1955-01-18

Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Harbours Board Act to provide that the national harbours board shall consist of four members in lieu of three members as at the present time.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Defence Production. Has the minister been informed that commencing at noon on Thursday, January 13, the Burrard drydock in North Vancouver was shut down by a strike of electrical workers in that plant? Will the minister take steps to ascertain if an honest attempt was made by both sides to reach a settlement in the dispute before the strike was called?
Perhaps I should ask this question of the Minister of Labour, but I am directing it to the Minister of Defence Production because I understand naval contracts are being carried out at the yard. If the Minister of Defence Production would rather the Minister of Labour answered it I will see that he gets a copy.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, I think the
question would be more properly asked of the Minister of Labour. I may say that we knew of the pending dispute and did our
best to avoid a strike. I have not been informed of what has happened since Thursday and I am sure the Minister of Labour is better informed.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, my department, too, has been informed of the details of the dispute which caused a strike between the electrical trade union, local No. 1 C.C.L., and the Burrard Dry Dock Company Limited. My colleague, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), has brought certain aspects of the matter to my attention. Since these activities come entirely within provincial jurisdiction I do not think that I as Minister of Labour should question what has been done in the way of conciliation proceedings.



H.M.C. DOCKYARD, ESQUIMALT  RETIREMENT AGE OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to a question asked by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) in which he asked me to look into the retirement of civilian employees at H.M.C. Dockyard, Esquimau. On investigation I find that of a total of 3,259 civilian employees at the dockyard, some 140, of whom 40 are casual employees, have been given notice that they will be retired on account of age during the current year.
The 40 casual employees will be released on February 28. The remaining 100 are part of the continuing complement of the dockyard and they will be released at various dates during the year. Extensions beyond the normal retirement age of 65 had previously been granted to some of these employees and they will be released at the end of their period of extension. Adequate notice is being given in all cases.



REPORTED LAY-OFFS AT DOMINION ARSENALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Minister of Defence Production. Is the minister aware that 40 women were laid off at the Valcartier arsenal some time last week and that 22 were laid off at the Quebec arsenal at the same time?

Inquiries of the Ministry Will the minister tell the house if some other lay-offs are expected in these arsenals? Rumours are circulating to the effect that many hundreds of male employees will be laid off in the near future.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, just a few moments ago, I received notice from my hon. friend that he intended to ask this question. The fact that 40 women have been laid off from the Valcartier arsenal and 22 men from the Quebec arsenal naturally would not have escaped my attention. However, I will take this question as notice and endeavour to give a more complete answer at another sitting.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the press report of a speech made yesterday in Montreal by the chief of the general staff, Lieutenant General Guy Simonds, in which he is reported as having advocated compulsory military service for Canadian young men and, if so, can the minister inform the house if General Simonds was authorized to make such a statement of policy? If not, is it the intention of the government to discipline him for having done so?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of this question. I have seen the press report to which his question refers but I have not had an opportunity to discuss its accuracy with Lieutenant General Simonds. If the hon. member will look at the full tenor of the article I think he will see that Lieutenant General Simonds was not really advocating compulsory military training for this country at the present time.
In any event the view alleged to have been expressed by him was also expressed by him last year at Saint John, New Brunswick. In answer to a question which raised the identical point referred to in this question Lieutenant General Simonds expressed the identical view indicated in the press report of his recent speech.
As a result a question was raised in this house on June 23, 1954 at which time the then minister of national defence, in referring to the answer given by Lieutenant General Simonds, made the following statement, as reported on page 6521 of Hansard:
He made a reply which I think you could expect almost any officer to make, namely that he would
[Mr. Dufresne.l
be glad to see every youth in the country receive two years' military training.


Colin Cameron: I have a supplementary question to ask the minister. In view of his answer, are we to understand that the government approves of generals on the active list making policy statements in public?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think this is still a free
country. If the hon. member will refer to the full press report I think he will find that his reference to the making of a statement of policy for this country is mistaken.
(Translation) :



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. the Prime Minister.
Would the Prime Minister indicate to the house what attitude he will take, on behalf of Canada, should the question of the entry of communist China into the United Nations be included in the agenda of the commonwealth prime ministers' conference?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will only look at the debates for yesterday he will see that that question has already been put and that the Prime Minister has answered it.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Will the Prime Minister tell us what are his own personal feelings on the subject?
{Text):
Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister wishes to answer.
(Translation) ;


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the answer which the Prime Minister was ready to give me a moment ago; will he tell me, yes or no, whether he favours the admission of communist China into the United Nations?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I have no answer to give to that question.
{Text):


POLIOMYELITIS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	.
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of National Health and Welfare give an assurance that

sufficient quantities of Salk polio vaccine will be available for full use in any of the provinces which may require it, and would the minister further make a statement as to the success of this vaccine in the control of poliomyelitis?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman gave me notice of his intention to ask this question and I thank him for so doing. As I said last year, the government, in conjunction with the provinces, has taken every step to make sure that within the bounds of reasonable possibility this vaccine would be made available for the people of Canada if and when the Salk polio vaccine had been finally assessed for value. That time has not yet been reached so I cannot say anything about its final value except to express a great hope.


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of the lamentable air crash near Crumlin airport last Friday which resulted in the untimely death of Mr. Robert Saunders, chairman of the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission. Has the minister looked into two facts which have been reported in connection with this tragedy; the first being that there was a failure of power at the airport and no indication that there were in use at that time any auxiliary or mobile lights or such other equipment; secondly, that there was a delay of more than an hour before the stretcher party arrived at the scene of the accident from the airport?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to rely on my memory concerning the first question the hon. member has asked, but I shall take his question as notice and reply tomorrow. With regard to the second part of his question I might say that I have no information whatever on the subject.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fernand Viau (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask two questions of the Minister of Public Works with respect to the Winnipeg post office. Is he now able to table a copy of the contract signed between
Inquiries of the Ministry the government of Canada and the Foundation Company of Canada with reference to the construction of the Winnipeg post office and setting out the firm price list, and also the names of the subcontractors and the price agreed between the two parties? Second, would he confirm or deny that the Foundation Company of Canada made a further request for a grant beyond the firm price agreed upon in the fall of 1954?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I was unable to hear the second part of the question but perhaps the hon. member can inform me of it later in the day. With respect to the first question I shall be very glad to table a copy of the contract which, as my hon. friend knows, does not contain a list of all the subcontractors. But I will table it in the form in which it was written.


Mr. Knowles:: When will construction
commence?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Public Works heard my question which was supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau), and whether he can answer it. When will construction of the new Winnipeg post office begin?


Robert Henry Winters: I understand that construction will commence in the very near future, if it has not already been put in hand.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilion (Notre Dame de
Grace): Can the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance tell us when the bill amending the federal income tax law designed to implement the policy outlined by the Prime Minister yesterday will be brought before this house?
Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have just been looking at the orders of the day and observe that we have 18 items awaiting the conclusion of this debate. When the debate is concluded we shall set out government business in such a manner that the hon. member will have ample notice of the bill of which he speaks.


Mr. Hamilion (Notre Dame de Grace):: May
I ask the Minister of Finance whether it is proposed to discuss the terms of the amending bill, about which I asked a few minutes

Inquiries of the Ministry ago, with the premier of Quebec and his advisers before it is brought before this house?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the answer is so obvious that my hon. friend could supply it.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, might I repeat the question?


Mr. Speaker:: No.



DIPLOMATIC INSTRUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. On January 10 the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) placed on Hansard the protocol the approval of which will be debated here the day after tomorrow. Would the minister give consideration to placing either in Hansard or in Votes and Proceedings the agreement made at the four-power and nine-power conferences which preceded the agreement to which the protocol in question refers?
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke to me about this matter before he left today for a funeral in Toronto. He personally has no objection, subject to the wishes of the house, to the tabling of the relevant texts of the London and Paris agreements. In the meantime, I have looked over the schedules and most of them are long and quite meaningless without reference to the Bonn convention of 1952. In expressing the minister's wish I would say there can be no objection to this request providing it is understood that it would not be necessary to print the entire schedules. Instead a resume of them could be given relative to the information which the hon. member seeks, and that resume could be printed in Hansard, as was done the other day.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon. members to give their opinion now as to the request made by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the suggestion made by the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs? Perhaps we might take that up when the documents are tabled. I was just about to call orders of the day because no one else rose, and I rose at this time to
FMr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace).]

ask whether the house wishes me to request unanimous consent to have these documents printed.
My problem is that we are taking a decision now about documents we do not have. I feel that later on we could revert to motions and at that time consent could be given. It would be most irregular to give consent now when the documents are not available.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might consider the request made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) to revert to motions at this time, and ask the consent of the house to have the documents he will now table printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I table three copies, in English and in French, of the final act of the London conference, October 3rd. I would simply point out that I understand now that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on January 10 tabled the other agreements and that the protocol itself was also tabled, so that with this tabling now, all of the documents to which my friend the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) directed our attention are now before the house and his request is therefore in a position to be acted upon.



PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the Minister of Finance say whether last session's legislation which amended the Public Service Superannuation Act providing life insurance or death benefits for civil servants and members of the armed forces has been proclaimed and, if so, can he say what percentage of civil servants and members of the armed forces appeared to be satisfied with this legislation?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, the section referred to has been proclaimed. I do not recall offhand the date, but it was some time in the last ten days of December, to take effect on January 1. After November 1, which was the closing date for members to indicate their preference, we found that a sufficiently large number had shown their preference in favour of the legislation that we felt it was desirable to proclaim it as parliament had indicated earlier in the summer that it should be proclaimed.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Does the minister remember the percentage?


Walter Edward Harris: My recollection is that it was about 12 per cent, but I would not want to say that definitely at the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Only 12 per cent were opposed?


Walter Edward Harris: Twelve per cent who had indicated their option against it.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, many will agree that in the policy of the throne speech there has been a noticeable trend towards saying less of future plans and of dwelling more on past achievements. This policy is all right for government members because they have ready-made for them a speech which can be dressed up with some slight detail; but for a member of the opposition who wants to do a conscientious job, it is not all right. He is forced to take a negative approach to the throne speech itself and consequently he falls back on this negative method of regretting that no action has been taken or of regretting that the wrong action has been taken. At the beginning of my speech I wish to apologize for this negative approach but with this trend apparent in the speech from the throne, I cannot see how any different attitude can be taken.
In the maritimes generally and in Saint John in particular we find the same situation prevailing, that of loss of markets, and unemployment. I think I should be fair and generous to say that the grain shipments through Saint John have increased somewhat, but unemployment is, at the best, about the same as it was last year. But there is a dangerous trend, Mr. Speaker, towards an increase in welfare demands. To me that means that the unemployment of past years is catching up with us. I know that in Saint John this Christmas the welfare demands of the citizens were four and five times as great as those of the previous year. There is a danger that should be noted there. In approaching this important throne speech
The Address-Mr. Bell debate in a constructive way, we find in the speech only vague references to regional and seasonal unemployment. There is mention of the commonwealth conference which is of interest to us, but nothing more is said. I am pleased that our amendment lists the loss of markets and the unemployment situation first in that order.
I have a long list of these so-called regrets but in picking out four or five I first would say that we regret the further loss of the United Kingdom markets. This hackneyed phrase of putting all our eggs in the one trade basket has perhaps been worn a little bit thin but one is forced to comment that it must be some basket by now.
The figures on the United Kingdom market show that in the first nine months of 1954- and they are the only figures readily available-British imports from Canada dropped in value to $192 million from $228 million in the same period last year. What is more noteworthy is that this decline in Canadian sales to the United Kingdom came at a time when other United Kingdom imports remained constant. In other words, the United Kingdom has held its own with imports from other countries-South Africa, India, New Zealand, Ceylon and so on-but their imports from Canada decreased sharply to the amount that I have shown.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) goes to the commonwealth conference with his contingent, surely it is not too much to ask that for the first time we take a little bit of leadership with regard to these interesting trade problems. If it is necessary to take the leadership in the matter of convertibility, in some limited way, let us do that. If it is a matter of some imperial preference, let us not be afraid to examine this matter and to push for it at the conference. I had occasion to do some research work on preferences and tariffs, and it amazed me to note that in the past history of imperial preferences, all leadership has been taken by the members of the commonwealth or of the empire, as it was then. There has never been any definite stand or a definite forcing of opinion by the so-called mother country in these matters. I feel strongly that we should not hesitate to take a strong stand in these two matters of convertibility and preferences.
Also interesting in this connection were the statements made last year by Mr. Thomas McKittrick, who appeared before the trade relations committee of the other place, when he made the bland remark that convertibility was in the hands of Canada. That is a statement by one of the leading bankers of the United States, and he was throwing on our

The Address-Mr. Bell shoulders the responsibility of bringing Britain and the United States together. This surely would be a great time for us to show that leadership which we so obviously have been hesitant to take.
We also regret the increasing trend to ship Canadian produce and manufactured goods through United States ports. I have here some figures that show that there has been little decrease in the amount of produce that is being sent to the other ports of the world from Canada through the United States. The figures are still alarming and no definite trend can be indicated. The figures that are more alarming perhaps are the ones that show our protected industries-that is industries in Canada which have some degree of protection -are the ones that use these United States ports almost exclusively. The figures are as follows:
Shipments Through United States Ports
1952	1953
per cent per cent
Automobiles	
89'46	84 04Auto parts	
77-61	56-54Tires, motor vehicles, pneumatic tire casings	
78 08	84-78Farm implements and machinery	
82-26	80-86Machinery, except agricultural machinery	
55-76	44-51Whiskey	:	
45-92	44-69
These figures are of great concern to us because Canada has invested thousands of dollars in her transport facilities and yet we have not followed through with encouragement of domestic and foreign trade. It is a well known fact that the United States government is continually encouraging and advertising the use of their ports, but we seem to have fallen down in that respect. We have comparable facilities at our Canadian ports. Our handling is efficient, costs are supposed to be on a parity with United States rates, and yet when our ports need definite help because of economic conditions such help is not forthcoming. The government should take some definite action. It has not only a responsibility but also a definite obligation to see that these industries which are protected to a great extent should be forced in some manner to use Canadian ports for both import and export trade.
There has been considerable interest by Canadian manufacturers but the time has come when the government will have to give consideration to taking some action in this regard. One suggestion that should be investigated is the possibility of having our trade commissioners authorized and instructed that in their negotiations in other countries regarding imports and exports they should 
solicit the use of Canadian ports entirely. The United States government does it. Why can we not do the same thing?
We further regret that no action has been taken on the request of the provincial government of New Brunswick with respect to hydroelectric development. The other day Mr. James Muir, president of the Royal Bank of Canada, said at the bank's annual meeting that there must be a farsighted policy to develop Canada's resources. We in New Brunswick are proud of the fact that this year we are spending $182 million on capital investment. This exceeds the figure for 1954 and is a new high, representing an increase of almost $18 million over the previous year's total of $164 million. On a percentage basis these figures indicate that our province is ahead of all other provinces in capital investment. Surely that is a good indication that we want to help ourselves. We have been able to dig up enough money on our own to lead the country.
The St. Lawrence seaway is taking shape and progressing. The pipe line is moving ahead, although I would not wish to comment on the present position of progress in this respect. But when these all-Canadian developments are presented to us we wonder why our request for hydroelectric development cannot be considered in the same way. It was interesting to note the other day that Mr. Rand Matheson of the maritime transportation commission made the first noteworthy statement that I have seen on the effect of the seaway on the maritime ports. He is reported as saying that, as business is taken inland with the development of the seaway, manufacturers and other exporters will tend to ship more during the summer months and thus decrease the winter business of the maritime ports.
This situation is alarming to us and we wonder why consideration cannot be given to our appeals. This is an appeal made in a non-partisan way. The opposition members of the New Brunswick legislature have given some sort of approval. At least they have not objected. To my knowledge no New Brunswick member in the House of Commons has raised any objection. Their silence is a little bit alarming to me although the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) did comment on it the other day, and there is a non-partisan approach to the whole matter.
More hydroelectric power would solve our industrial bottleneck and we could make plans for the development of our new mineral discoveries. It amused me very much

to read in a newspaper the other day that Canada was permitting $3 million of its Colombo plan money to be used for hydroelectric development in India. It is quite ironical when you think that we in New Brunswick are asking for assistance with respect to our hydroelectric power development and cannot seem to get anywhere. Yet it is all right for the Canadian government to give $3 million to India to develop hydroelectric power there. This necessary assistance would enable us to round out our development. It would go a long way to help our economy. Of course there is the fact that the Atlantic provinces comprise a regional market of nearly two million people. In the years ahead Canadian industries in the central part of Canada would for various reasons such as high freight rates perhaps wish to decentralize their industries by coming to the maritimes. We would be able to offer them hydroelectric power and the regional market that is available. Surely we are not going to get a no answer to this request.
In the third place we regret that in the changes and reorganization of the reserve army that took place during the past summer there was gross discrimination against us. I should like to review the story briefly so far as New Brunswick is concerned, and also Nova Scotia to some extent. We have always prided ourselves on the high number of our enlistments. In the first and second world wars I think we had the highest per capita enlistment of any of the provinces of Canada. We have a background of good training and tradition in our provinces, particularly in my own province with which I am a bit more familiar.
Last year I put a question on the order paper asking the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) the present state, classification and training position of all the reserve army units in Canada. To my mind this was the key question as far as the changes were concerned and how they should be effected. The question went to the head of the order paper, stayed there for two months and that was the end of it. I suggest that these figures would have uncovered the unmistakable fact that our New Brunswick units were in A-one shape and probably unsurpassed anywhere in Canada. What happened? When the changes were made last year our three regiments, the North Shore regiment, the Carleton and York regiment and the New Brunswick Scottish, were wiped out entirely. It was not a case of reduction or reorganization, to which we might not have had any objection. It was simply the fact that in New Brunswick and 50433-19
The Address-Mr. Bell Nova Scotia the units, as such, were completely wiped out. These are the only provinces in Canada in which the new units were given a provincial designation. When the major-generals Letson, Kennedy and Renault came down to New Brunswick to investigate the matter, they were only there for two hours. They talked to one or two army officials and gave no indication that these changes were coming. Evidently they went away without a clear picture of the facts.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that we do not object to the changes that had to be made. We realize that some reorganization of the reserve army had to take place. We do object to the fact that our units were completely wiped out. In reply to letters that were sent, the minister said it was necessary to reduce the infantry and increase the armour. I ask the question today, where is the increase in armour in the regiments in New Brunswick? There has not been any change whatever. Again there is a touch of irony in this whole case, as was the case in my previous regret. One regiment is now to be called the First New Brunswick Regiment, so we are right back where we started in 1793 because there was a Royal New Brunswick Regiment at that time.
We regret also, Mr. Speaker, the discontinuance of the railway lines in Albert county. There is a history connected with these lines that goes back a long way. The first reference in any act is to the Elgin line. This railway was originally partly financed by the people in the area surrounding Elgin. They were forced to buy bonds to help with this railway. When the Canadian National took it over, certain statements were made and a definite obligation was undertaken to continue this line which is so necessary to the residents of that area. The cheese factory at Elgin, the lumber and pit prop business as well as the new mineral discoveries, particularly copper in this area, all need this line of railway. The highways will not take the heavy load that the railway line can accommodate, so it is an absolute necessity that further consideration be given to any plans that are in the minds of the transport commission or the railway to tear up those tracks.
Another point of interest concerns the recent discoveries in Albert county, particularly of oil shale. New Brunswick has invested considerable money in a complete examination of the possibility of burning oil shale to provide electric power. A new New York firm has been approached and is in the process of doing that. I suggest it would be folly to do away with these railway
290	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bell lines while the future looks so bright. While this was taking place, and while considerable opposition was building up to the loss of this line, evidently the government, in their sly little way, were toying with the idea of eliminating a further line in Albert county, the Hillsborough to Albert line. Just the other day the residents in this area were notified that there is to be a board hearing to ascertain why this line should not be removed.
One goes back twenty years when there was some talk of removing the same line, but for some reason or other the government left it there. Later gypsum was discovered and it was possible to locate quite a profitable industry in the area. If this line had been abandoned the industry, of course, could not have been accommodated. Here we are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop the marshlands in Albert county in a successful way for the future, and at the same time talk of removing the railway line. What is going to happen to this investment in the marshlands? We sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government, through the Canadian National, will give every consideration to these appeals that the lines be left in their present position.
We regret further that there is too much rigidity in the Post Office Department around our area. Good officials are hamstrung because of the rigid requirements imposed by Ottawa. They make investigations quite thoroughly with respect to changes in the post office and carrier service, yet they are bound by the rigid requirements of the Post Office Department. The local officials fall back on the Ottawa department and their excuses, consequently bad public relations exist. Personally, I can say that I have had quite a few inquiries of the Post Office Department and I must admit that prompt replies have been received. There seems to have been a betterment of the condition that was. so criticized during the last session.
However, in the East Saint John area the people greatly desire a new post office. The surrounding district of Little River feels it is entitled to a sub-post office. The Glen Falls area has been petitioning for some time for rural mail service. I understand that all these requests have gone through the local department in the proper way and have received the approval of the local officials. Someone here at Ottawa or back in Saint John has fallen back on the rigid requirements of the department that so much has to be given for a mail contract or a box has to be within so many yards of here or there before this mail service can be inaugurated.


I suggest that some little discretionary power given to the local officials would not be out of the way in helping to repair the bad public relations that are building up.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to develop the pattern that seems to be shaping up in our area, particularly with reference to this debate. There has been this reckless abandonment of rail lines in Albert county, which seems to be contrary to the enthusiasm engendered by our new discoveries; there has been this indiscriminate undermining of our traditions, traditions that only we in the maritimes really appreciate, and we do object quite seriously to this discrimination against our army units. Personally I feel that the rail lines would not have been removed nor the army units changed if they were in the central areas which have more powerful lobby groups to speak for them. Little Albert county is out of the way. Changes can be made there without too much objection.
In so far as the army units are concerned, we do not have the powerful officers' messes of the Queen's Own or the Black Watch that could lobby with influential men. We feel that our regiments mean just as much as these other units, and we object very strongly to these two changes merely because of the effect politically. However, I must say in all fairness, Mr. Speaker, that it is significant to know that the loss of markets which has been affecting us for the last two or three years is now touching the whole dominion. I feel certain that when everybody becomes aroused over the matter it will help us. I feel certain also that we will not be turned down in our pleas for assistance in connection with hydroelectric power, particularly in the light of the news that India is to get some help.
There is a new interest in the maritimes, perhaps for the first time in recent years, with our discoveries. A new spirit seems to be developing. We feel now that by standing in unity we may be able to make use of the lessons we have learned in the past. It is gratifying to note the success of the Atlantic economic council that is meeting regularly now each year. This was the dream of the late Premier Angus L. Macdonald, and I am sure his spirit will always be alive while that council is meeting.
I had occasion this past summer to make some general remarks on maritime union, and I must say for the record that I have never said anything rightly or wrongly that caused as much interest as this subject. I did not receive a word from anyone who was opposed to it; in fact everyone who spoke offered comments of a complimentary nature.

It may be far removed, but surely any steps we can take in this respect will benefit all of us.
I was also very much pleased the other day to hear the hon. member from Halifax (Mr. Balcom) speak about the need for regional assistance in a financial way in the maritime provinces. I believe his observations were to the effect that the maritimes have a continuing problem, and that a regional agency should be set up along the lines of the industrial development bank. In any event, it is just another way of saying that we do need collective help down there, and I compliment him upon his remarks in this respect.
We have had very clear indications of the government's interest in our fishing problem, and it is encouraging to know that our fisheries-perhaps one of Canada's most undeveloped industries-are being given some help, and that research is continuing in this respect.
These last few words perhaps paint a little brighter picture than those with which I began, when I mentioned those things I thought it necessary to point out. But I do feel that perhaps the government has finally begun to take note of our traditions. We have finally got our backs up and we are going to do a little fighting for some of our new discoveries. I believe that when we see on a wall or in print the motto of Canada, which was offered by a father of confederation from New Brunswick, we will not have to blush any more, because perhaps Canada will really be a nation from sea to sea.


Mr. A. R. Lusby (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like first to add my congratulations to those which' have already been extended to the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, upon the exceedingly able manner in which they discharged their duties. It is reassuring to the membership of the house when these more recent additions bring with them the capacity for clear thinking and lucid expression, indicating a full sense of their responsibility as members of this Canadian parliament. I add my congratulations most heartily to those which have already been given to them.
Then, with regard to the speech from the throne itself, as we always do, we have heard hon. members expressing a wide diversity of opinion concerning the value of the government's program which has been set out in that speech. Let me say that in my opinion the speech from the throne is a source of justifiable satisfaction to supporters of the government. When one reads it and 50433-194
The Address-Mr. Lusby hears it, and when one sees the measures there promulgated, he realizes that it reveals and outlines a program for the session now beginning which is well timed and, while perhaps not spectacular, represents a steady advance for improvements which lead always to the greater welfare of the Canadian people.
Nothing has emanated from the opposition benches to cause me to doubt the correctness of the opinion I have just expressed. We have heard of course the cry, which is so easily uttered by those who do not have to shoulder any responsibility, for lighter taxes and heavier expenditures. We have heard broached again-or at least hinted-the ancient and, I believe, the now thoroughly exploded doctrine that high and higher tariff walls are the panacea for all our ills.
Then, from more than one source we have heard what seems to me in effect to be a complaint that it is not good that the Liberal party should have at its head a man of such high character and outstanding ability as our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and that we Liberals should not take such great pride in that fact. That position, of course, is understandable from the opposition's point of view.
Then we have listened to a very considerable amount of what I have no doubt would be deemed suitable stump material in certain quarters of the country, such as the prophecy commented upon so much in the latter part of the debate as to the possible coming victory of the communists in Quebec and the socialists everywhere else. All I have to say concerning that prophecy is that it is a very well balanced one, because I think one-half of it is just as likely to be fulfilled as the other.
We have heard presented the hoary and inevitable argument that no matter what beneficial measures the government may see fit to introduce, it should have gone farther and provided a little more. But, of sound and constructive criticism-and, after all, that is or should be the chief aim of opposition par-it seems to me that there has been a distinct paucity. And I think this very lack is in itself a not inconsiderable tribute to the strength of the government's policies.
No thinking man will suggest, of course, that everything is exactly as we should like to see it. In Canada, as everywhere else in the world, inevitably there are certain problems, some of which are national and some regional, some of which are minor and others more important, which inevitably must be faced and, if possible, overcome.
Speaking as one from the maritime provinces let me say that in that section of the
292	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Lusby country we always have a full share of regional problems. The hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell), who is also from the maritime provinces, has just concluded a speech in which quite properly he laid a great deal of emphasis upon the regional problems of the maritimes. I should like to say something along similar lines, although of course my approach will be different from his, and will seek to emphasize more the problems of my own constituency. For at the mention of regional problems we think of those with which the maritime provinces have to contend. And one thing that stands out is this, that as each year rolls around we see and the world sees unmistakably that Canada as a nation is advancing into a glorious future. Not all the talk from the opposition benches can seriously impugn the truth of that statement. But it is also unfortunately true that not all parts of the country are advancing at the same pace. We in the maritime provinces are advancing, yes, but not at the same pace as is enjoyed by others parts of the country. In the maritimes we lack a central geographical position; we lack vast hinterlands and, to a considerable degree, untouched natural resources. And when I say that, of course I have in mind the fact that great discoveries of mineral resources have been made in New Brunswick and to some extent in Nova Scotia.
Nevertheless we do lack to a very considerable degree untouched natural resources. We have a lack of easy access to profitable markets. These are conditions of geography, conditions due to our situation. Nevertheless they militate against us.
I think it is correct to say that every province of Canada, with the exception of the maritimes, enjoys some, and certain of them enjoy all, of the advantages which I have said we lack. Therefore, as equal partners in the great scheme of confederation, of which two of the maritime provinces are charter members, we are legitimately entitled to claim special consideration from the federal government with respect to the problems which we have to face, to the end that in the advancement of this country-I refer particularly to economic advancement, for in other respects socially, culturally and intellectually, we can hold our own without difficulty-to the end, I repeat, that in the economic advancement of this country we in the maritimes shall have our place, if not in the vanguard at least within hailing distance of the more fortunate provinces.
I do not mean by that and I do not suggest that in a country of this size there can be absolute equality in this respect in all regions.


For example, I do not suggest that Nova Scotia can foreseeably hope to match in this particular, let us say, the province of Alberta where, if I might use a figure of speech, we might say that the good ship prosperity rides snugly, perhaps even smugly, in a sea of oil. I suppose some hon. gentlemen might suggest that I carry that figure of speech a little further and put Social Credit in the role of a stowaway.
But I do say that much can be done and every possible step should be taken to alleviate existing economic inequalities. This government can perform no greater service in the interests of Canada as a whole, not merely in the interests of the maritimes, than to bend its energies and turn its resources toward the accomplishment of that end. A few days ago during the course of this debate one of the hon. members for Halifax suggested the possibility of close liaison between some federal agency and the newly formed economic council of the Atlantic provinces, and also suggested the desirability of encouraging new industry in the maritimes by the greater use of the facilities of the industrial development bank. The hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) mentioned that just a few moments ago. I heartily endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax in that respect. I should like to add my compliments to those which have been tendered the hon. member by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert.
It seems to me, as the hon. member for Halifax indicated, that in the past the efforts made to improve the economic life of the maritimes have been of too sporadic and piecemeal a character, involving perhaps the appointment of a temporary commission to consider some problem when it has become acute, but never a continuous program of research and investigation which would permanently carry on and cover all phases of the maritime economy. I should like to see the creation or appointment of some permanent federal body charged with such duties, acting of course in the closest co-operation with all organizations in the maritimes having the same purposes in view, including the newly formed economic council of the Atlantic provinces.
In a developing and changing country such as this, with its vast distances and great diversity of interests, it is not surprising that steps may need to be taken from time to time to ensure that adequate attention shall be given to the needs of a particular area. Perhaps I may cite as an example-I do not think it is too good a one-the fact that last year it was found desirable to effect a change

in the name of the former department of resources and development which has now become the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, marking the reorientation of the work of that department with increasing emphasis upon the administration of the northern territories.
Although this analogy is not by any means a perfect one, I use it to stress the desirability, I think I might say the necessity, of providing some effective mechanism whereby the economic problems of the maritimes can be kept in a constant focus of attention by this government and means for their solution devised, not sporadically but as a part of a comprehensive program to raise the whole economy of these provinces to a level more nearly commensurate with that enjoyed elsewhere in Canada. One of the primary points of such a program would most certainly be the promotion of greater industrial activity in the maritimes where factors which I have already mentioned militate heavily against us in that respect.
In this connection let me revert to the speech from the throne and say that, of the beneficial measures thereby adumbrated, the proposed increase in unemployment benefits, already partly put into effect, has perhaps aroused the most general public interest and approval. Certainly this is true of industrial centres such as my own town of Amherst. This measure to my mind marks a further expansion of that sweeping program of social security instituted by the Liberal party and still proceeding as the continuing development and increasing wealth of the country permit. Yet, and here at last I find some common ground with opposition speakers, unemployment insurance, beneficial though it has proved, is certainly no complete answer to any problem of unemployment which may arise. Obviously the only real and complete answer is a continued high level of industrial activity.
I am very far from agreeing with the belief, or apparent belief, of some of the opposition members that the federal government, singlehanded, or any other government for that matter, by a sort of waving of the wand of its magical powers, so to speak, can permanently end unemployment. But I do suggest as one ameliorating policy, which at least to some extent lies within its powers, that the federal government, rather than promoting the further undue concentration of secondary industries in those parts of the country which are already highly industrialized, should turn its efforts toward increasing the level of industrial activity in the maritimes.
This of course is not by any means a new proposition. It has frequently been broached
The Address-Mr. Lusby that this wider distribution of industry is desirable. I think it is usually approached from the point of view that in the event of war it would be a good thing in the interests of national safety and defence. But I think, taken in the perspective of years, it would also prove a strong weapon in preventing or combating unemployment.
In this free land the government cannot say to one industrialist "Build there" and to another "Build here." I never have a great deal of sympathy for those who say that the government should build an industry in that town or this town. Under our present system that is not the right approach to the problem. But we must remember that in these days the federal government exerts a very weighty and potent influence upon the industrial life of our country. It is a mighty buyer, a mighty awarder of contracts. I urge that some suitable scheme of regional allocation of these contracts should be devised which would promote the further industrialization of the maritime provinces. I say further that it is in the national interest that this should be done.
Turning again to the speech from the throne, I, like other hon. members, am deeply interested in the proposal for an expanded program of public works. As I have mentioned before in this house, I consider the most desirable type of public works, those most to be encouraged, to be not those which only furnish employment during the stage of construction, or which may be a mere matter of pride or convenience to residents of a community or district, but those which may reasonably be expected to provide a permanent stimulus to the whole regional economy.
Such are the Canso causeway and the Yarmouth-Bar Harbor ferry, and such will be the Chignecto canal project when that long overdue project is finally undertaken. Surely in the light of present developments, in the light of the St. Lawrence seaway, the iron ore development in Labrador, maritime security in time of war and the expressed intention of the government to embark upon an expanded program of public works, no time could be more opportune for instituting a new, thorough and conclusive investigation into the feasibility and economic possibilities of this canal. At this date it is not germane to say that a commission which conducted a survey in 1931 decided against the commercial value of the canal. Conditions now are in no way similar to those of 25 years ago. I think the whole subject should be approached anew. A commission

The Address-Mr. Lusby should be appointed and a thorough investigation made, taking into account representations from all interested areas. A final decision should then be taken as to whether the Chignecto canal is to be built.
We in the maritimes firmly believe the decision would be a favourable one, but I think I may say that if, after a thorough investigation of the matter, it was decided that the canal could not be commercially justified, then the people of the maritimes would be content to accept that decision. But they are not content to allow this matter to stand year after year without any further reinvestigation into the merits of the canal.
Another badly needed project which I should like to bring to the attention of the government is the establishment of a ferry service across Minas channel between Parrs-boro in my constituency and the opposite shore in Kings county. I should say the reestablishment of a ferry service; for prior to its discontinuance during the last war such a service had, I am told, been in existence in one form or another for over a century, although I suppose it was originally a sailing ship proposition.
However, it is a rather stark commentary that in this year of progress, after such a long period, no such ferry operates. The provision of adequate deep water docking facilities near Parrsboro and cape Blomidon on the far shore would enable a ferry service to be maintained over a few miles of water and independently of the tides. Such facilities would eliminate an overland journey of some 150 miles. Such a ferry would, as a glance at the map of Nova Scotia and the maritimes will demonstrate, greatly expedite traffic between western Nova Scotia on the one hand and Cumberland county, Prince Edward Island, and the north shore of New Brunswick on the other. It would certainly provide a substantial impetus to the Nova Scotia tourist trade, and I believe in many ways it would be complementary to the Yarmouth-Bar Harbor ferry service which is shortly to go into effect.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in this modern age any worth-while improvement in transportation facilities such as I have suggested should merit the careful consideration of the federal government. Indeed, the federal government has an interest in transportation in many ways, not least of which is its interest and support of the building of the trans-Canada highway. Therefore, without reservation, I would urge this government to carry out a new and comprehensive investigation of the Chignecto canal project, and ask them to provide full co-operation
rMr. Lusby.]

and assistance in the establishment of the Minas channel ferry service which I have mentioned.
Another public works project of a different character which I also strongly commend to the attention of this government is the erection of a new armoury in the town of Spring-hill which is in my constituency. For years the existing armoury in that sturdy mining community of some 8,000 people, an ancient wooden structure, not erected by the government in the first place, has been inadequate for its purposes. Now it has been officially condemned as unfit for use. No renovation or reconstruction will prove a satisfactory substitute for a new and modern building.
In this connection let me add that if a community's record of patriotism and military service is to be taken into account in such a case, the town of Springhill is entitled to very high priority indeed. In both great wars the percentage of enlistments from the town was among the highest in Canada, and in the two wars 140 Springhill men fell in the armed service of their country. I would add that enlistment figures were very high in spite of the fact that a great many miners were held at their work in the mines under wartime regulations.
In peacetime reserve army activities are maintained at a high level in the town, with approximately 100 men on the strength oi the local company and training each week. Future interest in matters military is ensured by an efficient and enthusiastic cadet corps which has held the best standing in military district No. 6 on various occasions, and in 1950 and 1952 won the King George trophy for marksmanship-emblematic of the Canadian championship. We need not doubt that if the need again arises the rugged miners of Springhill will pour to war as valiantly as in the past.
These are things to be taken into account when consideration is being given to our request for the construction of a new armoury. The present lack of a suitable armoury is a serious handicap to military training and a damper on enthusiasm. We should also bear in mind the importance of a suitable armoury as a meeting place in the social, sporting, and public life of the community.
In this respect I would like to say a few words about the reorganization of militia units in the maritimes. Reorganization took place in Nova Scotia and it was with deep regret that we learned that the honourable name of the North Nova Scotia Highlanders could not be maintained, and that a military unit could not be known as such. The North Nova Scotia Highlanders had a very high

and honourable tradition in the last war, and much as we regret that the need for efficiency and economy has meant the disbanding of the unit, I do not believe it will affect the interest and enthusiasm for military training in that area. That being the case, I say that Springhill is fully deserving of a new armoury and I urge the government to provide one as soon as possible.
While on the subject of public works I should like to recommend a comprehensive survey of the docking, dredging, and other harbour and channel requirements of the various ports along the two coast lines of my constituency, Wallace, Pugwash, Northport, Advocate, Spencer's Island, Port Greville, Parrsboro, and the rest. Fishing and Shipping are still important constituents in the economy of Cumberland county and deserve every reasonable encouragement.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the mention of Springhill, a coal mining town, calls to mind a topic on which I wish to say a few words, for it constitutes what is perhaps the most serious problem in the Nova Scotia economic picture today, that of the coal mining industry.
A great deal has been said in the past in this house about the state of the coal mining industry, but I make no apology for mentioning the subject again. As we enter another year the future of the industry remains generally sombre and cloudy, particularly for the small independent producer. According to the latest report of the dominion coal board, the forecast is very much the same as before, namely that in spite of increasing competition from oil and natural gas, the increase of population and expansion of industry in Canada will provide, or is expected to provide, sufficient markets by the middle sixties to enable the industry to survive, at least at its present level. This forecast, of course, does not take into account the present incalculable factor of atomic power. However, from that forecast I think we may reasonably hope that the industry is not necessarily doomed to extinction for lack of markets. But the next decade will be a critical one. It will require a continued flow of governmental assistance and co-operation to enable the industry to stagger through to better days. Not only in the interest of the coal-producing provinces but in the national interest as well, it is imperative that this assistance and co-operation be continued and, if necessary, expanded. We have only to remember that coal is still the chief source of energy in Canada, that it is still an essential in time of war and that the mines, if they are once closed, will in all probability never reopen.
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy
I am confident that this government will continue to play a full and generous part in the struggle to save the industry, as it has done in the past. What form of assistance may prove most effective is not an easy question to answer, even for experts. It may prove to lie in the realm of the development of new and commercially practicable uses for coal other than as fuel. That has always been a favourite thesis of my own. It may be found elsewhere. The ultimate answer will probably be a composite of many factors. I hope at a later stage of this session to be able to discuss the matter of the coal industry in much greater detail even as I hope to be able to present the needs of the farmers and of other important economic groups in my constituency. But for the present I merely wish to urge upon this house the emergent nature of the situation confronting the coal mining industry and the necessity of finding a satisfactory solution.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I just wish to revert to an earlier stage of my address and to use that example to emphasize again the need for a special degree of attention by this government to the economic problems of the maritimes.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Lusby), who has just taken his seat, on the excellent balance which he maintained in his speech. He spent about two minutes in chastising the opposition groups for their failure to recognize the fact that we have the best of all possible governments today and about thirty minutes telling us of the injustices from which his part of the country is suffering under that same government.
Unlike many Liberals who have spoken, Mr. Speaker, I find nothing in the throne speech on which I can congratulate the government. One hon. member-I think it was the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott)-stated that he was doubly thrilled by this speech. Personally I find myself chilled rather than thrilled-


An hon. Member:: It is the weather.


Joseph William Noseworthy: -by the nonchalant manner in which the grave and serious social and economic problems of this country are completely ignored in the speech from the throne which is now before us. For instance, there is evidence that for the next five or six months we shall be amending and consolidating existing legislation. In the speech from the throne there is nothing to indicate that we are to be presented with any new legislation designed to cope with the problems that face us today. For instance, there is to

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy be no new legislation providing national health insurance, the need for which is growing and for which there is increasing national support. Of course, Mr. Speaker, we are probably expecting too much from this government if we expect them to introduce any such measure as that at a time when we are two or three years from a federal election.
There is to be no improvement in old age pensions, no improvement in family allowances, nor any new social security measures that will redistribute the wealth that we are producing and increase the diminishing purchasing power of the Canadian consumers. No new measures are forecast to check the diminishing net income of our rural population. At a time when bold, progressive measures-measures such as those proposed by this government in their green book of 1945-are needed to meet an unemployment situation which is annually growing more serious, we have offered us nothing that can by any stretch of even Liberal imagination cope with the situation.
It is true that at long last the government has yielded to the repeated requests of veterans organizations and to the annual bombardment from the opposition benches. After nation-wide protest the government has agreed to increase veterans allowances. To the veterans of the country they are offering a few crumbs from a rich uncle's table. There is to be no new housing legislation of such a nature as will make the securing of homes possible for tens of thousands of people who really need homes and who cannot afford to buy them under our present housing legislation, or to rent them. There are no new measures whereby these people may be able to secure houses, unless perchance the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) may be close enough to the government to know what the government's intentions are but which intentions are not expressed in the speech from the throne. If, as I hope, the speech which he made in the house the other day- and which I may say re-echoed requests made by this group a year ago that purchasers' equity in homes should be safeguarded just as is safeguarded the interest of the lending institutions-indicates that there is a prospect of the government's introducing such legislation this year but which they did not forecast in the throne speech, then we say that we are extremely happy. We certainly are delighted to have that speech from the hon. member for Spadina, a member so closely associated with the cabinet that his name on numerous occasions has been mentioned in connection with the post of cabinet minister and other positions within the gift of the government; and I want to

add my voice in support of that suggestion.
I think the Liberal party is missing a grand opportunity, in so far as Toronto is concerned, in having failed to provide some such position for the hon. member for Spadina. Personally, I should like to see him elevated to the Senate. We might then make more progress in Spadina. However, Mr. Speaker, we hope that some such legislation on housing will be introduced.
There are facing the country today many other problems for which no provision is made in the speech from the throne. For instance, we find no provision made for the employable unemployed other than the possible extension of unemployment insurance benefits. Notwithstanding the fact again that in 1945 the government placed itself on record and outlined its policy as being one of providing unemployment assistance for those who failed to benefit from the Unemployment Insurance Act, there is no evidence that we are to have any application of that policy in this session. We are told in the speech from the throne that our national economy is in a generally healthy condition and although there are half a million or more Canadians looking for jobs that are unavailable the matter is dismissed in the speech from the throne in these words:
Some unemployment of a regional and seasonal nature Is being experienced.
Just how healthy is our national economy, and what are some of the danger signals that can be observed today and which we should be observing if we want to keep that economy in a healthy condition? In the first place, Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident that our national production is declining while at the same time our labour force is increasing and our technological processes are being improved to the extent that it is becoming possible to produce more goods with fewer workers every year.
Probably one of the best indicators of the level of our production is provided by the dominion bureau of statistics report on railway carloadings for the first ten months of 1954. These months are compared with the first ten months of 1953, and we find that there is considerable indication that the volume of production in at least 15 major products dropped. These major products include fertilizers, petroleum and petroleum products, pulpwood, lumber, grain products, building products, livestock, logs and posts, merchandise, automobiles, trucks and parts, primary iron and steel, iron ore, farm machinery, machinery and castings, and grain. In all of these there has been a considerable reduction in carload loadings in the first ten months of 1954 compared with

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy
the same months in 1953. The percentage decreases range as follows: For automobiles a drop of 18 per cent, for primary iron and steel a drop of 21 per cent, for iron ore a drop of 23 per cent, for farm machinery 24 per cent, for machinery and castings 25 per cent, and for grain 34 per cent.
The dominion bureau of statistics report on employment in certain basic industries tells much the same story. It tells the story that with unemployment growing in these basic industries to such an extent there must of necessity be a drop in production. The dominion bureau of statistics figures in their report on employment by industries indicate that in the nine month period from January to September, 1954, unemployment increased in all our major goods producing industries. It increased by 11 per cent in clothing and 11 per cent in the railroad equipment industry. In the latter industry unemployment in September, 1954, was 20 per cent higher than in September, 1953.
There is an 11 per cent increase in unemployment in the automobile and parts industry, an increase of 17 per cent in textiles, 17 per cent in primary iron and steel, and 20 per cent in farm machinery. In the case of farm machinery the decline in employment over the comparable period in 1952 was 34 per cent. In the consumer durable goods industries we have, for example, in the first six months of 1954 a decline of 6 per cent in the production of refrigerators and 20 per cent in the production of washing machines. There was a drop of 16 per cent in employment in aircraft plants below the peak of employment in the spring of 1953, and a drop of 14 per cent in employment in shipbuilding between April and September, 1954.
When figures are available for the last three months of 1954 there is no doubt in the world but that they will show that there has been a greater increase in unemployment and a greater drop in production over the entire year than that shown by the figures for the first nine months of the year. The figures pertaining to railway carloadings and unemployment indicate a considerable decline in production in all our major goods industries, particularly in industrial machinery, farm machinery, railroad equipment, aircraft, shipbuilding and consumer durable goods.
A second danger signal that I think we should watch, and which should lead us to the conclusion that our economy is not in that healthy condition that the government would have us believe it is, is the drop in net farm income. As has already been pointed out in the house, 1954 was the third successive year 50433-20
in which net farm income dropped substantially. While official figures are not yet available, it has been unofficially estimated that net farm income for 1954 will show a drop of $400 million. This would mean that between 1951 and 1954, a period of only three years, net farm income has dropped from $2,150 million to $1,200 million, a drop of 44 per cent.
I think we should all realize, Mr. Speaker, that a drop in farm income has of course been the main reason for the depression in farm machinery plants, for the decline in the demand for trucks, for the dropping off of railway traffic and consequently the large unemployment in the railway equipment industry, building materials, fertilizers, fuels, etc. The relationship with respect to the drop in farm income is reflected in the drop in retail sales in the three prairie provinces which are most affected by that drop in farm income. Retail sales in Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, in the first nine months of 1954, dropped by 3 per cent, 7 per cent and 12 per cent respectively. I believe that drop in retail sales indicates the extent to which those provinces were hit by the drop in farm income.
A third danger signal to which we should be paying some attention is our export position. Our export position was anything but good in 1954. Sales abroad of Canadian wheat and coarse grains from January through October were down 40 per cent from the same period in 1953. Total merchandise exports in the first ten months of the year dropped off 8 per cent in value as compared with the same period in 1953.
There are also some danger signals, Mr. Speaker, indicating that a decrease in production and employment may continue, in fact is most likely to continue in 1955. We all realize that in a country such as Canada where our labour force is increasing at the rate of something over 60,000 annually, and where technological improvements are being introduced continuously, it is not good enough that our production, and consequently our national income, should remain even at the peaks which they attained in earlier years. It is essential, if we are to keep Canada prosperous, that our national income continue to increase.
Some people find considerable solace in the fact that in the recession year of 1954 wages and salaries were maintained at a comparatively high level. As a matter of fact, wages and salaries improved by 1 - 8 per cent in that year. But the two dynamic factors to which I have referred, that of an increasing labour

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy force and improved technological processes, render it necessary that wages and salary must keep pace with these other two factors. These two factors render the creation of new jobs a necessity in a healthy economy. What is the condition today? From 1952 to 1954, Canada's labour force increased by 122,000. The rate of increase in new jobs tapered off during those years. In 1952 there were 34,300 new jobs created in industry. In 1953 that dropped to 23,000, and it is estimated that in 1954 there will be a further drop to 16,200 or less than half the number of new jobs that were created in 1952.
Some propaganda reports, government and business propaganda, find considerable satisfaction in that, notwithstanding the increased unemployment, there was a slight increase in wages and salaries paid in the year 1954. As I have pointed out already, the increase of output per man hour brought about by our improved technological processes, and possibly better management and better labour-management relations, has rendered it necessary and, as a matter of fact, has made it possible for labour to receive an increasingly larger amount in wages and salaries. The most significant fact is that the rate of increase in average hourly wages dropped off substantially in 1954 as compared with earlier years, as a matter of fact as compared with any year since 1946.
Another danger signal that should demand our attention is the fact that the estimates for capital investment and outlays for repairs during the coming year 1955 remain at about the same level as they were in 1954, or about $7,085 million. If these estimates hold true, 1955 will be the first post-war year in which capital investment has not shown an increase. Capital expenditures in 1954 were 3 per cent higher than those of the previous year, 1953. Personal expenditure in consumer goods and services is estimated by the dominion bureau of statistics to be approximately $15-5 billion. No increase in consumer expenditure is expected for 1955.
If consumer expenditure per capita over the recession year 1954 is to be increased or even maintained, and if there is to be no increase in capital investment by private enterprise, then it becomes evident that if we are to continue to increase our national income, as is necessary, and if we are to provide employment, as is necessary, then the policy which the government laid down for itself in the green book of 1945 must be followed. Government expenditures, either on social welfare work or on capital expenditure projects or both, must be stepped up. We ask the question, where and how can government expenditures be increased? We all realize,

of course, that first of all there are the expenditures for the civil service that must of necessity be limited and that must be determined by the standards of efficiency which the government sets for itself and for its employees. Government expenditures may be briefly summed up as follows: first, all current expenditures for goods and services in connection with government services and operations; second, transfer payments, that is social welfare expenditures; third, capital expenditures for roads, buildings, armaments, etc. As I pointed out, the first is of necessity limited. The second can be expanded; and it can be expanded in the best interests of our national economy and of the welfare of the Canadian people if the government decides to do so. And certainly there is ample opportunity for an increase in the third class of government expenditures.
These transfer payments in the form of family allowances, and the like, influence the rise of employment, as they are converted into consumption expenditures. Increased government expenditures on capital projects raise the levels of new investment. The result: Since national income comprises these two forms of expenditures, the national income is automatically raised by an increase in those expenditures.
Certainly there is nothing in the speech from the throne to indicate that the government has any intention at this session of introducing measures of a nature such as were outlined in their own green book of 1945, and which were then designed to meet just such a situation as faces the country at the present time.
For example, as to the responsibility for the unemployed employables, let me read a few lines from the green book:
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.
I submit the need has actually arisen today. The government has not made provisions in advance of that need, and the time has now come when it should implement that policy because the need is now with us. Here is another statement:
It is thought necessary not to permit the recurrence of the problems of administration being separated from financial responsibility, and to avoid the makeshift arrangements and controversy with provincial governments which otherwise would be almost certain to recur under the old methods of providing relief even though the number of persons involved were small.
The number of persons involved today s no longer small. They are many, and are

increasing. And municipal councils, mayors and reeves from all over the country have been pleading with the federal government to assume responsibility in some measure for these employable unemployed.
Then, one further quotation from this plan of 1945:
The plan proposes acceptance of dominion responsibility for unemployed employables, and provincial and local responsibility for unemployables . . .
And a further quotation:
Payments for unemployment assistance would be made under authority of an appropriation for this purpose, out of the consolidated revenue fund, and not out of the unemployment insurance fund.
Those were the policies the government presented to us in 1945, policies then designed to cope with a situation such as that facing the country today, a policy upon which the present cabinet has turned its back, and which it has repudiated. I submit this is the session of parliament when the government should review the promises it made to the country in that green book of 1945 and, in the light of present economic conditions, it should bring those policies into effect at this session.


Fernand Viau: Mr. Speaker, before coming to the substance of my remarks, as one who was congratulated about eight years ago on having moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne I wish to join with my colleagues in congratulating the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address. Listening to their speeches at the opening of the session one was led to realize that the constituents in those two ridings had elected two very distinguished members. In the light of the qualifications stated by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as to their public service before entering the House of Commons, and keeping in mind the substance of their speeches, we may rest assured that the electors of those two ridings will see that these two members are re-elected at later dates.
On this occasion I do not intend to discuss what might be called the highlights of the speech from the throne. I congratulate the government upon having mentioned and bringing in at this session certain remedial measures for the development of the economy of this country, and also for having introduced a measure dealing with employment which will be beneficial to the labouring class in Canada.
This afternoon I asked the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) certain questions in connection with the construction of a public building in Winnipeg. I regret there
50433-20J
The Address-Mr. Viau has been so much delay in starting work on this building, and that there is still delay in creating work for labour in the greater Winnipeg area.
If reports are correct, then I must express my disappointment that not only was the contract given to an eastern firm, but that the goods and supplies are to come from eastern Canada. Surely in the greater Winnipeg area of Manitoba we have responsible contracting firms whose bids or tenders could have been accepted. As yet no decision has been taken with respect to subcontracts covering the bulk of the material to be used in the building, and I hope the contracting firm will see fit to invite tenders from responsible manufacturing firms in Manitoba. We have some very able firms manufacturing not only cement and steel but also electrical devices which will be required in the building.
This afternoon it is my intention to address the house publicly as to what I consider abuse by certain government officials at the level of deputy minister, or its equal, in flouting certain laws of parliament, disregarding members of parliament, and treating parliament with contempt. For the last ten years, mostly during sessions of parliament or, at times, between sessions, either by correspondence or by visits to this capital city requesting certain consideration, as a member of parliament I have felt injured by the treatment received from certain officials at the level of deputy minister, or its equal.
The reason I am determined to make this public this afternoon is that one of these criminal injustices occurred last fall in the province of Manitoba, and I warned the deputy minister concerned that I would make it public. I am going to ask for remedial measures to be taken to correct this situation. Naturally in the 40 minutes allotted to me I will not be able to bring before this house all the injustices that have been perpetrated upon valiant, hard-working civil servants throughout this country. I shall limit my remarks, as I said a while ago, to one injustice which occurred in my own province of Manitoba.
I contend that this situation is the result of not having a fully functioning civil service commission as laid down in the Civil Service Act which was passed years ago by this parliament. The act states that there shall be three commissioners who will hold no other office in the civil service or engage in any other employment. We have the chairman on duty as well as one other commissioner, but during the past four years the third commissioner, who represents French-speaking Canada, has spent more of his time' in foreign lands than in the capital city where
300	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Viau he should be in order to carry out his duties according to the act passed by this parliament.
When the Civil Service Act was passed and this commission created, the number of civil servants was not as large as it is now. The number of civil servants has reached the point where three commissioners cannot have full knowledge of the details concerning the thousands and thousands of civil servants employed by this country. So, according to the act, responsibility has been transferred to the deputy heads of the departments. The result has been the creation of this vicious circle which now exists within the civil service of this nation. It is because of this that we had this injustice which was perpetrated in Manitoba last fall.
The deputy heads connive together when they do not want a certain individual, who may be ready to retire in eight or nine months, to be succeeded by his assistant. Then they make application according to the act. This may be legal, but it satisfies that lust for power which exists in the ordinary human being, and the net result is that the title and qualifications of the position are changed along with a change in the salary. But when the assistant is in a position to assume the office, what happens? He finds that he must take part in a competition because the position has been changed and his qualifications do not entitle him to succeed as the head of that branch within the department.
This is not a far-fetched statement; this condition has existed. If my voice could be heard-and no doubt what I say will be noted by the press in a few days-if the crying injustices done to many civil servants could be recorded and presented to a committee of this house, I am satisfied that following the action of that committee application could be made to the governor in council to remove these deputy heads who have abused their office and imposed injustice upon faithful civil servants throughout the country.
A few years ago a vacancy occurred in Manitoba in the Post Office Department. The vacancy was advertised in the usual manner by the civil service commission, by means of a poster issued in its name by the Post Office Department. The successful candidate was not one who pleased the unelected depository of power in the Post Office Department in the capital city. What happened? A board of appeal was set up, consisting of three members. Two members of the civil service commission refused to accept the application of the protege of this unelected


depository of power in the Post Office Department, and the third member submitted a minority report.
When this news reached the capital city a new board of appeal was created, and the third member of the previous board who had submitted a minority report and who represented the Post Office Department was made the chairman. With what result? The result was that the protege was immediately selected to fill the position of inspector for the Post Office Department, over and above the heads of more qualified civil servants in the Post Office Department in the province of Manitoba.
This situation has existed for quite a while. Last fall I was duly informed that one of the post office inspectors in Manitoba, the only French-speaking inspector in the province, was to retire on March 1, 1955. He was ill last year, and it was said that because of his illness he was requested to tender his resignation as of December 1, 1954. Naturally I was quite concerned over whether the principle of bilingualism was going to be maintained in the province of Manitoba. I came down to the capital city, and I was given the assurance by this unelected depository of power in the Post Office Department not only that the principle of bilingualism would be maintained, but that a competition would be held to select a qualified candidate to replace the retiring post office inspector.
I returned to Winnipeg, or rather I should say to St. Boniface, and was there only a few days when I was informed by a responsible official that I should pay no attention to the assurances given to me by the officials of the Post Office Department in Winnipeg because on December 1 Mr. So-and-So would be appointed as inspector or, as they now call it, area superintendent. I flew at my own expense to the capital city and appealed to the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote). I inquired if the information I had received was quite correct. His answer was "Yes. Why?"
It was not that he had discovered himself that it was not possible to hold a competition or to name a bilingual candidate in the province of Manitoba, but that he had been informed by the deputy postmaster general, part of this unelected depository of power, that a regulation of the civil service commission had been discovered which stipulated that when there was not 20 per cent Frenchspeaking or English-speaking there was no need of bilingualism in any area in this nation of ours.
The figures were submitted by the deputy postmaster general who had them all prepared, apparently after a long study. They

could only have been obtained through researches by the bureau of statistics and the Post Office Department while the member for St. Boniface was here in the capital city seeking from responsible officials confirmation of the statement that there would be a competition and the principle of bilingualism would be maintained in Manitoba.
The figure given was 18-54 per cent. I know my own province, and I know we have a larger number than that within the area where this postal inspector was going to work. However, I am not going to dispute the fact that we are short 1 per cent. They insisted on this 1 per cent in the Post Office Department, not because they wanted to respect the Civil Service Act, not because the regulation established by the civil service commission said not less than 20 per cent, but because of a lust for power. They wanted this principle established two years ago, and they railroaded it through in the province of Manitoba despite the civil service commission. The post office department of Manitoba will remain with only 1 per cent of Frenchspeaking employees at the level of administration.
I naturally brought this to the attention of the Postmaster General, and I was told I did not understand the regulations of the act. I was reminded of the words of the deputy postmaster general, that as long as he held office he would never appoint anyone who was mediocre, regardless of the large number of French-speaking Canadians living in the province of Manitoba. I suppose the Postmaster General meant that he would only employ those who had a super education, but for him to call French-speaking Canadians mediocre is not only an insult to them and to myself as a member of parliament, but is treating this house with contempt, for such an attitude is directly contrary to the provisions of the Civil Service Act.
One realizes how absurd his attitude is when we recall that the government spent thousands of dollars to have a firm in Toronto investigate the operations of the Post Office Department, and found that the deputy postmaster general was himself inefficient in carrying out his responsibilities. Despite the findings of that investigation that gentleman still carries on, creating injustices such as the one I have mentioned which result in the morale of the employees of the department being kept at a very low ebb.
Not long ago I brought to his attention a tender which was submitted in Ottawa. If my memory serves me right the tender arrived at four o'clock on October 7, 1954,
The Address-Mr. Viau and it related to a contract for over $1 million in the province of Manitoba. As a matter of fact three tenders left Manitoba at 1.20 a.m. on October 7 and arrived in Ottawa at 9.25 a.m. Two were by special delivery and one was by registered mail, but it took seven and a half hours to deliver these three tenders practically just across the street in Ottawa. One of the special delivery letters arrived at defence production at 2.45 p.m., but the other two did not arrive until 4.11 p.m. It appears that Mr. Johnston could do nothing else but refuse the other two contracts because of the regulation. The net result of that transaction was a loss to the taxpayers of $36,000, because one of the delayed contracts carried the lowest tender. That money was lost to the taxpayers because of the inefficiency of the Post Office Department. So here we have an official of the government flouting laws passed by parliament, insulting a member of parliament, and being inefficient in the handling of his responsibilities.
In my own province of Manitoba an official has been appointed to a position in the post office to which he is not entitled. But before dealing with that I would remind the house that not so long ago the Post Office Department, without consulting members of parliament or provincial and civic officials, established what is called a zoning system in greater Winnipeg. That system will never work. It might work in cities such as Toronto, Montreal, or Winnipeg, but certainly not in the greater Winnipeg area. I opposed the introduction of this system, with the result that it is not now in effect in the constituency of St. Boniface. But as an example of just how ridiculous this can be, I have a letter here addressed to "The Postmaster, Winnipeg, 297 Des Meurons," and in brackets after that comes "St. Boniface, Winnipeg, Manitoba". We spend thousands of dollars to educate our children in geography and the civic structure of this country, and here we have officials of the government flouting our beautiful history by implementing a system which makes no sense whatsoever.
Followihg the Woods-Gordon report of last July, post office officials in Ottawa advertised a promotion competition for area superintendents. That is the new name given to postal inspectors. This competition was confined to the Winnipeg area. At that time a certain A. Vermander and Mr. Walker, both postal inspectors, retired, but no vacancy was created and the name of the post was changed to that of area superintendent. After Mr. Vermander was called upon to retire last fall

The Address-Mr. Viau I was given an assurance by the deputy postmaster general that there would be a competition covering the appointment of a bilingual area superintendent in Manitoba. This assurance was given after I came here at my own expense and was ridiculed by the deputy postmaster general and two of his officials, the executive assistant and the director of administration. But on December 1, 1954, a sign in French and English was posted in every office in Manitoba with the following ultimatum to all civil servants employed by the Post Office Department. It is headed "Appeal Notice" and then comes the following:
The department has approved of the following transfer without advertising a formal competition subject to no appeals being sustained.
This is contrary to the Civil Service Act, which states that if there is a vacancy the deputy head of the department must advise the civil service commission, which will take the necessary measures to formally advertise a competition.
But who was the successful candidate? A short time ago I mentioned a certain protege of the deputy assistant to the Postmaster General, and he in fact was the man who was railroaded into the position over the heads of fully qualified members of the civil service in the province of Manitoba. The man who was appointed area superintendent for Winnipeg without a formal competition was Mr. R. J. Emerson. This was done contrary to the act. It denied the French-speaking population of Manitoba the right of employment, and also denied the rights of highly qualified personnel employed in that area.
All I can do now, Mr. Speaker, is to ask the government of Canada to see that the civil service commission acts in accordance with the regulations of the Civil Service Act. The Postmaster General, his deputy or the civil service commission should be called upon to remove Mr. Emerson from office immediately and to advertise a competition for a bilingual area superintendent for Winnipeg. The competition should then be carried out in accordance with the act. We have the qualified personnel, and it is high time some of the ministers of this government inquired closely into the actions of some of their deputies, particularly when it comes to an appointment of the kind I have mentioned. Action should be taken when an injustice has been done and when a member of parliament brings that privately to the minister's attention, for it will then be possible to handle the matter without the necessity of a member of parliament having to make the matter public as I have now done.


Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, I first wish to add my word of congratulation to the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They are both young members. Not only did they speak well but their material was well prepared.
In so far as the speech from the throne is concerned, I was disappointed that mention was not made of matters which I consider to be of urgent importance. I was glad to see that some measure was to be introduced to deal with war veterans allowances. I feel that such a measure is overdue. I can never agree with the statement made by one hon. member to the effect that he did not believe men had aged prematurely ten years in the war. I think it is a well-established fact that the men of the first war particularly aged prematurely at least ten years in their period of service. There is no special yardstick by which the effect can be diagnosed, but many of these veterans with excellent service are in need of higher payments owing to the present cost of living and the cost of maintaining their homes.
This debate on the address is of value to this house because it gives members an opportunity to present to parliament conditions in their own ridings, and as well to call the attention of parliament to the position of the country as a whole. I cannot be accused in any way of talking blue ruin in this country because I do not believe this to be a fact, for the future of Canada is possibly brighter than that of any other country on the globe. Canada covers 3,695,000 square miles and has 13,000 miles of coast line on the great lakes and the seas. The territory of Canada is about the same size as that of Europe and larger than that of the United States. There are 300 million acres of arable land in Canada, and of that 300 million acres only about half are cultivated. The surface has only been scratched of our vast mineral resources. Industry has grown, and in 73 years the value of manufactured goods has made progress from a few million to more than $5 billion.
It is true that there are matters of urgent importance affecting this country. We find marked unemployment, falling markets and an unfortunate economic balance in agriculture where the price received by the farmers for their commodities is going down and the farmer finds himself faced with the present high cost of consumer goods which he finds it necessary to buy.
Much credit has been taken by this government in past years and even up to the present time with regard to the growth and

the prosperity of Canada. My faith in Canada is so great that, in spite of adverse conditions, I believe Canada will still grow and will still prosper. I am reminded of the statement made years ago by that delightful figure in the world of entertainment, Will Rogers. He was not only an entertainer but also a philosopher. Once, when discussing the political situation in the United States- that of Democrats versus Republicans-he made a statement that I think could be well taken to heart by those who argue blue ruin. He said, "This country is too big to be destroyed by any political party".
I wish to present to you today the position of the agriculturalists and more particularly that of the dairy farmers, not only in my own riding but in the whole of the dominion. I find that there is considerable misunderstanding with regard to the difficulties faced by this great industry, especially on the part of those who are not actively engaged in the industry itself. The county of Lanark has been recognized for years as an important centre in the dairy industry, and over the years it has been especially noted for its production of Cheddar cheese manufactured both for export and for domestic consumption.
It should be appreciated that dairy farming is an occupation which requires many hours of hard work. It is not merely a matter of a six-day week. Even on Sundays cows must be milked and cared for, and milk must be prepared and cooled in order that it may reach market on Monday in good condition. Not only is there this consideration, but in order to build up a good dairy herd and secure high production, there must be constant care and supervision. Any dairy farmer can tell you that it is an expensive proposition for him during the years when he builds up a good dairy herd. There is also the cost of maintaining equipment such as silos and barns. Of late years the cost of labour has been so high that it is a factor which must be taken into account in the cost of production.
As an industry, dairying is one of the most important in Canada. It is not generally realized that 450,000 farmers depend upon the dairy industry as their source of income. Indirectly two million Canadians derive part or all of their income from this source. That includes those engaged in production, distribution, processing and supplying various services and equipment. It contributes more than $600 million to our national commerce. Food, of course, is the main product, and this includes butter, cheese, cream, bottled milk, powdered milk and many other types of food provided by dairy herds. I mention these facts in order to bring before this house and the public the importance of this industry.
The Address-Mr. Blair
Last November the bureau of statistics showed a drop in the cost of living index, and it was to be noted that the lower figure was accounted for by food prices. This figure would have been considerably lower were it not for the fact that the cost of other commodities showed a rise or remained at their former figures. In plain language, the drop in the cost of living was due to the farmer. Reports at the end of the year showed that the drop in farm income in 1954 amounted to 13 per cent. To one section of our population this was a pleasant thing, because cheaper farm commodities meant cheaper food. But there is something more serious which has been generally disregarded by a large portion of the public, namely the drop in farm income; and the drop in general food prices has had much to do with the jobs of ordinary Canadians.
We are hearing all sorts of reasons, even in this house, as the causes of unemployment. It has been called seasonal, and even the weather has been blamed. But everybody who talks about it apparently avoids the obvious explanation. One reason is plainly outstanding. Far too many farmers have not available the cash with which to buy manufactured goods, nor have they the cash when it is necessary to employ labour themselves. We must remember that the 450,000 dairy farmers, together with their families and all the people who are connected with the dairy trade, consume large quantities of manufactured goods. We cannot afford to have the income of that large group of people so reduced that their buying power will be impaired.
The buying power of the farmers is required in connection with goods manufactured by Canadian industry, by Canadian labour. When the buying power of the farmers becomes impaired-and let us remember that there are several hundred thousand farmers-there is a slow-down of our industrial economy, and we have the kind of unemployment that we are experiencing in Canadian business today.
Under present conditions in Canada it is an excellent thing to be able to obtain cheap food. I repeat that the drop in our consumer price index, or the cost of living record, is mainly due to the fact that there has been a drop in the price of food. In this connection it is well to remember that cheaper food is related to jobs; I refer to jobs of people employed in industry and manufacture. There is little good in the saving of a few cents on the cost of a spread for bread, or a pound of processed cheese, if the result is going to be that more Canadians are thrown out of jobs. Let me again emphasize the fact that in this case food costs are related to jobs.
304	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blair
The average farm family buys about four times as much goods of every description as does the average urban family. The farmer buys not only the necessities for his household but, in addition, buys largely the products of industry in the nature of farm implements and various types of goods or machinery which he uses in his work on the farm. When the farmer makes less money he does not buy, and the people who are employed in other industries, who live and are consumers in urban centres, should remember that when they demand cheaper food they are, without thinking, contributing to unemployment within their own country. I do not blame people for wishing to buy their food more cheaply. This is only natural with the present high cost of living, but one must take a broad and long-term view of the matter.
I now come to the question of the importation of New Zealand cheese. There is an old saw about carrying coals to Newcastle, and this is about the most surprising deal one could imagine. In Canada we have cheese to give away and now more of it is being hauled thousands of miles across the Pacific, adding to the confusion. There has been some mystery about this deal, because it is extremely difficult under the circumstances to find why such a deal was ever made. Under the deal 2,250,000 pounds of New Zealand cheese are being imported into Canada at a time when about 10 million pounds more cheese is reported in Canada than there was a year ago. If an importer can bring in New Zealand cheese, this takes the props from under any Canadian dairy product.
Further, if what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) says means unrestricted imports of cheese and powdered and processed milk, then within six months Canadian products will be at the world price, which is approximately $2 a hundred for milk. It may be argued that this New Zealand cheese is only one shipment, is not likely to be repeated, and is not a matter of great moment. The Minister of Trade and Commerce stated in the house a few days ago that no further imports of New Zealand cheese are expected for six or nine months.
Apparently a verbal agreement was made in 1952 whereby New Zealand agreed not to send cheese to Canada for the reason that Canadian producers were having difficulty in selling to the British market. The Ontario cheese producers' association has been working, at considerable expense to the organization, to stabilize this department of the dairy industry of the country. In fact it has raised over a million dollars for the purpose of exporting Canada's surplus. Now the cheese



The Address-Mr. Blair
The truth is that not only farmers but other Canadian producers find themselves being priced out of world markets. If all other things were equal farmers would be glad to cut their prices so they could export, provided they would not be expected to do all the cutting. Farmers and manufacturers in other countries can sell for less in the world markets because their costs are less, wages are lower and the standard of living is lower. Canadian farmers have made a substantial contribution, but this has been offset by high processing and handling charges. Canadian consumers are not receiving the full benefits of lower farm prices, because costs over which the farmer has no control have risen.
Turning to another subject, I may say that I was interested in a speech made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) in Montreal in November. He indicated in that speech that he found taxes in Canada pretty high- those were his words-and he was amazed that Canadian citizens put up with them. I enjoyed hearing someone in the government say this, especially the Minister of Finance. Evidently the minister is aware of the burden on industry and the people in general.
There is no doubt about the requirements for defence and general maintenance, and allowance must be made for increased services. But if our industries are going to succeed in a competitive market there must be a cutting down of costs. This must start with a real program of economy within the government. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that it is true of human nature that where a person has been living high, with almost unlimited money to spend, it is sometimes difficult to learn how to restrict unnecessary spending. I suggest that in this connection study should be given to the report of the Auditor General.
There has been a great deal of discussion on the matter of cutting costs in order that we may export, and a tendency to blame various groups or sections of our people. It is sometimes difficult for any one group to make the first move because of the cost of living. Hardship is always involved if the balance between income and the cost of living is disturbed. The workers in any industry wage a continuous struggle to maintain the balance between wages and the cost of living.
Our great neighbour to the south, the United States, is almost self-contained. They have a domestic market of 160 million people. There is complete interchangeability of goods among the 48 states. Again I cannot help but point out that our domestic market is only 15 million people. This brings up the question of the importance of immigration, and


the building up of our population as a longterm plan cannot be overemphasized. If we doubled our population that would give us a domestic market which would absorb more and more of our industrial products, including agricultural products. The development of our natural resources would mean many more workers, more buyers of domestic consumer goods and a greatly increased domestic market. It therefore follows that in such a long-term program of development there would be more employment for Canadian workers.
Certain factors must be taken into consideration in meeting competition. Taxes add to the cost of production and place our industries at an unfair disadvantage. When industry suffers in this way, unemployment is created. Industrial growth is hampered by high corporation taxes. Increased consumer buying power stimulates industrial expansion, and in turn creates more jobs. Steps taken toward lowering taxes would decrease production costs and help our industries to meet competition, not only in the domestic field but in the export markets as well.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that there is no mention of economy in the speech from the throne. Every year the government says the Canadian taxpayer must produce more money. Taxes can defeat their own ends. If the tax levy is at too high a rate, production and expansion in industry are decreased and in the end the tax will produce less revenue than a somewhat lower rate. A corporation tax of 49 per cent would leave little room for industrial expansion, cutting of costs, and hence ability to meet foreign competition.
I am fully aware of the difficulties involved in world trading today, but again I point out that under present conditions we cannot afford to sacrifice the great Canadian dairy industry. The international tension that exists today makes it necessary, for our own preservation, that we maintain this important industry as part of our program of preparedness.
The farm implement industry now has marked unemployment. In this connection I wish to briefly discuss the Colombo plan. Canada has voted $100 million to help the economic development of south and southeast Asia, and to help raise the standard of living of the 570 million people in that area. The Department of External Affairs, in discussing the Colombo plan, has stated:
India's food problem is tremendous.
There is never enough food produced in India to feed the population at even the minimum standard to which they are accustomed.

The shortage of food amounts to five million tons. According to the same statement the government of India seems to be fully aware of the desperate need to close this gap, and its five-year development plan concentrates on increased agricultural production. We are told that India devotes 17-5 per cent of investment capital to the improvement and extension of agriculture, and 21 per cent to irrigation. It would seem that it is India's policy to grow more food for her people.
Apparently it is left to the country receiving the help under the Colombo plan to decide how the money should be expended. If the policy of India is to grow more food it will mean bringing more land under cultivation and improving the farming methods on the new land as well as the areas already under crop. The improvement could be carried out in some ways by using certain types of Canadian farm machinery.
Of the $51 million Canada sent to aid India, we find that none of the money has been spent on farm machinery. Pakistan and Ceylon received the remaining $48 million, and of that sum only $200,000 has been spent on farm machinery. Canada sent to India locomotives, electrical equipment, boilers and the like, but no plows, tractors or other farm implements. It would seem that in India, which is concentrating on increasing the production of foodstuffs and has reclaimed two million acres of land, added to another eight million acres which were brought under irrigation, it is poor policy to continue working on land by primitive methods which in years gone by have never yielded adequate crops.
I am aware of the difficulty in teaching these new methods as opposed to the ancient methods in some of those countries; but if sufficient food is to be grown then new methods will have to be adopted. In view of the fact that the farm implement industry in Canada is going through a difficult period from lack of orders, I suggest that measures be taken to increase the shipment of those commodities to such countries as India which are receiving help under the Colombo plan. Certainly $200,000 worth of implements is a very small proportion of the $100 million Canada has already expended. I believe expenditures under the Colombo plan represent money well spent, and will bring excellent results. But as I have suggested, it would help the farm implement industry in Canada if a due proportion of Canada's expenditures were to consist of agricultural implements.


Mr. F. A. Enfield (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am always very favourably impressed by the high level of debate and the
The Address-Mr. Enfield effective presentations one hears in the house, to the point where sometimes I am a little diffident about making my own contribution. I wish particularly, however, to congratulate the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply. The hon. member for Verdun made a most eloquent presentation. This is understandable in one who comes from a province where fine speakers and great orators are the order of the day. And most certainly one must take justifiable pride in the clear, concise and comprehensive remarks of one's closer associate from the Toronto area, the hon. member for Trinity.
It is understandable that many hon. members are most concerned about the unemployment situation. I think we all feel that, so long as one person who wants work is unable to find it, for him the distress is great indeed. During the past two years we have seen a change in economic conditions on a worldwide scale. Competition has increased greatly in the selling field in all parts of the world, particularly with the economic come-back of the European countries, including Germany and Great Britain. We have witnessed a change from a wartime economy, with defence expenditures predominant, to a peacetime economy and certainly to a more normal period of economic growth and change. This change has been followed with some anxiety and certainly with a great deal of interest by the investor, the businessman and the worker.
Fortunately there has been no great economic upheaval, although there has been some economic upset. We see a residue of unemployment now resulting in Canada. The latest figures I have from the dominion bureau of statistics indicate that on November 30 of last year 214,000 persons were out of work and seeking employment. This was the total in a labour force of 5,417,000 workers, or a little more than 3h per cent of the total labour force.
Without wishing to minimize the seriousness of unemployment generally I should like to draw a comparison between the monthly unemployment figures of the years 1953 and 1954, to show the increase per month during that time. For example, in March 1953 there were 172,000 persons seeking employment and in the corresponding month of 1954 there were 318,000, or an increase of 146,000. In April of 1953 we find the figure to be 165,000 and in 1954 to be 303,000, or a slightly smaller increase of 138,000. For May of 1953 the figure was 114,000, and in 1954 it was 217,000, or an increase of 103,000. In June, July and August the increase per month was 95,000,
82,000	and 83,000, respectively. The same proportions applied for September, but in

The Address-Mr. Enfield October the increase had dropped to 68,000 and in November the increase over the corresponding month in the previous year had dropped to 63,000.
I know the argument will be offered that one can do anything with figures, but I do suggest that they indicate a strong trend. The problem is serious, but it was not as serious at the end of that period, namely in November of 1954, as it was in March of that year. And I think we have good reason to hope that this trend will continue. I do not share the view of the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) who felt that unemployment would continue to increase to a point where we would have about 600,000 unemployed before the close of the winter months. If the trend I have indicated continues I feel the situation at that time will be somewhat less serious than it was last winter.
In Toronto we are very fortunate in this respect. In a recent issue of the Globe and Mail there is a comment by an official of the unemployment insurance commission to the effect that there is the equivalent of a little more than one person unemployed for every 28 employed in that city. We know that unemployment figures vary from municipality to municipality and from area to area, and that the unemployment situation is most serious in some areas. I do feel that in those places the intelligent allocation of public works and projects is most important to alleviate local situations.
While I am on this subject I will point out that an awkward problem does exist in connection with the relief of the employable unemployed. I know the federal government has been charged with complete responsibility for these persons. The statement is made that in the green book, which is the record of the dominion-provincial conference of 1945 and 1946, the dominion government made certain proposals in this connection. I would point out, however, that when an offer is made it does not constitute a binding contract until such offer has been accepted. At that time, as we know, the two largest and richest provinces did not accept the offer. Ontario entered into a separate tax agreement in 1948, and Quebec has not as yet entered into any agreement. Therefore the legal responsibility still rests, of course, with the provinces for the relief of the employable unemployed.
It is true that we have taken on the task of providing an unemployment insurance act. Many people feel that because we have done so we should assume complete responsibility for unemployment. From a practical point of view it might be better to administer

this type of thing by one government and with one administration. Perhaps that is the only really businesslike way in which the matter can be handled. But you cannot take on a financial responsibility which by virtue of the constitution rests upon the provinces unless you enter into some agreement with them to safeguard yourself at the time you take over. When a dominion-provincial conference is held in the future I feel that this question should be placed high on the agenda, and it should be decided definitely where the responsibility will lie.
When we look at the third quarter of 1954 and the beginning of 1955 we see a feeling of buoyancy and optimism expressed by our business leaders, by our newspaper columnists and commentators. Despite the unemployment I feel I have caught some of that feeling of buoyancy and optimism. I think as a federal government we should do all we can to foster an optimistic outlook.
One of the strongest pillars of employment, in metropolitan Toronto in any event, has been our housing program. The government must feel most gratified indeed at the unqualified success of the National Housing Act over the past year. We know that on the national level in 1953 some $280 million was invested in National Housing Act loans. For the first nine months of 1954 that figure had increased to $418 million, nearly twice as much for just the first nine months of that year. It showed a tremendous increase.
In the Toronto area some 7,500 homes were built under National Housing Act auspices in 1953. In the first nine months of 1954 that figure had doubled, to 15,000. The manager of the local office of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Scarborough tells me that over 60 per cent of all National Housing Act homes built in metropolitan Toronto were constructed in that township. I am quite proud of that. Over 7,000 homes were constructed during the year in Scarborough, which is certainly most gratifying.
The building of homes has a tremendous impact upon our economy in the way of providing employment and an outlet for investment. In this connection I should like to quote from a speech delivered by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) to the Electrical club in Montreal on December 1 last. The minister said:	.
By the end of the year Canadians will have spent about $1,250,000,000 on new housing during 1954 alone. This is 5 per cent of our gross national product. This program means expenditures on materials of over $680 million, and employment for a labour force of an average of about 100,000 men for a full year on site alone.
We are all anxious to keep the housing program or housing boom-I think I can use

that word-continuing at its present level, if not increasing. We must look at some of the problems involved in this situation. If we are to bring housing into a more effective field of demand where it will be progressively necessary to build more houses, then the price of housing must be brought within the reach of the average income groups.
One of the largest items of cost in connection with housing, at least in the metropolitan Toronto area, is the cost of serviced land. Municipalities hesitate to impose increasingly heavy tax burdens on the taxpayers in these communities. The largest single item of cost to the community is that of providing schools. I noticed in the January 7 issue of the Toronto Daily Star that the township of North York, a great part of which is in my riding, has a program for schools that will cost more than that of any municipality in the country. The cost of education falls directly upon the home owners. In my riding this accounts for 50 per cent, or in some cases 60 per cent, of the real estate tax bill. This is really a crippling proportion. As I say, municipal councils hesitate to embark upon new housing projects if this taxation has to be increased.
We are often requested as a federal government to contribute toward the cost of education. Under sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act, which allocate powers to the provinces and the dominion, we do not have jurisdiction to interfere with or to make direct contributions toward elementary schooling, or toward secondary schooling for that matter. We have made contributions to the universities which have been accepted and administered by the provinces. I think in a future dominion-provincial conference the question of federal contributions toward education might be usefully dealt with.
We could confer a direct benefit upon municipalities by allowing real estate taxes to be deducted from net taxable income for income tax purposes. I realize that this is not the first time this has been suggested in the house. On checking Hansard I notice that the former member for York West, the late Rodney Adamson, at one time made this very suggestion. There may be more equitable ways to reduce taxes if that is what we have in mind. I feel that this would not be so much a reduction in taxes as an adjustment to encourage the continued expansion of the housing industry. I think perhaps it is worthy of some consideration. I admit that I have not attacked all sides or looked at all the considerations that might arise in
The Address-Mr. Enfield connection with his suggestion, and I must admit that the suggestion may be considered a selfish one on my part because more than 95 per cent of my constituents are home owners.


Mr. Nicholson:: Could the hon. member estimate what it would cost the federal treasury?


Frank A. Enfield: No, I do not have any estimate of the cost of this reduction to the federal treasury.
The question arises as to the application of the sales tax and excise tax in connection with supplies purchased by school boards for maintenance and construction. We saw this principle invoked last year in the reduction of excise taxes on certain equipment purchased by municipalities. It might be well worth looking at the school situation from this point of view.
Tax reductions do not always mean reductions in the actual revenue collected and perhaps that was what was in the mind of the hon. gentleman who asked the question a moment ago. This may seem paradoxical, but we all know that often some reduction in taxes will produce an increase in economic activity, the fruits of which are greater revenue or perhaps the same revenue as before.
I do not like to think of taxes being decreased because that raises connotations in the minds of businessmen that the government is on an economic drive. I would not like to see government expenditure decrease because I think that would be a very bad thing for the economy at this time.
Since 1946 we have seen a tremendous expansion in business and in the economic field throughout the country. We have an expanding economy, and while it is expanding we enjoy more or less full employment. It is necessary that we sell the fruits of our labour abroad. We have to trade to survive, and I would like to commend the government on taking a stand for the ideal of free trade. The liberal trading policies of Canada -and I use the small letter "1" there-have been questioned lately as never before, and that is perhaps natural. Canada's trading pattern before the war was well established. We applied the sterling balances in our trade with Britain to the deficit in our trade with the United States, and thereby maintained a balance of trade between the two areas.
After the second world war sterling area restrictions were strengthened; there were increases on quotas-quotas that still exist- and, of course, the pound was unconvertible. The pattern of trade under these circumstances changed. Britain and other sterling area countries were unable to take the

The Address-Mr. Enfield volume of commodities they previously took because they did not have the dollars with which to pay for them, and more and more the emphasis was placed on our trade with the United States. That was a natural and in my opinion inevitable result.
We could have joined the sterling area, but I do not think anyone would seriously suggest this proposition. It ignores the economic realities of our situation, which include the close geographical proximity of the United States. It would also ignore the North American outlook which is part and parcel of Canada and the United States. Our equipment and organization in Canada is North American in its scope and details. We have great and numerous inter-company relationships between the two countries which is an altogether desirable and inevitable consequence of our geographical proximity. There is a terrific pressure for United States capital to seek an investment outlet under profitable private enterprise. The United States is our chief source of foreign capital, and it will be more so.
We recall the Paley commission, which was set up in the United States to study their sources of natural energy, hydro, coal, oil, and uranium. The commission, I believe, reported in 1952 to the United States congress that their home sources of energy were on the decline and had passed their peak. Every day means the consumption of more energy in industry and in homes in the United States. Canada, on the other hand, has tremendous sources of energy that have yet to be developed, and some that have yet to be discovered, while the United States will be forced to look more and more outside their own country for sources of cheap natural energy.
Developments in British Columbia in the field of hydroelectric power are indicative of the trend. We see ourselves exporting tremendous quantities of hydroelectric power in the form of aluminum from British Columbia and some other parts of the country. What then is the result of this trend? Two-thirds of our import and export trade at the present time is with the United States. Roughly, we take about 26 per cent of all United States exports. We are their best and largest single customer. We take more goods from the United States than all the Latin-American countries combined, and indeed more than all the European countries combined.
We still have surpluses, of course, particularly in our farm products. It has been suggested that in order to promote convertibility of the pound we should loan money to Britain. This is a good suggestion, but it


ignores the fact that British traders of late have been given more or less a free hand in the purchase of lumber, wheat, and metals, and they do not want to borrow money to purchase items which are not essential to their economy. It is all very well to suggest that we loan Britain the money with which they can purchase our goods and thereby assist them in their drive toward convertibility. It takes two to make a bargain, and it is very doubtful if Britain is disposed to borrow money. Her aim is to get out of debt and strengthen her economy, which in itself will provide the answer to convertibility. That answer lies in free trade.
The general agreement on tariffs and trade embodies the old empire preferences, because they are acceptable to the countries taking part in the agreement. Under the circumstances we have seen an increasing amount of multilateral trade between sterling and dollar countries, and the situation is improving continuously. However, convertibility is not something you just pick out of the air. It will take time and patience on the part of the countries involved to reach that point when we will have the benefit of trade with the sterling area free of quotas and restrictions.
In the meantime, our government is pressing for the provisions of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, and urging that they be fully carried out. I think the recent journey of our ministers of trade and commerce (Mr. Howe), finance (Mr. Harris) and external affairs (Mr. Pearson) to Washington was an imaginative, courageous and highly commendable action; and although it may be some time before we see any change on the part of the government of the United States we can certainly say that we have tried to impress upon the United States the importance and urgency of carrying out the provisions of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. From that point of view I think the negotiations were highly successful.
We have seen a great economic and spiritual conflict in foreign relations among the different countries of the world. We hope that out of that conflict, as is very often the case, a firmer understanding towards peaceful development will emerge. Despite our problems the Canadian nation has been pulling its weight as a world power. When we have been called upon to do so we have contributed to the defence of the free nations. We took our part in the Korean conflict. We participated fully in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I think the free world is better for the 12 squadrons of fighters we now have operating in Germany. We have an

important role in Indo-China. We did our part in the Korean negotiations. I feel that our spokesmen are admired and respected at the United Nations.
On the economic front, the Canadian dollar is still the world's strongest currency. We shall obviously have our bad moments, but underneath it all there is an underlying economic, spiritual and philosophic strength which none of us yet fully appreciates. I feel that we should have no fear for the future.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will realize that for the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) to start his speech at five minutes to six might not be too convenient. Shall I call it six o'clock, if that is agreeable to the hon. member?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, may I thank you indeed for your courtesy at five minutes to six in asking for unanimous consent to call it six o'clock. It helped me to avoid starting my speech only to break into it for the dinner recess.
In the debate on the speech from the throne I wish to speak on behalf of the people of the constituency of Macleod, which I have had the honour to represent for some years.
The constituency of Macleod is quite diversified in several ways. There are the Turner valley oil fields at the northern and western corner, and while they are not quite as active today as they were some years ago, nevertheless there is quite a little industry in that part of the constituency. Then there is the great foothills country on the east slope of the Rocky mountains, which is a tremendous ranching region. Toward the south and west is the coal mining area of the Crowsnest pass. We have a sugar beet industry in the southern and eastern corner, and most of the central region is composed of a rich and vast wheat growing area.
In the time allotted to me in this debate I do not expect to be able to speak on all the various things that affect my constituency. There will be time for that later during the session, when I will be able to speak on behalf of every part of this diversified riding. But I do wish to pay some attention at the present time to a situation that I think is most serious. I refer to the cash position of the farmers of the west. I refer to those of
The Address-Mr. Hansell my constituency in particular, because I represent them; but I am sure many others who represent farming regions of western Canada will agree with me that this matter is of grave importance. During the summer I attended and spoke at a number of meetings called by various farm organizations, as well as having the opportunity, of course, of talking to many farmers privately. I found that to many of them the situation was serious to the extent that they did not have enough money to get along.
I think we all realize that over the past number of years the farmers have not complained too much. Prices have been fair to good, and for the most part crop conditions have been reasonably good. There have been some areas where we have had crop failures, and of course the situation in Saskatchewan this year is very bad. But the fact that there is a surplus of grain does not help the farmer if he has no money at the moment. In my investigation I found this meant that certain farmers were in danger of having foreclosures made on the things they had bought. Machine companies were beginning to tighten up, and other companies that had financed purchases of the farmers were beginning to take steps if payments were not made right on time.
Some farmers came to me and said they had difficulty in meeting their current expenses to the extent of having to ask the grocer and others to wait for a little while. It is a well known fact that oil and gas companies came to a point in their operations where they instituted a cash on delivery policy. While we are very thankful in our part of the country, Mr. Speaker, for a measure of prosperity over the years, it must not be thought that all our farmers are wealthy. Some of them have not done too badly, but there are others who by no stretch of the imagination can be considered to be wealthy or in a favourable financial position.
Young men who have started to farm are finding it particularly difficult to get along when they have no cash. The same is true of some young veterans who have started afresh. They do not complain about the treatment they have received from the Department of Veterans Affairs or the policy that has been laid down for them by the government, but they are having difficulty now in financing their way because they do not have cash.
Then again there are the small farmers. In my part of the country it is pretty difficult to be successful with a small farm at any time. Wheat growing is pretty general among the farmers of that particular area, and it is considered that a farmer there finds it pretty tough unless he has a fairly large amount of

The Address-Mr. Hansell land. The small farmer finds it hard to get along today, particularly in view of the fact that he cannot sell his wheat and consequently does not have any cash.
It might be said that there is a surplus of grain, and most of these farmers have wheat in their bins. That may be so. Perhaps there was a day when the saying was true that "wheat in the bin was as good as money in the bank", but that cannot be said today. It is not true today because while they may have a surplus of grain stored on their farms, they cannot meet their bills if they have no cash. Foreclosures of one kind and another are threatened, and that is not a very healthy or happy situation.
I think we will all agree that the government has given no consideration whatsoever to alleviating this serious condition. I believe they should have done so, because there are ways of alleviating what may be more or less a temporary condition. However, if the temporary condition lasts too long it is then more than temporary; it becomes a condition that one must expect from one crop year to another, and that is not good.
I claim that the government could have taken steps to devise some plan whereby farmers with wheat in storage on their farms could have received some money, at least enough to get by on. I see no reason why the government could not have guaranteed the banks against loss in case they lent money on the farmers' wheat. They could have done that as a sort of bridge-the-gap policy. The government guarantees bank loans today in many other respects. We have the Canadian farm loan board, the loans of which are guaranteed by the government. We have the national housing scheme under which the government guarantees the loans of those people who borrow money for housing. The banks are now engaged in these lending operations, so it is not a new thing for the government to guarantee the banks and lending institutions against loss. It does seem to me that the government could have taken some steps along that line to help the farmers.
There is another suggestion. In my opinion it would not have been difficult for the wheat board itself to advance payments on the grain the farmers have in their granaries. It would be tantamount to taking the grain ahead of time. After all, the wheat ultimately has to go through the wheat board for sale, and I see no reason why the wheat board could not have adopted some plan of that kind under the direction of a government policy.
This would have been of tremendous help to the farmers who were in need. It would not be necessary for the farmers to take

advantage of these loans if they did not need them, but the farmers who find they cannot pay their grocery bills, cannot meet operating expenses on their farms, cannot pay for oil and gas deliveries, cannot pay for truck repairs and a lot of other things, could have taken advantage of loans if they had been made available. I do believe the government could have done something along those lines.
Now, what of the future? It is wintertime now, but the first thing you know spring will be here. The farmers will have to put in their crops. Again perhaps the oil companies and other companies dealing with farmers will go on a cash delivery basis. What is going to happen? Are the farmers to continue in this predicament? I urge the government, in the strongest possible terms, to give serious consideration to this most grievous problem, and during this session to introduce appropriate legislation to deal with this matter. I am sure western farmers would be pleased if something of that kind could be accomplished. Nobody would be out of pocket, and the farmers would be pleased with that action by this government. I ask that the government take appropriate measures along these lines as soon as possible.
During this session I shall deal with other matters affecting my constituency at such times and on such appropriate occasions as will afford more effective discussion. I turn now to another matter upon which I think there is need for some comment. We have heard a good deal in this debate, particularly from our C.C.F. friends, about what they regard as the evil of our private enterprise system. Frankly, of course, we in this corner of the house, we Social Crediters throughout Canada, support an effective private enterprise system. We recognize that in the past there have been certain abuses of the system by certain individuals or corporations. However, that is no reason for blaming the system as a whole. We believe that these abuses could be eliminated and that the private enterprise system could function effectively and efficiently for the good of all the citizens of Canada, providing them with incomes and at the same time giving them the freedom that free enterprise should give.
We believe private enterprise could become extremely effective under a proper financial policy. It does seem to be a sort of stock in trade argument for our C.C.F. friends, whom we have learned to like as men, to blame private enterprise for everything. It is significant that they never say, at least I have never heard any of them on any occasion, how they would handle any problem for which they blame private enterprise.

If an economic problem exists they never appraise it in the light of all its factors; they never seek for a proper solution. They just blame private enterprise and rap the knuckles of this Liberal government or any government throughout the country for what they claim is that government's loyalty to the private enterprise system.
While I say that, after a good many years of observation and study, and a good many years during which I have been responsible for appraising political trends, I have come to the conclusion that in reality there is no more dangerous socialist party than the present Liberal party in Canada. Now, that may sound strange to some ears.


Mr. Winch:: Who is to cross the floor?


Ernest George Hansell: I think I can show that is true. I did not say they were socialists in the same sense as our C.C.F. friends are. I said they were a more dangerous socialist party than our C.C.F. friends are, and I shall tell you why. Our C.C.F. friends are outspoken in respect to their socialist proposals. They make no bones about them. They say "We are socialists; we believe in the socialization and government ownership of industry". They lay their cards on the table and say "There you are. We believe in it and we want it to come." But our Liberal friends, they say "Go easy; not so fast". They give lip service to free enterprise but bide their time to introduce socialist legislation.
One only has to examine the debates of the house to find the truth of what I have just said. If you turn to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) the other day you will find that he talked about the Conservative amendment. I am not going to read all he said because I think we all remember it. Oh, I got the wrong page.


Harold Edward Winch: That is not all you got wrong, either.


Ernest George Hansell: We will see in a little while how wrong I am. The hon. member for Winnipeg South-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ernest George Hansell: I should say Vancouver South; excuse me. You see, there is so very little difference between one of the members from Winnipeg and one of the members from Vancouver that it is very difficult for me to distinguish between them. I was about to say that the hon. member for Vancouver South was very jubilant in recognizing that the Conservative party in this country is now jumping over the traces and recommending a contributory national health insurance plan.
The Address-Mr. Hansell Indeed, he said at page 103 of Hansard that when he heard that his heart beat for joy. He said:
When I heard that my heart beat with joy. My cup of jubilation really ran over.
But he did deplore the fact that the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) had stolen the thunder of the leader of the C.C.F. He referred, of course, to the humorous incident that had occurred in English bay when some chap dived in and came up minus his swimming trunks, and you will recall how he likened that to the leader of the C.C.F., visualizing that hon. gentleman standing in English bay minus his swimming trunks.
Then he said, to quote again from page 103-and, remember, the hon. member for Vancouver South recognized that the proposal made in the amendment was in fact a piece of socialist legislation-
May I say without any attempt at being facetious or witty just how glad all of us are on this side of the house who have always believed in the principle of national health insurance and who also believe in the principle of "not swift nor slow to change but in its season to bring the law".
And then he went on to say:
May I express the true hope that the smiling, genial and highly respected Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) will still be around when our Prime Minister rounds out the final blueprint which was laid down in 1919 by the great Mackenzie King and we finally wind up the finest welfare state on earth with a national health insurance scheme.
That is the quotation. How often do we hear it said in this house and out of it that the C.C.F. are nothing but Liberals in a hurry. I did not go to the trouble of turning back to last year's Hansard and reading the speech which I remember was given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), when he was pleading for this legislation. At that time the hon. member went back into history and said, "Now, in such and such a year we proposed this. We have been urging it and urging it, and eventually the Liberals have adopted it. In such and such a year we proposed this other thing, and we urged it and urged it, and later on the Liberals adopted it." He went back into history; indeed, he must have done quite a little bit of research. We know he does that.
I was interested in his speech when he proceeded to show how the C.C.F. had urged these various policies-and they must be socialist policies or they would not be urging them-and that the government eventually had adopted them. Then he went on in his speech to say, "Now we have proposed this. It is coming. Why not now?"


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.

The Address-Mr. Hansell


Ernest George Hansell: "Hear, hear" the hon. member says. What does it mean? It simply means this-


Mr. Gillis:: That the Liberals are smart.


Ernest George Hansell: And I will tell my hon. friend from Great Britain-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ernest George Hansell: From Cape Breton-I will tell my hon. friend just how smart they are. They are a little smarter than the C.C.F., because the C.C.F. wear heavy clog boots when they propose something, letting everybody know they are coming.


Clarence Gillis: Honest, honest.


Ernest George Hansell: But the Liberal party are smarter, because they put on their socialist carpet slippers and creep up on the public. Eventually socialist legislation is put on the statute books, and some time after the people suddenly awaken to the fact that they have been engulfed in a sort of socialistic welfare state, without their knowing it. The Liberals give us socialism by stealth; that is the difference between the parties.


Angus MacInnis: You are not saying that the Liberals are stooges for the C.C.F., are you?


Ernest George Hansell: I say that the Liberal party of Canada is the great carpet-slipper socialist party of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do you favour health insurance, or are you against it?


Ernest George Hansell: I knew my hon. friend would have to bring that up. We do favour a type of health insurance, but not the type my hon. friend favours.


An hon. Member:: A different kind of slipper.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know; perhaps we are not so smart, either. We are so far ahead of them in our thinking that perhaps we are ahead of our times.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What have you got on your feet?


Clarence Gillis: Moccasins.


Ernest George Hansell: We see things happening in the world; we see things happening all around us because of an economic system that is basically wrong. We Social Crediters believe we have the solution whereby the people of Canada can have the security that our vast productive wealth can give them, and that they can have it without socialization and without taking any of their freedom from them. They will be able to be free and secure and enjoy all the good things this potentially wealthy country can give.


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


Ernest George Hansell: Well, my hon. friend is very genial, so I think perhaps I should allow him to ask his question.


John Lorne MacDougall: Thank you very much. I was going to ask you if you believe in voluntary health insurance, because you certainly preached it in British Columbia.


Ernest George Hansell: Of course we believe in voluntary health insurance, because we have that now throughout the country.


John Lorne MacDougall: Oh, yeah?


Ernest George Hansell: Of course we have. Anyone can go into a voluntary health insurance plan simply by paying the premiums. There are a good many companies that have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Anyone can have a Cadillac, if he can pay for it.


Ernest George Hansell: I turn now to the amendment proposed by the C.C.F. I should like to read it, because I have a word or two to say about it. It says:
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"-
Now, I wonder if the wording of that subamendment is correct. In it they are blaming free enterprise or private enterprise for the depression of pre-war years. To my way of thinking private enterprise in pre-war years did a grand job. The job was to produce the things people needed. They did that job. As far as my friend saying that the government is returning to an uncontrolled and unplanned private enterprise, may I say our war effort was carried on remarkably well. The reason it was carried on remarkably well was that the government, with a system of controls which I admit are necessary in wartime, did permit private enterprise to do the job and it did it well.
In pre-war days we know that we had an economic depression, but it was not because private enterprise had not produced the goods. It had produced the goods. The only difficulty in pre-war years was that the people did not have the money in their pockets to buy the goods.
That brings us back to a very different line of thinking. It was not a matter of private enterprise or government ownership at all; it was a matter of pursuing a financial policy that failed to put purchasing

power into the hands of the people, enabling them to buy the goods which were available.
Here is one thing I would like to have our C.C.F. friends tell us. I would like to have them tell us how in pre-war years they could have taken over private enterprise and still distributed the goods that were piled sky high in our stores, in our granaries, in our warehouses, and with our assembly lines closed down. It was because people did not have any money with which to buy them. I would like them to tell me how government ownership would have solved that problem.
Now they talk about a planned economy. I am not saying that those in responsible government positions should not have some idea of what they are doing, if that is what they call planning. But that is not what our C.C.F. friends mean. I would like to know who is to do the planning. I might ask my friends, since they believe in economic planning, if they would be satisfied with the type of economic planning that this Liberal government would pursue? Of course, the answer is obviously no. Would they be satisfied with the type of economic planning that would be pursued under the policies of the Conservative party? Of course, I do not think the Conservatives will ever be on that side of the house to attempt to follow their policies; nevertheless, would they be satisfied if that happened? Of course the obvious answer is no. I am quite certain if we Social Crediters believed in economic planning and were on that side of the house they would not agree with our type of economic planning.
What would they be satisfied with? Of course my hon. friend back there says "Our type of economic planning". When our friends talk of economic planning what do they mean? They mean, of course, what they themselves would plan. It would be socialist economic planning by the socialists; that is what they mean.
Mr. Speaker, we in this house have claimed for years and years that there is a basic error in the present monetary policy. We have claimed that there never is enough money coming out of the process of production, whether in wages, dividends, salaries and so forth, to buy back the total production at the prices they are offered for sale. We claim there is a fundamental, basic error in economic policy; that the only way the products of the nation can reach the consumers is for an additional amount of purchasing power to be placed in the hands of consumers without going through the productive system.
We say that if that were done, then the standard of living of our Canadian people would be just as great as our productive
The Address-Mr. Hansell capacity could produce, and at the same time you would not have what our socialist friends claim must come, that is socialist economic planning; for a properly devised and effectively functioning financial policy would be its own planner.


Angus MacInnis: Who would devise and plan? Somebody would have to do it.


Ernest George Hansell: My friend may say that, but it would not satisfy him anyway, even though I answered him.


An hon. Member:: Who does the planning now?


Angus MacInnis: You have no other answer except the issuing of money.


Ernest George Hansell: I am positive that those who sit on the treasury benches today know that the big problem is to equate consuming power with producing power. If there is an equation of production with consumption in terms of purchasing power and prices you will have no difficulty, and you will solve the very grievous problems that are facing the people of Canada today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is going to plan the equation?


Ernest George Hansell: As far as unemployment is concerned, we look upon that in a different light. That is why I say that in our thinking we are just a little bit further advanced than some of the others. I am not patting ourselves on the back when I say that; I am simply saying that I think it is so. What is the objective of civilization? Are not we out to make progress? Are we here for the purpose of seeing that everybody works, works and works? I do not think we are. I think we are here to see that people enjoy life with perhaps the least possible amount of work.
I say that seriously. We do that in many ways; yet when we do it, it produces problems for us. For instance, we cut the hours of labour to a 40-hour week instead of a 48-hour week, and perhaps the day will come when we will have a 36 or a 34 or a 32-hour week. Why? We can do things in less time. That does not solve the problem, yet we do it. Surely it is a thing to be desired, to take the sweat and toil from the brows and backs of our workers. We drag out all sorts of labour-saving gadgets in order to save labour. We do that, and then we talk about unemployment. It is not unemployment that should be our concern, it should be "unim-payment". You will not find that word in the dictionary; I originated it.


An hon. Member:: Explain.

The Address-Mr. Tucker


Ernest George Hansell: That is something we should and could do. We should provide adequate incomes, and it is possible to have adequate incomes and at the same time take the sweat and toil from the brows and backs of those who work.
I am not going into all the technical details of our Social Credit proposals, although I could do it. You would not accept them if I did.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member should have started earlier.


Ernest George Hansell: We have been presenting our proposals in this house for the past 20 years. Some of us are now in our twentieth year in this parliament, and we trust that some of these things may eventually come to pass. I do not believe they will come about through our present Liberal administration. They certainly will not come from our socialist friends. The Conservatives will not have the opportunity to bring them in. What, therefore, are we to conclude? The only thing we can conclude is that if these things are to come it will be through a Social Credit government, and they alone will bring them to realization.


Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to extend my sincere congratulations to the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Perhaps I should say a word about the very entertaining speech by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) to which we have just listened. I tried to follow him when he endeavoured to prove that the Liberals were really socialists in disguise. Of course, it would be difficult to prove that to me. However, I was interested in his reasoning. He said that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had outlined various C.C.F. proposals, and suggested that the Liberals had put those proposals into effect. I do not recall exactly what proposals the C.C.F. suggested, but the hon. member for Macleod said they must have been socialist proposals because they were suggested by the C.C.F. I tried to remember the items listed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre which the Liberals put through and I recalled unemployment insurance, old age pensions, blind pensions, and, I believe, family allowances. In this regard, however, I would remind the hon. member that the Social Credit party also supported those measures, and I suppose on the same reasoning they are therefore socialist.
That is the full extent to which I shall try to answer the hon. member for Macleod, because I confess I was not very successful


in following his reasoning. I closely followed speeches by members of the official opposition and attempted to detect what faults they had to find in the past administration of this country, and what they had to suggest by way of remedy. It seems to me they concentrated on two things; first, the question of rising unemployment, and second the reduction in export trade. I shall deal with some of their suggestions during the course of my remarks, but first of all I wish to deal with some of the positive achievements of the present government which, I believe, fully warrant the support they have received over the past 19 years.
I believe the most important consideration for all of us is the extent to which we have contributed as a nation, under the leadership of the present government, to the preservation of peace. The London-Paris agreement will shortly be laid before the house. That agreement is designed to promote the solidarity of the western world against the only possible aggressor, imperialist communism. With regard to this agreement, in my opinion there can be no doubt as to what we should do in the light of history.
We were often told in the past that if it had been made plain to German leaders before the outbreak of the 1914 war that they were going to find Great Britain arrayed against them, they would never have plunged the nations of the world into war. Certainly I believe it is fair to assume that had they known they would ultimately find ranged against them not only Great Britain but the United States as well, the 1914 war would never have taken place.
Coming now to the outbreak of the war in 1939, it was thought at that time that if Great Britain made it plain that if Hitler committed further acts of aggression against Poland there was no doubt where Great Britain would stand, it was hoped that would deter Hitler. Apparently Hitler was not convinced that Great Britain meant business. Also I think it is again fair to say that if Hitler had been sure that not only would Great Britain enter the war with the determination which she ultimately displayed, but that he would find the great power of the United States also ranged against him, he would never have started the war in 1939.
Surely we should learn from these events. If we who are opposed to aggression make it quite plain to the aggressor that we mean business and will stick together and fight against anyone who endangers the peace of the world, then it seems to me that in all probability war can be prevented. Therefore in our attempt to unify the western world we should thereby make it plain to the only

potential aggressor in the world today that if she starts a war she will find the entire western world unified against her. I believe that by taking this step we will be going as far as we possibly can in this field to ensure the peace of the world.
It seems to me that when communist groups in all parts of the world try to undermine the will and determination of the free world to unite in strength and common purpose and make their enmity plain, then it is quite clear where their interests lie. People who believe in freedom, democracy, and peace surely should not follow the lead of communist stooges, witting or unwitting, in this or any other country.
There is another feature of the international situation in which our government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), have played a very worthy part, and that is in their support of the efforts of the United Nations to help the economically undeveloped nations, particularly in the Far East. I do not believe there is any doubt that rather than starve to death people will fight and it should not be overlooked that force will not indefinitely maintain world peace if it is not established on justice and fair play between one section of mankind and another.
I therefore strongly support the policy of the United Nations designed to assist economically undeveloped nations so they can increase their own productive capacity, for I am convinced that such schemes will assist in the preservation of world peace. Canada, by her support of such United Nations schemes, and also the Colombo plan, is assisting materially toward that end, and I believe Canada has played a very worthy part in all these programs.
A proper attitude toward the less fortunate people of the world is a very important feature of the struggle for peace. They are fellow human beings. We do not want them to swamp us by coming into this country in too great numbers, but we certainly must help them to increase their production and allow their exports into this country in sufficient quantities to buy enough food so their people shall not starve to death.
It is a question of whether we would rather trade than fight. On the ground of simple Christian fair play, or on the ground of self-interest, it seems to me that we should be prepared to reduce the barriers to trade, and permit those people to obtain the wherewithal to feed their teeming populations. It seems to me that Canada's work along that
The Address-Mr. Tucker line has been extremely worthy. She has taken the lead in promoting the elimination of the barriers to trade.
I might say it appeared to me that one of the bases of the opposition criticism was that the government had gone too far in that respect, and that we should be processing more of our raw materials at home. That was the basis upon which Sir John A. Macdonald got his nationalist policy accepted, namely that we should cease to be hewers of wood and drawers of water for the United States. The only way we could process more of our raw materials in this country is in some way by quotas or tariffs to protect the industries which might process those raw materials. If we begin to put on quotas and protective tariffs, then of course we lose any influence we have in promoting the expansion of trade. Other nations will begin to do the same thing.
I think the United States today is at her period of great decision in that respect. The United States today has assumed political world leadership, but she must assume economic leadership if she is going to carry through to success the political leadership she has assumed. About 100 years ago Great Britain realized that, as the great commercial centre of the world, she had to open her markets and throw down her tariff barriers. By that move Great Britain became tremendously prosperous. She also gave leadership to a great expansion of prosperity in the whole world. The United States is much greater and more powerful today than the Britain of 100 years ago. It seems to me that although there would be some dislocation, the United States could follow the policy that Great Britain followed 100 years ago.
This would stimulate the development of all countries of the world. It would allay much of the fear that exists today; because many people, even today, who have access to United States markets fear to rely on them too much, because they do not know when the United States may change their policy and plunge them into chaos in their trade relationships. If the United States could make up her mind that she was definitely going to follow the policy which her great President today is asking her to follow, namely to enable nations to expand their trade with her, to buy her production with their production, it would start the world on the road toward greater prosperity, and would ensure that we would not embark on the policy on which the nations of the world embarked in the 1930's.

The Address-Mr. Tucker
When I see the world today, ten years more or less after the end of a great war, reaching about the same stage we reached about ten years after the first war, with the dislocations that follow a war, the getting on their feet of various nations, the pressures beginning to build up through unemployment developing in various nations, pressure upon their governments to put on tariffs or trade quotas or in some way to interfere with trade; when I see that situation developing in various parts of the world today, I wonder if mankind must go through what they went through when they followed a policy of economic nationalism ten years after the end of the first war. We are just reaching that stage today. I hope the great leader of the world today, the United States, will be given the vision and wisdom not to begin to tread the road that was trodden in the 1930's, with all that will result therefrom.
One of the things I hold much to the credit of the present government is that they have steadfastly held to that course of promoting trade, in spite of pressure not only from outside their own ranks but from within; and they are going to have more pressure put upon them. I say this. If the Canadian government wavers in its devotion to that policy of trying to promote freedom and expansion of trade, then they might actually tip the scales when a real fight in that regard is coming to a decision in the United States.
Who can say to what extent the government of Canada, by adhering to the policies and the principles which all governments should have learned from the experience of the 1930's, may influence others? If the government adheres, as it has in the past, to the right policies, who can say to what extent she may have a decisive effect upon the decisions made in the United States and ultimately upon the whole course of world events? If they make a mistake or listen to some of the pleas to interfere with trade, others will do the same thing, and the whole sad story will start all over again.
I want to say to the government that I appreciate the way they have handled the situation thus far. For that reason alone it seems to me that they deserve the support and the approbation of this house and of the country.
I should like to say a few words with regard to the development of this country. At a time like this there is bound to be a measure of readjustment leading to a certain amount of unemployment. There is bound to be difficulty with regard to trade. But the question is this. Has the situation worked out in this country as well as or better than it has worked out in any other country in the


world? We are looking to the United States as an example of what can be done in the way of great development, but what is the record of Canada under the leadership of the present government? Our total gross national product in 1937 was something over $5 billion. In 1954 it had risen to $24 billion, an increase of almost 400 per cent. We think of the United States as going ahead by leaps and bounds with regard to population. But what is the great record of our own country? Since 1945 Canada has increased in population by 19 per cent while the United States has increased by only 12 per cent. Is that not something of which Canadians should be really proud?
During that period we had one of the unique experiences in modern times, that of a great free people deciding by vote to throw in their lot with us. Certainly that is a great achievement of the government of Canada, in that they were able so to conduct the affairs of this country in the previous 15 years that when the time came for Newfoundland to decide whether she would complete confederation, she felt that our country had showed that it was in such good hands, had such good fiscal, economic and other policies and standards, that she could safely join her lot with ours. It seems to me that is something of which the Canadian people may well be proud. They have joined us not by reason of force or pressure exerted on them, but by deciding that they should join their forces with ours. It seems to me that fact speaks volumes for the sort of government our country has enjoyed during the last 15 or 20 years.
If you wish to refer to the rise in the actual standard of living in Canada, you will find that it rose by 13-3 per cent from 1945 to 1952. In the United States during the same period the rise was 15-4 per cent, or a little more than ours. As to the gross national expenditure, or the proportion of it spent on capital development-and we sometimes think Canadians do not spend enough of their savings in developing their own country-in 1952 the proportion in Canada was 18 per cent, and in the United States it was only 14 per cent. The confidence that ordinary Canadians had in the soundness of the future of Canada was marked by the fact that they were willing to invest almost $1 out of every $5 in the development of Canada. That is one of the reasons we have forged ahead as we have.
During that time, under the leadership of the present government, we as a country have not forgotten the weaker members of society, as is shown by the various social welfare measures that have been enacted. Of

measures taken, undoubtedly one of the most important was the one making it possible for the provinces to carry out their constitutional obligations. There is no use in a province having certain powers if it has not the financial means of exercising those powers. A province like Saskatchewan could not possibly give the standard of education, the standard of health, or the standard of roads that could be given by a province like Ontario, with means of reaching the great sources of wealth in the great corporations in that province. With our own provincial resources alone we could not possibly establish, with regard to education and health, a standard of citizenship that could compare with that which could be established in Ontario.
This government recognized that there could not be first-class and second-class citizens in Canada, that all provinces had to be given the means of providing a minimum standard of education, a minimum standard of health and a minimum standard of the other things that the provinces should supply. So they embarked upon these financial agreements.
These agreements mean a great deal to the province of Saskatchewan. Of the money spent by the government of Saskatchewan about 40 cents out of every dollar comes from the federal treasury, and there is no doubt that Saskatchewan could not maintain some of the programs of which it is so proud if it were not for these financial agreements.


Mr. Ellis:: May I ask the hon. member whether other provinces do not get the same deal from the federal government?


Walter Adam Tucker: I am dealing with the contribution the federal government has made to this whole program, and I am speaking about Saskatchewan because I know it best. I am not making any suggestion that the federal government has favoured Saskatchewan, but I do say that Saskatchewan of all provinces is probably as much in need of this program as any other province, certainly far more in need of it than Ontario, Quebec or British Columbia. As a matter of fact, now that my attention has been drawn to it, one of the things about which I find fault with the present government of Saskatchewan is that the premier there takes great credit for the hospitalization scheme, for example-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Walter Adam Tucker: -and for other things that have been done, none of which would have been possible in the absence of the financial agreement without crippling taxation that would have prevented any development in
The Address-Mr. Tucker our province. One of the things I have said is that when the premier is taking credit for all these programs he should at least say that in part at least they have been helped to do these things by the program of the federal Liberal government.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Will the hon. member permit a question?


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Walter Adam Tucker: These agreements were most essential. They have been recognized as essential by other governments, but particularly by the government of Saskatchewan. One of the things that must have worried people who realize this and understand anything about politics was that when an important part of the country such as the province of Quebec was getting no benefit from such a financial program, there would be constant fault found with that program, and some shift in political support might mean that the program would be endangered.
That was regarded as very serious by the government of Saskatchewan. I know hon. members will be very surprised to learn that one of the main arguments of the premier of that province in the last federal election was to this effect. He said, "There is no danger of the present government being defeated and the financial agreement being endangered because there is no chance whatever of the St. Laurent government being beaten. You can safely vote C.C.F. The Liberals will still be in power. You will still have all these different measures that you want to keep, but by voting C.C.F. you will show that you are not quite satisfied and would like a little bit more."
There is no question but that was the main argument of the premier of our province and it showed what importance he placed upon these agreements. Our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) found that it was thought by the province of Quebec that these agreements did not fit in with their conception of confederation. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I would draw particularly the attention of the people who have been finding so much fault with the province of Quebec to something that should never be forgotten. If our compatriots of French-speaking origin had not been willing to join in bringing about confederation, if they had not been willing to trust their fellow citizens of English-speaking origin, confederation would not have been possible. Canada would never have become a country.


Joseph William Noseworthy: An original idea.


An hon. Member:: Sir John A. Macdonald.
320	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Tucker


Walter Adam Tucker: That is one reason I say that the pact of confederation embodied in the British North America Act must be lived up to in the letter and the spirit. The hon. member mentioned Sir John A. Macdonald. If Sir John A. Macdonald had not been willing to go forth and meet some of the requests of the leaders of French-speaking Canada, confederation would not have been possible either. Yet these people find fault with our present great leader because he went forth to meet the premier of Quebec in order to bring about a satisfactory settlement of this important foundation of the continuation of confederation, when as a matter of fact he was just carrying on in the great traditions of great leaders of Canada of the past.
I say it ill behooves any member of the C.C.F. party, whose only provincial government in Canada depends almost for its very existence upon the continuation of these agreements, to find fault with our leader for going to Quebec and trying to work out an arrangement whereby Quebec will come into this scheme and be satisfied with it. It is only on that basis, Mr. Speaker, that we can be sure these financial agreements are a part of our confederation set-up; and the present Prime Minister, in going as far as he could to try to work out some satisfactory arrangement with Quebec, has helped to complete that foundation.
I say that far from the people of Canada being humiliated, as was said by a member of the C.C.F. party in the house, by the Prime Minister going to meet the premier of Quebec to try to work out some sort of satisfactory arrangement that would give them a chance to share in this program together with the rest of Canada, the people of Canada will honour, as I do, that willingness to serve which does not stand upon false dignity but goes out to try to do the best it can for the country. Surely that is in keeping with the teaching in which we nearly all believe; he who would be a leader amongst you, let him be the greatest servant of all. Is it not something that we have a prime minister who, when he sees a chance to get this matter settled in the interests of Canada, says, "Certainly I will go and meet you and talk with you."
I know that the socialists, particularly the socialist leaders in Great Britain, have praised Winston Churchill because he has said that in order to try to promote the peace of the world he will go any place and meet anybody. Yet they find fault with our Prime Minister because he is willing to go to meet a fellow Canadian to work out a common Canadian problem.


There were two items in the speech from the throne with which I was very pleased indeed; because after all, as has been pointed out, the Liberal party step by step has brought in a program cf social welfare that is not excelled by any country in the world. The standard of living of the average individual in Canada is just as high as in any country in the world. The standard of living of the older people, the people who need help from the state, is not excelled in any country in the world. This has been brought about step by step by various measures as the people have been willing and able to pay for them.
One such measure that will be brought into effect during this session is the provision of pensions for the needy, totally disabled. I think every member of the house will be pleased to vote for that, and I would be very surprised if the Social Credit group voted against it for fear of it being branded as a socialist measure.
Of course I do not accept the argument of the hon. member for Macleod for a single moment. I suggest that it is basic Liberal policy to promote social welfare. As you promote development and expand your national income by a system of controlled free enterprise, there is more chance of doing something for the needy and helpless than by hampering development by attempting to get the utmost out of what might be regarded as equitable distribution. Surely we can do more by increasing our gross national product from $5 billion to $24 billion; surely we can do more for the old, the unemployed, the helpless and the blind by such an increase in our gross national product than we can by any system of very refined distribution. As I see it, that is the answer of the Liberal party to socialism. It hampers development which is the basis upon which one can really improve the lot of the needy by concentrating too much on distribution. Another measure about which I was very pleased to see a reference was the proposal to improve the position of those receiving the war veterans allowance
Before I conclude, however, I should like to deal with a problem facing western Canada today. As you know, in 1939 the Prairie Farm Assistance Act was passed under which the farmer contributes one per cent of the receipts from the sale of his grain. This is collected by the federal government. In the case of crop failure, payments are made to the farmers.
At the time that act was passed the farmer received about 57 cents per bushel for his wheat, on an average. The levy of 1 per cent meant that the federal government collected about half a cent per bushel. For

the last eight years the federal government has been collecting, under this 1 per cent provision, 1 [DOT] 6 cents per bushel on an average price prevailing during that time of $1.63. This is almost three times as much as it had been collecting when the act was passed.
The difficulty is that the payments to the farmers remain practically as they were when the act was passed, with the maximum payment being $500. Today $500 will not go even half as far as it would when the act was first passed. This payment was supposed to enable the farmer to put in his crop and tide himself over to the following year. It was not too generous an allowance to do that. Today, when the dollar does not go nearly as far, of course this payment does not do what the act was originally designed to accomplish.
The actual costs the farmers must pay to live and carry on their occupation have risen to an extent indicated by the fact that taking the index for the base period 1935-1939 as 100, the figure today is 225. In other words, it takes $225 today to do the work that $100 would have done in the period 1935-1939. Today, therefore, $500 will not do as much as $250 would do when the act was first passed.
Here is the situation. For the last eight years the government has been collecting almost three times as much per bushel as when the act was passed, and when a crop failure comes along, as it did last year, the farmer receives in actual purchasing power less than half as much to tide him over until the next year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Liberalism.


Walter Adam Tucker: Of course; it was the Liberals who passed this act, and I hope they will improve it.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Are they responsible for the cheaper dollar, too?


Walter Adam Tucker: So far as the cheaper dollar is concerned, if you people could have put your policy into effect the dollar would not be worth half what it is today.
The fact that the dollar will not go as far as it would 10 or 15 years ago has been recognized in other fields. Superannuation rates have been increased. Old age pensions have been doubled compared to what they were when first introduced. Pensions for war veterans have been doubled. The salaries of civil servants, I believe, have been more than doubled. When I first sat in this house members of parliament drew $3,600, and their salaries have been substantially increased. Unemployment insurance benefits have been increased.
The Address-Mr. Tucker
The farmer says that when he has been paying into this fund for some time on the basis of an undepreciated dollar, under an act designed to carry him over in the event of crop failure, then he should have the same recognition that has been given to these other groups. This provision is something in the nature of unemployment insurance. The farmer believes this was a good act, and if it is going to do the thing it should do then he should be given the same purchasing power as envisaged by the act when it was first passed.
I am quite aware of the fact that the federal government has to put money into this scheme. Up to last fall they had paid out $144 million and collected from the farmers only $73 million. In other words they paid out almost $2 for every dollar collected. Somebody may ask, in view of this, why I am suggesting the payments ought to be increased. At the time the act was passed it was recognized that you could not have an actuarially sound scheme of this sort that would carry itself. The government deemed it wise to have a plan whereby, in the event of crop failure, the farmers could get some money to carry them over until next year out of a fund to which they had contributed, rather than have the government pay out money from public funds entirely by way of relief or agricultural assistance. Today I believe it is generally recognized as being much sounder to have a scheme whereby people contribute to a fund, rather than have the whole burden fall upon the national treasury.
This was a good act when passed. I suggest now that the payments be increased so that they will have the same value in tiding the farmer over as they had when the act was first passed. I am also aware of the fact that somebody may say, well, you are doing that only for the prairie farmers. I suggest that if the farmers in any other branch of agriculture are willing to contribute to such a scheme, it would be a good thing to give them the same protection as the prairie farmer receives. I feel that in every way that would be better than waiting until disaster strikes and having these people have to come to ask for something by way of agricultural assistance.
I feel that would be fairer to agriculture; because we recognize that agriculture, and particularly western agriculture, suffers from protective tariffs more than other industries. Some of the protected industries can look after themselves in the case of set-backs. Farmers, and particularly the prairie farmers, have never been in that position, except for

The Address-Mr. Bryce a few fortunate ones. It was recognized, therefore, that they should receive some protection like this as some compensation.
I would appeal to the government to give consideration at this time to increasing the payments under the Prairie Farm-Assistance Act, especially since many of our farmers have had almost complete crop failures. This would not result in a loss to the economy as a whole, because over and over again it has been demonstrated that if you destroy the purchasing power of the farmers, particularly the western farmers, you begin to add to the lines of the unemployed in the rest of Canada.
The act is a splendid one, one of the finest ever passed. This is one way in which we could put that act, passed by a Liberal government in 1939, in a position to do the job it was able to do when it was first passed. We would merely be recognizing the change in the value of money. I make this suggestion in the hope that the government will recognize its merit, as it has so properly done in the many other fields I have mentioned.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: In rising to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I am taking it for granted that the leader of this group congratulated the mover (Mr. Leduc) and seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address, so I shall not need to do it. I will say to the two new members that I hope their sojourn in the House of Commons will be as pleasant as mine has been over the years.
Now, I do not want to rehash the Selkirk by-election in any way, but I owe thanks to some people, for they certainly helped me in that by-election. My friend the genial Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) spent some pleasant but ineffective days in the constituency. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) found his mission equally fruitless. My good friend the parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister certainly created some heat, but no light. Since the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) appeared only for a one-day stand, I accepted that as a polite tribute to a lost cause. I appreciated the interest shown by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), but it is obvious that the statements made by these gentlemen carried no weight. Indeed, as I said earlier, they were of great assistance to me in winning the seat and therefore I do appreciate the co-operation they gave.
Many veterans' organizations, and others, have written me and come to see me personally making representations with respect to war veterans allowances. I feel I would be failing in my duty if I did not bring this

matter again to the attention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe). These groups have requested me to draw the attention of the minister to the plight of the many veterans receiving benefits under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
However, since the beginning of this session the minister has placed a resolution on the order paper to deal with this problem. The different veterans' organizations are pretty well agreed on what they want for the veterans who have become old before their time. In many cases they are broken in health. These organizations ask that the allowance be raised to $60 for a single person and $120 for a married person, per month. Permissible income has been a serious complaint, and they ask that it be raised to $1,200 for a single man and $2,000 for a married man. I am pleased to note that the matter will be discussed this session, and I hope the minister will meet their demands.
The old age pensioner is still receiving $40 a month, and the pensioner between the ages of 65 and 69 is still subject to the means test. Surely we can find ways and means to increase this amount. Every day we read about some group or other getting an increase in salary, and many of those people are not in the low-income brackets. It has been announced that a bill will be introduced to increase judges' salaries, and other increases are going to be asked. Anyone who will look at the order paper can see them there.
In the recent by-election I visited many elderly people, a good many of whom were finding it hard to get along on $40 a month. About a month ago Val Werier, writing in the Winnipeg Tribune, disclosed some alarming facts concerning the living conditions of elderly citizens in Winnipeg. Not only is this happening in Winnipeg, but it is also found in other cities, in fact right across Canada. I have clipped from the Montreal Gazette, a city far removed from Winnipeg, which is as follows:
An 80-year old woman found near death from malnutrition in a shabby one-room apartment on Aylmer street, is slowly being nursed back to health in St. Mary's hospital.
Weakened by a diet that afforded her no more than tea and toast, the woman was taken to hospital in an ambulance. She had lived in the apartment since her husband died of cancer six years ago. But of her $40 old age pension each month, $35 was taken to pay the rent. The remainder, $5, bought a month's supply of food.
That is a deplorable condition for such a fine country as this, and we should be able to do something to relieve it. I know the general opinion on the government side is that we cannot afford an increase at this time. But I have lived through three wars- the South African war, world war I and

world war II-and I know we were always hard up before those wars. No one had any money; but when war was declared we could find all kinds of money.
A former minister of finance-I believe it was Mr. Dunning-when he sat over where our Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) now sits was asked by one of the members of this group to set aside some money for unemployment relief early in 1939. What did he reply? He said, "Does my young friend think that money grows on gooseberry bushes?" But remember this; that when war was declared in 1939 the government found the gooseberry bushes. They found the money to buy armaments.
Our old age citizens are far more important than armaments. Perhaps I do not need to tell the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) the plight of the interlake farmers at the present time. He was out there, and I know from past experience that when he goes anywhere he looks into things like this. I give him credit for that. It would have pleased me even more if it had been possible for the minister, when visiting the constituency of Selkirk, to go back 60 or 70 miles farther north to see conditions there. I know the Minister of Justice knows the district very well, because he spent many years up there, in one way or another.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Scottie Bryce: The Address-Mr. Bryce the latest costs and I find that this is what they are up as from 1949 to August, 1954, the latest figures I could get:
per cent
Taxes and interest rates	 21
Farm wages	 19
Farm machinery	 25
Building materials	 30
Gas, oil, etc	 9
Farm living costs	 IV
Equipment and materials	 12
There is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the marketing of livestock across the country. Two of the provinces are seeking to set up livestock marketing boards. With costs going up and prices coming -down the farmer is getting quite a squeeze. When the farmer sells his cattle he finds they may go into about eight different grades. In these grades you have choice, good, medium and common. Grading is not done by a government grader but by the buyer. What may be No. 1 on Monday on a short market may be No. 3 on a plentiful market on Wednesday. This fluctuation is not good for the farmer. All or most of the cattle find their way to the retail butcher shop as red, blue or commercial beef. The consumer does not always get what he wants. This is what the Globe and Mail has to say:
Dishonest Grading
Guelph, June 7-Eastern Canadian housewives are ignorant of beef quality and as a result they are handed whatever their vendor likes to give them, Professor E. Stillwell of Ontario Agricultural College told a gathering of 500 Shorthorn breeders and their families at a demonstration of beef grading at the college here today. Producing 12 cuts of beef, he told his audience that they were purchased in various parts of Ontario as choice prime cuts, at prices ranging from 65 to 79 cents per pound, in the past few days. Not one cut could be called choice prime beef.
In no instance was any of the team of purchasers, sent out under the auspices of Professor Knox, head of OAC animal husbandry department, and the Ontario Shorthorn Association directors, able to purchase red or blue ribbon beef, first and second grades respectively. All the beef purchased was of commercial quality, some of it very poor.
Last week top steers at Winnipeg sold for $21, the average for the week being $19.96. Last week top steers at Toronto sold for $22, the average for choice steers being $21.73. So we had cattle selling from a top of $22 to as low as $6 for canners. But all this meat finds its way into the butcher shop. By the way, canners were selling at Winnipeg for less than that; there were canners sold in Winnipeg last week for five cents per pound. We said we would never go back to cent cattle, but if you take the valuation at today's dollar you find that five-cent canners are pretty near the cent cattle that we had in 1932.
fMr. Bryce.]

I was delighted to hear the Minister of Agriculture say the other day, when answering an hon. member, that he had a bunch of hogs himself. I am glad of that because it may mean that he will be more sympathetic to me now than he was previously, because I have always had a grievance to offer in connection with the hog business.
Let us look at the hog business today. We have government graders, and there are different grades. We have select hogs Bl, B2, and B3, and we have C hogs and D hogs; then we have lights, heavies, extra heavies, No. 1 sows and No. 2 sows, or 10 grades in all* But what does the housewife buy in the butcher shop? The answer is pork and bacon. You never hear of a housewife going into a butcher shop and saying, "I want a pound of No. 1 sow." I supported the minister before I came to this house and after my arrival here in the grading of hogs because I believed it to be a good step. But eight of these grades are detrimental to the farmer today, and without such a grading system the farmer could obtain more for his hogs.
I would also like to draw the minister's attention to the hog that was a little too greedy at the trough and weighs 186 pounds instead of 185. This means that the farmer loses $2 of the bonus and also $1 on the price. In other words he takes a $3 trimming on that one pound of pork. I brought this to the minister's attention before, and no doubt he has had a similar experience. I believe this is something that should be corrected. I am quite certain the minister does not wish to penalize the man who has a hog which is a pound too heavy, so that he thereby loses $3.


Mr. Gardiner:: I lost more than that on one myself.


William Scottie Bryce: But perhaps you could afford it.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I could not, but I could have avoided it by delivering him five pounds lighter.


William Scottie Bryce: The minister is the last man to complain about this, because he introduced the regulation. This is a serious business, and I think the minister should do something to rectify it. The hogs should be weighed on a graduated scale and instead of taking $3 when they are overweight it could be reduced to about 50 cents, because nothing will convince me that a 186-pound hog does not finally end up in the bacon trade.
There is one other thing I would ask the minister to do, and that is to give serious consideration to the establishment of a national livestock marketing board. Such a board should have been established a long

time ago, and I believe the farmers of this country are beginning to realize that we must have it. What has taken place within the livestock industry over the past two years is nothing short of a tragedy, because there has been a 50 per cent drop over that period. But the farmers' costs have not dropped. The average price of beef cattle going through the Winnipeg market this year is around $130, but three years ago the average price was $260. It will therefore be seen that the price of beef cattle has been reduced by 50 per cent over the past two years.
On the other hand we find that over-all production costs increased by 8 per cent over the same period, thereby constituting a total loss to the farmer of almost 60 per cent. The latest available information indicates that the situation might become even worse. I fail to see any reasonable justification for the drastic reduction in the price of beef to the producer. Certainly it cannot be argued that such a slump in producers' prices can be attributed to any oversupply or surplus, because we had only 5 per cent over and above our needs, and only 5 per cent was exported. The September 1953 issue of the current review of agricultural conditions states that the Canadian people consumed 95 per cent of the total amount marketed, and only 5 per cent was exported during the first seven months of 1953.
Those figures show that we are not producing more than we can dispose of, and should prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no possible reason for the decline in livestock prices. If supply and demand have something to do with prices, as we are constantly led to believe, then the price of beef cattle should be increasing instead of going down because livestock production is constantly decreasing in direct ratio to the increase in population. At the beginning of the century the cattle population was 1,200 per 1,000 inhabitants. In 1954 it was only about 750. Our cattle population is therefore decreasing, and as long as the present system of marketing livestock is continued the producer will inevitably receive inadequate returns from the sale of his products.
The concentration of price competition among packer-buyers works to the disadvantage of the farmers. In this connection I would like to put on record a statement concerning the Stevens report:
In the Stevens report on price spreads (1934) uncontradieted evidence was submitted that after the formation of Canada Packers there were consultations between Swifts and Canada Packers before the market opened each day on the prices to be paid for livestock. Further evidence submitted revealed that there was a singular absence of competition for cattle among the larger packers' buyers either on the ranch or in the stockyards.
The Address-Mr. Bruneau
Prices quoted by one large firm would not be raised by any other packer-buyer. In this way the livestock producer was exploited.
I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to give serious consideration to the setting up of a national livestock marketing board.


Mr. Raymond Bruneau (Glengarry-Pres-coit):: Mr. Speaker, differences of opinion
have been and still are one of the sacred rights of democracy. This is especially true in a deliberative assembly such as this. During the present debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne hon. members have fully exercised their right to differ.
I do not intend to add much to what has already been said during the course of this debate, but I feel it is my duty to submit some of the views shared by my constituents in Glengarry-Prescott, with particular reference to the speech from the throne. But may I first be permitted to sincerely congratulate the hon. members for Verdun (Mr. Leduc) and Toronto Trinity (Mr. Carrick) on the magnificent oratory they demonstrated in proposing and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am sure that they both expressed the thoughts of the Canadian people at large.
We all noticed that, while dealing mainly with general policy, the speech from the throne made clear the constant care of the government for the betterment of the welfare of the Canadian people, through a policy based on social security and economic stabilization in our country as well as in the rest of the world.
Once again the government is showing its broadmindedness in bringing this house and the people of Canada at large to consider the problem presented by the frame of a universal community growing smaller every day. Unfortunately Canada, as a growing nation, has not yet the facilities with which to measure itself with many of its elders in the cultural field. That is why I feel justified in deploring the fact that the government is not yet ready to implement the recommendations of the royal commission on arts, letters and sciences. The proposed establishment of a council on arts, letters and sciences is of great interest to the youth of Canada in general and, as I see it, is a logical evolution toward a federal department of youth.
Solving the immediate problems and needs is evidently one of the main things the government must keep in mind in laying down their policies. But one must not forget that we are now working for the future, actually for the generation which will be called to lead the nation tomorrow. I know

The Address-Mr. Bruneau it is the intention of the government eventually to create such a council and such a department, but I sincerely believe that each day and each month that such a move is postponed is a delay in allowing our young people to develop their talents in a way to enable them better to serve a better Canada.
As much as my constituents are aware of the necessity of furthering the cultural and physical development of the younger generations, they are also quite appreciative of the laws introduced to improve conditions among the farm and industrial workers. As you know, Glengarry-Prescott is of dual composition not only in name but also in the activities of its population. Farming and industry are its two components, and both these groups looked at the speech from the throne with a mixture of satisfaction and anxiety.
The majority in Glengarry-Prescott is made up of people of the agricultural class, and my constituency now ranks among the largest cheese producing constituencies in the world. Our dairy farm owners, I am sorry to say, were greatly disappointed over the absence from the speech from the throne of any mention of added help to solve the acute problems faced by them. But they are even more worried over the importation into Canada of some 2J million pounds of New Zealand cheese. With the millions of pounds of Canadian cheddar cheese at present in storage, the people I represent in this house are at a loss to understand why such authorization was granted.
Eastern Ontario-and for that matter a good part of eastern Canada-is aware of the difficulties our cheese producers have gone through during the last two or three years, with regard to the marketing of their product. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we had to go through a great many interviews in order to secure a reasonable price for that commodity. Now every spring the farmers of my constituency and in that region are in anguish and doubt as to the price that will be secured through the marketing of their product. I should like to see this government place this commodity under import control while we have a surplus on hand. I hope we shall see to it that this New Zealand cheese does not add to the already heavy burden on our local farmers.
That two-way trade should be promoted to ensure markets for Canada is an already accepted theory. But that this practice should be implemented particularly by means of one of the products which we have in surplus is something that is not as easily understood. If it is necessary to accept this importation of New Zealand cheese in order to maintain the balance of trade between our country and New Zealand, may I suggest that we could
fMr. Bruneau.]
possibly exchange part of our surplus cheese or the whole of the imported cheese under our Colombo assistance, for example. It would be a way of counteracting the bad effects of such an importation, and would also be a way of relieving our dairy producers of their annual fear with regard to the marketing of their product. At this point may I also suggest that federal subsidies would be especially welcomed by the hard-pressed cheese producing industry, and that they would also help to maintain the stability of our national economy as a whole.
As regards help to certain groups of the population, in the speech from the throne I notice that it is the intention of the government to provide facilities for loans to fishermen similar to those provided to farmers by the Farm Improvement Loans Act. This is a commendable move, but the farmers would also appreciate it if the facilities extended to them by the above-mentioned act were increased in such a way that they could benefit from higher loans at a lower rate of interest. At present it is felt that the conditions laid down for the securing of a loan are altogether too hard to be met by the average farmer, and that in most cases the obtainable loans are not sufficient for the purposes to be served. By reconsidering the amount and the interest rates with regard to loans to farmers, I am sure the government would not only greatly help the farming industry but would also help itself.
Mr. Speaker, I have taken this opportunity to stress a few of the problems of the cheese producing and farming industries, for two main reasons. The first is that I am one of those who still believe agriculture to be the most stable element of the Canadian economy. The second one is that I represent a riding made up mainly of people of the agricultural class. Nevertheless, Glengarry-Prescott also has a large portion of its population directly engaged in industry. That being so, they are fully aware of the fact that employment is of paramount importance at the present time.
I was also glad to see that one of the highlights of the speech from the throne was aimed at providing more employment through a new scheme of federal public works. It is agreed that the present unemployment is seasonal and temporary, but I feel that the government were well advised in laying down a program to relieve the tension voiced from certain quarters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member wish to adjourn the debate? It is now ten o'clock. Unless he obtains unanimous consent to complete his remarks, I cannot allow him to proceed. If he were about to conclude-


Raymond Bruneau: If I had unanimous consent to go on for two minutes, that is the most I would require.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the hon. member has unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Raymond Bruneau: In this respect may I point out that Glengarry-Prescott is the logical geographical centre for a federal building. Such a building is actually much needed in our constituency. Besides providing work for many of our local labourers, such a project would enable the government to save money in the long run by moving under one roof services like the post office, the offices of the national revenue department, the unemployment insurance commission, the Department of Agriculture, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and so forth.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the riding I represent is not only located halfway between the metropolis and Ottawa; it lies exactly between the two main waterways, the St. Lawrence river and the Ottawa river. This geographical factor should undoubtedly constitute a strong argument to persuade the Canadian government to select a centre in our region as a suitable federal zoning area. On the other hand, convinced that their municipality could provide a logical site, the people of that region rejoice at a recent opinion that Canada has now reached a point where heavy industry should be decentralized. Geographically and ethnographically we enjoy' first-class industrial activity, but there is room for more factories. Allow me also to inform you, sir, that our working hands are "tops". I and my constituents feel that such a policy of industrial redistri-
The Address-Mr. Bruneau bution cannot be successfully achieved with these thriving municipalities left out of the picture.
I am well aware of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that important measures announced in the speech from the throne have to be studied with diligence and voted upon. Finally may I say that the speech from the throne offers a rather substantial program of measures, and I believe it should give the average man the feeling that Canada is really going forward under a progressive and competent government.


Mr. Studer:: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. White (Hastings-Frontenac):: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be a slight conflict here. As the hon. members concerned know, to accommodate members there are certain agreements in the debate on the address that are usually adhered to. I am sure the hon. member who moved the adjournment first will yield to the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac in order to adhere to the arrangement which was made, by virtue of which it was understood prior to this hour that the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac would adjourn the debate tonight because he was going to follow the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott. Is that agreeable to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek?


Irvin William Studer: I am agreeable.
On motion of Mr. White (Hastings-Frontenac) the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, January 19, 1955