1955-01-14

APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That a select committee to be designated be appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house for the purpose of suggesting any changes that may be desirable to assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business, with power to send for persons and papers, and to report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that there was a committee on procedure established during the last session of parliament which held meetings up to very near the end of the session, and which brought in a report recommending that a committee be set up again at this session, at an early date. The purpose of this motion is to ask the house to act in conformity with the recommendation contained in that report.
I think it is recognized by all members of the house that an effort should be made to bring about a more orderly manner of handling the business of the house, and that it should be possible to do that without in any way curbing unduly or limiting unduly the freedom of speech and discussion in matters concerning the country's business.
There have been various ways suggested. One of the minor ways was an improvement in the manner of handling resolutions respecting the introduction of bills with monetary applications; and I think we were all very pleased the other day when it was possible to deal with the formalities of fifteen resolutions in a matter of only two or three minutes, instead of fifteen times that amount of time which would have been required had those formalities been carried out in the usual fashion.
I do not think anyone would seek the elimination of the traditional formalities that have their place in the proper handling of the business of the house; but I think hon. members in all parts of the house would wish to have that done in a manner which would leave as much time as possible for the consideration of the less formal aspects of the business of the house.
I understand it is by general agreement that this motion is placed before Your Honour today and that, though there are varying views as to the advisability of some of the amendments to the rules that were considered last year, there is the general feeling that an attempt should be made to improve those rules and that the matter should be disposed of as expeditiously as the proper consideration of it will permit.
I do not think I can add anything more because the terms of the resolution in themselves appear to be terms that should commend themselves to the judgment of the house: "for the purpose of suggesting any changes that may be desirable to assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business."
I think that is the goal each and every one of us would have in mind-but only such changes as "may be desirable." I believe we would agree that it is not desirable to have rules that permit of obstruction, but neither is it desirable to have rules that interfere with the proper exercise of the responsibilities of each of us to discuss those matters that are properly before the house.
I would hope that the committee could be set up at an early date and that it would, as I am sure it will, envisage its responsibilities in the light of the dignity of parliament and the great price we all attach to free democratic processes in dealing with public affairs.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt the present resolution will receive the unanimous support of the house. May I express my own pleasure at seeing the motion brought on early, because I think it is helpful that this committee should be set up at an early date.
The terms of reference are identical with those that have been approved by the house now on three previous occasions. Actually the committee is now in the course of being appointed for the fourth consecutive session. That is not to say that the committee has been dilatory in its work in the past; I do not think that can be fairly said. But the task is not an easy one, and the committee has, I think, taken a fairly comprehensive view of its responsibilities. With the proposal that effort be made to expedite the transaction of public business in this house, I am sure there will be agreement. Certainly,

Special Committee on Procedure those who sit in this part of the house will give every co-operation to any sound method for transacting the business of Canada in this place in a proper and expeditious manner, provided that it is done in keeping with the essential rights of members of this house, all of them, and with due regard for the dignity and decorum which ought to characterize the transaction of the business of this country.
May I say also that I am glad to see on the order paper, in response to suggestions that have come from us in this part of the house in the past, and notably from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), a greater volume of government business than has appeared on the order paper at this stage in past sessions. I think that is an indication of desire on the part of the government to help all in this house to contribute on their part to expediting the business of the house.
Now, sir, there is one matter that does not require more than casual mention. When this committee was set up two years ago, in January, 1953, I raised the point that occasion might arise for widening somewhat the terms of reference. The Prime Minister at that time said that if any such occasion arose he would see to it that the matter was brought before the house and every assistance given to the committee in making sure its terms of reference were wide enough to do whatever it thought necessary in the way of review of the rules. Actually, in the discussion in the committee, it has not yet been found necessary to ask the house for any widening of terms; but I presume if such a situation should arise the Prime Minister would be good enough to indicate that co-operation will be given in bringing that matter before the house as soon as possible.
Sir, I do not know whether, when the committee makes its report-and I have no doubt it will make its final report at this session-it will be possible for the house to receive the report with the same unanimity that has characterized the proceedings of the house today; but certainly as to the setting up of this committee I am sure there will be general agreement in the house.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we too welcome the proposal that this committee on procedure be established at an early date, and we shall be glad to place our members on the committee and give the question of house business our very serious consideration. However, I feel that once again I must make the point which we feel very strongly, namely, that the rules of the house are the possession of the whole house. They are the
[Mr. Fleming.!

rules of parliament across the years, not the rules of any one session of parliament, or of any parliament between two elections. 1 realize the problem that that creates, because we are in a democracy in which the majority governs. But I suggest that with respect to the rules of parliament particular care has to be taken that a government majority does not use that majority to make rules which unduly, if I may use the Prime Minister's words, interfere with the freedom of speech and the rights of all of us who are here.
I remind hon. members that it is a long time, 28 years, I believe, since the last general revision of the rules of this house was made. That means that the members of parliament in 1927 were making rules not just for themselves but for a good many parliaments that have followed. We shall have to take that approach in this committee, and I urge very strongly that it be recognized right from the start, not that unanimity must be required for any change, but that there be pretty general agreement amongst the representatives of both sides of the house, amongst representatives of all parties, before any very serious changes are made.
Just to make it crystal clear, Mr. Speaker, that I do not mean by that that I am opposed to any changes that interfere with any of our existing practices, I want to repeat what I have already said in public and in this session, that I think we can well afford, on a fair basis to everybody, without unduly interfering with the rights of free speech, to cut the 40-minute limit on speeches down to 30 minutes. There is objection to that from some quarters, I have no doubt, but 1 want to make it clear that in asking for general agreement to be the basis of any change, it is not simply a case of my objecting to any and all changes, because there is this change I have suggested to which I am prepared to agree, and there are others as well.
It seems to me the principle should be, is the change fair to all members of the house, or is it a change that interferes with the rights of any particular section of the house? We have to be particularly careful that the majority does not use its power to interfere with the rights of the minority. In that vein I mention in particular the long-established traditional rights that belong to all private members respecting the raising of grievances and the discussing of expenditures of public moneys. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to any changes affecting the right to raise grievances on going into supply, when it comes to limiting

discussion of expenditure of public funds, I think those on the committee from the other side know that they will find in us on this side a certain degree of obstinacy.
We feel that these traditional rights should be protected very carefully, and the responsibility for that protection rests just as much on those who constitute the majority in this house as it does on those of us who are in the minority. I say again I am glad to have this committee established, and I am glad it is being established early. We shall give the work of that committee our best and most serious attention in the hope that some changes in the rules that will help to expedite the business of the house can be made at this session. But let us remember that, through all of this, what we are dealing with is not the rules for one session or for one parliament. They are the rules of parliament as a whole across the years.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: I might say that we in this group are also glad that this motion to set up a committee on procedure has been brought on in the early days of the session. We believe it is possible to take steps to expedite the business and efficiency of the house without seriously impairing the privileges and the rights of the members, and we certainly believe that it would be of importance to cut the length of speeches from 40 minutes to 30 minutes. We believe that by so doing we would be improving the speeches because so often a lot of padding is put in a speech in order to fill out the 40 minutes.
We trust that it will be possible at this session for this committee to make greater progress than it has been able to do in the past.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, as has been said, I do not wish unduly to delay the passing of this resolution, but I have the conviction that we shall have considerable discussion in this house if any report is brought back from the committee, and perhaps it would be better to have a little of that discussion before we go into committee so that we shall have some idea of where we stand. I have to say that I have noticed recently a feeling that the time of parliament in session should be cut down. That seems strange after the action we took last year to see that we were fairly well remunerated for the time we were here. I have seen throughout the press during the recess expressions of opinion in regard to parliament that did neither credit to the institution of parliament itself nor to the newspapers but was apt, in my opinion, to raise doubts in the minds of people as regards parliament's value. Now perhaps we could shorten the
Special Committee on Procedure time we are here by hurrying up the procedure and by rushing things through. I believe that in the Soviet union they get away with one-day sessions. Possibly those who are impatient of the time the members hold up the house would not go that far, but that is a target that we could have in mind.
Let me draw to the attention of the house the purpose for which the rules as they are have been made, as expressed by one Hatsell who dealt with precedents on proceedings in the House of Commons quite a while ago in 1818. We find that citation 900, in Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition, states:
So far the maxim is certainly true and founded on good sense that as it is always in the power of the majority by their numbers to stop any improper measures proposed on the part of their opponents, the only weapon by which the minority can defend themselves from similar attempts from those in power are the forms and rules and proceedings which have been found necessary from time to time and are become the standing orders of the house, by a strict adherence to which the weaker party can alone be protected from those irregularities and abuses which these forms were intended to check, and which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities.
I hope the large and successful majorities in this house will restrain themselves somewhat and in their own interests be sure that the minority has all the time and all the opportunity which is available to them to express themselves in this house.
I have served on most of the committees on procedure that have been set up since I came here, with the exception of one session when through illness I was not able to serve, and I hope I can be on the committee this year when it is set up. I am sure we can come to some understanding as to the recommendations to be made to this house to better streamline the procedure, provided of course that the government members are not too impatient with those of us who are anxious to maintain those privileges which we have.
I remember when serving on the committee last year that the leader of the house asked the opposition members, and perhaps he asked all of the members, at the conclusion of the committee's deliberations, if they had any further suggestions to make as to how the rules could be improved. I recall telling him that I was not going to make any suggestions as to how my own abilities, if that is the proper word to use, to criticize the government might be curtailed, but I told him that I was willing if we got something in exchange.

Joint Committee on Criminal Law
I heard over the radio last Sunday night a comment attributed to Sir John A. Macdonald concerning horse-trading. If I might paraphrase this I would say I think we will stand solidly on fundamentals but we will horse-trade on details.


Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: As a relatively young man in terms of service as far as this house is concerned, I am a little reluctant to offer advice but I certainly welcome the proposed setting up of this committee because I believe very deeply in this matter-that the great strength of our system of parliament is due to the fact that it is made up of a great cross-section of all types of people in this country.
There are some of us who are not professional politicians and there are some of us who do not want to sit here all the time, nor should this become a place for those who have already made their mark in the business field and are looking for what little bit of honour may be attached to this place. I think that we can keep our system strong only if this house continues to attract to it a broad cross-section of people in this country.
I just wanted to say that at this time, and I am looking forward to some tangible results from this committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved:: That a joint committee of both houses of parliament be appointed to inquire into and report upon the questions whether the criminal law of Canada relating to (a) capital punishment, (b) corporal punishment or (c) lotteries should be amended in any respect and, if so, in what manner and to what esrtent;
That 17 members of the House of Commons, to be designated by the house at a later date, be members of the joint committee on the part of this house; that the quorum of the said committee be nine members thereof; and that standing order 65 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the committee have power to appoint, from among its members, such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable or necessary; to call for persons, papers and records; to sit while the house is sitting and to report from time to time;
That the minutes of the proceedings and the evidence of the special committee appointed last session to inquire into and report upon the foregoing questions, together with all papers and records laid before it, be referred to the said committee;
That the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
ordered by the committee for the use of the committee and of parliament, and that standing order 64 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the committee have power to engage the services of counsel;
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
He said: AH of the hon. members are aware that at the last sitting of parliament a reference was made to inquire into and report upon the questions whether the criminal law of Canada relating to (a) capital punishment, and (b) corporal punishment or (c) lotteries should be amended in any respect and, if so, in what manner and to what extent. Certainly those who served upon the committee will recall working very assiduously on that, in co-operation with representatives appointed by the other place; and that very considerable progress was made. On June 15 the committee made its final report in which it said this:
The committee finds that it will not be able to complete at the current session of this parliament its inquiries into the matters referred to it for report and, accordingly, recommends:
1. That a corresponding committee be established and appointed early in the next session of this parliament to resume the studies and continue the inquiries initiated by this committee.
The purpose of the present resolution is to do just that. Hon. members will see upon reading the terms of the resolution that they are all the same with the exception of the following, namely:
That the minutes of the proceedings and the evidence of the special committee appointed last session to inquire into and report upon the foregoing questions, together with all papers and records laid before it, be referred to the said committee.
The reason for the inclusion of this last-quoted clause is self-evident. I do not think there is anything more to be said and I am sure that members of the committee will be anxious to have it re-established as soon as possible in order that they may continue with their work.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Acting Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) based on a report in the Montreal Gazette this morning under the caption,

"U.K. plugs leaks in export of strategic goods to reds". Would the Prime Minister inform the house as to whether or not any further action is being contemplated by the government in this matter as it affects Canada?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I did not see this report in the Montreal Gazette to which the hon. gentleman refers. We have not found that there was any leakage of strategic goods from Canada to the reds. It may be there is information in the United Kingdom which would indicate that strategic goods from some sources may be leaking through to the reds, but I have no doubt that if that is so it will be one of the matters that will be brought to our attention at the London conference, and I can assure the hon. member and the house that we are most anxious there should be no such leakage. If there is any indication that further action by us would be useful it certainly will be considered and proper measures taken.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether any decision has been taken to transfer responsibility for the northwest highway from the Department of National Defence to some other department? If so, what is the decision and when would any such proposed transfer be made?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my memory is not sufficiently reliable to allow me to make a positive answer to the hon. member's question without having looked at the record. I will take his question as notice and will have the records looked up.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. A. Enfield (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the statement by Mr. Fred Gardiner, chairman of the metropolitan Toronto council, appearing in the January 12 issue of the Globe and Mail, and I quote-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member put his question without quoting from a newspaper.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Frank A. Enfield: The chairman of that council mentioned that arrangements would soon be made-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Frank A. Enfield: In view of the reference to sharing the cost of civil defence made by the chairman of that council, can the minister say if any agreement has been entered into by the federal government and the province of Ontario providing for the sharing of the cost of civil defence on a basis similar to that contained in arrangements made with other provinces?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman gave me notice of his intention to ask this question. I can say that following the conferences I have had with the premier of Ontario and the head of the metropolitan governing body in Toronto, I am hopeful it will be possible for an announcement along these lines to be made about the middle of February.



FARM LOANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister give an assurance that during the present financial emergency the utmost leniency will be exercised in the matter of collections from western farmers who have borrowed under the Farm Improvement Loans Act or the farm loan board?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of there being any complaints about the manner in which these collections are made, but I can assure the hon. member that the officials who administer the acts will bear in mind the terms of the acts and the spirit parliament had in mind in passing them.
(Translation):



VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY INTO TRAGEDY AT STE. FOY .	HOSPITAL, QUEBEC CITY
Mr. J. W. Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to put to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe), of which I have already given him notice.
Is the minister aware of the fact that a tragedy has only very recently taken place in the veterans hospital, Laurier boulevard and Ste. Foy road, in Quebec city, where

Inquiries of the Ministry one of the patients, a member of the armed forces, was found hanging by the neck? If the minister does know about this incident, will he say whether an inquiry has been instituted and what have been its findings?
Has the minister given instructions so that more adequate supervision may be exercised in order to avert repetition of such a tragedy?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I was informed of the tragic accident to which the hon. member refers. An inquiry has been held. It has revealed that there was nothing to indicate that such an accident was about to take place. As a matter of fact the provincial police have conducted an investigation into the matter and the coroner's verdict was that it was a case of "suicide while temporarily insane," death "not being attributable to negligence on anybody's part".
I can assure my hon. friend that all D.V.A. hospitals are instructed to take proper precautions at all times.
(Text):



SUPPORT PRICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Agriculture say whether the present support price for butter will be continued as requested by the Quebec section of the farmers' union and other farm organizations?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The present support price for butter will be continued until May 1. It is not customary for the government to make decisions with regard to the future this far in advance.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration based on a report carried yesterday in the Calgary Albertan quoting Mr. J. D. McFar-lane of Ottawa, chief inspector of immigration, as stating that immigration will be reduced in future.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Carl Olof Nickle: The question is, sir, was Mr. McFarlane speaking on behalf of the government in making this statement?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I did not see the quotation to which reference has
[Mr. Dufresne.l
been made and I think I had better have a look at it before making any statement.



GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister yet in a position to report to the house as to the results of his inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the income tax appeal board's rejection of a claim relating to a certain plush residence, and can he tell the house the name of the firm which made the application in question?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not yet in a position to say to what extent one can go in view of the fact that under the act an appellant from an income tax assessment can ask for a hearing in camera. That is a right it is not within the discretion of the board to refuse and the practice of the board, about which I have not yet sufficient legal advice, is that when such an application is made there is no disclosure made about the identity of the appellant.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then may I ask a supplementary question either of the Prime Minister or of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris)? In view of the public interest in this matter, is consideration being given to amending the necessary legislation so as to remove this cloak of secrecy from practices of this kind?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Up to the present time there has been no positive advice given us to the effect that an amendment would be necessary. If it appears that nothing can be done without amendment, then of course consideration will be given to whether and in what form an amendment should be brought before the house.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldl-Melfori):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the government at this session of parliament give consideration to amending the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to provide that flooded acreage the farmer intended to seed be, for the purpose of the act, considered seeded acreage?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. I would like to read to the house the section of the act which would have to be amended if the suggested action were undertaken:
(d) "cultivated land" means land that in the year of award was seeded to crop or in summer fallow and includes land seeded to grass in any year if the productivity thereof was maintained in the year of award;
With regard to the phrase in the question "intended to be seeded", I do not know of any way in which we can amend the act in order to make it possible to have a provision of that kind. If we were going to amend the act it would have to take under consideration the fact that what is being pressed upon us at this time is something entirely different from anything we had in mind when the act was passed. The act was passed to take care of drought and the terms of it are sufficiently loose that we have been able to apply it to flooded areas under certain circumstances.
There is some question as to the manner in which it would be amended if it were decided to do so and it is of course a matter which will be given consideration. But I would like to point out that that was not the intention of the act when placed on the statute book.



REPORTED RUMOURS OF FURTHER LARGE SHIPMENTS INTO CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) a question. I think he needs no notice of it. In view of the grave concern expressed by the dairymen throughout Canada with regard to rumours that other large shipments of cheese are to be expected in Canada, can the minister say whether he or the government expects increased shipments in the next month or so?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Perhaps I could answer that question, Mr. Speaker. We do not expect any further substantial shipments of cheese from any source for at least six months and probably at least nine months.
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC SERVICE



RESIGNATION OF DR. L. B. THOMSON AS DIRECTOR OF P.F.R.A.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The other day the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked me a question about the resignation of Dr. L. B. Thomson. It was a question that had been fairly carefully framed and I asked for time to see it in Hansard before attempting to answer it. I am obliged to the hon. gentleman for his patience in waiting until my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was in his seat to make a further answer. I suggested to him that there might be some supplementary question that I would not be in a position to answer from my own memory.
In elaborating his question the hon. member referred to "tentative resignations". My information is that there was nothing tentative about Dr. Thomson's resignation. It was a resignation submitted to the responsible minister for such action as the governor in council might see fit to take. There does not appear to be any legal requirement for such a resignation. The resignation was evidently submitted as a matter of propriety.
No action with respect to the resignation was taken before the date of the "uncertain political event" to which the hon. member referred; and subsequent to that event the minister responsible recommended that, as no other person was available for appointment to the post of director of P.F.R.A. with qualifications comparable with Dr. Thomson's-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did he not recommend his son?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -and as Dr. Thomson was not embarking on a political career, his resignation should not be accepted.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: He was disembarking at that time.


William Earl Rowe: Very convenient.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) and his parliamentary assistant, perhaps I might be permitted to answer on behalf of

The Address-Mr. Masse the minister the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) which reads as follows:
Can the minister give the house any information about the sale of Canadian National hotels, with particular reference to the safeguarding of the rights of the employees concerned?
The management of the Canadian National Railways advise that they have accepted an offer from a Canadian syndicate headed by Mr. Walter F. Thorn, of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, to purchase the Prince Arthur hotel, Port Arthur; the Prince Edward hotel, Brandon; and two summer resorts, Minaki lodge and Pictou lodge.
Some months ago an unsolicited offer was received by the railway, and subsequently the management published a series of advertisements inviting interested parties, particularly local community interests, to submit other offers.
Only one all-inclusive offer was made, which was from the individual originally interested.
Before the properties are transferred as going concerns, which will be March 1, officials of the Canadian National Railways will visit Port Arthur and Brandon to interview the staffs of the hotels.
The two resort hotels are, of course, serviced almost entirely by temporary employees.
The management advise it is the policy of the new owners to maintain the hotels' traditional high standard of service and efficiency. The syndicate have stated that in line with this policy a program of capital expenditures has been planned for all four hotels to begin early in 1955.
With regard to the second part of the hon. member's question, the management advise that those employees eligible to exercise their seniority rights in accordance with the wage agreements will be able to transfer to other Canadian National hotels if they wish to do so.
I might add that the management are making a press announcement today substantially along the above lines.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Apparently some of the employees are to be permitted to transfer to other hotels. Is employment available for them in these other hotels?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am simply conveying a message from my colleague the Minister of Transport. I shall be glad to refer my hon. friend's question to the minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? Was the sale of these publicly-owned hotels to private interests approved by the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I say, I should not be answering supplementary questions. I may say quite frankly that I do not know too much about the matter. I have no recollection of approval by the government. As far as I know it is within the competence of the management of the railway to undertake a transaction of this kind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could they sell the whole railway without consulting the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I rather think so, if they got a good price for it.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, January 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
(Translation) :
Mr. Arthur Masse (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when dealing with agricultural matters in my constituency, I said it was urgent that the government maintain the support of farm prices, especially as far as butter is concerned, as it is one of the main sources of income for the majority of our Quebec farmers.
I also stated that because lumbering and farming are the two sources of adequate income, it is urgent and necessary that they receive the same attention from our governments.
I also mentioned that 75 per cent of my constituency is made up of wooded lots, three-quarters of which are but some 50 years old and that during the past 10 years privately-owned timber limits have been worked beyond their possibilities.
I would like to say something to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) about his appreciation of the province of Quebec, my province. I listened closely to some of the things he had to say, and I read the whole of his unbecoming statement on the residents of my province. I believe I am warranted in saying that I know that province from east to west and from north to south, having travelled through it on several occasions in the course of my professional duties. When the hon. member asserts that it is ripe for communism, it is a pleasure for me to take it up and say, as an answer, that as long as no socialist party succeeds in taking root in Quebec, communism is not to be feared. I am also under the impression

that the information made available to him came from certain groups of unsuccessful socialists who carry no weight with the authorities of my province.
Moreover, with respect to his statement in which he mentioned his meeting with two Catholic priests, I would advise him, if opportunity offers again, to go to the ecclesiastical authorities and ask them what they think of the people under their jurisdiction.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: He gave no names though.


Arthur Massé: The province of Quebec, like every other province, for that matter, has contributed to the development and expansion of this nation of ours. When one is aware of the spirit of tradition in the parishes of Quebec province, where the land has been cleared by families established there for three hundred years and who have been there ever since, settled on the property of their ancestors, it is not difficult to understand the feelings of my fellow citizens. When we really understand how these people are attached to their family and their parish and how good their relations are with the established authority, we need have no fear of communism there.
I am by no means happy to have to make remarks such as these which may seem to be a reflection upon another hon. member, but I feel it is my duty to protest and to defend the honour of my constituents.
I am not particularly surprised by some remarks coming from members on the opposite side, who would have us believe that everything is wrong with the administration of this country. Those are the same complaints that we hear every year. I want these members to know that I am a Liberal by principle, that I believe the Liberal party has done more than any other for the development of Canada in the past fifty years. It was the Liberal party, headed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, which contributed most to the expansion of Canada, through the establishment of the transcontinental railway and through its efforts to unite provinces having different mental habits and speaking different languages. It was another Liberal leader, the Righ Hon. Mackenzie King, who for the first time concerned himself with the welfare of big families by the adoption of family allowances and of the first legislation to better the condition of labour. And, in these days, it is not a mere result of circumstances if our Canadian economy is undergoing such extensive development. It is due to the foresight of the present Prime Minister. I am convinced that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is entitled to his share of credit for the rapid expansion of
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker our natural resources in general. It is because this party's membership includes men who, looking to the future, have succeeded in convincing the most brilliant graduates of our universities to contribute to the development of Canada.
With a Liberal government such as we have -today, the youth of my province -and of the whole of my country can look forward to the future with confidence, provided they properly fertilize the furrows so finely traced for them.
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who believe that a manner of saving the time of the house would be to discontinue the repetition of the congratulations that are invariably extended to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think those congratulations may be taken for granted after they have been extended by the leaders of the respective parties.
I am going to deal with a number of matters this afternoon that I believe are of interest to the people of Canada as a whole. However, before doing so, may I say this is the first opportunity I have had to deal with a situation that I have brought before parliament on previous occasions, namely, the pollution of the North Saskatchewan river and the need of immediate action being taken to meet the situation that again prevails on that river this year. Within the last few days pollution has again attacked the water supply of the cities of Prince Albert and North Battleford. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) have been communicated with and, without going into detail on this occasion, I believe that the time has come, and is long overdue, when action should be taken with regard to the question of interprovincial rivers to the end that pollution of these rivers by industry or -by any body or individual whatsoever shall not be permitted.
Last session I endeavoured on a number of occasions to secure an amendment to the Criminal Code making it an offence punishable with serious penalties to allow pollution to take place at any place where the water supply of any town or city is interfered with. I again repeat that suggestion. Indeed, I understand that the mayor of Prince Albert, Mr. David Stuart, has appealed within the last two or three days on behalf of the city council of the city of Prince Albert for assistance and has asked for effective action to permit of the control of interprovincial streams, particularly such streams as are used as a source of a domestic water supply.

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
The situation is a serious one for those cities. The council of Prince Albert at a meeting held a day or so ago placed the responsibility upon the federal government, and I believe that one of the major ways in which that responsibility can be discharged is by placing a section in the Criminal Code to cover the offence. I would like to see set up an interprovincial board on water pollution, a board similar to the board of transport commissioners, which would have power to recommend what is necessary to preserve interprovincial waters for the Canadian people, rather than permit them to be detrimentally affected by the wrongful action of individuals or corporations in another province.
The speech from the throne is an interesting document. The government is a changed one. I doubt whether in your experience in this house, Mr. Speaker, you have ever seen a more subdued government, as they face up to conditions that prevail in this country. The Prime Minister spoke with urbanity and a brilliant lack of promises of action regarding these problems. Mr. King said on occasion that speeches from the throne were to conceal rather than to reveal. On that basis this is indeed a masterpiece.
I must mention another question while the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is in the house. A few minutes ago the long expected answer to the attempted resignation by Mr. Thomson was given. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) says in effect that the resignation was not to be effective until November 30, or in other words until after the Liberal convention in the province of Saskatchewan had taken place and when it was over it was found necessary to keep him in the public service, because there was no one else who could fill the position of director of P.F.R.A. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what a catastrophe would have occurred had he been chosen as Liberal leader in the province of Saskatchewan!
Playing ball with a position in any department of government in that manner is not conducive to keeping organizations headed by such a person, however eminent he may be, from being touched by the suggestion of political partisanship. I believe everyone in the public service-and I have taken this stand on previous occasions-may remove himself from the public service if he desires to take public office.
But does that justify a resignation that simply is postponed until the outcome of an uncertain event? I think one of the reasons for the success of the convention-and it was a successful convention, based upon


numbers present-was the fact that there was free discussion. People tell me that the reason for the success of the convention measured by numbers present was the fact that Simmie and "Jimmie" and "Gimrnie" Thomson were engaged in controversy before the convention: "Give me the leadership or give me my job back."
What did Mr. Simmie say? Are there politics in P.F.R.A.? Many persons in the organization are doing their best, and resent what has taken place in this case. What did Mr. Simmie say regarding P.F.R.A. and, in general, the attempt on the part of Mr. Thomson to play ball with a position of responsibility in the service of the crown? He said this:
It seems I did not make myself clear. I believe that Mr. Gardiner is in control of a political machine, and that he is using or causing P.F.R.A. and P.F.A.A. to be used for political purposes, and that constitutes unwarranted interference with the leadership race.
And on another occasion, setting out his views of the situation, he said this:
I am saying there is something wrong in Saskatchewan. I say it with all my heart, that Mr. Gardiner does not know what is going on. The P.F.R.A. and the P.F.A.A. are being used as a political arm for somebody. I am saying that if Mr. Gardiner knew it he would not allow it.
Mr. Speaker, this type of thing is detrimental to the preservation of a non-political civil service. It is the kind of thing which endangers the inviolability of the civil service. There is no justification for a government's receiving a resignation which is dependent for its determination upon a contingent result, and then restoring that person to his position in the civil service after he has participated in a political manner and for political purposes during the interval before his resignation is considered.
The speech from the throne reveals but little. The Prime Minister is about to leave for Great Britain, there to represent Canada. While in England he is to receive the honour of the freedom of the city of London. What is he going to do when he is over there? What stand does he intend to take before that conference of commonwealth prime ministers? How will he speak for Canada? That we do not know. Of that we have no knowledge. We do know one thing, that if anybody suggests to him that he or his government has done anything to separate the links between Canada and the commonwealth, he will be able to answer.
You will remember that in 1949 appeals to the privy council were abolished, except for actions then in the course of being proceeded with in the courts. Do you remember the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) as he clothed his words in lachrymose tones describing the

appeal to the privy council as this "badge of colonialism", and contending that it "was unworthy of the sacrifices and the efforts of our fellow Canadians, and undeserving of the bounty which Providence has bestowed upon our country" to have appeals to the privy council. In other words, to appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada was to undermine the sacred prestige of that body.
In the last few weeks this government, dissatisfied with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on a tax case, is taking one of the last of the appeals to the privy council. The Prime Minister when he goes to the United Kingdom will be able to say that there is one link the government is going to maintain to the last-and that is the right to use the facilities of appeal in any case of a decision in our own court, with all its prestige, with all its power, and all its ability, with which the government disagrees.
Mr. Speaker, what manner of consistency is this?
In the last ten days, three of the senior ministers went to Washington, namely, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), to do what they should have been doing for the last several years, protesting against the gutting of GATT by the United States, the policy of the United States in recent years in interfering with our right to export farm products into that country. That right should not have been interfered with. Are we not all together endeavouring to achieve freedom? Does the United States not require our great mineral resources for the preservation of the legions of freedom? What happened on that trip? We do not know, Mr. Speaker. Their trip was just as revealing as the speech from the throne. But there is one thing that annoyed Canadians when they read of it in the press and that was that when those ministers arrived there was nobody from the United States state department at the airport to welcome them. It came over the radio that they had been snubbed. Canadians resented that. The next day it was cleared up by a Canadian spokesman in the state department who said: "Not snubbed, just forgotten". Placing quotas and embargoes should not be expected at any time, much less at this time, having regard to the international problems which we face together.
I am not going to traverse ground that has already been covered. I am going to deal first with the C.C.F. subamendment. This is the first time that the C.C.F. has come out from under the bam and revealed that it
The Address

Mr. Diefenbaker intends to have planners to plan for Canada the way they planned for Saskatchewan. I can tell you this, as far as Saskatchewan is concerned-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: No Tory party.


John George Diefenbaker: The planners have been bunglers in practically everything they have undertaken in connection with industrial development. I believe in private enterprise. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said the other day that he believed in it. I was a little surprised at that because after all the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill), who in some ways has become political mentor to the senior members of the government, made a speech only recently, and it is reported on November 6, when he said:
The phrase "private enterprise" was a "Tory trademark" and Liberals should never use it.
I would like to hear what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) will say to the political philosopher when he reads that ejaculation. Then he goes on to say:
The trademark of the party I belong to is "human welfare", and without working for this we do not deserve the power of office.
Having regard to some of the legislation setting up these national government crown corporations or state monopolies, one may wonder whether the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration does not in truth represent the viewpoint of the government. Mr. Speaker, over the years the C.C.F. has been producing a rolled-up subamendment with everything in it-socialism hidden in one of the subsections-and when you voted against it they said you were voting against something in that subamendment that you should have been in favour of. That is all over now.
In the subamendment hon. members are asked to vote for the adoption of socialism, to vote for the planners. The theories of the planners of 1944 in the province of Saskatchewan have been dissipated in the light of experience. They promised social security without anybody paying for it. They promised to set up corporations because business means profit. They went into industry after industry. The wreckage of their abortive venture is strewn over Saskatchewan, as examples: a shoe factory, a tannery, a woollen mill. These things blossomed, Mr. Speaker, and then withered, and the leading planners, too.
They were costly ventures. A box factory in Prince Albert is still operating. Men have been put out of work, laid off in recent months and advised that if they raise any objection the factory will be closed. There is a labour act in effect in Saskatchewan that

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker demands arbitration. The government has refused arbitration to employees of government corporations. The plans of the planners have been dissipated in the solid school of experience.


Mr. Nicholson:: How many Tories have you elected in Saskatchewan since 1933?


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend interrupts, but his interruption has no reference to what I am dealing with. Will he say that the myth which is essential to the socialist philosophy, the superiority of government over private enterprise, has been proven or established in Saskatchewan? Venture capital has been kept out. The planners used to say that the state would take over the natural resources. They planned, and when Saskatchewan found itself at the end of the western parade in development the premier of the province laid out the red carpet for the great capitalists of New York.
They are always contending that they indeed are the custodians of the privileges of labour. What have they done in Saskatchewan? Some of the employees of the crown corporations in Saskatchewan asked for wage increases and were refused. Mr. Douglas said that "under present conditions no group of the community is entitled to a larger share of a smaller cake". Where is the philosophy of 1944-production for use and not for profit? We have got neither. The premier goes on to say, "When crop conditions return to normal we shall endeavour to see that those employed in government agencies get any increases which economic conditions permit." Yes, in the light of experience has come profound wisdom to the planners of Saskatchewan.
They talk about raising wages, but adopt a wage freeze in the province of Saskatchewan. I could go on. I think I have said enough, Mr. Speaker, so that you will realize that I intend to vote against the subamendment.
Having dealt with the subamendment I come now to the national situation. What are conditions today? I know that my friends to the left have been predicting depressions and recessions since 1940. As a Canadian I view with great alarm some of the economic conditions with which we in this country find ourselves faced today, but I do not believe in gloating over them. Since as far back as 1950 the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), with his experience and knowledge of public affairs, agriculture and business, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) as well, have been pointing out the danger signals. This government did not see


them. They did not see the clouds over Washington. These three wise men did not see these things until the other day.
We have been pointing out the danger to our trade for the last seven or eight years. We expressed it when we said we were losing trade in Canada, and that we were losing the British markets. The answer was that we had not lost it, it was still over there. We do not have it. If you know where a thing is you have not lost it.
In 1954 we had the largest unfavourable balance of trade in Canada's history. This is a serious condition. What is being done to meet it? There was a silent, secret pilgrimage to Washington. Where are the policies in the speech from the throne which will meet this situation?
As to agriculture, the farmers are caught between rising costs and falling farm prices. The United States are closing out our barley and oats under quotas, and are threatening to hit our seed growers, and they are now threatening to close out red fescue seed, which is so necessary in parts of western Canada to the agricultural economy. Clover has been closed out, and dairy products. The cost of living is so high today that it makes wheat which is worth $1.40 a bushel at Fort William worth only 53-23 cents a bushel on the farms of western Canada.
Retail sales are going down. In the first ten months of 1954 retail sales were $200 million less. The drop of 14-2 per cent in Saskatchewan sales is caused in part by the serious crop failure there. In Alberta there has been a drop of 7-6 per cent; in Manitoba 4-2 per cent; in Ontario -5 per cent; in Quebec -4 per cent; in British Columbia [DOT]4 per cent. The only part of Canada in which retail sales have increased is the rnari-times, where there has been an increase of [DOT]2 per cent.
What are we doing to meet the situation? What is the reason for it? We have said that over the years Canadians were being taxed out of the markets of the world and taxed out of their jobs. I know they used to say you could make jobs without profits. We have learned differently in Saskatchewan with the disappearance of the mirage of 1944.
What about hidden taxes? The average automobile has a hidden tax of $400. This government in its wisdom has decreed a high cost structure in the last few years. It has isolated our trade. It has started the march of unemployment. I believe that Canada's industry must be revitalized by giving tax relief at once. The government must act and act now.

It is interesting to read the mental peregrinations taken by some of the ministers of the crown with reference to this subject. In September the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said "I can tell you this; taxes won't go up". Then on September 4, 1954, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) said, "I don't think they will go down". As an indication that Saul's change of mind was an amateur performance the Minister of Finance stated on November 15, 1954:
I confess myself concerned about tax rates under which the government takes away half or more of the rewards of hard work which leads to promotion.
I confess myself concerned. Where has he been in recent years? Was he in the department of immigration looking after the shocking practices that were referred to by Mr. McDonald, who was the candidate against the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) in the last federal election? He went on to say this:
There is so much to be gained if we can preserve initiative and enterprise.
He had better talk to the minister of immigration, his successor.
It would be most unfortunate if prospects in this land of opportunity were dimmed by unwise government demands on the fruits of success in business and professional life-indeed in any gainful employment.
That is what we have been saying for long years during which we have had unnecessary taxation. These statements raised hopes. They hinted at tax cuts. They went further than a hint; the people were built up to expectations. Then he went on to say:
From what I have said up to now of my first impressions you might be inclined to infer that I think it is rather a bad show. This is not correct. True, it is awfully large, rates are pretty high, and it is extremely complicated, but withal it appears to me to be a very sensible, well-balanced and flexible tax system.
You just pay your money and you take your choice.
I wish now to speak about the effects of those loose statements. They have had an intense effect on the buying of the Canadian people. In relation to those commodities on which there are excise or other taxes they are postponing purchases. They have done this ever since November. They are waiting. These statements have created uncertainty and instability in a chaotic retail market at a time when retail purchases are falling anyway.
How can it be removed? As I see it, it should be removed at the earliest possible date, by having the budget brought down much earlier than usual. Delay means continued uncertainty such as has prevailed to date, which in turn spells economic instability. The sentiments were laudable, but 50433-13
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker the time at which the statements were made was unfortunate. The result has been serious to the Canadian economy. We hope that the government this session, realizing what the Minister of Finance has at last realized, that high taxation is sapping the power and initiative of the Canadian people, will even at this time do something.
What about the farmers? The agricultural situation in Saskatchewan today is worse than in any other province because of crop failure. The Canadian farmer is caught in a vise-like squeeze between rising prices of what he must buy and falling returns for what he has to sell. In the year 1952-53 our farm prices according to FAO fell by 23 per cent, and retail prices by only 8 per cent. The fall in farm prices has not been transferred to the consumer. Too much of the consumer's dollar finds its way into places other than the farmer's pocket. In the United States in 1951 out of every dollar the farmer received 51 cents. In 1953 he received only 45 cents. My computation makes the Canadian figures even lower than that. Making all allowances for processing, packaging, and things of that sort which are necessary in our modern economy, I come to the conclusion that there is still too great a difference between the price the farmer receives for his commodities and the price paid by the consumer.
What can be done about this? I believe the time has come and indeed is long overdue to investigate this spread, to the end that if there is wrongdoing it will be revealed and punished and if there is not the people of Canada will know the situation.
In the United States the farmer receives 17 per cent of the retail price of tomatoes; 35 per cent of the retail price of potatoes, and 15 per cent of the price of bread. He receives 66 per cent of the price of beef and butter, and 74 per cent of the price of eggs. These percentages are generally duplicated in our country.
The United States has been interfering with our oats and barley market in the U.S.A. I believe the strongest protest should be made to the United States, but not the kind of protest made under the table. I recall one occasion about two years ago when I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) what was being done about it and he said in effect: "We wrote them two letters." I asked, "What was the reply?" He said, in effect: "Why, there was nothing in the letters that demanded a reply."
The United States must realize-and I recognize the tremendous contribution that

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker country is making to the preservation of freedom throughout the world-that it is absolutely necessary that Canada preserve its agricultural productive machine in its present efficiency, and that that can only be attained provided we can export our agricultural products to their country.
Parliament should have an opportunity of making its views clear to the United States. Government ministers trailing to Washington is not enough. They went in silence; they were heard in silence; and they returned in silence. And while this goes on our farm markets are disappearing and our basic industry is fighting a challenge to its very existence.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to make one or two suggestions with regard to agriculture and relative to matters that have been brought before parliament on previous occasions. First, I would emphasize that at no time will the people of western Canada allow interference with the Crowsnest rates. Let that be quite clear. What did the government do in this regard? They appointed Chief Justice Sloan, an old friend of theirs and former attorney general of the province of British Columbia. He brought forth the suggestion that these rates were out of date. But no one asked him to do that, unless he was asked in the same secret manner in which our ministers approach the authorities in Washington. I would tell the government that any interference in this connection will be resisted by the western provinces with all the power they command. That agreement was made as a bond; that bond must be maintained.
Our agricultural situation is serious. Our farmers are in a difficult position. I believe the government must bring about a system of cash advances based on a system of wheat storage on the farm. In this regard there is no danger of loss. You will have observed, Mr. Speaker, that in recent years there has been no thefts of wheat in western Canada. Wheat was stolen at one time but now you cannot get a quota book on stolen wheat and therefore that problem has vanished.
Additionally, I believe increased use must be made of the Agricultural Prices Support Act so as to provide adequate support for those commodities to which the act applies. There are support prices on certain commodities but whom do they preserve and protect? They have a peculiar capacity for protecting the packer. In this regard I would again emphasize the suggestion I made a moment ago that a royal commission should


be set up to investigate the price spread between what the farmer receives and the consumer pays.
The next question is: What is to be done about markets? We have embassies all over the world. The United States is selling many of its farm products through the medium of agriculture market officials attached to their embassies. Since we have officials and commissioners stationed all over the world, let us now use them, if we have not already done so, so that it will be their responsibility to carry out the very same tasks United States officials assume and thereby secure a greater share of the markets of the world.
Next, I would call for the establishment of customs facilities at Churchill during that period of the year when the harbour is open so as to encourage the use of the Hudson Bay route.
Finally, I must again urge the government to commence the construction of the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project. We were promised it-I think the word was "immediately"-in 1945. The definition of the word "immediately" in so far as the Saskatchewan dam project is concerned closely resembles our understanding of the meaning of eternity. We have waited a long time. We now find that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has been out in western Canada with a draft agreement that has not been accepted by the government. A P.F.R.A. drafted agreement has been shown to the government of Saskatchewan. The Prime Minister says it has no final authority. It is merely the expression of the officials. As a fellow member of the bar, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine a responsible person carrying an agreement around on behalf of somebody else whose authority he has not obtained and the terms of which have not been accepted by the principal? That is exactly the situation here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. As a fellow member of the bar, the hon. member will realize that it is now my duty to advise him that his time has expired.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, for 40 minutes we have been listening to an address by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). In that address he has dealt with a number of different subjects. He opened up with the question of the activities of the government, and of myself as the minister responsible, in relation to Mr. Thomson. I also shall open on the same subject.
Before doing so, however, I want to join with the hon. member for Prince Albert in

saying that it has not been my custom, in the many years that I have been here, to spend much time dealing with congratulations to those who have gone before but on each occasion I have taken the opportunity to say to new members who have come into the house and who have addressed the house that I greatly appreciated their remarks and the manner in which they addressed the house. I only wish to say at this time that in the approximately 25 sessions that 1 have been here I have not heard two new members perform to better advantage than did the two we heard this year. Having said that, I should like to comment upon Mr. Thomson.
The hon. member for Prince Albert suggested that it had been said that there was no other person who could be secured to fill the position. I have not before me the exact words of the statement but I listened to it at the same time as the hon. member was listening to it and I think it has been suggested that there is no person available who could fill the position to better advantage than Mr. Thomson.


Mr. Harkness:: What would you have done if he had been elected?


James Garfield Gardiner: In that case, of course, we would have taken the second best, as we quite often have to do. But that does not change the position at all. One of the reasons why some people thought that Mr. Thomson would make a good leader for the Liberal party was that he had always been a good director of P.F.R.A. But we were not the first people to realize that Mr. Thomson is an extremely capable individual. It is true that a Liberal government was in power in 1926 when he was first employed by the civil service commission. But in 1934 I had the privilege of forming a government in the province of Saskatchewan after an election in which my hon. friend from Prince Albert took part on the other side. At that time we wanted a minister of agriculture.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would the minister tell us how many of the hon. member's party were elected in 1934?


James Garfield Gardiner: There were not any. On that occasion, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of selecting a minister of agriculture and I took the gentleman who had been in charge of the experimental farm at Swift Current, leaving a vacancy at the Swift Current experimental farm. It was a good Tory government that was in power at Ottawa at that time,-


An hon. Member:: Good?


James Garfield Gardiner: -and whom did they select to take the place of the gentleman who had been taken out of that position to become 50433-13J
The Address-Mr. Gardiner minister of agriculture? They selected Mr. Thomson. He was then in the province of Alberta functioning in connection with this Department of Agriculture, and the Conservative government of that day selected him as the ablest man in the service capable of carrying on at Swift Current.
But that is not the only time that the Conservative party recognized Dr. Thomson as an extremely efficient individual. A few years ago they selected Mr. Bracken to be the leader of the Conservative party; and the party then took on a new name, the Progressive Conservative party, as a result of having selected the new leader. He was given the task of winning agriculture in Canada over to the Conservative party. The first thing he did was to go out and look for bright young men to help him. He selected Mr. Ramsay from the University of Saskatchewan, with whom he had been associated previously while he was at that university, to lead the party in Saskatchewan. He took Mr. Hope from the University of Saskatchewan, and he asked Mr. Thomson to join the other two and become one of the three bright agricultural young men that were going to win agriculture of this country over to the Conservative party. Our Conservative friends seem to have the same opinion that I have with regard to Mr. Thomson, namely that he is an extremely able individual. I think he is a gentleman who might have made a good leader for the Liberal party, although I had nothing to do with asking him to try to become one.


Mr. Ellis:: Will the minister suggest that the party got the second choice in the leadership race?


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, I will say something to please the hon. member after a little while. Mr. Thomson was recognized by everyone down to that time as one of the ablest agriculturalists in the country. Up to that time I had no reason for believing that he was a Liberal. He was promoted by the Conservatives. He was offered a position in their party by the Conservatives. When it came time to select someone to take over the position which he now holds, in spite of the fact that I did not know what his politics happened to be and in spite of the fact that the Conservatives had done everything they possibly could to convince me that he was a Conservative, I asked him to take on the job that he now has as director of P.F.R.A.
What happened in this house? I know that our friends in the C.C.F. party will not deny the attitude which they took. I know that the Social Credit group over on the other side will not deny the position which they
196	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gardiner took. Immediately I announced our intention of asking Dr. Thomson to take the position leaders of both groups rose and stated that there was no better man for it in Canada. I was not surprised at that. But the then hon. member for Souris rose in his place in this house and staid more in favour of Dr. Thomson than the representative of either the C.C.F. party or the Social Credit party had said; and he said that an abler man than Dr. Thomson could not be found in the Dominion of Canada to hold that position.
All that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said today was that the Minister of Agriculture agrees with them all and that he thinks that there is not any better man in this country to hold that position. At the same time I should like to say that I was a little bit surprised at the hon. member for Prince Albert for not having examined a bit more closely into the articles he was going to read to us about the Liberal convention. He had Mr. Simmie contradict himself. He first says that P.F.R.A. is a political machine run by Mr. Gardiner, and then he says that Mr. Gardiner did not know what was going on or he would have stopped it. Well, both things cannot be right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You don't know Jimmie.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact, the statements that Mr. Simmie was making were not being made in my interests. They were not being made particularly in the interests of the Liberal party, and the Liberal party pretty well indicated that they took them for what they were worth when he only got 16 votes out of 749.


An hon. Member:: Is he still in the party?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not worrying very much about whether he is or is not because anyone who does not get any more votes than that is not going to affect you very much whether he is in or out. But the fact that my hon. friend gets up and quotes two statements like that, one of which refutes the other, makes it unnecessary for me to say very much more about it.


Mr. Cardiff:: A good idea.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I am sure my friend will feel much easier if there is not much more said about it, because a lot more could be said. The fact of the matter is that in so far as Dr. Thomson is concerned he did, as the Prime Minister said, put in his resignation. He did not ask for any conditions. He did say, however, that he was quite prepared to carry on and do the work that had to be done until someone could be secured to take over the job. He did carry on. He got leave of absence for the time of the convention, went

COMMONS	[DOT]
to the convention, and that was his only political activity. After the convention was over he was not the leader. I heard the speech he made. There are other men sitting in this house who heard the speech he made. No one would have said that it was the kind of speech to which exception would have been taken by anyone who is associated with P.F.R.A. or expecting advantages from it. After it was all over and he was not the leader, it was my opinion that he was still the best man to carry on as director of P.F.R.A., and there he is.
All I want to say with regard to it is that I have not heard from any person, nor have I seen in the editorials of any newspaper in this country, statements to the effect that he is not the best man that we have in Canada to carry on that job. They have said that Mr. Gardiner had no right to do this or had no right to do that. Many of the things they said I did not have a right to do I did not do. But they have not said that Mr. Thomson was not the best man for the position that could be found anywhere in Canada, and few if any of them have said that he should not be continued in the position. As far as I am concerned, I wish to leave the matter there.
But there was another subject which was discussed by the hon. member for Prince Albert that I think I should say something about. The hon. member for Prince Albert is not the only one who has discussed it since this debate began. I refer to the position of agriculture and the effect of floor prices on prices in Canada. Some have suggested that we should adopt the system which they have had for a number of years in the United States based upon parity. I was not in the house yesterday or the day before because I was in the state of Kansas, in the very heart of the agricultural area in the United States, speaking to the Kansas state board of agriculture. All the agricultural officials of the state of agriculture were at the meeting.


An hon. Member:: State of agriculture?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of the state of Kansas. I might as well have left it "state of agriculture" because in many respects it is the greatest agricultural state in the United States. We discussed the activities of that state. When I lived across the boundary from that state when I was a boy, the crop in Kansas was corn and the crop in Nebraska was corn, but the largest crop today in Kansas is wheat. Kansas grows 25 per cent of all the wheat grown in the United States. Since in the United States of America they grow about double what we grow in Canada, and since

we In the province of Saskatchewan produce over half the wheat grown in Canada, the state of Kansas produces just about the same amount of wheat year by year that we produce in the province of Saskatchewan.
So I was invited there, coming as I do from the wheat province of Canada, to meet with them at their agricultural board meeting which is somewhat similar to the meeting we have here each December. The only difference is that our meeting covers all Canada whereas their meeting only covers one state. I was invited to discuss their problems with them. When I was there I found out a few things related to the discussions that are going on in this house. For example, just before noon yesterday I was at the television station in Topeka answering some questions, and immediately I finished a gentleman, seated at a table just about six feet away from me, proceeded with the task of announcing market prices.
The very first price he announced was the price for a product that we have been dealing with in the house. He said, "The price of eggs is 29 cents". I thought to myself that the floor price that had been put on eggs in Canada recently was 38 cents. Then I remembered that when we were putting that form of floor price into effect our friends in the opposition were saying to us that we should have adopted the United States system. Well, the United States system has gone through a course which now causes us all to conclude that it was not as sound as it appeared. They first filled up all the storages in the country, and storages that were not suitable for the storage of eggs were filled with eggs. Then they had to get rid of the system and start over again. The final result is that parity has been dropped and the wholesale price of eggs in Topeka, in a state which carries on to a considerable extent the same kind of agricultural activity as is carried on in the province from which I come, is 29 cents.
I went right from there to a dinner given by a gentleman who used to work for the Winnipeg Tribune when I was a student in Winnipeg. I did not know this gentleman before, but I was sitting between him and one of the egg producers in the western part of the state of Kansas. I said to the farmer from the western part of the state, "I presume that you keep some chickens". He said, "Yes, as a matter of fact I have one of the best flocks of egg layers to be found in the state of Kansas." I said that I had just been at the television station and had heard the announcement that eggs were 29 cents a dozen. He said, "Yes, wholesale, but I am
The Address-Mr. Gardiner delivering my eggs day by day at 20 cents a dozen". I said, "Well, are they A large?" He said that their grading system was not the same as ours but went on to say that they were the best eggs produced in Kansas or as good as any, and the price was 20 cents a dozen.
All I am going to say to hon. members, inasmuch as we have been told ever since this debate began that we ought to be able to do at least as well for our farmers as is being done for the farmers of the United States, is that on that commodity at any rate we are doing at least as well and perhaps better.	'


Mr. Brooks:: How about potatoes?


James Garfield Gardiner: Then again, Mr. Speaker, I was flying home last night, and as I flew over Chicago I heard the prices again. Prices are naturally a little higher in Chicago than they are at Topeka, and they gave the price of eggs as 32 cents, 3 cents higher than at Topeka. They gave the price of butter as 56 cents, and our floor price on butter in this country is 58 cents.
So I say to the hon. member for Prince Albert that when he was saying a few minutes ago that the margin between the prices that are paid for farm products to the producers and the prices that are paid by the consumers when they buy are probably about the same in Canada as they are in the United States- they were United States figures he quoted- probably that is so. Because the margin, as you will note, between the wholesale price in Topeka and the farmer's price for eggs is a margin of 9 cents. In this country the margin which is allowed, if the farmers are just outside the cities of Toronto or Montreal, is 6 cents, and up in some sections of Ontario they want 7 cents. When you get farther out into the west they want 8 or 9 cents, about the same as they have out in Kansas. So it appears that probably the margins are about the same as between the prices the consumers pay and the prices that the farmers get.
But I can go further than that. I was in Denmark a few years ago. People in this house get up and refer to Denmark as the ideal to be copied by farmers everywhere in the world. I was out looking at some of these plants where they produce butter and cheese, and take in eggs. I asked the price of eggs at that plant, which was just ten miles out of Copenhagen. They said that the price was 32 cents. Well, I was flying over to Ireland-


Mr. Mclvor:: Hear, hear.
198	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gardiner


James Garfield Gardiner: -that is, to the place where my old friend used to live, Belfast. I had a friend there who I thought, or at least Mrs. Gardiner thought, might like some eggs from Denmark. We went into the same co-operative in Copenhagen that operated the plant we had visited to get the eggs we were to take over to Belfast, and we paid 67 cents a dozen for them. They were 32 cents at the plant, and they told me they were not higher at any time than 38 cents during that period. What were these margins? There was the margin for the wholesaler and the retailer, and so on, until eggs which had been secured from the farmers at from 32 to 38 cents were actually selling ten miles away in Copenhagen at 67 cents.
I am not going to attempt to tell this house why all that is so, or why that was so. I am not going to try, as the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) did, to indicate to the house why it is that there are certain margins between farmer's prices and the price the retailer finally pays. But I will tell you this, that so far as butter is concerned, which is under price control in this country, and in so far as eggs are concerned, which are more or less under price control in this country, we do know what the divisions are. We do know what the margins are. We do say to those who are dealing in those products that unless the margin is maintained, a margin sufficiently close to what we think it ought to be, support will not apply.
Now, my friend has just picked up something he heard in the country, and he wants to satisfy all the people he can when he says that the money goes to the packer. That is a very popular thing to say out in the country.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not say that. I said no such thing.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend did say in my hearing, and it will be found in Hansard, that the people who are getting the support were not the producers, in many of these price support undertakings, but that it was the packer. I would like him to show any place where the packer has the advantage of the floor prices that are being established on farm products in this country. It cannot be shown; because when that is shown to be the case, the support prices do not operate. Our support prices are put on in such a manner that the individual who draws that support must be able to show that the money is going to the farmer.
My friends from Nova Scotia will remember that when their apples were blown off the trees we went down there and made arrangements to take care of those apples.
'Mr. Mclvor.]


An hon. Member:: Give us the figures for 1954.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have them. They are not final; they will have to be finalized later, but I have the figures now available for 1954. I am doing again what I did last year and what I have done before, in that I am taking three years and I am examining the returns for those three years. Our system differs from that in the United States in that they take more than three years. I believe they take four years, away back before the last war began; as a matter of fact before the first war began. They take those figures as a basis for parity, and make a comparison as they go along. At the end of the war, when we set up the Agricultural Prices Support Act, we took the last three years of the war, 1943, 1944 and 1945. Up to that time every farm organization in this country said that was the best condition the farmers had ever lived under up until then. So we took that period and said, "We shall try and maintain the same relationship between costs, as nearly as possible when you take all the products into consideration, as existed in the last three years of the war, not for any one-year period but for the three-year period."
Therefore I am taking the last three years of this period in the sheet I have here. What do I find? I find that the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was right when he said that Saskatchewan had less income from its farms because of crop failure. He might have included Alberta and Manitoba, and probably intended to, because these are the three wheat growing provinces that were affected by rust.
What is the reduction in income in these three provinces because of wheat reduction in 1954 compared with the. top year in that three year period? Well, in Manitoba it is $83-9 million; in Saskatchewan it is $244-5 million; in Alberta it is $112-4 million. All told it is $440,900,000. That is the loss that has taken place in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba because of the fact that they had poor crops last year and low returns because of rust and low quality wheat.
The total cash income in all the provinces of Canada in 1954 was $2,408 million, and when you add to that the $441 million which
The Address-Mr. Gardiner the three wheat provinces lost last year because their crop was down and of a poor grade, you get a net return of $2,849 million. That is what the income would have been if they had had a good wheat delivery year and that is $23 million more than the farmers of this country ever had in any one year. All that means is that when you put all the other provinces together, their income is not down as compared with the years that have gone before; their income is very nearly the same as in their top year.


Victor Quelch: Will the minister estimate what the income will be; because they have not sold the crops for the last year yet?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is one of the weaknesses in most of the arguments that my hon. friends are putting up. They are talking of the calendar year, and it does involve the losses that were taken in those last two years because of the lower return that has been taken in resulting from the fact that elevators are filled.
I should like to ask my hon. friend how he accounts for the fact that in Ontario the return was $741-9 million, and the highest other year in this previous three-year period was $719 million. In Ontario it was higher than in the highest year of the last three years, higher in the last year. When you go through the whole sheet and find that you have to go to the three western provinces in order to get a reduction in income at all, I am saying to you that it is not fair to say that the income is down on all the farms all the way across Canada, nor is it down in all provinces all the way across Canada. As a matter of fact in the province of Nova Scotia, where they lost the greater part of their apple crop this year, their cash income in 1954 is $42-9 million; last year it was $40-6 million, and the year before it was $39-8 million.
I am just pointing out to the house that some of the statements that are made from time to time are not based upon facts. Simply taking the total figures, as covering the whole country, leaves out of consideration what my hon. friend protected himself against by mentioning without going into details, namely that he knew the returns were down in Saskatchewan. Even my friend to whom he refers in such critical terms, the minister of the treasury in the province of Saskatchewan, does not do that; neither does the premier of the province of Saskatchewan.
When we had a conference here in Ottawa the minister of agriculture of the Saskatchewan government rose and brought out the very fact I am bringing out now, and he added this statement: "If we get an average

The Address-Mr. Gardiner crop next year our income will be back to where it was last year", that is, 1953. These are not my words; they are his. They can be found in his speech which was delivered to the conference here in December. I agree with him. All that is necessary to put the incomes back to where they were is not all this planning and all those ideas that have been mentioned here. What is necessary is to have another good wheat crop out there.
When they get a good wheat crop out there of average quality it seems to have the effect of raising the income of all farmers in Canada, according to the reasoning that is carried on in this house; of course that is not true. But whether it does have that effect or not, it does have the effect of increasing the purchasing power that the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was talking about; it makes it possible for them to buy farm implements and put people to work producing them. It makes it possible for them to buy other commodities that are required on the farms. Thus the whole country benefits from the fact that there is a crop, and the whole country is injured by the fact that there was not as good a crop in the west in 1954 as there sometimes is. I wanted to say that with regard to these incomes in order to answer some of the things that had been said not only by the hon. member for Prince Albert but by some others.
There was one thing the hon. member for Prince Albert got very much worked up about. He was telling our C.C.F. friends what a miserable job they have made of developing industry in Saskatchewan, and I agree with him in everything he said. But there is one thing I should like to point out to him. There is no man in the province of Saskatchewan, excepting Tommy Douglas, who is more responsible for the C.C.F. still being in power in that province than the hon. member for Prince Albert. Why do I say that? Well, when the last provincial election campaign was on he went up and down through Saskatchewan, but not condemning the C.C.F. He did not make a speech in that campaign like the one he made here this afternoon. He made speeches condemning the Liberal party, and condemning me as Minister of Agriculture in the Dominion of Canada because of the things I had or had not done. His main discussion was on the fighting of foot-and-mouth disease. It is recognized by everybody that the best job done anywhere in the world in fighting foot-and-mouth disease was done in Canada. Still that was his plea.
You know, even that would not have won the election for the C.C.F.; but when it came


to nomination day the Conservatives put only seven candidates in the field, and he went right on talking against the Liberals. He did not talk against the C.C.F. I am not blaming the C.C.F. I suppose if we had been in power in Saskatchewan we probably would have tried to get him to do the same thing to them, but the fact is that the C.C.F. were in power.


Hazen Robert Argue: What did the Liberals do in Souris-Estevan?


James Garfield Gardiner: The fact is that in that election the hon. member for Prince Albert did everything he possibly could to see to it that the C.C.F. got back into power, and they did. For him to rise in the house now and make this speech is not nearly as effective in slaughtering C.C.F.'ers as it would have been had he made it then. Then he would have been rid of those socialists he talks about now, because they have not got very far anywhere except in Saskatchewan.


Hazen Robert Argue: And Selkirk.


James Garfield Gardiner: If he would just help get them out instead of helping keep them in he would get rid of all those troubles he was talking about a little while ago. I thought I should say that much in regard to it.
There is one other thing I wish to speak about, and that is the Crowsnest rates. The hon. member says we appointed Chief Justice Sloan of British Columbia, who is a good friend of ours, to conduct an inquiry, and he said something about the Crowsnest pass rates. Has he forgotten what the Tories said about the Crowsnest pass rates? They were brought in, as everyone in the country knows, by Sir Wilfrid Laurier when he was in power. He made a deal with the C.P.R. under which the Crowsnest pass rates were established for all time, and his end of the deal has been carried out by succeeding Liberal governments.
When we came to the end of the first war, at which time the Conservatives were in power, what did they do? They moved to do away with the Crowsnest pass agreement, and they would have been successful in doing this had it not been for that chamber which some people criticize so much. That is one time they did a good job if they never did another one, but I think they do many good jobs.
On that occasion when the members of this house had not been here for a sufficient length of time to remember all that is attached to the Crowsnest pass agreement, the then prime minister, the leader of the Conservative party, who was a member from the province of Manitoba which has gained as

much from this Crowsnest pass agreement as any other province, said he was going to do away with the agreement. When the bill went to the Senate one of the senators -I suppose he was put there because he was a Liberal at the time he was selected-because he was a Liberal remembered why we had the Crowsnest pass rates, and he stood up in that house and objected to what was being done. In spite of what he did, in spite of the objections he raised and in spite of the objections raised right across the country, actions were taken which did away with much of the effectiveness of the Crowsnest rates.
What happened? When the Liberals came back into power in 1921 they appointed a commission, such as the one my hon. friend has been asking us to appoint for other reasons now, and had them look into the whole thing. As a result of the activities of that commission in 1927, you still have the Crowsnest rates and had your maritime rates established. Why? As an alternative to the Crowsnest pass rates on our grain being shipped through. I am satisfied that if we were to get up in this house and argue in favour of taking off the Crowsnest pass rates, at the same time we would be asking to take off the special rates that have been given in connection with maritime freight.
Any group attempting to do that, I do not care whether they sat over there or over here, would not be here after the next election. Therefore when my hon. friend points his long finger at us and indicates what we ought to do, he should read about what his own party has done. If he has any appeals to make on that question he should make them to the men who are sitting behind him, not to the men sitting over here. I would suggest that so far as that question is concerned there are certain things which can and will be said as we go along and discuss the question from time to time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the minister but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


An hon. Member:: Go on.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the right hon. minister unanimous consent to continue?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think the minister, being the first to reply to an amendment, has unlimited time.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think that is true, but I am not going to take very much time. The suggestion was made that we ought to get along with the South Saskatchewan river dam. I would have been very disappointed 50433-14
The Address-Mr. Gardiner if the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) had not mentioned it, as he did in the last sentence or two of his address.
He did not, however, say some of the things which I know are on his mind because he has said them elsewhere. It has been said that this government built a causeway across from an island to the mainland down in the maritimes. Then they say we have done something else along the St. Lawrence, and it will be a very big job. I said last session that it took the Tories 50 years to decide whether or not they were going to start it, and they never did. This party took about the same time considering it and eventually did start it.
My hon. friend says we have not yet started the South Saskatchewan project. The hon. member says that I was out in Saskatchewan considering something or other. I was out in Saskatchewan. I am going to say this right from the start, that in my negotiations with the government of Saskatchewan I have found them most reasonable and easy to deal with in discussing the matter. We did not have any controversies when we were discussing it as are sometimes claimed in the press later; and I notice that not even the premier of Saskatchewan indicated that I was discussing government policy when I was there. Some hon. members on the other side get some of those ideas and try -to leave that impression.
We have been discussing this matter for some time. Any hon. member can go back and look up Hansard if he is interested, and find out that at one stage we said there were four things yet to be settled. I shall mention but two of them because there are only two left, the others having been cleared away in these discussions.
One of them was whether or not the subsidization of power by the federal government has been entirely removed. That question has not yet been discussed from a standpoint which everybody agrees has removed entirely the possible subsidization of power in the province of Saskatchewan if the dam is gone ahead with.
The other one was as to whether it was in the national interest; and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made it very clear in answering a question yesterday that that question has not yet been determined. I am going to say that it cannot be determined until the other one is out of the way, and the other one still has to be got out of the way.
Then there is the question of what is to be included in the agreement. What is being discussed is not similar to a hard and fast agreement such as lawyers draw up con-
202	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gardiner earning the sale of one person's property to some other person. The hon. member recited such a case to illustrate how foolish this arrangement is. We sat down and discussed the matter.


Edward George McCullough: Was the
same consideration given in connection with the St. Lawrence project that Ontario-


James Garfield Gardiner: When the hon. member makes a statement of that kind I think I should place on the record exactly what we have done. In so far as relief is concerned, the amount which applies to the areas in the three western provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta is $74 million since we came into office.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: How much for other parts of Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is very high. Just wait until I get through with the figures and you will have no more questions to ask. Then there is the matter of prairie farm assistance. The net amount which has been spent, after collections from the farmers, is $86 million. There is the amount spent under P.F.R.A. Some of that amount was used in exploring the possibility of building a dam on the South Saskatchewan river, but it was only a comparatively small part. The total amount is $92 million. That is the amount that has been spent on projects over the years to assist in maintaining the farmers on their farms. But the total amount stands at $252 million, or approximately $14 million per year.
I will repeat what I said before, namely there is no one in this house or outside who is more anxious than I to get the South Saskatchewan river dam started. But if anyone goes out to Saskatchewan and states that this government has not been doing what ought to be done in the interests of the western people, and particularly the western farmers, then I wish to state that the figures I have given contradict that assertion. In so far as the government is concerned, and in so far as the house from which all financial proposals originate is concerned, we can substantiate every single dollar of expenditure that has been made. I am quite satisfied that in due course there will be support for further amounts, and all I am asking at the moment is that we exercise a little patience.
It has been suggested that we have already shown enough patience, but I would point out that everyone in this house is agreed on this project, and I have never known a project which had the unanimous support of the house which was not eventually undertaken. I would therefore suggest to hon. members that when they speak on this topic they make it plain to the people of Canada that we are fully aware of the need for this dam. Let it not be suggested that the government is not going to do it and that it should therefore be forgotten-. Let us get busy at the task of proving why we want this dam and why it will be good for Canada as a whole.
Let us not suggest, as did the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) a few

moments ago, that this is merely an irrigation scheme. No government could possibly build a dam at such a cost merely for the purpose of irrigating 400,000 acres of land. In addition, that sort of appeal will not weigh with the people in eastern Canada, or even in central Canada. The water at the dam will be 185 feet deep, and in actual fact the top ten feet of that water can be run off by gravity in order to irrigate the 400,000 acres of land and affect the income on millions of acres. The people should also know that once the dam is put there we will have a lake 145 miles long, or three-quarters of the length of lake Erie or lake Ontario. The water behind that dam will not only irrigate the land but will create a huge head of power which can be used right across the province of Saskatchewan and if necessary on into other provinces both east and west.
This same problem was dealt with yesterday at a meeting in Kansas. I heard a gentleman get up and tell the people that they had to conserve their water, and they had to make greater use of their available streams than they were doing at the present time. On my flight across the state of Missouri afterward I saw dugouts on every farm, the same kind of thing we have out in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba. When we view that sort of situation we should remember that as a result of the building of this dam we are going to provide many benefits for western communities, including water for industries. There will be water supply for scores of towns which are below the level of the dam.
In conclusion I would say to hon. members of this house that if they get that idea over to the Canadian people, then there is no doubt in my mind as to what eventually will be done.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that after listening to the last two speeches I am a little bit confused. First of all the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), as I understood him, blames the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) for assisting in the election of a C.C.F. member in a certain constituency in Saskatchewan. On the other hand, it seems obvious to everyone that the Liberals elected John Diefenbaker in Prince Albert. In view of that I cannot understand the great concern shown by the hon. member for Prince Albert in regard to political planning.


James Garfield Gardiner: He elected twelve times as many as we did.


Hazen Robert Argue: What about Kohaly in Souris-Estevan?
50433-14J
The Address-Mr. Bryson


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Certainly any planning the Conservative party ever did in Saskatchewan has been a horrible experience, and I was surprised the hon. member did not admit that he was to all intents and purposes a voice crying in the wilderness as far as that party in Saskatchewan is concerned.
We have heard many speeches over the past few days, and in most cases the speakers have voiced the opinion that the speech from the throne provides hon. members with an opportunity of bringing to the attention of parliament those matters which are of the greatest concern to their own constituents. I think that is understandable, but I also believe that if we are going to discharge our duties as members of parliament we must not forget that we represent all the people of Canada. I know it is hard to see the other fellow's point of view; it is hard to see the other fellow's problems. But if we are going to properly assess our own problems in our own areas, I am convinced that we must have a fairly good working knowledge of the many and varied types of occupations and industries in this country. I think more people than ever before realize that we must have a good working knowledge of all phases of endeavour in this vast country of ours. If I speak, as I probably shall this afternoon, with respect to agriculture in this country, I do so with the idea of trying to relate it to the whole Canadian economy.
Last summer I took the opportunity of visiting for a month or six weeks in eastern Canada, the maritimes and, I may say for the benefit of my French-Canadian friends across the way, the province of Quebec. It was a wonderful experience. I gained a great deal of knowledge as to the difficulties and the problems that are being faced in other parts of Canada. I should like to take this opportunity of inviting members from eastern Canada and the maritimes who have not recently visited western Canada to go out there and see at first hand some of the difficulties and problems with which we are faced.
We hear a great deal, Mr. Speaker, about the proposition of one world; we hear a great deal about a world community. In the minds of most people I think it means something more than just a geographical proposition. I think it means the peoples of all countries living together in a sort of brotherhood based on the principles laid down in the Atlantic charter. I will be the first to admit that when we look at the situation that exists in the world today, it does not sound too realistic. However, I am convinced that it is the goal

The Address-Mr. Bryson toward which we must all strive. I am convinced that we have no choice but to accept that principle.
If we are going to condition our thinking to this idea of one world, I think the best thing we can do is to start at home, because Canada also has become a very small community, as will be acknowledged by anybody who takes a look at our transportation system or our communications system and who gives any consideration to the economy of this country.
More people than ever before realize that in any small community such as Canada has become, you cannot have one segment of our economy depressed and another segment of it fairly prosperous. Nor can you have one section of our people unemployed and on relief and another section of our people enjoying comparative prosperity. Those two conditions cannot exist in a community.
They cannot exist in Canada for another reason, too. We cannot afford to have conditions such as those I have outlined if we are going to attempt to set an example to the hundreds of millions of people in other parts of the world who are looking around, standing in the shadow, trying to make up their minds as to just what their choice is going to be as between the two dominant political philosophies that we find in the world today.
These conditions do exist in this country, Mr. Speaker, as is quite evident. Daily it is becoming increasingly more difficult for workers to exchange the product of their labour and their ingenuity for a better standard of living; and by the same token it is becoming increasingly more difficult for agricultural producers to market the food which they produce. I contend that food is the most important commodity on earth.
If we are going to consider this Canadian agricultural scene, I believe it is time we faced up to a few of the hard facts of life in connection with it. I think it is time we believed that Canadian agriculture, in so far as the welfare of the Canadian people is concerned, is the greatest industry we have. I believe it is one of the greatest industries we have because so many other industries are dependent on it.
In the corridor here the other day a member of the house said to me: "Yes, I will admit that the farm machinery industry is suffering a mild recession. I will even go so far as to admit that there are production slow-downs. I will even go so far as to say there are work stoppages; but you are not going to condemn the system just on the ground that one industry in this vast country is suffering economic distress." But what my hon. friend did not realize was the

fact that the farm machinery industry in this country does not produce a finished machine. What about the workers in the rubber industry, who put the tires on these implements? What about the people engaged in the manufacture of batteries? What about the people who manufacture bearings, paint, ignition systems, generators, starters, spark plugs and lighting equipment? When you have a production slow-down or work stoppage in this important industry, you have a corresponding work stoppage and production slow-down in a great many other industries. The same thing applies also to the automotive industry.
I think we in Canada are stuck with this agricultural industry. I think we are stuck with it because of our large amount of arable land, because of our climate and because of our people. By people in other parts of the world we are going to be looked upon as one of the greatest food producers, in so far as our export is concerned, in the world. In all probability we are destined to play that important role, just as we have played it in the past. Therefore we must make up our minds as to what kind of agricultural industry we want in this country. Do we want an industry like the one we had in the thirties, a sort of twentieth century peasantry? Or do we want in this country an agricultural industry that is prosperous, one that will make for general prosperity not only among our own people but which, if it is properly distributed, will provide for the world food which in my opinion is still the greatest force mankind has ever invented to ensure the peace of the world.
In spite of the things we have heard from the Minister of Agriculture let us not delude ourselves that agriculture is in a healthy position. It must be admitted that western Canada suffered a tremendous crop failure in 1954. That crop represents only a fraction of the normal. As far as Saskatchewan is concerned, it is estimated that our income will be reduced by $250 million this year. This means that the purchasing power of the people of the province will be reduced by approximately 45 per cent as compared with last year, and in some parts of my constituency the figure will run as high as 80 per cent. But once again let us not forget that in the last three years the farmers of western Canada have grown five crops. Let nobody say that the economic distress western Canada is now experiencing is the result of the short and disastrous crop we had last summer, because we in western Canada have grown five normal crops in three years.
Many people say, "If you have done this, how is it that you find yourselves in this position today?" According to dominion bureau of statistics figures, since 1951 the

prices that farmers throughout Canada have received for what they sold have gone down eight points while their costs have risen 14 points. In my own province farmers' costs have risen 16 points, which means that so far as their net income is concerned they are 24 points worse off than they were three years ago.
I wonder how many other Canadian businesses could remain solvent faced with this kind of thing. Yet the farmers are asked and expected to go on producing under these conditions. They are even told now that in all probability their net income will be further reduced next year. Of course this evil day has only been postponed because of the fact that we have grown five crops in three years, yet many people will try to make themselves believe that other factors are responsible.
A great deal has been said about unemployment, but I do not intend to say too much about it. Some say that in the next month or two there will be 600,000 unemployed. Some go so far as to say that there will be 750,000. This condition has arisen because of the loss of purchasing power of the primary producer. The primary producer is not buying as many goods and services as he formerly did because he does not have the purchasing power to do so. When he does not purchase the manufacturer slows down production. When he slows down production he lays off men. When he lays off men their incomes are not as large as they were, so they do not buy as many consumer goods as they did. This brings about a further slow-down of production with a further lay-off of workers. So you have the whole process repeated over and over again.
I think it is time we stopped trying to make ourselves believe that the situation will cure itself if we give it enough time. There are a great many things that I believe we could do. The Minister of Agriculture has told us over and over again that the people of Canada provide the best market for the things produced in Canada. Let us take a look at that statement. Maybe he has something there. We have 600,000 unemployed. One does not have to be much of a mathematician to realize that 600,000 unemployed could represent about a million and a half people in Canada who are not eating quite as much as they did before, who are not purchasing quite as many clothes as they did before. Why not take a look at this potential market? Let us put these people to work.
As far as markets are concerned, I saw a report the other day that the Soviet union is going to import 240 million pounds of
The Address-Mr. Bryson meat products this year. Last year Canada Packers made a deal to sell pork to Russia, and got an export permit from the government. I cannot see any difference in the government making a deal to sell meat to Russia this year. I believe that market should be investigated.
But I think the crux of the situation lies in the fact that the government should do what they had in mind in 1945 when they called the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction. At that time they had in mind that if and when unemployment or a depression appeared in Canada they would undertake a public works and public investment program. Of course such a public investment program was contingent on a designated number of provinces signing a dominion-provincial tax agreement. That has happened. The way is clear.
I maintain, as other members have emphasized in previous speeches, that this is the time for the government of Canada to undertake a public works program. Once they have done so it is my view that they should call a dominion-provincial conference to decide where these public works projects should be built to produce the best results. As was pointed out yesterday, as far as anything built in western Canada is concerned 75 per cent of the money involved in the cost of such projects will accrue to interests in eastern Canada and 25 per cent will remain in the west.
I believe, too, that the South Saskatchewan river dam should be constructed. I think that is one of the more important public investments that could be made. Somebody said they believed that the Minister of Agriculture wants the dam. I honestly believe he wants the dam. For all I know it may be that he is a captive of the Liberal party, but I should like him to come out of that captivity and build the dam. I am sure that if the dam is built we will all be happy, and in all probability we will call it the Gardiner dam.
I said we should put people to work on public projects. If war came tomorrow we would put these people to work. There is no question but that we need many things in Canada. We need more hospitals. We need a road-building program of the type indicated the other evening by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). All these things would in themselves be wealth-creating and largely self-liquidating. In my opinion such a program is the only thing that would approach a solution to this problem. Such a program is being sought by a great many responsible organizations in

The Address-Mr. Bryson Canada. It is being requested by the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities and by labour organizations. It is even being asked for by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
I should like to spend a few minutes discussing a problem about which I am very much concerned and have been very much concerned for a long time. I refer to the problem of Indian affairs. One does not have to study the Indian affairs branch long before it becomes pretty obvious that the same kind of bungling goes on in that department that goes on in a great many other government departments. It is my sincere hope that the new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, whose department deals with Indian affairs, will give a great deal of serious consideration to the problem, and will show much more enthusiasm in an attempt to come up with solutions to a few of these Indian problems than any of his predecessors have shown in the past. I have to admit that many procedures have become so well established in that branch that I doubt if even the new minister will have very much success in finding a solution. But there are a great many urgent problems to be solved.
Before mentioning some of them I should like for a moment to take a look at the reserves system. About 70 years ago the government of Canada undertook to place the Indians on reserves. I assume that in the back of their minds they believed that this system of reserves would be a means to an end, and I hope the end was assimilation. I believe that is correct. And I also believe that the reserves system was the most infamous and most immoral thing any one group of people ever imposed upon another group. We who profess freedom in this country, and laud to high heaven the dignity of man, rounded up these primitive people and put them in compounds with just about as much compunction as we do the buffalo. We denied them the white man's privileges. And while we restricted their association with white people we exploited them at every turn, inflicting upon these comparatively happy and self-sufficient people all the vices and diseases of the white man, until in the majority of cases we have completely demoralized them.
In other words we used just about every conceivable device to guarantee the failure of assimilation. And after 50 years of experience this government is now contemplating setting up more of these infamous reserves. Yes, it is going out and buying land for that purpose. I read a report-I hope it is not true, because I am not prepared to believe

it-that they are even considering setting up some kind of reserves system for the metis people in this country. God forbid!
I should like to tell a story about what is going on in one reserve in my constituency, and there are others in a similar position. There is no Indian agent within a hundred miles. If one of these Indians wants to sell a cord of wood, a bushel of wheat or a few fence posts he has to hitch-hike a hundred miles there and a hundred miles home to obtain written permission from the Indian agent to dispose of that product. The obvious result is that he does not do this.
About a month ago the local papers throughout the area were circulating a request for clothing and food to alleviate what they described as a deplorable condition among the Indians. I hope the minister is going to investigate that very serious situation. I would like to bring to his attention the serious position of the northern Indians in this country and suggest to him- I am sorry he is not in his seat-that he make a very careful examination of the personnel working in the field for the Indian affairs branch. I will be the first to admit that a great many of them have all the outward appearances of possessing the qualifications necessary for their work, but there are factors involved with many of them, factors which I do not wish to put on Hansard because some of these people are friends of mine, which render them utterly useless in the job they are now doing.


An hon. Member:: Are they Liberals?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: No, they are not Liberals. I would be happy to give the minister in private what I refrain from saying in the house respecting these people.
The Department of National Health and Welfare has gone into the north country, augmented by the health services of the different provinces, and has brought about a situation under which the Indian population is increasing rapidly. I find that in one area the infant mortality rate has dropped from eighteen to three per thousand of population. That is a wonderful improvement. But here you have the perfectly silly situation of spending the taxpayers' money in providing a service and at the same time allowing conditions to exist which make these people the complete and absolute wards of the government, in a most disgraceful manner.
Let me illustrate. We still believe we are going to be able to assimilate these people, so we say they have to go to school; and here is where I say the department falls down in its administration. They pay the Indians family allowances-and I hope no one will

get the impression that I am opposed to family allowances, because I am not. I would like to see everybody, including the Indians, get family allowances. But I certainly take objection to the administration of those payments.
Here is what happens; here is why I say the men in the field are inefficient. They are paying these Indians family allowances, but at the same time they say, "In order to collect your family allowance cheques you have to send your children to school." What does that mean? If these men knew their business they would know that was not a proper thing to do. An Indian family is a unit. If one member goes, they all go. They sit around the posts now, collecting their family allowances. The cheques are taken in to the Hudson's Bay Company-these exploiters who have learned well their trade over two hundred years-and do the Indians buy essentials with these family allowance cheques? No, they do not. These are primitive people; they are buying ribbons and Mickey Mouse watches, and the Hudson's Bay Company could not care less. Why should they? They are in business. Free enterprise!
So, Mr. Speaker, the end result, with one exception which I shall mention later, is that the Indians are not going out on the trapping grounds in the winter nor are they going out fishing in the summer. They cannot, because the Indian woman has to stay and look after the children. They have to go to school if the Indian family is to receive the family allowance payments. And the Indian man cannot go out and do anything without the woman, because she does the work.
Let us get down to the facts. I say there is something desperately wrong with the administration of that department when conditions like that are allowed to exist. But there is one exception. Some bright boy on the Indian field staff came up with this idea. The trapping season starts on December 15, so we will let these Indians go out on the trap lines between December 15 and March 15. How utterly stupid are those people. Anyone who has had experience in the north country knows that trapping is a quite considerable business. You cannot say, "I am going out to trap tomorrow." You have to say about the middle of August that you are going out to itrap, and you get ready for December 15. Again this is a sample of maladministration.
I say the government of Canada is spending the taxpayers' money to create a condition whereby the Indian population is increasing, and at the same time it is allowing a condition to develop under which these people are
The Address-Mr. Bryson becoming wards of the government. I would suggest that the government establish trading stores in the north. Let us forget about this Hudson's Bay Company. Let the government provide trading stores in the north where they will sell essential things to the Indians in exchange for the family allowance.
That may be a kind of shock treatment, but the government is using a little bit of shock treatment on these people now, and I condone it. I believe the government was completely justified last year when it took a team of X-ray specialists into that country. To the Indians, of course, that was a kind of bogeyman. They did not want to be X-rayed. So the specialist said, "All right; no X-ray, no treaty." That is what I call the shock treatment. I think it was all right. In that particular respect the means justified the end. I suggest they set up government stores in the north where those Indians can buy essentials, flour instead of ribbons and sugar instead of Mickey Mouse watches.


Walter Edward Harris: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware that one of the few popular things I did in the house was to announce that those cheques were to be sent to those people without restriction? That statement was applauded by the party to which he belongs.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: That may be true.


Walter Edward Harris: It is true.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is in a position to do a lot of popular things now.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I maintain that the welfare of the Indians of this country rests primarily on the people who are administering family allowances.
I almost hesitate to do this, but I am going to commend the government on setting up locker plants in the north where the Indians can store meat against hard times, with Indian participation financially. Of course I hope we never again have a repetition of what happened last summer at one place in the north where, after the meat was stored in the plant and the summer came along, with Indians all around the post-they cannot go away; if they do they do not collect the family allowance, so they stay at the post-the man in charge of the locker plant decided he was going on a two months' holiday and took the key with him, leaving the Indians in a state of complete panic and near famine. I hope that will be investigated by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I hope they set up more of these lockers.
I have a suggestion now for the minister that I believe will bring about a solution,

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
possibly more rapidly than anything else I know of. I urge the government to call a dominion-provincial conference at the earliest possible moment in an effort to work out a long-term financial agreement with the provinces, so the provinces may take over the administration of Indian affairs in this country. I believe that would be a step in the right direction, on the ground that the provinces individually would be much better able to cope with this situation.
Those closely associated with Indians believe that is the ultimate solution. The present policy is inadequate, and what is more important it is completely unrealistic. Certainly we as a people who profess all the Christian ethics associated with a free people in a democracy can no longer go around shutting our eyes and turning our backs on these unfortunate people who, through no fault of their own, have become the victims of our refusal to accept and treat them as deserving citizens within our country.
I think, after what I have said, Mr. Speaker, you will agree that I do not intend to support the motion.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, it is generally agreed among authorities that mankind has solved the problem of production, but that mankind has not solved the problem of distribution. It is not, perhaps, adequately realized and appreciated that in this age of machines and wonderworking skills man must solve the problem of distribution or face probable extinction from the earth. One of the amazing things to me is that for years and years now our government has done nothing, so far as I can see, to develop or discover a method of distribution any different from what their forefathers were using in 1895.
For freedom-loving men the only potentially satisfactory method of distribution is the financial philosophy and mechanism of Social Credit. What mankind must have is the means whereby men can make what is physically possible financially possible. As the clearest evidence that we have not yet accomplished that objective, it is well known to everyone that just as soon as we develop more of a particular kind of goods than the people are buying, the price of those goods goes down and down and the people producing those goods are worse off than they were when there was a scarcity of goods, which shows quite clearly that up to the present time we have nothing even resembling a scientific method of distribution or a scientific method of making that which is physically possible financially possible.
The financial technique of Social Credit provides a means whereby man can make what is physically possible financially pos-

sible, not only in producing goods from the resources available but in consuming the goods already produced.
The Social Credit financial technique comprises three elements. These elements are: one, the free flow of credit; two, the just price; three, a national dividend to be paid to every qualified member of the community or society. Regardless, Mr. Speaker, of what mischievous organs like the Winnipeg Free Press and others are endeavouring to mislead the people into believing as being what Social Credit advocates, the statements which I have made here are correct.
May we briefly consider each of these three elements. Let us take first the free flow of credit. Through establishing and maintaining a free flow of credit a society or state, without increase of debt, of taxation or of prices, is able to make available to itself whatever money is necessary to bring about and sustain whatever measure or degree of prosperity its resources render possible, avoiding both depressions and undesirable booms; depressions, as we know, resulting from too little money coming into the markets to buy goods offered for sale; booms or inflationary periods resulting from too much money coming into the markets to buy such goods.
Now, where is it supposed a government in a Social Credit society is to obtain the money required to establish and maintain this free flow of credit? It is a certain thing that no government we have ever had in Ottawa, in the Dominion of Canada, and no government they have had in Washington in the United States, has ever been able to establish a free flow of credit with the devices they have used.
Now to explain where the money could come from. Let us recall that the constitutions of both Canada and the United States empower the government to create the nation's money just as actually the royal mint at Ottawa stamps out Canadian coins, nickels, dimes, quarters and fifty cent pieces. The Canadian constitution, the British North America Act, under section 91 gives the parliament of Canada exclusive legislative jurisdiction over, first, currency and coinage under subsection 14; second, banking, the incorporation of banks and the issue of paper money under subsection 15; and third, legal tender under subsection 20. These three powers are all that are required to enable the government of Canada to create in Canada all the money which the resources and the production of Canada will justify.
The United States constitution, article I, section 8, paragraph 5, states in part:
Congress shall have power to coin money and regulate the value thereof.

What use has Canada made of this constitutional power thus vested in her federal government? We have had two or three cases in which successful attempts have been made. Under the Finance Act of 1914 the Canadian minister of finance, Sir Thomas White, created scores and even hundreds of millions of Canadian dollars. In the period from 1914 to 1917 he created $26 million Canadian and spent them in the conduct of the war. They were not funny money either, nor rubber dollars. We will find the record of what I have just said on page 22 of the report of the royal commission on banking and currency in Canada, published in 1933.
In 1917 Sir Thomas White created $50 million and used it to buy Canadian grain and other products for Britain, those dollars being backed up by imperial treasury bills. An account of this transaction will be found at page 22 of the report to which I have referred already. Altogether he created more than $1,200 million Canadian during world war I and advanced it to Britain to purchase in Canada foodstuffs, munitions and other products for the conduct of world war I. This will be found recorded at page 85 of the report of the royal commission on banking and currency in Canada.
Sir Thomas White, in his memorandum of dissent signed at Ottawa on October 3, 1933, as reported at page 85 of the report, positively declared.
But there was on the part of the government no "policy of inflation."
It is a favourite lie used by Liberals and Conservatives all over Canada to speak of Social Credit and its use of government money as inflation. I suppose the C.C.F. do a similar thing because they do not hesitate to do all the things the other two parties do. A Social Credit government in Canada could, and most likely would, obtain money to maintain the free flow of credit from exactly the same sources that supplied Sir Thomas White with much of the money with which he financed Canada's relatively colossal war effort in world war I.
Canada's finance minister, Sir Thomas White, through the use of a specialized financial agency entitled the Finance Act of 1914, created the Canadian dollars he needed, first, to stimulate the development of Canadian production of goods and services and, second, to market those goods and services to advantage. A Social Credit government in Canada, likewise through the use of a specialized financial agency, a national monetary commission, would create the Canadian dollars needed, first, to stimulate Canadian production in accordance with the desires of Canadians; second, to enable Canadian producers to market their production and, third,
The Address-Mr. Blackmore to enable Canadian consumers to obtain and enjoy that production, attaining an ever and ever higher standard of living and of security.
Everyone today is wondering about the tremendous impact which the discovery and employment of atomic power is going to have on the production of goods. Everyone is realizing the almost appalling efficiency of great modern machines such as those described, if I remember rightly, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) last night. Surely everyone must be concerned about what is going to happen as a result of the enormous increase in production unless some means are developed whereby the people will be able to partake of the production after it is brought into existence.
Anyone who takes the time to be realistic at all knows that it will be utterly impossible to obtain money by taxation with which to enable the people to buy the goods produced by these great machines and through these remarkable technological skills. We might just as well face that fact and be honest. Every one of us should remember that when he is out on the platform talking to the people. The time has come when the people of Canada have a right to be told the truth, no matter what it is, by the man standing on the platform.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, before the house took recess I was discussing the Social Credit free flow of credit proposal, and how money would be obtained with which to support the free flow of credit. I pointed out that the method whereby Social Crediters would obtain money would closely resemble the method whereby Sir Thomas White obtained millions of dollars through the application of the Finance Act of 1914 in conducting world war I. I pointed out there need be no more question of the soundness of Social Credit money than there was concerning the money which Sir Thomas White used on that occasion.
Opponents of Social Credit contend that a Social Credit government's money would be unsound. "Funny money," they like to call it. But would they dare to suggest that the dollars issued under the Finance Act of 1914 were unsound? Would they suggest those dollars were funny? I think not.
What makes the Canadian dollar sound inside Canada? Is it gold? Many people think so, but it is not. It is goods and services

The Address-Mr. Blackmore backed by Canadian resources, material and human, standing ready to produce and to deliver more goods and services. An excellent working definition of the dollar is this; "a dollar is a ticket to goods." Such being the case, the number of dollars the Minister of Finance could safely issue within the Canadian economy would be roughly related to the amount of goods offered for sale within Canadian markets.
Another helpful definition of a dollar is that "a dollar is a medium of exchange." Bearing this definition in mind we must recognize that the number of dollars going into Canadian markets ought to be related to the number of exchanges Canadians would be able and willing to make with each other.
These two considerations enable anyone who desires to do so to form a concrete means of judging whether there might be too much money within an economy at any given time. Sir Thomas White's Finance Act dollars were unquestionably sound because their number was consciously geared to Canadian goods and services available for the exchanges Canadians wished to make.
Opponents of Social Credit argue that under a Social Credit administration there would be issued too many dollars; "turning on the printing presses", they derisively call it. But the Social Crediters would exercise adequate caution in issuing currency and credit, both debt money to be loaned into circulation and debt-free money to be spent. Social Crediters know the fundamental facts about money, just as did Sir Thomas White. Would any informed and honest man disparagingly accuse Sir Thomas White of "turning on the printing presses"? I do not believe that expression was used in Canada until it became in the interests of certain political people to discredit Social Credit.
Opponents of Social Credit have always endeavoured to show that it would establish a dictatorship. But quite the contrary is the case. Social Credit would establish the freest state and the most fully democratic government the mind of man can conceive. Did Sir Thomas White establish a dictatorship in developing and employing the Finance Act of 1914? Even to ask that question is to be unfair to his memory and to shock almost any hon. member into serious thought.
The opponents of Social Credit will ask: "How could prices be maintained without iron controls?" I think it was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), speaking some time ago in connection with Social Credit, who asked that question. The answer is that prices on the whole would be maintained by a scientific use of the law of supply and


demand. It is the law of supply and demand that is supposed to affect prices today. By having and exercising ready, effective control over financial policy the Minister of Finance would be readily able to increase the supply of almost any commodity in Canada, thereby dealing with the tendency of prices to rise.
Some will ask, "But how could he increase the supply quickly enough to offset an inflationary tendency?" After a Social Credit government had been in operation for a certain length of time we would find that it would probably have on hand a considerable supply of many commodities, just as we find today the dominion government of Canada has on hand a considerable supply of butter, eggs, and other commodities.
I have stated several times in this house that it would be greatly in the interests of this nation to store up a good supply of different kinds of grain, sugar, honey, and other commodities of that nature so there would be reserves available in case a need arises to free certain commodities upon the market when there appears to be sufficient shortage to cause a price rise.
The Minister of Finance could manage tendencies toward falling prices by a policy of price support wherever necessary, much as we are doing in Canada today through the agricultural prices support program. He could buy and take temporary control of and withdraw from the market all unmanageable surpluses, especially of non-perishable goods such as wheat, sugar, and so forth. As I have already indicated, we have followed such a policy in Canada, and in fact we are doing so now. We had a number of similar policies during world war II. However, the device has not been used, shall I say, wholesale or all across the board, or in a general way for the purpose of being able to control prices in this country.
No one would speak of devices such as I have indicated as being "iron controls" unless he was having a nightmare. Depressions and booms could be controlled and practically eliminated by the use of Social Credit financial measures. To go into sufficient detail to establish that thesis would, of course, require far more time than is available either to anyone speaking in this house or to hon. members listening. One has simply to study the whole science of Social Credit with a desire to learn the truth concerning it.
At the same time these measures I have indicated would be used, there would be, as potent aids to the Minister of Finance in his endeavour to control prices both deflationary and inflationary, two other Social Credit financial devices, namely the just price and the national dividend. The just price is obtained

or determined quite scientifically by reference to two considerations. The first is that the aim would be to give the producer the cost of production plus a just profit. The other would be to use what is called the just price factor. I have not time to go into the details pertaining to that matter, but it is fully understood by those who endeavour to learn. The just price factor would enable those managing the economy to determine what should be the compensated discount on prices to bring them down to the place where they ought to be. There would be no dictatorship, no iron controls involved. In fact I think we would find that a large percentage of the control would be exercised by the various elements in society itself.
The labour unions are exercising more and more influence in the conduct of the affairs of the nation, and they are going to do so in the days to come. As they realize that they have more and more responsibility for their own well-being as well as for the wellbeing of all other members of the state, we shall find that they will become far more enlightened and purposeful in all their moves. They will play a considerable part, I believe, in determining economic policy, much as they are doing today.
The Canadian Manufacturers Association are also exercising a potent influence. Other elements of society will exercise a potent influence too, and in due time they will find that, rather than fighting each other, it will be greatly to their advantage to sit around a council table, talk matters over and decide how big the pie is that is to be divided up and how large a part each of them ought to have, and proceed to determine a means whereby each can obtain his equitable share. This is not at all beyond the realm of possibility. In fact even today proposals are being made which are rather far-reaching. One of them was referred to last night by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart).
The national dividend is a means of introducing into the economy of the nation enough purchasing power to enable the people consuming to buy the produce which is on the market. That is, if it is discovered that there is a surplus, issuing the national dividend would be another means of absorbing that surplus and preventing it from causing a fall in prices. Surely anyone who desires to face facts-as I am sure every member of this house today realizes we must-ought to be able to see that there is no element of dictatorship in all of those measures.
The Address-Mr. Blackmore
Opponents of Social Credit will object that Sir Thomas White's dollars under the Finance Act of 1914 were backed by gold, while Social Credit dollars would appear not to be backed by gold.


Mr. Murphy (Westmorland):: What are they backed by?


John Horne Blackmore: The goods and services of the country. That is what they are backed by now. Why do you not listen to what I say?


Henry Joseph Murphy: I listened but I do not understand it.


John Horne Blackmore: Then why do you not pay attention? You never will understand it when you do not get all the particulars. I have just told you that the backing for money today is goods and services. How long will the value of the dollar be maintained, we will say, in buying potatoes if we run short of potatoes? How long will the value of the dollar be maintained in respect of apples if we have a shortage of apples, or how long will the value of the dollar be maintained if we have a great surplus of potatoes or a great surplus of apples? That consideration alone is enough to show that the thing that gives the dollar value is the goods and services available to buy with the dollar; that and the price structure, which of course we have been discussing the means of maintaining in the part of my speech which I have just recently finished giving.


Henry Joseph Murphy: I missed it.


John Horne Blackmore: You just missed it. I am glad you admit that. It is not easy to get these things. I realize that fact. I had to learn these things. It is just about as difficult to learn the fundamentals of Social Credit as it is to learn trigonometry. A person does not learn trigonometry in class by just going and sitting there, especially if he makes up his mind that he is not going to learn it.
Opponents who feel that Sir Thomas White's dollars were all backed by gold will do well to turn to the report of the royal commission on banking and currency in Canada, published in 1933, to which I have already referred. If they will turn to page 21 and read paragraph 46 they will learn that even in 1913, before the introduction of the Finance Act of 1914, the men of those times considered it safe to permit the minister of finance to issue $30 million of notes under the Dominion Notes Act with a backing of accepted guaranteed debentures.
This fact shows quite clearly that they saw that gold was not necessary to support the

The Address-Mr. Blackmore value of a dollar, even back there before they suspended the gold redemption clause in 1933. Those who think that Sir Thomas White's dollars were backed by gold will also do well to read in the report of the royal commission an item to be found at page 22, dealing with the issue of the $50 million to buy goods for Britain. Those $50 million, it was specifically stated in the report, were backed by British treasury bills. Certainly those British treasury bills by no stretch of the imagination meant gold. Britain might have seen fit to clear them off with gold, but generally speaking those treasury bills meant goods and services to be delivered at a later time.
Let those who still think that possibly there was a gold consideration quite prominent in the support of Sir Thomas White's dollars remember that the Bank of Canada's dollars can be supported with bonds just as with gold.


Mr. Low:: And are.


John Horne Blackmore: And are, as the hon. member for Peace River says. When we begin to consider all matters of this kind we shall find that Social Credit is not nearly as harebrained as a good many of its ardent opponents would have people believe. The simple fact is that Social Credit means the scientific solution of the difficulty we are in. It is well for us to know that. It just happens that the men who are guiding the propaganda machine in the Dominion of Canada do not want the people to get to understand Social Credit, because they know that if Social Credit is introduced they will no longer be able to exercise the control they now exercise over the destinies of Canada. Incidentally, they are exactly the same gentlemen who are the originators of communism.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: Of course there were times when I was sufficiently uninformed to think in that way also, but you grow wiser if you study in the right places. The trouble with a number of us youngsters is this. We do not know very much about who are behind communism. Just let us get to work and find out. We shall be quite astonished.
I am sure every member in the house has been rendered really unhappy in the last few days by the number of things we have run up against for which we need a great deal of money which the treasury board says we do not have. There is no one in the house who is not in favour of the introduction of a nation-wide housing plan which would probably produce houses three or four times as quickly and at one-third the cost of the houses we are now building in Canada. But we do


not see where the money is going to come from to build houses as numerous and as cheaply. There is no one in the house who would not favour the introduction of a national hospitalization and health scheme but, while some men will rise and talk enthusiastically for political purposes for the sake of the folks back home, when such a scheme is proposed and comes to a vote they very quietly withhold their support because they just cannot see from where the money is going to come.
As far as a national health scheme is concerned, we have or soon could have all the doctors we need. There is no difficulty in training enough girls to be nurses. There certainly is no lack of materials with which to build hospitals. There is no lack of food and all the other things necessary to improve the health of our people. Why should we say we cannot have a national health scheme? The only reason is we have not the tickets for the goods. That is all. The goods and services are there but we have not the tickets. Who is to say we cannot create the tickets when we have the goods? Some time ago I said that a good definition for a dollar is a ticket to goods.


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


John Horne Blackmore: Gladly.


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


John Horne Blackmore: In the first place I would say that it would so greatly increase the wellbeing of the nation that the tax burden we are now bearing would seem to be relatively easier. Everyone knows that in times of buoyant revenues, buoyant incomes and so forth, as at the peak of prosperity in the war, it was easier to bear taxation. But the answer I would give, without going into too much detail, is that Social Credit is opposed to high taxation and would endeavour, just as rapidly as the goods and services produced in the country would justify, to remove the debt. The debt can be easily paid off. Sir Thomas White could have used any $100 million that he created to pay off $100 million in bonds just as easily as he could have used the money to buy $100 million worth of wheat and other commodities in the war.
The result is that if the time came when a Social Credit administration felt that the wisest use to be made of a given amount of money obtained from monetizing goods and services was to pay off the debt, then by degrees it could do so by simply monetizing,

as Sir Thomas White did, the goods and services of the country and paying off the debt. Taxes would thereby slowly be reduced until the time would come-I will not say how many years it would take; it would depend on conditions, but I would say within a rather comfortable period-when taxation could be abolished entirely.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Horne Blackmore: That may sound very glowing.


Mr. Byrne:: Fantastic.


John Horne Blackmore: But when you remember the tremendous increases in machines and technological skills, the tremendous wealth there is in their output, the tremendous amount of services that are becoming available and will become available; when you remember that you can pay off the debt with goods and services, hon. members must realize that in a nation so bountifully endowed as Canada is with resources of all kinds it is quite ridiculous to think of having a perpetual debt and heavy taxation. The hon. member probably has part of the answer there, so perhaps I might go on to another point. If he wants to ask me another question I will be pleased to answer it.
Everyone in Canada would like to have fine roads. Probably there is no country that needs roads more than we do, or more of them. We have everything necessary for the construction of roads. We can manufacture the machinery. We have all the materials and every single thing that is necessary to make first class roads. The only thing we lack is these tickets, and Sir Thomas White showed quite clearly in the Finance Act of 1914 that they could be made and that as long as their number was kept reasonably within the amount of goods and services available they would cause no inconvenience at all.
Everyone would like to have more irrigation. Everyone would like to have the means to support the unemployed. But though we have all the goods and services necessary, food, clothing, shelter, everything you can name, to support the people in a high degree of comfort, yet we say we have not the money. I should think that would make anyone who came here from Mars or some other place, where they are not hypnotized the way we are, laugh until he was almost beyond self-control.
Let us bear in mind that up to the present time there has not been advanced in this house a hint of a solution of the problem. Two or three of our good C.C.F. friends have held forth in the most impressive terms about
The Address-Mr. Blackmore the difficulties confronting us. They have pointed out that the Liberals have no solution and the Conservatives have no solution. They have let us assume that they have a solution, but they have not shown how their ideas would provide a solution to the difficulties. Suppose we take the great machine the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) was talking about yesterday. Suppose it becomes many times greater, throwing people out of work by the thousands and increasing the productive capacity of industry many times so that the people could not get nearly enough work to obtain wages with which to buy the products of the machine. Suppose the government took over that machine. Would that help to put more men to work? Would it help to put any more money into their hands? Would it help to create and sell more goods?
That is the only solution the C.C.F. have, just government ownership. Surely we must expect these earnest men in the C.C.F.-and they are earnest men

to be quite realistic and up to date in their thinking, and not expect us to believe things which they have not proved.


Angus MacInnis: May I ask my friend a question?


John Horne Blackmore: Gladly. I shall be delighted to have my hon. friend ask questions.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member suggests that the C.C.F. should not be expected to try to make him believe things that have not been proved. Does that apply to what he has said tonight?

because it certainly has not been proved.


John Horne Blackmore: I wonder whether the hon. member came in too late-


Angus MacInnis: Oh, no; I was here all the time.


John Horne Blackmore: -to hear what I said about the Finance Act of 1914. Here is a fine little book which I suggest the hon. member should read. This little book is the report of the royal commission on banking and currency in Canada. It gives all the information necessary for a man of half the intelligence of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) to understand what I have said.


Angus MacInnis: Is it easier than trigonometry?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, it is easier than trigonometry. Otherwise I am sure I would not suggest it to the hon. member.


Mr. MacDougall:: You asked for it, Angus. You have got to read it now.

The Address-Mr. R. Leduc


John Horne Blackmore: I hope to come back later and say a little more about this subject. I think that is probably enough for one lessor!.
(Translation) :


Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer you my best wishes at the beginning of this new year and to tell you how much I admire your industry, your authority, your impartiality and your thorough knowledge of parliamentary procedure.
I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Leduc) who moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne. His speech was remarkable and has ranked him among the most eloquent speakers of this house. And I wish, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the hon. member for Trinity on the able speech he delivered in this house when seconding the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I also wish to point out the important role played by my predecessor, Mr. J. C. Nadon, in this house and more particularly the numerous services he rendered to the county of Gatineau, as member of the legislature and as mayor of the village of Maniwaki, which office he held with great ability and initiative during many years. His memory will live forever among his constituents.
I also wish to congratulate Notary Leon J. Raymond who succeeded me as member for Gatineau in 1945 and who now occupies the important position of Clerk of the House of Commons. This is an honour which reflects not only on him and his family, but also upon the riding which elected him as its representative.
I also wish to congratulate the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for the excellent appointments he made when he chose the Hon. George Marler as Minister of Transport and the Hon. Roch Pinard as Secretary of State. They are both men of great ability, and I wish them the success they deserve in the fulfilment of their duties.
I wish to thank particularly the voters of the county of Gatineau who have done me the honour of electing me to represent them in this house. This is a great honour, because the county of Gatineau is one of the most beautiful in this country, and an important part of this riding is included in the national capital area. Two-thirds of its population is composed of Canadians of French extraction, and one-third of citizens of English origin.


It is a hard-working, intelligent and progressive population, composed mainly of farmers, settlers, lumbermen, civil servants, technicians, teachers, tradesmen, industrialists, etc. Bonne entente and harmony exist between the various racial groups, and they are all justly proud to live in the beautiful county of Gatineau.
My riding is bounded on the west by the Ottawa river and extends to the limits of the counties of Pontiac and Montcalm. To the east lies the county of Labelle, and to the south the county of Hull. Agriculture, forestry, the tourist industry, mining, hydroelectric developments and small industries constitute the main sources of revenue of the inhabitants of this county.
In the southern district of my riding, agriculture is prosperous and farmers enjoy good markets for their produce. In the upper regions and along the Lievre, farmers are organized in agricultural co-operatives, but as they are farther away from large centres, their agricultural industry is less profitable. The farmer, however, appreciates the endeavours of the Canadian government to assist agriculture, and agricultural price support is a great help to farmers.
The farmers in my county are not exclusively interested in agriculture; particularly during the winter months they engage in commercial lumbering on the farms. Lumber and plywood are the most remunerative because the market prices for these are high and there is a great demand for those products; but I cannot say the same concerning the sale of pulpwood, namely spruce, fir and poplar, which are purchased by the large pulp and paper firms. Three large companies purchase pulpwood from farmers and settlers in my county, the E. B. Eddy, of Hull, the Canadian International Paper whose mill is at Gatineau Mills, and the James Maclaren Company's pulpmill at Masson. The price which these companies pay for pulpwood is ridiculous when compared to the price of newsprint and other paper and of building materials made of pulp which are sold by those companies. Such low prices are paid to farmers and settlers because there exists a combine between these companies which exploit the farmers and the settlers to their advantage, and unfortunately this combine has been going on too long.
The Catholic farmers federation of my riding and the representatives of the agricul-

tural co-operatives of the northern section of my county have asked me to condemn this combine so that they may obtain a fair and equitable price for the pulpwood which they sell yearly to those companies and which amounts to an average of one hundred thousand cords per year.
It is my duty, as a member of parliament, to protect and defend the interests of my constituents, and it is particularly my duty to protect the weak and the poor against those wealthy companies which are necessary and to which the province of Quebec has granted very generous forest and hydroelectric concessions so that they may help lumbermen, settlers and farmers, and not exploit them solely to their own benefit.
I would like the essential role played by the lumbermen in the important wood industry to be better known and appreciated. Most of these woodsmen are sons of farmers and settlers in my riding. They are proud people, gay, courageous, intelligent, dexterous and gifted with a surprising physical strength. The woodsman is an untiring worker. He leaves his family and home during weeks and months for the exile of the forest, and he Works hard, not eight hours a day, but from morn until night, six days a week. The woodsmen work often under very difficult circumstances, in rain, snow, mud, etc., and they are often exposed to fatal accidents in the performance of their daily duties. They have no union and they are not paid the salary which they deserve for the important work they perform. They are the ones who, in the forest, supply raw materials to the factories. They deserve our highest admiration. They deserve higher wages and it is about time that the large paper companies should understand the importance and the social role of these honest people and pay them fair wages.
I hold no grudge or personal spite against these companies and even less against their employees, particularly those of the Maniwaki office of the Canadian International Paper, whom I know personally and who are honourable citizens and devoted servants of their company. I am in favour of private enterprise, but I am against abuse by capitalists, and it is the duty of governments to curb the infringements of certain large corporations who are only interested in making profits without bothering about social justice.
The prices paid to farmers and settlers for
The Address-Mr. R. Leduc spruce and fir-$13.50 per cord delivered on the Gatineau or Lievre rivers, the greatest part of those companies' lumber being floated on those two rivers down to the mill-are lower than the prices paid by the same companies to contractors who cut wood on the forest reserves of these companies. Some contractors of the Canadian International Paper and the James Maclaren Company on the Lievre river receive much higher prices to cut the wood on the reserves of those companies. If, to the prices paid the contractors to cut pulpwocfd on the company reserves, you add stumpage dues, protection against forest fires and general overhead expenses, you obtain an amount far above $20 a cord; and yet, the companies agree to give only $13.50 to settlers and farmers for their wood.
I know that these same companies purchase every year in my county over one hundred thousand cords of pulpwood from settlers and farmers, and were they to pay the price which they should equitably pay, the settlers and farmers would receive each year hundreds of thousands of dollars more.
There is one brutal fact to be noted: the higher the prices received by the companies for their newsprint, the less they pay settlers and farmers for pulpwood. The following figures are supplied by the federal bureau of statistics to support those statements:
Price per cord Average value
	(fir and spruce	of a ton
Year	on the Gatineau	of paper
	and Lievre)	at mill
1951	$15.00	$101.481952	14.50	105.221953	13.50	110.051954	13.50	110.03
Hardly surprising, then, that these poor settlers and farmers, -when they realize that they are being exploited every year and that they have not the necessary means to fight adequately such a monopoly, become disheartened and abandon their farms.
Fortunately, there is a federal law, the Combines Investigation Act, which was introduced and passed by the Liberals and which protects the weak against exploitation by monopolies.
This is why I am asking the Minister of Justice to start an investigation immediately, under the Combines Investigation Act, on the operations of the three above-mentioned companies.
(Text):


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, according to the latest figures produced jointly by the dominion bureau of

The Address-Mr. Hees statistics and the federal Department of Labour, unemployment in November last was 42 per cent greater than in November of the year before. Each month in the past year we have seen a very marked increase in unemployment over the corresponding month of the year before; but, hard as it is to believe, despite these facts there is no indication whatsoever in the speech from the throne that this government has any plans for correcting the basic causes of unemployment.
In the speech from the throne suggestions are made that changes will be made in the Unemployment Insurance Act, and in fact yesterday we passed a bill which made some necessary changes, which have been suggested for two or three years past by the official opposition, increasing the rates of supplementary benefits and extending the minimum period of payment.
The government also suggested in the speech from the throne that the public works program would be accelerated; but, as I have said, despite the fact that in every month of the past year unemployment was a great deal higher than in the corresponding month of the year before, there appears to be no indication whatsoever of any plans which this government has for correcting the basic causes of unemployment. It seems that this government intends to persist in its policy of "hope and grope" for the answers which it never does seem to find.
We must ask ourselves whether we are going to look at this thing constructively. What are the reasons we are experiencing considerably more unemployment than a year ago? I believe there are two main reasons. First of all, we may as well face the fact that producers in other countries are beating Canadian producers in price or design or both. They are moving into our domestic and export markets, and their products are receiving ready acceptance among buyers who formerly were quite content to buy Canadian products.
I believe the second reason is the high taxes we are paying. These have added considerably to the selling price of the goods we produce, and are helping very materially to price our goods out of both the domestic and the export market. In addition to the high commodity taxes, the high income taxes that we are all required to pay are making it increasingly difficult for people to buy the goods we are offering for sale. Tonight I should like to examine each of these causes in turn.
First of all, let us have a look at what other countries are doing to lower their costs and improve their designs so that their

steadily increasing sales make it possible for them to take advantage of mass production methods, which in turn lead to lower costs and enable them to sell more and more goods in competition with us in both our domestic and our export markets. These increasing sales of other countries are the main reason Canadian workmen are being laid off and going on short time.
In order to get some idea of what other countries are actually doing, it is only necessary to take a look at their production figures. Take, for instance, Britain. Despite the fact that Great Britain had to make a complete conversion from wartime to peacetime production, Great Britain is turning out 175 per cent of her production in 1938. Despite the fact that West Germany had to rebuild from the rubble of 1945, today that country is producing 170 per cent of the total production of all Germany in 1938. That will give the house some idea of the kind of production effort that is going on in Europe today. The same story is true in varying degrees in France, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium and Holland, and it gives us some idea of the kind of competition we are up against.
Because of the need for those countries to replace a great deal of their industrial plant, they have had of necessity to put in a great many new machine tools. Thus they are able to produce a wide variety of new designs in almost every type of production they have embarked upon. Their almost unbelievable urge to rebuild and produce at the same time has made them willing to work long hours and increase their efficiency to a point where their costs, in almost every instance, are well below ours.
One of the main factors, Mr. Speaker, in this tremendous industrial progress in Europe, in fact also in Japan and in the United States, has been industrial research, aimed at discovering new products and developing new designs and more efficient methods of production. These industrial research programs which have been carried on in these countries have been undertaken on a very large and important scale, and I think it is obvious to every one of us that if we here in Canada are going to keep pace with our competitors, we must embark on a research program of a comparable nature.
It was with this in mind that, at the last session, the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) introduced a resolution urging this government to set up a committee which would include representatives of management, labour and the educational institutions, and would examine the possibilities, and best means of operation, of a greatly

expanded industrial research program. In its work this committee would be guided very largely by the experience in Great Britain and the United States in setting up similar committees, and developing similar programs. But though this suggestion was favourably commented upon by newspapers of every political leaning in almost every part of this country, and though it was favourably commented upon by industrial and labour leaders from coast to coast, this government turned it down.
It did it by very skilfully seeing to it that on a certain day, at a certain time when this measure was to come up for discussion, private members' bills and resolutions were cut oif just before this resolution was due to come forward. This was not just by chance. It was, I believe, because this government knew this resolution was something it could not afford to vote against, and it simply could not bear to see a good and a very much needed measure brought in by the opposition with the opposition receiving credit for it. So, despite the fact that this measure was badly needed, the government, I believe, saw to it that it could not be brought forward.
This year the hon. member for Lambton West has introduced the same resolution; and though I am sorry to see that the government did not have the good sense to introduce this as a measure of its own in the speech from the throne, I hope they will at least allow this measure to come forward this year, and will vote for and adopt it.
The second matter with which I would like to deal tonight is the question of high taxes which are making it very difficult, if not impossible, for certain of our products to be sold both in the domestic and the export markets. This government has always taken the attitude that if you reduce taxes you will lose tax revenue. I say that is by no means necessarily correct, and a very good example of this was shown in the case of the cigarette tax a couple of years ago. The government materially raised the tax, and the consumption of cigarettes dropped off so badly that the total tax revenue decreased to such an extent that the government had to lower the tax again. Then the consumption of cigarettes went up again and the tax intake was restored. If this government will adopt a sensible policy of reducing commodity taxes materially, more of these commodities will be sold, and I believe the total tax revenue will very likely be as great as, or perhaps even greater, than it was before.
Another thing which this government can do is to materially reduce the income tax,
The Address-Mr. Hees because a reduction in the income tax will make it possible for more people to buy more goods. Because of the increased consumption of goods, I believe the loss in tax revenue can easily be made up by more people being employed in producing goods and thereby earning incomes on which they will pay tax, instead of drawing on the government in the form of unemployment insurance benefits. I believe these tax reductions will make it possible to sell more products both in the domestic and the export markets, and will go a long way toward putting a great many of our workmen back at work.
And now, I would like to give an example of how I think industrial research can help establish a new industry. I am going to speak tonight about the potential oil and gas industry in western Canada. We all know that in Alberta, and to a lesser extent in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, we have enormous reserves of gas and oil. In recent years more than $5 billion worth of these reserves have been proved, and we know these are only a small fraction of the reserves which are confidently believed to be present in these areas.
If the incentive for exploration is continued by opening up additional markets, and if that expansion is accompanied by a comprehensive and continued program of industrial research to develop better techniques for processing oil and gas products, I believe we can develop a by-product industry which will be of tremendous importance to western Canada. This will lead to the building of literally dozens of sulphur, chemical, and petrochemical plants, which will require hundreds of millions of dollars worth of capital investment, and will create employment for many, many thousands of Canadians.
In addition to this by-product industry, this would lead to the development in western Canada of a very important steel industry which would use Canadian iron ore as well as coal and gas, and could produce steel pipe and steel casings to be used in thousands of miles of Canadian oil lines across the prairie provinces, and in many Canadian oil wells.
Another example of what research might do to lead to the greater utilization of raw materials would be the development of a more efficient method of producing by-products and hydroelectric power from coal. This could prove very important to Nova Scotia and to western Canada, where our deposits of coal are extremely important indeed. The production of cheap electric power from coal will attract industries to those areas, where industries are badly needed. We all know that industry goes to power; and if we can produce cheap power in those areas, industries

The Address-Mr. Hees will go there, because it is advantageous to them to locate in areas of that kind. Plants which are producing in central Canada at the present time will find it advantageous to put branch plants in the west and the mari-times because their cost of distribution of goods in those areas will be far less than if the goods are produced in central Canada and they have to pay the long freight haul to the maritimes and the west. If we can produce cheap by-products from coal, this will lead to the building up of important by-product industries in those areas, and they in turn will diversify the economy in those areas and make them less dependent on the primary products they produce.
We have another example of what worthwhile research can do in a large industry, in the development of new textile fabrics which would create additional sales for an industry which is hard-pressed at the present time. If, in addition to new textile fabrics, more efficient methods of production were developed, then we could lower our costs and regain our foothold in the competitive textile market.
We have here in Canada an ideal opportunity for tremendous industrial expansion which staggers the imagination. We have almost unlimited supplies of practically every raw material required in industry. We have almost unlimited sources, and potential sources, of hydroelectric power and almost every mineral one can think of, and we can produce enough food in this country to feed several times our present population. We have the capital, and we have proved we have the ability to attract more from outside, without which it would be extremely difficult to carry out large scale expansion. But even more important we have in Canada the brains which are necessary to carry out an expansion of this kind.
This expansion would be greatly aided, I believe, if we did some of the things I have mentioned. We should first of all set up a parliamentary committee to examine the possibility and best means of operating a greatly expanded research program. Second, we should reduce the high taxation which makes it very difficult to sell our products competitively in world markets. If we reduce these taxes we can thereby attract capital for new industry, bearing in mind that unless capital is attracted these new industries simply will not get started.
I would therefore urge this government to stop thinking of curing unemployment merely by making adjustments to the Unemployment Insurance Act and accelerating our public works program, necessary though those measures may be. The problem we are facing

requires far sterner measures. Unemployment is the barometer of economic progress within a country, and when it increases by anywhere from 40 to 100 per cent over the corresponding figures for last year it demonstrates that we are not nearly as healthy economically as we should be. Our exports are down; our domestic sales are dowm. Any businessman will tell you what difficult competitive conditions he has to face.
This government owes it to the country to give a lead in overcoming the basic causes of unemployment. I have suggested two measures the government could readily adopt. I sincerely hope the government will take some heed of what I have said, and give the measures I have suggested some very serious consideration. We in opposition, however, are well aware that this government finds it difficult to accept our suggestions and get moving.
In dealing with the worrying question of unemployment, I think the government should make quite certain that the money it spends in providing employment, and which it has indicated it is going to spend on increased public works, is spent wisely and productively. I believe the government would do well to study the program about to be undertaken by the government of the United States, which is a very large road-building program. I can think of no kind of public work which is more necessary in terms of expansion and development than a well conducted road-building program, because highways play a vitally important part in industrial growth.
I am not suggesting for one moment that the government should embark upon a highway building program. That, as we all know, is the function of the provinces. But the government could place a large proportion of the money it intends to spend on public works in the hands of the provinces, to enable them to undertake a large scale road-building program. Such a program would provide jobs for tomorrow as well as for today, and it would also provide constructive and profitable employment.
The government could also provide employment for many thousands of Canadians for several years ahead by making it possible for more people to buy new houses. The high rate of down payment and high interest charges have today put new houses right out of the reach of the average Canadian. If the government will reduce the down payment to a flat 10 per cent, instead of the present 15 per cent required on the cheapest N.H.A. home, it will make it possible for the average Canadian to make a down payment on a new house. The government should also

reduce the interest rate and bring it closer to the rate it pays the people of Canada for the use of their money. People might then be able to afford the carrying charges on new homes.
The suggestions I have put forward would not cost the taxpayers of this country one single cent, and their implementation would mean the provision of useful and constructive employment for thousands of Canadians. It would also enable the builders of this country to construct thousands of additional homes which are very much needed. I might add in conclusion that the construction of new highways and new homes would provide us with useful national assets for the future, and I would urge the government to give this serious consideration.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, before I came to Ottawa I listened to a number of throne speeches, and having listened to two in Ottawa I am struck by the fact that they have one thing in common. That is that they tend to devote a great deal of their time to telling us what we have already read in the newspapers. One might also imagine the assumption was that members of parliament not merely look but actually are illiterate.
For instance, we were told that we were hosts here in Ottawa to the Colombo plan consultative committee. Most of us, I think, were already well aware of that fact. But I was interested in noting that the government did not have the temerity to put in His Excellency's mouth the information that we were going to increase our grant by the magnificent sum of $1 million. Possibly the luncheon cheque for the consultative committee that the government presumably picked up was too high to allow us to do anything more generous than increase it by $1 million.
Of course, we hear rumours as to why our contribution to that plan is being held within such strict limits. A very well known Canadian editor suggested a few weeks ago that there were elements within the Liberal cabinet which were anxious to deal perhaps more practically and generously with this problem of the development of Asia than certain other members of the cabinet. In fact, it was suggested in that broadcast that a certain well known avuncular figure in this country was actually the Mr. Scrooge who prevented Canada from contributing more generously.
When I heard that broadcast I was reminded of the fact that we in Canada have had a considerable amount of debunking of legendary figures. We had Dr. Brock Chisholm,
The Address-Mr. C. Cameron of course, who got into trouble in debunking Santa Claus. Now we have editors and parliamentary critics pulling the whiskers aside from Santa Claus and showing behind them a much sterner and less benevolent figure than is usually presented to the public of Canada. All in all, if this goes on Canada is going to be in a bad way for fairy tales. We shall have no avuncular figure, no Santa Claus; we shall have just hard, cold, cruel facts in a hard, cold, cruel political world.
Before the throne speech was finished, after going half-way through telling us what we already knew, it began to embark on mild prophecies for the future. It starts first of all with the government's projected increase in the war veterans allowance. I suppose everyone in this chamber was greatly relieved to hear that. But do you remember, Mr. Speaker, the number of speeches made in this chamber urging this very same government-and it is the same government, except for a few defections in the meantime-to implement some improvements to the War Veterans Allowance Act, and how we were told it could not be done? I wonder whether our new Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) would care to stand up in the house and tell us that we can afford it this year but we could not afford it last year? Or is the explanation perhaps a rather grimmer one? Is it that the problem of war veterans year by year becomes a less expensive financial proposition for the Canadian people to carry? If that is the case, all I can say is that the government should be consistent and go on refusing, and the problem will solve itself.
Again, of course, one heard last year that the same restraining force operated in the cabinet to prevent that generous action which is now being taken. It may or it may not be true. However, we know that many of those who would have benefited last year if this government had taken this action will not be with us this year to benefit from it. That is something I think every member of the Liberal party should search his conscience about. Every member of the Liberal party should bear in mind the fact that there were many veterans who would have benefited last year but who are now no longer with us to take advantage of this proposal.
We have another prophecy of action on the part of our government in the future, which action we have already taken in this chamber. That is, of course, the improvement to the Unemployment Insurance Act, if indeed "improvement" is the word we should use. There has been a slight relaxation of the terms of that act in order to deal, over a short period, with the problems it is meant to cope with.

The Address

Mr. C. Cameron Again we have a strange spectacle, Mr. Speaker. I also remember the number of speeches that were made last year in this chamber urging this self-same government to take this action at that time. One can only conclude that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) was correct the other day when he suggested that the reason the government has now decided that something must be done is that there are more voices raised in protest this year than there were last year; and of course the more voices that are raised in protest, the more political danger there is for our government. So again we have a question of the government being pushed after delaying for one year, and offering no logical explanation now for dealing with this problem that was also with us last year.
When I see the way in which they deal with the unemployment problem I am rather reminded of the old gag they used to have about the Russians who were being pursued. This was in the days before the bolsheviks, in the days of the grand dukes and the troikas. You remember they were being pursued by wolves and the watchword was "throw out another baby". Of course, eventually they came to the end of the babies and the wolves were snapping at their heels. In spite of all the mild palliatives in the Unemployment Insurance Act, I suggest that the wolves of economic depression will still be snapping at our heels next year or in fact before next year rolls around.
During the course of this debate one suggestion was made which interested me greatly. That was the Suggestion by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) to the effect that we should depart from the policy pursued by this government in this matter of housing and protect not only the lending institutions but those who make down payments on buildings under the National Housing Act. I am glad to offer my voice in support of that suggestion, although I would remind the house, and those who were members of the banking and commerce committee last year, that we raised the question in the committee last year but neither the hon. member for Spadina nor any of his Liberal colleagues thought that it was a good idea at that time. I can see no particular technical difficulties involved in ensuring that the person who purchases a house under the National Housing Act shall be assured of retaining his equity or at least his equity minus some possible deductions for rental for any term of occupancy he may have had with regard to the premises. Personally I think that can be done. But, as with all the other measures this government introduces


for the benefit of the people of Canada, I suppose we shall have to wait at least twelve months before they get around to doing it.
So much for what is in the throne speech. I want to spend a few moments before I sit down on a matter that I think perhaps is of more fundamental importance to us than even these serious questions of unemployment, the plight of the war veterans and the problem of housing in Canada. Some while ago I noticed an article in a periodical for which I have not a particularly high regard, but the article was of such striking importance that I did some investigation on it in order to fmd out whether or not it was merely, shall we say, some loose talking by Time magazine.
Some hon. members have probably read the article to which I refer. It appeared last month. It was a rather disturbing article describing a paper that was read before the French Academy of Sciences by a young physicist by the name of Charles Noel Martin, sponsored by a man who is probably the leading physicist in Europe and a Nobel prize winner, namely Prince Louis de Broglie. In this paper this young man charged that there was a conspiracy of silence throughout the world as to the possible and probable results of continued experimentation with H-bombs in the world. He suggested that there were a number of extremely dangerous possibilities.
The first one he listed was the danger of permanent and deleterious effects on our climate. When I read that suggestion I remembered that just before I left England in November of last year Professor Frederick Soddy, another Nobel prize winner, had a letter in the London Times, in which he denounced as irresponsible those scientists who were claiming that there was no possible connection between our rather deplorable climatic conditions that have obtained over the last twelve months or so and these heavy thermonuclear explosions in different parts of the world. Professor Soddy pointed out that by means of those explosions we are doing on a gigantic scale the sort of thing that so-called rainmakers do on a small scale with their limited facilities.
This young man who presented the paper to the French Academy of Sciences pointed out that in the last two years there have been approximately ten hydrogen bombs exploded in different parts of the world, each of which is equal to from 1,000 to 2,500 times the strength of the A-bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The most important danger foreseen by this young man, supported by Prince Louis de Broglie and other scientific experts, has been the danger of long-continuing or in fact permanent damage to the genetic inheritance of human beings.

Today, right here in the city of Ottawa, I was talking to a young man who is a survivor of the bombing of Hiroshima. This young man tells me that even now, ten years after the bombing, he has to report once a week for a medical check-up and a blood count. When I was speaking to him today he told me of the number of people who have died many years after that explosion, of children who were born, in some cases some years after the explosion, who have not lived to survive, perhaps mercifully, because they probably would have survived as extremely defective human beings.
I received from the Japanese embassy a document that has just been produced by the atomic bomb injuries investigating committee on the case history of one of the Japanese fishermen who was dusted, as they call it, with atomic fall-out from the Bikini trials of March 1 of last year. This man, Aikichi Kuboyama, died in September, and this document says in part:
A series of announcements have been made from time to time by the authorities concerned regarding the incident and the unfortunate victims. Kubo-yama's death, however, gave rise to a wave of charges and counter-charges, of rumours and speculations, over the treatment of the affected fishermen and the probable cause of the Kuboyama demise.
There is need to clear the air of misunderstanding, and a summary of the medical facts known to date of the twenty-three victims should serve that end.
Here is what they found when they examined them, and these were examinations conducted by both Japanese and American medical men. They found that the disease was acute radiation sickness, that such external injuries as depilation-hairlessness-* dermatitis, skin ulcers, pustules, blisters and necrosis were noticeable on the head and the upper part of the bodies of all patients at the time they were hospitalized.
I see some hon. members smiling over this. To me it is quite shocking that anyone can consider these appalling dangers as in any way amusing. As a matter of fact there is no one in this chamber with the knowledge to deny the actuality of these dangers. Yet throughout the world people are turning a deaf ear to those who can tell us of the grave dangers of permanent genetic damage to the human race. That to my mind, Mr. Speaker, is the ultimate blasphemy.
Men have destroyed themselves and each other with varying degrees of cruelty all through recorded history, but it has been left for this age and this generation to destroy generations yet unborn, to condemn them to being born defective physically, mentally, or both. These are real dangers, so those who know tell us.
The Address-Mr. C. Cameron
I would not have brought up this matter if I had not had some idea of a practical suggestion for dealing with the question. I am not going to suggest anything so naive as begging the three culprit nations to desist. The United States, the Soviet union and Great Britain can only be described as culprit nations who are persisting in these unnecessary and dangerous experiments. I am, however, taking a leaf out of the book of Bertrand, Lord Russell, the famous scientist and philosopher of Great Britain, who not long ago, you may remember, wrote an article in which he suggested a method by which the final descent into atomic war might be prevented. He suggested the appointment of a committee of scientists to draw up an objective statement of the results of atomic war.
I wish the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) were here, because I think perhaps one should occasionally wound his feelings as we did last year. I am suggesting that here is something Canada can do to retrieve Canada's rather inglorious record in international affairs in the last ten years. Here is something practical our delegates to the United Nations can do. They can move for the setting up of a committee of competent scientists, physicists, biologists, psychologists and medical men to give us a report on the probable, possible and certain results of the continued explosion of hydrogen bombs in the world.
It may be objected that we cannot find out exactly what strength of bomb has been used or is going to be used. I do not believe that for one moment. I have not the slightest doubt that every person in the world who is competent to understand-and it is a very small number of people-is fully aware of the magnitude of the explosions that have taken place in the Soviet union, in Australia and in the south Pacific. They know, at least within near enough limits, what forces they have to examine the results. I would suggest that if our delegates at the United Nations would call for the appointment of suich a committee, and if such a committee were to present its report to the world, then no government would dare to continue with these experiments,, which are unnecessary from the point of view of proving the efficacy of this devilish weapon whose dangers, according to those people who know, may very well result in the complete degeneration of the human species.
I think if our delegates at the United Nations were to do that it might well be that Canada's place in the niche of history would be a more resplendent one than it has been to date or will be by burying our

The Address-Mr. Hanna heads in the sand and pretending that these dangers do not exist. I offer that as a very serious suggestion to our government before the next meeting of the United Nations in New York.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: Mr. Speaker, like other members who have spoken before me I too should like to offer congratulations to the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for the very fine job they have done.
At the outset I should like to make a brief reference to some events connected with the province, and particularly the city, from which I come and which I have the honour to represent. During the past year both the province of Alberta and the city of Edmonton have continued to grow and develop at a steadily accelerating pace. In every branch of that growth and development that I can think of new records have been set. The population is still growing in both Edmonton and Alberta generally, and industrialization is increasing very rapidly and along the soundest possible lines.
This gives us a growing sense of pride in our city and our province, not only because we like our community to grow and prosper but more especially because of the effect these conditions are bound to have on the economy of the whole Canadian nation. A strong and growing Edmonton and a strong and growing Alberta make for a strong and growing Canada.
These conditions of progress which we are experiencing in full measure in Alberta are, fortunately fqr all of us, fairly general throughout the whole of Canada. Small wonder then that we Canadians sing with justifiable and ever-increasing pride:
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The true north, strong and free.
Last fall Edmonton celebrated its golden jubilee as a city. The occasion was marked by a pageant, which gave a stirring review of the events of the past fifty years and the role of the many pioneers who have carried the city of Edmonton forward to her present greatness. To further accentuate the keynote of progress, work has commenced on the erection of a new city hall which will be a structure appropriate to the greatness of the city. I was glad that on the occasion of the dedication of the site for the new city hall two federal ministers of the crown were present, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) and the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham), together with provincial and civic representatives. The presence of two federal cabinet ministers there on that occasion helped to

emphasize what I have in mind, namely that progress in any or all the different parts of Canada is an enhancement of the nation as a whole.
During the present year the province of Alberta will celebrate its golden jubilee, and once again the occasion will be suitably observed. Her sister province of Saskatchewan, another gem in the illustrious array of the ten provinces of Canada, will likewise celebrate its fiftieth anniversary. Both these provinces were brought into being by the federal Liberal government in 1905, and both have achieved remarkable progress in the past 50 years. It can, I believe, be truly said of the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as it was said of the original fathers of confederation:	Divine Providence being their
guide, they builded better than they knew.
While there is not time for me to mention, much less to enlarge upon, all the particular items which have contributed to Alberta's prosperity, I think it is only right for me to say that the greatest of these developments has been the vast petrochemical industry, which is located in the federal riding of Edmonton-Strathcona.
I believe I would be pardoned if I made reference to the well known fact that Edmonton is now the home of the famous and much sought 'after Grey cup. Other hon. members, particularly those from the east, may be interested in learning that all possible precautions are being taken to keep it there. Personally I can think of no finer setting for such an outstanding trophy of sport. We won it in 1954 to celebrate Edmonton's golden jubilee and we hope to win it again in 1955 to celebrate Alberta's golden jubilee.
Another outstanding event scheduled for 1955 is the completion of arrangements to bring Alberta natural gas to the cities of eastern Canada, as well as to the west coast. Both east and west already are enjoying the benefits of Alberta oil. We are glad that both will soon enjoy the incomparable service of Alberta natural gas.
And so, Mr. Speaker, the Grey cup moves west and Alberta oil and gas go east. What more tangible evidence could there be of our growing national strength in all parts of the country? What better demonstration could we have of our ever-growing national unity? This is the sort of thing which adds immensely to the strengthening of our national ties, which all true Canadians so ardently desire.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne gives promise of many things that are dear

to the hearts of Canadians. It makes reference to peace, progress and humanity, all of which the government will endeavour to promote further during this session of parliament. I was particularly gratified to hear that measures are being taken to relieve the necessitous circumstances in which many of our older veterans and widows of veterans find themselves. Veterans' organizations, such as the Canadian Legion, are to be commended for keeping the plight of these people to the fore, and the government is to be congratulated on its recognition that there is need for some improvement in their situation. I am sure all hon. members will look forward with keen interest to the detailed proposals, which will be brought forward later on in the matter of the war veterans allowance.
Likewise the government is to be very highly commended for its proposed amendments to the Blind Persons Act. The amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which we have just passed are most timely. Various measures placed on the statute books by this government for the relief of need and suffering are models of humanitarianism, and as such are strongly supported by the majority of Canadians.
Along humanitarian lines, too, is the proposal to increase aid under the Colombo plan. I find Canadians everywhere full of enthusiasm for this splendid program which our government helped bring into existence. To lend a helping hand to those in need is always worth while. To show less fortunate peoples a better way than communism is, I am sure, in our best interests as well as theirs.
I believe that all hon. members, especially those who have had some direct association with municipal affairs, will welcome the proposals to re-examine the Municipal Grants Act. Our growing development, and indeed prosperity, in Canada have produced some very acute problems for our municipal governments. Because our municipalities render services to federal government property, I have long felt that they are in justice entitled to adequate payment for those services.
Grants in lieu of full taxation on federal property would be a blessing to many municipalities which are heavily burdened with the rising costs of education. I realize that constitutionally education is a provincial problem, but I am most anxious that the federal government make some contribution to help the hard pressed municipalities of this country. I believe the real soluton to the problems of all three levels of government is to place all three of them in a
The Address-Mr. Hanna financial position to discharge their responsibilities. Unfortunately for our municipal governments they seem to be the ones in the most difficult position financially, and they are least able of the three to correct the situation.
Likewise, those Canadians responsible for our municipal government will be relieved to learn of the proposal to increase the grade crossing fund. The slowing up of our commerce because of grade crossings, and the rising toll of accidents at them, gives this problem a top priority. As Canada grows the grade crossing problem also grows. I am confident that this house will act swiftly to translate proposals along this line into action. More separated grade crossings will not only reduce accidents but will give employment as well. I will admit frankly that we need more separated grade crossings at Edmonton, and we need them immediately.
As an Albertan I would like to say that we rejoice in the steps that have been taken to make the St. Lawrence seaway a reality. It may, we hope, help us with our freight rate problem, which we in the west feel very keenly. But apart from that we are convinced that this great project is in the best interests of the Canadian nation as a whole, and what helps Canada forward will surely and inevitably help Alberta, just as truly as what helps Alberta also helps Canada. Being good Canadians, Albertans encourage and support any measure that helps build a greater and a better Canada.
I would like to digress for a moment to express appreciation to two departments of the government that have recently made announcements of particular interest to my constituency. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) has recently announced, in conjunction with the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham), a decision that will give Edmonton a new major civilian airport. Some hon. members may be surprised to hear this, since the existing Edmonton airport has become justly famous both far and wide. But things happen fast in Edmonton these days. And so it is that just as surely as we have lived up to our slogan, "Aerial Crossroads of the World", inevitably, the increasing air traffic has outgrown the crossroads. In order to maintain her role in the national economy Edmonton's famous airport finds it necessary to move to a new and larger site, just as many prosperous businesses are doing all over the country. Air transport is developing so rapidly that I respectfully urge the minister to take all possible measures to arrange for the new location as soon as possible. I urge this matter not only in the interests of the city but in the national interest as well.



The Address-Mr. Hanna
The other minister whom I would like to compliment is the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), who recently announced that the thriving town of Fort Saskatchewan is to have a proper post office. The thousands of people whom this new post office will serve will be most grateful for this development.
This evening we have all enjoyed, because some hon. members gave evidence of it, the exposition of the Social Credit technique by the financial spokesman for the Social Credit party. I think we can take it that the views expressed by the hon. member for Lethbridge represent the official views of the Social Credit party, since I have never heard any of their members deny those particular views that were outlined this evening. I wonder how the party leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), reconciles the views we heard this evening with his statement the other day that his party is the real free enterprise party. How can he reconcile a government-dictated price structure with free enterprise? I should like to hear him deal with that subject. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that he can only have a government-dictated price system under a dictatorship.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Give us the
page and then we can read it at our leisure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: The theory outlined by the hon. member could only be made to work under a dictatorship.
We heard a great deal this evening about tickets, and that there were not enough tickets to go around. I should like to display a real Social Credit ticket, Mr. Speaker. It is called a prosperity certificate. These prosperity certificates, so-called, were issued by the Social Credit government of Alberta. This one is dated August 5, 1936. I should like to read into the record what it says on its face:
The provincial treasurer will pay to the bearer the sum oi one dollar on the expiration of two years from date of issue hereof upon presentation hereof provided there are then attached to the back hereof one hundred and four one cent certificate stamps.
On the back there are 104 spaces dated for the 104 stamps.


Charles Edward Johnston: Perhaps you
would not know it, but it fed a lot of hungry people in those days.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: There is only one stamp on this one, Mr. Speaker. Apparently the owner got discouraged after putting on one stamp, and he kept it as a souvenir and treasures it very much at the present time.

I think it will be apparent to most hon. members that it was really a gigantic taxation scheme. These prosperity certificates were used to pay civil servants. You gave a dollar's worth of service and you got one of these; and then, according to the face of it, you got a dollar when you had paid 104 cents over a two-year period. Needless to say these were not in circulation for the expected two-year period. They were rejected entirely by the people of Alberta, Social Credit and non-Social Credit alike.


Mr. Hansell:: To make the matter clear,
would my hon. friend care to tell the house whether any of these certificates were presented for payment and not redeemed?


Charles Edward Johnston: He would not know that.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: I would like to complete my speech; then the hon. member for Macleod can continue and tell the house the rest of the story, if I have omitted anything about the Social Credit certificates.


Charles Edward Johnston: What page are you on?


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: Much is being said these days about the level of taxation. Most of us on this side of the house at any rate realize that if the government is to keep up its social service program and in fact keep increasing it in response to so many demands, it simply has to be paid for. I am not one of those who like my Social Credit colleagues across the way, think all we have to do is print the money.


Charles Edward Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand that the hon. member for Bow River is rising on a point of order.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is it permissible for hon. members to read their speeches? If the hon. member is reading his, would you be kind enough to direct him not to do so? I am asking for a ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All hon. members know that it is not permissible to read speeches in the house. All hon. members also realize that from this distance it is impossible for me to ascertain whether an hon. member is reading his speech. I must rely on the hon. member who has the floor, and I am sure if he continues he will have given me his assurance that he is not reading his speech.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am sure he would never tell you he was reading it.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: If we can with safety spend less on national defence, or if through increased efficiency we can lower the cost of

government, or if by any other reasonable means taxation can be lowered, then I am all for it.
I would like to congratulate the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) on his appointment. I am sure all hon. members earnestly wish him much success in the very difficult job he has in hand. The hon. member for Lethbridge certainly made it look easy for him this evening. We would print enough money to pay off the national debt, and we would eventually abolish taxation. It is a neat trick if it can be done.
I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that the speech from the throne gives no encouragement to the prophets of gloom who somehow or other always manage to see troublous times ahead. We have a lot of these people forecasting blue ruin for us today. The opposition parties seem to be always speaking in that vein, both in the chamber and out of it; but in spite of what they say Canada has prospered mightily during the last 20 years of Liberal government. This government, under the inspiring leadership of our great Prime Minister, is solidly based in the hearts and minds of the Canadian people. I venture to predict it will stay there as long as the opposition parties have nothing better to offer the Canadian people than gloomy forebodings of the future, or some government-dictated economic system that would inevitably and certainly deprive us of our freedom.
(Translation) :


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention during this session to shirk my duty any more than I did during the first session of this twenty-second parliament. My colleagues of the house may rest assured that I shall take part in the debates whenever, in my humble opinion, I should do so in the interest of Canada, of my province, and more particularly of my constituency and of my city. I shall always do so with the same feeling of pride; I will thus fulfil the only promise I ever made to the electors of my constituency, namely that I would give them a yearly report-in keeping with the excellent tradition I have set- on the mandate they so generously gave me on August 10, 1953.
At the end of the current session I shall feel deeply confident that I have shown once again to the electors of Quebec West that I have not been unworthy of their confidence, since I will again have had the opportunity of proving that I have conscientiously defended their interests in Canada's parliament. As in the past, I will then have the great and noble satisfaction of having done 50433-15
The Address-Mr. Dufresne my duty. May I be allowed to extend to the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne my sincere congratulations on their magnificent and successful oratorical effort. Both of them, in a very audible voice and with a good delivery, succeeded, though they had very little to speak about, in sustaining our interest for quite some time. Needless to say that their skill resided mainly in the compliments they chose to pay to those who, regarding themselves as gods, worthy of worship because they are in power, contributed largely to their ascension in this house.
I would like also to extend to Mr. Speaker, whose absence from the chair I regret, my most sincere congratulations on the various improvements which have been brought about and which will henceforth benefit all members of this parliament. Our offices are spotlessly clean. Thanks to Mr. Speaker, nobody will be able to seek an excuse for his indifference and his laxity, as our bright quarters are for us an inspiration to work. I must also mention the true improvement represented by the new parliamentary post office, in respect to which Mr. Speaker has attended to the least detail. Finally, it is with immense satisfaction that I mention the perfectly bilingual signs which are a credit to him, and reflect the spirit of understanding which characterizes him. His intention, no doubt, in doing so, was to stress the bilingual character of this parliament and of his country. Once again, my warmest congratulations to Mr. Speaker.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, so far as the acting leader of the official opposition, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), is concerned, the press throughout Canada has acknowledged his ability to carry out his duties. I agree with them. The results of his long experience are already evident, as well as his sincerity and desire to serve and the true interest he brings to the problems of this country. Those of us who have the privilege of knowing him realize more and more what an asset he is to the Canadian nation at this time, and the contribution he is making to our party as acting leader.
There is no member of this house, no matter what his political affiliation may be, who would care to be accused of ingratitude. We say that ingratitude is the monopoly of children. I do hope that everyone in this house has attained his maturity. I have been deeply affected by the serious illness of my respected and venerated leader, the Leader

The Address-Mr. Dufresne of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). All the members of our party deeply deplore the necessity for the absence of that great statesman whose generous contribution and service to our nation has always been a great inspiration to all of us. I feel that there is an emptiness in this house which will be filled only on that day which we all hope is near at hand when with restored health and full vigour the Leader of the Opposition again takes his seat in this house.
I want to take advantage of this occasion to state my full appreciation of the kindness, concern and generosity of the Leader of the Opposition when tragedy struck my home last winter. I humbly acknowledge that without the prayers of the people of my riding, without the help of medical science that came from many parts of the country, and without the advice and help of my chief my wife would not have survived. Since the day on which my chief was so suddenly stricken my wife and I have never ceased to send to heaven our humble prayers asking Providence to bring him back to complete recovery.
The magnificent work he has begun is by no means ended, and the role he presently plays and will be called upon to play in Canadian and international fields must not end. We are happy to learn of his recovery and we express our wishes for his early return.
If no one has any objection I can keep on, but if there is objection from any part of the house I can move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to proceed?


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


Walter Edward Harris: I understand that my hon. friend will complete his remarks shortly.
(Translation) :


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, with no further ado, I wish to state my opinion on this long, interminable piece de resistance which Her Majesty's representative was forced to read to us and which is called the speech from the throne. On close and repeated examination it reveals itself as what it really is, that is to say, a flood of words in a desert of ideas, and nothing else.
A group of men who believe themselves to be serious, who make up the Canadian cabinet and upon whom devolves the responsibility for drafting this speech have nothing to offer but this endless avalanche of words containing no new ideas except

those borrowed from representations and suggestions put forward by Progressive Conservative members in the course of previous sessions. Looking directly at the Liberal members across the way I do feel moved to exclaim: All's quiet on the horizon!
Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity of making a very modest but sincere contribution to the debate at the resolution stage of legislation designed to extend the period for payment of insurance benefits to those who have a legal right to receive such benefits. I said then, and I repeat it now, that those workers who have had to suffer, over the years, from the running sore of unemployment-not regional nor seasonal, but permanent

are not satisfied with the application of this innocuous poultice to a gaping wound.
(Text):


Mr. Lesage:: The hon. member is referring to a bill which was passed last night.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: We spoke only on the resolution. I am just referring to my own speech, and there is no rule of the house which would prevent me from doing that.


Jean Lesage: The hon. member was not here when the bill was passed last night.
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I am of course speaking of unemployment and I must say that, in view of its disquieting spread, the application of a poultice has now become insufficient. The government is ill-advised to bring but slight relief.
In order to create a feeling of satisfaction, which will only be temporary, in order to give hope to those who, with their family, experience great hardships at this time because of unemployment, the speech from the throne proposes that an increased subsidy be voted to the departments concerned for use in more elaborate public works.
What will be the nature of these works? No one knows and the speech from the throne casts no light on the matter. Aware of the constant policy of inaction of the Liberal party, I believe I am not mistaken in stating that these works will consist, as always, in contracts being awarded to certain contractors.
There is nothing in all that, Mr. Speaker, to remedy the alarming conditions which must face the workers who are presently living a life of anxiety that one can easily imagine.
This Liberal government is the one responsible for the economic depression we are now going through and it must not shirk the responsibility which rests upon it to check

that depression as soon as possible. Now more than ever is the time to give up its policy of inaction which traditionally has been that of the Liberal party and to replace it with a policy fitted to the urgent needs of the day, or to leave the economic recovery of our country to those who are better disposed to remedy such ills.
The public works program must be national in scope since we find that unemployment is at the epidemic stage all over the country. As far as my county and the city of Quebec are concerned, the needs have been obvious for a number of years and the Liberal politicians have always failed to resort to the solution which had been requested earnestly and very often by every important public body in the old capital city.
To my mind-and I am voicing here the general opinion of the people of Quebec-the deepening of the St. Charles river, the works to prevent the pollution of the Lairet river, and the removing of railway crossings are the only projects which could bring relief to those who seek work.
However, I warn the government against political discrimination which, much too often, comes into the picture when those works are undertaken. All allegiances must be put aside in order to give employment to those who have an absolute need of it. I never heard it said that distress and hunger had a particular political colour.
I take the liberty of submitting to the house that at Christmastime, all public men in my county, putting aside political affiliations, acted together in order to provide many needy families with the food they required to spend a cheerful Christmas. Our only concern then was to feed those who were really in need. Such an example should inspire in the future those who sit on the other side.
It is very interesting to note the amount the government will spend for the unemployed in the form of public works. Will that amount be sufficient to deal satisfactorily with the problem or so insignificant that only a few will be prevented from dying of hunger?
I am expecting the answer that will be forthcoming from the government after a while, that they were unable to do better, because the appropriations did not allow for such a large expenditure.
I dare hope that the colossal joke of 1939 will not be repeated in 1955; nobody would take it seriously anyway.
I cannot forget this absurd answer made by the late Mackenzie King, then Liberal prime minister of Canada, to the then gov-50433- I5i
The Address-Mr. Dufresne ernment of Quebec, which was asking, and quite legitimately so, for a $30 million grant to check prevailing unemployment, which brought so much distress to the homes and souls of our workers.
The authorities of the government of Quebec got a definite no, as an answer, and the prime minister added:	"We have no
money".
However, hardly two months later, Canada hastened to declare war on Germany. And what happened then? The federal government opened wide the treasury and millions and billions of dollars were spent with that well known prodigality. We were told that we had to set up a powerful army that would fight on the battlefields of Europe in the defence of Christianity and civilization. Mr. Speaker, civilization was already threatened at home. Our people had been going hungry for a long time through lack of employment. Civilization had lost its true meaning because in a country like ours, possessing unlimited resources, a terrible depression had fallen upon us in the manner of plagues and calamities.
Government-controlled war plants mushroomed and munition manufacturers rejoiced at the thought of making enormous sums of money at the expense of our sons' blood.
Our lavishness went as far as making loans of billions of dollars to other countries, without interest, while the debtor nations lost no time in lending that money to other faraway countries, but with interest.
You must have noted, Mr. Speaker, that two months previously, a few millions could not be found to undertake, in Quebec, public works which would have taken us out of the misery in which the poor administration of the government had thrown thousands of families. The working people of Quebec were not then asking for charity, through the government of their province, any more than they are begging for it now; all they wanted was to earn the income necessary and essential to provide for themselves and their families.
We did not have a few million dollars for living works, but we were throwing away countless billions to propagate death. Nevertheless I must state unequivocally, though regretfully, that the only times during which our people have known any kind of prosperity, even of the most fictitious sort, were those during which nations were at each other's throats and Canada was sacrificing on the battlefields a part, the best part I should say, of that youth upon which we had laid our fondest hopes for the future.

The Address-Mr. Dufresne
That is a nonsensical situation. It is our duty to put an end to this as soon as possible. Consciously or not we are rushing headlong into tragedy, or else we are quickly moving towards a damnable ideology which on the other hand we would be prepared, possibly, to fight at the cost of heavy sacrifice. Since the government seem to believe that unemployment is entirely within their jurisdiction, I will say to them, with that frankness which is a characteristic of mine: "All right, mind your own business, but do mind it seriously!"
The speech from the throne announces that amendments will be made to the War Veterans Allowance Act in order to raise the basic rates as well as the ceiling on permissible incomes of recipients of allowances. It has finally dawned upon the government, Mr. Speaker, that it was time to improve the fate of those who, having left behind country, home, folks and friends, besides risking then-lives for the protection of Canada, came back crippled in one way or another or in failing health. This government cannot claim credit for this increase, for I know that the war veterans will prove their gratitude to the Progressive Conservative party. If at last they are given a recognition which will never equal the sacrifices they have made, they will owe it to all of those who, on this side of the house, have never ceased to plead in their behalf.
I should also like to speak on behalf of the veterans of the first world war who today, having reached a certain age, deserve as much consideration, since they made the same sacrifices in 1914-18. I therefore hope that they will not be forgotten.
It might be in order to remind the minister concerned that the humane thing to do would be to order that these veterans of the 191418 war, whose pension is insufficient, or those who get no pension at all, be employed in the corps of commissionaires or at any other such work. I would be the first to congratulate him for such a move if he were to agree to my suggestion.
Mr. Speaker, all the people in the province of Quebec regret that the government has seen fit not to mention in the speech from the throne the possibility-
(Text):


Jean Lesage: I object to continuing after this time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that the minister is rising on a point of order. It leaves me in considerable difficulty in that at ten o'clock, when I attempted to put the motion of the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) adjourning the debate, unanimous consent was apparently given to his continuing. I understood that to mean consent to his continuing until he finished. As hon. members will recall, he had given the assurance that he would be finished in a few minutes. Therefore, it leaves me in considerable difficulty as to how long was intended by the house. Perhaps the hon. gentleman might be willing at this time to move the adjournment of the debate.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If it is the wish of the house I can keep on; but if there is any objection, I will move the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
On motion of Mr. Dufresne the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we shall continue on Monday with this debate. I would hope that we might find it possible to wind up this debate some time next week.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.14 p.m.

Monday, January 17, 1955