in the regulations that now permit the importation of New Zealand cheese when there is a surplus of cheese and other dairy products in Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, there is no prohibition on the importing of cheese. There is a duty on cheese, and technically anyone can ship cheese into Canada who can do so over the duty. A verbal arrangement was made with New Zealand at a time when we were having difficulty exporting to the British market. New Zealand was asked not to ship cheese to this market. The circumstances under which the request was made have


changed. New Zealand was pressing to be relieved from that verbal arrangement and there seemed to be no very good ground for insisting that it be continued. The shipment of cheese has been made in the ordinary course of business in the same way that anything else is exported to Canada. I suggest it is a mistake to say that we allowed the import. The normal laws of the land were allowed to function in this matter.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: In order that there will be no misunderstanding, I want it completely understood that I fully agree with what the Department of Trade and Commerce did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is one for the record.


Mr. Argue:: Who made the verbal agreement?


Mr. Rowe:: We are glad to know ithat.


Mr. Cardiff:: Was it not necessary to have a special permit to bring in cheese inasmuch as cheese was a commodity under price support?


Clarence Decatur Howe: During the war years a permit was required to import cheese, for the reasons stated by my hon. friend, but at the moment cheese is not under price support so far as I am aware.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture of which I have not given him notice? In view of the assurance that he gave a moment ago that he agreed with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture if we have now abandoned the doctrine of cabinet responsibility and whether, when a minister makes a statement, we now have to ask if the other members of the cabinet agree with it?


James Garfield Gardiner: I was merely drawing atteav tion to the fact that the hon. member who asked the question did not ask it of the right minister. I did not know exactly what might have been in his mind so I thought it was necessary to say what I did.
(Translation):



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. J. W. Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address to the Minister of Veterans Affairs a question of which I have given him notice.

Has Miss Henderson, formerly superintendent of nurses at the veterans hospital, Queen Mary road, Montreal, been reappointed by the department? If so, where, in what capacity and at what salary?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, Miss Henderson, to
whom the hon. member has been referring, has never ceased to be employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. At the present time, she is superintendent of nurses at the Rideau health and occupational centre where she receives the salary already set for that position by the civil service commission.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It is definitely paying too much for racial discrimination.
(Text):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the attempted resignation of Dr. L. B. Thomson as director of P.F.R.A. Has there been any change in the precedents heretofore existent whereby civil servants are not allowed to offer tentative resignations to take place only in the event of an uncertain political event turning out in favour of the applicant?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In view of the many qualifications of the hon. member's question, I should like to read it in Hansard before I make an answer.


William Earl Rowe: I do not blame him.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 7, 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.
William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, in the deeply regretted absence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) I find it my responsibility today to speak on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I feel that I speak on their behalf when I congratulate the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Leduc) and the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Carrick) on their first speeches in this house. They were
The Address-Mr. Rowe both good speeches and I know that each hon. member was a credit to himself and to his constituents.
They were cautious and careful speeches, and rather complimentary to the government that they support. We certainly wish for them many years of good health and happiness, and a useful career in the Canadian House of Commons.
As has been our time-honoured custom, the speech from the throne was prepared by the advisers of the crown, and this particular one was certainly neatly written. It is conspicuous in many respects, but it is more conspicuous for what is not contained in it than for what is in it. In fact, it is as peaceful as a New Year's greeting, even though conditions throughout the country are not very good. The generalities that do glitter chiefly in the speech from the throne concern the things that were proposed by the members of the opposition on different occasions. The darker spots of our national economy seem to be submerged in a long list of local community projects which we felt should have been accomplished long ago.
We are told, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is to attend the commonwealth conference towards the end of this month. As members of the opposition, I am sure we are all very glad to find that at last the government is showing some concern at least about such a commonwealth conference, and that in accepting the invitation the Prime Minister is not sending some of his junior cabinet ministers but is going himself. This reminds me that some five years ago I did propose we should have a commonwealth conference, and the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) supported that motion. I believe that on another occasion he moved a similar motion. Every year since that time members of the opposition have pressed the government for such a conference, even when members of the cabinet were throwing gibes across the floor as though there was no danger to the country.
I know the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) can recall the witty gibes he used to throw at me, as though there was nothing happening to our markets. On one occasion he said our markets were better than ever, and by 1952 we would be in a stronger position in the British market than we ever had been in history. On different occasions we warned the government that the market was slipping away. We warned them of the danger, Mr. Speaker, when the United Kingdom was negotiating contracts with foreign producers. No heed was taken
22	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Rowe of our warning. It is said that history repeats itself. I have been in this house long enough to see the party that sits to your right lose the British market on two occasions. Now they have lost it again. I am glad that the Prime Minister at last has said, "I will take hold of this myself; these other boys are not doing very well".


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Here is hoping he can do better.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, the hon. member for Peterborough can say that, but I am afraid his hopes are a little bit late. It is extremely difficult to have much influence at a conference in which you have not taken much interest before.
We wish him good luck, Mr. Speaker. I hope he has a safe voyage, and I hope he has good luck. He is an influential man in Canada, and I hope he is over there as well. Even some of his own followers agree with that. There are matters, I feel, to be considered at this coming conference in connection with the expansion of our trade, not only the sale of our wheat but other farm products as well. In fact, the sale of our other farm products has practically disappeared. We talk about our great advancement. We were told by these travelling salesmen, who have been going all over the world at great expense, that there was no danger of losing that market. We are selling the United Kingdom less mixed farm products than we did 40 years ago; in fact, we are selling practically none. The convertibility of exchange, and other subjects, are vital not only to the Canadian farmer but also to producers generally in Canada.
It seems to me it is about time that these gentlemen who have been going all over the world looking for markets, looked a little more east and west, and realized that our most favourable trade balances throughout the years have come from our trade with the United Kingdom. We would be very much interested, therefore, in knowing what the agenda of this conference is going to be. It seems to me almost contrary to our parliamentary practice to have an important conference such as this coming along when no one in the house really knows the subjects with which the conference is going to deal. In fact, I wonder if the Prime Minister himself knows. I hope that if he does he will let us know something about the agenda before the event is over.
In any event, I do believe that the people of this country expect the Prime Minister of the senior dominion of this great partnership, the British commonwealth, to be the leading
[Mr. Rowe.l

influence in strengthening our British relationship and to do everything he can to restore the markets that have been lost under his party's government.
I am sure my colleague the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) will have read the speech from the throne with a little chuckle to himself. He will feel he has been useful here, and he will be glad that at last the government has heeded his plea on behalf of the war veterans, as indicated in the speech. I know the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) will be happy, because on so many occasions I have heard him trying to blast out that Ripple Rock near Vancouver. I know he will be glad to learn the government has listened to him. No doubt the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) will be disappointed because, after pleading for that Saskatchewan dam for some ten years, he has to reconcile himself to the fact that it will be brought up at the next election campaign.
The hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) will be happy, too, when he learns from the speech from the throne that steady progress is being made towards the inauguration of the new ferry service, and that after all his pressure this service is going to be established between Prince Edward Island and the mainland of Nova Scotia this summer. These are some of the spots that glitter a little bit.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) and the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) will also be happy to observe from the speech from the throne that their sustained pressure has brought some results and that the Unemployment Insurance Act is to be amended by way of increasing the supplementary benefits during the winter months, when it is expected unemployment will be worse than it is at present. On behalf of my colleagues in the official opposition, I thank the government for at long last responding to some of these pressures in connection with these local and municipal problems.
However, the dark realities and the dangerous trends that are stalking before the people of this dominion are all carefully ignored and recklessly disregarded in the speech from the throne. Why, Mr. Speaker, it does not show a fair picture of Canadian conditions at all. Can it be that this government has grown so strong that they think opposition is unnecessary, so strong that they think opposition has very little place in the present trend of events? The government has

grown so powerful, so large, so gigantic that it has almost fallen asleep with its own weight.
We see very little in this speech from the throne. Even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), who helped to prepare it, now laughs at it. This does not present the picture in Canada at all. To get the true picture one must read editorials, talk to men who are connected with labour, talk to the farmer, talk to the housewives. Let them talk to the housewife who says "Jack is out of work"- and the government holds a mortgage for the next 20 years during which they have to pay for the roof over their heads.
One has only to talk to the labour men throughout the country who stand in need of help because they have lost their jobs and who see no hope of solution. They see no proposal made by this government in any shape or form for their relief.
These are realities that hurt. These are realities that are familiar to the men and women who have little children to care for, men and women who have girls and boys of university age, who want to maintain our high standard of living and who do not want to take their children out of universities merely because they have lost their jobs.
No, they do not want that. Despite the lip service we have heard for such a long time about the great problem of national unity, we see nothing in the speech from the throne-no mention or reference whatever- to the long-awaited dominion-provincial conference. The Prime Minister has said that he will study the question asked by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). Well, he has been studying it so long that everybody is wondering whether or not his silence is golden.
There is no mention in the speech from the throne of the increasing unemployment problem. There seems to be no concern whatever about our decreasing export trade. There seems to be no worry at all about the increase in our cost of government and at the same time the decrease in our national revenue. Evidently there is no desire even to study the decline in the markets for farm products and the high cost of production.
On the other hand we are told in this speech from the throne that our national economy is in a very healthy condition. Indeed it is now so healthy that it says it is in a very healthy condition. Well, Mr. Speaker, when His Excellency the Governor General read that he must almost have choked-because I am sure His Excellency reads the newspapers. He must have been
The Address-Mr. Rowe greatly surprised when he read in the speech from the throne that unemployment is only regional and seasonal. No wonder the Minister of Finance laughs at that, Mr. Speaker.
Can he rise in his place in this House of Commons and tell me one region in Canada where today there is not serious unemployment? Can any of these cabinet giants rise and tell me now that in his own district there is not serious unemployment? Can any of them rise and tell me that it has not increased?


Mr. Murphy (Lamblon West):: Can any of
them rise?


William Earl Rowe: I had not thought of that. They do not seem to rise to the occasion when these emergencies develop. But occasionally they rise when everything is bright and cheerful.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are told in one paragraph of the speech from the throne that our national economy is in a healthy condition, and that we have a little unsold wheat. We are told the reason our national revenue is not as high as it was is due to the fact that our wheat crop this year has not been as good. Well, Mr. Speaker, they have not sold last year's wheat-and they have even a large quantity of the wheat harvested the year before. Yet we are told that the reason for the little slump is that we had a poor wheat crop this year. If we had had a good crop they would not know what to do with it, because they have not sold even the good crop we had last year.
Yes, we are told that the unemployment is seasonal and regional. Yet, according to the figures issued by the unemployment commission-to say nothing of the thousands not recorded and the further thousands who are on part-time work, as well as the thousands who will be let out within the next few months, if there is anything to this seasonal feature-there are 40,000 more unemployed today than there were at this time last year. Yes, there are 40,000 more. And if the trend continues even at the same rate as last year- and there is no one who will rise and say that it will not do so-we can anticipate keenly that before 60 days shall have passed 600,000 people in this young country will be unemployed-and perhaps even more than that.
But, no, Mr. Speaker. This is only seasonal; this is only regional. It is just a passing phase, like a shadow in the night. Well, a great friend of this most important element in Canadian society-the workingmen-and

The Address-Mr. Rowe a keen student of their problems, Mr. A. R. Mosher, president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: I should say president of the
Canadian Congress of Labour-I am glad my hon. friend knows the difference-has made this statement:
In domestic affairs, one of the most disturbing factors as we enter the new year is the army of unemployed workers. A slight improvement in employment took place during the summer months, but the situation is again becoming extremely serious, and there is little, if any, prospect of adequate action by various levels of government to bring about an improvement.
Indeed, had these cautious advisers of the crown included that paragraph in the speech from the throne, it would at least have given a touch of reality to the problem itself. Instead we are told by the speech from the throne that it is only regional and seasonal. There is little hope for a sound solution to a problem which the government seems to refuse to see.
I do not know how the speech from the throne is prepared-or at least how recent speeches have been prepared. But it might be well in future, if those who prepare it are so weary as to omit these things, that they should call in some others to give some assistance. Because, really, this speech from the throne is a reflection upon the House of Commons when, at a time like this, the government brings down a document that does not mention these real and serious problems.
Instead of this we are told that everything will be all right. We of the opposition believe, of course, that these more or less local projects proposed for construction this year are well merited. In fact, Mr. Speaker, all of them should have been done before, and we have told the government so, in the House of Commons, on repeated occasions.
However, we do not believe that the Cape Breton causeway or the North Sydney-Port aux Basques ferry, or the Prince Edward Island ferry, or the removal of Ripple Rock, or the development of some historic sites or the placing of a few monuments throughout Canada will solve permanently this unemployment problem. We do not believe that.
No, Mr. Speaker. But the government dare not touch the issue that is staring them in the face. And there are underlying economic reasons for this situation that they refuse to admit. There are relief policies that they seem to be afraid to adopt.
In this day and age, with unprecedented world advancement, Canada's economic progress should not falter at a time like this.

We are in the midst of great world advancement. Despite the times and the international conditions which may threaten our security, we must realize that we stand geographically in the centre of that advancement.
Look, Mr. Speaker, at the United Kingdom. I will venture to say that some of my friends to the right, when they hesitated about having conferences with her a few years ago, thought that she had gone broke. But look at the way she is coming back. Look at what is happening in West Germany and in Europe. Look at what is happening to the great republic to the south of us whose population has increased in a time of great prosperity in the last 15 years more than the total population of Canada. Why should we, a young country, falter in advancement at this time? We have no reason for long-term pessimism. When we point out these problems do not let any little squeaky voice from the back benches tell us it is blue ruin. It is blue ruin when you do not face realities whether in your own affairs or in public affairs. When we point out these things we are not preaching blue ruin.
No one within sound of my voice wants a depression in this country. Heaven knows we have been through that problem before. We want to avoid a depression. We do not want a depression in the midst of plenty. We do not want unemployment in a time of world advancement. It is bad enough to have it at a time of world depression, as we had some years ago. Oh, you like to harp on and talk about the 1930's. No one was more responsible for that than those who sit to your right, Mr. Speaker. As they left office in 1930 they left every elevator full of unsold wheat, and every lumber yard that had not been burned almost full of unsold lumber.
That condition was brought about through a lack of policy in those days, Mr. Speaker, and it is being brought about through a lack of policy today. We had a British market in 1925. In 1921 we sold 250 million pounds of bacon and 77 million pounds of meat to Great Britain. What do we sell her now? Now we are importing cheese from New Zealand. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) says: "Me too." I say: "Yes, yes."
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who is a shrewd businessman, is too busy to understand agricultural problems, but he must have more encouragement. All he gets from the Minister of Agriculture is: "Me too." That is all right.
Indeed, the richness, vastness, and variety of our potential resources justify our keen national pride and betoken a long-term economic greatness that could well exceed our most

optimistic dreams. This country must go ahead; this country has gone ahead. This country will go ahead in spite of the weakness of the policies of the present government. However, we must march and move with the changing times through which we pass.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, conditions change swiftly as the years pass. When I entered this house some few years ago 40 per cent of Canadians worked and toiled in agriculture in Canada. Some 20 per cent worked in industry. Today about 40 per cent are dependent upon industry and about 15 per cent or 16 per cent are employed in agriculture. The revolution of agriculture has advanced all the way along. Who believes that we can put the millions of people that we need in this country and the boys and girls now growing up, the millions that want to come from Europe whose brothers and sisters have made good citizens of Canada, in agriculture? Still we have that antiquated policy that in order to get into this country the individual must be able to farm. Because of government policy there is nothing else to do and there is not much to do on the farms today, because of changing conditions.
During the war and defence boom years, when our resources and industries were needed so vitally, when every bit of energy we could produce was needed and every factory was called upon, with even frame buildings put up for the manufacture of goods, this government took great credit for our expanding economy, full employment and consequent prosperity. Now they write a speech from the throne that does not mention these things. Some $14 billion was poured into the European economy by the United States of America, and Canada under the Marshall plan lent $1-1 billion to enable them to buy our products. That speaks well for the initiative, enterprise and basic strength of this vast and rich young country. The following year, on that account, I believe we sold $650 million worth of our products, much of it agricultural products. The money seems to be running out. Last year we sold just $152 million worth on that account.
In our over-all trade situation conditions have also changed swiftly. We pray and dream of that long-term future when we shall have international good will, when we shall have peace and quiet underlying normal prosperity and progress. Hope springs eternal, of course. As individual freedom will always reign in this land, no other people have more reason to look forward to such an age. Every period of a hot or cold war or hot or cold peace brings new challenges to our initiative and enterprise. Indeed, if we are to be ready for prosperity
The Address-Mr. Rowe '"without either a hot or a cold war boom we must study our national plans to meet that challenge.
The youngest among us cannot recall and the oldest of us are apt to forget when we had normal prosperity and normal progress. For almost half a century no such state of affairs has been our fortune. In less than half a century we have endured two gigantic wars. In that time we have been involved in two world conflicts as well as spending more energy, money, production and all it takes, to prevent a third world war, than was spent in the other two. Under those conditions we have not had business as usual, and as we look forward to that better day of normal peace and business as usual it becomes necessary, especially for the older who forget or for the younger who do not see, to glance back a little bit and find a precedent for policies that may be required to promote the prosperity and progress without which that longed-for peace and prosperity may be pretty cold. For that challenge we must be prepared, Mr. Speaker.
Since the birth of this young nation only two political parties have been so challenged. Others have promised but only the traditional Liberal party, which now governs this country, and we of the Conservative party, who sit to your left, have been called upon to perform. Many others have promised. We have shared, in our plans, policies and contributions, in the great development of this young country. Despite the fact there is a difference in our policies, there has been very little if any difference in our sincerity of purpose even if there is that clear and basic distinction between our background and outlook in our political faith.
As the horizon of normal times comes closer to us, we observe the need of a sound and straightforward approach to our fiscal and taxation problems. Our leader has consistently emphasized the soundness of our traditional fiscal policy to encourage the development of more of our resources within our own country. He has also urged for a dominion-provincial conference to study our whole taxation field. I am amazed that after all that we have heard about national unity, after all we have heard about that problem and the warnings that we could expect a conference sooner than formerly expected, and after all the pressure that has been put on from this side of the house, nothing seems to have been done. We heard nothing about that in the speech from the throne, and I hope the Prime Minister will tell us what he intends to do in that regard.

The Address-Mr. Rowe
When I read the speech from the throne I looked in vain for signs of the old slogan of national unity. It has been used for over a quarter of a century in this country during every election campaign. I cannot help wondering where that dusty old slogan has been pigeonholed for the last few years. We do not hear so much about it now.
As we face the future we must pay close attention to the relationship between trade and employment. In the first eight months of this year our export trade alone fell by $235 million, and our unfavourable trade balance stands at over $200 million, while in 1952 the favourable trade balance was $325 million. This difference of over half a billion dollars is of challenging concern, for during the same period 300,000 heads of families lost their jobs in Canada. This situation is not due to any regional condition or seasonal weather. It has developed like Topsy-"it just growed".
All this time the government sit thinking of the good luck they have had for so long and believing they do not need to do anything about it. With our great resources we have enjoyed a period of prosperity in war and in defence boom years, but as we return to more normal trading conditions, Canada needs, if ever she did, a sound fiscal policy.	,
This government did not require any basic fiscal or trading policies during the years to which I have referred, and it is perhaps fortunate that they did not need such policies because they did not have any. Those who sit on that side of the house, Mr. Speaker, have been fair weather politicians since confederation, and if they ever had any kind of fiscal policy it lasted only for a very short time for they have changed it almost every ten years since confederation.
With the ever-increasing competition we face in world markets, a sound fiscal policy is required more than ever. Last year we imported more goods made by labouring men in foreign countries than Canada produced altogether in 1939. If even these glaring facts do not shock the complacency of a government such as we have today, then there is little wonder that the unemployed worry and look to the future with fear and uncertainty.
I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) as he assumes his new task. He faces tremendous responsibilities. I hope that as these economic problems await solution, and more appear, the minister will be able to give us more distinctive leadership in financial policy than he gave us during his tenure in the department of immigration.

We cannot afford to continue a policy of levying taxes such as are unknown to our foreign competitors. If we are going to keep our factories operating and our people employed it is important that we do not-


An hon. Member:: We are now taxed out of employment.


William Earl Rowe: Exactly. I am glad the minister feels, as he recently stated, that taxes are too high. We have been trying to tell the government that for the past five years and I am glad that they are at last beginning to show interest. When people find themselves up against it and things are getting tough they sometimes look around to others for help. I am glad the minister is thinking along these lines. However, I am not sure what he is going to do about it because I observe that he plans to spend $184 million more this year while revenues have fallen by almost $100 million. We are alarmed by the fact that the government have stinted expenditure on defence by an estimated $150 million this year. The minister looks surprised. Perhaps he did not know. Perhaps it is not that much, or perhaps it is more. However, I am trying to be as conservative as I can in these figures. I think it is substantially more than that, but I do not want to exaggerate and I will give them the benefit of the doubt because there is a lot of doubt regarding this government all across the country.
I believe that you can levy taxes until you kill the source of taxation. No one should know that better than the present government, because they had that experience in regard to the tobacco tax two or three years ago. We have had a haphazard policy on fiscal matters and on taxation. I say haphazard advisedly because even today we see 2,500,000 pounds of cheese coming into this country while the farmers of Ontario have 9,000,000 pounds, and they are subsidizing themselves to try to get rid of it. Our taxation and fiscal policies are obviously haphazard when the government imposes a 15 per cent excise tax on tires for trucks to carry these products which are selling at 20 to 40 per cent less than two years ago, while golf balls and jewel cases go tax-free. Perhaps if that policy is continued no one will be able to buy jewel cases except cabinet ministers. These things may not mean much to them but they mean a lot to the farmer who wonders how he is going to meet his obligations, and the worker who wonders why he is losing his job.
The Canadian worker sees electrical, steel and textile products coming in from countries such as Japan while the plants in which his father and grandfather worked are closing

down. Then he comes home and asks "Why did I vote Liberal?" We are bringing into this country products made by men who receive less per month than our men demand and should have per week. We boast about our standard of living-


An hon. Member:: That is the trouble.


William Earl Rowe: You do not say that on the hustings and only whisper it in parliament. Why are our men unemployed? It is not seasonal; it is not the hot summer sun, or the wet spring rain, or heavy snowdrifts. It is the illogical tariff and fiscal policies introduced by this government, and the haphazard gunshot prescription offered by this government. It is not good enough to whisper in parliament that our workers are getting too much in wages. It is not good enough to tell industrial workers to go out and get another job. It is not good enough to tell company executives to smarten up and modernize their methods, buy new machinery, and get up to date.
The textile industry has spent $400 million during the last five or ten years in modernizing their plants.
Industry generally in Canada has put $2 billion into the modernization and improvement of their plants in order to meet the very competition to which I have referred, so that they can give these men pensions, health insurance, health benefits, hospitalization and other cares and more wages than any other labour men in the world get except those in the United States of America. The men too wonder how that can be maintained. If we have a small market in Canada with only 15 million people, they wonder if we can maintain this standard of living and employ the new people that should be coming into Canada now; but they are not coming in because we have a negative immigration policy that bounces around like a cork just whatever way the fiscal uncertainty goes; and there is so much uncertainty that there is no need of an immigration policy when you have no fiscal policy.
No, Mr. Speaker, you cannot do that; you cannot employ these people if you are going to import into Canada from the mass production in the United States more refrigerators than are made in Canada altogether. You cannot cut a little market in two and keep in competition with this mass production in the United States. You cannot keep your textile plants running and humming unless you face the issue. We have dodged it, Mr. Speaker. I say again that you do not need any fiscal or trade policy when you have the money rolling in as it has been rolling in when you have a hot or cold war and are
The Address-Mr. Rowe preparing to prevent another war. Again I say that the youngest in this house have never experienced a trade policy and the oldest in the house may forget when there was one. Some of the older gentlemen were not here then. Many of you have come here when you did not need a trade policy at all. Again I say if you had needed one, you would have to search a long way through the Liberal campaign books to know which one to pick. The fact that you have not used one for a long time is the reason that you are satisfied to continue without one.
Mr. Speaker, as one who has had some experience in industry may I say that I am confident that we have excellent plants and excellent machinery. We have some of the best business and industrial executives in the world. As one who knows a little bit about business let me say this. Having had some responsibility in business for some 15 years or more, I am sure that there is one plant that needs overhauling, new machinery and new executives, namely the present cabinet here in Ottawa. We need a new fiscal machine and we need a new tax calculator. Even though the one we have is new, he belongs to the same old pattern. The farmers of Canada will then have more confidence. They will not have, as the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Cardiff) has mentioned, 2,500,000 pounds of cheese dumped on their market overnight. The industrial worker will then have some confidence that his job may be there for more than a few months. He will not expect that the job that he and two or three generations of his family have enjoyed will be closed to him because of the cheap products that come in from foreign countries.
During recent years, Mr. Speaker, we in the opposition have been hoping against hope with regard to what might come forth from the famous GATT. We were hoping that these conferences might bring forth some changes that might stimulate our industrial and national growth. Here in this country there are no signs of it yet. The members of the government are the greatest travelling salesmen that we have had in this country since confederation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The greatest travellers.


William Earl Rowe: Someone says "travellers". I do not think that is quite fair. They have not had a sales policy but they want to be salesmen. I believe they are sincere in then-efforts to try to sell but they have no direction and no policy. They are not just sure how they can proceed, but they have tried. They have travelled great distances. I have often wondered about their safety as they flew through the air across the country. In

The Address-Mr. Rowe the long trips they have taken I have hoped nothing might happen to them. Especially do I hope that nothing will happen to the Prime Minister in his trip overseas, because if they lose him they have lost all. They expect to spend about $5 million more in travelling this year. In fact, they are going to spend about $60 million going here and there all over the world. You never know where a cabinet minister is going to turn up.


Walter Edward Harris: Surely the hon. member does not mean that we are going to spend $60 million on travelling.


William Earl Rowe: On travelling and replacement of the representatives you now have, changing from one place to another, buying new residences for them, new furniture, carpets and so forth. You are going to spend about $60 million on that type of salesmanship.
One of the troubles was that they entered the GATT conferences without any policy. They were poorly prepared. The only thing they had to say to the 31 leading trading nations of the world was that we are the freest traders in the world, that we have the lowest tariff. They boasted about that. From these final big league trade series, these famous commercial globe trotters returned with nothing but a diploma which represented the world's grand championship in free trade. While they did that and while they were achieving that, everybody else went to the conference with higher tariffs. Just imagine anybody who has played poker-and nobody on this side has had time to do so-entering the game with the cards stacked against him like that. We must be the most hopeful party that has ever been in the opposition when we ever had any hope that you would bring back from GATT much more than you have brought back. You are going back again.
While you were achieving this rather strange distinction, thousands and thousands of our people-almost half a million-have lost their jobs in Canada. Mr. Speaker, if I had the responsibility again of running a company, I would not hire any of these salesmen.
The present fiscal uncertainty and instability in this country is only in keeping with the historical record of the party that is now in power. I may be pardoned for looking back a little bit because, as I have mentioned, it is only by looking back beyond the days when we have had hot and cold wars and were preparing for others that we can find the period where we had to apply hard, cold logic to the development of this country. I have no apologies to make when I say that the party I represent today had as
IMr. Rowe.]
much to do with the greatest era of develop^ ment that we have had in this country and with the sound basis for development as had the party to your right, Mr. Speaker, despite their sincerity of purpose.
The Liberal party has had some great men in the past. In fact there were many who were greater than some of you are now. In 1891 your party fought more or less a rearguard action for commercial union with the United States of America. But later, in 1907, that great statesman, Sir Wilfrid Laurier- and he must have been great because almost every Conservative I knew had great respect for him-had something to say. I remember reading something he said in 1907. He had far more interest evidently, as the record shows, in 1898 and other times in the United Kingdom market than this government has shown. He said in 1907, "There will be no more pilgrimages to Washington". He said that we would now look east and west and would develop in the United Kingdom the greatest market for our agricultural products that we have in the world. Therefore it is apparent that, although most policies of trading with the United Kingdom have come from this side of the house, not all were initiated by our party.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, recently we have observed another pilgrimage in great haste to Washington of these three wise men from the cabinet who returned last week empty-handed. They brought home nothing except the uncertainty they took away with them.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: They had a good trip.


William Earl Rowe: That would not be much of a trip for these gentlemen. They have been spoiled. It might have been interesting for farmers like you and me. In 1911 that same party stood for reciprocity with the United States of America. They were going to go all the way, up or down, every way the United States went. There must have been a change even in the mind of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I think he would have been more stable if there had not been so many uncertain fellows around him.
I remember the history of 1921 and 1925, what was said about this great market in the United States, how the Fordney-McCumber tariff and the Hawley-Smoot tariff closed our markets overnight, and how these Liberals, who had looked so happy, looked sadder than they have in twenty years. They had boasted about how trade would be built up and their boasts were shattered like a deck of cards, and we had more unsold cattle than at any previous time before 1930.
Then we come to 1930. They changed their policy again. Some hon. members will

remember that they proposed a countervailing fiscal policy. Certainly the farmers and even the smartest executives would not know what was going to take place under it unless they went to Washington. If a certain duty went up in Washington it went up here. If it went down in Washington it went down in Ottawa

a countervailing policy that would countervail and just do that. So they transferred their fiscal policy making to Washington at that time.
Today, Mr. Speaker, one need not wonder. Those of the younger group to whom I have referred know that the government has not needed a sound fiscal policy in their lifetime. The government has been riding the gravy train of world prosperity brought on by the necessities of the wartime boom. It is not surprising that they have not needed to practise sound fiscal policy. They had none in any event. You can understand why we have no definite fiscal policy at Ottawa today and why we are shuttling back and forth accepting a fiscal policy drafted in Geneva and at the same time risking it being amended in Washington.
Today we find that two-thirds of all our trade is with the United States of America and only one-third with the rest of the world. Stop and think of it, Mr. Speaker. No other important trading nation in the world has ever allowed itself to get into that kind of position. Never has any important trading nation been so dependent on another nation as we are on the United States of America. Why, Mr. Speaker, it should even alarm this government, smug and complacent as it is. How can we dare risk that situation? It is just the reverse of what it was 20 years ago. Then we sold about one-third to the United States of America and two-thirds to the rest of the world.
I remember that there was another change in policy. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) will remember this too. We had the situation brought about by the Fordney-McCumber tariff. We were not sure what we should do but we knew we must not provoke the United States of America. Surely it is no provocation to tell them that we are minding our own business. Surely it is no provocation to tell them that unless our dairy products are admitted to their country we will not bring in substitutes for the dairy industry from there.
Surely we could risk having ia bold, common-sense and logical approach to the situation when we are now buying from the United States every day the sun rises almost $2 million more than we are selling to them. We had an unfavourable trade balance last year of at least $500 million and it will be
The Address-Mr. Rowe the same this year. Yet as far as the United Kingdom market is concerned, even though the government has lost that market for many of our important products, we are still selling the United Kingdom market $200 million more than we are buying from them. Surely it is worth considering.
We of the official opposition believe that we should have some reduction in taxation. We believe we should have more taxpayers and a lower rate of taxation. We believe that is possible. We have every hope for the prosperity of this dominion in the longterm pull. No one can think of the greatness of this young country without visualizing employment not only for those who are idle today but for hundreds, thousands and millions more who should come to this country.
Why, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, your own great esteemed leader, anticipated that by 1930 we would have far more people than we have today, and he expected that by 1950 we would have 50 million. The late Sir John A. Macdonald anticipated the same thing but neither of them expected that there would be a government that would so disguise the country's real problems. They did not expect that there would be a speech from the throne which would hide the real problems of the country. I know that there are difficult problems. The improvement in unemployment insurance benefits will help a little bit. The causeway down east will also help a little bit. A few fellows will have to put up a few monuments and grade a few historical sites in Canada, and I hope you pay them well.
Even the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway will provide some employment, but with the vast machines of today it is not a big factor. You can dip into -the treasury and have deficits where you used to have surpluses. You used to have cyclical budgeting but they will now be circle budgets because you are going to have deficits instead of surpluses. You can dig into the treasury and spend some money for temporary relief. It is just like giving a baby cough medicine and leaving the window up. Why, Mr. Speaker, you have not even touched the edge of the problem. You are only giving panaceas. You are only giving a little medicine for the disease your lack of policy has created. These are some of the problems that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), whose absence I regret, and in fact I expect right at this moment the whole house regrets -I know my own party does-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friends laugh, but that is true. I say that because we happen to be so fortunate in having as our parliamentary leader one of the most outstanding and
30	ijl	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Rowe colourful parliamentarians that this country has known. I regret his absence greatly because he could go into these problems much more deeply than I can. When he is fit he has unbounded energy, and his untiring industry has fitted him for the task. He has a background of experience in government, both municipal and provincial, and now in the opposition as well. In fact, one can learn about as much sitting over here and watching the government weaknesses as by performing the functions of government. We miss his experience, ability and energy today. I thank the Prime Minister again for his kind words in this regard, and I know we all hope he will soon return.
These are some of the reasons why, Mr. Speaker, and he would have named many more, last fall he thought we should have had a session of parliament. When he called upon the government to consider convening a session of parliament, I am sure he did not expect that unemployment would be called regional and only seasonal, or that there would be no constructive policy towards the solution of the problem. He did not expect that now, after he had urged the calling of a dominion-provincial conference for so long in order to find a better and more clearly defined division of taxation between federal, provincial and municipal governments, and after hearing the Prime Minister say, even though he did not think there was any need for one during the recess but we might have one sooner than we expect, today the Prime Minister would say he will tell us whether or not he has changed his mind again.
However, I do wish to say that, despite these signs of declining export markets, despite our increasing unemployment, which I hope can be recovered, our decreasing national revenue and our increasing expenditures, I have absolute confidence that with a sound fiscal and taxation policy and the development of our resources in our own country, we shall continue to go forward. By that I do not mean, Mr. Speaker, that all the resources we have must be developed here. We have iron ore that the United States will need in far more volume than she does now, and probably for the next quarter of a century. We have an abundance of raw products to sell.
We would be glad to sell our wheat, whether it is in the form of flour or pancakes. We want to sell it. There are no raw products, of which we have more than we need right now, that we in this party would not be prepared to sell. This should not be misrepresented by those who go out on the highways and byways as meaning that


we are a party that believes every pound of our raw resources should be developed in Canada; that has never been our policy, Mr. Speaker. We believe in the development of our resources in this country to give employment to our own people. It is a matter of equalizing conditions, and there are many ways by which that can be brought about.
Our whole taxation structure needs reorganization. The government talks about lowering the costs of industry, and we might do that by lowering the cost of government. You can talk about being competitive, getting out and finding business, but you can help the manufacturer to be more competitive by reducing some of these taxes. You can help the labourer to hold his job, if you look carefully at what is happening. I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that this government and the hon. members who sit to your right who are responsible for the management of our affairs today, in their private thinking and after careful consideration, will look deeper into these matters than the speech from the throne would indicate they have done.
Again I say that we have the potentialities here; we have the resources to create great opportunities for thousands of young Canadians as yet unborn as well as the millions of people who may come here from other lands. We need a fiscal policy that is sound and a taxation policy that will be fair to our different classes. We have to give consideration to the equalization of conditions between us and some of these foreign countries that are producing these cheap products. We should equalize conditions so that the lot of the Canadian farmer will be better. When our population increases as it should increase, then our home market will be worth something to the farmer and to the manufacturer. The mass production to the south should not be allowed to interfere with the market to the degree it has in some cases.
I have no brief for any particular class. Basically, I am a farmer; I believe that the farmers' interests are best served by a sound fiscal policy that will give us a healthy industry and develop our home markets for the farmer. An industrial development will give us thousands more of homes to buy our products. Then, as the units get cheaper we may be able to compete in the markets of the world.
I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon.
member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), that the following be added to the address:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to take or to recommend the necessary measures:
(a) to retain and expand Canada's markets abroad for our production, particularly of wheat and other products:

(b)	to solve the urgent problem of unemployment;
(c)	to relieve Canadian taxpayers from the burden of excessive taxation and thereby enable Canadian producers to lower their cost of production and to meet increasing competition;
(d)	to eliminate waste and extravagance in government and improve its efficiency;
(e)	to facilitate and encourage the processing of our natural resources in Canada, and thereby increase opportunities and employment for Canadians;
(f)	in co-operation with the provinces to develop an effective contributory plan which will assure that every Canadian will have adequate hospital and medical services.


Mr. Speaker:: At this time I should like to say that I am somewhat impressed by the length of the amendment. I say this in all seriousness. Hon. members will recall that last year, I think when there was an amendment before the house for the Speaker to leave the chair and the house to go into committee of ways and means, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) had moved an amendment which was also very lengthy. One could argue that there are some paragraphs in the amendment for which one might want to vote, and there are others against which one might want to vote. This becomes what we call a complicated amendment.
Hon. members may wish to have the subjects segregated in order to have a clear-cut expression of the will of the house.
It will be recalled that in the past the vote of thanks on the address was a reply to each paragraph in the speech from the throne. We did away with that a long time ago, and the motion in reply is now only a vote of thanks and the regrets added are usually rather brief.
I say this at the present time to give hon. members an opportunity to consider what I have said. For my part, I shall study the amendment; but I think it might be well for the mover to consider shortening his amendment, for the reasons I have mentioned.
Then there is another reason which I think the hon. member will want to know about, and it is this: If throughout this session on occasions with a view to the airing of grievances he wishes to move amendments to the motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair to go into committee of supply, he will be blocked by many of the paragraphs contained in this long amendment. Because the house will have given its judgment; and therefore he will not be able to bring forward many of the important subjects he might wish to discuss later at great length.
Now, having said this, I shall consider the amendment, and I would like my colleagues to do likewise.
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the amendment just placed before the house and before dealing with the subject matter of the speech to which we have just listened with keen interest and attention I should like, as did the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe), to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in response to the speech from the throne. I think no one will question or will differ from the Acting Leader of the Opposition's appreciation of the interesting speeches made by those two new members, nor in his forecast that it enables us to expect much from them of interest to the house and of value to our parliamentary institutions in their participation in the activities of parliament.
They are both relatively young men, but men who already have had distinguished careers in their respective constituencies, and who have been chosen by their constituents to follow the distinguished representatives of those constituencies who sat in the house before them.
The hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Leduc) is a jurist of some 20 years or more experience, one who has acted in that capacity as adviser of school boards and of the municipal councils of the city of Verdun, and who has acquired experience, both legal and administrative, in that capacity. I am sure his contributions to our debates will be of value. He is also a professor of social sciences at the University of Montreal, and no doubt his theoretical studies were reflected in the speech he made when moving this address.
The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Carrick) has many qualifications which command our admiration; and the ease and facility with which he acquitted himself in his task also promise much for his future in this House of Commons. He, too, followed in the footsteps of a distinguished predecessor, and has, himself, one of the qualifications which endeared his predecessor to the whole Canadian public. I refer to his prowess in athletics, and his devotion to the development of that side of human activity which has its value in developing the qualities of a nation.
He, too, is a distinguished lawyer with many years' experience, one who has represented this government in important litigation, one who in the course of his distinguished service during the last war headed the legal department of our Canadian forces in Italy. And I am sure that the
32	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent quality and variety of his experience will also be of value in future debates of this parliament.
To both of them all of us extend not only congratulations but best wishes for the many years during which they may contribute to the administration of the public affairs of this country.
I wish also to thank the Acting Leader of the Opposition for the, well, sometimes qualified compliments addressed to my colleagues and myself. But I do appreciate that his recognition of our devotion to public duty exceeds perhaps his appreciation of our wisdom. Nevertheless that is something which is quite compatible with the full recognition that on both sides of the house we do extend to the honest endeavours of us all to perform for this young and growing country the best services within our respective capacities.
I must say now that I listened very carefully and followed very closely the remarks of the Acting Leader of the Opposition. The picture of the situation of this country that he painted reminded me of similar pictures I have heard painted from year to year by others who have spoken from that side of the house. Whether or not there was a lack of sound fiscal policy-and I shall have to take my understanding of the hon. member's conception of "sound fiscal policy"-fortunately, events turned out fairly satisfactorily.
I think perhaps it is well sometimes to take the objective view of the Canadian scene that is taken by people outside this country. I have here a clipping from the London Times of September 11, 1954, in which, under the title "Young and Lusty", it says:
The pace of Canadian development during the past decade has been tremendous.
And the following paragraph begins with the words:
Certainly Canada will be a fortunate country if the past decade does not stand out to some extent in retrospect as a notable period of growth.
And then, after discussing how that may have come about the writer goes on to say:
No government came anywhere near perfection in running its wartime controls, in curbing inflation, or in managing the return to freedom. But the Canadian government was far more successful than most. Inflation was always less a domestic product than an import from the United States; hence the upward revaluation of the Canadian dollar in 1946 and the adoption of a free exchange rate-with an upward revaluation in the market-in 1950. The return to freedom was steady, with relatively little temporary backsliding.
The firm and even hand was no doubt itself a symptom of a strong government-strong alike in its political position and its personnel. The government could always act and speak with assurance, and there was always an able and experienced departmental minister to ensure that in any specific matter it spoke and acted wisely.


I do not want to take too much comfort from that because it is I think in the proper functioning of democratic institutions more important to have the opinion and view of the people of one's own country than those of people of other countries. But I have yet to find that the views expressed by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken represent those of the majority of the people of our own country.
I listened quite carefully to his speech, and though I found frequent recurrence of the words "strong fiscal policy" yet the manner in which it was described and the inconvenience it was supposed to be able to overcome reminded one very much of the pleas that that party used to make for protection, although the word "protection" was carefully avoided.
Here we all feel that expanding trade is desirable. We feel that it is almost necessary to the prosperity of the Canadian people, but we do not feel that it would be by high tariffs that expanding trade could be achieved1 in this country. It is perhaps unfortunate that the production costs of some of our commodities happen to be greater than those of other commodities from abroad that could be imported into this country. But it is nevertheless quite true that foreign trade must flow in both directions, and that you cannot have high exports unless you have at the same time high imports or extend credit or aid in the form of Canadian currency to enable our domestic producers to receive payment for their exports.
The hon, gentleman has said that Canada has lost the United Kingdom market for the second time in his own period of political experience. There has been no loss of the United Kingdom market. There is no less desire in the United Kingdom to take goods from Canada than there was at any time, but it has so happened that, although the situation of the United Kingdom is improving and has been improving constantly and steadily, there is still a shortage of dollars that limits the quantities of Canadian goods they can import and for which they could provide the currency required.
The hon. gentleman says that our imports from the United Kingdom are insufficient and that the balance of our trade with the United Kingdom is still in our favour. Unless I do not understand what the hon. gentleman means, I take it that we are exporting to them commodities of a greater value than we are importing from them. Well, there are precisely some of the imports that are coming from them that are being sold on this market at prices that, for instance, our own textile producers find it impossible for them to meet.
The hon. gentleman says that so far there have been parties in Canada, other than the

ones to which 1 belong on one side and he belongs on the other side, who have made many promises but have not yet had any test with respect to performance. That is quite true. But it is quite true as well that the parties to which he and I both belong are not socialistic parties. They are parties who believe in free enterprise, and who believe in the greatest degree of freedom for the individual that can be exercised without damage to the welfare of the whole community. Our government, and I am sure the same would be true of any government made up from the hon. gentleman's party, does not attempt to dictate to the Canadian people the sources from which they will take their supplies and does not attempt to dictate to them where they will, if they can, sell those products that they have for export.
We do our best to facilitate external trade, but we do not attempt to handle external trade through any government organization, with the exception of the wheat board, set up at the request of the wheat producers themselves and managed for their benefit and to a large degree under their direction.
The world situation is one over which no strong fiscal policy, as I understood the hon. gentleman to envisage the one he had in mind, to prevent the entering of goods from areas in which they are produced at less cost than they can be produced here, would have very much beneficial effect.
The hon. gentleman says that our party has never been put to the trial and has not had to deal with hard times. Well, that is because when we have been in office there have not been the kind of hard times that occurred, perhaps only coincidentally, with the implementation of the kind of policies about which the hon. gentleman was entertaining us this afternoon.
There is some unemployment in Canada. There has been some unemployment in Canada every year. At the opening of every session of the Canadian parliament for the last three or four years there has been considerable anxiety over the kind and extent of unemployment in Canada. However, because of the resources, material and human, to which the hon. gentleman paid tribute, that situation has eased as the season advanced, and there is reason to expect that it will do so again.
When one looks at the Canadian situation and that of our neighbours to the south, Canadians have no reason to feel that we are not as well off as they are there, or that the improved trend that has become manifest there is not also being manifested in the Canadian economy.
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
That does not mean that for those who are unemployed-and there are large numbers-unemployment is not a deplorable thing, and that we should not do everything within our power to lessen its effects. But, as the hon. gentleman has said, there is not very much that can be accomplished through the expenditure of public funds on public undertakings. What is required is something that stimulates the economy generally and does not to any unnecessary degree interfere with the display by our Canadian citizens of their own initiative and skills.
In that connection perhaps the hon. gentleman saw the report of an appraisal of the Canadian situation made by the president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce at the eightieth annual meeting of the shareholders of the bank. The president faced the situation objectively, and his conclusion was that if it were possible to draw up a balance sheet of the Canadian condition it would show a substantial surplus on the favourable side.
That does not mean that there will not be some unfavourable factors; it does not mean that those unfavourable factors are of no consequence. But it does mean, in terms of accountancy, that the balance sheet would show on the whole a substantial surplus on the favourable side. Our economy is subject to world conditions. All we can hope for is to have a substantial surplus on the favourable side, while we do our best to improve that surplus and remove to the extent to which that is possible the unfavourable factors which enter into the establishment of the balance.
There will be opportunities for the hon. gentleman and his colleagues to enlighten us further as to the strong fiscal and tax policies that in their opinion would remove the unfavourable factors which now enter into the accounting, and which nevertheless leave a substantially favourable balance.
The amendment submitted expresses regret that His Excellency's advisers have failed to retain and expand Canadian markets abroad for our production, particularly of wheat and other products. With respect to wheat and the products thereof the proportion of sales made by Canada is greater than of those made by any other country except Argentina and Australia. We have sold a better proportion of our crop than that disposed of by our neighbours to the south, and the figures show an actual improvement over what was possible in the corresponding months of the previous year.
Now, what more we can do to expand our markets abroad for our production is something which we would be glad to have pointed out to us by the hon. gentleman or any of his friends.

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
It is, I think, more important to the health of the Canadian economy to have things done than it is to discuss in this house who has been the promoter of what happens to have turned out to be the right thing. The genuine welfare of the country is or should be of more concern to all of us than the party political advantage of attributing blame or praise to any of us.
However, I can assure the hon. gentleman that though it is perhaps somewhat of an exaggeration to suggest that anything of which we are supposed to be boasting as an achievement is due to the pressure put upon us by suggestions from the other side of the house, nevertheless we will be only too happy to give serious consideration to any constructive suggestion whatever its source. I might add, though, that we in this party will not be disposed to feel, without stronger arguments than we have yet heard, that a high protection policy would help us expand our markets or cure the unemployment which exists in respect of some of our industries.
The hon. gentleman expresses pleasure at the fact that I will be attending a meeting of the commonwealth prime ministers in London, and he suggested I was personally taking hold of the problem of increasing our trade with the United Kingdom. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not expect that Sir Winston Churchill and I, in any of the conversations we will have, can hope to do very much to further the progress of the United Kingdom toward convertibility of its currency, which will be required for any substantial expansion of its trade with Canada. Those are not things which can be achieved by agreement between any two individuals. They are things that must be the result of the operation of economic factors that depend upon a multiplicity of different shaping trends. From having attended some conferences and from having watched what took place following them, I am confident that they are useful and that they serve to assist in the growth of healthier trade relations. But that is something that cannot be looked for as an overnight result of the conferences themselves.
Then it is regretted that His Excellency's advisers have failed to take the necessary measures to relieve Canadian taxpayers of the burden of excessive taxation and thereby enable Canadian producers to lower their cost of production and meet increasing competition. May I say that the scale and rates of taxation have had to be high in order to enable this government to meet its obligations to its own people and, as a consequence of its obligations to its own people, to perform its share in what is being done by itself and its allies for the safety of the free nations


themselves. I feel that I am getting on to dangerous ground and that I should not attempt to forecast what may at some time be a proper taxation policy in order to meet a situation that might be different. But up to the present time I am convinced that the Canadian public have felt that it was the right thing to pay as you go. That policy is one which has helped to keep Canada in the stable situation in which it has been for the last several years.
The next paragraph expresses regret that His Excellency's advisers have failed to eliminate waste and extravagance in government and improve its efficiency. That is a fairly general condemnation of the manner in which we have been administering the affairs of the country. In that respect I am sure that the hon. gentleman, though he perhaps does not think much of our wisdom, will give us credit for doing our best.
With respect to the paragraph referring to the encouragement of the processing of our natural resources in Canada, thereby increasing opportunities and employment for Canadians, may I say that I am sure that in principle we are all agreed as to how far that can and should be done. I noted with appreciation the applause all over the house when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) explained the bills which received first reading earlier this afternoon.
I must confess that the last paragraph of the amendment, which speaks of the failure of His Excellency's advisers in co-operation with the provinces to develop an effective contributory plan which will assure that every Canadian will have adequate hospital and medical services, is something new in the formal amendments submitted from that side of the house. It certainly is something that is highly desirable. It is something that we would all like to see done. However, our progress in the development of welfare services in Canada has been fairly rapid over the last few years. Any further implementation would require the spending, through government agencies, of a larger portion of the incomes of individuals. That is something which will come, but the timing of it will depend upon the circumstances of the Canadian economy generally.
We shall have many debates in which we shall hear repetitions of the matters touched upon by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe). We shall hear discussion from various angles as to just how dark are the unemployment clouds, but I think we shall have to look at them in an unemotional fashion and appraise them as to their real significance. It will require that everything possible be done to relieve the situation and

that something be done at once for the immediate relief of those who are suffering from unemployment. In the speech from the throne hon. gentlemen will have noticed the announcement that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) will have two bills to submit at the earliest possible moment, the first to provide immediately an extension of supplementary benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I understand that this matter has been discussed with members of all groups in the house and that immediate action will be possible to deal with that special measure.
Hon. gentlemen will have noticed that there is ready for consideration by parliament a much larger volume of business proposed by the government than has been ready at this stage in any previous session. On the order paper at the present time there are notices of resolutions for fifteen government measures which require to be preceded by resolution and there were two which, not requiring resolutions, received first reading today. There is a third which is already on the order paper. Five government measures have been sent to the clerk of the other place for introduction there. One was introduced on the opening day and the four others are to be introduced immediately for consideration. That is a very large volume of business ready for consideration.
Traditionally the debate on the address has occupied many days at the opening of a session. There have been suggestions that that was because there was no business in which members were really interested ready for their consideration, and that instead of leaving them in a position where they felt that their views had to be expressed on the address or else there would be no opportunity for expressing them, it would be helpful if they could have in advance an indication of what was coming up for discussion so they might then reserve their speeches for the debates on those different measures.
We are endeavouring to meet the suggestions that have been made from time to time to overcome this feeling that ithe business of parliament is not properly organized and not handled in a businesslike way. During the opening days of the last session the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), in supporting a motion for the immediate establishment of a committee, said, as appears at page 397 of Hansard of November 27, 1953:
. . . the expeditious handling of business will not be related nearly so much to any limitation of time on speeches or anything of that kind as it will to some orderly method of presenting business and setting up committees at the earliest possible stage . . .
50433-3J
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
We are presenting the business at the earliest possible stage and we will be glad of the opportunity to set up some committees at the earliest possible stage. We propose to suggest, as an experiment for this session, that there be set up an estimates committee to which the estimates of several departments could be referred for detailed consideration before coming before the committee of supply of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the Prime Minister in a position to say which departments?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There will be five or six which will be referred consecutively to this committee so we can have a serious experiment made as to the effect it will have upon securing better consideration of the estimates than is sometimes possible toward the end of the session, in the case of those that have not been studied before.


John George Diefenbaker: Which departments did the Prime Minister have in mind?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: At this time I would not like to make any definite statement, but we will try to make the kind of experiment that will give satisfaction to the members of the house generally and will enable them to determine from their own experience whether or not it would be desirable to expand the system and try to arrive at something like that which now prevails in the United Kingdom.
We would like to have the committee on the rules set up at as early a date as possible. Without doing what the Leader of the Opposition had in mind in his statement of last November, without doing much in the way of limiting the time of speeches or anything of that kind, we feel there are many improvements that can be made that would avoid! some of the time required under the present rules to deal with the matters on the order paper. For instance, these resolutions preparatory to the introduction of bills, under the rules, have to be called on a government day. When they are first called nothing more can be done than declare to the house that they are recommended by His Excellency the Governor General, and they have to go over to another day.
There are certain of these phases which, if not eliminated, can certainly be streamlined so the business can be proceeded with in a more expeditious fashion and so there may not be this feeling that during the first weeks of a session there is lots of time and much of it can be taken for speeches in the house that might otherwise be directed towards the furthering of these stages of items of legislation.

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
Many years ago I received from Lord Dunedin, out of the wealth of his experience, a bit of advice. It was that when one attempted to make a speech he should sit down immediately after having said everything he had to say. I think I have said everything I had to say, and I will now make room for other members of the house who, in accordance with these old traditions of our practice, are expected to follow at this time.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for his gracious invitation to speak. I am going to accept that invitation. It is customary for speakers in this debate to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am afraid that sometimes it is a rather perfunctory sort of business, but on Friday I listened to the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) and I was impressed with what they did. I join with the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) and the Prime Minister in expressing to them the hope that they will have the health and the strength and the will to take part in the debates of the house as long as they are here. I am not going to say, as has been said, that I wish them to remain here forever because of course it is the duty of the opposition to try to displace even those who move and second addresses in reply to the speech from the throne.
I also want to take this opportunity to say that we were in full agreement with what the Prime Minister said on Friday regarding the absence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). I sincerely hope that he will be restored to full strength and will be able to resume his seat in the house in the not far distant future.
This afternoon I listened attentively, of course, to the speech of the Acting Leader of the Opposition. He has a unique way of handling the subjects with which he deals, and he always provides us with a pleasant hour when he rises to speak on any topic in this house. This afternoon he did not fail us in our anticipation. I found it very difficult, however, to follow some of the points he made. Indeed, at one time I thought the speech was reminiscent of speeches made by some of the Liberals between 1930 and 1935. At one stage I thought when I rose I might suggest that this time the opposition speakers in the Conservative party might read some of Mr. King's speeches to the house in criticism of the Conservative party, and that the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side might dig up Mr. Bennett's speeches vand read them

in defence of the present government. After all, that was the way it sounded to me. It was reminiscent of those days before 1935.
I, too, want to say something about the amendment, Mr. Speaker. I agree with you. What has happened in the amendment that has been moved by the official opposition is this. Because of the number of topics covered it has, in effect, blocked the way of the entire opposition from moving, from time to time in this house, amendments on going into supply that might embarrass the government and lead to votes on various matters.
Someone says to read it. Just take a look at it. It refers to the failure to solve the urgent problem of unemployment. Suppose we want to move a resolution on unemployment. I would argue that this does not block the way, but on the other hand I think it is quite conceivable it might be argued that it does. There is mention of action to relieve the Canadian taxpayers of their burden and concerning the elimination of waste and extravagance. That is so wide that we might be prevented from censuring the present government, because all of us on this side of the house are convinced that there is waste and extravagance on the part of the government in the administration of its affairs. I think that is normal in opposition at all times.


Walter Edward Harris: Even if untrue.


Major James William Coldwell: There is mention of facilitating and encouraging the processing of products. Paragraph (f) of the amendment reads:
in co-operation with the provinces to develop an effective contributory plan which will assure that every Canadian will have adequate hospital and medical services.
How happy I am to see that included in an amendment moved by the official opposition. I only hope that the government of one of the larger provinces of this country, which is of the same stripe as the opposition, will immediately take steps to implement such a program. I am convinced that since British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta have hospital plans at the present time, if one of the two central provinces of Canada, plus perhaps one of the maritime provinces, showed some interest in this proposal we should have a national health insurance plan rather quickly. Consequently I say to my -hon. friends that if they really want to see this done, as urgently as we want to see it done, then with their influence in Ontario and in New Brunswick they could materially assist in getting such legislation on the statute books, even by a Liberal government which promised such a measure in 1919, 36 years ago. In any event I hope that in the lifetime of this parliament we shall see such a measure placed on our statute books.

The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) took a great deal of comfort from the article in the London Times. I want to say to the government that the progress of Canada has been unquestioned ever since the war broke out. Prior to the war the same government was in power. No one can say that in those years from 1935 to 1938, at least until we began rearmament, there were any signs of progress in this country. Indeed, we continued in the slough of despondency in which we were when the Liberal party took power in 1935. It was preparation for war and our very favourable geographical position that enabled such an article to be written about the government. I am not detracting at all from the tremendous progress that has been made in this country over the last ten or more years. I only hope that progress will be continued.
A few moments ago the Prime Minister gave a rather strange definition of free enterprise. As I understood him, he said free enterprise enabled everyone to follow his own devices provided he did not do anything that interfered with the rights of others. That is not free enterprise. Our statute books are cluttered with legislation preventing individuals from following their own devices. We have had to limit individuals. As for the inference that democratic socialists are in favour of restricting individual liberty, look at the record. The legislation that has been placed on the statute books of all the democratic countries guaranteeing the social rights of individuals and social justice for individuals was placed there, not always by socialist governments of course, but at the insistence of men and women who followed socialist philosophy.
In this house between 1921 and 1942, until he was removed by death from his seat in this house, who was it who brought the wrongs of the Canadian people to the floor of this parliament, and fought for the rights of the individual and for social justice? It was a predecessor of mine as leader of this group in the house, the late J. S. Woodsworth. I want to say that I hope we shall continue to struggle in that same tradition and after the same pattern we followed at that time.
I want to join in the criticism of the government for not having called parliament together earlier. The Prime Minister has said that now a great deal of legislation is ready, and that debate may be limited because we know what we are going to do in this session of parliament. I do not think that is any answer. If we had met in November, legislation might have been ready and we might have been informed as to what that legislation would be. Last autumn there were
The Address-Mr. Coldwell problems in this country which needed the attention of parliament, and not the attention of the government only. I might name two of them, the decline in farm income-let me say at once, not due to the bad crop in western Canada because that crop has not yet entered into the picture so far as marketing is concerned-and the grave concern about mounting unemployment. Earlier in the year when we dared to say that this winter we were going to be faced with a larger job-seeking list than we had a year ago, we were told that was very unlikely. But we have found that unemployment has mounted.
A third matter which should have been discussed in this parliament in the autumn was the international situation. I am not going to discuss that international situation today, Mr. Speaker, because I understand the protocol relating to NATO will be introduced, as well as other agreements. We shall have an opportunity then of hearing the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) explain the protocol and the agreements, and we shall have an opportunity of discussing those agreements on their merits at that time. I shall not deal with those now.
Before I make any criticisms I want to say that there are some welcome announcements in the speech. I am very happy to learn that at this session some further provision will be made for improvement in the War Veterans Allowance Act. I think that is overdue, as I am sure many members of this house do.
Again, I am not going to take credit for this party or give it to that party; but I say there are hon. gentlemen in their seats in all parts of the house who will be very happy to see this piece of legislation brought down, because from all quarters of the house it has been advocated from time to time.
Then, of course, something in which I have always been particularly interested is the welfare of the blind. Personally I am glad, and of course as a party we are glad-and I presume this feeling is shared by hon. members in all parts of the house-to know that the age of eligibility for the receipt of blind pensions is to be lowered, and the ceiling raised.
Of course we agree with the statement in the speech from the throne that the bringing into force of the Disabled Persons Act brings into operation in this country a great humanitarian measure. Unfortunately the government discovered that this was a great humanitarian measure long after we thought the discovery should have been made. We have felt that the act should have been brought in much earlier.
As we shall indicate by our votes on the amendment, we are disappointed-and I shall

The Address-Mr. Coldwell put it that way-that no further steps have been taken toward a national health plan. No such steps are indicated in the speech from the throne this year. The time is long overdue when Canada should have such a plan. After all, we are one of the only two large democratic countries in the world without some sort of national health plan to cover all the people, under a state system. The other country is the United States.
I was in Great Britain and other places this summer. While I shall not say much about it just now, although I may later, I found wherever I went that perhaps the most popular thing ever done in Great Britain was the placing on the statute books of their national health plan. And let it be known that I did not move only or even to a large extent among people who shared my philosophy. I could not help noticing that the policies followed there-rationing, yes; control of prices, yes, and so on-in the last 15 years or so, as well as the health plan, have had a great beneficial effect on the physical appearance and the obvious welfare of the boys and girls of the United Kingdom. When, as I did, leaving London around four o'clock to avoid the rush hours, one sees them getting on the trains after leaving their schools, he could not help noticing their fine physique and, incidentally, their excellent behaviour. These were things which pleased me very much indeed.
So it is that we are disappointed because we are not progressing faster toward this great humanitarian measure. Day by day we see in the newspapers stories of hardship because people are unable to afford the kind of medical and health care they need. I know it is said that anyone who needs the services of a doctor can get them, and in what I say I am not criticizing the medical profession at all. But I do say that many people will not go soon enough to be examined, at the onset of a disease, because they fear the expense- the doctor's fee, the hospitalization charges, and all the rest of it. It seems to me that here is a great advance in social security this country should make without delay.
I said a moment ago that there are two problems, other than the international problem, which should have received attention long ago. Those two problems are urgent and are before us at the present time. They are of course the decline in farm income and increased unemployment among industrial and other workers throughout the country.
Of course these two conditions are closely related. The decline in farm income is felt immediately in the industrial centres, and the lack of purchasing power in the industrial centres is felt in the farm areas. Because if the workers in the cities cannot
tMr. Coldwell.]

buy quantities of meat, of eggs, of butter and the like, then of course surpluses ensue and farm prices fall.
So we see the two are interrelated. Net farm income has declined about 40 per cent in the last three years, according to the figures issued by the dominion bureau of statistics. Unemployment has risen each year as farm income has declined. Let us look at recent farm statistics, and again the authority is the dominion bureau of statistics, referring particularly to figures for comparable periods. I shall refer to the figures for 1953 and 1954, and in particular to two columns found in the outline issued by the bureau. These are the figures for the period January to September, 1953, and January to September, 1954.
In 1953 the cash income is given as $1,938 million whereas in 1954, during the same months, it was $1,686 million, or a drop of some $252 million in farm income and farm purchasing power.
I said earlier that to a large extent this decline is not a reflection of the crop failure in western Canada last summer. Rather it is due mainly to our failure to sell some of our farm commodities, notably grains- wheat-which have piled up. It is true that some farm products other than grain showed some increase in returns, due to an increase in farmers' marketings. I am thinking for example of calves. More calves went on the market, as did also more of some other types of produce. But the returns per unit of production in most instances were not higher. Although the aggregate amount was greater, the return per unit was not.
We find now that our own Department of Agriculture, expressing its opinion at the federal-provincial conference with respect to 1955, holds the view that, assuming an average crop this year-and we all hope that we may have an average crop; it may be that we deserve something above average, because of the failure last year-net farm income will be approximately the same as in 1954. If that is so it will not be satisfactory.
In the light of the squeeze that has occurred in connection with those engaged in agriculture, we must have something better. That squeeze has developed because while returns have been reduced over this period of time, costs have tended to rise. Marketings may improve, but I do not think this will compensate for the decline in income and the rise in farm costs. The farmer is caught in a price squeeze. Where farm returns from some commodities increase in the aggregate, production costs increase even more, and that lowers the return for the amount of

labour expended in producing these commodities. It is this sort of thing which should have compelled the attention of parliament last autumn and should compel the attention of parliament this session.
What we think is this. In order to meet the problems that are arising and will continue to arise more acutely as time goes on we have consciously and deliberately to plan our economy so that various types of producers may receive the proper compensation for their toil on the basis-I will use the term so often used-of something like parity. We believe that is essential in a modern state, and more and more we shall have to move in that direction.
Indeed our whole social security system, of which we are justly proud and which we have always supported, depends upon stability in the economy. If we have not a stable economic basis for our social security program, then with drastic declines . in returns in industry, in agriculture and so on, we are apt to jeopardize the whole structure we have so laboriously built up. With a serious decline in the returns and in the economy the ability of our people to meet certain obligations would very seriously affect our social security program. Consequently we have to find ways and means of stabilizing the base, strengthening it so that we may carry the load of both the modern industrialism and the social security program.
In agriculture we of the C.C.F. have argued and suggested, both here and in the country, that we should have a forward pricing system so that when the farmer sets out to produce a steer two years or three years hence he will know approximately the minimum price he will receive for that steer at that time. It is being done in other countries and it could be done here. What I have said about forward pricing in the case of a steer is equally true of many of our farm commodities.
I have emphasized that farm purchasing power is of tremendous interest to people in industrial centres. As a matter of fact I noticed how that was illustrated this very morning on the financial page of the Montreal Gazette, which I usually read before I come down to the house in the morning. The headline this morning said: "Loss is shown by Cockshutt. Sales off 38 per cent." And I add these words: "in the last fiscal year." Let me repeat it: "Loss is shown by Cockshutt. Sales off 38 per cent." This indicates very clearly that because the farmers have lost their purchasing power the Cockshutt implement company, on which people depend
The Address-Mr. Coldwell in parts of the Ottawa valley, have sustained losses and their sales are down. What is true of declining sales in this industry is true of many other industries.
As I listened to the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) complaining this afternoon about the loss of trade, the loss of markets, unemployment and so on, I thought he was advocating some form of protective tariff to keep the products of what he called the low wage countries out of our country. Just before that he had been insisting that we had to trade more with the United Kingdom, that a conference should be held to give us more commonwealth trade. Yet, if I read the newspapers aright, some of our industries have demanded and received protection against products coming from the United Kingdom. We all remember what happened two or three years ago when the dumping act was used to reduce the sending of small British automobiles to this country.
Only by planning our trade and commerce within a planning of the economy can we meet such a situation. Monkeying with the tariffs will be of no avail. Indeed, when you raise a tariff you erect a wall against your own income. That is what you do. The erection of tariffs in the past has shown that they fail to achieve the objective which a good many working men and women are being told today they can achieve. Always they have resulted in a more privileged position for the manufacturer in that industry and, until the workers were unionized, the more privileged the industry, the more privileged the manufacturer, often the worse the condition of the workers in the industry. That was true of the textile industry in the 1920's and the 1930's, as speeches in this house will clearly indicate. I remember that the late Mr. Raymond put a well documented speech proving that very point on the records of this house some years ago.
We all know that was true until the automobile industry was thoroughly organized, when a change took place. Therefore I say that we, the workers, the farmers or any of us, cannot look for any hope of better things simply by playing with tariff walls. In many instances today tariff walls are giving protection to all kinds of industries.
I bought a small gadget in connection with another little thing I bought in the United States when I was down at the United Nations meeting. Incidentally I declared it and paid duty on it when I came in because I had entered Canada at Halifax a short time before. I wanted another of these little gadgets and I phoned' a store here and asked if they had it. They said they had. I asked

The Address-Mr. Coldwell how much it was, and they said $3.75. I paid $1.60 in the United States. These are some of the things that need investigation. That is the kind of thing you breed in a country behind a tariff wall. Therefore I can see no hope in tariffs, because they would further decrease our trade overseas. They would be walls against our income, because if overseas customers cannot buy from us we cannot sell to them.
When I hear discussions on convertibility I remind myself that convertibility can only come about when the sterling countries, we will say, can earn dollars with which to make their currency convertible. The only way they can do that is by sending to the dollar countries some of the things they produce. Until we in North America are prepared to make some arrangement so they can do that, convertibility will be a long way off.
What does the government propose to meet the mounting unemployment? Well, increases in unemployment insurance benefits. That is good; but it is like locking the stable door after the horse is gone. It is like the Acting Leader of the Opposition said, a palliative; it does not get to the root of the thing. However, we welcome it because it mitigates the suffering of certain groups of people who are unemployed and can come under the Unemployment Insurance Act. But it is a palliative, not a cure.
I notice that the Prime Minister, speaking at an apparently new Reform Club in Quebec on September 19, 1954, recognized the responsibility of the government, and that responsibility I wish to underline because the government has not assumed it. The Montreal Gazette report reads:
Mr. St. Laurent said the government's fob is to find work for all.
With that we agree.
The government could not guarantee work that would meet the tastes of all but could guarantee enough work to be able to say that all could have Jobs.
If the guarantee could be given why was it not undertaken? The Prime Minister continued:
"We have a country where there should be work for everybody and if we are not smart enough to organize the economy of the nation to provide work for everybody we are incompetent."
Note the words "organize the economy". I take it if you are going to organize you are going to plan, because you cannot organize without some kind of planning. The quotation continues:
I cannot give details but I am convinced that if my colleagues and I cannot organize economic controls in such a way that there will not be any long


periods of loss of work for those who want to work, then throw us out and put in our place people who can do better.
I should be fair to the Prime Minister and add his next few words:
"Although," Mr. St. Laurent added, "I don't think you can find any."
That is the Prime Minister's opinion, but I think we should keep his remarks in mind when we are discussing the current unemployment situation and the necessity for organizing economic controls to ensure that everybody who wants to work shall have an opportunity of doing so. That, I think, is sound economic common sense, and I am sorry the government does not seem to possess the kind of common sense for which the Prime Minister gave it credit.
From the time that speech was made, and earlier, unemployment and distress increased in this country. What was the government doing to carry out the Prime Minister's suggestion? There are thousands of unemployed all over the country, and unemployment is particularly acute in Vancouver. When I was a child in Britain my parents, if they wanted to placate me, often gave me a very nice stick of candy called Edinburgh rock. I imagine on the same principle the government is giving Ripple Rock to the people of Vancouver, but that is about the only thing in the speech from the throne for the people of British Columbia. I imagine the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) wanted to get something in there to balance the well-deserved advances being given to the maritime provinces so they gave the people of Vancouver a piece of Ripple Rock.
I am told they have been blasting that for years. Why it should be in the speech from the throne, I do not know. Probably I have given the correct explanation. Something had to go in for the Pacific coast; Ripple Rock presented the least difficulty, and can go in again on future occasions if necessary.
Another thing we have been asked by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) is why the provinces do not do more in the building of the trans-Canada highway.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Major James William Coldwell: 
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, it is presumed that I am now speaking to the subamendment. If what Your Honour said about the amendment introduced by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) was true, then I suppose it would also be true to say that the subamendment has greatly complicated an already highly complicated amendment. I suppose it is a good thing that the rules of the house forbid the introduction of a third amendment. That being the case, I think perhaps I had better give both the subamendment and the amendment some careful study before committing myself with respect to them because I am frank to admit that it is difficult, without some careful study, to know what they
42	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Low mean. I shall therefore withhold any comment on the subamendment or the amendment and will give the matter careful study, with perhaps the possibility of saying something on them at a later stage.
Mr. Speaker, I do not like to cut speeches in two any more than does any other hon. member. To start to deal with the speech from the throne at fifteen minutes to six does not leave much chance to get far, at any rate, before the house normally adjourns for the dinner hour. However, if it is the desire of the house that I shall continue and use those fifteen minutes, I shall be glad to do so. On the other hand, it would be better if Your Honour would allow me to call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I call it six o'clock?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I think it would have been a good thing if during the dinner hour Your Honour had had time to give full consideration to the two amendments before the house and had felt disposed at this time to declare them both out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I might
clarify my position now. What I said when I received the amendment was merely by way of warning. I remarked that over the last seven or eight years amendments to the motion for the address in reply to the speech from the throne have had a tendency to become longer than they used to be. If hon. members will look at Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, page 96, they will see what the practice was at that time with respect to amendments to the address in reply. There is a footnote at the bottom of page 98 of that edition of Bourinot which reads:
Between 1878 and 1899 only two amendments were moved to the address, viz.: In 1893 and 1899. In 1878 a lengthy debate took place on the address although no amendment was moved. The tariff was one of the principal topics of discussion, and the inconvenience of discussing it at that stage was evident from the fact that the same subject came up again on the budget. From 1879 to 1890 the debate commenced and ended on the same day, generally before six o'clock p.m. In 1891 the debate on the address was continued from Friday to Monday when it ended before six p.m. In 1897 the debate lasted for a week in the Commons and for two days longer in the Senate, though no amendment was proposed. In 1899 it was prolonged from
[Mr. Low.l

the 20th of March to the 18th of April in consequence of an amendment having been proposed with respect to the administration of affairs in the Yukon. Between 1900 and 1906 no amendment was moved. Amendments were moved, however, in the session of 1907-8, 1910-11 and in the session of 1914.
In the wealth of information which is at the disposal of the Speaker I found a very carefully prepared memorandum by the Journals branch under the direction of the Clerk which reviews the situation since 1940. There we find that in 1940 and 1945, the first session, no amendments were moved, and that 1945 and 1947 are the only two occasions where amendments as lengthy as that which now has been proposed can be found.
As hon. members know, during the session when a motion is made for the house to go into supply members sometimes wish to move amendments to bring about a debate on a certain topic. If a vote on a similar subject matter has been held in the house prior to the discussion of the new amendment on the motion to go into supply, it is my unpleasant task to remind the house that, the matter having been decided, it cannot be discussed again, and to declare such amendments out of order.
Hon. members will recall that I had that sad experience last year. Therefore when I saw this lengthy amendment today I thought it was my duty to warn those responsible about what may have to happen during the course of the session which has only begun. Having issued that warning, I think it is up to them to secure the necessary consent and take the necessary steps to amend their amendments if they so choose.
Of course the amendment is in the hands of the house. It has been proposed from the chair and now a subamendment has been added to it. Having done what I believe was my duty toward the opposition, I think we will let matters stand. I will accept the amendment as it is and also the subamendment. The position having been clarified, the hon. member may resume his speech.


Solon Earl Low: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne are to be congratulated for the very fine efforts -they made in this debate on Friday. I do so now sincerely, and express the hope that in debates in the years -ahead while they are in parliament we will hear from them often because I am sure they will make worth-while contributions to the discussions that will take place here.
I should also like it to be known that we join heartily in what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said on Friday when he expressed regret on behalf of the members of the house that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) was not able to be with us at

the opening of the session, and the hope that he would be fully recovered and able to be here soon. I -also want to congratulate the Prime Minister and the government at this time on the appearance of the order paper and the number of matters that are already indicated as coming up for discussion. The number of government notices of motions on the order paper would indicate that we should have no real excuse for not making good progress this session. I think it was a good plan to get this much government business before the house a-t this early stage, and I hope we will be able to cut down the multiplicity of debates and make it possible for us to get the business of the country done with something like reasonable dispatch.
I could not help thinking, however, while the leader of the C.C.F. party was speaking, of something the Prime Minister said in Saskatchewan some years ago when he was trying to persuade the people of that province to vote Liberal. If I am informed correctly he said, "You must remember that the C.C.F.'ers are only Liberals in a hurry". I listened today to the recounting of a speech made by the Prime Minister last September in which he indicated some things which made me believe that I am quite correct in deducing that if the C.C.F.'ers are Liberals in a hurry, then certainly the Liberals are socialists in low gear. I think I could be excused for drawing such an inference.
In my opinion it is always dangerous to include only one branch of the house when speaking of those who are the champions of liberty. I want to tell the Prime Minister that the party I represent is determined that the Canadian people shall be just as free as it is humanly possible for people to be in a well ordered economy, a well ordered state. I do not mean to say, either, that they should not be ordered; but I will say that we stand for the absolute minimum of regulation of the people of this country and the absolute minimum of regulation of the economy, because we believe that men do their best work when they are free. I wanted him to know that it is not only the Liberals and Conservatives who stand for liberty and freedom; not at all. I place my party squarely with those who are champions of individual liberty.
Before I consider the matters raised in His Excellency's address, I should also like to offer my sincere congratulations to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) upon his appointment to that very important ministry, and also to those ministers who have undertaken larger responsibilities in the government since the house adjourned last June.
I should also like to congratulate all the new members who were introduced in the house on 50433-41
The Address-Mr. Low Friday. It is my sincere hope that every one of them will have cause to feel that their parliamentary experience has been fruitful of good for their constituents and all of Canada. No matter how long they may sit here, I want it known that we have nothing but good will toward them and toward every member of the house. We want to express that good will on every possible occasion. If we are critical, as we sometimes are-and that is our duty-I want it known that it is not through lack of personal good will to the members of the government or the members of any other party.
I want the Prime Minister to know that he has our good will and our very best wishes when he goes to attend the conference of commonwealth -prime ministers later this month. We wish him nothing but the very best on his journey and good results through his efforts at that conference.
Since the close of the last session it has been my privilege to travel a good deal, particularly as one of the delegates from this parliament to the conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association held in Kenya in British East Africa. I was very grateful for that privilege, and I must say that we made many fine friends during the long journey and in the course of the conference. I am sure that commonwealth relations were more firmly cemented and much improved as a consequence of what everyone described as the very best conference the association has ever had.
The sessions were all so interesting I felt I could not afford to miss a single minute, for indeed hardly a minute passed without something being said or done that helped to enlarge our understanding of commonwealth affairs and of the problems faced by the various countries of the commonwealth. I have only high praise for the leadership of the Canadian delegation, as well as for the very effective part that was played by each of my colleagues on the delegation.
After the conference at Nairobi closed I had the very great pleasure of visiting and travelling through the state of Israel. The government of that country afforded me every opportunity of seeing all that I wanted to see, and to become as thoroughly acquainted with their -problems and conditions as I could become in the limited time I had to spend in the country. My young Jewish guides and travelling companions gave me a most concentrated course of instruction in Israeli affairs. They introduced me to some of the tremendous problems faced by that young state in a very old country. I was able to get some idea of the complication of Middle Eastern problems and the dangers

The Address-Mr. Low for which solutions must soon be found if justice is to be done to the peoples of these countries, and if real trouble is to be averted in that part of the world.
I came away with great respect for the many outstanding things which have been and are being accomplished by the ingathering exiles. I feel much sympathy for the people of Israel who are forced to fight for their very lives with one hand, and with the other tackle the prodigious problems of rehabilitation and reclamation of a country once productive and latterly fallen into almost complete desolation from gross neglect and abuse. Every day I was there I saw prophecy being fulfilled.
Of course after having travelled like that, and especially after having seen something of the affairs of other countries-because 1 visited Britain, for example, for some time and was able to take a look at things in France-it is something of a temptation to talk about my impressions and experiences. I believe this is not the proper occasion to do so, however. I am sure another opportunity will occur, perhaps in the debate on external affairs that will probably come at an early date.
At this time I do want to thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the foreign office in Britain for what they did to make it possible for me to get into the Arab state of Jordan. I was fortunate in this, I feel, because of late years many applications for visas for travel into Arab territories have been denied. But somehow or other I was fortunate in being able to go there and hold discussions with a great number of people, both on the street and in official positions, so that I got some idea of the feelings of the people in that country toward other parts of the Middle East.
His Excellency's address, Mr. Speaker, did contain a great variety of subjects upon which I should like to have time to comment in this debate. Opportunities for full discussion of some of these matters will be provided when the individual proposals are placed before the house in the form of resolutions or bills. I shall, therefore, follow the good example that has been set by those who spoke before me in this debate and choose only a few things for attention at this time.
I note that we are being asked to approve the agreements reached at the London and Paris conferences relative to the entry of the Federal Republic of Germany into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Inasmuch as I understand these agreements will be coming up for discussion by parliament within

a very few days I shall not say anything about them now except this. We will make clear our position on the proposition when we are asked to approve the agreements. At the moment we are giving earnest study to the implications of all that was proposed both at London and Paris and all that is contained in the protocols, and we will be prepared to express our views fully when the debate occurs.
I should like to speak briefly on that part of His Excellency's address having to do with the Colombo plan and the United Nations technical assistance program. In my judgment both these programs have been amongst the finest things the western world has ever done to help the less fortunate peoples of the world and to bring development to the underdeveloped countries. Canada's contribution for the past four years has been a modest $25 million a year. There is evidence that what we have given has been appreciated as well as effective in helping Pakistan, Ceylon and India in particular. But when the consultative committee of the Colombo plan met in Ottawa this past autumn many of us hoped Canada would accede to the request for a substantial increase in her yearly contribution under these schemes.
These plans were conceived for the purpose, amongst others, of course, of trying to save 600 million people from gravitating into the communist orbit out of sheer desperation. There was also the thought that the commonwealth might be strengthened and brought more into unity through the economic help made available under the plans. Just a little thought, it seems to me, would reveal that our contribution is pitifully small and inadequate if the original purposes of the plans are to be achieved. Let us always bear in mind that overriding communist global strategy seeks to bring under communist domination great masses of people. Imperialist communist strategists know that they do not now enjoy, nor indeed can hope in the foreseeable future to enjoy, parity of industrial strength and armament output with the free western world. What they lack in industrial capacity they hope and confidently expect they will be able to make up in manpower. Consequently every step they take or move they make is designed to bring into their orbit and under their control huge masses of people whom they will throw at the western nations in a most prodigal fashion whenever it suits their purpose to start the struggle. To them people are expendable in hundreds of millions if necessary to achieve their objective of world domination.

Against that background of communist global strategy it seems to me we ought to consider the sober truth, that the so-called Christian and other enlightened free nations of the world have not yet had the courage or ability to make an honest effort to solve the two problems that have plagued humanity for hundreds of years. I refer to the problems of distribution and war. Also, we ought to realize that it is no longer possible to condemn half the world to perpetual poverty in the interests of the favoured half. To my mind that has never been any better than a callous indifference to the sufferings of our fellow men, a dog-eat-dog policy. Surely we ought to remember with thanksgiving that we belong to the favoured half of the world. We have been richly blessed by divine Providence. I believe it is our obligation to share our good fortune with those of our brothers who are less fortunate in other parts of the world.
For some centuries now countless millions of human beings in other lands have languished in ignorance and unbelievable poverty. I saw some of that poverty this summer, and it is very difficult to get a picture of it over to the people who live in this land. But let us never forget for one moment that modern communication and transportation services have made known far and wide the advantages the favoured half of the world enjoys. The backward peoples have awakened. There is a widespread impulse amongst them toward nationalism and economic independence which is bound to wreck all our hopes for international peace if we in the rich and favoured areas of the world do not step forward and help them to rise above their poverty, and above even a subsistence standard of living.
There has to be something better than that. And remember that many millions of people in very large parts of the world have been captured by imperialist bolshevism simply because the communists have jumped on the nationalistic bandwagon, and persuaded the unfortunate and hopeless masses that the best friends of nationalism are the communists. They have been able to get that idea over somehow. We in the favoured nations are just now waking up to the fact that one of the evils for which our nations in this generation may have to pay dearly is our determination in the past to compel the weak and the poor to accept continuously the race against the rich and favoured nations on terms dictated by the rich.
I have in mind, when I say that, such things as the unconditional most-favoured-nation clause in trade treaties imposed by the United States upon all nations which trade with he?.
The Address-Mr. Low Unfortunately Canada has been dabbling in such things herself in late years. The international gold standard of Bretton Woods is another example. I could go on naming them, but that will do for the moment. The great problem we must solve is that of making available to the areas of the world that need it the surpluses of wealth produced by the richer countries, such as Canada and the United States, which are working under an incentive system. And we must do it without reducing the independence of the people we help, and certainly without killing or discouraging their struggling industries. These things can be done; they are not impossible.
An international commodities clearing house such as we have proposed from time to time would help very greatly, and great help would also come through the expansion of the idea of technical assistance for backward areas, under the Colombo plan. But let me say that it would have to be a big expansion, not just a miserable million dollars a year. It would have to be a big expansion of these ideas; and there will have to be a most unselfish approach to the whole problem if it is to be solved.
This year Canada increased her contribution to the Colombo plan by $1 million. Mr. Speaker, I do not have to say that was niggardly and that it was not at all representative of the wishes of an unselfish Canadian people, generally. You know, the government of Canada and that of the United States -particularly that of the United States-have been crediting themselves with some unusual virtues for doing in just a small way under the Colombo plan and the Point Four program the things that have actually been necessary for their own survival. The United States has proved conclusively that the huge gifts to other countries, gifts running to scores of billions of dollars since 1945, did not hurt her economy in any way, nor did it reduce the standard of living of the American people. Rather it kept employment and economic activity in that country at a very high level. And these huge gifts, one might say, did not alter or change in any way the basic economic structure of the United States-nor that of Canada, so far as we have gone. It is interesting, however, to note that the attempt of the United States about a year and a half ago to cut down their overflow of gifts to other countries under these plans did bring about in that country a recession that threatened to bog down into a real depression.
Now, with the wonderful scientific resources at our disposal the possibilities for the production of new wealth are almost limitless. I think it is a sad commentary on our so-called enlightenment that we have let our
46	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Low political and economic systems and our standards of morality lag far behind, to the great disservice of humankind the world over. Our country, and the world today, is faced with the greatest challenge of all times. We are challenged to work out new ideas-and they must be new-and new techniques to guide the free part of the world through what I conceive as an era of unparalleled expansion and development, which I think could be realized all over the world if we could only achieve a real change of heart, get down to business and solve first the problem of distribution and then the problem of war. Solving the first-that is the problem of distribution- certainly would contribute to a great extent to the solution of the second, which is war.
I am not suggesting that we should suddenly begin giving billions to the Colombo plan, but surely we must appear ridiculous and parsimonious to the world When we grudgingly increase our contribution by a million dollars a year. India herself can use much more than she is getting through the plan; and there is some reason, it seems to me, for urgency in bringing more help to India's teeming millions through the Colombo plan and the Point Four program. Russia sees the immense advantage of making an offer of substantial economic assistance to India-or at least promising it-because recently she promised or offered to build a steel plant for that country with a capacity of a million tons a year. That sort of thing is something which arouses the imagination of the people of India.
My reason, Mr. Speaker, for taking as much time as I have on this matter tonight is the hope that the government will re-examine its proposals and bring in provision for an increase of more than a paltry million dollars over last year's contribution. Such an increase would demonstrate our thankfulness to a provident Creator and demonstrate the kind of love for our fellow men that Christian nations should be demonstrating in times like these. It would demonstrate our political sagacity in a world of conflicting ideological manoeuvres and would demonstrate our economic good sense, because the contributions we might make would reflect themselves in increased economic activity and employment in our own country.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the agricultural situation in Canada. The speech from the throne painted a rosy picture of general conditions in Canada. It says nothing, however, about the real condition of agriculture. I would like to point out that the farmers of Canada have just passed through a most difficult year, not only because of the low yield of wheat in
IMr. Low.]

the west but because of the weather conditions. Harvesting weather was poor in many places. Not only that; they are still caught firmly in the price-cost squeeze. That price-cost squeeze has been getting worse continually since 1951. The spread between the prices obtained by the farmers for their products and the cost of production is today the widest it has been for many, many years. There seems to be every prospect, too, that it may widen even more. The price of cattle and hogs is not expected to improve at all this year. Experts I have heard speak just recently suggest that those prices probably will decline to some extent.
Everybody knows that 1951 was a good year for the farmers, for in that year price and cost levels were about the same. But immediately after 1951 there was a strong downward movement of farm prices, while costs of production have remained almost exactly the same as they were in 1951. Retail prices of food have not followed the downward trend of farm prices, which leads a great many uninformed people to blame the farmers for the high retail prices of many food items.
It is claimed that with the recent wheat movements into Europe, and with the generally reduced yields in western Canada, the wheat outlook is somewhat improved. But it is mighty hard to convince the farmers- the farmer, for instance, who has not yet been able to deliver even his first quota- that the situation has improved.
Something was said about cheese. Two and a half million pounds of cheese are coming into Canada from New Zealand. Just yesterday I heard one of the agricultural experts of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture state that the reason given by officials for allowing that cheese to come into Canada was to assist New Zealand to balance or come near to balancing an unbalanced trade with Canada. Now, if that is the case- I am not saying it is, but I heard it yesterday afternoon over television-then one can justifiably say that what we are trying to do is make the cheese producers, the milk producers of Canada, subsidize the industrial production of Canada for export to another land. That subsidization business has been done before. The farmers have been asked on occasion to subsidize the whole of the Canadian people, to bear the whole cost of *cheap bread, and they certainly subsidized the people of Britain under the British wheat agreement. This subsidization business piled on the shoulders of the farmers of Canada has gone just too far in many instances.
The farmers of Canada today are operating under quite a number of serious handicaps

in addition to those I have already mentioned. I could mention that the Canadian dollar remains at a premium over that of the United States. It has varied in the past year at rates up to 4 per cent. The government of course says that the strong position of the Canadian dollar is an indication of how strong the Liberal party has made the Canadian economy. Well, from the farmers' point of view and that of all other exporters, it was a very sorry day when the Minister of Finance removed the peg on the rate of exchange of the Canadian dollar in terms of the United States dollar. The present premium position of the Canadian dollar does mean a difference of 6 or 7 cents a bushel to the Canadian wheat farmer, and more than that if you consider the discount position of the Canadian dollar not so long ago.
Let me mention another handicap. Some time ago the United States adopted a policy of disposing of surpluses of food by accepting the currencies of the buying or importing countries in payment. There was a limit of $200 million set on such transactions in the beginning, but according to the U.S. News and World Report the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Benson, recently said that the limit had been increased to a billion dollars. That puts the Canadian farmers under pretty serious handicaps. This government of course closed its mind to any such suggestion as accepting at least some sterling in settlement of our trade balances with Britain.
Last year you will recall that this group moved an amendment calling on the government to seek to restore and maintain our traditional markets for farm products by agreeing to accept some currencies of the importing countries, at least to the extent which we could easily finance internally. At that time the claim was made by the government that Britain did not want to do that kind of business. Unfortunately that claim was also made by other people. I did not believe it at the time, and I do not believe it yet. I had the opportunity of talking about it with several quite prominent members of parliament at Westminster during this past summer, and without a single exception they thought the proposal was good and worth while, and that it offered no unsurmountable problem to the United Kingdom. One of those to whom I talked was the son-in-law of the British Prime Minister. As a result of this government's lack of foresight and courage to take effective action and face up to the realities of world problems, our farmers find themselves under very serious handicaps in comparison with the farmers of other countries, notably those of the United States.
The Address-Mr. Low
A third handicap is that there is strong opposition in the government to the adoption of really effective price supports. As a result we in Canada have very few of them, and the consequence is that there is a very wide spread between what the farmer has to pay, his costs, and what he receives for his hard work. Opposition to support prices for farm products is not confined to the government.
I have seen various biased and uninformed interests, in eastern Canada especially, who take a violent stand against support prices.
I notice, for instance, that Toronto Saturday Night, in its last issue, devoted its front page editorial to a tirade against support prices for farm products. All the opponents of the idea used the experience of the United States as evidence that price supports are bound to induce huge unsaleable surpluses of food products.
There is some argument, in my judgment, against the use of rigid supports based on a high percentage of parity, such as has been used in the United States. From the farmer's point of view, of course, the argument is mainly for such rigid supports. But from the point of view of the nation as a whole and world trade, a rigid system of price supports can cause great difficulties, indeed has caused great difficulties. We realize that; but the same cannot be said about a flexible system of price supports. There is a very good case that can be made in favour of the adoption of such a flexible system here in Canada, the percentage of parity that is used of course to depend upon the amount of incentive which ought to be provided to achieve the amount of production that is required to meet the need.
The farmers of Canada have every right to expect this government to introduce a system of flexible price supports for farm products, at least as long as the government maintains protective tariffs on industrial products, tariffs which are, as everybody should know, a form of subsidized support prices. If everything were free to be influenced by the law of supply and demand it would be difficult to argue for support for farm prices, flexible or otherwise. But things which the farmer has to buy and which enter into his costs of production are not free. That is the rub. We never hear the opponents of farm support prices putting up any arguments against protective tariffs that are aimed at supporting our industries against the competition of foreign industry, but they will argue and argue against the adoption of flexible farm support prices.
The problem we face in this country is to adopt some policy and some technique which will guarantee the farmers their fair share
48	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Low of the national income. The figures will bear out what I say. The farmers, who make up approximately 20 per cent of the population of Canada, received in 1953 only 9-9 per cent of the national income. I am speaking here of course of income originating in agriculture. We have to allow for the fact that some farmers do get income from other sources, but even allowing for that the percentage would certainly be no more than about 11 per cent.
I say the problem to be faced in a country like Canada is to adopt a policy which will guarantee the farmers a fair share of the national income. It would be only just and right if the farmers as a class make up 20 per cent of the total population of our country that they should receive something like 20 per cent of the national income. There has hardly been a time in the history of this country when this has been the case.
Some means will have to be found to help our farmers, under the archaic policy this government persists in following, to receive a just and fair return on their capital investment, their hard work and their managerial skill.
I point out that it is going to be pretty difficult for young people to start in farming. In these days it requires a pile of money to get started in the farming business. If we do not take every measure that is possible to help to make our farming population prosperous, then there can be no hope that the rest of us can ever enjoy any measure of continued prosperity. There is a relationship, as has already been pointed out this afternoon, between declining farm income and the growing unemployment in Canada.
In concluding this part of what I have to say, Mr. Speaker, there is one other matter I should like to mention. One hears a good deal of unfair criticism of the farmers, and particularly of the prairie provinces, in connection with the price feeders in the east and in British Columbia have to pay for their feed grain. It is not the fault of the farmers at all, although they are too often given the blame.
I think there is a situation here in Ontario that should be thoroughly investigated. Feeders often order feed of a specific grade-say grade five or six-and they are charged prices on the basis of those grades. When they receive the feed the farmers often find that somewhere along the line, after the grain has been shipped out of the prairie provinces, dealers have mixed into it a grossly inferior quality with the result that the feeders do not get the grades they order and are made to pay for.


The Canadian wheat board claim this is outside their jurisdiction and that they cannot do anything about it. Well, somebody should be in a position to investigate it and take corrective action. I say this government is in a position to do so, especially since it is subsidizing freight costs of much of the feed shipped into eastern Canada from the west.
I think, too, that the recent Stephen F. Murphy case points up the need for a very careful examination of some of the Canadian wheat board practices in connection with the shipment, or attempted shipment, of feed grains from the prairies into British Columbia. It should not be beyond the abilities of the members of the wheat board and of the board of grain commissioners to work out some method whereby individual feeders of poultry or livestock can buy and ship their own feed grain supplies without the interference or silly regulations of the wheat board.
All these things, and more I could mention, lead the farmers of Canada to feel that this government has failed them very badly. Taken as a whole the farmers in western Canada, at least, feel they are looked upon by the government as second-class citizens, and something will have to be done to correct this situation.
An eye should also be kept on the Crows-nest freight rate. There are forces seeking to cancel this freight rate, and they should not be allowed to do so until such time as the freight rates generally have been equalized, and until we are certain that through the equalization principle justice will be meted out to western Canadian farmers.
There are other things on which I would like to have spoken, but I see my time has now expired and I certainly do not wish to go beyond it even by a minute.


Mr. F. T. Fairey (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in this debate at this time one would have thought by now we would have learned something from the opposition and from those who wish certain changes to be made before the final adoption of the address, so ably moved by my two colleagues the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Leduc) and the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Carrick). To the congratulations already offered them I add mine, and also my good wishes for their success in this house.
It is too bad, Mr. Speaker, but the confusion which seemed to arise from the nature of the amendment would lead one to suppose the opposition has found very little fault with the contents of the address. What they have to suggest are additions rather than changes.

As to the proposed program of the government, it seems to me to be comprehensive and to provide for all the inadequacies of previous legislation. The program, I suggest, is a broad one, and when fully implemented will give general satisfaction. On the domestic scene there seems to be something for everyone who has a just and reasonable claim for government assistance. Once again our security program is well balanced and integrated.
Further afield it may be noted that the government continues to take a firm stand, along with other free nations in the world, with respect to our commitments as a member of the United Nations Organization, and also in connection with the vexed question of the inclusion of Germany in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
While I have no intention of singing the praise of the government for all the measures proposed in the address, I do wish to comment on one or two of them. One is the question of the rearmament of Germany. In common with all hon. members in this house I am opposed to the rearmament of Germany or any other nation, including ourselves. Any sensible person who has any knowledge of war and its consequences can take no other stand. But I do believe that if we are looking toward the perfect world envisioned by the Saviour, then it must be reached by progressive steps; and one of those steps is to make sure that those who do not agree with our point of view are prevented from taking any aggressive measure which would negate the progress which has already been made.
In my view there is justification for the calculated risk; and under the present circumstances, having calculated the risk, I feel we have no alternative but to accept the view of the government, in concert with our western allies, and agree to what appears to be the lesser risk by including West Germany in the defensive alliance.
I have mentioned the progress already made. In this connection I wish to emphasize the great and growing influence of Canada as a world power. This is really a unique position for a country so young as ours and one which is due, I think, to the confidence other nations have in the government of this country and its great leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent).
If I may indulge in a little flattery and select one of his cabinet ministers I would mention our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). How he manages to carry the great burdens of his office and still maintain such a buoyant personality is beyond me, but I have no doubt he draws on the Prime Minister's inexhaustible store
The Address-Mr. Fairey of energy. In any event I am sure they have not only the admiration but the gratitude of all Canadians.
We have also been served very well this summer at the United Nations by our delegation. To his well known gift of persuasive and polished speech the vice-chairman of that delegation added a remarkable skill in the drafting of difficult resolutions, and I am sure the prestige of Canada did not suffer by the contribution of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin).
In turning to one or two of the items mentioned in the address, may I say I am delighted to learn that the act concerning disabled persons has been proclaimed. It remains only for the provinces to arrange administrative machinery at the local level to make effective this most desirable and helpful measure.
Now I come to a very vexed question. I wonder whether I dare mention war veterans allowances, because I am considered somewhat of a rebel in this regard. It might be thought appropriate if the discussion on this question were deferred until the amendments are brought before the house by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) but I am going to mention it now because I have some suggestions to make. Furthermore, I suspect that there will be many members of this house who will wish to put in a claim for the credit for what is to be done. In fact, we have had many of them named already, and I do not want to appear to be one of them.
A great deal of nonsense has been talked about war veterans allowances. The fact that it is am allowance for assistance and not a pension for a disability has seemingly been obscured and lost sight of. Originally the scheme was based upon the implied and, to me, unwarranted assumption that all those who served in an actual battle area were ipso facto prematurely aged by ten years. Veterans, and particularly those of the first war, know that simply is not true. Certainly I will not accept it as a fact.
I was going to ask the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) to allow me to use him -as an example. He is not in his seat, and I regret that fact, but I am going to use him anyway because I am sure he will not object. One has only to look at my good friend the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich to doubt the statement that a man with battle service is prematurely aged by ten years. If anybody had front-line service, he certainly had it and in good measure. But I doubt that he would be flattered by the thought that his chronological age is not a
50	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fairey true measure of either his appearance or his vigour. If anybody likes to tell me that I look to be 77, I will argue it out with him.
Nevertheless, it is perfectly true that there are some amongst the recipients of war veterans allowance whose experiences were such as to take a heavy toll of their strength. I am thinking particularly of the man of the first war who experienced long periods of extreme fatigue during the trench warfare days, followed by exhausting battle experiences in the prolonged and grim struggles toward the end of that war. Also I am thinking of the prisoners of war who, after those experiences I have just described, had the added agonies of being treated inhumanely in prisoner of war camps. That point need not be elaborated. I can agree, and even assert, that such men have suffered to the extent that their ability to become rehabilitated in civilian life has been impaired and that they suffer disability despite the fact that their medical history sheets do not show it.
I wonder if I may speak to the veterans in this house. How many of us remember having a medical examination immediately prior to discharge? I do not. Yet I must have had one because I was discharged as A-l. I suspect, though, that the boys of the second War were wiser or perhaps better advised, because I rather fancy they see to it that they get everything on their medical history sheets.
As a means of settling this disturbing question of war veterans allowance, my suggestion to the minister is this. Surely the experience of his medical advisers, of himself and of the fine men who administer the affairs of the veterans affairs department is such that, in the light of their present knowledge, they can devise some formula or criterion to be applied to the recipients of war veterans allowance in order to determine whether in fact their experiences during the war were such as to impair their physical or mental capacities. If that can be shown, perhaps by examination of their battle records, then I say that these men should be granted the disability pension. Such injuries are real and can be as devastating, I am quite sure, as an actual gunshot wound. Their names could be removed from these long lists of recipients of war veterans allowance. Surely nowadays we know that all hurts are not measured in medical terms.
I have such great confidence in the ability of the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs that I feel sure they could come up with some formula or plan such as I suggest and eliminate these people who have a just claim for injury although it is not shown on the medical history sheets. This would leave all those who should be assisted as recipients
[Mr. Fairey.1

of straightforward assistance without any implication of reward for service or pension or anything else. I know it is a difficult job, but I do not think it is beyond the ability of the officials.
To conclude this harangue on war veterans allowance may I say this. In my view, to increase payments as is now proposed is good and desirable, but it is not the complete answer because, as somebody has said, once you grant assistance you create a pressure group, and so long as the group about which I have been speaking is included, there will continue to be further pressure. If I may coin a phrase, it would be to say this: Sufficient is not always enough.
This being the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, it is traditional that one should say something about his own province and his own constituency. In my case these are British Columbia and the capital city, Victoria. When I first spoke in this house, on the address in reply to the speech from the throne in the first session, I stressed the importance of transportation and stated that transportation facilities are essential to the development of my province and, indeed, of all provinces.
Here I am going to parallel something that was said by the leader of the C.C.F. party because in the press I notice that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) has urged the provinces to "get on with it" in connection with the building of the trans-Canada highway. I am not facetious when I say that I hope the eyebrows of the Minister of Public Works will not rise too high when I suggest that if he expects the trans-Canada highway to be completed in a reasonable number of years, he had better do it himself; and if he ever gives it a thought, he might consider asking his colleagues to consent to his asking this house for funds to do it as a federal venture.
I am one of those who believe that before too many years, with the development of transportation and freight on the highways, we shall have to have some form of federal highway authority, charged with responsibility for the construction and maintenance of highways which can truly be said to be interprovincial, perhaps traversing or connecting two or three provinces. That may be a long way off. The seed I am casting may fall on stony ground, but seeds have been known to sprout in unlikely places.
It was my intention, Mr. Speaker, to confine my remarks on transportation to a serious situation which confronts my own constituency, the city of Victoria, Esquimalt and the surrounding area. I say this seriously

because the transportation facilities by sea between the lower end of Vancouver island and the mainland city of Vancouver are worse now than they have ever been in my lifetime. It is my hope that I may be permitted to lay detailed suggestions before the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler). I sometimes wish that more members from the eastern provinces would follow the example of the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Leduc) who made his initial visit to the Pacific coast this past summer. They then would perhaps be able to follow me more clearly and understand the problem which confronts us.
For 50 years the British Columbia coast service of the Canadian Pacific Railway provided a first-class steamship service between Victoria and Vancouver and other ports, a service which could only be described as luxurious, with fine, fast ships beautifully kept and operated with high efficiency. In fact that line was the pride of the coast. Then the war took its toll of those ships. In the meantime new and faster methods of transportation, such as aircraft, skimmed the cream off the passenger traffic between Vancouver and Victoria except during the tourist season. When you realize that Trans-Canada Air Lines operate fourteen flights a day each way even in the winter-of course we do not have any winter in Victoria-you can realize how many passengers are lost to the steamship service. The result is that it is not profitable for the Canadian Pacific Railway to continue the former boat service.
While the competition for passenger traffic has been the major factor in the deterioration of the service, the failure to replace obsolescent ships with modern ferries has also been a contributing factor. The great development in the northern end of Vancouver island, where the establishment of new pulp mills and plywood plants seems almost a daily occurrence, makes it imperative that the port of Nanaimo be fully and adequately developed. That has been done by the C.P.R. They have provided modern vessels, new ferries able to handle fast, heavy, freight trucks.
Mr. Speaker, what I shall further say is intended in no sense to detract from the importance of Nanaimo, nor is it in any sense our intention to put Victoria in competition with the northern part of the island. Nanaimo serves the northern part of the island and Victoria the southern part. What we are demanding is a separate service which, with the assured growth of the northern part of the island and a like development in the south, will be to the benefit of the whole province and the whole country.
Be it remembered that 52 per cent of the population of Vancouver island reside south
The Address-Mr. Fairey of the height of land known as the Malahat, and that Victoria and vicinity contain over
135,000	persons. Whatever happens elsewhere, Nanaimo is ideally situated to serve the central and northern portion of the island but it cannot, because of the distance, adequately satisfy the needs of the south. Yet that is what we are asked to put up with. Passenger service by sea from Victoria to Vancouver is provided by obsolete ships running on a schedule which makes no attempt to connect with the transcontinental railways. It may surprise hon. members to know that in order to catch the train leaving Vancouver at 7.30 in the evening one has to leave Victoria the night before and stay over in Vancouver for a complete day.


An hon. Member:: You are lucky.


Francis Thrower Fairey: Moreover, the distance is too great and the voyage too long to appeal to ordinary businessmen. It is well known, Mr. Speaker, that freight now moves chiefly on wheels by means of large, heavy trucks, and Victorians are asked to be satisfied with, and to pay the additional costs for, a freight haul first from Vancouver to Nanaimo and then 70 miles to Victoria over a highway not suited for the traffic.
What is the remedy? It seems remarkable to me that a company that has enjoyed a monopoly of traffic for many years, and which has given good service, cannot see that there is a remedy easily available. No one expects the company to continue to operate this service at a loss. Therefore I make the suggestion that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler), after examining the details, consent to having a proper engineering examination made of the whole of the Saanich peninsula. There are at least three sites on the Saanich peninsula, one of them being Sidney, which can be developed into year-round, every day of the year ports to which fast, modern ships could sail from Vancouver or Steveston, thereby reducing the sea voyage to a distance comparable with that between Vancouver and Nanaimo. The advantage to the southern end of the island would be that the freight haul on land would be 18 miles as against 70 miles from Nanaimo.
I have brought this matter before the house knowing full well that many members are not particularly interested and perhaps not particularly concerned, but it is a matter of importance for Victoria, a capital city, which is being left to stagnate while other parts of the country are growing by leaps and bounds.
I am deliberately trying to reduce the length of my remarks because I know it is
52	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fairey the intention of all of us to have this debate concluded as soon as possible, but I wish to mention one other matter.
So far, with the exception of my remarks on transportation, I have contented myself with discussing matters that are referred to in the speech from the throne. There were one or two points, however, that I hoped would be mentioned but which were not. There is no reference to the possibility of the establishment of a Canada council as recommended by the royal commission on the arts, letters and sciences. I mention this first of all because of a fairly recent article in a periodical which delights in finding fault with anything that the government proposes. The article referred sarcastically to this recommendation of the commission as asking for the appointment of an expensive body to do a job which the universities can do without further advice.
In the second place, because for many years I have personally championed vocational and technical education, I have been accused in my own province of not being interested in the arts or the humanities. Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that we always seem to be faced with a choice? We are either one thing or the other. We never seem to be given credit for being interested in two things at the same time. It is my experience that most people with competence in the technical field are a good deal more interested in the arts and humanities than many who pose as intellectuals. It seems to me that we have been subsidizing industry in many ways for the production of articles and tangible things. Why should we not now subsidize in some way those capable Canadians who are able and willing, with help, to produce those intangibles which we all really crave?
We boast proudly of our stature as a nation and our position in the councils of the world. As members of parliament we content ourselves with spending our time in dealing with things and not with people. It seems to me that we should now devise some form of subsidy to encourage capable Canadians in the production of those things which we crave, and thus provide for the rest of us an opportunity to grow in mental stature and appreciation of those intangibles, the enjoyment of which brings to man his fullest development. It would be my hope that before this session ends the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) might find it possible to make an announcement with regard to this important matter.


Harry Oliver White: At the
very outset I want to convey my congratulations in the traditional way to the mover


(Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Also at this time I should congratulate the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) upon his wonderful contribution to the debate this afternoon. To the new members of the house I want to say a word of welcome and congratulations, and to add that they will find the other members tolerant and friendly people.
Since I am speaking tonight on the amendment to the amendment, I believe I should read it. It reads as follows:
That the amendment be amended by inserting therein immediately after the words "Your Excellency's advisers" the following words:
"have deliberately returned to the policy of uncontrolled and unplanned private enterprise which resulted in the depression and unemployment of the pre-war years, and that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to undertake the economic planning necessary to cope with the serious problems now facing the Canadian people, and".
The British people, Mr. Speaker, repudiated such a program a few years ago and have demonstrated that the policy they are now following has lifted them out of a desperate situation. It would be folly of the worst kind, I feel, for us to accept the suggestions in the amendment to the amendment put forward by the socialists in this house.
Now, referring to the speech from the throne itself, I personally feel that it is the greatest disappointment I have experienced in the 12 or 13 sessions I have attended. It is a record of history instead of a call to action. When labour, fiscal and trade problems are uppermost in the minds of most of our citizens I believe one may aptly say of the throne speech, "They asked for bread and received a stone." I just want to contrast that with President Eisenhower's state of the union message delivered a day or so ago. There was not a word of the past in it, but it was full of hope, work and direction for the future. This year the President was concerned with a world half slave and half free.
Just while I am dwelling on that I want to mention a name probably forgotten by many; that is Clarence Darrow. He said that he who admits of a changing world admits the theory of evolution. In spite of all our beliefs, we must admit that this is a changing world; no one can deny it. The fault I see with the throne speech and with the government is that they have hitched their trading and fiscal policies to an inflexible system or plan, supervised and ruled from outside our shores. This same government has made or tried to make a fetish of everything Canadian, and has severed every possible connection

with commonwealth countries in an economic way. They have tied our trade system to international control.
I believe we all admit that the theory of GATT is probably an ideal in today's unsettled world, but we, along with our United States friends, are a practical people. Being practical, how can we tolerate a trade policy that fails to take into consideration our inflated economy, a 48-cent dollar, our high prices and high standard of living with consequent high production costs as compared with many of the other countries competing in the markets of the world with our Canadian products? Labour, may I suggest, is fully aware of the fact that tariffs protect not only industry but the labourers in industry. I need refer to only one industry in our economy in that connection, the textile industry. Just here I might interpose the question, does Canada want a textile industry?
The government has continued to ignore the Canadian producer in deference to the consumer cost of living index. In other words, they are more interested in cheap consumer goods than in employment. I make reference here to just two items, textiles and cheese. When I speak of cheese I am bound to ask what has become of the much vaunted price support program that the party in power has told us about throughout these years? Now that the farmers are in difficulty the government has sabotaged our great basic dairy industry. I want to ask, of what advantage is it to the housewife to have cheap consumer goods if her husband is unemployed and she has not the wherewithal to buy them? What benefit is it to thousands of Canadian farmers who have had extremely poor crops this year and are not in a position to purchase these so-called cheap goods?
In my area of southwestern Ontario there are hundreds and hundreds of acres of white beans under the snow that are unharvested and never will be harvested. They will be a total loss. There are thousands of acres of soybeans as yet unharvested, and there are many thousands of acres that never will be harvested. This applies to corn as well. I assure the government that the purchasing power of agriculture in southwestern Ontario has been severely reduced.
I want to mention also that, necessary as it is, the tinkering with unemployment insurance payments will never cure the causes of unemployment. Again in the speech from the throne the unemployment problem has been soft-pedalled and underestimated. Many hon. members recall the slogans of the Liberal party in the days of Mackenzie King, the
The Address-Mr. H. O. White full dinner pail and later on full employment. Apparently the government has forgotten about that. Canada, with her vast natural resources which my leader so aptly mentioned this afternoon, is the last country in the world that should be suffering from unemployment. If we would just process and market the natural resources of our country instead of importing employment from abroad, we would provide work for our people. What we actually need is a revised fiscal and trade policy.
I am just going to mention here that what we need is a policy designed, as w.as Sir John A. Macdonald's, on the basis of tariffs for the protection of labour and industry, not a tariff for government income as exists today. Many tariff items should and could be reduced if it were not for the government's failure to put their house in order and practise economy.
I just want to say a word here to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). I sympathize with him, as did my leader this afternoon, in the difficult task he has undertaken. This year the city of London is celebrating its centennial year. Some time ago it was mooted that London would issue wooden nickels, and there was a suggestion to the effect that this would not be allowed. Anyway, they have issued the wooden nickels; and I would point out to the minister that no longer can Canadians demand gold for the dollar bill, which is also made of wood. When I think of the resources in the city of London I believe I would just as soon have their wooden nickels, because they are convertible in that city, and that is where I purchase most of the things I buy.
Last week we observed a triumvirate of the cabinet going, hats in hands, to Washington to, let us say, get a better deal, or a new deal, or some kind of deal over there, but coming back empty-handed. Canadians have been led to believe that an aura of infallibility surrounds cabinet ministers, but I think what we have seen happening in the last few months has destroyed that state of mind, and that it will never be believed again. Their very purpose in going to Washington was to avert the catastrophe that we in the opposition have been pointing out to them for many years, when we said that they have been putting their trade eggs all in the American basket. History has shown over the years that the United States is not a dependable market.
There is also the question of the resignation of Mr. Graham Towers, hailed in this country as a financial wizard who could not be wrong. Does his resignation presage some change not altogether welcomed by him or by the government? There is more than appears on the surface, in my estimation.
54	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. H. O. White
One of the achievements of the former minister of finance, aided and abetted by the governor of the bank, was this 48-cent dollar, brought about in 16 years. Indirectly this has robbed the people who have saved for their old age. They have been deprived of 50 per cent of their savings, and it made penurious those on fixed incomes.
Canadians never again will indulge in the luxury of believing that the cabinet cannot be wrong. These men are mortal, just like the rest of us. Thousands of my constituents could give the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) a few pointers on deficit financing. Never since the thirties have so many people been in the same predicament as the government, with insufficient money to pay the bills. I suggest to the minister that he should be forced to do what they will have to do; first of all curtail or eliminate unnecessary expenditures, go without luxuries, and work at those enterprises giving the greatest hope for the production of new wealth.
I would remind the minister that thousands of Canadians who paid income tax last year will not be contributors in 1955. I would remind him that the 10 per cent sales tax will bear more heavily than ever on those who are least able to pay. I would remind him that the income from that source will likely diminish. I would remind him that individuals and industry alike, so far as taxation is concerned, are now bearing all that the traffic will bear. I would remind him again that our customs and excise structure is out of date. I would remind him also that tariff [DOT] for revenue is excessive, and is not serving its original purpose. I would remind him that any increase in taxation is out of the question, and that the burden on the municipalities of caring for the unemployed is absolutely wrong, because from these very same people this government has taken in income tax almost a third of their earned income. It has taken in sales tax 10 per cent of the cost of most purchases; it has taken customs and excise duties on imported goods; and on some goods manufactured in this country it has imposed a tariff giving greater protection than necessary to the industry. And there is not much hope, because election year is too far away, to expect any tax reductions. None of us has forgotten that the stamp tax on cheques was removed, and that only a few months later postage rates were increased. People will not forget those things.
There is one further way, although perhaps a small one, in which the minister could reduce expenses. I would suggest that he fire the man who is responsible for the caricature of the Queen on our dollar bills.


Most Canadians welcome assistance for the Colombo plan. The leader of the Social Credit party spoke about it tonight, and I listened to him with considerable interest. But I would remind the minister responsible for that department that Canadians are not pleased with the very limited purchases of Canadian technical and agricultural equipment, which limitation is greatly to the detriment of Canadian labour. Purchases are made in the United States, while Canadian labourers manufacturing farm machinery in Brantford, Toronto and Hamilton have been idle.
Canadians do not like that. They believe it is a good thing to assist in the Colombo plan, but they like to see the dollars spent in Canada, and I do not blame them. Let us spend as large a percentage as possible for the purchase of Canadian goods.
Then to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) I wish to say a word or two about the window dressing in the province of Quebec. Between sessions there have been many items in the press regarding the difficulties of federal and provincial taxation, I believe all people in Canada watched with interest the progress of negotiations that were taking place. Though the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) during three or four sessions of parliament had pressed upon the government the need for a dominion-provincial conference to discuss taxation and other matters, this procedure was not deemed necessary by the government. But when the premier of Quebec and the Prime Minister of Canada got together they decided that was the right thing to do. Now Canadians are wondering about the silence on this subject in the speech from the throne.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Some members of the cabinet do not want any agreement with Quebec.


Harry Oliver White: I think the Prime Minister owes an explanation to the country regarding his talks with the premier of Quebec. For years Liberals have talked about the unholy alliance between Drew and Duplessis, but now they find themselves in the same boat. If ever there were two men who should be able to resolve the difficulty and come out of it with national unity, certainly they are the men; and we are looking to them for an explanation.
With all the problems facing Canadians at this time I am alarmed to think that probably within the next two or three days there will be interruptions in the debate on the speech from the throne drawing the attention of the people away from the pressing problems of the day and from the pressure on the government, and directing their thoughts along other lines. If there was such haste about

this the government could have called a session in the fall, as was suggested by my leader, and there would not have been this unseemly haste at this particular time.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising in this, the second session of this parliament, to take part in the throne speech debate, perhaps I shall open up on a different basis from the previous speakers. It is not my intention to offer any congratulations whatsoever to the government on the throne speech. They are not entitled to any congratulations whatsoever. A great many words were taken up in the speech from the throne in telling the members of the House of Commons, in telling the members of the other place and in telling the people of Canada, what they already knew very well, of their own knowledge and through the medium of the press, of visits of royalty and certain honourable people to our country. Many words were used in telling us of legislation that was passed at the last session which we all knew about because we voted on it.
A very few words in the speech from the throne were devoted to telling us of the government's plans. Yes, they told us in a very few words of some legislation that we are going to have to deal with in the House of Commons: changes in unemployment insurance, in blind pensions, and in other matters. Most certainly, Mr. Speaker, we welcome the notification that this is going to be done. But, sir, it is not a matter for congratulation, although it is welcome, that at long last the government is going to do at this session what it should have done last session and sessions before that.
The major reason I cannot offer congratulations on the message we had at the opening of this session is that the speech from the throne will go down in Canada as notable for what it did not say, not what it said. Today Canada is facing a great many serious economic problems, and we cannot find anywhere what the intentions of this government are; we cannot find anyone to give any advice to the House of Commons as to how the government is going to tackle the major economic problems that are facing our Dominion of Canada; how they are going to tackle the serious agricultural problems of our nation; how, outside of public works, they are going to tackle the over-all problem of full employment in our country. No word has been given to us as to the meaning of the hush-hush meetings between the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the premier of Quebec on a financial agreement, instead of calling, as has been demanded all across
The Address-Mr. Winch Canada, a meeting of all the provinces and the federal government on dominion-provincial financial relations.
On none of these things do we find any word of advice or prognostication, if I can put it that way, as to the government's approach to and study of these fundamental matters in the economy and politics of this dominion. It is because that is how I feel that I can appreciate very fully what the government are doing. They know very well that it is impossible to sell Canada on the government's record of accomplishment, of understanding or of vision, and on this I want to congratulate the government.
I do not know who the government's public relations officer is; but whoever he is, he is worth whatever he is paid, because when a government cannot stand on its record, or on its proposals, at the opening of parliament, there is one good thing to do, namely hide everything by building up an individual. In that respect, I want to congratulate the government. They are doing an excellent job. It is almost impossible to pick up a paper without finding not a government proposal but stories on "Uncle Louie".
I have had the privilege in the past year or so of meeting the Prime Minister for a matter of about only 30 seconds, but I have seen him often across the floor of the house and I honestly admit that I like him very much; I think he is a nice chap. But being a nice chap and the man we like, and seeing him in the papers with family groups, kissing babies, picking up a crying child in the station, is no answer at all to the problems of the Dominion of Canada. The answer is not in building up a man whom we adore as "Uncle Louie". It is in the government, in the speech from the throne and on the floor of this legislature, tackling the problems of the Dominion of Canada through the medium of policies and legislation.
In the weeks and months that lie before us we shall have the opportunity of speaking on numerous occasions; therefore on this occasion I am going to speak on only two or three aspects of our economy which I think are of importance. Admittedly they may seem a little repetitious but, sir, if repetition is required to get action, then it will have to be repetition. There is, without doubt, an unemployment situation in Canada. There are, without doubt, a number of unemployed who have no protection under municipal, provincial or federal law. I spoke on this last session and I am going to speak on it again. It is my humble opinion that the federal government is derelict in its responsibility to many in Canada who are without means at the present time.

The Address-Mr. Winch
Not so long ago the Prime Minister received a request for assistance for employable unemployed. If press reports are correct he turned it back as a responsibility of the provincial government. We all know the history of militaristic Germany, as far as treaties were concerned; they were scraps of paper.


An hon. Member:: Don't forget Russia.


Harold Edward Winch: All right; include Russia if you like. We know their position as far as treaties were concerned. They were scraps of paper to be torn up any time they desired to do so. Morally and ethically this and previous Liberal governments are no better whatsoever. Promises are meaningless words to be forgotten when it is expedient to do so.
In British Columbia we face the problem of unemployment. It is not just our own unemployment for, because of our mild climate on the coast, we are left with the problem of unemployment from all across the Dominion of Canada. I never hope to see again the situation we had not many years ago when because of unemployment across Canada and on the mainland of British Columbia a Liberal premier at Ottawa turned the police loose with tear gas and batons on the unemployed, and when a Liberal premier in British Columbia, under federal authority, turned the police loose. That was the occasion on which a Liberal mayor of Vancouver read the riot act to men and women able to work, desirous of work, but denied the opportunity and denied the sustenance of life.
That happened under Liberal governments, municipal, provincial, and federal. Now we have the same situation in Vancouver today and this government refuses to accept the responsibility. I wish that we who are well fed, especially on the other side of the house, would have to join the line-ups at the soup kitchens established in Vancouver by the Salvation Army, the United Church and the central city mission, all of which turn away more than they can feed, even with soup. Only three weeks ago I saw people sleeping underneath the viaducts in Vancouver. These people had nowhere to go and no one would accept the responsibility.
It may be repetitious but I wish now to come back, as I did last session, to the commitment given by the Liberal government in 1945. The record clearly demonstrates the extent of the commitment made at that time by the then prime minister, Mackenzie King, and also clearly demonstrates the understanding of that commitment by the premier and minister of finance of the province of British

Columbia. In the published proposals of the government of Canada for 1945 at page 26 the government stated:
In the inter-war years, particularly in the 1930's, the public investment expenditures of provincial and municipal governments were much larger than those of the dominion government. It is highly desirable that other governments agree to accept similar timing policies to those that the dominion proposes for its own program. The dominion proposes to give positive encouragement to provincial and municipal governments to follow these practices. Encouragement to prior planning will be offered by-
Then it deals with the method by which this will be offered. On the same page we find the following:
In the timing of projects the dominion would concern itself only with employment considerations, leaving to the provincial and municipal governments the direction of their own investments, subject to the dominion having discretion to determine in any one year the total value of projects, if any, on which it would pay timing grants within any province. It would also of course authorize the grant for projects whose execution would extend over several years.
On page 42 we find the following:
As a part of the general arrangement with the provincial governments, the dominion government now proposes to establish a practicable and comprehensive system of assistance to able-bodied unemployed persons as soon as possible, rather than waiting until the need for it actually arises.
Later it adds:
The dominion is therefore accompanying its proposal for general acceptance of responsibility with a concrete plan for its implementation in the field of assistance for employable unemployed persons.
Now, what was the understanding of the provinces when they signed the taxation agreement? I can speak only for British Columbia. These are the official records of what was understood by the government of British Columbia as to the acceptance of responsibility for employable unemployed by the federal government, and that was the acceptance of responsibility for a 20 per cent grant on municipal and provincial public projects to be undertaken in time of unemployment.
I do not wish to quote at length, but here is a statement of government policy by the Hon. John Hart, a former premier of British Columbia, made on February 17, 1947, on the floor of the legislature. He stated:
Coupled with the financial plan were certain social security proposals in which the dominion agreed among other things:-
(1) To accept full financial and administrative responsibility for the relief of employable unemployed . . .
In addition, the dominion outlined a public investment program designed to maintain high-level employment. Under this plan, the dominion government offered to share in the cost of planning acceptable provincial or municipal projects and to

pay a grant of 20 per cent of the actual cost of construction of these projects if they were executed at a time designated by the dominion.
That statement was by a Liberal premier who was at the conference. Now we have the statement of the Hon. Byron I. Johnson, another Liberal premier of British Columbia, who had this to say on government policy on March 5, 1948:
Only part of this program has been put into effect. That is to say, seven of the nine provinces have entered into tax agreements with the dominion, but are waiting for a completion of the arrangement which can only be considered final when the social security measures have been instituted.
Then we have the speech of the then minister of finance for British Columbia on March 17, 1948, when he stated:
In outlining the general situation to us the then premier commented on the original dominion proposals as presented to the dominion-provincial conference in August, 1945, which coupled with the financial plan certain social security proposals in which the dominion agreed, among other things:-
(1) To accept full financial responsibility for the relief of the employable unemployed.
And then-
(5) A public investment program in which they would pay a grant of 20 per cent of the actual cost of construction of certain projects if they were undertaken at a time to which the dominion concurred.
We signed again, but in 1950 we find the minister of finance had this to say at page 55 of his budget speech:
The negotiations with the federal government originated from certain proposals made by that government in 1945, when it offered to make itself responsible for a vast number of social services and other beneficial fiscal changes which finally were to become known as the "green book" proposals. It was assumed by the provinces who signed the existing tax agreements that the "green book" proposals would be implemented when a majority of the provinces signed the new agreement. I think I am quite right in saying that everybody thought that-
Then on the following page we find this:
When the tax agreement was entered into last year, assurances were given by Prime Minister Mackenzie King that these proposals would be implemented when a sufficient number of provinces had signed agreements. He did not say that all provinces had to agree; he simply stated a sufficient number. It is the contention of this government that the time has arrived when social security proposals should be discussed with the dominion government.
That is the record. I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister is not going to allow Canada, through its government, to reach a position where its word does not mean any more than a German treaty. Here is where the responsibility lies. British Columbia should not be held responsible for its employable unemployed and, in particular, for those who come in from other provinces.
The Address-Mr. Winch
I often heard quoted on the floor of this house in the past session the number of unemployed. But, Mr. Speaker, the number of unemployed is of no importance at all when it comes to the matter of sustenance. If I am hungry, it makes no difference whether there are ten thousand unemployed or one million unemployed. Surely after the New Year's message of the Prime Minister-"Uncle Louie"-about Canada, as the head of this government it is his responsibility to see to it that nobody in the Dominion of Canada shall be hungry if he is able and willing to work but cannot get it. Whether the number is one or a million, as long as somebody is hungry it is our responsibility as legislators to see that, municipally, provincially or federally there is a security program to look after them.
I do not want to say any more about that matter at the moment but I wish to carry on and to speak of one other phase which has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Fairey), namely the matter of highways and road construction. Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I say to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) and to the cabinet that I find it difficult to understand why a progressive country like Canada is in one respect so far behind a country like the United States. If we can go by the Globe and Mail of this morning, the President of the United States announced that there was to be a ten-year plan under which the federal government was going to spend $101 billion on the modernization of highways in the United States; that already they admit a responsibility in the ratio of 60-40, federal and state, in respect of the financial costs of major roads; and that on the new plan to the extent of $24 billion they would accept the complete responsibility for highway construction or for major improvements. But in the preamble of their draft there is, I think, a significant statement which is as follows:
It is a key network from the standpoint of federal interest in productivity and civil defence.
I want to say that in our Canadian economy we have reached the time when the federal government should recognize its financial interest in the major roads of all provinces of the Dominion of Canada and in particular of the province of British Columbia, where we face a problem. Our province, north and south, is broken up by four mountain ranges. On the prairies I understand that the average cost is $40,000 a mile for first-class roads. But in British Columbia the cost is $240,000 a mile on the average, and we have even spent a million dollars a mile

The Address-Mr. Winch on many of our roads. You cannot just build one highway in British Columbia and serve the province.
The federal government, through the medium of roads, reaps the major benefit in income and corporation taxes on new industrial development and in the development of new natural resources. As they can be opened up only by major highway construction, surely this government should lay down a policy of financial responsibility.
I read in the press in the past few weeks some criticism by the Minister of Public Works in Ottawa to the effect that the provinces, including British Columbia, were not meeting their obligations in connection with the trans-Canada highway. Of course we are not doing so in British Columbia. It is impossible to spend all the money on that one road. We must open up the other major highways in our province. If this government had any vision at aU and recognized just what it means in federal revenue to have first-class major highways in the provinces they would be investing now and not just doing as they are, namely contributing only 50 per cent on one highway through each province.
It is my considered opinion that it would be one of the finest investments the federal government could make if they would accept the major responsibility for the cost of construction of all major highways in the provinces of Canada, and let the provinces and the municipalities have the responsibility for the roads connecting the major highways. I think that would give a great impetus toward the solution of our unemployment problem, and that it would give an impetus to our provincial and our municipal governments to tackle the problem in a more effective manner.

I see that it is now almost ten o'clock. My time has only three minutes to run. Although I had more to say I shall leave it until a later date, because it would be wrong if I adjourned the debate with only three minutes to go. However, I want to conclude by saying through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister, and to the cabinet that they definitely made promises in 1945. We ask them to fulfil those promises. They can do a great deal more than the throne speech has stated. If they do not do so, the throne speech will go down as one of the most puerile things ever known in the history of the House of Commons.
On motion of Mr. Balcom the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: As the Prime Minister pointed out this afternoon, on the order paper there are 15 resolutions preceding money bills. I wonder if we could agree that tomorrow we might ask the Prime Minister to signify His Excellency's consent to all 15 resolutions rather than have 15 different ministers do so?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has he agreed?


Walter Edward Harris: The purpose of our understanding is that we shall deal with amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, taking the resolution and carrying it through to first reading of the bill. I should also like to announce that it has been agreed that we shall begin discussion of the protocol with respect to the North Atlantic treaty on Thursday, the 20th of January.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
North Atlantic Treaty


[Stage Direction]
The parties to the North Atlantic treaty signed at Washington on 4th April, 1949, Being satisfied that the security of the north Atlantic area will be enhanced by the accession of the Federal Republic of Germany to that treaty, and
Having noted that the Federal Republic of Germany has by a declaration dated 3rd October, 1954, accepted the obligations set forth in article 2 of the charter of the United Nations and has undertaken upon its accession to the North Atlantic treaty to refrain from any action inconsistent with the strictly defensive character of that treaty, and
Having further noted that all member governments have associated themselves with the declaration also made on 3rd October, 1954, by the governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the French Republic in connection with the aforesaid declaration of the Federal Republic of Germany,
Agree as follows:
Article I
Upon the entry into force of the present protocol, the government of the United States of America shall on behalf of all the parties communicate to the government of the Federal Republic of Germany an invitation to accede to the North Atlantic treaty. Thereafter the Federal Republic of Germany shall become a party to that treaty on the date when it deposits its instruments of accession with the government of the United States of America in accordance with article 10 of that treaty.
Article II
The present protocol shall enter into force, when (a) each of the parties to the North Atlantic treaty has notified to the government of the United States of America its acceptance thereof, (b) all instruments of ratification of the protocol modifying and completing the Brussels treaty have been deposited with the Belgian government, and (c) all instruments of ratification or approval of the convention on the presence of foreign forces in the Federal Republic of Germany have been deposited with the government of the Federal Republic of Germany. The government of the United States of America shall inform the other parties to the North
Atlantic treaty of the date of the receipt of each notification of acceptance of the present protocol and of the date of the entry into force of the present protocol.
Article III
The present protocol, of which the English and French texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the government of the United States of America. Duly certified copies thereof shall be transmitted by that government to the governments of the other parties to the North Atlantic treaty.
In witness whereof, the undersigned representatives, duly authorized thereto by their respective governments, have signed the present protocol.
Signed at Paris, the twenty-third day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-four.
For Belgium:
P.	H. Spaak.
For Canada:
L. B. Pearson.
For Denmark:
H. C. Hansen.
For France:
P. Mendes-France.
For Greece:
S. Stephanopoulos.
For Iceland:
Kristinn Gudmundsson.
For Italy:
G. Martino.
For Luxembourg:
Jos Bech.
For The Netherlands:
J. W. Beyen.
For Norway:
Halvard Lange.
For Portugal:
Paulo Cunha.
For Turkey:
F. Kopriilu.
For the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:
Anthony Eden.
For the United States of America:
John Foster Dulles.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, January 11, 1955