1956-01-23

PRIVILEGE


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like as a matter of privilege to explain at once to the house that, in reviewing the Hansard report of the answer I gave on Friday to a question by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) with regard to the shipments of arms or equipment from Canada, I found my words were not as precise as they should have been.
I said that "at the present time we are as much concerned about the situation in the Middle East as is any hon. member of the house, and that there will be no shipments pending the debate on the matter in the House of Commons." The whole discussion had arisen, in fact, out of the concern about the situation in the Middle East, and I intended my words about shipments to refer to that area which I had just mentioned, and I believe everyone understood that they did refer to that area.
However, when I saw the transcript, it seemed to me the words about shipments might be misunderstood and perhaps taken to mean there would be no shipments to any country, including our North Atlantic allies, and I therefore inserted after the word "shipments" the words "for that area", and I wanted to take this first opportunity to explain to the house that I had done so to remove any possibility of misinterpretation of the statement elsewhere or even here in parliament.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should think all hon. members of the house would welcome thp insertion of those words, because I do not think there was any thought in anyone's mind that the shipment of arms as part of our general NATO arrangements should in any way be interfered with. The concern that had been expressed related to shipment to an area where there has been a great deal of disturbance. May I say also that the concern has related particularly to the uncertainty of the ministers as to what the facts are.


Mr. Speaker:: Just for the sake of orderly procedure, may I be permitted to point out that a question of privilege is not debatable.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY ACT TABLING OF REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1955

Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to lay on the table two copies of the report of proceedings under the Trans-Canada Highway Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1955.


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Public Works that, according to our new procedure, all he has to do with respect to these documents is to send them to the Clerk at the table.



INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ACT


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act to enlarge the classes of loans that may be made under the act; to raise the limit on the aggregate amount of loans exceeding two hundred thousand dollars from fifty million dollars to seventy-five million dollars; and to make certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act to extend the application of the act, and to provide further for certain changes in consequence thereof and also in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
390	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Government notices of motions-the Prime Minister: The following proposed motion:
That a joint committee of both houses of parliament be appointed to review and report upon the progress and programs of the federal district commission in developing and implementing the plan for the national capital:
That the members to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of the said committee be designated at a later date;
That the said committee have power to call for persons, papers and records; to sit while the house is sitting, and to report from time to time;
That the said committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee and that Standing Order 66 be suspended in relation thereto;
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I understand that
under the new rules this motion must be made a government order.


Mr. Speaker:: Government order.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Is the minister aware of the fact that a number of employees of Bristol aircraft at Winnipeg have been given notice of termination of employment, and that the notice indicates that there will be further lay-offs owing to a cut-back in government orders? Is there not something the government can do to alleviate this situation?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, Bristol Aircraft Company of Canada is a private corporation. It does work for the government, for T.C.A. and for a number of private contractors. Employment there is a matter for the management. There has been no cut-back in government orders. Work that would ordinarily go to Bristol Aircraft goes to Bristol Aircraft. It would be much more to the point to talk about employment as the result of complaints about Harvard aircraft. But I know of no unemployment resulting directly from any government action at Winnipeg.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: On Friday last, as reported at page 346 of Hansard, the Prime Minister stated that he hoped on Monday to be able to give a full statement with regard to the question of whether any permits had been issued in connection with the export of gun parts or any other military equipment.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Yes, Mr. Speaker. Over the week end that matter has been carefully gone into. The reports we have had are being closely checked in the Department of Defence Production, the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of National Defence, and the Department of External Affairs. My understanding is that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has most of the information required, and that it is being gone over again so that it may be absolutely correct. I understand that he expects to be able to give a statement tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: On Thursday last, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asked me a supplementary question following a question which he had asked of my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs with respect to the ability of the Harvard trainer to carry weapons. His supplementary question to me was:
-have any steps been taken to ensure that military weapons are not provided for the Harvard trainers being shipped to Egypt?
May I say at the outset that the Harvards in question were never the property of nor were they at any time ever used by the Royal Canadian Air Force. They were, I am informed, assembled and built from spare parts by the Canadian Car and Foundry Company Limited for Egypt as training aircraft and are similar to the Harvards now being used by our own air force for the first stage of pilot training. The Harvards built for Egypt are not, I am further informed, equipped with any armament whatever nor was structural provision made in their construction to enable them to be so equipped. To give them any armament capability would require extensive factory rework which would take at least two months.

No items of aircraft armament have been made available by the Royal Canadian Air Force for use in the Harvards built for Egypt, nor has any request for the same been received by the Royal Canadian Air Force. Any such request, if received, would be subject to close scrutiny by government agencies concerned, following the procedure laid down and which I understand will be dealt with in detail by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the statement which he will make tomorrow.


George Alexander Drew: Does the minister suggest that the fact that the Harvard trainers were not the property of the R.C.A.F. means there was any change in the construction of those Harvard aircraft so they would be any different from those ordinarily used by the R.C.A.F.?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not understand the purport of the hon. member's question. The ordinary purpose of the Harvard trainer is for primary training and not for combat. I understand that those built for Egypt were constructed in the same way and to the same specifications as our primary trainer.


George Alexander Drew: Perhaps the minister would inform us as to what the significance of the statement was that these were not the property of the R.C.A.F., because there must have been some purpose in making it.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The purpose was that the hon. member addressed a question to me as Minister of National Defence and asked me whether we had provided weapons for the Harvard trainer.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Speaker. I wish to make the record quite clear. The question was directed because of a photograph of Harvard trainers that had been supplied by the R.C.A.F., and I asked the question whether there was any difference between the Harvard trainers supplied to the R.C.A.F. and the Harvard trainers supplied to Egypt in those circumstances. I think the question has some importance and can be answered by the minister if he will listen with both ears.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: Last week, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Royal asked if it is the intention of the government to move the fisheries research station from St. Andrews, N.B., to Halifax, N.S.
Inquiries of the Ministry
The answer is no. Since 1944 this station has grown from a staff of 10 full-time and 7 seasonal employees to 96 full-time and 29 seasonal employees. St. Andrews is the ideal location for the biological station serving the maritime provinces, since it is situated in the heart of most of the fisheries.
One or two maritime fisheries however are not centred around St. Andrews and so for some years we have stationed employees at Ellerslie, P.E.I., and Shippigan, N.B., for oyster studies, and at Chatham, N.B., for smelt studies.
The fisheries research board has now recommended establishing two other small detachments at Halifax to be closer to their work.
The international commission for the northwest Atlantic fisheries has established its headquarters at Dalhousie University, Halifax. Halifax is also the centre of our deep-sea trawler fleet and so it is felt that the section studying groundfish should be stationed there to carry out our share of research work for the commission.
The Royal Canadian Navy and the Department of Fisheries have a joint program of oceanographic studies. Since the navy provides personnel and vessels from their Halifax base, the work will be better carried out if the fisheries scientists are stationed at Halifax.
The total personnel affected is about 20. The move will be carried out gradually over the next two years to avoid inconvenience to the employees affected. The move will also relieve the present overcrowding at St. Andrews station.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Could the Postmaster General inform the house as to how much was stolen last Thursday night from the temporary postal station in Verdun?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: I do not have the exact figure here, but I would be very glad to get it for the hon. member.



ARTHRITIS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question
392	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). In his absence, perhaps the question can be answered by the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister aware of the new, so-called miracle drug meta cortin, which is reported to be effective in the treatment of arthritis? Does he know that the price of this drug in Winnipeg is $40 per 100 tablets, while the corresponding price in Minneapolis is $25 per 100 tablets? I am informed that this drug carries a customs duty of 20 per cent, plus 10 per cent sales tax. Will the minister consider making representations to his colleagues to have the customs duty and sales tax removed so this drug may become available to sufferers from arthritis?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I may say that I am acquainted with the drug. Whether it is a miracle drug or not I do not know and I do not think anybody else knows. I do not know what the price of it is because I neither use it nor prescribe it. However, I shall bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and the matter of the duty and the sales tax on it will be given consideration, if it is up to the standard that my hon. friend claims for it.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR CLOSING OUT OF 1954-55 POOL ACCOUNT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister consider closing out the 1954-55 wheat pool account so that prairie producers may receive a larger payment at an early date rather than a smaller interim payment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I stated on a previous occasion in reply to a question by the same hon. member that no consideration could be given to the subject until Bill No. 2 on the order paper is approved by parliament or otherwise. That is still the situation. It will be the situation and I hope the question will not be asked again until that bill is disposed of.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the minister not aware of the fact that Bill No. 2 is a bill standing in my name, and the bill he refers to is actually a resolution?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite right.
(Mr. Trainor.]



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister inform the house concerning the fire at Minto armouries in Winnipeg and the extent of the damage?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question, I cannot inform the house with respect to the cause of the fire, and I can give only an approximate figure as to the estimated damage. I might say it is estimated that the loss will probably reach half a million dollars. In order to determine the cause, a board of officers under Colonel Houghton, commandant of Camp Shilo, is being convened today to conduct an inquiry. The service fire marshal is also leaving Ottawa today to assist in finding out the cause of this unfortunate fire which, I am sorry to say, took the life of one civilian fireman and raged throughout all of yesterday at Minto armouries.



RESERVE ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he is now in a position to answer the question which I asked him on Wednesday last concerning the number of days which reserve army personnel can be paid for training?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, Mr. Speaker. It has been found necessary to contact the various commands and check with them. I do not have the full return as yet.



INQUIRY AS TO EXCESS SUPPLY OF

[Stage Direction]
25-pounder shells
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a few words by way of introduction this evening, and with your permission I shall go no further than to refer to the remarks of the two speakers who have preceded me. I think I am fortunate in the position in which I find myself', "this evening, that is so far as the type of speech delivered by the two previous speakers is concerned.\nThe hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) referred to the fact that the team which is striving for Olympic honours for Canada this year is the well known Kitchener-Waterloo Dutchmen. I should like to inform the house that one of the leading players on that team, as a matter of fact the captain, is a product of my native city. Jack McKenzie was raised in Brandon and played for the Brandon Wheat Kings in the early part of the fifties. He grew up in my neighbourhood and was a member of my boys' group. I am sure that with such an outstanding specimen from the west the Dutchmen may be assured of success in their tour overseas.\nI am speaking tonight from a slightly different location in the house than that which I occupied last year. I have moved to the left, but I want to assure you that that is only in a geographic sense. As I listened to my worthy friend and colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), I thought if I had been moving around my constituency and had been asked to describe some of the members of the house I would have described the hon. member for Kootenay West as being the best Conservative in the C.C.F. party. It was an excellent Conservative dissertation which he gave the house tonight. I do not know who is influencing whom since I moved down to this corner of the chamber.\nRather than go further with my remarks tonight, I wonder if it would be possible for me to adjourn the debate.\nOn motion of Mr. Dinsdale the debate was adjourned."]
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Is the Minister of National Defence able to give me an answer to the question I asked on Friday regarding the number of 25-pounder shells surplus to requirements in Canada?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, Mr. Speaker. I am informed that it has never been the practice to give the number of rounds of ammunition of any type or the number of pieces of battle equipment. I think that has been traditionally true for many years and I believe my hon. friend will appreciate the reasons.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on January 13 I directed a question to the Prime Minister as to whether a decision has yet been reached to my suggestion that a select committee of the house be set up to inquire into Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, which had been mentioned in the speech from the throne. At that time the Prime Minister replied:
No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no decision reached to recommend to the house the establishment of a select committee to deal with that matter.
May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if a decision has yet been made? I would hope that the answer would be in the affirmative.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker; no decision has been made to recommend the establishment of such a select committee.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 20, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Shipley 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. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Hahn.
Mr. R. F. L. Hanna (Edmonton-Slralhcona):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most welcome proposals in the speech from the throne is the plan to speed up the completion of the trans-Canada highway. The Canadian public has become very impatient in the last few years with the seemingly endless delays in getting our first trans-Canada highway completed from coast to coast. It has been said very often that we seem to have lost the art of spanning our continent in spite of our tremendous advances in recent years in technological knowledge. About half a century ago, with far less population and with far less material resources than we have today, we had built two or three transcontinental railways. However, under this new proposal it is hoped that the trans-Canada highway can be completed finally on the new schedule.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that some people have been dragging their feet on this trans-Canada highway scheme. Otherwise it would have been completed long ago. What we need, I believe, is a national highway program similar to the program which exists in the 6750&-26
The Address-Mr. Hanna United States. I think we should already be planning for trans-Canada highway No. 2 and hon. members will not be surprised, I am sure, if I suggest it should go through the centre of the prairie provinces by way of Edmonton and the Yellowhead pass and on to the Pacific coast.
I also think we need more highways into northern Canada to speed up development there. Already a start has been made by building the Mackenzie highway through northern Alberta into the Northwest Territories, but I believe additional roads are needed in the Northwest Territories to speed up and encourage development in that part of the country. I am also convinced, Mr. Speaker, that we badly need a new railway line to tap the great resources of the Northwest Territories. It seems to me that such a railway should be made a continuation of the railway lines that exist already in northern Alberta for those railways extend further north than do any other railways in that part of the country at the present time.
More specifically, I believe that Canadian National Railways should extend its line northward from Waterways, Alberta, to Pine Point on Great Slave lake. I hope that the government will consider some form of financial assistance to encourage such extension being made, similar to the financial assistance granted to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway in British Columbia.
I have suggested the extension of both highways and railways into the north. These facilities would not necessarily be in competition one with the other. I believe that both are needed and that the one would complement the other.
I am sure that all hon. members of this house were gratified to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) say a few days ago that the representations of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the Canadian Council of the Blind were receiving his careful consideration. These representations ask for a basic allowance for all blind persons without any means test. I am reliably informed that Australia and Denmark, and possibly other countries, already have such a provision in their social welfare legislation and I believe that Canada should be kept in the forefront with our excellent Liberal social security program.
There is meeting today in Ottawa a dominion-provincial conference to study proposals for a national health insurance program. We all hope that that conference will be a success and that out of it will come definite proposals for a national health insurance plan.
We have all noted with a great deal of satisfaction that our gross national product

The Address

Mr. Hanna is running considerably higher than was forecast in the budget speech last year of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and because of this many Canadians are hoping that the Minister of Finance will sharpen his pencil this year and give us some tax reductions, particularly reductions in the personal income tax.
However, I would be the last to suggest tax reductions at this time if they are made at the expense of our social security program. We cannot have it both ways. I believe that the majority of Canadians want a national health insurance scheme, but if we get it we must remember that it has to be paid for. However, if we as Canadians collectively can produce more per man hour through a well-managed and well-balanced economy, then we will be able to enjoy greater benefits, in the form of either tax reductions or increased social security benefits, or possibly both.
Before I close I should like to comment upon the amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) on behalf of the Social Credit group. I have studied the amendment to the amendment most carefully to see how it applies Social Credit theories to the solution of our national problems and I am sorry to say that I can find no trace whatever of Social Credit theories in this amendment to the amendment. There is no mention whatever in there of financial reform, such as those we are always hearing about, and-


An hon. Member:: We are not on that side of the house yet.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: -there is no suggestion of a basic dividend such as was demanded by the Social Credit convention meeting in Calgary last fall. I am wondering why these and other omissions have been made. I am wondering why our friends across the way have not seen fit to put forward some of their Social Credit proposals in this amendment to the amendment. Can it be that Social Crediters have decided finally that their theories do not actually in fact offer any solution to the problems that face Canada today? I myself strongly suspect that is the real situation.
I believe that the government has done a pretty good job in dealing with the very matters referred to in this proposed amendment to the amendment. If Canada is to continue to enjoy a high level of national prosperity and if the provinces are to continue to get the best possible deal in the matter of dominion-provincial arrangements, then I believe we had better keep a Liberal government in power.
[Mr. Hanna.)


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, like most of the other members who have spoken in this debate, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) on the speech she made in opening it. With the hon. members for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough), Halton (Miss Bennett) and York-Humber (Miss Aitken), she sets a very high standard of representation, and her colleagues on the government side have good reason to be proud of her. We of the Conservative party are also very proud of our three women members and particularly proud that we have three times as many of them as the government. Considering that we have only 53 members altogether and the government has almost three times as many, I think we are doing just about nine times as well as the government, in the way of having representation by the women of Canada.
I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lafiamme). He did a difficult task and did it very well, and I wish him a useful career in public life. I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister that it is rather unfair to call on a brand new member to make a speech of that kind. I realize that is a custom in the house, but it must be rather cruel for the member who has to deliver the speech.
I should like to warn the hon. member for Bellechasse and the other new Liberal members against following the advice given to them last week by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) at the Liberal party dinner held to honour him and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Press dispatches reported that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had this to say:
In the "easy" sessions, a Liberal could skip a vote, ducking out of the house; might even, with impunity,-
I stress those words.
-openly criticize the government and party policy. But not in the "tough" sessions. Then there could only be undeviating loyalty.
If Liberals "both in the house and Senate"-
There is a little aside for the benefit of the new senators.
-toed the party line, Mr. Howe forecast continued power through "another 50 years".
God help Canada if that were to happen. I point out to these new Liberal members what happened last year when this same minister laid down the party line, when he said he had to have his full wartime powers under the Defence Production Act on a permanent basis. 1 point out to them what happened to the handful of Liberal members who were rash enough to support him on the

floor of the house. The only one who derived any benefit from it was the former member for Spadina, who, of course, found a haven in the Senate.
The Prime Minister also followed this party line laid down by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He followed it, for example, for weeks after the debate in the house began, telling us the minister simply had to have these powers or the government of Canada could not go on. Then, once he had the minister away on a fishing trip in New Brunswick, the Prime Minister ran up the white flag and made the most abject surrender to the official opposition that has been made since confederation. Of course, that only happened because he as Prime Minister had failed miserably to give leadership on this question. He knew from the start that the Minister of Trade and Commerce and of Defence Production was wrong and knew that action should have been taken to stop that minister earlier, but did nothing until weeks of debate had gone on.
If the advice of the Minister of Trade and Commerce is to be taken and the Liberal party members in this house are to toe the party line-and how they can do it more than they have been in the past I find it hard to imagine-the result will be that private members on the government side of the house will be gagged. That position has been the weakest feature of this parliament since it was elected two years ago.
Today I intend to deal with four subjects which did not find a place in the speech from the throne. That means, I suggest, that the government places very little importance on these particular subjects.
First of all, the speech forecast no legislation whatever for the veterans of Canada. Evidently the government has no intention of amending the existing veterans legislation, of introducing any additional measures to help the veterans of this country, or of setting up a committee on veterans affairs- either a standing committee, as so many of us have requested for years, or a special sessional committee.
In fact, the government's attitude is even more reprehensible in that the department now has only a half-time minister. That shows again the failure of the Prime Minister of this country to give leadership. He has allowed this session to commence without the veterans of Canada having a full-time minister to look after the problems which are of concern to them. It shows also the Prime Minister's low estimate of the ability of his parliamentary assistants. He has a great number of them ready, anxious and willing to become ministers, and yet apparently not one of them is suitable to be made 67509-26i
The Address-Mr. Green the minister of veterans affairs or the postmaster general. It shows also his low estimate of the private members on the government side of the house. There are 170 Liberal members, but apparently among all the private members there is not one fit to take over one of these portfolios. But far more serious than that is this fact, that the failure to have a full-time minister of veterans affairs is unfair to the veterans of Canada. It is an insult to those veterans.
There are certain necessary changes that should be made in veterans legislation. I have not the time today to list them in detail, but I shall point out three or four. For example, there is a deadline in the Pension Act after which a veteran who marries cannot receive any payment for his wife, and if he dies his widow cannot receive a pension. That deadline is set at May 1, 1954. It should be advanced or removed altogether. I cannot see any reason why there should be such a deadline. It was written into the legislation in the first place to protect the veteran from deathbed marriages. In the United States there had been cases of young women marrying extremely old veterans simply to get a pension. In Canada previous governments have felt that such a thing should be prevented and hence the deadline. But there is no deadline for veterans of the second world war and there is no deadline under the War Veterans Allowance Act; also there is a wide discretion in the pension commission to deal with each application. I think the time has come to remove this deadline entirely.
Then the ceiling for the war veterans allowance should be raised. That question was debated at some length during the last session. I believe the time has now come when the permissive income should be increased to $1,200 for the single veteran and $2,000 for the married veteran as requested by the Canadian Legion. If that were done, recipients of war veterans allowance would be able to draw the full amount of old age security when they reach 70 years of age. That is something they are not able to do today.
Another improvement which should be made at this session is that provision should be made for the payment of war veterans allowance to veterans who are compelled to live beyond the borders of Canada for reasons of health. The other day I had an example of a veteran who was obliged to go to Mexico in order to stay alive. At the present time he can stay there only three months without losing his war veterans allowance. The result is that he must come back to Canada to die. I think that is an unfair situation. The same thing applies, of course, with regard to old
396	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Green age security. It should not be beyond the ability of this parliament to frame some provision that will enable people to go outside of Canada, if they must do so in order to stay alive. Some provision should1 be made to enable them to do so and still draw these allowances.
Also provision should be made for the widow of an Imperial veteran where that veteran came to Canada before the year 1935; at the present time, unless her husband was in Canada for 20 years, she cannot qualify. That means that if he died after he had been here for 19J years, his widow has no eligibility. In addition, the Canadian Legion made various recommendations to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and other members of the cabinet last fall for amendments to the pension act and also for further amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. These matters should be considered by this house during the present session.
I urge the Prime Minister to appoint a separate Minister of Veterans Affairs without further delay, also that he arrange for the consideration of these points that I have enumerated, and for the appointment of a committee on veterans affairs, preferably a standing committee.
The second subject which is not mentioned in the speech from the throne is the International River Improvements Act which was passed by this house last year and which was designed to meet a situation that had arisen on the Columbia river system in British Columbia. Hon. members will recall that there were several lengthy debates on this question. The bill was considered by the standing committee on external affairs. There was a great deal of publicity about the matter for many months and there was almost a civil war between the federal government and the government of British Columbia. In the final analysis, this particular bill was passed. Yet today, in 1956, it seems to have been forgotten. Apparently it has been put on the shelf by the government along with many other policies such as, should I say, that on health insurance.
I should like to outline the reasons for this legislation and the result. For 10 years, ever since 1945, joint investigations had been carried on in the Columbia river basin by dominion and provincial engineers. Then late in 1954 the British Columbia government proposed to make a deal with a United States company known as the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation under which a dam would be constructed at the foot of the Arrow lakes. The federal government took a dim view of that proposal on the ground that such a dam would prevent the full


utilization of the Columbia river system in Canada. I think the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) will agree that that was the basis for the dispute between the two governments. Eventually this International River Improvements Act was passed. It established a licensing control by the dominion over the improvements on all international rivers, having in mind primarily the Columbia river.
I have here a report, tabled by the minister a few days ago, showing operations under this act up to the end of December, 1955. The report sums up the purpose of the act very well in these words:
This act provides for the licensing of international river improvements to ensure that the water resources of Canada are developed and utilized in the national interest.
I think that is a good description of the purpose of the act. The report goes on to show that no applications whatever for licences were received during the year.


Mr. Lesage:: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would allow me to do so, I should like to say this. The regulations were approved only in the very last days of December or the first days of January. That is the reason why there could not be any applications until the end of 1955.


Howard Charles Green: Applications could have been made even though they could not have been dealt with. In any event, the minister's own report shows that no applications were made up to the end of last year.


Jean Lesage: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: I think the minister should give this house a report outlining the present position with regard to plans for the Columbia river system in Canada. The development of that system must be commenced right away. Last year it was agreed by both the federal government and the provincial government that the Mica creek project could be undertaken. However, there are two major preliminaries. One is that a treaty must be negotiated with the United States concerning payment for downstream benefits. The second is that there must be a plan for financing the construction of the projects such as, for example, that at Mica creek.
First of all, to deal with the question of a treaty, I ask the minister this question. What steps, if any, has the federal government taken to negotiate a treaty with the United States? Last year, during the discussion of his estimates, I questioned him along this line. I refer back to page 4777 of Hansard of last year:


Howard Charles Green: General McNaughton has recommended that there be a treaty on downstream

benefits. If hon. members remember, I point out today the great urgency in negotiating a treaty of that kind. I should like to ask the minister whether this government has yet taken any steps which would lead to the negotiation of a treaty concerning downstream benefits.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, I have suggested
the matter to the members of the international joint commission, and I understand that General McNaughton will insist at a coming meeting of the commission for a study of the matter.
There were further questions and answers and I said:
Have no steps been taken to deal with the United States government itself, as distinct from having the international joint commission consider this question?


Jean Lesage: As I said before, Mr. Chairman, I believe we need the opinion of the members of the international joint commission on the matter. These gentlemen of the international joint commission have been dealing with this question for years now, and certainly they are best prepared to deal with a matter of this kind. Before governments can discuss the matter, certainly as far as we are concerned we want it to be discussed by the persons whom we consider to be the experts in the matter on both sides of the border.
There were further questions and answers to the same effect. I notice that in the regulations which have come out there is a provision that an applicant for a licence must give details of any agreement if it is intended to sell outside of Canada any part of the Canadian share of downstream power resulting from the proposed international river improvement. Although that has been put into the regulations, apparently nothing has been done towards negotiating any treaty with the United States concerning these downstream benefits. One of the federal government's main complaints against the British Columbia government last year was that it had attempted to make a deal which covered in part downstream benefits before a treaty had been negotiated, and yet we find this provision written into the regulations under the act.
In October I had the good fortune to meet Senator Richard L. Neuberger of Oregon when he was in Nelson while on a tour of the Kootenay district as a representative of the committee on interior and insular affairs of the United States Senate. He had been sent out by the chairman of that committee to inquire, on behalf of the committee, into the problem concerning the future development of the Columbia river in Canada. Our own minister has been kind enough to give me a copy of the senator's report, and I received one as well from the senator himself. It is very helpful in showing just what the position is concerning downstream benefits.
The senator, by the way, took a very fair attitude on this whole question. He was going around inviting representations from
The Address-Mr. Green people in the district and listening to their views. I thought he had a very statesmanlike approach to the whole question and his report is an excellent one. He makes several recommendations to his Senate committee, and I propose to quote two of the recommendations. The introduction to his recommendations is as follows:
As a result of my own study trip on behalf of the committee, I recommend that the Senate committee on interior and insular affairs schedule public hearings at the earliest possible time to inquire into the status of plans and negotiations for the development of the upper Columbia river to the mutual benefit of the United States and Canada.
On the basis of the report which follows, I also make these substantive recommendations for consideration by the committee at such hearings:
1. That responsibility within the United States government for these important negotiations be raised from the level of a purely advisory committee like the United States section of the international joint commission and be explicitly assumed by the policymaking executive departments themselves.
I believe that recommendation should be put into effect in Canada. It is obvious that the chairman of the United States section of the commission is against downstream benefits, and I feel it is a waste of time to have the commission study this matter. It must be settled between the two governments.
The senator adds this further recommendation:
6. That this committee express its firm intent that, in our negotiations with Canada, no effort be spared to arrive at the best possible program for the development of the upper Columbia riverbeginning now with the construction of the Libby and Mica projects-so as to maximize the mutual benefits to both countries which share this unique resource. Such a determined and constructive effort must give frank and open-minded consideration to the fair allocation of upstream costs and downstream benefits attributable to upstream storage-including possible sharing of benefits in generated electric power.
Now, as I understand it, that is what the Canadian government says. The senator also has this paragraph which I think is of great importance:
Failure to reach agreement on a mutually beneficial program for developing the Columbia river would threaten the gravest crisis in modem U.S.-Canadian relations, as well as incalculable economic loss to both countries. Agreement and execution of such a program, on the other hand, can assure economic progress for a generation to come for the Pacific northwest in both countries, and can make a material contribution to the industrial and defensive strength of the North American continent and the western alliance.
I do suggest to our own minister that the Canadian government take steps at once to initiate negotiations for a treaty with the United States covering downstream benefits.
The second problem concerns plans for financing construction. I ask the minister,.


Mr. Goode:: I wonder whether the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will permit a question. He has been very fair in most of what I have heard but in this case he has mentioned certain statements in the Vancouver Sun. I hope he will take the opportunity some time of reading my reply to those statements.


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member should read his own reply. It would be much more effective if he read it than if I did. I am afraid it will not help anyone very much except perhaps himself.


Mr. D. R. Mitchell (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, along with many previous speakers I wish to pay tribute to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the motion to adopt the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
The hon. lady from Timiskaming, with her usual direct and charming manner, brought distinction to her sex, her constituency and herself by the able manner in which she proposed the motion we are now debating. She spoke with clarity and authority of the affairs of her constituency. Therefore, we who are associated with her as representatives of similar constituencies in northern Ontario are proud to take our stand with her as supporters of this government. My congratulations are also extended to the hon. member for Bellechasse on his contribution.
I have the honour to represent the constituency of Sudbury. When the new constituency of Nickel Belt was created in the redistribution of 1953 by absorbing the suburban portion of the old constituency of Sudbury, the urban portion which I represent remained under the name Sudbury. Owing to the vast increase in population we now have two ridings instead of one, Nickel Belt being so ably represented by my genial colleague on the government side of the house.
We have a very cosmopolitan population comprising dozens of nationalities, which makes it a melting pot in the true sense of the word. As an example, in the last year only, at three sittings in the judge's chambers over 600 individuals have received their Canadian naturalization papers. This is indeed a fine record, and these new citizens are taking their place with us to plan and form a strong community and a prosperous Canada.
Most of the rapid expansion and development in our area is due to the gigantic industrial influence exerted by the International

Nickel Company which operates six mines and two smelters in the immediate district. The discovery of nickel occurred in 1885 when the railway was being constructed through our district. During rock cut blasting the metals of copper and nickel were uncovered and over the years this metal discovery has grown in leaps and bounds to the immense position in the industrial field it now enjoys. Ninety per cent of the world's supply of nickel is produced in the Sudbury area, with copper second in importance. Other metals in impressive amounts recovered in the smelting process are platinum, palladium, rhodium, ruthenium, gold, silver, cobalt, selenium, tellurium and sulphur and, of course, sulphuric acid. Now iron ore is soon to be added to this group of metals. The company has just completed the construction of an iron smelter at a cost of $19 million, and when all three units are in production will have an annual output of one million tons.
The International Nickel Company has an underground production of 44,000 tons per mine operating day and last year mined 14,468,000 tons. The proven ore reserves stand at 261 million tons, which would indicate continued prosperity for this region for many years. The figures, et cetera, to which I have referred, apply as well to the Falcon-bridge Nickel Mines, also in our area, but to a much smaller degree. As an example, the International Nickel Company employs 16,000 in our area and Falconbridge approximately 3,000.
I have described the great development and continued growth in industrial might of the Sudbury district to emphasize the contribution my district makes to our peacetime economy and to our security in time of war. This is indeed a billion dollar industry. Because a large proportion of the products are exported, chiefly to the United States, the stabilizing effect on our currency and the maintenance of the balance of trade between our two countries can be readily realized.
I should like for a few minutes to comment on some of the results of good legislation by this government, which has been of great benefit to my riding and which has added to our prosperity and economic structure. We have the fortunate distinction of being at the northern junction of two trans-Canada highways. The present one from Ottawa runs west to join the one running through the central part of the province, turning north at Parry Sound and meeting the present highway at Sudbury. It then continues west as one to terminate eventually at the Pacific coast. This, in itself, certainly puts Sudbury

on the main line for motor transportation adding to the main line of the C.P.R. which has served us for so many years.
"Now we are working on the pipe line", as it has been so ably put. Because northern Ontario has been mentioned so often in the construction of the trans-Canada pipe line, it would be of value to estimate what an advantage it would be to us in Sudbury and in the north generally. The mechanics of this service were very thoroughly explained a few days ago by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Carrick), so no further enlightenment seems to be necessary. Suffice it to say that we will welcome this service and use it to the best of our ability both in domestic and industrial consumption. I have been led to believe, though not by any authority, that should the International Nickel Company be convinced that this type of fuel would be more economical than that in use at present they would convert their furnaces to its use. If such a conversion should be made and the company use gas instead of coal or electricity for their blast furnaces, it is estimated that Inco would use more gas as fuel than would be consumed by any of the large cities of Canada for their many needs.
The hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) visited our city last summer and officially opened our airport. This has been a real contribution by the T.C.A. to link us more quickly with the rest of the world, and I am glad to report it has enjoyed satisfactory traffic on this feeder line. As everyone is becoming more air conscious every day, we are indeed proud to have been included in this expansion program. The airstrip is of standard length so I hope soon we will be serviced with the larger aircraft and find ourselves on the main east-west flight across Canada.
We are well serviced with television. The Sudbury privately-owned television station was the first in Canada to be granted a licence and is quite capably performing its public relations and supplying good informative and entertaining programs. We are authoritatively advised that we will be served this fall by the microwave hook-up which will be a welcome addition and carry live programs to us. All this will add to the pleasure of our leisure time and be of value to the cultural life of the community.
I would like to bring to the attention of hon. members that the only bottleneck in the rapid growth and development of our district is the service of our railways. Of course we are fully aware that the C.P.R. was located in Sudbury before this city was more than a village, but at the present time their station and yards have become wholly outdated and
The Address-Mr. Knowles there seems to be no evidence of any attempt to cope with the problems consequent upon the advance of the city. As it stands now, the city is cut in half with the main line and switching tracks and the centre of the city tied up in vacant and undeveloped land which could be quickly absorbed for industrial or residential sites.
The yards are so inadequate that trains have to be held out on the main line and prevented from entering the yards by the severe congestion confronting them. Passengers entraining during the rush hours must cross through trains to board others. This is most unsatisfactory. At least two main crossings are almost continuously blocked by trains switching for nearly 24 hours a day, and vehicular traffic is tied up as a result.
It is quite evident the C.P.R. enjoys the major amount of traffic and resulting revenue in our city and is also aware of the difficulty they will have in attempting to expand their service owing to being hemmed in by the city being built all around them.
Under these conditions it is unbelievable that the C.N.R. has made no effort to assist in meeting the traffic demand and consider making Sudbury a competitive point by increasing their service. Surely for the assistance of the Sudbury area the C.N.R. can make an immediate investigation and take action to help remedy this chaotic and decadent condition. The citizens of Sudbury are demanding a solution for this problem and it is for this reason I am making this appeal to the hon. minister who, I hope, will bring this state of affairs in Sudbury to the attention of the president of the C.N.R.
In conclusion I want to congratulate the government on many acts that have helped our area. A few may be mentioned: the Lome street subway which received considerable federal aid; the new federal building about to be constructed to house all federal departments; the R.C.A.F. radar station which is not too far from our city; and the air services, referred to earlier, made possible by the construction of a new airport.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there is being held in Ottawa today one of the most important conferences that has been held for a long time. I refer to the conference being attended by the Minister of National Defence and Welfare (Mr. Martin) along with his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), and their opposite numbers representing the ten provincial governments. As all hon. members are aware, the purpose of this conference is to study the question of health insurance. I shall not take any time to dwell upon the

The Address-Mr. Knowles many years that it has taken to reach the point where it begins to look as though something may be done, but I want to say that I chose deliberately to speak today in order that I might draw to the attention of the federal government the fact that of the groups represented at this conference its part is the most important of all.
We all recognize the importance of federal-provincial co-operation in the field of health insurance; we all recognize the important part that must be played by the provinces and by authorities even more local than the provinces; we all recognize the importance of the part played by the medical profession; but the key to any successful health insurance program lies in the method by which such a program is to be financed.
When it comes to the successful financing of a program of the proportions of a national health insurance scheme no local, voluntary or provincial authority has the financial capacity to deal with it satisfactorily. The only body in this country that has the financial capacity to deal with this problem is the federal government.
There are those who still contend that it would be best to leave as much of this as possible to voluntary agencies such as the Blue Cross, Blue Shield and similar organizations, and there are also those who still want to leave the major responsibility for health insurance to the provinces. When one deals with this matter he is not dealing in the realm of theory. The fact is that the experiences of some of the provinces and of voluntary organizations have made it clear that they cannot put health insurance on a financial basis that will be satisfactory, and by satisfactory I mean one that will get health services to the Canadian people according to their need for such services rather than according to their individual financial capacity.
Only within the last little while changes have been made in the rates both of the Blue Cross and the Blue Shield in my province of Manitoba which stress the point that I am making. In the case of the Blue Cross, which we know as the Manitoba hospital services association, whilst there has been no change in the basic rates for some considerable time, a constant change is going on in that groups of people insured under that plan are one by one being put into a category that requires payment of a certain percentage of one's hospital bill. The basis upon which certain groups are being put into that category is that in the view of the Manitoba Blue Cross they are poor insurance risks.

Similarly, the Manitoba medical service, just a short while ago, announced-not publicly, but by informing those affected-that groups of its subscribers who from experience have been found to be poor risks, in the sense that they need more medical care than others, are being put on a higher rate than those who experience has shown do not require quite so much medical attention. In other words, these voluntary organizations, which in filling the gap left by the federal government have done a good job, nevertheless admit that the only way they can carry on is by imposing the cost of hospitalization and of medical services, so far as possible, on the people who actually get that hospitalization or those medical services. This is not insurance at all; insurance calls for spreading the cost over a larger group than those actually hospitalized or given treatment.
There was a day when it was regarded as radical to advocate that everyone should receive education, that education should not be limited to those who could afford to pay for it. There are still some who think that that principle is radical when applied to hospital and medical services. But the fact is that our society has moved on a great deal, and most people who do any thinking at all about this matter today realize that medical matters are of social concern and that our people should get the hospitalization and medical services they require, because they need them and not because of the length of their purses.
I submit that, because the voluntary agencies are finding that they have no alternative but to charge on a flat rate or premium basis, or to charge on a basis where the cost gets back to the people who actually get those services, you are not by that means implementing the principle that health care should be made available to those who need it and that we should all pay for it according to our ability to pay. The only way in which that principle can be put into effect in this country is by the federal government providing the financial basis, and by making available out of general revenue the major portion of the cost of health services.
Therefore, important as is the place assumed at this conference today by the various provincial governments, I submit that the most important part will be that played by the federal government. I call upon the federal government not merely to look for the least common denominator, to sit back and hope that some arbitrary formula will not be met so that the blame for inaction can be put on the provinces, but rather I call upon the federal government to give leadership with respect to this most important

issue and to make a financial proposition to the provinces on the basis of the federal government's capacity for raising money according to the ability of the Canadian people to pay, so that we shall get a health insurance plan for Canadians that will really be a step forward.
It has been a pleasure during the course of this debate to hear many more hon. members speaking about health insurance than has been the case in former years. Of course, once it is mentioned in the speech from the throne-that happened many years ago when I first came here-that there is to be a conference of the various governments dealing with the matter, it becomes the thing to do. However, it is not good enough just to have a conference in session, just to have the notion that something will be done. The important thing is that health insurance get started in the right way. Thus a related reason for my urging the federal government to realize its importance at this conference, a related reason for my urging the federal government to give real leadership, is that I do not want to see health insurance programs in this country get off to a wrong start. I do not want them to get to a situation where we have to try to unscramble the omelet. Let us not run the risk of a hodgepodge that would not do the job. There is danger of that at the present time unless the federal government is willing to establish the basic principles of health insurance and lay them down in enabling legislation that will provide for proper health insurance right across this country.
We have at the present time hospital schemes in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and to some extent in Newfoundland. We have voluntary hospital schemes in most of the other provinces. We have the premier of Ontario indicating that, whether or not something is done at the federal level, there will be action in this field in the province of Ontario. No two of any of these schemes thus far are identical. My suspicion is that, if Ontario goes it alone apart from the federal government, its scheme will likewise be different from those in effect in the other provinces where a start has been made. Ontario with its greater wealth could do better perhaps than some of the other provinces, but even Ontario will face the same limitations. Because it does not have the same tax base that the federal government has, it will not be able to go all the way in implementing the principle that we should pay for health services according to our ability to pay and receive those services according to our need for them. That means financing those services mainly out of general revenues. I am satisfied that, if there is
The Address-Mr. Knowles not a national plan, if there is not a basic federal enabling act so that we get off to a good start, the day will come when we shall have to unscramble the omelet, when we shall have to undo the hodge-podge of the different kinds of schemes we have in the different provinces. Would it not be the part of wisdom and the part of statesmanship by this present government to avoid a hodgepodge, to avoid an unsatisfactory situation, by offering now to the provinces, this very day, the kind of legislation that will finance a health insurance scheme on a proper basis letting each province come in as it wishes, as was done with old age pensions and give us a chance to go forward step by step into a full-grown program rather than a hodgepodge that would have to be unscrambled?
I want to urge that there be no stumbling-blocks put in the way of a national health insurance program. We have had many of them across the years. Everyone knows that the latest formula is to the effect that the federal government will be prepared to assist in the financing of a health insurance plan in the provinces that wish it if a substantial majority of the provinces, representing a substantial majority of the people of Canada, indicate that they want it. I hope that formula will be met. I hope there will be six provinces-and surely that is a substantial majority of the provinces-indicating that they want health insurance. If Ontario is one of them, along with British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, and possibly one more, surely that adds up to a substantial majority of the population of this country. But even if the formula is not met in its exact detail, I suggest that the people of Canada will feel that once again they have been let down if for that reason no action is taken.
Across the years we have had the related question as to how an amendment could be made to the British North America Act. This discussion has been sidetracked into the question of how many provinces would have to agree before there could be an amendment of the British North America Act; and we have had discussions as to whether or not this was necessary, depending on whether the money collected for this purpose was collected by way of general taxation or by way of earmarked taxation. We have had the excuse that there were not enough hospital beds. We have been told to wait until the national health grants program resulted in more hospital beds and more facilities. Then, just when we thought we were making headway and just when we thought there was going to be a special committee of both houses of parliament to deal with this matter,
404	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knowles in the same way that a special committee dealt with old age security, the international situation took a turn which enabled the government to say that defence commitments stood in the way of spending additional money on health services.
The Canadian people are conscious of this long list of excuses with which we have been confronted since 1919. They want action now. The eyes of Canada are on this conference that is taking place in Ottawa at the present time. Once again I urge the federal government to realize that its job is not just to sit there and find the least common denominator but that its job is to give leadership and to accept the fact that only the federal government can provide the financial base that will make it possible to provide health services to our people according to their need for these services, and let them be paid for by our people not according to the service individuals get but according to their ability to pay.
I wish also, Mr. Speaker, to urge that any health insurance plan worked out at the present time, in which the government must take the leading part, should include not just a minimum of services with the idea that they can be added to 10 years or 20 years from now but rather should include just as many services as possible. I am free to admit that maybe you cannot go the whole way at one fell swoop. The tragedy is that this program was not started a long time ago, at least as long ago as in the early 1940's, the first time it was mentioned in the speech from the throne. If we had only done that, by now we could be moving on to the addition of other services. But at least, Mr. Speaker, the initial stages should include diagnostic services, laboratory services and hospitalization.
I am disturbed by the comments from federal government sources which suggest that hospitalization is not very high on the list. It should be right up there in the first stage. From there on the program should be capable of being developed until it includes medical and dental services and even until it includes sickness benefits for the breadwinner when he is out of work, either in the health insurance program or in the unemployment insurance program.
This is an extremely important field of social security, Mr. Speaker. Its potentialities are immense for improving the health of our people, the morale of our people and their productivity, if you will.
I insist that the opportunity must not be muffed by politics being played at the conference today, by governments looking to next elections or what-have-you, but rather all those at the conference should take advantage of the tremendous amount of research 

and study that has been done in this field and should come up with a program that will really mean something for the Canadian people.
I know there are those who will raise the old question of cost. I also know that the cost of an adequate national health program is today immensely more than it would have been in 1945 at the time of the green book proposals. However, it is still true that any national health insurance program that provides health services to all our people is not going to involve the expenditure of a great deal of new money. For the most part it is a case of rechannelling moneys that are now being spent by various levels of government, by private and voluntary organizations, by philanthropic bodies and by individuals. It is difficult to ascertain just what proportion of the medical costs of Canada are being paid by these various levels. Research done on the matter in the United States and such figures as I have been able to dig up for Canada, suggest to me that something of the order of 40 per cent of our medical bills are already paid by various levels of government which include the three levels, namely federal, provincial and municipal. That figure includes what is being paid for the health care of Indians and Eskimos. It includes medical services for the armed forces and such medical services as are provided for veterans. It includes the health grants and includes the various services provided by the provinces and the municipalities. Hence we are on the way. Social medicine is not something new. Its first stages are here. The Canadian people accept the fact that the cost of medicine is a social responsibility. All we are asking is that we visualize the immense possibilities for the health of our people, both curative and preventive, in going ahead with this program on a vast scale.
Someone might ask why I make a speech like this at this time. Why not let the government hang back? Why not let the government fail? Why not let the government muff this matter? It just so happens, Mr. Speaker, that it does not matter to me who brings in a national health scheme. It does not matter to me who gets the credit for it. My concern is that something be done. For that reason I deliberately chose to make this speech today, so that I might do my best to prod the federal government representatives at that conference to take the kind of action that will see the early establishment in Canada of an over-all health insurance scheme which, right at the start, will provide diagnostic, laboratory and X-ray services as well as hospitalization and which, just as soon as possible, will provide

medical and dental services and out-of-work benefits to those who are unemployed because of illness.
A great many people will be involved in working out this scheme, including all the various levels of government and the medical profession. Once again I make my appeal to our friends the doctors in this country who have rendered tremendous service to the people of Canada over the years. One also recognizes the transition that they have had to go through as society's attitude toward these things has changed. I think most of us feel that it is unfortunate that doctors, who have such great capacity for doing a real job and adding to the health of our people, should be obliged to be concerned about economic matters and should have to put the question of making a living even alongside the question of the good they can do for Canadian human beings. I feel that any health insurance plan owes a great deal to the doctors and owes it to them to consider their position, but I also think that the doctors owe a great deal to the Canadian people and that it is their job to find ways of co-operating in a plan that will give the best possible services to all our people in this extremely important field.
There are two or three other subjects, Mr. Speaker, about which I should like to say a few words. First of all, I must say that I listened with interest to what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said on January 16, as reported first at page 124 of Hansard, at the beginning of his speech, and then at page 129 of Hansard, at the end of his speech. He said this:
The speech from the throne was brought down at a time when the Canadian economy is travelling in the highest possible gear.
That is the theme song of the Canadian government: things are rolling at top speed. Then at the end of his speech he said:
The attitude of the government is that it wants strength and progress through sufficiency.
I am prepared to accept that statement as a motto or as a goal. But in all seriousness I raise the question as to how those words, "strength and progress through sufficiency", fall on the ears of Canada's old age pensioners. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) may get to his feet as often as he wants to and decry the questions I ask about this matter. He may talk about the committee recommendation that was made in 1950. The fact of the matter is that, since the present figure of $40 a month was set, our gross national product has gone up by over 60 per cent. The gross national product in 1949, when the figure of $40 was set, was $16-4 billion. Estimates for 1955 put it at
The Address-Mr. Knowles $26-3 billion; that is an increase of 60-3 per cent. If the gross national product this year reaches $27 billion, as some economists are forecasting, that will represent an increase of 65 per cent over the gross national product of 1949.
I feel it is little enough to ask for, Mr. Speaker, that our old age pensioners should get a corresponding increase in the pension that is paid to them. A 65 per cent increase in the pension which is now $40 a month would bring it to $66 a month. In other words, those labour organizations that are asking for a pension of $65 a month, in my view, are right on the beam. I decry the attitude of the government that these questions should not be asked. I decry the attitude of the government that this matter was settled because there was a committee that made a report in 1950. I decry the attitude of the government that the job is all sewn up because the means test was eliminated. The fact of the matter is that time moves on. No piece of social legislation is perfect for all time. No piece of social legislation ends the story or ends the fight for social justice and a fair deal for the citizens of this land. I insist that the time has come at this session for action on the question of old age pensions. In my view the amount should be increased at least to that figure of $65 or $66 a month for those on old age security, for those on old age assistance and for those on blind persons allowances as well. If we accept that figure for these groups, I suggest the same figure should apply in the case of those on disability allowances. I want also to support the remarks made a few months ago by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) that something further should be done with regard to the War Veterans Allowance Act, particularly with respect to the question of the ceiling on permissible income.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has told us we are travelling in high gear; our economy is rolling full speed ahead. Economists tell us our gross national product is going to be larger than ever. To what avail, Mr. Speaker, this high gear, this tremendous gross national product, unless it gets through to our ordinary Canadian people in health and welfare and a decent standard of living, as well as those things that will make them feel that life is worth living in a country that has attained such progress as the government tells us we have accomplished.
I turn also for a moment to say a word on the question of housing. The government likes to boast of the number of new starts each year. I submit in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, that the number of people who are
406	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knowles losing their lives by fire in houses in this country should challenge this government to a tremendous speedup in its housing program. It is not enough just to be building new houses at high prices for people who can afford those high prices. A country whose economy is travelling in high gear, a country that feels it has great wealth, should be rebuilding from a quarter to half of the houses in this country or all those that are substandard and that continue to contain conditions that could result in further fires and a further loss of life. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, to what avail this high gear, this tremendous wealth, if thousands of our citizens must live in the kind of houses where life may be lost because of the danger of fire?
May I say a word now with respect to education. Here, too, I raise the same question. If we are travelling in high gear is it not a tragedy that in the field of education we seem to be slipping? I know the argument about education being a matter of provincial responsibility under the British North America Act. We in this group support that position taken in the British North America Act without question. The same situation holds in the United States, where education is a state responsibilty; yet President Eisenhower only recently recognized in a public statement that there comes a time when a matter such as education is of such importance to the nation as a whole that the nation as a whole has to consider the financial base upon which education is supported. I plead very strongly, Mr. Speaker, with this government to reconsider its position in this field, and to recognize the need for federal aid to education so that we can go ahead and not slip behind certain other areas of the world which are taking the lead over North America.
It has been suggested to me that there ,s one field where just a few million dollars -and that is easy for this government to find-could reverse the trend and that is in the matter of scientific training. We are not getting enough recruits in that field in order to keep pace with developments in the scientific world. We are losing many people to the country to the south of us. It has been suggested to me by experts in this field that just a few million dollars spent in scholarships could reverse the trend and keep Canada in the forefront in scientific training. The whole question of education is so important, so basic to our nation today and
[K-. Knowles.]

to our future, and of such nation-wide concern that I cannot but deplore the continued refusal of the government to concern itself with the financing of education. Once again I join my colleagues in this group and other members in other parties in the house; I join those groups of teachers, school trustees and municipal bodies who call upon this government for federal aid to education, without further delay.
I shall be through in a minute, Mr. Speaker, I accept the word of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that this nation's economy is in high gear, that this nation's economy is rolling ahead at full speed. I accept his assertion that strength and progress through sufficiency is a desirable goal. I call upon the government to put that assertion into practice. To what avail this high gear, if it is just statistics and figures and huge profits for large corporations? Let us get the benefit of this high gear, this fast rolling economy, this great sufficiency, through to our Canadian people. There are many ways in which it can be done. I have suggested some of them. I urge immediate action in the field of education, with respect to our veterans, in the field of housing, and in the matter of social security where the old age and blind pensions and pensions for disabled persons should be increased. Finally, I urge immediate action on the question I dealt with in the opening part of my remarks, a satisfactory national health plan. I urge that health insurance be brought in, and that it be based financially in such a way that it will get to our Canadian people, regardless of their individual financial capacity, the health services they need and which medical science is able to provide.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
(Translation) :
Mr. L. E. Roberge (Siansiead):: Mr. Speaker, may I join with previous speakers in offering my heartiest congratulations to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. With her customary grace, the hon. member for Timiskaming did splendidly in her description of the needs and geographical position of her constituency. She

told us, too, of its natural resources and we are grateful to her for giving us this information.
As for the seconder of the motion, though he is one of the younger members of this He explained the needs of his constituency and described, in a very clear fashion, what his constituency is like. Like the mover of the address, the hon. member for Bellechasse is certainly a valuable newcomer to this side of the house.
The people of those two constituencies are certainly proud of their members and, in any event, just by looking at the latter's smiling countenances, it could be assumed that their electors have decided to renew their mandate.
Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to say a few words of the fine constituency which I have the honour to represent, the constituency of Stanstead. As is well known, it is situated in the eastern townships, along the American border, from the state of Vermont to the city of Sherbrooke, which is aptly called the Queen of the eastern townships.
The population of Stanstead is mixed. It is mostly made up of French Canadians, with their love of hard work, joviality, and friendliness. But we have too some English-speaking Canadians, courteous and well versed in business matters, who are a great source of pride to us in that part of the country. To complete this picture of good understanding, we should also speak of those who live on the American border. A large number of those people who live across from us, on the far side of the border, share in our activities. This American element adds to this spirit of good neighbourliness of which we are so proud.
We should not overlook the part played by the Rotary Club and the chamber of commerce in the establishment of this policy of bonne entente in our area, a policy whereby we fraternize daily with our neighbours.
In fact, to illustrate what I say, I might point out that, on the occasion of the American Legion convention in Newport last year, an event to which all governors of New England states were invited, I had the great honour of being one of the guests, which afforded me the opportunity of meeting the governor of the state of New Hampshire, Mr. Dwinell, and the governor of the state of Vermont, Mr. Johnson, and to appreciate even more their spirit of bonne entente.
The Address-Mr. Roberge Hence, I am convinced that they will continue to co-operate as in the past. I take advantage of this opportunity to extend to them my best wishes for the new year.
Coming back to the American Legion convention, I must say that I was very proud to see the R.C.M.P. band supply the music on this occasion. On this, may I be permitted to thank the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) who kindly helped us to obtain permission to use this band, as well as the R. C. M. P. commissioner who granted our request. The presence of this band in Newport, besides being great publicity, brought great credit to Canada. Newspapers of the surrounding area, as well as those of the New England states, and all my fellow citizens talked about it for a long time. I also congratulate the members of this band for their dignified behaviour and for providing entertainment which was appreciated by all.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk now about some geographical situations and, above all, of the industries of this constituency, large or small, in all their forms.
The Beebe district has a granite industry operating on a fairly large scale. As a matter of fact, the Sun Life building in Montreal is a monument to the credit of that little village. Thanks to the co-operation of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) and of my colleague the hon. member for Sherbrooke, the granite you will see in the public building of Sherbrooke was from Stanstead county; it goes without saying that I am proud of that fact because it is going to be a great help to our region as far as employment for our people and publicity for our products are concerned.
In my home town of Rock Island, we have a steel plant which makes precision tools for industry, heavy as well as light. They are tools used in the aircraft, automotive and mining industries, etc. That plant is quite busy. It employs some 600 people, and I am told it is constantly expanding. I heard recently that it had taken on a number of new workers, which is good news indeed for the future of our region.
In the western part of my county and looking towards Coaticook there is a very prosperous little town which makes such products as fire hose, wooden furniture, textile, nylon and rayon. I was told some time ago that these industries are comparatively stable, although I imagine that, like anywhere else,
408	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Roberge there is always room for improvement. At the present time people seem to be well satisfied.
If we turn northwards we come to Lennox-ville, which was formerly part of Sherbrooke county but which has been added to Stanstead county.
At the time of the redistribution, and lately during my first election campaign, I had my leg pulled about this beautiful town of Len-noxville; but I must assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am very proud to have the town of Lennoxville among those of my county, for its people are generally of a practical mind and they made a jolly good town for themselves. There is an asbestos roofing industry, and a few lesser ones. Lennoxville also has a university, of which we are proud, Bishop's College, the graduates of which are a credit to this institution all over the country and in all the spheres of society. Our experimental farm, under the able management of Dr. Merrier, is doing a wonderful job for our locality and our farmers from the eastern townships also benefit from its activity. And I hope things will go on as before.
To go back to the west, we come to the town of Magog, largest in the county. Magog is connected with the larger centres by the Canadian Pacific Railway and, moreover, is crossed in east-westerly direction by a national highway. The town has a population of 11,000. It is, I think, very satisfied with present conditions, though a year or more ago, things did not look very bright, for the town to some extent is dependent upon the textile industry; the Dominion Textile Company indeed has one of its main factories in Magog.
About a month ago, the company's manager assured me that the situation was now rather satisfactory. I was happy to hear this, because last fall, the outlook was rather grim, and heavy clouds seemed to gather on the horizon. There were rumours of unemployment during the winter, and also of an impending strike.
Fortunately, just before the Christmas season, an agreement was reached and the strike was avoided. Winter, therefore, began under good auspices, and I take this opportunity to congratulate the members of the Catholic union for their foresight. As I was saying a while ago, friendly understanding prevails in our district. All concerned were called upon to show their good will, which 

went a long way towards avoiding the strike. I, therefore, congratulate their president, Mr. Victor Lamontagne, as well as the manager of Dominion Textile, Mr. Jeff Moynan, for their particular co-operation with regard to the settlement of the matter. The latter showed a great understanding .of both the company's interests and the workers' needs.
Now, the middle part of the constituency of Stanstead on the whole is rural. The future of agriculture having been discussed on many previous occasions, although I do not want to come back to the matter I feel I should point out that our farmers, as I stated before, live almost in a small paradise on earth. This earthly paradise, however, could still be improved. Some of our farmers are rather well organized as far as co-operatives and marketing are concerned.
In fact, towns close to the county provide them with a market for many of their products. In addition, they have access to a most favourable American market where they can sell their hay and cattle, although it is less interesting at the present time, for beef and other livestock sell at lower prices in the United States than on our own market, so that the prospects at the local level are good.
I believe, however, our farmers visualize the situation from a good angle. With their realistic approach, they anticipate better sales. For in our district the farmer must have a good business training to market his products. He must have also some know-how in mechanics, because in my county mechanization is gaining ground rapidly.
With his tractor and all the rest of his farm machinery the farmer must be enough of a mechanic to keep them operating. We can, in fact, see this every day; he is a good mechanic. Moreover the farmer must be content with a reasonable profit. True, he does receive more for his produce now than was formerly the case but this increase is not commensurate with the increased cost of the equipment he must buy to maintain his farm, etc. Still, he is not unreasonable and faces this situation with stoicism.
I should like to say to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that the farmers of our area are grateful to the present government which, through him, gives a great deal of assistance to agriculture through the maintenance of support prices on dairy products as well as of premiums on hogs, and

also through subsidies on transportation of lime.
And, on this matter of transportation of lime, farmers in the eastern townships, who are close to lime quarries, do not, in my opinion, fully appreciate this situation. They do not seem to be interested in taking advantage of this product, of which there is such a need in my area.
I believe that I have given a fairly exact description of the situation in my constituency, as I have availed myself of the latitude given us in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne to elaborate on several topics.
I should like, in passing, to express full support of my colleague from Sherbrooke (Mr. Gingues) as regards health insurance. I do not wish to elaborate on what he said. With his talent and foresight, he gave to the house a fine outline of health insurance and I do want to repeat that I support him unreservedly.
There is a further point I should like to deal with for the welfare of my district. It has to do with the construction of an airport and once more I join my colleague in supporting that idea. Last year steps were taken to that effect and the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) undertook to consider the project. I hope the study has advanced to a point where before long we may expect an announcement on the construction of an airport, in the vicinity of Sherbrooke.
Now, Mr. Speaker, our junior boards of trade in Coaticook and Magog have initiated a campaign this winter against the sale of obscene literature. I want to congratulate them on their move. They start their inquiry by looking over the books to be found on the stands and which, even though they are not too bad, are nothing but cowboy stories, murder stories and the like, and, as such, are not suitable reading for our young people. To my mind, it is important to consider that problem and to act before it is too late. But what is still more serious is the clandestine sale of certain books provided by special agents, books which lead to corruption, books that are obscene. As a matter of fact, I rather believe that the sex crime wave of which we have heard so much lately is connected with these disgusting and revolting books. An inquiry might show us that these criminals spent their idle hours wallowing in the reading of this obscene literature until, unable to control themselves, they attacked the first passer-by, the unhappy victim of these unbalanced people being quite often some poor little child.
The Address-Mr. Roberge
I would compare these people to the hyena which roams about the desert at night looking for putrefying corpses, because they like to wallow in filth, in all that is dirty. That is where they find their pleasure.
I know that that field is under municipal and provincial authorities. However, I would ask the Minister of Justice to take whatever steps he can so that the law will be complied with in so far as the sale of pornographic literature is concerned.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow the example of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) and other hon. members who have spoken in both languages during this debate, and make a few observations in English. I think this would indicate our full belief in the bonne entente which our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) wants to bring into being. I think the use of both languages is completely in line with the procedure followed in this house.
I should like to deal with a matter which is a rather complex and touchy one. A few years ago I would not have dared to mention this, but conditions have changed and things are looking brighter all over the world. I refer to Japanese immigration. Everyone realizes that to deal with this problem a few years ago would have been out of the question, but the peace treaty has been signed and the Japanese have adopted our democratic way of life and perhaps it is our duty to try to keep them in that way of life.
Japan is not a member of the United Nations but recently she has shown a spirit of real co-operation. I do not want to put this in the way of a formal request but perhaps I could suggest to the minister of immigration that a change be made in our immigration laws. Under the present law Japanese immigrants are not permitted to enter this country; our doors are closed to them. I think under present conditions our minister of immigration might be permitted to remove this stigma from the Japanese people and open our doors a little.
As I have stated to the former minister of immigration, I do not believe in open-door immigration, but I like to see immigration treated realistically. People who are permitted to enter this country should be those who can comply with our immigration laws. We do not want all aristocrats and blue-blooded people, but those who come here must have good health, good character and have a good background. They must have everything that will help to make them good citizens.

The Address-Mr. Roberge Although the Japanese people are used to a different climate and have a different religion and way of life, I think they can become good citizens of Canada.
In the constituency of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Deslieres) there are some Japanese who were displaced persons during the war. They have assimilated themselves into the population of that district and have become good citizens. I have talked over this problem with some responsible people, one being a former member of parliament who has been to Japan a couple of times and has studied the problem over there. He tells me that when he goes there to do business he finds the Japanese willing to enter into negotiations for the exportation of goods or perhaps the purchase of some of our products, but during the course of conversations with them they always ask, "What have you Canadians against the Japanese that you will not permit immigration into your country?"
Our representatives over there are rather on the spot because they cannot reply to a question like that. All they can do is to reply the best they can. As I say, I have discussed this matter with Mr. Halle, a former member of parliament, and we may hear more about it later. He has told me that a change in our policy in this regard would help our export trade in the way of cattle and raw materials with some manufactured goods. He says that there is a good market in Japan for farm machinery. It would also help our commerce with Japan in other ways.
I know it will be said that if we open our doors we will have too many Japanese coming into the country, but that is something for the powers that be to decide. We are looking for markets all over the world and I think this would offer a chance to improve our situation in that direction. Our missionaries over there would be benefited in carrying our social welfare education. There is always this feeling in the minds of the Japanese and they treat our missionaries in an inferior way. They do not have the freedom that they would have otherwise. I hope the minister will give a little consideration to this problem.
As I said before, I am not in favour of open-door immigration, but it could be done on a strict quota basis. We should treat the Japanese the same as we do the people of other countries in that part of the world. This concludes what I have to say on the Japanese situation although I could extend my remarks and speak a little longer.
Another problem I should like to mention is one that has been mentioned before in
TMr. Roberge.1

this house, though I do not think it has ever been very much discussed. Although I do not wish to labour the matter, I just want to say a few words on what is called the world calendar.
In our days, speed prevails in our way of living, and everything is streamlined in industry, in accounting, in manufacturing processes and in everything connected with industry and trade. This world calendar would meet present conditions better than the Gregorian calendar we are now using. I have nothing against the present calendar, but as we have improved many things in our way of living, this is just one suggestion that I place before the house.
Most of the industrial people and religious people with whom I have talked over this matter have no great objection to it. However, it has to be adopted on the higher level, and I would leave the problem to the Canadian standards association or to the cabinet to be presented. I believe the only way it could be adopted would be by the United Nations.
The purpose of this world calendar would be to improve, regularize and stabilize our time system. I believe it would more adequately meet our modern conditions and would respond more to the present needs of industry, government, agriculture, religion, science and education-every field, one might say.
I shall not describe this calendar at length, as many of you have probably read about it. It has only a few alterations as compared with the present calendar. The quarters would begin on the 1st of January, 1st of April, 1st of July and 1st of October. In those months there would be 31 days, and all the other months would have 30 days, but at the end of the year a day would be added which would be a world holiday. The advantage of this calendar is that it would be permanent. We would not have to get one every year. It would be the same year after year. If you were planning future engagements of any kind, you would know, for instance, that if the 5th of May this year falls on Sunday, the 5th of May would fall on Sunday every year thereafter.
Mr. Speaker, in order that members may have a better idea of this calendar, would I be permitted to place it on record on Hansard as an appendix?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member consent to place this table on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-Édouard Roberge: The table is as follows:


WORLD CALENDAR
[Stage Direction]
January	February	March	S	M	T	W	T	F	S	S	M	T	W	T	F	S	S	M	T	W	T	F	S1	2	3	4	5	6	7	1	2	3	4	1	28	9	10	11	12	13	14	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	3	4	5	6	7	8	915	16	17	18	19	20	21	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	10	11	12	13	14	15	1622	23	24	25	26	27	28	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	17	18	19	20	21	22	2329	30	31	26	27	28	29	30	24	25	26	27	28	29	30April	May	June	S	M	T	W	T	F	S	S	M	T	W	T	F	S	S	M	T	W	T	F	S1	2	3	4	5	6	7	1	2	3	4	1	28	9	10	11	12	13	14	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	3	4	5	6	7	8	915	16	17	18	19	20	21	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	10	11	12	13	14	15	1622	23	24	25	26	27	28	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	17	18	19	20	21	22	2329	30	31	26	27	28	29	30	24	25	26	27	28	29	30"*Leap year, World Holiday.	July	August	September	S	M	T	W	T	F	S	S	M	T	W	T	F	S	S	M	T	W	T	F	S1	2	3	4	5	6	7	1	2	3	4	1	28	9	10	11	12	13	14	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	3	4	5	6	7	8	915	16	17	18	19	20	21	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	10	11	12	13	14	15	IB22	23	24	25	26	27	28	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	17	IS	19	20	21	22	2329	30	31	26	27	28	29	30	24	25	26	27	28	29	30October	November	December	S	M	T	W	T	F	S	S	M	T	W	T	F	S	S	M	T	W	T	F	S1	2	3	4	5	6	7	1	2	3	4	1	28	9	10	11	12	13	14	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	3	4	5	6	7	8	915	16	17	18	19	20	21	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	10	11	12	13	14	15	IB22	23	24	25	26	27	28	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	17	18	19	20	21	22	2329	30	31	26	27	28	29	30	24	25	26	27	28	29	30(*World Holiday)	
>
>
►<
The Address-Mr. Roberge
412	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell I do not wish to labour this matter, but I believe this calendar would be an improvement on the present one. It will have to be adopted all over the world at once, and it is up to the cabinet to present it to the United Nations, as I have said.
In closing, I may say that the speech from the throne had a good deal on the table for us, even if the opposition, as always, claimed that there is nothing worthwhile in it. However, I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) spent one and a half hours talking about it, saying that there was nothing in the speech from the throne and so on. We have had statements from banks and commercial interests that 1955 was an outstanding year, one of the best years we ever had, and they are looking forward to 1956 being another good year. With all these accomplishments the government certainly deserves great credit; but every Canadian throughout the country has also contributed to this state of affairs, otherwise it would not be so. If every Canadian farmer stays at his plough, every machinist in the shops stays at his machine and every banker stays at his desk throughout the whole economy of the country, then 1956 will be even better than 1955. The same applies to 1957, and I think that in 1957 we shall see another glorious year for the Liberal party.
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the pleasant task of congratulating the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the speech from the throne is this year even pleasanter. For the first time we have had the resolution moved by a member of the stronger sex. As has already been pointed out, she comes to us here with that most invaluable experience, which one of our own women members has, namely, municipal experience.
In regard to the seconder, I at any rate am one of those who can regard him with envy when thinking of the long number of years that he may have ahead of him if he is fortunate enough, of course, to escape defeat at the hands of our party.
Now I should like to say a word or two about parliament as such before I come to what may be regarded as partisan matters, though I really feel that nothing I say this afternoon will be partisan. I just want to say a word or two in general terms.
When I had the good fortune to come to this house some ten years ago, I felt it was an honour as well as a responsibility. Although life in the opposition has its frustrations, for we do not always defeat the government, nevertheless I have felt that life here was very much worth while. I have 

felt that parliament, as it is the guardian of our free way of life, is really the guardian of all kinds of freedoms: that is to say, religious freedom, freedom of the press, freedom of competition, freedom of labour associations and freedom of business associations. I imagine we can all agree on that.
The only reason I mention this rather obvious matter at all is that it seems to me that the events we are now facing place on us a new and heavier responsibility and, along with it, a new and heavier task than we have ever had before. We have this new competition, this cold war, which in some ways is so alarming to us. However, it offers a strong challenge in putting it up to us that this free way of life, of which we talk so much and in which we believe so much, offers new responsibilities that we must recognize and that we must face.
One needs only to refer to the events of the moment: the recent visit of the Russians to southeast Asia and their attempts to help other countries, to put themselves forward as the real helpers in economic affairs and in military affairs, and in every way to seek to have the rest of the world look to them.
One particular aspect I should like to stress as being of special interest to many in this house is the tremendous impact that has already been made in the sphere of education. In a moment I am going to read an item from the daily press. Those in this house-and there are a good many of them- who are closely associated with the educational process, will realize how strong the impact of Russia is, particularly in respect of technical services. Some of us have hoped that education need not be much devoted to technical services as it had to be during the war. But we have responsible newspapers viewing with alarm-to use that phrase- what is going on now in Russia in the way of technological training. I am referring now to an article from the Ottawa Journal which says this:
London dispatches tell of alarm voiced by Britain's leading newspapers over Russia's strides in technological training-
Then there is a quotation from the London Times.
The London Times says that the plan, with its emphasis on technical training, is "a sobering reminder of the steady industrial progress which continues as the background to soviet foreign policy".
The London News Chronicle says that the soviet threat is "obvious and enormous", that the West is "lagging hopelessly behind in technical education", and adds:	"The western powers can no
longer postpone bold, wholesale and imaginative revision of their educational systems".
The Manchester Guardian has equally sobering comment.

So I say that, like all responsible people, we in this house particularly, must have regard to these things and to their implications. We believe that by the very terribleness of the new weapons we may escape them. But there is no immunity to this other kind of competition except through renewed efforts and renewed intelligence on our own part.
I come now to do a little bit of stocktaking of the government with reference to the speech from the throne. It was not a very exciting document. One never expects that the speech from the throne can be set to music. It is almost bound to be a drab document but this year it seems to me that it is particularly drab. Furthermore, I thought that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was singularly disappointing in not doing anything to give some inspiration which might derive from the speech from the throne. Let us take, for example, the reference to the Colombo plan. As I say, you cannot have that put in blank verse in the speech from the throne. However, I thought the Prime Minister might have had something inspiring to say about it.
As a matter of fact, the most exciting thing that has happened since this house last met is the revelation of split personalities in the government and the fact that each seems to know so little of what the other is doing. Indeed, they have had to seek inspiration outside of the house. They had a great dinner the other night, evidently, at which the "tumult and the shouting" was in great evidence. We have a new and interesting description of two of our colleagues in this house, namely the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who are described as the hardrock men. I find that to be an interesting description. It suggests a certain toughness, a certain impenetrability to the views of other people.
The report of the meeting was interesting in that it contained some wisdom from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He referred to the coming election and to the by-elections. He even admitted that in the byelections we in this party had some little encouragement. But so far as the minister was concerned, it seemed to me that he regarded the by-elections as just good clean fun; they did not mean anything. According to him, in by-elections people went out and voted without much sense of responsibility. But when the real test came, namely the general election, he indicated that these wandering people would come back to their true fold and that there no longer would be any sign of weakness.
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
We in this party like to think that we are generous-hearted, broadminded people. We like to think that we are trying to see good in others. We like to think we are trying to see good even in the government. We should like to show a generous attitude. We should like to find uses for the government. But as a matter of fact, as I look across the floor, I am not able to find any examples. The only things I can find are warnings. Of course, a warning is extremely useful in some ways. It can be as useful as an example. I propose to refer to one or two warnings. Time forbids my dealing with them at great length but I shall select those that I think are most worthy of being preferred. I am going to refer to the Department of Justice. I am sorry the minister is not here. I hope I shall say nothing that he could contradict having regard to its accuracy. I may say some things that he would wish to controvert. However, I shall try to be careful as to my facts.
I want to go back to a matter that I raised last July in this house. It was not the best time to raise it. It was one of those times when we were sitting all night or nearly all night. I felt a little bit apologetic, but I raised the matter then, and I raise it now. It is a matter which every man and woman in this house I am sure will agree on. I think there has been great inertia and at least the appearance of indifference. I do not think that is what this house would wish. I hope that what I say may perhaps contribute a little bit-and that others may contribute more-towards seeing that this question with which I propose to deal, namely the question of probation, shall not be delayed year after year as it has been since 1938 when the Archambault report was brought in. I will qualify that statement to this extent. I think our judgment on the government should be lenient until the end of the war but the war ended nearly 11 years ago and, as I shall seek to show, progress since then has been trivial indeed.
As to the merits of probation we do not need to argue. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has expressed himself in most candid and forthright terms on that matter. I just wish to recall to the attention of the house one or two important points so that we shall know exactly what we are talking about and the importance of it. It has had extraordinary success in England. In 1937 Lord Samuel, speaking 30 years after the passing of the Probation of Offenders Act, made an astonishing statement to the effect that committals to prison had been reduced from 180,000 to less than 60,000. The writer of the article in the publication Welfare
414	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell says that if the speech had been made in 1950, the number of 60,000 could have been reduced to less than 35,000. In other words, that would be a reduction from 180,000 to 35,000. Compared with their probation figures, our own figures are quite trivial. In England in 1950 approximately 34,000 were put on probation. Here in Canada the number was 3,600. It is not surprising that in these circumstances Professor Jaffray of the school of social work should say:
In Canada we have made little use of adult probation as a method of treatment.
I want to make it clear that that statement was made five years ago and that I think the situation has improved and is improving. However, I still believe that what we have done is trivial. I believe that this government is primarily responsible. As appears in the Canadian Bar Review of 1949, at page 1040 -and I think we should all blush to find this said about our situation-Professor Jaffray says this:
Our Canadian system of handling offenders is fundamentally irresponsible. It is irresponsible because it is broken into so many separate bits and pieces that real responsibility cannot be placed. No one authority can be charged with the inefficiency of the system with its high rates of recidivism,-
I wish one could get a simpler word. I understand it means repeaters.
-its wasteful costs. Hence we have drifted and are still drifting.
I am going to give you briefly a little close-up on probation because I think it is important that we should get a vivid impression of exactly what it is we are talking about. If we could only have that impression in this house I am quite sure there would be no delay. I am quite sure that before the estimates of the department come before the house this year, action would be taken. It is for that reason that I am on my feet. I refer to a broadcast given the other day by Anne Francis, a well-known broadcaster on the C.B.C. She begins in this way:
Several years ago a woman-let us call her Mary-was brought into the criminal court of a big Canadian city. Mary had been stealing from her employer for many months. She had taken several hundred dollars before he became suspicious and brought a charge against her. The magistrate found her guilty of theft. He did not sentence her to serve a term in prison but instead nut her on probation for two years. He did that because he thought she would have a better chance of going straight if she were allowed to live a normal life under strict supervision.
There were several reasons why he made this decision. Mary was in her twenties and this was her first offence. She had been deserted by her husband and was supporting a two-year old daughter. She was devoted to her baby and had spent most of the stolen money on toys and clothes for the child. The magistrate felt it was important for her to keep her baby who, like all


children, needed the love and security which only a mother can give. He also felt that putting Mary into prison and separating her from the baby would increase her resentment toward society and make it harder for her to find her way back to an honest way of life.
Furthermore, since she was young and a first offender, he did not want her to be forced to consort with the hard boiled, unrepentant type of woman who is found in any prison in Canada. Finally, he felt it was an essential part of her rehabilitation to pay back the money she had stolen, and of course she could not do that, while she was sitting in idleness in a county jail or earning at most 25 cents a day in a reformatory or in the federal prison.
Now, after the magistrate had given Mary a suspended sentence and put her on probation, her lawyer arranged a civil contract with her employer under which it was agreed that she should pay him back in monthly instalments. The probation officer found her a job and a suitable place to live close to a day foster home where she could leave her baby while she was at work. Mary gave the officer permission to tell her new boss and the landlady about her background. This avoided the danger of her being exposed later on and so losing her job and her lodgings. It also removed one of the fears which often incapacitate people who have a criminal record.
I shall just condense the rest of it by saying that under supervision this woman was able to pay back the stolen money and restore herself to a decent, honest life.
I want to add one other thing and that deals with the cost of this business. There are two main reasons why people are put on probation. First of all, it is a more effective way of administering justice, and it is certainly cheaper than sending people to prison. It is more effective because it reforms a larger number of people. Statistics show that only 25 per cent of the people put on probation come into court again, while over 70 per cent of those sent to prison break the law again. These figures are given in a report by the John Howard Society.
I want to point out also that the difference in cost is terrific. It costs $50 a year to keep a man or woman on probation, while it costs $1,500 to keep a person in prison. I have said that I believe everyone in this house will be agreed that is a good thing to do.
I should like now to view the unconscionable delay, the inertia and the apparent indifference with which the Department of Justice under the present minister, and indeed under the former minister of justice, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), has dealt with this.
The beginning of this history of delay, inertia and indifference goes back to 1936. At that time the Archambault commission was appointed. Amongst other duties it was to report on the conditional release of prisoners, including parole or release on probation, conditional release under the Tickef

of Leave Act, and remission generally. In 1938 the commission reported and No. 70 of its recommendations reads as follows:
A probation system, modelled upon the system now in force in England, should be adopted throughout Canada, both for adults and young offenders.
Then, No. 74 reads:
The pay and duties of probation officers should be the subject of an agreement between the provincial and federal authorities.
I want to draw that particularly to the , attention of members because what I shall bring to their attention later is that we have this old bogey of dominion-provincial authority raised again. We are left between two stools.
Lest I forget later, I should like to remind the minister of that old catch phrase from a music hall play, "Where there is a will there are three ways". I think the evidence I shall bring here will show that this thing has just been dawdling along with nobody taking hold of it; nobody apparently really keen about it. Let us go on from the Archam-bault report in 1938. I have said already that I think we should be rather gentle in our criticism until the end of the war because we have to remember that people were then engrossed in other things. When I brought this up last July, the Minister of Justice pointed out that a meeting was called in the autumn of 1947 for the purpose of discussing the implementation of the Archam-bault report. This had been followed by the carrying out of probation in several of the provinces.
This is true, but when you look at the figures it is a very disappointing statement. There are 89 probation officers in Ontario and 17 in British Columbia. I was actually given figures showing that there are none in Manitoba and only two in Nova Scotia. I want to say that the latest circular I have would seem to indicate that more of a beginning has been made in these provinces. But I say without fear of being contradicted that the result has been unsatisfactory. Even though I hope and believe it is improving now, we are still away behind.
The next step to which I shall refer was the appointment of a committee in 1953. Speaking last July at page 5917 of Hansard the minister said that this committee was appointed "with a view to providing the foundation upon which we could reasonably call the provinces together in a dominion-provincial conference". I find that a most disappointing statement. I might say that, before the minister entered the house, I had remarked that I was beginning from the end of the war because wartime was a special
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell time. In 1953, eight years after the end of the war, a committee was appointed, as the minister says, "with a view to providing the foundation upon which we could reasonably call the provinces together in a dominion-provincial conference".
Then, 18 months later, last July, the minister told us he expected to receive a report from this committee in October. Speaking on July 8, 1955, at page 5917 of Hansard, the minister said:
We thought that if we could get a report, which we expect to receive about October of this year, we would then have a mass of data which we could place before the provinces-in a matter which is their business and not ours

When the minister says it is their business and not ours, I want to remind him what the Archambault report, the federal government's own commission, said many years before. It said:
A probation system, modelled upon the system now in force in England, should be adopted throughout Canada, both for adults and young offenders-
The pay and duties of probation officers should be the subject of an agreement between the provincial and federal authorities.
It seemed to me that was manifest good sense. I think it could be done. I believe the provinces would jump at it. It seems to me nothing short of a calamity that many months had gone by since the appointment of that last committee. I fear there may be still great delay. I will repeat what I said before the minister came in. I am on my feet because I should like to make any contribution, however small, to expedite this affair. I hope other members will speak about it because I think everyone in this house will agree about its being a good thing. It is only the old bogey about the division of responsibility that is being raised.
Now, last Friday, nearly 11 years after the completion of the war, the minister answered a question as to when he thought the committee might report by saying, at page 348 of Hansard for January 20, 1956:
.. I think that the best I can say, conservatively, at the present time ... is that it will be made during the present session of parliament.
I can only say I hope it will be early during the present session of parliament. Another point arises, of course, and that is the very difficult point as to whether probation was really included.
I must say the minister did not help very much to clear that up by what he said in this house last Friday when he was asked a question. He said that the committee was to deal with "parole" and "remission." He was asked then whether that included probation, and if not whether the situation could be
416	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell clarified, and so on. What the minister said in answer to that perplexed me. He said in answer to the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), as reported at page 349 of Hansard:
I think ray hon. friend, like myself, is a lawyer and I am sure he would know the principles of constitutional law well enough to recognize the difficulty we would have in the federal field in setting up a commission of inquiry to investigate that which comes under the provincial field of jurisdiction.
Later on I asked him whether, if he thought there was any constitutional difficulty in the way, he would communicate with the provinces and get their concurrence, which I am sure would be forthcoming. The minister's answer to that confused me a good deal because he said:
During the whole course of this inquiry, I have had no reason to suppose that there was any difficulty whatsoever in this regard.
Just before that he seemed to me to be saying, we must not do this because it is not within our constitutional power. Later on he seemed to say the opposite. What I am saying at the moment is, I hope it will be clear that probation will be dealt with. I have been troubled about it. The words that the minister read on to the record the other day did not seem to me to be clear, and I can only say I hope that when this comes down we will not have to wait further for the full treatment of the probation question.


Mr. Garson:: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend will permit me perhaps I might, on a point of privilege, endeavour to explain in greater detail what I tried to make clear in my interjection the other day, to which he has just alluded. It is true that this matter of probation comes under provincial jurisdiction.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I want to be obliging to the minister, but if he is going to make a speech I suggest he should do it in his own time, since I am told that he can speak later.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Perhaps it would be more appropriate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: the Minister of Justice will permit me, I think he is fully entitled to rise and briefly clarify any misinterpretation which may have been put upon his remarks; but if he is going to go to the extent of debating the merits, or giving us the history of what has gone on, under these circumstances I think I must agree with the hon. member for Greenwood that the minister should make a speech. My understanding is that all hon. members have the right to clarify or correct a misinterpretation which may have been put upon their remarks, but I think that it should go no farther than that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would like it understood, Mr. Speaker, that the time taken in any brief remarks I make would not be charged against my hon. friend; otherwise, I would very much prefer to resume my seat and rise again after he has finished his remarks. Perhaps that is what I had better do.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, what I have been trying to say is that the government's own commission gave it certain advice. It was set up, let us say, ten years ago, although actually it was before the war. Let us take ten years as the working field. Now, those years have gone by. The minister seemed to speak with a good deal of satisfaction of certain things that were done in 1947. That was two years after the war. Even between 1947 and 1953 there was a period of six years. Then, a committee was appointed in 1953, which was more than two years ago. I do not want the minister to tell us that there were busy men on that committee. Of course they were busy and that was a matter he had to take into consideration when he appointed them. There are busy men on the Gordon commission but nevertheless that Gordon commission, whatever else we can say about it, is going full steam ahead getting its evidence. I do not know what this other committee has done. All I know is that they have had two years, twenty-four months, with more and more unnecessary expenditure of money and more and more waste of human material, which is even worse. How the minister could say last July that he thought there had been nothing remiss in the conduct of the Department of Justice I cannot understand. That shocked me very badly, and I can only hope that deep down in his heart the minister did not quite mean that seriously. I would further hope that at the present time he is trying very hard to speed up this matter. I hope further that when the estimates come down this year there will be some evidence of this.
It is, to put it mildly, shocking to be informed, as I am informed, that in England they are dispensing with penal institutions while we are building three more penitentiaries. If that remark needs correction the minister can do it later. It is my information that while they are dispensing with houses of correction in England, we are having to add to ours. Why that should be I would like to know. It seems to me to bear out fully what Professor Jaffray said and what I urged earlier in this house, about our system namely, to put it mildly, "fundamentally irresponsible".
There is one other point that bothered me, and I should like to mention it before I pass

on from this subject, and that is the minister's reference to a mass of data. Now, a mass of data always suggests to me that you are going to have weeks or even months of going and coming discussing this or that. Without, of course, expert knowledge on the matter, it seems to me that this problem is so simple that I cannot believe there are a lot of new techniques that need to be involved. As I said earlier, where there is a will there are three ways. I would assume that what has been done in Ontario would at any rate be of useful assistance to other provinces. I would assume, for example, that if a province has two probation officers, the only thing that is really necessary for them to work better is to have more help. Again I say I hope we will not be told when the estimates come down, oh, yes, the committee has reported; it has reported earlier than the minister said, and the mass of data which they have produced is now being studied, and so on. I hope that others in this house will join me, when the estimates come down later in the session, in holding the minister accountable for action.
I want to say a word about the Department of Finance. I want to give the minister some advice as a warning, because I think he needs a warning. It is that when people play with sharp tools they may slip in their hands, and if they do not injure them they may injure somebody else. That is what I think the minister can do.
I heard the minister speak in Toronto just two weeks ago today. It was a very pleasant speech, and I would not think that one could make much political capital out of it, because he kept close to shore all the way.


Mr. Pickersgill:: The hon. member is mixing his metaphors.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You know, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a view current that cabinet ministers never come to Toronto, that they must not be seen there. That is not true, but an interesting thing happened there, and it shows how the people in Toronto are getting a bit down about this. In introducing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), the president of the club said this:
He has the distinction of being very nearly a cabinet minister from Toronto. If he had not moved to Markdale he might have been that rarest of rare birds, a cabinet minister from Toronto.
To me, that raised a very interesting point. We know that a cabinet minister cannot live in Toronto, but how near can he live? After all, the Minister of Finance is less than 100 miles away, and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Bennett), is within 100 miles of Toronto. The 67509-27
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) is about 200 miles away. He is pretty safe. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is about 300 miles away; the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is between 700 and 800 miles away; and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is at the head of the lakes. I suppose that is as near to the wheat-growing area as he would dare to live.
So there you have it. The only other thing one thinks of is the Liberals who have been elected in Toronto. Of course they are not going to stay there long; we all know that, but still they have been in this house and they must be disappointed. The only comfort I can give to them are those words of Milton with which we are all familiar: "They also serve who only stand and wait."
I want to give a little warning to the minister about what I call the precipitate use of sharp tools. The minister has evidently concentrated on that part of financial policy which we call monetary. As I understand it, the_ technicians have now divided financial policy into what they call fiscal and monetary. Fiscal includes tariff, excise, subsidy and taxation, but monetary includes just dealing with the technique of money and its chief instrument is the interest rate.
It is very interesting to see what has happened. With regard to the interest rate, the argument made for the interest rate as an instrument and I think there may be something in it, is that it is more impersonal in that it hits everybody. Tariffs hit this person or that person, as do taxes, but the interest rate hits everybody. For that reason it is very important that it be dealt with wisely, temperately and cautiously. When we examine what has been going on in the Department of Finance during the last eight or nine months I very much doubt whether we would come to the conclusion that they have followed those rules.
Let me say at this point that it was made perfectly clear to us two years ago when the Bank Act and the Bank of Canada Act were revised that these matters are controlled in the Department of Finance. I say that particularly because otherwise I think it would be a questionable matter, if one were in any way criticizing civil servants. I think that would be improper, but I want to stress the fact that the banking and commerce committee was told by the ex-minister of finance and the ex-governor of the bank that the Department of Finance called the tune and if there was any difference of opinion it was the governor of the bank who had to give way. I say that because I want it to be

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell perfectly clear that in what I am saying I am criticizing the Department of Finance, which I am entitled to criticize.
I am not going to talk at length about the bank rate. The "bank rate" sounds far enough away to most of us, although we do know that for generations in England the bank rate has been a portentous thing and that the raising and lowering of the bank rate has had substantial effects on the economy of the whole country. A change of a fraction of one per cent in the bank rate could have far-reaching consequences, because it could and did affect the prices of the highest grade securities in which financial institutions, notably banks, are heavy investors. For that reason a slight change in the rate can be a devastating thing to people dealing with hundreds of millions in bonds.
For instance, the changes last autumn contributed to a change of three points in the price of high grade bonds. It seems clear that the department is quite confident that the entire economy can be controlled, and accurately and even mechanically controlled, by monetary measures. Some will feel that this confident view is the product of the classroom and the ivory tower, and that it should be regarded with some misgiving. I think many people will feel that good old human nature enters into this, and that human nature has a way of not being controlled from the classroom or the ivory tower.
My time is running out. I must be very brief and take advantage of the time left to me and make two or three points. I want to point out that in February last the bank rate in Canada was dropped from 2 per cent to 11 per cent. That was going against the current. That was doing what no other central bank was doing. Other central banks were either raising their rates or were standing pat. It indicated, in other words, what we call an easy money policy. It was lower than that of any other central bank. Then the United States boom began to spread to Canada and in quick succession the bank rate was raised in August from 11 per cent to 2 per cent, in September from 2 per cent to 2{- per cent, and in November from 2\ per cent to 2| per cent. This, as I said, had a definite effect on the bond market. Incidentally, 2| per cent was the highest rate in the history of the bank. One thing I want to add is that there were heavy demands, rather overwhelming demands as we can read from the bank reports, made on the banks in regard to increasing their reserves. Hon. members will remember that in the last revision of the act the working rate had been 10 per cent. It was not a statutory rate but a working rate, and 8 per cent on a


weekly average was made the statutory rate, which greatly eased the position of the banks.
Last November proposals were put up to them to almost double their reserves, which was a very formidable demand to have made. There is just one thing I have time for and that is to point out what can be the practical results of this manipulation of interest rates and of the whole question of reserves and of the relationship between the central bank, the Department of Finance and the commercial banks. I am reading now from the Globe and Mail of-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaitei:
Order. I am very sorry but I am afraid I will have to interrupt the hon. member. I have allowed him two minutes over his time on account of the interruption that was made.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Could I have just 30 seconds to read a quotation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Apple whaite):: I do not wish to appear to be harsh on the hon. member, but it has been pointed out previously in a similar situation that we have a time limit on the debate, and therefore any courtesies extended to one hon. member will automatically work to the detriment of another.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might now rise on a point of privilege and endeavour to clear up the misapprehension which my hon. friend who has just taken his seat voiced a few minutes ago.


George Alexander Drew: On a point of order, the
minister is entitled to rise on a question of privilege to correct a misstatement, but it is not his right to correct a misapprehension of the hon. member who has just spoken. I am quite certain we know where any misapprehension lies, but that is not the point. It is not his right to correct a misapprehension. He has a right to make a speech. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that following the course you have just followed, if this is merely a question of making one of these general speeches and correcting what the minister regards as a misapprehension it has no place as an interjection here unless it is a speech.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If I may rise now on a point of order, to deal with the remarks which have just been interjected by the Leader of the Opposition, it is my understanding that citation 235 of Beauchesne, third edition, reads as follows:
A member who, during a debate, has spoken to a question may again be heard to offer explanation of some material part of his speech which has been misunderstood; but he must not introduce new matter or endeavour to strengthen by new

arguments, his former position which he alleges to have been misunderstood, or to reply to other members.


Mr. Fulton:: You have not spoken in this debate.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The time for such explanations is at the conclusion of the speech which calls for it.


Mr. Lennard:: You have not spoken yet in this debate.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I took my seat on the previous occasion just a few moments ago.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I just finish.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: At
the moment the Minister of Justice is outlining a point of order.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I was right in the middle of a sentence, as I think my hon. friend from Kamloops will agree.


Frank Exton Lennard: Take half an hour. Take all the time you like.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Thank you. I was endeavouring, in the first instance when I interrupted the hon. member for Greenwood, endeavouring to correct what, if I may bring myself within the terms of the citation I have just read, was a quite unintentional misunderstanding by him of what I had said previously and what he has now been misquoting. May I put it this way, the question of probation comes under provincial jurisdiction.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the minister concluded his point of order?


An hon. Member:: No, not yet.


An hon. Member:: It will take him all
afternoon.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I had concluded my point of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the minister has placed himself beyond the terms of the citation he read because that refers to misapprehension with respect to a speech made during the course of the debate. I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand he has not spoken in this debate and therefore there could be no misapprehension as to what he has said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The
citation which I had in mind is the one referred to by the Minister of Justice. In the interests of this debate and of hon. members on both sides of the house I suggest that the Minister of Justice be permitted to state his question of privilege or personal explanation as covered by citation 235. It will then be my responsibility to decide 67509-27}
The Address-Mr. Mang before he has gone very far whether or not it is a question of privilege, but I cannot make that decision until I hear him.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I was saying, the matter of probation comes entirely under provincial jurisdiction, while the question of remission and parole comes clearly under federal jurisdiction. We could not with propriety issue a royal commission or set up an advisory committee in relation to a matter which comes under provincial jurisdiction, namely the question of probation. But it is entirely proper, as I tried to point out on previous occasions on which my hon. friend and I exchanged views in this connection, for the federal government to set up an advisory committee upon remission and parole. In that connection it is also quite proper for us to make it clear to those who are advising us that there is no limitation whatever imposed upon their reference in the hope, which I feel confident will be realized, that in the course of their inquiries our advisers will find it possible in their examination of remission and parole to examine also all questions of probation which are related to these federal questions of remission and parole.
If, for example, as I understand was the case, our advisers go to study these questions in Great Britain where there are no jurisdictional problems of a federal state but they have a unitary government, these three subject matters are all under the control of that unitary government; and it would be manifestly absurd if our advisers examined remission and parole in Great Britain without reference to the related question of probation.


An hon. Member:: What is the point of order?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. At this stage I trust the Minister of Justice will permit me to say that I listened to the speech by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) and the reference referred to. In his opening sentences I think the Minister of Justice dealt with the question which had been raised, that is remission versus probation. I would suggest to the Minister of Justice that he has made the distinction clear and I think any further elaboration of the subject could be regarded only as debating its merits and not the interpretation put upon it by the hon. member for Greenwood.


Mr. H. P. Mang (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) on the address, and in doing so I should like to emphasize my congratulations by saying that I am sure everyone will agree that they did credit to themselves, to the people who

The Address-Mr. Mang elected them and to the party which they represent. It is to the credit of the government that they are recognizing the position of the women of this nation in this very public way.
Perhaps hon. members will recall that last year for the first time in history certain duties were performed by a lady senator. This year a fine gesture has been made to the women of Canada in the choice of the hon. member for Timiskaming as the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Perhaps in that connection some hon. members may have noted certain press items a week or two ago concerning some ardent women's organizations in Toronto, or at least in Ontario. They brought to the attention of the public generally the fact that there were too many people in the House of Commons with hairdos of which they did not approve, and that most of them should be eliminated.
I am just wondering whether this recognition on the part of the government of the women of Canada will encourage them toward further efforts of organization in an effort to see that people with more splendid hairdos than some of the unfortunate people in this house have to put up with are sent to this house. Perhaps this will draw a lengthening shadow over the prospects of some hon. members here.
I am saying this more or less facetiously, but the fact is that if the women of Canada should really organize, with the strength they have there is no doubt that we would have many more of that sex as members of this House of Commons. Perhaps it would be a good thing, because they tell me that the ladies arrive at decisions, and more often right decisions, by intuition rather than by lengthy processes of reasoning. That might prove to be a great time-saver in this House of Commons. With the encouragement to women to enter politics, as this government has encouraged them, perhaps the time will come when the complexion of this house will be radically changed, when it will be more colourful than it is today.
I think I would be remiss in my duty as representing the constituency of Qu'Appelle and as a Saskatchewan member if I did not mention the visit this past year of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to Saskatchewan. I represent the constituency which we like to call the pioneer constituency of Saskatchewan. Many of the pioneers were at that gathering in front of the legislative buildings in Regina, and some of them expressed to me how wonderful it was to be able to attend a meeting at which the Prime Minister spoke


so well. On behalf of Qu'Appelle constituency, and I am sure I can include the rest of Saskatchewan, we were most happy to have the Prime Minister with us in the celebration of our jubilee.
There is one other matter I should like to mention before I deal with the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I refer to the laying of a wreath on November 11 on the cenotaph here in Ottawa. On behalf of Qu'Appelle constituency, and on behalf of the lady from Qu'Appelle who took part in that ceremony, I should like to express my appreciation. I refer to Mrs. John Leboldus, who was chosen by the Canadian Legion and government to represent the mothers of Canada in the laying of a wreath at that time. Although not in the best of health, Mrs. Leboldus nevertheless agreed to perform that ceremony. Mr. and Mrs. Leboldus have been in Qu'Appelle constituency ever since they emigrated from Europe at the turn of the century. They have made a very fine record for themselves as pioneers, and have raised a very large family.
The gesture on the part of the Canadian Legion and the government in having Mrs. Leboldus perform this function at the cenotaph was appreciated very much for another reason. Western Canada, as you know, has a great many immigrants, and here is a mother who only at the turn of the century came to Canada. She and her husband both became Canadians, homesteaded and built up a wonderful home and a wonderful family. When the supreme test came they sacrificed three sons in the second world war. One can imagine the anxiety of that mother when it is realized that, besides these three, there were other members of the family in the services during the war.
On behalf of the people of Qu'Appelle and Mr. and Mrs. John Leboldus, I wish to thank the Canadian Legion and the government for having invited her here to perform that function. It was a splendid gesture to those people who came from central Europe to pioneer in this country.
I should now like to turn to the speech from the throne. In doing so, before coming to what I consider the most important part of that speech as far as western Canada is concerned, I should like to draw attention to a few of the paragraphs preceding it. There has been much comment with respect to this speech, praise and otherwise, both in the press and from hon. members in this house. As far as we in this house are concerned, I quite realize that it all depends on what benches one occupies. Naturally the opposition cannot praise the speech; if they

did the political repercussions might not be too happy. So, being in opposition, they must perforce play down, shall I say, the importance of the speech from the throne.
However, the more one reads and studies that speech, the more one realizes that it covers a very wide field of national and international endeavours by the government. First of all this paragraph struck me:
The government ... Is continuing its constant efforts through diplomacy and negotiation and through the United Nations and other international agencies, to bring about better understanding between nations.
That statement that we are continuing our efforts along the lines indicated is very important. The securing and maintaining of peace and bringing about an end of the cold war is of paramount importance to our economic life, from every direction you may care to view it.
Last year, as you will remember, the hot spot in international affairs was the area off the coast of China. This year the scene has shifted and the hot spot is in the Middle East but during the year the Canadian government, with its usual vigilance, has paid attention to international affairs. I might mention particularly the performance of our Minister of National Health and Welfare at the United Nations, where he did such wonderful work on behalf of this nation toward the maintenance of peace in the world. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, on his world tour, made those personal contacts which are so important to the maintenance of proper human relationships on which all peace is built. The Minister of Fisheries, in spite of his accident, has done wonderful work and no doubt we shall reap results from that visit in a very definite way as the result of better understanding among the nations of the world.
What strikes me as very significant is that this government is vigilant as regards this particular matter mentioned in the speech from the throne, to a degree that all too many people fail to realize. In the world of today, arms alone do not guarantee security; they are but a bargaining force, shall I say, which can be used if necessary if everything else fails in trying to establish good human relationships. But the importance of the work of these men I have mentioned in establishing and maintaining peace, and the direction along which this government is travelling in that regard, cannot be overemphasized.
I was glad to notice in the next paragraph of the speech that the Prime Minister has accepted the invitation to attend the meeting of commonwealth prime ministers to be held in London. Here is a matter that should be
The Address-Mr. Mang given wider publicity as a matter of national pride. When one thinks of Canada, a nation of some 16 million people, meeting at this commonwealth conference with representatives of perhaps 450 million people, and then assesses the strength and influence which our Prime Minister as a Canadian wields among those representatives of close to half a billion people, it almost borders on the fantastic. It emphasizes the virility of this nation of ours, and it also emphasizes the calibre of the men whom we are able to send from these shores to these international gatherings. You can be represented at a conference but, unless you have a personality who can establish the proper human relationships, and can conduct himself in such a way that he will be respected and his opinions will count, your influence will be greatly minimized.
Canadians should be made aware and should have emphasized to them that the powerful influence Canada is wielding in the world today is altogether out of proportion to our population. This means that while our population is small, the calibre of people who are doing the job of world public relations is extremely high indeed.
There is just one more thing I wish to mention before I come to the paragraph which I said I consider to be the most important for western Canada, namely the paragraph which states that the royal commission to examine and report upon our economic prospects is proceeding with its inquiry. I attended the meeting of this commission in the legislative buildings at Regina last summer and heard the submissions that were made. They covered a fairly wide range of subjects, all the way from the South Saskatchewan dam to the suggestion that there be worked out a national wheat policy which would be of benefit not only to western Canada but to the nation as a whole.
As to that submission, I notice that the government has already beaten the commission to the draw in this sense. Part of what has been submitted has already been in the mind of the government and is coming on to the satute books shortly. That will be another step in framing a national policy with regard to western wheat. I refer to the recognition of the storage difficulties we have out west and the fact that the government is already doing something in that regard. This royal commission will be a great benefit to the people of Canada in this particular sense, as far as I am concerned.
When these various national issues are discussed among the people, to me it has always been a saddening thought that we are
*
422	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Mang obliged to discuss them on the basis of politics. In doing so, naturally every part is obliged to emphasize its particular angles and sometimes that emphasis is placed disproportionately having regard to the facts. I do not know of any other sphere of public discussion in which the facts take such a beating as they take on a political platform. I have always tried to keep the facts more or less in line.


Hazen Robert Argue: More or less.


Henry Philip Mang: I am afraid it is less from over there on the other side. The facts take a beating.


Mr. Ellis:: Especially at Liberal meetings.


Henry Philip Mang: When you have a commission of this kind making a factual survey and study of the issues that are involved in making this a prosperous and happy nation, we should have a high respect, shall I say, for the facts involved in any particular part of any discussion of our economy. Therein, to my mind, lies the real value of that commission. The submissions are impartial. The commissioners are impartial. We are apt to get facts that we can present to the public and then, upon that presentation, we can have an assessment as to what our proper course of action should be.
Just in order to keep the record straight, I should perhaps deal with two or three references, all of them kindly, that have been made to me. One was made by my good friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) who honoured me by describing me as a dirt farmer. I might say that for most of my life I have been engaged in farming in the pioneer constituency of Saskatchewan, namely Qu'Appelle. During that time I have had varied experiences. The ups and downs of farming have hit me as much as they have hit anyone else. I am pleased that he referred to me as a dirt farmer. Of course that is an expression we have out west. It does not necessarily mean that you work without gloves or anything like that. It means that your visible means of support is the acres you cultivate.
I make reference to what the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard said for another reason. He stated that last year in the budget debate I indicated that the western farmer was not bankrupt. I still hold to that view, because to be bankrupt is to have your assets completely wiped out. There is a difference between being bankrupt and being short of cash. Many big businesses are short of cash although they are far from being bankrupt.
I would add that I wish he had quoted me


at greater length because, as reported at page 3105 of Hansard of April 22 last year, what I said was this:
We are far from bankrupt In western Canada. Indeed, our wealth is quite substantial . . . but at the moment we are short of cash.
That was last April. I felt that I was stating the facts, and I felt it my duty to draw to the attention of this house the fact that we were short of cash. Then I gave reasons, and so forth. I wish the hon. member had quoted that part. I wish he had gone on and quoted the other problems with which we are confronted and with which I dealt with at that time. I said that in this economic adjustment we were called upon to make in the international markets of the world, the farmer was taking the lead. I quoted from the wheat board report to show that we had dropped our price by 32-J cents on the basis of No. 1 Northern, and that the prices of the goods we had to buy-because of higher profits and higher wages-had increased by an average of say 9 per cent; that this widening gap could not continue; that if it did, there would be only one answer.
Of course we farmers in this country are not alone in that kind of situation. You have it in practically every agricultural country in the world. With all the touting of the agricultural policies across the line, you have it in the United States. You have the farm problem as the No. 1 problem in that country. In spite of all the measures which are being used and which we are asked to copy in this country, nevertheless the farm problem is the same. In similar way I can quote from reports with regard to India. In India you have the same trend.
All of this means that we must work out and adopt some national policy with respect to agriculture, or must improve the national policy with respect to agriculture as these difficulties arise. This government is taking steps to do so-


Mr. Nicholson:: Too little and too late.


Henry Philip Mang: -and will continue to do so. There was a statement made by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) with which I could not quite agree. He stated that the western farmer today- since the hon. member referred to me I am taking the liberty of referring to him-is in the worst cash position in which he has ever been.


An hon. Member:: Don't you agree with it?


Henry Philip Mang: No. That is not the case, because I farmed during those hungry thirties when not only did we have no cash-


Alfred Claude Ellis: And you had a Liberal government then, too?


Henry Philip Mang: We had it in Saskatchewan, too. I remember the time when not only did we have no cash but in some areas of Saskatchewan we did not have enough to eat. Those were the days of real depression. At that time we were bankrupt because we owed about $600 million, our machines were worn out and our clothing was worn down. A great percentage of our women were using flour sacks for dresses. We had cod fish shipped in from Nova Scotia. The farmers were in distress. It is for that reason I tell the hon. member for Moose Mountain that we are not in that position today.
Now, what is the position? Perhaps at this point I should mention another member, the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), who stated he was very sympathetic toward me in connection with the largest protest meeting held in Saskatchewan. At that time I was speaking along with my distinguished friend the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) and the Liberal leader in the province, Mr. McDonald. The hon. member for Saskatoon said he was sympathetic toward me, and I thank him very much for that. However, I had feelings of sympathy as well at that meeting. My feelings of sympathy were directed toward the facts. If you ever heard a manhandling of facts, I think that was the place they got it. At that meeting I tried to deal with the situation as we have it in Saskatchewan, and perhaps the hon. members might be interested, just briefly, in that discussion of the cash shortage, which I mentioned last year and which has been mentioned very often this year.
I pointed out that while this shortage was generally prevalent in Saskatchewan, that did not mean we were bankrupt as Saskatchewan farmers. After surveying the situation and having many discussions with many people, farmers, elevator men, businessmen and anyone with whom I could talk, I found that the difficulties arose largely from the fact we were not able to make the usual deliveries because of congestion in the storage facilities and box car difficulties.
Our farmers could be divided roughly into three groups; the hon. member for Assiniboia will remember I said that. There was a small percentage who were not in immediate need of cash and would not take it regardless of the form in which it was available, whether through elevators or banks. Then there were those people who for several years now had had their land flooded and had
The Address-Mr. Mang neither wheat nor credit. They were unable to cultivate their land to any extent last year. Those people were the ones who were really in great difficulties. Then there was this large group in between who, while not bankrupt, were short of cash.
This situation was presented at the Saskatchewan conference and was the outcome of the situation I just mentioned, the delivery situation. It was dealt with at Saskatoon but there was no unanimity in the presentation of the case to the government down here, and that is one of the reasons for cash being made available through the banks. It results from the lack of a positive recommendation in that regard.
When I spoke at the Regina meeting which I just mentioned I made reference to that; I pointed out that in the west we were divided into different factions in presenting our case. We were divided politically in the west. I need not mention it here, but the Social Credit is in control in Alberta, in Saskatchewan we have a socialist government, and in Manitoba we have a Liberal administration. Politically we were not united, and the united farmers and the wheat pool did not see eye to eye on a good many things. Then the delegation came here with that form of presentation. The government here had to decide for themselves the best and most immediate way to make cash available.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Do you agree with that policy?


Henry Philip Mang: Those were some of the things I stated. Of course the meeting had been called as a protest meeting. It was one of those protest and demand meetings. You know, we are often short of facts at those meetings. As I stated before, when I was invited to speak I had a set of these ready-made resolutions presented to me. They were presented to the other delegates, too. At that meeting there were some 900 or 1,000 people. As soon as the political actors were off the stage, including myself, there was about 25 per cent of the people left, and in the dying minutes of the meeting those resolutions were passed.
I say that because when you want to get something done, whether or not you get what you are after depends upon how you go at it. This attitude of trying to bulldoze this government into doing certain things through the medium of protest and demand simply does not work. I think perhaps I had just as much influence as all the protest and demand meetings that were held out there. During the middle of October I made a trip to Ottawa with regard to this matter of the

The Address-Mr. Mang western economy and had a very nice interview with the Prime Minister, with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and with the Minister of Finance.


Hazen Robert Argue: Did you ask for bank loans?


Henry Philip Mang: I wanted to get that on the record. What I asked for was that cash be made available in the most practical way and the speediest way possible. If those conditions are fulfilled by handing out cash through the elevators I will be quite satisfied. What we want is the fastest possible action.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the horn, member believe in the 5 per cent interest rate?


Alfred Claude Ellis: Is the hon. member satisfied with bank loans?


Henry Philip Mang: I have not taken out one yet; I may have to when I get back.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The hon. member is satisfied with the -policy?


Henry Philip Mang: As of now, yes. Now, go ahead and quote me in your next broadcast. Let me point out that in an emergency such as now exists-


Hazen Robert Argue: We now know why we have the bank loan. The hon. member has given the answer.


Henry Philip Mang: No, .1 did not ask for bank loans. The hon. member for Assiniboia is a past master at mangling and mutilating facts. The hon. member-and I have heard him over and over again-belongs to that cult which believes that the only way you can get anything done is through protests and demands. During the past summer he did his level best to organize a mass march on Ottawa. One of his keenest disappointments was that he did not succeed. I heard him make that statement at the Regina meeting, and it was widely carried in the press. He did his level best to organize a mass march on the basis of protests and demands, and thereby force the issue. Probably he would have been chosen leader. I did not want to go into all these things, but since he has brought them up I thought I should refer to them.
I hold in my hand a clipping from a western paper which reads:
Mr. Argue was described as the farm expert among the federal C.C.F. group, but he was supported on the platform by Roy Knight, M.P. for Saskatoon; Hon. J. H. Sturdy and Arthur Stone, legislative members for Saskatoon: and Robert Walker, M.L.A. for Hanley.
The federal government's plan to guarantee bank loans to farmers in the present crisis was condemned by Mr. Argue. He said farmers would be called on to pay interest on their own money


and when they started to mortgage their income, they were finished. They would only get deeper into the economic morass.
I do not want to quote it all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Go ahead.


Henry Philip Mang: I do not want to take up the time. At the Regina meeting-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is better than your own speech.


Henry Philip Mang: -the hon. member for Assiniboia said, "What is left now is a march on Ottawa." Those were some of the tactics used. Once the socialist government in Saskatchewan has nothing to protest about or no demands to make, socialism will disappear from the prairies. In every election out in the west thus far the socialists have attained power on the basis of protests, and the individuals from that party have obtained seats in this house in the same way.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Democracy cannot work in any other way.


Henry Philip Mang: I have been sidetracked.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You would have done better to stay with foreign affairs.


Hazen Robert Argue: Did the hon. member ask the Prime Minister for cash advances?


Henry Philip Mang: Many policies have been discussed. There are many ways in which the economic situation with respect to surpluses could be improved in Saskatchewan. There have been surpluses in the world in the past, and we have had surpluses in Saskatchewan. Our economy is so based that we must have a certain amount of surplus at times. Our yields fluctuate. We can drop something like 200 million bushels in our yields in one year. That was clearly illustrated by last year's record and this year's record. Those wide fluctuations have created surpluses, the statistics of which are on the record, and I will not go into them. Our friends across the way have always had some solutions. They are the greatest ones for dreaming up resolutions of any party we have had in western Canada. I should like to quote something I saw the other day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order, I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am afraid there will be no time for quotations. He has exhausted his time.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, of all the subjects mentioned in the speech from the throne, to my mind the most important is that which deals with agriculture. The speech from the throne indicates that the government recognizes some

of the injustices done to agriculture, and they are going to make some small effort to recompense the farmers for some of their losses.
I wish to refer to that for just a minute, Mr. Speaker, because this is one place where I should like to congratulate the government. I congratulate the government on their endeavour to bring in legislation to relieve the farmer of the necessity of having to pay storage on an abnormal carryover. The carryover will amount to about 178 million bushels this year, and the government has suggested that the farmers should be compensated in some way for that cost.
The storage charges on this carryover have gone from 8 cents a bushel to 10 cents a bushel. Last year they were around 16 cents a bushel, and they could go as high as 20 cents. That means a cash outlay by the farmers of about $30 million. The government have at long last recognized that this is an imposition, and they suggest in the speech from the throne that the farmer should be compensated for this loss. They are to be commended for that, Mr. Speaker. Now that they have recognized the farmer has been unjustly penalized and forced to carry over this abnormal surplus from year to year, it is only right and proper that the government should compensate the farmers for the losses they have sustained in this respect over the last two, three or four years. It would mean that the farmers would have about $50 or $60 million coming to them in compensation, which they have had little hope of receiving up to the present time.
I now want to turn to the more immediate problem in agriculture. Throughout this debate great emphasis has been laid on the condition of agriculture. It is not just some mere passing fancy. Proof of the economic condition of agriculture has been definitely established. The dominion bureau of statistics stated just recently that in 1951 the income of the prairie farmers amounted to $1,127 million; in 1952, it was $1,082 million; in 1953, it was $884 million; in 1954, it was $376 million; and the bureau estimates that in 1955 the income will be still lower. According to the Albertan of November 25 last, the Alberta wheat pool has stated that farm income dropped 55 per cent between 1951 and 1954, and they, too, forecast a further drop in 1955.
If this is not a tremendous loss of income to the farmers, I should like to know what it is. It is not merely being short of cash. This represents a definite loss, and no one could argue otherwise. The provincial bureau of statistics reports that the Alberta farm income was nearly $3 million lower during 67509-28
The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston the first eight months of 1955 than it was in the same period in 1954. That is the income for just one province and surely that is not "just being a little short of cash". This is definite and positive proof that the agricultural industry throughout the western provinces is facing a difficult situation indeed.
It has been stated over and over again in this house that the farmers are in dire need of cash. Throughout the fall I visited different parts of my constituency at the request of organizations which were holding protest meetings. The farmers are reluctant to hold protest meetings in my constituency but they did it this time because circumstances forced them to do it. The meetings that were held were certainly of a non-political nature. As far as I am aware these meetings were not called by any political organization, that is in the sense of a political party. It is true that various political parties were represented there, but when one finds farmers being forced to sell their grain to machine companies for as low as 60 cents a bushel, and in a great many cases, 75 cents a bushel, one can well understand that the farmers are becoming hard up for cash.
It was, of course, against the law to sell grain to machine companies who in turn sold it to feeders, but what were the farmers to do? The situation was common knowledge; therefore no one was going to lay a complaint. Certainly the federal authorities would not lay a complaint, nor did they; because it was as a result of their policy that the farmers were forced to sell their grain at such tremendously low prices, with disastrous results for a great many farmers. It seems queer that in the face of such huge surpluses the federal government, after all these years, has no policy by which it can adequately dispose of these surpluses.
Do not think for a moment that the situation I have described is imaginary. There are places in the world where people are desperately in need of assistance, and it is so reported by the Edmonton Journal on October 17. They quote a statement made by the United Nations food and agricultural organization. As you well know, that organization was set up and designed purposely to do away with huge surpluses of food in view of the want existing in the world. The Canadian government did not give their support to this organization, and we in this House of Commons can take the credit for contributing in a large measure to the holding back of the otherwise successful efforts of the FAO. I will now read what this organization had to say:
Seventy per cent of the world's population will go to bed undernourished tonight.

The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston
Huge surpluses glut warehouses In a lucky few countries while the world's dinner pail scrapes close to the bottom in vast areas. Millions are hungry.
At this point they raise the question, what are we doing about it? However, that is not the only place where people are destitute and we can find an instance closer to home. The Albertan of October 31 reports an instance in the United States. Let me read just a section:
Chronic Poverty Still Rife in U.S.-
Many Americans are still chronically poor despite general prosperity, a congressional staff report said Sunday. It said this poverty endangers the future economic strength of the nation.
In general, the study pointed to the south, farms, and the non-white population as areas having a disproportionate share of poor folks. But there are depressed areas outside the south, and in cities as well as on the farm.
The report was written by the staff of the joint committee on the economic report, the major economic study group in congress. It was prepared for a subcommittee, headed by Senator John Sparkman (Dem. Ala.), which from Nov. 18 to 23 will hold hearings on the problems of poverty.
I can vouch for the accuracy of a part of that statement because I visited those areas and saw that poverty was rampant there. We do not have to take the word of the FAO, nor do we have to go to the United States to find great want and poverty. We can find it in the city of Ottawa and in the city of Hull. There is not a province in this country which does not have people who are destitute and in want. Our old age pensioners, for example, are required to live on $40 a month. Because of the policy of this government we are unable, under this outmoded financial system, to raise sufficient cash to enable these people to buy one additional loaf of bread when they are so greatly in need, despite our huge surpluses.
Who is to blame for this situation? We talk about being wealthy. Our gross national product this year will be over $26 billion, yet we require our old age pensioners to eke out an existence on $40 a month. What is the solution? The only solution this government has is the one offered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other evening, when he was vying with the Progressive Conservatives to see which of them had reduced the acreage the greater. Curtailing production seems to be the only answer of this government. I would like to read the words of the minister recorded at page 125 of Hansard:
The suggestion was made by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that we immediately adopt the soil bank plan of the United States government. I suppose he thought that would be a new plan. We in Canada invented the soil bank plan back in 1941.

"We", of course, refers to the Liberals. He continued:
We paid our producers to take their acreage out of wheat and put it into coarse grains or summer-fallow. As a result of that policy, we reduced acreage in wheat from 27| million acres in 1940 to 16 million acres in 1943, a reduction of 111 million acres. During the year 1955 only about 20 million acres are planted to wheat, which is a reduction of 7| million acres planted to wheat since 1940.
This is the government's policy, despite the fact that millions of people are going to bed hungry every night. The government stands up and brags about it as if that would solve the economic problems throughout the world and make it a better world in which to live.
I noticed when the minister was speaking that rather than place the blame where it belongs, on the policy of the Liberal government in getting rid of our surpluses, he attempted to blame the C.C.F. and the Social Credit parties for being frightened of surpluses. I shall, of course, let the C.C.F. speak for themselves, but I must point out that has never been the policy of Social Credit.


Edward George McCullough: Nor of
the C.C.F.


Charles Edward Johnston: In January of this year the Social Credit caucus issued a report through its magazine "The Canadian Social Crediter" which said:
It is obvious that the federal government does not have the answer to surplus production. We do not look upon surpluses as a calamity. It is only when we bungle the handling of them that they become such. If we provide proper storage, widely dispersed on the farms, and are prepared to use the national credit to finance the cash advances against the surpluses so stored, these surpluses can become a blessing to our country and the world in the years ahead.
As a long range program towards a permanent solution to the problem of surplus grain production the Canadian government should undertake a vigorous sales campaign to sell our surplus agricultural products to other nations requiring additional food supplies. To this end we should be prepared to enter into barter deals, credit deals and to accept at least some currencies of the importing countries in exchange for our surplus grain.
That certainly gives the lie to what the minister said the other day in regard to the policy of the Social Credit party in respect to surpluses. Social Credit policy is designed to take care of surpluses, while the policies of the old-line parties, both Liberal and Conservative, are designed for and function only in connection with scarcities. Let there be no misunderstanding about that.
It takes a great deal to convince the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the western farmer is in difficulty. During the summer and fall, as I have indicated already, I was home and attended some of these

meetings. Some were held by the F.U.A., which is a non-political organization made up of all political classes throughout the west. They passed resolutions which were forwarded to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and some to the Prime Minister. Meetings were held by chambers of commerce, one being at Gleichen. I was invited to that meeting, which passed a resolution which was sent to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Prime Minister. Then farmers held meetings on their own; in all these cases resolutions were forwarded to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Prime Minister. I have not the time on this occasion to read them all, but I have them here and in passing I should like to say something about the requests made in these resolutions.
Most of them ask that 90 per cent of the initial payment be advanced. That was not an unreasonable request. Then they asked something in respect to the interest rate. They said that no interest should be charged, but in any case that it should not be greater than 2 per cent. They had two reasons for that. The first was that it was just an advance on their own grain, and the second was that the provincial government of Alberta had loaned money to municipalities at 2 per cent on self-liquidating projects. They reasoned, and quite properly so, that if the provincial government with its limited resources could lend money at 2 per cent then surely the federal government with its vast resources could lend money at not more than 2 per cent.
They asked also that we extend our sales program to cover a wider field for the sale of our wheat. In doing so we must be prepared to accept local currencies in payment for some of that wheat, that being particularly true of Great Britain. Then we must be prepared to accept some barter deals. It must be remembered that when we ask other countries to buy from us we must be prepared to buy their goods. Not one of these things asked by these meetings was unreasonable.
Then there were other organizations that asked certain things of the government. Here is one presentation which was submitted to the government with respect to the urgent need for cash advances on farm-stored grain. This is dated October 11, 1955 and is in the form of a submission to the government. Who signed it? I want to put these names on the record because I may refer to them later on. This was presented by:
Alberta department of agriculture Manitoba department of agriculture Saskatchewan department of agriculture Saskatchewan wheat pool Manitoba farmers' union United grain growers 67509-28^
The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston
Saskatchewan federation of agriculture Manitoba federation of agriculture and cooperation Alberta federation of agriculture Saskatchewan farmers' union Alberta wheat pool Interprovincial farm union council Alberta farmers' union Manitoba wheat pool
What did they ask for? I quote from page 5 of this brief as follows:
-for advances to farmers on grain in store on the farm . . .
Then further it states
While the principle of cash advances on farm-stored grain was unanimously endorsed-
Notice that; unanimously endorsed:
-by the organizations present at the conference, various proposals were offered on the mechanics of making those advances.
There surely is evidence as to the need that the people of western Canada were ask ing this government to consider. What did the minister do? From almost every walk of life throughout the entire west he received the same request, but did he accept that? No, he did not. That was not eastern Canada, Ontario or Quebec, asking for something. What did he decide to do in the face of that evidence? I quote from page 127 of Hansard of January 16, where he is reported as follows:
I went to western Canada for one reason only, namely to see just what the situation was there and the extent to which it could be remedied.
He was not taking the word of these different organizations I have mentioned. And further down:
I made up my mind that something should be done to assist the farmers-and particularly the small operators-to	finance themselves until
marketing could return to normal. I recommend to the government that the system of loans that was used in 1951 be made available again this year.
And again:
The government decided the only practical way to handle the matter would be to arrange guaranteed loans from the chartered banks.
That is what the minister was not asked to do by 90 per cent of the people out west, but that is what he decided to do after having gone west. He recommended the plan that was in operation in 1951; that was the solution of the government. You will notice that in the submission I read and in the resolutions presented to the minister and the Prime Minister, most of them asked for advances, but this is what the minister said in regard to those appeals:
Recently there has been a great drive for advances on farm-stored grain.
And again:
Who are its supporters? The supporters are the enemies of marketing through the wheat board.

The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston
That is what the minister is saying of the departments of agriculture of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan wheat pool, the united grain growers and all these different organizations. How ridiculous can we get in this house? Those are the very organizations which fought for the creation of the wheat board despite the minister's protests when he first took it over. Those are the organizations which are being accused of being saboteurs of the wheat board. Could anything be further from the truth? The minister knows there is not an organization in western Canada that is asking that the wheat board be done away with.
The minister went west to get out of giving advances to the farmers at low rates of interest. When he came back he said he had decided to give loans at 5 per cent regardless of what these different organizations had asked for. That is what he did. The explosive issue in the west is the interest rate. Western farmers with huge stocks of grain on their hands in the midst of a wheat glut have asked for cash advances from the Canadian wheat board or bank loans at low rates of interest. I suggest that so far they have not got that.
Now let me speak about the interest rate and the minister's views in that regard. As reported on page 127 of Hansard of January 16, 1956, he said:
It has been said that the interest rate is too high at 5 per cent. I have been a borrower from banks all my life, and I have never yet succeeded in borrowing money from a bank at less than 5 per cent.
He must be a very poor businessman, though he may have accumulated millions, because I have borrowed money from banks at less than 5 per cent. What was my guarantee? The dominion government. What is the guarantee for these bank loans? The dominion government. I have borrowed money from banks at 31 per cent with a dominion government guarantee, a dominion bond. What is behind a dominion bond? The dominion government. What is behind these bank loans the banks are going to make to the farmers at 5 per cent? The dominion government. But the farmers have to pay 5 per cent on this. Yet the minister says:
I therefore cannot be too greatly concerned about objections to guaranteed loans bearing an interest rate of 5 per cent.
It is merely an excuse to give another handout to the chartered banks. Believe me, the chartered banks do not need much of a handout. They can look after themselves quite well. According to the Albertan of Wednesday, October 26, which says "Two

Banks Hike Dividend Payments", let me show you how hard up the banks are. This report says:
Two leading Canadian chartered banks, the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal, Tuesday announced increases in dividend payments for the current quarter.
The Royal Bank of Canada announced an increase of 71 cents to 45 cents from 371 cents in addition to a bonus of 20 cents a share, payable December 1, 1955, to shareholders of record at the close of business, October 31, 1955.
Bank of Montreal announced shareholders of record October 31, 1955, will receive an extra dividend of 20 cents a share on $10 par capital stock, payable December 15, 1955, as well as a quarterly dividend of 35 cents, an increase of 5 cents. The regular dividend is payable December 1, 1955.
This shows that the banks are quite capable of looking after themselves. Yet the government comes along with a guarantee for the banks to take a mortgage on the grain, and the farmers have to pay 5 per cent. The minister says he is not worrying too much over them anyway. Perhaps the minister has been influenced by some of the presentations made by Liberal members of this house who have spoken about the condition of western farmers. Perhaps he should not pay so much attention to them.
I do not think it was ever the intention of the minister that the farmer should use this facility to any great extent. In fact I am quite positive of that. What did he say in regard to it? As shown on page 129 of Hansard of this session, he said:
Apart from that, it did not seem to me that there was any particular burden on the farmer through this condition of plenty.
The reference was to the question of storage. He disbelieves all the provincial departments of agriculture. He goes out west, comes back and says, "I do not think that there is any particular burden on the farmer through this condition of plenty." He was basing his plan on the 1951 plan. He knew, when he did that, that only 1,500 farmers took advantage of that plan, and they borrowed only $625,000 altogether. Why? Because the interest rate was too high and they could not afford it. Now, in spite of all this objection, 2,200 farmers have so far taken advantage of it, and over $2 million has already been loaned-more than that, I suppose, if we had the up to date figures. That shows whether or not the farmers are merely a little hard up for cash. They are in dire need of cash or they would not be going to the banks.
I said a moment ago that the federal government had no expectation that farmers were going to use this plan to any great extent. I can give you no better authority than the statement made by the Minister of Trade

and Commerce in Calgary, as reported in the Calgary Herald of 28th November, 1955. He said:
It is my hope and belief that comparatively limited use will be made of the lending facilities, that most farmers are either in a position to carry on without borrowing, or are in a position to finance in the ordinary way.
That should give everyone a clear understanding of what was in the minister's mind when he made this proposition regarding loans to farmers. He never intended it to be used. He certainly was not carrying out the requests of the organizations throughout western Canada.
The minister has said that the Social Crediters have no plan. Let me review quickly what we have suggested from time to time. The Social Crediters have advanced the two-price system. We were the first to mention it in this house or anywhere in Canada. We have suggested the extension of markets by the acceptance of sterling, particularly from Great Britain, in part payment, and the acceptance of barter where necessary. We have suggested too that provision be made for a normal carryover in case of need during crop failure years, the storage to be paid on that carryover by the federal government.
I have not the time to speak about other things that are important, such as old age pensions, and the conditions existing in the Banff national park. I have not the time to speak about the trans-Canada highway, about which I should like to speak. I have not time on this occasion to go into the question of the coal mining industry, which has been so depleted in western Canada. These questions will receive attention when the proper time comes.
(Translation) :


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I gladly join previous speakers in this debate in congratulating the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am quite sure that their respective constituents will be proud of their representatives and also-at least I hope so-of their speeches, which will serve as models and leave a happy impression on the general tone and level of debate in this house.
In the course of these remarks I intend to express a few personal views on the agricultural problem in Canada, and on nothing else. According to the census of 1951, the farming population in this country, and I don't mean the rural population but only those people who live directly from agriculture, is 2,911,996. If we add to this figure
The Address-Mr. Poulin the number of those who live indirectly from agriculture, we would certainly reach three millions. The dairy industry alone numbers about two million people, heads of families and dependents, who earn their living directly through it, while an additional 370,000 people earn their living indirectly from dairying. All this goes to show that, at least as far as mere numbers are concerned, the agricultural class in this country occupies a highly important place. But what at this time, is its economic position? Is it sharing in the general prosperity about which such proud boasts are being made, and rightly so, in this country? Is it benefiting as well as the individuals of the other classes from the general buoyant state of the economy? The answer is clearly no. In this connection I should like to quote two opinions.
First of all there is that of Mr. J. Edouard Labelle, president of the Provincial Bank of Canada. This view was expressed at the 55th annual meeting of shareholders.
Unless very particular measures are taken to improve the economical state of the agricultural industry, the widening of the price gap between agricultural and industrial products would most certainly lower the standard of living of a large section of our population while, at the same time, improving that of many other groups of citizens. Such a situation would hardly be tolerable, neither from the point of view of the general good, nor from that of justice and equity.
And here is now the opinion expressed by Mr. A. C. Ashforth, president of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, at the last general meeting of the shareholders.
Profits obtained in the field of business were widely spread over our entire economy. If there was a weak point, it was in the field of agriculture. I am not referring to the volume of our agricultural production, which was great, but to the differences between prices of agricultural products and these of industrial products and also between farm income and that of city dwellers. This tendency is not new, but its persistency is troublesome.
Agricultural prices and income have remained weak as compared with the greatly increased revenues of other sectors of the economy. In 1951, farmers received more than 12 per cent of the national income; today, they are getting about 7 per cent.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that comparisons are seldom fair and sometimes invidious. Nonetheless, I shall attempt a comparison between the farmers' situation and that of salaried workers. From 1951 to 1954, inclusively, the individual income of salaried workers in Canada increased by nearly 17 per cent. This information is taken from a statement made by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and quoted from the record of the 1955 session, at page 2794. In the same statement, page 2773, the minister admitted

The Address-Mr. Poulin a reduction of nearly a third in the net income of farmers for a single year, namely from 1953 to 1954.
On the other hand, if we refer to the Statistical Review of June 1955, we find that, for the whole period 1951 to 1954, while the income of salaried workers increased by 17 per cent, the net income of farmers decreased by 47 per cent.
I am very glad for our working class that, on the average, salaries have greatly increased but I regret the sad plight of our farmers who, during the same period, have seen their returns decrease by an alarming percentage.
The farmer, just like the wage earner, is a consumer as a householder but he is also a consumer, and to a much greater extent, as the head of a farm.
Now the price of all he needs to run his farm is constantly going up while the price he gets for his products is going down. For instance, according to the figures provided by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in a brief submitted by a delegation that came down here in Ottawa on March 3, 1955, we have the following comparison which is very illuminating on that question: the wholesale price of farm products in 1951 was represented by the index number 190.
In 1956, that figure was down to 154, a decrease of 19 per cent. On the other hand, during the same period, the price paid by the farmer for the goods and services he buys is represented by the index number 173 in 1951, and 177 in 1954, an increase of 2-3 per cent.
In short, for the same period, the price of what the farmer has to sell shows a large decrease and the price of what he has to buy shows a small increase.
When speaking of price increases one naturally thinks of the prohibitive level at which we now find the prices of feed, fertilizers, and farm implements.
One thinks also of the price of seed which in 1954 and 1955-and I imagine that the same thing will happen again this year- went up considerably due to very poor weather conditions.
On this point of seed grain in particular, I received numerous resolutions and appeals which were also transmitted to the federal government and to the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for help in buying grain. The Catholic farmers' union of Ste. Clothilde de Beauce, the councils of the municipalities of St. Jules and St. Victor, the municipal corporation of Beauce county, Which is, after all, one of the most important bodies in my county, were among the institutions which sent me those resolutions.


The sale of pork even if it is protected by a floor price of 23 cents, surely does not bring in returns representing adequate compensation for the many hours of work the farmer spends looking after his herd. In my humble opinion, this price should be brought up to 26 cents.
The position is still worse with regard to the sale of lamb, veal and beef, and I do not hesitate to state that this sector too should be covered by a floor price that would ensure a reasonable income to the farmer in exchange for his work and that would stop speculative manoeuvres from entering the picture, with the result that the consumer is obliged to pay an exorbitant retail price for meat that has been bought at a ridiculously low price from the primary producer.
If we look at the position of the apple or potato producers of the maritimes, we feel hardly more reassured, and I also favour perhaps more efficient measures that would help these specialized producers.
And what about the western wheat producers? I must admit that I have never had more sympathy than I should for those farmers who, from time to time, like everybody, perhaps, have to face considerable difficulties. Yet, I think that their present position is serious enough, and I hope that the legislation announced in the speech from the throne will be able to settle their problem which is certainly of national scope.
I do not want unduly to darken the picture of our farm problem, but I think that it would scarcely be exaggerated to state that, on the whole, Canadian farmers are badly off. I am not saying that the government failed to take action in the matter, or that it did not try; far from it. Something more must be done however or we must proceed in some other way, this last suggestion being probably the better of the two.
I have said nothing yet about the dairy farmer. I concede that, so far, he has enjoyed some protection but I shudder at the thought that, sooner or later, under unmanageable pressure, the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) might give up his policy of price support for butter, a policy which I humbly suggest is embodied in one of the best pieces of legislation enacted in the last few years. Farmers are, however, rightfully apprehensive because in 1952, the support price was established for a period of three years while last year it was extended for one year only. Even if, in fact, this legislation were renewed each year, the procedure followed is unquestionably wrong since the dairy farmer never knows just where he

stands from one year to the other and has no definite information on which to rely for the management of his business. That is far from being comparable to the request of industrial workers for a guaranteed annual wage.
However, we may rightfully believe that this step has become necessary, at least partly, because of a refusal to deal realistically with the problem of butter substitutes. I have stated on several occasions, but I want to repeat it once more, that price support legislation on butter has not been detrimental to workers or salaried people in general; on the contrary, I am convinced that it has saved them some money, although the latest sales of butter at a discount may have cost those people a few cents. Everyone will remember that in the winter of 1951-52 when dealers got hold of all the butter available at a price barely above the minimum price, they were selling it at 80 cents, 90 cents or even a dollar a pound retail.
The position would have been the same year after year if the government had abandoned its support price. Salaried people who are inclined to complain against an artificial price which they believe established for the sole benefit of the producer, would have paid dearly indeed, in certain months of the year, for the small savings they could have made during the other months.
Producers and consumers would both have had to pay the piper, because speculators and middlemen, who fortunately are not numerous, would have made a fortune at their expense. Even if the minister had no other reason to take this step, he should be congratulated for the enactment and maintenance of that legislation.
There are several other reasons which justify its maintenance, but I shall not repeat them. There is one however which I need no excuse to emphasize once again. It is the dangerous decrease in purchasing power which would occur among a large group of consumers

I said at the beginning that there were 2,370,000-if the dairy industry was allowed to fall off by a discontinuation of the price support legislation.
It has been said in certain quarters that it was scandalous to sell to foreign countries at 37 to 39 cents a pound a product for which we have to pay 63, 64 and even 65 cents. I take exception to that opinion, unless someone can show me that it would have been
The Address-Mr. Poulin possible to act otherwise without completely dislocating the price structure on the local market and without ending up, although by different means with the same result, namely bankruptcy for the dairy farmer.
Oh! It is something altogether different if we want to give away our butter to our needy people or to foreign countries; it is no longer an economic problem but one of charity, of kindness and it should be considered from that angle. Under those circumstances, I humbly believe that parliament or at least the government should see to it that two essential conditions are fulfilled: first, that Canadian taxpayers can support the additional burden, because when we give something away, there is always someone who pays the shot; and second that our charitable gesture will not disrupt an important sector of our economy, thus increasing the number of needy people.
If those two conditions were met, the humble representative of Beauce county would not be far behind those who are now strongly urging us to make donations to our needy people and even to those of foreign countries.
In the meantime, let us proceed wisely and strive to avoid increasing the number of people in Canada to whom we must give assistance, as would happen if we let our dairy farmers become poverty-stricken.
I take this opportunity of congratulating the right hon. Minister of Agriculture who has agreed to sell a certain quantity of our surplus butter at 40 cents a pound, I believe, to educational institutions, hospitals and charitable institutions. This does not affect the market price, for several reasons, one in particular, that is that in some of those institutions margarine has been used rather widely. In fact some farmers also use it.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Not in Quebec!


Raoul Poulin: And speaking of margarine, it seems that the government should be blamed for its failure to do away with that product which is surely the greatest threat to the dairy industry.
Before that product invaded the Canadian market, around 1949, Canada produced approximately the quantity of butter we needed; it even happened that from time to time we were forced to import some. But that is an old story known to everyone, and to some people in particular. It is only since

The Address-Mr. Poulin margarine has been tolerated in Canada that we really have butter surpluses which are gradually increasing in proportion with the consumption of margarine. That is not surprising, since in 1949 each Canadian used 29 pounds of butter per year, while 5 years later, in 1954, he used only 20-7 pounds, that is 40 per cent less.
During that same period production of margarine greatly increased, from none at all in 1948 to 115,000,000 pounds in 1954, the average consumption being 7-5 pounds per capita for that same year. We can readily understand why butter consumption has decreased in Canada, and why we have a surplus.
But what is not so easy to understand is why the Canadian government does not take the necessary steps to decrease production or use of a substitute which, in short, such at least is my humble opinion, does not help anybody, unless it is a few large concerns. I say for the tenth time that flooding the market with margarine will finally kill the dairy industry, deprive 2,370,000 Canadian consumers of their purchasing power, give rise to a national depression and cause unemployment among workers and salaried people.
I would like to repeat here a question 1 asked several times, not only in the house but before the good people of the constituency I represent: do workers and salaried people at large prefer eating butter at 63 cents a pound and have jobs, or run the risk of eating margarine at 35 cents a pound while being unemployed?
The price of butter is undoubtedly too high, but one must not forget that if we take the salary average in 1939, the Canadian worker could purchase 1-5 pounds of butter with one hour's wages while in 1955 he could purchase 2-3 pounds.
On the other hand, farmers have not remained idle in that connection and they have made serious efforts to lower their cost of production. While engaging in much more intensive cultivation, thereby lowering their cost of production, they have greatly increased the number of their milch cows and their average yield. Time does not permit me to prove all this with statistics, but they are readily available.
But the farmer has gone even further: he pays for the costs of advertising to increase consumption of liquid milk, thereby causing a relative decrease in the production of butter. In that connection, I am happy to


say that in 1954, the province of Quebec won first place for milk consumption per person, that is 1-03 pints per day. In 1956, $362,000 are earmarked for advertisement by Canadian dairy producers. It can therefore be said that farmers did what they could to lower their cost of production. They made an intelligent and reasonable effort, with the help of federal and provincial experts, to make available to the Canadian consumer, at the lowest possible price, a product that is gradually being replaced by another one which, in last resort, will benefit no one.
How does the outcome of this situation look to responsible people? Do they not believe that it could develop into a national calamity? Does the government consider that the problem is quite serious? It seems that we must reply in the affirmative since, in the case of butter for example, the government agrees to sell that product at a loss of 22 to 24 cents per pound and that in the case of wheat it announces legislation that will cost several million dollars in one year to Canadian taxpayers. But will the government be satisfied with that? Will it consider the possibility of resorting to other means to change the situation? Personally, I said only what I think about the matter.
Although I am expressing the feelings and wishes of the agricultural people of Beauce county, there might be other ways of dealing with the situation. It might be that the steps we are suggesting, we the humble and small people, are but stop-gaps, expedient, arbitrary remedies which sometimes succeed more or less; or are they tested and scientific remedies, the result of an all-embracing approach not only of the agricultural problem as a whole but even of its effects on the other sectors of our economy? I believe it is time we should be told.
Personally, I cannot very well lay claims to wisdom because I have been sitting here only since 1949. However, I may say that since I have come here I have not heard a single truly objective and comprehensive statement on those problems from the right hon. Minister of Agriculture. We need general directives from experts who have the facilities for investigating the whole agricultural problem throughout the country. I know that such investigations and studies should first be initiated by those concerned, but it cannot be denied that our farmers in

general have seriously undertaken that investigation; I referred to this briefly a moment ago. I also know that such investigations concern more directly provincial authorities and it must be admitted that all provincial governments without exception have given special attention to the agricultural problems of their respective areas. However, there is some advice and certain leadership that should come from higher up and which take into account the situation in the country as a whole and not only one particular district. For instance, I am thinking of the payment of subsidies for the shipment of grain from western Canada into the east, which is beneficial to the agricultural economy of several provinces and has some happy effects on the country as a whole.
This leads to the statement that the whole agricultural problem of Canada should be re-examined, taking into account modern scientific data as well as the developments of recent years in all sectors of the Canadian economy. The effects of the success or failure of these methods in a given district on Canadian citizens as a whole should also be taken into account. This is undoubtedly a matter for the experts of the central government.
May I add that this should not affect in the least the freedom and prior rights of the provinces in matters pertaining to agriculture.
Before concluding my remarks, I would like to add a few words about an agricultural industry particular to eastern Canada and especially to the province of Quebec and even more so to the constituency I represent in the house, namely the maple sugar industry.
The following figures give some idea of the extent of that production. These statistics are for 1951, that being the last year for which, unfortunately, the data which I need is complete.
The revenue from this source for 1951, was as follows:	For the whole of Canada,
$8,555,000; for the province of Quebec, $6,797,000; for the county of Beauce, $943,716. That is close to a million. I can say that in 1954 and 1955 the figures must be somewhat over a million. There are sugar bushes on 2,086 farms of this constituency, out of a total of 4,465. That is to say that 46-7 per cent of farmers take part in this type of activity which, according to the 1951 figures-and the corresponding figures would be larger for the last few years-has brought them an annual revenue of $452.40, this revenue being 13-9 per cent of the total figure for this production for the province of Quebec and 11 per cent of the total for the whole of Canada.
The Address-Mr. Poulin
The county of Beauce ranks first among counties producing this commodity in Canada. The second on the list is that of Megantic, whose production is valued at 77 per cent of the first.
It will therefore be easy to understand how important that product is for the farmers of the constituency I represent.
For those who are unfamiliar with the situation, let me explain very briefly how it happens that the maple sugar industry appeared in the public accounts of the government.
The Food and Drugs Act states that there shall be no obnoxious or poisonous substance in these products. Well, it was found in 1936 that Canadian maple products contained traces of lead. If I am not mistaken, the United States, our largest customer for those products, were the ones to point out this anomaly. Shipments were stopped immediately and the whole industry was threatened by ruin. It was found afterwards that the presence of lead in maple sugar was due to the solder used in the manufacture of the sap collecting-pails. All those therefore had to be changed. After lengthy research, it was found that, to prevent the presence of lead in maple sugar, it was necessary to use aluminum pails.
However, this change was a very costly undertaking and the farmers could not finance this overnight.
It was then that an appeal was made to the Quebec and Ottawa governments. It was decided that the cost of replacement would be shared equally, one third by each government and one third by the owner of the sugar bush.
Thus through the co-operation of the governments concerned equipment has gradually been renewed since 1941. In recent years, Canadian parliament has approved the following expenditures in that connection: 1952-53, $500,000; 1953-54, $300,000; 1954-55, $100,000; and 1955-56, 0.
The Quebec legislature has spent similar amounts, except in 1955-56 needless to say, so that until 1955 the Quebec provincial government and the Ottawa government had each spent $3,500,000 thus permitting the renewal of 17,308,823 pails out of a possible total of 21 to 22 millions. The Quebec government has maintained its policy and is still paying one third of the cost of replacement. The federal government gave up its program when the 1955-56 budget was brought down. There are still therefore a small number of these producers who will not benefit from the same advantages as others and who will be unable to deliver their product on its natural market. I do not see why the government

The Address-Mr. Harkness which, for a dozen years, took part in this program, would not, for two or three more years, be as generous as it has been in the past in order to complete a piece of work so well begun, a work which has been greatly beneficial to a particular class of producers which really deserve a special attention.
I therefore hope that, among many steps to be taken to help agriculture as a whole and a class of producers in particular, the right hon. Minister of Agriculture will be kind enough to insert in his next budget an amount of $100,000 for the replacement of pails for collecting maple sap. Farmers of the Beauce district in particular, since they are the most directly concerned, will no doubt be grateful to him, as they have been in the past.
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my congratulations to those of the speakers who have preceded me in this debate to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I might say that I had the opportunity of getting to know the mover of the address a bit better this summer, and I was very glad that she was given the honour of moving the address. I say that, not as a large number of members have because she is a woman, but because she is herself.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to turn to less agreeable questions, I should like to say something first of all on an income tax matter. During the past year I have heard a constantly increasing number of complaints over departmental rulings that what the taxpayer considered was a capital gain was in fact taxable income upon which he was then called to pay an impost. In many cases the transaction involved took place many years previously, with the result that the man who had to pay quite a considerable sum including the interest on the money involved found himself in an extremely difficult situation, sometimes a ruinous situation, because his business had expanded or contracted, as the case might be, to the point where he found it extremely difficult to make this payment.
Under our income tax laws capital gains are not taxable. However, the department seems to have been following a policy under which capital gains in effect are being taxed in a large number of cases. The result of this is a great state of uncertainty on the part of many people as to what their situation is, and as a consequence of this uncertainty the expansion of a business or the start of a new enterprise is frequently prevented.

In addition too, in many cases people get into difficulties such as the one I mentioned a short time ago.
The trouble in regard to this matter seems to be that there is no definition in the Income Tax Act of what is taxable income and what is capital gain. As a result the taxpayer is at the mercy of the officials of the income tax department and their rulings vary from time to time and from place to place, with the result that quite frequently nobody knows what the situation is in regard to any particular transaction.
The situation has grown so difficult so far as some people are concerned that they have actually told me they would prefer to have capital gains taxable rather than be left in their present position of uncertainty. That is a change in the Income Tax Act to which I do not think many of us here would be agreeable. I think the system under which capital gains are not taxable, such as we have in this country and in Great Britain, is preferable to the one which exists in the United States where they are taxable.
However, when some people consider that the system I mentioned would be better, in that they might know definitely just where they are, I think it is a good indication of how serious the situation is in relation to a large number of people. As I say, I think this could be corrected fairly readily by writing into the Income Tax Act a definition of what nontaxable gains consist of so that everybody would know where they stood.
I remember from my student days that one of the accepted principles of taxation is that a tax should be certain so that the taxpayer knows exactly what his situation is and what he is liable for. That is exactly what we do not have in Canada. At the present time, so far as capital gains are concerned, we have an uncertain tax, and as a result we have a great state of uncertainty on the part of a large number of businessmen. This is a situation which affects small businessmen and individuals in particular. It is not a matter which greatly affects large corporations, because in most cases they have the resources to meet any difficulties of that type which might arise. In view of this I would hope there would be some action at this session to clear up the present situation by legislation and put it on a more satisfactory basis.
I turn now, Mr. Speaker, to the problem of most concern to western Canada: that is the inability of farmers to market their grain, the reduced prices which the farmers receive for the grain they do manage to deliver, and the consequent drastic reduction

in income. We have in western Canada, as has been pointed out several times already in this debate, an extremely serious situation. It is one which affects not only the prairie provinces but the entire country, and the repercussions will be increasingly felt by the rest of the country as time goes on. We have had statistics put on the record several times as to the reduction in income of farmers in the west, particularly the reduction in their net income, the amount of money they actually have to spend.
I am not going to take the time of the house in repeating those statistics. Mention has also been made of the desperate situation in which many farmers find themselves, in that they are trading in their grain to implement dealers, in many cases, and to dealers of all kinds at prices ranging from 60 to 65 and 70 cents a bushel. These transactions are, of course, outside the normal channels of trade, and I presume if the situation were not as desperate as it is probably the wheat board or the government might take some punitive legal action against some of the people engaging in these transactions.
As the matter stands I think everyone is only too delighted that these farmers are able to discharge their debts and secure some of the goods they need by this means. When the normal selling price of grain at the head of the lakes is supposed to be approximately $1.70 a bushel; when the initial payment is $1.40 a bushel, and farmers are selling grain for 60, 65 or 70 cents a bushel in order to obtain sufficient cash to carry them through, it gives a pretty good idea of how serious the situation is and how desperate some of these farmers are.
In order to meet the situation the government has made only two very inadequate proposals, each of which is the subject of a resolution on the order paper and one of which will be adopted in the very near future. In view of this I am not going to deal with either of these proposals in detail, but I do wish to indicate the inadequacy of each of them to meet the problem with which we are faced in western Canada.
The first of these proposals is the loan scheme which is already in effect. It has had the main effect, I would say, of angering and exasperating the western farmers. According to the last figures we have had it is true that some 2,000 farmers have taken advantage of this scheme, and it is also true that a great many more than that have applied; and that is one of the difficulties. A considerable number of farmers, I am informed, have had great difficulty in securing loans. Many of the people who are most in need of loans,
The Address-Mr. Harkness as happens in connection with most bank loans, are the very ones who have been unable to secure them.
Apart from that altogether there are two serious difficulties as far as this bank loan scheme is concerned. The first is that the amount of $1,500 is quite inadequate as far as a very large number of farmers are concerned. The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce said he was not interested in those people who did not think $1,500 was quite an adequate sum. If he had to meet $500 or $1,000 worth of harvesting expenses, which is the case with a very large number of farmers, or if the farm were a large one it would be more than that, perhaps he would think that a $1,500 loan was not of much use. That is actually the situation. It is not sufficient to cover the harvesting and other expenses of a very large number of farmers.
The other thing which is wrong is the interest rate of 5 per cent. To the western farmer that appears as just an extra toll on what he has already earned or produced. He does not think there should be an interest rate on this loan at all; in other words he does not think it should be a loan-this is something I will come to later-but that it should be a cash advance. If it is to be a loan he considers that an interest rate of 5 per cent is greatly in excess of what it should be, considering that it is to be a government-guaranteed loan.
Apparently the government have realized that this $1,500 loan scheme is inadequate, because they have since put forward a second proposal to pay the carrying charges on what they call abnormal carryovers of wheat, which are defined as any amount of wheat in excess of 178 million bushels. This move is a good one as far as it goes, but the inadequacy of the move to meet the present situation, particularly the shortage of cash in the hands of western farmers, is shown immediately when we begin to figure out what this will mean to the average farmer in western Canada in the form of cash in his pockets. At the present time and for several months to come it will mean not one cent more in his pockets; it is not going to help his cash position in the slightest for several months. At some time in the future, several months hence, the average farmer will get from $150 to $200 more than he would get otherwise. Therefore, as I say, the scheme is all right as far as it goes, but as far as meeting the present desperate cash shortage it is no good. Even when it will be paid in the form of participation certificates or something of that sort months hence it is not going to go very far.

The Address-Mr. Harkness
The fact that these are the only proposals of the government to meet the present grain difficulties shows that one of two things exists. Either there is a complete lack of realization on the part of the government as to the seriousness of the situation, or there is a complete bankruptcy of ideas as to how to deal with the situation. A week ago today the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a speech dealing with the subject I am dealing with at the moment. I am sure that speech must have occasioned a great deal of profane language in western Canada. I will wager that at least 90 per cent of the farmers who read that speech, no matter what their political complexion, engaged in extremely unflattering remarks as far as the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his understanding of their plight were concerned.
In that speech the minister complained about people complaining that there was a surplus of wheat and said that a surplus was a good thing, that he would far sooner have a surplus than a deficit. As far as abstract theory is concerned I presume we could all agree with that. Most of us would rather have a surplus than a deficit. But to the farmer who has part of that surplus sitting on his farm, in many cases exposed to the weather and in all cases deteriorating, and who is unable to get cash for it in order to meet his requirements for food, tractor fuel and all sorts of things, that surplus is anything but a good thing; it is something about which he is anything but pleased to have.
There is no use in the Minister of Trade and Commerce or anyone else dealing with these things on the basis of what you might call abstract theory as to the desirability of having a big surplus of wheat or food of any kind with which to feed the starving world. That is all very well; but as far as the man who has actually produced the grain is concerned, if that surplus is sitting on his farm and he cannot get any money for it, he is in desperate circumstances none the less. He is wondering how he is going to eat, rather than wondering how the hungry world is going to be fed. As far as we in this house are concerned he is the man we are dealing with; it is his problem we have to keep most in mind. I am very much afraid that he is not the man the Minister of Trade and Commerce has most in mind.
The minister said also in his speech that the demand for cash advances for wheat stored on the farm did not come from the farmers, that this demand came from the people in the cities and those who were opposed to the wheat board. Of all the

peculiar statements the minister has made, of all what you might call the questionable and ridiculous statements he has made in the eleven years I have been in this house, that one takes the prize. It is the most extraordinary statement of all. The people whom he attacks as wanting to get rid of the wheat board, as has been pointed out before, are the people who were really responsible for bringing it into existence. If that is the best defence the minister can make then I think it would be better for him not to talk on wheat at all, because he merely acerbates the people most concerned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner recess I had just begun to comment on the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on wheat in this house a week ago, and had been dealing with the incredibly ill-informed statement he made that the farmers in western Canada are not asking for cash advances. On the contrary, I believe that practically all the farmers in western Canada not only have been asking for but want cash advances on farm-stored grain.
The minister went on to say that loans on grain could not be made by the wheat board, that there were too many difficulties in the way. I should like to point out that the farmers have not asked for loans from the board and are not asking for them now. What they have asked for are cash advances, which is a very different thing, indeed.
I can see no real difficulty in the wheat board making cash advances to farmers on grain they have not yet delivered. It is merely an extension of what they have been doing every day for the past seven years on grain which is actually delivered. They get the delivery in the permit book and issue a cheque for it. It would be essentially the same thing for them to make a cash advance, enter it in the order book and, of course, when the grain is delivered-and there is nowhere else the farmer can deliver it except to the board -the amount of cash advance would be deducted from the value of the grain. That does not present any serious difficulty and, particularly, it does not convert the wheat board into a lending institution or a banking institution.
It is rather peculiar that a number of the western Liberal members seemed to have

changed their tune in regard to cash advances on Harm-stored grain since coming to Ottawa. Out in the west they were proponents of it because practically all their farmer constituents were asking for it. Since coming here they have been following the minister's line and trying to say that cash advances are not required, are not wanted and so on. The result is that we are getting some double personalities developed among these people.
An outstanding example is the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). I notice there is a reprint about him having become the twobodied or two-tongued member for Rosthern, advocating cash advances in the west and condemning them here. Apparently he and other western Liberal members have taken very much to heart the talk given at the Liberal dinner last week by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, at which he said that they must stand by the party line, right or wrong. Therefore they are standing by it, in spite of what their former position might have been when they were out among their *own constituents.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce also said that the interest rate of 5 per cent on the bank loans being made was quite a fair rate of interest, and that when he had had to borrow money, which was frequently, he had always had to pay 5 per cent or more. I would say to him that he must consider the risk. This is one of the big items to consider as far as lending money is concerned, and apparently the banks thought that he was a risk deserving of 5 per cent or more. It is necessary to consider that these loans are backed by the dominion government. The wheat board, when it pays the farmer for the grain for which it does take delivery, has borrowed the money at less than 5 per cent. Any other government guaranteed loans such as this could carry a lesser rate of interest than 5 per cent because the risk is not great; in fact it is almost negligible.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce attributed the surplus and the troubles that exist in the grain situation to a variety of causes: first, the weather; second, the United States policy; third, the speeches made by his political opponents, which he said were preventing the sale of grain. In other words, his statements in this regard reminded me of one of the old sayings of world war I: "You can send my mother, my sister or my brother, but for God's sake don't send me." The minister, in effect, is saying the same thing except that it is "Don't blame me; blame everybody else."
The minister said there had been a succession of good crops, which by and large is true,
The Address-Mr. Harkness that dry years would come again and the situation would right itself. In other words the government has no answer to the wheat problem except a series of crop failures. That is the only long-term solution it has. Evidently it proposes to sit down and wait for these crop failures to come, and to leave these farmers to their troubles in the meantime.
This attitude on the part of the government sums up my chief criticism of it in regard to grain matters. The government accepts no responsibility for allowing the present situation to develop. It admits to no failure of any kind in the marketing of grain, nor any failure of any other sort, but it does nothing whatever except wait for crop failures to cure the situation.
I believe there will be poorer years for grain production than have been experienced throughout the world during the past five or six years. However, I think we must expect that the average world grain crop will be larger in the future than it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago. There are a variety of reasons why I think that opinion is well founded. To begin with, European countries are now growing considerably more wheat, particularly, than they were in the past, because of a desire for economic sufficiency on their part due to the danger of war and the desire not to be caught short of bread grains and supplies of that sort. Throughout the world better methods of tillage-and that is particularly true of this continent-have been put into operation, and that again has raised the general level of yield, either in good or in bad years. Similarly, wider use of fertilizer has tended to raise the yield. Then again, more irrigation has raised the yield. Not only does irrigation raise the yield on the land directly irrigated, but it raises the general water table and thus raises the yield on a great deal of the surrounding land which is not directly irrigated.
For all those reasons the general level of world grain crops will be greater than it has been in the past. If we are going to be realistic we must face that situation and accept it as a fact, instead of trying to blink it off and saying, "We shall have dry years, and all our troubles will disappear."
On the other side of the picture, too, the consumption of bread grains has not been going up proportionately to the increase in population. The average person on this continent particularly is not eating the amount of bread or wheat products he did in the past. When I was a boy I remember there would be a big stack of wheatcakes or pancakes for breakfast. How many people eat a stack of pancakes for breakfast now? Verj

The Address-Mr. Harkness few, even in the rural areas, let alone in the cities. The same thing applies right through the picture. In other words the consumption of wheat has been going down on the average per person, and probably that will continue.
Taking all these factors together, our wheat surplus is likely to be a continuing problem and one for which we must seek a long-term solution. It is not something we can blink off. We cannot say that time and the weather will look after it. A glance at the carryover figures for the past six or seven years shows that the surplus is a mounting problem, one that is growing worse year by year. I have the figures here, and these are the only figures I shall use. I should like to put them on the record to show the way in which our surplus is constantly increasing.
In the crop year 1949-50, we had a carryover of 112 million bushels. The next year, 1950-51, it was 189 million bushels, up 77 million bushels. The next year, 1951-52, the carryover was 217 million bushels, up 28 million from the previous year. In 1952-53 it was 369 million bushels, up 152 million. In 1953-54 it was 587 million bushels, up 218 million bushels from the large carryover of 1952-53.
Then in 1954-55 we had a poor crop; we grew less than 300 million bushels of grain. That was the one really poor crop we have had in a long period, owing to a variety of reasons, and the carryover fell to 481 million bushels. Then we had a reasonably good crop last year and the carryover this year will probably be between 580 million and 590 million bushels, bringing us back up to the high figure of 1953-54. What that indicates is that with anything like a normal crop we are not able to export enough grain or to consume enough at home to take care of what we are growing. We are producing more than we can get rid of. As a result we have this surplus mounting and mounting.
One of the serious aspects of this mounting surplus is the matter of the carrying charges on it, which have already amounted to a large sum, an amount of money which would otherwise have gone in the farmers' pockets and from there into the general stream of the economy, thus benefiting everyone in the country. If these surpluses continue to mount the cost of the carrying charges on them-* just looking after these surpluses-will be a continuing and increasing drain not only on the farmers but on the general economy. This drain, under the proposed government measure of a storage payment plan, is going to be partially transferred to the general taxpayer, but of course it is still going to be a drain. That plan, which I think is sound enough, is still going to cause a great deal 
of discontent in other parts of Canada and a cry-which we do not like in the west- that the western farmer is being subsidized by the rest of the country, that there is no justification for it and so on and so forth.
Another feature of the cost of the carrying charges which I should like to point out is this. They have caused a constantly increasing spread between the price at which the wheat has been sold either at home or abroad and the price received by the farmer. The spread used to be a few cents, but it has gone up and up so that at the present time the farmer receives-and I will not go into the statistics-much less than he used to receive for a bushel of grain, chiefly because of these carrying charges. The cost of these carrying charges alone in the spread they have caused between the price received by the farmer and the price the grain is sold for is a sufficient reason to indicate to the average farmer that a surplus-contrary to what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said-is not a good thing as far as he is concerned, and he is extremely unhappy about it.
As I stated, the minister and the government have done nothing whatever about a long-term solution to our wheat surplus problem. Apparently they have not even gone to the extent of giving serious thought to the problem, because the Minister of Trade and Commerce has scoffed at every suggestion which has been made with regard to dealing with that surplus. In his speech last week, for example, as reported at page 125 of Hansard, he had this to say:
Well, we should plant at least 20 million acres of wheat. I believe that our economy requires production to that extent. I will admit at once that if we get five more wet years in succession, 20 million acres of wheat will produce an accumulating surplus in this country.
And so on. Then he goes on further to say this:
Therefore, I reject the soil bank plan or any other plan-
The minister rejects the soil bank plan, and he rejects any other plan before he even hears it.
-destined eventually to place wheat in the deficit column. If we cannot keep wheat supplies in balance, let us have a surplus of wheat, but let us never adopt a policy that can produce less wheat than our markets will take.
The whole trouble is that we are producing more wheat than our markets will take. I would be quite happy if we were producing just the amount of wheat our markets would take or anything close to that amount. But unfortunately we are producing a great deal more than that and that fact, of course, is the whole cause of the difficulty.

In connection with this statement to which I have referred, one might well ask this question. Why does our economy require 20 million acres of land in wheat? Especially is that so if we cannot sell wheat? One might just as well say, picking a figure out of a hat, "Our economy requires 25 million acres of land in wheat", or 15 million acres of land in wheat. There is no magic in the figure 20 million acres. It just happens that 20 million acres is what we had in wheat last year. There is nothing to show that is what we should continue to have or that it is the ideal amount for us to have.
As a matter of fact I should think it would be much more sensible to say that the acreage our economy requires to have in wheat is only that acreage which will produce the amount of wheat which can be economically raised and disposed of. That is the acreage we should aim for, and not any particular fixed figure. The land that we have in wheat probably should go up and down considerably from time to time, depending on what the world markets are.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has attributed a great deal of our difficulty to the United States policy of giveaways, selling for blocked currencies and things of that sort. I think it is quite evident that this policy of the United States has cut down our potential markets considerably. At the same time, however, I think we must admit that the United States has taken a much more realistic and practical attitude toward their wheat surplus than has our government toward our wheat surplus. The United States giveaways are preventing our sales at the present time. There is no question about that fact. But there is some hope that these giveaways and the reduction in acreage by their soil bank plan will eventually remove the United States as such a serious competitor for world markets as they have been during these past two or three years. However, it looks as though a period of several years will have elapsed before that end is accomplished. It is going to take some considerable time.
In the meantime I believe that we ourselves must look for some solution in order to look after our own surplus. I do not see that we can just continue to let the surplus mount up and up and consequently continually reduce the price to the farmer and lower his standard of living. I would suggest a considerable extension of the present P.F.R.A. measures which have already taken a considerable amount of land out of wheat production. The minister said there were about 27 million acres in wheat in 1940. The figure is now down to 20 million acres. A great deal of that reduction is due to work done by P.F.R.A. I should think that an
The Address-Mr. Carter extension of the work of that agency should be our first step in reducing the amount of wheat we are producing.
As a matter of fact, if the amount of $30 million a year which it is now proposed should be spent on the carrying charges for wheat, according to the projected bill, had been spent annually for the last three or four years in converting areas in southern Saskatchewan and southeastern Alberta from wheat production into grass and establishing farmers on that grassland in the livestock business, we would not at the present time be in as serious a situation as that in which we find ourselves with regard to our wheat surplus. At the same time we would have built up that soil and would have made out of it a permanent resource to meet any projected period of scarcity in the future, such as that which the minister envisages, when we may want to increase production considerably.
I believe a plan of this nature should be put into operation forthwith. It should be the first step in cutting down our wheat acreage and our wheat production in order to attempt to get into some sort of reasonable balance with what we have a prospect of consuming at home and selling abroad.
I can see no good sense whatever in producing the same amount we have been producing and engaging in these giveaway programs, or selling it for sterling or blocked currencies. In any event, apparently the British government does not want to deal in that way. They are not willing to accept our wheat on the basis of selling for sterling. They would just as soon pay dollars for it. I can see no advantage to us in trying to dispose of our surplus wheat by means of these giveaway programs, whatever particular form they may take. On the other hand it seems completely foolish and stupid to produce a great deal of wheat which you cannot dispose of in any form. It seems to me the logical thing to do is to begin cutting down production.
I would strongly recommend that steps be taken immediately, as I said, to extend the operations of the P.F.R.A. plan with that in mind.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: I feel, Mr. Speaker, that I should embrace this opportunity to bring before the house certain matters which are of vital concern to my constituents and which, in my opinion, are too urgent to be left over until the estimates are before us. Before going further I should like to identify myself with those who have complimented the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply on the excellent manner in which they have discharged their duties.
440	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Carter
The speech from the throne lists a record of achievements during the past year and outlines a program of legislation for this session of which all Canadians may feel justly proud. There is, however, one omission which I know will be a cause of general regret to my constituents and, I believe, to all the fishermen in Newfoundland. I refer of course to the lack of any reference to unemployment insurance benefits for fishermen.
The number of Newfoundland fishermen has been steadily declining since confederation. This decline has been most severe along the southwest coast, particularly in the riding of Burin-Burgeo which I have the honour to represent. At the time of confederation six years ago the total number of Newfoundland fishermen was estimated at
28.000.	Today they are estimated at around
8.000.	These figures speak for themselves. It must be borne in mind also that a considerable number of these 8,000, probably as many ' as 25 per cent, are men of 50 years of age and over. They are too old to secure employment in secondary industries where the labour supply is regulated by labour organizations. They are too old to stand the physical strain of working in the mines or in the forests.
Many factors have contributed to this exodus from the Newfoundland fishing industry. In my opinion the two most important factors have been the lack of unemployment insurance benefits on the one hand, and on the other the availability of alternate employment with unemployment insurance benefits as well as, in some cases, better remuneration. For 450 years the Newfoundland fisherman toiled, suffered and died, but he always managed to cling to the hope that some day things would be better.
Then came confederation, and he hailed it as the dawn of a new day; the day for which he had waited so patiently and so long; the day of fulfilment of the hope that had been deferred through four and a half centuries. His soul was stirred at the prospect of becoming a Canadian citizen and sharing in the great Canadian democracy-a democracy based on lofty ideals such as the strong helping the weak and equal treatment for all, great and small, rich and poor alike. He heard wonderful stories of the fabulous natural wealth of Canada, and he looked forward to sharing the prosperity which was certain to result from its development. He was aware also of the vast resources of the federal government, financial and otherwise. He looked forward to the speedy employment of those resources in finding a solution to his 

problems. He expected a quick expansion of his markets and a steady rise in his standard of living.
Six years have passed, and the Newfoundland fisherman looks at his fishing industry. What does he see? He sees a depressed and declining industry. He sees his numbers reduced from 28,000 to 8,000. He sees the once great Labrador fishery completely gone. He sees the inshore fishery rapidly disappearing. He sees his living costs and his operating costs steadily mounting and greatly increased. He sees the price of his product remaining stationary and sometimes falling below the pre-confederation level. He looks out from the south coast over the nation and sees the greatest production and the greatest prosperity in the history of Canada.
Then he turns his gaze along his own south coast. He looks at places like Marystown, Lamaline, Garnish, Belleoram, St. Jacques, English Harbour West, Mose Ambrose, Jersey Harbour, Harbour Breton, Rencontre West, Francois, Grand Bruit, Rose Blanche, Burnt Islands, and many others. I mention those settlements because they were once famous as centres of the south coast fishing industry. I could have mentioned many other smaller places in between those settlements. But as he looks at those places which were once prosperous and flourishing, he sees now ghost towns. He sees them all in distress, economically sick; some dead and others dying. He sees that everyone is prosperous except the fisherman. He is still the hewer of wood and the drawer of water.
He must still take all the risks, endure all the hardships and suffer through life under a subsistence level. At the same time he sees others benefiting from his product and earning a better living for themselves. Those who handle it enjoy unemployment insurance benefits at every stage, from his boat to the consumer.
It is true that like other Canadian citizens he gets the family allowance and old age pension. He finds them a real blessing, but good as these are they are poor substitutes for a livelihood. As a means of livelihood, the only natural resource on the southwest coast is fish. Other sections of the province prominent in fishery development plans have additional resources. They have mineral resources and forest resources, but the riding of Burin-Burgeo is a have-not riding.
With the exception of a fluorspar mine at St. Lawrence, we have only fish, nothing else; but fish we do have of all varieties and in abundance, herring, mackerel, lobster, cod, salmon, haddock, rose fish, halibut, sole

and many others. Furthermore, we have numerous fishing grounds from one mile to twelve miles offshore, plenty of year-round open ports with fine natural harbours, and an all year round fishing season. The lack of development of these resources leaves the south coast fisherman with no alternative but to abandon his occupation, abandon his house, his property, his friends, pull up his stakes and move to the mainland. This is a sad spectacle to contemplate and one that is not in the best interests of either Newfoundland or Canada.
The Newfoundland fisherman feels entitled to a fairer share of Canada's prosperity than he has hitherto received, but he sees no chance of economic improvement in the near future. His day of deliverance seems as far off as ever. The bright vision which he associated with confederation is beginning to fade, and in its place is coming a sense of futility and despair.
The deferment of unemployment insurance benefits and the reasons for withholding them have added to his disappointment. Let us look at some of these reasons. Wage earners in other occupations can qualify for unemployment insurance benefits, but wage earners who are fishermen cannot because they number only six or seven thousand. Another reason given is that fishermen cannot qualify for unemployment benefits because they are certain to be unemployed in the off season. In this respect, how do the fishermen differ from the great lakes seamen, the dockers and the stevedores in the various ports along the shores of the lakes and of the St. Lawrence seaway? Are not these also certain to be unemployed in the off season when the freeze-up comes?
A third reason given is that a satisfactory plan of unemployment insurance for fishermen would not be actuarially sound. I find it difficult to believe that this principle is rigidly applied to other individual industries. If it were so, surely it would necessitate a different rate of contributions and a different scale of benefits for every single industry, because no two industries are exactly alike either in their economic structure or their economic potential. The very fact that all workers pay the same rate of contributions, based on earnings, and receive the same scale of benefits, based on contributions, to me seems to prove that actuarial considerations apply to industry collectively and not to each separate industry. In other words unemployment insurance benefits have become another social security measure, and I see no justification for excluding fishermen from those benefits.
No one would wish to minimize the benefits of price supports, deficiency payments,
The Address-Mr. Carter salt rebates, storm damage insurance, small loans for fishermen and other measures which this government has provided to assist the fishermen. These measures, however, can never cure the sick fishing industry. At best they can prolong a miserable existence. In many instances the effectiveness of these measures is considerably curtailed by the regulations with which they are circumscribed. It will take many years before their combined cumulative effect can have any significant impact on the fishing industry of Newfoundland.
If the Newfoundland fishing industry is to be revived something more than economic aid must be forthcoming. Something must be done to inspire the fisherman with a new hope and a new courage; something must be done to give him a sense of belonging to a great Canadian family who are interested in him and are anxious to help him. One thing more than anything else that will accomplish this goal is unemployment insurance benefits.
I know it is not easy to work out a satisfactory scheme, but I believe it can be done and I am glad to learn that there is still hope; that the idea has not been abandoned but that it is still under study by a committee set up for the purpose. I trust that it will be possible to work out a satisfactory solution and bring in the necessary legislation before the end of this session. I must emphasize again that speed is of the essence, because at the present rate of exodus, if it is delayed much longer very soon there will be no Newfoundland fishermen left.
A short while ago, Mr. Speaker, I referred to the disappearance of our deep sea banking fleet. Confederation has also had an adverse effect on our coastal shipping. Our coastal fleet is in grave danger of disappearance. Prior to confederation we could boast of a coastal fleet of over a thousand ships. Today there are probably fewer than 200 left. The rapid decline in coastal shipping is due, in the first place, to the high mortality rate suffered by both men and ships. During the past year 32 vessels were shipwrecked and became a total loss, five of them from my own riding; and one of those was lost with all hands. In addition, several others were sold.
In the second place, there is no incentive to replace those ships for two reasons. One reason is the high construction cost of Canadian shipyards, which require a capital outlay far in excess of what the ordinary shipowner can afford. The second reason is the high operating cost resulting from Canadian standards, and regulations of various federal departments, which make it impossible to operate at sufficient profit to amortize the original investment. For example, Canadian

The Address-Mr. Carter steamship inspection regulations require ships of 150 tons and over to undergo a complete inspection every year. This very often runs to a cost of thousands of dollars, and eats up the low earnings- of the ship. Ships under 150 tons are required to undergo an inspection every four years. This regulation favours a ship which it is no longer economical to operate. A 200-ton ship can be operated with exactly the same crew and at practically the same expense as a ship of 150 tons.
I therefore urge the Minister of Transport and his colleagues to endeavour to have these Canadian steamship inspection regulations changed so that only ships of over 250 tons would be subject to annual inspection.
The second reason for our high cost of operation is the absence of small marine docks. Consequently Newfoundland ships requiring repairs, cleaning, maintenance or painting are forced to make the long journey to Sydney or Halifax for docking. The only alternative is to go to St. Pierre and Miquelon, which is a foreign land and in which case duty must be paid not only on the materials used but also on the cost of the labour employed. We hope that the Minister of Public Works will be able to come to our rescue and provide small public docks at strategic points along our coast.
Another extra cost which falls on Newfoundland ship owners comes as a result of the regulation which compels Newfoundland ships to go to Halifax to obtain a de-rat certificate; that is, a document which certifies that the ship is free from rodents. This discrimination has existed for six years, and I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare does not wish to have it continue any longer. I therefore urge him to take the necessary steps to have this service performed in Newfoundland, as was done prior to confederation.
This drastic reduction in the Newfoundland coastal shipping is a matter of great concern to all our people, because Newfoundland is an island and all our supplies must be brought in by sea. Also, most of our 1,300 settlements have no road communication whatsoever and are entirely dependent on ships of under 250 tons because their harbours are not large enough to accommodate ships of a larger size. To meet this emergency I would suggest to the Minister of Finance and his colleagues that the 50 per cent surcharge, together with tariff and other import restrictions, be removed entirely from ships up to 500 tons. Suitable ships are no longer available in eastern Canada, and since construction costs are so prohibitive the only way the Newfoundland ship owners can secure replacements is to


obtain them from foreign sources. These tariff restrictions do not help the Canadian shipbuilding industry, but serve only to put the Newfoundland operator out of the shipping business. The only alternative would be a government subsidy, because Newfoundland must have ships or perish.
While I am dealing with the subject of coastal shipping I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Transport the need for additional navigation aids, particularly light and whistle buoys. Newfoundland has a much greater coastline than any other province, and much of it is dotted with treacherous shoals and sunken rocks. We need a large number of navigation aids to bring us up to the standard enjoyed by the other maritime provinces. Indeed, there are many buoys which were used to mark shoals prior to confederation which have not yet been replaced because we have not had any supply and service ship capable of handling them. We are happy to learn that such a ship is now going to be constructed. In view of the lives lost every year we hope that additional navigation aids will be forthcoming at an early date.
Before concluding my remarks I should like to draw to the attention of the Postmaster General the plight of another group of Newfoundlanders for whom confederation has been a doubtful blessing. I refer once more to the postmaster-telegrapher. To understand the plight of this group it must be remembered that prior to confederation they were full time employees of the Newfoundland government and as such they enjoyed civil service status. With the coming of confederation those employees who happened to find themselves in offices classified as revenue post offices lost their civil service status completely. They retained only their pension rights, which happened to be safeguarded by one of the terms of union; but their other rights and privileges, which were considerable and included vacations with pay, sick leave with pay, and government paid substitutes during vacation, they lost altogether along with their civil service status.
No one seems to know what their present status is. The Post Office Department regards them as casual or part-time employees, though strangely enough should one of them wish to retire for health reasons he suddenly becomes subject to all the red tape that applies to the highest paid civil servant. As telegraph operators they are also casual employees. The C.N.T. regards them as part-time agents whose services they rent from the Post Office Department and for which they pay the Post Office Department for each postmaster individually, in proportion to the traffic handled.

Recently these postmaster-telegraphers received notice from the C.N.T. to the effect that wireless telephones would be substituted for their present Morse instruments, and in consequence of that change the remuneration paid for them to the Post Office Department would be greatly reduced.
If this reduction is passed on to them a human tragedy will result, because their present salaries barely keep them at subsistence level. Many of these postmaster-telegraphers are married and have families to support. Many of them own their own homes in settlements where they have served for periods ranging from 10 to 20 years. They cannot afford to pull up stakes and sacrifice the homes which they have acquired at such great sacrifice. They have not the means to do this even if it were their wish. Another serious aspect of the problem is the effect this change will have upon their pensions, because pensions are based on salaries and if salaries go down the pensions are automatically reduced.
Although these employees are regarded as part-time employees by both the post office and the C.N.T. between the two they actually have a full-time job. Whether or not there is traffic to be handled their duties compel them to remain in their offices during regular business hours. Their ordinary work week is exactly the same as that of other civil servants and in many cases it is a little longer because the C.N.T. offices remain open until six p.m. Sometimes they have to work overtime, for which they get no extra remuneration.
As I see it, this is primarily a problem for the Post Office Department, because in as much as the post office uses part of their services and rents the remainder to the C.N.T. in such a way that a full work week is used up, I feel the postmaster-telegraphers should therefore be regarded as full-time employees of the Post Office Department. I hope the Postmaster General will interest himself in the plight of these employees and do everything possible to see that they do not suffer any further injustice.
While I am on my feet I should perhaps remind the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Justice that this is the season for turrs in Newfoundland. We are looking forward to a satisfactory solution to this problem and we hope there will be no repetition of certain incidents which occurred last year when fishermen attempted to take these birds.
Mr. Speaker, we are proud of Canada's growing influence in international affairs and of the contribution Canada is making to the
The Address-Mr. Herridge maintenance of peace and the preservation of democracy. Democracy is on trial today. It is being judged not by what we preach but by what we practice. It is being judged by our faithfulness to the ideals we profess, and above all by our concern for the individual, particularly the little man, the primary producer who must always remain at the bottom of the economic ladder.
It is on such matters as these which I have mentioned today that democracy will stand or fall. It is in such matters which vitally impinge on human lives that democracy can make its greatest contribution to the cause of peace and freedom. If democracy fails to meet these human needs, both physical and spiritual, then our other efforts, either within NATO or without, can never be fully effective.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to add my trickle of words to the torrent of eloquence which has flowed around this chamber since January 10, I am deeply conscious of the fact that I am a very dimly glowing parliamentary asteroid surrounded by a galaxy of brilliant and scintillating parliamentary stars. Regardless of that, I rise in all humility to add my few words, ideas and suggestions to this debate.
Before proceeding I must compliment the Liberal member who has just taken his seat for having informed the house that all is not well in his constituency, and that Liberal policies have not to date produced a satisfactory state of affairs so far as his riding is concerned. I am sure he is representing his constituents completely and properly in bringing their complaints in the way he has to the attention of the government and the house this evening.
During the parliamentary recess, which my constituents insist on terming the parliamentary holiday, I had an opportunity of visiting all parts of my riding from its northern to its southern boundary. I had the opportunity of addressing a good many public meetings, labour organizations, veterans' organizations, women's institutes, church groups, farmers' institutes, chambers of commerce, public schools, high schools and service clubs. So I think I can properly say that I had an opportunity to find out the thinking of my constituents on international, national and local problems.
During my tours around my constituency I had some interesting and at times amusing experiences, experiences which indicated the variety and diversity of human nature and the differences in reaction to certain situations and questions. 1 am in the habit of giving what I term reports from parliament hill once a week over the Nelson and Trail

The Address-Mr. Herridge radio stations in my constituency, which I understand my constituents appreciate very much largely because they cannot listen satisfactorily to any other Canadian stations, so I have a monopoly in our district.
One lady told me that she found my talks most stimulating. She said that as a matter of fact on two occasions her radio had caught fire when I was speaking. I am quite sure it was not my language which caused the fire. Yet another lady listening to the same report from parliament hill told me somewhat the opposite. She said that she found my radio talks most soothing, and always did her ironing while I was giving my report from parliament hill because the time went so quickly.
I could give quite a number of illustrations of the confusion that arises in the minds of people in regard to federal and provincial jurisdictions and the use of legal terms. Just before coming down here I said to a chap who was cutting some timber, "Is there anything you would like me to bring up while in Ottawa?" That is the best way to put it, you know. This man, who is a good logger, is of French-Canadian descent. He said, "Yes, I wish you would bring this up". I said, "What is it?" He said, "I have been logging in this country for 40 years and every contract I have had with the provincial government has said that His Majesty or Her Majesty gets a royalty of so much a pole or so much per thousand feet of logs. I do not think that is fair as I have to do the work. I cannot see why Her Majesty should get that royalty". I had to explain to him that that was a matter of provincial jurisdiction and that "royalty" was simply a term which meant that the state, the government of British Columbia, got that amount. He was quite satisfied with my explanation, and I did not have to bring that question to Ottawa.
People are interested not only in policies and programs but in events, in procedures and in personalities. In no part of my riding do my constituents enjoy Canadian television. We have some United States television piped in on a very limited scale to Rossland, Nelson and Trail, but there is no Canadian television. Over a large section of my riding my constituents have very little opportunity to listen to Canadian programs because of weak signals and for certain other reasons such as the nature of the country, and so on.
Therefore at the conclusion of the talks I give to my people I am often asked to answer questions, which is something members of the C.C.F. always welcome, and to describe events and procedures and even personalities. I have done a little bit on the amateur stage at different times, and on occasion I am asked


to imitate various prominent personalities in this country. I must say that on these occasions I always try to be fair. Once a lady got up and said, "Can you tell us something about the member for Prince Albert? Can you give us an imitation of his mannerisms?" I said that in fairness I thought I could best describe the hon. member as the greatest melodramatic parliamentary tragedian in Canadian history.
On another occasion I was asked about the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I said I could not imitate him because I had not the capacity to imitate his ability and his industry, but I said I could best describe him as the Sir Stafford Cripps of the Canadian House of Commons, as a great successor to Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, and a member who is doing a great deal for the people he represents and the people of Canada.
On another occasion a lady asked me about that smuggling member from Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) who once boasted of his activities in that connection in this house. I explained that I thought he was actually using parliamentary poetic licence when he described the incident in question in order to emphasize the necessity for the lowering of tariffs on certain goods coming from the United States into Canada. I assured the lady that he was a gentleman of thorough integrity and, if you met him outside this house, you would take him to be a reputable country solicitor.
I was asked on another occasion about the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), and I must say that I did a bit of a skit on his account and tried my best to imitate and indicate his witty and witless remarks.
I have gone over those experiences merely to indicate the interest of people in the country not only in the policies and programs but in the personalities in this House of Commons.
During this pre-election period-and I think this is a pre-election period-it has been noticeable, in the first days since the session opened, that there is a temptation to outbid one another in the auction of ideas in connection with national matters and federal-provincial relations. While we are all very much interested in doing the best we can for Canada as a whole, for our constituents and for the provinces from which we come, there is a great necessity at this time for us as representatives of democracy to act with a sense of responsibility.


Mr. Sluder:: Another socialist gone now.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) has such a limited understanding of socialism that he would not realize that our program and our policies are based on the foundation of responsibility to the nation.


Irvin William Studer: If someone else produces it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In my opinion our greatness as a nation, our progress in the ultimate sense of the word, will grow into a dead end if a majority of our citizens accept the philosophy that votes can be traded for a road, a bridge, a politically timed adjustment in income tax or a job. Without concern for facts related to the principles of justice and a sense of responsibility, we in this country shall very soon flounder in a moral wilderness.
As I said before, all of us are interested in federal-provincial relations because the problems that face the federal and provincial governments and all of us in this country require a very responsible approach to this situation. In my opinion, if more people would be concerned with provincial responsibilities instead of provincial rights, there would be no loss of those rights. I believe that government services in a genuine democracy should be performed at the lowest level of government having the capacity to do the job. Whilst this government may be called upon to assist with fiscal arrangements, the closer you can get administration to the people, the more democratic and satisfactory that administration will be.
Our constitutional difficulties and the people's needs can only be met, in my opinion, by a spirit of co-operation between federal and provincial governments, by a recognition of rights on both sides, by the acceptance of responsibilities and scientific fiscal arrangements between the governments concerned. Surely that is within the capacity of the governments concerned with these difficult problems.
Before going on to other aspects in my remarks, I wish to say that this group advocates and advances our program with an understanding of Canadian conditions and circumstances and in the full knowledge that, in this modern world, government action is required to provide a more equitable distribution of wealth and a more equitable distribution of the benefits society has created as a whole.
That is all I am going to say in general language and terms. Before dealing with other aspects, however, I must say that during my tours around my constituency I did hear people of all parties make complimentary references to the good work done by the
The Address-Mr. Herridge Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) as a representative of Canada during the past year at the United Nations.
I support the remarks of the leader of this group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), speaking in this debate on Thursday, January 12. There is no necessity for me to repeat in detail what he had to say, but I wish to refer to one or two things and possibly present them in a somewhat different form.
Before doing that, I must say I was glad to see legislation proposed that will provide equal pay for equal work to those women who come within the scope of the federal government. I was glad to see that amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act are proposed, I understand, for an increase in the amount of loan available.
I was sorry there was so little reference in the throne speech to national health insurance, and no reference to the establishment of a Canada Council. I am not going to deal with national health insurance, because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre dealt very fully, completely and effectively with that question in his remarks this morning.
When speaking in the house on Thursday, January 12, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said, in part, the following, as shown on page 56 of Hansard:
The increasing United States dominance in Canadian industry is a matter of legitimate concern. I am sure this concern is shared by Canadians everywhere.
I was very glad the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar made those remarks and dealt with that question, because many people in Canada in all walks of life are feeling some concern about the increasing United States dominance of Canadian investment and Canadian industry. Not only is that reflected in conversations but it comes up at public meetings, and in editorials and articles in responsible publications and newspapers across this country. I can only deal briefly with three here this evening because of lack of time. I should like to deal with an article that appeared in the Financial Post recently entitled "Foreign Investors Should Become Canadian." I should like to quote briefly from that editorial:
"Modern history is filled with sad examples of foreign corporations operating in a country with almost complete disregard for their inherent obligations to the people and to the country in which they operate."
That frank warning to U.S. investors in Canada came in an address by Dr. G. Edward Hall before the annual Boston conference on distribution this week . . .
It was not enough for American corporations operating in Canada, as Dr. Hall said, to pay taxes

The Address-Mr. Herridge and observe the law. They should become Canadian. He urged them to make the same disclosures in their company reports of Canadian operations as Canadian companies do, to offer capital stock in their Canadian plants and to fill key roles in Canadian operations with Canadians.
Then I noticed that on Friday, January 20, the Ottawa Citizen dealt with this question. I quote in part what it said:
The lack of Canadian participation in enterprises controlled by foreign capital is becoming a matter of increasing concern. Mr. James Muir, chairman and president of the Hoyal Bank of Canada, added his voice to those pleading for more investment by Canadians in the nation's resources when he addressed the Canadian Club in Ottawa yesterday. His appeal deserves wide discussion.
True, between 1946 and 1953 Canadians themselves contributed about 75 per cent of the capital employed in the country's development. But much of the remaining 25 per cent, invested from abroad, went into risk ventures. Mr. Muir pointed out, for example, that "non-resident ownership in petroleum was 59 per cent of the industry at the end of 1953." Canadians have tended to invest their money in safer enterprises and in bonds.
While foreign investment in Canadian enterprises brings many benefits, including not only fresh capital but new technical skills, Canadians themselves are often unable to participate at the managerial level. If the nation is to advance to maturity, the situation should be remedied.
Then in today's Montreal Gazette I see this article. The heading is "Labour Group urges Duplessis to get Canada Alcan Priority", and the article reads as follows:
The Quebec federation of labour (AFL-TLC) has urged Premier Duplessis to induce the Aluminum Company of Canada to give Canadian consumers priority on available aluminum supplies.
In a weekend telegram sent to the premier, the federation said:
"Respectfully request on behalf of affiliated organizations that you use your good offices to induce the Aluminum Company of Canada to supply requirements of Canadian fabricators of aluminum products rather than giving American manufacturers priority on available aluminum supplies because they offer premium prices.
"Alcan has reduced shipments to Canadian fabricators of aluminum products by 40 per cent, thus causing lay-offs at a time when governments and employers are making every effort to reduce winter unemployment.
"Canadian consumption of aluminum amounts to less than 15 per cent of total production in our country and it is only right Canadian needs should be fully supplied before foreign commitments are met.
"Alcan should not be permitted to take advantage of the temporary aluminum shortage to cut supplies to Canadian fabricators and to extort premium prices for such aluminum as they have available."
That is a case where Canadians supply the power for this great industry but United States consumers come first in the minds of the company's executives, and where Canadian workmen employed in those factories go on short time because of those rearrangements. We in this group are strongly opposed to this sort of thing. This increasing investment of United States capital, without further control over the situation means increasing 
control of our natural resources, distribution of production, employment and investment in this country. Our forests, minerals, oil and gas are being increasingly exploited to the first advantage of United States corporations.
In finishing up, Mr. Speaker, may I say that yesterday I had a letter from a constituent of mine. I am not going to read it, but in order to be quite accurate in my statement I am going to read briefly from a paraphrase of that letter. Some years ago this man invested some money in Canadian Western Lumber Company Limited because of his faith in our ability to develop our own natural resources. Later, Canadian Western Lumber Company made a deal with the Pacific Mills on the Elk Falls pulp plant and obtained a forest management licence in British Columbia. Still later, Crown Zellerbach corporation-the owners of Pacific Mills-bought out Canadian Western Lumber Company and paid the shareholders in shares in Crown Zellerbach corporation. Thus the shareholders and owners of the Canadian company became shareholders in the larger United States corporation. In substance what this amounts to is that a Canadian, in order to participate in this particular Canadian enterprise, does so through share ownership in a United States corporation. When the profits earned are distributed, they are paid from California, and the United States government collects a 15 per cent income tax on profits belonging to a Canadian and made by the development of Canadian natural resources. In other words we pay a commission to Uncle Sam for investing our own money to develop our own natural resources. A similar situation exists with respect to the operations of nearly every large United States corporation in Canada. United States investment in Canada results in increasing control of our natural resources, our economy as a whole, the employment situation and the distribution of Canadian production to Canadian consumers. Surely the protection of Canadian interests demands more control and direction of these vast, largely foreign-owned private enterprises. We in this group believe that there should be a national investment policy. We believe there certainly should be some greater control and direction of the operations of these United States industries.
Labour organizations in my constituency are concerned about amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act because a considerable number of workers have been unable to establish a new benefit period under section 45 (2) of the act, and they urge that it be rescinded. I shall have more to say about that matter later.

Smelter workers, miners and railroaders are interested in industrial pension plans and particularly in the Income Tax Act and the regulations concerning the operation of these industrial pensions. I want to say in passing that there is no one in this house who has spent more time on the study of industrial pensions and superannuation than has the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. For 14 years continuously, session after session since he first entered the House of Commons, he has dealt with this problem of industrial pensions and superannuation for civil servants and others from various angles. When this question comes before the house I am quite sure we shall have from him some extremely informative remarks.
The farmers in my constituency are much concerned about markets-I am not going to deal with that aspect of the question tonight -tariffs, and amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act. Potato growers particularly are concerned about the potato marketing situation and ask for some equality of tariff arrangements in respect of potatoes as between Canada and the United States.
As I mentioned before, I am glad to hear of the proposed amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act to increase the amount that can be loaned to farmers under this act. I should like to bring to the attention of the house a situation that was brought to my attention last year. I want to do this in order to show how sometimes regulations and administration can be somewhat impractical and unsound. I have in my constituency a farmer who farms 490 acres of excellent land on a bench at a somewhat high level in the mountains. He has 300 acres in hay and 190 acres in pasture. He has about 50 head of beef cattle and he produces annually, in addition to the pasture, about 100 tons of hay. He cannot haul that hay from the fields down to his homesite because the road is a mountain road and it is impractical to do so, especially under winter conditions. He therefore keeps his cattle up there, and he keeps his hay up there. He feeds his cattle and drives them down the trail whenever they are ready to go to market.
That farmer asked for a relatively small loan from the Canadian Farm Loan Board. He is a farmer of long experience, farming on first-class land and with a record of good production throughout the years. That loan was refused because his house does not happen to be actually on the property he is farming. As a matter of fact it is some 5 miles or 6 miles away. I think that situation is unsound and impractical. A farmer of that type should receive a loan. When the act is being amended, and the regulations, I trust
The Address-Mr. Herridge that something will be done to assist farmers operating under these circumstances.
Our farmers are also interested in the little cherry disease investigation. On that account the British Columbia fruit growers' association local in my constituency at Robson are asking for space in the new federal building at Castlegar. A very small amount of space is required, perhaps a room about 10 by 10, for the storage of orchard maps, spray records, experimental cages, insecticides and other records. I do hope the Minister of Agriculture will be able to persuade the Minister of Public Works that it is necessary that this small space be provided for this very important investigation.
I want to say a few words about war veterans allowances. I am very sorry that there is no provision in the throne speech for amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act to raise the permissive income for single men to $1,200 and for married men to $2,000. I am sorry there is no provision for amendments to include benefits to veterans who served in world war I in the United Kingdom, and also widows of veterans who have 20 years of residence in this country. I am sorry there is no provision for the payment of allowances to those who have to live outside of Canada for health reasons. They are very few in number and live under very difficult conditions. I was very sorry to hear the minister's answer when I asked him about this question the other day. I do hope this matter, so important to so few, will receive further consideration from the minister.
So far as the Veterans Land Act is concerned, my veteran constituents are still hopeful that the government will see fit to reduce the acreage for small holdings under that legislation. In addition, they would very much prefer to have all the housing legislation in which veterans are concerned brought under the direction of the Veterans Land Act administration. They do not like this idea of starting out with the Veterans Land Act administration and then being handed over to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
The women in my constituency have indicated their interest in national health insurance, improved disability pensions, old age security legislation, succession duties and the establishment of the Canada Council. I shall have to refer to those later this session.
At this point I want to say a few words about public works. First of all my constituents are very interested in the trans-Canada highway. They do urge a thorough consideration of every route. I noticed in the Revel-stoke Review dated December 1 a news item saying, "Rogers Pass Most Likely Says

The Address-Mr. Herridge Winters." Now we have the Rogers pass route suggested by the minister and the Big Bend route built. There is another route that has not received sufficient consideration, and that is the Jumbo pass route which goes from Invermere over into the Kootenay country and then north to Revelstoke. I do urge, on behalf of my constituents, that the federal government use its good influences with the British Columbia government to see that a thorough survey is made of this route. We have the time to make certain, before any decision is made, that we choose the right route for this section of the trans-Canada highway.
I also ask, on behalf of the Trail chamber of commerce and other organizations, that the Department of Public Works reconsider the possibility of the removal of Rock island, thus lessening the flood danger at Trail. I know the engineers have not considered that the removal of the island would bring about that desired result. But there are some prominent and well known engineers within the constituency who are still convinced that the lowering of Rock Island would add greater protection to Trail during flood periods, and at little expense.
Then I should like to see an investigation of the possibility of dredging the Kootenay river in the Creston area. There was some dredging done there some years ago. I do not know whether that would come under public works or the international joint commission, but I should like consideration given to the possibility of dredging the Kootenay river between Kootenay lake and the international boundary in order to lower the level of the river and avoid excessive erosion of the dikes built around the wheat fields and other farm properties in the Creston area.
Then I suggest there should be some dredging at the mouth of the Columbia, near Arrowhead. The Columbia has changed its course in recent years. If the original main channel were dredged so as to divert the main flow of the water into the main lake instead of the north arm, it would prevent the rapid silting up of the channel entering the Arrowhead docks, and would also lessen the difficulties with the very large ice floes that come down the Columbia in the winter months, making navigation very difficult at certain periods.
I also ask for a further appropriation for the continuation of the good work that is being done on the Duncan river. I tramped up that river for miles this summer, and by removing the log jams and straightening the river it will again become navigable between Duncan lake and Kootenay lake. I have a word or two now for the Minister of


Transport. I am trying not to miss anybody. I was talking to the captains of the passenger ferries on the Arrow lakes and the captains of the tugs that are hauling concentrates to railhead and towing logs. Recently we had a passenger service established by the provincial government from Beaton to Nakusp. On account of the changed schedules the ferries are often running when it is dark, in the winter months, and the captains of the ferry and the tugs have all suggested that for safety purposes there is a necessity for blinker lights at Cape Horn, Albert Point, Johnson Point and Whiskey Point between Nakusp and Beaton.
So far as the minister is concerned, I do want to bring to his attention that there is a great and continuous demand for low power relay stations at Nakusp, Rosebery and Balfour to serve those good citizens who still at this time are denied any satisfactory radio reception from Canadian stations.
So far as the Minister of National Revenue is concerned, the people of Castlegar would like to see provision made at the Castlegar airport for customs inspection, and an improved arrangement for clearing customs between Nelway and Nelson. The people of my district would like a 24-hour service at Patterson. In addition, I suggest that United States visitors using the Columbia water course to come up from the United States into the Arrow lakes should be allowed to report at Trail rather than at Waneta because of the navigation hazards. There is nothing at Waneta to indicate the spot at which they are supposed to call. They have to beach expensive boats on rocky beaches. They have to turn in at Waneta just at a time when they are entering this very dangerous water which is flowing very fast, in whirlpools and so on. I do ask the minister to give consideration to that very modest request. In fact I represent a most reasonable people whose requests are most modest in every respect.
I see that I have five minutes left, so I want to say a word or two about the Columbia basin development. The first development in the Kootenays was the development of the fur industry in the early days. Then came the development of the mining industry, the forest industry and agriculture and fruit farming. Now there is the development of water resources on a large scale all over British Columbia. The international rivers improvements bill was debated in the house and in committee, and the basis of understanding of this vast proposed development in Canada and the United States was widened. I think that bill lays a foundation

for an orderly, scientific and proper approach to the development of these international rivers in Canada.
Last October we had the pleasure of a visit from Senator Richard L. Neuberger, a member of the committee on interior and insular affairs in the Senate of the United States. I had correspondence on this and phone calls from him. I had the opportunity to make and was very willing to make arrangements for his trip and itinerary while he was in the Kootenay country. I must say that we were all very pleased that he visited our district.
I wonder whether you are getting a bit restless, Mr. Speaker, but I am just concluding. Since I cannot deal with it more fully, I advise everyone to read the report the senator gave to that committee. Printed copies may be obtained from Washington, dated December 15 of last year. It is a most fair, comprehensive and informative report.
In view of the situation that exists now, I think I am safe in saying that the people in my constituency and in the whole of the basin in British Columbia want action. They want co-operation among all governments, the Canadian government, the British Columbia government and the government of the United States. They want a district authority for the Columbia river basin, first proposed by the members of this group in 1949. I am pleased to note that the Progressive Conservatives are now supporting our program in that respect. According to this group, here is a great opportunity for a public investment program and an opportunity for co-operation among all governments and between public and private power authorities, in the interests and to the advantage of the people of the Columbia river basin in Canada and of Canada as a whole.


Mr. N. C. Schneider (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, in this debate on the speech from the throne I shall avail myself of its purpose, which is to give to each member an opportunity to present the problems and the wishes of his constituency. There is an old saying that members of parliament point with pride and view with alarm. I shall do both this evening.	.
I must first remind you of the high honour given to Waterloo North in the selection of the Kitchener-Waterloo Dutchmen senior
O.H.A. hockey club to represent Canada at the 1956 Olympic games at Cortina, Italy. Anyone seeing this team in action will be assured of their excellent qualifications for this high honour. They have played Canada's national game in a' clean, fast style, using good combination and team play. While they are among the lightest in weight of any 67509-29
The Address-Mr. Schneider men in their league, they are fast. They can take tough play, and if compelled to they can also give it. I am taking these few minutes to tell you of our pride in this hockey team, but I remind you that they are also your hockey team. Almost all nationalities making up Canada's population are represented on your Olympic team, the Scottish by such names as McKenzie and Logan. How can we lose with a captain named McKenzie? The English are represented by Woodall and White; the French by Brodeur and Theberge; the Pennsylvania Dutch by Laufman and Martin, and so forth. Elmira, the biggest little hockey town in Canada, in the north of the riding, has contributed three native sons to this fine team.
You will be interested in the personnel of this team and the occupation of its members. They are all clean-cut, typical young Canadians. Two are high school teachers; three are salesmen; two are college students; one is a lumberman and one is a bricklayer; three are carpenters. All of them are steadily employed at a trade or profession.
The name "Dutchmen" has been used for years, honouring the Pennsylvania Dutch who pioneered and settled Waterloo county in the early 1800's. The team played warm-up games in Scotland and Czechoslovakia before their opening Olympic game on January 26. They have not only won those games but they have won the admiration of their opponents for their good sportsmanship. I am sure this house will wish them Godspeed, victory in their matches, and a safe return on February 10.
I would remind hon. members that today is the first day of the issue of our new hockey stamp. It is a beautiful piece of art work, and is a credit to the Post Office Department.
The towns and cities of Waterloo county are highly industrialized. The rural districts are developed in agriculture, and contain some of the finest purebred cattle and hogs herds as well as diversified crops.
Our farmers and dairymen are sensitive to the problems of marketing Canadian-produced butter, animal fats and oils. I wish to draw the attention of the house to a problem which seriously affects every livestock producer in Canada, and contributes to the steadily shrinking income of our farmer. Farm cash income in 1952 was $2,800 million. In 1954 it had fallen to $2,300 million, a reduction of $471,500,000 or 16 per cent. With a steadily increasing wage rate in industry in the cities this unbalance must be rectified. In the next few minutes I will submit an idea which will assist considerably in raising the income of all livestock producers. It will

The Address-Mr. Schneider turn our good Canadian dollars back to our own Canadian farmers rather than to foreign farmers and planters.
We heard appeals from almost every province for the maintenance of the floor price on Canadian butter, and I am sure that the favourable decision has been approved generally. But I frankly believe that a price a little closer to world markets would eventually benefit the dairymen and take business away from margarine. Anyone having even a slight knowledge of farming will agree that dairying is the backbone and the mainstay of agriculture today, and must be preserved and kept on a strong and stable basis. A high degree of livestock activity is essential on any good farm, not only for the sake of diversification but also for the fertility of the land.
There is another basic industry of our country which I feel has been almost entirely forgotten. This industry is also an indispensable part of agriculture in all parts of Canada. This industry supplies the main dish in practically every meal on the national dining table, and the question I am raising has a direct bearing on the income of the farmer producer and the ultimate cost and selling price to the consumer.
As we have been gradually changing from a nation of workers in the fields and outdoors to an ever greater percentage of factory, office and indoor workers, our eating habits have changed so that today we find very few people who will accept the normal cuts of beef and pork as they come from the top grades of cattle and hogs. They will not buy fat. Canadian animal fats are a serious problem today, and I feel it is time that we faced the facts and tried to be realistic, and took the necessary steps to give them their rightful place in our economy.
Canadian animal fats belong to and are necessary in our Canadian climate. Canadian edible beef fat and lard can now be processed at moderate cost in a way which removes all animal fat odours. The deodorizing of these fats requires operations quite similar to those used in preparing vegetable oils, and the product is equal and even superior to vegetable oil products in food value and shortening qualities. Any argument that animal fats are more fattening than vegetable oils in our diet can be disproved by the fact that animals gain their fats from the same vegetable feeds. Fat is fat whether you eat it in the form of butter, margarine, vegetable shortening, lard or beef fat.
Very few people realize the extent of the present importation of foreign vegetable oils and their impact on the Canadian livestock
	. .

and dairy industry. In the past year a grand total of 232,797,000 pounds of foreign edible oils was imported into Canada. This includes crude or unrefined oil and oil pressed from seeds which are imported. This figure makes little impression on most people unless you give some comparison. A tank car carries
60,000	pounds of vegetable oil. If all this imported edible vegetable oil for a year were to pass in review before you it would require 77 trains with 50 tank cars in each train.
I will not take the time of the house to explain how this large volume of business in imported vegetable oil has been built up. In the early days oils such as peanut oil, cottonseed, palm, cocoanut and soya bean oil were considerably cheaper than our Canadian animal fats and their bland flavour or lack of any flavour seemed to make them preferred to the animal fats. Modem processing removes these odours, and the shortening qualities of pure lard are superior to any pure vegetable or blended shortening. I feel that the time has come for the government to take action to control this flood of imported oil so that Canadian animal oil products ma? take their rightful place and realize a price nearer to their actual cost of production.
I would ask the house to pay particular attention to the next statement, as it is the basis of my appeal. The meat processor today pays approximately 23 cents per pound for hogs. When the carcass is separated into various cuts he must trim down the 1J to 2| inches of fat on hams, loins and shoulders to about the quarter inch of fat which is now demanded by the consumer. There is also leaf lard which is rendered out with these surplus fats. Processing these surplus fats is an expensive operation, involving a shrinkage of 33 per cent in weight and high cost coal, labour and equipment. The surplus fat for which the processor paid 23 cents per pound has now been converted to lard costing approximately 36 cents per pound in bulk, including no cost for packaging, delivery or overhead.
I have current market reports offering tank cars of pure Canadian high grade lard at 11J cents per pound. Small meat packers offer over the retail counter at 12 cents per pound lard which cost them 36 cents per pound to produce. With the amount of excess fat on each hog varying from 19 pounds on an A grade hog to 35 pounds on C grade, it is difficult to figure the loss per hog. I am sure that any processor would agree that at today's prices there is a loss of $4 per hog because of the surplus fat. As more than 5 million hogs are slaughtered annually, we have a total loss of $20 million to the

industry. These figures will vary according to the amount of surplus fat trimmed off by the processor and the number of heavy hogs slaughtered.
There is a similar story in the case of beef marketing. We find that beef fat is bought on the hoof at an average of about 15 cents per pound. This includes cheaper cattle at 11 cents per pound up to the best grades at 19 and 19J cents per pound. I struck an average of 15 cents a pound, which I think is fair. There are about 65 pounds of surplus fat on each carcass. By the time this goes through the same costly rendering and shrinkage it costs the processor about 40 cents per pound, and you can buy any amount of first-class edible beef tallow at this time at 10 cents per pound in tank car lots. With a marketing of 1,635,000 cattle, at inspected slaughterhouses only in Canada last year, and figuring a loss of at least $19.50 on each, there is a total loss amounting to $31,882,000.
I should make it clear at this time that I do not advocate an embargo on all these imported vegetable oils. If freedom means anything to Canada, I believe that anyone wanting to use margarine should have the right to do so, and we all know that its low price has been a great help to many large families with low or moderate incomes.
This total loss of over $51 million in the disposal of these surplus animal fats is caused by the importation in 1954 of 232,797,000 pounds of foreign vegetable oils. Would it not be reasonable to reduce this importation by imposing quotas so that Canadian livestock processors would be encouraged to process Canadian animal fats? If our Canadian fats could be sold at prices equal to those of refined imported vegetable oil products it would enable the processor to pay considerably more to the farmer in higher prices for his livestock or to sell the meat cuts much cheaper to the consumer. Of the 232 million pounds of edible vegetable oil imported, 103 million pounds were used in the manufacture of shortening. Is it reasonable to import this oil when we have good Canadian fats which will serve the same purpose and render a fair return to Canadian agriculture?
I suggest to this house that we should at least put a limit to this ever increasing volume of imported edible vegetable oil, and peg it where it is. As our country grows this will gradually work to the benefit of our own good Canadian fats and oils.
I must confess that I take no pleasure in speaking on a problem which has been increasing for the past few years for the rubber footwear workers in my riding and in three ridings in Quebec, at Granby, St. Jerome and
67509-29}
The Address-Mr. Schneider Lachine. The rubber footwear industry in Canada is 100 years old and until recently employed as many as 7,500 people, two-thirds of whom live in Quebec and one-third in Ontario. Generations have contributed to the skill and ingenuity required in this trade, and Canadian footwear has set a standard all over the world.
Not long ago Canadian footwear had a high volume of export business. Farmers, fishermen, lumbermen and miners in most foreign countries accepted it as top quality and our factories were humming. It was not surprising that other countries took up this industry and developed a product patterned exactly on our models. With cheap labour and lower costs it is also not surprising that they have taken away practically all our export business. But what is more surprising still is the fact that these substandard, starvation-wage operators have gained a foothold for their footwear in Canada in such volume that if it continues this hundred-year old Canadian industry is most certainly doomed.
The least difficult lines are naturally being taken over first. Rubber canvas shoe imports into Canada started in 1949, and have now reached 54 per cent of the Canadian market with 2,186,928 pairs in the first ten months of 1955. Canadian-made shoes had a corresponding reduction in Canadian sales. Waterproof rubber footwear, which is a different line, is now being shipped into Canada in ever-increasing quantities. Standing at less than 1 per cent in 1949, imports of rubber boots and rubbers have now increased to 945,652 pairs, which represents 8} per cent of Canadian requirements in the first ten months of 1955.
The effect of this loss of business on Canadian employment is a reduction of persons employed from 7,350 in 1948 to 4,500 in 1955. Some of the rubber companies have ceased operations in footwear and have absorbed these workers into tire making. Some of these footwear factories are in small towns where there is very little other employment available.
Foreign competition, principally from Hong Kong but also from Japan and other low-wage countries, has taken advantage of low labour costs. Their wages are so low that theirs is an altogether different way of life, paying 7 cents per hour to girls as compared with $1.45 per hour for the same operation in Canada. Men earn from 10 to 15 cents per hour in Hong Kong.
We know this is a real problem for the Department of Trade and Commerce, and we realize that we must buy from these countries if we wish to continue to sell them our wheat.

The Address-Mr. Dinsdale Higher tariff protection is not the answer. A fair valuation for duty purposes based on fair Canadian costs would help, but I believe that a quota would be a fair way to control this unfair competition.
I am sure all members of this house will agree that we must not allow this industry to be eliminated. If trouble comes we can be sure that we cannot depend on Hong Kong and Japan for this essential commodity, holding a high priority for the armed forces, the farmer, the miner and the fisherman and every Canadian.
There is nothing in the present trade agreements to prevent these substandard countries frbm taking over our entire rubber footwear business, and they are already working on the production of automobile and truck tires. A delegation from Japan recently visited one Canadian footwear manufacturer and boldly proposed that they would make a highly profitable deal with him if he would stop manufacturing and allow them to supply his entire needs according to his own models and specifications.
The four members who have rubber footwear plants in their ridings earnestly request this house to seriously consider the future of these remaining 4,500 workers and the essential character of the product they make. In the announcement of GATT agreements it was clearly explained that if any Canadian industry were threatened, escape clauses could be invoked. The three members from Quebec join me in the claim that this is a clear case of such a threat, and we ask your serious consideration of this problem.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a few words by way of introduction this evening, and with your permission I shall go no further than to refer to the remarks of the two speakers who have preceded me. I think I am fortunate in the position in which I find myself

this evening, that is so far as the type of speech delivered by the two previous speakers is concerned.
The hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) referred to the fact that the team which is striving for Olympic honours for Canada this year is the well known Kitchener-Waterloo Dutchmen. I should like to inform the house that one of the leading players on that team, as a matter of fact the captain, is a product of my native city. Jack McKenzie was raised in Brandon and played for the Brandon Wheat Kings in the early part of the fifties. He grew up in my neighbourhood and was a member of my boys' group. I am sure that with such an outstanding specimen from the west the Dutchmen may be assured of success in their tour overseas.
I am speaking tonight from a slightly different location in the house than that which I occupied last year. I have moved to the left, but I want to assure you that that is only in a geographic sense. As I listened to my worthy friend and colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), I thought if I had been moving around my constituency and had been asked to describe some of the members of the house I would have described the hon. member for Kootenay West as being the best Conservative in the C.C.F. party. It was an excellent Conservative dissertation which he gave the house tonight. I do not know who is influencing whom since I moved down to this corner of the chamber.
Rather than go further with my remarks tonight, I wonder if it would be possible for me to adjourn the debate.
On motion of Mr. Dinsdale the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Murphy (Lambion West): 1.	How many people have emigrated from Canada to the United States in each of the years, 1954 and 1955?
2.	How many of these were university graduates, and of such graduates, how many graduated as engineers?
3.	How many people emigrated from the United States to Canada in each of the years, 1954 and 1955?
Answer by: Mr. Pickersgill:
1 and 2. The government of Canada does not maintain statistics on emigration from Canada to the United States.
3. Immigration to Canada from the United States in the calendar years 1954 and 1955 was as follows according to the records of the immigration branch:
Calendar year	Number
1954	10,110
1955	9,760*
In addition to the immigration totals shown above, the following table shows the number of Canadian citizens who returned to Canada for permanent residence, following residence in the United States, in the calendar years 1954 and 1955:
Calendar year No. of returning Canadians
1954	4,516
1955	3,554 (11 months total)
* Statistics for December are not yet available.


BUTTER STORAGE AND SALES
Mr. Blair: 1.	How many pounds of butter were in storage as of January 1, 1956?
2.	Of these, how many pounds have been in storage since before July 1, 1955?
3.	To what countries has butter been sold since July 1, 1955?
4.	How many pounds were sold to each country and at what price per pound for each shipment?
Answer by: Mr. Gardiner:
1.	The bureau of statistics reports that there were 100,030,000 pounds of creamery butter in storage on January 1, 1956.
Of this quantity the agricultural prices support board owned 81,215,517 pounds.
2.	No information is available on private holdings which were in storage before July 1, 1955, but the agricultural prices support board
Questions
still held 36,548,517 pounds of butter in storage which had been purchased before July 1, 1955.
3.	Small quantities of butter have been sold to a number of countries since July 1, 1955, by the regular Canadian trade and the government has sold butter for export basis Canadian seaboard. Documents indicate that the butter sold for export from government stocks was destined for East Germany and Czechoslovakia.
4.	Government sales shipped since July 1, 1955, include 6,024,760 pounds in two shipments en route to East Germany on the basis of 37 cents per pound f.a.s. Montreal and 895,639 pounds en route for Czechoslovakia on the basis of 39 cents per pound f.a.s. Montreal.


COARSE PAPER COMPANIES PROSECUTION
Mr. Maclnnis: 1.	Who were the lawyers for the crown in the prosecution of the coarse paper companies at Vancouver in 1955?
2.	What amount was paid to such lawyers for (a) fees; (b) expenses?
Answer by: Mr. Garson:
1.	G. S. Wismer, Q.C., and L. H. Jackson, both of Vancouver.
2.	Disburse-
Fees	ments	Total$	$	$
G. S. Wismer, Q.C. 23,421.82 1,482.36 24,904.18 L. H. Jackson ... 18,469.50 1,426.99 19,896.49
Total	 41,891.32 2,909.35 44,800.67


FINE PAPER COMPANIES PROSECUTION
Mr. Maclnnis: 1.	Have prosecutions been instituted against the fine paper companies in Vancouver which were alleged to be violating the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act?
2.	If such companies were prosecuted, who were the lawyers for the crown?
3.	What amount was paid to such lawyers for (a) fees; (b) expenses?
Answer by: Mr. Garson:
1.	No. The report of an investigation into alleged combines in the manufacture, distribution and sale of fine papers made in October, 1952, named seven manufacturers and 32 wholesalers as parties to alleged combines. All the manufacturers and the majority of the wholesalers were located in Ontario and Quebec. One prosecution only was brought and that was in Ontario, charging the Ontario and Quebec parties.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.

.



Tuesday, January 24, 1956