1955-01-19

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has the minister read the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau) during which very serious accusations were made against-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Léon Balcer: -the deputy postmaster general, and what steps will he take to make certain that such behaviour ceases immediately?


Mr. Dufresne:: That is a good one.


Hon. Alcide Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was not in the house when the speech referred to was made, and I have not yet had time to read it. I will do so and thereafter will be in a position to decide if a statement should be made.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works a question. Can the minister enlarge upon the report that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is currently refusing to approve loans on housing located within a one mile radius of airports?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I may say that each request for a loan is treated on its individual merits, but if I may take this question as notice I will be glad to answer it more fully at a later date.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the second part of the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau), which I did not hear. He was referring to the proposed Winnipeg public building and asked:
Second, would he confirm or deny that the Foundation Company of Canada made a further request for a grant beyond the firm price agreed upon in the fall of 1954?
The answer is that to the best of my knowledge and to the best knowledge of the officials of the department, no such request has been made.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, to clarify rumours now current, would the Minister of Trade and Commerce state whether it is now the intention of the government to facilitate the financing of the all-Canadian gas pipe line by a government guarantee of principal and interest of bonds issued by the pipe-line company?
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, the government has taken no action along that line. If and when action is taken I shall be glad to make an announcement.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-HANDLING OF FLAX AND RYE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the government received any request to have the Canadian wheat board handle flax and rye in addition to those grains already under
330	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the control of the board? If so, what steps does the government intend to take to implement this request before the new crop year?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes. Representations have been received from various farm organizations from time to time requesting the government to assume responsibility for marketing flax and rye. However, it has been the view of the government that the wheat board is fully occupied with its responsibilities in marketing the three major crops, wheat, oats, and barley, and it has not been disposed to ask the board to take on the two small crops of flax and rye. Officials doubt whether they could do a very much better job than is being done with those crops on the open market.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, January 14, I asked the Prime Minister if he had any information with regard to the possible transfer of responsibility for the northwest highway from the Department of National Defence to some other department. I wonder if he is now in a position to answer.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry I did not state positively at that time that no such decision had been taken. I make that positive statement now.



CANADIAN PACIFIC AIR LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Transport say what has happened to the application of the Canadian Pacific Air Lines in regard to the granting of a licence to operate an air line in the trans-polar region, and when a decision is expected, if it has not already been given?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I might answer the hon. member by saying that the matter is under consideration, and I hope it will be possible to make a decision at an early date.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to ask a question supplementary to the one I just asked the


Minister of Transport. Has any other air company made application for a route across the trans-polar areas or has any objection been raised to the granting of a licence to Canadian Pacific Air Lines, the objection being raised by Trans-Canada Air Lines?


George Carlyle Marler: The answer to both questions is no.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question asked yesterday on the orders of the day by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) regarding the recent regrettable air accident near Crumlin airport. His question was:
Has the minister looked into two facts which have been reported in connection with this tragedy; the first being that there was a failure of power at the airport and no indication that there were in use at that time any auxiliary or mobile lights or such other equipment; secondly, that there was a delay of more than an hour before the stretcher party arrived at the scene of the accident from the airport?
Perhaps I might first mention that it was announced yesterday that a board of inquiry would be nominated within a few days to hold a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the accident. I do not wish to anticipate any of the facts that may be determined by the inquiry, but should like to give the house an answer to the questions raised by the hon. member.
From information received by the department, it is understood that the airport rotating beacon and obstruction lights were in operation continuously. The runway and runway approach lights are under a separate control system which is set up so that all runway and taxiway lights, plus one set of approach lights, may be turned on at the same time. The control system, however, is not intended to carry at one time more than one set of approach lights, because experience has demonstrated that this is a necessary safety measure. If more than one set of runway approach lights are on at the same time, pilots may be confused and use the wrong runway.
At 11.49 p.m. the pilot asked for all runway and approach lights to be turned on, presumably because of the urgent situation in which he found himself. In view of the special circumstances, and in spite of the control arrangements, all lights were turned on, but they stayed on for approximately one minute only and then a fuse blew out because of the overload on the system. The traffic

control officer on duty in the tower immediately called the senior controller, the airport maintenance foreman, the field radio technician, and then called the R.C.A.F. for crash and fire trucks. Trucks and other vehicles were lined up on one side of the runway, lighting it effectively, and the pilot of the aircraft was informed by radio that this had been done. The lights were restored at 10 minutes after midnight, having been out of operation for 20 minutes.
Hon. members will note that although the runway and approach lights were not in operation, the tower still maintained ground to air radio communication with the aircraft. Also the instrument landing system and the radio range were still in operation, providing a means by which an aircraft equipped with a radio and instrument landing facilities could make an approach to landing.
With regard to auxiliary lighting, I am informed that there is auxiliary generating equipment at the field. This, however, is designed to be used in the event of a general failure in the power supply to the airport. It is not the general practice here or in any other country to instal a complete duplicate set of airport lights.
In connection with the reference to time of arrival of the stretcher party, I am advised that the tower continued in radio communication with the aircraft until approximately one minute after midnight. At 5 minutes after midnight the tower telephoned the township and provincial police and a commercial ambulance. The airport did not know at this time the exact location of the aircraft. The department does not, of course, operate an ambulance service.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barneil (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the more fortunate members of this house, alphabetically speaking, I should like to express to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) and his staff my appreciation of the opportunity of visiting the test kitchen of his department today. I am sure those who were there with me will join with me in suggesting to those less fortunate members that, should they have a similar opportunity, they should by all means take advantage of it.
Inquiries of the Ministry BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



NOTICES OF MOTIONS AND QUESTIONS TO BE DEALT WITH MONDAY, JANUARY 24

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['To the people of my constituency I say that first things must come first. If we are to preserve family allowances we have to preserve our liberty and our way of life. The old Roman saying, si vis pacem, para bellum, was never truer than it is today -if you want peace, prepare for war. It is\n\nabsolutely necessary that we be strong. Everybody knows that. The leader of the Social Credit party knows it. The emissaries of his party who went to my constituency to try to subvert the people there and make them sign silly petitions know perfectly well, as he and other members of the party here know, that these expenditures must be made. He knows that we have to be strong and that we have to combat communism if we are to retain our way of life and our liberty.\nHe knows also that our liberty and our way of life are essentials that we must have before we can have any family allowances\nThe Address-Mr. Cannon at all, let alone double family allowances. I say to the people of my county that when the time comes to increase family allowances the Liberal party will increase them. The Liberal party was the party that introduced family allowances in the first place, and it can be counted upon to increase them when the revenues and wealth of the country permit us to do so.\nOn motion of Mr. Cannon the debate was adjourned.\nOn motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) the house adjourned at 5.56 p.m.', 'Thursday, January 20, 1955']
Right Hon.  L. S.@: On Monday the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) asked if arrangements could be made for questions and notices of motions for the production of papers to be called at some early date before the orders of the day are called. In view of the standing order with respect to the debate on the speech from the throne, if that debate is not completed it could be done only with the consent of the house. If the house agreed, I would suggest that it might be done on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that this agreement be adhered to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Yesterday I asked a question of the Minister of Defence Production with regard to lay-offs at the Quebec and the Valcartier arsenals. Is the minister in a position to give an answer today?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The information has not been furnished to me. I will try to have it tomorrow.


REDISTRIBUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has he been made aware of the steps being taken in my province of Manitoba to set up an independent commission for the redistribution of provincial electoral constituencies? In view of a motion on this subject that was passed by the house last year, will the government consider arranging for a committee of the house to study that matter at this session so far as federal constituencies are concerned?


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I was not informed of the attitude of the government of Manitoba to which the hon. member has referred. I will look into the matter, collect the necessary information and give an answer later.
50433-22J

The Address-Mr. G. S. White SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. G. S. White (Hasiings-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, in the traditional speech from the throne there are some matters on which I think all hon. members are in cordial agreement. There are three items to which I will refer. The first is the reference to the bringing into operation of the Disabled Persons Act, whereby assistance will be granted to totally disabled persons. Hon. members who come from the province of Ontario will be more or less familiar with this act which has been in force in Ontario for some time. I am sure all hon. members from Ontario will agree that in Ontario the act has filled a long-felt need. I trust that the contributions the federal government will make will be ample in every way.
The second matter in the speech from the throne on which I think all hon. members will agree is the provision whereby the age of eligibility for blind persons will be amended and the income ceiling will be adjusted. I am sure all hon. members are only too anxious that every possible assistance will be rendered to our more unfortunate citizens who are blind.
The third matter is the welcome announcement that the War Veterans Allowance Act will, after these long and weary years, be amended. I would say to the minister that I hope on this occasion when the act is amended he will not make the same mistake that was made several years ago when the act was amended. I wonder if the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) would mind just for a moment giving me his attention. I should like to say this to the minister. When you bring in the act to adjust the war veterans allowance, I hope you will not make the same error that was made by your predecessor several years ago when this act was amended and when you made only a slight raise in the monthly compensation and only a slight adjustment in the ceilings. At that time the veterans committee and the government were urged in every possible way by all opposition parties that the monthly allowance be placed at a higher figure than $50 a month and, further, that the ceiling be much increased over
[Mr. Pinard.l

and above the amount proposed in the act. I say that to the minister in all kindness because he realizes only too well that an act such as the War Veterans Allowance Act is only amended once in a good many years. If the same error is made this time, I fear that it will be a fairly long time before there will be any further change in this act.
I might point out to the minister that the same mistake was made by his colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), when some few years ago he brought in a bill to adjust the salaries paid to the members of the judiciary. He found that he made a mistake, and now he has to come back and do the same thing all over again. Therefore on behalf of these veterans, most of them from the first world war, I urge the minister that, when it is decided in cabinet council how much the increase in the allowance is going to be, he should be very generous and keep in mind that these veterans should not be restricted with a ceiling on their income but on the other hand should be urged in every possible way to earn as much as possible for themselves and their families. I have only one other suggestion. When the bill is introduced I would ask the minister if he would consider having the increase, no matter what it may be, made retroactive to at least the 1st of January, 1955.
I have received from the county council of the county in which I reside a copy of a resolution which they have asked me to bring to the attention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe). The resolution passed by the council of the county of Hastings reads as follows:
That since, by the statutes of Canada, November 11th is designated as a public holiday, our government be urged to enact legislation that November 11th not only be declared a national holiday, but that it also be observed as such.
I can recall occasions in November when parliament has been in session and the House of Commons has continued to sit and conduct business just the same as any other day. There may be many in Canada who do not care or pay much attention to the significance of Armistice day, but at least to the veterans of the first war it means a great deal, and I would suggest to the government that the resolution of the county council be given attention.
It was suggested last session that at this session the Dominion Succession Duty Act would be amended, but there is no mention of it in the speech from the throne. I trust that amendments will be brought forward at this session because I am sure the government is aware of many unsatisfactory features in the present legislation. I will mention only one or two. One is that at the time the rate

of exemption was set the dollar was worth a great deal more than it is today. The other is that an estate is entitled to exemption up to $50,000 but if the estate exceeds that amount duty is collected on the whole amount. If there are to be amendments of this act I trust the legislation will be sent to a committee of the house for study and consideration. If so, there is another point that might well be considered by the minister, namely, that the exemption granted to a widow under the act should be raised considerably.
In the speech from the throne reference is made to unemployment and it is described as being only seasonal and regional. I have in my hand a long article from the Belleville Ontario-Intelligencer of January 17 which contains a long statement issued by the manager of the unemployment office at Belleville. The article is headed in large capital letters: "Employment Office Appeals to Residents to Get Repairs, Alterations of Homes Done Now." The article is two columns long. It states that in the Belleville office alone there are over 16,000 persons, male and female, registered for work. It further points out that the Belleville office does not service the whole county of Hastings, that the town of Deseronto is serviced by the Napanee office and that the west half of the township of Sidney, which contains the large town of Trenton with a population of well over 10,000, is serviced by the Trenton office. In one county there are over 16,000 registered for work, not including two large centres. Therefore I submit to the minister that it is quite reasonable to say that in the whole county of Hastings there are at least 20,000 persons registered and seeking work at the present time.
That is only one county in the province of Ontario. Yet in the speech from the throne this condition is referred to as only seasonal and regional. The legislation the minister introduced last week and the legislation he proposes to introduce with respect to unemployment insurance are all to the good, but I would repeat to the minister what many others have said to him, that these increases, beneficial as they may be, are not an answer to the problem. They do not provide jobs. The minister at least has something to say about the policy of the government. He can at least use his voice to urge a reduction in taxation and do what he can to assist industry to produce more at lower cost so that industry will be better able to face and meet the competition of goods manufactured in other countries.
Much has been said in this debate regarding the importation of cheddar cheese from
The Address-Mr. G. S. White New Zealand. In eastern Ontario where I reside the cheese industry is most important. Hastings county is the place where the famous Black Diamond cheese is manufactured, a cheese that has done a great deal to advertise Canada throughout the United States. The whole dairy industry is of great importance to the economy of Canada. I should like to point out that it is estimated that the dairy farmers and their families comprise two million persons. Their hired help and their dependents number 160,000. Employees in dairy factories and their families come to-
90,000	and employees in fluid milk plants and their families number 120,000. The gross value of the whole dairy industry in Canada in 1953 was estimated at $920 million. '
The cheese producers in my riding particularly have both interviewed me and sent me petitions asking me to protest to the government in the house against the importation of New Zealand cheese. One question the cheese producers would like to know the answer to is whether or not the government intends to permit further imports of New Zealand cheese. The only answer they have received so far was given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in reply to a question asked by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe). As found at page 187 of Hansard of January 14, he said:
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.
Why we want cheese imported into Canada in six months or nine months when cheese' production is at its peak I would not know. Neither the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) nor the Minister of Agriculture-(Mr. Gardiner) has as yet given any reasonable explanation to this house as to why New Zealand cheese was permitted to enter Canada, especially so at a time when there is well over 41 million pounds of cheese in storage which is at least 10 million pounds in excess of other years; also at a time when the cheese producers have collected from their own members a very large sum of money in order to finance the export of cheese to the United Kingdom. They have collected a sum of approximately 17 cents a hundred pounds of milk which in the average factory would cost the patron at least $100 to $130 a year.
The cheese producers of Ontario own over ten and a half million pounds of cheese. According to the press they owe the bank on guaranteed loans $3,300,000. To liquidate that cheese today in view of the competition with the cheese from New Zealand they would' probably suffer a great loss. We are told or are led to believe, that the cheddar cheese

The Address-Mr. G. S. White of New Zealand costs approximately 25 cents to 26 cents a pound on the dock at Montreal. There is a tariff of one cent a pound on cheese which amounts to about 4 or 5 per cent. Compare that to industry which has a protection of approximately 20 to 25 per cent.
Other speakers in this debate have pointed out to the government that in years gone by a decline in the purchasing power of the farmer has always led to unemployment. Today we have a decline in the purchasing power of the farmer. This decline in the purchasing power will be further aggravated by the importation of Cheddar cheese from New Zealand. It may be that cheese producers of Ontario are suffering a great and heavy loss if the government permits further importation of cheddar cheese from New Zealand. The importation of this cheese into Canada has been described by one federation official as the worst slap in the face Ontario farmers have ever received.
I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture or his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce what action, if any, the government intends to take in order to prevent further shipment of cheap cheddar cheese from New Zealand.
At page 20 of Hansard of January 10, 1955, in reply to a question, the Minister of Trade and Commerce made this comment:
During the war years a permit was required to import cheese for the reasons stated by my hon. friend, but at the moment cheese is not under price support so far as I am aware.
At page 231 of Hansard under date of January 17, 1955, the Acting Leader of the Opposition asked this very interesting question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce:


Mr. Rowe:: In view of the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day to the effect that we might assume that in perhaps six months there might be other shipments of cheese, has the government given any consideration to making the import of cheese into Canada subject to permit under the Export and Import Permits Act, which governs the import of butter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the two situations are not parallel because cheese does not qualify under the legislation which governs the Export and Import Permits Act.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the minister states that cheese does not qualify under the legislation which governs the Export and Import Permits Act. Under that act, in the interpretation section, "minister" means the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Section 5 of the act reads as follows:
5.	The governor in council may establish a list of goods, to be called an import control list, including therein any article the import of which he deems it necessary to control for any of the following purpose, namely.

(b) to implement any action taken under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, the Fisheries Prices Support Act, the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act or the Agricultural Products Board Act, to support the price of the article or that has the effect of supporting the price of the article; or
I would particularly point out that this provides for any action taken under the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act to support the price of an article.
We find that under P.C. 4087, 1951, an order in council was passed to bring butter under the control of the Export and Import Permits Act.
As far as cheese is concerned we find that under order in council P.C. 1954-694 it is provided:
The committee of the privy council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture, advise that Your Excellency may be pleased, pursuant to section 3 of the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act, to approve of the Minister of Agriculture entering into an agreement in the form hereto annexed, subject to such minor amendments, without changing matters of principle, as the minister may approve, with the Ontario Cheese Producers' Association Limited, for the marketing of a quantity of cheddar cheese produced in 1954 in the province of Ontario, and, pursuant to section 6 of the said act, approve the appointment of the firm of Arthur A. Crawley and Company, chartered accountants, Ottawa, Ontario, to inspect and audit the books and accounts of the said association.
In pursuance of that order in council the Minister of Agriculture did enter into an agreement with the Ontario Cheese Producers' Association in May of 1954. While this agreement is a bit long, Mr. Speaker, I am going to read it. It reads as follows:
Between:
THE ONTARIO CHEESE PRODUCERS' ASSOCIATION LIMITED, hereinafter called the "Selling Agency"


OF THE FIRST PART
[Stage Direction]
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of Canada and represented herein by the Minister of Agriculture, hereinafter called the "Minister"

[Stage Direction]
Whereas the party of the first part has been appointed as selling agency, under the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Act and the regulations thereunder, to market under a co-operative plan, within the meaning of the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act, cheddar cheese produced in the province of Ontario during the year 1954, on behalf of cheddar cheese producers within the areas of Ontario coming under the Ontario cheese producers' marketing scheme and
Whereas the selling agency is desirous of marketing quantities of cheddar cheese produced during the year 1954 in the province of Ontario, and delivered to it or to its order on a co-operative plan under the provisions of the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act,
Now therefore, in consideration of these presents, the parties hereto hereby covenant and agree each with the other as follows:
1.	The selling agency agrees to market or cause to be marketed, cheddar cheese produced in 1954 in the province of Ontario and delivered to it or to

The Address-Mr. Studer
its order by Cheddar cheese producers on behalf of milk producers, for sale on a co-operative plan under the provisions of the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act.
2.	The selling agency will pay to the said cheddar cheese producers for such cheddar cheese, when delivered to it or to its order, an initial payment on the following basis:
(1)	For first grade cheddar cheese 24 cents per pound, f.o.b. cheese factory;
(2)	Second grade cheddar cheese 23 cents per pound, f.o.b. cheese factory;
(3)	Third grade cheddar cheese 22 cents per pound, f.o.b. cheese factory;
and the selling agency will arrange to have the cheddar cheese producers pay to the milk producers an equivalent price in terms of fluid milk, less manufacturing costs.
3.	The selling agency will make no payment to the cheddar cheese producers subsequent to the initial payment unless such subsequent payment is first approved by the governor general in council.
4.	The selling agency will market such cheddar cheese to the best advantage possible.
5.	For the purpose of this agreement, processing, carrying and selling costs shall include transportation, storage, shrinkage, handling, colouring, waxing, interest and finance charges, insurance, accounting, selling commissions and other processing and marketing costs, and all other expenditures properly included in an operating account, the total of which shall not exceed two and three-eighths cents per pound; provided that in the case of any unforeseen expenditure in excess of normal processing, carrying and selling costs, the minister may, subject to the approval of the governor general in council, increase the total amount of the costs allowed under this clause.
And now we come to the important clause, where it says:
6.	The minister undertakes that if the average wholesale price of all cheddar cheese produced in the province of Ontario during the year 1954 and marketed by the selling agency according to the terms of this agreement is less than the average initial payment, together with the actual processing, carrying and selling costs which shall not exceed the maximum fixed in clause 5 hereof, there shall be paid to the selling agency the amount, if any, by which the average initial payment together with such costs exceeds the average wholesale price aforesaid.
7.	The books and accounts of the selling agency shall be inspected and audited by an accountant or professional auditor as provided by section 6 of the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act, and the report of such accountant shall be submitted to the minister as required.
There are several other clauses which do not apply particularly, but I should like to point out that under clause 6 the minister agrees and undertakes to pay a set price, or to pay a price which would put a floor under cheese. This agreement has been amended by P.C. 1955-30 of January 4, 1955. The amendment is trifling, extending the time to April 30, 1955, and making provision whereby certain further payments will be made over and above the initial price.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has said that cheese is not controlled. He has also said that the legislation does not cover cheese so that it
could be brought under the Export and Import Permits Act. I think the order in council I have read and the agreement made as a result of the order in council show clearly that cheese is an article being supported under the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act, being one of the acts referred to in section 5 of the Export and Import Permits Act.
So I say to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that the government has the necessary machinery and the authority to bring cheese under the Export and Import Permits Act, thereby prohibiting or controlling any further imports of cheddar cheese from New Zealand. I think before the debate closes the cheese producers of Ontario would like to have some statement either from the Minister of Trade and Commerce or from the Minister of Agriculture as to whether or not they intend to bring cheese under the Export and Import Permits Act, or whether they intend to permit further shipments of cheap cheddar cheese into Ontario, thus causing loss to the cheese producers of that province.
Mr. Irvin Studer (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to be associated wth all members in the House of Commons from Saint John to Victoria who have tfiken part in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As all hon. members are aware, this throne speech gives an indication of the state of the nation; and if it is to give a true picture I believe it is the duty of members to place before the house the state of the nation in its more limited aspects, as it affects their own constituencies. And that is what I shall do in the time allotted to me this afternoon.
It is always in order and a matter of courtesy to extend congratulations to all those deserving of them in the House of Commons, and in that group the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) must be included. There seems to be some hesitancy on the part of some members to extend congratulations to those people who have given service throughout the past year in the forum of government. I am sure however that the government need not feel unduly displeased because of that. So far as Liberal governments are concerned, certainly they are not flattered by praise nor are they dejected by criticism. The people of Canada expect Liberal governments, as a matter of duty, to be patient and progressive and, irrespective of praise or condemnation, Liberal governments in the past have, and I am sure Liberal governments of the future will deliver that service to the very greatest extent of their ability, to all the people of Canada so as to
336	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Studer have this country continue to be what even some socialists admit-the best country on the face of the earth.
As hon. members were told last year, the constituency of Swift Current-Maple Creek is one of the greatest in Canada. It is my hope this afternoon, after listening to some of the damp, depressing, death-around-the-corner speeches we have heard during the last week, to present a somewhat more optimistic picture of what is in evidence throughout the country.
It is not my purpose to minimize the difficulties that we face in the country, or the problems, nor is it my purpose to underrate the fact that there are some good things in this country, and I believe that if more emphasis were put on some of the good things of the country than on some of the bad things that may exist we would all maintain a proper balance in regard to the situation in Canada today. When we hear the people who have no hope and who live in despair speak, they talk about unemployment-and there is unemployment. It is an evil that should be eradicated. Yet, there are well over five million people employed in Canada, five million people who are able to earn their own living at perhaps as high wages as earned by any people in the world. That is not done as a matter of course; it did not come about on account of any socialist party or policy in Saskatchewan or anywhere in the world. It came about because of Liberal principles that have been in evidence not only in Canada but throughout the whole world. Those Liberal principles reflect themselves in free trade throughout all of the world, which bring us to a united front and a united attack upon the evils that may exist not only in Canada but throughout the whole world.
Therefore I should like to talk of some of the good things in this country. One of the best things that I know of in this country is food. One of the accomplishments of Liberal policies throughout the years is production which has resulted in plenty. If there are still problems in regard to distribution you will never solve them unless you also have plenty to distribute, or the production that is necessary in order to solve the problem of distribution.
It is a good thing to talk about food; it is something that is a primary necessity of life. Any government in any part of the world that puts emphasis on food, to make sure that food is produced to the ultimate to feed the hungry people of the world, is the type of government that gives the greatest service to all of the people of the world. In my 

constituency, Swift Current-Maple Creek, comprising 300 miles from one corner to the other, there is at the present time an abundance not only of food but of oil and minerals -even dinosaurs are being taken out of the ground, which may or may not mean anything, according to some scientists' interpretation. We have some manufacturing, but the great emphasis is on food in the southwest corner of Saskatchewan, and in Swift Current-Maple Creek. Food is vital; food is a necessity. The question most often asked in the whole world is, when do we eat, and what do we eat?
In my constituency there are 16,500 square miles of land, comprising 10J million acres, practically all of which is under cultivation or used for ranching, and which provides' an abundance of food, if nature is kind to us, which is of value because it creates national wealth that others may distribute throughout the length and breadth of this country. Although we have heard of drought, of dust and of all the evils of the 1930's in that part of the country, no part of the world has recuperated faster than southwestern Saskatchewan has. And this area, above all other areas in western Canada that suffered from drought in the past, is in the best position this year to understand the situation because we have suffered much from years of drought in that part of Canada. We have taken advantage of the policies of the federal government in such matters as the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and all the other services provided by the federal government, and we have recuperated in that part of the country on a basis that we hope will be permanent. Therefore, in words that I hope all of us can understand, Mr. Speaker, and that you may like, I should like to present the production of Swift Current-Maple Creek in the form of a menu, a menu which we, the people of Swift Current-Maple Creek as producers, can place on the tables of 250,000 Canadians 365 days a year, produced from that land of over 10 million acres. For breakfast we offer you not a commodity that is manufactured but the ingredients that go into the commodity. For breakfast we offer you porridge made from the finest of oats for the finest people on earth, with milk and cream from the Jersey and Ayrshire and Holstein herds that are second to none. We offer you bacon from the leanest Yorkshires and Tamworths in the whole country. We offer you eggs from the finest flocks of Leghorns, Barred Rocks and New Hampshires in the country that any man would care to see, west of the Ottawa valley. We offer you toast made from the best wheat grown anywhere, and we give you honey that has won

prizes in Toronto and Saskatchewan last year and this year, honey produced by the busiest bees in Canada.
For lunch we offer you, Mr. Speaker, roast leg of lamb and scalloped potatoes, from potatoes that weighed three pounds this year. We offer you rye rolls made from grain and rye grown in the grain and rye fields of my constituency. We offer you butter which is the finest made in creameries throughout the length and breadth of this area. We offer you crabapple jelly made from the Dolgo crab of my constituency, and there is none better in Canada. By the way, I produced 1,200 bushels of apples on my farm this year, and I hope in the future to produce about 3,000 bushels. We also won the trophy in the Saskatchewan fruit show this year.
But that is not all. We now offer you dinner, and first as an aperitif we will offer you rye and water. We have lots of rye in that country. We offer you a choice of sirloin of beef or broad-breasted turkey, such as are grown nowhere else in Canada. We offer you vegetables which are grown with a minimum amount of moisture. Anything grown with a minimum of moisture is of high quality, be it wheat, beef or vegetables. We offer you tomatoes and also macaroni made from Durum wheat grown in my constituency and, as the piece de resistance, Saskatoon berry pie. If you have not eaten it you have not lived. That is what we as producers place on the tables of 250,000 Canadian families 365 days a year. The only reason I mention this is to indicate that the importance of agriculture in this country cannot be overestimated.
Over and above that wheat and beef required by the 250,000 families, we can supply more than a million people in Canada, because my constituency is one of the greatest and best agricultural areas in Canada.
I said I was going to talk of some of the good things in this country, after hearing about all of the bad things. One of the greatest encouragements came to my desk this morning that anyone could ever have. After listening to the socialist speeches in the House of Commons, I found on my desk this morning one of the socialist papers, which is printed in Saskatchewan. It is called the Commonwealth. Here is the headline: "Figures show big growth in Saskatchewan economy." Can you beat that? How can we talk about difficulties in Canada-and we have difficulties-how can the socialists and others talk as they have been when their own paper denies what they have said? Irrespective of that, there are difficulties in agriculture. Agriculture has never been in existence anywhere when it was in the same position as other
The Address-Mr. Studer industries. Everyone knows of the vagaries of nature, the conditions under which we operate, the inability to control prices of any kind. We are subject to every condition that can react against us.
Irrespective of the fact that these figures show a growth in Saskatchewan economy, I am not suggesting that there is not room for improvement in agriculture in Saskatchewan. We have made some advances in agriculture in regard to some stabilized prices, especially in regard to wheat. Let us hold what we have. We should at least support a government that has influence throughout the world with the trading nations of the world. Let us support that government which has the only system that can hold that advance. We have to trade with the people of the world because we cannot create an economy of our own. We cannot continue indefinitely to pay subsidies to one group at the expense of another, because if we do so we will have to take money from one group and pay it to another, thereby diminishing the purchasing power of certain sections of the population. We do not want subsidies. We want to expand the economic wealth of the country and raise the standard of living throughout the dominion and, incidentally, transmit that standard of living to other countries.
There are other important industries in Canada but none of them are as important as agriculture because it means the production of food. You must first eat, and there is nothing else you can do if you do not eat.
In this house we have 23 lonesome farm representatives, 23 who are endeavouring to fight perhaps the greatest battle that any group of men could take on, and they are fighting that battle for the benefit of the agricultural industry without which all the rest of our organizations, our standard of living and our social services must deteriorate.
Therefore, when we hear hon. members in this house talking about cattle, hogs, poultry, and the need for floor prices and parity prices under the agricultural support act, these hon. members are actually speaking on behalf of us all. They are talking about your future because they are advocating policies that will guarantee your future. Once agriculture goes asunder, then all the industries of Canada will fall asunder. Purchasing power will be disrupted. Every member of this house and all the people throughout Canada will be guaranteed food and will continue to eat if hon. members will in turn guarantee the agricultural industry its demands.
This industry has never asked too much, though it has always been in a position where

The Address-Mr. Studer it is deficient. We always hear about legislation in regard to subsidies to farmers. But if farmers ask for that sort of assistance it is because they are short, and it is in order to keep their industry alive and in full production that they ask for these things. We do not ask for anything we do not think is necessary and we do not ask any more than other sectors of industry in Canada.
But we want to guarantee that we are going to continue to have a high standard of living, to which as Canadian citizens we are all entitled, so that we will all be able to meet the trials and tribulations that lie ahead.
We are now wondering how to accomplish this. I do not know of any method of determining what percentage of wealth is accorded to various groups within the economy. But we should determine the labour that enters into agriculture and into every other industry and then as a result of that decide what proportion of the Canadian people in their various groups are getting too much or too little. When there is an injustice that injustice should be corrected.
We have not the talking or voting power of labour. There are 636,000 farmers in Canada and 5,530,000 workers in general industry, and the latter have the strongest bargaining and voting power. It should not only be the farmers who are asking the people of Canada to come to the assistance of the agricultural industry because we are weak and lack the necessary bargaining power.
We are weak in voting power and if we had the strength there would be a different situation in Canada today. No other industry has the paramount need of stabilization that agriculture has. The farmer's share of the national wealth is extremely difficult to determine. It must be remembered that the farmer's family is also working and producing, and that is a fact that is often overlooked. The farmer's wife contributes extensively to farm operations.
I have an article here written quite recently by an Ontario economist who estimated that the services of the farmer's wife were worth approximately $69,000 over a period of 40 years, provided she was normally industrious-and most farmers' wives have to be.
A western economist puts the figure at approximately $173,000. That works out at approximately $4,000 per year. That is not too great a figure when we come to consider what should be the farmer's share of the national wealth.
If commissions are appointed here in Canada, then I think one of the most important tasks to be undertaken by such a body
would be the determination of what share of the national wealth should be accorded to each of our major industries. If we can determine that, then we do not need to listen through thousands of speeches in the House of Commons. We do not have to take things for granted. We do not have to read newspaper articles with regard to the actual conditions which govern the economy of Canada.
When this commission is set up, and I hope it will be soon, we will then be in a position in western Canada to know whether or not we are having a share of the national wealth equal to that offered to other industries in the Dominion of Canada.
Proof of the farmer's position is to be found in the income tax returns. Those returns show that the farmer is sixteenth on the list in regard to receipts. Fishermen are even worse, for they are seventeenth on the list. I will not mention who is at the top of the list or even comes into second place, but something should be done about the farmer's low position on that scale.
As we all know, the farmer's purchases are limited by the amount of revenue he receives, and if we safeguard the farmer's interests, then we will be safeguarding our own.
We have often heard references in this house to a bill of rights. And I think it is high time the farmers of this country had a bill of rights. Last year Senator Humphrey, of St. Paul, Minnesota, proposed a bill of rights, and it may interest hon. members to hear what it contained. It reads as follows:
1.	The right to full equality of economic opportunity.
2.	The right to improved standards of rural living.
3.	The right of reasonable protection against natural hazards.
4.	The right to extend agricultural free enterprise through co-operative action.


Mr. Argue:: Tell the Liberal government that.


Irvin William Studer: What was that?


Hazen Robert Argue: Why not get that policy adopted now by the Liberal government?


Irvin William Studer: This government was not born with a silver spoon in its mouth, like some members of parliament. I was not born with a silver spoon in my -mouth. I hope I am not boasting, but I had to go out to work at the age of 12 and I have been working ever since, doing a man's work and providing something which is of value to this country. I did not have a socialist, university education handed to me on a platter. I was not born in a log cabin, and I was not born in

The Address-Mr. Studer
a sod shack, but my parents moved into one as soon as they could afford it. The bill of rights continues:
5.	The right to public co-operation and assistance in saving the soil.
6.	The right to preserve the social and human values of family farming.
7.	The right to decent land tenure which would encourage the desirable goal of farm ownership.
Try that in Saskatchewan.
8.	The right (of a farmer) to a democratic voice in his own farm program.
9.	The right to benefits of an expanding world trade.
10.	The right to a long-term program of food storage to encourage abundance.
That is the bill of rights for farmers. That is the sort of program to which we should all subscribe. That is the bill of rights every hon. member should be advocating; for again by protecting the agricultural industry we would be protecting ourselves.
We have agricultural difficulties. We cannot sell wheat. But that wheat will be sold, and I believe that within eight months we will no longer be talking about the problem. We cannot deliver to the elevator of our cnoice. But whatever our difficulties are out in Saskatchewan, they are of a temporary nature and will be corrected.
Production difficulties are permanent difficulties existing in western Canada and particularly in southwestern Saskatchewan, and those are the difficulties we wish to see eliminated. But I would add that we also have had the problem of empty granaries in southwest Saskatchewan, rather than full ones. We also want a floor price, and a good floor price, on eggs. They talk about somebody not receiving the floor price on eggs. All the Saskatchewan government needs to do is to implement their marketing legislation, buy up all the eggs in Saskatchewan and sell them back to the federal government. There is the solution. Will they do it? I do not think that they will. It is much wiser politically not to give consideration to that solution but rather come down here to the House of Commons and tell the federal government what to do.
Then there is the matter of the floor price on hogs. I am glad that the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) yesterday took up the problem of the underhog. It is about time he had his day. The only thing I think he recommended was a change in grading. From what I know I think perhaps the hon. member for Selkirk thinks there are not sufficient grades in hogs. But if he would need one more in order to sell his product, I think we should enter another grade of hogs and it would be called the razorback class.
Some of the solutions are right at the socialists' back door. But will they take them? No, they will not, because talk is cheaper.
One of the difficulties in Canada is taxes. We have our provincial taxes. As you know, we have a provincial treasurer in Saskatchewan. His name is Fines; and everybody knows that we are fined for everything in Saskatchewan. We also have our federal taxes. We have the greatest tax, which is for national defence, and who is more responsible for the tax for national defence than are these socialists and their cohorts? Why? Because in the Regina manifesto they stipulate that they will not rest content until this system under which they have lived and prospered shall be eradicated. And the other reason why that national defence expenditure is incurred is on account of their cohorts, wherever they may be in the world. Listen to this:
Thirty-five years ago Lenin made a prophecy that "first we will take eastern Europe; then the masses of Asia; then we will encircle the United States of America, which will be the last bastion of capitalism. We will not have to attack it because it will fall like an over-ripe fruit into our hands ..."
Again, in 1930 Dmitri Z. Manuilsky, who later presided over the United Nations security council in 1949, when addressing the international students at the Lenin school of political warfare in Moscow came out with the somewhat astonishing "war to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in twenty or thirty years. To win we shall need the element of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to co-operate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clenched fist".
That is why you have to have a defence program in Canada. That statement has never been repudiated. The Regina manifesto has never been repudiated. I wish some good honest-to-God socialist would stand up in this House of Commons and repudiate that whole thing. Then we shall be able to conduct ourselves here in this country on a basis of peace with all people of the world.
What is the policy or the idea behind these socialists? You will remember that last year, when we were having the debate on amendment to the Criminal Code, they had an objection. What was their objection? Every one of them was endeavouring to have the penalty for sedition lowered from 15 years to 5 years. We spent almost a week on that matter. Why? If I am a traitor to this country that has given me my living and if

The Address-Mr. Studer I advocate sedition and I am biting the hand that feeds me, why should I get only 5 years? Why should I not be hanged?


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Irvin William Studer: Mr. Speaker, where do they stand? If and when communism knocks at our door, whom are they going to support? Are they going to support this system which they are pledged to eradicate or are they going to support the communistic system to which they give a little bit of lip service once in a while and condemn in a mild manner on occasion? I have never heard an anti-communist speech in this house or in any other house by these socialists since they have been in this House of Commons. I have never heard a good soul-shaking anticommunist speech by them, and you never will as long as they are associated with those with whom they are associated.
We also have federal taxation but we get something for it. Out in Saskatchewan the only thing you receive for your taxes is more taxes. In Canada here we pay taxes. Certainly we pay federal taxes, but we receive something for them. What do we receive? We receive veterans pensions for our taxes. We receive old age assistance for our taxes. We receive family allowances, old age security, national health, disability pensions and blind pensions. We receive the safeguarding of the nation, the administration of the country, the maintaining of floor prices, the Agricultural Prices Support Act, the bonuses and the subsidies, subsidies on farm feed, railway subsidies, trans-Canada highway, housing loans, farm improvement loans, farm loan board, Veterans Land Act, veterans pensions, unemployment insurance and so on and so forth. I should also mention disability pensions.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) the other day made mention of how this disability pension came about. A little girl in Sherbrooke wrote the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) such a pathetic letter that the Prime Minister just had to inaugurate this disability pension. That is the first time I ever heard any socialist admit that they were not responsible for all pensions.
I would suggest to the socialists that they get into harness, get out of this House of Commons and earn some of the production that they wish to distribute among the people of the world. But in Saskatchewan they just live on capitalistic production. They live on capitalistic money that is paid into Saskatchewan. As it appeared in Hansard last year, the amount of money that is spent

in Saskatchewan by the federal government, irrespective of the production of it, is over $139 million. That money the socialists are using in order to promote socialism. If they had to live on socialist policy and had to produce their own wealth in Saskatchewan, every one of them would be in the poor-house. There is no question about it; every one of them would be there. They are living on capitalistic money in the province of Saskatchewan and capitalistic money has been keeping them in existence in Saskatchewan. Once that capitalistic money is withdrawn, then of course their bubble is burst. There is no question about that. But do not expect anything else in Saskatchewan because few of the socialist leaders know the value of a dollar. Any person who has not earned a dollar by the sweat of his brow does not know the value of it. Hence from this non-producing element that is in existence out in Saskatchewan you can continue to expect higher and higher taxes until our farmers are taxed off the land. That is one of the great overheads that the land carries at the present time and that the farmer has to pay, namely the overhead of taxes in the province of Saskatchewan. I want to warn the rest of the people in Canada to look into that picture in Saskatchewan before Quebec or any province adopts socialism.
So they are living off capitalistic money. How did the socialists get that way? I will tell you how they got that way. How did they become socialists? You will remember that back in 1933 a book came out, published by Dale Carnegie, I believe. It said something about trying to win friends and influence people. Every socialist in Saskatchewan read that book and he used it to advantage, so much so that they almost wrote a book of their own, they did not call it "How to Win Friends and Influence People". That was the original title, "How to Win Friends and Influence People". They entitled their manuscript "How to Win Votes and Fleece People". You see the result in evidence every year since they have been here. The best times that Canada ever had were the times when there was the smallest number of socialists in this House of Commons and that was in the period from 1949 to 1953. As long as the people of Canada send socialists to this House of Commons who are pledged to destroy this system, we shall have the customary result. Why do they say that we should follow a capitalistic country, the United States of America, in our contributions to Colombo? Why do they not present to us for comparison a socialistic country? If they are against the capitalist

system one would think they would never refer to it; but all they are interested in is to keep in office and to keep financing on capitalistic money. The day is coming when they will not continue to exist. You have heard of the communistic slogan: "Workers of the world, unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains." The socialists have a slogan too. Their slogan is: "Irresponsible socialists of the world, unite; you have nothing to lose but your brains".
We have heard some speeches in the house in which objection was taken to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) kissing babies. I hope the Prime Minister continues to kiss babies as long as he is Prime Minister and long afterwards because he kissed babies long before he was ever Prime Minister. I like a person at the head of our government who does not have to make an effort to do something that he has not been accustomed to doing all the days of his life. I like people at the head of our government who are family men and not people who ridicule family men. If the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) thinks he can make little men big by making big men little, that has never happened yet in the history of the world and never will.
I come to another friend of ours in the ranks of the socialists, the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Johnson). You will remember that last year a heifer was lost somewhere in the city of Ottawa which was threatening to destroy the whole city and our hero came to the rescue with a rope. It was like David and Goliath. David wound up his sling-shot and hit a bull's-eye. My hon. friend wound up his rope, let fly and missed the heifer. I do not blame him too much because I think there is something wrong with the hon. member's eyesight. I think he is suffering from myopia. During the past summer he was at a provincial C.C.F. convention in Saskatoon and he made a speech to the convention. He is reported in the Leader-Post of July 21, 1954, as having said:
I went to Ottawa expecting to see the benches filled with intelligent faces. I was disappointed.
I would say that the hon. member, sitting in the back row as he does, would not be able to see much further than the front socialist benches directly in front of him, and I think his statement was well founded. In any event he would not have been able to see any further than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) because that member was standing up all the time. If my count is correct that member rose to his feet 700 times in the last session. I think the hon. member for Kindersley is suffering from myopia. I know that the hon. member
The Address-Mr. Studer for Winnipeg North Centre is suffering from athlete's foot. You can imagine that as soon as disability pensions were passed both these men would put themselves in a position where they would eventually be recipients of it.
We have also had some speeches by members of the official opposition. I would refer to them as a paper opposition. I do not mean that they are not worth the paper their speeches are written on; I mean that if you read today's papers you will find out what the opposition is going to say tomorrow. That is why I call them a paper opposition. Inasmuch as that is their policy, I suggest that they take ten newspaper editors from across Canada who have been picked at random, put them in the front benches, and they will do a cracking good job. In fact you could pick ten members of the press gallery at random, put them in those front seats and they would do a very good job for the opposition.
But they will not have to do that. Why? Because we Liberals form our own opposition right within our ranks. That is why the opposition's case is hopeless. We form our own opposition within our own ranks. We guide and advise, reject and add, and admonish our government, so that it is the type of government against which the opposition has about as much effect as the waves around the rock of Gibraltar. But they can improve, and we hope that they do and will eventually make some contribution to the people of Canada.
I think my time is about up, much to the regret of the socialists perhaps, but I want to mention one more thing that should be put into effect in Canada. There should be qualifications for members of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Irvin William Studer: That would leave me out, I am sure, but that would be expected. You have qualifications for members for school districts and school boards. You have qualifications for municipal administration and for city administration. You have qualifications all the way from the lowest form of government with the exception that when you come to the highest you can be elected a member of parliament as long as you are not in jail. That is one reason why there are so many socialists here. Since the indemnity has been increased, I think there should be qualifications established for members of parliament so that we will eliminate those from our public life who are professional politicians. Let us eliminate those who have no stake in the country except a political stake, and this is my reason. Go back through history and see what happened so far as the advancing or retarding of humanity is concerned.

The Address-Mr. Studer
What stake did Hitler have in Germany except a political stake? What stake did Mussolini have in Italy except a political stake? What stake did Lenin have, what stake did Stalin have, what stake did Karl Marx or Engels have or any of these individuals? What stake did they have in their countries except a political stake? Therefore I suggest that every member of parliament should have certain qualifications. He should have a job, an occupation, farming, or a vocation, and if he does not spend six months of the year at it he should not be permitted to be a member of parliament. Then there would be no more socialists here. After all, the socialists in Saskatchewan are nothing more or less than socialist profiteers, socialist middlemen reaping a profit from the expenditure of dominion government money in the province. We can get along without them just as the socialists say we can get along without other middlemen.
I was going to talk about unemployment but there is not enough time except to say, what do the socialists do when there is unemployment? The only socialist country I know of that deals with it in any way is Russia, and if there are people unemployed there they are either put in the army or sent to Siberia. What is the socialists' solution? I have not heard it. We are pledged to eliminate the cancer of unemployment-and I claim it is a cancer-from society when it occurs. I also think that the workers in industry should be greater sharers in industry. I cannot see that strikes will be eliminated or that we will eliminate the conflict with respect to the sharing of the national wealth unless that is done.
Our government has the responsibilities. It is not assisted by rabble rousers or socialist malcontents. I do not think there is anything like a rabble rouser in Canada. But we do have to strike a balance in government. Living in the world, I say that as an exporting nation we are dependent not on our own policies alone but on the policies of 73 other countries in the world with which we trade. So we wish to strike a balance. I hope I have contributed to that balance in endeavouring to speak not only of the bad things, the things we wish to eliminate in this world, but also of some of the good things that it has been our privilege as Canadian citizens to enjoy. I am in favour of Liberal policies not only in Canada but throughout the whole world and when that comes about you will have one world with the power of production, which is essential, and a solution of the problem of distribution which will guarantee every man on earth his right to live and his fair share of the wealth of the whole world.

So this Liberal government and all other governments having Liberal policies have fed, clothed, housed and provided health and guaranteed freedom to more people than any other system on earth. We wish to extend these benefits to all people on earth. We want to extend the corporal works of mercy. We want to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, take care of the sick. As long as that is the objective of the Liberal government and party, I hope that by word, action and example I can always be found worthy to be considered as one of them.


Hazen Robert Argue: I intend this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to make some reference to dominion-provincial relations, and particularly the announcement made the day before yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent).
Before going on to demonstrate, as I believe I can, that the government's policy is one that is a disservice to Canada, I wish to say that I welcome the announcement in the speech from the throne that amendments are to be made to the War Veterans Allowance Act. I have had the privilege over a number of years of adding my voice to those of members on all sides of the house calling upon the government to make a substantial increase in the burnt-out pension or, to be more correct, the war veterans allowance.
We in the C.C.F. support the demand of the Canadian Legion that the war veterans allowance should be increased from the present figure of $50 in the case of a single man and $90 in the case of a married man to $60 for a single man and $120 for a married man. We all agree that allowable income ceilings should be raised from $720 single to $1,200 single, and from $1,200 married to $2,000 married.
Further we in this group see no reason why the veteran should not be given the benefit of an additional $40 a month when he reaches the age of 70 and is eligible for the old age security pension. We believe that it is unfair and unjust for this government to single out the veterans of Canada and discriminate against them by reducing the amount of the war veterans allowance when those veterans become eligible for the old age security pension.
During the war years and immediately following the government held out to the people of Canada the promise of a new social order. The late prime minister, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, had proposals which he set before the people of Canada and which he maintained would result in full employment, including greater social security measures and the national health program. He went further and said that the proposals

would include adequate guaranteed prices tor agricultural products. The late prime minister pointed out that farmers in this country had accepted lower prices during the war, and that they should therefore be guaranteed adequate prices after the war. He also said that if his government were returned to power he would undertake the steps necessary to see that all the provinces of Canada had the financial means to discharge their constitutional responsibilities.
Of the principles outlined, the principle that agriculture should have guaranteed prices has been the first casualty. The Liberal government came back to power in Canada in 1935 and has been in power ever since, and the figures put out by the dominion bureau of statistics show that today agriculture is back in the position it was in the late thirties. Figures from the dominion bureau of statistics show that farm cost of production today, based on 1935-1939 equalling 100, is 238-7. But the price level of farm products is only 220-1. In other words the farmers' cost-price relationship, according to the figures of the dominion bureau of statistics, is even worse today than it was in 1935-1939, when we were still in the depths of a depression. If you want to know why there is unemployment in Canada, if you want to know why farmers are having difficulty in meeting their obligations, you can see the answer in the figures I have just quoted.
We had expected as a result of Liberal promises and commitments that agriculture would be guaranteed adequate prices after the war, because of the low prices accepted during the war. Under the policy of the present government not only are the so-called floor prices inadequate, they do not operate at all.
On December 6 last, speaking to the dominion-provincial conference, the Minister of Agriculture made a public confession that his floor price under eggs was not operating. He said the floor price was 38 cents a dozen, and the producer should be entitled to at least 32 cents a dozen. He quoted figures showing that farmers at Edmonton get 30 cents a dozen, at Winnipeg 27 cents a dozen and at London 37 cents a dozen. The government not only has not adequate floor prices for agricultural products, but the floor prices as set are paper floor prices, phony floor prices, and just so much fiction in the words of the Minister of Agriculture himself. At the dominion-provincial conference he admitted that the farmers were not receiving those prices.
Much has been said about the condition of the wheat producers and the wheat industry in this country. The Minister of Trade and
The Address-Mr. Argue Commerce is always very optimistic. He has said time after time that exports in the current crop year were going away up, that sales were improving, and that there would be very little difficulty.
I believe the trend is toward improvement, but not the way the Minister of Trade and Commerce has pointed out. The latest weekly publication issued by the board of grain commissioners for the period August 1, 1954, to January 5, 1955, shows that during that period we exported 99-6 million bushels, whereas during the same period of last year we exported 99-7 million bushels of wheat. This year to date exports are as low as last year, and last year was not a good year. So far as exports and sales of Canadian wheat are concerned, we can only hope that the trend is toward improvement.
Farm marketings of wheat this year are away down, from 230-9 million bushels a year ago to just 111-7 million bushels during the present period. Do not let anyone tell you that the main reason western farmers are short of cash today is that they have had a crop failure. The truth is that the western farmer has not been able to market even the small quantities of grain he has threshed. When the present crop year ends the majority of farmers will probably have little grain on their farms. The farmer has been able to keep the elevators filled, and the main reason he has no money is that marketings are down, coupled with the additional fact that the price-cost relationship is adverse. We have in Ottawa today a delegation representing the farm unions of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. This morning they made a well documented submission to the cabinet requesting, among other things, that the farmers be given adequate support prices, that they be given parity prices for wheat sold in Canada, and adequate floor prices for wheat sold on the international market.
Every important wheat producing country in the world today guarantees a support price to its wheat producers; and if one looks over the wheat support prices of the various countries of the world he sees that the Canadian position is bad indeed. It is right at the bottom of the list. The Argentine wheat producer is guaranteed $2.72 a bushel. The Australian wheat producer gets $1.55 a bushel on domestic wheat, plus a cost of production floor on export wheat. The farmer in Spain is guaranteed $2.73 a bushel, in Japan $2.53, in Greece $2.45, in France $2.95, in Belgium $2.49, in Sweden $2.28, in Turkey $2.28 to $3, in the United Kingdom $2.22, in the United States $2.24 and in West Germany $2.72 to

The Address-Mr. Argue $2.83 a bushel. Canada has the lowest guaranteed price of all, only $1.40 a bushel at Fort William, which means an effective price to the farmer of about $1.20 for No. 2 northern wheat at his local elevator marketing point.
There are three facts about the Canadian wheat picture we should not forget. The first is that the Canadian wheat grower produces the best wheat in the world, but under a Liberal government he is condemned to the highest cost of living in the world and the lowest guaranteed price in the free world. I say that the attitude of the Canadian government as expressed in its treatment of the wheat producers is shameful. No wonder the farmers of western Canada, through their farm unions and other organizations, are considering once again a mass movement on Ottawa to try to impress upon this anti-farm government the need to increase the support price on Canadian wheat.
It is a shame that Canada, one of the wealthiest if not the wealthiest country per capita in the world, should pay its wheat producers the lowest guaranteed price. The agricultural policy of this government is definitely and decidedly against the interests of the producers, and does not in any way give the farmers the guaranteed floor price they were promised by the late prime minister, Mackenzie King, at a time when agriculture was taking such low prices during the period of the war.
We in the C.C.F. believe that the principles laid down in the original dominion-provincial conference following the war were good. We believe that Canadians in every province of Canada are entitled to a basic minimum standard of services. We believe that dominion-provincial agreements are necessary if the government is going to adopt the financial policies necessary in order to maintain full employment. We believe such agreements would be of assistance in connection with the other things proposed to the original conference. We are sorry now that this government is set against implementing those important financial and social security measures. The late prime minister, Mackenzie King, said that just as soon as a sufficient number of provinces signed the taxation agreement he would implement the various social security and full employment measures proposed.
But with the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) the policy was changed. Hon. D. C. Abbott, who was minister of finance in December of 1950, said then that even though all the provinces were to sign a taxation agreement the federal government was not committed to anything in any other field.

The government today has demonstrated by its actions that it will not undertake the measures necessary to provide full employment. When the then minister of finance made his budget speech in the House of Commons in the 1954 session he forecast that the real wealth production of Canada would not go up in the coming year. The real wealth production of this country, because of the increasing population and the improvements in technology, should go up by at least 5 per cent every year. Instead of going up by 5 per cent it is forecast that the gross national product is likely to go down to the extent of some $500 million. Even allowing for a poor crop in western Canada, the fact remains that because we did not have full employment in Canada we lost during 1954 approximately $1,200 million in wealth production. That $1,200 million represents sufficient wealth to provide a health insurance program, to increase family allowances and to provide stabilized prices for agricultural products. But the government has allowed production to go down and the people of Canada to lose $1,200 million worth of wealth production.
The day before yesterday the Prime Minister announced unilaterally some of the results of the taxation negotiations he has had with the premier of Quebec. Ordinarily one expects that when two governments Have been making negotiations, any tabling of documents or statements made will be made concurrently. But the federal government made its announcement one day; and the premier of Quebec did not bother making one at all, and did not table the letters until the following day.
I may have some criticisms to make of the premier of Quebec, but certainly I will not malign him to the extent the Prime Minister did, according to a report in the Montreal Gazette, when he made the statement that Canada's prosperity and growth pleased everyone except countries behind the iron curtain and some people in Quebec. I may criticize the premier of Quebec, but I shall never criticize him in those terms; because even though I disagree violently with the stand taken by the premier of Quebec, I say those terms should not be used in relation to a premier of any province in Canada elected by democratic vote.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Why do you disagree with him? Is it just because you are a socialist?


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, that is about as sensible an interruption as the remarks of the previous speaker, which lasted some 40 minutes. I do not think such a question requires an answer.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You cannot give it.


Hazen Robert Argue: The statement by the Prime Minister of Canada in which he said that the Canadian income tax law would be amended to reduce the federal tax by 10 per cent in Quebec means, in my opinion, a complete surrender by the federal government of Canada to Premier Duplessis in Quebec.
We were told by the Prime Minister that the 10 per cent reduction represents just about the same amount of money that will be collected by the 15 per cent tax in the way it is applied in the province of Quebec. Now Canada has to go back to the kind of taxation situation, that existed before the war, when taxes varied from one province to another. We have all the ill effects, double taxation and differing taxation, and I am extremely disappointed that the federal government of Canada has yielded to the premier of Quebec in this way. It is a disservice to Canada.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You admit that he was smart, anyway.


Hazen Robert Argue: As a nation we are going to suffer from this policy, because it demonstrates that the government has forgotten about the principles enunciated in the dominion-provincial conference following the war. It shows conclusively that this government is not prepared to take those fiscal, taxation and economic measures that are necessary to guarantee full employment and full prosperity.
The result of this reversal of policy and attitude is shown in the fact that in 1954 Canadians lost $1,200 million of wealth production that should have been obtained. It shows that this government has now abandoned the idea of a social security program that would include health insurance. I believe the health insurance proposal, in the original conferences, was one of the most important proposals. The announcement of the Prime Minister demonstrates that he is now surrendering even his plan of a health insurance program.
The proposals in the original dominion-provincial conferences would have made it possible for Canadians living in all provinces of Canada to have a minimum basic standard of provincial services. The provinces have not the taxation resources necessary to fulfil their duties under the Canadian constitution. The revenues of the federal government amount to $4,500 million a year. The revenues of all ten provinces in Canada combined amount to only some $1,400 million a year, and the combined revenues of all the municipal governments in Canada, both rural
The Address-Mr. Argue and urban, amount to some $900 million a year. Therefore, out of the revenue dollar the federal government takes 73 cents, the provinces have 17 cents and all municipal governments have is 10 cents. There is the reason the federal government needs to provide increased grants and measures to enable the provinces to meet their very important obligations under the constitution.
One of their most important obligations is the provision of educational services; another of their most important obligations is the provision of roads which is a vital service in this nation today. The United States government recognized the necessity for an adequate road program as far back as 1912 and provided grants to the states for the building of roads. Today the United States has a good road system and President Eisenhower has proposed that congress provide $101 billion for roads in the United States in the next ten years. If the federal government of Canada did the same thing on a per capita basis it would provide $909 million a year toward the building of roads.
The only item in the estimates provides the magnificent sum of $15 million for the trans-Canada highway. The amount should be $909 million a year if the Canadian government was to make the same contribution to roads on a per capita basis. But ours is a much larger country than is the United States. If the Canadian government were to undertake a road program that would give us the same type of roads, no doubt it would cost a great deal more. Our government should give serious consideration to providing immediately adequate grants for the building of roads in various parts of the dominion.
The United States grants are not just for super highways or even just for ordinary highways in the states, but are for assistance in building every single mile of road in the United States of any consequence whatsoever, even farm to market roads and roads for local school buses. Rural municipalities in Canada, even urban municipalities, where a highway goes through a city, find the provision of adequate roads an impossibility.
The reason municipalities are unable to provide adequate roads in Canada is that the tax base in a municipality is so narrow. Municipalities derive almost all of their revenue from taxation on real property, and the taxation on land and urban properties for roads and for education is becoming almost unbearable in every single province of Canada. If there is an important political issue that is the same in each and every one of the provinces it is this matter of inadequate

The Address-Mr. Argue roads, high land taxation and the inability of municipalities to provide roads on their meagre taxation base.
The same thing is true with respect to adequate educational services. Any country in the world that prides itself on being a democracy and being progressive should provide adequate moneys to create equal educational opportunites for all the young people of that nation. We know the attitude of the premier of Quebec toward university grants. He will not take them. When the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) advocates that the federal government make grants for the provision of equal opportunities for education on the public and high school level, this government allows the attitude of the premier of Quebec to influence it to the point that it says no, we will not make grants for education in Canada. The result is a lowered standard of education in many provinces.
I come back to the statement I made earlier, that the Prime Minister had surrendered-yes almost unconditionally-to Premier Duplessis, as was clearly demonstrated in the statement he made in the house the day before yesterday. He has not only surrendered on the matter of taxation agreements, but he has surrendered to the leader of nationalist ideas, Premier Duplessis, to the point that he says, "No educational grants. We will let the children of Canada suffer from unequal educational opportunity." This attitude is a shame.
I would like to see the federal government, in the dominion-provincial conferences that are coming up, return to its original principles which were presented to the dominion-provincial conference after the war, and even at this late date undertake measures that will provide full employment, and an adequate social security system; and that will mean health insurance now. I hope they will adopt measures that will provide adequate guaranteed floor prices and a fair share of the national income for agriculture, and which will grant to each and every provincial government in Canada the financial resources to carry out its responsibilities under the Canadian constitution.
I do not think the attitude of the premier of Quebec should be allowed to condemn 15 million Canadians to suffer such things as high hospital bills, and high doctors' bills; to cause 15 million Canadians to go without adequate roads and adequate educational opportunities, and the Canadian nation to lose $1,200 million of wealth production in one year.
Again I make the statement that the Canadian government should stop sacrificing the well-being of 15 million Canadians on the

altar of ultranationalism; and, if that statement be considered too strong, I suggest hon. members read the Prime Minister's statement to the Reform club in Quebec last September.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to get to my feet so early in this session because I am sure the general rule about being seen and not heard is as applicable to new members of this house as it is to small children. But times have changed. I know that my two daughters have a great deal more to say than their parents had, so perhaps I may be permitted some slight deviation from the golden rule of silence.	.
I must admit I have been perplexed as to just what opening remarks I might make. I have no desire to make an evangelical speech of condemnation and denunciation. Neither have I any desire to offer wholesale congratulations to the government. Let us face it. As a member of the opposition, that group without which no government can operate efficiently, it is my duty to point out what I consider the shortcomings and deficiencies of this government, and I am prepared to say that this privilege only exists if such criticism can be constructive and a sound alternative offered.
Criticism, of course, either constructive or otherwise, can fall on deaf ears. My leader has conferred upon this government a diploma characterizing them as the greatest free traders of all time. I would confer upon them a degree "in mutual admiration". Perhaps they cannot be blamed for the fact that such a degree can be conferred upon them, because 20 years in office has convinced them that there is no alternative to their type of government.
I believe there is an alternative, and to express my views I might even have to use such unmentionable terms as tariffs, protection, and free enterprise.
What are the problems that face us today? Certainly by far the most important is unemployment. I agree with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) that there is no magic formula which can put an end to unemployment. But if unemployment were as regional and seasonal as the speech from the throne suggests, then I believe the magic formula of government handouts would do the trick. I am sure the Minister of Labour knows as well as we do that the situation now confronting us is much more serious than that. I know that in West York unemployment is greater today than it has been since the depression, and I do not need the benefit of information from the dominion bureau of statistics to convince me of that fact.

But now that we have criticized, have we anything to offer by way of solution? First of all, conditions can only be improved if all three partners in the free enterprise system join in a common program. But who are they? First, labour; second, management or industry; and third, the government. Each has a vital role to play.
To the workingman I would say that we cannot compete for the world's markets without getting more for our production dollar. Let me make it quite clear that I do not believe wages are too high. Far from it. But if businessmen are asked to devise better and more efficient methods of production, to reduce production costs, then I think labour too must join in the same program to see that greater productivity results from each man's daily job.
To management I would say that on you must fall the major burden of achieving the highest production at the lowest cost. Production methods must be constantly under study. The introduction of "automation" in plant equipment, it appears, must more and more be emphasized. New sales techniques must be tried and new markets sought to free us from dependence upon the United States.
Industry has achieved a great deal, but there appears to be an ever-increasing tendency to ask for government assistance even on small matters. Leaders of business must realize that if the government is asked for assistance there can be no satisfactory answer if the government asks for control. And this government shows no reluctance in accepting the principle of controlling every phase of economic life in this country if it is given the opportunity.
I might bring this thought to the special attention of bank presidents, whose lengthy reports I read annually. If the country's credit requirements cannot be met without government guarantees, then tighter and tighter government administrative control can be the only result, ending ultimately in government control of every phase of banking.
What could the government do to relieve unemployment other than the pump-priming job it is doing? I believe it could do a great deal, but this government has done nothing. We do not recommend high tariffs and protection, but we do ask for an end to the naive program of binding us under trade agreements to nations which are not playing under the same rules. The problem is just as simple as that. We choose up sides and we are ready to kick off, when we are informed that our opponent has just built a brick wall on the 20-yard line. With that system the best we can ever do is kick single
The Address-Mr. J. B. Hamilton points. The touchdowns will always be against us; and is that not just what our government has allowed to happen? Our two biggest customers, the United States and Britain, have allowed our goods entry or refused entry as they saw fit, regardless of the GATT agreement.
I say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) that if industry is called upon to cut down costs, to improve production techniques, and to economize, then I think it has the right to say to this government: "You economize, improve your methods and reduce your taxation program in the same proportion that you have asked us to reduce our prices to get into the world markets." Surely it is not too much to ask this government to reduce its over-all expenditure in the same proportion that has been achieved in the United States in the last couple of years.
This government could help further if it took another look at what I consider to be a very artificial exchange rate on the Canadian dollar. It is readily apparent that the rate is not based on the world's desire for Canadian dollars for trading purposes, because our adverse position in that respect has already been pointed out very forcibly by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). The real demand for Canadian dollars in the world's money market is for capital investment, and the artificially high value placed on the dollar is a real handicap to our manufacturers in their trading position. We should face this issue now because, if we do not, I shudder to think of the situation looming up and what will happen when our foreign investors complete their programs of construction and start asking for their dividends.
Is this not the way this government must face up to the country's unemployment problem? There appears to be no alternative. What will it be? Will it be a continuation of pump-priming, a little loosening up of the purse strings on the workers' and employers' own hard-earned unemployment insurance dollars, or a cold, hard, practical approach to this greatest problem in Canada today?
I think, Mr. Speaker, the spectre of unemployment is a far greater worry to the home owner than to any other individual in the community. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) has emphasized that fact in this house, and has suggested a method of protection for home owners who are buying under N.H.A. I wholeheartedly support the idea of equity of redemption insurance and, as a matter of fact, I strongly advocated such a plan during our recent by-election campaign in West York.

The Address-Mr. J. B. Hamilton
But the real problem lacing the home owner is in his capacity as a shareholder in his municipality. That municipality is having m6re and more trouble meeting its obligations because of its unfortunate position in the tax source picture. I am firmly convinced that we are saddling the municipality with responsibilities far beyond its capacity. I find it very difficult to understand why real estate should be carrying almost the complete load for educational cost, police protection and other similar responsibilities. Surely these items are for the benefit of all persons, not just for the benefit of home owners. I am hoping that when the dominion-provincial conference becomes a fact, the problems of the municipality will receive serious and thorough consideration, because otherwise it is questionable if essential services can be maintained and expanded.
The Minister of Finance should remember that the home owner is entitled to a tax break. His investment in a home is the largest investment of his life. It is an investment in the development of this country. It has created jobs on a greater scale than any investment in common stock in a corporation. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this government has given a tax credit of 20 per cent on dividends received from common stocks to anyone who invests in the same. I say to the Minister of Finance that it is much more important that such a tax credit should be allowed on annual payments of principal on house purchases, and on realty taxes paid on the same.
For example, a purchaser pays $400 in principal on his house mortgage annually, and $200 in realty taxes. Each of these amounts has created employment. It is a real investment, just the same as or more so than an investment in the common stock of one of our corporations. He should receive a credit on his income tax of 20 per cent of the total amount of both principal and realty taxes paid, namely $120. If that formula is not acceptable to this government the least which should be done for the home owner is to allow the real property taxes which he pays on his home as a deduction from his total income for income tax calculation.
I cannot close without mentioning that my constituency of West York has suffered as the result of two major disasters in this country during the past year. First, as the result of the Moose Jaw T.C.A. air crash, it lost its esteemed and highly honoured member of this house, Rodney Adamson, and his wife, Cynthia. I know this house and our party deeply feel his departure from this chamber, as he was a fine parliamentary


representative.	Then late in the year
West York bore the brunt of "Hurricane Hazel". Loss of life and property were appalling, but our people went to work with grim determination. Their efforts and their financial contributions to the various charitable drives have been tremendous.
This sacrifice must not be in vain. Surely this disaster has brought home to this house the necessity for an adequate national civil defence set-up. This program needs more than air raid sirens. It needs an adequate permanent force, small though it may be, just as much as an army does. Let us see that we get it, because I saw municipal authorities working under appalling conditions which should not occur in a well organized society.
(Translation) ;
Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to deliver a good part of my speech in French, but it is already difficult enough for a new member to make his maiden speech in his native tongue without venturing into the other official language of this country. I hope to do better in the future.
(Text):


Mr. John Decore (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, once again I have the privilege of rising in the house and speaking on behalf of one of the finest constituencies in Canada. May I first of all join with other members in congratulating the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The way these two hon. gentlemen acquitted themselves was certainly a credit to themselves and to the communities they represent, and was in the finest traditions of the house.
When I say I have the privilege of representing one of the finest areas in Canada I of course am referring to the people of the constituency. There is probably no other rural constituency in Canada whose population is as cosmopolitan as that of Vegreville. It is indeed true that the strength of Canada lies in her diversity. When we take Canada as a whole we find people of different backgrounds, different origins, different traditions, each of whom has something to contribute to the building of a new national Canadian culture and the strengthening of this land. So I say the constituency of Vegreville is most cosmopolitan, and I think you will find there the finest example of unity because the people, regardless of their origin, are able to understand and get along with each other. I also feel, and this is an actual fact, that our present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will go down in history as the greatest promoter of unity in Canada.

I listened with a great deal of interest during the course of the debate to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), and especially what he said with regard to tariffs. I wish to assure the house that the people of the province from which I come will endorse his views in this regard. Canada is the third largest trading nation in the world, being exceeded only by the United States and the United Kingdom. The well-being of this nation depends upon the volume of our trade with other countries.
This is true, of course, for every section of our population. It is certainly true of western Canada, for it is essential that the people of the prairies have a market for their wheat and other agricultural products. The same is true of the fisherman, whether he be on the east coast or on the west, and the same is also true with respect to any of the workers in our factories. The fact remains that if we want other countries to buy from us the things that we have to sell, then naturally these other countries will expect that we will buy from them. For that reason high tariffs do not promote trade. Tariffs are always a barrier to trade.
In view of certain restrictions that have been imposed on our exports by the United States government, I realize that some measure of protection is necessary for our industries. It is necessary that we promote their expansion and development and provide more opportunity for the creation of jobs for our people. But I believe the United States is at the crossroads today so far as giving economic leadership is concerned. They will have to decide, and decide soon, whether there is to be more and freer trade among nations. In this respect Canada has had the courage and determination to give leadership in attempting to break down the barriers to such free trade.
As one who represents a farming area, I sometimes find it difficult to tolerate the views held by some individuals who have a fatalistic attitude and regard farming as though it were the worst type of occupation. On the contrary, farming is one of the finest occupations in which one can engage. It may be that I hold this view because I was born and raised on a farm, but the outlook of the farmer is most independent, and with the advent of modern machinery farming no longer is the drudgery that it used to be years ago. I think hon. members will agree with me that with good and careful management most people who go into farming are able to do well.
But farming is also a very risky occupation, and it is often very discouraging and difficult. The farmer is subjected to declines
The Address-Mr. Decore in prices, as was the experience in the hungry thirties. He is subjected to weather conditions such as hail, drought, early frost, bad harvesting weather and, as was the case last year, excessive moisture. We are all aware of the serious crop failure experienced in the three prairie provinces in 1954, especially in the central and northern parts, and we can hardly expect to have another crop failure without disastrous results.
Some reference was made during the course of the debate to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I believe that act, which came into existence in 1939, is a great thing and a wonderful idea, but I agree again with the hon. member for Rosthern that in view of present conditions the payments should be broadened. I might go a step further. I pointed out a moment ago that another crop failure in the three prairie provinces would be disastrous to the farmers, and I wonder whether the government would not give consideration to seeing whether the farmers would not agree to an increase in the contribution they make. At the present time it is 1 per cent. It could very well be raised to 3 per cent or even more.
Perhaps some arrangement could be entered into with the provinces whereby, through the co-operation of the governments of the provinces and the federal government the farmer, in the event of a crop failure, would obtain much greater assistance than he is able to get at the present time. I would be glad if the leaders of the farm organizations would give this matter serious thought. Incidentally, I regard the farm organizations as most desirable and necessary, because their leaders have the opportunity to study various problems, to make suggestions and to advise governments, provincial or federal. For that reason I should like to know the feeling of the farm organizations about the suggestion I have made with respect to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
What I really want to bring to the attention of the house and the government is another problem which I consider to be serious, and which we are being confronted with in the farming communities. I am of course referring to the great difficulty that young men and women must overcome if they want to start farming. We realize that it requires a lot of capital, and because of lack of capital it is difficult for these young men or other people who are interested to make a start. We all realize that the very high cost of machinery as well as the very high cost of land probably requires a minimum investment, in 'our area at least, of $15,000 to start a farm. There are many people who wish to make a start who just do not have that kind of money.

The Address-Mr. Decore
When my grandfather came to this country some 60 years ago he was able to obtain a homestead upon the payment of a $10 fee. We are now living in a different age, however, and under different conditions. I think we still have enough of the pioneering spirit left in us, but as I say it still requires a lot of capital. You will find instances of families where there are four or five boys, and these families are able only to set one boy up farming. The other lads just are not able to make a start. They must move into some industrial centre such as Hamilton or Toronto in order to find a job.
What about the farm hands who are employed on salary? It is most difficult for them to save enough money to be able to make a start in farming. The same thing applies to many of our newcomers. Why should many of these people who have the qualifications and the desire find it necessary to move into industrial centres? There was a time when industrial centres were able to absorb these people, but often they only add to the problem of unemployment.
If I may digress for a moment, one of the serious problems we have in the prairie provinces is the lack of a self-sustaining population. If you were to compare the 1941 census with the census of 1951, which is the last census, you would find that in Alberta, although there was an apparent gain of some
140,000	people during that period, actually it was not a true picture of the situation because that figure does not take into account a very important factor, namely the natural increase. When I speak of the natural increase I am referring to the number of births in excess of the number of deaths. We have very accurate figures in that respect. When you take these figures into account you will find that the net loss of population in Alberta for that ten-year period was 9,500.
That is not very serious, but if you take the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan the figures are much more serious and disastrous. In Manitoba the net loss of population was over 65,000. In the province of Saskatchewan there was a net loss of over 200,000. Therefore, you will readily see that the net loss of population in the three prairie provinces during that period from 1941 to 1951 was over a quarter of a million. This shows that we not only have failed in that period to attract people, but have failed to even keep those people who were already there. Many of these people have moved into industrial centres because they are areas where there is a great population^ and a greater population offers better opportunities.
My point is that, whether in the prairie provinces or in any other province of Canada

it is our young men and women who wish to go into farming and who have the necessary experience and desire who should be given an opportunity to remain on the land. I believe they would be able to make a much more valuable contribution to the wealth of this country if they were encouraged to remain on the farms where they desire to be. The fact is that it is almost impossible for a man to make a start in farming because of the amount of capital that must be involved.
What can be done about it? I can only offer a suggestion. May I point out that at one time it was impossible for many Canadians to own their own homes, and then along came the national housing plan. That plan was by no means perfect. It still probably needs changes. Some changes have already been proposed by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). But the fact is through the operation of this act thousands of people in towns and cities became home owners who otherwise never would have been able to own a home.
What actually happened was that a scheme or a plan was set into motion without any risk on the part of the government or on the part of the lending institutions. It is not a case of a handout. It is a plan which was put into motion and which has brought a benefit to thousands and thousands of people in this country. I therefore ask why there should not be a similar plan for our young men and women who wish to go into farming.
I am not suggesting handouts. Some of you will say we already have legislation which tends to assist the farmers, such as that setting up the Canadian farm loan board or the Farm Improvement Loans Act. This legislation is intended to assist those people who have already made a start in farming. It is a case of enabling them to buy better equipment, improve their homes, or purchase additional land. But as far as I know there is nothing on our statute books which would tend to help the people who wish to make a start on the farm, along the lines of the national housing scheme.
Mr. Speaker, a plan similar to the National Housing Act, possibly with the co-operation of the provincial governments, could be, I think, brought into existence. Let me point out that we have already the basic machinery to set up this kind of a plan. We have the V.L.A. offices in various provinces. They already have the know-how, the knowledge to deal with these matters.
Since there is great room for expansion of our agricultural industry in this country I do not think we want these people who are suited for farming and who have a wide background of experience in that occupation to go into

something else when they are desirous of going into farming. I do hope the government will give this matter very careful consideration.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: It is
not my intention today, Mr. Speaker, to contribute unnecessarily to the prolongation of this debate. However, there are a number of matters of vital concern to the residents of Fraser Valley, which electoral district it is my honour to represent. Therefore I shall endeavour to present them and deal with them as briefly as possible, while stressing them as vigorously as I believe their importance and urgency would warrant. As you are no doubt aware, the economy of the Fraser valley is quite diversified, and the problems to which I shall refer today have to do with different aspects of our economy.
A great part is played in my riding by those who are engaged in the fishing industry, and during the past several weeks it has been my privilege to discuss with them some of the problems with which they are currently faced. I should like first of all to refer to the closure regulations which are affecting them at the present time. I believe that as these regulations are imposed they will bring additional hardship on our people in this industry.
Last year the department announced that the closure on commercial fishing in the Fraser river above New Westminster bridge would be in effect on September 16, as a conservation measure. Following strong protests this decision was altered and the closure date for 1954 was set at October 8, for 1955 at September 30 and for 1956 at September 15. This modification was welcomed by the fishermen in this area, and in a letter to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) I expressed the hope that after further consideration and investigation it might not be necessary to apply the earlier closures as set out in the statement.
Regarding the effectiveness of the closure measures last fall, I should like to read a short paragraph from the brief submitted by the gill net section of the Pacific fishermen and allied trades union. It states with respect to closure:
At the time the suggestion contained in article 5 appeared our organization sent a brief to the federal minister of fisheries and also told him at an interview in Vancouver that the proposed measure would not only work a very great hardship on the fishermen and the businessmen of the area, but that the measure would not have the desired effect, i.e., to increase the number of parent fish reaching the local streams between New Westminster and Mission. There being no pink salmon run to the Fraser this year, commercial fishing was allowed to October 8 and then closed supposedly to conserve the chum salmon. Our contention was fully borne out by the fact that up to December 1,
The Address-Mr. Patterson
(when all commercial fishing automatically closed by custom in past years in the Fraser river) the showing of chums in the local streams mentioned was the poorest in history, showing plainly that the stopping of fishing above New Westminster bridge had no bearing on the matter.
Therefore I suggest that further consideration be given to this matter. As I have already said, I hope that in the future earlier closures such as have been suggested will not be imposed.
There was also the suggestion that the closure would prevent the taking of a poor grade of fish, which would obtain above this specified point in the river. In this connection I would call attention to two letters, one of which is written by the secretary of this union to the Johnston Fishing and Packing Company of New Westminster, British Columbia. It states:
Gentlemen, the directors of the gill net section of our union are desirous of obtaining information as to the procedure used in handling salmon caught above New Westminster bridge. As you probably know, there have been a lot of loose statements as to the quality of salmon caught in this area and in order to arrive at the facts of the case we would be very much obliged if your company could answer the questions listed below.
1.	In deliveries of salmon from your collectors to your plant are the salmon caught and collected above New Westminster bridge kept entirely separate at all times from salmon caught and collected in other parts of district 1?
2.	In the process of canning salmon at your plant is a separate code mark used to differentiate between salmon caught above New Westminster bridge and salmon caught in other parts of district 1?
3.	Does the government laboratory require certification from your company as to the place or origin of any parcel of canned salmon submitted by your company for inspection?
4.	What percentage of this year's total pack was of grade "b" quality which was canned at your plant?
Thanking you in advance for this and other information which may occur to you as pertinent to the quality of salmon caught above New Westminster bridge, I am,
Yours sincerely,


F. ROLLEY,
[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
In reply they received the following letter from the Johnston Fishing and Packing Company:
Pacific Fishermen and Allied Trades Union,
298 Main St.,
Vancouver 4, B.C.
Attention Mr. Fred Rolley,
Dear Sir:
Replying to yours of the 4th instant in which you ask four questions dealing with the Fraser river fishing operations, our answer to the first three is "No" and to the fourth "None".
Therefore we have a picture of the situation as it exists, relative to the suggestion and contention that above the New Westminster bridge the fish are of poorer quality.
Another matter of concern to the fishermen is that while the maximum length of gill
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Patterson nets for use in the Fraser river is only 150 fathoms, that allowed in the past in other areas, and for seiners, is 200 fathoms. Fishermen have told me that 150 fathom nets are only about 50 per cent effective, as the nets have a tendency to gather, whereas on the other hand 200 fathom nets remain at approximately their full length. In this respect these men are wondering why gill nets are all to be reduced to 150 fathoms while no reduction is contemplated for the seiners. There is also dissatisfaction over the fact that while gill netters are under constant and close inspection, little if anything is being done to enforce the regulations with respect to the seiners.
Then I have one further observation to make about the fishing industry. Last year a statement was made to the effect that a number of reconstructed seiners were to be permitted into Canada and given some tax concessions. They were required to spend at least two years in the deep-sea fishing industry. It is now brought to my attention that last fall at least one of these vessels was reported fishing right up to the very mouth of the river. The gill netters of the Fraser river are concerned about this and other problems to which I have referred, and are of the opinion that a concerted effort is being made, by restrictive measures imposed against small and independent fishermen, to force them out of the industry, so that further benefits will accrue to the large company-owned seine boats.
I call these matters to the attention of the minister and suggest that he will have to do a lot of fast talking-perhaps faster than usual-to convince fishermen that this is not so, if indeed it is not.
The second problem to which I would call attention is that of river bank erosion and flood danger. It appears that at least some of these problems are characteristic of the Fraser valley. I have not heard other members dwell upon	them	at	length in	anyrespect, but	I can	say	that they	affectmightily the	Fraser	valley. Before	coming to Ottawa for	this	session I	spent
a good portion of one afternoon in the company of the reeve of Kent municipality, inspecting the river and protection work at several locations. There certainly is cause for immediate concern. From the annual report of J. L. MacDonald, provincial diking commissioner, contained in the report of the land service for the year ended December 31, 1953, and reported in the Fraser Valley Record, I quote the following:
Within the memory of many the Fraser river has washed away vast acres of fertile land, replacing homes and farms with gravel bars. This destructive action is continuous. The effects are especially

evident in the districts of Kent. Nicomen island, Matsqui and Pitt Meadows. On Nicomen island the Department of Public Works has had to move a road located outside the dike back from the river bank three times within a year. Remedial action will have to be taken.
To find a solution to the problems which should attempt to control the cause, is not a simple matter. It will require comprehensive engineering investigation and study.
Corrective measures are beyond the scope of local districts. The subject is of importance both to British Columbia and Canada.
In the one district of Kent I understand 1,200 acres of valuable agricultural land have been lost. At the present time farms are in immediate danger as the process of erosion continues. At one point the river threatens to break through the bank completely and cut another channel. If this were to happen, not only would it be disastrous to the farmers but it is questionable whether navigation would be possible through that section at low water.
Engineers have made a survey of the area and estimate that the cost of the required work would be in the neighbourhood of $43,500. The municipality is committed to $7,000 for river bank work during the current year, and it is completely beyond the ability of the district to assume further responsibilities at the present time. The nature of the problem is such that further delay in its solution will be disastrous not only to the few farmers near the bank but also to the entire community.
I might say in this connection that the natural process of erosion is tremendously aggravated by the passage of tug boats. These boats keep close to the bank in order to miss the strong currents, and one can stand and watch the wash as it strikes the bank and then recedes, carrying soil with it. We do appreciate the assistance given by the dominion government in this matter, but we urge that an effort be made to solve the whole problem permanently and allay the fears of those people who are in danger of losing large parts of their farms. What is true in Kent is likewise true in the other areas I have already mentioned, and also in Albion, further down the river.
I should like to refer again, as I did last year, to a matter which concerns the residents of another section of the Fraser valley, namely those who are living along the Vedder river. This matter has been brought to the attention of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources by the officials of the department of agriculture of the British Columbia government. The whole proposition has been presented, with aerial photographs and all the data required, and we were hoping that some positive action would be taken in this respect. We had

hoped that the dominion government would be prepared to give some substantial assistance in this matter. The Vedder river is gradually filling up the channel, until at the present time we find that for possibly three miles there is very little channel, and the river just meanders here and there. It is quite possible, in the event of a flash flood, that the whole area would be under water.
There are some valuable dominion government works in that section. Even although it is the judgment of certain officials that they are not in danger at the moment, there is a definite possibility that they would be in danger in the event of a serious flood developing. Therefore I again request that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources further consider this matter and render some assistance in its solution.
Once again it appears that the government does not intend to do anything toward raising the pensions of our senior citizens. I have listened to the speeches of hon. members from day to day, and the fact that very few have even referred to this matter has given me some cause for surprise. I believe the senior citizens of our country are deserving of some real consideration at the present time. It appears that many of those citizens who have worn themselves out in building up our great country are to be forced to spend their remaining days in actual want, and that certainly most of them are in far from comfortable circumstances. The governments of British Columbia and Alberta have recognized the need for some action and are now supplementing the old age security payment by $15 a month. I understand that Saskatchewan still holds to the $2.50, and the other provinces are not contributing anything in this regard.
Last year this government balked at raising the war veterans allowance because they said it would jeopardize the progress of their social welfare program, but we find this year they have introduced legislation to raise the war veterans allowance. I do not know how much the increase will be, but I certainly hope it will be substantial. We hope that if this government cannot find it possible to increase old age pensions at this session- we hope they do-they will be prepared next session to bring in legislation to give better consideration to those who are elderly, to enable them to meet their living costs.
I have the honour to represent one of the great agricultural areas in British Columbia. One of the main problems confronting those engaged in certain aspects of agriculture in that area is the high prices they are forced to pay for feed grains. I have no quarrel with the prairie farmers in their endeavour 50433-23
The Address-Mr. Patterson to obtain a greater share of the national income. I believe it is coming to them; but the farmers in my area do object to paying a terrifically high price for products for which the farmer receives very little.
For instance, I have been given to understand that the farmer receives approximately $28 a ton for feed wheat. When our poultry raisers in British Columbia purchase feed wheat it costs $68 to $70 per ton. The freight charge from Regina to Vancouver would be in the neighbourhood of $13.40 per ton. Someone somewhere is receiving 100 per cent profit. I believe this situation warrants investigation, for this problem is of vital concern to the farmers in the Fraser valley and is one to which I sincerely direct the attention of the government at this time.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me voice appreciation for the measures being introduced by the government this session. I suppose the proper psychological approach would be to think in terms of a motion of commendation, but I shall reserve that for later in the session.
We welcome amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Veterans Benefit Act, although, as I have already intimated, we do not know to what extent the proposals will go. We would say that to be in any degree satisfactory the requests of the veterans organizations should be acceded to in full. I do not have to go into their requests in detail and place them on record again. They are well known to every hon. member, and I would suggest that the government would be doing the minimum by meeting those requests.
We are also appreciative of the amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act. However, as other hon, members have stated, there are still many inadequacies quite evident in the legislation. There are still many who should be receiving benefits but who are classed as ineligible. A group of men came to see me several weeks ago and called to my attention the fact that despite their employment with Buckerfield's Limited they were not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. These men might be classed as a marginal group. They are clipper operators and tow truck drivers, and therefore find themselves somewhere in between agricultural workers and those engaged in industry. I submit that in all fairness these men should be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits the same as others who are engaged in operations conducted by Buckerfield's Limited.
The disability pension legislation brought in last session and now proclaimed is wholly commendable but, as has already been stated, it is so restricted in its application that men who should be receiving assistance under the legislation are likewise ineligible.
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Cannon
We are also appreciative of other things such as the proposal regarding blind pensions and the legislation authorizing loans to fishermen similar to those provided to farmers under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. But again let me say that we are far from satisfied with the situation in regard to the other matters I have mentioned, and I would earnestly request that the attention of the respective departments be called to those problems and something be done to rectify them.
Mr. Charles Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, at the opening of my remarks I wish to extend a most hearty welcome to the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler).
I have had the honour of being one of his friends for some years, and I can assure hon. members, though it is something they will find out for themselves as the weeks go by, that in the new minister this house has made a very valuable acquisition indeed. His parliamentary experience, which is extensive, will be an asset to us. Apart from that he is perfectly bilingual, and that will give him the opportunity of being courteous and capable in both languages. I am quite sure that as far as Magdalen islands are concerned we will have with him the same pleasant relationship we had with his predecessor, Hon. Lionel Chevrier.
I also wish to welcome to this house a confrere from the Quebec bar, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Richardson); also a confrere from the Ontario bar, the hon. member for Toronto Trinity (Mr. Carrick), who seconded the motion for the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
This brings me to the pleasant task of congratulating both the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
(Translation):
I congratulate the mover of the address (Mr. Leduc) on the fine way in which he carried out his task. He remained true to the fine traditions of his predecessors who spoke in French in the house and he was a credit not only to his language but also to his province.
(Text) :
It may be noted that after a Toronto lawyer moved the address last year, another Toronto lawyer seconds it this year, and I can only repeat what I said to his predecessor last year, the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth), that he acquitted himself very well indeed and fully measured up to the standard we expect from a member of the Ontario bar.


Mr. Fleming:: It is a good city.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Yes, but you may not be so well pleased with the remainder of my remarks.


Mr. Martin:: Some might take exception to that observation.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I am sorry I cannot congratulate the members of the opposition who have taken part in this debate so far. In reading over their speeches in Hansard I made notes on certain passages to which I would like to draw the attention of hon. members. To begin with, we find that the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe), as reported at page 22 of Hansard, congratulated some members of his party on having obtained certain things from the government. For example, he congratulates the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) for having his plea heeded on behalf of the war veterans. He congratulates the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) on his success with regard to Ripple Rock. He also congratulated the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) for having obtained a new ferry service, and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) and the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) on having obtained amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Then a few lines further on he states:
Can it be that this government has grown so strong that they think opposition is unnecessary, so strong that they think opposition has very little place in the present trend of events?
Well, Mr. Speaker, I may not have learned my logic at the same place as the Acting Leader of the Opposition, but I would draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that after having quoted several instances in which this government has taken representations by the opposition into consideration, the hon. gentleman immediately reproaches the government vehemently with not taking notice of the opposition and carrying on as if there were no opposition at all. To put it mildly that logic is not very consistent.
We on this side of the house could hardly believe our ears when we heard the Acting Leader of the Opposition in his motion propose that health insurance should be introduced at the earliest possible moment. All through the years we have heard the Conservative party oppose the proposition that we should have health insurance. They have wrapped it up with the rest of the social security measures of the Liberal party which they have labelled socialism, and they have always combated these suggestions. If I were a Conservative-and I am not, thanks be to God-I would be discouraged to hear the

acting leader of my party throwing aside Conservative principles for which they have fought for so long and trying to be more liberal than the Liberals, saying that he wishes to bring in a measure of health insurance that the Liberals have been talking about since 1919.


An hon. Member:: Just talking about it.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I know it is a long time. I just mention it in order to show that it is a matter the Liberals have been suggesting for a long time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: At election time.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I say that the people of the country will not be taken in by the late conversion of the Acting Leader of the Opposition and by the late conversion of the Conservative party. I say that the people of the country will not give their votes to the Conservative party because of that late conversion, but rather they will count on the Liberal party which has always been in the forefront when social security measures were concerned. As I say, they will count on the Liberal party to give them health insurance when the time for it has come.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: When the budget of the federal government will permit us to give it. They know it was we who seriously suggested it in the first place, and they know it is we who will carry it out when the time comes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When will that be?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: The hon. member knows as well as I do that at this time we cannot increase social security measures because of the great load that military expenses place on the budget. We all hope that eventually we shall be able to diminish these expenses. In the meantime it is not possible to increase social security measures.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will it be in the year 2000?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Before that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If it is not going to come into effect for perhaps another 36 years, does the hon. member not think it only fair to the Canadian people that the Liberal party should stop talking about it and stop making these idle, empty promises?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: It is not the Liberal party that is talking about it; it is the Conservative party.
50433-23i
The Address-Mr. Cannon


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are talking about campaign promises made at election time by the Liberal party.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: It was the Acting Leader of the Opposition who was talking about it. It was you who brought it up, not I.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have been talking about it at every election within living memory.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: You will be surprised. In any event, it will come up much too soon for your liking. I can tell you that.


William Earl Rowe: You changed your mind rapidly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is some more of your logic.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Is that an announcement made, through you, by the minister?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: The minister makes no'
announcements through me. He is quite capable of making his own announcements.


William Earl Rowe: That whisper from the health department changed your mind very quickly, that it may not take 36 years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
(Translation) :


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: And now, Mr. Speaker, I come back to the French language in order to direct a few remarks to the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) who granted to himself a certificate-


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: He is absent.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Unfortunately, he is absent but, nevertheless, he can read my remarks in Hansard. On page 225 of Hansard, he awarded himself, in a clear and intelligible voice and with abundant gestures, a certificate to be valid only at the end of this session, that of having accomplished his duty.


Pierre Gauthier: He has foresight.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: After referring to the end of the session, the hon. member stated:
I will then have-
That is to say, at the end of this session.
-the great and noble satisfaction of having done my duty.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that ridicule is fatal to none in Canada, as the hon. member appears to enjoy good health.
(Text) :
Mr. Speaker, I can congratulate even less the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). I was not present in the house when he made his remarks about the province
356	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Cannon of Quebec, but I read his remarks, and I could hardly believe my eyes when I read them. At page 121 of Hansard the hon. member is reported as having said:
I contend that there is no part ot Canada that is as ripe for advances by the communist party as the province of Quebec.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the greatest exhibition of colossal ignorance that I have ever heard or read in all my life. I would remind the hon. member that apart from the labour progressive party, under which name the communist party masquerades, the party in Canada which is closest to the communist party is the C.C.F.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now who is showing his ignorance?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Before he talks about there being any danger of the communist party becoming powerful in our province the hon. member had better look to the other provinces where the C.C.F. party is in power or gets a large vote. It is in those provinces that there is a great danger of the communist party taking a foothold, certainly not in the province of Quebec. In Quebec we have respect for constituted authority; we have a true religious sentiment, and there is no danger of the communist party obtaining a foothold in our province. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, in order to illustrate his point, again at page 121 of Hansard is reported to have said:
In the city of Montreal the communist party polled about as many votes as the C.C.F.
In place of saying that the communist party polled about as many votes as did the C.C.F. in the city of Montreal, I think it would be fairer to say that the communist party polled as few votes as did the C.C.F. in the city of Montreal, because the C.C.F. never polled many votes in our province. It has an unblemished record of never having elected a representative in the province of Quebec either to the federal house or to the provincial house.


Mr. Winch:: What about Fred Rose?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: He was a communist.


Harold Edward Winch: That is what I say. He was from your province.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: You are a member of the C.C.F.


Harold Edward Winch: Thank goodness.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Are you identifying yourself with him? That illustrates the point I just made, namely that your party is closest to the communist party.


Mr. Ellis:: That is why the communists supported the Liberals in 1945.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I wish to turn my attention to the third party of the opposition, namely the Social Credit party. From my county I have been receiving letters cut out from the official newspaper of the Social Credit party in our province, L'Avenir. These letters, which are printed in the newspaper with the caption "Send them to your member", "En-voyez-les a votre depute", are accompanied by bunches of signatures that have been obtained in the constituency of Iles-de-la-Madeleine by the emissary of the Social Credit party who went down there for that purpose. These letters asked that military expenditures be reduced in order to double family allowances. They contain such demagogic phrases as "Families need more bread than guns to bring up children".
I should like the leader of the Social Credit party to tell the house and the country -because I say the country is entitled to a declaration from the man who is leader of a party that claims to be a national party- whether or not he is in favour of Canadian armament, whether or not he is in favour of Canada living up to the obligations it undertook with the rest of the western European nations to resist communism, whether he is in favour of Canada living up to the obligations that it undertook under NATO. I say that if he is in favour of these things the Social Credit party cannot in good faith tell the people of my county or of any other county that this country ought to reduce military expenditures in order to double family allowances.
I say that if the Social Credit party is in favour of our living up to our obligations under NATO and our obligations to the other free countries allied with us, its leader should denounce in the house and repudiate what has been done in my constituency in the name of the Social Credit party. I shall look forward to hearing him make a statement on that point.


An hon. Member:: Who is in carpet slippers now?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: To the people of my constituency I say that first things must come first. If we are to preserve family allowances we have to preserve our liberty and our way of life. The old Roman saying, si vis pacem, para bellum, was never truer than it is today -if you want peace, prepare for war. It is

absolutely necessary that we be strong. Everybody knows that. The leader of the Social Credit party knows it. The emissaries of his party who went to my constituency to try to subvert the people there and make them sign silly petitions know perfectly well, as he and other members of the party here know, that these expenditures must be made. He knows that we have to be strong and that we have to combat communism if we are to retain our way of life and our liberty.
He knows also that our liberty and our way of life are essentials that we must have before we can have any family allowances
The Address-Mr. Cannon at all, let alone double family allowances. I say to the people of my county that when the time comes to increase family allowances the Liberal party will increase them. The Liberal party was the party that introduced family allowances in the first place, and it can be counted upon to increase them when the revenues and wealth of the country permit us to do so.
On motion of Mr. Cannon the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) the house adjourned at 5.56 p.m.

Thursday, January 20, 1955